Question about a book

[serhanbener]

The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night is sold in Amazon nearly for a price of 60£. It is paperback. Do you know why is it so expensive?

[Intuition]

Maybe it's OOP?

[serhanbener]

They are selling it in entire Amazon. If you by it volume by volume it is nearly 30USD a volume.

[Intuition]

Give me the link, if possible, I will check.

[serhanbener]

Give me the link, if possible, I will check.

http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415045438/

[Intuition]

I located this version on amazon.com... it happens to be out of print, or largely unavailable: "--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title."

This is most likely the case because I noticed that each volume in paperback is 28.00$+ whereas each digital copy (kindle version) is around seven dollars at maximum. The price difference varies too largely.

[Intuition]

My advice to you would be (if you're set on getting this version) to buy an ebook reader... as you could most likely buy this set for around 40 dollars U.S. instead of 100 dollars. Of course, the ebook reader would cost quite a bit, but it would most likely be a good long run investment if you read avidly.

[Calidore]

Oh, the Mardrus-Mathers one. I've got that and while I've only read vol. 1 so far, I enjoyed it.

Be advised that this version is a double-translation, English from a "literal French translation" from the original Arabic. It also tends to get knocked down for having not been translated by the "official" manuscripts and for including extraneous stories. However, the quality of the writing gets praise, especially the translated poetry.

Apparently a new modern translation of the complete work by Malcolm Lyons was published last year. You may want to have a look at that.

[JCamilo]

Mardrus is considered one of the best translators of the Nights, but as Calidore pointed, it is not an english translation, so you may enjoy another edition.

[serhanbener]

Many Thanks.I decided to wait. I hope the prices decline.

[serhanbener]

Oh, the Mardrus-Mathers one. I've got that and while I've only read vol. 1 so far, I enjoyed it.

Be advised that this version is a double-translation, English from a "literal French translation" from the original Arabic. It also tends to get knocked down for having not been translated by the "official" manuscripts and for including extraneous stories. However, the quality of the writing gets praise, especially the translated poetry.

Apparently a new modern translation of the complete work by Malcolm Lyons was published last year. You may want to have a look at that.

Malcolm C. Lyons translation is not complete. He omits all the prayers and omits some material.

[serhanbener]

Oh, the Mardrus-Mathers one. I've got that and while I've only read vol. 1 so far, I enjoyed it.

Be advised that this version is a double-translation, English from a "literal French translation" from the original Arabic. It also tends to get knocked down for having not been translated by the "official" manuscripts and for including extraneous stories. However, the quality of the writing gets praise, especially the translated poetry.

Apparently a new modern translation of the complete work by Malcolm Lyons was published last year. You may want to have a look at that.

Mathers/ Mardrus translation is very good. It is very funny and readable. Mathers correctly translated it from French.

[Intuition]

It seems as if it really depends on how you would prefer reading it:

excerpt from Burton:


"Behold, there stood before him an honourable woman in a mantilla of Mosul [footnote] silk, broidered with gold and bordered with brocade; her walking shoes were also purfled with gold and her hair floated in long plaits. She raised her face veil [footnote] and, showing two black eyes fringed with jetty lashes, whose glances were soft and languishing and whose perfect beauty was ever blandishing, she accosted the Porter and said in the suavest tones and choicest language, 'Take up thy crate and follow me.'"

excerpt from Lyons:

"A woman came up to him wrapped in a silken Mosuli shawl with a floating ribbon and wearing embroidered shoes fringed with gold thread. When she raised her veil, beneath it could be seen dark eyes, which, with their eyelashes and eyelids, shot soft glances, perfect in their quality. She turned to the porter and said in a sweet, clear voice: 'Take your basket and follow me.'"

As you can see, Burton is somewhat archaic, although being archaic is somewhat more suitable for a novel written a thousand years ago.


Many Thanks.I decided to wait. I hope the prices decline.

I'm just curious, which version did you decide to buy if the price declined?

[JCamilo]

I would buy Burton, but he is a notorious "mis"translator of 1001 nights, adding details and excess like crazy.

[Intuition]

I would buy Burton, but he is a notorious "mis"translator of 1001 nights, adding details and excess like crazy.

In other words, the Lyons' translation may have been more accurate in that case? I realize that his excerpt happens to be a great deal shorter.

[PeterL]

You might just download the thing for free. All of Burton's translation is available online, and an anonymous version is here: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search.html/?default_prefix=author_id&sort_order=downloads&query=898
Calland's in French
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search.html/?default_prefix=author_id&sort_order=downloads&query=31901
John Payne
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search.html/?default_prefix=author_id&sort_order=downloads&query=1745

[JCamilo]

I trully do not know Lyons translations, I know more about the old more classical (Burton, Lane, Gallant), there is however a recent option for more faithful translations, albeit what it implies I do not know, considering how arabian language is not very close to western languages with their plural modes, etc.

[PeterL]

I trully do not know Lyons translations, I know more about the old more classical (Burton, Lane, Gallant), there is however a recent option for more faithful translations, albeit what it implies I do not know, considering how arabian language is not very close to western languages with their plural modes, etc.

It's almost funny that you put it that way, because Burton wrote in the strange way that he did in an atttempt t give a feel for the nuances of Arabic in the different regiions and times. I think that hs translation is almost unreadable, but I think that he did an interesting job.

[JCamilo]

But his attempt was not to be faithful, but to be exotic. He wanted it to sound arabian, like a victorian would think arab is. Even because he make up several details to exagerate and cause scandal.

[Intuition]

I trully do not know Lyons translations, I know more about the old more classical (Burton, Lane, Gallant), there is however a recent option for more faithful translations, albeit what it implies I do not know, considering how arabian language is not very close to western languages with their plural modes, etc.

I've heard that Lyons is actually one of these "recent options," for faithful translations-- "as it is the most complete version in English to date." I have heard something along those lines, although I do not know how honest those remarks are.

You wouldn't happen to know what these "more faithful translations" are, would you? I really have no problem about reading an archaic translation, as long as it is the most faithful rendition. I feel mollycoddled if I read a translation which attempts to modernize the novel and "connect with the masses."

[PeterL]

But his attempt was not to be faithful, but to be exotic. He wanted it to sound arabian, like a victorian would think arab is. Even because he make up several details to exagerate and cause scandal.

Perhaps, but I understood that he was trying to give the impression of the variation of the language through time and space. But he wasn't the first translator to add things to those stories.

[serhanbener]

It seems as if it really depends on how you would prefer reading it:

excerpt from Burton:



excerpt from Lyons:


As you can see, Burton is somewhat archaic, although being archaic is somewhat more suitable for a novel written a thousand years ago.



I'm just curious, which version did you decide to buy if the price declined?

According to this example Lyons seems more suitable but he omits a lot of material.For example following paragraph is missing in Lyons:
So he took counsel with his Wazír [FN#4] about visiting him, but the Minister, finding the project unadvisable, recommended that a letter be written and a present be sent under his charge to the younger brother with an invitation to visit the elder. Having accepted this advice the King forthwith bade prepare handsome gifts, such as horses with saddles of gem encrusted gold; Mamelukes, or white slaves; beautiful handmaids, high breasted virgins, and splendid stuffs and costly. He then wrote a letter to Shah Zaman expressing his warm love and great wish to see him, ending with these words, "We therefore hope of the favour and affection of the beloved brother that he will condescend to bestir himself and turn his face us wards. Furthermore we have sent our Wazir to make all ordinance for the march, and our one and only desire is to see thee ere we die; but if thou delay or disappoint us we shall not survive the blow. Wherewith peace be upon thee!" Then King Shahryar, having sealed the missive and given it to the Wazir with the offerings aforementioned, commanded him to shorten his skirts and strain his strength and make all expedition in going and returning. "Harkening and obedience!" quoth the Minister, who fell to making ready without stay and packed up his loads and prepared all his requisites without delay. This occupied him three days, and on the dawn of the fourth he took leave of his King and marched right away, over desert and hill-way, stony waste and pleasant lea without halting by night or by day. But whenever he entered a realm whose ruler was subject to his Suzerain, where he was greeted with magnificent gifts of gold and silver and all manner of presents fair and rare, he would tarry there three days, [FN#5] the term of the guest rite; and, when he left on the fourth, he would be honourably escorted for a whole day's march. As soon as the Wazir drew near Shah Zaman's court in Samarcand he despatched to report his arrival one of his high officials, who presented himself before the King; and, kissing ground between his hands, delivered his message. Hereupon the King commanded sundry of his Grandees and Lords of his realm to fare forth and meet his brother's Wazir at the distance of a full day's journey; which they did, greeting him respectfully and wishing him all prosperity and forming an escort and a procession.

[serhanbener]

Burton's version is ok but there are unnecessary footnotes. Especially terminal essay seems unnecessary. There is a 16 volume set of Burton printed by Cosimo Books but it is very expensive(24 USD per volume)and quality of the print is an enigma.

[JCamilo]

I've heard that Lyons is actually one of these "recent options," for faithful translations-- "as it is the most complete version in English to date." I have heard something along those lines, although I do not know how honest those remarks are.

You wouldn't happen to know what these "more faithful translations" are, would you? I really have no problem about reading an archaic translation, as long as it is the most faithful rendition. I feel mollycoddled if I read a translation which attempts to modernize the novel and "connect with the masses."

It is not just the Nights, but like for modern translations of the Koran too. But then, I am brazilian, I can tell you the faithfull translation here, if you read portuguese :D

There is even modern arabian versions to be faithfull with the night counting, spliting the tales at right place, spelling of names, etc. The thing is that if the translations of past would be trully faithful, 1001 nights would not even have Alladim, Ali Baba or Simbad. It is a creatioon, so, you can even read more than one version still good.

PeterL:


Perhaps, but I understood that he was trying to give the impression of the variation of the language through time and space. But he wasn't the first translator to add things to those stories.

Burton, a man out of 1001 nights by himself, was notorious for his scandalous nature and he despised the excessive political correctness of Lane, one of the guys that reduced mostly the tales (Galland was also a bit political correct, but he was not that prudish), and as a matter of critic because Lane edition was quite popular (many footnotes, the reduction of tales made them more readable, etc) he exagerated. Not only the sexual content, but Burton also wanted to show off his superior expertise about arabic culture. He adds fantasy where is not. The result is good and Burton translation was popular enough.

Adding and taking things from 1001 is a rule. Not only they translate from different arabic sources, but they do it almost as a rule, since Galland did, because he wanted to have 1001 nights, not the 300 (more or less) that the manuscript had. So, in a way, the translators add and remove sources as a form to critic to an earlier translator. This also helped to create all fuss in west about the nights, as, more even than translation natural problems, the Nights will never be the same book, fixed in time.

[Intuition]

Adding and taking things from 1001 is a rule. Not only they translate from different arabic sources, but they do it almost as a rule, since Galland did, because he wanted to have 1001 nights, not the 300 (more or less) that the manuscript had. So, in a way, the translators add and remove sources as a form to critic to an earlier translator. This also helped to create all fuss in west about the nights, as, more even than translation natural problems, the Nights will never be the same book, fixed in time.

So I take it that my best bet is to go with the translation that critics have declared as the "most complete" ?

[JCamilo]

:) I guess so, but really depends what you like. The 1001 originals are not complete, so criticals may call or not complete something that it is not. Maybe you should try Lane or burton for the exotic and if you want to study pic one that critics labeled as something :)

[Intuition]

Seems like I'm going to have to go on my intuition.

[PeterL]

Seems like I'm going to have to go on my intuition.

Intuition may not be your best guide, except in so far as you are calling yourself "Intuition". Try reading parts of a few versions and see what appeals to you.

[Intuition]

Intuition may not be your best guide, except in so far as you are calling yourself "Intuition". Try reading parts of a few versions and see what appeals to you.

I have already done so. I have read articles which juxtaposed excerpts. To me, one is more modern, the other more archaic, I am not biased, I have no preference. I only prefer which is more faithful, and perhaps, more "complete," although I realize the two do not mean the same thing (in this unique case)-- bringing me to a slight conundrum.

[JCamilo]

Well, if you call intuition just the a matter of luck and let the book find you, fine. Works with me :D

[Intuition]

Well, I guess it isn't as much of intuition as there is rational thought behind it, even if it may be microscopic. It seems that every critic on reviewing Lyons' translation subtlety alludes to, or outright claims, that it should rightly be an acquired version for anyone's library.