The Character Representation of Alexander and Dara in Nizami’s Iskandarnāmeh: A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach

Numerous Islamic sources, especially various Iskandarnāmehs, portray Alexander as a popular figure. Nizami too, in his Iskandarnāmeh, strives to depict Alexander as the epitome of an ideal ruler. This study investigates two letters from Dara and Alexander in Nizami’s Sharafnāmeh. To perform the analysis, this article utilises overwording, hyponymy, antonymy, marked vocabulary, metaphors, sentence types, nominalisation, sentence modes, modality, pronouns, persuasive strategies, sentence cohesion, interactional conventions, and broader text structures from the descriptive layer of Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis. This study concludes that Nizami tends to portray Dara as a proud, arrogant, exclusive, foolish, traditional, and reveller character; on the other hand, he depicts Alexander as a wise, God-fearing, warrior, young, eloquent, and powerful figure. Furthermore, Dara’s wording is always harsh and direct, while Alexander’s words are indirect and veiled.
 
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Numerous Islamic sources, especially various Iskandarnāmehs, portray Alexander as a popular figure. By contextualising Alexander, Nizami too, in his Iskandarnāmeh, strives to depict Alexander as the epitome of an ideal ruler. Alexander is Nizami’s favourite protagonist and Dara is his antagonist, which makes their quarrels unique. This uniqueness can be due to Nizami’s conscious utilization of the potential of the Persian language or his unconscious being affected by the historio-cultural environment. The central question of this study is how Nizami depicts Alexander and Dara as characters. To answer this question, this study investigates the part of Sharafnāmeh, which entails the two letters from Alexander and Dara before the battle.
2. Methodology
The present study adopts a descriptive-analytic approach and surveys library sources.
3. Theoretical Framework
Critical Discourse Analysis investigates a work in the light of its societal context. To analyse a text, Norman Fairclough introduces a method which explores the deep layers of the text and uncovers the societal constraints in the text. This method investigates the text in three layers: Description, Interpretation, and Explanation. The present study employs the descriptive layer to investigate Nizami’s Iskandarnāmeh. 
4. Discussion and Analysis
Informed by Fairclough’s descriptive layer, the present study investigates Nizami’s Iskandarnāmeh in the light of vocabulary, grammar, and textual structures. The analysis of the vocabulary is as follows:
Overwording: to compose a sentence by excessive repetition of words in order to emphasise a concept or an idea.
Hyponymy: The semantic relationship between each of the more specific words that belong to the same discourse, all of which show the author’s orientation toward a specific semantic field.
Antonymy: A chain of antonyms which emphasise a highlighted part of reality.
Marked and Unmarked: Some marked and unmarked words have implicit and value-giving meanings.
Metaphors: According to Fairclough, metaphors are socially motivated, different metaphors may correspond to different interests and perspectives and may have different ideological loadings.
The grammatical analysis is as follows:
Sentence types: sentences are classified as action-based, eventual, and descriptive.
Nominalisation: Ideology deletes the element of time, and masks and covers the identity and motive of the character.
Sentence modes: declarative (statements), interrogative (questions), and imperative (commands) sentences are in accordance with the power of the discourse.
Modality: refers to the ways language can express various relationships to reality or truth. For instance, a modal expression may convey that something is likely, desirable, or permissible.
Pronouns: The power dynamic affects the selection of the pronouns.
Sentence cohesion: concerns the flow of sentences and paragraphs from one to another. It involves the tying together of old information and new, which, in turn, un/covers the implicit meanings within the text.
The structural analysis is as follows:
Interactional conventions: Form the conversation and control its topic.
Broader structures in the text: Investigate the repetition, elimination, or sequentiality of a concept.
5. Conclusion
The two letters between Alexander and Dara serve as their political and ideological battleground. Before the actual fighting, Alexander and Dara battle through their words. They intend to prove their upper hand. Nizami tends to portray Dara as a proud, arrogant, exclusive, foolish, traditional, and reveller character; on the other hand, he depicts Alexander as a wise, God-fearing, warrior, young, eloquent, and powerful figure. In the beginning, Dara has the upper hand, and insists on enforcing racial and political power by belittling Alexander. On the other hand, Alexander argues that power rests only in God’s hands, and he is superior to Dara in faithfulness, knowledge, and military power. Throughout the letter, Nizami emphasises Alexander’s knowledge and Dara’s idiocy. In his view, Dara is a reveller king. Dara’s wording is always harsh and direct, while Alexander’s words are indirect and veiled; in other words, Alexander is superior in erudition and rhetoric.
Bibliography
Amini Shalamzari, Z. 1400 [2021]. Tahlil-e Goftemān-e Enteqādi-e Zabān-e Hemāsi, Qenāei va Erfāni dar Manzoomeh-hāye Nizāmi. Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Isfahan. [In Persian].
Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Edward Arnold. [In English].
Fairclough, N. 1389 [2010]. Tahlil-e Enteqādi-e Goftemān. Translators (trans.). Tehran: Motale-at va Tose’eh Rasaneh. [In Persian].                 [Critical Discourse Analysis]
Fairclough, N. 1399 [2020]. Tahlil-e Goftemān-e Enteqādi. Rohollah, Q (trans.). Tehran: Andisheh Ehsan. [In Persian].    [Critical Discourse Analysis]
Fotoohi, M. 1395 [2016]. Sabk-Shenāsi-e Nazaryieh-hā, Rooykard-hā va Ravesh-hā. Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian].
Nizami Ganjavi, E. Y. 1400 [2021]. Sharaf-Nāmeh. Hassan Vahid, D (ed.). Tehran: Qatreh. [In Persian].
Safa, Z. 1370 [1991]. “Molāhezāti darbāreh-ye Dāstān-e Iskandar Maqdooni va Iskandar-Nameh-hā-e Ferdowsi va Nizami,” Iran Shenāsi. No, 11. 269-481.
Servatiyan, B. 1388 [2009]. Honar va Andisheh-ye Nizāmi-e Ganjeh-ei. Tehran: Hamshahri. [In Persian].
Yarmohammadi, L. 1391 [2012]. Darāmadi bar Goftemān-Shenāsi. Tehran: Hermes. [In Persian].
Zarrinkoob, A. 1372 [1993]. Pir-e Ganjeh dar Jostojooy-e Nākojā-ābād. Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian].