«بررسی انواع ایهام در دیوان مَلِک قمی»

Malek Qomi is a Persian-speaking poet of the late 10th and early 11th centuries AH and is considered one of the literary figures of India. Despite benefiting from linguistic and rhetorical features, his collection of ghazals has so far rarely been analyzed from the perspective of rhetorical devices. The aim of this study is to identify different types of īhām (a classical Persian rhetorical device involving semantic ambiguity or double meaning) and analyze their structural and semantic functions in Malek-e Qomi’s ghazals. This research was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method. After a full reading of the ghazals and extraction of examples of īhām, the data were categorized and analyzed based on the types of Īhām. The results show that īhām-e-tanāsob has the highest frequency among the various types of Īhām, followed by īhām-e tazad (Contrastive īhām), īhām-e Do-Gāne-Xāni (Dual Reading), īhām-e tarjomeh (Translational īhām), and īhām-e tabādor (Simultaneous Evocation). The findings indicate that although Malek-e Qomi did not innovate new types of Īhām, he skillfully and diversely used it as a means to enrich meaning, create artistic ambiguity, and establish cohesive links between parts of the poem.

Introduction

multiple meanings. Since ancient times, Persian poetry and literature have regarded Īhām as one of the most significant expressive capacities of the language. “The poems of poets are distinguished by their styles of expression, rhetorical techniques, and unique uses of language” (Ahmadi, 1991: 58). Consequently, poets have not ignored the role of Īhām in their poetry. Malek-e Qomi, too, has not overlooked this element, and a glance at his Divan reveals many examples of Īhām, indicating his subtle insight and vast imaginative capability.
Malek-e Qomi is considered a lesser-known poet in Persian literature, and no comprehensive study has yet been conducted on his poetry. This study aims to answer the following questions:

Which types of īhām are most frequently used in Malek-e Qomi's ghazals?
Has Malek-e Qomi introduced any innovations in the types of īhām?
What role does īhām play in reinforcing meaning, conceptual cohesion, and linguistic creativity in his poetry?

1.1 Research Methodology
This research was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method. In the first step, the poet’s entire Divan was studied carefully to identify verses containing Īhām. After extracting the relevant lines, the samples were categorized and analyzed based on their types.
 

Discussion

Among the various types of Īhām, only six with more significant frequency and presence in Malek-e Qomi’s Divan were selected for brief examination in this study.

Īhām (Tawriya): Malek-e Qomi does not offer structural or semantic innovations beyond established literary norms. He mainly employs this type of īhām to expand semantic range and enable wordplay.
Īhām-e Tanasob (Associative īhām): This type of īhām connects closely with morāʿāt al-naẓir (semantic harmony), but is more imaginative and delicate in its effect. Malek-e Qomi uses it to strengthen the vertical cohesion of his poems. By placing words with implied associations together, he opens new semantic horizons. These īhāms are commonly found in themes related to nature, wine gatherings, birds, weaponry, mysticism, the body, and music.
Īhām-e Tazad (Contrastive īhām): This type relies on words that appear contradictory on the surface but, within the poet’s context and intent, no real opposition exists. The poet seeks to establish a link between two dissimilar and opposing elements in order to convey complex concepts to the audience. In this process, the contrasting words interact with the central meaning, and through their juxtaposition, new meanings are created. These meanings not only make use of conceptual oppositions between words but also provide a foundation for the multidimensional expansion of the poem’s meaning. In fact, the antithetical pun is not merely a rhetorical technique or a lexical play, but a tool for semantic development and deepening of poetic meaning. Malek-e Qomi employs oppositions such as kharābāt / maʿmūr (tavern / inhabited), broken / whole, elite / common, etc., in an effort to deepen the meaning of his poetry.
Īhām-e Tarjomeh (Translational īhām): This type of pun was first introduced in the book Abdaʿ al-Badāyiʿ (Gorgāni, 1992: 120). It refers to a case in which words are used in the text whose meanings correspond across different languages, but the poet derives multiple interpretations from them. In fact, synonymous words do not function identically in the semantic context of the poem. Malek-e Qomi has paid relatively little attention to this type.
Īhām-e Tabādor (Simultaneous Evocation): Tabādur lexically means “preceding” or “rushing simultaneously.” This type creates a kind of semantic harmony that, in addition to generating aesthetic beauty and artistic appeal, enhances the semantic richness of the text. As a result, the reader engages with the text through careful contemplation and attention, enjoying the discovery of hidden meanings and the interplay of word associations. In fact, this type of īhām requires the reader to possess scientific and literary background knowledge as well as attentiveness in order to appreciate its poetic artistry
Īhām-e Do-Gāne-Xāni (Dual Reading): Shamsia classifies this under īhām, explaining that segmenting a simple word into meaningful parts, shifting stress, or altering pronunciation can produce īhām (Shamisa, 2019: 126). This īhām suspends the reader’s mind between two interpretations, resulting in subtle poetic expression.

 

Conclusion

Īhām is among the most prominent and complex rhetorical devices in Persian literature, playing a central role in the aestheticization of meaning. Through īhām, poets explore alternative layers of meaning. In Malek-e Qomi's Divan, the most frequent type is īhām-e tanasob, reflecting his poetic richness. By placing semantically rich and multivalent words together, he encourages the reader to search for new semantic relationships. Next in frequency is īhām (tawriya), used to invite reflection through layered meanings. Īhām-e tazad then engages conflicting elements in creative tension, followed by dual reading, which offers alternate narratives. Finally, īhām-e tebādor appears with the lowest frequency.
Although Malek-e Qomi did not innovate new types of īhām, he employed the existing types in a purposeful and varied manner to enrich meaning, create artistic ambiguity, and build cohesive links within the poem. The distribution of īhāms in his Divan testifies to his awareness of its rhetorical power and his capability in deploying it effectively in the fabric of Persian poetic tradition.
 

References

Azad Belgrami, M. G. A. (2014). Tazkira-ye Azadsarv. Tehran: Safir Ardehal.
Ahmadnejad, K. (1993). Literary Techniques (Prosody, Rhyme, Figures of Speech, Rhetoric) (1st ed.). Tehran: Paya.
Ahmadi, B. (1991). Structure and Interpretation of Text. Tehran: Amir Kabir.
Ahmadi-Bidgoli, B., & Vaghari, M. R. (2014). “The Evolution of Ambiguity in Persian Rhetoric Books from Past to Present.” Journal of Literary Aesthetics, 22, 48–73.
Akrami, M. J., & Vahedpour, M. (2017). “A Functional Analysis of the Inventive Use of War Implements in Shams’s Ghazals (Case Study: Bow and Arrow).” Journal of Stylistics of Persian Poetry and Prose, 37 (Fall), 297–315.
Anousheh, H. (Ed.). (2002). Persian Literary Encyclopedia (2nd ed.). Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.
Baghaei Bokharaei, M. A. (2014). Tazkira-ye Majma‘ al-Fozala (research by M. Khoshkab). Tehran: Manshoor Samir.
Poshtdar, A., & Esmaeili, M. (2019). “A Study of Types of Ambiguity in Hafez’s Ghazals.” Ormazd Quarterly, (46), 84–103.
Taj al-Halavi, A. b. M. (1962). Daqa'iq al-shi'r. (edited and annotated by S. M. K. Emam). Tehran: University of Tehran.
Hosseini Neyshabouri, B. a.-D. A. M. (2005). Bada’i al-Sana’i (edited by R. Moslemaniyan Qabadiani). Tehran: Afshar Foundation..
Radaviyani, M. b. O. (2001). Tarjoman al-Balagha (Edited by A. Atash; ; prepared by T. Sobhani & E. Hakemi). Tehran: Society of Cultural Works and Honors.
Razi, Sh. M. b. Q. (1994). Al-Mu’jam fi Ma’ayir Ash’ar al-Ajam (compiled by S. Shamsa). Tehran: Ferdows.
Rastgoo, M. (2000). Pun in Persian Poetry. Tehran: Soroush.
Zarrinkoub, A. (1990). ). From the alley of the libertines. Tehran: Amir Kabir.
Sajjadi, S. J. (2004). Dictionary of Mystical Terms and Expressions. Tehran: Tahouri.
Samarqandi,D. (2003). *Tazkirat al-Shuʿarā (Preface, annotations & commentary by Ali Rafiei Alamroodi Dashti). Tehran: Mirath-e Maktoub.
Sharifi, M. R. (2014). “A study of pun and some of its types in the manuscript Padshahnama of Kalim Kashani.” Journal of Interpretation & Analysis of Persian Texts (Dehkhoda), 6(22),111-125.
Shafi’i Kadkani, M. R. (1989). Resurrection of Words. Tehran: Sokhan.
Shafi’i Kadkani, M. R. (1994). Music of Poetry. Tehran: Agah.
Shamisa, S. (2019) A fresh look at rhetorical embellishment. Tehran: Mitra.
Sadeghian, M. A. (2009). Tiraz-e Sokhan (On Meaning and rhetoric) (1st ed.). Tehran: Islamic Azad University Press.
Safa, Z. (1993). History of Iranian Literature (Vol. 5). Tehran: Ferdows.
Alavi-Moghaddam, M. (1993). In the Realm of Rhetoric (Vol. 1). Mashhad: Astan Quds Razavi.
Ghanipour Malekshah, A., & Mahdinia Choubi, M. (2011). “Saadi’s Style in Creating Ambiguity and Its Scope in His Ghazals.” Journal of Stylistics of Persian Poetry and Prose, 4(2), 75–82.
Fakhr al-Zamani, M. A. N. (1983). Tazkira-ye Meykhaneh (edited by A. G. Ma’ani). Tehran: Eqbal.
Farshidvard, K. (2003). On Literature and Literary Criticism (Vol. 2). Tehran: Amir Kabir.
Fesharki, M. (2000). Rhetoric. Tehran: SAMT.
Qolichkhani, H. R. (2009). Dictionary of calligraphy and related arts terms (2nd ed.). Tehran: Rozaneh.
Kashifi Sabzevari, K. H. (1990). Bada’i al-Afkar fi Sana’i al-Ash’ar (edited by M. J. Kazazi). Tehran: Nashr-e Markaz.
Kazazi, M. J. (1994). Aesthetics of Persian speech (Vol. 3, 2nd ed.). Tehran: Ketab-e Maad (Nashr-e Markaz).
Garakani, M. S. (1992). Abda’ al-Bada’i (edited by H. Jafari). Tabriz: Ahrar.
Mazandarani, M. H. (1997). Anwar al-Balagha (edited by M. A. Gholami Nejad). Tehran: Qebleh Cultural Center & Mirath-e Maktoub Publishing.
Malek Qomi, M. (2012). Divan of Ghazals (edited & compiled by M. Marghoub) [PhD diss., Aligarh Muslim University, India; Supervisor: A. Safavi].
Nahavandi.A (2002). Ma’ather-e Rahimi (edited by A. Navaei). Tehran: Society of Cultural Works and Honors.
Norouzi, J. (1993). Ornaments of Speech and Forms of Persian Poetry. Shiraz: Rahgosha.
Kashifi Sabzevari, K. H. (1990). Bada’i al-Afkar fi Sana’i al-Ash’ar (edited by M. J. Kazazi). Tehran: Nashr-e Markaz.
Vaaleh Daghestani, A. Q. (2005). Riyaz al-Sho’ara (preface, edited & researched by S. H. Taji Nasrabadi). Tehran: Asatir.
Vojdani, B. (2007). Comprehensive Dictionary of Iranian Music: Gandoman.
Vatvat, R. D. (1929). Hada'iq al-sihr fi daqa'iq al-shi'r (edited by A. Eqbal). Tehran: Tahouri.
Homayi, J. (2005). Rhetorical Techniques and Literary Devices. Tehran: Homa