Mehrab Is Not Pleased
Sindokht approaches a dangerous truth indirectly, then holds Mehrab to a promise of restraint. Rudabeh refuses to disown the attachment even under her father’s gaze.
The chapter in five texts
| Text | Chapter treatment and distinctive choices |
|---|---|
| F&R English | Seventy-six couplets sustain the indirect disclosure, threat and negotiated safety. Two local relations—the parable’s child and the instruction about gems—need explicit notes. |
| Moscow | Pp 187–192 retain the household confrontation and closing prayer, with local additions and alternative wording. |
| Mohl | Pp 145–149 carry the fuller ancestry and religious insults; p 148 supports removing ornaments rather than putting them on. |
| Ganjoor | Sh13 has 73 couplets. Its sequence makes the tree signify a child and preserves Rudabeh’s adorned entrance after advice to remove adornment. |
| Khaleghi | The confrontation is consulted within pp 215–221, with the critical presentation separated from the fuller Mohl sequence. |
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 gives Sindokht’s risk management real dramatic force. The ornaments reversal is consequential but local; recording it strengthens the commentary’s independence and leaves the poem available to be read on its own terms.
Couplet commentary
Quoted text · evidence · interpretation1–15A tree that should heal becomes poisonReferent clarified
Sindokht speaks of splendor, transience, coffin and a tree watered by labor. Ganjoor 12 brings the head of the owner or possessor down to earth after the tree rises; English 14’s “its head” can sound like the tree’s own.
The parable holds generational anxiety inside ordinary mortality. A note can preserve the source’s human referent without disrupting the English image; otherwise readers may miss that it is the parent’s life and investment that are threatened.
16–27A parable about a child, not a speech to oneLocal relation changed
Mehrab treats the reflection as a familiar truth about the transient world. Sindokht explains that a wise Mobad used the tree as a figure for a child. English 22 instead says he “told his child” the parable.
The narrative purpose remains clear, but the grammatical relation has shifted: the child is what the tree represents, not necessarily the original listener. This is a local explanatory difference best carried in the note before the revelation of Rudabeh’s love.
28–41The father’s fear becomes a death threat
Mehrab reaches for the sword and says he should have killed the newborn daughter. Sindokht physically intervenes. Mohl pp 146–147 expands the ancestry-and-leopard-cub argument retained in English 37–38.
The threat and alleged ancestral custom are a furious father’s words. They do not establish a general historical account of female infanticide throughout ancient Iran. The imagined burning of crops gives political fear a material object beyond family shame.
42–53Alliance can answer hostility
Sindokht says Sahm knows, Mehrab admits Zal is a desirable son-in-law if safe, and she invokes Fereydoon’s Yemen marriage and the weakening of foes when strangers become kin.
The English’s elemental combination at 51 elaborates the case for union; Ganjoor at this point goes directly from the Yemen precedent to newly acquired kin. Her argument is political as well as personal: marriage can reduce the threat that ancestral hatred has created.
54–64A promise protects the daughter; ornaments test the limitInstruction reversed
Sindokht demands safety before bringing Rudabeh. Ganjoor 61 and Mohl p 148 tell the daughter to undo or remove her ornaments; English 62 says “Put on your gems.” Rudabeh nevertheless enters adorned in the following source scene.
The outcome is preserved, but the instruction reverses. In the Persian sequence, the splendid entrance can carry the heroine’s refusal to abase her chosen bond; the English instead makes it follow maternal advice. The note keeps this meaningful difference available without casually rewriting the verse.
65–71Beauty does not remove inherited hostility
The father is dazzled, yet condemns a pari joining Ahriman. Mohl p 148 additionally prints the Qahtan/Magus insult behind English 71.
Both supernatural and religious terms belong to his denunciation, not a factual new parentage for Zal. The fuller insult is transmitted text. Its violent sectarian logic must remain a feature of this speaker’s anger rather than becoming the analysis’s own religious classification.
72–76Two troubled appeals to God
Rudabeh falls silent and withdraws, while father and daughter both seek refuge in God.
The English preserves the shared appeal despite opposed wishes. The scene ends in unresolved distress, not a secret paternal consent that the ensuing threat would contradict.
New Naqqali