What do you think?
Rate this book
The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Retracing the Bard's Unknown Travels
“Exciting, original, and convincing. . . . This book is essential reading for all concerned with who really wrote the works of Shakespeare. A thrilling journey of discovery." —Sir Derek Jacobi, Shakespearean actor, Associate Artist, Royal Shakespeare Company Equal parts literary detective story and vivid travelogue, The Shakespeare Guide to Italy chronicles author Richard Paul Roe’s thirty-year quest to find the locations in which Shakespeare set his ten Italian plays—delivering a text which will forever change our understanding of how to read the Bard of Avon and irrevocably alter our vision of who William Shakespeare really was. More than 150 images illustrate and enhance Roe’s captivating narrative, illuminating his lifelong journey and shining a light into the depths of Shakespeare’s experiences in Italy. Until now, Shakespeare’s use of Italian backdrops— Romeo and Juliet ’s Verona, Othello ’s Venice, Much Ado About Nothing ’s Messina, to name a few—has been the source of controversy and conjecture. With The Shakespeare Guide to Italy , Roe’s meticulous study reveals the secrets that have eluded scholars for centuries.
336 pages, Paperback
First published December 5, 2011
14 people are currently reading
116 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
October 22, 2015
At first glance this book gives a staunch and, furthermore, untraveled Stratfordian such as myself pause. Roe seems to have it airtight that whomever wrote Shakespeare must have been familiar with Italy-after all: 'The Sycamores!'
But, I never take these things lying down and I assure you though it appears an insurmountable and perhaps even fatal argument against Will of Stratford, Richard Paul Roe's "life work" is just more bustle, disinformation, and possibly even a little stupidity.
I will say however that to systematically take down this book chapter by chapter would be quite lengthy for any review, so I'll just stick to the preface and the Romeo and Juliet chapter for the most part as a microcosm of the whole.
Now, that being said it is my personal opinion that the biggest lie in this book is his disingenuous remark early on: "To enhance objectivity, this book shuns all existing arguments about the identity of the playwright." (5) Of course that's all BS because within his bibliography are J. Thomas Looney's book Shakespeare Identified, Charles Ogburn's texts, and Richard Whalen's Shakespeare, Who Was He? which do not find their way into the end notes of each chapter, but are still seeded within all the same. For instance there's Whalen's assertion that the "Bermoothes" line of The Tempest refers to the Bermudas in London (not true by the way), Looney mapped out Oxford's Italian travels, and Ogburn reintroduced the Oxfordian theory after it had largely fallen into obscurity. Roe obviously is working on an Oxfordian thesis here, he just doesn't want to say it.
On the same page that he lies about maintaining some objectivity he also states that Romeo and Juliet is the first work written in the Shakespeare canon, also not true. The first play written is most likely The Two Gentlemen of Verona, but of course no one knows the plot to The Two Gentlemen quite like Romeo and Juliet, which is also the play Roe seems to have the most and "best" evidence for.
Let's start with Roe's sycamores. Yes, it's true the play mentions them growing on the western side of Verona, while the commonly ascribed fictional sources do not contain this information. This whole trip of Roe's was precisely aimed at going to the Western wall of Verona to locate some sycamore trees. Traveling via taxi Roe spots some, helpfully providing us with a picture that he's taken himself. Damning evidence you say? Six problems here. The first: Roe took a route along the perimeter of the town on the Viale Colonnello Galliano road. This is on the South side of the old city, not the West.
The second is that maps of Verona were readily available to Will Shakespeare:
http://www.raremaps.com/maps/medium/7...
You will notice that the top part of the city on this map is a Western grove. They are NOT sycamores. The actual sycamores are located by the middle bridge on the North side of the city. At the very top of the map contains an image of two men by some actual sycamores looking over the city (not by the western side). I will grant Roe this: there is actually one sycamore rooted in the walls. It's just on the east side of the city.
Third, the pictures contained within Roe's book are not actually sycamore trees at all, they are plane trees.
Fourth, these trees are no older than 50 years. They are hardly contemporaneous to the play, and as the link showed earlier, there weren't any sycamore groves anyway in Shakespeare's time.
Fifth, related to my fourth point, Verona has something of a tourist industry, obviously, and it so happens that this tourist industry is based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Accordingly the city has added things to the landscape to enhance that vision. The plane trees, which are easier to maintain than sycamore trees though appear very similar, are one such item. Juliet's balcony is another.
Sixth, and finally, Oxford never went to Verona. He indeed traveled to Milan, and Venice, but not actually to Verona. A real traveler to Verona would have known that there was not actually a senate of Verona, or a Duke as the city was a Venetian dependency-these appear in Shakespeare's plays. A real traveler would have also realized that as a Jew Shylock would not have been allowed outside of the ghetto in Venice, nor would he have had a Christian servant on that note. Furthermore, Prospero's Isle would not have had a basis in Vulcano since the former island is far away from any land, and Vulcano is within eyesight of Sicily.
Roe also utilizes modern translations of Virgil, Homer, Boccaccio, and Montaigne which is frankly not only cheating in a sense, since both Shakespeare and Oxford could read in Latin, and Greek, but both Boccaccio and Montaigne were translated into English by the late 16th century and if Roe was utilizing First Folio editions of the plays for purity, than he should have utilized the applicable translations, or original works.
All in all, not nearly as monumental a book as Rylance, Jacobi, and Leahy would have it. It is in reality a rather poor piece of scholarship, albeit a decently written one.
But, I never take these things lying down and I assure you though it appears an insurmountable and perhaps even fatal argument against Will of Stratford, Richard Paul Roe's "life work" is just more bustle, disinformation, and possibly even a little stupidity.
I will say however that to systematically take down this book chapter by chapter would be quite lengthy for any review, so I'll just stick to the preface and the Romeo and Juliet chapter for the most part as a microcosm of the whole.
Now, that being said it is my personal opinion that the biggest lie in this book is his disingenuous remark early on: "To enhance objectivity, this book shuns all existing arguments about the identity of the playwright." (5) Of course that's all BS because within his bibliography are J. Thomas Looney's book Shakespeare Identified, Charles Ogburn's texts, and Richard Whalen's Shakespeare, Who Was He? which do not find their way into the end notes of each chapter, but are still seeded within all the same. For instance there's Whalen's assertion that the "Bermoothes" line of The Tempest refers to the Bermudas in London (not true by the way), Looney mapped out Oxford's Italian travels, and Ogburn reintroduced the Oxfordian theory after it had largely fallen into obscurity. Roe obviously is working on an Oxfordian thesis here, he just doesn't want to say it.
On the same page that he lies about maintaining some objectivity he also states that Romeo and Juliet is the first work written in the Shakespeare canon, also not true. The first play written is most likely The Two Gentlemen of Verona, but of course no one knows the plot to The Two Gentlemen quite like Romeo and Juliet, which is also the play Roe seems to have the most and "best" evidence for.
Let's start with Roe's sycamores. Yes, it's true the play mentions them growing on the western side of Verona, while the commonly ascribed fictional sources do not contain this information. This whole trip of Roe's was precisely aimed at going to the Western wall of Verona to locate some sycamore trees. Traveling via taxi Roe spots some, helpfully providing us with a picture that he's taken himself. Damning evidence you say? Six problems here. The first: Roe took a route along the perimeter of the town on the Viale Colonnello Galliano road. This is on the South side of the old city, not the West.
The second is that maps of Verona were readily available to Will Shakespeare:
http://www.raremaps.com/maps/medium/7...
You will notice that the top part of the city on this map is a Western grove. They are NOT sycamores. The actual sycamores are located by the middle bridge on the North side of the city. At the very top of the map contains an image of two men by some actual sycamores looking over the city (not by the western side). I will grant Roe this: there is actually one sycamore rooted in the walls. It's just on the east side of the city.
Third, the pictures contained within Roe's book are not actually sycamore trees at all, they are plane trees.
Fourth, these trees are no older than 50 years. They are hardly contemporaneous to the play, and as the link showed earlier, there weren't any sycamore groves anyway in Shakespeare's time.
Fifth, related to my fourth point, Verona has something of a tourist industry, obviously, and it so happens that this tourist industry is based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Accordingly the city has added things to the landscape to enhance that vision. The plane trees, which are easier to maintain than sycamore trees though appear very similar, are one such item. Juliet's balcony is another.
Sixth, and finally, Oxford never went to Verona. He indeed traveled to Milan, and Venice, but not actually to Verona. A real traveler to Verona would have known that there was not actually a senate of Verona, or a Duke as the city was a Venetian dependency-these appear in Shakespeare's plays. A real traveler would have also realized that as a Jew Shylock would not have been allowed outside of the ghetto in Venice, nor would he have had a Christian servant on that note. Furthermore, Prospero's Isle would not have had a basis in Vulcano since the former island is far away from any land, and Vulcano is within eyesight of Sicily.
Roe also utilizes modern translations of Virgil, Homer, Boccaccio, and Montaigne which is frankly not only cheating in a sense, since both Shakespeare and Oxford could read in Latin, and Greek, but both Boccaccio and Montaigne were translated into English by the late 16th century and if Roe was utilizing First Folio editions of the plays for purity, than he should have utilized the applicable translations, or original works.
All in all, not nearly as monumental a book as Rylance, Jacobi, and Leahy would have it. It is in reality a rather poor piece of scholarship, albeit a decently written one.
July 29, 2014
Oh my goodness, I loved this book so much. In what is the culmination of a lifelong study and love affair, Richard Paul Roe posits that because of the intimate knowledge of Italian culture, geography, and history demonstrated in Shakespeare's plays, he must have been a cultured, erudite upper-class Englishman who spent significant time traveling in Italy, and not the traditional, untraveled Bard of Avon. As a caveat, I am a scholar neither of Shakespeare nor of 16th century Italy (I just happen to adore both), so I can't really speak to the plausibility of Roe's thesis. But I finished this book utterly convinced.
Roe explains why Shakespeare give harbors to inland Italian cities (they were on well-traveled rivers connected by intricate systems of canals). He finds actual inns, houses, and churches referenced in the plays and long languishing in obscurity (and yes, this goes well beyond Juliet's celebrated and embellished balcony in Verona--did you know that there in actually no mention of a balcony in the stage directions or text of the "balcony scene" from Romeo and Juliet?) Perhaps most intriguingly, Roe locates A Midsummer Night's Dream in an Italian city--Sabbioneta, Lombardy, the so-called "Piccola Atena."
For lovers of Shakespeare and lovers of Italy alike, this is a captivating and compelling book that will make you want to take a trip to Italy and re-read the plays where Richard Paul Roe says they were conceived, and even possibly written.
Roe explains why Shakespeare give harbors to inland Italian cities (they were on well-traveled rivers connected by intricate systems of canals). He finds actual inns, houses, and churches referenced in the plays and long languishing in obscurity (and yes, this goes well beyond Juliet's celebrated and embellished balcony in Verona--did you know that there in actually no mention of a balcony in the stage directions or text of the "balcony scene" from Romeo and Juliet?) Perhaps most intriguingly, Roe locates A Midsummer Night's Dream in an Italian city--Sabbioneta, Lombardy, the so-called "Piccola Atena."
For lovers of Shakespeare and lovers of Italy alike, this is a captivating and compelling book that will make you want to take a trip to Italy and re-read the plays where Richard Paul Roe says they were conceived, and even possibly written.
May 30, 2014
Puts to rest the notion that "Shake-Speare" didn't get Italy right. He got it right -- and he got it first-hand.
April 7, 2019
I am not invested at all in who Shakespeare was or wasn't. I barely care. This book, however, was fantastic because it basically followed in the footsteps of the Italian plays right there on the ground in Italy. I LOVED his Venice chapters especially, the Merchant of Venice. To see in plentiful pictures the places referred to in the play and to learn about the cultural and historical context only deepened my love of the play. I also did see the author's documentary that made the case that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare, and then I looked a bit into the case for Bacon as well. The authorship question is mildly interesting, I think. I mean, it is hard to believe (not impossible to believe) that the person who wrote this play --which is so thoroughly steeped in detailed knowledge of the language, the economy and way of life of Venice-- had never been. At least he had to have had access and time to thoroughly engage with the relevant books.
I do recommend the documentary as well. And even more fun is Francesco da Mosto's documentary Shakespeare in Italy!!
I do recommend the documentary as well. And even more fun is Francesco da Mosto's documentary Shakespeare in Italy!!
September 25, 2022
To say the Shakespeare authorship question is controversial would be an understatement. It certainly divides opinion, the arguments often being quite heated from either side.
And it isn't new; the controversy has been going on longer than most people realise. By the early nineteenth century the doubts about the 'man from Stratford' were beginning to become more vocal.
One such doubter was a remarkable woman from Ohio called Delia Bacon, who proposed her namesake Francis Bacon, was the actual author of Shakespeare's works.
Another example is Mark Twain, the author of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, who put his doubts into print with his book 'Is Shakespeare Dead?'. Since then the theories have continued to grow apace.
Perhaps the most groundbreaking book of the last century was written by a certain J Thomas Looney (Shakespeare Identified), who claimed that the 17th Earl of Oxford, one Edward de Vere, was the true genius of English literature. Needless to say there are now numerous books about the issue and many alternative candidates, including Christopher Marlowe and Roger Manners, the 5th Earl of Rutland.
However, what has been lacking is documentary proof of someone other than 'the man from Stratford' being the actual author of the works of Shakespeare. The great problem stems from the fact that there is a gaping whole, a paucity of information, in the known biography of the man called William Shakespeare. We know when he was born, when he got married and when he died; added to that are pieces of records of litigious information in regard to someone who seems far more like a businessman than England's greatest ever playwright and poet. And in his will there is no mention of a library, let alone any books, surely prerequisites for such a literary giant as this.
The character emerging from the available information, including six rather poor signatures, is of someone who is quite materialistically minded, not at all prone to writing the best blank verse you've ever seen.
That said, it is still possible that there is a huge chunk of his biography waiting to be found and that he did indeed write the works attributed to him - genius is still after all, genius, as they say. But genius still needs an education, something which, other than a possible grammar school education up until around the age of fourteen, is also glaringly absent.
I have been interested by this subject, though not entirely persuaded by any candidate, for many years now. For me, just about the best book I have come across in regard to this controversy is The Shakespeare Guide to Italy (HarpPeren; Illustrated edition) by Richard Paul Roe, now sadly deceased. He is well qualified for this undertaking, having a degree in English literature and European history from Berkeley.
It has long been speculated as to why at least ten out of the thirty six of the Bard's plays are set in Italy. Surely the most obvious answer to this fact is that author of the plays visited Italy extensively at some stage in his life, or at the very least knew people who had, or he had access to much information about that country.
What Roe does is set about researching patiently and wholly systematically over some period of time, visiting all the places mentioned in the works; Venice, Padua, Verona, Mantua, Milan, Florence, Messina, Palermo, the latter two locations being in Sicily. Many of the pictures within the book are the authors and you get some idea as to his intelligence, sheer persistence and depth of character.
He produces a logically argued and beautifully illustrated book, which while highly detailed, is also easy to read. What I particularly like is that he does not force upon the reader a favourite candidate for authorship; he presents facts, information, from which the discerning reader can make up their own mind.
Hitherto it has been assumed by most that much of the information that the author of Shakespeare put into his plays about certain locals was either imagined, or learned anecdotally. However, if you know a place more intimately, there are certain facts you can drop in which draws a more convincing picture.
An example of this is from Romeo and Juliet, where Benvolio is describing the scene of a grove of sycamore trees through the western wall of the city of Verona. Roe visited this area and found that to this day sycamores still grow there.
Now, it might be said that such scenes exist from many an Italian city and have done for centuries, and that Shakespeare just 'got lucky' in putting in this detail, but it does seem these trees have been a feature here way back into past. And it does create a picture of intimacy, as if the author is seeing things from his own mind's eye, or recollection, and not merely making it up.
There are many other examples of course, including the volcanic island of Vulcano off the north coast of Sicily which bears a remarkable similarity to Prospero's island described in what is regarded as Shakespeare's last play, The Tempest.
In The Two Gentlemen of Verona there is the unequivocable statement of being able to sail from Verona to distant Milan, an oft quoted 'error' on behalf of the Bard, of whom it has been said was clearly ignorant of northern Italy and its geography. However, thanks to the work and insight of Roe, it turns out that it was indeed possible to sail, by boat or barge perhaps, between those two beautiful cities in the late sixteenth centuries by means of canals and the navigable rivers of the Adige, Po and Adda.
In fact, until the late 1950s, Milan was still considered one of Italy's prime maritime ports. After all, it must be realised that northern Italy is, at least below the Alps and before the Appenines rise to form the backbone of the peninsula, a vast plain, perfectly suited for navigation as well as growing the rice for risotto.
So what I came away with from reading this book is of having visited Italy myself, albeit in my mind, yet deeply - and yes - intimately. Whoever the author of Shakespeare was, he (or she?) must surely having experienced it at first hand, just like the author of this book.
Copyright Francis 2022
And it isn't new; the controversy has been going on longer than most people realise. By the early nineteenth century the doubts about the 'man from Stratford' were beginning to become more vocal.
One such doubter was a remarkable woman from Ohio called Delia Bacon, who proposed her namesake Francis Bacon, was the actual author of Shakespeare's works.
Another example is Mark Twain, the author of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, who put his doubts into print with his book 'Is Shakespeare Dead?'. Since then the theories have continued to grow apace.
Perhaps the most groundbreaking book of the last century was written by a certain J Thomas Looney (Shakespeare Identified), who claimed that the 17th Earl of Oxford, one Edward de Vere, was the true genius of English literature. Needless to say there are now numerous books about the issue and many alternative candidates, including Christopher Marlowe and Roger Manners, the 5th Earl of Rutland.
However, what has been lacking is documentary proof of someone other than 'the man from Stratford' being the actual author of the works of Shakespeare. The great problem stems from the fact that there is a gaping whole, a paucity of information, in the known biography of the man called William Shakespeare. We know when he was born, when he got married and when he died; added to that are pieces of records of litigious information in regard to someone who seems far more like a businessman than England's greatest ever playwright and poet. And in his will there is no mention of a library, let alone any books, surely prerequisites for such a literary giant as this.
The character emerging from the available information, including six rather poor signatures, is of someone who is quite materialistically minded, not at all prone to writing the best blank verse you've ever seen.
That said, it is still possible that there is a huge chunk of his biography waiting to be found and that he did indeed write the works attributed to him - genius is still after all, genius, as they say. But genius still needs an education, something which, other than a possible grammar school education up until around the age of fourteen, is also glaringly absent.
I have been interested by this subject, though not entirely persuaded by any candidate, for many years now. For me, just about the best book I have come across in regard to this controversy is The Shakespeare Guide to Italy (HarpPeren; Illustrated edition) by Richard Paul Roe, now sadly deceased. He is well qualified for this undertaking, having a degree in English literature and European history from Berkeley.
It has long been speculated as to why at least ten out of the thirty six of the Bard's plays are set in Italy. Surely the most obvious answer to this fact is that author of the plays visited Italy extensively at some stage in his life, or at the very least knew people who had, or he had access to much information about that country.
What Roe does is set about researching patiently and wholly systematically over some period of time, visiting all the places mentioned in the works; Venice, Padua, Verona, Mantua, Milan, Florence, Messina, Palermo, the latter two locations being in Sicily. Many of the pictures within the book are the authors and you get some idea as to his intelligence, sheer persistence and depth of character.
He produces a logically argued and beautifully illustrated book, which while highly detailed, is also easy to read. What I particularly like is that he does not force upon the reader a favourite candidate for authorship; he presents facts, information, from which the discerning reader can make up their own mind.
Hitherto it has been assumed by most that much of the information that the author of Shakespeare put into his plays about certain locals was either imagined, or learned anecdotally. However, if you know a place more intimately, there are certain facts you can drop in which draws a more convincing picture.
An example of this is from Romeo and Juliet, where Benvolio is describing the scene of a grove of sycamore trees through the western wall of the city of Verona. Roe visited this area and found that to this day sycamores still grow there.
Now, it might be said that such scenes exist from many an Italian city and have done for centuries, and that Shakespeare just 'got lucky' in putting in this detail, but it does seem these trees have been a feature here way back into past. And it does create a picture of intimacy, as if the author is seeing things from his own mind's eye, or recollection, and not merely making it up.
There are many other examples of course, including the volcanic island of Vulcano off the north coast of Sicily which bears a remarkable similarity to Prospero's island described in what is regarded as Shakespeare's last play, The Tempest.
In The Two Gentlemen of Verona there is the unequivocable statement of being able to sail from Verona to distant Milan, an oft quoted 'error' on behalf of the Bard, of whom it has been said was clearly ignorant of northern Italy and its geography. However, thanks to the work and insight of Roe, it turns out that it was indeed possible to sail, by boat or barge perhaps, between those two beautiful cities in the late sixteenth centuries by means of canals and the navigable rivers of the Adige, Po and Adda.
In fact, until the late 1950s, Milan was still considered one of Italy's prime maritime ports. After all, it must be realised that northern Italy is, at least below the Alps and before the Appenines rise to form the backbone of the peninsula, a vast plain, perfectly suited for navigation as well as growing the rice for risotto.
So what I came away with from reading this book is of having visited Italy myself, albeit in my mind, yet deeply - and yes - intimately. Whoever the author of Shakespeare was, he (or she?) must surely having experienced it at first hand, just like the author of this book.
Copyright Francis 2022
July 20, 2017
An excellently-written and engaging read.
For me, the most telling chapters were about Verona and Milan. For hundreds of years it was posited that the author of Two Gentlemen of Verona was showing his ignorance of Italy by having his characters sailing from Verona to Milan. Roe's very basic research turned up maps showing Milan's canal system and the common use of the River Po for ongoing trade between the two cities. Rather than the traditional "this-shows-the-author's-ignorance-of-Italy" what this example really illustrates is the traditionalists paucity of any kind of academic research about the plays and the author.
A second, fascinating example is Roe's work with A Midsummer Nights Dream. He all but proves the location is Sabbionetta, Italy, known as "Little Athens," with the main east gate known by locals as "il Quercia dei Duca" - "the Duke's Oak."
While I read this in 2011, I find myself coming back to it frequently as a reference.
For me, the most telling chapters were about Verona and Milan. For hundreds of years it was posited that the author of Two Gentlemen of Verona was showing his ignorance of Italy by having his characters sailing from Verona to Milan. Roe's very basic research turned up maps showing Milan's canal system and the common use of the River Po for ongoing trade between the two cities. Rather than the traditional "this-shows-the-author's-ignorance-of-Italy" what this example really illustrates is the traditionalists paucity of any kind of academic research about the plays and the author.
A second, fascinating example is Roe's work with A Midsummer Nights Dream. He all but proves the location is Sabbionetta, Italy, known as "Little Athens," with the main east gate known by locals as "il Quercia dei Duca" - "the Duke's Oak."
While I read this in 2011, I find myself coming back to it frequently as a reference.
August 11, 2016
A wonderful travelogue & a phenomenal piece of scholarship. Roe closely analyzes material from Shakespeare's Italian plays to illustrate how familiar the playwright was with specific details of Italian geography, local culture, and especially local nicknames for various locations that Roe argues exist in the plays. He uses careful tracings of changes in language & capitalization of specific things in dialogue across different versions of the plays to successfully establish the great extent to which Shakespeare must have lived & traveled in Italy extensively to draw upon such minute details for the plays. Beautifully illustrated with photographs of the sites referenced in present day, as well as maps depicting historic changes. Indispensable for anyone interested in Shakespeare's life, work, and the authorship debate.
July 16, 2012
This book is a riveting account of Shakespeare's travel through Italy based solely on his Italian plays. Obviously, Shakespeare knew the latest fashion, ducal, cultural, and commercial centers, and other landmarks, transport technologies, and even a select grove of sycamore. To walk through that grove today is to become Shakespeare: I dare you.
Roe also sets the bar very high for diction. You will never again believe Shakespeare preferred the shallow, irreverent definition!
Roe also sets the bar very high for diction. You will never again believe Shakespeare preferred the shallow, irreverent definition!
October 22, 2012
I love Shakespeare and I love Italy. What I don't love is a book that attempts to prove that he knows the country too well and therefore can't be him. I know; it's complicated. It's a gorgeous book with lots of pictures of various Italian spots, but that's not enough to offset the theory being propounded, a theory to which I don't subscribe. Ah well.
May 24, 2015
An interesting take on proving Shakespeare HAD actually been to Italy in his lifetime...Sometimes things felt a little stretched, but this read like a scholarly mystery was unfolding. I wanted to read this in preparation for my upcoming trip to Italy. It gave me a little insights and ideas on where we can take day trips. I liked that the book had pictures too!
July 9, 2021
Very interesting for those who are committed believers that the real Shakespeare - the author of the works attributed to William Shakespeare - is Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. While this book never takes a side in that controversy, the author's findings in Italy prove that the writer of the plays set in Italy must have actually been there - as was de Vere.
April 19, 2020
A very excellent book to read after each of the plays mentioned. It gives so much more depth and understanding into the world and the genius of Shakespeare.
August 3, 2020
A must read for all lovers of Shakespeare and Italy!
May 17, 2021
Love this fun trip round the Med w Ed. He must have been awful fun. The Tempest chapter sticks with me the most. DeVere, the troof.
March 17, 2025
This is an absolutely fascinating book about the debate of whether-or-not-Shakespeare-wrote-Shakespeare-as-opposed-to-another-playwright-by-the-same-name, as it were. For many, the Bard was an Englishman who never left the country and so all of his so-called Italian Plays are written purely from his imagination to appeal to his English audience. Because of that, his Italian plays are "known" to have numerous discrepancies which do not represent the actual Italy of his day. However this author made it his intellectual pursuit to study not only the original publications and the original wordings, but then to spend a significant amount of time in Italy, in the very locations about which Shakespeare wrote in his plays. In so doing, the author found a considerable body of evidence that not only did the Bard have familiarity with the exact locations in his Italian plays, but he also understood the various city states, their politics, their traditions and their folklore--and all of these factor into his settings and his plays. Indeed it appears that instead, as the centuries have passed, as wordings have been changed to accommodate perceived discrepancies, that subsequent scholars and experts have misinterpreted parts of the plays and may have created "discrepancies" that never were there. It seems that when looking at the various locations of his plays in their proper time and context, that the Bard uses very specific and REAL locations, and that he was quite familiar with the topography of the locations and even the lives of their populations. Very intersting stuff.
August 29, 2023
I'm personally not interested in the whole Shakespeare authorship question. I picked up this book to research an upcoming trip to northern Italy, and in full disclosure, I only skimmed through the chapters that were not about Venice, Verona or Milan. That being said, I enjoyed the parts I read more thoroughly. The well-researched pages are packed with pictures, maps, and references that connect the plays to each locale. Also, I found the author's enthusiasm for his discoveries was a little contagious.
April 5, 2012
Many of Shakespeare's plays were set in Italy. It has long been disputed that Shakespeare wrote the scenes from personal knowledge or just copied someone else's accounts. This author, Richard Roe, proves that they were set in a real Italy by looking at places in Italy and matching them with the real meanings of the words Shakespeare chose.
February 6, 2016
The author presents a strong case for Shake-speare having first hand knowledge of Italy, as some obscure references in the plays could only come from having been in Italy at the time and from a person who could speak/read Italian. Therefore, Roe basically disputes "the man from Stratford" as the author of the Shake-speare plays. This book was also an enjoyable read.
October 19, 2018
This book is a wonderful look at locations mentioned in Shakespeare's plays set in Italy and, using clues from the plays themselves, seeks out the locations and documents them, along with their surrounding beauty.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews