What, no Burton?

[dianeduane]

Was watching the BBC program last night on the Arabian Nights, featuring Richard Grant. When they started dealing with the issue of translations, it surprised me a little that not a single word was said about Sir Richard Burton, though a fair amount of air time was spent on Edward William Lane, whose version of the Thousand Nights and a Night was extremely sanitized.

I find myself wondering whether some scholar involved with the program had a bug up the butt about Burton's fairly explicit translation. Granted, it's not as if the man isn't a source for continuing controversy: you run into scholarly opinion suggesting that Burton had committed that most heinous of offenses, "getting too close to the material" -- the literary version of "going native". Stilll, it's odd to see an analysis of the Nights that doesn't even mention his name. I wonder what was going on...

It's interesting also to note in passing that Burton discusses Lane in his introduction to his own translation. "That amiable and devoted Arabist," Burton calls him, and then gently takes him to task for "converting the Arabian Nights to the Arabian Chapters. Worse still, he converts some chapters into notes. He renders poetry by prose and apologizes for not omitting it altogether; ... he is at once too Oriental and not Oriental enough. ...Worst of all, these handsome volumes are rendered unreadable ...by the stuff and stilted style of half a century ago when our prose was perhaps the worst in Europe." (Well, don't mince words, Sir Richard, tell us what you really think...)

Comments

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Yes, that surprised me too. I thought it might be because he was European, but they mentioned Galland as well as Lane. Weirdness.

I once had an opportunity to get a complete set of Burton--it was on a second-hand book stall I helped out with in the holidays--but it was too much money. I still regret that.

[jaxomsride.livejournal.com]

Evidently they didn't want to admit to the more explicit version.

Re: What, no Burton?

[disassembly_rsn]

The business about 'Arabian chapters' is probably justified, I think, given that Lane's translation seems to run to about 3 volumes while Burton's translation runs to 11 volumes + appendix. I'm not in a position to prove it, though; that's just an opinion.

That's just *odd* that the program didn't even *mention* Burton. Burton's *interesting*.

[lizblackdog.livejournal.com]

That's very, very irritating.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

"Burton was never a true gentleman. We shall ignore him."

[wazira-sharira.livejournal.com]

I can't say I particularly like Burton's translation, as he was inclined to obscure vocabulary and inaccurate or unnecessary footnotes. But for heaven's sake I don't pretend it doesn't exist.

Also, did they mention the high probability that Galland just made shit up? He did have some real translations, but there's a theory that he wrote Aladdin himself and passed it off as one.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Yes, they did.

[kengr]

I lucked out back in the late 70s when Publishers Clearinghouse (or some similar outfit) had the remainders of an edition printed for the Burton Society. Cost me $60 or $70 for the Nights & Supplemntal Nights.

One of these days I need to start reading where I left off.

Re: What, no Burton?

[kengr]

The edition I have has 10 volumes of the Nights and another 6 volumes of "Supplemental Nights".

[kengr]

The footnotes are the best part, even if they may be inaccurate. :-)

Re: What, no Burton?

[disassembly_rsn]

Your volume counts sound more correct for Burton's version; I was giving numbers from memory rather than looking it up.

[wazira-sharira.livejournal.com]

Some of them are okay and some of them are a little WTF.

[ravenclaw-eric.livejournal.com]

From what I've seen of it, Burton's style is a bit more archaic than I'd prefer, but I'd never ignore him on that sort of thing.

[thelauderdale.livejournal.com]

"Worst of all, these handsome volumes are rendered unreadable ...by the stuff and stilted style of half a century ago when our prose was perhaps the worst in Europe."

Edward Lane, you are GUILTY. (Of writing while living in the 1830s.)

...I read the Mardrus/Mathers version myself.