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