Talk:Dialogo de Cecco di Ronchitti da Bruzene in perpuosito de la stella Nuova

Not sure
I am not sure that Galileo knew the Venetian language. He seems to have been familiar with other dialects of Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.126.67 (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Galileo's published writings seem to be mostly or entirely in Italian and Latin, mostly Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.126.67 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Galileo was in Venice in the July of 1609. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.126.67 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the Dialogo is a manuscript, the handwriting should be compared with Galileo's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.54.155 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Language of Ronchitti's Dialogue
An accurate description of the language used in Cecco di Ronchitti's Dialogue was on the alleged grounds that it was "negative peacock wording". On the contrary, that the description is accurate can be readily confirmed by consulting any number of impeccable sources. I have restored a version of the wording that is less open to misinterpretation, and added citations to the locations in Stillman Drake's translation of the work which confirm its accuracy. The nature of the language used is quite significant, in that it was chosen to accentuate the mockery and ridicule which the author—quite likely Galileo himself—was heaping on the Dialogue's chosen targets (Antonio Lorenzini and Cesare Cremonini). David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stillman Drake was silly hero-worshipper of Galileo. The use of a particular dialect has no scientific significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.212.195 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Speakers of the London accent in English or the /Ungkue Bushman language from Southern Africa will not be pleased to see their languages used to mock Cremonini, Lorenzini or any others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.6.30 (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of any faults Stillman Drake might have had, he is widely recognised as having been one of the leading Galileo scholars of the 20th century. The description of him as a "silly hero-worshipper of Galileo" is facile hyperbole.  In any case, it's difficult for me to see how any pro-Galileo bias he might have had could be regarded as vitiating his description of the language he was translating as being a coarse, rustic Paduan dialect.  He is also not the only impeccable authority we have to rely on to be able to describe it in those or similar  terms.
 * Antonio Favaro, in the second reference cited in the article, tells us that the language used in the pamphlet was a "dialetto rustico Padovano" (i.e. a rustic Paduan dialect), and a somewhat imperfect imitation of that used in the plays of Angelo Beolco, writing under the pseudonym Ruzzante. This latter, which Favaro characterises as "che doveva riuscire tanto aspro alle gentili orecchie toscane" ("which must have seemed so rough to refined Tuscan ears"), was so littered with ribaldry and obscenity that it sometimes led to performances of the plays being cancelled.   John Heilbron, in his widely acclaimed biography of Galileo, describes the pamphlet as "a farcical exercise in a popular comic form, in this case the rustic dialogue of the sixteenth-century writer known as Ruzzante", whose humour he describes as "earthy", and the language of whose characters he describes as "rough expressive dialect". In Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (p.115), Mario Biagioli describes the pamphlet as being in "vulgar Paduan dialect", and in Galileo the Emblem Maker, an article published in Isis (Vol.81, No. 2, pp. 230-258) in 1990, he refers to it as written in "the quite vulgar Paduan dialect".
 * I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of the observation that "[t]he use of a particular dialect has no scientific significance."  No-one, as far as I know, has asserted or implied that the significance of the language used in the Ronchitti pamphlet was "scientific".   Its significance lies in its use as a literary and rhetorical device, and in its being one of the pieces of evidence that must be taken into account when investigating the question of the pamphlet's authorship.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stillman Drake wrote some fiction in the style of Galileo. Unfortunately, I can't immediately find a reference to it. Dava Sobel wrote a play, "And the Sun Stood Still", in the style of Galileo, about Copernicus.
 * A third writer has also written fiction in Galileo's style. Fiction is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.22.238.71 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010398900038 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.227.142 (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Mary P. Winsor noted that Drake defended hero-worshippers of Galileo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.222.51 (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't say that I have read every word that Drake wrote, but he never mentioned the fact that the theory of relativity means Galileo's work was meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.142.10.184 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Cecco di Ronchitti, alias Galileo and/or Girolamo Spinelli, wrote the Dialogo in perpuosito de la Stella Nuova in the Pavan dialect, a now-dead dialect of Padua (see Ivano Paccagnella, Vocabolario del pavano (XIV-XVII secolo), Padova, Esedra, 2012). --94.163.102.216 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC) About the "Pavan dialect" see also: Angelo Beolco (il Ruzante), La prima oratione, edited by Linda L. Carroll, London, Modern Humanities Research Association, 2009, pp. 72-73. --94.163.3.31 (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

See
_ttps://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiLwej4iebVAhVB2xoKHfxJAewQFggzMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fcontent%2Fpdf%2Fbbm%253A978-94-009-1878-8%252F1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEQ5oU4OJzg1bmYcS8-9qw8S4mHpQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.120.127.88 (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps add a few symbols on the left. This bibliography of Stillman Drake's writings seems to omit any fiction of his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.120.127.88 (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See "The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order", page 583, note 36. Robert S. Westman notes that Stillman Drake was acting "wishfully". Westman also notes that Drake's 1976 work was practically a vanity publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.72.107.171 (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since Westman's criticisms of Drake relate to the latter's conclusion (on p.25 of Galileo against the philosophers) that Galileo is more likely to have written the Cecco di Ronchitti Dialogue all by himself, rather than in collaboration with Girolamo Spinelli, the only relevance they seem to me to have for this article is as a potential reference to be cited in support of the last paragraph of the lead.
 * On the issue of the nature of the language used in Cecco's Dialogue, Westman's views are in perfect agreement with those of Drake, since he writes (on p.388 of The Copernican Question):
 * "… the language of Cecco's two interlocutors, Matteo and Natale, is an aggressively ribald and rustic Paduan dialect, …"
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)