Right from wrong. — The best explanation of the original expression is that is the twist of a rope towards one’s self, and the twist away from one’s self; so that it might be translated, “what to take and what to leave.” Sherîshi renders it “what to turn to and what to turn from.”

Rayy.—The seat of government of the region known under the Khalifate as Daylam was a place of much importance during the most flourishing time of the Arab sovereignty, and under the House of Seljuk. It was called Rayy al Mahdîyeh, since the Khalif Al Mahdi held his court there for many years during the reign of Al Manṣûr, and there was Hârûn ar Reshîd born in the year 145 or 149. Rayy was conquered under the Khalif ‘Omar by Ka‘b ibn Ḳurt, the Anṣâri. The derivative adjective formed from Rayy is Râzi, as Marwâzi, from Marw. This city was the birth-place of Ibn Fâris ar Râzi, the poet and gram­marian, whose life is given by Ibn Khallikân. It is related of Ibn Fâris that he was the instructor of Badî‘ az Zemân, the author of the Maḳâmât, which Ḥarîri took as his model. It is further said that he wrote a treatise on the meaning of words and that from it Ḥarîri took the idea of his Thirty-second Assembly, in which a hundred legal questions that turn on the double meanings of words are proposed. According to Ṭabari the city of Rayy was founded by Husheng, one of the primeval kings, and the first who sawed wood, and made doors, and dug metals. See the early part of his Chronicle.

Loosed the loops of error, i.e. had risen from it. , as has been before explained, is that by which an Arab, sitting on the ground, draws up his legs to his stomach so as to support himself, though there be nothing to lean against. See Sixteenth Assembly, “They loosed their loops to me,” i.e. they rose.

Good from evil.—This is the virtual meaning of the phrase , of which so many etymologies are given in the commentary. The expression belongs to the class which the Arabs call , and of which they make constant use, as may be seen from many examples in the present work. It is ana­logous to our helter-skelter and namby-pamby, and it may fairly be believed that in many cases the second element had no original meaning, but was added as a rhyme to the first. Com­pare at the end of the Tenth Assembly; and a little later in the present. But the lexicographers always strive to give a derivation if possible. In the present case those propounded are all very unsatisfactory; and it is better to consider it a phrase formed in the mouth of the people, of which no true etymology can be given.

One morning.—For the use of the word compare De Sacy’s Commentary at the beginning of the Nineteenth Assembly. It is manṣub as a ẓarf. In four cases the masculine is used; with some portions of time it is improper to use or , but in all cases it refers only to past time, so that it would not be lawful in such a phrase as “I will go some morning” or “some day.”

Ibn Sam‘ûn.—This was a celebrated preacher who flourished about a century and a half before Ḥarîri. He was born in the year 300 of the Hijra, and died in the year 387. He resided at Bagdad in the time of the Khalifs Al Muṭî‘ l’illâh and Aṭ Ṭâ’i‘ l’illâh. He was a man of great eloquence, to judge from the effect he produced on his hearers, but was no ascetic, for when one asked him how he, who exhorted others to piety, should feed delicately and wear fine clothes, he answered that if a man felt himself at peace with God while doing these things they were lawful to him. He appears to have been endowed with great tact, for Sherîshi relates the following narrative of Abû’ṭ Ṭâhir Moḥammed ibn ‘Alî al ‘Ilâf: “I went to see Ibn Sam‘ûn and found him on his chair in the congregation, and as he preached, Abû’l Fatḥ, who was sitting by the side of the chair, was overcome with drowsiness and fell asleep. Then Abû’l Ḥasan (Ibn Sam‘ûn) stopped for a time until Abû’l Fatḥ woke up and raised his head, when he said to him, ‘Didst thou see the Apostle of God in thy dream?’ ‘Yes,’ said Abû’l Fatḥ. ‘It was for that reason,’ returned the preacher, ‘that I stayed my discourse, that I might not interrupt thee in thy converse.’” The same commentator tells an anecdote which shows the dangers to which men of note were exposed for their political opinions. A servant of the Khalif Aṭ Ṭâ’i‘ l’illâh relates that the Khalif one day bade him go and bring Ibn Sam‘ûn to the palace. “I saw,” said he, “that the Khalif was angry, and he was much feared when in that condition on account of his severity, so that I was concerned for Ibn Sam‘ûn. When he arrived I informed the Khalif, who took his seat in the hall, and bade that he be brought in. When he entered he made saluta­tion and began a discourse. And his first words were, ‘It is related of the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali son of Abû Ṭâlib (God accept him);’ then he mentioned a Tradition of him, and went on preaching on this tenor until Aṭ Ṭâ’i‘ wept, and his sobs could be heard, and the handkerchief which was to his eyes was wet with tears. When Ibn Sam‘ûn had ceased the Khalif I gave it to him, and he departed. When I returned to Aṭ Ṭâ’i, handed me a packet, with perfumes and other things for him, and I said, ‘Master, I saw thee incensed against Ibn Sam‘ûn, and through his coming hither thou art calmed; what is the reason?’ The Khalif answered, ‘Complaint was made that he had spoken ill of ‘Ali (whom God accept), and I wished to be convinced; and if the thing had been true I would have killed him; but when he came before me he opened his discourse with the mention of ‘Ali, and by the Blessing on him, so that I knew he was innocent.’” It must be remembered that it was the traditional policy of the Abbasides to exalt ‘Ali and his House at the expense of the Omayyides, and to paint in the darkest colours not only Mu‘âwiyeh and his son Yezîd, and such guilty instruments of their ambition as ‘Obayd allâh ibn Ziyâd, but the whole of the reigning House, and those who served them. The men of letters, as well as the religious, joined in this canonization of ‘Ali and Al Ḥosayn, and this reprobation of their enemies. Indeed, it is curious to find that, even under the House of Omayyeh, the poets and scholars were in general partisans of the son of Abû Ṭâlib, and the descendants of the Prophet. Abû’l Aswad, the founder of the system of grammar, fought under ‘Ali at Ṣiffîn, and is said to have learned from him the division of the parts of speech into the noun, the verb, and the particle (Ibn Khallikân). The same side was espoused by almost all his successors; even those who asked and received the largesses of the victorious family. In later times there is scarcely one of the house of Omayyeh whom the Moslems willingly praise, ex­cept the saint ‘Omar ibn ‘Abd al ‘Azîz, who vainly sought to re­concile the partisans of his own House and of ‘Ali. They scarcely do justice even to so great a sovereign as Welîd ibn ‘Abd al Melik’ though in his lifetime he rewarded the genius and received the praises of two such highly esteemed poets as Al Farazdaḳ and Jerîr. It would have been strange if a popular preacher of the fourth century had really slandered one who was then the chief hero of Islam. The life of Ibn Sam‘ûn is given by Ibn Khallikân, who says that no such preacher had again appeared. He was the author of a book of Traditions; among the speci­mens of his pulpit eloquence is the following: “Exalted be God, who has enabled man to speak by a piece of flesh (the tongue); to see by a piece of fat (the eye); and to hear by a piece of bone (the ear.)”

With a breast-hunch.— signifies the protrusion of the breast, together with a hollowness of the back, and is the oppo­site of , which is the ordinary hunchbackedness. In the book of which the French title is “La Vie et les Aventures de Fariac,” written a few years since by Fâris ash Shidyâḳ, a Syrian possessed of an extraordinary knowledge of the Arabic vocabulary, there will be found at p. 344 a list of more than 200 names of bodily defects and ailments. This author, whose purpose is either to instruct the reader or to display his own knowledge, makes it a practice to introduce into his compositions as many recondite words as possible, which he duly explains according to the best authorities. The book, whatever may be thought of its literary merits, is no doubt very useful to the Arabic student, and deserves to be well known. I would par­ticularly draw attention to the twelve pages of names of gar­ments and materials for clothing at p. 307, as this is a subject which has been chosen by a European scholar, M. Dozy, for a separate work. The immense number of names, or rather epithets, for a handsome woman according to her various points of beauty, given at p. 241, may surprise even those who are accustomed to the boundless resources of this extraordinary language. For Fâris gives the signification mentioned above. See p. 348 of the book (Paris, 1855. Benjamin Duprat, Libraire de l’Institut).