Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2004 :: September ::
Question on Measure for Measure
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1711  Monday, 13 September 2004

[1]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 10 Sep 2004 16:28:04 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1688 Question on Measure for Measure

[2]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 10 Sep 2004 22:15:04 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure

[3]     From:   John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 11 Sep 2004 12:40:30 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure

[4]     From:   Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 11 Sep 2004 13:47:57 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure

[5]     From:   John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 11 Sep 2004 14:00:26 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure

[6]     From:   John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 11 Sep 2004 15:03:23 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure

[7]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 12 Sep 2004 17:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1644 Question on Measure for Measure

[8]     From:   Tom Krause <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 12 Sep 2004 22:46:34 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure

[9]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 13 Sep 2004 09:50:59 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1688 Question on Measure for Measure


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 10 Sep 2004 16:28:04 +0100
Subject: 15.1688 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1688 Question on Measure for Measure

Krause asks for an allegory that will pass his six tests (even though I
would argue that his own "debasement" allegory fails them
comprehensively). As I have said, I do not have either the time nor the
motivation to do this task justice.  Just by looking at Krause's
footnotes, you can see that he spent a considerable chunk of his life
researching his essay and formulating his claims.  If I was really to
produce a series of assumptions and claims that were to match Krause's
as an endeavour, I would have to spend just as long, which I am not
willing to do. The false allegory that I am about to make up, therefore,
is more likely to take me a few hours than weeks or months, and it
should be understood that if I - or anybody else - could be bothered to
spend as much time on this as Krause has, we could produce a much better
parallel fake-allegory.

I will start by summarising Krause's own offering.  In order to compare
like with like I am only going to look at one play and one theme.
Krause's essay actually contains numerous themes jumbled up together, so
that Luke Kirby appears in Krause's "allegory" although he has nothing
to do with debasement, or Shakespeare, or the text of this play when the
name "Luke" appears.  In this summary I am going to begin by listing all
those points which actually directly refer to Krause's supposed major
theme, "debasement" in one play, "Measure for Measure".

These are as follows:

1)  ANGELO'S NAME AND ROLE.  Krause tells us that "In 'Measure for
Measure', a character named for an English coin (Angelo, for the English
Angel) - whom others view as a model of purity - is actually debased and
at risk of becoming irredeemably debased.  If the character named for a
monarch (Isabella) yields to his entreaties, both the coin and the
monarch will be debased.  Fortunately, a character named for a Spanish
Jesuit who argued against monetary debasement (Mariana for Juan de
Mariana) intervenes, and prevents both from becoming debased ... The
forced marriage of the coin (Angelo) to the anti-debaser (Mariana)
reflects Shakespeare's hopes that King James will pursue a policy of
non-debasement.

2) MARIANA'S NAME AND ROLE.  Krause claims that Mariana is named after
Juan de Mariana, who argued against monetary debasement, and that the
character Mariana by marrying Angelo stops him from becoming debased.

3) ISABELLA'S NAME AND ROLE.  Krause claims that Isabella is named after
Queen Elizabeth I (Isabella being a foreign variation on Elizabeth), and
Krause claims that Elizabeth's role in saving the English currency from
debasement (by reversing her father's debasement) is represented by
Isabella's role in saving Angelo from debasement.  He also mentions
Isabella's and Queen Elizabeth's shared virginity, suggesting that the
final marriage of Elizabeth to the Duke represents the succession of the
English throne from Elizabeth to James (although I might point out that
Isabella gets married at the end of the play, and Elizabeth rather
obviously never did, nor was James I ever one of her suitors, if
anything he was her honorary son as a result of being chosen as her heir).

4) THE DUKE.  Krause claims that the Duke, as monarch, represents James
I. He suggests that Shakespeare portrayed James as having debased the
Scottish coinage (represented by allowing Angelo to take power) but then
gave the Duke the role that he hoped James would play in England
(helping to rescue the coinage from debasement).  Presumably he is also
thinking about the fact that both James and the Duke were rulers.

5) CLAUDIO'S NAME AND ROLE.  Krause suggests that Claudio is named after
the Claudine Emperors, and that the name was chosen because those
Emperors were associated with debasement.  He also suggests that as
Isabella's brother, he represents Queen Elizabeth's brother, Edward VI -
who, like his father, debased the coinage.

6)  JULIET'S NAME AND ROLE.  Since Claudio does not debase Angelo,
Krause is forced to claim that Juliet also represents a coin.  This he
does by noting that Juliets in other plays are referred to using coin
and 'angel' imagery more than other female characters (although I should
point out that this is repeatedly to the celestial creature and not the
coin, so Krause is presuming a double-meaning that is unlikely to be
there - I would also need to see firm evidence for Krause's claim about
the particular association between Juliets and coin-imagery before I was
convinced).

7) LAWS SLIPPED FOR X YEARS.  Krause claims that this time in which the
Duke's laws were allowed to slip represents the period during which
Edward VI's coins were in circulation (fourteen years), or the period
when Henry VIII's debased coins were in circulation (nineteen years).
Shakespeare apparently makes the mistake of using both figures,
contradicting each other.

8)  FIVE YEARS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANGELO AND MARIANA.  Krause suggests
that the fact that Angelo had "spoken of marriage" with Mariana five
years before marrying her represents the five years between the
introduction of debasement in Spain in 1599 and the first recorded
performance of "Measure for Measure" in 1604.

So now, I'll start putting together my own "allegory".  I don't know
whether the first stirrings of this deliberately false allegory (which,
in any case, could not possibly co-exist with Krause's allegory, since
it requires the same names and characters to mean completely different
things, or have a completely different significance) rest unconsciously
with my reading of Krause's essay, as I find in rereading it that he
does himself suggest that "While the name Mariana was a plausible
woman's name, and was the adjectival form of Mary or Maria (and thus
could be associated with the virgin Mary, Catholics, Queen Mary Tudor or
Mary Queen of Scots)", but these are fairly obvious connections for any
Renaissance enthusiast to make and I had consciously forgotten this by
the time I started forming my own allegory, so any debt to Krause is
subconscious.

To begin then:

Mariana, in my allegory, is a representation of the Virgin Mary or
spiritual faith in the one true religion (which, of course, is the
Catholic religion - this play is being written by Catholic William
Shakeshafte son of Catholic John Shakespeare and those Protestants in
his audience are all heretics, who need some allegorical moralising).

Isabella, a Catholic nun (the Protestants had no nuns, Henry VIII
abolished them), represents the worldly Catholic Church, which was
virginal (all priests swore an oath of chastity) and had a religious
vocation, and in particular the Spanish Empire which led the Catholic
resistance against English Protestantism and its attempts to corrupt the
Catholic nations and their church (hence the character being named after
the Spanish queen at the time of Henry VIII's Reformation, Isabella -
England's attempts to corrupt the Catholic nations and church with their
hereticism - as seen for example in their support of Dutch Protestant
rebellion against Spain - is represented by Angelo's attempt to sexually
corrupt and compromise Isabella trying to convert her from religious
virginity to worldly whoredom - Isabella's verbal  resistance and
cunning scheme represent Spain's constant military resistance to the
English and Protestant threat).

Angelo represents the heretical English nation and Englishmen - his name
being a reference to that famous reference by Pope Gregory the Great
(representing the Catholic church) on viewing pagan Englishmen in the
Italian slavemarket, who declared them - for their physical beauty -
"Not Angles, but angels" (Angelo being, like them, a pagan at heart with
the outward appearance of an angel).

Mariana's brother Frederick we can take over from Krause's essay as
Federico de Spinola but - just to show how easy it is, having found a
random name, to bind it into a theme, we will massively improve on
Krause's own explanation (Krause's only connection being that Mariana
was Spanish, Federico was working for the Spanish, and the name Isabella
was Spanish for Elizabeth - which has nothing whatever to do with
Krause's own allegorical theme of debasement) by binding Federico much
more tightly into the main theme of our own allegory, Federico in
fighting for the Spanish and the Catholic faith was a "great soldier"
for, and the protective spiritual "brother" of Catholic faith
(represented by the Virgin Mary / Mariana) who died while trying to
forcibly reconcile the English nation and the Catholic Church (since his
ultimate aim was to lead an invasion of the English nation on behalf of
Catholicism and Spain, and return England to the Church), Federico's
potential to bring about the unity of England and Catholicism (Angelo
and Mariana) is represented by the dowry that brother Frederick carries
on his ship, when the ship sinks and Frederick dies (representing
Federico's death in a sea battle), this potential unification (the dowry
to bring about the marriage) is lost, and England returns to its
intransigent hereticism, rejecting Mariana / Mary and the Catholic faith.

The "laws let slip" for fourteen years are explained by the fourteen
years between Henry VIII's illegal (by Catholic standards) remarriage
and excommunication by Pope Clement VII both in 1533 (which finally
broke off all official ties between England's monarch and the Catholic
Church) and Henry's death in 1547.

The"laws let slip" for nineteen years" refer to the nineteen years
between the Act of Supremacy in 1534, which confirmed Henry VIII
officially as the Supreme Head of the Church in England (usurping the
position of the Pope) and 1553 when Queen Mary I reinstated the Catholic
Bishops as she returned England to Catholicism.

The Duke represents Philip II, who - through marrying Mary I - was
briefly King of England and tried to guide it back to Catholicism (hence
his position as Angelo's master), upon the death of Mary I, Philip did
nothing to prevent the succession of her sister and instead tried to woo
Elizabeth with the idea of marrying her and restoring himself to the
English throne (symbolised by the Duke leaving his country -
representing England - and allowing Angelo, representing Queen Elizabeth
and the Protestant Englishmen, to rule the country), but he continued to
act secretly behind the scenes (with the Duke's return in disguise and
secret plotting to help Isabella and Mariana representing Philip II's
role in sending Spanish spies, missionary priests [including Jesuits] -
symbolised by the Duke disguising himself as just such a man, a
religious Friar - and political agitators into England to aid the
English Catholics, who are represented by Isabella and Mariana, their
worldly Catholic faith represented by Isabella and their spiritual
Catholic faith represented by Mariana) and continued to try to bring
about a reconciliation between England and the Catholic faith
(represented by the marriage of Mariana and Angelo) by diplomatic means
or by war (represented by the Duke's role in tricking Angelo into
marrying Mariana).

Since this is an allegory about the relationship between Catholicism and
England, and not one about the debasement of coinage, we can also bring
in all the examples from Krause's own essay that are actually about
Catholicism and have nothing whatever to do with debasement, while these
have nothing directly to do with Krause's debasement allegory (since not
one of them has anything to do with debasement at all), they are rather
obviously an integral part of the main theme of my allegory about the
relationship between England and Catholicism, and so we can slot them in
here with much more justification than Krause can (obviously, I might
claim if I actually believed in the allegory that I was creating, while
following his misleading "debasement" allegory, Krause accidentally
stumbled across some of the parts of the *REAL* allegory inserted in the
play by Shakeshafte, one which in its other parts flagrantly cannot
co-exist with Krause's theory and which provides a much more natural
home for the Jesuit and Catholic references that Krause thinks he has
found).

Therefore, the moated grange is Lyford Grange, which in real life was
used by the Jesuit Father Campion, and so here is the home of Mariana
(Catholic faith) because in real life it became a symbolic home of the
spiritual Catholic faith that wishes to reach out to and unite with
England, represented by Mariana with her wish to embrace and marry Angelo.

Mariana's grange is within "Saint Luke's" because this represents Luke
Kirby, who is named here in association with Mariana was trying to do
Mariana's / Mary's work in converting Angelo / England when he was
captured, tortured and martyred.  He had a home for Mariana (Catholic
faith) in his heart.

Angelo's five year-old promise of marriage, followed by five years of
refusal, and then a sudden marriage, represents the five years between
the Western Rising (an English Catholic rebellion against Edward VI and
his introduction of a Protestant Prayer Book in 1549) and the date of
the marriage of Queen Mary I of England and King Philip II of Spain,
which took place in 1554. When the Western Rising occurred it some
briefly thought that this action was a promise that there would shortly
be a reunification of Catholicism and the English people (the marriage
of Angelo and Mariana) set in motion by these rebellions, but the
promise was short-lived as the rebellion was crushed and England/Angelo
- despite this brief suggestion of a possible reunification of England
with Catholicism - continued in its stubborn heretical ways until
Edward's sudden early death, which brought about a sudden and literal
marriage between the Catholic world and England, when Philip II of Spain
married Mary I, and became the joint monarch of a once again Catholic
England - a marriage of England and the Catholic world that the Catholic
Shakeshafte hoped would one day happen again, sometime after his play
was performed.

Claudio's name is easily explained by the fact that Claudius Acquavia
was General (leader) of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) from 1581
until more than a decade after "Measure for Measure" was performed.  As
General of the Jesuits he was responsible for training and sending all
the missionary Jesuits into England to minister to the Catholics there.
  In this allegory Claudio (named after this General) symbolises all of
the missionary Jesuits in their kindly mission to help the English to
reform from heresy and join the Catholic Church.

In the play the relationships of the Jesuits (represented by their
leader) and the loyal Catholic English people is symbolised by Claudio's
legitimate but unofficial relationship with Juliet (and we can borrow
Krause's theorising - dubious as it is - to say that Juliet was clearly
a representative of the good English person, open to forming a union and
eventually a marriage with the Catholic priesthood, since Krause tells
us that Shakeshafte routinely calls his other Juliets 'angels' and here
we know that angel really does mean the divine creature with wings [as
it clearly does in those plays] and not a coin, and the term is used, as
with Angelo, because Juliet is one of the strangely attractive pagan
English, but in this case open to Christian conversion (as Pope Gregory
the Great had hoped when he first saw them). Unfortunately the brutal
authorities of England, represented by the unjust Angelo (who outwardly
looked like an angel, as Pope Gregory observed, but had unfortunately
turned out to be inwardly a devil instead, as Shakeshafte says
repeatedly within the play) punished Claudio (the Jesuits) and Juliet
(the Catholic English people who welcomed priests and desired a union
with the Catholic priesthood and church), despite the fact that their
relationship was a legitimate one despite its secrecy and unofficial
nature. Shakespeare's association of Juliets with angels and with
English Catholics (especially pregnant ones) is doubtless additionally
suggested by the name of Saint Juliot - also known as Saint Julitta, who
was one of the last Christians martyred by the decree of pagan Roman
Emperors (Emperor Diocletian being responsible for the tenth and most
terrible persecution of the early Christian church).  With her
three-month old child Cyriacus, also later made a Saint, she fled
persecution of Christians in Lyacaonia, and went from there to Isauria
to Tarsus in Cilicia, where she was finally killed during the
persecutions instigated by Diocletian, after her child had been killed
before her eyes.  Shakeshafte's angelic saintly Catholic Juliets are
therefore dedicated to the memory of Saint Julitta, who like them faced
persecution by the pagan/heretical authorities of countries not friendly
to the true religion.

I've only spent a couple of hours at this and I've barely looked at any
books, just a few random flicks through reference books and glances at
the Internet, despite this I've managed to match Krause's allegory on
just about every point, and when I haven't matched it I've gone beyond
it in drawing even more allegorical detail out of Shakespeare's play
than Krause does for particular individuals and places.  Even when I've
decided to co-opt Krause's arguments (the grange, "Saint Luke's",
Mariana's brother Frederick) they fit much better into my allegory than
they did into Krause's, for a start they're actually on the right
subject (Krause's allegory is about currency debasement, which none of
these three people and places had anything to do with, but mine is about
the relationship between England and Catholicism, in which all three
were intimately involved) and what's more I've shown via allegory new
things about all three references which simply are not compatible with
Krause's alternative allegory: the grange is the home to Mariana because
Lyford Grange was the English home of Catholic spirituality in its use
as a Jesuit base, I've explained why Federico de Spinola was Mariana's
brother and why he was carrying her dowry, I've shown why Mariana lives
within a place named after Luke Kirby, while Krause cannot find any way
to attach him directly to Shakespeare's text at all.

Now I'm sure that Krause will accept that there are multiple and endless
references to Catholicism, and to the relationship between Catholicism
and the English people and state, that scholars have claimed to see
(sometimes with more evidence and justification than at others) in
Shakespeare's plays. When I have a chance to get out to the library and
collect some relevant sources, I'll post at least the 10 instances that
Krause demands within "Measure for Measure" itself, and another 10
instances from various other plays.  I think though, that Krause would
accept that just a few of the texts on the question of the Shakeshafte /
'Is Shakespeare Catholic?' theory would allow me to pass this section of
Krause's test.

I may have more to say later about why my allegory passes the other
tests at least as well as Krause's does, and often better, but first I
would be interested to hear Krause's reaction to this allegory?  I know,
almost for certain, that he will suggest that it is nothing like as good
as his own ("true") allegory and is therefore a "false" allegory and -
unlike his own - nothing to do with Shakespeare's real intentions.

The only other reaction that I can imagine is that Krause would claim
that both allegories are true, and were intended by Shakespeare.  This
is obviously not a valid argument, since it would be all but impossible
to deliberately create two overlapping but completely different
allegories of this kind in the same play, and any author who did so
would merely confuse his audiences and himself.  Since Krause wishes to
imagine that Shakespeare's audience watching the play for the first and
only time instantly saw in it the allegorical model that Krause's
supposed Shakespeare wished them to see, it is inconceivable that these
audiences were expected to see multiple conflicting allegories all at
the same time.  Such an experience for somebody viewing the rapid
movement of real theatre is quite simply impossible (as - in fact - is
the sort of convoluted and abstract reasoning that Krause uses to set up
many of his counter-intuitive "readings" of words, phrases, and large
sections of the text).

I would also point out that since nobody since Shakespeare's time has
seen anything like Krause's allegory in the play, Krause's belief that
the average household servant groundling would have been instantly
enlightened is far from credible.  In short I cannot imagine anybody
being able to reproduce virtually any part of Krause's allegory from
their own independent research (even if you told them that "the allegory
is about debasement") without having read Krause's essay first.
Readings that are supposed to be "obvious", but which are actually
impossible for others to see independently without help, cannot be given
much credence.

Thomas Larque.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 10 Sep 2004 22:15:04 +0100
Subject: 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure

 >I like to see argument, even vigorous argument, but feel dismay when the
 >contention descends into personal attacks. I don't know personally any
 >of the combatants, so this is an attempt at an impartial assessment.

Bill Lloyd is quite right.  I overreacted in response to Ed Taft, and as
a result unfairly allowed my feelings about Tom Krause's method to spill
over into personal comments, which was especially unjustified since Tom
Krause had no part in any provocation.  I have apologised offline to Tom
Krause (although not for the reasons Ed Taft suggested that I should)
and he has been kind enough to accept my apology, and I apologise here
to Hardy and to the list.  I will try to post more moderately and react
less emotionally in future.

Thomas Larque.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 11 Sep 2004 12:40:30 +0100
Subject: 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure

Perhaps we ought to consider "moated grange", which is probably another
of Shakespeare's eccentricities.  Strictly speaking, a grange is an
outlying farm of a monastery or feudal lord, used for the collection of
tithes or feudal dues, and so with additional barns (hence the name: it
really means 'granary').  It would be run by a steward or bailiff,
although it is not impossible that a member of the monastic community
would oversee it.  It would not need to be moated, because that is a
quasi-defensive feature.  "Quasi" because the feature is really one of
feudal status rather than practicality.  And as an outstation, monastic
or secular, it would not have that status.

Lyford Grange was indeed moated - although it is not clear (to me, at
least) whether the moat still survived in the 1580s.  It was not,
however, a grange!  It did indeed belong to the Abbey of Abingdon, but
had long been let to a secular tenant - who had presumably constructed
the moat to buttress his dubious status.  Baddesley Clinton is certainly
moated, but that wasn't a grange either!

John Briggs

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 11 Sep 2004 13:47:57 +0100
Subject: 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure

John Briggs writes ...

 >the awful lurking suspicion remains that


 >Shakespeare might not have realised that
 >the predominant language ought
 >to be German.

The suspicion remains that WS thought Vienna was in Italy.  This is the
writer after all who gave Bohemia and Milan sea coasts and didn't seem
to know that Venice has canals.  WS was not taught Geography at school
and, as far as we know, never left England, so none of this should
surprise us.

And if WS was able to make such elementary (to us) howlers in his
knowledge of European geography, how likely is it then that he was aware
of arcane economic issues in foreign lands?

Tom Krause writes as though WS took the FT and the Economist.  Even if
this obscure Spanish book on currency debasement had appeared before
WS's play, the book would not have been on sale in Paul's Yard for WS to
leaf through. Any books written by Jesuits were confiscated by the
authorities and burnt.

Peter Bridgman

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 11 Sep 2004 14:00:26 +0100
Subject: 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure

Tom Krause wrote:

 >Playgoer 2:  Wait a minute.  Juan de Mariana?   Is he that guy who wrote
 >that history of Spain that was intended to introduce the rest of us
 >Europeans to the glory of Spain?
 >Playgoer 1:  Yeah.  And before that, he worked for the Spanish
 >Inquisition.  He must be about 70 years old!

Playgoer 1 would appear to be in error - Mariana seems to have had no
connection with the Spanish Inquisition (inquisitors tended to be
Dominicans), although they did plague him in his later years, as they
did anyone who wrote on theology.  Mariana would have remained a
footnote in the historiography of Spain (and an even smaller footnote in
the history of economics) had it not been for his "De Rege et Regis
institutione".  The only conceivable interest in England would have been
any comparison with James's "Basilikon Doron", but in France it
attracted adverse comment because its apparent defence of tyrannicide
could be seen to justify the assassination of Henri III.  But that was
nothing to the storm that broke over his head in 1610 when Henri IV was
assassinated by someone who might (or might not) have been a Jesuit.
That made the Jesuits a byword for infamy, and earned Mariana his
present entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

 >The Duke identifies Mariana further by reference to the "Great Soldier
 >Frederick."

If Federico was indeed the younger brother, it would, of course, have
been Ambrogio who "pledged his family fortune to Spain" (Playgoer 1).
Federico's footnote in military history is due to his (ultimately
unsuccessful) daring deployment of galleys in the North Sea.  One
wonders whether he was following contemporary Mediterranean practice or,
like his brother, inspired by classical authors (as was Captain
Fluellen, of course).

 >As I have tried to explain to Mr. Larque, many of the items that he
 >considers "trivia" are things that the debasement allegory explains, not
 >things that the debasement allegory depends on (witness his incisive
 >critique of my point about Claudius + Nero = Claudio).

I seem to have missed this one the first time around.  Shakespeare would
have been perfectly well aware that "Claudio" was the Italian form of
"Claudius".  He might conceivably have heard of his contemporary Claudio
Monteverdi - whose brother was called Giulio Cesare!

John Briggs

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 11 Sep 2004 15:03:23 +0100
Subject: 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1701 Question on Measure for Measure

If anyone is actually interested in Juan de Mariana's 1609 treatise "De
monet

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.