60
(^122) ‘On ne peut, en lisant – ou mieux, en écoutant – lesghazalde Hāfez, manquer de relever la presence
constante, explicite ou non, de la Parole révélée dans le Coran’. Monteil and Tajvidi (trans.),L’amour,
l’amant,l’aimé:centeballadesduDivān(-iḤāfiẓ), introduction, p. 13. See also the essay by James Morris
below, pp. 227–34.
(^123) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal438: 7.
(^124) Many scholars have demonstrated the link between Ḥāfiẓ’s artistic style and the Muslim missal: see
Khurramshāhī, ‘Uslūb-i hunarī-yi Ḥāfiẓ va Qur’ān’, pp. 3–20; Partaw ‘Alavī, ‘Iqbabāsāt-i Khwāja Shīrāz
az aȳāt-i Qur’ān-i majīd va ishārāt bi-āhādith va tafāsīr’, in idem.,Bāng-ijaras, pp. 37–86.
(^125) Enjoined in the Qur’ān itself; for a good account of which, see Waley, ‘Contemplative Disciplines in
Early Persian Sufism’, pp. 497–548.
(^126) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal250: 10. Trans. Bly and Lewisohn,TheAngels, p. 14.
(^127) See Gulandām’s introduction given in ‘Ḥāfiẓ Shīrāzī’, in Dihkhudā,Lughat-nāma, V, p. 7489.
(^128) Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, p. 19.
(^129) This verse is found in five of the manuscripts used by Khānlarī in his editedDīvān,ghazal312.
(^130) Dīwān-iKhwājaḤāfiẓ-iShīrāzī, ed. Anjawī-Shīrāzī, p. 228, l. 15. Also cf. Zarrīnkūb’s discussion:Azkūcha-
irindān, pp. 58–60.
(^131) Cited by Ghanī,Baḥth, I, p. 50.
(^132) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal93: 10. My translation here follows Khurramshāhī’s (paceSūdī’s)
reading of the second hemistich asgarkhwud, and not Khānlarī’slectio(=varkhwud). Further discus-
sion of the meaning(s) of this verse is given in Khurramshāhī,Chārdahravāyat, pp. 27–8.
(^133) Khurramshāhī,Chārdahravāyat.
(^134) Ibid., p. 23.
(^135) See R. Paret, ‘Ḳirā’a’, inEI (^2) , V, pp. 127–9.
(^136) Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, p. 19.
(^137) E.G. Browne,ALiteraryHistoryofPersia, III, p. 272.
(^138) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal312: 9. Trans. Bly and Lewisohn,TheAngels, p. 62.
(^139) Cited by Ghanī,Baḥth, I, p. 49.
(^140) Mu‘īn,Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, II, p. 686.
(^141) Baha’ al-Din Khorramshahi, ‘ii. Hafez’s Life and Times’,EIr, XI, p. 465.
(^142) Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, p. 15; Dihkhudā,Lughat-nāma, V, pp. 7490f.
(^143) Zarrīnkūb,Az kūcha-i rindān, p. 15. See also Taqī Pūrnāmdāriyān, ‘Ḥāfiẓ, 1. Zindigī va rūzigār’, in
Dāneshnāme-yeZabān-oAdab-eFārsī, II, pp. 637–44.
(^144) Khurramshahī, ‘ii. Hafez’s Life and Times’,EIr, XI, p. 468.
(^145) Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, pp. xii–xiii.
(^146) ‘Irfānurindīdarshi‘r-iḤāfiẓ.
(^147) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal124: 6.
(^148) Ibid.,ghazal357: 3.
(^149) Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, pp. 18–20.
(^150) This is proven by a fragment (seeDīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī, II, p. 1085; and Ghanī’s discussion in
Baḥth, I, pp. 414–15) that he wrote under the rule of Shāh Manṣūr when a niggardly vizier inadver-
tently decreased this stipend. However, it should be stressed that Ḥāfiẓ studiously avoided taking
charity from publically-funded endowments: ‘Even though my Sufi robe be hocked in pawn at the
tavern, come and look – you’ll not find a single diram in the records of public endowments in my
name!’Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal462: 3.
(^151) ‘It is a matter of extreme probability that Ḥāfiẓ was well versed in the school of Ibn ‘Arabī and his
commentators. Taking into account this deep influence and general popularity of the Akbarian school
among the intelligentsia of Ḥāfiẓ’s day, combined with the poet’s fiery and sensitive nature and pen-
chant to absorb philosophical, theological and mystical ideas and thoughts current in the culture
contemporary to him, it would be absurd to maintain that he was entirely uninformed, uninfluenced
by, lacked interest in, or held himself aloof from the Shaykh’s teachings’ (Khurramshāhī,Ḥāfiẓ-nāma,
I, p. 600). Elsewhere, Khurramshāhī (Dhihnvazabān-iḤāfiẓ[2005; 3rd edn], p. 420) adjudicates even
ḤāfiẓandtheReligionofLoveinClassicalPersianPoetry