This verse marks the beginning of a two-verse verse-set that includes {189,9-10}. Many editors, including Hamid, not only don't mark this verse-set, but also reverse the order of the final two verses of the ghazal, no doubt because it's unusual for the pen-name to appear in the penultimate verse. As always, I follow Arshi. And I do so all the more willingly because the other verse, 189,10 , so clearly follows the same train of thought as this one. On the grammar of , see 1,3 . The wonderfully protean (see the definition above) is a word that ranges constantly from the physical ('face') through the all-purpose ('aspect') to the abstract ('state of affairs'). And here the second line is so vague, yet so charged and forceful-- it's really a moral imperative, something like 'ought to be seen'-- that the whole effect is to call attention to the crucial importance of (with of course the wordplay of 'looking at' (a face) as a piquant reminder of its literal meaning). But what is it exactly about the first line that demands the disdainful, exclamatory corrective of the second line? Here are some possibilities: =You want fine-faced ones-- but your own face is 'worth seeing', for the sheer contrast with such beauty. =You want fine-faced ones-- how do you have the 'face' to (or, the nerve to; or, the gall to) aspire so high?! =You want fine-faced ones-- but your 'situation' or 'condition' renders that aspiration absurd. =You present yourself as a lover-- you, in the 'guise' or 'semblance' of a lover, are a sight worth seeing! =You aspire to be a lover-- let's see how your 'plan', your 'idea', turns out! And so on, and so on. One good verse for comparison: 161,1 , in which plays an almost equally protean role in making the verse slippery and multivalent. Another verse from the same ghazal is 161,10 , in which is used in the same idiomatically disdainful way that is in the present verse. But then, this verse is also the beginning of a verse-set; so it should also be read in conjunction with 189,10 . graphics/face.jpg