Hafiz and the Religion of Love in Classical Persian Poetry

xx

(‘ilm-iḥudhūrī),arecompletelyalientothepresuppositionsofthemodernmaterial-

istsocietyoftheWest.IfwearetogainaccesstoḤāfiẓ’s‘visionarytopography’,as

DaryoushShayegancalledit,recoursemustbemadetothefirstprinciplesofthe

Islamicneo-Platonictraditionandtothetraditionaldoctrinesunderlyingtheverse

ofalltheSufipoetswhowereintoxicatedonthesamebacchanalianmetaphorsand

inspiredbythesameeroticimagesthatfillhisDīvān.

The central aim of the chapters in this volume is to enable contemporary

WesternstudentsofclassicalPersianpoetrytoreconnectwiththatlostsymbolic

universe and hopefully re-initiate themselves into themundus imaginalisof Ḥāfiẓ

and the entire galaxy of Persian poets who spoke his ‘language of the invisible’.

EvenmanymoderneducatedPersians,afflictedbytheanti-imaginativeclimateof

theWest,todayfindmuchofhissymbolismincomprehensible.Theydelightinthe

greatbeautyofhispoemsbutoftenviewthemasutterlymeaningless.University-

educatedrationalistsinIranandPakistanhavedeploredthemetaphysicalsystem

behindḤāfiẓ’spoemsandthereligiousandsacredaspectofhissymbolismasakind

of superstitious absurdity that is no longer within the range of intellectually

respectable ideas. The Pakistani philosopher Muḥammad Iqbāl (d. 1938) and the

radical Iranian modernist Aḥmad Kasravī (d. 1946) thus both castigated Ḥāfiẓ’s

poetryassocially‘decadent’andintellectually‘backward’.Sensiblemenwhowish

toraisethematerialandtechnologicallevelofsociety,orwhoequateprogressin

educationexclusivelywiththestudyofthesocialorphysicalsciencestoday,canno

longerrelatetotheSufiidealsofspiritual‘holypoverty’(faqr)whichweresustained

bytheall-envelopingcultureofmalāmatīspiritualityandethicsthatunderpinradi-

callyunconventionalstatementsbyḤāfiẓlikethese:

Whyspeakof‘shame’whenmygoodname

Isitselfmadeofshameandblame?

Whydoyouaskof‘name’–youknowIam

Ashamedofallyou’dcallgoodname?^1

Unfortunately,justasḤāfiẓ’sReligionofLovecelebratedbythisvolumeisanathema

totheturbanedpuritansregnantinIran’s‘Islamic’Republic,mentionofhisspiritual

and metaphysical teachings remain largely taboo in the Academe, particularly in

modernPersianLanguageandLiteraturedepartmentsinuniversitiesbothEastand

West.Again,astrangesimilarityofbiasbetweencontemporaryḤāfiẓologyandaca-

demicShakespearestudiesexists.SinceFrancesYates,^2 itisanopensecretamong

ShakespearescholarsthattheHermeticRosicrucianismandneo-PlatonicOccultism

ofElizabetheanthinkerssuchasJohnDee(d.1609)andGiordanoBruno(d.1600)^3 –

alongwiththeChristianPlatonismofMarsilioFicino(d.1499)^4 –comprisethecen-

tral philosophical sources of Shakespeare’s teachings on love, yet the writings of

thesethinkersgenerallyremainabodyof‘excludedknowledge’whichstudentsare

instructednottoinvestigate;mentionDee,FicinoorBrunotothelearneddoctorof

Shakespearestudieswhoseserevoiceheldhislecturehallspellbound–thereafter

00c_Hafiz_i-xxvi8/4/1011:11Pagexx

ḤāfiẓandtheReligionofLoveinClassicalPersianPoetry