Conclusion: Poetic Borrowing, Appropriation of Meanings, and Creative Reworking

1. Scope of poetic borrowing

«خاتمة في السرقات الشعرية وما يتصل بها»
“A concluding discussion of poetic borrowings and related matters.”

Poetic borrowing concerns what a later poet may take from an earlier one: a general idea, a particular thought, the exact language, or an expressive arrangement. Some likenesses are conventional or coincidental, whereas others reveal deliberate dependence.

The central distinction is between a common theme and a distinctive formulation. Neither calling every resemblance theft nor treating all reuse as originality gives a sound rhetorical analysis.

2. Shared themes are not theft

Praise of generosity, condemnation of miserliness, courage, separation and longing recur across Arabic poetry. Such general purposes belong to the shared expressive tradition and are not owned by one poet.

If two poets liken a brave man to a lion, that familiar analogy does not by itself establish borrowing. The resemblance between bravery and the lion is widely recognized.

A more serious question arises when an unusual image, its arrangement and its distinctive conclusion all reappear in a later composition. The likeness has then moved beyond a general theme.

3. Theme versus expressive route

Two poems may communicate the same judgment by different routes of signification. One may praise directly; another may construct an analogy; a third may imply the idea through metonymic expression.

Theme: the person praised is generous.
Expressive route: a rain-cloud simile, a luminous-lamp image, or a figurative account of helping those in need.

An informed judgment therefore examines not only the conclusion but also the distinctive image and inference through which it is reached.

4. Distinctiveness and nonconventional meaning

A widely available thought is not one poet’s distinctive possession. But an uncommon image of a quality, in which several elements are combined unexpectedly, has a more individualized character.

Illustrative contrast: “He is brave” is generic. Expressing that courage by an unusual historical image with a particular causal relationship may be a recognizably original expression.

Distinctiveness need not reside in a new word. It can lie in the selected comparison, its contextual cue, or the reasoning that connects an image to the praised quality.

5. When can priority and improvement be claimed?

No poet can claim ownership of an ordinary simile or ethical commonplace simply because he used it. Priority is meaningful only where a sufficiently distinct construction or thought is involved.

Precedence concerns identifiable novelty. Addition or improvement concerns what the later writer actually contributed: greater precision, stronger effect, a more apt image, or a better arrangement.

Being first and being more effective are different judgments. A later poet may lack priority yet create a genuinely stronger rhetorical treatment.

6. Overt and concealed borrowing

«والسرقة نوعان: ظاهر، وغير ظاهر»
“Poetic borrowing is of two kinds: apparent and non-apparent.”

Overt appropriation is easy to recognize because the wording or the distinctive content closely matches an earlier poet’s expression. The dependence is relatively transparent.

Concealed appropriation may lie deeper in the meaning: wording changes, the idea moves to another context, or the original line becomes a starting point for a new inference. The rhetorical and ethical evaluations of these cases need not be identical.

7. What is copied in overt borrowing?

«أما الظاهر فهو أن يؤخذ المعنى كله، إما مع اللفظ كله أو بعضه أو وحده»
“Apparent borrowing takes the whole meaning, either with all its wording, part of the wording, or the meaning alone.”

The distinction requires separate analysis of meaning and expression. At one extreme, both transfer intact; at another, the underlying thought remains but much of its verbal form changes.

The amount of alteration, the recognizable structure and the quality of the new treatment must be considered before assigning a label.

8. Transcription and misappropriation

«فإن أخذ اللفظ كله من غير تغيير لنظمه فهو مذموم؛ لأنه سرقة محضة»
“If all the wording is taken without changing its arrangement, that is blameworthy, for it is pure theft.”

This extreme case is called naskh or intiḥāl: the later poet represents substantially the same wording and composition as his own, without meaningful transformation.

The issue is not simply whether a line sounds good. Literary attribution distinguishes an original composition from one reproduced without a legitimate acknowledgment or genuine creative recasting.

9. Copying versus recurring conventional language

The same proverb or everyday phrase can occur in several poems without constituting transcription. Repetition of an unusual, complete composition with its distinctive conclusion is much more probative.

Illustration A: Two poets independently say “the sun rose”; that is common linguistic material.
Illustration B: A rare full expression reappears together with its particular figurative conclusion; here simple coincidence is less persuasive.

An evaluation should consider both how unusual the coincidence is and how much of the structure has been reproduced.

10. Partial verbal alteration: ighārah and maskh

When the substance of a thought remains but its wording changes, the case is no longer a strict verbal reproduction. The source discusses this degree under ighārah and maskh.

One writer may replace words with synonyms, omit part of a line or rearrange its elements. These moves alone do not guarantee an improved poem.

Three questions matter:
1. Is the earlier thought still intact?
2. Are changes merely superficial?
3. Does the new form improve clarity, concision or rhetorical force?

11. The role of rhetorical merit in alteration

The revised expression must be judged by whether it is more eloquent, not merely longer, more ornamented or less familiar. Eloquence depends upon fitness to context and effective communication.

A recasting that is more coherent, concise or forceful in its new setting may have recognizable merit. An alteration that damages the structure or confuses the sense is not an improvement.

The origin of an expression and its artistic success are different questions. A borrowed idea can be expressed more effectively without thereby becoming an independently invented idea.

12. Two treatments of “watching people”

«مَنْ رَاقَبَ النَّاسَ لَمْ يَظْفَرْ بِحَاجَتِهِ»
“Whoever keeps watching people will not achieve his need.”

«مَنْ رَاقَبَ النَّاسَ مَاتَ هَمًّا»
“Whoever keeps watching people dies of anxiety.”

Both expressions criticize excessive concern with others’ judgments, but they foreground different results. One stresses failure to attain a goal, the other the severity of distress. A sound comparison examines the changed predicate and effect, not just shared words.

13. Comparing rhetorical effect rather than length

Two lines can express a related thought but differ in psychological impact and practical emphasis. Their relative success depends on the speaker’s purpose and the listener’s circumstances.

Example: Warning about an unattained objective may serve practical counsel, while the hyperbole of dying from worry may suit an emotionally charged lament.

A line is not automatically best in every setting. In Arabic rhetoric the measure of eloquence remains its fitness to the context.

14. Taking the meaning alone: ilmām and salkh

«وإن أخذ المعنى وحده سمي إلمامًا وسلخًا»
“If the meaning alone is taken, it is called ilmām and salkh.”

The wording may differ substantially while the central idea remains recognizable. The later poet recasts the thought through a new syntactic pattern, image or verbal presentation.

A merely cosmetic rewrite is not necessarily an independent invention. Yet a revision that establishes a fresh relationship, argument or setting may add significant rhetorical value.

15. Why meaning-borrowing is not a sound figure

Jinās depends on resemblance of verbal form while the meanings differ; ilmām or salkh concerns a borrowed meaning expressed in different words. These are not the same rhetorical question.

Jinās test: Do the forms sound alike or share letters?
Borrowing test: Do the two different expressions embody the same distinctive thought?

A poem can both employ sound play and adapt an earlier thought. Each finding, however, needs its own kind of evidence.

16. How a borrowed meaning can be improved

A later poet may improve an inherited idea by clarifying its reasoning, condensing a difficult point, choosing a more apt example or revealing an implicit relationship.

Illustration: An earlier poet says hope keeps a person alive. A later poet presents hope as a lamp that guides a traveler through darkness. Their general meaning is related, but the second formulation adds a specific analogy.

This illustration is not a quotation from the source. Its point is that general resemblance of meaning must be assessed separately from the new expressive device.

17. Concealed borrowing through related meanings

«وأما غير الظاهر فمنه أن يتشابه المعنيان»
“One form of non-apparent borrowing is that the two meanings resemble one another.”

Two poems may differ markedly in vocabulary and surface sense yet resemble each other in an underlying argument, evaluation or relationship. Their affinity is detected by analysis rather than by an obvious verbal repetition.

Before labeling the relationship appropriation, ask whether the shared feature is a commonplace or a genuinely distinctive organization of thought.

18. Similarity is not identity of meaning

Identity of meaning means the later discourse substantially retains the same distinctive assertion. Resemblance of meaning involves a shared feature even though the relations and applications differ.

Illustration: “A generous man benefits others like rain” and “a devoted teacher illuminates others like a lamp” both convey benefit, but their subjects, images and contexts differ.

The shared notion of benefit is insufficient to prove borrowing. The analysis needs a more specific conceptual match and, where claimed, reliable evidence of precedence.

19. Transferring an idea to a new subject

«ومنه أن ينقل المعنى إلى محل آخر»
“Another form is transferring a meaning to another subject or setting.”

The first poet has established a relationship about a particular person, attribute or event; the later writer applies that relationship to a different subject. The conceptual pattern may remain while its application changes.

Question: Has the later poet merely replaced a name, or have the new circumstances reshaped the analogy, explanation and implication? That determines the creative worth of the transfer.

20. Transfer of setting and analogy

Moving an idea to a new subject may work through analogy, especially where a shared relationship links two different situations. But every transfer is not automatically a composite simile; sometimes only a judgment or ethical implication transfers.

Illustration: A garden that shelters its keeper and knowledge that remains available when shared both concern benefit, yet their structures are different and must be examined separately.

The figure of speech and the mode of literary borrowing describe different dimensions of a passage.

21. Expanding the scope of an inherited thought

A later composition may widen an earlier, more specific thought into a general rule. Yet greater generality is not automatically greater eloquence: a concrete scene may communicate more powerfully than a broad maxim.

Illustration: Moving from “this teacher benefits his pupils” to “useful knowledge enlightens others” turns an individual description into a universal claim.

The evaluation asks whether the broader proposition genuinely adds insight or merely loses the vividness and precision of the original.

22. Qalb: reversing the earlier idea

«ومنه القلب: وهو أن يكون معنى الثاني نقيض معنى الأول»
“One form is reversal: the meaning of the second is the opposite of the first.”

The later poet does not simply repeat the earlier proposition; he turns its central claim around to produce an opposing conclusion. The reversal carries rhetorical force only when the contrary claim is meaningful, not mere arbitrary contradiction.

Distinction: This is not simply the figure of antithesis. Antithesis concerns opposed expressions within discourse; here the focus is the relationship between two separate poetic statements.

23. Reversal of judgment: blame as pain or pleasure

«أجدُ الملامةَ في هواكَ لذيذةً»
“I find reproach in loving you delightful.”

Reproach in love is ordinarily painful, but the speaker reverses the expected judgment: censure becomes pleasurable because it brings the beloved to mind or causes others to speak of the beloved.

This shows that reversal is not mere insertion of an antonym. The earlier or expected conclusion is inverted through a new explanatory relationship suited to the poetic situation.

24. Taking part of a thought and enriching it

«ومنه أن يؤخذ بعض المعنى ويضاف إليه ما يحسنه»
“Another case is taking part of the meaning and adding something that beautifies it.”

Part of the earlier thought remains, but the later poet adds an attribute, consequence, reason or image. The addition counts as an improvement only if it substantively completes or enhances the effect; more words alone do not create a useful elaboration.

Method: Isolate the borrowed core, identify the added element, and explain what the addition actually contributes to the poem’s meaning.

25. Substantive enrichment versus padding

Not every addition is eloquent. Completion supplies a meaningful missing feature or improves the audience’s understanding; padding increases the wording without a corresponding gain.

Illustration: “He is generous; his aid arrives first in times of hardship” adds an important dimension. Simply piling up “very, extremely, exceedingly generous” need not create a new idea.

The test connects with the earlier treatment of brevity and elaboration: additional words are justified by their contribution to meaning.

26. Tawārud al-khawāṭir: independent convergence

«لجواز أن يكون الاتفاق من قبيل توارد الخواطر»
“For the resemblance may have arisen from a convergence of thoughts.”

A likeness between two poets does not prove that one had encountered the other’s verse. Shared experience, custom and culture can generate similar ideas independently.

Caution: A claim of specific borrowing should account for the rarity of the resemblance, the chronology and any plausible means of transmission. Similarity alone cannot establish the writer’s intention with certainty.

27. Creative handling can turn imitation toward invention

«بل منها ما يخرجه حسن التصرف من قبيل الاتباع إلى حيز الابتداع»
“Some instances are carried by skillful handling from the realm of following into that of invention.”

Ḥusn al-taṣarruf means giving an inherited idea new artistic life through a suitable setting, argument, image or arrangement. The later poet makes use of what preceded him yet does more than merely reproduce it.

This principle turns the study of poetic borrowing from a sequence of accusations into an account of how literary creativity can operate within a tradition.

28. Concealment and rhetorical acceptability

«وكلما كان أشد خفاء كان أقرب إلى القبول»
“The less obvious the borrowing, the closer it is to acceptance.”

This does not mean that secretly passing off another writer’s work is ethically preferable. In the classical rhetorical context, it concerns the degree to which a later expression departs from mechanical repetition and develops an artistically distinct form.

Merely disguising a borrowed line by swapping words is not itself a literary achievement. The merits of transformation and the visibility of borrowing must still be assessed separately.

29. Attribution and the limits of inference

After noticing resemblance, keep three propositions distinct: Who composed first? Was one writer influenced by the other? and Which expression is rhetorically stronger?

The first is historical, the second concerns transmission or dependence, and the third is literary analysis of meaning, image and context. An answer to one does not automatically establish the others.

A later poem may be better crafted without any proven evidence that it borrowed from the earlier one. The analysis should not confuse comparison with attribution.

30. Comparative map of poetic borrowing

CaseWhat remains?Main test
Common themeA familiar purpose or imageResemblance alone proves nothing
Naskh / intiḥālWhole wording and arrangementDirect reproduction
Ighārah / maskhIdea with verbal alterationQuality of the recasting
Ilmām / salkhMeaning without the original full formDegree of expressive transformation
Concealed transfer / qalbRelated or reversed structureCreative fitness and significance

Central principle: A common theme, direct copying and genuinely creative reworking require distinct analytical judgments.

31. Worked classification: same subject, different form

Consider a constructed comparison:
Statement A: “The brave man does not fear an enemy.”
Statement B: “He is a lion in battle.”

Both describe courage, but the first is a simple report and the second a conventional simile. The overlap proves neither verbal copying nor theft of a rare idea.

Now imagine that a writer invents a very unusual sequence of images, and another reproduces their structure and distinctive inference. In that case the resemblance is no longer simply a shared theme of courage; it concerns a particular artistic construction.

32. Worked classification: paraphrase alone is insufficient

In an illustrative case, poet A portrays hope as a lamp guiding a traveler through darkness. Poet B retains the same images, sequence and conclusion but substitutes synonyms for “lamp” and “night.”

These are verbal substitutions; the underlying representation and reasoning remain substantially unchanged. The substitutions alone do not establish an independent invention.

If poet B reworks the image in a substantially new setting and draws an additional, meaningful inference, the analysis must also evaluate the quality of that creative recasting.

33. Worked classification: meaningful reversal

Suppose one statement claims that distance weakens affection. A later statement argues that separation increases the value of reunion and thus deepens affection.

The later statement reverses the earlier conclusion but also offers a reason for the reversal. This is a constructed illustration of qalb as a relationship between poetic meanings.

The literary question is whether the contrary proposition is intelligible and persuasive in its context. Simply negating a sentence is not necessarily a successful rhetorical reversal.

34. A disciplined method of comparison

Use the following sequence when comparing two poems:
1. Establish what each passage actually means in its context.
2. Identify the shared element: commonplace, special idea, wording or structure.
3. Determine whether the later text omits, adds, transfers, reverses or reorganizes material.
4. Assess rhetorical fitness and effect independently.
5. Review historical evidence before asserting influence or priority.

Conclusion: A useful analysis says more than “similar” or “different”; it specifies the kind of relationship and its literary consequence.

35. Concluding the section on borrowings

A shared meaning alone does not establish theft, and synonym replacement alone does not demonstrate originality. General ideas, unusual images, overt copying, concealed transformation, reversal and meaningful additions call for separate classifications.

A careful critic distinguishes artistic success, the mode of adaptation and the evidence for attribution. This also explains the difference between unacceptable wholesale copying and creative work that genuinely transforms inherited material.

The subsequent section addresses iqtibās, taḍmīn, ʿaqd, ḥall and talmīḥ, more specific techniques of incorporating and transforming prior discourse.