[160] Bernard Shaw and the Heroic Actor, in The Play, No. 62, Vol. X. In this same article Shaw says: “No man writes a play without any reference to the possibility of a performance: you may scorn the limitations of the theatre as much as you please; but for all that you do not write parts for six-legged actors or two-headed heroines, though there is great scope for drama in such conceptions.”

[161] Mr. Shaw's Future: A Conversation, in the Academy, April 30th, 1898. This interview is signed “C. R.”—presumably Clarence Rook.

[162] Better than Shakespeare? Preface to Three Plays for Puritans.

[163] In Berlin the play was given in its entirety at the Neues Theater; in London, at the Savoy Theatre, it proved quite feasible to give the play omitting the entire third act. And yet the third act, according to M. Jean Blum (Revue Germanique, November-December, 1906), contains the dramatic climax! Compare also, Dramatische Rundschau, by Friedrich Düsel, Westermann's Monatshefte, June, 1906.

[164] Bernard Shaw and the Heroic Actor, in The Play, No. 62, Vol. X.

[165] Cf. Genealogy of Morals (Translated by William A. Hausemann, the Macmillan Co.), where Nietzsche points out that in the case of “noble men,” prudence is far less essential than the “perfect reliableness of function of the regulating, unconscious instincts or even a certain imprudence, such as readiness to encounter things—whether danger or an enemy, or that eccentric suddenness of anger, love, reverence, gratitude and revenge by which noble souls at all times have recognized themselves as such.”

[166] Cæsar and Cleopatra, in respect to its revolt against the dogmas of classical antiquity, against the accepted conventions in the reconstitution of past epochs, has been classed by Herr Heinrich Stümcke with the Cäsar in Alexandria of Mora and Thoele's Heidnischen Geschichten. In a skit, Cäsar (ohne Cleopatra), by the German dramatic critic, Alfred Kerr, and dedicated “an Bernard Shaw mit freundlichen Grüssen,” this feature is wittily satirized, in these two verses:

[167] The New York Times, November 20th, 1904.

[168] “Mansfield was always especially sympathetic with the character of Napoleon, and, indeed—however extravagant the statement may seem at first glance—his personality comprised some of the attributes of that character—stalwart courage, vaulting ambition, inflexible will, resolute self-confidence, great capacity for labour, iron endurance, promptitude of decision, propensity for large schemes, and passionate taste for profusion of opulent surroundings.”—William Winter's Life and Art of Richard Mansfield, Vol. I., pp. 222-223; Moffat, Yard and Co., New York, 1910.

[169] Richard Mansfield: The Man and the Actor, by Paul Wilstach, p. 264; Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1909.

[170] Ellen Terry, by Bernard Shaw. Neue Freie Presse, January, 1906; English translation, Boston Transcript, January 20th, 1906.

[171] On account of the vagueness of the story in certain details, Mr. John Corbin has taken Shaw to task for not stating “who the Lady is and why she was so heroically bent on rescuing Napoleon from himself.” It suffices to know that she is Josephine's emissary, sent to intercept the incriminating letter. Her duel with Napoleon is a heroic effort, not to “rescue Napoleon from himself,” but, by playing upon his boundless ambition, to prevent him from discovering the extent of Josephine's perfidy, and to rescue Josephine from the consequences of her indiscretion. That the Lady in the end proves faithless to her trust merely transposes the key from tragedy to comedy; and the dramatic excellence of the play is no whit impaired by this characteristically Shawesque conclusion.

[172] I believe that Shaw's Napoleon has never been adequately interpreted save possibly by Max Reinhardt in Berlin. The impersonation I saw at the Court Theatre, London, in June, 1907, was an egregious failure.

[173] Mr. W. K. Tarpey, who called Candida “one of the masterpieces of the world,” relates that some time at the end of 1894, or beginning of 1895, Shaw fell into a calm slumber; in a vision an angel carrying a roll of manuscript appeared unto him. To Shaw, who was no whit abashed, the angel thus spoke: “Look here, Shaw! wouldn't it be rather a good idea if you were to produce a work of absolute genius?” Shaw granted that the idea was not half a bad one, although he did not see how it could be carried out. Then the angel resolved his doubts: “I've got a good play here, that is to say, good for one of us angels to have written. We want it produced in London. The author does not wish to have his name known.” “Oh!” replied Shaw, “I'll father it with pleasure; it is not up to my form, but I don't care much for my reputation.” Shaw undertook the business side of the matter, put in the comic relief, and named the play Candida: a Mystery!

[174] Mr. Arnold Daly was in the habit of opening the third act of Candida by reading the familiar verses of Shelley to an unnamed love:

[175] In a notable conférence on Candida at the Théâtre des Arts, in Paris, preceding a production of that play, during the latter part of May, 1908, Mme. Georgette Le Blanc-Maeterlinck said: “La situation du mari n'est pas neuve, mais elle se présente ordinairement au troisième acte, et elle est toujours tranchée sans que la conscience intervienne, elle est tranchée par la jalousie, par la douleur et la mort. Ici, nous avons affaire à des intelligences meilleures, à des êtres qui essayent de se conduire d'après leur raison et leur volonté la plus haute.... C'est leur effort de sagesse qui les rend absolument illogiques, les soustrait à l'analyse et les rend presque inadmissibles à la lecture; mais c'est parce qu'ils sont illogiques, comme nous tous, qu'ils sont si vivants, si curieux en scène.”—Le Figaro, May 30th, 1908; also L'Art Moderne, September 20th and 27th, 1908.

[176] De Nora à Candida, by Maurice Muret; Journal des Débats, No. 544, June 24th, 1904, pp. 1216-1218.

[177] The Truth about Candida, by James Huneker, Metropolitan Magazine, August, 1904.

[178] Hermann Bahr has acutely observed: “In the Germanic world, the woman wields power over the man only so long as he feels her to be a higher being, almost a saint: so Candida is the transcendent, the immaculate, the pure—the heaven, the stars, the eternal light. And this Candida? There is no doubt that she is an angel. The only question is in which heaven she dwells. There is a first heaven, and a second heaven, and so on up to the seventh heaven. In the seventh heaven, as you well know, Shaw, dwell only the poets; and of the seventh heaven must the woman be, before the worshipful Marchbanks will once kneel to her, if, indeed, it can be said that a poet ever kneels. But your beloved Candida is of a lower heaven—a lesser alp, a thousand metres below, in the region of the respectable bourgeoisie. There is she the saint the Germanic mannikin needs. There she shines—shines for the Morells, the good people who inculcate virtue and solve social questions every Sunday. And it is there that she belongs.”

[179] Vornehmlich über mich selbst, in Program No. 88 of the Schiller Theater, Berlin. This Plauderei appeared originally in the Vienna Zeit in February, 1903, shortly before the production of Teufelskerl in Vienna.

[180] Rezensionen. Wiener Theater, 1901-1903, by Hermann Bahr; article Ein Teufelskerl, pp. 440-453.