Zal Visits Mehrab of Kabul
Courtesy crosses an inherited boundary before love crosses it. Mehrab is both a descendant of Zahhak and a ruler whose wisdom Zal openly admires.
The chapter in five texts
| Text | Chapter treatment and distinctive choices |
|---|---|
| F&R English | Sixty-eight couplets move from provincial hospitality to private desire, retaining the religious and genealogical obstacles. |
| Moscow | Pp 155–159 preserve the visit and portrait, with numerous local brackets in the expanded courtly description. |
| Mohl | Pp 121–124 give a fuller praise-and-portrait sequence beside the continuous visit. |
| Ganjoor | Sh4 has 63 couplets; its shorter sequence is the numbered digital reference. |
| Khaleghi | The visit and portrait occur in the opening part of pp 182–187; apparatus alternatives remain separate from main-text wording. |
Parallel text
English left · Persian right. Ganjoor is the reference except where a row names a printed source. Select a number to open the relevant note. G identifiers distinguish digital sections across chapter boundaries.
Narrative and poetic form
The English’s strongest feature is the sequence of recognition: Zal admires the father before hearing of the daughter. Love enters a political world already capable of prejudice and generosity.
Couplet commentary
Quoted text · evidence · interpretation1–6Travel as an exercise of rank
The journey names Hind, Kabul, Danbar, Morgh and Mai, with staged hospitality and open-handed expenditure.
The English retains the regional names and the connection between movement, generosity and authority. This is epic political geography, not a modern itinerary whose every stop can be fixed from the verse alone.
7–16Ancestry does not exhaust character
The description combines Zahhak ancestry, tribute to Sahm, martial strength and a wise mind. The greeting includes enslaved attendants as well as costly objects.
The English preserves the tension on which the story depends: inherited enmity coexists with recognizable merit. Neither the ancestry nor the praise should be suppressed to simplify the later argument about marriage.
17–26Zal recognizes Mehrab’s worth
Ganjoor gives the reception, feast, admiration and praise of Mehrab’s fighting frame. The English gives the admiration a separate ancestral maxim at 23. Mohl pp 122–123 carries the fuller praise sequence.
The maxim makes noble character a continuation of the father’s life through the son. It is praise spoken in a social setting, not a new genealogical fact. The English also prepares the report of Rudabeh by first establishing the excellence of her father.
27–36A portrait built out of living and precious forms
The daughter is described through ivory, saj, musk, the pomegranate blossom, lips, breasts, narcissus eyes and bow-shaped brows.
The English keeps the bodily specificity of the Persian rather than reducing it to generic beauty. Kamand makes the hair a snare before a real rope becomes part of the lovers’ meeting. “Earthly paradise” gathers the portrait’s imagery into a closing judgment.
37–46Desire begins through a report
The praise unsettles Zal before he has seen Rudabeh. Dawn restores the public court and Mehrab’s arrival.
The English’s question about the daughter’s beauty given her father’s grace supplies a psychological link. The abrupt return to courtly ceremony keeps private desire under public discipline rather than placing the lovers in a world without political obligations.
47–56An invitation refused across a religious divide
Zal offers gifts and honors, but refuses to enter Mehrab’s house because Sahm and the Shah would object to drinking with idol-worshippers. Mehrab privately judges Zal’s faith in return.
These are reciprocal judgments within the scene. The commentary does not adopt either insult as its own description of a modern religion. The English preserves the distinction between gracious public speech and inward resentment.
57–63Public praise changes the room
The courtiers hesitate to praise Mehrab because his creed differs; Zal’s praise releases their own. English redistributes the explanations around the act of praise.
Zal’s conduct has force beyond private attraction. He makes an unpopular recognition speakable. The passage supports a defense of the English’s emphasis on social exclusion without requiring Mehrab’s tribute relationship to become political equality.
64–68A cautionary maxim beside an irresistible attachment
The Arab chief’s refusal of marriage and the fear of dishonor stand beside Zal’s inability to recover composure.
The maxim is introduced as somebody’s saying. It is neither a universal law endorsed by every voice nor a stable declaration of Zal’s own policy. Its position heightens the irony of desire overcoming the supposed security of avoiding attachment.
New Naqqali