Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:28:00.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Inquiry Concerning a Portuguese Editor and a Guinea Text

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2014

P.E.H. Hair*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool

Extract

When in 1985 I issued an English translation of the 1684 version of the Description of Guinea by Francisco de Lemos Coelho, I referred to the 1973 annotated French translation of one chapter by Nize Isabel de Moraes, and I noted that this included a brief statement to the effect that “une publication de la seconde version, en portugais actualisé, fut entreprise en Lisbonne en 1937 (Inéditos Coloniais, sér. A, num. II).” This statement puzzled me, since the 1953 edition of the Portuguese texts of both versions, by Damiãlo Peres, said nothing about a previous edition, leaving the reader to suppose that the 1953 edition represented the first time these accounts by Lemos Coelho had found their way into print. However, since the reference by Nize Isabel de Moraes was a little imprecise (why “fut entreprise” rather than “fut imprimé,” for instance?), and since I have never been able to see her thesis, which originally contained the French translation and may give additional information about the 1937 enterprise, it has taken me some years to confirm that there was indeed an earlier edition and an earlier editor—albeit in rather curious circumstances, about which I would like to learn more.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © African Studies Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Coelho, Francisco de Lemos, Description of the Coast of Guinea (1684), vol. 1, Introduction and English translation by Hair, P. E. H., issued from the Department of History, University of Liverpool, 1985, p. xiin1.Google Scholar (I regret that to date I have not found the time to complete, as promised, this edition, with a second volume supplying a comparison of the two texts and annotation; but I am not without hope of being able to do so shortly.)