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.