| Author | Message | ||
| Greg Young
Valued Member Username: popof3 Post Number: 183 Registered: 02-2005 |
Details of the Form The second line of each couplet in a ghazal ends with the repetition of a refrain of one or a few words, known as a Radif, preceded by a rhyme (though in a less strict ghazal the rhyme does not need to precede the refrain immediately), known as a Kaafiyaa. In the first couplet, which introduces the theme, both lines end in the rhyme and refrain. I.e. AA BA CA etc There can be no enjambement across the couplets in a strict ghazal; each couplet must be a complete sentence (or several sentences) in itself. All the couplets, and each line of each couplet, must share the same meter. Ghazal is simply the name of a form, and is not language-specific. Ghazals also exist, for example in the Pashto and Marathi languages. Some Ghazals do not have any Radif. This is, however, rare. Such Ghazals are called "gair-muraddaf" Ghazal. Although every Sher, should be an independent poem in itself, it is possible for all the Shers to be on the same theme. Or even have continuity of thought. This is called a musalsal ghazal, or "continuous ghazal". The Ghazal "Chupke chupke raat din aasun bahaanaa yaad hai" is a famous example of this. In modern Urdu poetry, there are lots of Ghazals which do not follow the restriction of same Beher on both the lines of Sher. But even in these Ghazals, Kaafiyaa and Radif are present. The restriction of Maqta has become rather loose in modern times. The Maqta was used historically as a way for the poet to secure credit for his or her work and poets often make elegant use of their takhallus in the maqta. However, many modern Ghazals do not have a Maqta or, many Ghazals have a Maqta just for the sake of conforming to the structure or tradition. The name of the Shayar is sometimes placed unnaturally in the last Sher of the Ghazal. [edit] The Theme [edit] Illicit Unattainable Love The ghazal not only has a specific form, but traditionally deals with just one subject: Love. And not any kind of love, but specifically, an illicit, and unattainable love. The subcontinental ghazals have an influence of Islamic Mysticism and the subject of love can usually be interpreted for a higher being or for a mortal beloved. The love is always viewed as something that will complete the being, and if attained will ascend the ranks of wisdom, or will bring satisfaction to the soul of the poet. Traditional ghazals' love does not have an explicit element of sexual desires in it, and hence the love is spiritual. Consequently, ghazals are not to be confused with poetry of seduction. Persian historian Ehsan Yar-Shater notes that "As a rule, the beloved is not a woman, but a young man. In the early centuries of Islam, the raids into Central Asia produced many young slaves. Slaves were also bought or received as gifts. They were made to serve as pages at court or in the households of the affluent, or as soldiers and body-guards. Young men, slaves or not, also, served wine at banquets and receptions, and the more gifted among them could play music and maintain a cultivated conversation. It was love toward young pages, soldiers, or novices in trades and professions which was the subject of lyrical introductions to panegyrics from the beginning of Persian poetry, and of the ghazal." (Yar-Shater, Ehsan. 1986. Persian Poetry in the Timurid and Safavid Periods, Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.973-974. 1986) The ghazal is always written from the point of view of the lover who is unable to attain his beloved, because either the beloved is just playing with the poet's feelings, or because the societal circumstances don't allow it. The lover is aware and resigned to this fate, but continues loving nonetheless. It is not important to the lover that the beloved does not echo the same feelings towards him. The beloved is often portrayed in exaggerated terms, with extended metaphors about the "arrows of her eyes", or referring to the beloved as an assassin or a killer. The lover for his part portrayed as a spineless individual resigned to his fate that has no choice but to continue hopelessly loving his beloved. He almost enjoys the pain and torment that the beloved puts him through, for that is better than nothing. In the Context of Sufism It is not possible to get a full understanding of ghazal poetry without at least being familiar with some concepts of Sufism. All ghazal poets were either avowed Sufis themselves (like Rumi or Hafiz), or were sympathizers of Sufi ideas. Most ghazals can be viewed in a spiritual context, with the Beloved being a metaphor for God, or the poet's spiritual master. It is the intense Divine Love of sufism that serves as a model for all the forms of love found in ghazal poetry. Most ghazal scholars today recognize that some ghazal couplets are exclusively about Divine Love (ishq-e-haqiqi), others are about "metaphorical love" (ishq-e-majazi), but most of them can be interpreted in either context. (From Wikopedia) Comments from Jane Riechhold: It was the poetry of English writers making free with the form and introducing wide new subject matter who gave me a new appreciation of the genre. Eric Folsom of Canada and Gene Doty of Missouri were among the first ghazal writers to be published in Lynx. Many readers enjoyed the leaps of subject matter (rather like a renga) between the couplets and the parallel lines often echoed the two-line links. The lack of narrative, the non-linear progression, the ambiguity and the switches in person and place were familiar attributes from the renga. The other day I received Poetry Pilot, The Newsletter of the Academy of American Poets, and in it was an article, "Transparently Invisible: An Invitation from the Real Ghazal" by Agha Shahid Ali, who describes himself as a "Third-World Muslim" and student of the 1300 year old poetry form -- the ghazal. (When you read that word did you say to yourself -- ghuzzle?) The main thrust of his article was to show us how wrong and how far from the "real thing" our English ghazals are. He relates how he views our efforts as "irritating" and "at best amusing". According to Agha Shahid Ali, the only "real" ghazals are those which follow the stringent scheme of the rhyme within the first couplet and the strict use of the refrain. The "refrain" is the very last word in the couplet which, he insists, must be repeated as the last word in each of the following couplets. It was also explained how the first couplet has a rhyme half-way into each of the two lines. This pattern is followed only in the beginning. Subsequent couplets are bound only to repeat the last word. For a bad example: On a day sublime, like this one here A sample prime of the art of June It had previously been my understanding that the refrain was not a repeat of the same word but the use of words within the same rhyme family -- June, moon, hewn, etc. (Dig out the Capricorn Rhyming Dictionary.) It seems there is a bit more latitude if one could simply rhyme -- far or close -- the last word of each couplet. Though it is possible to work out a poem using the same word in its various uses as the refrain (especially some of our words with many meanings like strike, love, art, etc.) there is a limited number of "good" useable words. Perhaps this is reason enough to get started -- get dibs on the best ones. I myself wrote a horrible ghazal not adhering to the strick structure. I feel ashamed for doing this, and hope by posting this information we can slow down our embarassment in bastardizing this wonderful form. Join me at Pop's Poetry Farm Poetery Power | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Senior Member Username: garyb Post Number: 8548 Registered: 07-2001 |
Thanks for the info, well said, well writ. But an expection that we will not continue to bend this or other forms might be a bit naive. Smiles. Gary A River Transformed The Dawg House July FireWeed more War/Peace | ||
| Greg Young
Valued Member Username: popof3 Post Number: 187 Registered: 02-2005 |
Not really an expectation Gary, more a hope. From what Jane said, Ali, before he died, looked upon our changes with disdain, knowing we really didn't understand the purpose of the Ghazal, nor did we even make any attempts to write the form correctly. The first attempts ended up with poor mimicry of a beautiful style. To give an example would be to understand that while we were trying to mimic Basho or Issa we not only decided to make it syllables instead of sounds, but we decided to rhyme and change the entire format as well as the way the haiku was created in the first place. Basically we were (and to a point still are) writing parodies of the Ghazal. Poet Laureate Billy Conner would understand this. Mostly we should try and stay right to the form. Use both the same word ending on each couplet, use the mid-line rhyme in the first couplet, keep all the syllable counts the same, and keep the theme correct. We respect the othe major forms in these areas. Of course we always insist on 'westernizing' any traditional form of poetry. Bot if we remove ALL the things that make a Ghazal a Ghazal, the it's no longer a Ghazal, but just a poem of couplets. Smiles back Gary. We can bend, but we should never break. Join me at Pop's Poetry Farm Poetery Power |
