Scheherezade

Hmm, this was a strange one.

Firstly - I love the Arabian Nights, or The Thousand Nights and One Night, however you wish to call it, and my copy, running to four volumes over 2000 pages is translated by E. Powys Mathers, published by Folio Society is excellent.

For this one to be titled Scheherezade, and then not follow up with any of the setup for the stories, to not even mention the Viziers Daughter is a madness in itself. The four stories offered up here are simply four packaged tales, with none of the introduction involving King Shahryar, his wife the queen, his vizier and Scheherezade.
But I have got ahead of my self.

If I were judging this book on the dust jacket artwork, or the illustrations at the start of each of the four stories, it would be 5 stars hands down - they are very good. (Illustrations by Asgeir Scott.)

So to the introduction, from Arberry, the translator. The Blurb already has a go at Burtons translation, stating that its “antiquarian style misrepresents the colloquial vigour of the Arabic”. In the introduction he refers to John Payne (another translator) as “the erudite and painstaking antiquarian”, returning to Burton to call him “Burton the joyous pornographer” (not totally untrue) before pointing out that Burton had criticised the translation of Edward William Lane. Arberry then goes on to quote passages from both Burton and Lane indicating there were few differences! Then referring to Lane as “the candid if rather humdrum translator”, and then having a crack at Stanley Lane-Poole (nephew of Lane, and translator of Aladdin) stating “his rendering, not infrequently impaired by inaccuracy and misunderstanding...”, and so on to the stories, and Arberry's translation.

The story of Aladdin is a strange one for what Arberry refered to as “the first volume of Scheherezade” (I can't find a record of any subsequent volume) given that Aladdin is not an original story of the Arabian Nights, but thought to have been added in the 18th Century. Nevertheless a great story, although here are some examples of Arberry's “modern idiom”, which felt uncomfortable for me to read, unlike the Mather translation I am more familiar with (my bold):
“...Now you haven't any excuses left, mother. Stir your stumps, take the dish, and off with you to the palace.” [P59]
“That's all for now, thanks,” Aladdin answered. “That will do me nicely for the present.” [P68]
There were others, but I neglected to note them down as I read.

The other minor irritation I have is where the translator replaces detail with the the filler “so and so”, eg:
“Boy,” he said, ‘aren't you the son of So-and-so, the Tailor?” - why not just use the name - does it not fit in “modern idiom”?
Not just a few times is this substitution used.

Like Aladdin, the other stories in this collection are also good, and worth the read, but for me I prefer the other translations I have read.

Artwork - 5 Self aggrandising introduction - 1
Selection of the 4 stories - 3Not mentioning Scheherezade or the sequence setup - 1
The stories - 5The translation - 3

So, this feels like not more than 3* overall!