Caesar and Cleopatra

by George Bernard Shaw

This is a reproduction of the original artefact. Generally these books are created from careful scans of the original. This allows us to preserve the book accurately and present it in the way the author intended. Since the original versions are generally quite old, there may occasionally be certain imperfections within these reproductions. We're happy to make these classics available again for future generations to enjoy!

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Historical Fiction, Fiction, Theatre, Literature

114 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1898

About the author

George Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright, socialist, and a co-founder of the London School of Economics. Although his first profitable writing was music and literary criticism, in which capacity he wrote many highly articulate pieces of journalism, his main talent was for drama. Over the course of his life he wrote more than 60 plays. Nearly all his plays address prevailing social problems, but each also includes a vein of comedy that makes their stark themes more palatable. In these works Shaw examined education, marriage, religion, government, health care, and class privilege.

An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.

In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.

He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.

Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Caesar and Cleopatra is a play of vivid pictures and superb effects: in the desert at night an old Roman general speaks to a small Sphinx, oblivious to the child-woman asleep between its paws; the child-woman Cleopatra chooses the old general as her protector, against Caesar “who eats children,” not realizing, until the Romans troops begin shouting “Hail Caesar” that her old general and Caesar are one in the same; Caesar arming himself for battle while the Library of Alexandria is burning in the background; Cleopatra in a carpet, unrolled and revealed to a surprisingly indifferent Caesar; Caesar and Cleopatra swimming to safety; a female assassin, with her throat cut, crumpled before an altar, is disclosed when a curtain is pulled back; amid the splendor of Caesar’s farewell procession, Cleopatra and her women appear, dressed in black.

It possesses great dialogue and believable characters too. Shaw would tolerate no “thees and thous” in his historical plays, for he believed that the people of past ages were pretty much like ourselves, no better or worse. The Sicilian noblemen Apollodorus resembles a fin de siecle poet, Rufio is a typical gruff old campaigner, Cleopatra’s servant Ftatateeta is a fiercely loyal governess, and Caesar’s secretary Britannus already embodies the smug certainties and blindspots of a late 19th century Englishman.

Caesar and Cleopatra is also great because—like the later Pygmalion—it shows us a great teacher and an apt pupil at work. Even as a child—or perhaps because she is a child—Cleopatra shows an appetite for violence and revenge. Caesar senses she has the capacity to be a great ruler, and takes pains to teach her that mercy and clemency are much more effective in the long run. Unlike Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, Shaw’s play is not about passion but politics.

I think, though, that the principal reason why this play is great is because it gives us the convincing portrait of a great man in the person of Caesar. Childlike, but without a child’s malice, detached yet interested in everything, his comprehensive sympathies and wide-ranging intellect are open to the whole world, and because of this the world rarely gets the best of him.

I will conclude with an excerpt in which Cleopatra tells Caesar she ordered the death of the disloyal minister Pothinus, and Caesar reacts to what Cleopatra has told him.

CAESAR. What has happened to Pothinus? I set him free, here, not half an hour ago. Did they not pass him out?

LUCIUS. Ay, through the gallery arch sixty feet above ground, with three inches of steel in his ribs. He is as dead as Pompey. We are quits now, as to killing—you and I.

CAESAR. (shocked). Assassinated!—our prisoner, our guest! (He turns reproachfully on Rufio) Rufio—

RUFIO (emphatically—anticipating the question). Whoever did it was a wise man and a friend of yours (Cleopatra is qreatly emboldened); but none of US had a hand in it. So it is no use to frown at me. (Caesar turns and looks at Cleopatra.)

CLEOPATRA (violently—rising). He was slain by order of the Queen of Egypt. I am not Julius Caesar the dreamer, who allows every slave to insult him. Rufio has said I did well: now the others shall judge me too. (She turns to the others.) This Pothinus sought to make me conspire with him to betray Caesar to Achillas and Ptolemy. I refused; and he cursed me and came privily to Caesar to accuse me of his own treachery. I caught him in the act; and he insulted me—ME, the Queen! To my face. Caesar would not revenge me: he spoke him fair and set him free. Was I right to avenge myself? Speak, Lucius.

LUCIUS. I do not gainsay it. But you will get little thanks from Caesar for it...

CLEOPATRA (passionately). I will be judged by your very slave, Caesar. Britannus: speak. Was I wrong?

BRITANNUS. Were treachery, falsehood, and disloyalty left unpunished, society must become like an arena full of wild beasts, tearing one another to pieces. Caesar is in the wrong.

CAESAR (with quiet bitterness). And so the verdict is against me, it seems.

CLEOPATRA (vehemently). Listen to me, Caesar. If one man in all Alexandria can be found to say that I did wrong, I swear to have myself crucified on the door of the palace by my own slaves.

CAESAR. If one man in all the world can be found, now or forever, to know that you did wrong, that man will have either to conquer the world as I have, or be crucified by it. (The uproar in the streets again reaches them.) Do you hear? These knockers at your gate are also believers in vengeance and in stabbing. You have slain their leader: it is right that they shall slay you. If you doubt it, ask your four counselors here. And then in the name of that RIGHT (He emphasizes the word with great scorn.) shall I not slay them for murdering their Queen, and be slain in my turn by their countrymen as the invader of their fatherland? Can Rome do less then than slay these slayers too, to show the world how Rome avenges her sons and her honor? And so, to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honor and peace, until the gods are tired of blood and create a race that can understand.

[Huda Aweys · Rating 3 out of 5]

ثيودوتس : إن مكتبة الإسكندرية تحترق
قيصر : أهذا كل شئ !؟
ثيودوتس : (كل شئ؟!)!! .. أتقول عنك الأجيال المقبلة يا قيصر أنك كنت جنديا متبربرا يجهل قيمة الكتب !؟
قيصر : يا ثيودوتس أنا نفسي مؤلفا و اقول لك أنه لمن الأفضل للمصريين أن يحيوا حياتهم بدلا من أن يضيعوها في الأحلام بفضل الكتب
ثيودوتس : قيصر ان العالم يكسب كتابا خالدا كل عشرة أجيال من الرجال
قيصر : و قد يعدم هذا الكتاب اذا لم يتملق البشرية
ثيودوتس : لولا التاريخ لسوى الموت بينك و بين أحقر جندي
قيصر : سيفعل الموت هذا على أي حال ، أنا لا أطلب مقبرة أفخم من مقبرة جندي
ثيودوتس : ان الذي يحترق هناك هو ذاكرة البشرية
قيصر : ذاكرة مخزية دعها تحترق
ثيودوتس : تحرق الماضي!؟
قيصر : نعم و أبني المستقبل بأنقاضه

*****
كليوباترا هنا فتاة ساذجة .. غرة .. قحة .. تافهة .. شريرة ! ، و كذا أخاها بطليموس .. مجرد طفل أبله
كما يتم موضعتهما دائما من قبل أدباء و مؤرخي الغرب ...
ارجاحا لكفة قيصر (المتفلسف .. الحكيم) ، و رفقاؤه في مقابلة هذا النموذج المصري الإفريقي
!
*****
مجرد عمل أدبي ، و ليس بمرجع تاريخي على أي حال

[Clif Hostetler · Rating 3 out of 5]

This play written in 1898 was first performed in England at a time when the British Empire was at its zenith. I couldn't help but notice how Julius Caesar seemed to be presented as an external benevolent colonial force coming to bring order to the political chaos in Egypt. Caesar is portrayed as a wise and patient general who teaches Cleopatra how to be a good ruler (i.e. be a queen).

I can imagine that the play's first English audience identified with Caesar as being in a role similar to that of the British colonial forces scattered around the world dealing with the "white man's burden" of bringing civilization to the backward peoples of the world. A bit of wishful thinking goes into both of the play's portrayal of Caesar and the pro-English view of colonialism.

This play's plot broadly follows actual history, but the details of character development are suspect in my opinion. Caesar is unrealistically virtuous and Cleopatra is too scatterbrained. The historical Cleopatra is reported to have been able to speak eight languages and the real Caesar was a conquering general who at times could be ruthless. Below is a quote from this play where Caesar is claiming to not resent lack of loyalty from his friends.

POTHINUS. [astonished.] Natural! Then you do not resent. treachery?

CAESAR. Resent! O thou foolish Egyptian, what have I to do with resentment? Do I resent the wind when it chills me. or the night when it makes me stumble in the darkness? Shall I resent youth when it turns from age, and ambition when it turns from servitude? To tell me such a story as this is but to tell me that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I doubt the historical Julius Caesar ever said anything like the above. Perhaps he may have thought the Egyptians were foolish, but I bet he resented treachery.

I'll not take time the describe the plot. Wikipedia has a quite detailed summary of it.

[Jonfaith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lovely play but I was at a loss to imagine a successful staging. This is vast and epic while insistently self aware, emplacing it’s own sense of history upon a lineage we believe to know from another play by that one guy.

The characterization of Cleopatra as a petulant teen was remarkable—especially in contrast to a stolid weariness from Julius Caesar. The role of vengeance as a historical engine is explored as is the all too human notions of sovereignty.

I should read more Shaw.

[Jane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Delightful play on the interaction between J. Caesar, here presented by Shaw as a wise avuncular idealist, and Cleopatra, the giggly teenage queen of Egypt. Caesar teaches her to be a real queen and to use her power wisely. Shaw's wit was much in evidence throughout. For comparison I read the text at the same time as I viewed the 1945 Rains/Leigh movie. The script kept the dialogue nearly intact. I regretted the deletion of the stage directions from the movie; I thought them equally as clever as the dialogue, with Shaw's sardonicism. This is one not to be missed, a double treat if you read/view it as I did.

[Manny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cleopatra can't arrange a meeting with Caesar, so she rolls herself up in a large rug, and has herself delivered as a present. Security must have been really basic in those days.

There was a period when I was working for a boss who was never available during office hours. Either he wasn't there at all, or he was busy talking to someone else. People used to refer to the above episode quite frequently, and several of the female employees said they were considering having themselves delivered in rugs.

I'd love to be able to say that one of them actually followed through on it, but as far as I'm aware it never got beyond the planning stage. Pity!

[Czarny Pies · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember twelve years ago taking my wife to Stratford to see the late Christopher Plummer play Mark Antony play in Shakespeare's "Antony and Cleopatra". Once there we discovered that we had
purchased tickets to George Bernard Shaw's "Caesar and Cleopatra". It was a very happy mistake. Plummer was in great form and I doubt that Shakespeare's play which we have still never seen would have been as entertaining.

The playgoer or reader should be aware that Shaw's portrait of Cleopatra is at complete variance with that presented by Plutarch, the prime source from antiquity, who portrays her as a seductress, a murderess and a schemer whose blunders cost Mark Antony his life. Moreover, Shaw does nomention either Cleopatra's physical relationshipl with Caesar nor the son that she bore him. What Shaw gives us instead is Caesar as an old man mentoring Cleopatra in the art of reigning as a monarch because he desires her to be the Queen of a compliant client state.

Shaw's travesty on historical reality had a legitimate purpose. He was trying to comment on Britain's efforts to turn the troublesome Boers of South Africa into loyal subjects of the British Crown and supports of the British empire.

"Caesar and Cleopatra" is an under-rated work by an over-rated playwright. By Shavian standards the dialogues are quite fluid. Contrary to the other plays by Shaw that I have seen there were several murders which is a delightful way to dispose of dreary characters. Shaw, however, kills off on two people which by the standards of the Stratford Festival is a very small number. Shakespeare, of course, seldom had less than a half-dozen murders in his play.

I hope that we will someday get to see "Antony and Cleopatra" as the Shaw Festival. In the interest of public health, the theatre is still banned in this country.

[Leslie ☆︎ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Man, Shaw’s set dressing really embodies the “go big or go home” adage.

Producer: So, walk me through your nonnegotiables again.
Shaw: A big ass Sphinx.
Producer: Okay.
Shaw: Ostentatious armor and evening dress.
Producer: Uh…
Shaw: Multiple palace interiors.
Producer: Well—
Shaw: And a literal ship.
Producer: …
Shaw: …
Producer: We have five dollars.

God bless the set designers and costumers hired to work on revivals of this thing.

Anyway, ever since I watched the Stratford Shakespeare Festival production starring Nikki M. James and the late great Christopher Plummer, “Caesar and Cleopatra” has been one of my favorite plays. It’s not perfect by a long shot. All the telling and not showing irks me, but to be fair:

1. This play is far less concerned with plot and action than it is with its characters. The real story of the play is their relationships with each other and with Egypt, which is a character in its own right.

2. How the hell do you depict a literal battle on a stage?

I also enjoy Shaw’s reliance on both sharp, layered wit and lowbrow humor, both in the dialogue and in his stage notes, the latter of which had me in stitches: “The palace, an old, low, Syrian building of whitened mud, is not so ugly as Buckingham Palace,” etc.

And I’m happy I read Shaw’s notes at the end of this edition! The insights he shares about Caesar, Caesar’s pupil, and so-called anachronisms left me kicking myself for not reading them before reading the play itself. Nuggets like “The capacity of any conqueror is therefore more likely than not to be an illusion produced by the incapacity of his adversary” go hard.

[David Sarkies · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shaw's masterpiece
2 August 2014

The problem I face when I approach this play is that there is so much in it I simply do not know where to start. There is the character of Julius Caesar that Shaw seems to capture perfectly, from the wise and kind leader to the man who would repetitively show mercy to his enemies: which resulted in his own destruction. There is also the idea of the new empire meeting the old empire, and the elder statesman meeting the child queen and the interaction between the two. Then there is a beautiful scene at the baby sphinx where Caesar and Cleopatra first meet, and while Caesar is aware of who he is talking to, Cleopatra is not.

First, though, I should mention that Hollywood turned this play into a very faithful movie, though it has since been taken down from Youtube due to copyright infringements (though I did get to see it before they did so).

Anyway, the first thing that struck me was the interplay between Julius Caesar and Queen Cleopatra: it is nothing short of brilliant. They are both in effect monarchs, but their view of political leadership is radically different. Cleopatra comes from the old school where the monarch does not work and has everything done for her, whereas Caesar is more of a modern monarch in that he works and he takes his position seriously. Secondly, Cleopatra is a queen and she is not afraid to let people know that she is the queen, however Caesar never lets on that he is a monarch, and in fact when he was offered the crown he refused it because while he is a leader, a general, and a statesman, he does not want to be known as a monarch, or a king.

In many ways this was the nature of the Roman Empire, in that it is portrayed as being a modern empire, an empire where everybody pulls their weight and works hard – it was a nation of farmers and soldiers, and the idea of the leader living in luxury and living off the hard work of others is anathema. This is clearly shown in the banquet scene where Caesar rebukes Cleopatra for the exotic food that is being brought before him. This is also shown where Cleopatra is shocked that Caesar, a leader, does not sleep in a luxurious bed, but rather in a cot in a tent, and even then, he does not sleep because he is up all night working.

Thus what we see here is a clash of kingdoms; a clash of the old and the new. As I was reading this play it seemed to be reflective of England's occupation of India (despite that having occurred around a century prior to the play being written, but having it reflective of England and Egypt in Shaw's time simply did not seem to work because at that time Egypt simply did not come across as an exotic kingdom in its death throes). What we have is the modern empire coming into conflict with the empire that is still caught up in its traditional past. In another sense it could be reflective of England and China, especially with the boy emperor, who I believe was emperor of China around that time. Still, the image of Caesar as the noble and enlightened leader was not very reflective of the leadership of England of Shaw's day.

It is interesting that we have Caesar as the elder statesman of the young empire and Cleopatra as the girl monarch of the old empire. It seems to be reflective of the old empire being so caught up in tradition that it is no longer able to move forward, and as such it is not longer able to progress and grow, and as such is left with the mind of a child. It is even suggestive that when a child takes the throne, and the child is immature, then the kingdom itself is in trouble. However, with Rome we have the new empire, despite it being around seven hundred years old at that time (Egypt was much older though, around two and a half thousand years). However, the age of Rome is irrelevant because we have a new Rome that is maturing, and expanding, and despite still being embroiled in civil war (or on the verge on a new civil war) the empire had still to reach its height. This was not the case with Britain in 1898 because while it was still at its height and its destruction was inconceivable, with the rise of the other industrial powers, and Britain's downfall was not far off.

[Yasmeen · Rating 4 out of 5]

-فتتاتيتا: يا أبولودوروس! هذه السجادة هدية كليوباترا لقيصر، لقد لُفّت فيها عشر كؤوس ثمينة من أَرَقّ البلور الأسباني ومائة بيضة من بيض الحمامة المقدسة الزرقاء، عِد بشرفك ألا يكسر منها شئ!
*لفيت كليوباترا بحالها ف السجادة؟ آنى آسفة*😹😹🤭

[رانِـيَة الحَجّار · Rating 3 out of 5]

تحفة فنيّة.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was first introduced to this play by George Bernard Shaw when I saw Gabriel Pascal's movie version back in the 1960s with Claude Rains, Vivien Leigh, and Stewart Granger. Even with my familiarity of the story, it was fun to see how Shaw handled by clever word play between Caesar and the young Egyptian queen. Caesar and Cleopatra is probably not Shaw's best play, but it has always been one of my faves.

RE-READ NOTES: Still very entertaining.

[Laurel Hicks · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bernard Shaw's funny, sad prequel to Shakespeare.

[Hon Lady Selene · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. Bernard Shaw is a man who would write a very long preface even to a very short play. And there is truth in the idea; he is indeed a very prefatory sort of person. He always gives the explanation before the incident; but so, for the matter of that, does the Gospel of St. John. For Bernard Shaw, as for the mystics, Christian and heathen (and Shaw is best described as a heathen mystic), the philosophy of facts is anterior to the facts themselves. In due time we come to the fact, the incarnation; but in the beginning was the Word.
(from G. K. Chesterton's George Bernard Shaw)

Mr. Shaw spun the Word so well, behold my favourite lines in Literature:

"(The Romans have set fire to the Library of Alexandria)

THEODOTUS: —What is burning there is the memory of mankind.
CAESAR: —A shameful memory. Let it burn.
THEODOTUS (wildly): —Will you destroy the past?
CAESAR: —Ay, and build the future with its ruins."

[— sab · Rating 3 out of 5]

“when a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.”

i enjoyed this! would love to re-read this later and see if i can get into it a little bit more , but i liked it this time around!

[Nikki · Rating 1 out of 5]

This play is atrocious and I'm surprised more people do not feel vitriolic towards it.

First of all, I greatly disliked that the author chose to use real historical people to bitterly gripe about England. A story/play about real people from 2,000 years prior is just not the place to be moaning and groaning about current (for him) jolly ol' England. I realize that this was supposed to be some sort of badly done satire, but it just does not work for me.

Second of all (but first in my heart), Shaw's Cleopatra is an utter joke. I've read plenty of HF and NF works on Cleopatra and I don't think I have seen anyone represent Cleopatra so badly. Shaw's Cleopatra is idiotic, immature, whiny, gullible and the list goes on. I was appalled.

I also could not help but picture, due to the voice of the narrator, Caesar as Ebenezer Scrooge. Needless to say, griping about "current" England, a nitwit Cleopatra and a Scrooge Caesar makes for a really freaking awful attempt at anything resembling enjoyable literature for this reader.

[Halima]

I used to have two pets. I called the male Caesar and the female Cleopatra. Mom started to laugh when I told her what I wanted to call them and when I asked her why she said I reminded her of a good book. About 8 years later, I'm dying to find mom's copy of the book because she recommended it to me a few weeks ago - I think she lost it, though.

PS: the pets were geese and they had 11 children and we had to give them away. I miss them.

[Edzy · Rating 2 out of 5]

A disappointment. Bathetic and--as usual with Shaw--his Caesar mouths mots justes every now and then. Cleopatra a kittenish teenager, hard to see the historical woman who subjugated two Roman generals sexually in this timid character. Shaw actually hinted that his play is "better than Shakespear". He probably needed to reread "Antony and Cleopatra" and do a reality check on his egomania.

[Dylan]

Wow. What a delightful first experience with Shaw. Hilarious and moving and puzzling, and, to my delight, it feels incomplete without seeing it in performance (lucky me, I get to see it at the American Shakespeare Center in a few days).

Approaching this play in conversation with Shakespeare's Roman plays in mind, then, I was perhaps extra keyed in to a concern that Shaw himself raises in the play's notes: "whether our world has not been wrong in its moral theory for the last 2,500 years or so" when it comes to the construction of enormous figures at the center of the Western identity. Shaw was referring to his deliberately (sort of) counterintuitive depiction of Caesar as a rather laid-back, frequently hilarious domineer, certainly a tactical genius but decidedly not in the vein of Caesar's own self-styling in De Bello Gallico and De Bello Civili. When you see a bust of Caesar in a stuffy Yale University library, it is probably not meant to be Shaw's Caesar.

So it feels, to me, more in the vein of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra than Julius Caesar. To me, JC's characters are stand-ins for certain political/philosophical principles, manifested in both the ideas they articulate and in the rhetorical structures they use to do so. A&C, on the other hand, abounds in contradictions, self-doubt, fickleness--and I think in that later play, Shakespeare discovered that by making his characters contain multitudes, in some ways making them more like ordinary people (who are nevertheless participants in extraordinary events), he actually lent them greater tragic/dramatic stature. I tend to find Cleopatra's "His legs bestrid the ocean [etc.]" more impactful and believable than Cassius' "Like a Colossus, and we petty men / Walk under his huge legs."

Anyway, I think that is partly what Shaw is up to here, and he keys us in to that fact with the prologue, so I may simply be playing into his hands by writing all of this. I am delighted to come away from this play with questions that I feel cannot bed answered by the text alone: Are we to sincerely believe that Caesar’s sheer force of personality “made a woman of [Cleopatra],” or is this simply what Caesar himself would like to believe? Is Shaw's Caesar really a once-in-a-civilization genius, or does he simply have extremely good luck? Only performance will tell.

[Manuel Alfonseca · Rating 3 out of 5]

ENGLISH: I had read this play in 2014, and this is the first time I've watched it in the RTVE archive. Shaw's play introduces some changes in history: Caesar did not meet Cleopatra at the Sphinx, and it was probably Caesar, not Cleopatra, who had Pothinus killed. Nor does it seem likely that Caesar promised to send Mark Antony to Cleopatra. Otherwise, it is fairly faithful to history, though it cannot be compared to the 1963 film Cleopatra, which was a blockbuster.

ESPAÑOL: Leí esta obra en 2014, y esta es la primera vez que la he visto representar en el archivo de Estudio-1. La obra de Shaw introduce algunos cambios en la historia: César no conoció a Cleopatra junto a la Esfinge, y seguramente fue César, no Cleopatra, quien mandó matar a Potino. Tampoco me parece probable que César le prometiera enviarle a Marco Antonio. Por lo demás, es bastante fiel a la historia, aunque no puede compararse con la película Cleopatra de 1963, que fue una superproducción.

[Brandon Sitch · Rating 3 out of 5]

A world-wearied, agèd Caesar and a Cleopatra who moves between the extremes of mawkishness and asperity. The first act, depicting Caesar and Cleopatra meeting for the first time with each slowly learning the identity of the other is incredible, but the rest of the play sort of drags. I’m not convinced a great play with Caesar as its focus can be written. There’s something impersonal about his constancy and character that might force the dramatist either to be unfaithful to who Caesar was, or to be unfaithful to what drama should be (of course, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar avoids this by being about Brutus, predominantly).

[ouliana · Rating 5 out of 5]

caesar and cleopatra's relationship is such a game, in which they pretend to love each other but the only thing they both need is power, and they are so real for this

[kate :~) · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 rounded up for the anti-british sentiment he managed to slip into a play set in ancient egypt

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shaw’s retelling of Caesar and Cleopatra demonstrates admirably both Shaw’s philosophy, as well as showcases his tremendous gifts as a storyteller. Shaw depicts Cleopatra as a woman who, out of military necessity, appeals to Caesar. Caesar is depicted as a Realist, and a man of action who values good government and unsentimentality. Caesar is depicted as a man without vengeance and little emotion. He is fair and hard…and opportunistic. He destroys evidence that would have Septimius executed, yet orders the expedient murder of Cleopatra’s nurse.

There are great lines throughout. Caesar is wonderfully sarcastic when addressing Theodotus. In response to Theodotus answering Caesar’s question about his role, Caesar says, “You teach men how to be kings, Theodotus. That is very clever of you.” (36) Another great line is APOLLODORUS: “Majesty: when a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.” (64)


On taxes one can see Shaw’s approach and beliefs in government:
“POTHINUS (bitterly): Is it possible that Caesar, the conqueror of the world, has time to occupy himself with such a trifle as our taxes?
CAESAR: My friend: taxes are the chief business of a conqueror of the world.” (38)

Caesar later states to Pothinus, “when a man has anything to tell in this world, the difficulty is not to make him tell it, but to prevent him from telling it too often.” (91)

Caesar speaks these fateful words at the end of the play. “And so, to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honor and peace, until the gods are tired of blood and create a race that can understand.” (102) Too true, albeit I believe Shaw had a different view of how to achieve that then most 21st readers are likely to be comfortable with.

[Leslie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting take on Cleopatra. My favorite parts, though, were in the stage directions and commentary. For example, in setting the scene of the first act (my underlining of bits I liked):

"A great radiance of silver fire, the dawn of a moonlit night, is rising in the east. The stars and the cloudless sky are our own contemporaries, nineteen and a half centuries younger than we know them; but you would not guess that from their appearance. Below them are two notable drawbacks of civilization: a palace, and soldiers."

and a bit later:

"Belzanor is a typical veteran, tough and wilful; prompt, capable and crafty where brute force will serve; helpless and boyish when it will not: an effective sergeant, an incompetent general, a deplorable dictator. Would, if influentially connected, be employed in the two last capacities by a modern European State on the strength of his success in the first. Is rather to be pitied just now in view of the fact that Julius Caesar is invading his country."

[J. Alfred · Rating 4 out of 5]

A prologue of sorts for Shakespeare's "Anthony and Cleopatra", it does go a long way toward introducing that play. Also a good place for Shaw to show how, for him, people don't need God, because, like Caesar, some men are basically gods already. Some unintentional irony in that, as he used a bunch of Christlike qualities and allusions for Caesar to drive his point home, he has Caesar using the words of Christ to claim legitimacy; sometimes the same words that Christ would use a few generations later to challenge Caesar's authority.
Anyway, the characters and the story are pretty great. They remind me of Terry Pratchett at his best.
In the forward to the play, the question "Better than Shakespeare?" was written in bold, obnoxious print. It was an enjoyable play, and it gave some real humanitarian depth to Cleopatra's character, but heck, give me "Give me my robe, put on my crown/ I have immortal longings in me" any day.

[Collin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have never read a more weak, pathetic Cleopatra in my life.

I mean, I know Cleopatra probably wasn't Super Duper BA Superwoman we all are used to thinking of her, but... come on! Give her a little credit! She read like a brainless twelve-year-old brat! Did she have a different reputation in the late 1800s than she does now? Or did Shaw just... really want a crying, sighing, lovelorn wimp as his second main character?

I know Shaw can write better women characters, so I don't blame the times; it's just... a really lame way to write Cleopatra. Caesar was over-glorified, practically martyred before he was dead. I usually like Shaw's dialogue but this one was just... difficult to get through. When you check the remaining page count every five pages, something's wrong.

Wanted to like it, but there was too much against it. Maybe the Vivien Leigh movie is better.

[Jannath Fazli · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm shocked at how much genz energy the characters radiate. I wasn't expecting that. I suppose that just proves Shaw's argument that people don't change dramatically with time. Or maybe he wrote the characters in such a way so that he could prove it. Considering how clever he seems to have been, that is possible.

[Big Al · Rating 4 out of 5]

A unique interpretation of the Caesar-Cleopatra relationship. A much weirder and funnier play that I was expecting!

[Ammar Al Saffar · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was alright. I am not a huge fan of fan fictions