or māḍighs with which one might take refuge against ‘the eye’ (the māḍighs are ‘the points at which the jawbones start, at the place where the molars sprout’),
or a ghunbah that would tuhannid the fancy-free for a sanbah (ghunbah, according to the Qāmūs, is the singular of ghunab, which are ‘circles in the center of the corners of the mouths of pretty boys,’ though I have decided that our veiled lady has the better claim to them, so let there be no protestation or negotiation over this appropriation; tuhannid means ‘entice’ or ‘cause to yearn’ and a sanbah is ‘an age’);
and perhaps her ʿāriḍ will send her lover insane with desire (the ʿāriḍ is ‘the flat of the cheek’ or ‘the side of the face’),
or it may be that she has a ʿilāṭ to bewitch the niyāṭ of any who see her (the ʿilāṭ is ‘the flat of the neck’ and the niyāṭ is ‘the heart’),
or a buldah that would enchant the people of a baldah (a buldah is a ‘freedom from hair of the space between the eyebrows’ or ‘the pit between the two collar-bones, with the part around it, or the middle thereof ’ [and a baldah is ‘a town’]),
or maḥājir for which maḥājir might be sold (the miḥjar of the eye is ‘that part of the face, below the eye, that may be seen through the type of veil called the niqāb’ and the other maḥājir are ‘the tracts surrounding a town or village’),
or asārīr to which one seated upon the bed (sarīr) is subservient (the asārīr are ‘the beautiful features of the face’ or ‘the cheeks’);
or it may be that her ṭulyah would cure a ṭalyāʾ (the ṭulyah is ‘the neck, or the place from which it arises’ and the ṭalyāʾ is ‘an ulceration like a bubo’),
her ladīds a ladūd (the ladīds are ‘the sides of the neck below the ears,’ and the ladūd is ‘a pain that affects the mouth and throat’),
2.4.12
and her lazīzs a lazz (the lazīz is ‘the point where the flesh comes together above the throat’ and lazz is ‘a piercing’);
or that her mafāhir are dearer to the mail-clad knight than fahīrah (the mafāhir are ‘the flesh of the breast’ and fahīrah is ‘pure milk into which heated stones are put; when it boils, flour is sprinkled over it and it is mixed’ [and eaten]),
her sālifahs remove the need for even the best of sulāf (the sālifah is ‘the side of the forepart of the neck, from the place of the suspension of the earring to the hollow of the collarbone’ [and sulāf means ‘wine’]),
her naḥr (‘throat’) puts that of the day to shame (the naḥr of the day, or the month, is its beginning);
and her tarāʾibs are more to be valued than one’s atrāb (the tarāʾib are ‘the bones of the chest’ or ‘the part immediately following the two collarbones’ and the atrāb (singular tirb) are one’s ‘coetaneans’; or the latter might also correctly be read as itrāb, a verbal noun, in the sense ‘the man experienced itrāb,’ meaning ‘his wealth increased,’ in which case the speaker would have to be asked which meaning he intended),”
and so on, to include other possibilities that the man of insight and sound judgment will agree are necessary; I have prolonged my words here simply because I am copying them from one who looked deep into every veiled face(t)450 and found himself, to his surprise, so stricken, that his mouth flowed with ropy saliva.
In the end, the point I’m trying to make is that a man who has slept with a woman wrapped up with her in a single undergarment but hasn’t seen her as did Our Master Yaʿqūb,451 peace be upon him, has suffered the same fate as our friend with all his maybes and ifs and buts.
2.4.13
Someone ought now to say, “The matter is the opposite of what’s been proposed when we speak of a woman fully clothed, for if a man’s glance falls upon her when she’s decently covered, his imagination will take him no further than a certain point. It’s different, however, if she is naked. Then the imagination and the heart, on beholding her, will fly toward her, stopping at nothing, for the imagination will picture certain things, while the heart will desire yet others.” Then the defender of the original proposition should respond by saying, “This is simply a result of the face-body differential, for the body, being larger, brings the imagination flying to it and holds the heart hovering over it by a process consequential.”
2.4.14
One party, among them Professors Amorato, Gropius, Randinski, and Copulatius,452 have asserted that it is not the body’s size per se that is responsible in such cases for any flying or hovering, for even if only one part of it were visible it would be enough and the issue therefore remains unresolved. To this the response should be that their argument consists simply of stating that a body is a body and a face a face, which shows that the assertion is ridiculous because it is a tautology. Others have claimed that the reason that the face is more arousing than the body is that the face is a locus for most of the senses, for it contains the repositories of smell, taste, and sight, with that of hearing close by. A second party, among them Professors Killjoy, Ejaculatio-Prematore, and Impotenza, has accepted this, but rejoinder has been made that these senses have no bearing here, for what is meant by “essence of woman” doesn’t depend upon them anyway, so she is in no need of them.
2.4.15
It has also been claimed that the body is more arousing than the face because the body contains many different shapes. Thus, there is what is pear-shaped-with-a-long-neck, what is pomegranate-shaped, what is euphorbia-fruit-shaped, what is hoop-shaped, what is ring-shaped, what is dome-shaped, what is pillar-shaped, what is in the shape of a prominent rock, what in is the shape of the letter ṣād and what is in the shape of the letter mīm,453 what is in the shape of a set of steps, what is in the shape of a cone, what is in the shape of a crescent, and what is obtusely angled. To this, rejoinder has been made that it is the same argument as that made by those who claim that the body is more attractive because it is larger and may be refuted on the same grounds. It has also been claimed that the body is more exciting precisely because the face, under normal conditions, is revealed, while the body is concealed, and, should a person see anything that violates this norm, his thoughts will be plunged into commotion and his ideas fly in all directions. Other arguments have been made too and God alone knows the truth. It is also quite possible that this rule that I have advanced and retracted so often is incorrect, in which case, I wish I’d ignored it, for by mentioning it I have obliged us to engage in an academic discussion.