As with all of the hardcover Library of Arabic Literature, this is a lovely little book-artifact. Nice sturdy binding, thick pages, beautiful printing (especially the Arabic) and insightful and informative sections about the work and translation. Due to their slightly larger size, I think I like these editions a bit more than both the Murty and Dumbarton Oaks editions, though the three imprints are certainly high on my list of “must buy” books.
For those only passingly aware of this work, it is not in fact an annotated/condensed version of the vastly more popular 1001 Nights. In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that most people are likely not aware of this work at all, it’s just easy to lump it in with the other in your mind. Prior to reading this volume I knew - at most - that they were two distinct works, but knew basically nothing else going in.
The two book are in fact similar, in that they both are built around the same frame-tale. The introduction provides a pretty fascinating overview of the frame-tale itself, and shows that it precedes both of these works, and that the first instance of the tale is not actually known. It also shows that the frame-tale originally contained an extra part where (in this frame tale the two cuckolded men are brothers) the two brothers are forced to have sex with the wife of a demon while the demon sleeps nearby. This kind of nebulous Ur-Frame-Tale is pretty fascinating. As well, both the introduction and Note on the Text are fascinating looks at the difficulty to ascribe a date and origin to the work; as well as the differences between manuscripts of the work.
Both Nights also contain the tales “The Story of the Prince and the Seven Viziers” and “The Tale of the Ebony Horse”, but that’s really where their overlap ends. The 101 nights consists of only 17 stories (told over the course of 101 nights) while the 1001 contains around 260 (“around” due to lack of authoritative version of the work) – the 17 works in the 101 are of fairly consistent length, while those in the 1001 vary pretty wildly.
The stories here are pretty straightforward, and demonstrate a simplicity of narrative – problems are presented, problems are resolved, typically one after another. The interesting thing about these stories is that they share many similarities with pulp fiction being written in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s – possibly those later works are a little more sophisticated in their narratives, but it’s striking how little this type of tale had evolved over the centuries (and how much it’s evolved over just the last century). The one tale of more-interesting formation is “The Story of the Prince and the Seven Viziers”, which is structured much like Nights themselves – a collection of stories inside a frame – which is mildly interesting when considering that it is itself a story already within a frame (though, of course, Chaucer did it better).
There is a great deal of troubling misogyny here – most problems are caused by women and their wiles; casual rape and references to rape; casual killing of women; etc – and I’m sure some of it can be brushed under the rug with the “time and place” argument, there are plenty of works that originated around this time that are not quite so misogynistic. So, progressive fiction this is not.
So how do you a judge a book like this? It’s probably somewhere in the realm of 800+ years old, and was only translated at all within the last century, and this marks the first time it is available in English. As with many works like this, you have to consider it as more than just the book itself, but also consider its place in history, its importance in being available to a new audience – this sort of antiquity needs to be preserved and available. So: the stories that make up the 101 Nights, those are probably more like three stars. The rating up above? That’s for the book-artifact in its entirety. I point this out because these editions are pricey, and if funds are limited you might want to look past the 5-star review.