In my roamings I met at Shiraz.—Shiraz, in Arabic an imperfectly declined noun or diptote, one of the principal cities of Persia, of which Sherîshi gives a glowing account in his Commentary, and which is familiar to the friends of Oriental literature as the birthplace of the Persian poet Hafiz, and many other men of note.
See how their fruit would fulfil the promise of their blossom, literally, how their fruit would be from, i.e., in comparison with their blossom, an idiom for which see a preceding note, p. 213 above.
Who had well-nigh encompassed the two goals of life, in the original “the two lives,” i.e., that of increase of strength up to forty, and that of decrease up to eighty, according to others, up to sixty and hundred and twenty respectively. The critics blame Ḥarîri for connecting in this passage two verbs of identical meaning, kâda yunâhizu, as if we would say, “he was near approaching.” But I find that nâhaza, with the accusative aṣ-ṣaida, game, is explained by bâdara-hu, he overtook or reached it, and feel, therefore, justified in my translation, the terms of which seem perfectly legitimate.
A man exists by the two things smallest in him, meaning his tongue and his heart, or as a poet in the Ḥamâseh puts it:
“One half of man is his tongue, the other half his heart; what remains is but an image of flesh and blood.
“Many a man who pleases thee when silent waxes taller or smaller by his converse.” (Ar. Prov., ii. 635, 922.)
Counting its aloes as common wood, i.e., being gifted with surpassing eloquence themselves, they made little of its choicest points. For the word khit̤âb, address, many explanations are given, but there is little doubt that it applies here to that branch of philological science which treats of rhetoric or the rules of elevated diction and composition. The expression faṣlu ’l-khiṭâb, here translated with the “chapter or section of rhetoric,” has occurred in the second Assembly, vol. i., p. 114, towards the end, where I would render it “the discrimination of his address,” or “his discriminate eloquence,” while Chenery prefers “the sagacity of his judgment,” in accordance with Koran, xxxviii. 19: “And We established his (David’s) kingdom: and wisdom, and skill to pronounce clear decisions, did We bestow on him” (comp. the note on the passage, vol. i., p. 291).
But he uttered no word of explanation nor made he his meaning clear by any sign, literally, he explained not with a word, nor cleared he up by any sign, the Arabic preposition ‘an, “from,” in the terminology of the grammarians here being used li ’l-isti‘ânah, that is, standing for “by means of.”
But asked what are his endowments, literally, what is his portion (khalâq), in allusion to Koran, iii. 71: “Verily they who barter their engagement with God, and their oaths, for some paltry price— These! no portion for them in the world to come!”
Now when he had captivated all their senses, in Arabic fa-lammâ khalaba kulla khilbin, the literal rendering of which would be, “when he had beguiled every pericardium.”
Make known to us the shell of thy egg and its yolk, for “thy outward and inward state.” For the preceding phrase, thou hast shown us the mark of thy arrow, comp. Chenery’s note on the proverb: “Each man knows best the mark of his arrow,” vol. i., p. 323.
Now when I perceived the traces of the good and bad blended in Abû Zayd.—This is an approximate paraphrase of an idiom which defies all attempts at a more accurate translation. Shaubu abî zaidin wa raubu-hu is explained by the commentators as meaning the honey of Abû Zayd and his curdled milk, that is to say, his sweet and bitter, or his truth and falsehood. The proverb (Ar. Prov., ii. 647 and 878), mâ ‘inda-hu shaubun wa lâ raubun, applies to a man of indifferent character, somewhat like the English, “he is neither fish nor fowl.”
When, lo! it was he himself, in Arabic fa-iẕâ huwa iyyâ-hu, with the objective case of the repeated pronoun instead of the nominative, according to the grammarians of Basra a popular solecism for fa iẕâ huwa huwa, as would be the English, “behold! he was him.” Since Ḥarîri was a native of Basra, it is more than probable that he shared this view; nevertheless, he adopts the faulty phrase, partly because he aims at a vivid portraiture of life, partly for reasons discussed by Chenery in his “Introduction,” vol. i., p. 72, where similar instances of such disputed grammatical points are mentioned.
Has wooers for her comeliness and pleasingness.—The literal rendering would be: “Is wooed as with the wooing of one who by her beauty can dispense with adornments (ghâniyah), and by her pleasant ways so captivates her husband that he feels not tempted to look at others (mughniyah).
Then let him wash my grief with its proper soap.—This may be taken by Abû Zayd’s audience to mean a gift that would allay his anxiety for the future of his pretended daughter, but for the initiated it contains an allusion to a saying attributed to Chosroes, that wine is the soap for grief, and implies that the reprobate intends to spend the prospective dirhems on the forbidden beverage, which is the real theme of his improvisation.
Making me send after him more than one glance of loving affection. —Here again a lengthy paraphrase is needed, in order to render the Arabic idiom intelligible. Zawwada-nî naz̤ratan min zî ‘alaqin means literally: “provisioned me with the glance of one possessed of affection” (comp. Ar. Prov., ii. 747).