Hakīm Shafāʾī, Hasan

Hakīm Shafāʾī, Hasan, a poet of the 16th–17th centuries/10th–11th centuries (1558–1628/966–1037). His honorific title was Sharaf al-Dīn, and he was born in Isfahan around 1558/966. Due to misreading of manuscript copies, there is considerable disagreement regarding his year of birth. The majority of scholars,¹ however, have identified it as 966/1558. A strong indication in support of this year is Hakīm Shafāʾī’s friendship with Muhammad Avḥadī Balyānī, author of Tadhkeray-e ‛Arafāt al-‛Āsheqīn.² One can derive clear information about their age difference. Avḥadī Balyānī³ states his own birthdate as 3 p.m. on a Wednesday in Muḥarram 1565/973. This date, unlike the recorded birthdates of Hakīm Shafāʾī, is consistently reported in all extant manuscripts of ‛Arafāt al-‛Āsheqīn, and may thus serve as strong evidence for determining Shafāʾī’s birth year. Two manuscripts of ‛Arafāt al-‛Āsheqīn⁴ include the statement: “In the year 1614/1023, he was approximately 57 years old, for the author’s age difference was no more than five years.”⁵ It seems that historians have too easily ignored the word “approximately” in this statement by Avḥadī Balyānī. Moreover, they have neglected the latter part of the sentence, which explicitly refers to the five-year age gap between the author and Hakīm Shafāʾī.⁶ Based on this, 1560/968 may be a more accurate estimate of his birth year.

Hasan Hakīm Shafāʾī’s father, Ḥakīm Mullā,⁷ was a student of Mīr Ghīyāth al-Dīn Manṣūr Shīrāzī, a prominent physician of his time who practiced medicine at the entrance of the Jāme‛ Mosque* of Isfahan. Hasan Shafāʾī first studied medicine and other sciences under his father, and later under his brother, Ḥakīm Naṣīrā. Some sources, however, have incorrectly recorded the names of Shafāʾī’s father and brother. Zunūzī refers to his father as Ḥakīm Naṣīr, while Sādāt Nāṣīrī at times refers to him as Mullā Muhammad-Ḥusayn and at other times as Mullā Muhammad.⁸ Moreover, in manuscript no. 4697 of Hazlīyāt-e Ḥakīm Shafāʾī, there appears a cryptic quatrain under the title “on his own Brother said satire.”

Jalālā Ardestānī*⁹ identified Shafāʾī as a student of Shāh Taqī al-Dīn Muhammad Nasābe-ye Shīrāzī (d. 1610/1019) in the field of philosophy—a view that Khushgū¹⁰ later repeated verbatim.

Eloquence and literary talent were reputed traits in Hakīm Shafāʾī’s family. It is said that at the age of fourteen, Shafāʾī met Muḥtasham Kāshānī at his father’s house and recited two of his ghazals for him. Upon hearing them, Muḥtasham remarked, “You have composed well, but it resembles the Isfahani melon, which is sweet only on rare occasions.” Shafāʾī replied, “Thanks to God that it does not resemble the Kāshānī cantaloupe, which is never sweet at all.”¹¹ Despite his father’s encouragement, Shafāʾī’s primary dedication was to the practice of medicine, which also served as his means of livelihood.¹² He viewed poetry merely as a pastime—a field in which he could express his taste and natural talent. He never turned poetry into a source of income or a tool for flattery.

Shafāʾī spent most of his life in Isfahan and rarely traveled. However, some sources and a number of his poems refer to his journeys to Khorasan, Yazd, and Māzandarān. It is said that during his first pilgrimage to Mashhad, between 1603–1605/1012–1014, he resided for a time in Herat¹³ and mingled with local poets. Eventually, however, he quarreled with some of them—most notably Faṣīḥī Heravī¹⁴—and returned to Isfahan embittered and sharp-tongued in his remarks about Khorasani poets.¹⁵ On his way back, he stayed in Yazd for a while and, in contrast to his bitter experience in Khorasan, he found delight in that region, to the extent that he praised Yazd and its learned inhabitants in his poetry.¹⁶ Shafāʾī traveled twice to Ṭabarestān and Māzandarān, the second time by the order of Shah ‛Abbās I*.¹⁷ As for a journey to India, no evidence of such a trip exists in any known sources. In fact, he composed a satirical poem condemning India and praising Iran and its kings, in which he sharply criticizes greedy poets who migrated to India, referring to that land as a “refuge of beggars.¹⁸”

Due to his arrogance, difficult temperament, and penchant for satire, Shafāʾī maintained unstable relations with most of his contemporaries—even with his own companions. One contemporary remarked: “So proud and self-conceited is he, that even if someone were on their deathbed, he would not wish to visit them. His poetic talent is admirable, but because of his arrogance and vanity, no one is inclined to listen to his verses.”¹⁹ Such behavior led, in the year 1592/1000, to the composition of numerous satirical pieces and ghazals against him by poets from Isfahan and other parts of Iran.²⁰ Khān Ārezū²¹ attributed this not to a “mischievous disposition” (shūkhī-ye ṭabī‛at) but to a “malicious nature” (shūmī-ye feṭrat), especially in the case of Avḥadī, who had claimed to be Shafāʾī’s friend.

Among the few contemporaries who escaped the satire of Shafāʾī’s sharp tongue was Hasan-Bayg Dhū al-Qadr Shīrāzī, known by the pen name Unsī, for whom Shafāʾī held great respect. They exchanged a series of affectionate letters, which constitute the only known prose writings left by Shafāʾī.²² Another was Mullā ‛Eshratī, a poet who also studied medicine under Shafāʾī.²³ Among his poetic disciples—who remained untouched by his satire—were Faḍlī Jarbādhānī, Ṭab‛ī Qazvīnī, Mullā Afḍal Hemmatī, and Bāqīyā-ye Muṣannef.²⁴Some sources have also listed Ṣāʾeb* as one of his followers and pupils.²⁵ If such a relationship did exist, however, it most likely preceded Ṣāʾeb’s journey to India, since Shafāʾī had passed away by the time of Ṣāʾeb’s return.²⁶ Other poets who engaged in poetic exchanges or had teacher-student relationships with Shafāʾī include Mast-Ali Eṣfahānī, Mīr Elāhī,²⁷ Muhammad Dawlatābādī Eṣfahānī, and Mīrzā Jalālā*. Shāh Ṣafī* once requested that Mīrzā Jalālā compose a preface for Shafāʾī’s dīvān.²⁸

Some early sources recorded Shafāʾī’s death as occurring on the 5th of Ramaḍān 1037²⁹/May 14, 1628.³⁰ According to Jalālā Ardestānī,³¹ his body was taken to Karbala for burial. However, it remains unclear on what basis Muṣleḥ al-Dīn Mahdavī*³²identified his grave as being in the Shāh Mīr Ḥamza* cemetery, east of Surūsh Street in Isfahan, which at one time housed the Agricultural Teacher Training College. ‛Abbās Beheshtīyān* claimed to have seen Shafāʾī’s tombstone embedded in one of the college’s walls.³³ Chardin*,³⁴ in his descriptions of Isfahan’s districts and buildings, mentions an area known as “Kūche-hā-ye ]Kūche-ye[ Ḥakīm Shafāʾī” (Alleys of Ḥakīm Shafāʾī) near Ṭuqchī* square, which likely refers to Hasan Ḥakīm Shafāʾī. It appears that Shafāʾī left behind only one son, named Muhammad Rāgheb,³⁵ who—contrary to the claim of one researcher³⁶—was alive during and even shortly after his father’s lifetime, continuing his medical practice for at least a year after Shafāʾī’s death³⁷. This is further supported by the prayer ṭawwallāh ‛umrah (“may God prolong his life”) offered on his behalf.³⁸

Shafāʾī composed poetry in all major genres. According to Avḥadī,³⁹ “He truly composes all forms of speech as they should be composed; his manner of expression, in both verse and conversation, is witty and full of charm, and in satirical skill he is without rival.” Avḥadī further claimed that by around 1614/1023, Shafāʾī had composed some seven to eight thousand verses and had sent several selections of his poetry to India. Dawlatābādī⁴⁰ believed that this number had reached approximately twenty thousand by the time of his death, while Jalālā Ardestānī⁴¹ estimated the total to be thirty thousand verses. Based on the present author’s assessment of extant manuscripts, the number is approximately twenty-four thousand verses, including about twelve thousand in mathnawīs and hazlīyyāt, and twelve thousand in other poetic forms. In a rare account, Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī,⁴² citing Ḥājī Khalīfa’s Kashf al-Ẓunūn, claimed that Shafāʾī, like other Safavid poets, composed a Khamse (a collection of five narrative poems). However, aside from his dīvān of ghazals, tarkīb-bands, qaṣīdas, qaṭ‛as, rubā‛īyyāt, and hazlīyyāt, only four mathnawīs by Shafāʾī are known:  1) Namakdān-e Ḥaqīqat, a philosophical–mystical mathnawī modeled on Sanāʾī’s Ḥadīqa, so much so that it was for some time mistakenly attributed to Sanāʾī.⁴³ 2) Mehr va Muḥabbat, also known as Muḥabbat-nāmeh or Nuskhe-ye Mehr, was composed in 1612/1021, according to the chronogram “īn nuskhe-ye mehr.” It is one of Shafāʾī’s finest narrative poems in the tradition of Neẓāmī’s Khusru va Shīrīn, closely aligned with the stylistic conventions of the Indian school.⁴⁴ 3) Dīde-ye Bīdār, a versified Persian translation of Ḥeydar Tulbe’s Turkish mathnawī,⁴⁵ itself modeled after Neẓāmī’s makhzan al-asrār. Shafāʾī composed it by the order of Shāh ‛Abbās I. According to the chronogram “Dīde-ye bīdār-e sukhan-gū-ye mā,” it was completed in 1618/1027. 4) Majma‛ al-Baḥrayn, apparently his last surviving mathnawī, was written in imitation of Khaqānī’s Tuḥfat al-‛Erāqayn. If complete, it appears to have been composed hastily. Dawlatābādī⁴⁶ referred to it as Mukhtaṣar-e (the abridged) Majma‛ al-Baḥrayn.

Among the poets of the Safavid era, Shafāʾī held a distinguished position, both in terms of language and intellectual depth, as well as in his strong scholarly grounding. His commitment to incorporating innovative literary norms—while simultaneously remaining faithful to the traditions of classical masters—along with the presence of medical and philosophical terminology and expressions in his poetry, gave his verse a distinctive tone and manner that may rightly be called the “Shafāʾī style.” He is in fact one of the few poets of this period whose work may be approached through the lens of personal, social, and even human emotion. Because of the authenticity of his voice, one can judge his poetry with confidence and clarity.

In Shafāʾī’s poetry, Persia is portrayed in highly laudatory terms, especially in contrast to India.⁴⁷ For him, even his hometown, Isfahan, held superiority over Khorasan and other regions. This perspective stems in part from his ascetic temperament and disregard for worldly status and ambition, and in part from his pride and a temperament reminiscent of Khāqānī.  His dīvān contains many poems criticizing envious rivals and even some of his fellow townsmen.⁴⁸ Nevertheless, Shafāʾī was not devoid of the rational spirit and intellectual inclination of his age. He largely overcame the hyperbolic habits of thought common in his time—a quality observable in various parts of his work, including his wise and reverent panegyrics in honor of the Infallible Imams, particularly Imam Ali, and his verses denouncing the hypocritical religious literalists of his time who falsely claimed lineage from the Imams or association with great sages.⁴⁹ He frequently expressed bold and independent opinions on complex theological and philosophical debates, opposing the prevailing views of the Mu‛tazilites and Shiiʽa, including the notion that divine reality could be seen with the physical eye.⁵⁰ These stances reflect his deep awareness of philosophy and his intellectual non-conformism. At the same time, due to his mystical inclinations and the prevalent anti-philosophical sentiment in Safavid Iran—especially under the reign of religious conservatism—he occasionally attacked philosophy and expressed aversion to it.⁵¹ Despite his erudition, Shafāʾī’s satirical tendency is striking. However, it seems that much of his invective was wording and playful in tone, and he aimed more at amusement than harm. For instance, he composed nearly fifty quatrains mocking the nose of Dhawqī Ardestānī. This tendency prompted Jalālā Ardestānī⁵²—himself wounded multiple times by Shafāʾī’s sharp tongue⁵³—to justify this aspect of his poetry by invoking the example of Homer, claiming that “the aspiring poets of his time, in pursuit of the honor of association with him, would provoke his satire with a thousand winks of rudeness and gestures of indiscretion; a single couplet of invective would suffice for their purpose… and there are several pieces he composed in apology for his satire that bear truthful witness to this fact.” Jalālā Ardestānī’s leniency, however, may have stemmed from the fact that two years after Shafāʾī’s death⁵⁴, he was commissioned by Shah Ṣafī to write the preface to Shafāʾī’s collected works. Mīr Dāmād*⁵⁵, too, was one of Shafāʾī’s admirers and expressed his devotion in a letter in which he wrote: “A jealous poet has obscured the merits of Ḥakīm Shafāʾī and masked his art as satire.”⁵⁶ Other similar descriptions appear regarding his satirical style⁵⁷—such as the claim that “from the blade of his satire, most of the poets of Iraq and elsewhere trembled.”⁵⁸ Remarks like these undoubtedly contributed to shaping his poetic reputation. Interestingly, Shafāʾī⁵⁹ himself wrote verses condemning satirists and once found himself in serious trouble over a rumored lampoon of the king. In a poetic oath, he pleaded with Shah ‛Abbās* not to believe the accusation and to accept his repentance⁶⁰. Despite this, the king greatly respected him. According to Naṣrābādī,⁶¹ on one occasion at the Madrasah Nīm-Āvard*, upon meeting Shafāʾī, Shah ‛Abbās dismounted his horse out of respect. In return, Shafāʾī—known for his aversion to praise—praised none but the Prophet and the Imams in his qaṣīdas and prologues, with the sole exception of Shah ‛Abbās.⁶²

In any case, among Shafāʾī’s contemporaries and acquaintances—ranging from Ṣāleḥ Shalgham, Jūlāh, Muhammad Khabbāz, and Hedāyat Baqqāl⁶³, to Kh^wāje Malek-Hussein Mālmīrī⁶⁴, Muhammad-Reza Fekrī⁶⁵, Jalālā Nāʾīnī⁶⁶, Kh^wāja Raḍī Eṣfahānī⁶⁷, Aqdasī, Naẓīrī-ye Neyshābūrī, Shāpūr Tehrānī⁶⁸, Vaḥshī Bāfqī⁶⁹, and Mīrzā Muhammad Muʾmen Kermānī—few escaped the attack of his satirical tongue. Ḥakīm did not restrict his satire to his contemporaries; he also harshly criticized some major classical Persian poets such as Nāṣer Khusru and Jāmī, condemning them for what he considered heretical doctrinal deviance.⁷⁰ At the same time, signs of deep respect for great poets such as Ferdavsī, Sanāʾī, Jamāl al-Dīn Muhammad ebn ‛Abd al-Razzāq*, Kamāl Eṣmā‛īl*, Khāqānī, and Neẓāmī can be found in his poetry.⁷¹ Interestingly, he even satirized ‛Urfī-ye Shīrāzī in a qaṣīda written in poetic reply—criticizing him for having composed satirical verses against revered figures of the literary canon.⁷²

Shafāʾī’s poetry is regarded as among the most flawless and structurally robust of his era in terms of language.⁷³ The main sources of this strength lie in his mastery of both Persian and Arabic, as well as his extensive study of the dīvāns of earlier masters such as Khāqānī, Anvarī, Sa‛dī, and Ḥāfeẓ. Alongside colloquial words and idioms, Shafāʾī made effective use of various technical terms—especially from the field of medicine—as well as refined and established Arabic expressions. His poetic innovation is further highlighted by his creation of novel compounds and coinages, which added freshness and vitality to his verse. Among these are terms such as muhlatāneh (granted in respite), ādamgarī (medicine), buzurg-lāfī (boastful grandiosity), del-kasal (disheartened), lāf-paymā (braggart), shahdālā (sweet), and nākāveh (untamed).⁷⁴

Despite its vulgar expressions and ethical improprieties, Shafāʾī’s dīvān of satirical and bawdy verses (hazlīyyāt) is a remarkable repository of colloquial idioms, street-level cultural references, and rare proper names such as Hale-lam and Chumlān. This section of his work is at times the sole attested source for entries in Persian lexicons and dictionaries. The expressive domain of Shafāʾī’s poetry displays prominent features of the Indian style, though not all his works exhibit this uniformly. The degree to which figurative language and imagination are employed varies by genre; for example, the mathnavīs Namakdān-e Ḥaqīqat, Dīdeh-ye Bīdār, and Majma‛ al-baḥrayn show less metaphorical density and imaginative play than the more convivial Mehr va Muḥabbat. In some of his qaṣīdas composed in poetic reply to the challenging works of Khāqānī, Anvarī, ‛Urfī, and Kamāl Eṣmā‛īl, Shafāʾī makes greater use of imaginative imagery, especially where he adheres to difficult and noun-based rhyme words such as narges, ātash, teashne, and negāh.⁷⁵ Although most of his ghazals follow the style of Bābā Faghānī and, at times, that of Ḥāfeẓ and Sa‛dī, they are nonetheless considered part of the Indian style. However, his language and imagery are relatively free from the stylistic excesses that characterize much of that school.⁷⁶ The collected works of Ḥakīm Shafāʾī—both literary and scientific—stand among the most significant poetic corpora in Persian literature in terms of linguistic, rhetorical, and even historical value, and they are in urgent need of a critical and scholarly edition based on modern editorial standards.

Several sources have used the title “Ḥakīm Shafāʾī” for five other individuals. The earliest of them appears to be Bāqer Shafāʾī Maḥallātī, a contemporary of Shafāʾī known for composing nonsensical satirical verses, who worked as a cotton carder (ḥallāj), though it remains unclear why he was ever referred to as “Ḥakīm”,⁷⁷ a title typically used for physicians. Ṣādeqī Eṣfahānī⁷⁸ narrates a humorous dialogue between Ḥakīm Hasan Shafāʾī and a patient—framed as a satirical medical consultation—which, if not composed by Hasan Shafāʾī himself, likely originated from this same Bāqer. The second is Ḥakīm Sayyed Muẓaffar b. Muhammad-Hussein Kāshānī, also referred to as Ḥakīm Shafāʾī, who died in 1556/963 and is the author of the well-known medical text Qarābādīn. He was likely first confused with Hasan Shafāʾī by Mīrzā ‛Abdullāh Afandī,⁷⁹ the author of Rīyāḍ al-‛ulamāʾ, and this error subsequently found its way into later sources.⁸⁰ As a result of this confusion, some biographers⁸¹ mistakenly attributed poetic and satirical traits to Sayyid Muẓaffar as well. The third individual is Ḥakīm ‛Abd al-Esḥāq Shafāʾī Khurāsānī, about whom only one source⁸² provides minimal information. The fourth is Arshad Lakhnawī, a poet and the son of Ḥakīm Shāfī Khān, who has also been referred to as Ḥakīm Shafāʾī and is recorded to have died in 1815/1230.⁸³ The fifth is Mullā Muhammad-Javād Shafāʾī Narāqī, son of Mullā Aḥmad Narāqī, who was likewise called Ḥakīm Shafāʾī and is known to have composed a continuation of his father’s narrative poem Ṭāqdīs.⁸⁴

/Saeid Shafieioun/

Bibliography

Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, Muhammad-Muḥsen, al-Dharī‛a elā Taṣānīf al-Shī‛a, eds. Ali Naqī Munzavī and Ahmad Munzavī, Beirut: Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1983/1403.

Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, Muhammad-Muḥsen, Muṣannafāt-e Shī‛a: Tarjume va Talkhīṣ-e al-Dharī‛a elā Taṣānīf al-Shī‛a, ed. Muhammad Āṣef Fekrat, Mashhad: Āstān-e Quds-e Raḍavī, 1994/1373.

Āzād Belgrāmī, Mīr Ghulām-Ali b. Nūḥ, Tadhkera-ye Sarv-e Āzād, ed. Mīr Hāshem Muḥaddeth, Tehran: Safīr-e Ardehāl, 2014/1393.

Āzar Bīgdelī, Luṭf-Ali b. Āqā Khān, Ātashkade-ye Āzar, ed. Hasan Sādāt Nāṣerī, Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1957–1961/1336–1340.

Afandī, ‛Abdullāh b. ‛Īsā, Rīyāḍ al-ʿUlamāʾ wa Ḥayāḍ al-Fuḍalāʾ, ed. Aḥmad Hussein, Qum: Maktabat Āyatullāh Mar‛ashī Najafī, 1983/1403.

Akhtar Hūglī, Qāḍī Muhammad-Ṣādeq Khān, Tadhkera-ye Āftāb-e ʿĀlamtāb, ed. Marḍīyeh Beykverdi, Tehran: Safīr-e Ardehāl, 2013/1392.

Amīn Aḥmad Rāzī, Tadhkera-ye Haft Eqlīm, ed. Muhammad-Reza Ṭāherī (Ḥasrat), Tehran: Surūsh, 1999/1378.

Avḥadī Balyānī, Taqī al-Dīn Muhammad ebn Muhammad, ‛Arafāt al-‛Āsheqīn wa ‛Arasāt al-‛Ārefīn, eds. Dhabīḥ-Allāh Ṣāḥebkārī and Āmeneh Fakhr-Aḥmad, Tehran: Mīrāth-e Maktūb, 2010/1389.

Avḥadī Balyānī, Taqī al-Dīn Muhammad b. Muhammad, ‛Arafāt al-‛Āsheqīn wa ‛Arasāt al-‛Ārefīn, MS. Khudābakhsh Library (Patna), no. 229.

Avḥadī Balyānī, Taqī al-Dīn Muhammad b. Muhammad, ‛Arafāt al-‛Āsheqīn wa ‛Arasāt al-‛Ārefīn, MS. Malek National Library, Tehran, no. 5324.

Avḥadī Balyānī, Taqī al-Dīn Muhammad b. Muhammad, ‛Arafāt al-‛Āsheqīn wa ‛Arasāt al-‛Ārefīn, MS. Mawlānā Āzād Library, Aligarh Muslim University, unnumbered.

Avḥadī Balyānī, Taqī al-Dīn Muhammad b. Muhammad, Tadhkere-ye ‛Arafāt al-‛Āsheqīn wa ‛Arasāt al-‛Ārefīn, ed. Muḥsen Nājī Naṣrābādī, Tehran: Asāṭīr, 2009/1388.

Chardin, Jean, Safar-nāmeh-ye Chardin, trans. Eqbāl Yaghmāʾī, Tehran: Ṭūs, 1993–1996/1372–1375.

Dāneshpazhūh, Muhammad Taqī, Fehrest-e Ketābkhāne-ye Markazī-ye Dāneshgāh-e Tehran, vol. 13, Tehran: University of Tehran, 1961/1340.

Dawlatābādī, Muhammad-Taqī, Khuṭbe-ye Dīvān-e Ḥakīm Shafāʾī, MS. Malek National Library, Tehran, no. 3735.

Eskandar Munshī, Tārīkh-e ‛Ālamārā-ye ‛Abbāsī, Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 2003/1382.

Fakhr al-Zamānī Qazvīnī, ‛Abd al-Nabī b. Khalaf, Tadhkera-ye Meykhāneh, ed. Aḥmad Gulchīn Ma‛ānī, Tehran: Eqbāl, 1988/1367.

Gulchīn Ma‛ānī, Aḥmad, Fehrest-e Kutub-e Khaṭṭī-ye Ketābkhāne-ye Āstān-e Quds-e Raḍavī, Mashhad: Āstān-e Quds-e Raḍavī, 1967/1346b.

Gulchīn Ma‛ānī, Aḥmad, Shahr-Āshūb dar She‛r-e Fārsī, ed. Parvīz Gulchīn Ma‛ānī, Tehran: Nashr-e Revāyat, 2001/1380.

Gulchīn Ma‛ānī, Aḥmad, Shahr-Āshūb dar She‛r-e Fārsī, Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1967/1346a.

Hedāyat, Reḍāqulī b. Muhammad-Hādī, Tadhkera-ye Rīyāḍ al-‛Ārefīn, eds. Abū al-Qāsem Rādfar and Gītī Āshīdarī, Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 2006/1385.

Ḥusaynī Shafā‛ī, Muẓaffar b. Muhammad, Ketāb-e Qarābādīn-e Shafāʾī, Tehran: Institute for the History of Islamic and Complementary Medicine, 2004/1383.

Jalālā Ardestānī, Muhammad b. Maḥmūd, Nāme-hā va Neveshte-hā-ye Muhammad Jalāl al-Dīn Ṭabāṭabāʾī Zavvāreʾī Ardestānī (Known as Mīrzā Jalālā): With a Biographical Account and Study of His Time, ed. Qāsem Ṣāfī Gulpāyegānī, Tehran: University of Tehran, 1995/1374.

Keyvānī, Majd al-Dīn, “Shafāʾī-ye Eṣfahānī,” in Dāneshnāmeh-ye Zabān va Adab-e Fārsī, ed. Esmā‛īl Sa‛ādat, vol. 4, Tehran: Farhangestān-e Zabān va Adab-e Fārsī, 2012/1391.

Khān-e Ārezū, Serāj al-Dīn Ali b. Ḥesām al-Dīn, Tadhkera-ye Majma‛ al-Nafāʾes, vol. 1, ed. Zīb al-Nesā Ali Khān, Islamabad: Markaz-e Taḥqīqāt-e Fārsī-ye Iran va Pakistan, 2004/1383.

Khushgū, Bendrā Ban Dās, Safīne-ye Khushgū, vol. 2, ed. Kalīm Aṣghar, Tehran: Library, Museum and Documentation Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, 2010/1389.

Mahdavī, Muṣleḥ al-Dīn, Dāneshmandān va Buzurgān-e Eṣfahān, eds. Raḥīm Qāsemī and Muhammad-Reza Nīlfurūshān, Isfahan: Guldasteh, 2004–2005/1383–1384.

Mīr Dāmād, Muhammad-Bāqer b. Muhammad, Muṣannafāt-e Mīr Dāmād, vol. 1, ed. ‛Abdullāh Nūrānī, Tehran: Anjuman-e Āthār va Mafākher-e Farhangī, 2002/1381.

Mudarres Tabrīzī, Muhammad-Ali, Rayḥānat al-Adab, Tehran: Khayyām, 1990/1369.

Nafīsī, Sa‛īd, Tārīkh-e Naẓm va Nasr dar Iran va dar Zabān-e Fārsī tā Pāyān-e Qarn-e Dahum-e Hejrī, Tehran: Furūghī, 1965/1344.

Naṣrābādī, Muhammad Ṭāher, Tadhkera-ye Naṣrābādī, ed. Aḥmad Mudaqeq Yazdī, Yazd: University of Yazd, 2000/1379.

Naṣrābādī, Muhammad Ṭāher, Tadhkera-ye Naṣrābādī: Tadhkera al-Shu‛arāʾ, ed. Muḥsen Nāji Naṣrābādī, Tehran: Asāṭīr, 1999/1378.

Navāʾī, Amīr ‛Alīshīr, Tadhkera-ye Majāles al-Nafāʾes, [vol. 1, Persian trans. by Muhammad Fakhrī Harātī; vol. 2 by Shah Muhammad Qazvīnī], ed. Ali-Aṣghar Ḥekmat, Tehran: Manūchehrī, 1984/1363.

Qāne‛ Tattavī, Mīr ‛Alīshīr, Tadhkera-ye Maqālāt al-Shu‛arāʾ, ed. Sayyed Ḥesām al-Dīn Rāshedī, Karachi: Sindehī Adabī Board, 1957.

Ṣādeq Beg Afshār, Tadhkera-ye Majma‛ al-Khawāṣ, trans. ‛Abd al-Rasūl Khayyāmpūr, Tabrīz: Akhtar-e Shumāl, 1948/1327.

Ṣādeqī Eṣfahānī, Muhammad-Ṣādeq b. Muhammad-Ṣāleḥ, Shāhed-e Ṣādeq, ed. Gulāleh Hunarī, Qum: Majma‛-e Zakhāʾer-e Eslāmī, 2014/1393.

Ṣafā, Ẓabīḥullāh, Tārīkh-e Adabīyāt dar Iran, Tehran: Ferdaws, 1984–1991/1363–1370.

Shafāʾī, Hasan b. Muhammad-Hussein, Dīde-ye Bīdār and Majma’ al-Baḥrayn, MS. Malek National Library, Tehran, no. 4684.

Shafāʾī, Hasan b. Muhammad-Hussein, Dīvān, ed. Luṭf-Ali Banān, [Tabrīz]: General Directorate of Islamic Guidance, 1983/1362.

Shafāʾī, Hasan b. Muhammad-Hussein, Dīvān-e Hazlīyyāt, in Hasan b. Muhammad-Hussein Shafāʾī, Mathnawī-ye Namakdān-e Ḥaqīqat, MS. Malek National Library, Tehran, no. 4697.

Shafāʾī, Hasan b. Muhammad-Hussein, Kullīyāt-e Ash‛ār-e Ḥakīm Shafāʾī-ye Eṣfahānī, ed. Muhammad Sīyāsī, Tehran: Sukhan, 2019/1398.

Shafāʾī, Hasan b. Muhammad-Hussein, Muḥabbat-nāmeh, MS. Central Library of the University of Tehran, no. 3040.

Shafī‛īyūn, Sa‛īd, “Shafāʾī-ye Eṣfahānī, Sharaf al-Dīn Hasan,” in Dāneshnāme-ye Jahān-e Eslām, ed. Ghulām-Ali Ḥaddād ‛Ādel, vol. 27, Tehran: Ketāb-e Marja‛, 2019/1398.

Shah Hussein b. Ghīyās al-Dīn Muhammad, Tadhkera-ye Khayr al-Bayān, ed. ‛Abd al-Ali Uveysī Kahkhā, Zahedan: University of Sistan and Baluchistan, 2018/1397.

Suheylī Kh^wānsārī, Aḥmad, “Malek al-Shu‛arā Ḥakīm Shafāʾī-ye Eṣfahānī,” Armaghān, vol. 18, nos. 6–7, Shahrīvar–Mehr 1316/September–October 1937.

Vāleh Dāghestānī, ‛Alīqulī ebn Muhammad-Ali, Tadhkere-ye Rīyāḍ al-Shu‛arāʾ, ed. Muḥsen Nājī Naṣrābādī, Tehran: Asāṭīr, 2005/1384.

Watson, Ronald Ross, Kārburd-e Bālīnī-ye Ṭebb-e Gīyāhī, trans. and annotated by Aḥmad Emāmī and Maryam Akābarī, Mashhad: Foundation for Islamic Studies, 2012/1391.

1. For example, see: Nafīsī, vol. 1, p. 514; Suhaylī Kh^wānsārī, pp. 423–436; Ṣafā, vol. 5, p. 1075; Fakhr al-Zamānī Qazvīnī, p. 526, n. 1. Compare with: Gulchīn Ma‛ānī, 1967a, p. 54, who erroneously recorded the year as 956, though he corrected it in later editions (idem, 2001, p. 189). See also: Keyvānī, p. 261, who—despite citing the Asāṭīr edition—still adopts the incorrect date of 956, relying on Gulchīn Ma‛ānī’s earlier statement.[↩]
2. Avḥadī Balyānī, 2009, vol. 4, p. 2239.[↩]
3. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 17.[↩]
4. Avḥadī Balyānī, MS. no. 5324, fol. 297r, and incomplete unnumbered manuscript, Mawlānā Āzād Library.[↩]
5. Avḥadī Balyānī, 2009/1389, vol. 4, p. 2239. In MS. no. 229 of the Khudābakhsh Library, the year 1012 is mistakenly recorded, whereas the actual date of composition for Tadhkera-ye‛Arafāt al-‛Āsheqīn is 1022–1024. The editors of this printed edition bypassed their base manuscript and, relying instead on a misreading in the faulty edition published by Asāṭīr (2009/1388, vol. 3, p. 2024), recorded the year as 1022—a year earlier than it should be. Based on this misreading, the reviewers of the author’s article also, contrary to my view, modified the birth date in the Dāneshnāme-ye Jahān-e Eslām (see: Shafī‛īyūn, p. [↩]
6. Avḥadī Balyānī, 2009/1389, vol. 1, p. 17.[↩]
7. Avḥadī Balyānī, ibid.; Amīn Aḥmad Rāzī, vol. 2, p. 982; Jalālā Ardestānī, p. 281.[↩]
8. Shafāʾī, 1983/1362, muqaddameh-ye Banān, p. 38; Āzar Bīgdelī, section 3, p. 950.[↩]
9. Jalālā Ardesānī, p. 281.[↩]
10. Khushgū, daftar 2, p. 360.[↩]
11. Naṣrābādī, 2000/1379 Sh, p. 314.[↩]
12. Avḥadī Balyānī, 2009/1389, vol. 1, p. 17; Fakhr al-Zamānī Qazvīnī, p. 524.[↩]
13. Shah Hussein ebn Ghīyās al-Dīn Muhammad, pp. 915–917.[↩]
14. Avḥadī Balyānī, 2009/1389, vol. 5, p. 3285; Shafāʾī, 2019/1398, vol. 2, p. 1340.[↩]
15. Fakhr al-Zamānī Qazvīnī, p. 316; Shafāʾī, 2019/1398, vol. 1, p. 685; vol. 2, pp. 1340, 1387.[↩]
16. Shafāʾī, 2019/1398, vol. 1, p. 245; vol. 2, p. 1387.[↩]
17. Jalālā Ardestānī, ibid.; Dawlatābādī, fol. 6; see also: Shafāʾī, MS. no. 4684, fol. 59.[↩]
18. Shafāʾī, MS. no. 4684, fol. 183; ibid, 2019/1398, vol. 1, p. 162; vol. 2, p. 1387; ibid, MS. no. 4697, fol. 52.[↩]
19. Ṣādeq Beg Afshār, p. 204.[↩]
20. Avḥadī Balyānī, 2009/1389, vol. 5, p. 3285.[↩]
21. Khān Ārezū, vol. 1, p. 801.[↩]
22. Naṣrābādī, 1999/1378, vol. 1, p. 428; Gulchīn Ma‛ānī, 1967/1346b, vol. 7, p. 592.[↩]
23. Naṣrābādī, 1999/1378, vol. 1, p. 480.[↩]
24. Naṣrābādī, 1999/1378, vol. 1, pp. 374, 431, 436; Fakhr al-Zamānī Qazvīnī, p. 872.[↩]
25. Vāleh Dāghestānī, vol. 2, p. 1207.[↩]
26. Suhaylī Kh^wānsārī, p. 427.[↩]
27. Naṣrābādī, 1999/1378, vol. 1, pp. 363, 600.[↩]
28. Jalālā Ardestānī, p. 275; Dawlatābādī, fols. 7–13.[↩]
29. Eskandar Munshī, vol. 3, p. 1082; Dawlatābādī, fol. 6.[↩]
30. It is surprising that Naṣrābādī, 2000/1379, p. 314, despite citing Mullā ‛Arshī’s chronogram “be-shah-e dīn Shafāʾī dād jān rā” (Shafāʾī gave his life to the king of faith), records the year as 1038. Jalālā Ardestānī, p. 282, also composed a chronogramic line—“Khurshīd-e awj-e ḥekmatam andar neqāb shud” (The sun of top wisdom reached its peak and was veiled)—corresponding to this same year.[↩]
31. Jalālā Ardestānī, ibid.[↩]
32. Mahdavī, vol. 1, p. 519.[↩]
33. Shafāʾī, 2019/1398, vol. 1, p. 82.[↩]
34. Chardin, vol. 4, p. 1572.[↩]
35. Shafāʾī, MS. no. 4684, fol. 64.[↩]
36. Shafāʾī, 1983/1362, p. 44.[↩]
37. Dawlatābādī, fol. 6.[↩]
38. Shafāʾī, MS. no. 4684, fol. 64.[↩]
39. Avḥadī Balyānī, 2009/1389, vol. 5, p. 3285.[↩]
40. Dawlatābādī, fol. 12.[↩]
41. Jalālā Ardestānī, p. 281.[↩]
42. Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1994/1373, vol. 3, p. 43.[↩]
43. Hedāyat, vol. 2, p. 440.[↩]
44. Avḥadī Balyānī, 2009/1389, vol. 4, p. 2239.[↩]
45. See: Navāʾī, pp. 124–125.[↩]
46. Dawlatābādī, fol. 12.[↩]
47. Shafāʾī, 2019/1398, vol. 1, pp. 641–643.[↩]
48. Shafāʾī, 1983/1362, pp. 38–80, 99–100, 114–116, 156.[↩]
49. Shafāʾī, 2019/1398, vol. 1, pp. 390–394.[↩]
50. Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 356–364.[↩]
51. Shafāʾī, 1983/1362, p. 9.[↩]
52. Jalālā Ardastānī, pp. 279–280.[↩]
53. Shafāʾī, 2019/1398, vol. 2, pp. 1338–1339, 1376.[↩]
54. Jalālā Ardestānī, p. 273.[↩]
55. Mīr Dāmād, vol. 1, p. 603.[↩]
56. Naṣrābādī, 1999/1378, p. 313.[↩]
57. Fakhr al-Zamānī Qazvīnī, p. 523.[↩]
58. Avḥadī Balyānī, 2009/1389, vol. 4, p. 2239.[↩]
59. Shafāʾī, MS. no. 4697, fol. 61.[↩]
60. Shafāʾī, 1983/1362, pp. 106–108, 170–171.[↩]
61. Naṣrābādī, 2000/1379, p. 374.[↩]
62. Shafāʾī, MS. no. 4697, fol. 62.[↩]
63. Shafāʾī, 2019/1398, vol. 2, pp. 1315, 1349, 1359.[↩]
64. Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 1307–1310.[↩]
65. Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 1275–1290.[↩]
66. Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 1337–1339.[↩]
67. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 1383.[↩]
68. Shafāʾī, MS. no. 4697, fol. 115.[↩]
69. Shafāʾī, 2019/1398, vol. 2, pp. 1353–1354.[↩]
70. Shafāʾī, MS. no. 4697, fols. 67–68.[↩]
71. Shafāʾī, MS. no. 3040, fols. 32–33.[↩]
72. Shafāʾī, 2019/1398, vol. 2, pp. 596–606.[↩]
73. Shafāʾī, 1983/1362, muqaddameh-ye Banān, pp. 92–118.[↩]
74. Shafāʾī, MS. no. 4697, fols. 34, 65; ibid, 1983/1362, pp. 157, 160–189, 623, 699.[↩]
75. Shafāʾī, 1983/1362, pp. 68–69, 76–79, 145–147.[↩]
76. Ibid., muqaddameh-ye Banān, pp. 92–118.[↩]
77. Naṣrābādī, 2000/1379, p. 646.[↩]
78. Ṣādeqī Eṣfahānī, p. 205.[↩]
79. Afandī, vol. 7, p. 78.[↩]
80. For example, see: Naṣrābādī, 2000/1379, p. 313; see also: Modarres Tabrīzī, vol. 3, p. 226; Āzād Belgrāmī, p. 47; Āzar Bīgdelī, section 3, p. 950.[↩]
81. Watson, vol. 1, p. 141; Ḥusaynī Shafāʾī, p. 5.[↩]
82. Qāne‛ Tatavī, pp. 335–336.[↩]
83. Akhtar Hūglī, vol. 1, p. 201.[↩]
84. Āqā Buzurg Ṭehrānī, 1983/1403, vol. 15, p. 134; Dāneshpazhūh, vol. 13, p. 3178.[↩]