The Three Apple’s– Payne and Scott

This is the paragraph from Payne’s version:

“About mid-day a great ugly black slave came into the bazaar, having in his hand one of the three apples, with which he was playing; so I called to him and said, “Prithee, good slave, tell me whence thou hadst that apple, that I may get the fellow to it.” He laughed and answered, “I had it of my mistress; for I had been absent and on my return I found her lying ill, with three apples by her side: and she told me that the cuckold her husband had made a journey for them to Bassora, where he had bought them for three dinars. So I ate and drank with her and took this one from her.” When I heard this, the world grew black in my eyes, and I rose and shut my shop and went home, beside myself for excess of rage. I looked for the apples and finding but two of them, said to my wife, “Where is the third apple?” Quoth she, “I know not what is come of it.” This convinced me of the truth of the slave’s story, so I took a knife and coming behind her, without word said, got up on her breast and cut her throat; after which I hewed her in pieces and wrapping her in her veil and a piece of carpet, sewed the whole up hurriedly in the basket. Then I put the basket in the chest and locking it up, set it on my mule and threw it into the Tigris with my own hands.”

This is the similar section in Scott’s version:

“This account rendered me distracted. I rose, shut up my shop, ran home with all speed, and going to my wife’s chamber, looked immediately for the apples, and seeing only two, asked what was become of the third. My wife, turning her head to the place where the apples lay, and perceiving there were but two, answered me coldly, “Cousin, I know not what is become of it.” At this reply I was convinced what the slave had told me was true; and giving myself up to madness and jealousy, drew my knife from my girdle, and thrust it into the unfortunate creature’s throat. I afterwards cut off her head, and divided her body into four quarters, which I packed up in a bundle, sewed it up with a thread of red yarn, put all together in a trunk, and when night came, carried it on my shoulder down to the Tigris, where I sunk it. The two youngest of my children were asleep, the third was out; but at my return, I found him sitting by my gate, weeping. I asked him the reason; “Father,” said he, “I took this morning from my mother, without her knowledge, one of those three apples you brought her, and kept it a long while; but, as I was playing some time ago with my little brother in the street, a tall slave passing by snatched it out of my hands, and carried it away. I ran after him, demanding it back, and besides told him, that it belonged to my mother, who was sick; and that you had made a fortnight’s journey to procure it; but all to no purpose, he would not restore it. And as I still followed him, crying out, he turned and beat me, and then ran away as fast as he could”

Analysis:

Although the story line was almost exactly the same in both translations, there were some obvious differences. In Payne’s version, the whole story is listed under “The Three Apples”. When Scott wrote their version, the story is divided into “sub stories” (not sure if this is the proper wording). The paragraph from Scott’s version above is actually from a sub story called “The Lady who was Murdered, and the Young Man her Husband”. When you read Scott’s version of “The Three Apples” it seems to end really abruptly if you don’t know that there is another section that follows it. Payne’s version above was still from “The Three Apples” which made it easier to follow the story.

Another difference in this section is how the slave is used as a character. In Payne’s version, the slave states that he ate and drank with the mans wife and subtly implies that he slept with the mans ill wife and then stole the apple from her. In Scott’s version the slave states that he got the apple because he stole it from one of the kids (the man’s son) playing in the street with it. It makes more sense why the man would kill his wife in Payne’s version but in Scott’s translation it seems irrational to kill the wife when it was the son’s fault that the slave had the apple.

The way the wife was put into the river was also different in each translation. In Payne’s version he wrapped the wife in a vail and carpet. In Scott’s translation he just cut the wife up and tied her up with yarn and threw her in a trunk.

The language was also different in both of these translations. Payne’s translation uses older English vocabulary where as Scott’s translation uses mostly words that are used today. This is interesting because  Payne’s translation is dated back to around 1882-1884 and Scott’s translation, which I found easier to read,  was written in 1811. Both Payne and Scott lived in England, but Payne lived in London and Scott lived in Shrewsbury. It can be argued that Scott made his translation with easier vocabulary to appeal to a wide audience, whereas Payne may have made his translation so difficult so that it was only appealing to people with strong vocabulary and high levels of education.