To thy Harím Dividuality
No entrance finds,” &c.

(p. 48.)

THIS Súfí Identification with Deity (further il­lustrated in the Story of Salámán's first flight) is shadowed in a Parable of Jeláluddín, of which here is an outline. “One knocked at the Beloved's Door; and a Voice asked from within, ‘Who is there?’ and he answered, ‘It is I.’ Then the Voice said, ‘This House will not hold Me and Thee.’ And the Door was not opened. Then went the Lover into the Desert, and fasted and prayed in Solitude. And after a Year he returned, and knocked again at the Door. And again the Voice asked, ‘Who is there?’ and he said, ‘It is Thyself!’—and the Door was opened to him.”

O Darling of the soul of Iflatún;
To whom with all his school Aristo bows;”

(p. 56.)

Some Traveller in the East—Professor Eastwick, I think—tells us that in endeavouring to explain to an Eastern Cook the nature of an Irish Stew, the man said he knew well enough about “Aristo.” “Iflatún” might almost as well have been taken for “Vol-au-vent.

“Like Noah's, puff'd with Insolence and Pride,” &c.

(p. 57.)

In the Kurán God engages to save Noah and his Family,—meaning all who believed in the Warn­ing. One of Noah's Sons (Canaan or Ham, some think) would not believe. “And the Ark swam with them between waves like Mountains; and Noah called up to his Son, who was separated from him, saying, ‘Embark with us, my Son, and stay not with the Unbelievers.’ He answered, ‘I will get on a Mountain, which will secure me from the Water.’ Noah replied, ‘There is no security this Day from the Decree of God, except for him on whom he shall have Mercy.’ And a Wave passed between them, and he became one of those who were drowned. And it was said, ‘O Earth, swallow up thy waters; and Thou, O Heaven, withhold thy Rain!’ And immediately the Water abated, and the Decree was fulfilled, and the Ark rested on the Mountain Al Judi; and it was said, ‘Away with the ungodly People!’ And Noah called upon his Lord, and said, ‘O Lord, verily my Son is of my Family; and thy Promise is True: for Thou art the most just of those who exercise Judgment.’ God answered, ‘O Noah, verily he is not of thy Family: this intercession of thine for him is not a righteous work.’”—Sale's Kurán, vol. ii. p. 21.

Finer than any Bridal-puppet, which
To prove another's Love a Woman sends,” &c.

(p. 64.)

In Atkinson's version of the “Kitábi Kulsúm Naneh” [C. XII.] we find among other Ceremo­nials and Proprieties of which the Book treats, that when a Woman wished to ascertain another's Love, she sent a Doll on a Tray with flowers and sweetmeats, and judged how far her affection was reciprocated by the Doll's being returned to her drest in a Robe of Honour, or in Black. The same Book also tells of two Dolls—Bride and Bride­groom, I suppose—being used on such occasions; the test of Affection being whether the one sent were returned with or without its Fellow.

The Royal Game of Chúgán.

(p. 65.)

For centuries the Royal Game of Persia, and adopted (Ouseley thinks) under varying modifica­tions of name and practice by other nations, was played by Horsemen, who, suitably habited, and armed with semicircular-headed Bats or Sticks, strove to drive a Ball through a Goal of upright Pillars. (See Frontispiece.) We may call it “Horse-hockey,” as heretofore played by young English­men in the Maidán of Calcutta, and other Indian cities, I believe, and now in England itself under the name of Polo.

The Frontispiece to this version of the Poem is accurately copied from an Engraving in Sir Wil­liam's Book, which he says (and those who care to look into the Bodleian

* MS. Ouseley 20.

for it may see) “is ac­curately copied from a very beautiful Persian MS., containing the Works of Háfiz, transcribed in the year 956 of the Hijrah, 1549 of Christ; the MS. is in my own Collection. This Delineation exhi­bits two Horsemen contending for the Ball; their short Jackets seem peculiarly adapted to this Sport; we see the MÍL, or Goals; Servants attend on Foot, holding CHÚGÁNS in readiness for other Persons who may join in the Amusement, or to supply the place of any that may be broken. A young Prince (as his PARR, or Feather, would indicate) receives on his Entrance into the MEIDÁN, or Place of Exer­cise, a CHÚGÁN from the hands of a bearded Man, very plainly dressed; yet, as an intelligent Painter at Isfahán assured me (and as appears from other Miniatures in the same Book), this Bearded Figure is designed to represent Háfiz himself,” &c.

The Persian legend at the Top Corner is the Verse from Háfiz which the Drawing illustrates:

Shahsuvára khúsh bemeidán ámedy gúy bezann.


I am informed by a distinguished Arabic Scholar that the proper Cry of the Muezzin is, with some slight local variations, such as he heard it at Cairo and Damascus:

Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar;
Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar;
Ishhad lá allah illá 'llah;
Ishhad lá allah illá 'llah;
Ishhad lá allah illá 'llah;
Ishhad Muhammad rasúluhu;
Ishhad Muhammad rasúluhu;
Ishhad Muhammad rasúluhu;
Hayá 'alá 's-salát, Hayá 'alá 's-salát,
Inna 's-salát khair min an-naum.

“God is great” (four times); “Confess that there is no God but God” (three times); “Confess that Muhammad is the prophet of God” (three times); “Come to Prayer, Come to Prayer, for Prayer is better than Sleep.”

[A more accurate account will be found in Lane's Modern Egyptians.]


Here Iram-garden seem'd in secresy
Blowing the rosebud of its Revelation;”

“Mahomet,” says Sir W. Jones, “in the Chapter of The Morning, towards the end of his Alcoran, mentions a Garden called ‘Irem,’ which is no less celebrated by the Asiatic Poets than that of the Hesperides by the Greeks. It was planted, as the Commentators say, by a king named Shedád,”— deep in the Sands of Arabia Felix—“and was once seen by an Arabian who wandered far into the Desert in search of a lost Camel.”


A curious parallel to this doctrine is quoted by Mr. Morley (Critical Miscellanies, Series II. p. 318), from so anti-gnostic a Doctor as Paley, in Ch. III. of his Natural Theology.

“As we have said, therefore, God prescribes limits to his power, that he may let in the exercise, and thereby exhibit demonstrations, of his wisdom. For then—i.e., such laws and limitations being laid down, it is as though some Being should have fixed certain rules; and, if we may so speak, pro­vided certain materials; and, afterwards, have committed to some other Being, out of these ma­terials, and in subordination to these rules, the task of drawing forth a Creation; a supposition which evidently leaves room, and induces indeed a necessity, for contrivance. Nay, there may be many such Agents, and many ranks of these. We do not advance this as a doctrine either of phi­losophy or religion; but we say that the subject may be safely represented under this view; be­cause the Deity, acting himself by general laws, will have the same consequence upon our reasoning, as if he had prescribed these laws to another.”