Book Discussion Paul Summers Young's translation of Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy

[acidpit226]

Hello. I'm curious if anyone has had experience with this translation and what the general consensus is, especially in comparison to Eric Perdue's critically acclaimed new translation. Discussion seems hard to come by and from what discussion there is it is primarily dismissive.

 

[Wintruz]

Hello. I'm curious if anyone has had experience with this translation and what the general consensus is, especially in comparison to Eric Perdue's critically acclaimed new translation. Discussion seems hard to come by and from what discussion there is it is primarily dismissive.

A Renaissance Studies journal would be more likely to yield what you're looking for than occult avenues where the demands of the audience are usually very different. However...

My one time academic supervisor, now friend, is one of the foremost scholars of Agrippa in the English-speaking world. When I wrote on Agrippa he advised using James Freake's translation over that of Young (this was just before Perdue's was published). The difficulty with Young, apparently, is that he omits and doesn't indicate that he's omitted, leaving a fragmentary picture. Neither does he correct or highlight errors in older translations. My understanding is that footnotes are also in short supply. The question is then "What does this translation really add?". Though the Black Letter Press books are pretty, for their price, they should be adding something substantial.

 

[acidpit226]

A Renaissance Studies journal would be more likely to yield what you're looking for than occult avenues where the demands of the audience are usually very different. However...

My one time academic supervisor, now friend, is one of the foremost scholars of Agrippa in the English-speaking world. When I wrote on Agrippa he advised using James Freake's translation over that of Young (this was just before Perdue's was published). The difficulty with Young, apparently, is that he omits and doesn't indicate that he's omitted, leaving a fragmentary picture. Neither does he correct or highlight errors in older translations. My understanding is that footnotes are also in short supply. The question is then "What does this translation really add?". Though the Black Letter Press books are pretty, for their price, they should be adding something substantial.

Thank you for your eloquent and informative response! Any information surrounding the Young translation is always severely lacking in actual detail of the process of the translation, aside from it being from the 1533 edition. I fully agree with you that it should have something substantial to justify it's price, especially with the only addition being the spurious fourth book. It's purpose to me seems solely as bookshelf candy instead of actual study, which really makes me question who it is for when the far better option is substantially cheaper. I guess there are many reasons that not many people are discussing it haha.