Humanities desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 3

Shakespeare and Italy

I am curious why Shakespeare often set his plays in Italy. Was there any reason for doing so? Many of his plays are fiction, and he could have chosen any fictitious setting. Shakespeare himself was born, grew up, and lived in England his whole life (I believe). And, as far as I know, he never even visited Italy. (Or did he?) Why, then, his affinity for Italy? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Well, not exclusively Italy. He did set a few there, but there are also many set in England (Henry the pick-a-number, Richard III, King Lear), Scotland (MacBeth), Denmark (Hamlet). Most of his romantic or comedic plays do seem to be set in Italy; perhaps there was some impression of Italy being a romantic place. Not sure there's anything more indepth that picking a setting appropriate for the action and theme of the play, in light of what was probably the wider English impression of what Italy was like... --Jayron32 01:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italy, ground zero of the Renaissance, was the New York City or Paris of Shakespeare's day, especially when viewed from the relative cultural backwater of Elizabethan England. Or so it's often argued. England and northern Europe were fine settings for plays about scheming, troubled kings, but Italy was a better setting for laughter and romance. —Kevin Myers 02:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"And, as far as I know, he never even visited Italy. (Or did he?)": It might be instructive to read Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, in particular:

Shakespeare placed many of his plays in Italy and sprinkled them with detailed descriptions of Italian life. Though there are no records Shakespeare of Stratford ever visited mainland Europe, historical documents confirm Oxford lived in Venice, and traveled for over a year through Italy. According to Anderson, the Italian cities Oxford definitely visited in 1575-1576 were Venice, Padua, Milan, Genoa, Palermo, Florence, Siena and Naples and he probably also passed through Messina, Mantua and Verona — all cities "Shakespeare" later wrote into the plays, while (except for Rome) the Italian cities Oxford bypassed are the same cities Shakespeare ignored.

See also de Vere’s Italian connections laid bare at the sections headed The Merchant of Venice, The Tempest, The Taming of the Shrew, and As You Like It. He alludes to various local Italian practices that someone who had never been there would not know about. Yet Shakespeare never went there. (Or did "he"?) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were ten years (roughly) where there exists no record for Shakespeare. He may have been in London during that time, but there are people who theorize that he traveled Europe, and perhaps spent time in Italy. It is pure conjecture because, as I said, there are no records whatsoever documenting those years in Shakespeare's life. We know that he was alive, but beyond that it is completely questionable. Falconus^{p t c} 03:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other point is that his Italian geography seems rather patchy. He has, I think, ships sailing from Verona [Edit: on further research, I may mean Milan (in The Winter's Tale), and also much of Bohemia] (Two Gentlemen), and other geographical inconsistencies. I haven't read much of his Italian works, but specific references seem rather thin on the ground. I once found a list of them, but have failed to find them since. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare (whatever his real name/s was/were, though I'm happy to assume he was one guy from Stratford-upon-Avon) didn't usually invent his plots de novo: they were often based on older stories and/or plays by others. Where historically-themed - Macbeth, for example - he adapted history (or "history") texts of the time, predominently that of Raphael Holinshed, while others such as Romeo and Juliet drew on classical and foreign plays and/or stories to which he had access, and which often had an Italian origin: check out the 'Sources' Sections in the article of those and others of his plays.

However one rates Shakespeare's eternal literary merits, his primary purpose (I don't say he didn't have others) when he was writing was not to invent original stories for the ages, but to produce as efficiently as possible entertainment for the paying playgoers of his own time. Most of them didn't know or care that he was refashioning older material, and those that did would merely have admired his skill in doing so.

Naturally, he would have minimised his own labour by not deviating from his source material more than he had to, so would have retained the foreign settings in it. As far as any special and unusual knowledge of contemporary Italy (etc) goes, while he may not have been there he would surely, like most authors in such situations, have both read travellers' accounts and picked the brains of anyone who had whom he knew personally: this might have included both aristocrats like Oxford and, perhaps more plausibly, such persons' servants. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partly it was because it was conveniently distant from England,and religiously Catholic, so that an Italian setting avoided potential political problems which might have occurred if the plays were set at home (implying that an Italian city-state is poorly governed is a lot less dangerous than implying that England is poorly governed etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the helpful input above. I appreciate it. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Whence "Incest is best"?

What is the original source for the rhyme that goes "Incest is best, put your [kinship term] to the test!", with a different term in each repetition of the line? (I did try Google, but couldn't find anything that seemed to indicate the primary source.) Or is it an anonymous folk rhyme or children's playground song? 68.123.238.146 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this variation. The standard joke line, I think, is "vice is nice, but incest is best", which was probably popularized in 1964 by Gael Greene's provocative paperback exposé Sex and the College Girl. Presumably she didn't write the line, but only reported it. Google apparently has nothing on the phrase prior to Greene's book. —Kevin Myers 05:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something Tom Lehrer might have come up with - I thought perhaps in the song Oedipus Rex, but it's not that one. Astronaut (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "Try everything once, except incest and folk-dancing"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the origins of that quote? I'd heard it as incest and Morris dancing. --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Yale Book of Quotations says it's from Arnold Bax, Farewell, My Youth (1943), and gives it as "You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing." John M Baker (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If that's the same Arnold Bax as Arnold Bax, we could include it in his article, with a reference. Page number? Wikiquote might also be interested. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the same Arnold Bax. YBQ doesn't give the original page number; it's on page 48 of YBQ itself, if that's any help. It does say that Bax was "Quoting a 'sympathetic Scotsman.'" John M Baker (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bax, p. 17: A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, "You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing." This is from Google Books "snippet view" so that's all the context I could get. A web search shows that this quotation is often attributed to Beecham, which is no surprise. Apologies for drifting away from the original query. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Beecham is attributed with many things he did not actually say. But he did conduct Arnold Bax's music on occasion. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about attention whores

What causes some people to be attention whores? Why are so many of them cheaters if they are getting the attention they need from the person they are seeing or married to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Attention seeking is necessarily tied to Infidelity. You could read either of those articles for more background on the concepts. --Jayron32 05:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissistic personality disorder might help better define your question. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 08:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also ask why people feel the need to have more than one friend. If the answer to that is obvious, then monogamy begs explanation. Wurstgeist (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag or emblem of Ancient Egypt

Did ancient Egypt have any symbol that functioned as a state emblem, like the eagle standard of Rome? I assume each pharaoh and other powerful individuals would have had a personal standard of some sort, but was there anything that endured through many reigns (or even eras) to represent Egypt itself? 86.170.214.157 (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there is much hope in finding a single, common symbol to represent many different "states" that ruled over the course of the centuries that we call "Ancient Egypt". But the Ankh is a nice, recognizable symbol that was of great importance to the state religion. Category:Ancient_Egyptian_symbols has a few other similar such things. The crook and flail is another nice candidate, symbolizing the office of the Pharaoh itself; ditto the Eye of Horus. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also question that the eagle standard functioned as a state emblem in the Roman Empire. Sure, it is a convenient symbol that is readily associated with Rome today, but it was most likely not used as a national emblem so much as a Roman military emblem during the period. SPQR or the she wolf suckling Romulus and Remus would probably be closer to a national symbol of the Roman Empire. Most likely there was no single symbol that was generally used by the nations themselves either in Egypt or Rome, so any representative symbol would rely on the modern anachronistic interpretation of a national symbol (and of the modern interpretation of nation in general). Besides the good examples already mentioned by Mr. 98, perhaps the twin crown or perhaps the falcon of Horus would be applicable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were The Indigenous people, the Taínos, farmers and hunters?

I'm working on the Cuba article and the article makes the claim that the Taíno people are Farmers. When I go to the Taínos article, it claims that they hunted and fished.

The problem is that neither article cites their information. I would like to receive help finding sources that supports one or the other so that I can clear up the claim of the Taíno people only farmers or farmers & hunters.

Thanks in advance. --Joel M. (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference The Peoples of the Caribbean by Nicholas Saunders (first listing) is - in parts - available online and states on p272 "At the time of the European arrival, the Taino population ... lived a settled village life and practised agriculture." There may be more information on their source of animal proteins on other pages. You may want to check your library for this refence. --91.115.163.156 (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC). Oops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (talk), I'll be searching for the book. :) --Joel M. (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book question

I read a book years ago, I don't recall the title and only recall a few plot points, I wonder if someone will remember it. I have tried a Google search but have so far been unlucky.

The book has a character in it who works in a Bio-safety level 4 environment. I believe it's a woman, and the book describes the reason she has to work BL3 is because her body was unable to process the vaccines required for BL3 workers. Since things studied in BL4 have no vaccines she was able to work there. She was some kind of public health worker for USAMRIID or CDC, or similar agency.

I believe the plot centers around some kind of virus an astronaut picks up in space. I seem to recall an autopsy in which black growths are discovered in the astronauts stomach.

I read the book in the late 90s. I recently read The Cobra Event, as it was the closest thing I could find and that was not the book. Any help would be appreciated. Robert Beck (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching in the Worldcat.org for the book. Here's a test search I did, check it out and see if you see the book you speak of. [1] --Joel M. (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds vaguely like The Andromeda Strain? In terms of alien viruses. But probably not, because that is a fairly easy-to-find one... --Mr.98 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be Tess Gerritsen's Gravity. Poliocretes (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Grantham

The new Weedon Hill development has been in the local news today, so I have taken the bull by the horns and created an article about it. The development is built on the reputed site of the 1642 Battle of Aylesbury, and the proposed road names in the development are to be named after important figures from the battle. Prince Rupert Drive is one that has definitely been confirmed, and his article is easy enough to locate. However the other confirmed road name is Colonel Grantham Avenue. I can find reference to Grantham in contemporary references of this and other battles that took place in England in the 1640s, but can find nothing about the individual himself in order that he might also (possibly) have an article on Wikipedia. Does anyone know anything about Colonel Grantham that could lead to a decent biography about him being written? -- role^player 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I typed "Colonel Grantham 1642" into Google and this[2] page came up first. It mention's "Colonel Grantham's regiments". This page[3] has "Thomas Grantham" as commander of a regiment of the "Earl of Essex Army". Got to rush... Alansplodge (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a first name is more than I had originally. Will keep digging! -- role^player 10:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two other 17th Century "Thomas Granthams" to beware of; a Baptist preacher from Lincolnshire who would have been 8 in 1642[4] and a ship's captain, Thomas Grantham, who was knighted towards the end of the century[5]. One Thomas Grantham Esq (probably our man) married Frances, daughter of Sir Godfrey Wentworth on 12th January 1657[6]. Thomas Grantham also appears under Lincolnshire in an Ordnance of 1643 listing those who had raised regiments and who would be paid by Parliament "for the mutuall defence each of other against the Popish Army in the North under the command of the Marquesse of Newcastle."[7]. Maybe some more soon... Alansplodge (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose the ultimate question is, was he notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about him? Do we know enough about him in order to write a decent article? John Hampden has an article, and he was at the same rank as Grantham (and in the same battle), but I think Hampden might be more notable for other reasons. -- role^player 14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As every schoolboy knows (or used to), Hampden was one of the five members of Parliament that Charles tried to arrest. From memory (more than 40 years ago):

"The man at the gate said 'Tickets please'

Said Charles 'I've come for the 5 MPs;

Denzil Holles, Jonathan Pym,

William Strode and after him,

Arthur Haselrig Esquire

And Hampden, gent of Buckinghamshire'" Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More progress (we won't know if Thomas Grantham is notable or not until we find out who he was); the WP article Lincolnshire (UK Parliament constituency) says that Sir Thomas Grantham was MP for Lincolnshire from 1621-1622. Alansplodge (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this was probably our man's father; the Lincoln Archives have a folio "Rental and survey of all the lands in the possession of Thomas Grantham esq., son of Sir Thomas Grantham kt, decd, 1638 (reference to "my father" in the margin) Goltho, giving tenant, rent and acreage, all of land in closes (folio 132v) Kingthorpe (folio 130v)[8]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the information that Grantham's first name was Thomas I have done a quick search on google and have come up with several references to a Baptist minister from Lincolnshire, who died in 1692: [9] [10] [11] [12]. I suspect that may be a relation, possibly a son? There are also other references to Thomas Grantham from Lincolnshire, one of which is definitely the Sir who was possibly the father, though this one shows an early link with Hampden: [13]. There's also a Sir Thomas Grantham, 1641-1718: [14], and a Thomas Grantham who was master of Peter House in Cambridge in 1642: [15]. I didn't know it was such a common name!!! -- role^player 22:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file[16] (p.45) says that Thomas Grantham the preacher was born to "Ralf and Elyzabeth Grantham in Spilsby on 15 April 1633" So maybe a more distant relative, if at all. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS according to familysearch.org there was a Thomas Grantham baptised in Goltho, Lincolnshire on 5th November 1612, son of Sir Thomas Grantham and Frances Puckering. The record shows that he married Dorothy Alford (no date given) and that he died in 1655. -- role^player 22:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I have copied and pasted this discussion to my talk page, because I'm going on holiday tomorrow and this'll probably be archived before I get back. -- role^player 01:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing Power

Stealing electricity from Govt. is quite common in India. ( I have just made a page about it Kundi (stealing power).) What I am curious to know is that does something like this happen in US or Europe? -- Jon Ascton (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a news item about it, with some figures: [17] (Not very useful figures, but hey). In many countries the power lines are just too dangerous to go near, although Tim Hunkin [18] claims that an unnamed Canadian was once convicted of stealing power by induction. Rigging your electricity meter so that you don't appear to have used so much power is probably the most attractive option. (Perhaps the most relevant factor is that the lines are buried underground once they leave the substation.) Wurstgeist (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most transmission, subtransmission, and distribution lines in the US are in fact overhead, not underground. Edison (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this 2004 study, Western Europe, North America, and East Asia/ Australasia have pretty low rates of electricity theft. (I'm not entirely sure what their metric is, but they rate Western Europe as have a 7.56% loss rate, East Asia/Australasia as 7.65%, North America as 9.38%). By comparison, South Asia (which would include India) is the highest, at 27.55%. Between 1980 and 2000 the EasternEurope rate doubled (9.68% to 18.18%), and on the whole in that period the overall theft rate in the world increased by 4.54%. (North America was anomalous in decreasing by 0.29%.) The authors of the study correlate it with lack of effective government control over people and utilities — it happens in places where "rule of law is weak" and "government effectiveness is weak and there is a high regulatory burden." The authors attribute the low rates in North America, Japan, and Western Europe to the fact that in these countries there are pretty effective technological and managerial techniques used to detect and prosecute electricity theft. In these countries, for example, they have tamper-proof meters, which are most costly to put in but drastically cut the rate of theft. They also have regular inspection and monitoring programs. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very common in First World countries because electricity is quite cheap and therefore (I suspect) just not worth the bother. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe yours is, but mine is pretty expensive, in the summer time anyway when I have to pump in air conditioning. When I lived in the Bay Area, I thought electricity was cheap, and never had bills more than $30 a month or so. But on the East Coast I can easily run up to $150-200 a month if I really was at the comfort level I would ideally desire, in a hot summer. That's not an insignificant percentage of my overall income, though not worth going to jail over. If there were no chances of getting caught, and it was easy to do, I don't see why it would be any different than, say, software piracy. I suspect there is more to it than all of that, though — most Americans wouldn't even really think about stealing power to begin with. There are strong social norms against it (in a way that there are not strong social norms against pirating movies). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One area where it is a problem is in marijuana grow-ops, where power is stolen to disguise indoor hydroponic consumption. Here's a note on the problem from my provincial power authority.[19] They say that most power theft in the province is related to grow-ops. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing power is, or should be, a capital offence. Those guilty should be put to death. This article from Uganda should convince you. Sussexonian (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you advocate the violators be electrocuted? Edison (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US electric companies generally have a "Revenue Protection" department. Meter readers and other personnel are rewarded for turning in customers with diverted unmetered electricity, or where the meter has been tampered with. Meters have tamper-evident seals. A customer who diverts current or tampers with them meter can be charged for the stolen electricity based on estimates. Repeat violators or those who do not pay get the wires cut off at the pole, as many times as is necessary to get the point across. Third world countries might have power company employees who are bribed to turn a blind eye or thieves in league with the police so it is unsafe to cut the power. Edison (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can Romans be considered Italians?

Can Romans be considered Italians? More specifically, my question pertains the inclusion of Roman people in the article List of Italians. Engine searches do not return clear results for the question "are Romans Italian" and variations thereof. My personal POV being that Romans cannot be considered Italian is derived from what I could describe as very slightly above average knowledge of history, therefore, I conclude that saying that "Romans are not Italian" would constitute OR. Are there any scholarly or reliable articles, or books, on the question? Would it be appropriate to move the Roman people to List of Romans? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Italy#Etymology by the time of Antiochus of Syracuse (420BC) the term Italy was being used to describe people from the southern part of the peninsula, but it was not until the time of the Roman conquests that the term was expanded to cover the entire peninsula (direct quote from article, referenced). This would suggest that the Romans were Italians. However Rome covered a vast empire and thus applied to more than just modern-day Italy, so evidence would need to be supplied to suggest that each Roman in question originated from the Italian peninsula in order to be included on the list, imo. -- role^player 00:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is what the definition of "Italian" really covers. I'm not sure you'll get two people to agree on that (especially if one of them is Italian!). If you just consider it to mean that land mass, then they definitely are. If you mean it to cover a cultural history that starts after the Roman empire, then obviously not. If you have some kind of quasi-genetic/racial delineation, you'll get a very complicated answer that doesn't really conform to nation-state boundaries. If you do it by what areas were under the Roman Empire, you basically end up making everybody in Europe Roman, as this map illustrates pretty well. Personally, again, I doubt you'll be able to get anyone to agree one way or the other on this. It depends on what you consider the starting definitions to be, and people are going to pick and choose from those fairly arbitrarily. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it Metternich who said "Italy is merely a geographical expression"? Whoever, but if that's the least we can say about Italy, then Romans certainly fit into that, the same way that Croatians and Bosnians and some others can be described as Dalmatians. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the complicated legal question in ancient Rome, then Rome proper was, well, Rome, and the other surrounding cities were fellow Latins (if they lived in Latium, anyway), and a bit further out they were all "Italian", distinct from Rome. They were considered, by Rome at least, to be longstanding allies, although they apparently felt that they were actually unequal subjects. There was some discussion of granting the Latins and other Italians equal rights, which led to the Social War (91–88 BC), or the "Italian War" in Latin (bellum Italicum). At the time there were many other people in the peninsula who were not Roman, Latin, or Italian (the Etruscans, the Greeks, the Gauls, maybe even the Sicilians although it was their legendary king Italus who gave his name to the region). You might also want to look at Roman citizenship. (And not everyone in the Empire was technically Roman until Roman rights were granted universally, whenever that was, in the third century AD I think.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I believe that that you're confusing Roman citizenship with Roman ethnic and cultural background (there is a tiny diff). A family outside of Italy eventually received Roman citizenship (which at that time meant that they had some rights, but basicly they were subjects of the emperor), but that didn't necessarily mean that they became Romans. They would maintain their own cultural identity. Let me use a clear example: a male Jew, as a free man, became a Roman citizen with the edict of emperor Caracala (at the latest). However he still was a Jew and did not became a Roman. He would still maintain his ancestral culture (to a certain degree, some Romanization was likely to occur). Flamarande (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, the Romans were not Italians, in any real sense of the word, except that they lived on the peninsula of Italy. Like all of the Romance peoples (Italians, French, Spanish, Romanians), the modern people we think of as Italian and the modern Italian language evolved from a mixture of Latin and Germanic languages, in the case of Italian the Lombards had a strong influence on the development of the Italian culture as distinct from Roman culture. Still, the idea of a unified Italian peninsula didn't really get going for well over 1000 years after the Roman Empire no longer occupied the Italian peninsula. Before the 1800's, Italy was occupied by Venetians and Genoese and Umbrians and Calabrese and Sicilians and Sardinians. Even today, not all Italians speak, well, Italian. The Sicilian language and Sicilian peoples are distinct enough from the Northern italians to make up a distinct group. --Jayron32 05:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the Emperor Trajan, who was one of Rome's most successful emperors, was Spanish. So, the answer is categorically no. "Italian" as a concept is pretty dang modern. See Garibaldi. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]