Shakespearean Salvoes

A few months ago Ignatius Press published The Quest for Shakespeare: The Bard of Avon and the Church of Rome, written by Joseph Pearce.

Then First Things published a review of Pearce's book, "Thy Canonized Bones", by Robert S. Miola, Professor of English at Loyola College in Maryland.

First Things today posted Pearce's response to Miola's review, as well as Miola's response to Pearce's response to Miola's review of Pearce's book.

In related news, Ignatius Critical Editions (ICE) edition of Hamlet will soon be available; the ICE edition of King Lear is available. Pearce is the general editor of the editions.

• Will the Real Shakespeare Please Stand Up? | Joseph Pearce | Chapter One of The Quest for Shakespeare
• Finding Shakespeare and Reclaiming the Classics | An Interview with Joseph Pearce

Comments

[Rich Leonardi]

Well, this closing line from Miola was worth a chuckle:

As the byline indicates, I teach at Loyola College, a Jesuit institution, where we take seriously Catholicism, belief, and scholarship, ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

[Kevin]

Yeah, the Jesuit line didn't exactly help his case, but I think Miola is right in pointing out Pearce's need to better engage the scholarship and tone down the triumphalism.

[Ed Peters]

Both sides made credible points, and both made irrelevant assertions. But from where I sit so far, Advantage Miola. This, from some one who has read nearly every major Pearce monograph and very favorably reviewed two of them.

[anon]

What's wrong with "triumphalism"?

[Carl E. Olson]

What's wrong with "triumphalism"?

As long as it's humble, nothing much.

[anon]

"Triumphalism" and humility are not mutually exclusive. But this is another topic....

As for Miola, while his manner is repulsive, he raises some disturbing points.

[Carl E. Olson]

"Triumphalism" and humility are not mutually exclusive.

My point exactly...

[pilgrim kate]

I have a lay interest in the topic; am predisposed to think well of Pearce from a limited engagement with his writings; and am a happy subscriber to First Things. A pox on both men. The initial review was not gracious in the least, and Pearce couldn't resist being ungracious in reply. The academic world is notorious for nasty one-upmanship. It's too bad these two good Christian men fit right in.

[anon]

"A pox on both men."

This is pushing things a bit too far, eh?

[Carl E. Olson]

Well, at least it's well-written, highly learned "one-upmanship". I'll take it any day over what transpires for exchange of ideas on most of the internet and on television and radio programs. Having said that, there is a lot of heat being thrown around, and those of us who know far too little about Shakespeare (me!) aren't being helped too much. Still, it does make me want to read King Lear.

[Ed Peters]

Read Lear, by all means. But watch it first. I suggest either Olivier's or Holm's versions, the one on video, the other on DVD, last I checked.

[Cristina A. Montes]

"What's wrong with "triumphalism"?

As long as it's humble, nothing much."

And, if I may add, as long as it's honest. By all means should spread the word about the not-so-minor contributions of our faith to civilization, but we cannot lower standards in scrutinizing research that makes our faith look good.

Of course, this raises the question of whether the academe, in general, gives fair reviews of studies of things Catholic.

[padraighh]

The preponderance of evidence is on Pearce's
side but the split hairs definitely favor Miola.

It is difficult to judge Pearce's academic credentials
(i can't find them online does he have a doctorate in
English with a specialty in Shakespeare?)
but clearly Miola is peeved that someone outside the
fraternity of Shakespeare scholars would have the audacity
to write a book about Shakespeare.

One recognizes the nit pick nature of Miola's attack which might be stated simply as
'I am the expert - you are a know nothing.' There is more than a little bit of
jealous rage in his review.

Pearce's response is probably too defensive and so does not really satisfy.

The major question that remains unanswered which was always the cause of
denying Shakespeare as author resulting in the conjuring up
of so many improbable ghosts is this: Where was Shakespeare educated? (abroad? why?)

In academics, the rancor is always inversely proportional to importance of the point one wishes to make.

[Mark Brumley]

A pax on both their houses.

Are "triumphalism" and humility at odds? I suppose that depends upon what you mean by triumphalism.

I generally regard them as being at odds because I regard triumphalism as the tendency to disregard or minimize legitimate or certain legitimate criticisms of the Church as a human institution and of Catholics as flawed human beings, and to succumb to a boastfulness and pridefulness about one's Catholic identity.

[Ed Peters]

A "pax" on both their houses. Good one, Mark. (Folks, see why ecclesiastical Latin pronuciation is so important? Mark's pun would not have worked nearly as well with Oxfordian classical pronunciation.)

[Kevin]

Miola is not "peeved" that someone outside of Shakespearean studies is taking on the issue, and he is certainly not "nit-picking." Miola understands how academic scholarship works, and Pearce failed to suitably make his case according to what all scholars would agree is a lack in engaging the contrary thesis. As for Pearce's credentials, he has none. He has no doctorate, and I've never read that he even has a bachelor's degree (correct me if I'm wrong). Now, there are examples of brilliant men being independent scholars in the past (e.g. Christopher Dawson), but Pearce is not such a man, regardless of how well he can write.

As for triumphalism, I suppose you can't call Pearce triumphalistic since he sincerely believes that the case for Shakespeare's Catholicism is definitive. But, Miola's point is that the case is far from definitive and therefore does not warrant the triumphalism running throughout the book. However, Pearce's attitude toward contemporary academia as completely relativistic and "postmodernist" is not warranted by the fact that most scholars are still rationalist and modernist -- and the sort of historical arguments questioning Shakespeare's Catholicism is mostly coming from a classic historical-critical position which gives credence to ideological motivations (e.g., Catholic). There are certainly "asses of academe" out there, but you don't dismiss your opponents with such juvenile triumphalism.

[padraighh]

Kevin,

If Miola is not peeved, then why does he feel the need to insult Pearce? I think that you have answered the question even when you attempted to defend Miola. You are also peeved that Pearce does not know how scholarship works.

My own opinion is that it is a rare thing to find an academic in English without an axe to sharpen or an ox to gore with it.

[Ed Peters]

padraighh, I think you're missing a main point here. Admittedly "peeved" is a fuzzy word that can mean different things to different people, but what I saw in Miola's review was, I thought, more a professional's impatience with an amateur's insertion of himself into an area that has developed some sophisticated mechanisms of argument without the latter showing sufficient regard for those methods. I don't need to say it, but I will: not every professional is right, and not every amateur is wrong, but the odds strongly favor the former over the latter. The slightest reflection on real life shows this to be the case. Pearce has written a number of excellent studies of recent, nay nearly contemporaneous with us, authors, despite his complete lack of academic credentials. But, if even fully degreed academics at major universities approach Shakespearean studies with trepediation (especially identity and personality questions), why should it so shock us that when Pearce did so, he was called on it? Personally, I would love to see Pearce's intepretation vindicated, but he's playing with the big boys here, and his arguments must rest on the unexciting but essential foundations of advanced academic technique, nothing else. As Pearce is no quitter, his only option as I see it is to go back and buttress his arguments with the kind of scholarly apparatus demanded of him and it is of any other author who ventures into such areas.

[Thomas]

Pearce has already said he's working on a second volume.

"Read Lear, by all means. But watch it first. I suggest either Olivier's or Holm's versions, the one on video, the other on DVD, last I checked."

"People who know" say that the greatest Shakespearean performance ever was Paul Scofield as Lear. Sadly, there is no film of his stage performance.

[Thomas]

Hmm, I'm confused now (but excited). I just checked Amazon and a DVD of King Lear starring Paul Scofield is available (but only in Region 2 and used).

[padraighh]

Not so. Not so. Herr Peters. A large proportion of the acadamy has spent the last century
shilling for communism and abortion. You'll have to do a lot better than
that to defend your academic compatriots claim to the gnosis.

[Mark Brumley]

I think we would all benefit from a little less heat and a lot more light on this subject.

Does Pearce make his case or not? Perhaps more scholars might be persuaded by more footnotes. But whether Pearce shows scholar X that he has read scholar Y, the matter ultimately comes down to the evidence he presents and the arguments he makes based on the evidence.

Miola makes what seem some valid points about the value of scholarly procedure, etc., although I think the deja vu complaint is overdone. The book need not be original scholarship to be valuable--plenty of non-original works synthesizing or summarizing the case others make on a subject get published all the time and serve the general public and even the scholarly community well. This business about original scholarship or having to say something new if one wants to speak at all is a problem--as seen by the endless stream of trivial dissertations and scholarly hairsplitting works trumpeted as "revolutionary".

The point about scholarly procedure or even what Miola regards as evidential lapses could have been made without the personal attacks. Of course one can argue that Pearce's case, too, could have been made without personal attacks. The problem is, Miola presents himself as "a professional". That seems to put the greater burden on him to show us, by his actions, how it's done. We expect, in the words of Christopher Derrick, "the cool lucidity" of the scholar in the academic critic who criticizes a work as unscholarly. We got something else. Something that comes across to many of us non-academics as the professional coming unhinged. For me, that makes it harder to get at the truth of the matter because I have to consider the "spleen" factor when weighing Miola's criticism. What a pity.

[Ed Peters]

"A large proportion of the acadamy has spent the last century shilling for communism and abortion." I completely agree. What one earth does that have to with the debate between Miola and Pearce?

[Patrick]

Miola wrote a review of Pearce's book, not a piece of objective scholarship, bolstered by some delicious facts. I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed reading him dismantle the blustery and pompous Pearce, a man much assured of his own correctness, the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Mark Brumley]

The academic vs. nonacademic or (what is not exactly the same but will serve here) scholar vs. nonscholar dimension behind this discussion bears further reflection. There are realities regarding these two categories of persons we might consider.

1. Nonacademics sometimes present a true thesis or make a sound point that academics sometimes miss or wrongly reject

2. Nonacademics, lacking certain skills, knowledge and the benefit of the collective wisdom/critique of academic colleagues, sometimes present a false thesis or don't have the point they think they have

3. Academics' professional skills and knowledge, and guild mindset, sometimes result in their avoiding a mistake that the nonacademic, perhaps out of presumption or disregard for the virtues of the academic, succumbs to

4. Academic's presumption about his greater skills, and knowledge, and his perhaps unwitting adoption of professional "groupthink" lead to overlooking or attacking a sound position presented by a nonacademic

Which is or which are operative here I leave to your reading of Pearce's book and your consultation of other resources. However, it would help, I think, to move beyond the fireworks, personal insults and snide remarks, and look at the evidence and arguments.

[Thomas McDonald]

Miola's initial piece was very weak. He dismissed evidence out of hand and mischaracterized other evidence. He seemed think that applying academic critical standards to a book intended for a mass audience is enough to render that book meaningless.

His point about primary research is merely grating. All of the relevant documents and facts related to Shakespeare's life have been collected and available for years. The idea that you need to pour over original manuscript material is nonsense.

I know more about Chaucer than about Shakespeare, but I can tell you that every relevant piece of biographical data is included in the Chaucer Life-Records, which you can order online. Comparing manuscripts (none of which is in his own hand) or pouring over variorum editions might make for a nice thesis that 100 people will read, but it does little to convey a point that matters to the general reader.

I have a degree in English, and I think its importance to modern criticism is vastly overstated. Chesterton did not attend university, as far as I know, and Pearce's work reminds me of Chesterton's literary biographies: polemical, pugnacious, personal, and relevant. It's an old-school style, and it is bound to rankle people used to modern critical writing.

I think Mark Brumley's post summed up the conflict excellently. The only caveat is that the academy, as far as literature goes, can often be a slave to the most ridiculous trends and pointless theorizing that can radically distort meaning.

[Ed Peters]

"Miola's initial piece was very weak. He dismissed evidence out of hand and mischaracterized other evidence." WELL, IT SEEMS THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MIOLA ACCUSED PEARCE OF DOING.

"[Miola] seemed think that applying academic critical standards to a book intended for a mass audience is enough to render that book meaningless." DOES PEARCE'S BOOK PURPORT TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN A POPULARIZATION OF OTHER'S WORKS? EVEN IF IT DID, WOULD THAT JUSTIFY THE KIND OF METHODOLOGY ERRORS THAT MIOLA ALLEGES?

"[Miola's] point about primary research is merely grating." WELL, HE MADE SEVERAL SUCH POINTS, BUT DIMSISSING THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF CONSULTING PRIMARY SOURCES IS ITSELF GRATING.

"All of the relevant documents and facts related to Shakespeare's life have been collected and available for years." REALLY? FROM WHERE I SIT, CONTROVERIES OVER THE IDENTITY AND PERSONALTIY OF SHAESPEARE HAVE NEVER BEEN HIGHER, THOUGH THEY DATE BACK AT LEAST 150 YEARS.

"The idea that you need to pour over original manuscript material is nonsense." ASSERTED AND ANSWERED.

"I know more about Chaucer than about Shakespeare, but I can tell you that every relevant piece of biographical data is included in the Chaucer Life-Records, which you can order online. Comparing manuscripts (none of which is in his own hand) or pouring over variorum editions might make for a nice thesis that 100 people will read, but it does little to convey a point that matters to the general reader." SO OUR CONFIDENCE ABOUT CHACUER'S BIOGRAPHY MAKES US EQUALLY CONFIDENT ABOUT SHAKESPEARE'S? IF CONTROVERSY OVER WHO SHAKESPEARE EVEN WAS CAN RISE TO THE POPULAR LEVEL OF PBS (OR BBC?) SPECIALS ON THE QUESTION, ARE SMILILAR DEBATES OVER WHO CHAUCER WAS BEING AIRED?

"I have a degree in English, and I think its importance to modern criticism is vastly overstated." WHAT IS "ITS" HERE? THE DECREE, OR ENGLISH, OR THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE IT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS.

"Chesterton did not attend university, as far as I know," HE DID NOT, THE SLADE ART SCHOOL BEING AS FAR AS I KNOW THE LIMIT.

"and Pearce's work reminds me of Chesterton's literary biographies: polemical, pugnacious, personal, and relevant." WELL YES, IN SOME WAYS. BUT THEN, GKC WAS CONSCIOUSLY AND DELICIOUSLY ARGUING INTERPRETATIONS OF TEXTS, NOT INTERPRETATIONS OF MOTIVES OR FORMATIONS OR PERSONAL HISTORIES (EXCEPT, ONCE IN A WHILE, SAY IN REGARD TO WELLS, WHO HAD IT COMING). IT'S A CLOSER CALL, ANYWAY.

"It's an old-school style, and it is bound to rankle people used to modern critical writing." IF YOU MEAN BY OLD SCHOOL WHAT I MEAN BY OLD SCHOOL, FINE BY ME. I LUV OLDSCHOOL. BUT IF BY OLD SCHOOL, YOU MEAN UNPROFESSIONAL OR JUST PUGNACIOUS, ETC, YOU HAVE NOT ADVANCED YOUR CASE. "OLD SCHOOL" IS RESORTED TO PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN "NEW SCHOOL" DESPITE THE TRAPPINGS OF SCIENCE, BUT IF NEW SCHOOL REALLY DOES THE JOB BETTER, FORGET OLD SCHOOL.

"I think Mark Brumley's post summed up the conflict excellently." I AGREE.

"The only caveat is that the academy, as far as literature goes, can often be a slave to the most ridiculous trends and pointless theorizing that can radically distort meaning." WELL, ANOTHER POSTER MADE A SIMILAR ARGUMENT ABOVE. I SAY, SO WHAT? DOES THAT GENERAL IMPACT THE PARTICULAR MIOLA-PEARCE DEBATE? I SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES.

[DN]

Dr. Peters, eschew the caps, please. I can't read them without the image of a snarling drill-sergeant huffing his coffee breath in me poor face. (And that's certainly not you!)

[Pier]

Libraries have begun to order this book and place it on the shelves reserved for the New York Times best sellers, and Oprah's picks...

Pearce's work has circumvented the doors that have remained closed to him, and found an open window.

[The Athenian Stranger]

I've no dog in this fight, but I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Miola's work on the influence of Seneca on Shakespeare. While it was over my head when I read it, it did whet my appetite for continuing Victor Davis Hanson's suggestion that classicists are sorely needed for Medieval and Renaissance Literature.

I also note, in passing, that Miola is the editor of a Norton Critical Edition of Shakespeare, hence some of the vitriol is, perhaps, a case of return fire for a shot across the bow.

Anyway, just wanted to drop this note that I think Miola's work on Senecan Tragedy and Shakespearean Tragedy was quite good, though at $173.00 retail I don't think I'll be making a purchase for my personal library.

Onward.

[Ed Peters]

DN, I don't know how else to distinguish my type face easily from what I was commenting on.

TAS, I too have noted, but did not call attention to, the fact that Miola is not just some guy with a PhD in English, but a widely published scholar precisely in Shakespeare. I hoped people following this discussion knew that....

[The Athenian Stranger]

I would love to see a popularized version of Miola's work on the Classical Influences on Shakespeare released by a publisher such as Ignatius Press.

[Mark Brumley]

I would love to see a popularized version of Miola's work on the Classical Influences on Shakespeare released by a publisher such as Ignatius Press.

He has not sent us a ms.

[Thomas McDonald]

Wow, I haven't had my comments taken apart like that since high-school rhetoric. Seriously, thanks. That will keep me on my toes the next time I decide to dash off a quick post, particularly since I respect Dr. Peters. (If this is indeed Canon Ed Peters replying, and not another Ed Peters.)

My main point was this: like Chaucer, the Shakespeare "life-records" have themselves been established, printed, reprinted, scanned, and examined. The significance one attaches to them, or even their authenticity, may be vigorously debated, but their mere existence does not need to be established by primary research. We certainly have far more of these "life-records" related to Chaucer, but some of them are equally controversial within Chaucer circles.

The controversy may rage, but the evidence, barring some archival discovery (which is not unlikely) is largely settled. I believe Pearce synthesized and reinterpreted that evidence, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that approach.

[Thomas McDonald]

>Miola is the editor of a Norton Critical Edition of Shakespeare

Yes, the Macbeth, I believe. I actually like many of the Norton criticals. Though they are always filled with at least one piece of PC nonsense, they tend to combine useful marginal glosses, good notes, primary sources/analogs, and a diverse sampling of critical commentary. I don't want any of this to come off as a blanket criticism of Prof. Miola or his excellent work on Shakespeare. I just think this particular review was a rather shabby piece of work.

[The Athenian Stranger]

"He has not sent us a ms."

Based on the interview by Fr Fessio with Joseph Pearce, I suspect its now on his mind. I think it would be fabulous if, after all the heated controversy, that both Pearce AND Miola end up coming up with some publicity for their Shakespeare work.

I love a happy ending.