According to many scholars of the Shahnameh, the "Rostam and Esfandyar" is one of the most coherent narratives in the epic. However, its classification as a tragedy has been a subject of debate for many. To resolve this ambiguity, one approach is to refer to Aristotle's Poetics, where he as well as naming the six parts of tragedy, has also introduced important elements involved in the formation of this genre, which can be referred to as "Tragic Constructive Elements". Although he did not categorize these elements separately, we can extract eleven elements by reading at length his book: creating two feelings of "fear" and "pity"; having a coherent beginning, middle and ending; the hero having a set of characteristics; the existence of a tragic event (pathos); the existence of a tragic flaw in the hero (hamartia); anagnorisis; peripetia; tragic ending; unity of time; unity of action; and unity of place. The present study aims to establish a documented criterion for identifying whether a literary work qualifies as a tragedy by understanding these elements. To achieve this, each element is first defined separately, and then its presence or absence in the “Rostam and Esfandyar is examined. The data from this research confirms that the story of Rostam and Esfandyar indeed qualifies as a tragedy.
 
Keywords: Tragedy, Poetics, Aristotle, Rostam and Esfandyar, Tragic Constructive Elements
 
Introduction
Aristotle in Poetics, while mentioning Oedipus Rex as a perfect tragedy, not only discusses the principles related to its stage performance as a dramatic work but also introduces the elements and components that constitute a tragedy, considering their presence essential for its formation and appeal. He regarded tragedy, comedy, and music from the same perspective, as he believed that their common feature was the concept of imitation. Their differences, he argued, lay only in the means of expression and the method they chose for imitation. He believed that the poet imitates human beings; in simpler terms, the poet reflects human life in their work—depicting people who are either better or worse than us. He referred to this artistic imitation of human life as Mimesis. Aristotle believed that the difference between tragedy and real life is that tragedy has a beginning, a middle, and an end, and that each part of a tragedy must be connected to the others. He also believed that a tragedy must include a moral form aimed at conveying an instructive message to the audience. Additionally, Aristotle emphasized the necessity of an emotional form in tragedy, highlighting the importance of evoking emotions while simultaneously purifying them. Aristotle considered the poet a genius who must be able to feel, in his own flesh and blood, the sufferings, anger, pain, and anxieties that the characters will endure before recreating them.
 
Materials & Methods
When encountering a literary work, one of the points that comes to mind is to determine its type; However, it should be noted that the lack of specific scientific variables has sometimes caused a specific story to be classified as a tragedy by some critics, while other experts do not consider the same story to be a tragedy. Unfortunately, in most cases, the opinion of neither side is based on figures derived from the evaluation of specific and predefined variables and components. This research aims to provide a written standard and criterion for diagnosing whether a specific literary work can be considered a tragedy, through a descriptive-analytical method and by knowing the elements mentioned above. For this purpose, first, each of these elements has been defined and analyzed separately, then the existence or absence of these elements in the story of Rostam and Esfandyar has been examined. It should be noted that the analysis of the data of this research confirms the premise that the story of Rostam and Esfandyar is a tragedy and reveals the reason why the story of Rostam and Esfandiar is superior to other stories in the Shahnameh.
 
Discussion & result
A brief look at the most prominent tragedies of ancient Greece, Shakespeare's tragic works in the 17th century, and Federico García Lorca's tragic trilogy in the 20th century reveals the strong presence of many of these elements. So much so that it could be claimed one of the main reasons for their enduring legacy is this point. On the other hand, the presence of a set of elements and components that constitute a tragedy is, in itself, one of the key factors contributing to the appeal and lasting impact of Rostam and Esfandiar.
 
Conclusion
After a thorough re-reading of the story of Rostam and Esfandyar, it was observed that 9 out of the 11 elements that Aristotle considers essential for the formation of a tragic work are prominently and distinctly present in this narrative. This observation allows us to confidently conclude, based on a scientific and documented analysis of the data supporting the defined variables, that this work qualifies as a tragedy. The nine elements clearly present in the story of Rostam and Esfandyar are 1. Emotional Form; 2. Recognition (Anagnorisis); 3. Tragic Reversal (Peripeteia); 4. Presence of a Tragic Event; 5. Tragic Flaw (Hamartia); 6. Tragic Ending; 7. Logical Form; 8. Moral Form; 9. Unity of Plot. The two elements that were not observed in this work are unity of time and unity of place. Despite the absence of these two elements, the strong presence of the other nine components provides substantial evidence to classify the story of Rostam and Esfandyar as a tragedy according to Aristotelian principles.