56
(^20) ‘Ḥāfiẓ’s entire vision is dominated and overshadowed by love. It happens exactly the same way that,
for example, a history of real events becomes attenuated during the time of romance when one falls
in love. Love is always present there and visible, flowing through his vocabulary. Even when a certain
historical event appears to have been clearly the occasion of a certain poem, the [romantic] inspira-
tion animating it immediately dissipates and dissolves that history. For Ḥāfiẓ, love is the underlying
cause of the world.’ Fouchécour,HafizdeChiraz, introduction, pp. 15–16.
(^21) Schimmel,ThePoet’sGeography, p. 9.
(^22) Dīvān-iKhāqānī, vol. 2, p. 791 (ghazal31, v. 4).
(^23) Kulliyyāt-iShamsyaDīvān-ikabīr, V, 2494/26367.
(^24) Dīvān-iKamālal-DīnMas‘ūdKhujandī, ed. Dawlatābādī, introduction, p. 4. See also my ‘The Life and
Times of Kamāl Khujandī’, pp. 164–5.
(^25) Cited by Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, p. 205, n. 1.
(^26) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal329: 5–6, *.
(^27) Ibid.,ghazal40: 8–9.
(^28) Ṣafā,Tārīkh-i Adabiyāt-i Īrān, III, pp. 1072–3. For parallels between these poets and Ḥāfiẓ, see
Khurramshāhī,Ḥāfiẓ-nāma, I, pp. 40–90.
(^29) Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, p. 64.
(^30) See Mu‘īn,Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, I, pp. 306–13; Browne,LiteraryHistoryofPersia, III, pp. 293–5. On Ḥāfiẓ’s
praise of Amīn al-Dīn, see Arberry,Shīrāz:PersianCity, p. 142; Ghanī,Baḥthdar, I, pp. 70–1, 124, 166–8.
See also my essay in this volume, pp. 164–6.
(^31) Schimmel, ‘Ḥāfiẓ and His Contemporaries’, p. 943.
(^32) Cited by Jalāl Khāliqī-Muṭlaq, ‘Tan-kāma-sarayī’, p. 27.
(^33) On important verse-parallels between Ḥāfiẓ and Khwājū, see Manṣūr Rastigār-Fasā’ī,Ḥāfiẓ:paydā’īva
pinhān-izindigī, pp. 20–1; Browne,ALiteraryHistoryofPersia, III, pp. 294–5;Dīwān-iKhwājūKirmānī, ed.
Qāni‘ī,passim; Khurramshāhī,Ḥāfiẓ-nāma, I, pp. 68–74; ‘Alī Akbar Dihkhudā,Lughat-nāma, V, pp.
7497–8.
(^34) Ṣafā,Tārīkh-iAdabiyāt-iĪrān, III, p. 1073.
(^35) Theghazalfrom which this verse derives is featured in a number of good manuscripts, although it is
found neither in Qazwīnī’s or Khānlarī’s editions; for a good overview of opposing scholarly opinions
on this verse, see Mu‘īn,Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, I, pp. 306–8.
(^36) See the various verses by Khwājū concerning these issues, cited by Ḥasan Anvarī in his introduction
(‘Ṭarz-i sukhan-i Khwājū’) toDīwān-iKhwājūKirmānī, ed. Qāni‘ī, pp. vi–viii. See also Yāsimī, ‘Salmān va
Ḥāfiẓ’, pp. 599–602.
(^37) Yārshāṭir,Shi‘r-ifārsīdar‘ahd-iShāhrukh, p. 83.
(^38) Samarqandī,Tadhkiratal-shu‘arā’, ed. ‘Abbāsī, p. 286.
(^39) Yāsimī,Sharḥ-iaḥwāl-iSalmānSāvajī, p. 105.
(^40) Mu‘īn,Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, I, pp. 329–34, Browne,LiteraryHistoryofPersia, III, pp. 296–8, and Taqī
Tafaḍḍulī’s introduction toDīvān-iSalmānSāvajī, ed. Mushfiq, pp. xxvii–xxxii, where the poetic paral-
lels between them are presented. Ṣafā,Tārīkh-iAdabiyāt-iĪrān, III, p. 1013 points out ‘the unity of
metre, rhyme, and poetic imagery in some of theghazals of Salmān and Ḥāfiẓ is so omnipresent as to
make one imagine that these two masters were in correspondence with each other, consciously vying
with one other in composing similarghazals’. For further parallelisms, see Khurramshāhī,Ḥāfiẓ-nāma,
I, pp. 79–85.
(^41) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal251: 13.
(^42) Dīvān-iSalmānSāvajī, ed. Mushfiq, p. 182.
(^43) Ibid., p. 232.
(^44) Dīvān-iḤilālīChughatā’ī.This verse is cited in the famous 1960s Iranian music programme:Barg-iSabz,
no. 293.
(^45) Losensky, ‘Kamāl of Khojand’.
(^46) On which, see Khurramshāhī,Ḥāfiẓ-nāma,I, pp. 85–90; Mu‘īn,Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, I, pp. 337–9; Ghanī,
Baḥth, I, pp. 34–5.
ḤāfiẓandtheReligionofLoveinClassicalPersianPoetry