{"title":"1660年未记录的迈克尔·斯科特的《生理学》英文版","authors":"V. Stasevich","doi":"10.1093/library/20.4.533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This note is concerned with the possibly unique copy of a previously unknown 1660 edition of an English translation of Michael Scotus’s Physionomia, which has survived in the holdings of the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Though some records of this edition exist, none is properly bibliographical, and some bibliographers of the past have denied the existence of such a translation. The note offers a description of the particular copy, the make-up and content of the edition, the identity of the translator and a comparison of the translation with the Latin text of the editio princeps of 1477. The edition of 1660 is compared with two later English works from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which also purport to be the translations of the same work but in fact exploit the edition in question, progressively distorting it.","PeriodicalId":188492,"journal":{"name":"The Library: The Transactions of the Bibliographical Society","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Unrecorded 1660 English Edition of Michael Scot's Physionomia\",\"authors\":\"V. Stasevich\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/library/20.4.533\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This note is concerned with the possibly unique copy of a previously unknown 1660 edition of an English translation of Michael Scotus’s Physionomia, which has survived in the holdings of the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Though some records of this edition exist, none is properly bibliographical, and some bibliographers of the past have denied the existence of such a translation. The note offers a description of the particular copy, the make-up and content of the edition, the identity of the translator and a comparison of the translation with the Latin text of the editio princeps of 1477. The edition of 1660 is compared with two later English works from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which also purport to be the translations of the same work but in fact exploit the edition in question, progressively distorting it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":188492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Library: The Transactions of the Bibliographical Society\",\"volume\":\"86 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Library: The Transactions of the Bibliographical Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/library/20.4.533\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Library: The Transactions of the Bibliographical Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/library/20.4.533","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
An Unrecorded 1660 English Edition of Michael Scot's Physionomia
This note is concerned with the possibly unique copy of a previously unknown 1660 edition of an English translation of Michael Scotus’s Physionomia, which has survived in the holdings of the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Though some records of this edition exist, none is properly bibliographical, and some bibliographers of the past have denied the existence of such a translation. The note offers a description of the particular copy, the make-up and content of the edition, the identity of the translator and a comparison of the translation with the Latin text of the editio princeps of 1477. The edition of 1660 is compared with two later English works from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which also purport to be the translations of the same work but in fact exploit the edition in question, progressively distorting it.