Beyhaqi, the renowned secretary of the Ghaznavid court, was a contemporary of Ferdowsi. In his historical account, The History of Beyhaqi (Tārīkh-i Bayhaqī), written on the basis of thirty-seven years of being a court secretary, Beyhaqi revealed many details of the courtiers of the Ghaznavid era. However, he did not refer to Ferdowsi and his interactions with Mahmoud's court at all. Moreover, to enhance the persuasiveness of his words, Beyhaqi has quoted from many poets, yet no verse or stanza, though highly related to the historical events of The History of Beyhaqi, was cited from Ferdowsi. In studies on this matter, most of the researchers focused on extratextual analysis and related this to Ferdowsi’s life events and his rejection by Mahmoud court. Noteworthy, an intratextual analysis of Shahnameh has been mostly ignored. Studying and examining these studies has shown that most researchers have imposed their own preferences on the analyses, undermining the validity of their studies. The current paper, by employing an analytical and descriptive methodology, was aimed at studying the anti-mythical views of writers, contemporary to Beyhaqi. After analysis, it became apparent that mythical texts, in Beyhaqi’s view, were considered as irrational and unimportant and Shahnameh was no exception. Therefore, he refrained to quote from Ferdowsi in his book.
 

This qualitative article employs an analytical-explanatory approach and is based on library resources to examine the relationship between World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature through the lens of Comparative Literature. The study aims to clarify the distinctions and connections between these three concepts to better understand the position of Iranian literature within Global Literature. Several questions are raised: “Are World Literature and Global Literature synonymous, or are they distinct?” “How do they relate to Cosmopolitan Literature?” “What connections do they share with Comparative Literature?” Some scholars consider World Literature and Global Literature interchangeable. Others view World Literature as comprising outstanding works from local literature that have achieved recognition either through translation or in their original language at transnational and international levels. The findings reveal that World Literature is retrospective, focusing on canonical historical works, while Global Literature is contemporary and a product of modern globalization processes. Additionally, the concept of Cosmopolitan Literature, which emphasizes a sense of global belonging and cultural interactions, closely aligns with these two. Comparative Literature serves as a framework for analyzing these relationships and strengthening the connection between Persian literature and global currents.
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
The expansion of globalization processes and the resulting economic and cultural transformations have given rise to several concepts in the fields of literature and culture. Among these is the notion of World Literature, which has been the subject of considerable debate since its inception. It has also sparked fundamental questions, particularly in the context of globalization studies: “Are World Literature and Global Literature synonymous, or are they distinct?” “How do they relate to Cosmopolitan Literature?” “What is the relationship between these latter forms and local or regional literature?” Despite numerous studies on these concepts, significant gaps remain in understanding the relationships among them and their connections to Comparative Literature. Using an analytical-explanatory approach, this article seeks to address these gaps and provide a basis for answering three central questions:

Clarifying these relationships may help shed light on the position of Persian literature within Global Literature and contribute to the development of comparative studies in Iran.
The study of the relationship between World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature has given rise to diverse perspectives within Comparative Literature. Goethe introduced the concept of World Literature, emphasizing cross-cultural interactions and the elevation of exemplary national works as a starting point for understanding these concepts. Building on this foundation, Marx and Engels offered a critical perspective, viewing World Literature as a product of bourgeois society, emerging from the processes of economic globalization. This view highlights the material and economic dimensions of literature’s circulation and reception on a global scale.
More modern studies suggest that Cosmopolitan Literature, by fostering a sense of global belonging and cross-cultural interactions, serves as a bridge between national and Global Literature. It connects localized literary traditions to broader global frameworks, emphasizing shared human values and cultural exchange. Despite this background, significant gaps remain in analyzing the connections among these concepts through the lens of Comparative Literature. This article seeks to address these gaps, offering insights into their interrelations and providing a framework for further understanding.

2. Literature Review
Regarding the relationship between the concept of World Literature and other related notions, particularly Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, several Persian-language studies, in addition to the theoretical sources analyzed in this article, have explored these relationships. Horri (2021) examined the Eastern origins of World Literature from Goethe’s perspective, arguing that "from Goethe’s point of view, World Literature is neither a collection of national literature nor a compendium of global masterpieces; rather, it is a dynamic process of interaction among nations aimed at dismantling the walls of national prejudices that hinder peaceful coexistence” (p. 229). In another study, Horri (2023) explored the interdependence of national and Global Literature, demonstrating that "the richness of World Literature may depend on the richness of national literature, and vice versa; without national literature, there would be little presence of World Literature” (pp. 34-35). Building on these insights, this article seeks to analyze the relationship between World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature, offering a comparative and theoretical perspective to clarify their intersections and distinctions

3. Discussion and Analysis
One of the key challenges in translating the term Globalization into Persian arises from the lexical similarities between terms like "world" (as in World Literature) and "global" (as in Global Literature), and their equivalents in Persian, which do not have precise distinctions. Furthermore, translators have not consistently rendered these English terms into Persian, leading to discrepancies in interpretation and application. The discourse on World Literature and its relationship with other forms, such as Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, can be divided into two broad chronological and historiographical categories: 1) Early and Foundational Perspectives and 2) Contemporary and Critical Perspectives. Two influential early views on World Literature stem from Goethe and Marx and Engels. Goethe envisioned World Literature as a means of cultural exchange, fostering dialogue and understanding among nations. Marx and Engels, however, emphasized the commodification of literature within the framework of global capitalism. For them, literature became a bourgeois product circulating within the global economy and subject to the dynamics of production, consumption, and exchange. While Goethe’s focus was more cultural, Marx and Engels placed a greater emphasis on the universal aspects of literature as a product of bourgeois society, linking it closely to the concept of globalization. This commodification of literature, as described by Marx and Engels, underscores its connection to the broader socio-economic processes of globalization.
Since the early 2000s, discussions about World Literature and its relationship with other literary forms, such as Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, have adopted a more theoretical and critical orientation. Bugomil (2001) argued that Global Literature is primarily aimed at a general, global audience, while World Literature is more likely to be critically received by a specialized readership (p. 5). In other words, Global Literature enjoys widespread acceptance, while World Literature invites selective and critical engagement. Damrosch (2000) contended that the broad acceptance of World Literature does not inherently conflict with its alignment with critical readerships. While Global Literature often appeals to contemporary sensibilities, World Literature tends to engage with the past, fostering interpretative and intertextual connections across texts. Bugomil succinctly encapsulates this distinction: Global Literature is present-oriented, while World Literature is past-oriented. Ian Baucom (2001) provides a more nuanced categorization of Global Literature, distinguishing between its function as a project and as a method. As a project, Global Literature involves reconfiguring literary studies to focus on what is termed Global Literature. As a method, it involves extending global approaches to specific methods for studying what is broadly defined as literature (p. 162). This distinction highlights the dual role of Global Literature as both a framework for rethinking literary studies and a methodology for expanding the scope of literary analysis.
In summary, Global Literature is future-oriented, with an emphasis on contemporary relevance and universality, while World Literature remains past-oriented, seeking to preserve and reinterpret literary traditions across cultures. The commodification and globalization of literature have shaped these distinctions, allowing for the simultaneous coexistence of broad accessibility and critical engagement. This analytical framework sets the stage for exploring the interrelations among these concepts, their implications for understanding literature, and their role in shaping both national and global literary discourses.
The relationship between Global Literature and World Literature remains a subject of significant debate. While Bugomil (2001) argues that Global Literature cannot be equated with World Literature due to differences in scope and audience, Hillis-Miller (2011) takes a more integrative stance. He suggests that Global Literature can replace World Literature and proposes the term “New World Literature” instead of the traditional concept of World Literature. Eric Hayot (2013) examines the relationship between World Literature and globalization from two perspectives: method and subject matter. Hayot argues that World Literature cannot be easily equated with globalization, as the latter adopts a scientific-social and positivist approach, primarily concerned with economic and political transformations. This framework, he notes, is largely disconnected from the aesthetic and interpretative dimensions of literature (p. 223). Hayot highlights that literary studies are often shaped by an aesthetic perspective, emphasizing close reading techniques and poetic devices. These studies view literature as a medium for imaginative escape and playful resistance against the commodification and transactional nature of global markets (Hayot, 2013).
The connection between World Literature and cosmopolitanism emerges when World Literature—or more specifically, Global Literature—is seen as a product of globalization, which is inherently shaped by external, economic, and global forces. In a globalized world, McLuhan’s metaphor of the “global village” (1994, p. 8) suggests that its inhabitants become global citizens, fostering a sense of cosmopolitanism. From this perspective, literature functions as a means of expressing and reinforcing this sense of global belonging and cultural interconnectedness. Domínguez (2013) delves deeper into the link between World Literature and cosmopolitanism, defining cosmopolitanism as the starting point of a movement toward a “hybrid perspective.” He posits that literature is initially localized (e.g., “European literature”) but gradually transforms into “Global Literature” when it reaches a broader, universal audience (p. 337). Beecroft discusses the connection between cosmopolitanism and what he terms “literature-world” or “literary ecology.” This approach emphasizes the interplay between localized literary traditions and global literary networks, offering a framework to understand how regional and Global Literature coexist and influence one another.
These perspectives collectively illustrate the intricate relationships among World Literature, Global Literature, and cosmopolitanism. While globalization serves as a material and economic backdrop for the emergence of Global Literature, cosmopolitanism emphasizes the ideological and cultural dimensions of global literary exchange. The works of Hayot, Domínguez, and Beecroft highlight the evolving roles of literature as both a product of its local environment and a participant in global literary discourse.

4. Findings, Conclusions, and Future Studies
This study sought to define and analyze key terms, particularly the four concepts of World Literature, Global Literature, Cosmopolitan Literature, and Comparative Literature, and to examine their distinguishing characteristics. The findings demonstrate that World Literature, along with national, non-national, and local literature, is incorporated into the ongoing and dynamic process of globalization through translation. This globalization process is a tangible and practical phenomenon, emerging from the era of new technologies and heavily influenced by global economic structures. In this framework, globalization transforms the world into a small village—a global village—where its inhabitants, representing citizens from all five continents, perceive this village as their homeland, fostering a sense of belonging. This global sense of attachment is described as cosmopolitanism, reflecting the worldview of global citizens in a tightly interconnected world. In summary, many theorists regard World Literature as the outcome of cultural interactions and mutual understanding, with Comparative Literature serving as a tool for better comprehending these interactions. Simultaneously, perspectives on Global Literature are primarily influenced by economic and globalization-driven dynamics, emphasizing broader accessibility and appeal. In contrast, Cosmopolitan Literature emerges as a result of global interactions and the acceptance of multiculturalism, aligning closely with the ideals of global citizenship.
Expanding upon these findings, this study highlights their relevance to Persian literature, emphasizing its significant potential in the global literary arena. By analyzing the concepts of World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature, the study demonstrates that Persian literature—enriched by its cultural depth and historical interactions—possesses immense capacity to engage a global audience.

Since many of Hafez's poems reflect the conditions of his time and the events of his life, understanding the history of Hafez's era and awareness of his relationships with powerful figures is crucial for comprehending his poetry. Essentially, grasping a significant portion of Hafez's verses depends on knowledge of the circumstances of his time and the events of his life. Neglecting the historical context of Hafez's poetry can lead to misunderstandings of the meanings of his verses and the concepts and interpretations within them, as well as disrupt the logical connections between the verses. A famous ghazal by Hafez that begins with "Taleh agar madad dahad…" is a prominent example where ignoring this context results in a complete breakdown of the connection between its verses, inevitably leading to a suspension of the hidden meanings and interpretations within it and, consequently, misinterpretation. In this study, using content analysis and a descriptive-analytical approach, we will identify the subtle references in the poem and represent the logical connections between its verses by matching the ghazal with its historical context. In light of the attention to the implications of the elements within the mentioned ghazal, one can speculate about the approximate date of its composition.

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
The historical aspect of Hafez's poetry, which is undoubtedly one of the most significant features of his work, plays a fundamental role in understanding his words. This characteristic is not commonly found among classical Persian poets. For instance, understanding Saadi's verses often doesn't require knowledge of the political and historical changes of his time. Various reasons can be put forward to explain the extensive reflection of political and historical events in Hafez's poetry; however, his continuous connection with the court and his interactions with kings, ministers, and other political figures play a significant role.
Another important reason is Hafez's approach to poetry as a tool for expressing his viewpoints on events. The immense poetic potential found in Hafez’s work, which spreads at a remarkable speed, allows him to convey his message to his intended audience without the need for intermediaries or messengers. This capacity has been particularly useful in situations where direct communication with the audience was difficult, such as when Shah Sheikh Abu Ishaq left Shiraz after his defeat by Amir Mobarez al-Din, or when Shah Shuja had to abandon Shiraz in the face of his brother Shah Mahmoud's forces, or during the times when Hafez was deprived of seeing Shah Shuja due to a falling out. In these instances and others, Hafez embedded his message in his poetry, which then circulated among the intended audience. It is clear that such verses must exhibit characteristics, including a lack of direct reference to a specific addressee, to protect the poet and shield him from the repercussions of his words. Additionally, the poem should not lack meaning for the general public, or rather, for the broader audience of his poetry. In other words, he crafts the poetry in such a way that everyone enjoys its form and meaning, while at the same time, the specific addressee receives their personal message from it.
Hafez's extraordinary ability to compose such poems is truly one of his remarkable arts. At the same time, a significant number of ambiguities and misunderstandings, as well as the apparent disconnection of verses in a ghazal, stem from this very issue for readers of Hafez. This is where paying attention to the historical context of Hafez's poetry becomes essential. Aligning his verses with their historical background greatly aids in understanding Hafez's poetry, untangling its complexities, and creating coherence along its vertical axis (establishing a logical connection between the verses).

2. Problem Statement 
Among Hafez's famous ghazals, one that seems scattered and lacks a logical connection without considering the context of its creation is the ghazal numbered 296 in the version edited by Ghazvini and Ghani.
In the first couplet, the poet expresses a longing to get closer to someone. Then, he immediately mentions his lack of fortune in receiving the generosity of people. He goes on to lament the waste of his precious life in the futile hope of the friend, deeming it impossible to achieve his desires from him. Next, he talks about ungrateful sons and the hard-heartedness of those who don't remember their father, considering any kindness towards them fruitless. Unexpectedly, he recalls his own thoughts of seclusion and asceticism. Then, out of nowhere, there's a mention of the tambourine and the harp played by the young musician. The "mohtaseb" and the "sufi" are characters who come into the scene following the young magus, And each one is condemned. Finally, without any preamble, he speaks of treading the path of the dynasty and the support of the chief of Najaf.
As is evident, various themes, sometimes entirely unrelated, are presented one after the other in this ghazal. With such a degree of thematic scattering and disconnection between the lines, what should one do? In a ghazal that talks about the hard-hearted idols, ungrateful sons, the young magus, the tambourine, the harp, and the wine, what is the connection to speak of the holy dynasty  and the chief of Najaf?
Shamisa (2016) has paid attention to the scattered themes in this ghazal. He believes that there is a connection between the verses of Hafez's poetry and that most ghazals have a central coherence. However, regarding the ghazal in question, he says: "Of course, in some cases we must inevitably say that the old scholars' claim [about the lack of semantic connection between verses] is correct, because we do not discover a connection between some of the verses." (p. 25).
Many researchers agree that there is a lack of coherence in the vertical axis and no meaningful connections between the verses in Hafez's poems. Arberry (1974), in the introduction to his book titled Fifty poems of Hafez, considers the cultivation of several unrelated themes in a single ghazal as one of Hafez's innovations (p. 30). Khorramshahi (1982) also believes that the couplets of Hafez's ghazals possess more independence, diversity, and separation than those of other poets (p. 18). Almost all of the commentaries written on Hafez's ghazals have adhered to this viewpoint and felt no necessity to express the relationships among the verses in a ghazal. However, as noted, some researchers do not agree with this perspective. Pournamdarian (2013), describing the structure of Hafez's ghazals, states: "Some have pointed out that one of the characteristics of Hafez's ghazals is the lack of semantic connection between its verses (...) In my opinion, at least it can be said that in many of Hafez's ghazals, there is a semantic connection between the verses, even if this connection is not apparent at first glance" (pp. 225-226).
We believe that the hidden connections of verses in Hafez's poetry often reveal themselves through an understanding of the historical-political context in which they were written; in this study, we aim to analyze the ghazal on this semantic layer, explaining the conditions under which the poem was composed and introducing the characters present in it, while also demonstrating that this ghazal maintains coherence along its vertical axis.

3. Research method
This research has been carried out using content analysis and a descriptive-analytical approach. It aims to examine the poem by aligning it with its historical context, including the conditions, motivations, and goals of the poet at the time of creating the work. Special attention has been given to the information gathered from reliable historical sources, as well as considering the knowledge gained from other poems by the poet, which plays a significant role in aligning the selected ghazal with the key events that influenced its creation.

4. Results
Relating the discussed poetry to the historical backdrop of Hafez's life helps establish a vertical connection between the verses and dispels the accusation of dispersion and fragmentation of meanings within the ghazal, aiding in the accurate understanding of the references and expressions employed. In this ghazal, composed during the era of Amir Mobariz al-Din Muzaffari (Mohtaseb), Hafez speaks of his financial troubles. He also critiques the oppressive social atmosphere prevailing in Shiraz and the encroachment of rulers and their agents on public rights under the guise of piety, expressing his disappointment in garnering support from Shah Shoja, the son and heir of Amir Mobariz al-Din, who he found to be completely different from his father. He talks about the idea of leaving Shiraz and migrating to the court of the Al-Jalayir dynasty, the very court that had previously welcomed artists disillusioned with the Muzaffarid dynasty, like Obaid Zakani, and whose rulers continually expressed their desire for Hafez to be present in their court.
Hafez, by using the phrase "Shahne of Najaf" for the founder of the Jalayerid dynasty, who all had a Shia inclination and contributed significantly to the restoration and expansion of the shrines of Shia Imams within their territory, is also subtly seeking support from the then Jalayerid king, Sultan Uways, for the expenses of his journey. The term "Shahne of Najaf," meaning the guardian and servant of the Najaf shrine, has been a great source of pride for Amir Sheikh Hasan and his successors. At the same time, it's important to note that Hafez, by announcing his intention to migrate to Baghdad, sends a message to Shah Shuja that if he continues to delay and does not take Hafez under his protection, he might lose such an extraordinary poet. It can be inferred that the discussed ghazal was composed during the period between the execution of Shah Sheikh Abou Ishaq in the year 757 AH and the event of Amir Mobariz al-Din being deposed from the throne by his sons in 759.

References
Arberry, A.J. (1974). Fifty poems of Hafiz. Cambridge University Press.
Khorramshahi, B. (1982). Zehn va Zabān-e Hāfez. Nashr-e No. [In Persian]
Pournamdarian, T. (2013). Gomshode-ye Lab-e Daryā: Ta’amoli dar Ma’ni va Surat-e She’r-e Hāfez. Sokhan Publication. [In Persian]
Shamisa, S. (2016) Yāddāsht-hā-ye Hāfez. Mitra Publication. [In Persian]
 

This study delves into the motivations and intentions of Persian biographical writers through a comprehensive analysis. The primary objective is to examine the underlying reasons driving these authors to compile such works, considering the broader context of Iran's literary and political evolution. By comparing different historical periods, the study seeks to identify patterns in the emergence and decline of various motivations in response to prevailing socio-cultural conditions. Beyond motivations, the research also explores the implicit goals that Tadhkerah writers aimed to achieve through their compilations. Ultimately, by elucidating the motivations of Tadhkerah authors through the lens of their authorial persona, this study contributes significantly to the historiography of Persian literature. This approach not only enhances our understanding of these works but also positions this research as more comprehensive and rigorous than previous studies.
Extended Abstract
In essence, all literary works can be seen as a history of literature. They serve as mirrors, reflecting the social, political, and cultural transformations of their time. For instance, when we read a ghazel by an ancient poet, beyond the literary pleasure, we are unintentionally reading a piece of the literary history of his/her era, establishing a connection with it. Undoubtedly, many readers find themselves pondering the why and how of his/her ghazals, engaging in a form of exploration of Persian literary history. Those readers who consider it their duty to find answers to these questions are generally literary critics and historians.
Literary historians and critics, in their quest to answer these questions, often seek to uncover his/her motivations and intentions in composing his/her ghazals. To achieve this, they employ various tools and methods. However, as contemporary readers of an ancient ghazel, how do they access and understand the poet's intentions and purposes? This question has so far sparked lengthy, and sometimes endless, debates.
It should be clarified that the aim of this article is neither to defend intentionalism nor to attack anti-intentionalism. These two positions have primarily debated the intentions of authors of literary works. This article intends  to explore and investigate is the intentions and motivations of Persian Tadhkerah writers in their historiographical writings about literature. In other words, I am interested in the motivations and intentions of those who have written about literary works and poets. Of course, it should not be forgotten that every author has their own intentions and motivations for writing, and therefore it is possible to research these intentions.
I intend to investigate this issue through the following questions: What were the motivations of Tadhkerah writers for compiling these biographical dictionaries, and what can be inferred about their intentions? What developments can be attributed to the flourishing of particular motivations in a specific period? How will elucidating the intentions and purposes of Tadhkerah writers facilitate the path of Persian literary history?
A noteworthy aspect of this study is my intention to explore texts and literary history by differentiating between the concepts of intention and motivation. I owe this conceptual distinction to Quentin Skinner. Motivations are prior to the act of writing, while intentions are linked to the text's interiority and can be discerned throughout the composition and completion of the Tadhkerah.
I have categorized the motivations of Tadhkerah writers into seven groups and provided examples for each. Ultimately, I have concluded that the overarching goals and intentions of Persian Tadhkerah writers was to seek power, exert dominance, and construct identity.