Hafiz and the Religion of Love in Classical Persian Poetry

xvi

theme,ḤāfiẓgivesustoinferthathisShīrāzīTurkmightalsobecruellerthanthose

ofCentralAsia,theregionoftheShīrāzīTurk’sforebears,inthecitiesofBukhārā

andSamarqand,themetropolisesofTīmūrwherehisTurkishsoldierswouldbecon-

centrated.TīmūrthreatenedShīrāzwiththoseTurksin1382andinvadeditin1387,

while he completely liquidated the ruling dynasty of Shīrāz in 1393, some three

yearsafterḤāfiẓ’sdemise.ThereseemstobenodoubtthatthespectreofTimur

(andhisTurks)hungoverShīrāzthroughoutmuchofḤāfiẓ’slaterlife,butironically

amongenlightenedpeoplehisrigorousregimemighthaveseemedattimestobe

preferredtotheever-warringMuzaffaridprinceswhomheeventuallyeliminated.

In comparison with the torment of the Shīrāzī Turk’s attractiveness, those fresh

fromBukhārāandSamarqandaretobepardoned.

Asforthevariouslevelsofmeaningwhichconfrontthetranslator,itshouldbe

pointedoutthatthesecondhemistichoftheShīrāzīTurkpoemistranslatablein

termsofreadinesstobarterBukhārāandSamarqandforthemoleontheShīrāzī

Turk’scheek.ThisinterpretationhasgivenrisetothelegendthatTīmūrwasvexed

byḤāfiẓ’sapparentcontemptforthatruler’sCentralAsiancapitalcities.Another

possibilityisthat,intheShīrāzīTurk,ḤāfiẓmightbealludingtohispatronShāh

Shujā‛,ofwhosematernalTurkishancestryhefrequentlyspeaks.

The variation might be wide, a long way from the theme that is being played

upon,butthefixedpointisthatofretentionofabalance.IfSa‛dīhashisCathayan

Turk to some extent exonerated, so Ḥāfiẓ must have the Turks of Bukhārā and

SamarqandmadelessblameworthythantheTurkofShīrāz.InPersianart,balance

isacardinalprincipal,betweenpositiveandnegative,betweentheinsandoutsof

arabesquepatterns.OneofmyoldteachersofArabicusedtosay,‘It’sallalgebra’.

Hewas,infact,thinkingoftheArabicbrokenplurals,butinpoetryitcanbesaid

thatitisallgeometryaswell.

AsiftoprovethetruthofDryden’scommentthat‘ittakesapoettoreadapoet’s

mind’, my collaborator, John Heath-Stubbs, in some translations of Ḥāfiẓ we pro-

ducedwhenIwasstillastudent,pointedoutthattherewasobservableinḤāfiẓ’s

poemsapatternofcontinuingreferraltoadominantthemeorthemes.Assomany

have done since Ḥāfiẓ’s time, with comments such as ‘orient pearls at random

strung’,^23 ShāhShujā‛criticizedḤāfiẓ,sayingthat‘eachofyourghazalsfailsfrom

beginningtoendtostayononetopic.Ratherineachlyricthreeorfourversesare

inpraiseofwineandtwoorthreeconcerningSufismandoneortwodescribinga

beloved. Such a variability in a single lyric is contrary to the rules of rhetoric.’^24

Shāh Shujā‛ was wrong: ‘orient pearls’ were never strung less ‘at random’. There

wasapattern.Itwasanarabesque,goinginandcomingout,dependentonrepeti-

tions,bothobviousbutalsosuppressed,inalternateverses.Wedidananalysison

theselinesintheintroductiontothelittlebookwhichwepublished.Thisbookhas

beenreissuedbothintheUSAandtheUK.^25

Thisarabesquepatterningbringstomindthediscoverynowbeingworkedonby

MrJasonElliot,anddiscussedinhisbookMirrorsoftheUnseen.^26 Thetheoryisthat

behindtheintricateplaster-workandmosaicsinIran’sancientmosques,thereisa

00c_Hafiz_i-xxvi8/4/1011:11Pagexvi

ḤāfiẓandtheReligionofLoveinClassicalPersianPoetry