64
(^220) KingHenryVI, Pt III, III.i.64–5.
(^221) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal442. The political background of thisghazalin general and some of
its moral teachings in various lines in particular is discussed by Niyāz-Kirmānī,Dawlat-ipīr-imughān,
pp. 179–86.
(^222) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal40: 10 (repeatingfaqrvaqanā‘at).
(^223) Cf. Zarrīnkūb’s discussion of Ḥāfiẓ’s critical attitude to this prince:Azkūcha-irindān, p. 159.
(^224) Rawḍatal-ṣafā, II, p. 764.
(^225) His arrogant behaviour was the probable cause of Tamerlane’s invasion of Iran: see Ghanī,Baḥth, I, p.
383.
(^226) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal298: 7 (‘Drink wine and spare the world, for by your lasso’s curl / The
evil miscreant’s neck is now captive in chains’); see Haravī,Sharḥ-ighazalhā-yiḤāfiẓ, II, pp. 1271–2;
Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, pp. 160–1.
(^227) H.R. Roemer, ‘The Jalarids, Muzaffarids and Sarbadārs’, pp. 60–1.
(^228) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal298. See Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, p. 82 (and notes). Ghanī,Baḥth,
I, pp. 376–80, cites five otherghazals that were also composed for Shāh Yaḥyā: nos. 12, 206, 384, 413,
425 inDīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī.
(^229) Al-Mu‘jam, cited and discussed by Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, pp. 82–3; 228–9, n. 30.
(^230) As revealed by Muḥammad Dārābī,Laṭīfa-yighaybī, p. 24 and Lāhūrī,Sharḥ-i‘irfānī, III, pp. 2081–2.
(^231) Ghanī,Baḥth, I, pp. 383–9.
(^232) According to Samarqandī’sMaṭla‘al-sa‘dayn, the verse: ‘Do not devote your heart to the fair, Ḥāfiẓ:
Look at what that Samarqandī Turk did to the folks of Khwārazm’ (Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal
431: 8) was penned in sympathy for the victims of Tamerlane’s brutality; see Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-i
rindān, p. 160; Ghanī,Baḥth, I, p. 374, n. 1.
(^233) Tadhkiratal-shu‘arā’, ed. ‘Abbāsī, p. 341, citingDīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal3: 1; the dubious his-
toricity of the quaint tale about this verse, which, though unconfirmed by any contemporary histori-
ans, is discussed in detail by Browne,ALiteraryHistoryofPersia, III, pp. 188–9; Ghanī,Baḥth, I, pp.
393–5, and Zarrīnkūb,Azkūcha-irindān, p. 159.
(^234) Shelley, ‘A Defence of Poetry’, in Kwasny (ed.),TowardtheOpenField, p. 76.
(^235) See Zarrīnkūb’s profoundly engrossing discussion of Ḥāfiẓ’s attitude towards Tamerlane:Azkūcha-i
rindān, pp. 159–62.
(^236) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal237; see Ghanī,Baḥth, I, p. 401, and also Mumtaḥan, ‘Sukhanī chand
dar mājarā-yi zindigī-yi Shāh Manṣūr Muẓaffarī: mamdūḥ-i Khwāja Ḥāfiẓ Shīrāzī’, pp. 431–64.
(^237) Ghanī, inBaḥth, I, pp. 403–6, lists and discusses four otherghazals composed for Shāh Manṣūr, as well
as several verses found in later manuscripts of hisSāqī-nāmawhich praise the prince. In a very late
manuscript of one of Ḥāfiẓ’s key eroticghazals (Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal338; cf. Ghanī’s dis-
cussion,Baḥth, I, pp. 415–16 of the line), mention of Shāh Manṣūr also appears in one line (Man
ghulām-iShāhManṣūram...); there also exists another panegryicalghazal(not in Khānlarī’s edition) in
praise of the ruler; mentioned by Ghanī,Baḥth, I, pp. 414–16, found inDīwān-iKhwājaḤāfiẓ, ed. Qazvīnī
and Ghanī, no. 329, pp. 224–6.
(^238) Ghanī,Baḥth, I, pp. 406–8.
(^239) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ, ed. Khānlarī,ghazal149: 12. Isti‘lāmī (Dars-iḤāfiẓ, I, pp. 439–42), sees theghazalas prima-
rily devoted to love, and only panegyrical in its last four verses, but Fouchécour (HafizdeChiraz:Le
Divān, p. 456) describes it as a wholly panegyrical poem: ‘celui d’un courtisan dont l’expression court
entièrement sur le register de l’amour’.
(^240) Manz,TheRiseandRuleofTamerlane, p. 72.
(^241) Ghanī,Baḥth, I, pp. 425–32.
(^242) Ibid., I, pp. 436–8.
(^243) Ibid., I, p. 101. See also Zarrīnkūb’s (Azkūcha-irindān, pp. 82–3) discussion of Ḥāfiẓ’s small number of
his panegyrical poems and his use of the indirect erotic language of theghazal.
(^244) Discussing Ḥāfiẓ’s panegyrical poems, Khurramshāhī (Dhihnvazabān-iḤāfiẓ, 3rd edn, p. 420) observes:
‘Since Ḥāfiẓ’s mind was mainly preoccupied by erotic lyricism and “the erotic” comprises the most
ḤāfiẓandtheReligionofLoveinClassicalPersianPoetry