Public-Domain Rumi: Masnavi Argument and Story | Farsi Grammar

The thirteenth-century poet Rumi’s elephant-in-the-dark episode turns partial touch into an argument about perception. The checked public-domain text is Masnavi, Book III, section 49 on Ganjoor.

The passage preserves source wording and order. We remove editorial vowels, regularize Persian ک/ی, word spacing, and ZWNJ, and supply punctuation. Ganjoor identifies the meter as فاعلاتن فاعلاتن فاعلن. Translation follows syntax and argument, not rhyme.

The verified passage

پیل اندر خانه تاریک بود
عرضه را آورده بودندش هنود
از برای دیدنش مردم بسی
اندر آن ظلمت همی‌شد هر کسی
دیدنش با چشم چون ممکن نبود
اندر آن تاریکیش کف می‌بسود
آن یکی را کف به خرطوم اوفتاد
گفت همچون ناودانست این نهاد
آن یکی را دست بر گوشش رسید
آن بر او چون بادبیزن شد پدید
آن یکی را کف چو بر پایش بسود
گفت شکل پیل دیدم چون عمود
آن یکی بر پشت او بنهاد دست
گفت خود این پیل چون تختی بدست
همچنین هر یک به جزوی که رسید
فهم آن می‌کرد هر جا می‌شنید
از نظرگه گفتشان شد مختلف
آن یکی دالش لقب داد این الف
در کف هر کس اگر شمعی بدی
اختلاف از گفتشان بیرون شدی

The first fourteen lines narrate encounters; همچنین generalizes, از نظرگه diagnoses, and اگر introduces counterfactual light. See Classical Aorist and Prefixless Presents.

Setting the scene: older location and object order

پیل اندر خانه‌ی تاریک بود.

pil andar khâne-ye târik bud.

The elephant was in a dark house. (Rumi; classical narrative)

پیل is older/literary فیل, and اندر is classical در “in.” Invisible ezafe yields خانهٔ تاریک. The concrete opening is not yet allegorical.

عرضه را آورده بودندش هنود.

arze râ âvarde budand-ash Honud.

The Indians had brought it for display. (Rumi; classical verse order)

هنود is an older collective plural for Indians (historical/literary). Object ـش on the past-perfect آورده بودند resumes the elephant; postverbal هنود is the agent. Initial عرضه را conveys purpose, “for display,” not a second object.

Purpose, motion, and the first چون

از برای دیدنش مردم بسی اندر آن ظلمت همی‌شد هر کسی.

az barâ-ye didan-ash mardom basi andar ân zolmat hami-shod har kasi.

Many people—each person—kept going into that darkness to see it. (Rumi; classical narrative)

از برای is a literary purpose marker. In دیدنش, ـش is the infinitive’s object. Durative همی‌شد means “kept going,” not “was becoming.” Final هر کسی distributes collective مردم بسی.

دیدنش با چشم چون ممکن نبود، اندر آن تاریکیش کف می‌بسود.

didan-ash bâ chashm chun momken nabud, andar ân târiki-sh kaf mi-besud.

Since seeing it with the eyes was impossible, in that darkness each person felt it with a palm. (Rumi; classical narrative)

This چون is causal, “since.” Later چو/چون means “when” or “like.” Clause structure selects the connector’s reading.

The spelling تاریکیش may suggest تاریکی‌اش “its darkness,” but that possessive reading does not fit. اندر آن تاریکی is locative; mobile ـش belongs to the participant structure of کف می‌بسود, yielding “each person felt it with his palm.” Older verse permits a clitic on an earlier host. Literary بسودن means “rub, touch,” and the human participant continues from هر کسی.

💡

Do not assign one translation to every چون/چو. Test whether it introduces a cause, a time, or a comparison: چون ممکن نبود “since it was impossible,” but چون عمود “like a column.”

Three touches, three construals

آن یکی را کف به خرطوم اوفتاد.

ân yeki râ kaf be khortum oftâd.

One person’s palm happened upon the trunk. (Rumi; classical experiencer construction)

آن یکی را marks the experiencer/possessor: “as for one of them, [his] palm...” Source اوفتاد is an older form of افتاد. The body-part possessor need not be repeated on کف because را has already established whose hand is involved.

گفت همچون ناودانست این نهاد.

goft hamchun nâvdân ast in nehâd.

He said, ‘This creature’s form is like a drainpipe.’ (Rumi; direct speech)

Enclitic ـست joins ناودان: ناودان است. این نهاد is the perceived nature or form of the thing, not “this institution” in its common modern administrative meaning.

آن یکی را دست بر گوشش رسید؛ آن بر او چون بادبیزن شد پدید.

ân yeki râ dast bar gush-ash resid; ân bar u chun bâd-bizan shod padid.

Another’s hand reached its ear; to him it appeared like a fan. (Rumi; classical narrative)

Here بر او marks the perceiver, approximately “to him.” Demonstrative آن points back to the ear or perceived shape. بادبیزن is a hand fan (literary/older vocabulary).

آن یکی را کف چو بر پایش بسود، گفت شکل پیل دیدم چون عمود.

ân yeki râ kaf cho bar pây-ash besud, goft shekl-e pil didam chun amud.

When another rubbed a palm on its leg, he said, ‘I found the elephant’s shape to be like a column.’ (Rumi; classical narrative and speech)

First چو is temporal, “when”; second چون is comparative, “like.” دیدم literally “I saw” extends to judgment or construal even though the room is dark: “I took its shape to be.”

آن یکی بر پشت او بنهاد دست؛ گفت خود این پیل چون تختی بدست.

ân yeki bar posht-e u be-nehâd dast; goft khod in pil chun takhti bodast.

Another laid a hand upon its back and said, ‘Why, this elephant is like a throne.’ (Rumi; classical narrative and speech)

بنهاد has classical narrative بـ; modern prose has گذاشت. Source بدست, scanned bodast, is a metrically compact historical copular form; in the direct speech it evaluates the perceived shape. خود is emphatic, not reflexive possession.

From repeated story to general claim

همچنین هر یک به جزوی که رسید، فهم آن می‌کرد هر جا می‌شنید.

hamchenin har yek be jozvi ke resid, fahm-e ân mi-kard har jâ mi-shenid.

Thus each person formed an understanding from the part reached and applied it wherever the elephant was discussed. (Rumi; transition from story to generalization)

همچنین here means “in this same way / thus,” summarizing the series; it does not merely add another event. فهم آن می‌کرد is older nominal phrasing for forming an understanding of it. The exact scope of هر جا می‌شنید is compressed: the essential point is that the partial encounter governs later understanding.

Viewpoint, letters, and counterfactual light

از نظرگه گفتشان شد مختلف؛ آن یکی دالش لقب داد، این الف.

az nazargah goft-eshân shod mokhtalef; ân yeki dâl-ash laqab dâd, in alef.

Their accounts differed because of viewpoint: one called it a dāl, another an alef. (Rumi; explicit commentary)

نظرگه is “viewpoint, point of observation.” گفتشان is read گفتِشان, “their saying/account,” not simply the past verb “they said.” The bent letter دال and straight الف condense incompatible shapes. Rumi’s claim is not that all descriptions are equally complete; each is constrained by a real but partial contact.

در کف هر کس اگر شمعی بدی، اختلاف از گفتشان بیرون شدی.

dar kaf-e har kas agar sham'i bodi, ekhtelâf az goft-eshân birun shodi.

If each person had held a candle, the disagreement would have vanished from their accounts. (Rumi; literary counterfactual)

Literary بدی / شدی express an unreal alternative. Neutral modern prose would normally say اگر هرکس شمعی در دست داشت، اختلاف از میان می‌رفت. The candle is both a concrete solution inside the story and the bridge to allegory: fuller illumination permits integration of the parts.

💡

Allegory is a relation between narrative and commentary. Keep “elephant,” “touch,” and “candle” concrete in the first pass; only then ask what partial perception and illumination may represent.

Common Mistakes

1. Translating every چون alike

❌ دیدنش با چشم مثل ممکن نبود.

Incorrect: causal چون means ‘since’ here, not comparative ‘like.’

✅ چون دیدن ممکن نبود، مردم فیل را لمس کردند.

chun didan momken nabud, mardom fil râ lams kardand.

Since seeing was impossible, the people touched the elephant. (modern explanatory prose)

2. Treating ـش after بودند as the subject

⚠️ آورده بودندش یعنی او آن‌ها را آورده بود.

âvarde budand-ash ya'ni u ân-hâ râ âvarde bud.

Grammatical but analytically false: ـش is the elephant as object; هنود is the postverbal agent.

✅ هنود آن را برای نمایش آورده بودند.

Honud ân râ barâ-ye nemâyesh âvarde budand.

The Indians had brought it for display. (prose-order analysis)

3. Reading نظرگه as an opinion that invents facts

⚠️ هر کس هر شکلی دلش می‌خواست برای فیل ساخت.

har kas har shekli del-ash mi-khâst barâ-ye fil sâkht.

Each person invented whatever shape he wanted for the elephant. (grammatical, but it ignores their genuine partial contact)

✅ هر توصیف از بخشی واقعی می‌آمد، اما هیچ‌کدام کل را نشان نمی‌داد.

har towsif az bakhshi vâqe'i mi-âmad, ammâ hich-kodâm koll râ neshân nemi-dâd.

Each description came from a real part, but none showed the whole. (accurate interpretive claim)

4. Copying classical forms into neutral conversation

⚠️ اندر اتاق همی‌شدم تا دوستم را ببینم.

andar otâq hami-shodam tâ dust-am râ bebinam.

I kept going into the room to see my friend. (grammatical imitation of classical diction, inappropriate for neutral conversation)

✅ وارد اتاق می‌شدم تا دوستم را ببینم.

vâred-e otâq mi-shodam tâ dust-am râ bebinam.

I would enter the room to see my friend. (modern standard)

5. Turning one allegorical reading into the literal text

⚠️ شمع در این داستان فقط یعنی دانش عرفانی.

sham' dar in dâstân faqat ya'ni dânesh-e erfâni.

The candle in this story means only mystical knowledge. (overly exclusive interpretation)

✅ شمع نخست اتاق را روشن می‌کند و سپس امکان تفسیر نمادین را فراهم می‌کند.

sham' nokhost otâq râ rowshan mi-konad va sepas emkân-e tafsir-e namâdin râ farâham mi-konad.

The candle first lights the room and then enables symbolic interpretation.

Key Takeaways

Restore classical اندر، پیل، همی‌شد، اوفتاد، بنهاد before modernizing them.
Track clitics and noncanonical order in آورده بودندش هنود and آن یکی را کف....
Translate چون/چو by function: cause, time, or comparison.
Notice the structural turn from repeated narration through همچنین to explicit diagnosis and counterfactual remedy.
Preserve the story’s literal logic before proposing an allegorical interpretation.

Now practice Farsi

Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.

Start learning Farsi →