مشروعیت و سلب مشروعیت: بازخوانی جایگاه تاریخی و گفتمانی مزدک

This article reexamines the historical and discursive position of Mazdak, the fifth-century social reformer, within the political and ideological context of the reign of Kavad I of the Sasanian Empire. The primary aim is to investigate the mechanisms through which Mazdak’s legitimacy was constructed and later delegitimized in historical sources. Employing an analytical and library-based methodology, the study explores how the official Sasanian discourse utilized narrative, mythological, and historiographical tools to portray a specific image of Mazdak, interpreting his actions through notions such as “heresy” and “social disorder.” The analysis encompasses Mazdak’s name and identity. The article argues that these historical narratives do not merely reflect historical reality but function as discursive constructs that served to reinforce the hegemony of the royal authority and official religion during the final centuries of the Sasanian monarchy. The examination of historical narratives reveals that the image of Mazdak has been shaped within the framework of discursive relations. In other words, historical events are, in practice, narrated through discursive representations. The function of such representations is to legitimize power structures and to delegitimize socio-ideological alternatives.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Revisiting historical figures who were marginalized from power has consistently provided a framework for understanding the relations between power, narrative, and collective identity. Mazdak, a social reformer of the fifth century CE, is one such figure whose destiny and ideas have been represented within the intersection of royal authority and the official Sasanian religion. While some historical accounts describe Mazdak as a figure of benevolence, justice, and reform, most official texts present him as a heretic, a rebel, and a threat to social order. The central question of this study is: how and through what mechanisms has the legitimacy of Mazdak been stripped away, and what role did this delegitimization play in consolidating the ideological order of the Sasanian Empire? This paper aims to analyze the formation and solidification of these representations through the study of historical narratives, including the account in the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi. It is assumed that these narratives are not mere reflections of historical events, but discursive actions that served to strengthen the authority of the monarchy and the state religion in the final centuries of the Sasanian Empire.
 
Methodology
This research employs a discourse-analytical approach, utilizing a diachronic method to examine the historical narratives surrounding Mazdak. Sources are classified into three categories based on their time of composition: a) contemporary non-Iranian texts, b) later Zoroastrian texts, and c) Islamic historiographical texts. A comparative analysis of these sources, framed by the concepts of legitimization and delegitimization, is conducted to identify the mechanisms of delegitimization at the linguistic, religious, political, and mythological levels.
 
Discussion
An examination of the historical and mythological narratives surrounding Mazdak reveals that his portrayal was shaped not solely by historical data but within the logic of power and dominance. These representations, found in sources such as later Zoroastrian texts, Islamic historiography, and epic narratives like the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi, carry signs of systematic processes of delegitimization, organized through language, narrative structure, and ideological logic. From a discourse perspective, the narratives surrounding Mazdak are constructed in a binary opposition: the established political and religious order is positioned as legitimate, while Mazdak is portrayed as a disruptor and heretic. Terms such as "Magus," "Gabr," and "Zindiq," used in Islamic historiography to describe Mazdak, function beyond mere labels, acting as tools to strip him of religious identity and social legitimacy, thereby preparing the ground for his discursive exclusion. These terms are not neutral descriptions but instruments for shaping public perception and directing the audience’s interpretation of Mazdak’s history. Before any historical analysis takes place, these terms establish a preconceived perspective on his fate. Similarly, the title "Satan" applied to Mazdak is more aligned with Islamic ideological constructs than with Zoroastrian meanings, reflecting the Islamic effort to reinforce its own ideological framework. Historically, the use of narratives such as the trial of Mazdak by Khosrow Anushirvan not only weakens his personal image but also strengthens the myth of the "just king" in Iranian tradition. In these narratives, Anushirvan, previously portrayed as a ruler of wisdom and strategy, emerges as the savior of religious and social order. His actions against Mazdak are depicted not as suppression, but as a moral and political necessity. This duality establishes a narrative of legitimacy for the monarchy against religious heresy.
Religiously, the official Zoroastrian church used tools such as staged debates, excommunication, and the fabrication of narratives to delegitimize Mazdak’s teachings. In later Zoroastrian sources, although Mazdak is not explicitly named, references to movements with similar ideas to Mazdak's teachings appear, which align with the rejection of heresy in the Zoroastrian intellectual sphere. In Islamic texts, terms like “false savior” or attributing certain social deviance to Mazdak's followers were used as tools to curb the spread of his ideas. Mythologically, some narratives surrounding Mazdak are intertwined with messianic symbols. In certain sources, he is depicted with attributes such as mastery of astrology, prophecy, and social reform, reminiscent of mythological figures associated with salvation in Iranian traditions. This interplay of history and myth adds a layer of complexity to the narrative, indicating that the process of delegitimization was not only political but also embedded in the symbolic and ideological constructs of the time.
 
Conclusion
The findings of this study reveal that the delegitimization of Mazdak in Iranian and Islamic historiography was not a random event or merely a report of historical occurrences; rather, it was a deliberate and discursive process. In this process, the historian’s language, the position of the official religion, and royal authority were intertwined to transform Mazdak from a reformist and justice-seeker into an image of a deviant and threatening heretic. The analysis of sources shows that three levels of delegitimization mechanisms—political, moral, and religious—interacted with each other to serve the stabilization of a particular order. The use of specific vocabulary, the framing of moral accusations, the employment of negative mythological elements, and the erasure of Mazdak's historical context all contributed to reinforcing the legitimacy of the existing power structure. From this perspective, the study of the discourse surrounding Mazdak is not merely a reexamination of a historical figure but an investigation of the mechanisms of legitimization within Iranian culture. Recognizing these mechanisms provides an opportunity for a critique of historiography and the analysis of power within the context of culture and narrative; a process that can lead to a deeper understanding of the connection between historical memory, collective identity, and systems of domination in Iranian history.