Lacanian criticism of the characters "eremite", "city slicker" and "law enforcement officer" in Hafez’s Divan

Zahed, Rend and Mohtaseb are among the most important characters that have been highly addressed in Hafez's poetry, and each of these characters represent specific symptoms of unconsciousness from the psychoanalytic point of view. In this research, these three characters in Hafez's sonnets have been analyzed and explained using the qualitative analysis method and based on Lacan's psychoanalyst opinions. The results of the research have indicated that the “Zahed” castrates the signifier of his true desire in the unconscious area and fulfills the signifier of the Other’s desire. Furthermore, he seeks to achieve the phallus and thinks that he is able to achieve it despite the fact that it always fails.  “Rend,” like the hysterical subject, intends to enjoy objectless drives instead of achieving the phallus. He seizes jouissance for his own benefit and deprives the Other of achieving that through signs such as drinking alcohol, not paying attention to expediency, and the desire to indulge. “Mohtaseb” is a sadistic pervert subject who protects the signifier of the Other’s desire and acts in the place of his gaze and does not violate the law in any way. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that drinking alcohol in secret and at the same time depriving the abstainer and Debauchee of wine is actually fulfilling The Other’s jouissance. 
Introduction:
Zahed, Rend and Mohtaseb are among the most important characters that have been highly addressed in Hafez's poetry, and each of these characters represent specific symptoms of unconsciousness from the psychoanalytic point of view. In this research, these three characters in Hafez's sonnets have been analyzed and explained using the qualitative analysis method and based on Lacan's psychoanalyst opinions. The results of the research have indicated that the “Zahed” castrates the signifier of his true desire in the unconscious area and fulfills the signifier of the Other’s desire. Furthermore, he seeks to achieve the phallus and thinks that he is able to achieve it despite the fact that it always fails.  “Rend,” like the hysterical subject, intends to enjoy objectless drives instead of achieving the phallus. He seizes jouissance for his own benefit and deprives the Other of achieving that through signs such as drinking alcohol, not paying attention to expediency, and the desire to indulge. “Mohtaseb” is a sadistic pervert subject who protects the signifier of the Other’s desire and acts in the place of his gaze and does not violate the law in any way. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that drinking alcohol in secret and at the same time depriving the abstainer and Debauchee of wine is actually fulfilling The Other’s jouissance.
Materials and Methods:
In this research, these three characters in Hafez's sonnets have been analyzed and explained using the qualitative analysis method and based on Lacan's psychoanalyst opinions.
Results and Discussion:
The hero of Hafez's lyrical poems is “Rend” and the reader may seek for a kind of maturity in this character that can be evaluated by the criteria and symptoms of Lacan's hysterical subject. Hafez is interested in “Rend” and Lacan has considered psychological maturity to be dependent on the launch from the position of obsession to the position of hysteria. Hafez has tried to reveal the duality of the actions of the auditor through “Rend's” presence. “Rend” is neither an outward-looking neurotic, nor does he do the other thing in secret, like the auditor. From Jacques Lacan's perspective, at the level of society, on the one hand, maintaining and acting on the law in public, and on the other hand, violating it in secret, creates a kind of duality in desire, which causes the subject to secretly experience violation and freedom only in the narrowness of his solitude, provided that the gaze is not present. On the other hand, symbolic castration as a law is increasingly imposed on the subject and the authority of the great other is maintained. According to some critics, Hafez has placed his own character in opposition to the ascetic in his sonnets. Based on this, it can be claimed that if we consider Hafez as “Rend,” it could an obsessive ascetic. After the lack in the Other became tangible, she was thrown from the position of obsession to the position of hysteria. In Lacanian terms, the maturity of the ascetic created the character called “Rend.”. Regarding the difference between the ascetic and “Rend” from Lacanian perspective, it should be declared that “Rend”, as a hysterical subject, has recognized an advantage in desire that the ascetic, as an obsessive subject, is unable to recognize. “Rend” is aware of the unfillable lack of her desire; While the ascetic thinks that he can fill this lack by following the chain of signification of the symbolic.
This can be addressed in the definition of “Rend” from Hafez's perspective. Regarding “Rend’s” definition: “Rend” is said to be the one who has been freed from the attributes, epithets, and rules of multiplicity and determination and is not bound by anything" (Bina, 2009: 322). “Rend’s” most obvious symptom is the violation of the signifier of the desire of the great other, which this violation occurs with various signifiers of “Rend.” First, the tendency towards alcoholism, second, making love or being in love. Also, "seeking well-being" and "property or expediency" are also signifiers that “Rend” has no desire for; because they are signifiers of the desire of the great other. “Rend”, as a hysterical subject, recognizes the lack in himself as a lack in the other; Therefore, the association of the signifier "badnam" with the signifier “Rend” for Hafez is not only not objectionable, but through it he also reveals the lack in the subject.
Regarding the definition and position of the character of thecity-censore in Hafez's Divan, it has been stated: The “Mohtaseb” is essentially someone who supervises the market (Amir al-Souq) and enjoining good and forbidding evil is one of his duties. As a result, he lacks a negative semantic load. However, in Hafez's poetry and thought, three meanings or instances of “Mohtaseb” are seen, only one of which coincides with the dictionary meaning of “Mohtaseb”, and the other two meanings are radically different and variable. The second meaning is the person of Mubariz al-Din Muhammad, the corrupt and hypocritical king of Hafez's time, and the third meaning includes every corrupt and hypocritical person, who were certainly not few in Hafez's time; "Vain-talking preachers, court judges, and ascetics who worship externals, etc., and all those whose externals and internals are different" (Hasanabadi, 2000: 151). Many commentators of Hafez's sonnets are on the belief that this poet intended a specific meaning for a word in a general sense, and for this reason, they often considered the second meaning mentioned about the word "Mohtaseb" for this word in Hafez's poetry. Some other critics have doubted the certainty that the word "Mohtaseb" in Hafez's poetry refers to Amir Mubariz al-Din; but they have agreed with other critics about the general nature of the meaning of this word. The symptoms revealed by the "Mohtaseb" in Hafez's poetry show that he is a sadistic perverted subject. Transgression in Hafez's poetry is often an act that takes place secretly and in secret. If we identify the mechanism of the functioning of desire in the structure of deviation, “denial of desire,” one of the symptoms of the deviant subject is the denial of the desire of the non-neurotic subject and even the denial of his own desire: According to Hafez, no one suspects that “Mohtaseb” is drunk, because in public, Hafez is the signifier of the desire of the great other, and in private, he has actually placed himself in the position of the jouissance of the great other; that is, “Mohtaseb’s” drunkenness is the appropriation of wine for the benefit of the other and the deprivation of the non-neurotic subject. “Mohtaseb” performs this action so that the great other has appropriated the jouissance, not the ascetic and obsessive Sufi, nor the hysterical “Rend”. “Mohtaseb” is suspicious of “Rend” because he has been violated by him, but he does not attribute this suspicion to the Sufi as the obsessive neurotic subject because he transgresses in private.
Conclusion:
Evidence obtained from the Lacanian analysis of the characters of the “Zahed”, “Remd”, and “Mohtaseb” in Hafez's poem shows that the abstainer, in the unconscious, castrates the signifier of his true desire and satisfies the signifier of the desire of the great other. He seeks to attain the phallus and thinks that he can achieve it; but he always fails. He cannot recognize the lack in himself as a lack in the other and thinks that the great other has integrity and the phallus is with him; therefore, the psychological structure of the abstainer is neurotic and obsessive. “Rend” is in a hysterical position. The emergence of the hysterical position is a consequence of the subject's maturity and liberation from the position of obsession. “Rend” has recognized the lack in himself as a lack in the great other and, in his opinion, not only himself, but also the great other does not have a phallus and does not have integrity. “Rend”, like the hysterical subject, instead of realizing the phallus, intends to enjoy drives without an object. As we see in Hafez's Divan, “Rend’s” drunkenness and his tendency to drink, his lack of attention to expediency, and his desire for comfort are considered death drives for him. Through these signifiers, “Rend”  appropriates jouissance for his own benefit and deprives the great other of it; but as we have seen based on the evidence, the abstainer, as an obsessive subject, has deprived himself of jouissance and has left it to the great other. “Zahed” as an obsessive subject, is the subject who executes the law or the signifier of the great other's desire, and if he violates this signifier, he suffers from the pangs of conscience; but on the other hand, “Rend” easily violates the signifier of his desire due to the obviousness of the lack in the great other. “Mohtaseb” is a sadistic perverted subject who protects the signifier of the desire of the Great Other. In this context, he acts as the gaze of the Great other and does not violate the law in any way. There is a subtle point here that should be mentioned about thecity-censore's transgression or non-transgression. “Mohtaseb’s” drinking attitude in secret while depriving the “Rend” and “Zahed” of the signifier of wine is in fact the fulfillment of the jouissance of the Great Other. Since the mechanism of perversion is the denial of desire, it must be said that thecity-censore does not enjoy his drinking, but simply places himself as an object for the Great other and thus becomes the jouissance of the Great Other. “Mohtaseb’s” presence in the society envisaged by Hafez, from the Lacanian perspective, fulfills symbolic castration in its fullest sense; because he neither enjoys jouissance himself nor allows “Rend” and “Zahed” to enjoy it. “Rend”, due to his hysterical genius, is aware of this issue and wants to expose the duality of the action of the umpire. One of the se characters is the “Zahed” and “Rend”, who is concerned with castrating himself, and the other, in secret, who is concerned with fulfilling the signifier of the desire of the great other, are also not complete and has shortcomings.