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

  • John Ferguson
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.

    32/38 page 30
    John Langley, master of Paul's school, which statement is repeated by Anthony a Wood {Athenae Oxonienses, ed. Bliss, London, 1817, iii. col. 435). John Langley, according to Wood, became a commoner or batler of Magdalen hall about 1612; was master of the College School in Gloucester for twenty years; thereafter master in Paul’s school, London, and died in 1657. He was a man of great learning, and was a distinguished antiquary. Wood adds: “ He also translated from Lat. into English the book of Polid. Yirgil, entit. Be Rerum Inventoribus ; which book had been translated by Joh. Bale in the time of K. Ed. 6. but in old and rude English.” This, as coming from Wood, merits a brief examination, to display the errors which it contains. a. John Bale, in the catalogue which he gives of his own writings (Illustrium Maioris Britanniae Scriptorum .. . Summarium, Gippeswici, 1548, f. 243), men- tions : In Polydoru de inuento. reru. indi. iij. There is no reference to any trans- lation by him in the list of his English works. Has Wood fallen into some confusion ? b. If the translation into old and rude English was that printed by Grafton, he translator’s name, as we have seen, was Thomas Langley, not John Bale. Was Thomas Langley a name assumed by Bale? I have not seen that assertion made. It is singular that Wood should have described the English of John Bale’s time as old and rude. At this present time might one venture to call the English of Pope, Swift, Thomson, Gray, Collins, and a few more, about one hundred and fifty years ago, old and rude ? c. Grafton’s editions are dated respectively, April 1546, and January 25, 1546 (-47). King Edward YI. came to the throne January 28, 1546-7; so that Wood’s statement is not strictly accurate, even in this. d. Wood implies that this translation of John Langley’s was new. The only edition which has John Langley’s name is this one of 1663; and it cannot claim to be a new translation, because, in the first place, it is not even a new edition, but simply the remainder of the 1659 edition with a new title-page; and, in the second place, the 1659 edition is a reprint of that of 1546. e. This edition of 1659 was published two years after the date of John Langley’s death, as given by Wood; and the translator is called T. Langley, as in all the earlier editions. There was no thought then of ascribing it to the master of Paul’s school. Wood, therefore, has credited John Langley with a piece of work that was published some fifty years before he was born ; certainly one hundred and seven- teen years before the edition appeared in which his name is given as the trans-
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3