An Examination of the Commentators' Perspectives on the Text and Analysis of Two of Anvari's Odes

The current research examines and compares the commentaries of Anvari’s Divan. Among the old and new commentators of Anvari's poems, Shadiabadi in the 10th century, Farahani in the 11th century, Donboli in the 13th century, and in the contemporary era, Modarres Razavi and Seyyed Jafar Shahidi can be mentioned. These commentators have explained and analyzed Anvari's verses, especially the difficulties and problems of his divan, and each of them has tried to solve some of its problems to the best of their ability. Based on the analysis of these works, it is understood that Shadiabadi's work has greatly influenced other commentaries, and among the contemporary commentators, Modarres and Shahidi were completely influenced by the previous commentaries. Each of these interpretations, while having advantages, has shortcomings and weaknesses, which this article demonstrates in its explanation of some of the verses.
In the analysis of the selected verses, commentators sometimes acted differently and did not follow the same method. Shadiabadi, while interpreting the words and meaning of the verse, is sometimes influenced by his own flair for poetry. Farahani's description is more scholarly and he has referred to other sources and books in the analysis of the verses. Moreover, Donboli has elaborated on all the verses of the poems. In his commentaries on Anvari’s divan, Modarres Razavi has provided interpretations for some verses and explained their meaning. Shahidi, as well as focusing all these explanations, has summarized the meaning of the verses and criticized the opinions of other commentators.
Introduction
The Divan of Anvari is one of the most important collections of Persian poetry, which has attracted the attention of commentators because of the difficulties and complexities of certain verses. However, these challenges and the obscurities of Anvari's Divan do not lead to a loss of interest in his poetry; rather, they showcase his knowledge and demonstrate his mastery over the sciences of his time, contributing to the intricacy of his poetry. In fact, the Divan of Anvari, similar to the Divan of Khaghani and the Makhzan al-Asrar of Nizami, has been interpreted by commentators because of these very difficulties. One of the significant commentators on the Anvari’s divan is Muhammad ibn Dawood Alavi Shadiabadi, who analyzed and explained Anvari’s poetry in the tenth century AH. Shadiabadi’s work is one of the important interpretations of Anvari’s divan and has influenced many subsequent commentaries. In this text, alongside the examination of vocabulary and the explanation of key terms, verses are interpreted as well. Despite the precedence of this work over others, it should be noted that Shadiabadi is often influenced by his own flair for poetry in many sections of the book. Another commentary on the difficulties of the Divan of Anvari is authored by Abulhasan Hosseini Farahani, a literary figure of the eleventh century AH. Farahani utilized previous books and commentaries on the divan in compiling his own work. Compared to Shadiabadi's commentary, Farahani's work draws more from other texts, and his personal taste has less influence on his interpretation. The third commentary is by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Razaq Donboli, who wrote it in the thirteenth century AH and has provided a brief explanation of nearly all the verses of Anvari's odes. However, in the commentary on some verses, certain rhetorical elements have been overlooked. In addition to the aforementioned works, two contemporary contributions should be mentioned, which address the meanings and difficulties of Anvari's divan. One is the annotations and explanations by Modarres Razavi. This is a two-volume edition of Anvari’s divan, at the end of which Razavi briefly explained some sections which proved to be difficult. It should be noted that this work is not a complete commentary on the divan but rather a brief explanation of certain challenges and ambiguities in specific verses. Nevertheless, because this edition is a seminal text, it was necessary to include its annotations in the present study. The other work is the explanation of the words and difficulties of Anvari's divan by Sayyid Jafar Shahidi, who has paid attention to the previous commentaries but is most influenced by Farahani's commentary. Given that Sayyid Jafar Shahidi's commentary possesses the necessary rigor and has shown due diligence in recording the verses, his edited verses were taken as the basis, and the recordings from other commentaries and editions of the divan were compared with his corrections to facilitate better comparison and critique. For the comparison of the verses, in addition to the aforementioned texts, some manuscript copies of the divan that were available to the author were consulted, which were addressed below each verse. The basis for selecting the verses was their difficulty and complexity, as well as the diversity of the commentators' opinions in their analyses. Anvari's verses vary in terms of difficulty, and the selected verses, drawn from two odes (due to the limitations of the article), are sometimes ambiguous and complex. Attention to the contents of the article indicates that despite the commentators' opinions, the verses contain ambiguities in meaning and interpretation.
Method
The present research has been conducted in a descriptive, comparative, and analytical manner, based on library resources. After studying the commentaries on the Divan of Anvari, it has aimed to compare and contrast the interpretations and explanations of these commentators, attempting to illustrate the differences in their perspectives, both in the overall poem and in individual couplets. For this research, the commentaries of Shadiabadi, Farahani, Donboli, Modarres Razavi, and Shahidi have been utilized. In the examination and comparison of these commentaries, attention has been paid to the discrepancies in the recording of verses, as well as verses that are sometimes complex and ambiguous. Additionally, to achieve a more accurate meaning, an effort has been made to consider the textual context of the verses. Given that the commentaries on the Divan of Anvari have received less attention compared to those of other divans and that reliance is often placed on Shahidi's work, the aim of this article is to compare the old and new commentaries. This comparison seeks to highlight the opinions of the commentators, as well as the similarities and differences in their interpretations and meanings of certain verses, thereby better revealing the position of each commentary.
Results
To examine the work of the commentators and evaluate their performance in interpreting the verses of Anvari, a comparison of their works will be conducted while addressing several verses from Anvari’s divan. Initially, Shahidi’s book, the most recent authoritative commentary on the divan will be utilized for the transcription of the verses, followed by the transcription and commentary of other scholars in chronological order. It should be noted that the very act of comparing commentaries and expressing opinions, differences, and commonalities constitutes one of the new contributions of the article, through which the validity and soundness of the commentators' views, as well as the superiority of one commentator's opinion over others will be demonstrated. Additionally, this research helps clarify the interpretation and meaning of the verses. For instance, in the commentary on the verse "the window of this all is full...", it becomes evident how neglecting the referent of the pronouns "this" and "that" has led to different interpretations among the commentators. A prominent commentator like Seyyed Jafar Shahidi has merely pointed out the metaphor of the absence of the silver, while Shadiabadi has taken a different approach in interpreting the verse and chosen another reading for the pronouns' references. Furthermore, in the verse "the king who…", the commentators have differing opinions regarding the reading of the verse and the reference to the subject. A well-known commentator like Farahani considers the king to be the subject of the verb, which is ambiguous and does not align with the meaning of the verse. Moreover, in the commentary on the verse "the almond has two kernels...", Shadiabadi and Farahani have interpreted it differently, with Farahani's meaning even contradicting the context of the verse. Another example is the commentary on the verse "like the willow fruit...". Here, the commentators have not paid close attention to the referent of the pronoun "he" and the context of the preceding and following verses, linking the subject to the willow, while the themes of cloudy, snowy, and rainy weather are central to the verses. In the verse "if the breeze has not tied...", despite the ambiguity of meaning, Modarres Razavi has not provided an explanation, and Shahidi has summarized the views of Shadiabadi and Farahani while critiquing and raising objections to them.
Conclusion
Considering the comparison of the commentaries on the Divan of Anvari, it becomes evident that while the older commentaries have their advantages, they also have certain shortcomings. In contrast, the newer contribution by Seyyed Jafar Shahidi, which is based on other commentaries, has fewer deficiencies. Most commentators have focused on individual couplets, sometimes overlooking the context and textual fabric of the verses. The majority of the works concentrate on meaning, neglecting other aspects of the verses, such as rhetorical and grammatical dimensions. Based on the verses that were analyzed, the main issues identified in the commentators' work include the incorrect identification of pronouns’ antecedents, reliance on isolated couplets, and a lack of attention to the textual context of the verses. Additionally, the methods and styles of the commentaries are different. Some, like Modarres Razavi, have taken a selective approach and have not commented on all verses, while others, such as Shadiabadi and Farahani, have commented on most of them. Donboli has paid attention to all verses of the ode, and Shahidi, while considering other commentaries, provides a more critical analysis of the interpretation of the verses.