Original Ottoman Turkish Text

Metre: Mef‘ûlü Mefâ‘îlü Mefâ‘îlü Fa‘ûlün

Ḫaddüñ görinelden gül-i ḫandân unuduldı
Ḫaṭṭuñ ireli sünbül ü reyḥân unuduldı
Cânâ bu cihân içre güzellikde cemâlüñ
Meşhûr olalı Yûsuf-ı Ken‘ân unuduldı
Çekdi lebüñüñ ḥasretile sînesine dâġ
Ṭaġlara düşüp lâle-i nu‘mân unuduldı
Maḫmûr gözüñ gülşen-i ḥüsnüñde görelden
Her gûşede bu nergis-i mestân unuduldı
‘Ahd itmiş idüñ Mihrî'yi öldürmege cânâ
Beñzer begüm ol ‘ahd ile peymân unuduldı

In English

1. Since your cheek appeared, the laughing rose has been forgotten; since the down on your face came into view, the hyacinth and the basil have been forgotten.

2. O beloved, ever since your face became famous for beauty in this world, the Joseph of the land of Canaan has been forgotten.

3. From longing for your lips it branded its own breast, and the Nu‘mân tulip, cast out among the mountains, has been forgotten. (The black spot at the centre of the tulip is compared to a scar burned into the breast.)

4. Since I saw your languid eye in the rose garden of your beauty, every narcissus in every corner, drunk as it is, has been forgotten.

5. O beloved, you had sworn to kill Mihrî; my lord, it seems that oath and that promise have been forgotten too.

Literary and Historical Commentary

Structure of the Poem

The one hundred and eighty-eighth ghazal (gazel) of the divan has five couplets (beyit) and is composed in the hezec metre with the pattern "Mef‘ûlü Mefâ‘îlü Mefâ‘îlü Fa‘ûlün". The redif (refrain word) is the verb "unuduldı" (was forgotten), and the rhyme is built on the sound "-ân": ḫandân, reyḥân, Ken‘ân, nu‘mân, mestân, peymân. The ghazal appears in manuscripts F, S and Ü, and the manuscripts differ only in small details. In F and S the first line reads "göreliden" instead of "görinelden", and in F the first line of the third couplet reads "sînesine ḥasretle". There is no record of whom the ghazal was written for or on what occasion.

Meaning and Figures of Speech

The ghazal rests on a single idea: once the beloved's beauty appears, everything to which that beauty is compared is forgotten. In divan poetry the beloved's cheek is likened to a rose, the down on the face to the hyacinth and the basil, the lips to a tulip, the eye to a narcissus, and the beauty as a whole to Joseph (Yûsuf). Mihrî takes up each of these similes in turn and says that once the original appears, the thing that was compared to it is no longer mentioned. The simile is thus turned upside down: the rose, the hyacinth, the tulip and the narcissus fade beside the beloved and are forgotten. Every couplet of the ghazal repeats this idea of superiority through a different flower or a different example of beauty.

In the first couplet there is a similarity of sound between "ḫadd" (cheek) and "ḫaṭṭ" (the down on the face). Gülşen Kaya notes that the basil is also compared in the divan to a kind of script, "ḫaṭṭ-ı reyḥân", and that here it is mentioned together with the hyacinth for its scent; elsewhere she says that the basil is likened to the down on the beloved's face to stress its fragrance and neatness, and that the basil as a type of script is recalled by way of a double entendre (tevriye). The fact that the word "ḫaṭṭ" means both facial down and writing brings this second meaning to mind in the couplet. The rose, hyacinth and basil together make up a congruence of images (tenasüp) drawn from the garden.

In the second couplet the beloved's beauty is compared with that of the prophet Joseph. Kaya notes that in the divan Joseph is the emblem of beauty to whom the beloved is likened, and that in this couplet the Joseph of Canaan is forgotten once the beloved's face has become famous for beauty. As Kaya explains, Canaan is mentioned in the phrase "Yûsuf-ı Ken‘ân" because it was Joseph's homeland.

The third couplet is the most skilful of the ghazal. Kaya says that a link is drawn between the blackness at the centre of the tulip and the burn that love's pain leaves in the lover's heart, and that the tulip's growing in the mountains, far from the city, is treated as "throwing oneself against the mountains" out of longing for the beloved. Because the tulip resembles the beloved's red lips, it has branded its own breast out of longing for them, then wandered off into the mountains and been forgotten. In the couplet there is a strong similarity of sound between "dâġ" (scar, brand) and "ṭaġ" (mountain); this sound play, close to paronomasia (cinas), ties the two lines of the couplet together.

In the fourth couplet the beloved's languid eye is set against the narcissus. Kaya notes that eyes are compared to the narcissus for their languor, and that besides similarity of shape the narcissus's intoxicating effect plays a part in the comparison. The narcissus is described as "mestân", drunk, but once the beloved's eye appears in the garden of beauty, the narcissi in every corner of the garden are forgotten.

The final couplet (makta) turns the course of the ghazal in an unexpected direction. For four couplets the flowers and beauties forgotten in the face of the beloved's beauty have been listed; in the fifth, what is forgotten is the beloved's vow to kill Mihrî. The forgetting of the vow of death is described as though it were a loss; the lover regards even dying at the beloved's hand as a sign of attention. That the beloved has forgotten this word shows that the beloved no longer takes any interest in the lover, and the couplet closes with a gentle reproach. The word "beñzer" (it seems) gives this reproach an ironic tone. It is also noteworthy that the beloved is addressed as "begüm" (my lord), in a masculine form of address.

Bibliography

  • Mehmet Arslan (ed.), Mihrî Hâtun Dîvânı, Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları (Kültür Eserleri Dizisi 576), 2018, p. 149, Ghazal 188 (F 68b, S 70a, Ü 70b). ekitap.ktb.gov.tr
  • Gülşen Kaya, Mihrî Hâtun Divânı'nın Tahlili, master's thesis, Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Elazığ 2010, pp. 80, 131, 157, 171, 285, 286. openaccess.firat.edu.tr