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！
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 two of them at the same time in the same hemisphere
is extremely rare。 The capacity of any conqueror is therefore
more likely than not to be an illusion produced by the incapacity
of his adversary。 At all events； Caesar might have won his
battles without being wiser than Charles XII or Nelson or Joan of
Arc； who were； like most modern 〃self…made〃 millionaires；
half…witted geniuses； enjoying the worship accorded by all races
to certain forms of insanity。 But Caesar's victories were only
advertisements for an eminence that would never have become
popular without them。 Caesar is greater off the battle field than
on it。 Nelson off his quarterdeck was so quaintly out of the
question that when his head was injured at the battle of the
Nile； and his conduct became for some years openly scandalous；
the difference was not important enough to be noticed。 It may；
however； be said that peace hath her illusory reputations no less
than war。 And it is certainly true that in civil life mere
capacity for workthe power of killing a dozen secretaries under
you； so to speak； as a life…or…death courier kills horses
enables men with common ideas and superstitions to distance all
competitors in the strife of political ambition。 It was this
power of work that astonished Cicero as the most prodigious of
Caesar's gifts； as it astonished later observers in Napoleon
before it wore him out。 How if Caesar were nothing but a Nelson
and a Gladstone combined！ A prodigy of vitality without any
special quality of mind！ Nay； with ideas that were worn out
before he was born； as Nelson's and Gladstone's were！ I have
considered that possibility too； and rejected it。 I cannot cite
all the stories about Caesar which seem to me to show that he was
genuinely original； but let me at least point out that I have
been careful to attribute nothing but originality to him。
Originality gives a man an air of frankness； generosity； and
magnanimity by enabling him to estimate the value of truth；
money； or success in any particular instance quite independently
of convention and moral generalization。 He therefore will not； in
the ordinary Treasury bench fashion； tell a lie which everybody
knows to be a lie （and consequently expects him as a matter of
good taste to tell）。 His lies are not found out： they pass for
candors。 He understands the paradox of money； and gives it away
when he can get most for it： in other words； when its value is
least； which is just when a common man tries hardest to get it。
He knows that the real moment of success is not the moment
apparent to the crowd。 Hence； in order to produce an impression
of complete disinterestedness and magnanimity； he has only to act
with entire selfishness； and this is perhaps the only sense in
which a man can be said to be naturally great。 It is in this
sense that I have represented Caesar as great。 Having virtue； he
has no need of goodness。 He is neither forgiving； frank； nor
generous； because a man who is too great to resent has nothing to
forgive； a man who says things that other people are afraid to
say need be no more frank than Bismarck was； and there is no
generosity in giving things you do not want to people of whom you
intend to make use。 This distinction between virtue and goodness
is not understood in England： hence the poverty of our drama in
heroes。 Our stage attempts at them are mere goody…goodies。
Goodness； in its popular British sense of self…denial； implies
that man is vicious by nature； and that supreme goodness is
supreme martyrdom。 Not sharing that pious opinion； I have not
given countenance to it in any of my plays。 In this I follow the
precedent of the ancient myths； which represent the hero as
vanquishing his enemies； not in fair fight； but with enchanted
sword； superequine horse and magical invulnerability； the
possession of which； from the vulgar moralistic point of view；
robs his exploits of any merit whatever。
As to Caesar's sense of humor； there is no more reason to assume
that he lacked it than to assume that he was deaf or blind。 It is
said that on