I am reading Richard Roe's extraordinary "The Shakespeare Guide to Italy. Only through "Two Gentleman of Verona" and already my mind is blown. This is such a challenge to Orthodox conceptions. Right now two strong thoughts are in my mind for discussion, one concerning Oxford, one concerning traditional attribution.

First Oxford. In reading about his travels in Italy in 1575-1576, the itinerary says he skirted Milan and did not enter the city because of the dominion of Spanish control, which "Shakespeare" knew, as Roe tells us because of Emperor Charles V, which traditional scholars scoffed at for 400 years. I can understand DeVere knowing about the inland canals and external topography West of the City but Roe points out to the small entrance (postern) WITHIN the city that was used by Sylvia that the author cites. Secondly, it seems Oxford left Italy before the plague hit Milan. Therefore he would have had no first hand knowledge of "St Gregory's Well", the hellish dumping place for plague victims that Proteus sends Thurio_deliberately_ saying"and now I must be unjust to Thurio". This is a cruel act. But Oxford was not present, or so it appears, when this part of the church became the depository of its terrible corpses.

Therefore unless this was historically happening as Oxford was on his return journey, he would have had to ask about it as news of the plague in Milan reached England or him and he inquired about it from a knowledgeable source, which is quite possible, given his intense interest in Northern Italy. Even Mark Anderson gets this reference wrong in "Shakespeare by Another Name."

Now concerning Will and Roe in this matter. It was suggested by a Strat on Amazon that Shakespeare could have researched from "travelers, etc" these Italian details. Even from the limited reading I have done, the attention to small topography (the terrain West and North of Milan)is just too specific to ask about or to ferret out. Highly unlikely. It seems clear this person had not read Roe and made the standard excuses. Some think Florio was Shakespeare's Italian source, but the problem with that is Florio never lived in or visited Italy. His family was expatriate and he was born in England and lived in other European countries but not Italy. He knew the language but how could he know intimate topographical details? Roe devastates the Florio as confidant argument.

But one last thing. If one clings to Will as author, one can only reach two conclusions about Italy (Northern Italy) and what seems to be a keen interest for the area. Either he went there, for which there is not even the beginning of a shred of evidence, (and how coincidental his interest is for cities Oxford visited only) or as this Strat fellow insisted, he was a remarkably assiduous researcher about this.

BUT, we run into another problem for Will: Ben Jonson. Almost the entire authorship attribution comes from Jonson, yet Jonson's portrayal of Shakespeare, especially in Timber, is of a writer who did NOT apply the requisite effort to his craft. All implications of Shakespeare as "nature", language, knowledge effortless flowing come primarily from Jonson, who is portrayed as "art", the writer who worked and reworked his
corpus and paid great attention to detail. This is buttressed by his conversations to Drummond when all he had to say were scathing remarks about Shakespeare's inaccuracy (he was wrong).

So if they were supposedly "Beloved friends", how well did Jonson know "Shakespeare", really? If Shakespeare deeply researched Italy, the only way he could acquire the info (which I believe is bogus anyway,), doesn't this completely contradict Jonson's statements? How could such a close friend not know of this enormous attention to detail? Clearly in a moment of candor to Drummond, he exposes his ignorance.

One last thing, when we put this together with the famous "he never blotted a line, Oh that he had blotted thousands", Jonson's credilbility takes a huge hit. Shapiro, despite his noxious personality and character, demonstrated quite clearly in "1599" that Shakespeare put great time and effort in revising Hamlet, tracing the changes from Q2 to Folio version (let's not think about Q1). When we take these observations, plus Roe's revelations,Jonson's testimony becomes so circumspect as to be almost meaningless. Also if he heard the PLAYERS say they never saw him blot a line, doesn't this indicate they never saw the author's "foul" papers but only finished product? If someone else wrote the plays, and Will delivered them, wouldn't they show up in this fashion? And if reworking was necessary, the conduit from Will to the true author would entail the same process. (I'll get back to you in a few days with the changes.")

Given all of the other ambiguities and strangeness of the Folio attribution, Jonson's remarks become, in my opinion, not worth the paper they were written on in terms of any relationship to reality.

I'm reading Roe too. Fun book. My favorite part so far is the Duke's Oak, a proper name capitalized in the Folio and apparently not recognized by modern scholars as a real place.

Interesting point about the timing of Oxford's visit and St. Gregory's Well.

I think Orthodox scholars have to say Shakespeare did not visit Italy, the sonnets were not dedicated to Southampton and were not autobiographical, and Polonius was not a spoof of Burghley. Admitting any one of these things would open the floodgates.

Roe seems to have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Shakespeare did visit Italy.

The "Dukes Oak" is just too specific and detailed. It strains credulity to think all this was picked up in conversation. And if Will was this interested enough in Italy that he went out of his way to research it strongly, why didn't Jonson know? He disparaged him on this issue instead. Some friend.

In light of Roe, any opinions on Volpone by Jonson vs Shakespeare and his accuracy vis a vis Venice? Volpone is held up as the most accurate depiction of Venice of that age but what strikes me in reading literary criticism is Jonson delivers details about the city and its life as if through a bull horn. "Look at me. Look what I know."

Much of Shakespeare's knowledge goes under the radar, such as "St Gregory's Well" in "Two Gentlemen". The reference is completely correct, unknown by "scholars" (perhaps known in Shakespeare's time but not contemporary-1576 for a play supposedly written in 1593 or so)but the audience would not get the reference. Therefore why include it unless it was part of the fabric of your knowledge?

I wonder if part of the ferocious attention to research in Volpone was due to Jonson's jealousy of Shakespeare? "I'll show you". Did Jonson miss many of Shakespeare's references? How well did he really know the man?

Ken

There's the possibility Drummond was a forgery. If so it can be disregarded.

Be more precise. I've never heard the Drummond comments were a forgery. (No coastline in Bohemia)

Someone wrote a small book or pamphlet on this. The basis was that two great minds wouldn't have wasted so much time on trivial and who took notes in those days anyway?

I'll have to search through thousands of Phaeton e-mails to find it - or ask Nina.

I'm only a few chapters into the book, so I can't comment in depth, but the coastline in Bohemia came from Shakespeare's original source play, Greene's Pandosto (1588), unless you want to argue that Greene followed Shakespeare, which stylistically is impossible (but impossibilities have never daunted a true believer yet). In any case, disregarding documentary evidence on the grounds on the possibility of it being a forgery is one of the reasons why Oxfordian methods are scoffed at. I know scoffing from the establishment serves only to strengthen your belief that you're right, but I thought the purpose of promoting Oxford-as-Shakespeare was to achieve recognition, not increase alienation.

If Oxford didn't have to be in Italy to know about St Gregory's Well, then Shakespeare didn't have to be either. The same standards have to be applied, again for the sake of credibility.

Whether Roe is correct of not, his book is more interesting than most Oxfordian works I've read. The style, for one thing, is head and shoulders above anybody else except for Sobran.

Not so. No word about Shakespeare from Jonson survives from Shakespeare's life time, and many records from 1594-1616 identify Shakespeare as the author. Surely you're familiar with the documentary argument at Dave Kathman's site as well as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Case_for_Shakespeare.27s_authorship

You’ve read “several” chapters and the only thing you can find worthy of comment is the “coast of Bohemia”? Roe sank your Stratfordian-never-went-Italy ship with his first chapter.

I'm not sure if this is the right book but there was one by C.L. Stainer entitled Jonson and Drummond: their conversations : a few remarks on the 18th century Forgery.

The original notes don't survive and there were doubts about accuracy at least as early as 1842. See Notes of Ben Jonson on Conversations with William Drummond of Hawthornden.

It was submitted to the Members of the Shakespeare Society by David Laing with foot notes amplified and corrected by Mr. J. Payne Collier and Mr. Peter Cunningham.

But we're talking about Richard Roe's book here. Sorry for the off-topic comments.

Niederkorn on Roe:

http://www.brooklynrail.org/2011/12/books/beyond-the-previously-known-bard

My reading on the web is there is no definitive answer as to whether the Drummond conversations are forgeries.

God, why are you throwing me such a softball? First this issue has been one of the most hotly contested issues of all. I reject completely Kathman's (and traditional analysis) on this matter and refer to Price and others who dispute the lack of a personal literary paper trail. A year was spent on this on HLAS and anyone interested can look up the archived dialogues with Pat Dooley.

Second, Kathman has a very bad habit of citing sources that don't pertain to the subject and appears to have a very pathetic grasp of elementary logic.

Example:
On Shakespeare and the Law he cites Kornstein's "Kill All The Lawyers" as a source for Shakespeare's knowledge of the law. Apparently Kathman pulled it from his butt and didn't read it (I read parts) and Kornstein, up front, _expressly states_ his book WILL NOT COMMENT on Shakespeare's legal knowledge as it pertains to its accuracy or where he got it. So it has no bearing on the topic. Alexander destroys Clarkson and Warren and of course Kathman cherry picks his other sources. On HLAS he goes on (its on the SA site also) about how Shakespeare had all these Middle Temple friends. He then makes the audacious statement that Shakespeare, by virtue of these associations had MORE legal knowledge than Oxford to which Alexander, truly baffled by this bizarre statement said that Kathman was claiming that Shakespeare,who did NOT attend Law school had more knowledge than Oxford, who did. If we wish to compare associations around law, I think growing up in Burghley's home with attendant tutors and attending Gray's Inn trumps having some friends at Middle Temple, who probably rarely traveled to London.

About Italy, he tries to pull the same fast one. He cites McPherson, David C., Shakespeare, Jonson, and the myth of Venice. The problem is I read parts of it and the author (again) _expressly states he is not commenting on how Shakespeare acquired his knowledge. And we are dealing with one location, not 8-10.

But here's the howler. I quote Kathman directly:

"The Earls of Derby and Rutland have both been proposed as candidates for the authorship of Shakespeare, they both went to Italy, and their proponents have pointed out many coincidences of the same type as those proposed by Oxfordians. Moreover, some of these coincidences **eliminate Oxford.** For example, a painting referred to in the induction of The Taming of the Shrew was on display in Milan only between 1585 and 1600 -- **too late for Oxford to have seen it, but just right for Derby and Rutland.**

Here are those detailed lines in TOS-
"Lord. We’ll show thee Io as she was a maid,
And how she was beguiled and surpris’d,
As lively painted as the deed was done."

My God. Such detail. Why _no one_ could have written these without seeing the painting. So Kathman rules out Oxford, who easily could have asked Derby (son in law?) or anyone else for that matter because we know _from evidence_ Oxford had a keen interest in Italy and could have found out about the painting.

But the same logic cannot be applied to Will of Stratford who Kathman has just strenuously argued could have gotten his Italian information second hand. (Which after reading Roe appears highly unlikely). Am I living in the Twilight Zone? Does Kathman proof read his blurting out nonsense?

Kathman and Ross had several good articles. They also had real clunkers. Kathman's attempts to delve into very deep waters with the shallowness and callowness of his short retorts on these subjects verges on the pathetic.

P.S. Rad Ross on Polonius as Burghley. Ross is responding to claims by Oxfordians (and many orthodox scholars) that Polonius is in several important ways a satirizing of Burghley. Instead of addressing the main issue he literally goes off on a tirade about "Oxfordian research" and the use of the term "Polus". Well there are about 12 vectors that support Polonius and Burghley and they don't rest on "Polus". But like a bull in a china shop, that matters little to Ross, who ADMITS at article's end, that yes, there may have been some association between the character and the man.

Huh??

To this day Ross has never admitted or understood the strange and irrelevant nature of his essay.

To see Ross' incredible obstinacy and obtuseness (as Andy said to the warden in Shawshank) go to

http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/browse_thread/thread/965702cb7f745a3f/53ec2e80ac1cc6f5?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=ross+filter+fetish#53ec2e80ac1cc6f5

and shake your head.

Please Tom don't bring up logic and research. Will in the World was bad enough and Contested Will, full of Straw Man arguments made me want to throw up.

I put up a rather long post, quoting Roe in depth, but for some reason it didn't take so this will be the "shorter" version. I'm glad you at least started reading Roe and find him "interesting", because when I went on HLAS to see what the reception might be, both you and Webb (of course) were derisively ripping the book without having read any of it. So this is an improvement.

You are right about St. Gregory's Well as well as some other points Roe makes. They could have come by conversation or research. Such as the "tranect", or canal system.

But I think there are several points to consider here. The first
concerns the depth of accuracy Roe attributes to Shakespeare. If Roe is even 75% correct, then there has been terrible scholarship
for literally centuries among the orthodox. Roe points this out time and time again. So whether Shakespeare learned of the canal system second hand or not, a very significant point is that students of the author scoffed continuously at the author's knowledge and they were wrong. But they have such a hard time admitting it. Like Fonzi in happy days. WR...Wr..Wr.."I can't do it".

Let's take "Tanect". The author knew about it. Montaigne knew about the system but did not use the word. Problem for orthodoxy. Montaigne can't be a direct literary source because his Italy trip was not translated into English until 1603, about 6 years after the play was written (ostensibly). But the attempts to define the word by the Riverside, etc are so off the mark, its actually sad.

Second, yes he could have found out about St. Gregory's Well, although like other smaller points he uses in his works, the air gets a little more rarefied in speculating as to the source for information. It took Roe an enormous effort to find out this meaning and if Two Gentlemen was written 1591-2, it depicted events from 1576, some 16 years before. But what is more pertinent, the reference _has no meaning for the audience_. Proteus says:
"Already I have been false to Valentine, Now I must be unjust to Thurio." When Thurio asks where they should meet, he says "Saint Gregory's Well". ( hell hole where bodies from the plague were deposited".)

I find in Roe's descriptions of particular geographical and cultural details, especially the opening scene of "Taming of the Shrew" to be very difficult to ascribe to research or conversation. One has to go a long way to create a scenario where this amount of detail is ferreted out from a source, not for one location, but for 8-10.

Then we get into potentially major revelations such as the discovery of "The Duke's Oak" and "Temple", not in a fantasized Greece, but in the small Italian city of Sabbetioneta.

I found Roe's discourse on the source of Othello especially enlightening, particularly in regard to the issue of knowledge of how the author used his sources.

According to Roe, Othello was derived from a book by a writer who went by the name of "Cinthio" which had been translated into French by Chappuys. The story from which Othello is derived has no title. It was not translated into English until 1753. The Arden Shakespeare comments:
"'A surprising number of verbal parallels found their way into the play from Cinthio, _with or without intermediaries"_.

In trying to understand this the Arden posits a "lost English translation" (the dog ate my homework).

The Riverside comments "Such verbal evidence as can be found tends to show that he *looked at* Cinthio's Italian.

To which, Roe, in complete exasperation, says

"LOOKED? (My emphasis). Heaven forbid it be suggested the playwright could _read_Italian." (or French-Ken)

Tom, (both Tom's and others) you want to have a really open dialogue about all this. Then get off your high horse about there being nothing of value in general to Anti-Stratfordian research.

Kositsky and Stritmatter on the Tempest
Rollett discovery of Wilmot forgery (I was there-credit stolen by Shapiro?)
Roe
Detobel research and unraveling of mystery of publication history of Hamlet-bedeviled scholars for centuries
Ramon Jimenez on Famous Victories in relationship to the Henriad
Richard Desper on Campion references in Twelfth Night
Diana Price
Mark Alexander- Shakespeare and the Law, Polonius as Burghley essay

These are just a few of many. The Tempest research alone upends a cornerstone of biography and literary dating and attribution. Roe demonstrates appalling ignorance in the entire orthodox community.

Beside any question of who wrote this material, there is a second one that to me is equally important. What was this man about, how did he get his knowledge, what might be a truer timeline for dating his writing and association with sources and peers, how different was his orientation (politically, socially, culturally)than previously thought?

These are topics for another time. My own take is the traditional community has been deeply wanting, ossified in a rigid box. Sometimes it takes those outside the box to make meaningful contributions. Wheat always has to be separated from chaff, no matter whose "side". If the religious nature of the discussion can be discarded, and the hysteria of high Cardinals like Shapiro and their lower bishops like Kathman and Ross toned down, perhaps some curiosity and reason might prevail.

Whether he did or didn't, Will of Straford made damn sure history would not find him, at least in the ways his peers made themselves available.

Just read Roe on "All's Well". Unless a convincing argument can be presented, anyone who believes this kind of knowledge and detail as expressed in the dialogue came from secondary sources needs to have their head examined.

The Statfordia will try to bury this book. To ignore it. Huff and puff and blow the house down. It is a measure of the politics of this issue that I doubt the orthodox community can muster the honesty to include Roe's incredibly detailed research into one of the sources that must be included in any examination of the relationship between Shakespeare and Italy. It is too embarrassing and explosive.

We'll see. Pigs might fly sooner.

I still haven't read much past the TGV section, and I skipped to the AWW section on your suggestion, but apparently I haven't gotten to the part you're talking about. I'll eventually speak to his "incredibly detailed research".

As to this:



"Your lordship seems desirous to know how I like Italy, what is my intention in travel, and when I mean to return. For my liking of Italy, my lord I am glad I have seen it, and I care not ever to see it any more unless it be to serve my prince or my country."

Can you guess who wrote that?

Apparently he was known and publicly teased as the "Italianate Englishman", brought into translation from the Italian two of the more significant philosophical and cultural works of the time, and you give me a pro forma letter to Burghley? Which could have been written for many reasons. Or why the references are so intimate, not grandstanding like Jonson. We can speculate all day long.

I think you can do better than that.

BTW, the main issue with Roe is that the author seems to have been there, whoever he was.

Please provide some personal evidence of Will of Stratford's travel to or interest in Italy.

Oh, there is none.

Why is it we have_abundant_ evidence for Jonson's research into Venice and NOTHING ANYWHERE for Shakespeare?

Let's see, Oxford hated Italy, Shakespeare loved it. Oxford loved Burghley and was always open and authentic with him in all his affairs(which btw, the letters are in edited form as to amount.)Shakespeare loathed Burghley and crucified him soon after his death in the play which has become his most famous, but somehow escaped both the censors and imperial and/or Cecil family wrath.

Sounds good to me. At least Oxford WENT to Italy. Again, Roe's point is the author did also.

If Shakespeare can be as extraordinarily mercurial in life vis a vis his art, then dear Tom, I think Oxford might deserve similar latitude (assuming the letter expressed his true and complete feelings to Burghley, which may or may not be true.)

The detail of the street routes in Florence and the knowledge of the "City" woven into the dialogue (similar to the landing in Padua in TOS), among other things, is what impressed me about AWEW. I don't think they had Map Quest, Google Maps, or GPS in those days.

As I remember an HLAS post of yours, you said Shakespeare's Italy was totally of his imagination. (Or something close to that.) I'll get the exact quote if you need it.

Glad you're reading the book. Wonder if Bob or Webb have looked at it?

Two can play the game. Tom Reedy, 2000 about Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy:

"Once again, your statment is not the truth. Shakespeare scholars demonstrate that his knowledge was either _not that accurate_ or common to other playwrights of the time. **His mistakes in geography are well-documented and _not rebutted_, as far as I know, by any antiStrat.**

Still stick by this? Or maybe you revised it in a later post. There are others about Italy just as assured and just as wr...wr..wr.. what is that word?

Ken

I'm sure that we all know who wrote it and to whom it was addressed.

400 years from now, no one will be looking at anything I might have written to my in-laws. But if they do, they would be wise not to take my words at face value.

Here's something you can get mad and stomp your foot at: http://escholarship.usyd.edu.au/journals/index.php/SSE/article/viewFile/331/304

Thank you Pistol for providing us a convenient assemblege of Stratfordian claims now completely debunked by Roe. What is there in such debunked nonsense for an Oxfordian to "get mad" at?

Ha ha! yeah, keep thinking that.



Have you actually read Roe? My point is that the essay I linked to (which is actually a variant of a 1954 article) demonstrates that there is nothing original about Roe's arguments. In fact, Like Shakespeare, he could have written almost the entire thing without going to Italy.

So far the only original point he makes is one of the weakest: sycamores in Verona. And the force of that one is further weakened because although he states that "I felt almost certain that everything the author 'sneaks into' his Italian plays can be found on the ground" and "I wanted a completely fresh approach. ... I underlined *only* what I could glean about the settings from the words spoken by the playwright's characters--as Benvolio had done with the sycamore trees (18)", he ignores the yew trees in the graveyard that are mentioned by two different characters. Roe says that the more times a certain feature is mentioned the more the playwright was trying to call attention to it, but apparently that doesn't apply in this case. Roe also points out that the sycamore tress are not mentioned in any of the sources as evidence that the author saw them in person, but neither are the yews mentioned by any of the sources Shakespeare used to write the play.

The reality of the book is that it is yet one more purported "game changer" that fizzled. Remember when Diana Price's book spelled the end for the Stratman? What about Sobran and Anderson's books, both of which were hailed as harbingers of doom for Shakespeare of Stratford? And it's hard to believe that it was almost five years ago when the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" was touted as the beginning of the end for the thread-bare Stratfordian fraud. Do you know how many signatures it has collected since April 2007? 2,251. And the movie Anonymous, the latest media "game changer"? More like "game over"--so far it's lost between $14 million and $20 million, depending on what production costs you you. I have no doubt you're convinced that your book will be the final straw that breaks the back of the Stratfordian "theory". I wouldn't count on the royalties to supplement your retirement income if I were you.

I have to hand it to you Tom. I only read a little bit. Yes the author of Venus and Adonis, the chief playwright for the leading acting company of the time, who burst on the scene with Mere's dazzling affection, and whose plays were pirated more than any other writer was just so "obscure" and "little appreciated".

I guess you have to believe this horse bleep. Boy are you reaching.

I'll read the rest later.

Ken

If someone had told you ten years ago that Hank Whittimore would sell out theaters with readings from"The Monument", that a mainstream movie by an A list director would be green lighted by the movie industry, that major actors and Shakespeareans more and more would come forward, that classes are offered on the authorship issue and perhaps one of the foremost Stratfordian scholars and writers would feel the need to spend five years on a book on the subject, among other events,you would have said I was crazy.

Progress is in the eye of the beholder. If this means so little, why are you here (in this debate so much?) You make it a huge part of your life.

So much for irrelevance.

Ken

Uh, you might want to re-read the part you quoted. His diction is confusing, but he says the assumption that Shakespeare was obscure and little-appreciated is a false assumption.

As to the first, no, it does not surprise me at all. The Internet works to mainstream all things, ridiculous and worthy alike. If someone had told you ten years ago that a cute cartoon bear would be a well-recognized symbol of child molesters, would you have believed it?(And just how big are those theatres Hank is selling out? There's no business like show business, you know. At least no business I know.)

As to the second, I suspect it's because of my mental laziness that I chose to spend so much time arguing authorship, but I don't fool myself into believing anything I've done will have all that great an impact. I'm pretty clever sometimes and when I exert myself I can put out some good scholarship, but I don't have a first-rate mind, so I can't really compete in the top tier of criticism or scholarship. Since it's mostly a hobby for me, I chose to play in the sandbox instead of the academy. The upside (besides the amusement) is that I think it will probably ward off Alzheimer's in my declining years.

Here is the passage from Praz edited for clarity (edits in bold):

"Lambin, like many other heterodox research students, assumes that Shakespeare was an obscure actor, who could not have access to sources of information which were known only to people versed in the affairs of other states and the geography of other countries, that the plays which go under his name are full of topical allusions which only his contemporaries could follow; and therefore that these plays yield their true meaning only when seen in the light of contemporary history and geography. The first of these assumptions (that Shakespeare was an obscure actor,) is baseless; it is one thing to say that little of Shakespeare's personality is revealed by the documents which concern him, but quite another thing to say that he was obscure and little appreciated by his contemporaries. It is enough to read Ben Jonson's Conversations with Drummond of Hawthornden to become convinced of the real existence of a playwright called Shakespeare who was greatly esteemed by his contemporaries."

The last sentence makes it clear that the sentence before it is garbled and ill-written.

Pistol,

You asked if I “Have…actually read Roe?” Yes I have. Are we talking about the same Roe? You can’t possibly be speaking read Roe’s Shakespeare’s Guide to Italy. You say, “there’s nothing new about Roe’s arguments”. And you say that Roe’s “only original point” is the matter of the sycamore trees. You have not proved that with the essay you provided the link to. There is actually very little Paz’s confusing hodge-podge essay, in terms of specific points, that duplicates or refutes Roe (actually there is nothing that refutes Roe). Looking at Paz’s own arguments we find the following:

Praz: “In The Two Gentlemen Valentine's father "at the road/expects him coming there to see him shipped" to Milan; in Act II, scene iii, Verona is imagined on a river with tides that ebb and flow, connected to Milan by a waterway. In The Tempest (I. i. 144fl.)”

The “ebb and flow” is explained by Roe with the raising and lowering of the water in the locks of the canals.

Praz: “Prospero tells how he was put aboard a bark at the gates of Milan together with his little daughter: Milan, therefore, is imagined on a waterway communicating with the sea.”

Explained by Roe.

Praz: “Again, in The Taming of the Shrew (I. i. 42),”where the scene is Padua, we hear Lucio saying: "If, Biondello, thou wert come ashore", and later on: "Since I have come ashore".”

Again, very well explained by Roe.

Praz: “Finally, we are told of a sailmaker in Bergamo, another inland town.”

Again, explained by Roe, though in this one case, in my opinion, Roe may not be absolutely correct. As noted by Roe, Bergamo was a center of cloth-making, (including some of the finest cloth in the world). To call someone a “sailmaker in Bergamo” was, judging from the context in which the statement was made, an insult. It is amazing to me that Stratfordian overlook this. Thus one must not assume that Shakespeare was actually saying that sailmaking was a trade in Bergamo. Sailmaking in a city that manufactures fine cloth would be a very low profession. Either way there is no evidence here against Shakespeare’s knowledge of Italy.

Praz: “Therefore the only reasonable conclusion we can draw about Shakespeare's conception of the town in which the play takes place as of a town on a river with a tide, connected with the sea, is that he was thinking of London, and using Milan and Verona as mere labels.”

Here again, as Roe explains, the “tides” were the raising and lowering of the water in the canals.

What would be interesting to hear from you is a credible argument setting forth the long-held Stratfordian position that Shakespeare's "errors of geography" prove he was never in Italy. How about giving us just one.