the most erroneous. The harp (i. 143) is the Irish and not the
Eastern, yet the latter has been shown in i. 228; and the “Kánún” (ii.
77) is a reproduction from Lane’s Modern Egyptians. The various Jinnis
are fanciful, not traditional, as they should be (see _inter alia_
Doughty’s Arabia Deserta, ii. 3, etc). In i. 81 and ii. 622 appears a
specimen bogie with shaven chin and “droopers” by way of beard and
mustachios: mostly they have bestial or simiad countenances with
rabbits’ ears, goats’ horns and so forth (i. 166, 169; ii. 97, 100),
instead of faces more or less human and eyes disposed perpendicularly.
The spreading yew-tree (i. 209) is utterly misplaced. In many the
action is excessive, after the fashion of the Illustrateds (i. 281;
356; 410 and 565; ii. 366, 374). The scymitar and the knife, held in
the left hand or slung by the left flank, are wholly out of order (i.
407; ii. 281, 374: iii. 460) and in iii. 355, the blade is wider than
the wielder’s waist. In i. 374 the astrolabe is also held in the left
hand. The features are classical as those of Arsinoë, certainly not
Egyptian, in i. 15; i. 479 and passim. The beggar-women must not
wander with faces bare and lacking “nose-bags” as in i. 512. The Shah
(i. 523) wears modern overalls strapped down over dress-_bottines_:
Moreover he holds a straight-bladed European court-sword, which is
correct in i. 527. The spears (i. 531) are European not Asiatic, much
less Arabian, whose beams are often 12–15 feet long. Aziz (i. 537) has
no right to tricot drawers and shoes tightened over the instep like
the chaussure of European _moutards_: his foot (i. 540) is wholly out
of drawing like his hand and the toes are European distortions. The
lady writing (i. 581) lacks all local colour; she should sit at squat,
support the paper in the hollow of her left instead of using a
portfolio, and with her right ply the reed or “pen of brass.” In vol
ii. 57 the lion is an absurdum, big as a cow or a camel and the same
caricature of the King of Beasts occurs elsewhere (i. 531; ii. 557 and
iii. 250). The Wazir (ii. 105) wears the striped caftan of a Cairene
scribe or shopkeeper. The two birds (ii. 140) which are intended for
hawks (see ii. 130) have the compact tails and the rounded-off wings
of pigeons. I should pity Amjad and As’ad if packed into a “bullock
trunk” like that borne by the mule in ii. 156. The Jew’s daughter (ii.
185) and the Wali of Bulak (ii. 504) carry European candlesticks much
improved in ii. 624. The Persian leach (ii. 195) is habited most
unlike an ’Ajami, while the costume is correct in ii. 275. The Badawi
mounts (ii. 263) an impossible Arab with mane and tail like the barb’s
in pictures. The streetdogs (ii. 265), a notable race, become European
curs of low degree. The mastage of the galleys (ii. 305) would suit a
modern racing-yacht. Utterly out of place are the women’s costumes
such as the Badawi maidens (ii. 335), Rose-in Hood (ii. 565), and the
girl of the Banú Odhrah (iii. 250), while the Lady Zubaydah (ii. 369)
is coiffée with a European coronet. The sea-going ship (ii. 615) is a
Dahabiyah fit only for the Nile. The banana-trees (ii. 621) tower at
least 80 feet tall and the palms and cocoa-nut trees (ii. 334; iii.
60) are indicated only by their foliage, not by their characteristic
boles. The box (ii. 624) is European and modern: in the Eastern
“Sakhkhárah” the lid fits into the top, thus saving it from the
“baggage-smasher.” In iii. 76, the elephant, single-handed, uproots a
tree rivalling a century-old English oak. The camel-saddle (iii. 247)
is neither Eastern nor possible for the rider, but it presently
improves (iii. 424 and elsewhere). The emerging of the Merfolk (iii.
262) is a “tableau,” a transformation-scene of the transpontine
pantomime, and equally theatrical is the attitude of wicked Queen Láb
(iii. 298), while the Jinni, snatching away Daulat Khatun (iii. 341)
seems to be waltzing with her in horizontal position. A sun-parasol,
not a huge Oriental umbrella, is held over the King’s head (iii. 377).
The tail-piece, the characteristic Sphinx (iii. 383) is as badly drawn
as it well can be, a vile caricature. Khalífah the Fisherman wears an
English night-gown (iii. 558) with the side-locks of a Polish Jew
(iii. 564). The dancing-girl (iii. 660) is equally reprehensible in
form, costume and attitude, and lastly, the Fellah ploughing (iii.
700) should wear a felt skull-cap in lieu of a turband, be stripped to
the waist and retain nothing but a rag around the middle.
I have carefully noted these lapses and incongruities: not the less,
however, I thoroughly appreciate the general excellence of the
workmanship, and especially the imaginative scenery and the
architectural designs of Mr. W. Harvey. He has shown the world how a
work of the kind should be illustrated, and those who would surpass
him have only to avoid the minor details here noticed.
Footnote 449:
See in M. Zotenberg’s “Alâ al-Dîn” the text generally; also p. 14.
Footnote 450:
Mr. Payne, in his Essay, vol ix., 281, computes less than two hundred
tales in all omitting the numerous incidentals; and he notices that
the number corresponds with the sum of the “Night-stories” attributed
to the Hazár Afsán by the learned author of the “Fihrist” (see
Terminal Essay, vol. x. pp. 71–73). In p. 367 (ibid.) he assumes the
total at 264.
Footnote 451:
This parlous personage thought proper to fall foul of me (wholly
unprovoked) in the _Athenæum_ of August, 25, ’88. I give his
production in full:—
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE.
_August 18, 1888._
In the notice of Sir R. Burton’s “Life” in to-day’s _Athenæum_ it
is mentioned that his biographer says that Capt. Burton proposed
to march with his Bashi-bazuks to the relief of Kars, but was
frustrated by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who, according to Sir
Richard, “gained a prodigious reputation in Europe, chiefly by
living out of it.”
This is a strange inversion of facts. The proposal to relieve Kars
by way of Redout-kalé and Kutais originated, not with Capt.
Burton, but with the Turkish Seraskier, who recommended for this
purpose the employment of Vivian’s Turkish Contingent and part of
Beatson’s Horse (“his Bashi-bazuks,”) in which Capt. Burton held a
staff appointment. In the last days of June, 1855, General
Mansfield, Lord Stratford’s military adviser, was in constant
communication on this subject with the Turkish Ministers, and the
details of the expedition were completely arranged to the
satisfaction of military opinion, both British and Turkish, at
Constantinople. Lord Stratford officially recommended the plan to
his Government, and in his private letters to the Foreign
Secretary strongly urged it upon him, and expressed a sanguine
hope of its success. But on July 14th, Lord Clarendon telegraphed:
“The plan for reinforcing the army at Kars contained in your
despatches of 30th June and 1st inst. is disapproved.” Lord
Panmure really “frustrated” the Turkish plan; Lord Stratford never
“frustrated” any attempt to succour the Army of Asia, but,
contrariwise, did all in his power to forward the object.
As to the amiable reference to the Great Elchi’s reputation, no
one knows better than Sir R. Burton by what queer methods
reputations may be annexed; but it is strange that anyone with the
reputation of a traveller should consider Constantinople to be
“out of Europe.”
S. LANE-POOLE.
The following was my reply:—
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE AND MR. S. LANE-POOLE.
_London, Aug. 26, 1888._
Will you kindly spare me space for a few lines touching matters
personal?
I am again the victim (_Athenæum_, August 25) of that everlasting
_réclame_. Mr. S. Lane-Poole has contracted to “do” a life of Lord
Stratford, and, _ergo_, he condemns me, in magistral tone and a
style of uncalled-for impertinence, to act as his “advt.” In
relating how, by order of the late General Beatson, then
commanding Bash-buzuk (_Bashi-bazuk_ is the advertiser’s own
property), I volunteered to relieve Kars, how I laid the project
before the “Great Eltchee,” how it was received with the roughest
language and how my first plan was thoroughly “frustrated.” I have
told a true tale, and no more. “A strange perversion of facts,”
cries the sapient criticaster, with that normal amenity which has
won for him such honour and troops of unfriends: when his name was
proposed as secretary to the R.A.S., all prophesied the speediest
dissolution of that infirm body.
I am aware that Constantinople is _not_ geographically “out of
Europe.” But when Mr. S. Lane-Poole shall have travelled a trifle
more he may learn that ethnologically it is. In fact, most of
South-Eastern Europe holds itself more or less non-European; and
when a Montenegrin marries a Frenchwoman or a German, his family
will tell you that he has wedded a “European.”
“No one knows better than Sir R. Burton by what queer methods
reputation may be annexed.” Heavens, what English! And what may
the man mean? But perhaps he alludes in his own silly, saltless,
sneering way to my _Thousand Nights and a Night_, which has shown
what the “Uncle and Master’s” work should have been. Some two
generations of _poules mouillées_ have reprinted and republished
Lane’s “Arabian Notes” without having the simple honesty to
correct a single _bévue_, or to abate one blunder; while they
looked upon the _Arabian Nights_ as their own especial rotten
borough. But more of this in my tractate, “The Reviewer Reviewed,”
about to be printed as an appendix to my Supplemental Volume, No.
vi.
RICHARD F. BURTON.
And here is the rejoinder (_Athenæum_, September 8):—
LORD STRATFORD AND SIR R. BURTON.
_September 4, 1888._
Sir R. Burton, like a prominent Irish politician, apparently
prefers to select his own venue, and, in order to answer my letter
in the _Athenæum_ of August 25, permits himself in the _Academy_
of September 1 an exuberance of language which can injure no one
but himself. Disregarding personalities, I observe that he
advances no single fact in support of the statements which I
contradicted, but merely reiterates them. It is a question between
documents and Sir R. Burton’s word.
S. LANE-POOLE.
It is not a question between documents and my word, but rather of the
use or abuse of documents by the “biographer.” My volunteering for the
relief of Kars was known to the whole camp at the Dardanelles, and my
visit to the Embassy at Constantinople is also a matter of
“documents.” And when Mr. S. Lane-Poole shall have produced his I will
produce mine.
Footnote 452:
It appears to me that our measures, remedial and punitive, against
“pornographic publications” result mainly in creating “vested
interests” (that English abomination) and thus in fostering the work.
The French printer, who now must give name and address, stamps upon
the cover _Avis aux Libraires_ under _Edition privée_ and adds _Ce
volume ne doit pas être mis en vente ou exposé dans les lieux publics_
(_Loi du 29 Juillet, 1881_). He also prints upon the back the number
of copies for sale. We treat “pornology” as we handle prostitution,
unwisely ignore it, well knowing the while that it is a natural and
universal demand of civilised humanity; and whereas continental
peoples regulate it and limit its abuses we pass it by, Pharisee-like
with _nez en-l’air_. Our laws upon the subject are made only to be
broken and the authorities are unwilling to persecute, because by so
doing they advertise what they condemn. Thus they offer a premium to
the greedy and unscrupulous publisher and immensely enhance the value
of productions (“Fanny Hill” by Richard Cleland for instance) which,
if allowed free publication would fetch pence instead of pounds. With
due diffidence, I suggest that the police be directed to remove from
booksellers’ windows and to confiscate all indecent pictures, prints
and photographs; I would forbid them under penalty of heavy fines to
expose immoral books for sale, and I would leave “cheap and nasty”
literature to the good taste of the publisher and the public. Thus we
should also abate the scandal of providing the secretaries and
officers of the various anti-vice societies with libraries of
pornological works which, supposed to be escheated or burned, find
their way into the virtuous hands of those who are supposed to destroy
them.
Footnote 453:
“Quand aux manuscrits de la rédaction égyptienne, l’omission de cet
épisode parait devoir être attribuée à la tendance qui les caractérise
généralement, d’abréger et de condenser la narrative” (loc. cit. p. 7:
see also p. 14).
Footnote 454:
Here I would by no means assert that the subject matter of The Nights
is exhausted; much has been left for future labourers. It would be
easy indeed to add another five volumes to my sixteen, as every
complete manuscript contains more or less of novelty. Dr. Pertsch, the
learned librarian of Saxe-Gotha, informs me that no less than two
volumes are taken up by a variant of Judar the Egyptian (in my vol.
vi. 213) and by the History of Zahir and Ali. For the Turkish version
in the _Bibliothèquè Nationale_ see M. Zotenberg (pp. 21–23). The Rich
MS. in the British Museum abounds in novelties, of which a specimen
was given in my Prospectus to the Supplemental Volumes.
In the French Scholar’s “Alâ al-Dîn” (p. 45) we find the MSS. of The
Nights divided into three groups. No. i. or the Asian (a total of ten
specified) are mostly incomplete and usually end before the half of
the text. The second is the Egyptian of modern date, characterised by
an especial style and condensed narration and by the nature and
ordinance of the tales; by the number of fables and historiettes, and
generally by the long chivalrous Romance of Omar bin al-Nu’umán. The
third group, also Egyptian, differs only in the distribution of the
stories.
Footnote 455:
My late friend who brought home 3,000 copies of inscriptions from the
so called Sinai, which I would term in ancient days the Peninsula of
Paran, and in our times the Peninsula of Tor.
Footnote 456:
See M. Zotenberg, pp. 4, 26.
Footnote 457:
M. Zotenberg (p. 5) wrote _la seconde moitie du xiv^{e.} Siècle_, but
he informed me that he has found reason to antedate the text.
Footnote 458:
I regret the necessity of exposing such incompetence and errors which
at the time when Lane wrote were venial enough: his foolish friend,
however, by unskilful and exaggerated pretensions and encomiums
compels me to lay the case before the reader.
Footnote 459:
This past tense, suggesting that an act is complete, has a present
sense in Arabic and must be translated accordingly.
Footnote 460:
Quite untrue: the critic as usual never read and probably never saw
the subject of his criticism. In this case I may invert one of my
mottoes and write “To the foul all things are foul.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. P. 38, changed “and his and” to “and his end”.
2. P. 124, changed “הנות” to “חנות”.
3. P. 240, changed “bare her away” to “bear her away”.
4. P. 268, changed “Allah strike the dead” to “Allah strike thee dead”.
5. P. 368, changed “I do not know the German edition” to “I do not know
what the German edition”.
6. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.
7. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
8. Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers and collected together
at the end of the last chapter.
9. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
10. Enclosed bold font in =equals=.
11. Superscripts are denoted by a caret before a single superscript
character, e.g. M^r.