into the hand of a foe who would use it magically to injure the babe.
The navel-string has few superstitions in England. The lower classes
mostly place over the wound a bit of cloth wherein a hole has been
burned, supposing that the carbon will heal the cut, and make it fast
to the babe by a “binder” or swathe round the body, as a preventative
to “pot-belly.” But throughout the East there are more observances. In
India, on the birth of the babe, the midwife demands something
shining, as a rupee or piece of silver, and having touched the
navel-string therewith she divides it and appropriates the glittering
substance, under the pretence that the absence of the illuminating
power of some such sparkling object would prevent her seeing to
operate. The knife with which the umbilical cord has been cut is not
used for common purposes but is left beside the puerpera until the
“Chilla” (fortieth day), when “Kajjal” (lamp-black), used by way of
Kohl, is collected on it and applied to the child’s eyelids. Whenever
the babe is bathed or taken out of the house the knife must be carried
along with it; and when they are brought in again the instrument is
deposited in its former place near the mother. Lastly, on the
“Chilla”-day they must slaughter with the same blade a cock or a sheep
(Herklots, chapt. i. sec. 3). Equally quaint is the treatment of the
navel-string in Egypt; but Lane (M.E.) is too modest to give details.
Footnote 551:
In text “Sarsarah,” a clerical error for “Akhaza (?) surratan.” See
MS. vol. vi. p. 197, line 9 [I read “sarra Surrah (Surratan)” = he
tied up a purse.—ST.]
Footnote 552:
In the text “on account of the dust-cloud” which, we were just told,
had cleared away. [The translator seems to have overlooked the “kána”
before “kad dákhala-hu al-Ra’b,” which gives to the verb the force of
a pluperfect: “and fear _had_ entered into him at the sight of the
dust-cloud.”—ST.]
Footnote 553:
_i.e._ his daughter, of whom he afterwards speaks in the plur.
Footnote 554:
These concealments are inevitable in ancient tale and modern novel,
and it need hardly be said that upon the nice conduct of them depends
all the interest of the work. How careful the second-rate author is to
spoil his plot by giving a needless “pregustation” of his purpose, I
need hardly say.
Footnote 555:
The mysteries of the marriage-night are touched with a light hand
because the bride had already lost her virginity.
Footnote 556:
In text “Abúyah,” a Fellah vulgarism for Abí which latter form occurs
a few lines lower down.
Footnote 557:
In text “Wa-Ṣawábi ’hu (Asábi ’a-hu?) fí hanaki-h:” this is explained
in MS. p. 216: “Bi-yarza’u fí Asábí hi.” Dozy, Suppl. i. 815, gives
“Sawábi’” as an irregular pl. of “Asba’” quoting from Bresl. ed. iii.
381, 9. I would rather say it is a regularly formed broken plural of a
singular “Sábi’” = the pointing one, _i.e._ index, now commonly called
“Sabbábah” = the reviler, where the same idea of pointing at with
contempt seems to prevail, and “Sháhid” = the witnessing, because it
is raised in giving testimony. In the plural it would be naturally
generalised to “finger,” and in point of fact, the sing. “Sábi’” is
used nowadays in this sense in Egypt along with the other popular form
“Subá’.”
Footnote 558:
I write “Cafilah” and not “Cafila” with the unjustifiable suppression
of the final “h” which is always made sensible in the pure
pronunciation of the Badawi. The malpractice has found favour chiefly
through the advocacy of Dr. Redhouse, an eminent Turkish scholar whose
judgments must be received with great caution; and I would quote on
this subject the admirable remarks of my late lamented friend Dr. G.
P. Badger in “The Academy” of July 2, 1887. “Another noticeable
default in the same category is that, like Sale, Mr. Wherry frequently
omits the terminal ’h’ in his transliteration of Arabic. Thus he
writes Sura, Amína, Fátima, Madína, Taháma; yet, inconsistently
enough, he gives the ’h’ in Allah, Khadijah, Kaabah, Makkah, and many
other words. This point deserves special notice, owing to Dr.
Redhouse’s letter, published in ’The Academy’ of November 22 last, in
which he denounces as (’a very common European error’) the addition of
the ’h’ or ’final aspirate,’ in the English transliteration of many
Arabic words. Hence, as I read the eminent Orientalist’s criticism,
when that aspirate is not sounded in pronunciation he omits it,
writing “Fátima,” not Fatimah, lest, as I presume, the unwary reader
may aspirate the ’h.’ But in our Bibles we find such names as _Sarah_,
_Hannah_, _Judah_, _Beulah_, _Moriah_, _Jehovah_, in the enunciation
of which no one thinks of sounding the last letter as an aspirate. I
quite agree with Dr. Redhouse that in the construct case the final _h_
assumes the sound of _t_, as in _Fatimatu bint-Muhammed_; yet that
does not strike me as a valid reason for eliding the final _h_, which
among other uses, is indicative of the feminine gender, as in Fâtimah,
Khadîjah, Amînah, etc.; also of the _nomina vicis_, of many abstract
nouns, nouns of multitude and of quality, as well as of adjectives of
intensiveness, all which important indications would be lost by
dropping the final _h_. And further unless the vowel _a_, left after
the elision of that letter, be furnished with some etymological mark
of distinction, there would be great risk of its being confounded with
the _â_, formative of the singular of many verbal nouns, such as
_binâ_, _safâ_, _jalâ_; with the masculine plurals ending in the same
letters, such as _hukamâ_, _ághniyâ_, _kúfarâ_; and with the feminine
plurals of many adjectives, such as _kúbra_, _súghra_, _húsna_, etc.
Dr. Redhouse says that ’many eminent Arabists avoid such errors’—a
remark which rather surprises me, since Pocock, Lane and Palmer, and
Fresnel and Perron among French Orientalists, as also Burton, all
retain the final aspirate _h_, the latter taking special care to
distinguish, by some adequate, diacritical sign, those substantive and
adjective forms with which words ending in the final aspirate _h_
might otherwise be confounded.”
Footnote 559:
In the text, “Wa sába’l-dár wa Zaujatu-hu mutawassíyín bi-há.” [I
cannot explain to myself the plural “Mutawaṣṣín” unless by supposing
that the preceding “Sáb al-Dár” is another blunder of the scribe for
“Sáhibu ’l-Dár” when the meaning would be: “and the master of the
house and his wife took charge of her (the nurse) during the days of
suckling.”—ST.]
Footnote 560:
In text “Sárú yaráshú-hu wa yatawaṣṣu.”
Footnote 561:
[In the text “Fikí” the popular form of the present day for “Fikíh,”
properly “learned in the law” (LL.D. as we would say), but now the
usual term for “schoolmaster.”—ST.]
Footnote 562:
Both of which are practised by Easterns from horseback, the animal
going at fullest speed. With the English saddle and its narrow
stirrup-irons we can hardly prove ourselves even moderately good shots
after Parthian fashion.
Footnote 563:
In text “Ihtimám wa Ghullah”: I suspect that the former should be
written with the major _h_, meaning fever.
Footnote 564:
See vol. iv. p. 245.
Footnote 565:
_i.e._ tempt not Providence unless compelled so to do by necessity.
Footnote 566:
The youth was taking a “Fál” or omen: see vol. v. 136.
Footnote 567:
In text “Hasal,” for which I would read “Khasal.”
Footnote 568:
A wiser _Sprichwort_ than those of France and America. It compares
advantageously with the second par. of the Declaration of Independence
(July 4, 1776) by the Representatives of the U.S., which declares,
“these truths to be self-evident:—that all men are created equal,”
etc. It is regretable that so trenchant a state-paper should begin
with so gross and palpable a fallacy. Men are not born equal, nor do
they become equal before their death-days even in condition, except by
artificial levelling; and in republics and limited monarchies, where
all are politically equal, the greatest social inequalities ever
prevail. Still falser is the shibboleth-crow of the French cock,
“_Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité_,” which has borrowed its plumage from
the American Bird o’ Freedom. And Douglas Jerrold neatly expressed the
truth when he said,—“We all row in the same boat but not with the same
sculls.”
Footnote 569:
Sayf Kunúzí = a talismanic scymitar: see “Kanz,” ix. 320.
Footnote 570:
In Arab. “Al-Kutb al-Ghauth” = lit. The pole-star of invocation for
help; or simply “Al-Ghauth” is the highest degree of sanctity in the
mystic fraternity of Tasawwuf. See v. 384; and Lane (A. N.) i. 232.
Students who would understand these titles will consult vol. iii.
chapt. 12 of The Dabistán by Shaw and Troyer, Paris and London, 1843.
By the learned studies of Dr. Pertsch the authorship of this work of
the religious eclecticism of Akbar’s reign, has been taken from the
wrongful claimant and definitively assigned to the legitimate owner,
Mobed Shah. (See Z. d. M. G. xvi. 224). It is regretable that the
index of the translation is worthless as its contents are valuable.
Footnote 571:
Arab. “Su’ubán” = cockatrice, etc., vols. i. 172; vii. 322. Ibn
Khaldun (vol. iii. 350) tells us that it was the title of a famous and
fatal necklace of rubies.
Footnote 572:
In Ar. “Anakati-h.” [This is a very plausible conjecture of the
translator for the word written in the text: “’Anfakati-h” = the hair
between the lower lips and the chin, and then used for the chin
itself.—ST.]
Footnote 573:
In the text “Tisht” (a basin for the ewer), which I have translated
tray: these articles are often six feet in diameter.
Footnote 574:
A neat touch of realism: the youth is worn out by the genial labours
of the night which have made the bride only the merrier and the
livelier. It is usually the reverse with the first post-nuptial
breakfast: the man eats heartily and the woman can hardly touch solid
food. Is this not a fact according to your experience, Mesdames?
Footnote 575:
In text “Tazarghít” a scribal error for “Zaghrítah.” In Mr.
Doughty (ii. 621) “Zalághít” for “Zaghárit” and the former is
erroneously called a “Syrian word.” The traveller renders it by
“Lullul-lullul-lullul-lá.” [Immediately before, however, the
correct form “hiya tazaghritu,” she was lullilooing, had been used
The word occurs in numerous forms, differentiated by the
interchange of the dental and palatal “t” and of the liquid
letters “r” and “l.” Dozy gives: “Zaghrata,” “Zaghlata” and
“Zalghata” for the verb, and “Zaghrítah,” “Zaghrútah” (both with
pl. “Zaghárít”) “Zalghútah,” “Zalghatah” (both with pl.
“Zalághít”), and even a plural “Zaghálít” for the noun.—ST.]
Footnote 576:
In these cases usually an exception is made of brigands, assassins and
criminals condemned for felony. See Ibn Khaldun, iv. 189.
Footnote 577:
[In text: “biyarza’ fí Asábí-hi” (see supra p. 409). This is, as far
as I remember, the only instance where in the MS. the aorist is
preceded by the preposition “bi,” a construction now so common in the
popular dialects. Strange as it may appear at first sight, it has a
deep foundation in the grammatical sentiment, if I may say so, of the
Arabic language, which always ascribed a more or less nominal
character to the aorist. Hence its inflection by Raf’ (u), Nasb (a)
and Jazm (absence of final vowel), corresponding to the nominative,
accusative and oblique case of the noun. Moreover in the old language
itself already another preposition (“li”) was joined to the aorist.
The less surprising, therefore, can it be to find that the use of a
preposition in connection with it has so largely increased in the
modern idiom, where it serves to mark this semi-nominal character of
the aorist, which otherwise would be lost in consequence of the loss
of the vowel terminations. This interesting subject deserves a fuller
development, but I must reserve it for another opportunity—inshá
’lláh!—ST.]
Footnote 578:
[Again “yastanit” = he listened attentively; comp. note p. 24.—ST.]
Footnote 579:
In text “Zarb al-Aklám.”
Footnote 580:
Vol. iii. 247–261. This violation of the Harem is very common in
Egypt.
Footnote 581:
Arab. “Fadáwi,” here again = a blackguard, see vol. iv. 281.
Footnote 582:
The Irishman says, Sleep with both feet in one stocking.
Footnote 583:
Arab. or rather Egypt. “Bábúj,” from “Bábúg,” from the Pers.
“Pay-púsh” = foot-clothing, vulg. “Pápúsh.” To beat with shoe,
slipper, or pipe-stick is most insulting; the idea, I believe, being
that these articles are not made, like the rod and the whip, for
corporal chastisement, and are therefore used by way of slight. We
find the phrase “he slippered the merchant” in old diaries, _e.g._ Sir
William Ridges, 1683, Hakluyts, m dccc lxxvii.
Footnote 584:
Arab. “Sarmújah” = sandals, slippers, shoes, esp. those worn by
slaves.
Footnote 585:
Suggesting carnal need.
Footnote 586:
The young man being grown up did not live in his father’s house.
Footnote 587:
Arab. “Tartara.” The lexicons give only the sigs. “chattering” and so
forth. Prob. it is an emphatic reduplication of “Tarra” = sprouting,
pushing forward.
Footnote 588:
The youth plays upon the bride’s curiosity, a favourite topic in Arab.
and all Eastern folk-lore.
Footnote 589:
There is a confusion in the text easily rectified by the sequel. The
facetia suggests the tale of the Schildburgers, who on a fine summer’s
day carried the darkness out of the house in their caps and emptied it
into the sunshine which they bore to the dark room.
Footnote 590:
A kindly phrase popularly addressed to the returning traveller whether
long absent or not.
Footnote 591:
In the text “Hamákah.”
Footnote 592:
Arab. “Adi” which has occurred before.
Footnote 593:
This “little orgie,” as moderns would call it, strongly suggests the
Egyptian origin of the tale.
Footnote 594:
MS. vol. vi. 262–271. Arab. “’Adím al-Zauk” which the old Latin
dictionaries translate “destitutus experientiæ” and “expers
desiderii,” and it is = to our deficient in taste, manners, etc. The
term is explained in vol. ix. 266 (correct my General Index “ix.
206”). Here it evidently denotes what we call “practical joking,” a
dangerous form of fun, as much affected by Egyptians as by the
Hibernians.
Footnote 595:
In text “Wakálah” = an inn: vol. i. 266.
Footnote 596:
“’Ausaj,” for which the dictionaries give only a thorny plant, a
bramble.
Footnote 597:
The grand old Eastern or Desert-gate of Cairo: see vol. vi. 234.
Footnote 598:
Arab. “Thakálah,” lit. = heaviness, dulness, stupidity.
Footnote 599:
This is a mere “shot”: the original has “Baítharán.”
Footnote 600:
Arab. “Mayzah” = the large hall with a central fountain for ablution
attached to every great Mosque.
Footnote 601:
In the text “Shashmah,” from Pers. “Chashmah” a fountain; applied in
Egypt to the small privies with slab and hole; vol. i. 221.
Footnote 602:
[In Ar. “Unsak,” an expression principally used when drinking to one’s
health, in which sense it occurs, for instance, in the Bresl. ed. of
The Nights i. 395, 7.—ST.]
Footnote 603:
Arab. “Mutátí bi zahri-h”: our ancestors’ expression was not polite,
but expressive and picturesque.
Footnote 604:
The normal pun: “Fátihah,” fem. of “fátih” = an opener, a conqueror,
is the first Koranic chapter, for which see iv. 36.
Footnote 605:
This appears to be a kind of padding introduced to fill up the Night.
The loan of an ass is usually granted gratis in Fellah villages and
Badawi camps. See Matth. xxi. 2, 3; Mark xi. 2–6, and Luke xix. 30–34.
Footnote 606:
_i.e._ O Moslem, opposed to Enemy of Allah = a non-Moslem. In text Yá
’Ibád, plur. for sing.
Footnote 607:
Arab. “Kashshara” = grinned a ghastly smile; it also means laughing so
as show the teeth.
Footnote 608:
This tale follows “The Kazi of Baghdad, his treacherous Brother and
his Virtuous Wife,” which is nothing but a replica of “The Jewish Kazi
and his Pious Wife” (vol. v. 256). Scott has translated it, after his
fashion, in vol. vi. p. 396–408, and follows it up with “The Sultan’s
Story of Himself,” which ends his volume as it shall be the conclusion
of mine.
Footnote 609:
In text, “Wa yaakhazu ’l thalátha arbá’ min máli-hi wa salbi hálí-hi.”
Footnote 610:
In text, “La-hu Diráah (for “Diráyah” = prudence) fí tadbírí
’l-Mulúk.”
Footnote 611:
In text “Al-Sirru ’l-iláhi,” _i.e._ the soul, which is “divinæ
particula auræ.”
Footnote 612:
In text “Nuwájiru ’l-wukúfát.” [I read “nuwájiru (for “nuájiru”)
’l-wukúfát,” taking the first word to be a verb corresponding to the
preceding, “nabí’u,” and the second a clerical error for
“al-Maukúfát.” In this case the meaning would be: “and letting for
hire such parts of my property as were inalienable.”—ST.]
Footnote 613:
Here the text has the normal enallage of persons, the third for the
first, “the youth” for “I.” I leave it unaltered by way of specimen.
Footnote 614:
In text “’Arús muhallíyah.”
Footnote 615:
He fainted thinking of the responsibilities of whoso should sit
thereupon.
Footnote 616:
Here is a third enallage, the King returning to the first person, the
_oratio directa_.
Footnote 617:
_i.e._ “by Allah;” for “Bi” (the particle proper of swearing) see
viii. 310.
Footnote 618:
Here again is a fourth enallage; the scribe continuing the narrative.
Footnote 619:
_i.e._ well fed, sturdy and bonny.
Footnote 620:
“Sára lá-hu Shanán.” [The word in the text, which is exceedingly badly
written, looks to me as if it were meant for “Thániyan” = and he (the
youth) became second to him (the Sultan), _i.e._ his alter ego.—ST.]
Footnote 621:
In text “Yatama’ash min-hu.” [A denominative of the 5th form from
“Ma’ásh,” livelihood. It usually has the meaning of “earning one’s
living,” but occurs in Makkari’s Life of Ibn al-Khatíb also in the
sense of “feeding or glutting upon,” although applied there not to
victuals but to books.—ST.]
Footnote 622:
In text “Sára yuráshí-h.” [“Yuráshí” and “yuráshú,” which had occurred
p. 420, are the 6th form of “rashá, yarshú” = he bestowed a gift
(principally for the sake of bribery, hence “Rashwah” or “Rishwah” = a
bribe), he treated kindly.—ST.]
Footnote 623:
“Markab Mausúkah,” from ✓ “Wask” = conceiving, being pregnant, etc.
Footnote 624:
“Mutawassi * * * al-Wisáyat al-Támmah.” [“Mutawassí” has been met with
before (see p. 420) and “Wisáyah” is the corresponding noun = he
charged himself with (took upon himself) her complete charge, _i.e._
maintenance.—ST.]
Footnote 625:
[In Ar. “khallí-ná nak’ud,” a thoroughly modern expression. It reads
like a passage from Spitta Bey’s Contes Arabes Modernes, where such
phrases as: “khallí-ná niktib al-Kitáb,” let us write the marriage
contract, “ma-tkhallihsh (for “má takhallíhu shay”) yishúfak,” let him
not see thee, and the like are very frequent.—ST.]
Footnote 626:
“Fi Kashshi ’l-Markab:” According to custom in the East all the ship’s
crew had run on shore about their own business as soon as she cast
anchor. This has happened to me on board an Egyptian man-of-war where,
on arriving at Suez, I found myself the sum total of the crew.
Footnote 627:
In text, “Jílan ba’da Jíl:” the latter word = revolutions, change of
days, tribe, people.
Footnote 628:
The dénouement is a replica of “The Tale of the King who lost kingdom
and wife and wealth and Allah restored them to him” (Suppl. Nights,
vol. i. 319). That a Sultan should send his Ministers to keep watch
over a ship’s cargo sounds passably ridiculous to a European reader,
but a coffee-house audience in the East would find it perfectly
natural. Also that three men, the Sultan and his sons, should live
together for years without knowing anything of one another’s lives
seems to us an absurdity: in the case of an Oriental such detail would
never strike him even as impossible or even improbable.
Footnote 629:
Between Nights lxviii. and xci. (p. 401) the Nights are not numbered.
Footnote 630:
Here the numeration begins again.
Footnote 631:
In Ouseley he becomes a “King of Greece.”
Footnote 632:
The Arab. is “Ja’idi”: Scott has “Artizans or Sharpers”: Ouseley,
“labourers.”
Footnote 633:
Ouseley has “Story of the first foolish Man.”
Footnote 634:
In the Latin Catalogue he is called Agricola, and by Scott the
Husbandman.
Footnote 635:
In Ouseley he now becomes a King of Greece.
Footnote 636:
In Ouseley, “Bint-Ameen.”
Footnote 637:
In Arab. “Rujub al-Mutarmakh,” in the Lat. list “insipicus.”
Footnote 638:
In Ouseley “The Taylor, a story told by the Cauzee.”
Footnote 639:
In Scott “The Deformed Jester,” reading “Al-Ahdab” for “Al-Maskharat
al-Azib.”
Footnote 640:
In text “Al-Jalabí,” whence Ouseley and Scott’s “Mahummud Julbee.”
Footnote 641:
Further notes illustrative of this and the succeeding volumes will be
found in the Bibliography in Supp. Nights, vol vi. I frequently refer
to tales by their numbers in the Table (Nights, vol. x., pp. 514–530).
Footnote 642:
Veckenstedt, Mythen, Sagen und Legenden der Zamaiten, ii. pp. 160,
162.
Footnote 643:
Compare, too, Mr. Clouston’s “Book of Noodles,” chap. v., “The Silly
Son.”
Footnote 644:
Cf. “An Apology for the Character and Conduct of Shylock,” in a volume
of Essays published by a Society of Gentlemen in Exeter (1796), pp.
552–573.
Footnote 645:
This incident shews that the story belongs to the Grateful Beasts’
class, though it is not said that Tiomberombi had conferred any
benefit on the rats; it is only implied that he understood their
language.
Footnote 646:
Veckenstedt, Mythen, Sagen und Legenden der Zamaiten, i. pp. 163–166.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. P. 512, changed “the wolf and the fox” to “the wolf and the mouse”.
2. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.
3. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
4. Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers and collected together
at the end of the last chapter.
5. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
6. Enclosed bold font in =equals=.
7. Superscripts are denoted by a caret before a single superscript
character or a series of superscripted characters enclosed in
curly braces, e.g. M^r. or M^{ister}.