Exordium

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15 Khaleghi’s explanatory notes, pp 1–2, discuss the distinction between jan and kherad and caution against assuming a fully technical philosophical system.

Jan can denote life or soul; kherad denotes wisdom, reason or discerning intellect. “Wisdom and mind” gives the English a closely related intellectual pair. It is therefore less differentiated than the Persian, but coherent with the ensuing concern with the powers and limits of thought. The soul is named explicitly in later English couplets, so the chapter’s spiritual vocabulary has not disappeared.

The second hemistich can be heard as saying that thought cannot pass beyond this invocation or beyond the one invoked. “Beyond whom” chooses the personal reference and connects the opening directly with the later denial that thought can find a way to God. That is a defensible resolution of an elliptical Persian construction, rather than the only grammatically inevitable reading.

The mind/find rhyme carries both the act and its limit: the faculty invoked at the beginning reaches its boundary at the couplet’s close.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15

Nam and jay are “name” and “place,” with wider possible associations of standing and station. “Of all things near and far” develops place into spatial totality. The English consequently explains the scope of lordship rather than reproducing the repeated noun jay. This also prepares a contrast with couplet 6, where God stands beyond name and place.

Ruzi is sustenance or one’s allotted provision; “daily needs” is a natural contextual rendering. Rahnamay is a guide, preserved in “our Guide.” The English farr supplies a further attribute that does not occur in the checked Persian main texts at this point. Read broadly as bestowed splendor or flourishing, it extends the language of divine beneficence; it should not be cited as the literal translation of a word present here.

The far/farr pairing audibly binds the spatial expansion to a retained Persian cultural term. Its poetic function is clear, while the extra semantic contribution remains visible.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15

Keyvan, Nahid and Mehr are Saturn, Venus and the sun in this celestial series; the moon is separately named. The translation gives recognizable English astronomical names while preserving each body. Mehr should be read in this immediate context as the sun, rather than automatically as a separate personal appearance of Mithra.

Gardan-sepehr is the turning heaven or sphere. “The sphere that is spun” retains its motion and adds a passive suggestion of a mover. The English “high” accords with Saturn’s exalted position in the traditional arrangement of the heavens, but is not a separately stated adjective in the Persian line.

This is the creator’s cosmos as the poem names it. No modern astronomical correction is needed to explain its imagery.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15 Khaleghi’s explanatory notes, p 3, explain the elevated form through the celestial spheres; this supplies a concrete cosmological reading alongside the English emphasis on essence.

Moscow, Ganjoor and Khaleghi print barshodeh-peykar, an elevated or raised form; the consulted Mohl reprint has barshodeh-gowhar, an elevated substance or essence. The immediate celestial context makes a reference to the lofty created order plausible. The phrase’s precise cosmological reach should remain an interpretation, not be presented as a universally settled gloss.

“Who made the heart of all the things we see” gives an inward, comprehensive meaning to creation. Mohl’s gowhar offers a closer lexical neighborhood to “essence” than peykar does, but neither reading says “heart.” The English also widens the object from an elevated form or substance to the visible creation as a whole. This is a substantial recasting of the source image, not a simple word substitution.

The recasting keeps the logical opposition intact: God exceeds the names and conceptions by which the created order is apprehended, yet is its maker. “Guess” makes goman accessible, though the Persian can carry the broader sense of supposition or conception. The English is strongest here as an interpretation of the couplet’s argument; the Persian alternatives preserve the image it has transformed.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15

Binandegan and do binandeh name the seeing organs: the eyes cannot see the creator, and the reader is told not to torment them. “No mortal eye” generalizes the address, while the next line returns to “your eyes.” The denial and the admonition are both preserved.

Trace/chase converts the Persian repetition into motion. “Vain chase” is not a new narrated event; it is an expressive account of the futility already implicit in the command. “The Maker’s self” distinguishes the creator from visible effects of creation. The qualification “self” is interpretive, but consistent with the argument about perception.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15

Moscow, Ganjoor and the Mohl reprint begin with thought’s failure to find a road to God. Khaleghi reverses the opening syntax: “Nor does thought find a way to Him.” All four then place God beyond name and place. The difference does not require different English content.

“Discover any trail” turns rah, road or way, into the language of searching. “Where all words fail” is an addition, drawing the conclusion of being beyond name into the sentence. It prepares the more explicit limits on speech in the following couplets without introducing a conflicting proposition.

The English sustains the pursuing movement of trace/chase in couplet 5 through trail/fail here. That continuity is a poetic organization of images already related in the Persian.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15 Khaleghi’s explanatory notes, p 3, distinguish perceptible elements from the faculties of wisdom and soul. The difficulty is therefore lexical and philosophical, not merely an English syntactic problem.

Zin gowharan, “these substances” or “these elements,” is the hinge of the Persian sentence. Gowhar has a range of meanings, and the passage invites a cosmological or philosophical explanation. It should not simply be assumed to mean the inner core of soul and wisdom. The second hemistich expressly says that jan and kherad find no way to Him.

“Past their core” ties the boundary to the soul and wisdom named in the English first line. This makes the thought more immediately intelligible, but shifts the grammatical and conceptual center: a limit associated with “these substances” becomes a limit internal to the faculties. “Subtle speech” further characterizes the attempted inquiry without a separate Persian adjective.

The central denial remains: the powers of soul and intellect cannot reach the creator by extending discourse beyond its proper domain. The English achieves clarity by choosing and reshaping a difficult reference; the Persian itself retains interpretive ambiguity.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15

The repeated gozidan, choosing or selecting, gives the Persian an internal pattern: when intellect selects speech, it selects what it sees. The English retains “choose” and converts the second selection into what intellect can speak about. “Try to speak” adds effort rather than a new object of knowledge.

The “eyes” of wisdom personify the faculty and continue the chapter’s visual vocabulary. This should not be made into a blanket claim that Ferdowsi recognizes only modern empirical knowledge. Within the Exordium, the immediate point is the inadequacy of human apprehension before the creator.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15

The Persian says that no one knows how to praise Him as He is, then commands the girding of the waist for service. “Bind yourself to serve” preserves the practical obligation and the binding action without requiring an explanation of girded clothing within the verse.

“With heart and hands” extends that action into inward assent and outward work. These particular body parts are supplied by the English, but the total commitment they imply is appropriate to bandegi. The result maintains the couplet’s movement from an intellectual inability to an ethical response.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15 Khaleghi’s explanatory notes, p 4, record sanjideh and sanjideh shod readings and explain the intellect as measured and its creator as measurer.

The creator measures or assesses soul and wisdom. How, then, can He fit within the thought that has itself been measured? Sakhteh in Moscow, Ganjoor and Khaleghi supports the sense of measured or bounded thought. The consulted Mohl reprint, also transcribed on Wikisource, reads sakht here; that wording should be distinguished from the other texts rather than silently harmonized.

The Persian pairs sanjidan, measuring or weighing, with gonjidan, fitting or being contained. The English moves the second half fully into the weighing image: “How shall the weighed presume to weigh who weighed?” Its balance is therefore rhetorical as well as conceptual. The scale, the wordplay and the added “presume” make the hierarchy immediately audible.

This is a successful poetic development. It sacrifices the separate containment verb while preserving the decisive relation between a limited faculty and the source of its measure. The laid/weighed rhyme gives that relation an emphatic closure.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15

Moscow, Ganjoor and Khaleghi name ray, jan and zaban: judgment or deliberation, soul or life, and tongue. The English “judgment, soul, and tongue” follows that three-part wording directly. Mohl’s consulted reprint instead gives ray, jan and ravan, changing the final faculty from tongue to another term for soul or spirit.

“These feeble three” explicitly evaluates the instruments that the Persian rhetorical question shows to be inadequate. “How shall the Maker’s praise by these be sung?” transfers the question into the language of voiced verse. Sung is an English poetic choice, not evidence that the Persian specifies a musical performance.

The difference between zaban and ravan matters more than the minor choice between “how” and “when” in the question. It is a useful example of a specific printed reading supporting the English against another available formulation.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15

Khastu shodan means to acknowledge or confess, here in relation to God’s existence. “Confess that He exists” conveys that sense; it should not be mistaken for confession of a personal fault. “Hold it fast” adds resolve to the acknowledgment.

Moscow, Ganjoor and Khaleghi print bayad, “must” or “ought.” The Mohl reprint reads bashad, so its surface wording is not identical. The English imperative expresses the obligation clearly supported by the former reading. “Let all idle speech ... be cast” recasts turning aside from useless speech as active dismissal.

The theological distinction is acknowledgment of existence alongside restraint about comprehension. This couplet supplies part of the foundation for the English’s more explicit closing formulation in couplet 15.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15

Parastandeh and juyandeh rah are worshipper and seeker of the way. Both are retained, preventing the English from reducing the response to passive obedience alone. “Deeply mark” is a compact imperative for careful, penetrating attention.

Mohl’s second hemistich directs a deep gaze toward the commands in the plural; Moscow, Ganjoor and Khaleghi use the wording “deeply ... at His command.” “The law His will bestowed” makes the object into a singular body of divine direction. “Bestowed” adds the language of gift. The formulation is interpretive but preserves the injunction to consider divine direction seriously.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15

The same couplet stands in the main text of all four Persian sources consulted. Its first line links being knowledgeable with being capable or powerful. “Whoever has knowledge, also has the power” keeps that relation in an accessible maxim. It is unnecessary to turn it into a claim about domination or political power alone.

The second line says that through knowledge an old heart becomes young. “Renew their flower” gives rejuvenation a botanical form. Although no flower is named in this Persian couplet, its return supplies a tangible equivalent for renewed vitality. “Wisdom’s light” similarly belongs to the English’s figurative development.

The assertion is especially effective after the account of human limits: the intellect’s inability to encompass God does not make knowledge valueless. The chapter can affirm the boundary of wisdom and the renewal it brings without contradiction.

Return to parallel text

Moscow I pp 12–13; Mohl reprint I pp 3–4; Khaleghi I pp 3–4; Ganjoor 1–15 Khaleghi’s explanatory notes, p 4, take the final limit to concern knowledge of divine existence or essence; the English reconnects that limit with the earlier profession of existence.

All four Persian texts retain the veil and the denial of further access to speech or thought. Moscow, Ganjoor and Khaleghi have ze hasti mar andisheh ra rah nist; Mohl’s reprint has be hastiyash andisheh ra rah nist, explicitly directing thought toward “His existence.” These are close in their denial of access, but their wording should remain distinguishable.

“Thought only knows ‘He is’—and nothing more” is not a literal rendering of either final hemistich. It brings the acknowledgment of existence from couplet 12 into the closing limit on comprehension. Mohl’s possessive wording is relevant to the formulation’s focus, but does not itself say that thought possesses one proposition of knowledge. That distinction is the English’s synthesis.

The synthesis gives the chapter a clear ending and an audible before/more closure. Read as the conclusion of the whole passage, it is defensible: affirmation is retained, exhaustive knowledge is denied. The note preserves the Persian’s less propositional final image and the precise extent of the English explanation.

Return to parallel text