logo
year 7, Issue 26 (2-2024)                   Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud. 2024, 7(26): 313-338 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Arian S. (2024). Investigattion of Calligraphy Works of Chalipa and the Inscriptions of Mohammad Saleh Esfahani, Based on the Three Systems of Baseline, Composition and the Visual Weight. Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud.. 7(26), 313-338. doi:10.22034/PJAS.7.26.313
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-773-en.html
M.A. in Art Research, Independent researcher, Tehran, Iran. , s.a.sanazarian@gmail.com
Abstract:   (1896 Views)
Abstract
Mohammad Saleh Esfahani was one of the prominent calligraphers and inscription writers of the Safavid period, under the rule of Shah Suleiman and Shah Sultan Hussein. According to the findings, a significant number of Nastaliq inscriptions in the buildings of Isfahan belong to him. In addition, there are several Chalipas by Mohammad Saleh. Based on this, it is important to explore his works in the field of calligraphy studies for finding methods of analysis of other works in this field. The purpose of this research is to investigate the differences between the pieces of Chalipa and the inscriptions of Mohammad Saleh Esfahani in three systems of baseline, composition and the visual weight. The question is, what are the differences between the Chalipa pieces and the inscriptions of Mohammad Saleh Esfahani according to the principles (which was mentioned)? And what are their reasons? The hypothesis of this research indicates that there are differences between the Chalipa and inscriptions of Mohammad Saleh, which can be recognized and investigated by three mentioned calligraphy systems. This descriptive-analytical research is done by use of library resources in order to analyses some of Mohammad Saleh Isfahani’s works, including the inscriptions  were found in three buildings in the city of Isfahan (Chaharbagh School, Imamzadeh Ismail, and the tombstone of Saeb Tabrizi Tomb) and some Chalipa pieces (available in museums and libraris). The results of the research show that there are differences in the application of calligraphy principles in the three systems of baseline, composition and the visual weight in pieces of Chalipa and inscriptions because of various reasons such as: text content, limitations of design , pen Dang. , the appropriate level of the works  and  etc. based on these reasons, it can be found that Mohammad Saleh Esfahani has adopted different methods and principles for the calligraphy of Chelipa and inscriptions.
Keywords: Principle of Calligraphy, Mohammad Saleh Isfahani, Chalipa, Inscription, Nastaliq Script, Safavid Period.

Introduction
Understanding the rules, discerning the structure, and grasping the principles that govern the Nastaliq script are essential aspects for a comprehensive comprehension of the development and evolution of this script. The Nastaliq script is employed in various formats tailored to its specific applications and purposes. Among the noteworthy calligraphers and epigraphers during the Safavid era, particularly under the reigns of King Suleiman and King Sultan Hossein, Mohammad Saleh Esfahani stands out. He has been associated with a considerable number of Nastaliq inscriptions adorning buildings in Isfahan, alongside his contributions to the creation of Chalipa pieces. Thus, it is imperative to closely examine his artistic works in the realm of calligraphy studies and adopt suitable methods of analysis. The primary objective of this research endeavor is to investigate the distinctions between Chalipa pieces and Mohammad Saleh Esfahani’s inscriptions across three key systems: Baseline, Combination, and Visual Weight.
This research endeavors to explore the dissimilarities between Chalipa’s pieces and Mohammad Saleh Esfahani’s inscriptions within the context of calligraphic principles, specifically in the three systems of Baseline, Combination, and Visual Weight. The underlying inquiry revolves around identifying the reasons behind these disparities. The working hypothesis of this study postulates that distinct variations exist between Chalipa’s pieces and Mohammad Saleh’s inscriptions, and such distinctions can be examined through the application of the principles governing the calligraphy above systems.
Research Method: This research is structured into three main parts, preceded by examining the research background and collecting relevant library information. The initial two parts entail a comprehensive study and scrutiny of the principles above, as evidenced in the works of Mashakhi and Mohammad Saleh Esfahani’s inscriptions, respectively. The third part aims to analyze the gathered information to address the research questions. The descriptive-analytical research method has been employed in this article to achieve a precise and thorough response. The data is primarily derived from an exploration of Mohammad Saleh Isfahani’s works, including inscriptions discovered in various buildings within Isfahan City (such as Chaharbagh School, Emamzadeh Ismaeil, and the tombstone of Saeb Tabrizi) and certain handwritten pieces sourced from museums and libraries. Ultimately, a qualitative analysis has been performed to interpret the findings.

Discussion and Analysis
This research delves into the investigation of the principles governing Mohammad Saleh Esfahani’s works, focusing on the three systems of Baseline, Combination, and Visual Weight. The study involves a separate examination of these systems in both Chalipa’s pieces and his own inscriptions. The research findings reveal that Mohammad Saleh employed distinct techniques to achieve the desired outcomes in each of the three systems. Specifically, in Chalipas, the consistent slope contributes to proportion, balance, and overall aesthetic harmony. To achieve these effects, Mohammad Saleh employed a subtle curve at the beginning and end of each line while carefully observing the ratio between them.
Additionally, the presence of identical rhymes played a significant role in harmonizing the Baseline curvature of the calligraphic pieces. In cases where identical rhymes were absent, Mohammad Saleh achieved proportional and balanced combinations by adjusting the positioning of letters and altering the degree of inclination of the stanzas. The meticulous selection and utilization of strokes emerged as another vital factor in the combination system, which Mohammad Saleh adeptly employed in conjunctive writing to achieve this artistic aim. As observed in Mohammad Saleh’s works, creating a hypothetical perpendicular line stands out as another pivotal factor in forming the Combination system. This hypothetical line becomes apparent through the careful selection of words and the establishment of rhythm, achieved by employing isomorphism in Chalipa’s pieces.
Moreover, the strategic utilization of dots, in accordance with the principle of ownership, as well as the positioning and direction of punctuation on letters and words, play influential roles in creating positive and negative spaces, ultimately achieving a balanced visual weight - techniques skillfully employed by Mohammad Saleh. When examining the three governing systems in calligraphic inscriptions, it becomes crucial to consider several principles. The initial principle revolves around the proportionality of inscriptions, focusing on the relationship between the width of the pen and the dimensions of the inscription’s length and width. Calligraphers ensure that the text is written so that its length and width exhibit uniformity and consistency from the beginning to the end. Another significant aspect involves acknowledging the distinction between forms of exercises and books, which are typically written by calligraphers themselves, and the execution of calligraphic pieces for inscriptions by various artisans such as tilers, plasterers, and stonemasons. This disparity can lead to unregulated variations in implementing letters and words.
Furthermore, in examining and analyzing inscriptions, considering three factors, namely color, light, and pattern, holds significant importance. Incorporating color alongside light as a contributing element plays a pivotal role in establishing the Visual Weight of the inscription. The color contrast achieved through distinct implementation techniques exerts a considerable influence on the visual arrangement for the audience and enhances the inscription’s legibility. For instance, in the sculpting technique applied to the inscriptions on Saeb’s tombstone, the monochromatic and uniform lighting choice relegates the inscription’s visual priority to the audience. Another aspect to consider is the motifs strategically placed around or between the lines of each inscription, which often serve as decorative elements. These motifs are among the various influential factors impacting the readability of inscriptions and the principles of combination, encompassing elements like Calligraphic Strokes and Lacuna, punctuation, and so forth.

Conclusion
The investigation aimed to address the research question concerning the disparities between Chalipa’s works and Mohammad-Saleh Esfahani’s calligraphy in terms of the principles of calligraphy, specifically focusing on the three systems of Baseline, Combination, and Visual Weight. The study also sought to understand the underlying reasons behind their respective utilization. The findings demonstrate that the calligrapher employed these principles in both Chalipa’s pieces and his inscriptions. However, distinctions in the form of Chalipa and inscriptions led to variations in how these principles were applied in their respective works. Notably, the choice of surface played a significant role, with paper being the preferred medium for Chalipa pieces, while materials like stone, tile, or wood were used for inscriptions.
Additionally, the constraints imposed by the customer, including limited space and frame for inscriptions, exerted a noteworthy influence, restricting the calligrapher’s application of the principles governing Baseline, Combination, and Visual Weight compared to the more flexible format of Chalipa. For instance, regardless of word count, the uniform size frame for all stanzas limited the calligrapher’s ability to achieve optimal combinations, baselines, and visual weight, a limitation not present in Chalipa pieces. Other factors contributing to these differences included adjustments in surface size for Chalipa or inscriptions and the limitations inherent in inscription implementation, such as using a dang pen. Taking into account the reasons identified in the research, Mohammad Saleh employed distinct methods and principles in applying the Baseline, Combination, and Visual Weight systems in his works.
Full-Text [PDF 1687 kb]   (584 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Interdisciplinary
Received: 2022/08/3 | Accepted: 2022/12/12 | Published: 2024/02/29

References
1. - آژند، یعقوب، (1383). «خوشنویسی در قلمرو مکتب هرات: دوره پیشین (با تأکید بر خط نستعلیق)». کتاب ماه هنر، (69 و 70): 37-24. https://www.magiran.com/paper/1620050
2. - اسکارچیا، جان‌روبرتو، (1376). تاریخ هنر ایران 10 هنر صفوی، زند و قاجار. ترجمۀ یعقوب آژند، تهران: انتشارات مولی، چاپ اول.
3. - آقا‌داوودی، محی‌الدین؛ و زکریایی کرمانی، ایمان؛ و خواجه احمد عطاری، علیرضا، (1397). «گونه‌شناسی کتیبه‌های مسجد-مدرسۀ چهارباغ اصفهان با تأکید بر ویژگی‌های ساختاری». ی پژوهش هنر، 8(15): 85-71. Doi: 20.1001.1.23453834.1397.8.15.1.6
4. - الاصفهانی، باباشاه، (1391). آداب المشق. پژوهش دکتر حمیدرضا قلیچ‌خانی با همکاری دکتر معین نظامی، نسخۀ دانشگاه پنجاب لاهور، تهران: پیکره، چاپ اول.
5. - انجمن خوشنویسان ایران، (1368). یادنامۀ محمد‌رضا کلهر (به مناسبت یکصدمین سالگرد درگذشت کلهر). تهران: انتشارات انجمن خوشنویسان ایران، چاپ دوم.
6. - انجمن خوشنویسان ایران، (1364). مرقع رنگین (منتخبی از آثار نفیس خوشنویسان بزرگ ایران تا نیمه قرن چهاردهم). تهران: انتشارات انجمن خوشنویسان ایران.
7. - انوری، حسن، (1386). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن. جلد 4، تهران: سخن، چاپ سوم.
8. - امیرخانی، غلامحسین، (1374). آداب‌الخط امیرخانی. تهران: انجمن خوشنویسان ایران، چاپ سوم.
9. - پاکباز، رویین، (1378). دایره‌المعارف هنر. تهران: فرهنگ معاصر، چاپ سوم.
10. - جباری‌کلخوران، صداقت؛ و شایسته‌فر، مهناز؛ و صفاران، الیاس؛ و رضوی‌فرد، حسین، (1391). «سبک‌شناسی خط نستعلیق سلطانعلی مشهدی». مطالعات هنر اسلامی، 9(17): 92-79. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/1269470
11. - حسینی، سید‌سعید؛ و نادعلیان، احمد، (1396). «مقایسۀ شیوۀ اظهر تبریزی، میرعماد حسنی و محمدرضا کلهر در قالب کتابت نستعلیق». نگره، 12(43): 101-89. Doi: 10.22070/NEGAREH.2017.569
12. - حسینی‌رشتخوار، فرشته؛ قلیچ‌خانی، حمیدرضا؛ و نعمتی‌بابای‌لو، علی، (1396). «مطالعۀ تطبیقی شیوۀ خوشنویسی چلیپایی مشابه از میرزاغلامرضا اصفهانی و غلامحسین امیرخانی». مطالعات تطبیقی هنر، 7(14): 29-17. Doi: 20.1001.1.23453842.1396.7.14.4.0
13. - خسروی‌بیژائم، فرهاد، (1395). «پیدایش کتیبه‌نگاری نستعلیق در تزئینات معماری دورۀ تیموری ایران و سیر تحول آن در دورۀ صفوی». رسالۀ دکتری دانشگاه هنر اصفهان (منتشر نشده).
14. - خسروی‌بیژائم، فرهاد، (1386). «نستعلیق در کتیبه‌های مکتب اصفهان با تکیه بر آثار محمدصالح اصفهانی». در: مجموعه مقالات خوشنویسی گردهمایی مکتب اصفهان. گردآوری: مهدی صحراگرد، تهران: فرهنگستان هنر، چاپ اول.
15. - رسولی، آتوسا، (1384). «تأثیر خط شکسته‌نستعلیق بر طرح‌های مکتب اصفهان». هنر، (65): 119-84. https://www.magiran.com/paper/304244
16. - رضوی‌فرد، حسین؛ و پورمند، حسن‌علی، (1396). «تحلیل و بررسی سبک‌های خط نستعلیق قدما». مبانی نظری هنرهای تجسمی، 2(4): 70-53. Doi: 10.22051/JTPVA.2018.3985
17. - شهیدانی، شهاب، (1397). «ملاحظاتی چند دردانش کتیبه‌نگاری و ضرورت کاربرد اصول و قواعد خوشنویسی در تحلیل کتیبه‌ها». پژوهش‌های معماری اسلامی، 6(1): 110-87. http://jria.iust.ac.ir/article-1-944-fa.html
18. - صالحی‌کاخکی، احمد؛ کیانمهر، قباد؛ قلیچ‌خانی، حمیدرضا؛ و خسروی بیژائم، (1396). «طبقه‌بندی مضمونی کتیبه‌های نستعلیق در آرایه‌های چوبی وابسته به معماری دوره صفوی ایران». مرمت و معماری ایران، 7(13): 133-123. Doi: ‎ 20.1001.1.23453850.1396.7.13.5.9
19. - فضائلی، حبیب‌الله، (1387). تعلیم خط. تهران: سروش، چاپ دهم.
20. - قطاع، محمدمهدی، (1380). «تحلیلی بر کرسی خط نستعلیق شیوه میرعماد». فصلنامۀ پژوهشی فرهنگ اصفهان، 20: 87-82. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/306473
21. - قلیچ‌خانی، حمیدرضا، (1388). فرهنگ واژگان و اصطلاحات خوشنویسی و هنرهای وابسته. تهران: روزنه، چاپ دوم.
22. - قلیچ‌خانی، حمیدرضا، (1392). درآمدی بر خوشنویسی ایرانی. تهران: فرهنگ معاصر، چاپ اول.
23. - معنوی‌راد، میترا، (1393). بن‌مایه‌های زیبایی‌شناسی در آثار خوشنویسی خطوط پهلوی و شکسته‌نستعلیق. تهران: دانشگاه الزهرا، چاپ اول.
24. - مایل‌هروی، نجیب، (1372). کتاب‌آرایی در تمدن اسلامی (مجموعه رسائل، در زمینه خوشنویسی، مرکب‌سازی، کاغذگیری، تذهیب و تجلید). مشهد: مؤسسۀ چاپ و انتشارات آستان‌قدس رضوی.
25. - مایل‌هروی، نجیب، (1379). تاریخ نسخه‌پردازی و تصحیح انتقادی نسخه‌های خطی. تهران: کتابخانه، موزه و مرکز اسناد مجلس شورای اسلامی.
26. - مکی‌نژاد، مهدی، (1386). «طبقه‌بندی کتیبه‌ها در معماری دورۀ صفوی». در: مجموعه مقالات خوشنویسی گردهمایی مکتب اصفهان. گردآوری: مهدی صحراگرد، تهران: فرهنگستان هنر، چاپ اول.
27. - مکی‌نژاد، مهدی، (1388). «سیر تحول کتیبه‌های ثلث در ایران (صفویه تا قاجار)». نگره، (13): 39-29. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/1377613
28. - هنرفر، لطف‌الله، (1348الف). «فهرست کتیبه‌های تاریخی در آثار باستانی اصفهان». ماهنامه معارف اسلامی(سازمان اوقاف)، (9): 63-55. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/254897
29. - هنرفر، لطف‌الله، (1350). گنجینه آثار تاریخی اصفهان. تهران: زیبا، چاپ دوم.
30. - هنرفر، لطف‌الله، (1348ب). «امامزاده اسماعیل». ماهنامۀ معارف اسلامی(سازمان اوقاف). (8): 99-93. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/254867
32. - Abifares, H. S., (2001). Arabic Typography: A Comprehensive Source Book. London: Soqi Book.
33. - Aghadavoudi, M.; Zakariaee, I. & KHajeh Ahamd Atari, A, R., (2018). “Typology of the inscriptions Chaharbagh Mosque-school of Isfahan with an emphasis on structural features”. Scientific Journal of Reaserch of Art, 8 (15): 71-85. Doi: 20.1001.1.23453834.1397.8.15.1.6 (in Persian).
34. - Anjomane khoshnevisan Iran, (1989). Yadname Mohamaad Reza Kalhor(be monasebat yeksadomin salgard dargozasht Kalhor). Tehran: Anjoman Khoshnevisan-e Iran, second edition.
35. - Anjoman Khoshnevisan Iran. (1985). Moragh-e Rangin (Montakhabi az Asar-e Nafis-e Khoshnevisan Bozorg-e Iran ta nimey-e gharn-e chehardahom). Tehran: Anjoman khoshnevisan Iran.
36. - Amirkhani, Gh. H., (1995). Adab-ol-khate Amirkhani. Tehran: Anjoman Khoshnevisan-e Iran, third edition.
37. - Anvari, H., (2007). Sokhan comprehensive dictionary persian to persian. vol 4. Tehran: Sokhan, third edition.
38. - Azhand, Y., (2004). “Calligraphy in the territory of the Herat school: the previous period (with emphasis on the Nastaliq script)”. Ketab-mah- honar Journal, 69 & 70: 24-37. https://www.magiran.com/paper/1620050 (in Persian).
39. - Esfahani, B., (2012). Adab- al-mashgh. Researched by: Hamidreza Ghelich khani and Moein Nezami, Tehran: Peykareh, first edition.
40. - Fazaeli, H., (2008). Taʼlium -e Khatt Persian calligraphy: a manual of instruction. Tehran: Soroush, thenth edition.
41. - Ghataa, M. M., (2001). “An analysis on the baseline’s Nastaliq script of Mir Emad style”. Farhang-e Isfahan, 20: 82-87. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/306473 (in Persian).
42. - Ghelichkhani, H. R., (2009). Dictionary of Vocabulary and Terms of Calligraphy and Related Arts. Tehran: Rozaneh, second edition.
43. - Ghelichkhani, H. R., (2009). Introduction to Iranian Calligraphy. Tehran: Farhang-e Moaser, first edition.
44. - Honarfar, L., (1971). A treasure of the historical monuments of Isfahan. Tehran: ziba, second edition.
45. - Honarfar, L., (1969). “Emamzadeh Esmaeil”. Maaref Islami(Sazman-e Oghaf) Journal, 8: 93-99. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/254867 (in Persian).
46. - Honarfar, L., (1969). “List of historical inscriptions in the ancient works of Isfahan”. Maaref Islami(Sazman-e Oghaf) Journal, 8: 93-99. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/254897 (in Persian).
47. - Hosseini, S. H. & Nadian A., (2017). “A comparative Study of ketabat format of Nastaliq in the Calligraphyic style of Jafar Tabrizi, Mir Emad and Mohammad Reza Kalhor”. Negareh Journal, 12(43): 89-101. Doi: 10.22070/NEGAREH.2017.569 (in Persian).
48. - Hosseini Roshtkhar, F.; Ghelichkhani, H. R. & Nemati babaylou, A., (2018). “Comparative Study of Analogous Cross Calligraphic Style by Gholam Reza Isfahani and Gholam Hossein Amir Khani”. Scientific Jornal of Motaeat-e Tatbighi-e Honar, 7(14): 17-29. Doi: 20.1001.1.23453842.1396.7.14.4.0 (in Persian).
49. - Jabari Kalkhoran, S.; Shayesteh Far, M.; Safaran, E. & Razavifard, H., (2012). “Stylistics of Nastaliq Calligraphy of Sultan Ali Mashhadi”. Islamic Art Journal, 9(17): 79-92. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/1269470 (in Persian).
50. - Khosravi Bizhaem, F., (2007). “Nastaliq in the inscriptions of the Isfahan school based on the works of Mohammad Saleh Isfahani”. In: Proceedings of Calligraphy in International Congress on Isfahan School. Tehran: Farhangestan Honar, first edition.
51. - Khosravi Bizhaem, F., (2016). “The development of Nastaliq inscriptions in the architectural embellishments during the Timurid era in Iran and their subsequent evolution in the Safavid period”. Isfahan Art University (unpublished).
52. - Manavirad, M., (2014). Bonmaye-haye Zibayishenasi dar Asar-e khoshnevisi khotot-e Pahlavi va Shekaste Nastaliq. Tehran: Daneshgah-e Al-Zahra, first edition.
53. - Mayil Hiravi, N., (1993). The art of bibliopegy in Islamic Civilization: A collection of Articles on Penmanship Ink making, paper. Mashhad: Astan Quds Razavi. Islamic research Foundation.
54. - Mayil Hiravi. N., (2000). History of Islamic Codicology. Tehran: Ketabkhane, Mozeh va Markaz Asnad Majles-e Shoraye Islami.
55. - Makinezhad, M., (2009). “The evolution of Thuluth inscription in Iran(Safavid to Qajar period)”. Negareh Journal, 5(13): 29-39. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/1377613 (in Persian).
56. - Makinezhad, M., (2007). “Classification of inscriptions in Safavid period architecture”. In: Proceedings of Calligraphy in International Congress on Isfahan School. Tehran: Farhangestan Honar, first edition.
57. - Nasr, H., (1974). “Religion in Safavid Persia”. Iranian Studies, proceedings of the Isfahan (Informa UK Limited), 7: 1-2: 271-286. Cambridge University Press.
58. - Pakbaz, R., (1999). Encyclopedia of art one-volume. Tehran: Farhang-e Moaser, third edition.
59. - Rasoli, A., (2005). “The effect of Shekasteh Nastaliq script on Isfahan school designs”. Faslname-ye Honar, 65: 84-119. https://www.magiran.com/paper/304244 (in Persian).
60. - Razavifard, H. & Pourmand, H. A., (2018). “An Analysis & Examination of Nastaliq Calligraphy Style of the Old Master”. Mabani-e Honarha-ye Tajasomi Journal, 2(2): 53-70. Doi: 10.22051/JTPVA.2018.3985 (in Persian).
61. - Salehi, K. A.; Kianmehr, Q.; Ghelichkhani, H. & Khosravi Bizhaem, F., (2017). “Content classification of Nastaliq Inscriptions In the Wooden Arrays of Architectural Safavid Iran”. Maremat & memari-e Iran Journal, 7 (13): 123-134. Doi: 20.1001.1.23453850.1396.7.13.5.9 (in Persian).
62. - Scarcia, G., (1997). Encyclopedia of world art: Safavid, Zand and Qajar art. Translated by: Yaghoub Azhand. Tehran: Mola, first edition.
63. - Shahidani, S., (2018). “Some considerations on inscription and the necessity of applying the principles and rules of calligraphy in the analysis of inscription”. Researches in Islamic Architecture Journal, 6(1): 87-109. http://jria.iust.ac.ir/article-1-944-fa.html (in Persian).
64. - Soucek, P., (2003). “Calligraphy in the Safavid Period 1501-1576”. In: Hunt for paradise : court arts of Safavid Iran, 1501-1576, by: Jon Thompson and Sheila R Canby: 48-71. New York: Milan: Skira.
65. - www.malekmuseum.org

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.