versions in simple, readable language which give some sense of Ḥāfiẓ’s mystical
sensibility, if not his poetic achievement.^13 And, more recently, the collaboration
between a Sufi scholar, Leonard Lewisohn, and an American poet, Robert Bly, has
given us 30 of the more esoteric poems of Ḥāfiẓ in contemporary American poetic
idiom, with a particularly informative chapter as well as notes on the complicated
Sufi symbols and traditions employed in Persian poetry, and particularly in the
poetryofḤāfiẓ.^14
WhethertointerpretḤāfiẓ’spoemsasprofanelovelyrics,orastheexpressionsof
mystical longing for the Divine Beloved, has been a perennial question underlying
the interpretation and translation of Ḥāfiẓ. Some modern critics, such as Bashiri,^15
interpret Ḥāfiẓ as a poet heavily imbedded in Sufi philosophy; others such as
Rehder^16 (likeGertrudeBell)thinkḤāfiẓisonlyasecularlovepoet.Toregisterthe
multi-facetednessofḤāfiẓhasprovedbeyondthescopeofalmostalltranslatorsof
Ḥāfiẓ,sothatmostversionsareseriouslyflawed.Withafewexceptions,theEnglish
translations of Ḥāfiẓ have rarely managed to convey any of the vigour of his lan-
guageorconvincinglyre-inscribethetruemeritsofagreatpoet.^17
Translations,howeverpoor,havealwaysplayedanimportantroleinrevitalizing
and renewing the literature and poetry of other nations and languages. The
Romantic period, both in Europe and America, saw a literary revolution in which
Orientalism playedasignificantrole,but‘it is importanttorecognizethat interest
intheorientaldidnotnecessarilyconflictwithadmirationforwesternclassicallit-
erature.Mostoften,itwentalongwiththat;which...revealssomethingofthecom-
plexity of taste in the Romantic period.’^18 When von Hammer-Purgstall published
his translation of Ḥāfiẓ in German,^19 it immediately attracted the attention of
Goethe, who recognized an affinity in the mysticism of Ḥāfiẓ. As a result, he com-
posed hisWest-östlicher Divan(1819), based on Ḥāfiẓ’s poetical works. The German
translations of von Hammer-Purgstall and Goethe’s book were, in their turn, very
influential across the Atlantic on such Transcendentalist poets as Emerson, as well
as on later English poets such as Alfred Lord Tennyson, the Poet Laureate. Ḥāfiẓ’s
poetry was received and understood in many different ways. Sir William Jones ini-
tiallyintroducedhimasaprofanelovepoetandcomparedhimtoAnacreon.Infact,
Jones’ ‘Persian Song’ became so well known that Byron, writing in 1811 to Charles
Dallas,alludestoitcasuallytoemphasizeandclarifyhispoint:
My dear sir – As Gifford has been ever my ‘Magnus Apollo’, any approbation
such as you mention, would, of course, be more welcome than ‘all Bokhara’s
vauntedgold,thanalltheGemsofSamarkand’.^20Byron also wrote a parody of Jones’ ‘A Persian Song’, which I have discussed else-
where.^21 Here, however, with particular reference to the subject of the present
book,Ishallconcentrateonthesublimeratherthantheexotic.
Sir William Jones’ writings were read by many of the Romantics; both Byron
andShelleypossessedhiscompleteWorks.Jones,inhisnumerousessaysonPersianḤāfiẓ’s Romantic Imagery and Language of Love 281