Who told the stories first, or in what tongue, we cannot surely say. When, from 1704 to 1712, Antoine Galland rubbed his translator's magic lamp, and spilled out the gold of the Mille et une Nuits before the delighted eyes of Europe, he hazarded the opinion that the Nights had come to Arabia from India, by way of Persia; but a hundred years later scholars were still arguing the respective claims of those three countries to the stories, and even now, another hundred years later, the end is not yet. Some authorities follow Galland back to India; others, like Burton, would stop at Persia; still others insist that the majority of the tales are Arabian in substance as in form. And questions of date remain equally unsettled. When were the earliest of the stories written? When were the latest? And when did the whole collection, known to Arabian readers as Kitab AlfLaylah wa Laylah, and to English readers as The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, or, more briefly and commonly, The Arabian Nights, take on its present form? Should thecompilation of immortal yarns spun by Shahrazad be assigned, assome would have it, to the thirteenth century, or, as others would haveit, to the fifteenth? Is it, indeed, a compilation, or the work of a single author?
Important though these questions may be, there is no reason to give space here to the various and lengthy arguments they have evoked, but it is only fitting that Sir Richard Burton, in his privileged role of translator of the Nights now spread before us, should be allowed to have his say; and if his word is not the last word, it is one that has not yet been discredited. He writes, in the Terminal Essay with which he closes his great translation:
"To conclude: From the data above given I hold myself justified in drawing the following deductions: --
1. The framework of the book is purely Persian perfunctorily arabised; the arch-type being the Hazer Afsanah.
2. The oldest tales, such as Sindbad(the Seven Wazirs)an
……