(1) PERSIAN POEMS: None of his Persian poems are in this collection, though he composed a large amount of Persian poetry and thought very highly of it. It has of course been published, but has received much less critical attention than his Urdu poetry. In fact most of it is very much like his Urdu poetry: sometimes only a single verb, or some small grammatical particle, enables us to say whether a ghazal verse is in Persian or Urdu. For a look at some of his Persian poetry in translation, see Yusuf Husain or Russell and Adani.

(2) PERSIAN AND URDU PROSE:  Ghalib was also proud of his various Persian prose works. During the dark days of the Rebellion of 1857 he shut himself up in his house and wrote the most famous of them, Dastanbu [dastanbuu], an account of the events of 1857 in which he used only old Persian words and avoided all Arabic ones (Khwaja Ahmad Faruqi has done a translation). In addition, he wrote a number of very elaborate, formally arranged letters in Persian. What people really loved, however, were his more casual and intimate Urdu letters, which he himself only gradually came to value. These were collected and published even in his lifetime. Nowadays, the best source for them is the four-volume work of Khaliq Anjum. Many have been translated in whole or in part by Russell and Islam and Daud Rahbar.

(3) OTHER URDU GHAZALS:  In addition, many of his Urdu ghazals that are well known from reliable manuscript sources are not included in the 'traditional divan'. Four times in the course of his life (1841, 1847, 1861, and 1862) Ghalib oversaw the printing of his Urdu divan, and never did he choose to include ghazals from this substantial body of early manuscript material. Some of the unpublished material consists of variants of verses that he did publish, but others of the verses are unique, and are fully up to the standard of his best work. It is a mystery why he never chose to expand his published divan. I have included those of these unpublished verses that (1) come from published ghazals, and (2) are particularly recommended by S. R. Faruqi either in his selection of the best verses (these verses are starred on their verse pages), or in an earlier list. For further discussion see {4,8x}.

The heart of the 'traditional divan' is its 234 ghazals [;Gazal], which contain (by my count) 1,459 two-line verses. The shortest possible ghazal (called an 'individual') is one verse long, and there are 19 of them; the longest ghazal, the famous {233}, runs to 17 verses.

The ghazals are not presented in the divan in any thematic sequence. Nor are they presented in the order of composition. In fact, some of them are quite difficult to date with precision; but the scholarship of Kalidas Gupta Raza enables us to make a reasonable chronology.

In many earlier ghazals, the poet used the pen-name of 'Asad'. When he discovered that another poet was already using it, he changed over to 'Ghalib'. You will thus see both pen-names in the divan.

The divan presents the ghazals in the traditional style: in alphabetical order by the last letter of the refrain [radiif] (or, if there is none, of the rhyme [qaafiyah]). However, within those last-letter groupings, the ghazals are not then arranged by next-to-last letter as one might expect. Their internal arrangement within each last-letter group is given only by tradition: they are in whatever order the poet himself (or his first authoritative editor) chose for them. Almost the only traditional requirement is that the first verse within the first last-letter group should be a praise of God.

Because of circumstances involving the four different editions published in Ghalib's lifetime-- the various manuscript sources, the errors of calligraphy, the additions, the small discrepancies-- the many printed editions of the divan are nowadays mostly very similar, but not quite identical. For example, the verse that some editions treat as {2}, an 'individual', is incorporated by others as the last verse of {8}; the longish ghazal that I call {15} is treated by some editions as two separate ghazals; the two separate ghazals I call {97} and {98} are treated by some editions as a single very long ghazal. And there are occasional slightly variant wordings, as in {6,5}, {29,4}, {50,1}, {50,2}, {96,4}, {115,6}, {152,2}; and small rearrangements of verse order, as in {35}, {48}, {186}. Most of these differences are relatively minor (especially in modern editions), but they needed to be resolved in some coherent way, so I decided to make a clear choice of sources.

No scholar in the field will be surprised by my choice of Arshi; his comprehensive and authoritative work is in a class by itself, and it is a sad commentary on the state of Ghalib studies that it is so often out of print. We all owe a tremendous debt to Arshi's textual scholarship. Arshi does, however, arrange the ghazals in an idiosyncratic order, basically chronological (as far as he can manage) and unfamiliar to everybody except those scholars who use his edition.

Arshi also, alas, punctuates the ghazals, which in my opinion is a sad lapse of judgment. In my own versions I have eliminated his punctuation. Nowadays it seems that all editors feel free to impose their own choice of English-style punctuation on the texts of classical ghazals, as if they were English poems-- except, of course, that imposing extra punctuation on an English poem would be an inexcusable editoral intrusion. (Don't let me get started on all this, it's too depressing.)

I wanted to present the ghazals in the traditional order that goes back to Ghalib himself. Of the several widely available modern editions that I could have followed (and that differ from each other only in small ways), I chose Hamid's largely for sentimental reasons: his edition was the one I first used when I began to study Ghalib seriously, in Lahore in 1979-80. During that year I bought so many paperbound copies of it that my bookseller finally let me have one of his few, hoarded, fancy hardbound ones as well. It is still with me, full of memories and notes. (It was losing its binding, and becoming a diivaan-e be-shiraazah like the one in {18,5}; but I recently had it rebound.)

There is no tradition of numbering Ghalib's ghazals consistently for easy reference. The numbers I've used are assigned only by me, but they are also the numbers you'd arrive at if you numbered according to Hamid's edition.

As you'll see, my own translations of the ghazals for this project are the very reverse of literary: they strive to reflect the actual text as faithfully as they can. They are designed not to give you a fine reading experience in English, but to help you get as close as possible to the Urdu. Translating the ghazals of Ghalib in a serious literary way is a doomed mission in any case; it's basically impossible. Not only can you not capture the wordplay and multivalence that are at the heart of Ghalib's genius-- you can't even figure out how to assign the beloved a gender.

I incorporate into my commentary passages from some of the most important previous commentators. The Bibliography lists all the commentarial and reference materials used in this website. All translations are my own, and are as literal as I can manage to make them. The commentators are not always as helpful as one might wish; for a sample of my problems with them, see {26,7} or {90,3}. I will also gradually add more comments (and sometimes more commentators) to earlier ghazals as seems appropriate. Please keep in mind that for years to come the whole website will be a work in progress, subject to change in every part as it grows and evolves. It will contain all the scholarly things I would have put in a multi-volume book, as well as various informal and idiosyncratic things that I will add when it seems like the thing to do. Having my own handmade html pages, on my own website, is seductive. This project feels partly formal, but also partly like space for experimenting and thinking aloud-- more like a place for discussion than like an academic manuscript.

Here, in chronological order, are the commentators I consider most significant for the purposes of this project. They are the ones I find especially thought-provoking and suggestive; their views will often be cited. If I include a commentator's words, it doesn't always mean I agree with them; it may mean just that I think them worth reflecting on, possibly for their very unhelpfulness. My selections make the commentators look more terminology-minded than they really are, since I go out of my way to include their (rather uncommon) use of technical terms. However, I include only a few of their occasional discussions of metrical details, or their arguments about extreme subtleties of Persian and Urdu grammar, idiom, and usage.

(1) GHALIB himself has commented analytically, in his letters, on fourteen verses. He has also made more general mention of other verses; all such references have been incorporated, as translated by me, and parallel translations by Russell and Islam and/or Daud Rahbar have been indicated where they are available. The most reliable modern textual source for Ghalib's Urdu letters is Khaliq Anjum.

(2) HALI, Ghalib's pupil and biographer, published his memoir of the poet in 1897. While this memoir is not formally a commentary, it contains many remarks and observations about the ghazals. Almost every relevant passage from it has been incorporated here; the translations are my own. (Hali is also the best source for anecdotes.)

(3) NAZM Tabataba'i, who published his work in 1900, was perhaps the most important and influential commentator of all. I translate and incorporate a great many excerpts from his idiosyncratic, persnickety, often intriguing and insightful work.

(4) BEKHUD DIHLAVI and
(5) BEKHUD MOHANI
seem to form a matched set, both publishing their work in 1923-24. They represent the reliable, common-sense, bread-and-butter commentarial mainstream. The former is more concise and prosaic-- and more likely to copy from Hali and Nazm. The latter, for whom I've gained more respect over time, illustrates, embroiders, tries multiple perspectives-- and ignores Hali, and constantly argues with Nazm.

(6) C. M. NAIM's two brief commentaries (1970 and 1972) cover only a small number of verses, but they are of special value because he wrote them in English; thus he can speak for himself without my interposition. I have included substantial excerpts from every instance of his commentary.

(7) NAIYAR MASUD is better known nowadays as a fine short-story writer, and has only commented (1973) on a handful of verses-- though most of them he has treated in fascinating detail. I have included at least brief excerpts from every instance of his commentary.

(8) S. R. FARUQI's very valuable commentary (1989, and the revised edition of 2006) includes only certain verses that he thinks other commentators have misunderstood; I have included excerpts from every instance of his commentary. He has also, however, compiled a selection from the divan and the unpublished verses, identifying those verses he considers especially excellent. I have marked these verses with an asterisk following the verse number, on the verse page. I have also used his recommendations of other good unpublished verses to include; for details see his selection. Elsewhere in his numerous books and articles he has discussed other verses, and I hope eventually to include some of these discussions as well. For the serious modern Ghalib scholar, Faruqi is a rare jewel among commentators. He has also sometimes answered my questions personally by giving his views about particular verses; all such informal, unpublished contributions by him are identified and dated, and are included in my own commentary.

When it comes to other commentaries, earlier commentators have been preferred to later ones, and influential ones to obscure ones. Commentators whose work I have looked at to some extent, but who have been cited and used less frequently, include the following:

AZAD (1880) contributes a few illustrative anecdotes
VAJID (1901) comments only on the 48 ghazals that end in alif . His little-known work is available in an *online version*.
HASRAT (1905) offers very brief notes on only some verses
BAQIR (1939) synthesizes many other commentators' views
SHADAN (1946) is both disarming and exasperating
JOSH (1950) can be helpful on occasion
ARSHI (1958) suggests useful parallels between verses
CHISHTI (1959) writes as a modern academic
MIHR (1967) offers accessible help for the modern beginner
GYAN CHAND (1971) comments on some of the unpublished verses

I also quote some 'occasional' commentators, people who have offered their own thoughts after visiting this site. So far, the most significant such commentator has been Vasmi Abidi, to whom I'm grateful for many useful error-corrections as well. The comments and help of Mr. Mat Ansari, Mr. Mohsin Naquvi, Mr. Ali Shirazi, and other members of the Urdulist are also much appreciated.

If you're interested in small details, you'll notice that for the first fifty or so ghazals, I used different combinations of commentators, as I experimented with them and explored their work. After that point, I decided that each verse needed, as a rule, three commentators, apart from me. And I settled on Nazm and the two Bekhuds as my mainstay choices to represent the commentarial tradition.

For Devanagari readers: Here is a special note explaining some of the oddities of spelling that you'll notice. Please remember that the Devanagari is a transliteration of the Urdu letters, and is not intended to reproduce modern standard Hindi spellings. Instead, it's intended to bring you as close as possible to what Ghalib actually wrote.

Meter sometimes affects the spelling of words in metrical lines. For example, mere aage may be scanned (and thus spelled) as mire aage in order to shorten the first syllable. I have shown such scansion-based spelling changes in the texts of the ghazals.

If you'd like to know more about the Urdu metrical system, here's just the thing: *Urdu Meter: A Practical Handbook*.