FWP:
SETS == EXCLAMATION; I AND
Bekhud Dihlavi has misread the verse in a thoroughly understandable way. The only difference between the very common word 'letter' [;xa:t] and the very uncommon word 'joy' [;ha:z] is not even the presence or absence of a single dot, but the dot's placement a tiny bit to the left or right. And both words fit the situation (though undoubtedly the latter fits it better). I sympathize, because I originally misread the word that way too. It makes me feel better that even a native speaker like Bekhud could make such a mistake.
The word na;zr is drawn directly from medieval Persianized court etiquette. When you appeared in the ruler's presence, you humbly presented [na;zr denaa], as 'from an inferior to a superior', an offering as elegant and valuable as you could provide. If the ruler deigned to accept it, he would in turn present you with something far more valuable, usually a 'robe of honor' [;xil((at] that ideally and in theory would contain among its many components some garment that the ruler himself had actually worn (or at least had caused to be momentarily draped over his shoulders). This symbolic incorporation would seal your loyalty to him as ruler, and his gracious protection of you as subject.
This seems to be one of those paradoxical verses in which the most glorious gift of one's whole life is also felt as the bringer of death. Not that the lover even notices! After rapturizing in the first line, his only concern in the second line is that he has been (temporarily?) oblivious of the proprieties. He has received a gracious invitation from a superior, and he must make a proper return-- and in his judgment, when he is offered 'union' the only suitable response is to at once offer up his life, as a fitting gesture of appreciation. He feels himself remiss in not (yet) having done so. Will he therefore at once proceed to drop dead-- out of either bliss, or courtly etiquette?
Maybe not. This verse reminds me of {20,2},
in which the lover says he has lived on the beloved's promise even though
he knew it was false-- because wouldn't he have died of happiness, if he had
really trusted it? Look at the range of meanings that i.z:tiraab
can have-- within that general sense of 'agitation' there's scope for 'anxiety'
and 'anguish' and 'trouble'. Did he fail to drop dead because he really
knew deep down that the promise was false, so that his effusive delight could only be vain
or chimerical? (Do we think he doth protest too much?) Does he plan to rectify
his faux pas, or does he sadly realize that his heart's failure to
stop beating shows a deeper knowledge than his mind can bring itself to accept?
As usual, we're left with subtle and complex questions, and no way to answer
them except out of our own intuition and our own experience of the world.
Nazm:
That is, I-- and the joy of union would be obtained? It is said as an expression of surprise at such an improbable event. The omission of the verb is according to idiom. In this way on an occasion of rhetorical exaggeration too they leave the verb omitted [;ha;zaf karnaa]. (99)
== Nazm page 99