Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
HAFEZ’S POETIC ART

HAFEZ’S POETIC ART

Ratings: (0)|Views: 60|Likes:
Published by SohaybSherazi

More info:

Published by: SohaybSherazi on Nov 28, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
HAFEZiii.HAFEZ’S POETIC ART
The text of the Divān
. Perhaps the greatest progress in research on Hafez during the past century has been made in the domain of philology. Critical editions have been published which begin to provide a reliable basis for the study of Hafez’s poetry.This is not to say, however, that a
textus receptus
of his
divān
, or collected poems, isavailable; on the contrary, intensive investigation of the manuscript sources hasrevealed many discrepancies among the oldest documents, dating from the first half of the 9th/15th century, which make it difficult, if not impossible, to posit theexistence of a single, definitive original. These differences pertain to the presence or absence of poems or individual couplets, the internal order of the verses, and thereadings of couplets, phrases, or words. Barring spectacular discoveries of newmanuscripts, it must be accepted that the establishment of a uniform version of the
 Divān
is probably an unattainable goal. In the following brief discussion of Hafez’s poetry the second edition by Parviz N.
ānlari (1362 Š./1983) has beenused for purposes of reference. The numbers of the poems mentioned in the articleconform to this edition.There are no indications that any major part of Hafez’s poetic output has been lost.And as the poet already enjoyed a great reputation during his lifetime, thetransmission of his poems may be assumed to have been continuous. If theseassumptions are correct, it seems clear that Hafez was not a particularly prolific poet. His
 Divān
consists mainly of ghazals (q.v., lyrics of normally between 7 and12 lines); poems in other forms— 
qa
ṣ 
ida
s (odes),
moqa
ṭṭ 
a?āt 
(occasional poems),
ma
 ṯ 
nawi
s (poems in couplet form),
robā?i
s (quatrains), etc.—are few innumber and generally of less importance. In the case of the quatrains, serious doubtshave been raised with regard to their authenticity (see
ānlari, II, p. 1094); for thisreason they were omitted entirely from Sāya’s edition of 1993 (cf. his Introduction, p. 45). The total number of @
 gazal 
s that are generally accepted as genuine is lessthan five hundred: 495 in the edition by Qazvini and
ani, 486 in
ānlari’s 2ndedition, and 484 in Sāya’s edition.
 Hafez and the
@
 gazal tradition
. Many features of Hafez’s @
 gazal 
s have been pointed to as original contributions. By Hafez’s time, the @
 gazal 
already had a longhistory that can be traced back for at least two centu-ries (see
AZAL). It would bedifficult to name any individual element of Hafez’s poems, either formal or thematic, which cannot be attested in the works of his predecessors.According to Šebli No?māni (V, p. 43), Hafez was the first to extend the range of the @
 gazal 
, which so far had been mainly devoted to erotic themes, so as to includethe treatment of ethical, philosophical, mystical, homiletic and even politicalsubjects, while keeping intact the lyrical idiom of the genre. Šebli (p. 55), and manyother critics after him, also regarded the complex of imagery and motifs centredupon the figure of the “debauchee” (
rend 
) as an important characteristic of his poetry (see, e.g.,
orramšāhi, pp. 27-28, 403-13). In the mid-20th century, the focusof attention in the interpretation of Hafez, in which hitherto a mystical reading had prevailed, shifted to the social context of his poetry. Inspired by the historical
 
studies of Qāsem
ani, R. Lescot (1944, p. 59) regarded the use of the @
 gazal 
as a poem of praise, evident from many overt or veiled references to patrons, as aninnovation by Hafez through which he assigned to this form a function formerlyreserved for the
qa
ṣ 
ida
.Perhaps Hafez may have been less an innovator than the poet who brought analready well-established tradition to its highest point of perfection. It cannot bedenied that his poetry makes a striking impression of newness, but it is difficult toexpress this in more precise terms. Tentatively, the following two points may bementioned by way of a general characterization: first, the greatly increased densityin the use of the various elements which the tradition of the previous centuries haddelivered into his hands, and second, a stylistic and rhetorical virtuosity unmatched by any other @
 gazal 
writer.In order to evaluate Hafez’s personal contribution to the development of the@
 gazal 
, his debt to his predecessors, and even to his contemporaries whocultivated the same genre, must be taken into proper account. A proper assessmentof his originality can only be attempted when all possible influences on his work have been examined (see in particular 
orramšāhi, pp. 40-90). This is however  beyond the scope of the present article.Modern scholars have attempted to identify certain conventions according to whichwhat has been called the “technical
ḡ 
azal 
” (@
 gazal-e e
ṣṭ 
elā
ḥ 
i
), a term introduced by A. M. Mirzoev (cf.
AZAL, p. 354), ought to be composed. These conventionsconsist of a prescription for the poem’s length (though not very precise), the use of the poet’s pen name (
esm-e ta
ḵ 
allo
ṣ 
or simply
ta
ḵ 
allo
ṣ 
) in the last or the penultimate line as his signature, and a few other prosodic features (such asmonorhyme and rhyme in the opening couplet) which have become typical of this poetic form, though they were never exclu-sive to it. By the 8th/14th century,deviations from this pattern had become exceedingly rare; however, these “rules,”so prevalent in poetic practice, were never properly discussed by writers on poetics,who continued to use the term @
 gazal 
in its generic sense of “love poetry.”
 Prosodic features.
The majority of Hafez’s @
 gazal 
s (366, or ca. 75 percent of hisoutput [based on
ānlari’s edition]) are between seven and nine couplets in length.There is a small number on both sides of shorter or longer poems. The shortest arefour @
 gazal 
s of no more than five couplets (
ānlari 96, 104, 144, 420, 444). Poemsof more than twelve couplets are exceptional: there are five of thirteen couplets (12,149, 251, 454, 464), three of fourteen (425, 443, 480) and only one (354) of sixteen.Beyond the fact that many of the longer-than-average poems contain a panegyricextension, there are no distinctive features that would allow a classification intotypes based on the length of the poems only.According to the statistical survey provided in Elwell-Sutton’s
 PersianMetres
(based on the Qazvini and
ani edition), Hafez used twenty-three differentmetrical patterns in all, but in a very unequal proportion. Only eight patterns occur in 477 poems (98percent), the three most frequent being
ramal-e ma
ḵ 
bun-ema
ḥḏ 
uf 
(143
ḡ 
azals,
or 29percent),
mojta
 ṯṯ 
-e ma
ḵ 
bun-e ma
ḥḏ 
uf 
(128
ḡ 
azals,
or 26 percent), and
możāre?-e a
ḵ 
rab–e makfuf-e ma
ḥḏ 
uf 
(75
ḡ 
azals,
or 15.4 percent).
 
These three meters have all four feet to the half verse (
me
ṣ 
rā?
), which amounts tofourteen or fifteen syllables.The
radif 
, the addition to the rhyme of a morpheme, a word (a verb, noun, adjective, pronoun, particle or adverb) or a short phrase repeated at the end of each couplet, isfound in most poems. Verbs are particularly frequent and occur in many differentforms of conjugation. Some verbs with a particularly wide semantic spectrum havedetermined to a large extent the choice of motifs and images in the @
 gazal 
(e.g.,17,where the radif 
andā
ḵ 
“threw” is used to display a pattern of aggressive behavior on the part of the beloved;
18, in which
besu
ḵ 
“burned” sets the tune for variations on the theme of fire). Some nouns used as radifs are also of specialsemantic interest because they belong to the repertoire of terms specific to thetheme of love, such as
abru
“eyebrow” (404),
čašm
“eye” (331),
dust 
, “friend” (61,62, 63),
 ferāq
“separation” (291),
ḥ 
osn
“beauty” (386), and
 šam?
“candle” (289).Remarkable from a thematic point of view are further:
ḡ 
arib
, “stranger, strange, poor and homeless” (15), which throughout the poem stresses the position of theuprooted and destitute lover begging for the attention of his beloved, the “sultan of the beautiful ones”; and the word
darvišān
, used as the main part of a radif in a poem praising the virtues of the “dervishes” within the context of the panegyric of avizier (50).
Ta
ḵ 
allos
á. The use of the poet’s pen name (
ta
ḵ 
allos
á) is an almost universal feature;it is absent in no more than eleven
ḡ 
azals,
a number of which are very brief drinkingsongs (
ānlari 13, 104, 109, 140, 470). The last line (
maq
ṭ 
a?
or 
ma
ḵ 
la
ṣ 
) is the mostcommon position for the
ta
ḵ 
allo
ṣ 
; however, it occurs also in the penultimatecouplet (37 poems), more rarely in the antepenultimate (six poems), and in bothcases the line often contains a panegyric reference. Five poems wherethe
ta
ḵ 
allo
ṣ 
occurs several lines before the end (12, 149, 354, 443 and 453) are panegyric @
 gazal 
s in which the device serves as a marker of transition to thesection of praise (
ta
ḵ 
allo
ṣ 
in the original meaning of the term). In one instance the poet’s name is mentioned in the opening couplet (280, where
ḥ 
āfez
is used in itsliteral sense of someone who knows [the Koran] by heart, probably is ambiguous asthe pen name, which is otherwise not mentioned in the poem); in four others itoccurs twice in one poem (251, 285, 309, 431; in the last-mentioned instance this is probably due to textual variants).Although the pen name may be introduced as a vocative or as a reference to a third person, it is usually the speaking voice of the poet to whom the address can beattributed. Sometimes other voices are involved; for example, the beloved mayaddress the poet/lover, often in the context of a dialogue (e.g.
 ,
ānlari 5, 68, 193,227, 266 and 330); personified entities may have, as it were, the last word(e.g.,194: Reason extols the poet’s verse; 382: Reason bids the poet drink wine;380: the wind exhorts the poet to sing of wine and sweet-mouthed beauties).Remarkable twists on the pen name include the modest
banda
Ḥ 
āfe
ẓ 
“your humbleservant Hafez” (341), used probably in a panegyric context, and the affectionate butmildly satirical
Ḥ 
āfe
ẓ 
-e mā
“our Hafez” (46), playing on the literal meaningof 
ḥ 
āfe
ẓ 
. This play on the literal sense of the poet’s pen name—“he who has the

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->