I am well enough acquainted with the whole map of Mr. Bernard Shaw’s philosophy to know that those two statements might have been related to each other in a hundred ways.  But I think that if they were read by an ordinary intelligent man, who happened not to know Mr. Shaw’s views, he would form no impression at all except that Mr. Shaw was a lunatic of more than usually abrupt conversation and disconnected mind.  The other two methods would certainly have done Mr. Shaw more justice:  the reporter should either have taken down verbatim what the speaker really said about Capital, or have given an outline of the way in which this idea was connected with the idea about patriotic songs.

But we have not the advantage of knowing what Mr. Shaw really did say, so we had better illustrate the different methods from something that we do know.  Most of us, I suppose, know Mark Antony’s Funeral Speech in “Julius Caesar.”  Now Mark Antony would have no reason to complain if he were not reported at all; if the Daily Pilum or the Morning Fasces, or whatever it was, confined itself to saying, “Mr. Mark Antony also spoke,” or “Mr. Mark Antony, having addressed the audience, the meeting broke up in some confusion.”  The next honest method, worthy of a noble Roman reporter, would be that since he could not report the whole of the speech, he should report some of the speech.  He might say—­“Mr. Mark Antony, in the course of his speech, said—­

 ’When that the poor have cried Caesar hath wept: 
  Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.’”

In that case one good, solid argument of Mark Antony would be correctly reported.  The third and far higher course for the Roman reporter would be to give a philosophical statement of the purport of the speech.  As thus—­“Mr. Mark Antony, in the course of a powerful speech, conceded the high motives of the Republican leaders, and disclaimed any intention of raising the people against them; he thought, however, that many instances could be quoted against the theory of Caesar’s ambition, and he concluded by reading, at the request of the audience, the will of Caesar, which proved that he had the most benevolent designs towards the Roman people.”  That is (I admit) not quite so fine as Shakspere, but it is a statement of the man’s political position.  But if a Daily Mail reporter were sent to take down Antony’s oration, he would simply wait for any expressions that struck him as odd and put them down one after another without any logical connection at all.  It would turn out something like this:  “Mr. Mark Antony wished for his audience’s ears.  He had thrice offered Caesar a crown.  Caesar was like a deer.  If he were Brutus he would put a wound in every tongue.  The stones of Rome would mutiny.  See what a rent the envious Casca paid.  Brutus was Caesar’s angel.  The right honourable gentleman concluded by saying that he and the audience had all fallen down.”  That is the report of a political speech in a modern, progressive, or American manner, and I wonder whether the Romans would have put up with it.