Bibliographical notes on the English translation of Polydore Vergil's work, 'De inventoribus rerum' / communicated to the Society of Antiquaries by John Ferguson.

  • Ferguson, John, 1838-1916.
Date:
1888
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Bibliographical notes on the English translation of Polydore Vergil's work, 'De inventoribus rerum' / communicated to the Society of Antiquaries by John Ferguson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    35/38 (page 33)
    writings taken from Ellis. There are some inaccuracies in. it, unavoidable from his not having access to the requisite sources of information;: for example, he quotes an Elzevir edition of the Be inventoribus rerum of 1651, which does not, indeed could not, exist; but most of the inaccuracies occur already in Ellis’s prefaces. The reprint of the work begins on p. 1, with the following title-page : The Works Of The Famous Antiquary, Polidore Virgil. Compendioufly Englifh’t by John Langley, late Mafter of Paul's School, London. Containing The Original of all Arts, Sciences, Myfteries, Orders, Rites, and Ceremonies, both Ecclesiaftical and Civil. A Work Useful For all Divines, Historians, Lawyers, and all Artificers. LONDON, Printed for Simon Miller, at the Star in St. Paid's Church- Yard, 1663. In this title, which is a copy of that of 1663, the lines are not arranged exactly in the same way; see No. 7. In the reprint there are besides some typographical changes: the marginal contents are omitted; the contents of each chapter are printed in roman capitals, but proper names, Latin words and verses, are still in italics. Though a correct reprint, therefore, this is not a fac-simile. This edition of course contains the ninth book, which, as Hammond did not know, is spurious. Though he quotes (p. xiv.), not quite correctly, the title of the April 1546 edition with Thomas Langley’s name, and mentions besides the edition of January 1546, of 1551, and Tisdale’s, he says, “ I have not had the opportunity of comparing it (i.e. the 1663 edition) with any other English edition, and am not aware, therefore, in what respect it differs from them. It appears to be well translated, but is evidently abridged in some parts.” But he should not have forgotten or ignored the difference in the translator’s name as given in the 1546 and 1663 editions. e