Footnotes *with* poem!
Bidding hit $150!!
So here! For yoou! is an English translation of the Padishah Begum's poem to the ruler of Syria, the Arabic translation of which is on that diplomatic missive I keep talking about :)
And remember, if it hits 200 we get to MAKE AMAL WRITE A POME!
----
Because our brothers1 warred, I stood against Roshanara2
spoke walls4 against the sister I5 had carried as a child
That brother-love I spoke, those knives of light7 --
were they forged by the Most Just?
Our brothers never fought for us9.
Our sister Maryam10 stands with her brother Christians
For them she un-souls11 us; in discord walls us out
This brother-tongue12 she speaks, this borrowed coin --
was it pressed by the Most Gracious?
Can it buy eternity13? Our brothers all lie dead.
This duty we give men, these feuds we share, these walls
we split ourselves apart on, these words
written by warring brothers, that we rewrite --
do they come from the Most Merciful?
Why do we, sorrow-sisters14, cling to forgeries?
1The Padishah Begum's “warring brothers” here could technically be any of the four, since each one called himself emperor when their father fell ill; and each one, at some point, fought all the others. However, she surely intends reference to Dara Shikoh (whom she supported politically), and Aurangzeb (whom her sister Roshanara supported). Only Dara Shikoh, after all, posed a real challenge to Aurangzeb; and only he bore the indignity of being declared a Kafir and marched in chains to his execution.
2FitzGerald's English translation is sometimes considered superior, merely because it maintains the rhyme of the Hindustani mukhammas. I must contest this. Leaving aside the matter of whether it is FitzGerald, or the English tongue itself, that is too heavy-handed to cope with Hindustani rhyme schemes; leaving aside also the question of whether translating a mukhammas rhythm to iambic pentameter is truly a virtuous act; the changes he makes to the poem's content, in order to serve its rhymes, cost the reader many layers of meaning3. In this line, for example, he is forced to leave out Roshanara Begum's name, and thus renders the reference too opaque for comprehension.
3One must also wonder whether the “missed her” in FitzGerald is an appropriate sentiment for this stanza, or exists merely to rhyme with “sister”.
4One may wonder how literal these walls were, since Roshanara Begum's last years were spent in forced seclusion.
5 A note of interest: who is “I”in this poem? The Padishah Begum herself is a Mechanical, after all. She was never a child, and when she was made, Roshanara Begum was already a grown woman6. Is her claim to be the same person as the human Begum more than merely political? If so, this surely takes even Sufi mysticism a little far; however, the poem's last line undercuts this reading.
6Note that FitzGerald obscures this question entirely in service of the rhyme.
7Is this the same Divine Light spoken of in poetry written by the human Padishah Begum before she died? This line may, if so, be a denial (or at least a reconsideration) of that previous self and her beliefs.
8Both brothers promised that the sister who supported him would be allowed to marry. Neither followed through. The previous line's reference to justice is therefore rife with irony - as are the following stanzas' references to grace and mercy9.
9By translating all three as “Allah”, FitzGerald loses this nuance.
10Given the two queens' previous discussion, “Maryam” must be Mary Wollstonecraft. It is odd, therefore, that FitzGerald uses “Miriam” here.
11In Chapter 2 of her Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft says that when “Milton …. tells us that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace, I cannot comprehend his meaning, unless, in true Mahometan strain, he meant to deprive us of souls...”
12Wollstonecraft certainly claims to speak in the “plain” style that Europe considers to epitomize masculine virtue.
13One might wonder how this question is to be read, when asked by a Mechanical.
14This term is a variant on the Padishah Begum's takhallus, “sorrow-born”. One must note here that only the Mechanical Begum uses this takhallus; the human Jahanara Begum used another. So while, in some senses, she claims shared identity with that previous self, in the truest sense - that of the poet's signature - she does not.
----
So here! For yoou! is an English translation of the Padishah Begum's poem to the ruler of Syria, the Arabic translation of which is on that diplomatic missive I keep talking about :)
And remember, if it hits 200 we get to MAKE AMAL WRITE A POME!
----
Because our brothers1 warred, I stood against Roshanara2
spoke walls4 against the sister I5 had carried as a child
That brother-love I spoke, those knives of light7 --
were they forged by the Most Just?
Our brothers never fought for us9.
Our sister Maryam10 stands with her brother Christians
For them she un-souls11 us; in discord walls us out
This brother-tongue12 she speaks, this borrowed coin --
was it pressed by the Most Gracious?
Can it buy eternity13? Our brothers all lie dead.
This duty we give men, these feuds we share, these walls
we split ourselves apart on, these words
written by warring brothers, that we rewrite --
do they come from the Most Merciful?
Why do we, sorrow-sisters14, cling to forgeries?
1The Padishah Begum's “warring brothers” here could technically be any of the four, since each one called himself emperor when their father fell ill; and each one, at some point, fought all the others. However, she surely intends reference to Dara Shikoh (whom she supported politically), and Aurangzeb (whom her sister Roshanara supported). Only Dara Shikoh, after all, posed a real challenge to Aurangzeb; and only he bore the indignity of being declared a Kafir and marched in chains to his execution.
2FitzGerald's English translation is sometimes considered superior, merely because it maintains the rhyme of the Hindustani mukhammas. I must contest this. Leaving aside the matter of whether it is FitzGerald, or the English tongue itself, that is too heavy-handed to cope with Hindustani rhyme schemes; leaving aside also the question of whether translating a mukhammas rhythm to iambic pentameter is truly a virtuous act; the changes he makes to the poem's content, in order to serve its rhymes, cost the reader many layers of meaning3. In this line, for example, he is forced to leave out Roshanara Begum's name, and thus renders the reference too opaque for comprehension.
3One must also wonder whether the “missed her” in FitzGerald is an appropriate sentiment for this stanza, or exists merely to rhyme with “sister”.
4One may wonder how literal these walls were, since Roshanara Begum's last years were spent in forced seclusion.
5 A note of interest: who is “I”in this poem? The Padishah Begum herself is a Mechanical, after all. She was never a child, and when she was made, Roshanara Begum was already a grown woman6. Is her claim to be the same person as the human Begum more than merely political? If so, this surely takes even Sufi mysticism a little far; however, the poem's last line undercuts this reading.
6Note that FitzGerald obscures this question entirely in service of the rhyme.
7Is this the same Divine Light spoken of in poetry written by the human Padishah Begum before she died? This line may, if so, be a denial (or at least a reconsideration) of that previous self and her beliefs.
8Both brothers promised that the sister who supported him would be allowed to marry. Neither followed through. The previous line's reference to justice is therefore rife with irony - as are the following stanzas' references to grace and mercy9.
9By translating all three as “Allah”, FitzGerald loses this nuance.
10Given the two queens' previous discussion, “Maryam” must be Mary Wollstonecraft. It is odd, therefore, that FitzGerald uses “Miriam” here.
11In Chapter 2 of her Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft says that when “Milton …. tells us that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace, I cannot comprehend his meaning, unless, in true Mahometan strain, he meant to deprive us of souls...”
12Wollstonecraft certainly claims to speak in the “plain” style that Europe considers to epitomize masculine virtue.
13One might wonder how this question is to be read, when asked by a Mechanical.
14This term is a variant on the Padishah Begum's takhallus, “sorrow-born”. One must note here that only the Mechanical Begum uses this takhallus; the human Jahanara Begum used another. So while, in some senses, she claims shared identity with that previous self, in the truest sense - that of the poet's signature - she does not.
----