ARABIAN NIGHTS -- WHICH NIGHTS?

There appear to be at least 3 different Folio Society editions of the Arabian Nights, all of which use the Mardrus/Mathers translation. (1) 1949 -- single volume illustrated by Lettice Sandford, (2) 1980 -- 4 volumes illustrated by Eric Fraser, (3) 2003 -- 6 volumes illustrated by Kay Nielsen and others.

I'd appreciate any insights from those with personal experience of any or all of these. Any recommendations?

The six volume set is wonderful--and ostensibiy complete. Don't know about the others.

>2 Django6924:

Which translation?

E/P published a 17-volume complete set and even with few pages per volume and more illustrations I find it hard to believe the 6-volume FS set can be complete. However, I passed on my chance to own the FS set and teh E/P set is OOP, so it is likely I'll never know.

I have some of the E/R ones. They are not that tick so if someone wants to, it can get into 6 volumes. And it will depend on the translations - complete Arabian Nights had always been an oxymoron... for more than one reason.

Yes, complete by whose standards...

I have a three volume Heritage Press Burton translated/collated edition which is the same content as EP's 17. I've looked at the 17 volume edition and the margins were quite wide. So fitting all of Burton into a smaller space is possible.

But it's confusing, look at this page:

http://www.eastonpressbooks.com/leather/product.asp?code=0243

The uncut and uncensored part pertains mainly to Burton, what he wrote, translated, included, not necessarily the stories themselves whatever they might have been in their initial state. Burton's frank language was bowdlerized, along with Lane, another 19th century translator of the Nights. This is what the: "Uncensored! Uncut!" is referring to on EP's page.

Here is a Burton story, probably an add on, but I enjoyed it:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/burt1k1/tale12.htm

Here is a JStor article which I can't access entirely...

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4182920

Translator Husain Haddawy recently offered a purer form of the tales based on Muhsin Mahdi's work with a Syrian manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale and it (the translation) runs about 350 pages. He tacked on a seperate volume for the Sinbad and Aladdin stories, the popular ones, the ones that aren't present in the oldest surviving manuscripts and may have been created by Antoine Galland himself, who had them translated into arabic and put in manuscript form.

> 1
The four volume edition first appeared in 1958, the text being described as "rendered into English from the literal and complete French translation of Dr J. C. Mardrus by Powys Mathers". Volumes I and III are illustrated with drawings by Eric Fraser, and II and IV with woodcuts by Frank Martin. It went through four impressions, the 1980 one which you mention being the fourth of these, issued as from The Folio Press rather than the Folio Society.
According to Folio 60 the 2003 publication is a second edition of the same text, recast in six volumes and with different illustrators. It runs to some 2525 pages as opposed to the first edition's 2350.
I bought the second (1959) impression of the first edition quite recently. I suppose some might find its having only two illustrators as opposed to the six in the 2003 edition a disadvantage, but I'm very happy with the the books. Their binding of quarter white parchment with gold-patterned red boards protected in glassine jackets and a slipcase has held up remarkably well over 52 years. A bargain at under £30 the set on eBay!

Robert Irwin, in The Arabian Nights: A Companion is pretty scathing about the Mardrus translation: "Mardrus took elements which were there in the original Arabic and worked them up , exaggerating and inventing, reshaping the "Nights" in such a manner that the stories appear at times to have been written by Oscar Wilde or Stéphane Mallarmé"..."Arabists...noticed discrepancies between Mardrus's translation and the Bulaq version {the best version of the "Nights" in Arabic}" - Mardrus claimed to be working from a different version which it is clear never really existed. Furthermore, "Mardrus embroidered the original Arabic and inserted whole new stories. Many of Mardrus's interpolations were erotic ones"... he also "added revolting little anti-Semitic embellishments of his own"..."Mardrus's translation of the Actual Arabic..{is} At times painfully literal; at other times it was simply wrong".

In a recent Guardian review Irwin simply dismissed Mardrus as (quoting from memory) "essentially fraudulent".

The Haddawy version has been praised for its accuracy but is based on a shorter manuscript. If you want all the stories accurately translated, there is the recent Penguin edition. The three-volume hardback, which was retailing for about £100 a couple of years ago, may still be available.

If the want the Mardus/Mathers version, It is all there in the 6-volume Folio edition (the only Folio version I have). Irwin says Mathers did a good job of translation "but whether the job was worth doing in the first place is another matter".

I will say that if you purchase the Burton translation (of which I am a big fan), make sure you get a set that includes all the footnotes (such as in the EP set). He wrote a ton of footnotes, and many of his comments are very entertaining!

I anyone with the Burton EP set would mind posting a picture of the colophon and the main text to show how the margins are.

Here's a little more if anyone is interested, concerning the stories and their translation.

https://coursewikis.fas.harvard.edu/aiu18/The_1001_Nights_in_translation

I found these reviews of the new (2008) Penguin Classics edition translated by Malcolm C Lyons:
Today's Zaman review
The Telegraph review
The Independent review

There was also a discussion on translations/editions in the Arabian Nights / Harvard Classics thread in the Easton Press group.

I am reading the new Penguin translation these days - it definitely is not Burton but I like it quite a lot. It simply works -- the over-flowery prose and poetry is there but in a different way than with Burton.

The language can be a bit... adult (especially if someone thinks that these are for children) but they sound right.

AnnieMod, do you have the deluxe hardcover set, or the paperbacks? I see that Penguin has reissued the deluxe boxed set in the UK and will be doing so in the US in late October.

None of the above - the kindle version. :)

I will probably pick up a hardcover at some point -- but I usually read a few pages now and then and a kindle version makes a lot of sense.

Edit: and they increased the price of the Kindle version again... at this point if I was buying, I would go for any of the paper versions - as much as I like it on the kindle, it just makes no sense to pay more than for a paper version. Off-topic. I know :)

It's true Mardrus (and Powys Mathers) embellished and added a lot, but the result is glorious. It isn't the most faithful, but it's the most beautiful English rendering of the Tales. (And maybe French, but I haven't read Galland's version.)

> 16

I have to confess, even as I was copying out the Irwin quote, I could feel myself being won over by Mardrus/Mathers again (I'm currently stalled half-way through the Aladdin story in volume five - one result of this discussion may be that it prods me into finishing it).

Putting myself back in the position of a potential buyer, though, I know that I would have wanted to know more about the accuracy of the translation than I can remember Folio ever supplying.

I love Burton's translation, but that's not to say his is the only one, nor that the others are not worthy. However, I feel that his footnotes are quite unique, and after all he not only studied the culture and language,but he also made the journey to Mecca! All things said, I personally find the Burton translation to be THE translation most worth reading. Also, the EP set is beautifully illustrated with vintage illustrations (all B&W). Some of the stories were intended for children, but many of the stories are most definitely NOT for children (and least not by today's standards)!

#17

I think I have posted in this very group (but who knows what thread...) a link to an extended blog post about the 1001 manuscripts. To begin with, it isn't even a single source--I could be wrong after all this time, but I think there are at least three different versions of the earliest compilations--and then, the very nature of its evolution makes it difficult to determine what exactly IS "the original"--it accumulated over centuries like an avalanche, picking up stories and edits from Persian, Indian, Arabic, Egyptian and who knows how many more streams.

Which is not to say that one can't reasonably expect a solid translation of a given manuscript version, of course--only that, in the eyes of some at least, "faithfulness" to the word in this case may forgivably be interpreted more ambiguously than usual.

#18

Yes, Burton's footnotes are famous, although (or because) he comes across as a sleazy sex maniac (not too far from the truth, judging by his biography).

>18 astropi:
"Some of the stories were intended for children, but many of the stories are most definitely NOT for children (and least not by today's standards)!"
The French appear to be more relaxed about this! A six volume 1001 is listed in the Children's Section
of one Parisian publisher/binder:

http://www.jeandebonnot.fr/Beaux-Livres-Enfants.html

Europe as a whole is more relaxed for such topics...