entirely agree, except that Fd say "almost all" where Bausani politely says "some". Again, it fell to an "orientalist" (A.J. Arberry) to explain how classical ghazal works:
"It is supremely important to understand how vital and inevitable pattern is to the Persian poet...it was natural that they should work their materials into forms essentially similar to those invented by their fellow craftsmen...Hafiz was well informed of how previous poets had worked it out, and would be striving to improve on all prior performances."
I will not here open a discussion on questions of "originality", "truth" and "authenticity", themes familiar to students of Western poetics. I only want to emphasize that classical ghazal is not necessarily (and very often is not) a "personal" utterance of the poet. It strives at meaning, rather than emotion. All considerations of Ghalib should start from this point. And no consideration of Ghalib can succeed without the critic taking into account, or at least being aware of, what had already gone on in the tradition before the advent of Ghalib.
Shamsur Rahman Faruqi New Delhi
[Gratefully reprinted from Indian Literature, #131 (May-June 1989).]
Annual of Urdu Studies, #7 ^42