Hafiz and the Religion of Love in Classical Persian Poetry

In the introduction to his recent two-volume commentary on Ḥāfiẓ’s poems,
MuḥammadIsti‘lāmī,aleadingscholarofclassicalPersianSufiliteratureandcolla-
torofthebestcriticaleditionofRūmī’sMathnawī,underlinesthefallacyofinter-
pretingḤāfiẓasifhewerejustanothertraditionalPersiancourtpoet.Toilluminate
the essentially extra-courtly nature of Ḥāfiẓ’s poetry, the following passage bears
citation:

Ḥāfiẓwasnotaprofessionalpanegyricpoetwhopraisedkingsafterthefash-

ionof‘Unṣurī,FarrukhīandAmīrMu‘izzī.Inmanyoftheghazalsthathesent

tokingsandnationalministersthoseverseswhereasaidprinceorvizieris

theobjectofpraisearesetofffromtherestoftheghazal.Comparedtotherest

ofthelinesintheseghazals(whosethemesarelargelyeroticormystical),

thoseversesrevealanentirelydifferentambience.Nonetheless,somelater

authorswhowrotehistoricalworksormemoirsofthepoets–andfollowing

themmodernscholars–havetakenthosefewversestoimplythatḤāfiẓwas

apanegyricpoetpureandsimple.Theybelievedhimtohavebeenaffiliated,

aswere‘Unṣurī,FarrukhīandAmīrMu‘izzī,toacertainroyalcourt.Theyhave

eventakengreatpainstoestablishthatalltheversesofasaidghazalconsti-

tutenothingbutveiledpraiseforacertainkingorvizier.Forinstance,wher-

everḤāfiẓqualifieshisbelovedwiththeepithetof‘theroyalrider’[shahsavār],

theyhavelaboured,eventhoughthecontextabsolutelydictatesotherwise,to

treatthistermassynonymouswithAbū’l-favāris[‘lordoftheriders’],oneofthe

titlesofShāhShujā‘.Theyhavenotevenbotheredtonoticethatifsucha

phrase,forexample,like‘theremedyforourweakheartliesinyourlip’^256 is

interpretedasbeingaspeciesofpanegyricpraise,wherewillitallendup?Is

thissupposedtoimplythatShāhShujā‘wasaskedtograntakisstoḤāfiẓby

wayofaroyalboonfromhisblessedlip!?Suchtriteandsuperficialinterpreta-

tionsappearadimeadozenintheworksofmanyso-called‘Ḥāfiẓologists’

today.Butifwearetogainanythinglikealogicalandrationalunderstanding

ofḤāfiẓ’slexicononebasicpointcan’tbestressedenough:he was not a court

poet.Thepanegyricversesthathewroteinpraiseofkingsandviziersinhis

Dīvānarequitefewandfarinbetween.^257

Ultimately,whileShāhShujā‘,ShāhManṣūrandotherrulersandstatesmenfea-
turedinhisDīvāndohavesignificanceaspersonalitiesinthepoliticaltheatreof
horrorsofmedievalPersia,whatḤāfiẓloversprizetodayistheirconceptualization
inḤāfiẓ’swiderlyricaldrama,nottheirhistoricalroleonthepassingstageoftime
andplaceandcircumstance.Thebrightparti-colouredrobesofḤāfiẓ’simmortal
verselaydrappedovertheshouldersofthosepatronsandprincesindeed,butit
wastheirhonourandglorytoserve‘asthetemporarydressinwhichthepoet’s
creationsmustbearrayedandwhichcoverwithoutconcealingtheeternalpropor-
tionsoftheirbeauty...forthealloyofcostume,habit,etc.,[is]necessarytotemper
thisplanetarymusicformortalears’.^258 Thejottingsofhistorians’gossipmay

ḤāfiẓintheSocio-historical,LiteraryandMysticalMilieuofMedievalPersia 29