sense of unreality and often is the cause of its debasement ' (p 23) This last sentence is the first in a paragraph headed "The defects of such an imitation," and three pages (23-25) are then devoted to a listing and elaboration of these defects. The paragraph headings read: 1 It made Urdu poetry seem unnatural 2 It made Urdu poetry rhetorical 3 It made Urdu poetry conventional 4 It made Urdu poetry mechanical, artificial, and sensual 5 It made Urdu poetry unnatural [Yes, once again RR] This last paragraph is worth quoting almost in full- "Not only did imitation make poetry conventional rhetorical artificial and sensual but it made it, what is worse, unnatural the vitiated and perverse poetry of the Persian celebrating the love of a man for a boy of tender years was copied without excuse or justification The boy is regarded as a mistress and his [beauty is] celebrated with gusto in a sensual manner revolting to the mind " (p 25) He goes on to review the main forms of poetry, mostly in the same derogatory way, and then in a final half-page, to the reader's astonishment, informs him that "Urdu poetry, however, with all its limitations and at its best is sublimely emotional and makes a powerful appeal to sentiment It is very sweet and subtle and is pre-eminent in its special sphere " (p 31) Grahame Bailey's overall tone is much the same. he tells us: the range of Urdu poetry is still very circumscribed (p. 101). And he complains that the ghazal, which most lovers of Urdu literature, including me, regard as perhaps its greatest achievement "is characterised by monotonous sameness of subject, the theme of love " (p. 41). (True, he makes this comment on the ghazal of "The Age of Hatim." But he tells us of Hatim's successors, Mir and his contemporaries, that they "had nothing new to say" (p. 42), and that in the period of Mushafi and Insha (who came after Mir) "there was no real advance" (p. 42). And, of course, this "monotonous theme" characterises the ghazal to this day.) Sadiq, too, follows in the same tradition. He tells us that the ghazal "stands very low in the hierarchy of literary forms" (p. 20). (He doesn't tell us what this hierarchy is, or what other forms stand where in it, but at any rate the "very low" is clear enough.) A common feature of all three books is the constant pointing of contrasts between Urdu literature and English—always to the detriment of Urdu. These contrasts are both general and particular. Thus Saksena writes: Annual of Urdu Studies, #6