Masnavi translation

Great—this is exactly the kind of comparison where having both Reynold A. Nicholson and Jawid Mojaddedi side by side really opens up the text.

I’ll focus first on your passage (Masnavi III, ~1618–1621), then draw out broader translation differences that show up again and again across the Masnavi.

1. Your passage: “everyone is created for a work” + “north wind”

Nicholson (older, philological style)

Nicholson tends to render something like:

• “Everyone has been created for some work”

• references to “north wind” (shamāl) in a fairly literal way

What Nicholson is doing:

• He stays close to the Persian wording

• He preserves cosmological neutrality

• “Work” sounds almost functional / predetermined

• “North wind” reads as a physical metaphor left for you to interpret

So with Nicholson, the meaning can feel like:

Each being is assigned a function; conditions (like the north wind) affect outcomes.

It’s accurate—but a bit austere and under-interpreted.

Mojaddedi (modern, interpretive clarity)

Mojaddedi typically renders the same ideas more like:

• “Each person is made for a particular kind of task/work”

• the “north wind” becomes more clearly a harmful or unsuitable force

He often implicitly interprets the metaphor:

• emphasizing fitness / suitability

• making clear the moral or spiritual implication

So the same lines feel more like:

Everyone has a role suited to them, and the wrong conditions can damage their growth.

Key difference in this passage

• Nicholson = lexical fidelity (“north wind” stays opaque)

• Mojaddedi = functional meaning (“north wind” becomes clearly unsuitable influence)

This is why when you read Nicholson, you noticed “north wind” as a puzzle—

while Mojaddedi tends to quietly solve the puzzle for you.

2. The word “shamāl” — what’s at stake?

This is a perfect example of their philosophies:

• Nicholson:

  
  

  → keeps شمال (shamāl) = “north wind”

  
  

  → trusts reader to unpack symbolism

• Mojaddedi:

  
  

  → often leans toward what the metaphor does

  
  

  → not just what it is

So:

• Nicholson preserves the poetic ambiguity

• Mojaddedi highlights the spiritual teaching

3. Broader differences across Rumi

Once you see it here, you’ll notice it everywhere.

A. Tone: archaic vs. contemporary

Nicholson:

• “Lo!”, “behold”, “wherefore”

• Biblical / quasi-scriptural English

Mojaddedi:

• clean, modern, readable

• closer to spoken insight

Effect:

• Nicholson feels like a sacred text

• Mojaddedi feels like a teacher speaking to you now

B. Literal vs. interpretive

Nicholson:

• translates word-for-word where possible

• leaves ellipses and jumps intact

Mojaddedi:

• smooths logic

• fills in implied meaning

Example pattern (general):

Rumi often compresses thought:

• Nicholson: preserves compression

• Mojaddedi: expands it slightly for clarity

C. Treatment of metaphors

This is the biggest difference.

Nicholson:

• keeps metaphor intact and unexplained

• e.g., snake, wind, fire, wine → left symbolic

Mojaddedi:

• subtly guides interpretation

• makes clear:

  
  

  • snake → ego / nafs

  • wind → influence / condition

• 
  

D. Spiritual psychology

Rumi’s core concern is the nafs (ego-self).

Nicholson:

• may just say “soul,” “self,” or leave terms ambiguous

Mojaddedi:

• often clarifies psychological meaning:

  
  

  • inner conflict

  • transformation

  • alignment

• 
  

So Mojaddedi reads more like Sufi psychology,

Nicholson more like classical poetry translation.

4. A second quick example (related to your earlier question)

Take the idea you mentioned before:

“War teaches peace”

Nicholson might render it almost starkly:

• preserving paradox without comment

Mojaddedi tends to make it clearer that:

• this is about inner struggle leading to realization

5. Strengths of each (important)

Nicholson’s strengths:

• closest to the Persian structure

• preserves ambiguity and richness

• better for serious textual study

Mojaddedi’s strengths:

• captures Rumi’s intent as a teacher

• easier to grasp spiritual meaning

• better for continuous reading and insight

6. How to use both (this is the ideal approach)

Since you already have both, the best method is:

1. Read Mojaddedi first → understand the meaning

2. Check Nicholson → see the raw imagery and wording

3. Ask:

   
   

   • what did Nicholson not explain?

   • what did Mojaddedi interpret for me?

4. 
   

That gap is often where Rumi’s depth lives.

Final synthesis for your passage

For III.1618–1621, the combined reading becomes:

• Nicholson gives you:

  
  

  “Each is created for a work… north wind…”

• Mojaddedi helps you hear:

  
  

  Each soul has a natural path, and misaligned conditions hinder its unfolding.

And Rumi’s full intent is:

There is a deep correspondence between your nature and your path—and recognizing it is essential to spiritual life.

If you want, we can go even deeper and look at the actual Persian lines word-by-word (including “shamāl”)—that’s where some really surprising nuances show up that neither translator fully captures.