Public-Domain Saadi: بنی‌آدم

Saadi of Shiraz wrote the Golestan in 1258 CE. In Book I, story 10, he closes advice to an unjust ruler with the famous بنی‌آدم passage: human beings share one origin, and indifference to another person’s suffering disqualifies a person from the ethical name “human.” The language is compact (literary, classical) but much of its vocabulary remains immediately recognizable.

The text below was verified against Saadi, Golestan, Book I, story 10 on Ganjoor, whose displayed edition reads اعضای یکدیگرند, not the widespread modern-memory variant اعضای یک پیکرند. We preserve Saadi’s words and normalize only contemporary Unicode, ZWNJ in بنی‌آدم, and unpointed display orthography. Classical Allusions in Modern Usage treats responsible reuse beyond this close reading.

The Verified Public-Domain Passage

An idiomatic translation is: “Human beings are members of one another, created from one essence. If fate brings pain to one member, the others cannot remain at rest. If you are untouched by the suffering of others, you do not deserve to be called human.” The translation smooths Saadi’s syntax; the annotations below keep the original structure visible.

Line 1: Collective بنی‌آدم

بنی‌آدم is a lexicalized classical expression meaning “the children of Adam,” hence humankind. It has collective reference: despite lacking the modern plural suffix ـها, it refers to people as a class. The predicate اعضای یکدیگرند is plural because the collective is construed as many human beings.

The ezafe in اعضایِ یکدیگر links “members” to “one another.” Because اعضا ends in a vowel, the written linker appears as ی in اعضای. This is not the normal possessive claim that one person owns another; it creates Saadi’s ethical image of mutual membership.

The modern paraphrase makes plurality overt with انسان‌ها and uses مسئول‌اند. It explains the ethical inference without pretending to be another Saadi line.

Line 2: Origin with ز and گوهر

Initial که gives the reason for the first assertion. Literary ز is the reduced form of از. گوهر literally means a jewel or substance, but here it means shared essence or origin. Translating it as “gem” would preserve the dictionary meaning and miss the ethical argument.

Modern prose normally uses full از. The perfect آمده‌اند makes the origin relation explicit; Saadi’s nominal ز یک گوهرند is terser and more resonant.

The Copula Is Joined, Not Absent

English readers may initially think that both opening lines omit “are,” because Persian has no separate word corresponding to it. In fact, plural copula ـند is attached to یکدیگر and گوهر: یکدیگر + اند, گوهر + اند. This joined copula is normal Persian morphology, not a special poetic deletion; the line’s compactness merely makes it easy to overlook.

The second sentence uses independent هستند, a normal modern choice. Saadi’s joined ـند is not “missing grammar”; it is a different copular host.

Lines 3–4: Fate Brings Pain

چو means “when / if” (literary). روزگار is the grammatical subject of به درد آورد, but it appears after the verb for meter and emphasis. This is genuine poetic verb–subject inversion. Modern neutral prose would place it earlier: وقتی روزگار عضوی را به درد می‌آورد....

This is an explanatory modernization, not a replacement quotation. It restores modern وقتی, adds object marker را, and places subject روزگار before the verb.

دگر is literary for modern دیگر. The construction کسی را قرار نماند is a classical noncanonical possession/state pattern: literally, “for someone, rest does not remain.” The را phrase identifies the affected group; it is not the direct object of ordinary transitive ماندن.

Lines 5–6: Direct Ethical Address

کز contracts که از. محنتِ دیگران has an unwritten consonant-final ezafe after محنت. In بی‌غمی, بی‌غم is the predicate and final ـی is the second-person singular copula: “you are unconcerned.” It is not the abstract noun بی‌غمی “lack of grief” in this line. The dependent address waits for the judgment in the final line.

نشاید means “it is not fitting / one should not” (literary). In نامت نهند, ـت is the person being named, while unnamed generic people supply the third-person plural verb نهند. Modern prose would use تو را انسان بنامند or نام انسان بر تو بگذارند.

The translation makes the condition explicit. Saadi instead addresses تو directly, turning a general ethical proposition into a personal challenge.

Ethical Rhetoric in Modern Contexts

Quoting only the first line can express solidarity, but the full passage is sharper: it condemns indifference. A careful modern citation should preserve یکدیگرند and name Saadi and the Golestan.

Common Mistakes

1. Silently replacing the checked wording

2. Reading ز as an unknown noun

3. Missing the joined plural copula

4. Copying poetic inversion into neutral prose

Key Takeaways

• The verified Golestan text has اعضای یکدیگرند; label یک پیکرند as a popular variant.
• بنی‌آدم is collective, while plural copula ـند is joined to the predicates.
• Ezafe links اعضایِ یکدیگر and محنتِ دیگران; the first is partly visible in writing, the second is heard only.
• Literary ز، چو، دگر، کز، نشاید، نهند need modern glosses, not mechanical word substitution.
• Saadi’s shift from humankind to direct تو turns shared origin into individual ethical responsibility.