Introduction
If we accept that every text is influenced by preceding texts and that "no independent text exists" (Kakavand Ghalenoei & Najjar Noubari, 2017: 48), the influence on poets of the 12th and 13th centuries AH is undeniable. This research comparatively examines the linguistic and rhetorical style of Muhammad Amin Andaleeb’s (1272–1292 AH) imitation of Abdol-Qāder Bidel (1054–1133 AH) in Andaleeb’s 53rd ghazal and Bidel’s first ghazal.

Research Objectives:
Demonstrating linguistic and rhetorical similarities between Bidel’s and Andaleeb’s ghazals.
Identifying the expression of Andaleeb’s poetic aptitude in imitating Bidel.
Evaluating Andaleeb’s success in articulating his artistic vision to compose a more distinctive ghazal.
Research Questions:
What are the shared linguistic and rhetorical features of the two ghazals?
To what extent did Andaleeb utilize his innate talent in imitation?
How did the poet succeed despite shared constraints?
 

Research Method

This study employs a qualitative-quantitative comparative method, focusing on linguistic, phonetic, lexical, syntactic, and literary levels. Data was analyzed through:
External, lateral, internal, and semantic musical analysis based on Shafi’i-Kadkani’s theory (Shafi’i-Kadkani, 2010: 391).
Lexical and syntactic examination using Yamin’s grammar (Yamin, 2014: 55).
Analysis of rhetorical figures referencing sources like Āvā-ye Shūr-e Eshq (Kashefi, 2014: 462).
Bidel’s ghazal (12 couplets) and Andaleeb’s (9 couplets) were scrutinized line by line, with 8 rhyme-matched couplets serving as the basis for comparison.
 

Discussion

A) Linguistic Level:

Phonetic: Both ghazals use the Hazaj-e Mosammam-e Sālem meter. Rhymes (rāh, kolāh, negāh) and refrain (ānjā) are identical. The long vowel "ā" appears 86 times in Bidel and 70 times in Andaleeb, playing a key role in lateral music. Consonants "r" and "n" are the most frequent in both.
Lexical: Bidel used 40 simple words and 27 compound words; Andaleeb used 20 simple and 31 compound words. Bidel employed 102 Persian, 23 Arabic, and 1 Hebrew word; Andaleeb used 78 Persian and 17 Arabic words.
Syntactic: Bidel used 8 simple and 8 complex sentences; Andaleeb used 2 simple and 8 complex sentences.

B) Literary Level:

Bidel’s ghazal contains 6 similes, Andaleeb’s has 9.
Metaphor appears 13 times in Bidel and 9 times in Andaleeb.
Allusion occurs 9 times in Bidel and 10 times in Andaleeb.
Paradox is used 9 times by Bidel and 8 times by Andaleeb.
Synesthesia appears 6 times in Bidel and 3 times in Andaleeb.
 

Conclusion


Andaleeb is a lesser-known poet, while Bidel is renowned. Linguistically and rhetorically, their poetry is closely aligned. The core factor in Andaleeb’s imitation is shared external and lateral musicality. Andaleeb intensified musicality by repeating words and vowels more than Bidel. Simple words dominate Bidel’s ghazal, while Andaleeb sometimes embellished entire lines with compounds. Simple and complex sentences are equal in Bidel, but complex sentences prevail in Andaleeb. In semantic music, harmony and contrast (tanāsob and tazādd) are frequent in both. Andaleeb excels in simile and allusion; Bidel dominates synesthesia. Andaleeb absorbed Bidel’s influence most profoundly in musical and literary dimensions, skillfully structuring this imitation and achieving greater success in certain aspects.