Why This Book Exists: Antoine Galland and the Arabian Nights
This mass-market English edition belongs to the tradition that begins not in Arabic manuscripts but with Galland’s French rewriting. Antoine Galland was a serious man. Antiquarian to the king, an orientalist, a scholar of Arabic and Persian with a solid reputation. When he received a manuscript of The Thousand and One Nights in the early 1700s, he probably assumed he'd be doing translation work. Taking a text in one language and rendering it in another, preserving meaning and, where possible, beauty. Standard work for a conscientious intellectual.
He didn't think he'd become a co-author and editor. Or, in a sense, the inventor of the East that Europe would read for the next three hundred years.
The problem began immediately. The manuscript Galland received was incomplete. About two hundred tales. Hardly a thousand and one nights. The text barely held together: stories began without introduction and broke off without resolution. Character names shifted from version to version. Narrators forgot details, confused plots, and returned to the same story with completely different variants.
This wasn't a book. It was an archive of oral tradition. Chaotic, fluid, fundamentally unfinished.
But Galland was a man of his time – an age of order and systematization. Chaos didn't suit him, and he set to work.
The first volume appeared four years later under the title Les Mille et Une Nuits. Europe went wild. Readers demanded more. Publishers knocked on Galland's door with the persistence of a vizier. Galland promises. Galland searches for material. Galland discovers there's catastrophically little of it. Over the following years, releasing volume after volume, Galland finds himself in a situation oral tradition is fundamentally unprepared for: he has a deadline. The public is waiting. The market is demanding. The Thousand and One Nights stops being an infinite process and starts behaving like a book series.
There's a beautiful legend that outraged readers, driven to despair by cliffhangers, threw stones through Galland's windows demanding he continue. It's a striking story, but unlikely. Reality was far more prosaic: Galland needed new stories because translating The Thousand and One Nights had become his source of income and his way back into public life.
Galland begins to improvise: he searches for new manuscripts, questions travelers. At some point he gets incredibly lucky: through Paul Lucas, a French traveler and antiquarian, Galland learns of Hanna Diyab, a Syrian Christian who knows stories that don't exist in any known manuscript. Lucas had brought him from the Middle East and introduced him to Parisian scholarly circles. Galland invites Diyab over, listens and records his fragmentary tales – and that's where their collaboration ends. Diyab leaves, and Galland sits down at his desk to edit.
Hanna Diyab narrated orally – with digressions, repetitions, and that natural looseness characteristic of living speech. Galland, however, is preparing text for print: he constructs plot, removes excess, adds what's missing, adjusts the morals, smooths the rough edges.
The story of Aladdin, canonical in the West today, was recorded from Hanna Diyab's telling. It's a story not about adventure but about gesture: rub the lamp, speak the word, instantly get results – a fairy tale structured like a perfectly functioning algorithm of desire. The tale of Ali Baba is the same. The forty thieves matter here not as characters but as number and structure: a cave with a password, a body count, the mechanics of access and punishment – violence brought to order. Neither story existed in the written Arabic tradition. Both entered The Thousand and One Nights through a Syrian storyteller's oral account, through a French orientalist's recording hand, through editorial revision, through the printing press.
Who's the author here? Hanna Diyab, who told the stories? Galland, who recorded and reworked them? The unknown Arab from whom Diyab in turn once heard these tales? Or the market, dictating demand? Authorship blurs and becomes collective, which is perfectly natural for oral tradition. Except now this tradition operates not in a Cairo bazaar but in the publishing industry of Paris.
Galland does with the text what any self-respecting translator of his time would do: he imposes order. Where a story threatens to fall apart, he builds a plot with beginning, middle, and end. Where a hero is merely a plot function, he creates character, provides motivation. Where a story simply happens, he finds a moral, draws an instructive meaning, adds a civilizing message.
He doesn't consider this deception or falsification. He's simply doing what he believes a text should do: be comprehensible, complete, and edifying. The Thousand and One Nights acquires something it never had before – authorial intention, belonging not to the tale itself but to whoever stands above it.
And what was there before, before Galland's narrative?
Before there was Scheherazade, and her task was entirely different. She didn't tell stories for art's sake, or beauty's sake, or morality's sake. She told stories so she wouldn't die. Each night a new story began, each morning brought a postponed execution, and the tale broke off at the most interesting point so the king would want to hear more. Thus another night passed, another story, another day of life.
But if her task were only to hold attention, Scheherazade would have been trapped in that snare forever – in eternal night, in endless narrative, where death is merely postponed but never cancelled. She had a second, more ambitious goal: to cure the king.
And the king was sick – not metaphorically but literally. Having discovered his wife's betrayal, he descended into madness that destroyed not only himself but the entire state. He made an oath: each night a new woman, each morning an execution. This wasn't private psychosis or family drama but political catastrophe. The state was losing its future with each body, the marriage order was collapsing, succession was interrupted, the country was disintegrating.
Scheherazade's stories here were not literature but emergency, desperate therapy. Narrative became a form of resistance – not aesthetics but a way to survive. These stories didn't require psychological depth, completion, or stylistic elegance. Their logic was simple and brutal: hold attention, postpone the sentence, slowly, night by night, change the listener. They weren't counting on eternity. In the Arab world they were treated accordingly – as low, street literature, too alive and too flexible to be considered respectable.
And then Galland appeared. He gave these stories the status of literature, and thereby removed them from the situation in which they were necessary. Process became product, therapy became reading material, survival became literary plot.
In this sense Galland turned out to be not an exception but a pioneer. He created the model by which The Thousand and One Nights continues to be read: not as a stable text but as a series of authorial versions, each pretending to be a translation.
Borges would later note this with his characteristic irony: the great translations of The Thousand and One Nights were always forms of appropriation. Translators didn't transmit the text – they recreated it, each in their own way. There's no original to return to here. There's only a succession of editorial decisions, each claiming authenticity.
Thus Aladdin and Ali Baba become fixed in the European canon – stories that were never "literature" in the European sense. Galland records them, reworks them, supplements them, and publishes them. He transforms open tradition into closed work. Living process becomes a book with table of contents and page numbers.
For the European reader, The Thousand and One Nights becomes above all an entrance to a fantastic East. A space of treasures, genies, magic lamps, flying carpets, and incredible splendor. This East is attractive not for specific stories but for the very possibility of an imagined journey to another world. The East here is neither interlocutor nor subject. It's material from which the European reader assembles fantasies about a beautiful and exotic Other.
And here's where the strangeness emerges: the definitive "classical" image of the East is formed not in Damascus, not in Baghdad, not in Cairo, but in Paris – in the translator's work.
After Galland, the East begins to be read as a novel – with psychology, motivation, characters' inner lives, with the notion of literature as a means of educating the reader. Scheherazade transforms from a woman desperately saving her life through stories into a symbol of Literature with a capital L – not of survival but of mission, not of postponement but of the search for meaning. Even more paradoxically, it's precisely through The Thousand and One Nights that European literature relearns how to speak about everyday life. About merchants and artisans, tailors and fishermen, ordinary people rather than heroes and kings. The Eastern fairy tale becomes a school of realism, preparing the ground for that interest in the mundane that would later become the norm with Dickens and his contemporaries.
The Thousand and One Nights begins to be perceived as world literature precisely when it ceases to be what it originally was. From an instrument of salvation it becomes a cultural monument. From a living, changing process – into a text with table of contents. From the nocturnal therapy of a mad ruler – into comfortable reading on the sofa.
One could say Galland distorted it. One could say he invented it. Most likely both statements are true simultaneously.
He didn't simply translate The Thousand and One Nights – he made it readable as a book. And Europe, breathing a sigh of relief, decided: yes, this is exactly what the East looks like. At that moment the translator's power became especially visible.
As for Scheherazade, if she could, she'd probably just smile. Her stories were never meant for eternity. One night was enough for them – just enough to push death back one more sunrise.