Talk:Aldus Manutius

Vandalism?

Aldus Manutius aka roschrambo see the page ... could be a vandalism? 81.208.106.64 13:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Grandson

According to Lynne Truss, Eats, Shoots and Leaves, Gotham Books (2004), ISBN1-592-40087-6, p.78, he had a grandson of the same name, known to history as Aldus Manutius the Younger, also a typographer of some note, though not of equal note. We should probably clarify that somehow. - Jmabel | Talk 15:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, we have it, but with a comma. How typographical. We should have a redirect on the version without the comma, I'll do that. - Jmabel | Talk 15:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably good but uncommented edit

This series of anonymous, uncommented, substantive edits looks probably legit, but it sure begged for an edit summary (or comments here). It cites, in a general way, a recent book on Aldus Manutius but gives no page-specific citations; it changes several ostensible facts that we previously had from the 1911 EB. Again, I'm guessing that this is all correct, but someone should definitely follow up on this and cite more specifically. - Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Overly flowery and unsubstantiated claims

Contains orverly flowery, archaic, or difficult to read phrases such as "vast erudition" and "ripe scholars."

It also contains subjective unsubstantiated claims "with a beauty of type and paper never reached before", "To his fellow workers he was uniformly generous, free from jealousy, and prodigal of praise," describing his work as an "inalienable possession to the world," etc. Breuwi 07:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

But you may have Britannica 11 to blame for that, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aldus_Manutius&oldid=549853 . --Charles Gaudette 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

When you object to the assertion "with a beauty of type and paper never reached before", no doubt you are thinking of the rival claims of Nicolas Jenson, are you not? I see that you are very knowledgeable in the history of the printed book. If Jenson was renowned for his typefaces, but surely Aldus was renowned for his erudition. Is it "vast" that you draw the line at, then? No doubt you are comparing his erudition with that of his rival Francis Robortello, and have found it less than "vast". How lucky this article is, to have the attentions of such knowledgable criticism. --Wetman 23:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably where opinions come from the 1911 EB, they should be overtly cited as such. And Wetman, of course if you'd like to help out with the article it would be welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel I should note that it does say "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition" at the bottom of the article, so it is indirectly cited. Nitwit005 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Aldo Manuzio" (sic)

I'm sorry, but Manuzio's only real name is Aldo Manuzio, not Aldus Manutius, and he's widely known as Manuzio. So, I'm going to move the page from Aldus Manutius to Aldo Manuzio. --Lorenzop 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Any page moves have to be done through WP:RM, not by cut and paste. (For more on moving pages, see WP:MOVE.)

I don't think it's true that his only "real name" is Aldo Manuzio. He's much more commonly known as Aldus Manutius in English--a google search for "Aldus Manutius" gets about 102,000 hits, whereas a search for "Aldo Manuzio" gets about 65, 800. WP policy on article titles, found at WP:NAME tells us we should use whichever name is most commonly used in English. So I think "Aldus Manutius" is the proper name for this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Of the many citations that could be provided for the "real name" of Aldus, perhaps the most entertaining is Nick Mileti's Closet Italians: A Dazzling Collection of Illustrious Italians with Non-Italian Names, whose entry on Aldus Manutius gives his "real Italian name" as Aldo Manuzio, but uses "Manutius" or "Aldus Manutius" throughout. (Anyway, I always thought Latin was "real Italian.") --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Any competent English-speaking reader looking for Aldus Manutius will simply enter Aldus Manutius. Take a first glance at the index of two or three histories of book printing and see. In life, the Italian name of this person was Teobaldo Manucci-- only a bibliophile savant would recognize this name. Aldo Manuzio is a modern retranslation into Italian of Aldus Manutius: it's a phantom. Karl Linné is more recognizable as Linnaeus, is he not?. Who would recognize Philipp Schwartzerd, if he were not being called by his Greek name Melanchthon? Struggles by the recently-educated over long-standing conventions of the literate world tend to be jejune. --Wetman 06:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the fact that Manuzio was his only name; he might even have been called Manuzio in vulgar Italian at the time as well as nowadays, but the conventional international name is the Latin. One might question, however, if it is real that his real name was Teobaldo Mannucci; personally I have found any source backing this claim, and I don't know where the EB found any reference to this name. --Myriobiblion 10 January 2010 (UTC)

He certainly called himself Aldus Manutius sometimes on the title pages of the books he published: For example: "Aldi Manutii Pii Romani Grammaticarum Libri IIII", It's not unusual, in Italian as in English, for people to be called by names other than those they were baptised with, and even names they probably didn't care for. Think of hapless cases like Guercino or Sodoma. Those aren't very pretty names, certainly not what their mothers gave them at birth, but that's how they were known to their contemporaries and are still known to scholars today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by METRANGOLO1 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia says, "It is likely that the original name was 'Mandutio'." And quotes the Diz. Biog. degli Italiani (the reference is: Mario Infelise, MANUZIO, Aldo, il Vecchio, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani - Volume 69 (2007), Istituto dell'Enciclopedia italiana Treccani). I haven't learned to put in footnotes, so I'm sorry, I can't insert this information in the text. But someone more competent might like to add it. Many thanks.86.12.208.134 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Date of the work on punctuation

Has anyone noticed that AM "published the First Book on the Principles of Punctuation" more than 50 years after his death? This date should be checked.GJ1535 (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mistery solved: it was his grandson, Aldus Manutius the Younger, and the work is called Orthographiae Ratio. See: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/433480/Orthographiae-ratio (subscription needed)GJ1535 (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

much of this article appears to be taken verbatim from the [Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, pg 645] If that link is broken try searching for "Manutius' enthusiasm for Greek literature was not confined to the printing-room" in books.google.com

Anniepoo (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OOps... I'm a clever idiot, there's an infobox saying it has text from this encyclopedia and that it's in the public domain, revertingAnniepoo (talk)

Teobaldo Mannucci

Italian WP says that the "real name" Teobaldo Mannucci is a gross mistake, with no basis in history, due to an error made by Britannica. --79.51.182.105 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

link rot

the link to liberliber is outdated. Change it to http://www.liberliber.it/ 71.163.117.143 (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nominating for good article review

I just recently edited Aldus Manutius so it can be reviewed for GA status. I added in text citations, corrected inaccurate info. without sources, and put events in chronological order. If there are any issues please let me know. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aldus Manutius/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 07:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

An interesting & important subject that deserves consideration for GA status. I'm game to give this a look-over. -- llywrch (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

llywrch writes

I apologize for my delay in writing up my review. A week after I took this on I was distracted with Off-Wiki matters, which led to this responsibility slipping my mind. Another reason I delayed in writing this is that I prefer to review articles that are close to being Good Articles, that need only some tweaks or love. (I don't like telling anyone their prized child is ugly; it's an unpleasant interaction all around.) Nevertheless in its present shape there are some problems that need fixing, some due to how the article is written, some due to what I feel are omissions in the article.

We start encountering problems with the section "Aldine Press". First, according to the MoS -- which I usually ignore because either its dicta are common sense or easily ignorable if one follows any widely accepted & published style standard -- there should be no links in section headers. The preferred solution is to use the {{main}} -- or a related -- template. Which I consider common sense. But more importantly, the first paragraph under this section header is confusing. After mentioning how he started the Press, the paragraph states that Manutius wanted to make the classics accessible -- yet fails to explain his strategy to accomplish this. Instead the paragraph goes on to discuss the typefaces he chose to use. And there is a section further below in the article devoted to typefaces.

In the section "Greek classics":

• The article states that the first book published was in 1495. Was this the same book mentioned in the previous paragraph published in February 1495? Not addressed -- see below
• Why is the monk Makarije mentioned in the final paragraph? Did he & Manutius have a working or intellectual relationship worth discussing? Or is Makarije simply an example of Manutius' influence on his contemporaries. (I suspect someone with Serbian or Romanian affinities inserted this extraneous sentence, instead of creating a separate section. Doing the latter would require researching more examples of Manutius' influence on his contemporaries.) Y
• The final paragraph reads like a collection of random info that should be in this section, although it actually contains just two different subjects: that the Aldine Press reprinted earlier editions, & that a "New Academy" was created. It would read better if this paragraph was divided into two, the first concerning reprints of earlier editions -- with examples, & Manutius' reasoning for the reprints if known -- the second about the "New Academy". Y
• Perhaps it would be useful to state in this section how many different books he published that first year, and how many he published on average each year.

This point not addressed.

In the section "Latin classics":

• The article mentions that his 1501 edition of Vergil introduced the Italic family of fonts, without a citation. However, in the introductory paragraph of the "Aldine Press" section it is stated that in 1501 the "new typeface" -- which is implied to be what came to be called Italic font -- was discontinued in 1501, with a citation. Is this a contradiction? Otherwise this matter needs to be explained better. Y
• In the 3rd paragraph is another discussion of his expertise in typography. This should be moved to the section below about his typeface. (I suspect this paragraph is a remnant of an earlier version of the article, a problem many Wikipedia articles have, but should be gone by the GA stage.) Y

The 1st paragraph in the section "Imprint and Motto" needs rewriting for flow. The first sentence is an assertion, which is left undeveloped. Next is a quotation lacking an attribution in the body of the text, let alone a justification for this quotation. (IMHO, one can repeat facts with little paraphrase, as long as there is a footnote indicating the source.) Then we are told about how other printers of his day stole his imprint. Last we read that it was connected to the motto Festina lente. Lots of important information, yet beyond that these facts are about his imprint & motto, there is obvious connection between these pieces. At the very least I'd divide this section into 2 paragraphs, one about the origins & meaning of these trademarks -- maybe include material about the importance of an imprint as a trademark for his time -- the other containing all of the information accumulated here about its legacy & use.

Not really addressed

Another confused section is "Moveable book". If I understand the point of this section, the "moveable book" Manutuis created was much smaller than the typical book of the 15th century -- were they folio size? -- which he was able to create by removing the scholia or commentary the authorities for his texts had. And by making the books smaller, he was able to sell them for lower prices. (What would be the difference in price between a folio & an octavo book? While prices between eras do not always translate well, telling the reader that, say, a folio cost 50 ducats while an octavo cost 20 ducats does communicate something to the reader. (NB -- The prices are fictional, just to convey my point.) This section needs a rewrite.

Still would like some figures on prices.

In the "Marriage & personal life" section, I'd break up the first paragraph into two. One about his wife & family, including information about his children such as their names. The other about his misadventure with Frederico de Ceresara -- & some information about who he was. (A friend? An employee? Just someone he met on the road?) This section also needs a rewrite.

So who is Frederico de Ceresara? He is still not identified.

As a last point, I don't see the utility of the section "Publications". The article Aldine Press already presents a list of all of the titles his business published.

I apologize again for my delay, & hope my comments were worth the wait. -- llywrch (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

llywrch Currently, I am working on edits for Manutius' page. I would like to rearrange some of the topics. I believe adding the Greek and Latin classics to his "accomplisments as a publisher" would increase understanding. It would also help with flow within the Aldine Press section. I'll keep you updated with my edits. Thank you for your review.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

llywrch, I have edited Manutius' page. If there are any other issues please let me know.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

llywrch, I organized the topics to fix flow. If you have any suggestions to improve this please let me know. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Gandhi (BYU). I'm reviewing your changes now; so far what I see is good, although I have a few concerns. I don't know why I failed to receive a notification of your previous message dated 1 March, otherwise I'd have looked at this article sooner. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I don't respond to this promptly. -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

llywrch, is there anything else this article needs to pass? Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been distracted a bit by RL events this week. The first part of this article is well written, but I have found some serious concerns further on, & since I don't enjoy being critical of other people's work, that's another reason I've delayed in writing my review. But I will have it as soon as possible. -- llywrch (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

llywrch, please link me to your next review of this page. As Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, I doubt anyone will feel hurt by your review. I am excited to work together to fix up Manutius' page and look forward to collaborating in the future. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, @Gandhi (BYU):. Last week I was down with a cold & am now mostly over it. I checked off some items I pointed out, & left comments in italics where I felt nothing had been done to address my points. I also had a few more concerns:

• First paragraph of the section "Aldine Press", second sentence. It mentions the Press was half owned by Barbarigo & half by Torresani, then 1/5 of Torresani's share owned by Manutius. Maybe it's just me, but I found that a little confusing: why not say 50% owned by Barbarigo, 40% by Torresani, & 10% by Manutius. (Or should that be 50%, 45%, & 5%?)
• In the section "Typefaces", there is a reference to "the New Aldine Studies, Fletcher". No explanation who "Fletcher" is. This citation needs more explanation.

If these items can be addressed, I think this will pass GA. -- llywrch (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

llywrch, I have followed up with your suggested edits. Below are some explanations, updates, and questions about the article and your review. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• The Aldine Press was open for three generations. The list of publications on Manutius' page are specifically the items he translated and published. The Aldine Press page refers to everything published under Aldus, Torresani & sons, Paulus, and Aldus II.
• added prices and context of what the book was worth
• got rid of irrelevant information about Ceresara.
• added clarification of Manutius' share of the Aldine Press. Unfortunately, we don't have enough information to know for sure.
• Fletcher has now been explained within the text.
• What sentence do you feel is an assertion?

Apparently I forgot to sign my name. Thank you for reviewing this article, llywrch. I look forward to the next steps. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Gandhi (BYU), I've looked this draft over. We're almost there. I made a few minor edits; it made more sense for me to do that than to flag them & ask you to do it. But here's my responses.

• In the section "Aldine Press". Mention is made of Manutius' first book being printed February 1495 in the first paragraph. The second paragraph states he released his first edition of Aristotle in 1495. Do these refer to the same publication? If not, which author was in Manutius' first book? (I had mentioned this above, & accidentally checked it off as done.)
• Do you have information about how many books were printed in the first year?
• About the "Imprint & Motto" -- reviewing the section the first time around, my concern was that I didn't see how the motto festina lente was expressed with the conceit of an anchor & dolphin. Today I happened to follow the link on the Latin phrase & found these objects were associated in ancient times with the phrase. I'm at the point of letting this slide. But if you can think of a way to insert something along the lines that this pairing was one of the common images associated with the phrase, that would be good to add.

Hope you don't mind I was more prompt to respond this time. ;-) llywrch (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

llywrch, thank you for your promptness!

• I clarified Manutius' first publication and that the Aristotle volumes were not published until 1497. He started the project in 1495 but did not finish until 1497.
• Unfortunately, I do not have a complete list of his works in 1495. It would be a wonderful piece of information to add perhaps in the future.
• The symbol and phrase were engraved on the coin. I clarified the paragraph but if there is an issue let me know.

I am happy to see Manutius' page coming together.21:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

For whatever reason this didn't leave my signature. llywrch, you still see this. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering why you hadn't responded. As a suggestion, if the reviewer hasn't responded to your corrections in a day or two feel free to drop a note on his/her talk page. As for your changes, they look fine. I'll go ahead & pass this.

If you are interested in promoting this to FA, I have a few suggestions for you -- or whoever takes this on -- to consider:

• Work on replacing all citations to the Encyclopaedia Britannica & other tertiary sources. Although where the opinion of the author of the EB article is given, a source should be given for that. (I'm assuming the Manutius article is a signed one. The EB did, for certain articles, have an expert write them.)
• It would be useful, for the list of books published by the Aldine Press offered near the bottom of the article, indicate the language of each book. Maybe provide a bit of information if it is relevant to the life of Manutius.
• Of course to get this to FA class, you'd need to do a lot more research. While the amount of detail is fine for a GA article, for FA it would need more. Or at least verify how much information is available about Manutius, & compare it to the current article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Good luck, if you decide to promote this to FA. This is a subject that deserves to be a FA article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nominating for FA

llywrch, I nominated Aldus Manutius for Featured Article. If you would like to check out my revisions or have thoughts on improvements please let me know.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)