Notes on the Divyāvadāna

1950 ◽  
Vol 82 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 166-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. R. Shackleton Bailey

It is well known that most of the tales which make up the Divyāvadāna collection are to be found here and there in the Tibetan and Chinese translations of the Sarvāstivādin Vinaya. Cowell and Neil noted in the introduction to their editio princeps of 1886 that “although these (Tibetan) versions are often faulty and corrupt, yet without continual reference to them it would be impossible to give a satisfactory English translation of the Divyāvadāna”. Students of the Vinaya will probably agree that these editors, whose acquaintance with the Ḥdul ba seems to have been based upon English renderings of selected passages supplied by Léon Feer, here did less than justice to the skill and fidelity of the Tibetan translators and to the reliability of the Sanskrit manuscripts from which they worked. The extensive fragments of the Sanskrit text of the Vinaya published in the Gilgit Manuscript Series show on the whole a very close correspondence with their Tibetan counterparts, and a detailed comparison of about 200 pages of Cowell and Neil's text with the corresponding portions of the Ḥdul ba has satisfied me that where they diverge significantly the fault generally lies with the former.

The Library ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 533-542
Author(s):  
Vladislav Stasevich

Abstract 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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document