C. xvi.),
on the other hand, has in the Prologue (cf. ed. 1725, p. 6): "And zee
schulle undirstonde, that I have put this Boke out of Latyn into
Frensche, and translated it azen out of Frensche into Englyssche,
that every Man of my Nacioun may undirstonde it...."[18]
But we shall see that - without taking into account the important passage
in French quoted above, and probably misunderstood by the English
translator - the English version, a sentence of which, not to be found in
the Latin manuscripts, has just been given, is certainly posterior to the
French text, and therefore that the abstract of Titus C. xvi, has but a
slight value. There can be some doubt only for the French and the Latin
texts.
Dr. Carl Schoenborn[19] and Herr Eduard Maetzner,[20] "respectively seem
to have been the first to show that the current Latin and English texts
cannot possibly have been made by Mandeville himself. Dr. J. Vogels states
the same of unprinted Latin versions which he has discovered in the
British Museum, and he has proved it as regards the Italian version."[21]
"In Latin, as Dr. Vogels has shown, there are five independent versions.
Four of them, which apparently originated in England (one manuscript, now
at Leyden, being dated in 1390) have no special interest; the fifth, or
vulgate Latin text, was no doubt made at Liege, and has an important
bearing on the author's identity. It is found in twelve manuscripts, all
of the 15th century, and is the only Latin version as yet printed."[22]
