caesar and cleopatra-第19章

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　the　occasion　of　his　assassination　by　a　conspiracy　of
moralists　（it　is　always　your　moralist　who　makes　assassination　a
duty；　on　the　scaffold　or　off　it）；　he　defended　himself　until　the
good　Brutes　struck　him；　when　he　exclaimed　〃What！　you　too；
Brutes！〃　and　disdained　further　fight。　If　this　be　true；　he　must
have　been　an　incorrigible　comedian。　But　even　if　we　waive　this
story；　or　accept　the　traditional　sentimental　interpretation　of
it；　there　is　still　abundant　evidence　of　his　lightheartedness　and
adventurousness。　Indeed　it　is　clear　from　his　whole　history　that
what　has　been　called　his　ambition　was　an　instinct　for
exploration。　He　had　much　more　of　Columbus　and　Franklin　in　him
than　of　Henry　V。

However；　nobody　need　deny　Caesar　a　share；　at　least；　of　the
qualities　I　have　attributed　to　him。　All　men；　much　more　Julius
Caesars；　possess　all　qualities　in　some　degree。　The　really
interesting　question　is　whether　I　am　right　in　assuming　that　the
way　to　produce　an　impression　of　greatness　is　by　exhibiting　a　man；
not　as　mortifying　his　nature　by　doing　his　duty；　in　the　manner
which　our　system　of　putting　little　men　into　great　positions　（not
having　enough　great　men　in　our　influential　families　to　go　round）
forces　us　to　inculcate；　but　by　simply　doing　what　he　naturally
wants　to　do。　For　this　raises　the　question　whether　our　world　has
not　been　wrong　in　its　moral　theory　for　the　last　2；500　years　or
so。　It　must　be　a　constant　puzzle　to　many　of　us　that　the　Christian
era；　so　excellent　in　its　intentions；　should　have　been　practically
such　a　very　discreditable　episode　in　the　history　of　the　race。　I
doubt　if　this　is　altogether　due　to　the　vulgar　and　sanguinary
sensationalism　of　our　religious　legends；　with　their　substitution
of　gross　physical　torments　and　public　executions　for　the　passion
of　humanity。　Islam；　substituting　voluptuousness　for　torment　（a
merely　superficial　difference；　it　is　true）　has　done　no　better。　It
may　have　been　the　failure　of　Christianity　to　emancipate　itself
from　expiatory　theories　of　moral　responsibility；　guilt；