Document Type : Research article
Authors
1 Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran.
2 PhD student in Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran.
Abstract
Highlights
Extended Abstract
Introduction
The seventh and eighth centuries AH (13th and 14th centuries CE) represent a golden age for Persian literature, during which the literary device of ihaam (ambiguity) saw significant application. While this artifice is commonly associated with Hafez, he was not its originator; poets such as Saadi and Khaqani had already explored this imaginative technique. Notably, Zia al-Din Sajadi posits that Khaqani was the first poet in the sixth century AH to extensively employ ihaam, particularly “ihaam-e tanaasob” (ambiguity of association), and that Hafez was influenced by him in this regard. Kamal Khujandi, a prominent poet of the eighth century AH and a contemporary of Hafez, also paid considerable attention to the use of various types of ihaam in his “ghazals”, making ihaam arguably the most pervasive and significant literary device in his poetry.
The present study aims to investigate the types of ihaam and “ihaam networks” within Kamal Khujandi's ghazals. For this research, the first 200 ghazals out of a total of 1079 from his “Divan” have been examined. Initially, each type of ihaam is defined, followed by extracted and explained examples from Kamal's ghazals. The frequency analysis of these ihaam types within the selected 200 ghazals suggests that while it may not be definitively claimed that Kamal's ihaam is qualitatively equivalent to Hafez's, quantitatively, Kamal stands as the poet who most closely followed in Hafez's footsteps. The selected 200 ghazals comprise 1431 verses, of which 706 verses (approximately half) contain at least one form of ihaam, underscoring the poet's focus on and prolific use of this literary device.
Research Methodology
This research employs a descriptive-analytical method, drawing upon library resources. The process involved compiling definitions of various types of ihaam from classical and contemporary literary criticism. Subsequently, examples of these ihaam types were extracted from Kamal Khujandi's ghazals and analyzed to demonstrate their application.
Discussion
Traditional literary analyses categorize ihaam based on its primary meanings, distinguishing between its proximity to the intended meaning (near vs. distant) and subtypes such as “ihaam-e mojarradeh”, “ihaam-e morashshaheh, “ihaam-e movashah”, “ihaam-e mobayyeneh” and “ihaam-e mohayyeeh. Other classifications are based on the nature of the associative link, including “ihaam-e tanaasob”, “ihaam-e tazaad”, “ihaam-e taraadof, “ihaam-e tarjomeh” and “ihaam-e vasl”.
Contemporary works on Arabic rhetoric have introduced revisions to the definitions and classifications of ihaam. This study adopts a hybrid approach, considering insights from both earlier and later scholars. It examines 28 distinct types of ihaam identified in the works of poets like Hafez or highlighted by researchers.
Conclusion
The artifice of ihaam has been the most significant literary device in Kamal Khujandi's oeuvre. While he acknowledged and employed other rhetorical devices, his primary focus was on the application of various forms of ihaam. Across the 200 ghazals examined, comprising 1431 verses, approximately 706 verses contained at least one type of ihaam. Among these, the most frequently employed forms were networked ihaam (ihaam-e shabakeh - the use of more than one type of ihaam within a single verse) with 231 instances, ambiguity of association and its derivatives (ihaam-e tabaador and its derivatives, including pun-based ambiguity, ambiguity of varied phonetic reading, and ambiguity of derivation) with 87 instances, absolute ambiguity (ihaam-e motlaq) with 67 instances, ambiguity of varied reading (ihaam-e gooneh-goon-khaani) and its derivatives with 58 instances, ambiguity of association (ihaam-e tanaasob) with 51 instances, grammatical ambiguity (ihaam-e dastouri) and its derivatives (structural ambiguity, sehr-e halal and ambiguity in pronoun reference) with 42 instances, ambiguity with two meanings and potential opposites (zow-al-wajhayn and mohtamel al-zeddayn) with 38 instances, ambiguity of synonymy and translation (ihaam-e taraadof and tarjomrh) with 33 instances, allusive ambiguity (ihaam-e kenaayi) with 28 instances, style of the wise (osloob al-hakim) and amendment (estidraak) with 21 instances, applied ambiguity (ihaam-e estekhdaami) with 19 instances, ambiguity of emphasis and inversion (ihaam-e tookid and aks) with 15 instances, ambiguity of contrast and paradox (ihaam-e tazaaad and paradox) with 13 instances, and compound ambiguity (ihaam-e morakkab) with 3 instances. Based on the initial 200 ghazals from his Divan, Kamal Khujandi does not appear to have relied heavily on creating ihaam through the repetition of similar themes, vocabulary, or phrases. Instead, he strived to avoid banality and monotony by introducing new concepts and employing diverse words and expressions. The most distinctive characteristic of Kamal's poetry lies in his use of various forms of ihaam, particularly "networked ihaam" which involves constructing layers of ambiguity within each other. For instance, by employing a word with multiple meanings (an instance of absolute ambiguity), he often created the conditions for other types of ambiguity to emerge. One of these meanings might then form an associative link, synonymy, contrast, or other relationships with another word, thereby generating further layers of ambiguity. It can be confidently asserted that such intricate lexical arrangements and engineering are rarely found in the poetry of other poets.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)