按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
town must be more advanced than the country； and the field
laborers and village artizans of to…day must be much less changed
from the servants of Job than the proletariat of modern London
from the proletariat of Caesar's Rome。 Yet the cockney
proletarian is so inferior to the village laborer that it is only
by steady recruiting from the country that London is kept alive。
This does not seem as if the change since Job's time were
Progress in the popular sense： quite the reverse。 The common
stock of discoveries in physics has accumulated a little： that is
all。
One more illustration。 Is the Englishman prepared to admit that
the American is his superior as a human being？ I ask this
question because the scarcity of labor in America relatively to
the demand for it has led to a development of machinery there；
and a consequent 〃increase of command over Nature〃 which makes
many of our English methods appear almost medieval to the
up…to…date Chicagoan。 This means that the American has an
advantage over the Englishman of exactly the same nature that the
Englishman has over the contemporaries of Cicero。 Is the
Englishman prepared to draw the same conclusion in both cases？ I
think not。 The American； of course； will draw it cheerfully； but
I must then ask him whether； since a modern negro has a greater
〃command over Nature〃 than Washington had； we are also to accept
the conclusion； involved in his former one； that humanity has
progressed from Washington to the fin de siecle negro。
Finally； I would point out that if life is crowned by its success
and devotion in industrial organization and ingenuity； we had
better worship the ant and the bee （as moralists urge us to do in
our childhood）； and humble ourselves before the arrogance of the
birds of Aristophanes。
My reason then for ignoring the popular conception of Progress in
Caesar and Cleopatra is that there is no reason to suppose that
any Progress has taken place since their time。 But even if I
shared the popular delusion； I do not see that I could have made
any essential difference in the play。 I can only imitate humanity
as I know it。 Nobody knows whether Shakespear thought that
ancient Athenian joiners； weavers； or bellows menders were any
different from Elizabethan ones； but it is quite certain that one
could not have made them so； unless； indeed； he had played the
literary man and made Quince say； not 〃Is all our company here？〃
but 〃Bottom： was not that Socrates that passed us at the Piraeus
with Glaucon and Polemarchus on his way to the house of
Kephalus。〃 And so on。
CLEOPATRA
Cleopatra was only sixteen when Caesar went to Egypt； but in
Egypt sixteen is a riper age than it is in England。 The
childishness I have ascribed to her； as far as it is childishness
of character and not lack of experience； is not a matter of
years。 It may be observed in our own climate at the present day
in many women of fifty。 It is a mistake to suppose that the
difference between wisdom and folly has anything to do with the
difference between physical age and physical youth。 Some women
are younger at seventy than most women at seventeen。
It must be borne in mind； too； that Cleopatra was a queen； and
was therefore not the typical Greek…cultured； educated Eyptian
lady of her time。 To represent her by any such type would be as
absurd as to represent George IV by a type founded on the
attainments of Sir Isaac Newton。 It is true that an ordinarily
well educated Alexandrian girl of her time would no more have
believed bogey stories about the Romans than the daughter of a
modern Oxford professor would believe them about the Germans
（though； by the way； it is possible to talk great nonsense at
Oxford about foreigners when we are at war with them）。 But I do
not feel bound to believe that Cleopatra was well educated。 Her
father； the illustrious Flute Blower； was not at all a parent of
the Oxford professor type。 And Cleopatra was a chip of the old
block。
BRITANNUS
I find among those who have read this play in manuscript a strong
conviction that an ancient Briton could not possibly have been
like a modern one。 I see no reason to adopt this curious view。 It
is true that the Roman and Norman conquests must have for a time
disturbed the normal British type produced by the climate。 But
Britannus； born before these events； represents the unadulterated
Briton who fought Caesar and impressed Roman observers much as we
should expect the ancestors of Mr。 Podsnap to impress the
cultivated Italians of their time。
I am told that it is not scientific to treat national character
as a product of climate。 This only shows the wide difference
between common knowledge and the intellectual game called
science。 We have men of exactly the same stock； and speaking the
same language； growing in Great Britain； in Ireland； and in
America。 The result is three of the most distinctly marked
nationalities under the sun。 Racial characteristics are quite
another matter。 The difference between a Jew and a Gentile has
nothing to do with the difference between an Englishman and a
German。 The characteristics of Britannus are local
characteristics； not race characteristics。 In an ancient Briton
they would； I take it； be exaggerated； since modern Britain；
disforested； drained； urbanified and consequently cosmopolized；
is presumably less characteristically British than Caesar's
Britain。
And again I ask does anyone who； in the light of a competent
knowledge of his own age； has studied history from contemporary
documents； believe that 67 generations of promiscuous marriage
have made any appreciable difference in the human fauna of these
isles？ Certainly I do not。
JULIUS CAESAR
As to Caesar himself； I have purposely avoided the usual
anachronism of going to Caesar's books； and concluding that the
style is the man。 That is only true of authors who have the
specific literary genius； and have practised long enough to
attain complete self…expression in letters。 It is not true even
on these conditions in an age when literature is conceived
as a game of style； and not as a vehicle of self…expression by
the author。 Now Caesar was an amateur stylist writing books of
travel and campaign histories in a style so impersonal that
the authenticity of the later volumes is disputed。 They reveal
some of his qualities just as the Voyage of a Naturalist Round
the World reveals some of Darwin's； without expressing his
private personality。 An Englishman reading them would say that
Caesar was a man of great common sense and good taste； meaning
thereby a man without originality or moral courage。
In exhibiting Caesar as a much more various person than the
historian of the Gallic wars； I hope I have not succumbed
unconsciously to the dramatic illusion to which all great men owe
part of their reputation and some the whole of it。 I admit that
reputations gained in war are specially questionable。 Able
civilians taking up the profession of arms； like Caesar and
Cromwell； in middle age； have snatched all its laurels from
opponent commanders bred to it； apparently because capable
persons engaged in military pursuits are so scarce that the
existence of