(murgh,138ff.);thewind(95ff.);thestarsandtheheavenlybodies(218–20),andso
forth.AportionofFouchécour’sstudy,‘Lesheuresdupoète’(26–7),treatsthe
vocabularyofthetimesofdaythattypicallyappearsineleventh-centuryPersian
poetry,includingthedawn.Fromthiswelearnthat,inFarrukhī’sqaṣīdas,sunsetis
thehouroffortune’sarrival.ForManūchihrī,thedaydepartstooquickly,because
itmeansthepoetmustleavehisBeloved.Theskyispurifiedatnight.Inthenights
ofspring,weseetheshiningoftherose,thetulipandpomegranateblossom,and
wehearthenightingale.ForFarrukhī,theturtledovesingslateatnight,thedew
fallsandtheperfumeofspringarisesinthemiddleofthespringnight,whichis
shorterthantheday,eventhoughthenightseemslongfortheunrequitedlover–
athemewhichwehaveseenaspartofthecontra-Albaintheghazal.
Fouchécournotes(pp.26–7)thatthevarioustermsfordawn,daybreakand
morning,suchasshabgīr,sapīda-dam,pagāh,saḥar,bāmdādorṣubḥ,donotseemtobe
poeticallydifferentiated.Thesetermsallevokeflowers,thesingingofbirds,dew
andrain,breezeandwind,fragrance,fog,thunder,rainbowsandsnow.Themoon
shines at dawn, things become clear, and all the natural phenomena which
Manūchihrīassociateswiththeday–suchasthesunclimbingtheeasternsky,and
thecockcrowingandcallingouttothedrinkers–areondisplay.ForManūchihrī,
themorninglibationisamomentoutoftime,neitherhotnorcold,withoutcloud,
sun,windordust.DawnisalsoassociatedwithNawrūzandthevernalfestivitiesof
renewal.
Ofcourse,therealmoftheqaṣīdaisnotnecessarilysemioticallyidenticalwithhe
realmoftheghazal,butmanyoftheassociationsapplyequallytotheworldofthe
ghazalandtotheworldoftheroyalspringpoem.Thisisunderstoodintuitively
enoughwhenreadingthroughthenasīboftheGhaznavidqaṣīda,butwemayalso
drawuponanumberofsecondarystudiestobuttressthisimpression.JulieMeisami
hasfleshedoutthesemioticuniverseofthepoeticgarden,asamirrorofparadise,^28
andtheLiricaPersicaprojectinVenicehascreatedadelimitedpoeticcorpus(1,000
lineseachfromagoodnumberofpoets,inameticulouslyscientificRomanized
transliteration),whichcanfacilitatefrequencystudiesandcomparisonsofparticu-
larimagesandmotifsbetweenpoets,allwithaviewtowardscreating,eventually,a
verydevoutly-to-be-wishedhistoricaldictionaryoftheghazal.Oneexampleofthe
typeofstudythisdataallowscanbeseenintheworkofDanielaMeneghini
Correale,^29 whosecompleteinventoryofthevocabularyofḤāfiẓ–includinglem-
matizedfrequencylists,aconcordance,andaRomanized,grammaticallyparsed
corpusoftheDīvānofḤāfiẓ–hasbeenanindispensabletoolforthecurrentstudy,
andinmypreviouswork.^30 Andyetthebasictabulationsforthecommentsthatfol-
lowweredoneinthedarkdaysbefore1988,whenMeneghiniCorreale’sTheGhazals
of Ḥāfiẓ: Concordance and Vocabulary^31 appeared,some600yearsafterthepoet’s
death.Consequently,theremaybesomesmalldiscrepanciesbetweenthefrequen-
ciesIhavetabulatedhere,andthoseprovidedbyCorreale’sconcordanceandvocab-
ulary.Thesedifferenceswillmostlystemfrommyattempttocounttheoccurrences
ofwordsintheentireDīvān,andnotjustintheghazalsofḤāfiẓ.
Ḥāfiẓ’sRomanticImageryandLanguageofLove 265