نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار، گروه معماری، داﻧﺸﮑﺪه ﻣﻌﻤﺎری و ﻣﺮﻣﺖ، داﻧﺸﮕﺎه هنر ﺷﯿﺮاز، شیراز، ایران.
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
Aims: The relationship between architecture and poetry is fundamentally rooted in their shared capacity to structure human experience, transforming the mundane into profound, perceptual, and interpretive forms. In the Divan of Hafez, architectural elements and spatial settings are not merely decorative appendages or fleeting imagery; they are foundational components of a complex semiotic apparatus. However, prevailing scholarship has frequently reduced these elements to isolated metaphors, symbols, or static descriptive markers, thereby neglecting the systemic structural relationships that govern the formation of “poetic space.” This study aims to bridge this gap by investigating how architectural and spatial signs are organized within the poetic fabric of Hafez’s work. By deconstructing the internal architecture of the ghazals, this research seeks to elucidate how structural relationships contribute to the production of meaning and the consolidation of poetic spatiality. Furthermore, it aims to develop a robust typology of “architectural spatial syntax,” analyzing the transition of architectural elements from their conventional physical utilities to multifaceted cultural, mystical, perceptual, and interpretive meanings. Ultimately, this inquiry explores how the Divan functions as a built environment of language, where spatial configurations engage in the construction of subjective experience, spiritual movement, and interpretive depth.
Materials & Methods: This qualitative study employs an analytical-interpretive methodology, rigorously grounded in the principles of structural semiotics. The primary corpus consists of selected ghazals from the Divan of Hafez, specifically focusing on verses where architectural, spatial, and place-related elements serve as active agents in the generation of meaning. The selection criteria were not restricted to the mere frequency of architectural lexicon; rather, they were determined by the functional role of these signs—their relational positioning, their participation in oppositional structures, and their integration with verbs, motion, spatial orientation, and poetic imagery. The unit of analysis was calibrated to the scope of spatial signification, varying between the individual verse and the broader context of the entire ghazal. The analytical process proceeded through two interconnected, hierarchical levels. First, the “morphology of space” was established to identify, categorize, and code architectural elements based on their dominant spatial properties and semantic functions. Second, the “syntax of space” was applied to examine the syntagmatic, paradigmatic, and dialectic relations among these elements—analyzing how juxtapositions, displacements, and oppositions generate meaning. By delineating these two levels, the study moves beyond impressionistic reading, establishing a formal grammar of spatial signs that accounts for the coherence of Hafez’s spatial imagination. This methodology ensures that the findings are rooted in the internal logic of the text, rather than relying on external historical or diachronic explanations.
Findings: The findings demonstrate that the poetic quality of architectural space in Hafez’s work does not derive from the singular presence of architectural vocabulary, but from the sophisticated ways in which spatial signs are combined, displaced, and reinterpreted within the poetic structure. At the level of the morphology of space, four principal categories emerged: “threshold and boundary,” which map the liminality of presence; “verticality and transcendence,” which activate the axis of spiritual ascent; “passage and separation,” which represent the dynamics of transit; and “light and vision,” which transform spatiality into an epistemological field of revelation. At the level of the syntax of space, the study identified four composite spatial types: “spaces of formal ritual and asceticism”; “spaces of Rind-like liberation and manifestation”; “spaces of presence and boundary” ; and “spaces of openness and unstable dwelling”. These types do not exist as static objects but emerge through the constant tension of syntagmatic and oppositional relations. Through the mechanism of “defamiliarization” Hafez strips these elements of their normative functions, re-coding them within a poetic system that facilitates multifaceted cultural and mystical discourse. The principal innovation of this research lies in establishing a structural correspondence between spatial morphology and syntactic organization, proving that meaning in Hafez’s work is a product of relational dynamics rather than isolated imagery.
Conclusion: This study concludes that architectural space in Hafez’s Divan constitutes a dynamic and cohesive signifying system, where meaning is generated through the continuous interaction of elements, spatial relations, and cultural codes. The architectural syntax of Hafez is not predicated on static references to built forms, but on the structural logic through which physical reality is transcended and transformed into an experiential, symbolic, and interpretive field. The displacement of the “dominant function” of architectural elements stands as a central mechanism in the poetic construction of this space, rendering the familiar unfamiliar and the physical metaphysical. For the field of architecture, the significance of this reading lies not in the formal mimicry of historical motifs, but in the extraction and transfer of a logic of spatial relation. Concepts such as “threshold and boundary” offer a framework for rethinking architectural pause, delay, and entry sequences; “movement and passage” provide a grammar for organizing circulation and transitional arrival; while “light and vision” suggest methods for orchestrating discovery and phenomenological shifts in perception. By bridging the gap between literary critique and architectural theory, this research proposes a productive dialogue between the architect as a literary reader and the literary-minded architect. It argues that architecture and poetry converge in their shared capacity to organize human relations and experience. Consequently, this study suggests that architectural education can be enriched by encouraging students to transition from the passive observation of elements to the active decoding of spatial relations—translating the experiential logic found in literary texts into a more reflexive and meaningful spatial organization.
کلیدواژهها English
