Shakespeare was Italian, from Messina.

Xman
When this thread first broke about Shakespeare being a Sicilian, I must confess to being fascinated by the prospect. So I dug further and if you thought that my "Da Vinci" contribution was an exercise in imaginative writing, try this for size:
1. Some of the work of Michelangelo Florio (Crollalanza on the maternal side) seems to be the original version of well known work attributed to Shakespeare, such as "troppu trafficu pinnenti", that could be the original of "Much ado about Nothing". Passed from father to son?
2. Michelangelo ran away from his family and lived for a certain period in Venice, where it seems his neighbour, an African, killed his own wife over jealousy. Drawing on this inspiration he wrote a tragedy: as Shakespeare subsequently wrote "Othello"

Seriously though, I would be interested on your input regards what were the original sources of Shakespeare's early reading & how they moulded his subsequent writing.

But there are some obvious problems with the "Italian Shakespeare" theory which no one seems to be pointing out:

1) "At 16 gratueted at "Gimnasium" in latin, greek and history." If Shakespeare was Italian and consummate in the Italtian language, why does his Latin suck? Think of all the Italian plays he's written and all the Latin sentences he's used in them.... ..... ..... Um, how about Julius Caesar and all those lines of Italian.....

Furthermore, Ben Jonson, a good friend of Shakespeare, says of him,
"And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek."

Ultimo says Shakespeare was Italian and graduated in Latin and Greek. Maybe he just barely graduated because according to Ben Jonson, someone who actually knew Shakespeare (unlike any of us), says that he wasn't proficient in either language. And he's reportedly Italian.

2) If the story about Shakespeare being an Italian man who fled his nation because of religious persecution is true, then his sudden presence in England would be a cause of great talk (especially if he was of noble heritage). He couldn't have just hidden himself in England and pretended to be someone else son. Furthermore, the arrival of people from foreign lands would be a cause of more spectacle back then than today. Also, people do have accents, like Italian people. So how could Shakespeare just hide out in England without attracting any attention?

3) Shakespeare was also known by other English people. The fact that Ben Jonson was a good friend of Shakespeare and wrote an elegy on him and never once mentions his being Italian (in fact he would refute such evidence when he says Shakespeare knew barely any Latin or Greek) defies the argument that he was Italian.

Oh, and Ben Jonson was actually poking fun of his friend William by saying that Shakespeare wasn't very educated since he didn't know too much of Latin or Greek, again denying the claim that Shakespeare was Italian.

John Milton also wrote a sonnet on Shakespeare (who Milton probably saw when he was a child, since Shakespeare and Jonson liked to frequent a bar on Bread Street where I believe Milton grew up). Milton never once mentions he was Italian.

No one--not one person in England--comments on his being Italian? That's weird.....

4) If Shakespeare was Italian then why does he show such a fierce patriotism for England? All of his English plays glorify England ("This precious jewel set in the silver sea...."), and none boast of the greatness of his supposed Italian background.

5) People say he was not well educated so how could "the son of a glover" know so much about foreign lands and tongues? Well, um, from other people? Why couldn't he ask Ben Jonson, who wrote some plays for Shakespeare's acting company (Google "Shakespeare acting in Ben Jonson's plays"). The two were also friends. Was it so hard for Shakespeare to go, "Eh, buddy: I'm writing a play on Rome and was wondering if you can lend me a hand?"

And I'm sure Shakespeare had more than one friend to ask. And having an acting company or being actor and a writer, he must have met so many people, foreign and domestic, that could have added to his knowledge of the world. People back then also used to go to taverns and have fun, so he must have met foreigners back then.

And being perhaps the greatest writer of all time, is it so hard to assume that Shakespeare was a keen observer of people and their manners? This, coupled with his "high fantastical" imagination must have lent him what he needed to write what he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

Seriously though, I would be interested on your input regards what were the original sources of Shakespeare's early reading & how they moulded his subsequent writing.

---

This information can be found in any good publication of his play(s) such as Oxford, Riverside, Arden or my preferred New Cambridge editions. Shakespeare was clearly an avid reader and was well aware of many current events which influenced his plays. As for early reading, the only source of certainty and interest which come to mind is Holinshead's Chronicles of England. It seems pretty clear that Shakespeare used this source for at least some significant portion of each of his history plays. I think that this, passion for history coupled with a childhood watching Catholic morality plays (which were later banned) helped Shakespeare to pioneer the History Play format for Elizabethan audiences.

Abdiel
Indulge me if I play the Devils Advocate.
1. The Chandros portrait is the firmest likeness of Shakespeare acknowledged as done from life, unlike the Droeshout engraving or the statue in the Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon. Look at it. Is the subject not too dark-skinned and foreign looking to be an English indigine of the time. Perhaps Italian or Jewish?
2. Seven of the eight Shakespeare children appear to be named after close relations or family friends. The exception was William. Refer to my previous mail on the possible reason for this.
3. If Shakespeare attended the local grammer, King's New School as is widely supposed, he would have attained a good education. Far from having "small Latin and less Greek" as per the charge of Ben Johnson, a tremendous amount of time would have been spent on reading, writing and reciting Latin ad infinitum. Through such exercises he would have learned every possible rhetorical device and ploy. According to "Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, in their introduction to the Oxford edition of the "Complete Works", any grammer school pupil of the day would have recieved a more thorough grounding in Latin rhetoric and literature than most present-day holders of a university degree in classics.
3. During the plague years of 1592-3 when London's theatres were officially ordered shut, Shakespeare disappears from sight. Did he go to Italy with his drinking buddy Francesco Collu which would perhaps account for a rush of Italian plays upon his return - The Taming of the Shrew, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet. Did not the effusions of the Italian Renaissance of this time reflect (like Shakespeare's works), a period of pessimism and nostalgia for the classical age?
4.How did he, as a possible Italian blend into the English scene. Easy. Look at today's second generation immigrants with South London or Scouse accents.
5. Your continued reference to Ben Johnson ignores the fact that as with so much of Shakespeare's life, little documentary evidence survives. For Ben Johnson himself, many of his most salient details remain unknown or uncertain e.g. the year and place of his birth, the identities of his parents, the number of his children. So if he knew the Bard and made reference to his love of "suppa de cotsa", then it is lost for eternity.
6. As well noted by yourself; John Milton was under age to be drinking with Will & Ben in the Bread Street Arms and anyway would have been too much of a gentleman to make politically incorrect racial comments on appearences or accents.
7. You really are on thin ice when bringing up his English patrotism. Next time you watch the Olympic Games kindly consider the fervour with which our second generation immigrant winners of gold so lovingly wrap themselves in the Union Jack.
If I have been offensive in any way in my reply, accept my apologies as it was not my intention. It just that as a writer, I love a good yarn and the prospect of a linkage between a man whose phrases rest at the very gates of heaven and an ancestor of the Godfather were too appealing to ignore.
Best regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

1. The Chandros portrait is the firmest likeness of Shakespeare acknowledged as done from life, unlike the Droeshout engraving or the statue in the Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon. Look at it. Is the subject not too dark-skinned and foreign looking to be an English indigine of the time. Perhaps Italian or Jewish?

---

Yup. That's just one reason it likely ISN'T of Shakespeare. The Chandos portrait is listed as "portrait of an unknown man", yet it remains a popular image of the man. No other image shows him with and earring. The recently unveiled Sanders and Cobbe portraits are much better contenders. The Sanders even has the same eye position, lip structure and earlobe of the Droeshout. I'd say my avatar, from a Van Mander(?) panel, stands a MUCH better chance of being painted of Shakespeare during his life than the Chandos does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

3. If Shakespeare attended the local grammer, King's New School as is widely supposed, he would have attained a good education. Far from having "small Latin and less Greek" as per the charge of Ben Johnson, a tremendous amount of time would have been spent on reading, writing and reciting Latin ad infinitum. Through such exercises he would have learned every possible rhetorical device and ploy. According to "Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, in their introduction to the Oxford edition of the "Complete Works", any grammer school pupil of the day would have recieved a more thorough grounding in Latin rhetoric and literature than most present-day holders of a university degree in classics.

---

Ben was better educated than Will with a University education and was in a position to take a jab, but the grammar school education served Will just fine didn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

3. During the plague years of 1592-3 when London's theatres were officially ordered shut, Shakespeare disappears from sight. Did he go to Italy with his drinking buddy Francesco Collu which would perhaps account for a rush of Italian plays upon his return - The Taming of the Shrew, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet. Did not the effusions of the Italian Renaissance of this time reflect (like Shakespeare's works), a period of pessimism and nostalgia for the classical age?

---

He was probably holed up with the young Henry Wriosthesley, his patron whom he wrote many sonnets and two epic poems for in this period. The Earle's tutor was the Italian John Florio and a source for some lampooning throughout Shakespeare's works. As for the Italian Renaissance effusing all over Europe, I guess we should conclude that they were all Italians. Not only did Italian Renaissance ideas spread to England, but so did the fashion, at least in the 1580's. So in the 1590's when Shakespeare was very busy, all the old clothes in the country looked Italian. Perfect for setting some plays there don't you think?

What makes more sense, to imagine that Shakespeare was somebody other than he has clearly been shown to have been from historical accounts AND legal records, to imagine he was somebody more like ourselves, maybe, Italian, maybe noble ... or simply to accept the evidence in front of us? Occam's razor states that 'the simplest explanation is most likely the truest'. Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.

It always amuses me to see the indignation that any question of Shakepearean authenticity arouses. It is never agreeable to see an animal being wounded except when it's a sacred cow and "our Will" certainly fits that description. I suspect that it's less an example of outraged scholasticism but more a case of wounded pride; after all, it isn't very nice having a belief, that one has fervently supported and aired throughout one's life, called into question. I recently posted a similar claim by one of our foremost shakespearean actors that was met with much the same response.
Did an Italian immigrant, English aristocrat or some other claimant write the plays? The best anyone can say is it's improbable but, as of now, nobody can say it's impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

It always amuses me to see the indignation that any question of Shakepearean authenticity arouses. It is never agreeable to see an animal being wounded except when it's a sacred cow and "our Will" certainly fits that description. I suspect that it's less an example of outraged scholasticism but more a case of wounded pride; after all, it isn't very nice having a belief, that one has fervently supported and aired throughout one's life, called into question. I recently posted a similar claim by one of our foremost shakespearean actors that was met with much the same response.
Did an Italian immigrant, English aristocrat or some other claimant write the plays? The best anyone can say is it's improbable but, as of now, nobody can say it's impossible.

---

Yes we can say it's impossible. Just because people choose to ignore the facts, it doesn't make it a legitimate claim to say it wasn't Shakespeare, the man from Stratford. The fact that we get annoyed with such stupidity is because it's the literary equivalent of banging your head against a brick wall when these daft theories emerge. It's like a child putting their fingers in their ears and la-la-la-ing loudly because they don't want to hear the truth. No matter how much evidence scholars and academics put out there, there are always those who wish to jump on the bandwagon of any barmy conspiracy theory. But I'm convinced that many of these doubters here are not really genuine but trying to stir the pot, particularly on a literay forum, just for their own amusement, in other words, trolls. Best not to feed them.

:lol:

Are we so bored by his plays that we concern ourselves with this. It's fun to speculate, but I don't care if he was from Skull Island, "The play 's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

Another bush fire on Lit Net?
The last one if I remember correctly was on Harry Potter.
Disagreement on content, style or presentation by another user.
Normally starts with mild rebukes or barely murmered asides of disapproval.
Progresses: the retort courteous, the quip modest, the reply churlish, the reproof valiant, the countercheck quarrelsome, the lie with circumstance, the lie direct.
A la: "Troll, stupid, daft, barmy, not really genuine, trying to stir the pot particularly on a literary (spelt literay!) forum".
Rejoinder from the opposite party.
Battle lines formed.
The old charges regards "elitists" and not developing more indignation than you can contain are put forth.
The Adjudicator retires to his Command Centre to monitor developments & intervene at a suitable juncture regards issues of personal abuse.
Edict issued that any discussion on Shakespeare is preceded by "Serious Cat Says" warnings.

Full little knowest thou that hast not tried,
What hell it is, in suing long to bide:
To lose good days, that might be better spent;
To waste long nights in pensive discontent;
To speed today, to be put back tomorrow;
To feed on hope, to pine with fear and sorrow.

To eat thy heart through comfortless despairs:
To fawn, to crouch, to wait, to ride, to run,
To spend, to give, to want, to be undone.

But really, you're going to beat this dead horse with stretched logic when we have all the evidence we need.
Do YOU have any actual EVIDENCE that Will was EVER around Italy?
I can give you a better story about Shakespeare abroad:
The Lord Leicester's Men, who played many times in Stratford when John Shakespeare was mayor and included Richard Burbage's father James, were in Denmark in 1588 to entertain the King. This is also when the Ur-Hamlet appears and Eric Sams has given a compelling argument that it should be looked at as Shakespeare's hand. I posit that William Shakespeare was in Denmark for that year or two. He certainly wasn't in Anne's bed and hadn't been for a few years. Touring most likely. If we dispel those fantasies not supported by any actual evidence, we can move on to truly fascinating considerations which are!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

Yes we can say it's impossible. Just because people choose to ignore the facts, it doesn't make it a legitimate claim to say it wasn't Shakespeare, the man from Stratford. The fact that we get annoyed with such stupidity is because it's the literary equivalent of banging your head against a brick wall when these daft theories emerge. It's like a child putting their fingers in their ears and la-la-la-ing loudly because they don't want to hear the truth. No matter how much evidence scholars and academics put out there, there are always those who wish to jump on the bandwagon of any barmy conspiracy theory. But I'm convinced that many of these doubters here are not really genuine but trying to stir the pot, particularly on a literay forum, just for their own amusement, in other words, trolls. Best not to feed them.

---

Modest doubt is call’d
The beacon of the wise, the tent that searches
To the bottom of the worst.
Troilus and Cressida. Act ii. Sc. 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

A la: "Troll, stupid, daft, barmy, not really genuine, trying to stir the pot particularly on a literary (spelt literay!) forum".

---

Whoops, typo there, I do know how to spell literary. I stand by what I said though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

Whoops, typo there, I do know how to spell literary. I stand by what I said though.

---

Not to admit the possibility of an alternative is to show a closed mind. As you well know, the only certainties in life are birth, death and taxes; that being the case, your blanket wipe-out of any possibility that the plays could have been written by someone else is little short of arrogance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

Not to admit the possibility of an alternative is to show a closed mind. As you well know, the only certainties in life are birth, death and taxes; that being the case, your blanket wipe-out of any possibility that the plays could have been written by someone else is little short of arrogance

---

It's arrogance to keep going against proof. Academics and scholars have studied the topic for centuries, and know the evidence inside out and backwards. Because someone decides that they don't think it's possible a glover's son could produce such works, all that proof should be disregarded. That's arrogance.

Xman
I do believe you are beginning to get it.
I'm fully cognisant that all we really know of William Shakespeare is that: he was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, produced a family there, went to London, became an actor and writer, returned to Stratford, made a will, and died.

But the Denmark connection?
Now you have got my juices flowing!
The Copenhagen Code.

"The web of our life is of a mingled yarn,"
"Good and ill together".