Gutenberg Articles

Appearance

Excerpt ​

Excerpt from The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, by Sir John Mandeville

                            * * * * *

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

THE Travels of Sir John Mandeville were edited anonymously in 1725, in
the version for which a ‘Cotton’ manuscript in the British Museum is our
only extant authority. From 1499, when they were first printed by Wynkyn
de Worde, the _Travels _had enjoyed great popularity in England, as in
the rest of Europe; but the printed editions before 1725 had all followed
an inferior translation (with an unperceived gap in the middle of it),
which had already gained the upper hand before printing was invented.
Another manuscript in the British Museum, belonging to the ‘Egerton’
collection, preserves yet a third version, and this was printed for the
first time by Mr. G. F. Warner, for the Roxburghe Club, in 1889, together
with the original French text, and an introduction, and notes, which it
would be difficult to over-praise. In editing the Egerton version, Mr.
Warner made constant reference to the Cotton manuscript, which he quoted
in many of his critical notes. But with this exception, no one appears
to have looked at the manuscript since it was first printed, and
subsequent writers have been content to take the correctness of the 1725
text for granted, priding themselves, apparently, on the care with which
they reproduced all the superfluous eighteenth century capitals with
which every line is dotted. Unluckily, the introduction of needless
capitals was the least of the original editor’s crimes, for he omits
words and phrases, and sometimes (a common trick with careless copyists)
a whole sentence or clause which happens to end with the same word as its
predecessor. He was also a deliberate as well as a careless criminal,
for the paragraph about the Arabic alphabet at the end of Chapter XV.
being difficult to reproduce, he omitted it altogether, and not only
this, but the last sentence of Chapter XVI. as well, because it contained
a reference to it.

Explanation ​

This biblioographical note from an edition of The Travels of Sir John Mandeville serves as a critical and scholarly preface, offering essential context about the text’s transmission, editorial history, and the challenges of working with its manuscript traditions. Below is a detailed breakdown of the passage, focusing on its content, purpose, themes, literary devices, and significance, while emphasizing the text itself.

1. Context of the Source ​

The Travels of Sir John Mandeville (c. 14th century) is a famous medieval travelogue purportedly written by an English knight, Sir John Mandeville, who claimed to have journeyed across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The work blends real geographical observations, mythical creatures, religious lore, and outright fabrications, making it a fascinating (if unreliable) source for medieval perceptions of the world. Its popularity in Europe—translated into multiple languages—reflects the medieval fascination with exotic lands, Christian pilgrimage, and marvels.

However, the authorship is disputed: "Mandeville" may have been a pseudonym, and the text likely compiles earlier travel accounts (e.g., Marco Polo, Odoric of Pordenone) with imaginative additions. The 1725 edition mentioned here is one of many attempts to standardize the text, but as the note reveals, it is deeply flawed.

2. Summary of the Bibliographical Note ​

The note critiques the 1725 edition of The Travels, edited anonymously, which relied on a single manuscript (the Cotton manuscript in the British Museum). It highlights several problems:

  1. Manuscript Authority:

    • The 1725 edition uses the Cotton manuscript as its sole source, but this was not the only version available.
    • Earlier printed editions (since 1499, by Wynkyn de Worde) followed an inferior translation that had already become dominant before printing.

  2. Alternative Versions:

    • The Egerton manuscript (another British Museum holding) preserves a third version, which was first printed in 1889 by G.F. Warner for the Roxburghe Club, alongside the original French text.
    • Warner’s edition is praised for its scholarly rigor, including an introduction, notes, and cross-references to the Cotton manuscript.

  3. Editorial Negligence:

    • The 1725 editor omitted words, phrases, and even entire sentences, often due to careless copying (e.g., skipping lines that end with the same word as the previous one).
    • The editor was deliberately dishonest: the Arabic alphabet section (Chapter XV) was omitted because it was "difficult to reproduce," and the last sentence of Chapter XVI was cut because it referenced the missing section.

  4. Subsequent Scholarly Complacency:

    • Later writers uncritically accepted the 1725 text, even reproducing its superfluous 18th-century capitalization without questioning its accuracy.
    • The note implies that no one re-examined the Cotton manuscript after 1725 until Warner’s 1889 edition.

3. Themes in the Note ​

While the note is technical, it touches on broader themes relevant to textual scholarship, medieval literature, and the transmission of knowledge:

  1. The Unreliability of Medieval Texts:

    • The Travels is already a compilation of dubious sources, and the note underscores how editorial choices further distorted it. This reflects the broader challenge of medieval textual transmission, where scribes and printers often altered texts intentionally or accidentally.

  2. Power of Print and Canonization:

    • The 1499 Wynkyn de Worde edition solidified an inferior version as the standard, demonstrating how early print culture could fossilize errors. Once a text was printed, later editors often reproduced mistakes rather than correcting them.

  3. Scholarly Negligence vs. Rigor:

    • The note contrasts the careless 1725 editor (who omitted difficult passages) with Warner’s meticulous 1889 edition, highlighting how editorial integrity shapes our understanding of historical texts.
    • The criticism of later scholars who blindly followed the 1725 text serves as a cautionary tale about uncritical reliance on "authoritative" editions.

  4. Cultural and Linguistic Loss:

    • The omission of the Arabic alphabet section is symbolic of how Western editors often excluded "foreign" or "difficult" material, reflecting broader Eurocentric biases in medieval and early modern scholarship.

4. Literary Devices and Rhetorical Strategies ​

Though the note is expository, it employs several rhetorical and stylistic devices to convey its argument effectively:

  1. Irony and Sarcasm:

    • "priding themselves, apparently, on the care with which they reproduced all the superfluous eighteenth-century capitals" → Mocks later editors for prioritizing superficial formatting over accuracy.
    • "the least of the original editor’s crimes" → Uses litotes (understatement) to emphasize the editor’s egregious errors.

  2. Direct Accusation:

    • "He was also a deliberate as well as a careless criminal" → The word "criminal" is a strong moral judgment, framing editorial negligence as an ethical violation.

  3. Contrast for Emphasis:

    • The note juxtaposes the 1725 editor’s failures with Warner’s scholarly excellence, reinforcing the importance of rigorous textual criticism.

  4. Technical Precision:

    • References to specific manuscripts (Cotton, Egerton), printing history (Wynkyn de Worde), and chapter numbers (XV, XVI) ground the argument in verifiable evidence, lending it authority.

5. Significance of the Note ​

This bibliographical note is more than a dry scholarly preface—it serves several critical functions:

  1. Exposing Editorial Corruption:

    • It challenges the assumption that printed texts are reliable, showing how early modern editors could be arbitrary or dishonest. This is crucial for understanding The Travels, a text already suspect in its claims.

  2. Advocating for Textual Criticism:

    • The note champions Warner’s 1889 edition as a model of scrupulous scholarship, urging readers to question "standard" versions of medieval texts.

  3. Historical Context for The Travels:

    • By detailing the manuscript variations, the note helps explain why The Travels contains contradictions and gaps—some may stem from editorial interference rather than Mandeville’s original intent.

  4. Broader Implications for Medieval Studies:

    • The note illustrates how texts evolve through transmission, shaping our modern perceptions of medieval literature. It warns against taking any single version as definitive.

6. Connection to The Travels of Sir John Mandeville ​

The note indirectly colors our reading of The Travels by:

  • Undermining its authority: If the text was poorly edited, how much of it reflects Mandeville’s (or his sources’) original words?
  • Highlighting its hybrid nature: The mention of multiple manuscripts suggests The Travels was always a fluid, adaptive work, blending fact, fiction, and scribal additions.
  • Emphasizing its cultural impact: The fact that it was reprinted repeatedly (despite errors) shows its enduring appeal as a medieval "bestseller."

7. Conclusion: Why This Note Matters ​

This bibliographical note is a microcosm of textual scholarship, demonstrating how:

  • Editorial choices shape history (what we read is often what an editor decided to preserve or omit).
  • Medieval texts are unstable—they change with each copy, translation, and printing.
  • Critical editions (like Warner’s) are essential for recovering lost or distorted meanings.

For The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, this note deepens our skepticism about the text’s claims while also revealing the fascinating layers of its creation. It reminds us that every book is a palimpsest—a record not just of its author’s intentions, but of the hands that copied, printed, and altered it over centuries.

Would you like a deeper dive into any specific aspect, such as the Arabic alphabet omission or the Egerton vs. Cotton manuscripts?