Hafiz and the Religion of Love in Classical Persian Poetry

ḤāfiẓandthePersianSufiTradition 163

persuasion, he is the polar opposite of the unconventional, inspired libertine or

piousrake(rind).Caricaturesofhisunpleasantnature–ill-natured,censoriousand

supercilious towards any others whom he considers to be of less devout nature–

aboundinPersianliterature,alongsidedepictionsofhisself-aggrandizingdisplayof

pietyandmanipulationoffaithforsocialadvancement.WritinginShīrāzacentury

beforeḤāfiẓ,Sa‛dīrelatesthestoryofanasceticwhowasinvitedtobetheguestof

aprince.Attheroyalbanquetingtableheatelessthanwashiscustom,andafterthe

meal he recited public prayers longer than was his habit at home. Upon returning

home,the‘ascetic’askedhissontobringhimsomethingtoeat.

‘I had supposed you had eaten to satiety already at the King’s table’, the boy

wonderedaloud.

‘Well, it seemed more to my benefit to curb my appetite there’, his father

prevaricated.

Discerningthathisfather’shypocriticalpretencetoabstentionhaderadicatedall

hisclaimtoasceticvirtue,theladquipped:‘Thenreciteyourprayersoveragainas

wellforyourgoodworksuptonowhavealsoreapednobenefitforyou.’^29

As one can see from this vignette, as a stock character in Persian folklore the

asceticsignifiesspurioussanctityandspeciouspiety,^30 whichiswhyḤāfiẓsarcasti-

callycounselsthepuritanascetic:

Don’tworrysomuchabouttheroguesandrakes,

Youhigh-mindedPuritans.Youknowthesinsofothers

Willnotappearwrittenonyourownforeheadsanyway.^31

Thepoet’sironiccaricatureoftheasceticas‘high-minded’^32 hasadoubleedge,for
onewhois‘high-minded’shouldalwaysbeforgiving,overlookingothers’peccadil-
loes–neverbydefinitionintentionallycensorious.Buttheasceticsuffersfromwhat
thegreatAnglicancontemplativepoetIsaacWatts(1674–1748),inhissuperbanaly-
sis of ‘the abuse of religious emotions’, diagnosed as ‘unrighteous indignation’.
Watts describes certain evangelical zealots of his day, ‘who when convinced that
suchandsuchapracticeisculpableorunlawful...condemnitasinconsistentwith
true salvation ... as if it were blasphemy or idolatry ... and are ready to break into
stern speeches and railing accusations against all who practice it, and pronounce
themapostatesandsinnersofthefirstrank.’^33
Thismisplacedzealtorectifyhisneighbours’faultsonthepartoftheascetic,like
Watts’ChristianzealotsandliketheScribesandPhariseesoftheGospels,prevents
him from casting the beam out of his own eye for beholding the mote in his
brother’s.^34 InabrilliantparodyonmountebankclericsinCromwell’sReformation
England,SamuelButler(1612–80),inhissatiricalpoemHudibras,likewisefurnishes
us with the perfect cultural analogy to the conduct of the hypercriticalzāhidin
Ḥāfiẓ’sDīvān.ButlercriticizesthesePhariseticalclericsasbeing‘Asectwhosechief
devotion / lies In odd perverse antipathies, / In falling out with that or this / And
finding somewhat still amiss.’ Their obsession in always ‘finding something still