Confrontation of Iranian-Greek Knowledge Systems in the Narratives of Medea and Sohrab

The current article aims to elucidate the similarities and differences between two worldviews presented in two works, Euripides' play Medea and Ferdowsi's epic Shānāmeh, by analyzing their discourse of power. This research employs an analytical-comparative method, and the necessary information was gathered through a library study and discourse analysis. The study's objective is to identify the distinguishing points of these two epistemes concerning the concept of power. The results of this comparative study can serve as examples of common epistemology in the cultural spaces of classical Greece and Iran and the dominant discourse in these two cultures. The theoretical basis for this discussion is derived from Michel Foucault's ideas and his concept of power discourse. The study reveals that while both works share similar components in their episteme, such as destiny, death, love, originality, and wisdom, their fundamental distinction lies in their approach to accepting or opposing the discourse of God's (or the gods) supreme power. In the story of Sohrab, Ferdowsi considers God's destiny as the cause of the story's ending, while Euripides portrays Medea as standing against the institutionalized tradition and even being willing to behead her children, take the gods with herself, and ride gloriously on the chariot of the gods while opposing the dominant discourse of power.