چكيده لاتين
The narrative of Alexander the Great’s invasion of Persia and his confrontation with Darius III is recounted in diverse ways across various Islamic-era sources. These accounts, rather than holding significant historical value, predominantly reflect the dominance of one or more discourses of power and ideology, discourses actively reinforced and preserved by political and religious institutions. Nezami Ganjavi’s Iskandar-nameh and Tarsusi’s Darab-nameh, both focusing on the encounter between Alexander and Dara, were penned in the sixth century AH. This study aims to address the following question: What discourses from the political, religious, and social spheres of the sixth century AH are reflected in Iskandar-nameh and Darab-nameh, and how did Nezami Ganjavi and Abu Taher Tarsusi engage with each of these discourses? In essence, our objective is to analyze the manifestation of discourses of power and ideology in two works: one belonging to the societal elite and the other to the general populace. Utilizing Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) methodology, we seek evidence of power and ideological discourses in the sixth century. Accordingly, the texts were analyzed at three levels: description, interpretation, and explanation. Through textual data obtained at the descriptive level, the identification of situational and intertextual contexts at the interpretative level, and the examination and synthesis of information from the preceding two levels at the explanatory level, three discourses emerged as instrumental for political power acquisition in the sixth century: kinship, religiosity, and militarism. Nezami reinforces the discourses of religiosity and militarism for power acquisition while challenging the discourse of kinship. Tarsusi, conversely, exclusively affirms the discourse of kinship for power acquisition. Furthermore, Nezami promotes a discourse of Hellenophilia, while Tarsusi champions its antithesis, a discourse of Iranocentrism. Within the religious institution, both authors adopt a normative approach to Islamic discourse. Nezami, in particular, reflects Ash’arite discourse and, consequently, fatalistic discourse in the Iskandar-nameh. By synthesizing and modifying both Ash’arite and philosophical discourses, he is in the process of creating a different type of discourse rooted in rationalism.
