[Possible project] The Lusiads, by Luís de Camões (trans. Richard Burton)

[Hendrik Kaiber]

For my next project I would like to attempt to produce The Lusiads, by Luís de Camões, using the Richard Burton translation. There are other translations available, but I believe this is the best one, being both faithful to the original and having a good flow in English. He also wrote several footnotes that give more context and explanations to the text. I would start this after The Windfairies is published

The transcriptions available at PG were made by me, and I already formatted them using some of our practices, so it should be easier than normal.

The poem is divided in two volumes, but this is merely a practical decision, and most Portuguese and English modern editions don't make the separation. I would therefore not have the division in two volumes.

Vol. 1 has two dedications, one epigraph with four different verse fragments, an editor's preface (by Isabel Burton), a preface by Richard Burton, and a note on the text. Each canto also has two arguments. I believe we should keep all of these.

Vol. 2 has a section called Rejected stanzas, which has unused stanzas in their Portuguese original and their English translations side by side. I'm not sure we want these, since the Portuguese parts will likely be unreadable to most of our readers (I assume). I would cut them.

Each stanza has a number (at the right in the scans and left on the transcriptions). I'm not sure how we should deal with them. CSS limitations in many readers make this look bad, but a few places make reference to the stanza number. One possibility is to remove the visual number and keep it as an id in each stanza (like stanza-#-1 for the first stanza of the first canto.)

For the cover, I would like to use this painting.

This will be the most complex production I've attempted. If you think I'm not prepared for this I'll leave it for a later time.

Transcriptions Vol. 1 | Vol. 2
Scans Vol. 1 | Vol. 2

Repo

P.s. I'm also still slowly proofreading Fairy Tales. I find that having two projects at once helps me not to feel burnt out. I hope this is okay.

[Emma Sweeney]

The stanza numbers can be cut. The stanza numbers are not original to the work and were added by the translator. That should save you some work.

Emma

[Hendrik Kaiber]

Although I am neither in favor or against keeping the numbers (the way I formatted them makes it easy to either remove or change them), one must keep in mind that most Portuguese editions from the last centuries (see this 1613 edition) keep the numbering, either on the side or before each stanza, this is not something Burton added. The nature of an electronic edition renders this kind of marking less necessary, though, so I think they can be removed without much issue. I'll abide by whatever Alex thinks is best, but I just wanted to point this out.

—Hendrik

[Alex Cabal]

If they go back to 1600 then you could keep them. In the edition you
linked they appear above the stanza, so you could do the same in a
<header> element. But since they go so high you can use decimal and not
roman to number them. Send a link to your repo once you start.

On 2/19/26 5:37 PM, Hendrik Kaiber wrote:
> Although I am neither in favor or against keeping the numbers (the way I
> formatted them makes it easy to either remove or change them), one must
> keep in mind that most Portuguese editions from the last centuries (see

> this <https://archive.org/details/oslusiadasdogran00cam> 1613 edition)

> keep the numbering, either on the side or before each stanza, this is
> not something Burton added. The nature of an electronic edition renders
> this kind of marking less necessary, though, so I think they can be
> removed without much issue. I'll abide by whatever Alex thinks is best,
> but I just wanted to point this out.
>
> —Hendrik
> On Thursday, February 19, 2026 at 8:09:41 PM UTC-3 Emma Sweeney wrote:
>
> The stanza numbers can be cut. The stanza numbers are not original
> to the work and were added by the translator. That should save you
> some work.
>
> Emma
> On Thursday, February 19, 2026 at 5:26:01 PM UTC-5
> hendrik....@gmail.com wrote:
>

> For my next project I would like to attempt to produce /The
> Lusiads/, by Luís de Camões, using the Richard Burton

> translation. There are other translations available, but I
> believe this is the best one, being both faithful to the
> original and having a good flow in English. He also wrote
> several footnotes that give more context and explanations to the

> text. I would start this after /The Windfairies/ is published

>
> The transcriptions available at PG were made by me, and I
> already formatted them using some of our practices, so it should
> be easier than normal.
>
> The poem is divided in two volumes, but this is merely a
> practical decision, and most Portuguese and English modern
> editions don't make the separation. I would therefore not have
> the division in two volumes.
>
> Vol. 1 has two dedications, one epigraph with four different
> verse fragments, an editor's preface (by Isabel Burton), a
> preface by Richard Burton, and a note on the text. Each canto
> also has two arguments. I believe we should keep all of these.
>
> Vol. 2 has a section called Rejected stanzas, which has unused
> stanzas in their Portuguese original and their English
> translations side by side. I'm not sure we want these, since the
> Portuguese parts will likely be unreadable to most of our
> readers (I assume). I would cut them.
>
> Each stanza has a number (at the right in the scans and left on
> the transcriptions). I'm not sure how we should deal with them.
> CSS limitations in many readers make this look bad, but a few
> places make reference to the stanza number. One possibility is
> to remove the visual number and keep it as an id in each stanza
> (like stanza-#-1 for the first stanza of the first canto.)
>

> For the cover, I would like to use this <https://
> standardebooks.org/artworks/veloso-salgado/vasco-da-gama-before-
> the-zamorin-of-calicut> painting.

>
> This will be the most complex production I've attempted. If you
> think I'm not prepared for this I'll leave it for a later time.
>

> Transcriptions Vol. 1 <https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77660> |
> Vol. 2 <https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77661>
> Scans Vol. 1 <https://archive.org/details/
> oslusadasthelu01camuoft> | Vol. 2 <https://archive.org/details/
> oslusadasthelu02camuoft>
> Repo <https://github.com/HendrikBK/luis-de-camoes_the-
> lusiads_richard-f-burton>
>
> /P.s. I'm also still slowly proofreading /Fairy Tales/. I find

> that having two projects at once helps me not to feel burnt out.

> I hope this is okay./
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> standardebooks/1558d37d-f484-4385-8f13-dc6296e031a4n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/1558d37d-
> f484-4385-8f13-dc6296e031a4n%40googlegroups.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Hendrik Kaiber]

Here's the (empty right now) repo. I plan to start this evening and take my time to do it right.

—Hendrik

[Alex Cabal]

OK, David will manage with Emma reviewing

On 2/20/26 9:43 AM, Hendrik Kaiber wrote:
> Here's <https://github.com/HendrikBK/luis-de-camoes_the-lusiads_richard-
> f-burton> the (empty right now) repo. I plan to start this evening and

> take my time to do it right.
>
> —Hendrik
>
> On Friday, February 20, 2026 at 12:40:11 PM UTC-3 Alex Cabal wrote:
>
> If they go back to 1600 then you could keep them. In the edition you
> linked they appear above the stanza, so you could do the same in a
> <header> element. But since they go so high you can use decimal and not
> roman to number them. Send a link to your repo once you start.
>
> On 2/19/26 5:37 PM, Hendrik Kaiber wrote:
> > Although I am neither in favor or against keeping the numbers
> (the way I
> > formatted them makes it easy to either remove or change them),
> one must
> > keep in mind that most Portuguese editions from the last
> centuries (see

> > this <https://archive.org/details/oslusiadasdogran00cam <https://

> <http://standardebooks.org/artworks/veloso-salgado/vasco-da-gama-

> before->
> > the-zamorin-of-calicut> painting.
> >
> > This will be the most complex production I've attempted. If you
> > think I'm not prepared for this I'll leave it for a later time.
> >
> > Transcriptions Vol. 1 <https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77660
> <https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77660>> |

> > Vol. 2 <https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77661 <https://
> www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77661>>
> > Scans Vol. 1 <https://archive.org/details/ <https://archive.org/
> details/>

> > oslusadasthelu01camuoft> | Vol. 2 <https://archive.org/details/
> <https://archive.org/details/>
> > oslusadasthelu02camuoft>

> > Repo <https://github.com/HendrikBK/luis-de-camoes_the- <https://
> github.com/HendrikBK/luis-de-camoes_the->

> > lusiads_richard-f-burton>
> >
> > /P.s. I'm also still slowly proofreading /Fairy Tales/. I find
> > that having two projects at once helps me not to feel burnt out.
> > I hope this is okay./
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send
> > an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> > <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/>
> > standardebooks/1558d37d-f484-4385-8f13-
> dc6296e031a4n%40googlegroups.com <http://40googlegroups.com>
> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/1558d37d-
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/1558d37d->
> > f484-4385-8f13-dc6296e031a4n%40googlegroups.com
> <http://40googlegroups.com>?
> > utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> standardebooks/f001956e-9ea9-4c9f-b3e7-11a6099959cdn%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/f001956e-9ea9-4c9f-
> b3e7-11a6099959cdn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Hendrik Kaiber]

Great. I want to avoid rebasing if possible, so a few preliminary questions, David:

1 - Where exactly will the header go? Should it be a direct child of the <section> element (I believe for this production there won't be a <blockquote> element of the poetry, since the entire chapter would be a poem, please correct me if I'm wrong). Thus it would go like header-1, stanza-1, header-2, stanza-2, etc. I never dealt with this issue, so please suggest me the best way.

2 - What parts that I mentioned in the first post should we keep and which should we cut? I would cut only the "rejected stanzas" section, but I could also cut only the Portuguese part of it if there is interest. One of the prefaces has five verse (not four as I said earlier) sections. Should they stay in the same page?

3 - Do we want to keep the two volume division? I don't see a reason do so, but I just wanted to confirm (I couldn't find a modern Portuguese edition that does so, for context).

4 - Each canto has two arguments. Should each be in a separate file? Should they be a direct child of the bodymatter? I think one possibility is having each canto be a parent section with two or three children, the arguments either together in a file or separate, and the canto itself. What do you think?

5 - The book is almost all in English, but there are some passages in Portuguese, should they be modernized with the same standard used for English? The name "Camoens, " for instance, would be modernized to "Camões," the current spelling. The word deoses would become deuses. I would only modernize words with identical or nearly identical pronunciations. Another unusual thing I would suggest is to wrap Camões with a <span xml:lang="pt-PT"> element, since English speakers and screen readers usually have trouble with the last syllable. 

Please take a look at these questions when you have time. I would like to start this project correctly.

—Hendrik

[David]

I assume you've read through the specialist Poetry "how-to" guide. I've never done a production like this, either, so if the poetry-producers care to chime in, I wouldn't take it amiss. :)

1. Yes, I assume the stanza-number headers are a child of the section element. That's the pattern in this CS Lewis example, if that's a relevant/appropriate analogy.

2. You will know better than me what is cut-able. To my eye, the "Editor's preface" looks like a candidate to cut. Possibly also the "Note" (which is more or less just a preview of structure/contents), but that's just my sense. As for the "rejected stanzas": we need (I bieleve) to think of this as an accessible text for readers, not a scholarly edition. I'm not sure what you mean by "stay in the same page", as ebooks don't have "pages" per se.

3. I wouldn't keep the 2-vol division; I think that's your inclination too.

4. Your suggestion of "parent" here makes sense to me: as ever, Recomposability is the key, and you can accomplish the same end with either separate files or a single file.

5. (a) We sometimes modernize non-English, but you must be sure they are "sound-alikes". We don't modernize poetry, of course. (b) I just don't know whether the xml:lang span would help with the kind of example you provide, so if someone can speak with more authority on this, please do!

I'll check the artwork in a separate message. Hope this helps!

[David]

That works great, Hendrik - I've made the assignment in the DB.

[Hendrik Kaiber]

Thank you David.

Regarding the first answer, I'm not sure this is a good example. In the Lewis poem, each stanza is actually a <section>, so a header child makes sense. I don't see each stanza in this production being a different section; I think in this case each stanza is a child <p> of the parent <section>. If you do think each stanza should be a separate section then there is no doubt that a header should be its child, but if not then I'm not sure. I suppose this was never an issue, so if you're also not sure we might ask Alex his opinion.

I shouldn't have said "pages" when I meant "files." In the case of the epigraph (not preface as I said), should the five passages be in one file or in five? I don't really a point in having multiple files, so I would put them all in one.

I think them I'll keep the epigraph, the two dedications and the preface, the two notes don't add that much context. I think the Portuguese sections of the "Rejected Stanzas" should be cut, but the English translations might be kept (maybe as an appendix?); I personally think they are interesting, but also aren't really necessary to understand the whole poem.

I would mostly modernize accents marks and minor spellings in Portuguese, but only if they are sound-alikes and wouldn't change meter. I assume you don't speak Portuguese (does Emma?), but it is my native language and I'm confident I can properly modernize the appropriate words and names (Venus would become Vénus, since they sound the same, but Neptuno would not become Netuno, since the p is pronounced in the first.) I would also use the European spelling, not the Brazilian one. When in doubt I'll leave it as-is. I'm only concerned if that would make difficult for Emma to review these parts.

The nasal sounds -ão/-ões are common in Portuguese but not really present in most (all?) varieties of English, and the screen readers I'm familiar with cannot say it properly, so I think a language tag wouldn't be inappropriate here. I will only deal with this issue later, so we can discuss it more if necessary.

—Hendrik

[David]

Regarding headers, then, best get an expert judgment (EiC or ...?).

I don't see a problem with those five passages in a single `epigraph.xhtml` file.

As for the rest, that all sounds sensible.

[Emma Sweeney]

Each numbered stanza should go in a <section> element. Your file structure should look similar to The Nibelungenlied. 

Emma

[Hendrik Kaiber]

Thank you Emma. I checked a few epics in the catalogue to see if any had this formatting, but must have missed this one. I think now I can proceed.

—Hendrik

[David]

Unless I'm missing something (and I probably am!), the header structure of The Nibelungenlied looks identical to that CS Lewis example. <shrug/> It's good to be sure, no matter how you slice it! :)

D.

On Friday, 20 February 2026 at 18:10:43 UTC Hendrik Kaiber wrote:

Thank you Emma. I checked a few epics in the catalogue to see if any had this formatting, but must have missed this one. I think now I can proceed.

—Hendrik

On Friday, February 20, 2026 at 3:05:35 PM UTC-3 Emma Sweeney wrote:

Each numbered stanza should go in a <section> element. Your file structure should look similar to The Nibelungenlied. 

Emma

On Friday, February 20, 2026 at 12:52:57 PM UTC-5 David wrote:

Regarding headers, then, best get an expert judgment (EiC or ...?).

. . .

[Emma Sweeney]

For the arguments, you can place them at the beginning of each Canto. Many times we have cut the argument titles in productions; I would do the same here and have both arguments in a <header> element with the Canto title.

Emma

[Hendrik Kaiber]

It is David, it's just that I didn't think each stanza would go into their own section, but seeing the precedent that Emma brought clarified it.

Sure Emma, that makes sense. Do you think each argument should be inside their own <section> (inside the <header>)? I'm thinking this way it would make sense for each for each to have their title in a <header> as well. Does this makes sense? Or do you think this is unnecessary and each should be a direct child of the <header>? I don't think they look quite like a bridgehead, but I could be wrong.

—Hendrik

[Emma Sweeney]

Arguments are just the direct child of the <header>. Not all bridgeheads are listed clauses, but they do "give an abstract or summary of the following chapter".

Emma

[Hendrik Kaiber]

Alright. Thank you David and Emma for the guidance, I think I have most of what I need to start properly. I'll be sure to ask any more question here (there certainly will be more). Luckily I can automate a significant part of the more tedious work, so I probably won't spend months working on it.

I won't do this part for a few days at the very least , but assuming we don't want to cut the "rejected stanzas" completely, should they be considered bodymatter or backmatter? I'm leaning towards backmatter because they are not traditionally part of most editions of the poem, so they seem more like an appendix than part of the main body of the text. What do you think of this David? Like I said, I can go either way, so I'll defer to your opinion. 

—Hendrik

[David]

It does indeed sound more like appendix material to me, so let's go backmatter.

(Thanks for your help, too, Emma!)

D.

[Hendrik Kaiber]

Quick question about shift-endnotes: I need to renumber the endnotes of vol. 2, and make the first of it start at 146. For that, I moved the files of the first volume to a temporary folder and copied the vol. 1 endnotes to another temp txt file, outside the repo. This way I should be able to shift the endnotes and make the first start at 146, but the command does nothing. I used se shift-endnotes 1 -i -a 145 ., and other variations. What I'm doing wrong?

—Hendrik

[David Reimer]

Uh oh. I've used `shift-endnotes` only once, and that quite a while ago on the only project I've ever abandoned.

Could it be the order of arguments is incorrect? Have you tried:
`se shift-endnotes -i -a 145 1 .`

[Hendrik Kaiber]

I thought so, so I tried all possible combinations, to no avail. I used it in the past, so I know it works, but I must be making a simple mistake, can someone else help?

—Hendrik

[David]

Robin's account of working on the script is pretty interesting (over seven years ago!), but unfortunately doesn't include a sample command line. :/

You're sure your "directory" argument is pointing in the right direction?

[Hendrik Kaiber]

I'm confident. Besides the period I also tried to use the direct path to the endnotes file. I'm sure it will turn out to be something stupid. All endnotes are also properly formatted and pointing to the right files. Maybe Robin can clarify this to me?

____________________________________

Hendrik de Wetterle Bonow Kaiber

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/5203d778-6bff-42fe-8aa7-2e5057026627n%40googlegroups.com.

[Hendrik Kaiber]

Nevermind, I found my mistake. Some of the endnotes didn't have the "endnote" semantic. I knew it would be something stupid. Thank you.

—Hendrik

[Hendrik Kaiber]

I couldn't find what to do if there is more than one anchor for the same endnote (see this).  Should both point to the same note and the backlink references only the second or another way?

—Hendrik

[David Reimer]

My inclination was to say duplicate the endnote ... then I found this kind of situation cropped up before, and that was Weijia's advice:
https://groups.google.com/g/standardebooks/c/aGjPs_iZYHc/m/eECgVPNWEAAJ

In that case, though, the two endnote anchors were at a distance, and these are contiguous. I still think duplicating it here is the cleanest solution.

[Vince Rice]

Yes, duplicate the endnote. 

But why use shift in the first place? Why not just use renumber and let it process everything? That doesn’t require moving and renaming files, etc. It also ensures the numbers are correct throughout.

On Feb 21, 2026, at 10:28 AM, David Reimer <djre...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Hendrik Kaiber]

I tried and it hadn't work. I guess it was because of the lack of semantics in some of the endnotes. I'll use it in the future.

—Hendrik

[Alex Cabal]

One is for Sienne, the other is for Garonne, why not just split them
into two different endnotes? I don't know why they didn't do that in print.

On 2/21/26 10:28 AM, David Reimer wrote:
> My inclination was to say duplicate the endnote ... then I found this
> kind of situation cropped up before, and that was Weijia's advice:
> https://groups.google.com/g/standardebooks/c/aGjPs_iZYHc/m/eECgVPNWEAAJ
> <https://groups.google.com/g/standardebooks/c/aGjPs_iZYHc/m/eECgVPNWEAAJ>
>
> In that case, though, the two endnote anchors were at a distance, and
> these are contiguous. I still think duplicating it here is the cleanest
> solution.
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 at 16:14, Hendrik Kaiber wrote:
>
> I couldn't find what to do if there is more than one anchor for the

> same endnote (see this <https://archive.org/details/
> oslusadasthelu01camuoft/page/92/mode/2up?q=%22S%C3%A9quana%22>).

> Should both point to the same note and the backlink references only
> the second or another way?
>
> —Hendrik
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> standardebooks/

> CALCAaCCtsMrP81C5gZvAPnkjfwOtKan1pmV%3D%3DQHQ6274TVoLuw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/
> CALCAaCCtsMrP81C5gZvAPnkjfwOtKan1pmV%3D%3DQHQ6274TVoLuw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.