280ḤāfiẓtotheEnglishreader.Unfortunately,theyoftentriedtojudgeandunderstand
Ḥāfiẓ according to their own classical training and ideas. As a result, they found
disunity in Ḥāfiẓ’s poetry and felt obliged to improve the original by taking exces-
sivelibertiesintheirtreatmentofḤāfiẓ’simageryandlanguage.Sucharethetrans-
lations made by Herman Bicknell and Alexander Rogers,^6 but the most vociferous
voice in this respect is that of Richard Le Gallienne. Since he did not know any
Persian himself, Le Gallienne relied on the translations by Clarke and Payne. He
confidently explained that ‘the difficulty of inconsequence I have endeavoured to
overcome,partlybychoosingthosepoemsthatwereleastinconsequent,partlysup-
plyinglinksofmyown,andpartlybyselectinganddevelopingthemostimportant
motiveswhichonefrequentlyfindsinthesameode’.^7 LeGallienne’sversionsarein
stanzaicforminimitationofJones’‘APersianSong’,whereeachbayt(verse-unit)is
translatedintoasix-linestanza.Jonesdrasticallychangedtheimageryoftheorigi-
nal, thus not only trivializing but also muddying the clarity of Ḥāfiẓ’s language.
Most translators who have chosen to present Ḥāfiẓ in English verse forms have
unfortunatelychosenthispath,withtheexceptionofGertrudeLowthianMargaret
Bell,whosePoemsfromtheDivanofHafiz(London1897)stillremainsthebestbothin
accuracyandeloquence.
Another group of translators, such as A.J. Arberry and Colonel Frank Montague
Randall,^8 havechosensuccessfullytousethequatrainform,whichgivesanideaof
thePersianbayt.Rundallimitatesthemono-rhymeoftheoriginal.Amongthefree
verse translations, that of Peter Avery and John Heath-Stubbs’Hafiz of Shiraz
(London 1952) is probably the best. Earlier versions in free verse fail to give any
notionofḤāfiẓ’sgreatness.TheversionsbyWalterLeaf,JohnPayneandPaulSmith,
ontheotherhand,imitatethestrictmetreandrhymeschemeoftheoriginal.Such
translations have (very reasonably) been described as ‘literary acrobatics’ by
Massud Farzaad.^9 Only Walter Leaf can be said to have just managed to escape
fallingandbreakinghisneck.^10
Notable among the English versions of Ḥāfiẓ are the very good ‘imitations’ or
‘creative translations’ made by such outstanding poets as Elisabeth Bridges and
BasilBunting,whosucceedincommunicatingmuchmoreofthespiritofḤāfiẓthan
the more literal translations generally do.^11 The twentieth century has seen a re-
emergence of interest in the Persian Sufi tradition, and as part of this tradition
Ḥāfiẓ’s poetry has undergone a revival in English translation, particularly in
America. The results, unfortunately, have not always been satisfactory. Such poets
as Thomas Crow, Michael Boylan and Daniel Landinsky,^12 who have heavily relied
on earlier translations, have produced versions which are more reminiscent of
twentieth-centuryAmericanspiritualidiomsthantheecstaticlanguageofthegreat
fourteenth-centuryPersianpoet.Landinskystandsattheextremeofthisspectrum.
Theexcessivelibertiestakenwiththelanguageandimageryaresuchthatitisoften
hard to recognize (or imagine) any Persian original in Ḥāfiẓ. There are, however,
exceptions amongst these translators; the translations of Elisabeth Gray Jr, for
example,aPersianistwhoworkedwithRobertLowellatHarvard,containaccurate
ḤāfiẓandtheReligionofLoveinClassicalPersianPoetry