Now take the general case pled against Shakespear as an enemy of democracy by Tolstoy, the late Ernest Crosbie and others, and endorsed by Mr Harris. Will it really stand fire? Mr Harris emphasizes the passages in which Shakespear spoke of mechanics and even of small master tradesmen as base persons whose clothes were greasy, whose breath was rank, and whose political imbecility and caprice moved Coriolanus to say to the Roman Radical who demanded at least "good words" from himHe that will give good words to thee will flatter Beneath abhorring. But let us be honest. As political sentiments theselines are an abomination to every democrat. But suppose they are not political sentiments! Suppose they are merely a record of observed fact. John Stuart Mill told our British workmen that they were mostly liars. Carlyle told us all that we are mostly fools. Matthew Arnold and Ruskin were more circumstantial and more abusive. Everybody, including the workers themselves, know that they are dirty, drunken, foul-mouthed, ignorant, gluttonous, prejudiced: in short, heirs to the peculiar ills of poverty and slavery, as well as co-heirs with the plutocracy to all the failings of human nature. Even Shelley admitted, 200 years after Shakespear wrote Coriolanus, that universal suffrage was out of the question. Surely the real test, not of Democracy, which was not a live political issue in Shakespear's time, but of impartiality in judging classes, which is what one demands from a great human poet, is not that he should flatter the poor and denounce the rich, but that he should weigh them both in the same balance. Now whoever will read Lear and Measure for Measure will find stamped on his mind such an appalled sense of the danger of dressing man in a little brief authority, such a merciless stripping of the purple from the "poor, bare, forked animal" that calls itself a king and fancies itself a god, that one wonders what was the real nature of the mysterious restraint that kept "Eliza and our James" from teaching Shakespear to be civil to crowned heads, just as one wonders why Tolstoy was allowed to go free when so many less terrible levellers went to the galleys or Siberia. From the mature Shakespear we get no such scenes of village snobbery as that between the stage country gentleman Alexander Iden and the stage Radical Jack Cade. We get the shepherd in As You Like It, and many honest, brave, human, and loyal servants, beside the inevitable comic ones. Even in the Jingo play, Henry V, we get Bates and Williams drawn with all respect and honor as normal rank and file men. In Julius Caesar, Shakespear went to work with a will when he took his cue from Plutarch in glorifying regicide and transfiguring the republicans. Indeed hero-worshippers have never forgiven him for belittling Caesar and failing to see that side of his assassination which made Goethe denounce it as the most senseless of crimes. Put the play beside the Charles I of Wills, in which Cromwell is written down to a point at which the JackCade of Henry VI becomes a hero in comparison; and then believe, if you can, that Shakespear was one of them that "crook the pregnant hinges of the knee where thrift may follow fawning." Think of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Osric, the fop who annoyed Hotspur, and a dozen passages concerning such people! If such evidence can prove anything (and Mr Harris relies throughout on such evidence) Shakespear loathed courtiers.
同类推荐
热门推荐
有话说出来!
你是不是从来没有尝试去分析和认识作为一个内向性格的人,你的优势和劣势是什么?但你却总是不断尝试成为你认为别人希望你成为的那种人,这些尝试也总是不断以失败告终吧?别再问我是不是累了,或者是不是一切正常了!《有话说出来!》是我在自己的内向人生阶段进行的研究结果,以及我亲身实践过的技巧,能够应付社交场合,并且让每个人都误以为我是一个非常外向的人。内向的人拥有独特的优势,尽我们最大的努力,我们也可以做到外向的人能做到的一切。你也能与外向的人相谈甚欢,同时又不必勉强你自己。快穿之戏精宿主有点迷
身为一个过气影后,江若瑜的生活就是喝喝茶听听曲儿,偶尔来个环球旅行,完全没有大众想象的那么凄惨。对她来说,困乏的人生除了演戏以外没有任何乐趣可言。但当她旅行到维密的时候,一场有预谋的车祸夺走了她的生命。从此,某过气影后的生活发生了天翻地覆的变化,为了能够复活到巅峰时期,江若瑜踏上了她戏精的快穿之旅。