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.
 

If we consider language not as a mirror reflecting struggles, but as the subject and tool of struggles, then we should use the signifier of discourse, which makes the concepts of power and language understandable in a continuous and inseparable conceptual entanglement. This article aims to analyze the text of Tarikh-e Beyhaqi as one of the most influential classical texts of Persian literature with a discursive method. In other words, by placing this text in its discursive context and its dialectical relationship with power, and understanding this text as the field of conflict between powers and conflicting discourses of society, a new understanding of it can be achieved. In order to achieve this goal, Fairclough's critical discourse analysis method is used to perform micro-textual analysis, and Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory is used to perform macro-discourse analysis of Bayhaghi era. The text of Tarikh-e Beyhaqi, as shown, does not reflect the true struggle, but itself, is part of the struggle process. This text is influenced by the chain of ruling discourses and is used against peripheral discourses. Tarikh-e Beyhaqi, under the influence of the discourse that pulls the bipolar mind of the text to a directional representation of the flow of affairs, highlights the ruling discourses and marginalizes the peripheral discourses.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Discourse is a special way of understanding the world, a special understanding and a special way of speaking that pushes other possible ways of understanding the world to the sidelines by highlighting itself. In fact, language - which is the common thread of all different discourses - is structured in the framework of formats that are governed by ideological disciplines. These structured formats - which are discourses - are fighting in an irreconcilable way to reach the hegemonic position in the whole society. If we consider language not as a mirror reflecting struggles, but as the subject and tool of struggles, then we should use the signifier of discourse, which makes the concepts of power and language understandable in a continuous and inseparable conceptual entanglement.

Methodology
This article aims to analyze the text of Tarikh-e Beyhaqi as one of the most influential classical texts of Persian literature with a discursive method. In other words, by placing this text in its discursive context and its dialectical relationship with power, and understanding this text as the field of conflict between powers and conflicting discourses of society, a new understanding of it can be achieved. In order to achieve this goal, Fairclough's critical discourse analysis method is used to perform micro-textual analysis, and Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory is used to perform macro-discourse analysis of Bayhaghi era. Due to the expanse of the text of the book, and the limitation of the article, only one theoretical topic (sermon) and two historical-fictional topics (the story of Afshin and Budolaf - and the nobles of Ray's response to Sultan Masoud) have been selected for analysis.
Discussion and conclusion
The sermon presents three parables comparing: the kingdom of Alexander and Ardashir Sassanid, the rise of the Ghaznavids, not having the privilege of the Iranian race, and comparing the hierarchy of the government structure with the human body, and in all three by justifying and giving priority to the Ghaznavid rulers, it marginalizes the competing discourse. In two historical-fictional stories, the story of Afshin and Budolaf, which has a very strong narrative aspect and is therefore very influential, has been chosen to explain the bipolar mentality and highlight Us and make Them alien. "Them" in this story is a racial alienation, which is indeed Afshin, the general of army of the Caliphate, but of Iranian race. In the story of the nobles of Ray's response to Sultan Masoud and their devotion to him, the fear and ingratitude of the people make the Ghaznavid rulers and Sunnid discourse stand out and marginalize Al-e Bouyeh rulers and Shia discourse.
The text of Tarikh-e Beyhaqi, as shown, does not reflect the true struggle, but itself, is part of the struggle process. This text is influenced by the chain of ruling discourses and is used against peripheral discourses. Tarikh-e Beyhaqi, under the influence of the discourse that pulls the bipolar mind of the text to a directional representation of the flow of affairs, highlights the ruling discourses and marginalizes the peripheral discourses.