One feels compelled to ask why Shakespeare 1603 needed a translation or a translator Florio, when he could read fluently the originals in French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, Greek. - Since Shakespeare could write entire scenes (Henry V) in excellent French, what would have hindered him from reading Montaigne in the original language? Greenblatt wrote in the Telegraph::
...the allusions in The Tempest and elsewhere makes clear that Shakespeare read Montaigne not in French but in an English translation. That translation, published in a handsome folio edition in London in 1603, was by John Florio.....
...To read the Essays in Florio’s translation is to read them, as it were, over the shoulders of some of England’s greatest writers.
....The translation seemed to address English readers of Shakespeare’s time with unusual directness and intensity.
....Specifically, Shakespeare takes Montaigne’s words, in Florio’s translation, and fashions them into the forged letter that Edmund fobs off as his brother Edgar’s.
....Shakespeare, who had an indifferent or ambivalent relationship to print, seems to have cultivated a certain anonymity.
Isn't ->Lamberto Tassinari with his ->strong arguments, (favoring a common identity of Florio and Shakespeare) a decisive step closer to the truth (s.Blog 193) even if he may have not understood the final connections ?