Language is a collection of conventional symbols. Although these symbols do not  have any natural connection with what they their purport, their constant usage has made rendered them natural symbols. So the authors of literary work, in order to attract their listeners, resort to this strategy and change the ordinary form of language. This change can be implemented in the structure of sentences or words; like manipulating sentence structures; deleting part of the phrase or repeating the other parts or making changes in meaningful bases of the word such as applying them in an unusual and awkward position. Sometimes, changes are materialized ignoring the principles of language use. Irony is also one of the noticeable language devices. Irony makes natural language structures unnatural by making changes in the field of implications. Predominating via use of irony is done by displacing the known structures and changing valuable bases of words.  So the message is narrated by a part of the text which is not implicitly said. In other words, the author relies on the listener psychic suggestions.  In Farsi eloquence, the word ”irony” is not applied, but its definition is vastly used in Farsi language; although this usage is sometimes like the usage of other Farsi figures. All in all, it is known as a single type and different from the other eloquent figures.  Since, in Farsi writings, these differences and similarities have not been examined yet. Accordingly, this paper addresses the similarities and differences of irony with other eloquent figures. Irony can enter Farsi eloquence with the same subject; of course not as an imported array because ironic words and methods have already been common in Farsi literature. In most cases, however, no title is determined for it. So, it is argued that irony is a kind of dichotomy in word and meaning or face and content which is based on opposition or antithesis and is built on an unexpected and sometimes ridiculous form. 

The pertinence of a poet’s imagination in ordinary concepts of life and their relationship with nature is due to his or her insights and knowledge of natural phenomena as well as the outside world. In the collection of works of every poet, all various types of imagery being attributable to figures of speech (i.e., metaphor, simile, synecdoche, and irony) represent moments that deal with the poet’s inner world; in fact, they are the reflections of the poet’s soul, personality, and inner characteristics. The current study was an attempt to scrutinize figures of speech and their frequency of use in Aminpour’s and Monzavi’s poems to find out the poets’ thoughts, emotions, and ideology towards the world and life. The common shared imageries or the central poetical imageries of these two poets were around love and the issues surrounding it. Although, more or less, a reflection of the society and the social issues could be seen in their writings, their subject was mostly about love. Their poetical imageries were vivid, dynamic, and visual. Although even little imitations could be discernible in their poems, their imageries and figures of speech domains were not just limited to the imageries of traditional poetry, but innovations could be observed in their poems. Similes were mostly intense and intuitive-intangible, and metaphor and simile were used more frequently than the other figures of speech.

Styles in the normal course of historical development change and evolve, and in the process of this movement and change, some poets play a vital role. These poets try to be inventive in order to escape banality and repeated and shallow literary traditions, and by creating a rift between themselves and former traditions they introduce new elements.  These artists either create new figures or take an old but neglected one and develop it to give a special flavor to their personal style, or by introducing it to other poets they help in developing a new style. Hafiz is a good example of such artists. This article is an attempt to describe the figure "ambiguous metaphor of irony", as a mixed and already known figure (though unconsciously, not consciously), in the poetry of the poets before Hafiz, his role is highlighted in the rediscovery and serious development of this figure and its moderate use and finally its transference to the Indian style  where it had its highest development.