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 15.1747  Friday, 17 September 2004

[1]     From:   Edmund Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004 08:32:43 -0400
        Subj:   Question on Measure for Measure

[2]     From:   Bill Lloyd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004 08:59:22 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure

[3]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004 15:55:39 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure

[4]     From:   John W. Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004 15:28:49 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure

[5]     From:   Tom Krause <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004 22:02:35 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure

[6]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 16 Sep 2004 11:40:38 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure

[7]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 16 Sep 2004 19:42:30 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004 08:32:43 -0400
Subject:        Question on Measure for Measure

Thomas Larque writes to me the following:

"If, however, your real complaint is that I dared to compare your status
and experience to that of other scholars at all, you might remind
yourself that you were trying to announce your own enormous superiority
to me (in the most insulting terms possible) on the basis of your
*assumption*, not judged by any fair test, of my inferior status and
experience."

This is paranoid. Do you mean the post where I compared you to Tom
Krause and pointed out that he is a much better writer than you? (That's
true, by the way.) I NEVER made a comparison between you and myself on
this thread. You are delusional, Thomas Larque. I did say that you
didn't know what you were talking about in criticizing Krause's essay,
and I stand by that. By the way, so do you, since you immediately began
to do the research that you should have done before opening your mouth.

Of course your real motive was to humiliate me! -- and if you don't
recognize it, all the worse for you. But I'm NOT humiliated, Larque,
because you gave a comic book caricature of my vita - but that's
characteristic of you and your approach to just about everything and
everybody you don't agree with.

Ed Taft

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Lloyd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004 08:59:22 EDT
Subject: 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure

A couple observations, a couple opinions, and a suggestion...

Ob1- The debasement theory of Measure for Measure and Hamlet has been so
expounded, questioned, defended, attacked, explicated and generally
verbed here that I suspect list members have seen enough of the various
arguments and positions to know what they think. The debating [as
distinct from the bickering] has been detailed and sometimes
entertaining on both sides.

Ob2- Edmund Taft and Thomas Larque apparently rub each other the wrong
way. It happens. One hopes they will keep this in mind for future
encounters, and tread lightly. Poor Tom Krause, around whose head this
storm has raged, has to his credit kept his good humor throughout.

Op1- My agreement with Larque and disagreement with Taft/Krause:
I'm afraid I find the "Mariana-debasement allegory, picture-in-little
reading etc etc" to be not very likely. I don't have a detailed
refutation ready-- I just don't find it convincing, and for some of the
same reasons Larque finds it unconvincing. I'm part of the intended
audience for these theories, and that's my reaction, to which I'm entitled.

Op2- My Agreement with Taft and disagreement with Larque:
Of course it's worthy of publication. I don't really buy it [or most of
it] but I can say that of a good deal of the critical and historical
work I encounter.  It's a serious, researched attempt to shed light on
certain aspects of these two plays. People should read it with an open
mind in SHAKSPER's papers file or when it's published in print.

Suggestion: Let's move on. There's been wrong on both sides. Larque's
and Taft's continuous mutual recriminations are not very entertaining.
I'm for a jig, or a tale of bawdry, or I sleep.

Bill Lloyd

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004 15:55:39 +0100
Subject: 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure

 >Okay, I'm too exhausted by computer troubles to tackle this whole thing,
 >but Thomas Larque said something that leaves me aghast:
 >
 >"so Krause is presuming a double-meaning that is unlikely to be there."
 >
 >This IS Shakespeare's work we're talking about, isn't it? Shakespeare
 >who regularly used ALL or most of the meanings of words with multiple
 >meanings?  For Mr. Larque to imply that Shakespeare is a WYSIWYG
author like, shudder, Oxford is, well, I was going to say appalling but it's
 >really just so sad.

Abigail Quart has apparently had an immediate visceral reaction to my
words, but she makes no attempt - in this post - to respond to their
context, and I think it is important to put that context back here.

"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)."

So Krause's thinking runs along the following lines.

1)  In order for my debasement theory to say what I want it to here, I
need the character "Juliet" from "Measure for Measure" to symbolise a coin.

2)  I cannot find any evidence in "Measure for Measure", even by my own
remarkably loose standards that she does do so.

3)  Therefore I will randomly go and look at other characters in
Shakespeare's plays called "Juliet" in order to try and show that they
are symbolically portrayed as coins, and then I will claim that what
Shakespeare says of one or two Juliets is true of all of them.

4)  But Shakespeare gives no obvious imagery referring to any Juliet as
a coin, however he does sometimes have characters refer to Juliet
Capulet as metaphorically being an "angel" or, in a religious sense,
living with "angels" after her death.

5)  The word "angel" can mean an English coin as well as a celestial
being. And Shakespeare uses puns based on this double-meaning in other
plays, such as "Merry Wives of Windsor" ("I had myself twenty angels
given me this morning; but I defy all angels, in any such sort, as they
say, but in the way of honesty").

6)  Therefore every reference to Juliet and "angels" is a coin reference.

7)  Therefore the Juliet from "Romeo and Juliet" symbolises a coin.

8)  Therefore the Juliet in "Measure for Measure", who has the same
Christian name, must also symbolise a coin.

9)  Which proves that the allegory that I am creating is entirely
correct and was invented by Shakespeare.

Now, my first question to Abigail Quart would be, do you believe that
Krause is correct?  Was Juliet in "Romeo and Juliet" symbolising a coin
because she is called an "angel"?  Even if this is true, can we assume
that all characters that Shakespeare calls Juliet must also be
symbolising a coin? Do you believe that Tom Krause's "debasement"
allegory was created by William Shakespeare or by Tom Krause?

I'll deal with Krause's theory again, somewhere else, but let's look
particularly at Abigail Quart's discomfort with my statement.  Abigail
either hasn't looked at the actual example connected to my comment, or
she firmly believes that Shakespeare - because he is a writer who uses
puns and multiple meanings - cannot say the word "angel" *without*
meaning both celestial being and coin at the same time.

In my opinion, Abigail is confusing two separate and unrelated statements.

The statement that we can both agree on is:

1)  Shakespeare often uses double-meaning.

The statement that Abigail Quart, probably unintentionally, seems to be
insisting upon is:

2)  Shakespeare *ALWAYS* uses double-meaning.

In the first case, we can say that it is entirely possible every time we
see a word that has two or more meanings that Shakespeare may be using
more than one of them in a punning way, and that we should look to see
whether he is. He clearly does so in that "Merry Wives of Windsor"
instance with "angel (coin)" and "angel (celestial being in the sense of
the "good angel" and "bad angel" of Mediaeval tradition)".  But does
this mean that we must accept that *EVERY* time that Shakespeare uses a
word with two or more possible meanings he must be referring to all of
them?  I am fairly confident that Abigail Quart would not accept such a
thing, since the consequences for readings of Shakespeare's plays would
be atrocious and confusing, but otherwise why is she taking umbrage
against my suggestion that in each instance where there is a possible
pun we must look and see if there is evidence that a pun is intended
(and that in the case of Juliet Capulet and angels there is fairly
obviously no such pun)?

Since Krause's theory starts with Juliet Capulet and angels, let us look
first at Juliet Capulet and angels.

The two quotations in question are:

"O speak again, bright angel!"
... and ...
"And her immortal part with angels live".

So, does Abigail Quart think that these lines are actually likely to be
punning on the word "angel" meaning an English coin?

Well, the overt meaning in both cases is obvious.  Just in case we
misunderstand it, a fuller citation of the two quotations makes it
obvious that when Shakespeare talks about angels, he is talking about
celestial beings.

"O speak again bright angel, for thou art
As glorious to this night, being o'er my head,
As is a winged messenger of heaven
Unto the white-upturned wondering eyes
Of mortals that fall back to gaze on him
When he bestrides the lazy-puffing clouds
And sails upon the bosom of the air".

There are lots of clues here, if we really need any, that tell us which
sort of angel Romeo is talking about.  It flies.  Coins do not fly.  It
has wings.  Coins do not have wings.  It is a "messenger of heaven".
Coins do not carry messages from heaven.  It is by implication immortal
(in contrast to the mortal watching it from below).  Coins are not
immortal, and can easily be destroyed.

Does Abigail Quart doubt that the overt meaning of this passage is that
Romeo is comparing Juliet to a celestial being called an "angel" and not
in any way comparing her with a coin?

What this leaves me wondering, in both the case of Tom Krause's
arguments, and of Abigail Quart's is exactly how they would expect
Shakespeare to write if he *was* only writing about the celestial being,
and not about a coin. Personally I would expect exactly what we see
here, a clear and detailed reference to a celestial being that does not
include any significant or obvious double-meaning involving coins.  Just
because Shakespeare often uses puns, it does not mean that he is always
punning.  I am sure that Abigail Quart sometimes uses puns (as we all
do), but I suspect she might be quite annoyed if somebody that she was
talking to started analysing everything that she said in a Krausian
fashion so that, for instance, they assumed that every word that she
said about whatever subject that they were discussing was actually about
sex (and you only have to look at the worst sort of Freudian
psychoanalysis or literary criticism to see that it is very easy to
claim that *EVERYTHING* is actually people talking about sex).

But let's look at the other "angel" reference in "Romeo and Juliet".

"Her body sleeps in Capels' monument,
And her immortal part with angels lives.
I saw her laid low in her kindred's vault
And presently took post to tell it you".

Here again, there is no real question that when Shakespeare says
"angel", he means "celestial being".  Juliet is - Balthasar thinks -
dead, and her immortal part, her soul, is living with angels in heaven,
while her body is resting in the grave.

Once again, this is fairly obviously not a coin image.  What would that
suggest?  That Juliet's soul was somewhere with a lot of money?  That
the only part of Juliet that would live beyond her is her savings?
Rather obviously there is no purpose in trying to read this reference as
a reference to coins, except Krause's motivation in trying to
post-justify the theory that he made up before examining the evidence.

Now I'm not doubting that Tom Krause would be able to produce some
sophistric hair-splitting, fact-blurring argument whereby both of these
clear references to celestial beings are actually not that at all, but
are instead detailed references to coinage.  The entire point of
Krause's method is that it is so flexible and both rule and logic-free
that it can be used to prove just about anything about just about any
section of Shakespearean text, however I would be interested to know
whether Abigail Quart believes that it is at all likely that Shakespeare
was deliberately using the meaning "angel" = "gold coin" in either of
these sections of text.  If she does not believe that, of course, then
she was wrong to disagree with my statement. If she does believe that,
then I would ask her to explain what possible meaning she thinks
Shakespeare intended in using "angel" to mean "gold coin" in these two
instances, and I will then do my best to demonstrate that her attempted
readings are blatant misreadings.

She might also want to have a look at every other reference to "angels"
in Shakespeare's plays.  If she really believes what she said at the
beginning of this post, then every single one of them must deliberately
contain every single possible meaning of the word "angel".  Can she find
sensible (not Krausian) interpretations of all these passages that use
every possible meaning of the word?  If not: then once again, she was
wrong to disagree with my statement.

Thomas Larque.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John W. Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004 15:28:49 -0400
Subject: 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure

Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

 >I am troubled, not only by Mr. Krause's torturing Shakespeare's plays
 >into a form of his own devising, but others' efforts as well.  Why must
 >scholars reach beyond the text to impose obscure interpretations that
 >may speak volumes to contemporary economists or historians (debasement
 >theory), psychologists (Hamlet's diagnosis), socialists (_The Tempest_
 >as pro or anti colonial screed), etc.?

This kind of thing seems to take on a life of its own. The "Populist
allegory" theory of the Wizard of Oz, for example, refuses to die even
though it has been demonstrated that L. Frank Baum was a Republican who
backed McKinley. People just like "finding allegories", even when they
aren't there, even (as in the curious cases of "Narnia" and the /Out of
the Silent Planet/ trilogy) where they aren't necessary. Really, one
wonders what critics did with themselves before the /Psychomachia/.

I think it is, in modern times, partly a product of puritanism, and
partly a product of the Shaw/Archer/Ibsen axis. (I align GBS with the
puritans advisedly in this case.) I am old enough to actually have been
taught in school that there was no drama worthy of the name before
Ibsen. (Fortunately, I was inoculated by Walter Kerr before the
infection took hold.) The urge to emulate the Ugly Duchess and end every
paragraph with, "...and the moral of that is...," is a strong one. Two
millennia ago it gave us attempts to explain what Homer /really/ meant.
A few centuries back, it gave us /Othello; a Moral Demonstration in Five
Acts/ in Boston. A few decades ago, it almost completely destroyed the
word "relevant".

Abigail Quart <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

 >Okay, I'm too exhausted by computer troubles to tackle this whole thing,
 >but Thomas Larque said something that leaves me aghast:

 >"so Krause is presuming a double-meaning that is unlikely to be there."

 >This IS Shakespeare's work we're talking about, isn't it? Shakespeare
 >who regularly used ALL or most of the meanings of words with multiple
 >meanings?  For Mr. Larque to imply that Shakespeare is a WYSIWYG author
 >like, shudder, Oxford is, well, I was going to say appalling but it's
 >really just so sad.

Inasmuch as what he said was "a double-meaning that is unlikely to be
there", and not "a double-meaning, which is unlikely to be there", I
don't see the force of your complaint.

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Krause <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004 22:02:35 -0400
Subject: Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure

Mari Bonomi writes:

". . . Mr. (or Dr. or professor... Forgive me if I have misstated your
credentials; it is not deliberate) Krause . . ."

My intimates call me "Herr Professor Doktor Krause," and I can lay claim
to both titles, though I rarely do.

Mari Bonomi also writes:

"Mr. Krause writes: 'I've explained before that the conclusion that Juan
de Mariana's views were known is not based on circular reasoning, but on
circumstantial evidence.  The evidence includes the Spinola reference,
the moated grange reference, and the fact that Mariana is at the center
of a debasement allegory.  We can infer that this means that Mariana was
intended to represent Juan de Mariana and that Shakespeare thus knew of
Mariana's views.'
  . . .
As I read and re-read the above statement what comes to me from it is
this: I <Krause>conclude that Shakespeare knew of Mariana's views
because my interpretation of the Spinola, moated grange and debasement
allegory in the play proves it.  They prove it because I interpret them
to prove it.

That to me seems like circular reasoning in a classic form. It's not
"circumstantial" -- it's imposed from the outside and then cited as proof."

It would only be circular if I turned around and used what I had just
"proved" - that Shakespeare knew Mariana's views - to further support my
argument that Shakespeare put a debasement allegory into MFM.  Maybe an
example will clarify the point:  Let's say that all the circumstantial
evidence points to OJ as the killer and we know that the killer was
right-handed.  Mr. Larque says to me:  "You need to prove that OJ is
right-handed."  I say:  "All of the circumstantial evidence shows that
he is the killer, we know the killer is right-handed, so OJ is
right-handed."  The circumstantial evidence that tells me that OJ is the
killer equally shows that he is right-handed.  Of course, if I were to
use this "proof" of right-handedness as further evidence of his guilt,
then it would be circular.  But that's not what I'm doing.

In this case, it's actually Mr. Larque who was being circular, or at
least relying on a false premise.  Although I recognize that he has made
other, unrelated arguments, the portion of his argument that I was
responding to above struck me as follows:  "Mr. Krause must find
independent proof of Shakespeare's knowledge of Mariana or else his
argument fails.  He has not shown independent proof, so his argument fails."

Mari Bonomi also writes:

"But the more I read and especially *see* Shakespeare's plays, the more
certain I am that, regardless of Shakespeare's personal spirituality
and/or religious beliefs, regardless of whatever political bent he may
have had, his plays are about *people* and their natures-- in all our
grand sprawling glorious goodness and evil -- and not about someone's
(never Shakespeare's!) personal hobby horses-- be it monetary policy,
Catholicism/Protestantism, "the" spiritual message, or whatever else a
given scholar or commentator is hawking this month."

There is no question that those of us who see contemporary references
and other themes in Shakespeare's plays are working on the very
outskirts of what is important and meaningful about Shakespeare.  But
that doesn't make us all wrong.

I know you're not really trying to make an argument here, but I can't
help observing that you have provided a pretty good example of circular
reasoning:  "I'm certain that Shakespeare's plays are about *people* and
their natures, therefore Shakespeare cannot be about what anybody else
happens to see in his work."

Mari Bonomi also writes:

"Oh, and Mr. Larque...  Your little game of counter-allegory-crafting
was masterly and simply proves my point as well as yours."

Yes, it was cute, but as fallacious as any circular argument.  As I said
before, the differential sizes of the secondary datasets
([Catholic-Protestant conflict] >[debasement]) render it meaningless.

Tom Krause

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 16 Sep 2004 11:40:38 +0100
Subject: 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure

As I say, I have no interest in continuing hostilities with Ed Taft, and
most of the points in his recent E-Mail are things that I can answer by
answering similar points made by Tom Krause (which I will do when I have
time), but  there are a couple of minor things that I would like to
respond to.

 >Kenneth Muir, he was editor of Shakespeare Survey -
 >a far more prestigious journal than SRASP (as Thomas Larque would be
 >sure to emphasize),

Once again, it looks suspiciously like Ed Taft is trying to blame me for
his own attitude.  It was Ed Taft, not me, who launched into a violent
attack on his opponent for daring to disagree with his "betters",
although Ed Taft's own method of determining which person is better than
another seemed rather subjective, to say the least, and looked like it
might just consist of "Anybody who agrees with Ed Taft is better than
anybody who doesn't".

As I pointed out to Ed Taft at the time, I do not believe that one can
judge an argument by looking at the status or qualifications of the
person who presented it, nor do I believe that one can judge an argument
by the status or prestige of the Journal in which it is published.
Since Ed Taft, in his own postings, has spent far more time attacking me
rather than attacking my actual arguments, and since Ed Taft believes
that those who study Shakespeare should be graded in order, and those
deemed inferior not allowed to disagree with their "betters", it seems
fairly obvious that these negative views (of 'inferior' people and
journals) are more likely to be held by Ed Taft than they are by me.

I do not question Ed Taft's position as a scholar, nor his publication
record - both of which are perfectly good.  However, I am always very
happy to turn a bad argument back against its proposer, and if Ed Taft
wishes to abuse me whenever he thinks that I am daring to disagree with
my "betters", it seems only fair that I should be allowed to point out
that Ed Taft also has his "betters" in the Shakespearean world, and that
- if he is to follow his own standards without hypocrisy - he should
either never disagree with his "betters", or should stop trying to abuse
me when he thinks that I am disagreeing with mine.  You might note that
my method of determining status (number of publications in refereed
journals, or in books published by academic presses) is much fairer and
more empirical than the method used by Ed Taft (which is simply: whoever
Ed Taft likes is the better of anybody that Ed Taft does not like).

Despite showing that Ed Taft's argument about "betters" causes exactly
as much damage to Ed Taft's cause as it does to mine, I should make
clear that I absolutely do not believe in Ed Taft's argument.  Just
because Anthony Dawson is Ed Taft's "better" in academic terms does not
mean that Ed Taft is always wrong and Anthony Dawson is always right.  I
am certain, even without knowing much about the works of the two men,
that there are at least some issues on which I would agree with Ed Taft
and disagree with Anthony Dawson. However, if Ed Taft is not willing to
kowtow to his "betters", then he should perhaps stop lecturing me on how
I should kowtow to mine (and there are plenty of people in the
Shakespearean world who are my betters in one way or another, although
I'm not at all sure that Tom Krause is one of them).

 >He also said that he routinely published
 >pieces that he personally disagreed with, as long as they were well and
 >fully argued, well documented, and persuasive (at least to an imagined
 >audience if not to Muir himself).

Of course, I agree with Muir absolutely, and would never question the
publication of Tom Krause's essay (however wrong I considered it) if it
passed the quality control tests that Muir sets out.  However, although
Krause's essay may have a perfectly accurate Bibliography, the academic
methods that he uses are so obviously corrupt, and break so many simple
rules of logic and argument, that his essay is rather obviously not
worthy of publication.  I might also point out that not only does Krause
fail to follow the rules normally adopted by literary and historical
scholars (that stop people simply making things up and pushing them into
plays or into history despite the fact that they have to distort and
ignore real texts and records in order to place them there), but he also
fails to consistently follow the rules that he makes up for himself, and
repeatedly contradicts himself in his essay, and in his posts in
SHAKSPER in support of that essay. At one minute Krause claims that
unexplained anachronism is impossible in Shakespeare, and that any
reading which requires it should be rejected, at the next minute he is
making much more anachronistic readings, without any attempt at
explanation, himself.  At one minute Krause claims that the appearance
of a single Christian name in Shakespeare's plays is pretty firm
evidence that Shakespeare is referring to a particular individual
plucked out of a very distant part of Shakespeare's more speculative
biographies or out of the entire panoply of world history and
literature, in the next he is lecturing us on the fact that a
coincidence between first names can only be considered a coincidence
(even in an instance where the name belongs to a character who takes
part in the same plot device as Shakespeare's character, in a play that
was acted in by Shakespeare himself or at the very least by Richard
Burbage and other members of Shakespeare's company only two years before
that company performed Shakespeare's first major play - a much more
direct relationship to Shakespeare and his play than Krause is able to
find for any of his own "coincidences").  In both cases, Krause's own
arguments would reject Krause's major conclusions nicely.  Any essay
that rejects its own major conclusions has failed the major test of
academic quality and should not be published in any self-respecting
academic journal.

 >Finally, one question: instead of researching other people's views of
 >Mallin's work, why doesn't Larque read the damn book and make
 >up his OWN mind about how good or bad it is?

If you really need an answer to this one, I'm guessing that you've lived
too long in the ivory tower.  I do not live on a University campus, nor
do I have unlimited access to interlibrary loans.  My own University
(Kent) does not have Mallin's book, and they would not allow me to
request it from another library unless it was a major part of my course,
wanting a book to engage in SHAKSPER discussions is not enough to
warrant wasting University money (and even if they did allow it,
travelling onto campus to order and then to collect the book would be a
long and expensive process).  The only way in which I could get this
book, therefore, is to pay full price for a second-hand copy of the
book, or to pay even more to make pick-up and return trips to the
University of London's Senate House library in London.  Rather obviously
I see no purpose in spending my own very limited income on books that
have a long string of bad reviews, and which have no relevance
whatsoever to my own interests or studies.  If I am going to spend money
equivalent to the price of a substantial new or second-hand book, then I
will choose a book that I genuinely want to read and that will actually
have some use for me, now and in the future.

If Ed Taft thinks that I should spend substantial amounts of money
answering minor and illogical points on SHAKSPER (even if everything
that Ed Taft said about this book were true, it would still prove
nothing about Krause's very different claims), then I would be
interested to know how much money Taft has spent on responding to posts
from me?  It seems to me, from reading his posts, that he has barely
even bothered to pick up a single book (since Taft's responses to me are
notably free of any sort of research, or detailed argument of any kind).

I might also point out that I do not have the time to keep reading whole
books on the whim of my SHAKSPER debating opponents, and will only do so
when I feel that it is worthwhile, or that I will benefit in some way
from the action.

 >Mallin has his flaws, but to my mind, he's terrific overall - and I
 >don't give a rat's a-- if that's a "minority" position. I stand behind
 >it 100%.

That's fine, but you still can't use one dubious and disputed theory as
if it was firm evidence to prop up another dubious and disputed theory,
especially when the two theories are largely unrelated and massively
dissimilar in quality and scale.

Thomas Larque.

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 16 Sep 2004 19:42:30 +0100
Subject: 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1732 Question on Measure for Measure

I have a return to University coming up in a couple of weeks, and as a
result of long-term health problems I am going to find that difficult
and stressful enough without continuing battles on SHAKSPER.  I also
sympathise with those who have not enjoyed the personal conflict between
Ed Taft and myself.  I hope that it is clear that I did not start any
personal element of this conflict with Taft (I certainly did not intend
to) and, despite the difficulty in allowing somebody to snipe at me
without refutation, I would prefer to finish it.  As a result of both
these things, I am going to suspend my access to SHAKSPER for at least a
couple of weeks so that it does not distract me from my return to
University, and so that Ed Taft and anybody else who wishes to may have
their last comments without me feeling provoked into responding.

If Hardy allows me, I will try (probably tomorrow) to write a reasonably
dispassionate last post dealing with arguments and not personalities
summarising the reasons that I feel Tom Krause's arguments do not reach
the standards required for publication, since both Krause and Taft have
asked me to justify that claim from my own posts, but I will not read
their replies. Again, I do not like to leave a matter unfinished as it
seems in some ways rude to make a last statement and then refuse to
listen to responses to my own arguments, but it seems likely that this
is the only way that this thread will draw to a close.

Thomas Larque.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.