Talk:John Florio

Untitled

Provided link for the Waldenses and for Anne of Denmark (wife of James VI/I of Scotland/England).

Added mention of Queen Anna's New World of Words (1611). Added link to site where facsimile scans of this text can be found and (to a degree) searched; and to the big news that this text is on its way to Project Gutenberg. Ian Spackman 00:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

T.S. Eliot

This reference is misleading. It wasn't Eliot who rated Florio's Montaigne after the Bible and before all other Elizabethan translations. It was Frances Yates. This is the quotation from her book cited in the note: “Translation as an art has perhaps never reached such a high level as in the Elizabethan age… No one will deny that North’s Plutarch and Florio’s Montaigne rank immediately below the Authorised Version of the Bible. So important an authority as Mr T.S. Eliot puts the Montaigne above the Plutarch and so second only to the Bible.” Her evaluation all hinges on "No one will deny", but we don't know whether Eliot would have shared her opinion or not. If Eliot ever really ranked Florio's Montaigne after the Bible and before the other Elizabethans, then quote his words, not the words of Frances Yates attributing this opinion to him. I changed the text to reflect the fact that the opinion being expressed was not his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.212.17 (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Her statement starting 'No one will deny...' refers to a separate assertion, not involving Eliot. The next sentence states directly that Eliot ranked Florio's work second only to the Bible. Yes, it ought to be appropriately sourced, but so should thousands of other statements in Wiki. Valetude (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Quotation from Second Frutes

University of Michigan has placed a photographic facsimile of the first edition of Second Frutes online so it is easy to verify the spelling for the quote cited. This edit is wrong: Florio refers to himself as "Italiane", not "Italiano". WP:QUOTE requires us to use a "verbatim" transcription.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary reverting to "Italiano", I did check this. I looked at the facsimile copy from the University of Michigan on the Hathi Trust here; and also at the copy on Early English Books Online (a subscription resource). Both are very similar, and both credited to original copies – I imagine the same original – in the Huntington Library. In both cases the final character of the word has been defectively printed (or possibly defectively reproduced during microfilming in the 1950s), so that all we see is the curve forming the left-hand side of the character, which could belong to either an "e" or an "o". I agree, at first sight the word does look like "Italiane". However, if you compare the character with "e"s and "o"s elsewhere on the page – for example in "snarle" at the end of the line above and in "know", the catchword immediately below – you will see that, in this particular italic typeface, the "e" is a rather wider character than the "o". Given the amount of space between the "n" and the semi-colon that follows the word, I am convinced that the character in question can only be an "o", and that the correct reading is "Italiano". GrindtXX (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The response from User:GrindtXX regarding the comparison with "snarle" in the preceding line seems persuasive, but is this subjective judgement nothing more than original research? I note that all the academic commentators on this work, principally Frances Yates (referenced in the article) but also every other writer I found, have accepted this as "Italiane" and we should go with the sources, not our own opinions, however persuasive they may be.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no wish to conduct original research, and if you want to change back to "Italiane", perhaps with an additional reference to Yates, I will not attempt to argue the point further. As a matter of fact (and I had forgotten this) I see it was I who originally introduced the "Italiane" spelling back in 2011 (here). However, I will try to check an alternative original copy of the book sometime, and if the word is fairly clearly printed as "Italiano", with "Italiane" a misreading by Yates, I hope you will agree that that would justify a reversion to "Italiano". GrindtXX (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. As User:GrindtXX points out, this need not be the final word.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I have now checked two further copies of Second Frutes: the British Library's copy (shelfmark 627.g.28), and the facsimile edition published by Theatrum Orbis Terrarum/Da Capo Press in 1969, based on an original in the Beinecke Library at Yale. In both the word is clearly "Italiane" (albeit with a slightly squashed-up "e"). So the scholarly consensus is correct, and the quote can stay as it stands. GrindtXX (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan Bate reference

The reference is formatted as {{Harvnb|Bate|1998|p=94}} but the work isn't specified in the footnotes. Florio is indeed discussed on page 94 of Bate's The genius of Shakespeare ISBN 0330371010 but the the reference doesn't support the article text. (Bate is rather playfully proposing Florio's wife as The Dark Lady of the Sonnets). I've tagged it {{failed verification}}--217.155.32.221 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of the other references for this seem to be missing as well. I'm trying to find some replacements (e.g.)--217.155.32.221 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The derivation of "Aline" is doubtful

I probably need to justify this deletion, but to spare myself some retelling may I merely refer to this edit?--217.155.32.221 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Its

There was an unsourced claim that Florio "the first writer to use the genitive neuter pronoun 'its.'" According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first usage was Ralph Robinson's in his 1576 Certain Select Hist. Christian Recreations. Shakespeare was the second in 1591. Florio was the third, in 1598. Did Florio read Robinson? Did he read or watch Shakespeare? I don't know. There's a good chance it was an independent invention, but it was definitely not the first usage. WindSandAndStars (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. But it is actually in 1577, by Robinson Richard and not Ralph. Here's the source: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A10846.0001.001?view=toc Anyway if Shakespeare was second, it means that also Florio was second (Florio= resolute Johannes factotum).2.103.8.197 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Iannaccone, Marianna.

Noting that all these refs are WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Engraving

Uncut version here. XoverNishidani, anyone interested, have you come across an English translation of the latin under the image? Talking about it with the Vicipaedians here. Looking at his eyes, he seems to have a bit of strabismus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Translation attempt going on at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Latin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)