بررسی اختلاف نظر شارحانِ مخزن الاسرار در ضبط و تحلیل ابیات (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
در این پژوهش با مراجعه به یک شرح قدیمی و چند شرح معاصرِ مخزن الاسرارکوشیده می شود ضمن مقایسه نظر شارحان در تحلیل اشعار به تفاوت ها و ابهام های شرحِ ابیات نیز توجه شود. با توجه به اینکه ابیاتِ انتخاب شده، بیشتر دشوار و بحث انگیز هستند، توجه به نظر هر شارح و مقایسه آنها با یکدیگر، جایگاه و اهمیت آن شرح را نیز نشان می دهد. از سوی دیگر ابهام ها و گاه نارسایی های معنایی هر بیت نیز آشکار می شود. شرح محمد بن قوام بلخی از قدیمی ترین شروح خطی مخزن الاسرار است که به قرن هشتم بر می گردد و بر بسیاری از شروح بعد از خود تأثیرگذار بوده است. شرح حسن وحید دستگردی از نخستین شروح چاپی معاصر است و در کنار شرح مخزن الاسرار بهروز ثروتیان و برات زنجانی بسیار توجه پژوهشگران این عرصه را به خود جلب کرده است. پژوهش حاضر نشان می دهد تفاوت معنایی و تفسیری در این شروح به نسبت زیاد است و در جاهایی با یکدیگر اختلاف نظر دارند. همچنین برخی از این معانی و توضیحات، درنهایت راهگشا نمی شود و ابهام بیت هم چنان باقی می ماند؛ بنابراین، ضرورت دارد برای دریافت معنای دقیق تر ابیات، ضمن مراجعه به بافت متنی ابیات و بهره گیری از شواهد شعری منظومه های دیگر نظامی، دوباره به شرح و تفسیر مخزن الاسرار توجه شود. روش کار شارحان متفاوت است و بیشتر بر معنای واژگان و ابیات متمرکز شده اند و ساختارهای بلاغی، دستوری و ترکیب سازی های زبانی، کمتر واکاوی شده است.Examining the Differences of Opinion Among the Commentators of Makhzan al-Asrar in Recording and Analyzing the Poems
In this research, by referring to an old description and several contemporary descriptions of Makhzan al-Asrar, while comparing the commentators' opinions in the analysis of verses from this work, the differences and ambiguities of the description of the verses have been discussed. Considering that the selected verses are controversial, paying attention to the opinion of each commentator and comparing them with each other, on the other hand, shows the importance and position of each work, ambiguities, and possibly the semantic inadequacies of each verse become obvious. Mohammad Qavam Balkhi's commentary is one of the oldest manuscripts of MakhzAn al-Asrar, which dates back to the 8th century and has influenced many later commentaries. Hassan Vahid Dastgerdi's commentary is one of the first contemporary printed commentaries, and along with Behrouz Servatiyan's and Barat Zanjani's commentary on Makhzan al-Asrar, it has been of great interest to researchers in this field. The results of the current research shows that the difference in meaning and interpretation in these explanations is relatively high, and sometimes they have differences. In addition, some of these meanings do not solve the problem in the end, and the ambiguity of the verse remains. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the more precise meaning of the verses while referring to the textual context of the verses, and taking advantage of the poetic evidence of other Nizami poems, descriptions, and interpretations of Makhzan al-Asrar should be discussed again.
Keywords: Description of Verses, Makhzan al-Asrar, Mohammad Qavam, Dastgardi, Servatiyan, Zanjani.
Introduction
Makhzan al-Asrar is one of the lasting and influential works throughout the history of Persian literature. This text, like other poems of Nizami, can be considered a trend-setting text because after Nizami, much attention was paid to Makhzan-al-Asrar, and many poets tried to imitate it. This work has influenced both Nizami imitators and commentators. The existence of difficulties and problems in the verses of Makhzan al-Asrar is the reason for the attention of commentators to this work. “This strangeness is noticeable even in his interpretations. In many cases, the interpretation he uses to express a normal meaning includes strangeness. And he even presents metaphorical images with elegance in the interpretation” (Zarrinkoob, 2010, p. 213). Of course, this complexity is ultimately understood by taking into account the context of the words and the scope of the verses, “sometimes codes hidden in Nizami poems can be understood with a little reflection before and after the words and with familiarity with the artistic language of the poet” (Servatiyan & Mirza Ebrahimov, 1991, p. 15). However, some of Nizami's words seem to be understood only by him and its addressee is the poet himself. “Some of his words are still involved in a maze of strange themes, which seems that the poet has no audience but himself” (Zarinkoob, 2010, p. 219). Nizami's special and unique style has made his language stand out and is not similar to the language of other poets. “Orientalists believe that the poetry of the Caucasus and Azerbaijan, with its special way of expression, vocabulary, and grammar, contains features that cannot be seen in other poets of eastern Iran” (Ehteshami Honegani, 1993, p. 122). Under the influence of the sciences and knowledge of the poet's time, some distinctions and difficulties have been created, leading to ambiguity and complexity. Considering the focus of this article on Makhzan al-Asrar, we should note that the language of this text is more distinct than other works of Nizami because “the language of the first Nizami poem is very complicated. Maybe he wanted to show his mastery of the complex poetic technique in it” (Bertels, 1940, p. 71). In any case, his complicated language, imagination, and new meanings impose a fresh style on his Poem that cannot repeated after him.
Materials & Methods
The present research was carried out using descriptive, comparative, and analytical methods based on library sources. After studying the four descriptions of Makhzan al-Asrar, the study compares interpretations and explanations of these commentators. It tries to analyze them to some extent considering the context evaluate the textual verses and their meanings. In the review and comparison of these interpretations, on the one hand, the differences in the recording of the verses are paid attention to. On the other hand, we have dealt with verses that are mainly complicated and ambiguous. In addition, to achieve a more correct meaning, attention is paid to the textual context of the verses. Due to the precedence of Muhammad bin Qavam's description, the verses recorded based on this book, and among the contemporary commentaries, the works that have attracted the most attention of the readers: Dastgerdi, Servatiyan, Zanjani, and Pournamdariyan, were selected.
Research Findings
The working methods of these commentators are different, and they are more focused on the meaning of words and verses, and the rhetorical, grammatical structures and language combinations are less analyzed. On the other hand, due to the problems and difficulties in understanding some of the verses of Makhzan al-Asrar, like the works of other poets, descriptions, and interpretations have been written on this work, especially from the 8th century AH onwards, with the description of Mohammad Qavam Balkhi, there has been an interest in the description of this work.
In the following centuries, we come across other interpretations of Makhzan al-Asrar, which include the description of Mohammad bin Lad Dehlavi in the 10th century AH, the description of Abdul Aziz bin Fakhruddin Sohravardi Jonpuri in the 11th century AH, and the description of Qazi Ibrahim Tatavi in the 11th century AH. In the contemporary period, we come across other commentaries that have corrected, explained, and analyzed Makhzan al-Asrar. The authors of some of these works are Hassan Vahid Dastgerdi, Behrouz Servatiyan, Barat Zanjani, Mehdi Mahouzi, Taghi Pournamdariyan, Naser Nikubakht and Alireza Nabilou. In this article, the author will rely on the description of Muhammad bin Qavam Balkhi, Dastgerdi, Servatiyan, Zanjani, and Pournamdariyan. The author thinks there is a need for a more complete work to explain the problems of Makhzon al-Asrar, and it seems that a more comprehensive description can achieved by comparing these explanations. moreover, in the analysis of this work, a distinction should be made between the superficial meaning and deep meaning, and attention should also be paid to the context and textual position of the verses to understand the meaning more accurately.
Discussion of Results & Conclusions
The result of the research shows that the description of Muhammad bin Qavam Balkhi, which is one of the oldest commentaries on Makhzan al-Asrar, can still be one of the reliable sources for the interpretation of the verses of this text the commentator's attention to vocabulary, meanings, allusions and rhetorical topics of the verses gives him and his work a privileged position. Other commentators have had the necessary freedom and initiative in their interpretation and analysis and have not been under the shadow of Muhammad bin Qavam's interpretation. Description and analyses have almost the required variety and distinction. In comparing the verses of these commentaries, the author see that Purnamdariyan and Mousavi (2022), who have seen other commentaries, have done better in explaining the verses. Zanjani (1993) has followed the side of brevity in explaining the final meaning of some verses, and Servatiyan and Dastgardi have explained some verses more and briefly explained others. At the same time, there are differences between these interpretations and their explanations, and in some cases, the explanation of the verses is not helpful, and ambiguity remains. To fully understand the meanings of Nizami verses, the readers should read all these explanations and not be satisfied with one explanation.
تبلیغات
