1597_05

{1597,5}

lohū meñ ḍūbe dekhiyo dāmān-o-jeb-e mīr
biphrā hai āj dīdah-e ḳhūñ-bār be-t̤araḥ

1) they {are / might/would be} drowned in blood, look-- Mir's garment-hem and collar!
2) today the blood-scattering eye has struggled/rebelled disorganizedly/unstylishly

Notes:

bipharnā : 'To struggle (against, - se ), resist; to disagree, jar, clash; to become vexed, irritated or enraged (with, - se ), to break into a passion ... ; to break loose from control. to revolt, rise (against), make an attack (upon); to turn wild and wanton, run riot; to get into disorder, run to ruin; to be perverse, refractory. obstinate, &c.'. (Platts p.130)

be-t̤araḥ : 'Ill-mannered, unmannerly, uncivil, rude, awkward, uncouth; —badly, &c.'. (Platts p.203)

*Platts Dictionary Online*

S. R. Faruqi:

This verse, with some alteration of words, he has already composed in the first divan [{194,5}]:

lohū meñ shor-bor hai dāmān-o-jeb-e mīr
biphrā hai āj dīdah-e ḳhūñ-bār be-t̤araḥ

[they are soaked in blood, Mir's garment-hem and collar
today the blood-scattering eye has struggled/rebelled disorganizedly/unstylishly]

There was certainly an affinity between shor-bor and biphrā , but in ḍūbe dekho the dramaticness, and immediacy and repetition of the future, lift the present verse to a much higher level.

One meaning is that dekho is admonitory-- look out, quick, they are about to be drowned! A second meaning is that you should look 'today'. That is, in the light of one meaning the blood-scattering eye is showing an effect [of vanishing] like camphor-- that now garment-hem and collar are about to drown in blood, because today Mir's blood-scattering eye is in a disorganized agitation; thus you must watch out, his garment-hem and collar will be drenched in blood.

The metaphorical image biphrā for the blood-scattering eye is also fine. And in it too is the implication that the blood-scattering eye constantly keeps on moving, but today its style/color is something else. In saying biphrā hai āj there's also the pleasure that it does bipharnā every day, but today its bipharnā has a special meaning. If he had said biphrā huʾā then this idea would not have arisen, because then the meaning would have been that today bipharāhaṭ is upon him, it's not like that every day.

FWP:

SETS == GROTESQUERIE
MOTIFS == CLOTHING/NAKEDNESS; EYES
NAMES
TERMS

What exactly is different about today? Does the blood-scattering eye usually do its scattering with poise and control, so that it doesn't bipharnā at all? Or does it usually show bipharnā , but not in such a wild and crazy, be-t̤araḥ way? Is the problem with the bloodied garment-hem and collar the idea that only the former should usually be bloodied, not the latter as well? Or is it that they should be sprinkled with blood-drops in an elegant, decorative way, not simply drenched with blood?

In any case, I consider this a classic case of grotesquerie. I keep thinking of the blood-scattering eye as something like a garden hose with the water running at full blast-- once you've dropped it, it writhes ferociously and soaks everything and resists your best efforts to control it. Do we really need this kind of imagery? Ugh! (I know, I know, I'm just being frivolously subjective. But still.)

Note for grammar fans: SRF points to the possibility of the perfect tense ( ḍūbe , 'drowned', translated as 'are drowned' to accommodate English usage) being colloquially used to convey a future subjunctive effect ('would be drowned', replacing ḍūbeñ ). Both readings, the literal and the colloquial, are possible in the first line.