Animals, exhibiting
frequent sciolism and self-sufficiency in modifying statements which the
Editor disbelieved.[11] It is therefore utterly worthless as a Text, and
it is curious that Andreas Mueller, who in the 17th century devoted himself
to the careful editing of Polo, should have made so unfortunate a choice
as to reproduce this fifth-hand Translation. I may add that the French
editions published in the middle of the 16th century are translations
from Grynaeus. Hence they complete this curious and vicious circle of
translation: French - Italian - Pipino's Latin - Portuguese? - Grynaeus's
Latin - French![12]
[Sidenote: Fourth; Ramusio's Italian.]
60. IV. We now come to a Type of Text which deviates largely from any of
those hitherto spoken of, and the history and true character of which are
involved in a cloud of difficulty. We mean that Italian version prepared
for the press by G. B. Ramusio, with most interesting, though, as we have
seen, not always accurate preliminary dissertations, and published at
Venice two years after his death, in the second volume of the Navigationi
e Viaggi.[13]
The peculiarities of this version are very remarkable. Ramusio seems to
imply that he used as one basis at least the Latin of Pipino; and many
circumstances, such as the division into Books, the absence of the
terminal historical chapters and of those about the Magi, and the form of
many proper names, confirm this.
