بازنمایی سلطان‌مسعود به مثابه شاه‌آرمانی؛الگوی ایرانشهری تاریخ بیهقی در مشروعیت بخشی به حکومت غزنویان

The Ghaznavid Turks came to power by exploiting the relationships within the Samanid society, and thus a new era of foreign (Turkic) rule over Iran began. Although the Ghaznavids were unfamiliar with the political culture of Iran or the political thought of ancient Iran and had no idea of ​​legitimate rule or the legitimizing components of government according to Iranshahri policy, the reaction of the Iranian administrative elites who served this dynasty to this transfer of power from an Iranian dynasty (the Samanids) to a Turkic dynasty (the Ghaznavids) can be traced. One of the most important tools for producing and justifying legitimacy was historiography, and historians, with their knowledge of the culture of society and the needs and challenges facing governments, used this tool to create and consolidate the legitimacy of governments. As a historian-secretary in the service of the new dynasty, Bayhaqi, by writing his history, tries to place or include Sultan Masoud in the position of an ideal Iranian king by assigning the requirements and attributes of an ideal Iranian king to him, and to make Masoud's reign legitimate and justified, on the one hand, due to conflicts within the Ghaznavid dynasty (successorship conflicts after the death of Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznavi) and on the other hand for the Iranian audience (in order to accept a Turkish or non-Iranian government). The purpose of this research is not a historical account of Masoud's appearance and performance, but rather how his personality is reflected in Bayhaqi's historical text and to identify the meaning and purpose that results from the specific way in which Sultan Masoud's personality is reflected as an ideal king in this text. Based on this, the question of this research is about how the appearance, personality, and performance of Sultan Masoud of Ghaznavi are reflected in Bayhaqi's historiography. This article, using the method of historical studies and using a descriptive and analytical approach, shows that Bayhaqi, as a historian secretary in the service of the Ghaznavid ruling family, had a special view of the construction of an ideal-Iranian monarchy using the model of Iranshahri thought. Bayhaqi's justifications and arguments for Sultan Masoud of Ghaznavi's lack of royal lineage, presenting evidence and data both in a formal and content-based manner in order to present him as a nobleman, and assigning some physical traits under the title of body development such as archery, horsemanship, and spear throwing, and some intellectual traits such as knowledge, friendship, and knowledge-gathering, having skills in writing, speaking, and awareness of the techniques and rituals of statecraft, and some moral traits such as justice, chivalry, and loyalty to the treaty, generosity, and people-orientedness to Sultan Masoud, were all in line with the processing of his image and personality in the position of an ideal Iranian monarch and with the aim of legitimizing him. The findings of the research show that Bayhaqi, with his knowledge of the content of Pahlavi sources and Islamic chronicles, and even Ferdowsi's Shahnameh regarding Iranshahri politics, makes a conscious effort to draw and present to the audience a portrait of Sultan Masoud Ghaznavi that is completely taken from the template and model of the ideal king in Iranshahri thought. The application of this Iranshahri model in Bayhaqi's history, four centuries after the collapse of the Sasanian government, indicates the continuity of the identity of Iranian thought and its function during the Abbasid Caliphate and the Turkic governments in Iranian society in the fifth century AH.