مقایسۀ رویکردهای شرح‌نویسی بر گلستان سعدی (بر اساس پنج شرح مشهور)

Saadi’s Golestan is one of the most prominent works of Persian prose that has been the subject of various commentaries throughout history. In the past century, many Persian literature scholars and educators have composed numerous commentaries on Golestan employing scientific methods and for specific purposes. The advancement of literary studies, access to new sources, and interdisciplinary research have contributed to the emergence of new dimensions in the interpretation of Golestan. These new approaches include different forms: annotations, footnotes, explanations, commentaries, and analytical reports.
As the number of these commentaries has increased over time, the necessity of understanding the methodologies of commentators for their analysis, evaluation, and classification has become iscreasingly significant. The study and examination of these commentaries reveal both explicit and implicit differences that have remained largely unnoticed. These differences are shaped by elements such as the commentator, the target audience, the period of composition, current necessities, and the expansion of literary studies.
This research focuses on five commentaries by Abdol-Azim Gharib, Mohammad-Javad Mashkoor, Mohammad Khaza’eli, Khalil Khatib-Rahbar, and Gholam-Hossein Yousefi. The selection of these commentaries is based on the authors’ expertise, the time period in which they were written, and their prominence. One of the aims of this study is to highlight the significant differences among the commentaries on Golestan, while another is to provide an overview of the approaches adopted by the commentators in their engagement with the text. A further objective is to classify these differences and methods within various frameworks, so that the quality of each commentator’s work can be described in a descriptive-analytical manner under each approach.
‏2. Literature Review
Up to this time, no independent research has been conducted specifically on commentary approaches, and most discussions have been implicit or limited to articles and theses related to commentaries on both verse and prose texts.
The only research directly related to the title of this study is a master’s thesis titled Critique and Analysis of the Commentaries on Golestan, which was defended in 2010 at the University of Isfahan. In this thesis, the author examines four commentaries – those of Bosnoudi, Khaza’eli, Khatib Rahbar and Yousefi – analyzing the commentators’ perspectives on certain textual difficulties in Golestan and comparing their methodologies, as well as their strenghts and weaknesses.

Methodology

The approaches analyzed in this study are categorized into five types:
‏ 1. Content-Oriented (Meaning-Centered) Approach: In this approach, the commentator pays special attention to explaining the meaning and concept of the text. Characteristics include elucidating the meanings of words and sentences, verses and hadiths, proverbs and allusions, as well as explaining specialized terminology, semantic shifts in vocabulary, and elucidation of the text.
‏ 2.  Formal Approach: This approach encompasses issues related to the linguistic and grammatical aspects of the text and vocabulary. It focuses on the role of words and sentences, the structure of Persian and Arabic vocabularies, forms and conjugations, historical syntax, prepositions, stylistic details, irregular plurals, diacritical markings of challenging words, etymology, and so forth.
‏3. Rhetorical Approach: This involves examining the rhetorical elements of the text, including novel expressions, clarity of presentation, and the subtleties of the author’s stylistic choices.

Data-Oriented Approach: In this approach, three aspects are covered: first, the commentator’s attention to allusions and references within the text (such as the mentions of verses, hadiths, stories, anecdotes, traditions, historical and social events, as well as his beliefs and opinions); second, the commentator’s engagement with other commentaries and expert opinions; and finally, the examination of similarities and semantic parallels between texts, including evidence, examples, and translations of the work.

‏5. Referential Approach: This involves research concerning the sources of verses, hadiths, anecdotes, sayings, word meanings, and the introduction of additional resources for further study, including the compilation of various bibliographies.
‏            In this study, each work is examined through the lens of these approaches, with the commentator’s method illustrated through specific examples. In the final section, to substantiate the findings, the results of a statistical study on the frequency of each approach in the work of each commentator—specifically concerning the fourth and tenth anecdotes of the fifth chapter of Golestan—are presented, allowing for comparative evaluation.
 

Discussion

What becomes apparent regarding each commentator’s performance is that Gharib’s commentary is significant because it has served as a model for subsequent commentators. Mashkoor’s keen interest in ancient history and old Iranian languages has imbued his commentary with an element of ancient culture. In contrast, Khaza’eli has endeavored to provide a comprehensive commentary on Golestan, offering a more detailed and complete explanation of the text. Khatib-Rahbar likewise sought to cover all aspects of the text in his commentary; like Khaza’eli, he focused largely on semantic explanations but engaged less with content-related challenges. Khatib-Rahbar’s academic background and interest in Persian grammar are clearly reflected in his work, which places a strong emphasis on linguistic and grammatical issues. Yousefi’s commentary can be considered a more contemporary version of earlier works; his avoidance of imposing a definitive interpretation of the text marks a novel aspect of the content-oriented approach. Yousefi’s work comprehensively incorporates the opinions of previous commentators and researchers, providing a complete cultural perspective on Golestan.

Conclusion

‏Collectively, these findings suggest that recent commentaries on Golestan have been influenced more than ever by prevailing discourses and contemporary necessities—such as scientific movements, social approaches, audience needs (ranging from specialists and academics to the general public), as well as the commentators’ own research interests and inclinations. Over time, commentators have incorporated new research dimensions into their work and have engaged with the text through innovative or more evolved approaches