Introduction 
11 
when we compare them with the nameless bestiali-
ties of Kwaw, or the frank paederasty of Abdullah. 
But, apart from the fact that paederasty :  forni-
cation :  ‘ St-George ’ :  ‘ matrimonial ’ in Persia and 
England respectively, we may at least suspend 
judgment while we consider this symbolism in de-
tail with a view to discovering why (unless from 
caprice) el Haji chose this particular indulgence to 
mirror that supreme passion of the human heart, 
the craving for unity with the All-One. 
“ Make room for me ” quoth the poet of Salaman 
and Absal, “ on that divan which is only large 
enough for one ! ” 
Now I shall waste my rime if I prove that some-
thing in the nature of sexual intercourse is the 
most fitting image of that passion ;  for our Chris-
tian theologian, anxious to avoid the reproach of 
the scoffer who quotes such passages as “ Me be-
loved put in his hand by the hole, and my bowels 
were moved in me ” (Cant. v.4), have built a great 
rampart of argument to that effect.2  But Abdullah 
no doubt considered that the specific differences 
between man and woman vitiated the symbol, 
since man is formed in the image of God, and in 
Muslim theology is not supposed to have forfeited 
the same.  It may here be remarked (as a bulwark 
to this contention) that el Haji is conspicuous — in 
fact, incurs reproach in consequence — for his in-
novation in the matter of scientific precision.  Hafiz 
uses his symbols vaguely :  the tresses of his mi-
stress are no doubt the Glories of God, but they 
are also at times the rays of the sun, the verses of 
the Q’uran, and so on ;  wherefore an uninstructed 
pupil, or an inquisitive Sahib, or an unauthorised 
Sufi, one of those who ‘ creep, and intrude, and 
climb into the fold ’, cannot, by possession of the 
elementary keys, unlock the Holy of Holies of the 
‘ hikmat-i-Illahi ’.  It is as a violator of the Magian 
secrecy, even more than as a Christianizer, that