Note [4.] It is necessary to remark, that this and many other descriptions in the present work are not designed to be understood in their literal sense. The reader will often be required to make some allowance for Oriental hyperbole, and to distinguish between expressions characterised by this figure, and such as are purely accordant with Eastern grandeur and magnificence, or with Muslim superstition.

Note [5.] The end of the winnowing-fork bears a rude resemblance to a gigantic hand; having several long prongs of wood.

Note [6.] Instead of "ibreeḳ" (a ewer), in the Cairo edition, I read "abwáḳ" (trumpets), as in other editions.

Note [7.] This appellation has been mentioned in a former note, as signifying an evil Jinnee of the most powerful class.

Note [8.] It is a rule observed in decent society, by the Arabs, to avoid, as much as possible, the mention of opprobrious epithets, lest any person present should imagine such epithets to be addressed insidiously to himself. For this reason, when any malediction or offensive language is repeated in a story, it is usual with them to designate the object of such language by this term, which signifies both remote or absent from the person or persons in whose presence the words are repeated, and remote from virtue or good. In the present instance, "remote" is an epithet substituted by Shahrazád for some other of a gross nature, from respect to the king to whom she is relating the story.

Note [9.] I read "Ṣakhr el-Jinnee" for "Ṣakhr el-Jinn."—Ṣakhr was an evil Jinnee, and a terrible enemy of Solomon. His last act of treachery to that monarch, and his fate, are thus related by commentators on the Ḳur-án.—Solomon having, through negligence, suffered one of his women to practise idolatry under his roof, God saw fit to punish him. It was the custom of this King, on certain occasions, "to intrust his signet, on which his kingdom depended, with a concubine of his, named El-Emeeneh. One day, therefore, when she had the ring in her custody, a devil [or evil Jinnee], named Ṣakhr, came to her in the shape of Solomon, and received the ring from her; by virtue of which he became possessed of the kingdom, and sat on the throne in the shape which he had borrowed, making what alterations in the law he pleased. Solomon, in the meantime, being changed in his outward appearance, and known to none of his subjects, was obliged to wander about, and beg alms for his subsistence; till at length, after the space of forty days, which was the time the image had been worshipped in his house, the devil flew away, and threw the signet into the sea. The signet was immediately swallowed by a fish, which being taken and given to Solomon, he found the ring in its belly; and having by this means recovered the kingdom, he took Ṣakhr, and, tying a great stone to his neck, threw him into the Lake of Tiberias."[150]

Note [10.] "Umm-'Ámir" is an appellation of the hyena. It is scarcely necessary to mention, that the proverb here quoted is said to have originated from the fact of a man's having been devoured by a hyena whom he had aided against an enemy.

Note [11.] In some copies, the personage here mentioned is called "Melik el-Yoonán," that is, "King of Ancient Greece," or—"of the Ancient Greeks." I have followed the Cairo edition, and that of the first two hundred nights, printed at Calcutta, in which "Yoonán" is used as the King's proper name. See also Note 13.

Note [12.] This is the name of the sage in most copies; but in the Cairo edition he is called "Rooyán."

Note [13.] In the Calcutta edition, the king is merely said to have reigned "in the country of the Persians," as in my translation; but in the Cairo edition, he is said to have been "in the city of the Persians, and the country of Roomán;" which may perhaps mean (though this is hardly allowable) the [eastern] Roman, or later Greek, empire; an unnecessary contradiction. (See Note 22 to Chapter x.) It is obviously more agreeable with the story to regard him as a Persian King.