In this study, T.S. Eliot’s definition of great poets and immature poets as well as his attitude towards the adaptations other poets has been taken as a basis for examining some of Hafez’s borrowings from a number of his contemporary or earlier poets to support the claim that he has remained honored as one of the pillars of Persian poetry and immune to the label of plagiarism or passive imitation and must be highly praised. Apart from some Quranic themes in his Divan (Book of Poems), Hafez was familiar with most of the works of other poets, including Qazali, Ferdowsi, Nezami, Sanai’e, Anavari, Khaqani, Khayyam, Araqi, Mowlana, Sa’di and Khajoo. In this way, he was able to borrow and use some of their lines and verses to best express his own mood and themes without showing any trace of plagiarism and mere imitation. To illustrate this, the article has offered a comparative study of some verses of poets such as Sanai’e, Anvari, Khaqani, Zahir Faryabi, Nezami, Attar, Kamaloddin Esma’el Isfahani, Araqi and Hafez. The author of this article is of the opinion that despite the earlier writings on Hafez's Adaptations from His Predecessors, none has presented a direct comparative study as the author has done here.
Introduction:
Indeed, poets are influenced by their predecessors and contemporaries. Hafez, the great Iranian poet, was no exception to this general rule. He is one of the pillars of Persian poetry, along with Sadi, Molana and Ferdosi. When thinking about the literary or poetic influence on a poet, one must take into account the fact that no literary text is created by itself. Every literary work has a creator who is naturally influenced by what he has read and learned. As his surname clearly shows, he was Hafez (the memorizer and reciter of the Quran). Hafez was strongly influenced by the Quran and other important religious books. Therefore, he was well-versed in the Arabic language and may have been influenced by the great Arabic works, including the books of tradition, that were common in his time. There are a number of Arabic texts that Hafez had probably read. Bahaodin Khoramshahi lists a number of Arabic and Persian works that he believes Hafez certainly read: The Quran, Mavaqef, Kimia-ye Sa’adat, Mersad al ebad, Kelileh va Demneh, , Mesbah, and poetry divans by great poets such as: Rudaki, Manuchehri, Sana’e, Anvari, Khaqani, Nezami, Khayyam, Attar, Kamal aldinEsmailEsfahani, Araqi, Molana; especially Masnavi and Divan-e Shams-e Tabrizi, Koliyat-e Sadi, Divan-e Ohadi-e Maraqei, Divan-e Khaju ye Kermani, Divan-e Obeyd-e Zakani, Divan-e Naser-e Bokharae, Divan-e Salman-e Savoji, Divan-e Kamal-e Khojandi, and Divan and other works of Shah Ne’mat Allah Vali (Khoramshahi, 1380: 21-55). In addition to the divans of the poets, Hafez was also influenced by pillars of Tasavof (mysticism) such as Imam Abu-hamed Mohammad Ghazali.
Hafez was also particularly influenced by Arabic works. Hosseini (1371: 329) explains that Hafez had read these Arabic divans: Amre Ibn-e Kolsum, Shahl Ibn-e Sheyban, Kab-Ibn-e Zahir, Hesan Ibn-e Sabet, Busiri, Ibn-e Al Arabi and Ibn-e Alfarez. There are numerous allusions to Qur'anic stories in Hafez's divan. His divan contains 89 lines in Arabic, which shows that he had such a good command of the Arabic language that he was able to compose Arabic poetry when he wanted to.
Despite the fact that Hafez has read the above works and even other works not mentioned in this study, his poetry is different from all the works he has read. His own poetry is unique and different. Traces of these works can be found in his poems, but they too are clearly his poems. None of his lines smell of the works he has read. The reasons why his poetry differs from that of his predecessors and contemporaries form the subject of this study. In other words, this study aims to show how Hafez dealt with the borrowed lines in his poetry and why the borrowed lines did not change the atmosphere of his poetry. Hafez has a unique and different way in his borrowings from other poets. He leaves no trace of the works he borrows from. His mastery of Persian poetry is so great that he can easily manipulate the Persian language to compose poems which, according to Edward Brown, are among the most sublime and complicated poems in world literature (Brown, 1902).
S. Eliot, in his Sacred Wood (1920), gives a criterion for distinguishing great poets from ordinary ones, claiming that great poets or mature poets steal, while ordinary poets imitate. He goes on to say that great poets alter and exaggerate what they have borrowed so that their work is completely different from the source poems. Based on the above definition of great poets, this study examines how Hafez borrows and whether his borrowed lines resemble the original sources.
Numerous scholars and literary critics have studied Hafez's borrowings from other poets or other texts. Qasem Ghani (1272-1331), Abdol Hossein Zarinkub (1301-1378) in his ‘AzKuch-e Rendan’, Abdol Ali Alavi (1281-1359) in his book titled ‘Bang-e Jaras’, whose work deals with Hafez’s borrowings from Arabic poems and the Quran. Morteza Mottahari (1299-1358) refers in his ‘Tamashagah-e Raz’ to the impact of the Quran and some literary works on Hafez's poetry. Baha Aldin Khoramshahi, in his work ‘Chahardah Revayat’, refers to Hafez's borrowings from the Quran and the works of Sadi. However, none of the above studies have addressed the dichotomy of imitation and theft based on T. S. Eliot's definition of great poets.
Materials and Methods:
This study is a library research project. It deals with Hafez's borrowings from other literary works on the basis of T. S. Eliot's (1920) definition in his ‘The Sacred Wood’. The selection of poems for this study was random and based on the author's interest. However, the selection of poets for this study was also determined by the importance of the poets. This study attempts to find out whether Hafez as a great poet and a mature poet is consistent with T. S. Eliot's definition.
In this study, some lines from the poems of Sanae, Anvari, Khaqani Shervani, Nezami, Attar and Kamalodin Esmaeel Esfahani were compared with the lines of Hafez. The study does not deal with Arabic poems, which also play a decisive role in Hafez's poems.
Results and Discussion:
Comparing two lines from Sanae with two lines from Hafez, it became clear that Hafez exulted Sanaie’s poem, and he had left no trace of plagiarism. Hafez had changed the atmosphere of Sanae’s poem to a totally new atmosphere because the whole lines of Sanae revolved around one theme but Hafez referred to several themes in his poem.
In another comparison with Sanae’s poetry, Hafez had changed the words in such artistic manner that his poem bears no resembelence to that of Sanae. Sonnet (ghazal) 198 by Sanae was compared with sonnet 288 of Hafez. In his poem, Sanae only addresses one person and his poem only describes a feast of drinking wine; while in Hafez, the situation is different because he has revealed his philosophy, and discusses several themes again in this poem. Hafez has placed the setting of his poem besides flowers and outdoor nature.
Hafez and Anvari
A quatrain of Anvari (No, 323) has been compared with a sonnet (ghazal) of Hafez. The first difference is the change of genre because Hafez has used two lines of a quatrain in a sonnet. While the quatrain of Anvari only deals with drinking wine, Hafez has used several themes, namely love making, optimism, being content, keeping secrets, and mixing love and drinking wine at the end of the poem.
Hafez and Khaqani
Two lines from Khaqani were compared with two lines from Hafez. The sonnet (The sonnet number 324) of Khaqani was compared with the sonnet (The sonnet number 464) of Hafez. The results show that Hafez exaggerated more than Anvari. Moreover, he has addressed several issues and questions and has also chosen a different address than Anvari. In the same sonnet, Hafez has also borrowed from Sadi, and in this respect he fits the definition of T. S. Eliot mentioned earlier.
Hafez and Zahir Faryabi
Two lines from an ode (The ghasideh number 43) were compared with Hafez's sonnet 280. Here Hafez has changed the genre of Zahir’s poem because he has inserted it into a ghazal. Although the two poems have the same prosodic meter, their atmosphere and themes are different and Hafez’s poem bears no resemblance to Zahir's.
When comparing the poems of Hafez with the lines of Attar, Nezami, Araqi, Kamal Aldin Esmaeil Isfahani, the same is true. In other words, the lines that Hafez had borrowed from these poets had all changed and become completely different, so it was very difficult to recognize them as borrowed lines because Hafez had changed the prosody, the atmosphere, the themes and the length of the lines and created completely different lines.
Conclusion:
This study looks at T.S. Eliot’s definition of mature poets and immature poets and his definition of them in terms of borrowing and imitation in his work The Sacred Wood (1920). Examination of some of Hafez’s adaptations from a number of contemporary and earlier poets showed that Hafez remained honored and immune to the charge of plagiarism or passive imitation. Hafiz was familiar with most of the works of other poets, including Ferdowsi, Nezami, Sana’e, Anavari, Khaqani, Khayyam, Araqi, Mowlana, Sa’di and Khajoo. Thus, he was able to borrow and use some of their lines and verses to express his own themes without showing any trace of plagiarism or imitation. In this study, some verses of poets such as Sana’e, Anvari, Khaqani, ZahirFaryabi, Nezami, Attar, KamaloddinEsma’elIsfahani, Araqi were compared with Hafez's sonnets. As the comparison shows, Hafez, instead of imitating, developed his poetic power by revitalizing the borrowed lines, changing their genres, differentiating their atmosphere and introducing several new themes.