Rome: Caesar and Brutusarethe turbulent times in the history of Rome;
historical events and historicalfigures are the central subject of the play.
The historical novel and the historical drama are therefore formally very dif-
ferent kinds of stories, with no straight route from one to the other: ifKing
Learwere rewritten as a novel, Lukács claims, it would have Edgar as the
main character and Lear as a minor character, instead of the other way
around.
If we put these strands together, we reach the idea that historical
theatre can present moments of intense conflict, set at a particular
moment in time, with different characters embodying different elements
of the conflict. Lukács’point is, in part, that this mode of presentation is
effective only for certain historical periods, not for others. In support of
his claims, Lukács can point to a number of historical dramas that depict
just the brief, decisive moments of conflict that he is talking about. To
refer back to some examples we have already discussed: Shakespeare’s
Julius Caesardepicts not only a decisive time in the lives of Caesar, Brutus
and so on; it also depicts a significant, volatile and brief period in the
history of Rome (and arguably, by extension, the history of the Western
world). The brief period in which Caesar is assassinated is perfect for
theatrical representation, because it has the right combination of important
historicalfigures and brief, decisive conflicts. The characters embody the
conflict and transition between the old and the new Roman order. One
could make similar points aboutDanton’s Death, Shakespeare’s plays about
the Wars of the Roses, Pushkin’sBoris Godunov(a favourite but lesser
known example of Lukács), or Ibsen’sEmperor and Galilean. In each case,
the plays are set in turbulent, changing times.^32
Lukács’theory of what makes a historical drama successful (as history)
is therefore that it accurately portrays the collisions and conflicts of the
time through the collisions and conflicts of its main characters. In a
restricted sense, then, he would say that what was going on in Rome
when Caesar died is accurately portrayed in Shakespeare’s play, but not in
the sense, perhaps, that our theatregoing companion meant when she
asked her question. This contrasts his approach to history in theatre with
that embodied by Georg II (who insisted on factual accuracy). An example
of this may be found in his attitude towards anachronisms. Clearly, on
Georg II’s approach, historical anachronisms would be an embarrassment:
it’s not acceptable to show a historical character on stage using a piece of
technology that wasn’t available to the historical figure in question.
Hence Georg II corrected Shakespeare’s‘mistakes’. For Lukács, such ana-
chronisms are unproblematic: because history plays are supposed to
represent conflict and collision, they are not measured by how historically
accurate they are with reference to factual details:‘in drama, historical
authenticity means the inner historical truth of the collision’.^33 Indeed,
84 From the World to the Stage