Lv, In Civitate Leodiensi, Et
Paulo Post In Eadem Civitate Translatus In Hanc Formam Latinam." (P. 33 Of
The Relation Des Mongols Ou Tartars Par Le Frere Jean Du Plan De Carpin,
Paris, 1838).
D'Avezac long ago was inclined to believe in an unique
French version.
The British Museum, English MS. (Cott., Titus. 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]
The universal use of the French language at the time would be an argument
in favour of the original text being in this tongue, if corrupt proper
names, abbreviations in the Latin text, etc., did not make the fact still
more probable.
The story of the English version, as it is told by Messrs. Nicholson and
Warner, is highly interesting: The English version was made from a
"mutilated archetype," in French (Warner, p. x.) of the beginning of the
15th century, and was used for all the known English manuscripts, with the
exception of the Cotton and Egerton volumes - and also for all the printed
editions until 1725. Mr. Nicholson[23] pointed out that it is defective
in the passage extending from p. 36, l. 7: "And there were to ben 5
Soudans," to p. 62, l. 25: "the Monkes of the Abbeye of ten tyme," in
Halliwell's edition (1839) from Titus C. xvi, which corresponds to Mr.
Warner's Egerton text, p. 18, l. 21: "for the Sowdan," and p. 32, l. 16,
"synges oft tyme." It is this bad text which, until 1725,[24] has been
printed as we just said, with numerous variants, including the poor
edition of Mr. Ashton[25] who has given the text of East instead of the
Cotton text under the pretext that the latter was not legible.[26]
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 556 of 701
Words from 288677 to 289216
of 370046