Evening star., 1937-11-21

bered dimly as the source of such quo
men" and lyon Cassius has q lean:
and hungry look" You are likely to
think of it, If at all, as a distant sort
Of historical pageant, in which stately
actors, looking uncomfortable in
clumsily worn togas, dart about the
stage, stabbing each other and shout
ing something about the Ides Of
March. When, however, you are told
that the current presentation does
away with those togas and substitutes
for them trim set Of Fascist uni
forms, the danger is that you will
suspect the whole thing Of being a
hammered and self-conscious stunt. I
can only deny any such idea with
all the vigor at my command. Julius
Caesar" as the new Mercury Theater
does it, is not stunt or the desecra-
ton of a classic or a futile attempt
to breathe artificial life into a corpse.
1t is a moving, exciting and shock
ingly modern play and the best show
Of the year.
Presented as a parable Of dictator
ship, its actors in the grim, dark mill
tary costumes of Fascism, their hands
aloft In opened palm salutes, their
voices raised from time to time in
ominous and reminiscent "Hails!" the
play takes on universal quality that
sardonically justifles it's Cassius' boast:
How many ages hence shall this our
lofty scene be acted over in states
unborn and accents yet unknown"
Not only does 1t become a parable
of Fascism, but likewise it dramatizes
| with eloquent compassion the modern
tragedy of sentimental liberal. Mr..
Brooks Atkinson, the learned critic
of the New York Times, certainly is
not the man to see the sinister
shadows Of Hitler and Mussolini all
| about him. yet am surprised to find
in his review of Julius Caesar" the
| suggestion that Shakespeare perhaps
was an unconscious Fascist centuries
| before the rise of the Duce and the
Feuhrer. There may be evidence Of
this in "Coriolanus," but certainly not
in Julius Caesar" At least not in
the Mercury Theater version. Just
as certain as Brutus is the heart and
spirit of the play. so is Brutus the
completely sympathetic picture of a
doomed liberal in a world of fascism.
A MAN Of tougher fiber and less
sensitive feelings than Brutus.
you realize from Julius Caesar"
might have made a success OF the re-
volt against Caesars tyranny. Cassius
would never have made the great tao
tical error of saving the life of Marc
Antony and permitting him to address
the mob on the tyrant's behalf. Bru-
tus's speech to his fellow country
men was all logic; Antony's was all
demagoguery and false emotion, and
it is always demagoguery that sways
the mob. Free speech is the weapon
Of the rabble-rouser. To this extent, 1t
Is true, Shakespeare does appear to be
on the side Of the Fascist, who has just
that contempt for free speech and
just that need for it only until he can
use 1t to bring him to power. But
you do not have to look far into the
contrasting characters Of Brutus and
Cassius. you need merely listen to
them as they quarrel. to realize this
is not the extent Of the argument of
Julius Caesar" Let Brutus domi-
nate a struggle against tyranny and
the struggle may end tragically, but
at least its doom will be heroic and
something of its greatness of spirit
may survive and yet help men to be
free. But let the callous. though more
practical, Cassius, lead the battle and,
whether he wins or loses, the result
| will be the same, for at least there
merely will be a change of tyrants.
This, at least. must certainly be
the message of Julius Caesar" as it
emerges in the magnificent new pres
entation. There may be, events in
the modern world sometimes seem to
hint. q certain lack of practicality
about it. There is much evidence to
suggest that the liberal who goes in for
pure idealism, who does not realize
that 1t Is sometimes important to use
q bit OF fire with which to fight the
devil. will end in futility and failure.
Perhaps it is true that, in a world of
cruelty ana saVagery, you can fight
such ugly monsters only by indulging
in some Of their tactics. But the play
hardly seems to contend that the ideal
istic liberal should live in an ivory
tower, left he soil himself. Brutus did
know when action was necessary and
he was willing to take part in it. He
understood merely that when the end
justifies the means there always is
danger that the means will become the
end. This may not be good, practical
revolutionary tactics, but it certainly
isn't the advocacy of Fascism.
IT IS obviously true that Shakespeare
had a hatred Of mobs, but it is
hard to see how any one. whether he
contemplates gang of brown shirts
IN Germany or a crowd OF blood