in."

The first proofs (pp. 1-144) of Vol. ii. were read by Burton in October
1882, and returned by him October 21st. In his letter to Mr. Payne of
that date he says, "It will only be prudent to prepare for an attack. I
am perfectly ready to justify a complete translation of the book. And if
I am obliged to say what I think about Lane's Edition there will be hard
hitting. Of course I wish to leave his bones in peace, but --- may
make that impossible. Curious to see three editions of the 1,000 Nights
advertised at the same time, not to speak of the bastard. [363] I return
you nine sheets [of proofs] by parcels post registered. You have done
your work very well, and my part is confined to a very small amount of
scribble which you will rub out at discretion."

Subsequently Burton observed that Mr. Payne required no assistance of
any kind; and therefore he re-refused to accept remuneration for reading
the proofs. Naturally, they differed, as Arabists all do, upon certain
points, but on all subjects save two Burton allowed that Mr. Payne's
opinion was as good as his own.

The first concerned the jingles in the prose portions of the Nights,
such as "The trees are growing and the waters flowing and Allah all good
bestowing." Burton wanted them to be preserved, but to this Mr. Payne
could not consent, and he gives the reasons in his Terminal Essay.
The second exception was the treatment of the passages referring to a
particular subject; and this indicates to us clearly the difference in
the ideas and aims of the two men. Of artistry, of what FitzGerald calls
"sinking and reducing," Burton had no notion. "If anything is in any
redaction of the original, in it should go," he said. "Never mind how
shocking it may be to modern and western minds. If I sin, I sin in good
company--in the company of the authors of the Authorised Version of the
Bible, who did not hesitate to render literatim certain passages which
persons aiming simply at artistic effect would certainly have omitted."

Payne on the other hand was inclined to minimise these passages as much
as possible. Though determined that his translation should be a complete
one, yet he entirely omitted coarsenesses whenever he could find excuse
to do so--that is to say, when they did not appear in all the texts. If
no such excuse existed he clothed the idea in skilful language. [364]
Nothing is omitted; but it is of course within the resources of literary
art to say anything with