Ricoeurian Hermeneutical approach; Case study: Illustrations of Sam Mirza's Hafez's Divan*

After a long march of history of developments, hermeneutics, the theory of text interpretation, totally focused on understanding, has nowadays been wider scope that eventually includes artworks. Hermeneutics refers to different approaches due to its theoretical versatility and associated applied paradigms including Ricoeur’s textual hermeneutics. The latter may be best described as text-oriented interpretation which could not be dominantly focused on text as the reader has been considered being the constitutive partner in understanding the text particularly since early 20th century. Text-oriented hermeneutics roots in hermeneutical affirmation of interpretive autonomy of biblical scripture in medieval centuries and during 16th century Protestant Reformation; also, introduction of  autonomous being of language in modern 20th century hermeneutics. Paul Ricoeur, contemporary figurehead hermeneut, assumed self-hermeneutics the primary intent of the practical approach he later defined as interpretative dialectic between guessing and validating. Present research aims to do a Ricoeur’s hermeneutics-analysis of illustrations of Sam Mirza’s Hafez's Divan. First chapter is dedicated to review of Ricoeur’s textual hermeneutics, the dialectic between hermeneutics and art and finally, Ricoeur’s practical philosophy regarding illustrations and paintings as a broader sense of text. Studies on fine art-hermeneutics links and certain interpretations based on Ricoeurian methodology are discussed in second chapter. Ricoeurian approach to these illustrations is not deemed impracticable; yet, textual interpretations and understandings are assumed personal according to Ricoeur’s theory of text to which discernment of accurate vs. misinterpretation is of no concern; the probable hermeneutical explanations can thus only be methodologically assessed. Ricoeur's theory of interpretation, thus, has constantly faced two major challenges: first, traditional values of textual congruence and -plenitude have never been utterly fulfilled within his sphere of interpretation of symbols given he considers no utmost and inevitably unerring textual meaning. Second, Ricoeurian hermeneutics perfectly focuses on textuality as well as illustrative semiotics-which is the case. Promotion of the textual analysis beyond their structural significance and seeming narration of the illustrations will not make included linguistic semantic elements steadily revealing about the illustrations. Interpretations even get muddled up when it comes to Near eastern poetic texts such as Hafiz’s works due to its plural aspects of meaning as well as unique expressive form of ode which fuel the interpretive ambiguity of associated illustrations and challenge the rationality of potential semiotic deductions. Semantic ambiguity due to lack of enough illustration-associated textual evidence, and also, obvious form and content association between illustrations and the words cause illustrations to be further seen as textual components rather than independent subject matters. Closer look at illustrations of Sam Mirza's custom version of Hafiz's Divan suggests that these paintings and the textual originality may not be truly divided. Text-dependent analyses of the paintings could definitely clarify the interpretations and this is precisely where they deviate from Ricoeur’stheory because the text is already seen as the genuine interpretive backbone and major analytical tool of the paintings. Finally, author-oriented- and other context-based approaches is suggested in case the interpreter is about to achieve coherent explanations of either word-independent illustrations