چکیده:
In this paper، after short survey of background of metaphor and analyzing of vivid metaphor، dexterity of khaghani in the field of this art will be discussed. Khaghani in some cases of this metaphor tris to use of one irony as an alternative of similie. These substituted ironies always refer back some time to simile and some time image which come from similie. Khaghani tries to make reader more preper to pay more attention and wisdom for understanding the meaning of metaphor. This thecnique which ignorant from regarding books، seem to be yielded by Khaghani deliberately. Khaqani Sometimes makes this hesitancy and uncertainity، by use of indications of tenor and vehicle. In some cases، indications are in the form of Descriptive or Adduct componds، which the part of the compound is from indications of tenor، and the the other of vehicle. And sometimes the word that is derived from indications is related to the two sides of the metaphor without having an amphiboly. The words that can play such roles are certainly limited. Khaghani has used the astronomical terms، then the elements of mythical and historical stories in this field.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The poets of Persian literature have tried to create metaphors and their types more than to divide and explain them, and they have used this expressive tool which is “a fresh leaf in the garden of rhetoric” (Raduyani, 1362: 40) and “the most efficient tool of imagination and, as it were, the tool of painting speech” (Shamisa, 1372: 142), to convey the message in the most beautiful way, and in practice they have gone so far that in some cases it has not been mentioned in any rhetorical books; But these same poets and writers sometimes rarely expressed things about metaphor.
If we pay attention to the famous example of marshaha explicit metaphor (the following verse) which is quoted in most rhetorical books, The peacock saw the crow eat, and then from its throat, scattered the small pieces of garnet (Khaghani, 1368: 134) We will see clues such as “bin” (imperative verb) which expresses surprise and something almost unusual or “the peacock eating the crow” apparently and only let us know that this peacock is not used in its literal sense and these clues do not guide our minds to the figurative meaning (fire).
Shamisa (1372: 62) considers mutlaqa metaphor in traditional books to be of two types, in one of which, none of the qualities of the mushabbah bih and mushabbah are mentioned: “It does not seem that this definition is correct; because in this case, there will be no clue for using the word in a non-literal meaning.
(
, 
, 
)
