curious complication of translation and retranslation. Thus the Latin
version published by Grynæus in the _Novus Orbis_ (Basle, 1532) is
different from Pipino’s, and yet clearly traceable to it as a base.
In fact it is a retranslation into Latin from some version (Marsden
thinks the printed Portuguese one) of Pipino. It introduces many minor
modifications, omitting specific statements of numbers and values,
generalizing the names and descriptions of specific 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 Müller, 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 Grynæus. Hence they complete this
curious and vicious circle of translation: French—Italian—Pipino’s
Latin—Portuguese?—Grynæus’s Latin—French![12]
[Sidenote: Fourth; Ramusio’s Italian.]