Great Catherine (Whom Glory Still Adores) — A Reader’s Guide
Edition facts
Great Catherine (Whom Glory Still Adores) — A Reader’s Guide can be approached with a clearer sense of reading commitment from its source measurements: 17,038 words, 1 hr 15 min estimated reading time, and 3 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 12.7 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “English drama (Comedy),” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
Thus was established an evil tradition; but I at least can plead that it does not always hold good. If Forbes Robertson had not been there to play Caesar, I should not have written Caesar and Cleopatra. If Ellen Terry had never been born, Captain Brassbound's Conversion would never have been effected. The Devil's Disciple, with which I won my cordon bleu in America as a potboiler, would have had a different sort of hero if Richard Mansfield had been a different sort of actor, though the actual commission to write it came from an English actor, William Terriss, who was assassinated before he recovered from the dismay into which the result of his rash proposal threw him. For it must be said that the actor or actress who inspires or commissions a play as often as not regards it as a Frankenstein's monster, and will have none of it. That does not make him or her any the less parental in the fecundity of the playwright.
To an author who has any feeling of his business there is a keen and whimsical joy in divining and revealing a side of an actor's genius overlooked before, and unsuspected even by the actor himself. When I snatched Mr Louis Calvert from Shakespeare, and made him wear a frock coat and silk hat on the stage for perhaps the first time in his life, I do not think he expected in the least that his performance would enable me to boast of his Tom Broadbent as a genuine stage classic. Mrs Patrick Campbell was famous before I wrote for her, but not for playing illiterate cockney flower-maidens. And in the case which is provoking me to all these impertinences, I am quite sure that Miss Gertrude Kingston, who first made her reputation as an impersonator of the most delightfully feather-headed and inconsequent ingenues, thought me more than usually mad when I persuaded her to play the Helen of Euripides, and then launched her on a queenly career as Catherine of Russia.
It is not the whole truth that if we take care of the actors the plays will take care of themselves; nor is it any truer that if we take care of the plays the actors will take care of themselves. There is both give and take in the business. I have seen plays written for actors that made me exclaim, "How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds makes deeds ill done!" But Burbage may have flourished the prompt copy of Hamlet under Shakespeare's nose at the tenth rehearsal and cried, "How oft the sight of means to do great deeds makes playwrights great!" I say the tenth because I am convinced that at the first he denounced his part as a rotten one; thought the ghost's speech ridiculously long; and wanted to play the king. Anyhow, whether he had the wit to utter it or not, the boast would have been a valid one. The best conclusion is that every actor should say, "If I create the hero in myself, God will send an author to write his part." For in the long run the actors will get the authors, and the authors the actors, they deserve.
Great Catherine was performed for the first time at the Vaudeville Theatre in London on the 18th November 1913, with Gertrude Kingston as Catherine, Miriam Lewes as Yarinka, Dorothy Massingham as Claire, Norman McKinnell as Patiomkin, Edmond Breon as Edstaston, Annie Hill as the Princess Dashkoff, and Eugene Mayeur and F. Cooke Beresford as Naryshkin and the Sergeant.
1776. Patiomkin in his bureau in the Winter Palace, St. Petersburgh. Huge palatial apartment: style, Russia in the eighteenth century imitating the Versailles du Roi Soleil. Extravagant luxury. Also dirt and disorder.
Shaw's preface to Great Catherine (Whom Glory Still Adores) explicitly rejects the historical Catherine—the diplomat, conqueror, and liberal reformer—in favor of the Catherine who “still fascinates and amuses us” through her gallantries. The play itself, a one-act comedy in four scenes, delivers on this promise by staging a court encounter that is less about policy than about personal power and embarrassment. The catalog subjects list the work as English comedy and drama about Catherine II, but the excerpts reveal a piece more interested in the mechanics of courtly humiliation and the gap between public reputation and private behavior.
The Author’s Apology as a Thematic Key
Shaw’s preface, titled “The Author’s Apology for Great Catherine,” does not apologize for the play’s levity but instead defends it. He argues that Catherine’s diplomacy and conquests do not interest him, and that the French Revolution “surprised and scandalized her as much as it surprised and scandalized any provincial governess.” This framing is crucial: Shaw presents his Catherine as a creature of court intrigue, not of world-historical forces. The preface also mentions Patiomkin’s sham cities—scenic deceptions built to fool the Empress—which foreshadows the theatrical humbug that drives the play’s comedy. Readers should note that the preface is part of the text, not a separate essay; it sets up the play’s tone of irreverent historical commentary.
The English Captain as a Comic Foil
The excerpt from the first scene introduces Captain Edstaston, an Englishman who is carried into Catherine’s presence against his will. His dialogue is marked by stammering and self-contradiction: he protests being carried, yet admits he “naturally” admired the Empress’s uniform. Catherine and her court, especially the manipulative Varinka, twist his words into a confession of insolent admiration. Edstaston’s claim that “all Europe is a party to that insolence” is met with the Princess Dashkoff’s retort that admiration should be kept “at a respectful distance.” The scene’s comedy hinges on Edstaston’s inability to navigate courtly double-talk, and on Catherine’s sudden shifts from fishwife insults (“Schweig, du Hund”) to regal condescension. This dynamic suggests the play’s interest in the performance of power rather than its substance.
Language and Power in the Courtroom
Shaw’s dialogue in the excerpt layers German, French-inflected English, and blunt commands to create a multilingual power struggle. Catherine switches from a “fishfag” tone to “cold majesty” within lines, while Patiomkin communicates through “agonized wheezing groans.” The courtiers speak in stylized accusations, and Edstaston’s plain English (“I speak as a practical man”) is repeatedly outmatched. The scene ends with Catherine slapping Edstaston’s cheek coquettishly—a gesture that blends violence and flirtation. This blend of tones, from farce to menace, is characteristic of Shaw’s method. The excerpts do not reveal the full plot, but they show that the play’s comedy arises from the collision of English literal-mindedness with Russian courtly artifice.
Because the excerpts cover only the preface and the opening of the first scene, readers should be cautious about inferring the play’s overall arc. The catalog classifies the work as “Adventure & Picaresque Fiction,” but the available text suggests a satirical comedy of manners. Pay attention to how Shaw uses the preface to license his irreverent treatment of a historical figure, and watch for further scenes that may expand on the themes of performance, national character, and the gap between public image and private reality.
I found myself thinking about how Shaw makes Catherine so human, so delightfully unbothered by her own contradictions, and it reminded me of another flawed ruler who lingers this way. There’s a rawness in how their true natures slip through the grand stories we tell. That same quiet ache stays with you after reading King John — A Closer Reading.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
What did you think of this book?
Answer a few questions and save a private reflection on this device.