more positively that ‘the mystical philosophy of Ḥāfiẓ (‘irfān-iḤāfiẓ) is the complicated speculative
theosophy of Ibn ‘Arabī and his followers.It was not the simplistic Iranian mysticism of the 11–12th
centuries’. See also Zarrīnkūb’s (Azkūcha-irindān, pp. 188–90) extended analysis of Ḥāfiẓ’s immersion
in the intellectual milieu of fourteenth-century Shīrāz, where Akbarian teachings were very much
the fashion.(^152) Some of ‘Irāqī’s verses imitated by Ḥāfiẓ are given by Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, pp. 220f., n. 52.
(^153) As Khurramshāhī shows, at least in oneghazal(no. 148, ed. Khānlarī), Ḥāfiẓ paraphrased the theoso-
phy of ‘Irāqī’sLamā‘at, which is based on Akbarian teachings, seeḤāfiẓ-nāma, I, 596–607, particularly
his commentary on v. 3.
(^154) Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, p. 206, n. 14.
(^155) Ibid., p. 19.
(^156) Ibid., p. 9.
(^157) Cf. Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, p. 26. Mu‘īn’s observations (Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, I, pp. 138–42) about
verses in theDīvānalluding to his wife, children and family are entirely speculative and incapable of
definitive historical demonstration.
(^158) Browne,ALiteraryHistoryofPersia, III, pp. 287–8.
(^159) Such as Haravī,Sharḥ-ighazalhā-yiḤāfiẓ, II, p. 910; the line comes fromDīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,
ghazal210: 1.
(^160) Browne,ALiteraryHistoryofPersia, III, p. 288. The theory thatghazal210 by Ḥāfiẓ was written in praise
of his wife is also accepted by Zarrīnkūb,Bā kāravān-i hullih, p. 239, though criticized by Mihdī
Burhānī (‘Mājārā-yi hamsar-i Ḥāfiẓ’, pp. 123–37), who points out that in the history of classical
Persian literature, aside from Nāṣir-i Khusraw, practically no poet ever made any reference to his
wife or wife’s name.
(^161) Ṣahbā, ‘Sukhanī chand dar bāb-i aḥwāl va ash‘ār-i Ḥāfiẓ’, pp. 175–8. See also Zarrīnkūb (Azkūcha-i
rindān, pp. 17–18) and Dihkhudā (Lughat-nāma, V, p. 7490) on his so-called brothers.
(^162) On which, seeDīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī, II, pp. 1147f.
(^163) The celebrated commentary of theQur’ānby al-Zamakhsharī.
(^164) Of the many works by this name, that of al-Muṭarrizī (d. 610/1213) on Arabic grammar is probably
intended.
(^165) TheMaṭālī‘u’l-Anẓārof al-Bayḍāwī (d. 683/1284) is probably intended.
(^166) TheMifṭāḥu’l-‘Ulūmof as-Sakkakī (d. 626/1229) is probably intended.
(^167) This translation and the four accompanying notes to its text are cited directly from E.G. Browne,A
LiteraryHistoryofPersia, III, p. 272.
(^168) The classic studies of the political background and social environment of Ḥāfiẓ’s poetry remains
Ghanī’sBaḥthdarāthār, vol. I, and Mu‘īn,Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, vol. I, a ground revisited by Zarrīnkūb,
Azkūcha-irindān, pp. 1–126. In English, a good overview of political context of his poetry, his patrons
and panegyrics, and the courtly circles and princes which favoured him, can be found in Browne,A
LiteraryHistoryofPersia, III, pp. 274–91 (an account based on the Indian critic Shiblī Nu‘mānī); Arberry,
Shīrāz:PersianCityofSaintsandPoets, pp. 139–60; Schimmel, ‘Ḥāfiẓ and His Contemporaries’, pp. 933–6;
Jan Rypka,AHistoryofIranianLiterature, pp. 264ff.; Khorramshahi, ‘ii. Hafez’s Life and Times’,EIr, pp.
465–9. Limbert’s excellentShīrāzintheAgeofHafezmay also be perused.
(^169) Fouchécour, intro.:HafizdeChiraz, pp. 49–69; P. Jackson, ‘Muẓaffarids’,EIr, VII, pp. 820–2; H. Roemer,
‘The Jalayirids, Muzaffarids and Sarbadārs’, pp. 1–41; Bosworth,TheNewIslamicDynasties, pp. 264–5;
Mu‘īn,Ḥāfiẓ-ishīrīn-sukhan, I, pp. 264–70; Limbert,ShīrāzintheAgeofHafez, pp. 33–45.
(^170) Annemarie Schimmel, ‘Ḥāfiẓ and His Contemporaries’, p. 934.
(^171) H. Roemer, ‘The Jalayirids, Muzaffarids and Sarbadārs’, in P. Jackson et al. (eds),CambridgeHistoryof
Iran, VI, p. 13.
(^172) Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, p. 45.
(^173) Ibid., pp. 22–3.
(^174) SeeDīwān-iKhwājūKirmānī, ed. Qāni‘ī, p. 549, 569–70, 584–7.
(^175) Kulliyāt-i‘UbaydZākānī, ed. Maḥjūb, Index, s.v. ‘Shāh Shaykh Abū Isḥāq’.
ḤāfiẓintheSocio-historical,LiteraryandMysticalMilieuofMedievalPersia 61