^{page 569 note 1} Or Kay-Khusraw I, one of the Seljúqs of Rúm. See Lane's, Mohammadan Dynasties, p. 155Google Scholar, and the genealogical table facing p. 152. Lane's statement of the duration of his reign (a.h. 588–597) hardly agrees with the date here given. I follow the MS. throughout, but probably (with Lane) we should read “Sulaymán b. [Ghází] Qutalmish (or ‘Qutlumish’),” taking Ghází merely as a title.

^{page 570 note 1} In a tradition of Abú Dhar cited in the Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída (composed in A.H. 730 = A.D. 1330) by Ḥamdu'lláh Mustawfí of Qazwín) we find it stated that the total number of Prophets was 124,000, of whom 313 were ‘Apostles’ , as opposed to mere ‘Preachers’ or ‘Warners’ . The tradition runs as follows in one of the MSS. (DD. 3. 23) in the Cambridge University Library (f. 8^a):—

The word ‘Point’ (nuqṭa) in the passage to which this note refers appears to be used in the sense in which it is employed by the Bábís, as meaning ‘Manifestation,’ ‘Apparition.’

^{page 572 note 1} The connection is not obvious, but we are reminded of a feature in the well-known story of the quarrel between the Nidhámu'l-Mulk and Hasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ, the latter having excited the King's cupidity by declaring himself able to increase largely the revenues of the State, presumably by additional taxation. Some colour is given to this part of the story by passages in the Nidhamu'l-Mulk's Siyasat-nama, where he solemnly warns the King his master of the direct responsibility which lies on him for any extortion practised by his agents or his subjects, and where he devotes a whole chapter to denouncing the admission of heretics into State employ: see Schefer's edition of this interesting work passim, especially pp. 138 et seqq. The word seems always to be used in a bad sense, meaning ‘satellite,’ ‘myrmidon,’ in Persian, as in the following couplet from the Mathnawi of JaUlu'd-Din Rumi —

“The husband was as sorry for what he had said as is the myrmidon in the hour of death for his misdeeds.”

^{page 574 note 1} By Dawlatsáh (p. 114 of my edition) it is ascribed to Dhahíra'd-Dín Fáryábí.

^{page 576 note 1} I cannot understand these verses, and so have copied them as they stand in the MS., but I suspect that in the first we should read (the latter, as in the second quatrain, for , and perhaps for .

^{page 577 note 1} This verse is cited by Dawlatsáh (p. 6, 1. 23 of my edition), who ascribes it to Nidhámí.

^{page 581 note 1} Its meaning is discussed in Kazimirski's ed. of the Díván, p. .

^{page 583 note 1} Compare a very similar story about ‘Alí at the end of the first book of the Mathnawí of Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí.

^{page 585 note 1} Tughril Beg's name is omitted in this place in the MS. I supply it from f. 46^a where the account of his reign is given.

^{page 585 note 2} The omission of Maḥmúd b. Maliksháh, whose name should come here, whether it be intentional or not, occurs also in the text. From a passage on f. 58^a however, it would appear that the author regarded him as a usurper, or at least as not de facto king.

^{page 585 note 3} The omission at this point of Dá'úd (who reigned, according to Lane, one year, a.h. 525–6) seems likewise to be intentional, no separate article being consecrated to him in the text.

^{page 589 note 1} An article on this poet by Zhukovski appeared at pp. 104–108 of the Zapisski of the Oriental Section of the Imperial Russian Archæological Society for 1901 (vol. xiii, part 4). See also Mr. E. Heron-Allen's recently published Lament of Bābā Ṭāhir (Quaritch, 1902).

^{page 590 note 1} The MS, is too ancient to distinguish, as a rule, between and , so that this name is generally written , but on f. 45^a, 1. 4, we find .

^{page 592 note 1} Cf. Houtsma's note on p. 8 of Bundárí. Both spellings, and , occur in our MS.

^{page 592 note 2} Cf. my edition of Dawlatsháh, pp. 34–35.

^{page page 593 note 1} Similar instances of the employment of texts of the Qur'án to convey the purport of an official dispatch will be found in the first discourse of the Chahár Maqála, e.g. p. 27 of the separate reprint of my translation ( = J.R.A.S. for 1899, p. 639).

^{page 599 note 1} Cf. J.R.A.S. for 1901, pp. 667–8.

^{page 599 note 2} Cf. J.R.A.S. for 1901, p. 421.

^{page 601 note 1} Cf. Hisám's, IbnBiography of the Prophet, ed. , Wustenfeld, p. 42Google Scholar.

^{page 602 note 1} Pointing and pronunciation uncertain; here written , lower (f. 61^b) and (f. 62^b) .

^{page 604 note 1} Added in margin: .

^{page 604 note 2} This is definitely stated on f. 66^a

^{page 605 note 1} Cf. pp. 102–104 (Anecdote xxix) of my translation of the Ghahár Maqála. For the following valuable note I am indebted to Mr. T. A. Archer. “As to one of the people mentioned in your translation,” he writes, “I can possibly give you a little information that may be new to you. I refer to the Ṣadaqa on pp. 102–3 [of the Chahár Maqála], who is there called by the strange title of ‘King of the Arabs.’ This is, I think, beyond any doubt ‘Sadaka’ (or ‘Sadaca,’ as the French translations spell the word), lord of Hillah, and, according to one thirteenth-century Arabic historian, if my memory does not fail me, ‘founder’ (sic) of that place. He was a most remarkable man, very famous for his love of letters and his large collection of books; a collection all the more remarkable in that, if my memory does not fail me again, he could not, according to the same Arabic chronicler, read himself. He appears to have been somewhat of a heretic (a Shiite, I suppose). and died in battle against the ‘Abbásid Caliph and Muḥammad the Sultan early in March, a.d. 1108 (March 4 or 5, according to my calculation). The Arabic chroniclers, if I remember right, speak of him as Nidhámí does, by the strange title ‘King of the Arabs,’ and, what is more curious still, the title ‘King of the Arabs’ passed on to his son, the still more famous Dubays, who figures more than once in actual crusading history as warring against the Norman Crusaders in the principality of Antioch, many of these Normans being—to judge from their sur-names—members of well-known English families (I mean of Norman families settled in England). Walter, the Chancellor of Antioch, who was actually taken prisoner by Dubays and his allies in A.D. 1119, always speaks of Dubays as ‘rex Arabum’ (Nidhámí's title for his father); and even William of Tyre, writing about 60 years later, knew that he was an Arab chief, for he refers to him as ‘satrapa potentissimus Arabum.’ I may add that you will find a fairly detailed account of Ṣadaqa himself in lbnu'l-Athir, under, I believe, the year a.h. 501.”

^{page 608 note 1} The MS. reads Mu'ayyidu'l - Mulk, but this must be an error. See p. 604 supra.

^{page 608 note 2} Bundárí (p. 92) regards all these charges against Sa'du'l-Mulk as mere calumnies.

^{page 609 note 1} The same was done (but with bullets for arrows) to Mírzá. ‘Alí Muḥammad the Báb when he was put to death at Tabríz in the summer of 1850.

^{page 609 note 2} This story is very well known, but the individual concerned is seldom named. It occurs in ‘Awfí's Jawámi'u'l-Hikáyát, and is cited from there in the chrestomathy at the end of Salemann and Zhukovski's Persische Grammatik.