In Shakespeare's time, just that? Maybe, maybe not. More to follow.
Glad you pushed me. Better do better than "Sycamores".

Looking at McCrea I have isolated (as best I can) eight specific alleged errors of Italian geography. Of those, seven are conclusively shot down by Roe. However, there is one “error” that Roe does not resolve geographically: In The Tempest – Milan having access by water to the Mediterranean. Roe speculates (not unreasonably) that FF version was redacted for political reasons replacing Florence with Milan. Given the benefit of the doubt to McCrea, I score McCrea 1 out of 8.

I forgot to mention McCrea's insight that: "Pisa, twice in Taming, is called “renowned for its grave citizens,” as if the Poet’s eye, in its fine frenzy rolling somehow failed to notice the Leaning Tower."

In the light of Roe's discussion of the "grave citizens",one feels embarrassed for McCrea. Someone tell us again: what is the "difference" between Oxfordians and Stratfordians?

"Far-away Pisa is named fourteen times in The Taming of the Shrew; not just because it’s Lucentio’s hometown, but because the playwright enjoys using Pisa for one of his wordplays. It seems the author especially likes this Pisa pun; he worked it into his dialogues twice in this play. Notwithstanding, his unusual punning on Pisa has escaped the notice of commentators. I, too, might not have noticed it, had I never been to Pisa, nor been aware of a parallel, and more obvious, pun in Romeo and Juliet. In its Scene 1 of Act III, Mercutio, run through by the outrageous Tybalt, lies dying in Romeo’s arms:

Romeo:            Courage, man. The hurt cannot be much. Mercutio:         No, ’tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door; but ’tis enough, ’twill serve. Ask for me to-morrow, and you will find me a grave man…

In Act I Scene 1, of The Taming, in telling where he was born, Lucentio says:

“Pisa, renowned for grave citizens.”

Again, in Act IV Scene 2, when the “Pedant” (Mercantant) is the asked if he has ever been in Pisa, he responds:

Ay, sir, in Pisa I have often been; Pisa, renowned for grave citizens.

Like Mercutio, who is about to become “a grave man,” and the “Pedant’s” and Lucentio’s “grave citizens”—meaning a “citizen” of the grave—the grave citizens of Pisa are not its living residents, however solemn Pisans may be thought to be. The Pisan “grave citizens” of which the playwright speaks, are its decedents, or at least the most honored or honorable of them. They are Pisans who were interred in the city’s cemetery of distinction, the “Campo Santo,” also known as the “Camposanto Monumentale.” The Italian word for “cemetery” is camposanto, literally, “sacred ground” or “holy field,” and the one in Pisa is unlike any other.

During the Crusades, Pisa became rich transporting pilgrims and soldiers to the Holy Land by sea. An archbishop of Pisa, Lanfranchi (1108–1178), noticed that the returning ships, emptied of the outbound faithful, employed stone, and exotic goods—often cheap ones—as ballast for the homeward voyage. Lanfranchi arranged that the holds of fifty-three galleys, on their return trips to Pisa, be filled with earth taken from Mount Calvary in Jerusalem, the place where Jesus was crucified. This earth was said to contain drops of Christ’s blood. This holiest of soils was spread in a wide rectangle on a field near Pisa’s cathedral (duomo) and baptistry, creating a burial place where the fortunate of the city could be interred in uniquely sacred relic soil. About 100 years afterward, the burial ground was enclosed by an elegant marble structure of colossal proportions, whose interior walls were covered by vast frescoes painted by some of Italy’s finest artists. The resulting Campo Santo, of enormous local pride and renowned throughout Italy across the centuries, remains, along with the nearby “leaning tower,” as one of Pisa’s most popular touristdestinations. The Campo Santo contains hundreds of tombs and important funeral monuments, and although burials ceased there when space ran out, the Campo Santo continued to receive the notable deceased even well beyond the sixteenth century, when this play was written."

Roe, Richard Paul (2011). The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Then and Now (p. 240). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

I went on HLAS to post (didn't take-have to do over)and post here, after thinking and researching, to debunk some posts. Part of the act is to laugh that this was supposed to be a "game changer"? They're thinking of overall authorship.

When you undermine completely a foundation of a paradigm view of what the author knew on a subject, and provide potentially startling new discoveries (Duke's Oak, Little Athens), that is a game changer.

Ken

Ken,

I was reading your post at Politicwork and found it confusing. Perhaps you could clarify here.

And yet he failed to notice the "sycamore" pun.

The "pun" is a valid point. Suppose, however, that the argument for the "pun" were being made for Oxford's authorship, and the actual tree (or trees) were an argument for Shaksper. How much weight would you assign to it? You're still left with the syc-amore (love-sick) trees in the approximate location indicated in the play. The poet's intent is impossible to know. He may have used the pun knowing it was supported by actual trees.

I forget I wanted to come back to your earlier comment (Pistol):

“In the meantime, Ken, how about getting on LION and looking up the usage of sycamore trees in Early Modern literature? You might learn something. As far as that goes, have you seen how Shakespeare uses sycamore trees in any of his other plays? I thought not.”

If I’m missing the humor in your posts of this sort, pardon me, but the argument within your argument (directed at Ken: “you might learn something”) seems to be (again) that Oxfordians are (en mass) inferior scholars. It seems to be one of your favorite arguments. As you well know, even if it could be shown to be true to some degree, as an argument on any specific point of discussion (other than that contention), it is a logical fallacy. But, since you rely so heavily on that contention, perhaps you’d like to argue that specifically, say by means of factual errors, oversights, treating speculation as fact, or whatever criteria you can think of. I think that would be great fun.

Which one?

The specific location "That westward rooteth from the city's side,"
supports this theory. The punning on "tide" in TGV derives from similar perspective, something actually happening in the drama and is real. I'm sure Shakespeare did this a lot.

Sycamore is used three times in Shakespeare. In Othello it also alludes to "love sick" in the song but not apparently in LLL, (as I could read it.)

Again, this seems to be nibbling around the edges.

Ken,

I think we agree, but, sorry, I'm lost on your question: "which one?" Which one what?

Which post on Politicwork that you found confusing.

I'm finding all the posts from Ken confusing, with the "<" and ">". My fault I suppose.

Go to humanities.literature.authors.shakespeare. You have to have a google account to respond. Setting up a gmail account is easy. Search for Kaplan Roe and you will pull up three threads. All my responses are there. My style is to write "you wrote" and put it in quotations. Then my response is in straight prose. Usually when you see < or >, that indicates the response or position of the person you are responding to. I have one more response as I talked to a researcher at a local Maritime museum and want to finish off this nonsense about "road" and "roadstead" which I dealt with mostly a few days ago. This will pretty much stop the silliness, imo although I find the opposition to any anti stratforian research so severe that I don't expect any admissions. Tom and Paul Crowley of all people are the only ones to try and deal with the facts. The rest are stupid ad hominem attacks on Roe or the typical wail by Grumman.

When all is done, I will post everything here.

Ken

Thanks, Ken. Please leave out the ads for the "Hot" flicks. I don't think we need "everything". <G>

Ken,

If I understand you correctly, you dispute Roe on "roads". I'm not convinced, but, you are certainly correct to argue that point if that's what you believe and Oxies should be more interested in truth than preserving an argument.

No, I don't dispute Roe on "roads". Its very hard to deal with because Roe died so he can't explain more fully his sources, methodology, and perspective. Maybe he made major mistakes. I can't say for certain and no one is perfect. But I cannot on surface accept authority from people in a chat room. Tom has made his own errors.

He challenged me that either Shakespeare misused "road" or Roe was in error. Technically, from my talk with someone with expertise at the Franklin Institute maritime division, Shakespeare is in error. However I don't know that for sure and to be honest, am not going to make defending Roe my life's work.

My position at present is Shakespeare had no working word for a dock, quay or landing on a river (Launce specifically says in TGV

"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."

Why *the river*. If its only a metaphor and according to Tom he's going on a sea voyage, why not ocean or sea? But the allusion to a river here makes sense for two reasons. One is the mention of THE river and two, rivers in Northern Italy typically were dry in Winter and filled in spring. According to Roe he is following his fiends to Milan by river.

So I think Shakespeare extended the definition of "road" to "place of anchorage" which is reflected in the definition of "road", separate from "roadstead" in the Shakespeare glossary. He might have thought he had had no real other term to use.

This is similar to his calling the "trancet" a ferry, which, technically it isn't. But it seems he is trying to give his audience some sense of what's going on but I don't think he is interested in a travelogue. Thus his own usage of "road" might be liberalized. Reedy wants one or the other (its a roadstead at sea or it isn't) without a third option and would vehemently disagree. So be it.

I found Roe to be fascinating, instructive, expansive of my knowledge and provocative. It is in the nature of hard core Stratfordians to debunk any research from one not of their own. Like Desper's Campion allusions in Twelfth Night which is here on the virtual classroom. However, their objections are useful. Tom knows his stuff. Doesn't mean he's always right.

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/12thnightdesper.htm

If you haven't read it, it'll blow your mind. Takes Shakespeare so far beyond the "New Hstoricists". They all fought this like crazy over at HLAS. Now its Roe. Their loss.

In fairness to Tom I will post a longer version of this over there and be done with it. Its already disappeared off their radar. Whether I put the threads here, I'm not sure. People can go there and read them.

Ken

Getting a bit off-topic here, however...

Desper’s essay is interesting. He doesn’t seem to directly take up the matter of dating the play, leaving it in the 1602 time frame (I may misread him on this), while there is much pointing to an authorship date ca 1580. Desper mentions (ala Turner-Clark) that Twelfth Night has likely allusions to Hatton. Clark doesn’t mention allusions to Campion.

C. Richard Desper says:

“While Campion's ministry was in itself, by English law, sufficient for the death penalty (in that he offered Mass and heard confessions), the government preferred to show that his ministry also involved stirring English Catholics to rebellion. Finally, on November 20th, a trial was held in which Campion and seven other Catholics taken with him were charged with treason. Suitable witnesses endeavored to make the label of traitor stick; the trial ended in a guilty verdict, and Campion was executed by hanging at Tyburn on December 1, 1581.”

Perhaps it’s been mentioned, but there is the rather powerful coincidence that just a year before Campion’s execution we have Oxford confessing to Catholic sympathies. Mark Anderson (Shakespeare By Another Name, p. 165):

“On a Friday before Christmas 1580, in the Presence Chamber, de Vere dropped to his knees in front of the Queen and confessed that he, Howard, Arundell, and Southwell had reconciled to Rome courtesy of a Jesuit priest whom the French ambassador had later sneaked out of England.”

In terms of “topicality”, the play really does fit in this timeframe does it not?

I always thought that the Campion references plus what seemed to be other references (Most fortunate unhappy)which were relevant to the 1580's should show up obliquely in 1602 were strange.

Te point I came away with is this is a far more political Shakespeare than Orthodoxy would have us believe. This, if found out, would have been considered seditious. I don't think this play was for the public stage. Only record is mention in Manningham's diary for Inn of the Court, no publication until Folio.

But Shakespeare was so adroit he was able to craft it under the radar. Another plug for writing not only for stage but to be read by the wise. "Abstracts and chronicles..."

Fits in with Roe and "John the Bastard".

Ken

Richard Wilson (Secret Shakespeare) makes Campion one of the key figures in his elaborate neo-Stratfordian speculations. To think that Shaksper would have risked using seditious allusions, however oblique, strikes me as highly improbable. One can’t logically assume that a target audience would make them out and, at the same time assume that the authorities would be so obtuse as to miss them. And there is simply no plausible motive for those allusions at that time. Politics and religion aside, it runs counter to the very idea of allusions and topicality. Rather, it seems to me we have here another powerful dating argument for Oxford and against Shaksper.

How could the authorities miss Polonius as Burghley, whose original name was Corambis (Cor-Ambis) the double-hearted, a pun on Burghley's motto,Cor Unam, Via Unam.

I think the Campion references are well hidden. Plus the play was not submitted for publication until the Folio.

Yes,the topical references hurt the traditional dating. Its probably why the Strats are in such denial about them.

Ken

While we’re waiting for a Stratfordian response to Roe, we needn’t wait to observe that the “fundamental difference between scholarship and Oxfordian argument”, alleged by Pistol (and, in so many words, by many of his colleagues), has been exposed, by Roe’s book, as hypocritical baloney.

Even if Stratfordians are able to mount a credible rebuttal to Roe on specific points, what they will not be able to do is restore the façade of ‘thorough and competent’ mainstream scholarship. If nothing else, Roe’s scholarship shows us what Stratfordians never bothered to do: go there, take the time, get down on the ground, and do first-hand research. Well, they’re so busy and they’ve only had two centuries to do it. Seriously, nothing, not even Roe being wrong, can save them on that point.

And, as many of us have learned, the ‘façade’ of thoroughness and competence extends through all of the Stratfordian Tradition. I will mention only a few places where I have looked and found papier-mâché facts and arguments: 1) the alleged adequacy of the Stratford grammar school; 2) the alleged statutory requirement for standard curriculum; 3) the notion that William Shaksper would have attended grammar school for more than a nominal amount of time; 4) the notion that he would have aspired to be an actor or author; 5) the notion that the Standard Chronology has even the slightest factual foundation. All of these being textbook cases of shallow and biased scholarship, if one takes to time to look.