[316] The farsakh, or farsang, or parsang, is a measure of distance in Persia, and contains at the present day about 3 3/4 English miles.  Herodotus reckoned the [Greek:  pasasaggaes]; in his time at 30 Grecian stadia.

[317] Salsabil is the name of a fountain of Paradise, according to Muhammadan belief.

[318] The student is of course aware that in most languages a question is frequently equivalent to a negative, as in this sentence.  A sapient critic, to whom I have more than once alluded, was pleased to honour me with the following profound remark on the reading given in the original, viz.—­“There is a slip here in Forbes’s edition, as well as the Calcutta one.  The word nahin, ‘not,’ is omitted, which destroys the whole sense!!!”

[319] The kaliyan (or as the moderns say, kaliyun) is the Persian hukka.

[320] This is, as the vulgate hath it, “coming it a little too strong;” but be it remembered that Oriental story-tellers do not mar the interest of their narrative by a slavish adherence to probability.

[321] Here the king Azad Bakht speaks in his own person, and addresses himself to the four darweshes.

[322] With regard to the essence of bed-mushk vide note 2, page 42.

[323] The image of the Divine power in that country of Pagans.

[324] Vide note 3, page 30, respecting the chilla, or “period of forty.”

[325] That is to say, she had never seen a Muhammadan at his prayers.

[326] Lat and Manat were the two great idols of Hindu worship in former times.

[327] In the languages of southern India, Turk is the general appellation for a Musalman.

[328] The chaman is a small garden or parterre, which is laid out before the sitting room in the interior of the women’s apartments; it means in general, parterres of flowers.

[329] The original uses a much stronger expression.

[330] Literally, the poison of the halahal, as expression used to denote poison of the strongest kind.  The halahal is a fabulous poison, said to have been produced from the ocean on the churning of it by the gods and daityas. Our critic says, on this word, that it means “deadly!!!” will he favour us with some authority on that point, better than his own?

[331] On the phrase, do mahine men, our critic comes out in great force.  He says, “Mir Amman here sins against grammar; it should be, do mahinon men!!!” The critic is not aware, that when a noun follows a numeral it never requires the inflection plural en, except when it is to be rendered more definite?  In reality, Mir Amman would be wrong if he had employed the reading recommended by the sapient critic; do mahine men means “in two months;” do mahinon men “in the two months” (previously determined upon).