How we cite our quotes: (Chapter, Paragraph)
Quote #7
"I don't admit it. Or, if I did, I take it back. Shouldn't wonder if, after all, he is no knave at all, or, but little of one. What can you prove against him?"
"I can prove that he makes dupes." (18, 6-7)
Hmm…we know you can be duped, but can you make people into dupes? That is the question. These two nameless conversationalists have witnessed the herb-doctor's takedown by the angry dad, and now they're debating whether he's a scoundrel or not. Guy #2 seems to think he is, because he makes people believe his lies. This raises important questions about the blame-game. For Guy #2, you can't blame the victim of a con for being a tool—that's on the con-man for being a crook.
Quote #8
"He is not wholly at heart a knave, I fancy, among whose dupes is himself. Did you not see our quack friend apply to himself his own quackery? A fanatic quack; essentially a fool, though effectively a knave." (18, 10)
Ooooo, this just got interesting. This guy thinks the herb-doctor is a quack who dupes himself as he tricks others. It's unclear if drinking his own Kool-Aid gives the herb-doctor a pass, since he's still functionally a crooked doc, but the point is that if you play with fire, you're gonna get burned yourself in some way.
Quote #9
"I can't conceive how you, in anyway, can hold him a fool. How he talked—so glib, so pat, so well." (18, 12)
More philosophical musings: if you're a fast-talking dame, does that exclude you from being a silly billy? What is it about being a good speaker that makes it hard to accept that the guy at the podium may be a doof? This guy can't believe someone would think of the herb-doctor as a fool—he's said all the right things, after all.