Talk:The Dancing Girl of Gades
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Edition: | Extracted from Adventure magazine, 10 Dec 1925, pp. 03-74. |
| Source: | https://archive.org/details/AdventureV056N0119251210 |
| Contributor(s): | icameisaw |
| Proofreaders: | itinkered |
Editorial and letters from the January 1925 issue (pp. 175–179) containing theis story.
PERHAPS the following paragraph out of a letter from E. S. Pladwell of our writers' brigade pretty well explains why the controversy over Julius Cæsar has aroused such astonishing interest among those who gather at our Camp-Fire. Not even our discussions of the Gila monster, the Custer battle, tarantulas, Billy the Kid, snakes, snake-bites and Wild Bill have stirred things up so much over a similar period of time!
I was disappointed in the last Adventure in not seeing another inning played in the Cæsar-Mundy-Brodeur shindy, which has given me more enjoyment than anything I've seen for a long time. It is extremely interesting, and probably the truth—as in most cases of the kind—lies somewhere in between. However, I think I can voice the real feelings of several thousand invigorated readers when I say: Attaboy, Cæsar! Attaboy, Mundy! Sic 'em! It is a lovely row and brings out points I never learned before. More power to everybody. Let 'er go!—E. S. Pladwell.
THERE have been many other comments to the same general effect. Here are several letters that have gone into the matter more fully. The first, from Elmer Davis, was not originally written for publication but is passed on with his consent:
I don't want to take up any more space in "Camp-Fire," but may I offer a few remarks on Mundy's reply to A. D. H. Smith in your current issue, for your own ear—or Mundy's, if they're worth sending on?
GLAD to see that Mundy narrows his attack, now, and admits some good in the Empire. Nobody would deny that the Republic in its last century was pretty rotten. Where is the evidence that Cæsar, morally and politically, was worse than anybody else? Only in Suetonius and other writers who put down everything they heard, probable or improbable. Mundy seems to have some admiration for Augustus and Tiberius. Augustus was a great organizer and Tiberius was a great administrator, but the things said about them, Tiberius especially, were far worse than anything alleged against Cæsar—and the authority is just as good, or rather just as bad. If practical accomplishment exculpates Augustus, why not let it count for something with Cæsar?
His practical accomplishment was less than that of Augustus, because Cæsar had to clear the way. He smashed a rotten government and was murdered, not because he wanted to conquer Asia, but because jealous politicians and disappointed office seekers worked on that light-headed fool, Marcus Brutus. He had ended the easy pickings and they bumped him off. Cæsar worked by flashes of inspiration and Augustus by slow cautious reasoning; Cæsar bit off more than he could chew, and bit it off too soon, before the Romans had realized that the government was bound to fall to the strongest man; but, without Cæsar, Augustus could have done nothing, if only for one reason, that he owed his start entirely to the loyalty of Cæsar's army.
THESE were professional soldiers, mercenaries; they made war for what they got out of it. Yet when Cæsar was dead they stuck, not to the men who would pay them most, nor even to Mark Antony who had been Cæsar's yes man, but to Augustus, because he was Cæsar's heir and the sole proprietor, if only by adoption, of the Cæsarian name. Sounds as if there must have been some- thing about this Cæsar that made men willing to throw their hats over the moon for him, or even his grandnephew. Augustus in his early life was about as mean and cold-blooded a scoundrel as you could imagine; he could, and did, cut his best friends' throats (literally) for political advantage. Yet he turned into a great emperor (probably due largely to his wife's influence) and even Mundy is willing to give him some credit. Give a little credit to Cæsar, then, who broke up a government of corrupt gangs, cleared away the thick-headed crooks like Pompey and the hypocritical crooks like Cicero, and at least got things into a position where something might have been done by a man who had time. He had less than two years to do it: Augustus had forty-five.
AS TO the connection between the Druids and Samothrace, Mundy's quotations don't seem convincing. Aside from Iamblichus, about a tenth-rate authority, all his ancient authors say is that the Druids, like Pythagoras, were good mathematicians and taught the immortality of the soul. Mathematics is not copyright; neither is immortality. It wasn't generally believed in antiquity, of course. But anybody who thinks realizes that this life is nothing to brag about; and from there you go on in one of two directions, according to your temperament: (a) to belief in a future life where you will get the happiness you missed in this one, or (b) a trusting confidence that when you are through here you are through for good. Each of them is the rationalization of a wish, of course, and each of them has occurred independently to any number of people. It is of course possible that the doctrines of Pythagoras, a naturalized Italian Greek, might have spread up into Gaul through the Greek settlement at Marseilles; but why not call hypothesis hypothesis?—Elmer Davis.
THIS letter deals only with Mr. Mundy's "guess" as to the evolution of the long-boat. Incidentally, to some degree it challenges Mr. Brodeur's statement, made long before the Cæsar discussion arose, that the "winged hats" of the Northmen never existed. Some one, though it may not have been Mr. Brodeur, made the point that the Northman was too wise a warrior to wear anything on his helmet that an enemy could grasp, as that offered additional mark to a weapon. I wondered about that point at the time, having more or less hazy recollections of crested helmets among various nations of various times clear up to the present, and questioning whether crest, horns, wings, etc., might not to some extent offset that disadvantage by being an additional protection. Not that I am inclined to dispute Mr. Brodeur's main point; I don't know enough to do so, for one thing.
Omaha, Nebraska.
I have been much interested by the argument of Talbot Mundy to the effect that the Scandinavian long-boats must have been the result of a long preliminary evolution. Possibly Mr. Mundy may be interested to learn, in case he is not already aware of the fact, that there is definite archæological evidence in favor of his contention, in the form of rock carvings, quite unanimously dated back to the early bronze age—and so to a period long before Cæsar's attacks on Britain—which show formalized representations of craft which can be recognized quite clearly as crude forms of the later finished article. These rock carvings have been reproduced in a number of works on early European man. The rough pencil sketch I am enclosing is from "Der Mensch der Vorzeit," by Hugo Obermaier, p. 554. Better reproductions of similar carvings at Bohuslan, Sweden, will be found facing p. 146 of Tyler's "The New Stone Age." An interesting point in regard to the latter is that the principal figure in one of the carvings is apparently wearing a two-horned helmet—probably the basis of the "winged hats" which Camp-Fire discussion has recently relegated to the limbo of myth.—H. E. Eggers, M.D.
THE two following letters have extra interest in that they exemplify very nicely the two opposite types of mind, the conservative and radical, standpatter and iconoclast. Both are rather more militant than we usually hear at our Camp-Fire, though one of them has some warrant in being a reply to an even more militant letter. One of the two letters is even rather abusive. Both, however, are given without modification, for in this discussion of Cæsar one of the most interesting things is the workings of the human intellect when confronted with a difference of opinion—the reactions of the two types of mind mentioned above. Needless to say, the lid is not permanently removed even in the Cæsar argument, but the argument sometimes becomes a heated one and there should be an occasional indication of that fact.
After all, it's only an argument and in the end we'll all be good friends again.
Now that you have heard from all the historians about Cæsar, how about a layman and his point of view? Of course, reading Tacitus, Suetonius, etc., is all very well for those who have the time and inclination to dive in musty tomes in order to form their own opinions of past actors from what they have personally read. But, when all is said, they are only forming "their own opinion" on what others have written; then why not accept the consensus of opinion of hundreds if not thousands of historians as embodied in our text-books? Nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every million have not the time, inclination or facilities for reading ancient historians and must perforce depend upon the common text-books for the "meat in the nutshell."
PERSONALLY I have no sympathy nor respect for an iconoclast, nor can I place any confidence in his utterances. All he does is to pull down and destroy; he is destructive, not constructive. In the present instance, iconoclast Mundy, it is self evident, has delved into history and brought forth all the slush, mud, mire and filth that he could uncover and left out all the good that he found. It brings him a little cheap notoriety, doubtfully desirable. As my inclinations run to other subjects than history, I am perfectly willing, without wasting my time in reading ancient history and musty tomes, to accept the consensus of opinion of hundreds if not thousands of writers as to the estimate of Cæsar as expressed in our text-books; and likewise, I agree with them that it is much better to leave out all the filth that has been proved false and which is much better forgotten. People must be judged by the standards of their own times and, that being the case, I am much of the opinion that Cæsar was no worse than iconoclast Mundy is, and probably better; no one now can tell. My own opinion of Cæsar, any way you want to take it, sexually, morally, physically, mentally, as a general or as a statesman, writer and even as an orator, if you will, is that he is the greatest man, not of divine origin, that the world has ever produced. Iconoclast Mundy and all his writings will have been forgotten six years after he is dead, while the name of Cæsar will go thundering through illimitable spaces and his life's achievements will be the goal and the guiding star of all legitimate ambitions until the end of time.—O. A. Fanweill.
Standing in the outer circle of the light thrown by the Camp-Fire, I have been an interested listener to the various arguments concerning Mr. Mundy's shattering of the Cæsar ideal. Most of the arguments are good; all of them are interesting. Asking to be excused for butting in, I wish to say a few words in criticism of Mr. Hathaway's letter.
LIKE Mr. Hathaway, I am not a historian. Likewise, having done my share of knocking about the world, sail and steam, I am a roughneck; but not sufficiently so to rise to such heights as to declare an earnest seeker after truth to be full of prunes—pink or otherwise—or to declare him crazy.
Nothing so angers some as the destruction of an ideal. Moreover, it is characteristic of some men to attribute insanity to those holding opinions contrary to their own. In my opinion, Mr. Hathaway's criticism of Mr. Mundy's stories is merely superficial as he apparently has failed to grasp the motivating principle of the Tros stories.
I OBJECT to the comparison contained in Mr. Hathaway's letter in which he asserts "To Cæsar and his men the women of Gaul and Germany were just good looking savages, to be treated as such, much as the early white men used the Indian women." His assumption that "the women haven't minded, etc.," reveals the psychology of a Prussian drill sergeant. But, does Mr. Hathaway really believe that? Does he know for a fact that the Gauls and Germans were "just good looking savages?"
I don't—although that theory was fairly well imposed upon me in my school days. I have since had other theories propounded to me which tended to throw all my preconceived notions of early Gaulish and British culture into the discard.
I have not had the opportunity for an intensive study of early British history except that to be obtained through the common channels, which seems to be based entirely upon the anti-Gaulish anti-British propaganda of the Roman writers, the official version, which, according to Shaw, is not reliable. I have, however, been fortunate in my studies of the early Irish culture, some of them in the original Gaelic, which, to my mind is analogous with that of the early Britons.
The early Britons, Gauls and Irish were members of the same great Celtic family. Their languages were variants of the same Celtic tongue which survives in our day as the Cymric of Wales and the Gælic of Ireland and Scotland. Language and culture go hand in hand, so it must be presumed that the culture of these people was identical in the various countries occupied by them. Such being true, they would be far from being "just good looking savages."
I HAVE read Gibbon. I have read Wells. Likewise I have read everything I could find pertaining to the ancient civilizations, and am still hungry for more. Balancing what I have read, culled from both pro-Roman and pro-Celtic sources, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Mundy. Like him, I believe that the Roman Empire was nothing more nor less than a great robber organization. Also I have come to the realization that the disseminators of the myth describing the early Britons as a nation of skin-clad savages were merely purveyors of poppycock. Ascending to the vivid idiom of Mr. Hathaway, I'll say they were a bundle of cock-eyed liars.
This game of slandering the enemy is an old one—as old as war itself, and the arts of the propagandist have been in use a long time. Doubtless the invading Germans regarded the women of modern Gaul as "just good looking savages." The disseminators of anti-French propaganda had been busy in Germany for years before the war. The rhetorical genius of our own Mr. Creel would have instilled martial fervor in a hopeless cripple. Propaganda of the late war is not a pleasant thing to remember.
ASIDE from his reputation as a military leader there is nothing in the career of Cæsar suggesting any aim higher than his own personal advancement. His commentaries seem to have been written with an eye to political effect. Of his virtues I am skeptical. Concerning his vices, and considering the stories, mostly untrue, circulated against prominent men in our own day, I must reserve judgment. As to Cæsar's self-deification, well, I must again rise to the forcible idiom of Mr. Hathaway and declare him crazy as .
Why idealize Cæsar at all? We have little to learn from his example; although the writers of the text-books and the worshipers at the shrine of the established would have it otherwise. Histories of nations are merely recorded incidents in the progress of mankind, and the history of Rome is just another of those incidents. Let us, then, look with greater concern upon the history of our own country, a history of far greater moment in the general record of progress. Let our children learn to idealize Washington and Lincoln in place of Cæsar and that monster, Alexander, miscalled "the great." It is doubtful if Washington or Lincoln possessed the arts and graces of the ancient pair, but as generals and statesmen they could have made both those worthies look like a pair of wooden Indians. I realize that the comparison is unfair to the ancient gentlemen, seeing that the world has advanced a trifle since their day. Nevertheless, judging the character of all the parties concerned, I am firm in my belief that had either Washington or Lincoln lived in Cæsar's day their names would have come down to us with far greater luminosity than that of the much-advertised J. Cæsar.
But what's the use of lambasting Cæsar? After all, he was merely a cog in the Roman wheel. There were others far worse: Nero, for example.
The history of Rome is merely an illustration of the maxim: democracy creates wealth; wealth destroys democracy. Still, through the centuries the Roman model has been held up to mankind as the greatest political agent in the cause of civilization that the world has ever known. That the present-day empires are built upon the Roman plan does not obscure the fact that the Roman civilization was a civilization of wealth and power, lacking in spirituality, sustained by mass slavery, suppressing liberty and progress—a robe of dazzling splendor hiding the cruelty, avarice and stupidity beneath. And this was the Rome for which the highly individualistic Celt was asked to exchange his own patriarchal system. This was the Rome whose example is offered as an excuse for imperialistic aggression in our day. This was the Rome in whose defense Mr. Hathaway declares Mr. Mundy to be crazy and "full of prunes—pink ones!"'—Neil Martin.
THERE are certain things in the last part of that last letter to which I say a hearty amen.
Here is a letter centering on the extent of Rome's conquest of Britain and on the culture of the Britons of that day:
I am very much pleased to see that Mr. Mundy has attempted to throw new light on early British history and it seems to me that his points are very well taken.
FOR one, I have never been able to swallow that story of the Roman Wall's being built to protect the poor little Roman soldiers from a handful of painted dwarfs. Not me! There was something more than a few ignorant savages on the north side of that wall!
For the benefit of your American readers who are not as familiar with England as Mr. Mundy is I suggest you call their attention to the fact that Scotland is about the size of Maine, England the size of the rest of the New England States with a little bit of New York added, and that when Rome finally conquered the island it took about forty thousand men four years to reach the Scottish border where they built the wall and apparently they never did control Wales or Scotland during the following four hundred years.
Following the above comparison the wall would have been built from, say, Lewiston, Maine, to the northern end of the Maine-New Hampshire boundary line.
That forty thousand men was nearly one soldier for each square mile of territory obtained in the four years and they must have lost a fourth of the men, because the Ninth Legion was practically wiped out at one time.
The number of soldiers in the American Revolution was but one man to two square miles.
There must have been some pretty fair scrappers and quite a little excitement in the neighborhood of the first Romans to land. I agree with Mundy. The Romans got licked the first two times and several times afterward.
BY THE way. Prof. Petrie says there was commerce between England and Egypt 1600 b.c. and that he has seen an Egyptian razor of that time found in a burial hoard in England.
I take issue with Mr. Mundy on one thing, though—I think the modern Englishman is largely Roman. Look at the Roman portrait statues and then at the Englishman of today. The Romans never were driven out of England. The type persists.—A. Gray.
AND so, for the present, we leave the Cæsar argument, but I have a feeling that there will be more to come. Which is as it should be.