نقدی بر «شرح مشکلات بلاغی و عربی نفثة‌المصدور زیدری» اثر کامران شاه‌مرادیان و سعید قنبری‌فشی

The book A sigh from the chest (NafsatolMasdur) is one of the most technical prose texts in Persian literature, with unresolved narrative, historical, and literary issues that remain subjects of discussion and research for scholars. Despite the efforts of commentators, many of its potentials, especially in the field of rhetoric, have not been fully explored. The research by Kamran Shahmoradian and Saeed Qanbarifashi, aims to clarify the rhetorical and Arabic complexities of A sigh from the chest. The book Explanation of Rhetorical and Arabic Problems of “A sigh from the chest” by Zeidari, written by Kamran Shahmaradian and Saeed Qanbarifashi, is a work that has been published with the intention of unraveling the rhetorical and Arabic problems of this book, with a smaller volume than Yazdgardi's Explanation. This article analyzes the work from a perspective that excludes the Arabic language aspects. The findings reveal that the authors have committed numerous errors and oversights, including mistakes in explaining word and sentence meanings, carelessness and inaccuracies in describing rhetorical devices, disregard for the text's historical context, errors in accurately transcribing words and phrases, failure to adhere to proper writing and editing standards, and a lack of scientific rigor in citations and quotations. The abundance of these errors creates confusion for novice readers and undermines the scholarly integrity of the work. Compared to previous commentaries, this work offers no fresh insights or solutions to the text’s complexities and fails to resolve its difficulties.
Introduction
The 6th century in Persian literature can be regarded as the pinnacle of the development of rhetorical devices in both prose and poetry. In the realm of prose, which is the focus of this research, the works of this period are so rich in literary techniques, complex metaphors, allusions, specialized terms, and information related to astronomy, medicine, music, chess, backgammon, weapons, and more, that understanding the simple meaning of sentences often requires deciphering the rhetorical arts and other semantic complexities. Works such as Kelileh and Demneh, Marzban-nameh Jangshah History, Hamidi officials, and A Sigh of the Chest are considered prime examples of these texts. In many cases, with regard to the use of literary devices, they rival the poetry of the great poets of this period.
Among prose works, A Sigh of the Chest by Shahab al-Din Mohammad Khurandezi Zeidari Nasawi is undoubtedly one of the most complex and technical works of this era. This book narrates the sufferings the author endured during the Mongol invasion, but at the same time, it is filled with numerous literary figures, tender human emotions, and poetic descriptions that reflect great finesse (Tahan, 1387: 93). One of the key features of this work is its elaborative style, which serves to achieve rhetorical and literary goals beyond the surface level of the text (for further study, see: Qasemi et al: 1403). Amir Hasan Yazdgerdi was the first to critically edit and provide a detailed commentary on this work in 1343. Following his commentary, other explanations have been written, including Dard-e Del (The New Edition of A Sigh of the Chest) by Mansoor Svorat (1391), Explanation of the Rhetorical and Arabic Problems in A Sigh of the Chest by Zaidari by Kamran Shahmoradian and Saeed Qanbarifashi (1392), Commentary on A Sigh of the Chest by Seyed Shahrokh Mousavian (1393), and more. Despite the efforts of these commentators, many ambiguities and complexities remain in the text that necessitate further reflection and revision. These ambiguities and complexities can generally be attributed to three main factors: a) issues related to textual criticism (such as miscopying and corruption of words); b) the dense use of rhetorical devices and specialized terminology; and c) the inherent complexities of the narrative. The logical expectation of readers is that new commentaries will offer a more comprehensive perspective than previous ones and engage with the unsaid and the ambiguities left by prior interpretations. In this study, we will critique and review the book Explanation of the Rhetorical and Arabic Problems in A Sigh of the Chest by Zeidari within the confines of an article.
Necessity, Importance, and Objective
One of the main responsibilities of researchers is to evaluate published works through the lens of fair and scholarly critique, revealing their strengths and weaknesses to both the authors and the audience. In case of any errors, the goal is to encourage the author to revise their work. This task is essential for benefiting the audience, the author, and advancing the research related to Persian literature.
Research Questions
In this article, we seek to answer the following questions:

a) Have the respected commentators followed a scientific and logical approach in explaining and interpreting the text?
b) Does this commentary offer anything new compared to previous commentaries, and does it help resolve the ambiguities of the text?

Research Method and Theoretical Framework
This research employs an analytical-descriptive methodology, with the necessary data obtained from library sources and academic articles. The errors found in the book under review have been categorized into six groups. In all examined cases, brevity has been observed.
Discussion and Analysis
The book Explanation of the Rhetorical and Arabic Problems in A Sigh of the Chest by Zaidari has been published in 428 pages by Social Sciences Publishing. The authors, Kamran Shahmoradian and Saeed Qanbarifashi, have organized their commentary in the following manner:

Mentioning parts of the text of A Sigh of the Chest;
Providing meanings of words;
Presenting smooth prose;
Rhetorical notes;
Literary notes;
Arabic phrases.

This categorization and detailed approach is considered one of the strengths of the book, and at first glance, it promises a comprehensive and scholarly work, especially since the authors have emphasized the rhetorical aspect of the text in the title, an area often neglected in previous commentaries. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that, except for the Arabic phrases (which are not the focus of this article), the authors have made significant errors in all other sections.
Conclusion
This study reached the following conclusions:

a) The authors often go astray in explaining the meanings of words and sentences; at times, they interpret words according to their modern meanings without considering the time of composition of the text; in many cases, they have merely quoted the ambiguities in the text without further reflection on its complexities; at times, they have overlooked the order of phrases; and in some instances, they have made errors in identifying the grammatical roles of words, etc.
b) They have made errors in explaining some rhetorical devices; for instance, they have overlooked significant devices like), ambiguity of contradiction, ambiguity of translation, ambiguity of synonymy, ambiguity of correspondence, etc., and in some cases, they have made mistakes in identifying types of parallelism and pun. They have occasionally misinterpreted allusions by giving them the opposite meaning, and at times, they have interpreted phrases separately from the context, ignoring their figurative implications.
c) They have shown a lack of attention to the historical narrative of the text;
d) They have made mistakes in correctly transcribing words and sentences;
e) They have failed to follow the rules of writing and editing, including typographical and spelling errors, incorrect spacing, and lack of half-spaces;
f) They have not adhered to scientific standards in citing sources.

In summary, this work lacks scientific credibility and fails to present any new insights or solutions to the ambiguities left by previous commentaries.