تحلیلی ساختارگرایانۀ از سه روایت «سیاوش»، «حسنک وزیر» و «شیر و گاو»

1. Introduction

A close examination of three distinct narratives—Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh (the story of Siavash), Tārīkh-e Bayhaqī (the account of Hasanak the Vizier), and Kelileh va Demneh (the fable of The Lion and the Cow)—reveals striking structural and thematic parallels. Despite their differing historical and cultural contexts, these narratives share a nearly identical framework, particularly in their psychological characterizations and underlying conflicts.

The most prominent commonality lies in the recurring motif of jealousy and conspiracy, driven by a group of antagonistic figures. These characters—Garsīvaz in Siavash, Būshal in Hasanak the Vizier, and Demneh in The Lion and the Cow—orchestrate deceitful schemes that manipulate others into betraying and ultimately destroying the virtuous protagonists (Siavash, Hasanak, and the Cow). This pattern not only highlights shared narrative mechanics but also underscores a deeper archetype of human conflict across Persian literary tradition.From this view, there is no difference between Garsivaz (in the Shahnameh), Busahl (in Tarikh-e Beyhaqi) and Demneh (in Kelileh va Demneh), but these three characters are very similar to each other, in this article, this group is defined as the agent “A”. The second common structure that can be recognized in these three narratives is the acceptance of cunning by another group of characters in these narratives, namely Afrasiab, Masoud, and Shir(lion), who are referred to here as agent “B”. The third common structure of these three narratives is the killing of the positive heroes of the story, that is, Siavash, Hasnak, and Gav (Cow), who are referred to as agent “C”. It seems that what deserves attention in these three narratives is the repetition of functions; three different texts with varying contexts: epic, story, and historical. It is possible to identify clear relationships in the structure of these three texts based on the analysis of fictional functions, despite their differing contexts.

In this article, while explaining the reasons for choosing the term narrative instead of story and anecdote and presenting a summary of three works, we will briefly discuss the theory of structuralism. Finally, we will examine the structure of these three narratives based on the following subject matters: 1) The same theme of the three narratives, 2) Functions of agents, (jealousy, conspiracy, accepting a provoke, and the killing of a lovely agent), 3) The same sequence of the functions, 4) Dual logic, 5) Psychological construction of the agents.

2. Literature Review

Previous scholarship has extensively analyzed the stories of Siavash and Hasanak Vazir through various theoretical lenses. Morphological studies by Stanji and Rameshki (2013), Kahdooi and Najjarian (2014), and Behnam (2010) have applied Propp’s narrative functions, while structuralist approaches by Peykani et al. (2019), Razaviju and Fereshte (2015), and Talebian and Amini (2010) have employed theories from Strauss and Bremond. Psychological interpretations have been offered by Rouzbeh and Kianoosh (2013) using Freudian analysis and Safari et al. (2013) through political-psychological readings, complemented by cultural studies from Dehghani (2016) on tragic elements and Yousefi and Fateme (2016) examining moral-social themes. Horri (2010) further contributed by analyzing Hasanak Vazir through Halliday's meta-functions.

Despite this rich body of research, a significant gap remains: no study has systematically investigated the structural and characterological parallels among Siavash, Hasanak Vazir, and The Lion and the Cow, particularly regarding the dynamic between punished protagonists (Siavash, Hasanak, the Cow) and their punishers (Afrasiab/Garsīvaz, Mas’ud/Būshal, the Lion/Demneh). This oversight presents an opportunity for new scholarly engagement, which this study addresses by revealing their shared archetypes of betrayal and retribution through a comparative structural analysis.

3. Narrative

Providing a comprehensive definition of narrative that encompasses all its forms proves remarkably challenging. Toolan (2013, p. 20) offers a minimal definition, characterizing narrative as “a preconceived sequence of events connected non-randomly.” While many scholars identify two fundamental requirements for narrative—the presence of at least one or two events and their causal relationship (Abbott, 2018, pp. 40-41)—others reject such restrictive conditions given the expansive nature of narrative forms. Beyond definitional difficulties, the scope of narrative itself presents conceptual challenges. When Barthes famously declared the omnipresence of narrative, some contemporaries dismissed this as hyperbolic, as narrative was then primarily associated with imaginative fiction rather than reality or fundamental human experiences. Yet Barthes insisted we are fundamentally surrounded by narratives in all their manifestations (Thomas, 2021, p. 15), a perspective that has gained wider acceptance in contemporary narrative theory.

In essence, human existence is fundamentally constituted by narratives—not merely in the artistic or literary sense, but as the very fabric of our daily reality. Contemporary narrative theory compels us to recognize that our everyday experiences are themselves structured as narratives. Yet scholarly investigations in narratology have traditionally prioritized artistic and literary narratives—those consciously crafted forms that have endured through history as stories, anecdotes, and other deliberate constructs. These cultural artifacts may diverge from mundane experience in significant ways: they might feature extraordinary or supernatural events (Mirsadeghi, 1988, p. 44), serve as vital vessels of cultural heritage rooted in collective imagination (Marzolph, 1997, p. 15), or manifest as beast fables that allegorize human nature through animal protagonists. Crucially, despite their varied forms and functions, all these manifestations constitute legitimate narrative expressions and remain analyzable through narratological frameworks.

Scholars of narrative poetics have established multiple analytical levels for understanding narrative structure. The foundational level originates with Russian Formalists like Propp and Tomashevsky, who introduced the crucial distinction between fabula (story) and sjuzhet (discourse). While subsequent theorists have employed these terms with varying nuances, the core distinction remains consistent: fabula refers to the basic sequence of logically and chronologically connected events as experienced by characters, while sjuzhet encompasses the artistic techniques authors employ to present and arrange these events. The second level concerns the narrative voice - the textual speaker who determines the sequencing of events, temporal organization, spatial settings, character portrayals, and perspective. At the third level, the act of narration itself comes under scrutiny, particularly the dynamic relationship between the implied narrator and the narrative process (Toolan, 2013, pp. 22-23). A comprehensive narrative analysis ultimately seeks to elucidate the complex interrelations between these three levels and their collective contribution to the narrative's overall structure and meaning.

4. Structuralism

Structuralism is a theoretical framework that emerged in the early 20th century and gradually expanded across the humanities, eventually influencing disciplines such as mathematics and biology (Balay, 268, p. 1387). Its roots trace back to Russian Formalism, a movement pioneered by Russian and Czech literary theorists in the first half of the 20th century. These scholars sought to establish a systematic theory of literature, addressing a fundamental question: What distinguishes a literary text from a non-literary one? The Formalists argued that literary language employs artistic devices to disrupt automatic, everyday speech, breaking away from repetitive and familiar forms. This process, termed defamiliarization (ostranenie), creates a distinctiveness that sets literary texts apart from ordinary language.

Building on this foundation, Structuralists expanded the concept of defamiliarization but approached it differently. Rather than focusing solely on linguistic deviation, they analyzed the text as part of a broader structural system, embedding defamiliarization within its relational framework. Drawing from psychological studies, Structuralists further refined the concept, redefining defamiliarization in structural terms (Bertens, 2015, p. 59).

The difference between structuralists and formalists was that formalists paid less attention to elements that were not directly related to defamiliarization in the text. While according to structuralists, all elements play a role in the formation and functioning of the text. The most important idea of the Prague structuralists was to pay attention to the literary text as a coherent structure in which all the elements of text have a mutual effect on each other and are dependent on each other. Every single element has a specific function and because of that, the function is related to the whole text (Bertens, 2015, p. 57). As a result, the structuralist critic strives for three issues: 1) Extracting the internal parts of the work, 2) Showing the relationship between the components, 3) Showing integrity and coherence in the structure (Goldman, 1990, p. 10)

In other words, structuralism posits that meaning emerges through the analysis of the internal systems and rules governing a literary text (Bressler, 2010, p. 132). While structuralism initially arose from linguistic studies, it later expanded into literary criticism, where its analytical framework was applied to uncover the underlying structures shaping narrative, genre, and textual interpretation.

In the continuation of its way in literature, structuralism first showed itself in poetry and caused a profound change in the study and exploration of poetry and its structure, but gradually expanded its scope and appeared in fiction literature as well. One of those who started structuralist research in the field of fiction and left an important impact in this field is Vladimir Propp. In his influential book Morphology of the Folktale, Propp believes that until we have a morphological investigation, correct historical research will not be possible. If we do not break down the story into its structures, a proper comparative study is not possible, and if we are not able to do a comparative study, how can we elucidate, for example, the relationships between the stories of India and Egypt or Greece and India (Propp, 2016, 44). Despite the fact that Propp did not pay attention to issues such as the historical and geographical context, and he himself points to this issue in his response to Levi Strauss, his work left a great change in the structural analysis of stories, especially folk stories, and it was the beginning for other researchers to examine the narrations from this point of view (Rezaei, 2010, p. 81). Narratologists aim to explain things at a deeper and more abstract level than Propp did, just as Propp himself intended to explain things at a deeper level than others (Harland, 2006, p. 364).

Ultimately, it must be acknowledged that structuralism—particularly as applied to disciplines beyond linguistics—remains a challenging and complex theoretical discourse. As Michel Foucault critically observed, “None of those labeled as ‘structuralists,’ whether by choice or circumstance, could precisely define what the term entailed” (Foucault, 2000, p. 107).

Within this framework, narratology emerges as a key offshoot of structuralism. By adopting structuralist terminology and methodologies, narratology seeks to systematically analyze and articulate the narrative structures inherent in texts (Payandeh, 2018, p. 181). Crucially, structuralism’s primary objective is not to generate novel interpretations but to uncover the underlying systems that govern meaning and effect in literary works (Culler, 2003, p. 166).

5. A Summary of the Three Discussed Narratives

5.1. Ferdowsi’s The Shahnameh and the Story of Siavash

The Shahnameh is a collection of memories, beliefs, and ideals of Iranians, compiled by Abulqasem Ferdowsi at the end of the 4th century Hijri. Ferdowsi drew from written sources (such as the Khudai Nameh, Bondheshn, Avesta, Zariran’s Yadghar, and Ardeshir Babakan’s Karnamak) and oral sources (including narratives from storytellers like Mach and Azad Sarv). He then versified these materials, immortalizing them.

The story of Sivash takes place during the era of Kavus According to Ferdowsi Siavash was: cultured by Rostam, a handsome young man, a pure breed, like the prophets, the son of Kavus Shah, and a noble woman (Ferdowsi, 2017, p. 57). He spends his youth with Rostam. After learning the arts, knowing manners, and becoming like a king, he returns to KayKavus. When Siavash returns to the court, he has become so amazing in such a way that everyone who saw him fell in love with him (Ferdowsi, 2017, p. 150), especially the daughter of Hamavaran King, Kavus's wife, who fell in love with Siavash's seal at the first meeting, and when she was unsuccessful on Siavash's side, she cunningly said: I am pregnant by Siavash. In the end, she caused Siavash to go to the Turanian war to avoid the slander, and be caught in a terrible fate. After slandering Sudabeh and going through the fire to get rid of her tricks and arbitrary decisions of Kavus, Siavash decides to go to war with Afrasiab. when Afrasiab is ready to fight with Iran; Kavus also accepted Siavash's going to war and entrusted him with the command of the army and sent Rostam along with him to fight with Afrasiab.

By the way, Afrasiab has a frightening dream and decides to make peace with Siavash. He sends Garsivaz along with two hundred soldiers and Arabian horses, bearing a message declaring, “I have no quarrel with you and wish to make peace” (Ferdowsi, 2017, p. 804). After consulting with Rostam, Siavash agrees to the peace on the condition that a hundred Turanian hostages are taken, and he declares peace as a sign of Rostam’s approval (Ferdowsi, 2017, p. 968). However, Kavus becomes furious upon hearing this and sends Giv to Siavash instead of Rostam, demanding that Siavash either send the hundred hostages to him (Kavus) and break the agreement or march the army to Tus and return. After much deliberation, Siavash refuses to break the agreement. Instead, he entrusts the hostages to Zangeh to return them to Afrasiab and leaves the army under Bahram Gudarz’s command. Seeing no safe return to Kavus’s court—and unwilling to endure Sudabah’s hostility—he decides to seek refuge elsewhere, keeping the destination hidden from Kavus. He asks Afrasiab to suggest a place for him.

Meanwhile, on Piran’s advice, Afrasiab sends Siavash a welcoming letter, inviting him to stay in Turan. Siavash travels there with a small retinue and is warmly received by Afrasiab, Piran, and the people. He settles in Turan and, following Piran’s suggestion, marries his daughter, Jarireh, with whom he has a son named Forud. Later, again at Piran’s urging, he marries Afrasiab’s daughter, Farangis, and they have a son named Key-Khosrow.

At Afrasiab’s command, Siavash builds a palace in Turan, naming it Siavash Gard. Afrasiab then sends Farangis to him with gifts through Garsivaz. However, when Garsivaz witnesses Siavash’s valor in battles against Gruy and Demur, he grows envious. Upon returning, he slanders Siavash to Afrasiab, claiming that Key Kavus has secretly contacted Siavash and that he is raising an army, warning Afrasiab to beware.

Afrasiab, terrified by these words, recalls his ominous dream and regrets trusting Siavash. Finally, swayed by Garsivaz’s provocations, he decides to invite Siavash to a feast—intending to kill him if he refuses, as proof of his betrayal.

Garsivaz moved towards Siavash Gard and sent a message to Siavash to come to welcome him. Siavash went to welcome him, even though he found out that Garsivaz had conspired against him. Garsivaz faced Siavash crying profusely and cunningly saying that Afrasiab wants to kill you and that all his kindness to you was nothing more than a lie (Ferdowsi, 2017, p. 1606). Siavash wants to go to Afrasiab, but Garsivaz stops him and says write a letter to Afrasiab and I will defend you to Afrasiab.

Garsivaz returned to Afrasiab and told him that Siavash had become very proud and planned to fight with you. Afrasiab got angry and moved towards Siavash Gard with a big army. After reaching Siavash Gard, Garsivaz prevented Afrasiab from talking to Siavash. Finally, the war started and Geruy-e-zereh brought Siavash to Afrasiab while his hands were tied. Afrasiab also ordered to cut off Siavash's head without paying attention to the requests of the people around him.

5.2. Beyhaghi’s History and Hasanak Vazir

Beyhaghi’s history was written by Khwaja Abulfazl Mohammad bin Hossein Beyhaqi, the distinguished and famous secretary of the Ghaznavid court, in the description of Ale Saboktakin from the beginning of the reign of that dynasty to the beginning of the reign of Sultan Ibrahim bin Masoud in the 5th century (Safa, 1969, p. 890). This book, a part of which is now available, originally consisted of 30 volumes and is known as one of the prominent texts of Persian literature. The story of Hasanak Vazir, which happened in volume 6 of this book, during the era of Masoud Ghaznavi, has become one of the unforgettable memories in the Iranian mind.

Abu Ali Hasan bin Muhammad Mikal known as Hasanak, was the noble minister of Mahmud Ghaznavi's court, after the death of Mahmud, at the request of Mahmud, tried to bring his younger son, Muhammad, as his father's successor to the kingdom. Hasanak and some other adherents of Muhammad, known as Pedariyan, were against the supporters of his elder son, Masoud, known as Pesariyan, and as a result, a conflict broke out between Pedriyan and Pesariyan, which ultimately led to the victory of Pesariyan and Masoud became the king. After Masoud's accession to the throne, the revenge against the Pesariyan began, of course, sometimes Masoud remained silent, but some people lit the fire of revenge. Among other things, in the case of Hasanak Vazir, Busahel Zuzani tried to provoke Masoud to avenge Hasanak. In this way, when Hasanak was brought to Herat from Bost for trial, Busahl spitefully suggested to Masoud that Hasanak should be executed (Beyhaghi, 2002, p. 228). On the other hand, Sultan Masoud, who, according to Beyhaghi, “was kind and gentle” said, “After all, we need a reason and proof to kill this man.” In response, Busahl accuses Hasnak of being a Qormatian; A slander that was the worst damage to anyone during the Ghaznavid period. Busahl told Masoud that the biggest reason for this man (Hasanak) being Qormatian is that he took the robe from the Caliph of Egypt (Beyhaghi, 2002, p. 228). Sultan Masoud, doubting Hasnak's Qormatian status, asks Khwaja Ahmad Hasan for the truth in order to clarify the matter in a letter, and he wrote that we intended to forgive him, but apparently, he is a Qarmatian! (Beyhaghi, 2002, p. 228). After reading the letter, Khwaja Ahmad said something to Abdus (the person who brought Massoud's letter), that is the basis of the story: “What enmity does Busahl have with Hasanak that he exaggerates so much to kill him?” (Beyhaghi, 2002, p. 229). In fact, the main issue is Bosahl’s personal grudge and enmity towards Hasnak, not his Qarmatian status. Khwaja Ahmad Hassan, after making a correct guess about this matter, warned Masoud in a message: Be careful! not to kill Hasanak in vain! and was mentioned that Bunaser considers the origin of the story of Hasanak: being a Qarmatian or not. After the meeting with Bunsar Moshkan, it became clear that calling Hasnak a Qarmatian, is nothing but slander. But Busahl did not rest and despite Hasanak's guilt of being a Qarmatian was rejected, but with Busahl's secret conspiracies, Hasanak was sacrificed for the crime of being a Qarmatian.

Busahl hatred towards Hasanak became more obvious during the confiscation of Hasanak’s property. In this meeting, Khwaja Ahmad Hasan said to Hasanak Vazir: Don’t be upset, such difficulties arise for great men.Busahl got angry at the words of the Khwaja and said that he should not have said such words about this Qarmatian dog that will be executed by the order of Amir al-Momenin(Beyhaghi, 2002, p. 231). Here, Hasanak said something that shows the key to Busahl's hatred: I don't know who the dog is! All the people know my family and their glory and status.  I took advantage of the world a lot and ruled a lot, and the end of a person is death.....This Khwaja (Busahl) who calls me a dog, praised me in his poem and served in my house" (Beyhaghi, 2002, p. 232). The result of this meeting led to Busahl's great efforts to execute Hasanak. In order to ensure Hasnak's execution, Busahl , the night before the execution, went to the house of Khwaja Ahmad Hasan and said: I will sit here until Khwaja sleeps so that he does not write a letter to the Sultan and save Hasanak from death. Khawaja said with disappointment: I wrote, but you ruined it. The next day, Hasanak was executed in the city square and his body remained on the gallows for seven years.

5.3. Kelileh and Demneh: The Story of the Lion and the Cow

Kelileh and Demneh is the Persian adaptation of the Panchatantra. Originally composed in Sanskrit, it was first translated into Pahlavi by Borzuyeh Tabib during the reign of Anushirvan Sassanid. Later, in the Islamic era, Abdullah Ibn Muqaffa translated it from Pahlavi into Arabic. During the Samanid period, Rudaki rendered it into Persian verse, and finally, in the early 6th century AH, Nasrollah Munshi produced its definitive version in eloquent Persian prose. This work uses animal fables to explore critical social and political themes. The story of the lion and the cow is its opening narrative. A notable Western counterpart to this literary tradition is George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

Shanzabeh was the name of a merchant’s cow. During a business trip, the cow fell into a pit. When the merchant pulled it out, the cow was too weak to continue, so the merchant had to leave it behind and continue his journey. After some time, Shanzabeh regained its strength and wandered into a meadow. Near this meadow lived a young and arrogant lion, the king of beasts, who had never seen a cow before. Every time Shanzabeh mooed, the lion trembled with fear—though he hid his fear from those around him. Among the lion’s followers was a clever jackal named Demneh. Aware of the lion’s fear, Demneh asked for permission to investigate the strange sound and bring its source to the lion. Pretending to be friendly, Demneh approached Shanzabeh. First, he frightened the cow by speaking of the lion’s power, then led it back to the lion.The cow came to the lion, little by little, it showed its worth to the lion, and in a short time, it became the king's confidant. Day by day, his position with the lion increased until his position was higher than all those around the lion (Munshi, 1992, p. 74). When Demneh saw this situation, he regretted that he had brought Shanzabeh to the lion because the cow had reduced Demneh's status with the lion. That's why Demneh was looking for a conspiracy. So he came to the lion and said that Shanzabeh is plotting against you. You should be careful because you have trusted him too soon. the lion, who initially wanted to stand in front of seditions, said: "Just because of doubts, removing close ones and destroy them, causes suffering and serious harm to oneself" (Munshi, 1992, p. 99). But in the end, he surrendered against the cleverness and provokes of Demneh. He went to the cow to carry out his plots and in a sad mood, told him that the lion want to punish you. The cow, like the lion, did not accept Demneh's words at first and was looking for a way to appease the lion, but he too, like the lion, finally surrendered to the cunning Demneh. and with the reminders of his loyalties and honest services and the lion's ingratitude, he angrily went to the lion. Seeing the cow's fury, the lion considered it a sign of the truth of Demneh's words, so he attacked the cow and killed his kind friend because of Demneh's intrigues but after this incident, he got very sad and impatient until he finally understood the truth and punished and killed Demneh.

6. Analyzing the Structure of the Narratives

For ease of discussion and due to the same structure of the three narratives as well as the same functions, we show characters such as "Garsivaz, Busahl and Demneh" with (A), "Afrasiab, Masoud and Lion" with (B) and "Siavash, Hasanak and cow" with (C).

6.1. The Same Axis of Three Narratives

The study of the three works shows that the atmosphere, tone, and form of the narratives are completely different from each other.  Siavash is a mythological warrior that has lived during the glory and greatness of Iran in the mythological era. In this narration, the events happened between imagination and reality; for example, the story of Siavash passing through the fire, which is true according to the internal logic of the myth, but is nothing more than a fantasy from another angle, or Siavash's battle with Demur and Garoui from a heroic-mythological point of view, considering that exaggeration is part of the essence of the epic, it has a real aspect, but from another view, it is impossible that a person can easily lift another hero and knock down him.

But in the story of Hasanak vazir, all the characters and facts are historical, and the description of the scene of Hasanak's execution is an event that Beyhaqi has seen. Therefore, in this story, we are faced with characters who are completely real and belong to the world we live in; characters who suffer are injured and die.

But the narrative of the lion and the cow is different from the above two narratives and is actually a type of allegory. That is, in it, we are faced with characters who act in an animal form. In fact, this narration has a symbolic language and animals are a means of expressing advice or mentioning political and social issues.

It can be seen that these three narratives have fundamental differences from each other, but all three of them are formed around the same axis: the conspiracy of “A” and the provocation of “B” and as a result the killing of “C”. In all three narratives, “A” plans a conspiracy to destroy “C” due to jealousy of his position, and with the provocation of “B” ultimately leads to the death of “C”.

6.2. Functions

The function is a fixed role that can be seen in the narratives and is not limited to a specific agent or person to perform that function; In fact, the names of the heroes of the stories change as well as their attributes, but their deeds and their functions do not change (Propp, 2016, p. 50). In other words, functions are the constant elements of a story and are independent of who does them and how they are done, they are the basic structures of a story (Propp, 2016, p. 53). Based on this, the functions of the mentioned narratives can be classified as follows:

6.2.1. Jealousy

The first outstanding function, is jealousy, jealousy is actually an element that caused hatred in “A” and as a result drives “A” to destroy “C”, In the way that “A” goes through the destruction of “C”, another function is formed.

6.2.2. Conspiracy

The next function is a conspiracy against “C” in the presence of a powerful person, the king. “A” uses all kinds of lies and deception to convince “B” to kill “C”.

6.2.3. Conspiracy acceptance

Another function that is formed after the conspiracy is the acceptance of the provoke by the “B”, the “B” who wants to make a decision faster accepts the provoke of the “A” and it eliminates “C”.

6.2.4. The Killing of a Loved One

The final function is revealed after the acceptance of the conspiracy by “B”, killing the”C” who is painfully depicted by the author in all three narratives. The “C” is an agent who is completely praised and loved by people, and his death causes sadness and discomfort.

7. The Same Sequence of Functions

By examining fairy tales, Propp came to the conclusion that although the characters of a story are variable, their function in the stories is stable and limited (Scholes, 2000, p. 96). In these three narratives, the sequence of functions is noticeable. In all three narrations, “A” is jealous, then he conspires, after that, “B” accepts the conspiracy and finally agent “C” is killed.  More precisely, in Hasanak's narration, we can see that Busahl Zuzani was jealous of Hasanak's position in the past because of his ministry and his position, and when Hasanak was arrested, he was jealous of the respect that Khwaja Ahmad Hasan and others had for him. For this reason, he accuses him of being a Qarmatian: "conspiracy" and he pursued this accusation so much that finally, despite the fact that Bunasr Moshkan denies that Hasanak is a Qarmatian, and Masoud was fully aware of this issue, he ordered to execute Hasanak: "Accepting the conspiracy" and finally Hasanak, while People were crying for him, was executed: "Killing of the beloved agent".

In the story of Siavash, Garsivaz after seeing Siavash's martial arts became jealous and confused the king's mind with the provoke that Siavash intends to overthrow you: "conspiracy", finally Afrasiab accepted the conspiracy and went to fight Siavash with an army and ordered Sivash should be cut, who remained loved by the people until the next centuries.

In the narration of lion and cow, Demneh is jealous of the cow because of the great position of the cow with the lion and the army: "jealousy" therefore he falsely tells the lion that the cow has incited the army against him: "conspiracy" and the lion is deceived, so he kills the cow, as it appears from the text, the cow is very beloved by the army and the lion itself.

If we want to consider a diagram for the sequence of functions, it can be drawn as follows:

Incitement of B

Jealousy of A Killing C

8. Structuralism and Binary Logic

"Binary oppositions" is the most basic concept in structuralism, because according to structuralism, human thinking is basically based on good and bad, ugly and beautiful (Shamisa, 2008, p. 182). The binary logic indicates that there is a kind of dual structure system in the structure of narratives, which is formed on the opposite principle. The conflict between good and evil is a conflict that has been in the narratives and texts of Iran and other nations since long ago, and it is a mythological conflict that is still seen in many present stories.

Paying attention to the mentioned narrations, regardless of their marginal issues, shows that their basis is the conflict between good and bad or good and evil. In all these narrations, “A” is a complete manifestation of evil or evil force, whose whole thought and mention is the destruction of “C”, which is a symbol of goodness.

9. The Psychological Structure of Narrative Agents

What is remarkable in this section is the psychological similarity of the agents of the mentioned narratives. The first agent that can be examined is the “A”. According to Freud's discussion about personality, one can clearly see the mental illness of the “A”:

We know that Freud considers the unconscious to consist of three parts:

1- "Id" which is subject to the principle of pleasure.

2- "ego" that deals with reality.

3- "Super ego" which makes the social aspect of the personality (Siyasi, 1973, p. 16).

The "Id" moves towards pleasure, but it is controlled by "ego" and "Super ego". But in people who are suffering from psychosis, it gets out of control and becomes harmful. In fact, the "Id" in some people, is an overpowering force and by following the principle of pleasure, it uses all the psychological forces it has to satisfy itself and forces those people (psychosis people) to do so regardless of time and space and no other consideration, just like animals, they do whatever they want; They break things, speak dirty words, hurt others, and commit inappropriate and sometimes harmful actions towards themselves and others (Siyasi, 1973, p. 18).

According to Freud, A can be considered as one of those people who have abandoned their "Id" and conspired even for the death of others to keep themselves satisfied, these people definitely have mental problems. What is remarkable here is the same problem that can be seen in all three characters: Busahl, Garsivaz, and Demneh.

Regarding the psychological structure of “B”, one should pay attention to the principle of contradiction, or the principle of two opposite poles in Freud's theories; In life, a person is constantly faced with conflicting issues and wanders between two opposite poles. Among them are good and bad, rightness and wrongness, he approaches each of these two poles and is pushed away from that pole and pays attention to the opposite pole (Siyasi, 1973, p. 23). In these conflicts, people try to choose a way to escape from the scene. In these narratives, we see that “B” is caught in the same contradictions: he is wandering between the intrigues of “A” and the awareness of the purity of “C”. As a result, he looking for the fastest solution. He makes a hasty decision in this scene. Of course, in this conflict, “the faster a person acts, the more likely he is to regret”.

In these three narratives, “B” ultimately makes a wrong decision to escape from wandering between two poles because, in Hasanak's story, Khwaja Ahmad Hasan's warning to Masoud: "shedding blood is not easy" and that "If this man is killed, an ugly name will be born." so we understand Massoud's wrong decision.

In Siavash's story, the reader is fully aware of Afrasiab's wrong decision, because the audience knows that Siavash does not intend to attack Turan and at the same time, the attack of Key-Khosrow and Rostam on Turan for revenge of Siavash's death is another reason for Afrasiab's wrong decision.

In the story of the lion and the cow, the lion's wrong decision is revealed by seeing the cow's corpse, and the lion's regret shows his wrong decision.

10. Conclusion

Although the three narratives of Hasanak Vazir (Tarikh-e Beyhaqi), the Lion and the Cow (Kelileh va Demneh), and Siavash (Ferdowsi's Shahnameh) have apparent differences, after structuralist examination, the narratives share the same axis. The functions of the agents, the sequence of functions, the dual logic, and the psychological structure all follow the same framework. This common structure can be identified as the same narrative axis based on the jealousy and conspiracy of “A”, the acceptance of cunning by “B”, and the killing of “C”. In this way, the main functions are: conspiracy, acceptance of conspiracy, and the killing of the loved agent. As can be seen, the sequence of functions in all three narratives is organized as 1) jealousy, 2) conspiracy, 3) acceptance of conspiracy, and 4) killing of the loved one. The dual logic of the narratives is formed on the conflict between good and bad, and the same psychological construction is observed especially in the characters of Busahl, Garsivazz, Demneh (“A”), and also in Masoud, Afrasiab, and Lion (“B”).