mawln zurdah jo Mirz k tarz ko nm rakhte they woh bh is

er ke adz-e bay par parwnah they. hamney muqaddimeh

me bh is er par kuchh rmrk kiy hai yah usk ek awr khb
k taraf irah kiy jt hai. jo wqeah Mirz ney is er me bay
kiy hai usme do bato k tasrh karn arr th ek yeh kih psb
ney qil ke sth ky sulk kiy dsrey yeh kih qil psb se
cht ky th so yeh dono bte basarhat bay nah k ga
sirf kinyeh me ad k gay hai magar sarhat se zydah wah
ke sth fawran samajh me jat hai. pehl bt par lafz mat awr
dsr par qadam len sf dallat kart hai.
(Ydgr-e Ghlib; Halis comments on 234.7, Hali 1996:166-7)

Maulana Azurdah too, who was well known for writing in Mirzas
style, was a moth to [the candle-flame of] this verses manner of
expression. I too have made some remarks [riimaark] in
the Muqaddamah [-e shi'r o sha'iri] about this verse. Here, attention
is drawn to one more excellence of it. Two things about the event
that Mirza mentioned in this verse must certainly be explained.
One is how the Gatekeeper treated the speaker; the other is what
the speaker wanted from the Gatekeeper. Neither of these things
have been mentioned in detail; they have been presented only
through suggestion. But with further explication they immediately
become understandable. The word misfortune/disgrace proves the
first thing, and to seize the feet is clear evidence of the second.

The thing, Fran, is that the idiom nm rakn here is similar to

nm dharn, which would translate as to cavil; to criticize.
Hence, Fran, Ill submit that the line

mawln zurdah jo Mirz k tarz ko nm rakhte they woh

bh is er ke adz-e bay par parwnah they

could perhaps be translated as Even mawln zurdah, who used

to criticize the Mirzas style was enamoured of this distichs
manner of expression.

Also, Fran, the following lines

jo wqeah Mirz ney is er me bay kiy hai usme do

bato k tasrh karn arr th ek yeh kih psb ney qil ke
sth ky sulk kiy dsrey yeh kih qil psb se cht ky
th so yeh dono bte basarhat bay nah k ga sirf
kinyeh me ad k gay hai magar sarhat se zydah
wah ke sth fawran samajh me jat hai. pehl bt par
lafz mat awr dsr par qadam len sf dallat kart hai.

may perhaps be translated thus:

the incident that the Mirza describes in this verse requires

two things to be explicitly stated; one, the treatment meted
out to the speaker by the doorkeeper and two, what the
speaker wanted from the doorkeeper; both these things
 2

arent explicitly stated and are merely hinted at by way of

suggestion, but are understood immediately with greater
clarity than if they had been explicitly stated. The word
misfortune lucidly signifies the first and the phrase to
touch the feet of signifies the second.

Ill submit, Fran, that dallat here doesnt mean evidence, but is
a terminus technicus from Perso-Arabic rhetorical theory which
refers to the relation of semantic signification between a signifier
(dl) and its signified (madll)