This article constitutes the first scholarly study devoted to the examination and introduction of the commentary (sharḥ) on Makhzan al-Asrār by ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Jonpuri, focusing specifically on the slips and errors found in his explanations. The present study employs a descriptive, comparative, and analytical approach, based on documentary evidence and manuscript sources. Some of the errors, attributed to Jonpuri include; Overlooking the textual context and the rhetorical/structural conventions of the couplet; attributing explanations to an incorrect source; committing chronological and historical mistakes, such as in stating that the Shāhnāmeh was presented to Bahram Gur at the wrong time; incorrect reading and transcription of a couplet, for instance rendering rāhebe dil shodan as rāh be del shodan, lack of specificity and generic commentary, such as referring to one poet instead of specifying a figure like Amir Mo‘ezzi; vagueness and failure to clearly identify the concrete referents/cases embodied in the verses; disregard for scientific and medical topics relevant to Nizami’s time, including, for example, the relation between simāb (mercury) and zar (gold), or the neglect of the temperament and humoral properties of wheat; and, finally, subjective and poetically inclined—yet inaccurate—interpretations of certain verses.
Keywords: Makhzan al-Asrār, Jonpuri, manuscript, commentary, Nizami.
Introduction
The Makhzan al-Asrar of Nizami has been one of the most influential works throughout the history of Persian literature, attracting the attention of many imitators, leading to numerous similar works, and drawing the attention of various commentators. Rarely do we encounter a work that has had such a widespread impact on poets and commentators. The number of imitations of Makhzan al-Asrar exceeds one hundred, and the compilation of numerous ancient and contemporary commentaries on Makhzan al-Asrar bears witness to this fact. Given that the present article discusses Abd al Aziz Jonpuri's manuscript commentary on Makhzan al-Asrar, some points about the commentator and his commentary will addressed: Not much information is available about Jonpuri's life and characteristics, but he apparently, like his father, was a Sufi and later became his successor. Jonpuri, when commenting on verses, pays attention to verses from the Quran, Hadiths, and sayings. He explains some rhetorical and grammatical points of the verse, and when necessary, delves into stories and anecdotes related to the verse. He elucidates some scientific matters or literary traditions pertinent to the verses, and references to the poems of poets such as Khaqani, Rumi, Sa'di, Hafez, Salman Savaji, and others are seen in his commentary. Overall, he has adhered to the style and method of ancient commentaries and interpretations. However, some slips and errors observed in his commentary on certain verses, which will be discussed in this article.
Materials and Methods
The present research has conducted using descriptive, comparative, and analytical methods, based on library resources. After studying the manuscript of Jonpuri's commentary on Makhzan al-Asrar, and to determine the extent of his slips and errors, this commentator's interpretation and explanations are compared and contrasted with several corrected, and ancient, and contemporary commentaries. For this research, the commentaries of Muhammad ibn Qavam Balkhi and Qazi Ibrahim Tatavi from ancient commentaries, and the commentaries of Hasan Wahid Dastgerdi, Barat Zanjani, and Behrouz Servatiyan from contemporary commentaries have utilized. The aim of this research is to demonstrate Jonpuri's slips and errors in his commentary on Makhzan al-Asrar, and to corroborate the validity of the discussion, assistance has sought from other commentaries.
Discussion & Result:
Although Jonpuri's explanations and interpretations in his commentary on "Makhzan al-Asrar" are often valuable and authoritative (the author addresses this in another article currently written), there are also some slips or differences of opinion in explaining and interpreting the verses that are noteworthy and whose accuracy needs to be ascertained. For this purpose, some verses whose explanations appear to be ambiguous and erroneous addressed, and to determine their correctness, some old and new commentaries on "Makhzan al-Asrar" are consulted, and Jonpuri's views are compared with the explanations of these commentators.
Conclusion:
Despite its advantages, Jonpuri's commentary suffers from errors and shortcomings in elucidating some verses. Based on the verses examined, it becomes clear that the explanation and meaning of some verses are sometimes not precise and comprehensive. These slips, sometimes stem from inattention to the text's context, and discourse, some relate to the commentator's explanations not aligning with the poet's other verses, sometimes historical errors have crept in, in some verses, the scientifically accepted concepts of Nizami's time have been overlooked, some verses have been interpreted with poetic sentiment, some explanations are general and do not resolve the ambiguity of the verse, the reading of some verses is incorrect, leading to slips in meaning and explanation, and some descriptions have been attributed to incorrect references. Slips of this kind weaken the position of this commentary alongside older commentaries such as that of Muhammad ibn Qawam Balkhi and Qazi Ibrahim Tatavi; however, alongside these slips, Jonpuri's commentary also contains positive points and valuable explanations, which are compiled in another article.