FWP:
SETS == BAH
CANDLE: {39,1}
JALVAH: {7,4}
BAH verses: {56,4}; {67,4x};
{75,3}; {75,5}**;
{77,4}; {84,4x};
{92,5}; {109,1}*;
{109,3x}*; {109,4x}; {221,1}* // {405x,4}
As Nazm explains, the second line consists of a pair of oaths affirming the
content of the first line (2a): X is true-- I swear by Y, I swear by Z. In
this case, 'X' affirms the 'quiver/exultation', and Y and Z, in addition to being oaths, describe a cause and
an effect of such a quiver. As Nazm goes on to point out, Y and Z can also be read assimiles (2b), which are less piquant but no less appropriate
to the occasion. This enjoyable duality Ghalib owes to the handy multivalence
of the Persian bah , 'with' (see the definition above). Nazm's comments also show the limits of his poetics. He perfectly sees the multivalence of the second line, but he doesn't value it; its unexpectedness and wit are wasted on him.
Some of the commentators seek to explain the uncommon Persian word ihtizaaz , which doesn't appear in Platts, or anywhere else in the divan; it surely deserves 'fresh word' credit. It seems to be a sort of quivering/shuddering expressive of almost uncontrollable joy. Thus it's perfect for the verse-- it's presented in the first line, then illustrated in the second line. What could illustrate that quiver of rapture? What if not the 'splendor-scattering of the breeze', and the 'wing-fluttering of the candle'? They even sound lovely in English; but of course, not the way they do in Urdu.
The whole verse rests on implication-- nothing in the verse links the two phrases in the second line except our prior knowledge of what breezes do to candle flames. Here the breeze and the candle are presented in parallel constructions: the breeze 'quivers' as it darts here and there in its playfulness and glory, the candle 'quivers' (in response? or independently?) as it flutters its wings.
C. M. Naim suggests (Apr. 2014) that the descriptions might be said to be reversed: that 'glory-scattering' is more appropriately an activity of the candle, while 'wing-fluttering' seems appropriate to the breeze. (I'm not sure that I agree.)
And the speaker's heart 'quivers' at the thought of the beloved-- like the (active?) breeze, and also like the (passive?) candle. Of course, it's very possible that the breeze will blow out the candle, but in this verse that's not an issue at all-- the sense of joy is too overwhelming. The first line is so simple and straightforward, then the second line blossoms into such sheer beauty of language and thought. Who could read this verse and not want to recite it aloud?
On the usage of 'the thought of you' versus 'your thought',
see {41,6}.
Nazm:
In the second line, bah in both places is for an oath.... And if the bah were removed, then this pleasure would not remain. And if we take bah with the meaning of a simile, the same meaning as formerly is created. (77)
== Nazm page 77