# Persian: باده‌ی مَستانه



## mannoushka

سلام. در بیت زیر از حافظ،
ساکنانِ حرمِ ستر و عفافِ ملکوت
با منِ راه‌نشین باده‌ی مستانه زدند،
تعبیرِ باده‌ی مستانه را آیا خوب است به
معنای «باده‌ی مستی‌آور» بگیریم؟ به نظرم  شاید خوب نیست، تا اندازه‌ای پرگویانه است و زیاده گویا، چرا که باده پیداست رفته‌رفته مستی می‌آورد، و حافظ هم آدمِ این جور شلختگی‌ها نیست، به نظرم. این است که آمده‌ام با خودم گفته‌ام باید «باده‌ی مستانه زدن» را همه با هم معنا کرد به «چنان باده‌خوری کردن که کار به مستی بکشد». این که ساکنان حرم ستر و عفاف ملکوت گویی بند از دل برداشته باشند زده باشند به سیمِ آخر و کار را از لبی ترکردن به مست‌شدن کشانده باشند آیا همان نکته‌ای نیست که حافظ می‌خواهد در یاد بماند؟ یا این که منظور و معنا چیز دیگری‌ست؟ سپاس!


----------



## sublan

سلام
مستحضرید که حافظ به خوانش‌های متعدد راه می‌دهد و هر بار که بخوانید، می‌توانید به لایه‌های دیگری از معانی نهفته دست یابید و نمی‌توان به قطعیت گفت منظور حافظ این بوده یا آن. برداشت اخیر شما هم درست می‌نماید.


----------



## PersoLatin

mannoushka said:


> ساکنانِ حرمِ ستر و عفافِ ملکوت
> با منِ راه‌نشین باده‌ی مستانه زدند


دوش دیدم که ملایک در میخانه زدند
گل آدم بسرشتند و *به پیمانه زدند*
ساکنان حرم ستر و عفاف ملکوت
با من راه نشین *باده مستانه زدند*

This says to me: the angles had descended (from somewhere) on میخانه with a serious intention to get drunk or were probably half way there (گل آدم بسرشتند و به پیمانه زدند), and whether Hafez was there or not, but as it happened he'd stopped there (میخانه) on his way.



mannoushka said:


> باده‌ی مستانه


I believe this should be باده‌ مستانه where مستانه/drunkenly refers to the angels' behaviour rather than to the wine/باده‌, so:
_...bâdé mastâné_ _zadand _rather than _bâdéye mastâné zadand._ I know that may appear to affect the meter but I don't believe it does.



mannoushka said:


> این که ساکنان حرم ستر و عفاف ملکوت گویی بند از دل برداشته باشند زده باشند به سیمِ آخر و کار را از لبی ترکردن به مست‌شدن کشانده باشند آیا همان نکته‌ای نیست که حافظ می‌خواهد در یاد بماند؟


Yes, and I agree with this interpretation.


----------



## mannoushka

Thanks, PersoLatin, but contrary to your belief about the meter, I am certain — Let’s say I feel it in my bones! — that the removal of the _ezaafe_ would break up the rhythm in a bad way. 
What may cause a bit of a confusion here is that in Persian it is fine to have an adverb function as an adjective and vice versa, as I am sure you know, and as our poet must have been well aware. 
What I am trying to say is, while _mastaane_ doesn’t have to be strictly an adverb, _baade-ye mastaane _does seem odd at first glance (which is why I have been poking at it in search of a meaning). I just feel Haafez would not have been a pedant and would have taken liberties with grammar and syntax without ever falling into error or sacrificing the flow of his verse.


----------



## Qureshpor

دوش دیدم که ملایک در میخانه زدند
گل آدم بسرشتند و *به پیمانه زدند*
ساکنان حرم ستر و عفاف ملکوت
با من راه نشین *بادۂ* * مستانه زدند*

Last night the angels knocked on the tavern door; behold
They kneaded Adam's clay and then tossed it into a mould
Pious, sanctuary  residents with virtues of the unseen world
Poured me, a wayfarer, wine that was intoxicating and old

Here is some explanation from the net.

.دیشب فرشتگان الهی (جبرییل، میکاییل و عزراییل) را دیدم که در میخانه را زدند و گل آدم را با شراب عشق خمیر کردند و به قالب ریختند
.فرشتگان حرم پوشیده و پاک عالم غیب با من گدا و در راه مانده، باده ی مست کننده نوشیدند یا مستانه شراب نوشیدند


----------



## Alfaaz

Qureshpor said:
			
		

> باده مستانه


Is it بادۂ مستانہ (with _izaafah _- as given here)...?


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> Is it بادۂ مستانہ (with _izaafah _- as given here)...?


I just copy pasted the original post Alfaz SaaHib. I have translated it with an izaafat. I shall add the izaafat for accuracy sake.


----------



## Alfaaz

Qureshpor said:
			
		

> I just copy pasted the original post Alfaz SaaHib. I have translated it with an izaafat. I shall add the izaafat for accuracy sake.


I see. (I was wondering due to the discussion in the preceding posts about the possibility of an _izaafat _not being present.)


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> I see. (I was wondering due to the discussion in the preceding posts about the possibility of an _izaafat _not being present.)


You will have noticed the second hemistitch is different in the book.


----------



## mannoushka

Alfaaz said:


> Is it بادۂ مستانہ (with _izaafah _- as given here)...?


Well, I am claiming there just has to be an _izafat_ in between the two words, obviously so. PersoLatin disagrees, presumably because the word _mastaane_ is mainly an adverb, and because the addition of _mastaane_ as an adjective to _baade_ does indeed make the meaning a bit odd: drunken wine, intoxicating wine? Isn’t all wine intoxicating?
So I am wondering if a third solution is possible, sort of imagining that the poet wanted to place a compound verb, _baadeye_ _mastaane_ _zadand_, in there, to suggest that the communion was a deliberately down to earth —literally — affair, with all the rituals and trappings in place. Then it wouldn’t matter any more what _mastaane_ was, grammatically speaking. The compound verb could stand in for “the angels deigned to consecrate wine, hobnobbing with man, inebriation”, the whole works, all because man was chosen by divine will to carry the burden of love.


----------



## Alfaaz

mannoushka said:
			
		

> Well, I am claiming there just has to be an _izafat_ in between the two words, obviously so. PersoLatin disagrees, presumably because the word _mastaane_ is mainly an adverb, and because the addition of _mastaane_ as an adjective to _baade_ does indeed make the meaning a bit odd: drunken wine, intoxicating wine?


Interesting. (I'm afraid I cannot suggest anything, since I have to rely on translations!) An English translation by Gertrude Lowthian Bell (1897) uses _passionate _for مستانه.


----------



## mannoushka

‘Passionate’ is concealed somewhere in the Persian wording, I quite agree. Thank you, Alfaaz, and thank you, everyone!


----------



## PersoLatin

mannoushka said:


> What may cause a bit of a confusion here is that in Persian it is fine to have an adverb function as an adjective and vice versa


I’m sure there are examples but مستانه isn’t one of those. Let’s consider دبوانه/mad which is an adjective despite its adverb looking construction, its adverb form is دیوانه وار/madly, however مستانه/drunkenly is an adverb, its adjective form is مست/drunk(en).

As you say مستانه must mean ً‘intoxicating’ for باده‌ی مستانه to make sense, then we have the issue that wine by definition is intoxicating anyway.


----------



## mannoushka

PersoLatin,
Out of your post immediately above the novel (for me) idea is very gradually creeping into my head — it’s not fully there yet! — that the word _mastaane_ is an ‘adverbial or animated adjective’. In my conscious experience, this particular word can and does act as an adjective:
خنده‌ی مستانه
نگاهِ مستانه
شورِ مستانه
فریادِ مستانه
However, it normally attaches itself only to nouns that either derive from a verb and hint at an action, or in any case belong to animated nouns, nouns associated with living things.
This must explain why the construct _baade ye mastaane_ is at first reading quite jarring, since _baade_ is inanimate. 
And here is another minuscule, off-topic, point: _baade zadan_ (compared to _baade khordan_ or _baade khori kardan_) sounds fairly modern to the ear.


----------



## PersoLatin

mannoushka said:


> word _mastaane_ is an ‘adverbial or animated adjective’. In my conscious experience, this particular word can and does act as an adjective:
> خنده‌ی مستانه
> نگاهِ مستانه
> شورِ مستانه
> فریادِ مستانه
> However, it normally attaches itself only to nouns that either derive from a verb and hint at an action, or in any case belong to animated nouns, nouns associated with living things.


Thanks for this, it explains the differences very clearly, the way I couldn’t.

Also the point about use of زدن with باده, I also find it modern sounding (last 50 years) but I’m sure it’s been used for ‘drinking wine’ for a long while, زدن is a very useful verb in Persian as you well know, there is a thread on this forum about it,


----------



## Alfaaz

mannoushka said:
			
		

> Out of your post immediately above the novel (for me) idea is very gradually creeping into my head — it’s not fully there yet! — that the word mastaane is an ‘adverbial or animated adjective’.


Relevant quotes from: Urdu: Use of Persian suffix -aanah -انہ


			
				fdb said:
			
		

> The suffixe –āna (Western Persian –āne) has this function in Persian too. One says:
> 
> pesar-e ʻāqel “an intelligent boy” (animate)
> 
> but:
> 
> jawāb-e ʻāqelāne “an intelligent answer” (inanimate)
> 
> So this is not something special to Urdu; it is a carry-over from Persian.





			
				Qureshpor said:
			
		

> Thank you fdb for above. I am of course fully aware of the origins of the suffix and this I have made clear in the post title. the real question is why the -aanah/aane suffix is allowed to be attached with inanimate nouns but not with animate ones. It seems that whenever a word (e.g dost, qaatil etc) is perceived as animate/human, it must have the -aanah suffix to form adjectives describing inanimate nouns. ...





			
				fdb said:
			
		

> Yes, the point seems to be that there are certain adjectives that can refer only to animate beings. If you want to apply them to an inanimate referent you need to use the derived form in –āna.
> 
> In Persian, at least, dōstāna (WP: dūstāne) is an adjective (“friendly”), not a noun.


In post #26, forum member sapnachaandni (an Irani Persian speaker who was studying/fluent in Urdu as well) gave a detailed explanation about the the usage of the _-aanah_ suffix in Farsi to make nouns, adjectives, and adverbs and how these elements might have transferred over to Urdu. Her post unfortunately isn't in English, but contains multiple examples that demonstrate the various functions in Persian grammar. 

I remember we (PersoLatin and I) had a brief discussion about this topic in Persian, Urdu: خودکار and its derivatives: 


			
				Alfaaz said:
			
		

> There were two points of confusion:
> 
> ...
> In addition, aren't there many cases where adding -aanah can make the word an adjective as well and not necessarily always an adverb?
> Examples: منصفانہ، امیرانہ، بادشاہانہ، وغیرہ





			
				PersoLatin said:
			
		

> The reference suggests the above words are both, adverbs & adjectives but that's not the case in Persian, they are always adverbs.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> باده ی مست کننده نوشیدند *یا* مستانه شراب نوشیدند


This says.... or ... and that’s exactly the question in OP, but with an ezâfé/izaafat it can only be this choice: باده ی مست کننده نوشیدند but wines are intoxicating so why labour the point something that we think Hafiz wouldn’t do.

The other option is only possible without ezâfé/izaafat and that has the issue of metre which mannoushka has raised, but I maintain is the correct one.


----------



## mannoushka

Thank you very much, Alfaaz. I will refer to the most relevant example from your post above, if I may. 

_Javaab-e aaghelaane_, ‘a sensible answer’, has, it’s true, an inanimate noun, an answer, described by an adjective that ends in -_aane_. And yet the adjective simultaneously hints, in the manner of an adverb, at the act of making a reply, performed by an animate subject, which generates the inanimate thing. 

Or take the word _hooshmand_, ‘intelligent’. So in Persian we have _mobile e hooshmand_, ‘the smart phone’,  while for, say, ‘intelligent behaviour’ the usual choice is _raftaar e hooshmandaane_. 

I admit, though, I have not carried out an exhaustive research and cannot be at all sure that in every conceivable case one is able to trace the noun back to an action or a state of mind. My claim is a very limited one for now and I stand ready to be educated by the true scholars.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> This says.... or ... and that’s exactly the question in OP, but with an ezâfé/izaafat it can only be this choice: باده ی مست کننده نوشیدند but wines are intoxicating so why labour the point something that we think Hafiz wouldn’t do......


بادہ ی مستانه بنوش آشکار
تا خبر از راز نھانت دھند

فروغی

غزل 184 - حافظ - دوش دیدم که ملایک در میخانه زدند


----------



## mannoushka

Qureshpor, I have only just come upon your post. I apologize.
Perhaps your purpose was to point out the presence of a connecting _kasre_ between _baade_ and _mastaane_.
Or perhaps you wanted to show how the combination is not such a rarity as one might imagine.
In any case, I thank you for the post. The couplet nicely displays the compound verb I have been pondering, albeit with the finite part changed from _zadan_ to _noosheedan_. Doesn’t prove anything, I know. But it’s good.


----------



## PersoLatin

From Gangoor, no. of lines with مستانه (not exhaustive by any means):
- *حافظ*/Hâfez has 8, only one with بادہ (see OP)
  که حافظ چو مستانه سازد سرود
..
  راه مستانه زد و چاره مخموری کرد
..
The rest are used with نرگس, خنده etc.

- *فروغی بسطامی/*Foruqi Bastâmi has 20 entries only one with بادہ (post 19)
بادهٔ مستانه بنوش آشکار     ----  تا خبر از راز نهانت دهند (post 19)

*It is very likely that the 19th century فروغی used حافظ's only example as a model.*

None with بادہ
- *مولوی*/môlavi over 40, none with بادہ
  باده خمخانه گردد مرده مستانه گردد
..
  تنورش بیت مستانه سراید
..
- *جامی*/Jâmi's favourite word in 8 appearances of مستانه, is نعره  & نرگس no بادہ

- *عطار/*Attâr has six none with بادہ
  در این بند و بلا مستانه و خوش
..
گهی مستانه و گه در خرابات
..

Nothing from سعدی, فردوسی, خیام


----------



## Qureshpor

mannoushka said:


> Qureshpor, I have only just come upon your post. I apologize.
> Perhaps your purpose was to point out the presence of a connecting _kasre_ between _baade_ and _mastaane_.
> Or perhaps you wanted to show how the combination is not such a rarity as one might imagine.
> In any case, I thank you for the post. The couplet nicely displays the compound verb I have been pondering, albeit with the finite part changed from _zadan_ to _noosheedan_. Doesn’t prove anything, I know. But it’s good.


No problem whatsoever, mannoushka. My purpose was to prove that even though it may seem needless to describe "wine" as "intoxicating", FaroGhii has used it exactly in this way, with the izaafat. The link shows a person (a reputable one I hope) reciting Hafiz's Ghazal with the izaafat. This proves that there is an izaafat after "بادہ". So, it proves these two things.


----------



## PersoLatin

[/QUOTE]


Qureshpor said:


> The link shows a person (a reputable one I hope) reciting Hafiz's Ghazal with the izaafat. This proves that there is an izaafat after "بادہ". So, it proves these two things.





PersoLatin said:


> - *فروغی بسطامی/*Foruqi Bastâmi has 20 entries only one with بادہ (post 19)
> بادهٔ مستانه بنوش آشکار ---- تا خبر از راز نهانت دهند (post 19)
> 
> *It is very likely that the 19th century فروغی used حافظ's only example as a model.*


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Yes, I had seen your post already, PersoLatin. Ganjoor(not Gangoor) is not the be all and end all of all Persian literature published in lands where Persian once held sway, you would no doubt agree? Whatever the case may be, baadah with izaafat exists and our current knowledge shows that two poets have used it. I shall see if I can find any more such occurrences.


----------



## Qureshpor

Qureshpor said:


> ^ ۔۔۔ I shall see if I can find any more such occurrences.


If one searches under باده ی مستانه on the net, many hits result for poets of modern era. A few examples.

جامی از می بہ کفم ھر نفس از شوق وصال

ناگھان *بادہ ی مستانہ* بہ گفتارآمد

مجید آبسالان

باز هم اهل ولا *باده ی مستانه* زدند
لب خود را به لب ساغر و پیمانه زدند

امیر عظیمی

ای باده کشان در میخانه علی

خیزید که شد موسم پیمانه علی

رندانه و ذوقانه و شوقانه علی

آرید از آن *باده مستانه* علی


من از روز ازل دیوانه بودم
دیوانه ی روی تو ، سر گشته ی کوی تو
سرخوش از ب*اده ی مستانه* بودم


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> Whatever the case may be, baadah with izaafat exists and our current knowledge shows that two poets have used it.


Text books & religious book are full of mistakes that have got repeated & gained legitimacy. But at least this one is not potentially harmful.

I am sure you agree that we have established there’s something odd about the way حافظ uses it and I am sure that is the whole point of raising the thread,

What has been established is that مستانه can mean ‘intoxicating’ if and only if it is used with باده with ezâfé/izafat.

I suggest a useful thread topic and I’m not being facetious:
“Do we know any word in any language that has a meaning different to its grammatical one, when it is used in combination with one other unique word?”


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> Ganjoor(not Gangoor) is not the be all and end all of all Persian literature published in lands where Persian once held sway, you would no doubt agree?


My search, as I pointed out, wasn’t exhaustive even in Ganjoor, but if works of an author is not in there, there must be a reason, either because it hasn’t been found yet or it’s being edited & will be added soon, or it is not relevant to Persian, or that it doesn’t quite cut it.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> I am sure you agree that we have established there’s something odd about the way حافظ uses it and I am sure that is the whole point of raising the thread,
> 
> What has been established is that مستانه can mean ‘intoxicating’ if and only if it is used with باده with ezâfé/izafat.
> 
> I suggest a useful thread topic and I’m not being facetious:
> “Do we know any word in any language that has a meaning different to its grammatical one, when it is used in combination with one other unique word?”


PersoLatin, I shall begin with a premise that my knowledge of the Persian language is minuscule compared with yours and other Persian speakers'. Having said that, I do not find Hafiz's use of مستانه for بادہ as odd at all. Let's take a look at the word مستانه.

Hayyim defines it as an adjective-Adverb from which I presume he is saying that it can be used as an adjective and an adverb.

*مستانه* _(mastaneh)_ Adverb-Adjective 1. Like a drunkard. 2. Drunken, befitting a drunkard. Ex. نگاه مستانه a glance like that of a drunkard; a languishing glance.

The example that he provides is clearly adjectival as the word is defining a noun "nigaah". What kind of "nigaah"? ..."like that of a drunkard".

This is how Dehkhoda defines this word and provides several examples, all on the pattern of  *بادۂ* *مستانه* . Apparently, "Dutch courage" is translated in persian as "شجاعتِ *مستانه*. It is obviously based on the adjective مست drunk/drunken.

*مستانه*. [ م َ ن َ / ن ِ ] (ص نسبی، ق مرکب ) چیزی که حرکات و سکنات آن بطور مستان باشد چون لغزش *مستانه* و رفتار *مستانه* و گریه ٔ *مستانه* و جلوه ٔ *مستانه۔*

Here is another example (but this time شراب instead of بادہ) from _Shāh_ _Ni'matullāh_ _Wali_, whose mausoleum is in Mahan, a beautiful place close to Kerman.

همچو خُمِ شرابِ مستانه
گرم شو خوش بجوش خوش می باش

ؒشاه نعمت‌الله ولی

The same poet, here is using it as an adverb.

مستیم ز شراب وحدت عشق
مستانه سرود می سرائیم

An adverbial example from Rumi

چو باده بر سر باده خوریم از گلرخ ساده
بیا تا چون گل و لاله در آمیزیم مستانه

In Urdu's literary tradition, there are critics who would tear the poet to pieces (so to speak) if there were errors of grammar, idiom and usage. I am sure, the same must be the case within Persian literature. Critics and fellow poets would say that Hafiz's use of  *بادۂ* *مستانه* is incorrect. Are you or other forum members aware of such criticism?

I know you would n't be facetious towards me. By now I believe you know me too well!  I don't know *all* the languages, so it is not possible to comment. I assume you are stating that بادہ does not go with مستانه since مستانه here would mean مستی آور and بادہ itself is مستی آور! Well, _Shāh_ _Ni'matullāh_ _Wali, _a contemporary of Hafiz also does not feel there is anything wrong with this usage.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> I assume you are stating that بادہ does not go with مستانه since مستانه here would mean مستی آور and بادہ itself is مستی آور!


That is the main & only point.

I don’t believe Hâfez would use _mastaane_ in that way, and others using it that way, to me  is no proof of its correctness.  

I was serious about the thread and by “any language” I meant the various languages of forum members.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> همچو خُمِ شرابِ مستانه
> گرم شو خوش بجوش خوش می باش


To me مستانه refers to the second line and not to شراب, so no ezâfé after شراب.

Like vats of wine, drunkenly warm up & boil well and be merry.

Ganjoor lists شاه نعمت الله ولی  who has scores of lines with مستانه, many more than anyone I have seen, one of which seems to be the same as حافظ’:
ساقی قدحی بادهٔ *مستانه* به من داد
زان آب حیاتی و زلالی که چه گویم

از بندگی سید مستان خرابات
جامی بستان و می *مستانه* به دست آر

Also
نعمة الله خم می *مستانه* می نوشد به ذوق
ساغر و پیمانهٔ ما را به هم بشکسته است

جام می بستان و *مستانه* بنوش
قول ما می گو سرودی می سرا


----------



## mannoushka

I also happen to think that alterations including removal of the disputed _kasre_ to the line of verse by Shah Nematollahe Vali would slightly improve its beat or _vazn_, and maybe the content, too, like so:
هم‌چون خمِ شرابْ مستانه
گرم‌ شو، خوش بجوش، خوش می‌باش 

This does not imply I actually know that this is how the poem was originally written down. 

Having said this, I personally still strongly believe that the same cannot be true of the Haafez line.


----------



## PersoLatin

mannoushka said:


> Having said this, I personally still strongly believe that the same cannot be true of the Haafez line.


Hâfez has certainly set a precedent and if a master does it, all will follow without questioning it.


----------

