The Geography of Italy in Shakespearean Drama
Mark Alexander
and Italy."
In this chapter, this Italian Stratfordian scholar refutes the common
claims made by other Stratfordians, including some on this newsgroup,
that Shakespeare made mistakes in Italian geography.
Since this argument is clear and well-supported, some of you may want to
follow Robert G.'s example and level argument-free ridicule rather than
attempt to refute the argument.
Furthermore, it must be discomforting for Stratfordians that Grillo's
itinerary reflects a significant portion of Oxford's. See Alan Nelson's
web site with Oxford's itinerary for his Italian reavels at
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/ITALY/Itinerary.html
but here it is in brief:
Oxford first arrived in Venice in May 1575, made it the base of his
operations, and interrupted his stay on at least three different
occasions:
1) Between May and 23 September, when he visited Genoa and Milan (also
Palermo, Sicily?) Oxford was back in Venice on 23 September.
2) On 27 November, when he visited Padua. Oxford was in back Venice on
11 December.
3) Between 12 December and 26 February 1576, when he visited Florence
and Siena (he was in the latter city on 3 January). Oxford was back in
Venice by 26 February and remained until 6 March.
4) Oxford left Venice for Paris on March, travelling via Milan and Lyon.
Shakespeare plays with locations in or excessive references to:
Venice: The Merchant of Venice, Othello
Genoa: The Merchant of Venice
Milan: Two Gentleman of Verona, The Tempest
Padua: The Taming of the Shrew
Florence: All’s Well That End’s Well
Verona: Romeo and Juliet, Two Gentleman of Verona
(Verona lies midway between Venice and Milan, near Padua.)
Messina: Much Ado About Nothing
Sicily: The Winter’s Tale
____________
THE GEOGRAPHY OF ITALY IN SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA
Notwithstanding the fact that his Italian scenes are depicted in colours
faithfully reproduced from the originals, the majority of commentators
tell us that Shakespeare knew nothing of conditions in northern Italy,
and that he was totally ignorant of the geography of these provinces.
Three well-known passages are quoted in support of their assertion: the
first in The Tempest, the second in The Two Gentlemen of Verona and the
third in The Taming of the Shrew. Sidney Lee, our dramatist’s
biographer, never tires of reiterating this argument to prove
Shakespeare guilty of saying things which in fact he neither said nor
thought. It is erroneously repeated that Shakespeare described Verona as
a city on the sea coast, and Bergamo as a place where canvas was woven
for the making of sails, without considering that Shakespeare in his
allusions to Verona was careful to mention not the sea but the very
river--the Adige--which flows though the city; and that if he asserts
that Tranio’s father followed the trade of sail-maker in Bergamo he
cannot have been famous for that industry until recent times. Indeed,
Manzoni, in his I Promessi Sposi, describing the flight of Renzo, speaks
of the sail-making industry which flourished in that district. But
perhaps it will be better to give here some further examples to
illustrate our argument. I The Tempest, Prospero relates how he had been
taken out of the gates of Milan, put upon a ship and dispatched some
leagues to the sea. The poet's sole error here is in making the voyage
too short; but even this is explained in the line,
'In few, they hurried us aboard a bark.'
The words 'in few' indicate that he has much else to say and cannot
waste time on useless descriptions. 'In few' corresponds to the Italian
'in breve', which is sufficiently significant. In those days it was
quite possible to embark at- the gates of Milan for ports on the
Adriatic Sea, and since, in the sixteenth century, there were no
railways, a journey by water was often preferable to one by road because
of its greater safety and comfort.
But if Shakespeare is to be accused of inexactitude what shall we say of
other writers: Goldoni, for instance, who in his Memoirs describes at
length a voyage which he made, in company with a Dominican Friar, from
Pavia to Chioggia? Montaigne, Coryat and others tell us that in their
wanderings from one city to another in northern Italy they were in the
habit of travelling by boat. In The Two Gentlemen of Verona Shakespeare
describes Valentine as sailing from Verona to Milan. This is another
passage quoted by critics to prove that Shakespeare's information was
not the result of personal observation; but here also the accusation of
ignorance is wholly unjustified. In Romeo and Juliet the city of Verona
has no harbour and is said to be situated in the midst of the Venetian
Plain, as in reality it is. From a superficial reading of The Two
Gentlemen of Verona one might think that the city was on the coast,
since the word 'road' is used for the place of Valentine's embarkation,
and several allusions are made to the ebb and flow of the tide. But such
expressions do not necessarily indicate that the city was a seaport. It
is true that 'road' is now only used of the sea, but in the sixteenth
century and even much later it merely signified a place where large
ships could be anchored. Hundreds of examples from English authors prove
that Shakespeare did not err, for the word is freely used in
descriptions of towns on the River Thames. As, for the ebb and flow of
the waves, it is well known that the effects of the tide can be seen
more than a hundred miles from the mouth of a river.
But all these discussions seem of little consequence when we read the
drama more diligently and ponder carefully the words of the poet, who,
at the end of his description of the journey by water, speaks not of the
sea but of the river:
'Tut, man, I mean thou'lt lose the flood, and, in losing the flood, lose
thy voyage, and, in losing thy voyage,…
The reply to this apostrophe which has been overlooked by commentators
proves the dramatist to have been more accurate than he has generally
been given credit for.
'Lose the tide' and the voyage, and the master, and the service, and the
tied! Why, man, if the river were dry, I am able to fill it with my
tears; if the wind were down, I could drive the boat with my sighs.'
'If the river were dry'--what is this river? Without doubt the Adige, on
whose banks Verona was built, a river which in the sixteenth century had
communications with many of the cities of northern Italy, including
Milan. The River Adige which comes from the direction of Milan and flows
through Verona was a navigable river; and Milan itself was situated on
several canals, by means of which it was possible to travel from city to
city. Three administrators were appointed by the Venetian Republic to
supervise commerce on the River Adige and these canals. Verona appears
to have been a port of some consequence, often visited by the galleys of
the Republic of St. Mark, stationed in Lake Garda a few miles from the
city. It seems as if critics wish to judge Shakespeare by
twentieth-century conditions, forgetting that journeys on foot or by
coach in earlier centuries, and especially in the time of Shakespeare,
were neither comfortable nor safe. Therefore all the rivers and canals
of northern Italy were utilised for commerce and travel, these means of
communication playing an important part in the history of Italy long
before The Tempest or The Two Gentlemen of Ferona were written or
published. We have chronicles, letters, and numerous documents of
merchants, diplomatists and historians in which they are mentioned; and
it is impossible to write the history of Venetian commerce and of the
Galleys of the Republic without giving prominence to their usefulness
both in peace and war.
The River Po, with its thirty main tributaries and many smaller ones,
was in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, as in earlier times, the
principal means of transport for the inhabitants of northern Italy; and
one cannot read the history of its cities without noting the numerous
allusions to the commerce carried on by these waterways. Even Polibius,
tells us that the river was navigable for 250 miles from the sea;
Straboni speaks of Roman navigation from Piacenza to Ravenna, and Pliny
alludes to the trading ships which sailed up the Po to the place where
Turin now stands. From the twelfth century onwards the Po and its
tributaries became still more important. Italian chroniclers assert that
Milan in the fourteenth century enjoyed all the advantages that were to
be gained through the possession of a canal which communicated with the
Po, and that later, for the transport of the marble which was to be used
in building the Duomo, the city constructed other canals leading to the
Ticino, the Po and to Lake Maggiore. All this justifies Carlo Pagano's
assertion in 1520 that Milan, though far from the sea, might easily be
reckoned a seaport. English travellers mention that many of their
compatriots travelled by boat down the Po from Turin to Venice. Coryat
speaking of Milan declares that the city was surrounded by a network of
canals whose waters flowed into the river.
When we come to consider the aspect presented by the Adige and Po in
time of war, the amount of traffic along their courses is nothing less
than marvellous and a source of astonishment to those who doubt the
possibility of a voyage from Milan to the sea. The historian
Guicciardini writes that in 1509 the Po was the scene of bitter naval
battles between the galleys of Milan and Venice. We may add that in 1431
Niccolb Trevisano, an Admiral of the Venetian Republic, had his fleet
destroyed by the Milanese, under the command of Ambrogio Spinola, not
far from Cremona. This was a serious blow for the Venetians, who lost no
time in building a powerful fleet to humiliate the proud Duke of Milan
and the Marquis of Mantua. In August, 1438, a fleet of a hundred
galleons, thirty barques, six galleys and many other vessels loaded with
provisions and munitions sailed up the Po from Venice to attack the
region of Milan.
Shakespeare's accurate knowledge of the geography of Italy is all the
more noteworthy as it contrasts strikingly with his ignorance of that of
other European countries, France, for example. In his allusions to
French towns we find nothing to indicate that he knew them well. In the
three plays of which the scenes are laid in France--Love's Labour's
Lost, As You Like It and Alls Well That Ends Well--local colour and
topographical realism are entirely absent. The scene is for the most
part set in districts far removed from the direct route to Italy; but
all the cities where a traveller on his way to Italy would stop to
change horses or coaches are accurately named by our dramatist, e.g.
Calais, Amiens, Longueville, Troyes, Marseilles and Genoa. When we
consider that in the north of Italy he reveals a more profound knowledge
of Milan, Bergamo, Verona, Mantua, Padua and Venice, the very limitation
of the poet's notions of geography proves that he derived his
information from an actual journey through Italy and not from books. All
that he says about our country is marvellously accurate, and this
precision is manifest not only in the passages already cited but in all
those adduced by the critics to prove his ignorance of the geography of
Italy. A German critic asserted that he could not have known Padua and
Venice because in The Merchant of Venice he describes these two cities
as ‘neighbouring'. Since Padua is only about twenty miles from Venice
one can hardly deny the proximity of the two cities. A statement such as
Shakespeare's, besides being correct to-day, seems all the more exact
when one remembers that he wrote it towards the end of the sixteenth
century.
Another critic based his accusation of ignorance on the fact that
Shakespeare had alluded in The Two Gentlemen of Verona to a forest in
the Province of Milan, extending in the direction of Bergamo, where
robbers had taken refuge. If Shakespeare is in error here, then so too
is Manzoni, who describes the Gran Macchia into which Renzo plunged on
the night of his flight from Milan to the territory of St. Mark. Here
too Shakespeare is correct, because he places the forest in the only
locality where it ever existed or could have existed. Still another
writer accuses Shakespeare of ignorance because in one of his plays he
alludes to a small island in the River Po. This argument seems
superficial and ridiculous when one thinks that, in reality, small
pieces of land surrounded by water and called isolotti are by no means
rare in the rivers and lakes of north Italy. It will suffice to mention
the famous island of Belvedere, formed by the Po not far from Ferrara,
where the Este family in the sixteenth century built a magnificent
palace, and the isolotti on the Piave, of which so much was heard during
the last phase of the fighting against the Austrians in 1918.
Thus all these arguments fail to prove Shakespeare’s ignorance of the
geography of Italy. Apart from a few trifling errors, the topographical
details of the Italian cities with all their individual characteristics
are surprisingly accurate in his plays: far more exact than in the works
of many other writers who have visited Italy. Even Byron who travelled
map in hand through Europe, and who earned such unstinted praise for the
fidelity of his descriptions, made a considerable number of errors in
his Childe Harold; Walter Scott, who knew Edinburgh as the Romans know
their own city, made some unpardonable mistakes in his novel, The
antiquary; Chaucer, who made at least three journeys to Italy, in the
Prologue to his Clerkes Tale makes the River Po flow beyond Venice; and
of Browning, who loved and lived in Italy, one could cite many instances
of errors in the description of scenes often visited and admired. But no
one would dream of suggesting that Scott had never been in Edinburgh or
that Chaucer and Browning had never visited Italy.
In conclusion we may affirm that of all the English poets who visited
Italy, with the possible exception of Shelley and Byron, no one has
depicted our scenes, our life, our character and our nature better than
Shakespeare. The portrayer of the spirit of humanity, the genius of the
English Renaissance, in whose works we find not only true life and
passion, but all European institutions with their chivalry, courtesy and
ambitions, could not have sung the praises of the classical yet ever
romantic land of Italy without having paid her at least a fleeting
visit. It need occasion no surprise therefore if we imagine the great
lover of our country travelling through many Lombardian and Venetian
cities 'waving friendly together the British and the Italian flag, and
talking of the Alps, the Apennines and the River Po'. These words of the
dramatist proved truly prophetic, for the Anglo-Italian flags waved
victoriously together in the Crimea, in Sicily on Garibaldi's
disembarkation in 1859 and on the sacred battlefields of more recent
wars for the defence of that civilisation which is the glory of the
Latin peoples.
_______
robert...@my-deja.com
> Since this argument is clear and well-supported, some of you may
> want to follow Robert G.'s example and level argument-free ridicule
> rather than attempt to refute the argument.
You have misrepresented me, Mark. I told you why I wasn't up
to wading through Grillo's gush, only. How could I attempt to refute
his argument when I didn't feel I had time to give it any kind of
proper attention. I did say why I wasn't going out of my way to
make time, though: I presented an example of his point of view. Do
you deny that Grillo said something to the effect that every line of
Shakespeare's work shows an intimate familiarity with Italy? Do you
not agree that if he did so, he was exaggerating ridiculously? I
wouldn't expect you to agree that just about all he said in his opening
paragraph sounded similarly over-stated, but I can't see why you can't
accept that I might feel I have better things to do than read some
enthusiast-for-Italy's paean to Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy
(particularly considering how much more value I put on objective
evidence of authorship like names on title-pages than I do on
subjective speculation about what kind of person an author HAD to
have been for determining authorship).
I'm still Bob G., by the way, as I almost always sign myself. The
Robert in my new address is only due to a mix-up I had with deja.com,
though I am not entirely not Robert.
--Bob G.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Eric Ingman
>
>> Since this argument is clear and well-supported, some of you may
>> want to follow Robert G.'s example and level argument-free ridicule
>> rather than attempt to refute the argument.
>
>to wading through Grillo's gush, only. How could I attempt to refute
>his argument when I didn't feel I had time to give it any kind of
>proper attention. I did say why I wasn't going out of my way to
>make time, though: I presented an example of his point of view. Do
>you deny that Grillo said something to the effect that every line of
>Shakespeare's work shows an intimate familiarity with Italy?
Exactly what did he say that you think is false? Every line that you write
shows that you are a Stratfordian, but that doesn't mean that every line
that you write is about your Stratfordian views, per se. Suddenly you act
like you don't how the English she is speak. So exactly which passage of
Grillo do you object to? Or are you cutting straight to the conclusions and
objecting to them prima facie?
>I wouldn't expect you to agree that just about all he said in his opening
>paragraph sounded similarly over-stated, but I can't see why you can't
>accept that I might feel I have better things to do than read some
>enthusiast-for-Italy's paean to Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy
>(particularly considering how much more value I put on objective
>evidence of authorship like names on title-pages than I do on
>subjective speculation about what kind of person an author HAD to
>have been for determining authorship).
Imagine how you'd react if an Oxfordian said, "I didn't read it, it's an
exaggeration, it's not relevant, and that's why I know I'm right." Does that
sound like an argument that would change your mind?
Apart from the authorship controversey, Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy is
reflected in his plays. He either made mistakes or he got it right; he was
there or he wasn't; he spoke it or he didn't. Those who know Italy and its
history are in a better position to evaluate that than we are. If Grillo --
who loves both Italy and Shakespeare, it seems -- is not an authority, who
is more accurate on this topic, Bob G? Or do you simply reject his
conclusions because they make it so inconvenient to explain how the man from
Stratford picked up first-hand information?
Eric Ingman
robert...@my-deja.com
> >> Since this argument is clear and well-supported, some of you may
> >> want to follow Robert G.'s example and level argument-free ridicule
> >> rather than attempt to refute the argument.
Bob G.:
> >You have misrepresented me, Mark. I told you why I wasn't up
> >to wading through Grillo's gush, only. How could I attempt to refute
> >his argument when I didn't feel I had time to give it any kind of
> >proper attention. I did say why I wasn't going out of my way to
> >make time, though: I presented an example of his point of view. Do
> >you deny that Grillo said something to the effect that every line of
> >Shakespeare's work shows an intimate familiarity with Italy?
Eric I.:
> Exactly what did he say that you think is false? Every line that you
> write shows that you are a Stratfordian, but that doesn't mean that
> every line that you write is about your Stratfordian views, per se.
> Suddenly you act like you don't how the English she is speak. So
> exactly which passage of Grillo do you object to? Or are you cutting
> straight to the conclusions and objecting to them prima facie?
The statement of Grillo's that I KNOW is false is the one about
every line in Shakespeare's being redolent of Italy, or whatever. I
doubt that even Richard Kennedy could go along with that.
As I have so far stated as clearly as I'm capable of, I suspect that
the rest of what Grillo says is similarly ridiculous. Even if it is
not, it cannot have much to contribute to the authorship question
because it contains no direct evidence regarding that question. Ergo,
because I have limited time at my disposal, I have elected not to
bother with it (right now).
Your contention that every line I write (even at HLAS) shows I am a
Stratfordian is insane (unless you want to argue that any line that
shows even a glimmering of common sense could only come from a
Stratfordian--except that I'm pretty sure I've written lines without
any sense at all).
Eric goes on:
> Imagine how you'd react if an Oxfordian said, "I didn't read it,
> it's an exaggeration, it's not relevant, and that's why I know I'm
> right." Does that sound like an argument that would change your mind?
No. But, as I wrote Mark, my post was NOT an argument, it was a
description of why I was not going to read Grillo at this time.
Furthermore, I did NOT say Grillo's whole book was exaggerated crap,
I ONLY said that his first paragraph made me strongly suspect it was.
Eric:
> Apart from the authorship controversey, Shakespeare's knowledge of
> Italy is reflected in his plays. He either made mistakes or he got
> it right; he was there or he wasn't; he spoke it or he didn't.
> Those who know Italy and its history are in a better position to
> evaluate that than we are.
Only if they have functioning brains--and also know Elizabethan
England. There have been many experts in various fields who were
sure that Shakespeare was a lawyer, doctor, horticulturist, sailor,
soldier, stateman, musician, etc., etc. They cannot ALL have been
right.
> If Grillo -- who loves both Italy and Shakespeare, it seems -- is
> not an authority, who is more accurate on this topic, Bob G? Or do
> you simply reject his conclusions because they make it so
> inconvenient to explain how the man from Stratford picked up
> first-hand information?
As already stated, I have not rejected his conclusions but explained
why I wasn't bothering at this time to find out what they are. Nor
would I find it inconvenient to explain any knowledge of Italy that's
in the plays because I know from having read almost all of them that
knowledge of Italy (1) plays a Very Small role in them; (2) could be
explained with ease as being the result of research or data supplied
by friends or even a trip by the Stratford man to Italy; and (3) has
next to nothing to do with who wrote Shakespeare, which has long been
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt by the direct evidence.
John W. Kennedy
original Klingon".
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Trent Annetts
>
> Here is another complete chapter from Ernesto Grillo's book "Shakespeare
> and Italy."
>
> In this chapter, this Italian Stratfordian scholar refutes the common
> claims made by other Stratfordians, including some on this newsgroup,
> that Shakespeare made mistakes in Italian geography.
>
> Since this argument is clear and well-supported, some of you may want to
> follow Robert G.'s example and level argument-free ridicule rather than
> attempt to refute the argument.
>
> THE GEOGRAPHY OF ITALY IN SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA
>
> Notwithstanding the fact that his Italian scenes are depicted in colours
> faithfully reproduced from the originals, the majority of commentators
> tell us that Shakespeare knew nothing of conditions in northern Italy,
> and that he was totally ignorant of the geography of these provinces.
> Three well-known passages are quoted in support of their assertion: the
> first in The Tempest, the second in The Two Gentlemen of Verona and the
> third in The Taming of the Shrew. Sidney Lee, our dramatist’s
> biographer, never tires of reiterating this argument to prove
> Shakespeare guilty of saying things which in fact he neither said nor
> thought.
Grillo is now a mind reader.
> It is erroneously repeated that Shakespeare described Verona as
> a city on the sea coast, and Bergamo as a place where canvas was woven
> for the making of sails, without considering that Shakespeare in his
> allusions to Verona was careful to mention not the sea but the very
> river--the Adige--which flows though the city; and that if he asserts
> that Tranio’s father followed the trade of sail-maker in Bergamo he
> cannot have been famous for that industry until recent times. Indeed,
> Manzoni, in his I Promessi Sposi, describing the flight of Renzo, speaks
> of the sail-making industry which flourished in that district. But
> perhaps it will be better to give here some further examples to
> illustrate our argument. I The Tempest, Prospero relates how he had been
> taken out of the gates of Milan, put upon a ship and dispatched some
> leagues to the sea. The poet's sole error here is in making the voyage
> too short; but even this is explained in the line,
>
> 'In few, they hurried us aboard a bark.'
>
> The words 'in few' indicate that he has much else to say and cannot
> waste time on useless descriptions. 'In few' corresponds to the Italian
> 'in breve', which is sufficiently significant. In those days it was
> quite possible to embark at- the gates of Milan for ports on the
> Adriatic Sea, and since, in the sixteenth century, there were no
> railways, a journey by water was often preferable to one by road because
> of its greater safety and comfort.
I did a quick bit of internet research and this seems simply not to
be true. By the time of Shakespeare's supposed visit, around 1592-93
according to the Mr. Alexander's first Grillo post, there was indeed a
large and complex canal (naviglio in the singular and navigli in the
plural) system in place around Milan. This system did, in fact, connect
the waters of the Ticino R. to the west of Milan with the waters of Adda
R. to the east. It is also true that each of these rivers drain into
the Po R., which is south of Milan, and that the Po drains into the
Adriatic. So, on first blush, it looks as though one could leave Milan
by boat, travel the canal system to either the Ticino or Adda, travel
down to the Po, and then carry on to the Adriatic. But is this really
the case? Of course not. When the navigli system was finally
completed, around 1816, with a link south to the Po, it had a total
navigable length of 232 km: 50 km Naviglio Grande, 101 km other navigli,
and 81 km usable river stretches. That's it. Three rivers but only 81
navigable km.
http://www.navigliogrande.mi.it/history.htm
> But if Shakespeare is to be accused of inexactitude what shall we say of
> other writers: Goldoni, for instance, who in his Memoirs describes at
> length a voyage which he made, in company with a Dominican Friar, from
> Pavia to Chioggia? Montaigne, Coryat and others tell us that in their
> wanderings from one city to another in northern Italy they were in the
> habit of travelling by boat. In The Two Gentlemen of Verona Shakespeare
> describes Valentine as sailing from Verona to Milan. This is another
> passage quoted by critics to prove that Shakespeare's information was
> not the result of personal observation; but here also the accusation of
> ignorance is wholly unjustified.
No, it is totally justified. Verona is about 100 km (rough estimate
using an atlas) upstream from the mouth of the Adige. Now, the Adige
doesn't connect with the Po or any of its tributaries and drains
directly into the adriatic sea. In order to travel from Verona to Milan
by boat, one would have to travel down the Adige to the Adriatic and up
the Po to Milan.. As shown earlier, that was just not possible.
> In Romeo and Juliet the city of Verona
> has no harbour and is said to be situated in the midst of the Venetian
> Plain, as in reality it is.
Actually, it is situated at the foot of the alps.
This is not true. The River Adige had no communication with many of the
cities of northern Italy. Also, there is absolutely no way one could
lose the tide at Verona. While Grillo is correct in stating that the
effects of tides can be seen upstream on some rivers, this phenomenon
occurs only where the coastal tidal range is large. The problem for
Grillo is that the adriatic sea has insignificant tides. In fact,
Adriatic coastal areas generally experience tidal ranges less than 2 m.
It may be of interest to point out that the eastern coast of Britain has
relatively large tides and that the northern coast of France has the
highest tides in Europe. If you are seeking places where you may "lose
the flood," you'll find them here, not in the Adriatic.
> The River Adige which comes from the direction of Milan
Wrong again. It flows from the Alps in the north. Milan is to the west
of Verona.
> and flows through Verona was a navigable river;
At least Grillo got that right.
> and Milan itself was situated on several canals,
That too is correct
> by means of which it was possible to travel from city to
> city.
Completely false!!
> Three administrators were appointed by the Venetian Republic to
> supervise commerce on the River Adige and these canals. Verona appears
> to have been a port of some consequence, often visited by the galleys of
> the Republic of St. Mark, stationed in Lake Garda a few miles from the
> city.
Wrong again. Lake Garda has only one effluent and that is the Mincio
River which leaves the lake at Preschiera in the south and drains into,
you guessed it, the Po.
> It seems as if critics wish to judge Shakespeare by
> twentieth-century conditions, forgetting that journeys on foot or by
> coach in earlier centuries, and especially in the time of Shakespeare,
> were neither comfortable nor safe.
Here I quote from the first chapter of Grillo posted by Mr. Alexander:
"Italy was the magic land where the joys of life abounded. With even the
slenderest resources it was possible to undertake the pilgrimage, for
one could travel at little expense on foot, on horseback, by boat or
even in a carriage. Living in those days was very inexpensive--lodgings
were obtainable for a few coppers at an inn or tavern, while the very
poor could always find hospitality in the monasteries or colleges."
Now, which is it? Is it the land of milk and honey or the land danger
and misery?
It is an interesting contradiction.
> Therefore all the rivers and canals
> of northern Italy were utilised for commerce and travel, these means of
> communication playing an important part in the history of Italy long
> before The Tempest or The Two Gentlemen of Ferona were written or
> published. We have chronicles, letters, and numerous documents of
> merchants, diplomatists and historians in which they are mentioned; and
> it is impossible to write the history of Venetian commerce and of the
> Galleys of the Republic without giving prominence to their usefulness
> both in peace and war.
Again, Grillo is misrepresenting the facts.
<snipped much nonsense about ones ability to get from Milan to Verona
including a misrepresentation of the structure of the Milan canal system
circa 1600.>
> Shakespeare's accurate knowledge of the geography of Italy is all the
> more noteworthy as it contrasts strikingly with his ignorance of that of
> other European countries, France, for example. In his allusions to
> French towns we find nothing to indicate that he knew them well. In the
> three plays of which the scenes are laid in France--Love's Labour's
> Lost, As You Like It and Alls Well That Ends Well--local colour and
> topographical realism are entirely absent. The scene is for the most
> part set in districts far removed from the direct route to Italy; but
> all the cities where a traveller on his way to Italy would stop to
> change horses or coaches are accurately named by our dramatist, e.g.
> Calais, Amiens, Longueville, Troyes, Marseilles and Genoa. When we
> consider that in the north of Italy he reveals a more profound knowledge
> of Milan, Bergamo, Verona, Mantua, Padua and Venice, the very limitation
> of the poet's notions of geography proves that he derived his
> information from an actual journey through Italy and not from books. All
> that he says about our country is marvellously accurate, and this
> precision is manifest not only in the passages already cited but in all
> those adduced by the critics to prove his ignorance of the geography of
> Italy.
Complete nonsense. Anyway, I have endured all I can of Grillo's shoddy
(pathetic is more like it) scholarship. Why Mr. Alexander would post
this as a "clear and well supported" argument is beyond me.