(^100) Lāhījī,Mafātīḥal-i‘jāzfīsharḥ-iGulshan-irāz.
(^101) Anqaravī,Sharḥ-ikabīr-iAnqaravībarMathnawī-yiMavlavī.
(^102) Bahā al-Dīn Khurramshāhī, ‘Printed Editions of theDivānof Hafez’,EIr, XI, pp. 479–80.
(^103) For an excellent discussion of these editions, seeibid., pp. 479–83.
(^104) Some of these shortcomings are detailed by Aḥmed, ‘Naẓarī barDīwān-iḤāfiẓChāp-i Duktur Qāsim-i
Ghanī va Qazwīnī va Chāp-i Duktur Khānlarī’; idem., ‘Credibility of the Diwan of Ḥāfiẓ Published by
the Late Mr. Qazwini and by Dr. Khānlarī’, pp. 63–82. For other critical comments on Khānlarī’s edi-
tion, see Ḥusayn Haravī, ‘Sukhanī az taṣḥīḥ-i jadīdī azDīvān-iḤāfiẓ’, pp. 141–55; and idem., ‘Nuktahā
dar taṣḥīḥ-iDīvān-iḤāfiẓ’, pp. 177–202.
(^105) On this edition, see the bibliography, s.v. ‘Ḥāfiẓ’.
(^106) Mu‘īn,Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, II, p. 690.
(^107) See Bahā al-Dīn Khurramshāhī, ‘Rawnaq-i bāzār-i Ḥāfiẓ-shināsī’, in hisChārdahravāyat, pp. 142–8, for
a good account of Iranian scholarship on Ḥāfiẓ down to the late 1980s.
(^108) As Mu‘īn observed: ‘All the most articulate and persuasive writers in history have thrown up their
hands, despairing of ever matching his eloquence, acknowledging their impotence to create anything
equal to his verse’.Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, II, p. 686. For a good discussion of why Ḥāfiẓ always has the
final say and ends up defeating the Iranian literary reformists and modernist critics who would
accuse him of being ‘out of step with the times’, see Hamadānī, ‘Chirā Ḥāfiẓ? Ta’ammulī dar ma‘nā-yi
tārīkhī-yi Ḥāfiẓ-shināsī-yi mā’, pp. 2–10.
(^109) See, for instance, Lloyd Ridgeon’s studious analysis of the controversy raised by Kasravī’s diatribes
against Ḥāfiẓ and the resultant rage they aroused in Iranian literary circles in the 1930s in hisSufi
Castigator:AhmadKasraviandtheIranianMysticalTradition, chapters 6, 7. Several decades earlier the
modernizing Pakistani philosopher Muḥammad Iqbāl (1873–1938) had also penned a devastating
tirade against Ḥāfiẓ in his Persian poemAsrāral-khudā, but in later editions of the poem, due to the
vociferous protests by Indian literati, he immediately recanted his invective and excised the offend-
ing passage. There are also the largely forgotten controversies over Ḥāfiẓ’s verse between Taqī Raf‘at
(who attacked the poet) and Malik al-Shu‘arā Bahār (who defended him), not to mention Nimā’s hol-
low quibbling with Ḥāfiẓ’s views of love. On the latter, see Firoozeh Papan-Matin, ‘Love: Nima’s
Dialogue with Hafez’, pp. 173–92.
(^110) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal37: 11. Trans. Bly and Lewisohn,TheAngels, p. 30.
(^111) Hamadānī, ‘Chirā Ḥāfiẓ?’, p. 3.
(^112) Khurramshāhī, ‘Ḥāfiẓ dar farhang-i mā’, p. 151.
(^113) Ibid., p. 144.
(^114) Hamadānī, ‘Chirā Ḥāfiẓ?’, p. 2.
(^115) See http://www.hafezstudies.ir for further details of this centre.Ḥāfiẓ-pazūhishīis a journal published
in Shīrāz (inaugurated in 1996), edited by Jalīl Sāzigār-nizhād, currently (2009) in its thirteenth
volume.
(^116) See the 662-page bibliography of Ḥāfiẓ studies in Nīknām,Kitāb-shināsī-yiḤāfiẓ.
(^117) Cf. Margaret L. Caton,Hāfez:‘ErfānandMusicasInterpretedbyOstādMortezāVarzi.
(^118) Massignon,Essai, trans. Clark, pp. 34–6; Nywia,Exégèsecoranique, p. 22.
(^119) On this phenomenon, see Shafī‘ī-Kadkanī, ‘Ḥāfiẓ va Bīdil’, p. 35, and Mu‘īn,Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, II, pp.
683–6, who compares the place occupied by the Qur’ān in Arabic with Hāfiẓ’sDīvānin Persian –
whence Zarrīnkūb’s exclamation: ‘Who’snotobsessed with Ḥāfiẓ in Iran?’ (Azkūcha-irindān, p. xv). In
his autobiography, Sadriddin Aini describes how illiterate peasants and farmers ploughing in the
fields of Tajikistan sang Ḥāfiẓ’s and Bīdil’s poetry by heart (BukharaReminiscences, pp. 165–6), and how
he was taught to memorize Ḥāfiẓ’s poetry from age six (pp. 97f.). On Ḥāfiẓ’s place in classical Tajik lit-
erature, see Yury Boboev,Muqaddama-yiadabiyāt-shināsī, pp. 171–2, 179 (with thanks to Dr Gurdofarid
Miskinzoda for this reference).
(^120) On which, see Marx,ShakespeareandtheBible, p. 1.
(^121) Mu‘īn,Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, II, p. 695. The other two most studied texts are theKulliyātof Sa‛dī and the
Mathnawīof Rūmī.
ḤāfiẓintheSocio-historical,LiteraryandMysticalMilieuofMedievalPersia 59
coco
(coco)
#1