€¦ · chapter i dramatic theory bernard shaw, with emi nently characteristic ge nerosity, has...

BERNARD SHAW

As Art ist-Philosopher :An

Exposit ion of S hav ian ism

By Renée M . D eacon

NEW YOR$

JOHN LANE COMPANY

Copyright, 1910, by

$ 0LA27 1 3 7 3

Con ten ts

The Choice o f ComedyDramatic Consc iousness

B ernard Shaw and the WorldThe Function o f B ernardShaw

Word was in my heart as a burn ing fi re

shut up my bones, and I was weary withforbearing , and I could not s tay.

Chap ter I

D ramatic Theory

BERNARD SHAW, with eminentlych aracteri sti c generos i ty , has given us

several important clues todramatic theory .

These shou ld be care fully studi ed by any

one who Wi she s to understand h i s Vi ewson dramati c art.In th e Pre face to the Pl eas ant Plays heenunci ates the law o f confl i ct . Unity,however des irab le in pol iti c a l agitat ions , i sfata l to drama , s ince every drama must b ethe arti sti c presentation o f a confl i ct . Theend may b e recon c i l iat ion or destruct ion ;or, a s in l i fe i tsel f, there may be no end ;but the confl i ct i s indispensable : no confl ict , no drama .

The dramati c value o f confl i ct i s su

preme , becaus e confl i ct, more than anyother state , exposes cha racter . Browningwas fond o f selecting for delineation testmoments ,” or cri ses in the l ives o f h is

Bern ard Shaw

ch aracters , s ince he h eld tha t thes e moments most truly revea led the men andwomen o f whom he wrote . But a testmoment can supply only the cl imax o f adrama . Susta ined dramati c writing demands

,b es ides these cri ses , s teady and con

t inuous confl i ct and interplay of characte rand emotion . I t a rgues a weakness inBrown ing’s dramati c gen ius that he so frequently i solated these tes t moments fromthe i r normal s etting in the l ives o f h i scharacters . Nevertheless , the idea wh i chlay at th e root o f th i s emphasis o f the tes tmoment, namely, the supreme va lu e o fconfl i ct in th e expos ition o f character, wasa tru e one .We will select fi rst for consi deration con

fl iet o f a rather extreme type that foundin The Devi l ’s D isciple . By means o f thi sconfl i ct the cha racters o f Judith , Dick andAnderson are wholly revealed in l es s thantwo (dramatic) days . Discoveries aremade in that short space o f time whichwould have demanded the slow revelationo f months or yea rs in the ordinary courseo f events .

Dramatic Theo ryHerein , then , l i es the dramatic va lue o f

confl i ct in the rap id and complete expositiou o f character . The more acute theconfl i ct, the more rap id and complete i sthe revelation .

The resu lt i s a mani fold surpri s e for allconcerned . The n e ’er-do-weel , Ri chard ,finds himsel f sacr ific ing his own l i fe to saveanother man . When called Upon to supplya reason for hi s action , he finds h imsel f ata loss . What I did last n ight,” he tell sJudith , I did in cold blood , caring nothal f so much for your husband , or for youa s I do for mysel f. I had no motive andno interest : a ll I can tell you i s tha t wheni t came to the point whether I would takemy neck out o f the noose and put anotherman ’s into i t, I could not do i t . I don ’ tknow why not : I see mysel f as a fool formy pa in s ; but I could not and I cannot . ”

Anthony Anderson , the Presbyter i anmin i ster, finds h imsel f a lso in a contradic

tory pos ition . I thought mysel f a decentmini ste r o f the gospel o f peace ; but whenthe hour o f trial came to me, I found thati t was my destiny to be a man of action ,

Bern ard Shaw

and that my place was amid the thundero f the capta ins and the shouting .

The test o f Judith is o f a d ifferentnature . One conce ives o f her, a fter i t i sover, as o f a woman for whom a ll mora lvalues a re alter ed . For her, a s for so

many in the late n ineteenth and even in theearly twenti eth century, names and labelshad usurped the place o f the sp iri t wh i chthey were intended to s ign i fy. A man wase ither a good or a bad man , according as

h e subscrib ed or did not subscribe tocurrent mora l conventions . I t n eve roccurred to her to test these conventi onsby the s ide o f the h ighest mora l conceptions known to her soul . Suddenly she i sbrought face to face with the Devi l ’s D isciple (whom , in accordance with her code ,she has consci ent iously hated and dreaded)in the act o f sacrific ing h i s l i fe to save herhusband .

The resu lt i s two fold . Firs t 0 k ingo f paradoxes $— she finds hersel f in lovewith th is man , for one moment o f b l indintox i cation with the hero ism o f the new

l i fe that i s in h im . And when th i s i s over,1 2

D ramatic Theoryand the la st agony o f the gallows ha s become l ike the memory of a fea rfuldream

,one conce ives o f her, as I have sa id ,

in the qui et possess ion o f these new va lues ,these strange interpretations o f th e th ings ofthe soul .The confl i ct in The Devi l ’s Di sciple i s ,as we have seen , a violent one . A moresubtle examp l e o f th e dramat i c valu e o fconfl i ct i s afforded by Caesar and Cleopatra .At the open ing o f the play, Cleopatra i sa spo i l t kitten , wont to encourage everywhim , yet in abj ect submiss ion to herNurse Ftatateeta, who rules the $ ueen ’sHousehold with a rod o f i ron . At the endo f the play she i s a woman , who acts forgood or evi l on h er own ini ti ative, andpursues her a ims without mercy .

$ Cleopatra ,” s ays Pothinus , you arechangedfi

Do you speak with Cazsar every dayfor s ix months ,” she returns , and you willb e changed . And she cont inues : WhenI was fool i sh , I did what I l iked

,except

when Ftatateeta beat me ; and even then I

cheated her and did i t by stealth . Now1 3

Bern ard Shaw

that Caesa r has made me wi se , i t i s no usemy l iking or di sl iking : I do what must bedon e , and have no time to attend to mysel f.That i s not happ iness ; but i t i s greatness .In thi s p lay chara cter, and the confl i ct o fcharacter direct events , wherea s in Th eDevi l ’ s Disciple confl i ct o f events revealscharacter .We may take as a second great princ iple

o f dramati c th eory that given in the superbPre face to Man and Superman : i t may bebri efly summar iz ed a s the repudiation o fthe absolute point o f Vi ew . B ernard Shawsays of hi s cha racters : $ They are all rightfrom thei r severa l points o f Vi ew ; and the i rpo ints o f vi ew are , for the dramatic moment, mine also . This may puzz le thepeople who bel i eve that th ere i s su ch ath ing as an ab solutely r ight point o f Vi ew,

usually the ir own . I t may seem to themthat nobody who doub ts th i s can b e in astate o f grace . However that may be , i t iscerta inly true tha t nobody who agrees withthem can possibly b e a dramatist

,or indeed

anyth ing else that turns upon a knowledgeo f mank ind .

D ramati c Theo ryDuring the period o f d ramati c creation

the dramati st b ecomes i dentified with eachof h i s characters in tu rn .

‘ As they a re,so

i s he . The grea ter th e dramat i st, the morefully th i s identification b ecomes possib le .Thus a lso i t comes about tha t th e philosopher-dramati st exerci s es the m ost god-l ikeo f all a rt-funct ions , because s ince he cancomprehend the l ives and purposes o fm any men , he must b e h imsel f e ither as

grea t or greater than any o f them , and his

understanding o f the univers e above and

b eyond th eirs . He is -Superman ,$ tha twh ich i s beyond man , and greater. Thata lways s eems to me a curious obj ection ,wh i ch G . $ . Chesterton has made to B ern ard Shaw, to the cflect tha t he does notrepresent mankind . In a ll consc i ence ,h ave we not $ mankin d enough $ Andto what h as i t b rought u s , th i s mass o f automat ical ly working, l iving, loving , nonth inking human i ty $ To a soci a l o rderwh i ch renders the name o f civi l ization 3

It shou ld be c lear ly un ders t ood, howev er , that the phi losoph er -d ramati s t s hith er to hav e been

$acciden tal Supermen

an d n ot The Superman as an t icipat ed in the Appendix to

Man and Superman .

Bern ard Shaw

m ockery and a shame . Let us welcomea genius who can ofler us someth ing morethan common humani ty i s able to do .

I have just sta ted that we may say o f the'

Shav i an charact ers in r ela tion to B erna rdShaw h ims el f that , for the dramati c mo

ment,” as they are so i s h e . I t wi ll be seen .

tha t the proposition i s equally t rue wh enreversed . As h e i s , so they§are.

” In thePre fa ce to The S an ity of Art he gives ush i s clue to his cha ra cters.

$ As a dram at ist I have no clue to any h i s tori ca l or otherpersonage save that part o f h im wh i ch i sa lso mysel f, and wh i ch may be n ine-tenth so f h im or n inety-n ine hundredths, as thecase may b e (i f, indeed , I do not transcendth e creatu re ), bu t wh i ch , anyhow, i s all

tha t can ever come with in my knowledge o fhi s soul .”

I t i s mos t interesting to cons ider th eShavi an po rtra its from thi s standpoint .Taking into a ccount the plays publ i sh edup to the tim e of writing

,Tanner

,Caesa r,

and Andrew Undersha ft reveal the Shav i anm ind in the greatest degree . I do not meanfor one moment that the resemblance i s an

Dramatic Theo rya ffa i r o f outward fact . But, in the case ofTanner for instan ce, the mould in whichthe man i s cast i s essenti ally Shavi an : theTanneresque method o f grappling with l i feat close quarters , un sparing o f strength andenergy : o f thinking o f other people ’ s ne

cessit ies instead o f h i s own or anybodyelse ’s $ con founded princip les ,” i s eminently characteri sti c o f Mr . Shaw himsel f.In the Pre face to Man and Superman i t

i s stated that Phi losoph ica lly , D on Juani s a man gi fted enough to be exceptionally capable of distingu ish ing between goodand evi l . This po int must b e dwelt on ,

because i t follows from i t tha t Tanner(who i s the phi losoph i c D on Juan ) i s aninca rnate challenge to the current standardso f l i fe and morali ty . That any advance inmorals must be preceded by such a challengei s made clear in The Sanity o f Art Everystep in moral s i s made by challenging theval idi ty o f the exist ing conception o f perfeet propriety o f conduct. ”Finally, a last quotation from Man and

Superman will i llustrate supremely the prec ise qual ity o f the Shavian temper . Thus

Bern ard Shaw

Don Juan , bored to extinction in hell : I

tel l you that a s long as I can conce ive someth ing better than mysel f I cannot b e ea syun less I am striving to bring it into existence or clearing the way for it . That i sthe law o f my l i fe . That i s . the workingwithin me o f Li fe ’ s incessant asp irationto higher organ ization

,wider, deeper , in

ten ser sel f-con sc iousness,and clea rer sel f

understanding .

Andrew Undersha ft, a lthough on thesurface a very d ifferent person from Tan

ner , i llustrates the Shav i an mind in muchthe

same way . They ar e at one, for example, on the question o f the fa ll ib i l ity o fcommon j udgment a s regards r ight andwrong . In a delightfu l passage , LadyBritomart discusses with her son her husband ’ s weakness in th i s respect

I rea lly cannot bear an immoral man .

I am not a Phari see, I hOpe ; and I shouldnot have minded h i s merely doing wrongth ings : we are none of us perfect . Butyour father didn ’ t exactly do wrong thingshe sa id them and thought them : tha t waswhat was so dreadful . You would all

Bern ard ShawYou are pleased to be facetious . I pretend to nothing more than any honorab le English gent leman

c laim s as his birth right . [He sits down angrily ]Tanner, Cze sar , and Undersha ft are a ll

a l ike in one respect they regard themselves a s in struments of the Li fe Force , or,to use an older phrase , o f the Div ine Will .They exist, not for persona l ends ambition , happiness , and the l ike but to fulfila purpose which i s infinitely greater thanthese . Th i s point o f Vi ew is essentia llyShavian . So in the Pre face to Man and

Superman :$ Th i s i s the true joy in l i fe ,

the b eing used for a purpose recogn i z ed byyoursel f a s a mighty one ; the being thoroughly worn out b e fore you are thrown on

the scrap heap , the b eing a force o f Natureinstea d o f a feveri sh selfish l ittl e clod of

a i lments and grievances compla in ing thatth e world wi ll not devote itsel f to makingyou happy . And also the on ly real tragedyin l i fe i s the be ing used by personallyminded men for purposes which you recogn i z e to b e base .”

Andrew U ndershaft’

s parti cular methodo f fulfil l ing the purpose o f the Li fe Force

Dramatic Theo ryi s th e direction o f the cannon foundrythe Undersha ft inheri tance . ” He does

not regard th i s busin ess a s h i s own possess i on with which he may do as he pleases : hei s rather possessed by it .LADY BRITOMAR’

: To think o f all that [ indicat ing the town ] being yours $ and that you havekept it to yoursel f al l these years $UNDERSHAFT : It does not belong to m e. I be long

to it . I t is the Undershaft inheritance .

Aga in,when Undersha ft says tha t i f

Cusin s succeeds to the foundry he mustkeep the true fa ith o f an Armorer ,” th ati s,

$ to give arms to a ll men who offer anhones t p ri ce for them , without respect o fpersons or prin ciples : the following con

versation en suesCUS IN S : I shal l sel l cannons to whom I please and

refuse them to whom I p lease. S o there $UNDERSHAFT : From the moment when you become

Andrew Undershaft , you wi l l never do as you pleaseagain . Don ’t come here lusting for power , young man .

CUS IN S : I f power were my aim I should not

come here for it . You have no power.UNDERSHAFT : None of my own , certain ly.

CUS IN S : I have more power than you, more w il l .You do not drive this p lace : it drives you. And

what drives the p lace $2 1

Bern ard ShawUNDERSHAFT [en igmatical ly ] : A w i l l of which I

am a part .The same princip le that o f fulfi ll ing

the purpose o f the Li fe Force an imatesCaesa r ’s l i fe . The grea t lesson which Cleopatra learns from h im is that she must do ,not what she l ikes , but what must b edone .” $ Now that Cn sar has made mewise , she says , $ i t i s no use my l iking or

di sl iking : I do wha t must b e done .That i s not happiness ; but i t i s greatness .Caesa r does not make cla ims upon l i fe

he recogn izes instead that l i fe lays cla im tohim . He gives utterance to th i s i dea in acharacteri st i c speechRUFIO : Caesar : I am loth to let you go to Rome

w ithout your sh ie ld. There are too many daggersthere.

CE SAR : It matters not : I shal l fin ish my l i fe ’

work on my way back ; and then I shal l have livedlong enough .

The same point i s very str ik ingly exemplified towards the close o f Man andSuperman .

TANNER : We do the world’

s w il l , not our own .

I have a fright ful feel ing that I shal l let mysel f be2 2

Dramatic Theo rymarried because it is the world ’

s w i l l that you shouldhave a husband.

The idea wh i ch underl i es a l l these passages i s magn ificen t ly summed up inAct III o f Man and SupermanDON JUAN : I te l l you, gent lemen ,

if you can shew

a man a p iece o f what he now cal ls God’

s work to do,and what he w il l later on cal l by many new names ,

you can make him entirely reckless o f the conse

quences to h imsel f personal ly.In the Pre face to Three Plays for Pur i

tans,Bernard Shaw works out the thes i s

that $ there can be no new drama withouta new philosophy .

” He po ints out tha tthe wri ting o f practi cab le stage plays does

not present an infinite scope to humantalent : the summit o f dramati c art $ hasbeen atta ined aga in and aga in .

” He citesLear (tragedy), Peer Gyn t (comedy),Don Giovann i (opera ), the N iblung

s Ring(musi c drama ) in proof o f th is . Then inone sentence he reaches th e heart o f theproblem :

$ I t i s the philosophy,the out

look On l i fe, that changes , not the cra ft o fthe playwright .

I f men find themselves in oppos i tion to23

Bern ard Shaw

the conceptions and idea ls o f l i fe and conduct

,wh i ch preva il in the i r generation ,

they must, i f they write plays, write themin terms o f thei r own phi losophy .

” Forth i s reason there can be no new dramawithout a new ph ilosophy .

Aga in , a modern author cannot hope tosurpas s th e art o f Shakespear . What hecan hope to do , i s to say someth ing whichShakespea r d id not say : something wh i ch ,l ike Caesa r, was not in Shakespear, nor inthe epoch , now fast waning, wh i ch in

augurated.

Chap ter II

The Revolt Again s t

Rom ance

SHAW speaks o f Romance as the grea theresy to be swept from Art and Li fe .I t should be noted , however, that the wordRomance as used by h im in thi s connectionmay be properly understood to mean thedegeneration o f the Romantic i dea .For o f the strangen ess and the b eauty

and the wonder o f Romance l i fe 18 indeedfull, and o f it Bernard Shaw takes amplea ccount in h is plays . But he will havenoth ing to do with the false glamour whichi s ca st over art and love by romance becomedegenerate . His plays from th is po int o fVi ew may b e regarded as one continuousprotest aga inst the romanti c vi ew o f love,culminating in Man and Superman . Shaw ’ spoint o f view is above all th ings analyti c .He i s in the world but not o f i t . He has

Bern ard Shaw

a godlike immunity from its preoccupationwith itsel f : hence h i s a tt i tude towards lovei s di spass ionate, a lthough hi s treatmen t o fi t n ever la cks pass ion . He refuses , l ikeTanner in Man and Superman , to b e e itherthe slave o f love or its dupe .It i s a great falla cy to in fer from what

has j ust been sa id that Bernard Shaw bel i ttles love . On the con trary, he places i tfa r higher in the un iversa l sch eme than dothose who pro fess themselves i ts mostardent advocates . How do you know ,

says Don Juan , tha t love i s not thegreatest o f a ll the relations $ far too grea tto be a persona l matter Man and Superman i llustrates thi s theme . Love betweenthe sexes , cons idered from the external andanalyti c po in t o f Vi ew, i s Nature

’s devicefor the fulfi lmen t o f her great purposethe continuance o f the race . The man and

woman are merely her agents . They areprompted and in sp i red by the Divine Will ,or as Shaw would call i t, the Li fe Force , toends far tran scending thei r own persona lplea sure . Valentine describ es the pos itiono f the lovers admirab ly in You Never Can

Bern ard Shaw

woma '

n a lways takes the 1n 1t 1at 1ve. In h i sproblem p lays and his popular plays a likethe love interest i s the interest o f see ingthe woman hunt the man down . She maydo i t by blandi shment, l ike Rosal ind , o r bystra tagem , l ike Mariana ; but in every ca sethe relati on between the woman and theman is the same : she i s the pursuer and

con tr iver, he the pursued and disposedo f.”

For the woman ’ s j ustification , we mustlook to the closing scene o f Man andSuperman .

TANNER : [seiz ing her in his arms] : I love you.

The Li fe Force en chants m e : I have the wholeworld in my arm s when I clasp you . But I am

fighting for my freedom ,for my honor, for my se l f,

one and indivisib le .

ANN : Your happiness w ill be worth them all .

TANNER : You would se l l freedom and honor andsel f for happ iness $ANN : It w i l l not be all happ iness for me . Per

haps death .

To further the purpose o f the Li fe Forcewoman takes the supreme ri sk . She puts

$ Man and Superman : Preface, p. xvi.28

Revo l t Again s t Roman ce

her own l i fe to the hazard , that she maycreate another l i fe .Bernard Shaw has twi ce analysed thecri ti ca l moment in the love encounter themoment when the Li fe Force gain s i tspoint, so to speak . These two accounts aremarvellously deta i l ed and minute ; theyoccur in You Never Can Tell (end of

Act II) and in Man and Superman (end o fAct IV).

The ch i e f point to notice about the cri seswhich are here ana lysed i s that the woman ’ smomen t o f weakn ess i s the man ’s momento f strength . Throughout the man may bevacil lat ing, reluctan t, uncerta in o f h i s goalthe woman determined

,s ingle o f purpose

un faltering in a im . Curiously enough , a tthe supreme moment she falters on thethreshold ; and with divine economy o fforce th e man sudden ly p lucks up courageand car ri es her over i t . So in You NeverCan Tell : Glori a has b een comparatively a ther ease with Va lentin e ever s ince thei r firstmeeting : he has been uneasy and restless ,hi s excitement increas ing a s he i s en tangledmore and more inextri cably in the meshes

Bern ard Shaw

o f hi s love . Now comes the cr it i ca lmomen tVALENTINE [in an agony of restrained passion ]

Oh, don’t p ity me. Your voice is tearing my heart

to pieces . Let me alon e, Glor ia . You go down intothe very depth s o f m e, t roub l ing and stirring me

I can ’t struggle w ith it— I can’t te l l you $

GLORIA [breaking down sudden ly ] : Oh, stop tel ling m e what you fee l : I can ’t bear it .VALENTINE [springing up t riumphan t ly, the ago

nised voice now sol id, ringing, and j ub ilan t] Ah,it

come at last—my m om en t o f courage . [He seiz es

her hands : she looks at him in terror . ] Our mo

men t o f courage $ [He draws her to h im ; kisses herwith impetuous strengt h ; and laughs boyish ly ] .

Now you’ve done it , Gloria. It’

s al l over : we ’re inlove w ith one another. [ S he can on ly gasp at h im . ]But what a dragon you were $ And how h ideous lya fraid I was $

Romance in Shaw ’s p lays depends onrea li ty for i ts b as is . He has the philosopher

s impati en ce to get to real i ti esRea li ty, as he trul y says, being the one

th ing wh ich the majori ty o f playgoer swish to escape from . That i s b ecause the i rown l ives are so sord id that they despa i r offinding beau ty, happ iness , or Divin i ty inconnection with the rea l world , and depart

in search o f them into the fool ’ s Paradiseo f popula r roman ce .”To them Romance i s a drug , ..n opiate

l ike the Ori enta l hasch isch , which providesi ts vi ctims with marvellous dreams . Thisconception o f l i fe and roman ce i s a t theOpposite pole to that wh ich we find inShaw ’ s plays . Here an ever- increas ingcon sc iousness o f l i fe i s the idea l a imed at .On ly by facing facts can we hope to redeemthe world : and without the redemptiono f the world individua l well-be ing i s imposs ib le : a man $ must save the world ’shonor i f he i s to save his own .

” BernardShaw dispose s o f various fa llac i es. in thedramati c treatmen t o f love . He revoltsaga inst the modern idealizat ion o f love .Love can tr ansfigure but cannot trans form .

Love can ’ t give any m an new gi fts . I tcan on ly heighten the gi fts he was bornwith .

The lovers do not th ink one anotherper fect : they a re keen ly con scious

on ly o f beauty, but a lso of de fect . Lovepers i sts and tr iumphs in sp i te o f, not because of, the de fect . No lover really loves

Bern ard Shaw

his lady’s faults . He loves the lady, andcondon es the faults for her sake : o ften ,indeed , consciously dece ives himsel f aboutthem . Neither i s love all-conquering , aswe have been led to b el i eve . Tr ifl ingdiflicult ies in the path o f love a ssumeabnormal proportion s .In the l ight o f thi s conception o f love ,

based on reality and free from illus ion , th ecry o f Mrs . George in Getting Marri edbecomes s imple o f understanding : Takeme as I am , take me as I am .

” I t i s a s i fshe sa id : Take me a s I am , because I haveno power o f changing mysel f : because Ilove you , and i f you love me not, am losta s I am , because I am destined for you , andon ly so can our destiny be fulfi lled . Takeme as I am , because you alone know what Iam

,and thus you alone are capable o f

evoking that which i s latent in me .”Examp les could b e multipl i ed from the

Plays o f th e freedom from illusionwhich characteri zes love . In Arms and th eMan i t i s prec i sely the true knowledge o fhersel f which he d isp lays that attractsRa ina to B luntschl i .

RAINA [wonderingly] D o you know, you are the

first man I ever m et who did not take me seriously $BLUNTSCHLI : You m ean , don

’t you,that I am the

first man that has ever taken you quite seriously $RAINA : Yes, I suppose I do mean that .In You Never Can Tell Va len tin e tells

Glori a what he thinks of her without fearor favour and advances hi s su it verymateri ally thereby .

VALENTINE : You ’re a prig—a fem in ine prigthat ’s what you are .

I f he had made love to her in the tradit ional fash ion she would have d isposedo f him very quickly : he di d make anattemp t in that di rect ion before he learntto know wisdom , i. e. Glori aVALENTINE [pretending to forget h im sel f ] : How

could that m an have so beautiful a daughter $GLORIA [taken aback for a momen t : then an swer

ing h im w ith po l ite but in ten tional con tempt ] Thatseem s to be an attempt at what is cal led a prettyspeech . L et m e say at once, Mr . Valen tine, thatp retty speeches make very s ickly conversation .

The same freedom from illus ion in thelover may be found in Widowers ’ Housesand The Philanderer . In Widowers ’

Bern ard Shaw

Houses Blan che makes an a ttempt to ma inta in i dea l extern al rela tion s b etween hersel fand her lover : but she breaks down lamen tably : and when she and Trench finallymake up the ir quarrel they do so with aclea r knowledge o f one anoth er ’s weaknesses . In The Ph i l anderer Jul ia does nottry to concea l her fau lts from the man

she loves ; and Charteri s , wishing to propit iate Grace , makes a feeble effort to concea l his , which she sees through at once .

The dénouement i s brought about by aclea r understanding o f each other on thepart o f all concerned , except in the case o fPa ramore

,the inveterate ideal i s t whom

we have always with us .Man and Superman i s the b est proo f o f

the case in point . In i t we see Love , apoten t force , moving inexorably to thea ccompli shmen t o f i ts purpose , fully con

scious— and th i s i s al l- importan t— o f

what i t i s doing . Neither Ann nor Tannerhave any i llu s ion s about ea ch other . Tan

ner expresses h i s opin ion of Ann prettyfrankly in his conversation with Mrs .Whitefield towards the end o f the Fourth

Bern ard Shaw

Not only does Shaw deal with love considered intrins i ca lly from a new point o fView . In hi s plays h e readjusts the dramati c relat ion s between love and the world .

When h e began to write,love was regarded

a s the staple materi a l o f Drama . The loveinterest was supposed to be the one unfa i ling interest for old and young, and to th iscons ideration all others were subordinate .In Shaw ’ s plays love i s presen ted to us , aswe see i t in l i fe , in relation with other grea ti ssues . I t i s a ffected by a thousand complexities o f though t and action , chara cterand destiny . In a word , love occupi es inthe plays , as in l i fe i tse l f, a relat ive pos ition .

Two examples may be noted o f Shaw ’sprotest aga inst the soph i st i cat ion o f ourconsciousness by the ideal ization o f love ata ll costs . In the one case he protestsaga inst the bel i ttl ing o f fri endsh ip betweenone man and another . Th is occurs inJohn Bull ’ s Other I sland .

NORA : You seem very fond of Tom, as you cal lh im .

LARRY [the t rivial ity going sudden ly out of his

voice] : Yes : I am fond o f Tom.

Later on the question recurs .NORA : You care more for him than you ever did

for me.

LARRY [w ith curt sincerity] : Yes o f course I dowhy should I tel l you l ies about it $The other examp le occurs in Th e Dev i l’sDisciple . Dick Dudgeon has taken Anthouy Anderson ’s place and i s about to b ehanged a s a rebel . Judith, Anderson ’swi fe, bel i eves hersel f to b e in love withDick , and tri es to persuade h im tha t he hassaved her husband for h er sake .RICHARD : I f I said—to p lease you— that I did

what I did eve r so l itt le for your sake, I l ied as men

always l ie to women . You know how much I havelived with worth less men—aye, and w ith worth lesswomen too. We l l, they could al l rise to some sorto f goodness and kindness when they were in love[the word love comes from him with t rue Puritanscorn ] . That has taught me to set very little storeby the goodness that on ly comes out red hot . WhatI did last n ight, I did in cold b lood, caring not hal fso much for your husband, or [ ruth lessly] for you[ she droops, stricken ] as I do for mysel f. I had no

motive and no interest : al l I can tel l you is that whenit came to the poin t whether I would take my neckout o f the noose and put another man ’

s into it, Icould not do it . I don ’t know why not : I see mysel f as a fool for my pains ; but I could not and I

Bern ard Shaw

cannot . I have been brought up standing by the lawo f my own nature ; and I may not go again st it , gallows or no gallows . [S he has s low ly raised her

head and is now looking ful l at him .] I should havedone the same for any other man in the town, or any

other man ’

s wi fe.

In sp i te o f a ll that has b een sa id , somemay sti l l b e found who will deny to Bernard Shaw any gi ft for producing purelyromanti c beauty In answer I will g ivesome examples o f romanti c b eauty fromthe plays .Take in the first place , the character o f

Eugene , in Candi da , a character conce ivedand executed in the very spiri t o f t o

mance . Th ink Of the passage in wh i chEugen e speaks , first o f love, and o f thedumbness o f love , which i s the world ’s tragedy ; then o f the i dea l he des ires for thewoman he loves . What i s th i s but ro

mance , romance wh i ch i s the l i fe and soulo f rea l ity, not a vague dream conceivedapart from li fe

,but a vita l a sp iration grow

ing out o f l i fe , part p rayer, part ecstasy .

I wish I could find a country to l ive inwhere the facts were not bruta l and thedreams not unreal .”

Surely these words o f Larry ’ s , ri s ing outo f the deep p laces of his soul , afford thebest answer to anyon e who denies Shaw ’ spower to conceive wonder and beauty .

They are a p rayer for the p er fect real i ty .

Read , too , Caesar’s speech be fore th e

Sphinx, D ubedat’s dy ing speech in The

Doctor ’ s Dilemma , and the trance speecho f Mrs . George in Getting Marri ed , i f youwould understand the work o f B ernardShaw from th i s the romanti c po int o fV1ew.

Chap ter I I I

The Cho ice of Com edy

COMEDY, con s idered in i ts essence ,represents the forces o f l i fe a s opposed

to th e forces of death , the latter , in agreater or less degree , forming the subj ectof tragedy. When we speak of a tragics i tuation

,we mean an imposs ible one, out

o f which there is no means o f escapesave death . S im i larly, comedy plays thechie f part in all those s i tuation s which arecapable o f furth ering l i fe in its variousmani festations .Anyone who has come thus fa r wi th me

wi l l agree that the subj ect with which Bern ard Shaw l s primari ly concerned 18 alwaysthe same namely, l i fe .DON JUAN : S o would I en j oy the contemp lation

o f that wh ich in terests me above al l th ings : name lyLi fe : the force that ever strives to attain greate rpower of contemp lat ing itsel f.

.The Cho ice o f Com edyHere Shaw defines the obj ect o f the

Li fe Force a s th e atta inmen t o f con

sciousness. Hence i t i s not strange thathe should set a high value on comedy,for in his Dramati c Opin ion s he gives usthe following di ctum :

$ The function ofcomedy i s to di spel unconsciously bymean s o f analys i s .”A whole chapter could b e written on the

p lays from thi s po int o f Vi ew alon e . I f youthink o f i t, that i s one o f th e greatest serv i ces which Bernard Shaw has rendered toh i s gen eration : to di spel unconsciousness . A good hal f o f the suffering andfa i lure in the world i s due to th i s state ofunconsciousn ess wh i ch we are in . And

those who ra i l a t Shaw as an i conoclastforget that much o f th i s very unconsciousness wh ich he has don e so much to dispel i sdue to an accumulation o f traditional andconventiona l i deal i sm out o f which thespiri t h as passed , leaving the dry bones o fform as so much hindrance to our progressin the future .I t i s in th i s sen se that he speaks o f

comedy a s $ the fine a rt o f d is i llus ion4 1

Bern ard Shaw

wh i ch , qu ite apart from h i s own plays, i tcerta inly i s . Go back to Shakespear, takeFalstaff, the most comic figure in a worldo f comedy ; out o f what does the humouro f Falstaff a ri se save out o f the ins ight weget into hi s foll i e s and weaknesses , bymeans Of the searchl ight o f analys is ,thrown on h im by Shakespear $ Out o fthe $ fine art o f d is i llus ion in fact .Hence i t may b e sa i d o f Shavian drama

as a whole that i t i s wri tten in the comic(or l i fe-giv ing) sp ir i t .George Meredith has spoken o f

$ theu ses o f comedy in teach ing the world tounderstand wha t a i ls i t.” The idea i s afine one . Th i s heal ing effect o f comedy i sconstantly to b e seen a t work in B ernardShaw ’s plays . I t i s in th i s d irection amongothers that h e makes good h i s t itle to philosopher. For i f he were s imply an arti sth e might b e content to present u s withcomedi es in the vein o f Mr . SomersetMaugham, whose witty and delightfulplays have obta ined so great a vogue . ButShaw has a purpose b eyond any wh i ch Mr.Maugham has at present revea led to us .

Bern ard Shaw

modern drama o f its t ime . But behind allth i s mass o f popular drama the class i ca ldram a wi l l qu ietly grow in power, and

wil l gradually come into i ts own .

Thus i t i s poss ible to meet ca lmly theoutcry which i s ra i sed on every s ide withregard to the Shaw plays . Con stantly oneh ears the comment : Very witty and ih

terest ing ; but i t i sn’ t drama , you know .

Now the question i s , what is drama $ The

answer i s a s imple one : i t i s one thingyesterday, and another th ing to-morrow :

and meanwh i l e, i t i s in a transi tion state ,and i t i s s imple waste o f time and energy tospeculate on what i t wil l b ecome : B ernardShaw i s noth ing i f he i s not a p ioneer ;one who fearlessly crosses the old sacredfronti ers o f tragedy and comedy, and findsbeyond a ground none the less sacred

cause it i s h i therto untraversed by them ind o f man . Speak ing o f drama , he oncesa id :

$ The end may be reconci l i ation ordestruction ; or , as in life itself, there maybe no end I have a lways thought that thesentence wh i ch I have ita l ic i sed ought torece ive parti cular emphasi s in any consid

The Cho ice of Comedyerat ion of Shavian form . All the p laysi llustrate the idea more or less . Sp i ri tually

there i s no final curta in in any of them .

Take Major Barbara as an examp le . Thething is vi ta l : you cannot con ce ive that i tceases to l ive when i t van i shes from yours ight . You can see Cus in s arriv ing at s ixO

’clock n ext morn ing, gently grumblingand whimsi cally p retending to rub his eyesa t the early hour : you can see Barbara ,with her eager, fervent face , going in and

out o f the model dwell ings in the l ittlewhite town . You know that U ndersha ftwill l abour to his l i fe ’s end to fulfi l thedestiny h e has revealed to you : and thatLady Bri tomart wi l l continue to get herown excellen t way with the utmost pol i ten ess and absence o f cons ideration for otherp eop l e ’ s feel ings . You can see Sarah andCholly settl ing down to a fashionab l e existence in the West End, and hear an echo asthei r carriage rolls past you in the street,$You know there i s a certa in amount o ftosh aboutOne may a lso mention here the fact that

there i s no such th ing a s $

p oeti c j ust ice45

Bern ard Shaw

in the Shaw plays . But there i s v ita lj u sti ce : as a man sows , so does he reap ,(which i s qu ite a di fferen t thing) . Man ’ sdestiny i s fulfilled from within , i t i s not anexternal Force imposed on him from without . Hen ce in Shavian drama the neatending, m which the wicked repent, and thegood are j ustified , i s not more commonthan in l i fe . Writing in Tom Jones onmodern com edy, Fielding describes theerror into wh ich the writers o f h i s t imehave fa llen :

$ their heroes generally arenotorious rogues

, and th e ir hero ines abandoned j ades , during the first four acts ;but in the fi fth

,the former b ecome very

worthy gentlemen , and the la tter women o fvirtu e and discretion . He adds , n a ively$ Th ere i s

,indeed , no other reason to b e

a ssigned for i t, than b ecause the play i sdrawing to a conclus ion .

The whole falla cy which i s involved here

,and in the

$ happy ending ” theory gen erally, i s en

t irely ignored by Bernard Shaw TakeWidowers’ Houses a s an example . Thereyou see the problem working out exactly asi t would have done in l i fe . Sartorius flour

The Cho ice of Comedyi shes from first to last like a green bay tree .There is no repentance and no change o f

fron t . Throughout he puts h i s case withthe utmost dexterity . When all h i s ski llfa i l s to h ide the hell out o f which h is moneyi s dragged , Trench

’s fear o f los ing £450per annum (however obta ined) plus thecerta inty o f los ing B lanche (Sartorius ’daughter) proves qu ite .too much fo r h i soutraged sen se o f just i ce

,and he decides

to$ stand in .

” A less truthfu l dramati stwould have given us Trench at bay , heroically decla iming on the sufferings of th epoor, and a farewell scen e with Blanche, inthe I could not love th ee , dear, so much ,loved I not honour more ve in .

Such s i tuation s may b e very effective onthe stage , but a s a matter o f fact they donot occur in l i fe .I t i s interesting to cons ider Shav i an

drama in the l ight of Meredith ’ s Essay onComedy . There are many po ints o f contact . In the first p lace

,Meredith ins i sts

on Comedy as a social art . He speaks o f$ Soci ety, or tha t a ssemb lage o f mindswhereo f the Comic sp iri t has i ts origin .

Bern ard Shaw

Now no dramati c author h itherto has ins i sted so strongly on the soci a l s ide o f l i fea s Bern ard Shaw . Take the plays fromfirst to last ; there i s not one o f them towhich th i s principle may not be applied .

The Pleasant Plays dea l d irectly with socia lfoll i es : The Unpleasan t Plays, with soc ia lhorrors . In Three Plays for Puritans theapp l i cation i s l es s l itera lly obvious : butthe Comi c Sp iri t re ign s supreme in themnevertheless . What else i s a t the root o fthe del ight ful contrast b etween Dick Dudgeon and hi s family in th e in im itable scenea t the reading o f the Will $ Caesar andCleopatra i s an essent i ally comedic revel .John Bull ’ s Other I sland carri es theSoci a l principle a step further and givesyou the a ffa irs o f a whole nation , an entire ,

type o f soci a l l i fe , a s the background toyour scene . In Maj or B arbara Shaw goesback to the soc i a l p roblem - the problemof poverty and dea ls with i t in masterlyfa sh ion . There can be no more convinc ingproo f o f h i s essentia lly comedic outlookthan that he i s able to extract from the masso f sordid and tragi c fact conta ined in th e

The Cho ice of Come dyPre faces , the t ransfigurat ion o f Maj orBarbara which closes the play .

I t i s clear from what I have sa id that thefollowing reproach , l evelled by Mereditha t Engli sh comedy, no longer holds good .

He says : $Our Engl i sh school has not

clearly imagined Soci ety ; and o f the mindhovering above congregated men andwomen

,i t ha s imagined nothing .

From the first, Bernard Shaw hasClearly imagin ed soci ety .

” He has ohserved and an alysed our soci a l order withunerring and un faltering courage and ac

curacy .

I need only to re fer h ere to the previou schap ter on the Revolt aga in s t Romance toprove that Mr . Shaw agrees w ith Meredith in regarding the sent imentali st, i.e .

the man who re fuses to face facts,as one o f

the chi e f opponents o f the Comic .The question o f woman ’s position in

comedy i s a ltogether fascinating . First o fall I should say taking the deeper a spect o f the question first— that woman ’ srelation with the Li fe Force and herstrength o f in iti ative in that relation are

Bern ard Shaw

essenti a lly comedic, a lthough they Oftenborder on tragedy. Comedy mean s l i fe,and Woman i s by her very nature boundto further l i fe . Take the fol lowing quotation from the Dream Act in Man andSuperman

ANA Tel l me : where can I find the S nperman $THE DEVIL : He is not yet created, Senora.

ANA : Not yet created $ Then my work is not yetdone. [Crossing herse l f devout ly] I be lieve in the

Life to Come. [Crying to the Un iverse] A fathera. father for the S uperman $

Primari ly and essentia l ly, and withoutregard to spec ia l cases , woman

’ s functionin the un iverse i s to create l i fe and man ’ sto nour i sh i t. $ That m en should putnouri shment first and women ch i ldren first13, broadly speaking , the law o f Natureand not the di ctate o f personal amb i tion .

Further, Woman by he r domesti c l abouri s continua lly bu i lding up the forces inman and so continu ing her orig inal work .

Th i s work o f hers i s further compl icatedand rendered del ight ful by the fact thatwhere her a ffect ions a re engaged she i s a lso

Bern ard Shaw

comedy in the Shaw plays . Without suchfreedom i t i s obv iou s

,for instance , that the

adventures o f Maj or Barbara and the escapades o f Lady C icely, not to speak o f whatI once hea rd called the di sgrace ful meander ings

” o f Ann , would have been impossib le. Not only so , but the whole attitude towards women in th ese plays , thedeta i led way in which the i r personal iti e sa re revea led , a s i f i t were pre-eminentlyworth while to revea l them ; a s i f theywere des i rab l e b eings in themselves , andnot merely put into the world as mean s toan end , however noble a ll th i s a ccountsfor the unique charm and fascination exercised by these women over '

our imaginations . Th e prominent part played bywomen in Shaw ’ s p lays should also benoted . Here aga in the plays prove Meredith

s thes i s : Comedy l i fts women to astation offering them free play for theirwi t, a s they u sually show it, when theyhave i t, on th e s ide o f sound sense . Thehigher the Comedy, the more prominentthe part they en j oy in i t .” Candida , LadyCicely, Major Barbara , Mrs . George to

The Cho ice of Comedyhave reduced thei r influence by a ha ir’sbreadth would have been to have doneuntold wrong to the l ives and destinies o fm en . I was once at a great meeting ad

dressed by Mr . Shaw , a t the end o f wh ichhe was ba i ted as usual by innumerab lequestion ers , ti l$ a t last a l ittl e woman rosefa r off in the gallery and a sked , $ Whatabout the position o f women $ ” Therewas the slightest poss ib le touch o f impat ience in Mr . Shaw ’ s voice a s he repli edthat he really could not b e expected to trea to f that subj ect at such a late hour. WhenI l i stened to the trance speech o f Mrs .George a t the Haymarket Theatre, Iknew that the l i ttle woman had got herrep ly .

Wi th regard to the sound sense o fwomen ’s wi t in Comedy, the examples Ihave ci ted will serve excellently ; but Ishould l ike to emphas ize in parti cula r thecase o f Lady Cicely Waynflete in Capta inBrassbound

s Conversion . Her wit maybest be described in the words wh i ch Meredith has appl i ed to Moliere . I t i s l ike arunning brook, with innumerab le fresh

Bern ard Shaw

l ights on i t a t every turn o f the woodthrough which its business i s to find

a way . Without effort i t i s fullo f heal ing , the wi t o f good breeding , the

wisdom .

Chap ter IV

D ram atic Consc iou sness

The truth is that dramatic‘

inven tion is the firsteffort o f man to become inte l lectual ly conscious .

TO Bernard Shaw consc iousness i s thefirst a im o f l i fe . He makes thi s

clear in the th i rd a ct o f Man and Superman

What made th i s bra in o f mine , do youth ink $ Not merely the need to do ,but the need to know what I do , lest in mybl ind efforts to l ive I should be slay ing mys el f . His own dramati c consciousness i sextraordinary : i ts force and depth areun iqu e in th e annals o f l i terature .Con sciousness i s a late development o f

the world-sp ir i t. In order to test th i sstatemen t you have on ly to compare aShakespearean play with a Shavian one.

Take Romeo and Juli et b es ide You NeverCan Tell . Both conta in a love story. But

Bern ard Shaw

you would do better to say o f Romeo andJuli et that it is a love story . I t i s concernedwith elementa l pass ion , wholly inst inctive ,and there fore comparat ively untroubled bythe doubts

,hopes , and fears o f the con

sc ious mind . Take Jul i et ’s words to

Romeo a t the las t dawn-parting

JULIETW ilt thou be gone $ I t is not yet near dayI t was the n ightingale, and not the lark,That p1erced the fear ful hol low of thine ear ;

N ight ly she sings on yond pomegranate t reeBel ieve me, love, it was the n ightingale.

ROMEOI t was the lark, the herald of the morn ,

No n ightingale : look, love, what envious streaksDo lace the severing clouds in yonder eastN ight ’s candles ar e burn t out , and j ocund dayS tands tiptoe on the m isty moun tain tops :I must begone and l ive, or stay and die.

Th i s s cene will never b e surpassed a s anexpos ition o f love pure and s imple . But toproffer such a scen e a s an exposition o f lovein the twen ti eth century would be as absurda s i t i s imposs ib le .Not its b lank verse a lone , but also its

s imple grandeur, i ts comparat ive immunity5 6

Dramatic Con sciousn es s

from preoccupation , i ts ch i ldl ike fa ith belong to a bygone age .There are eternal elements in love : an

i solation from the rest o f the world, thelovers being alone in a cosmos o f the ir owna fa ith which can move mounta ins , and i syet part wi sdom

,part folly : a force and

directness seldom approached in l i fe : anecstasy

,perhaps

,never . But a ll these

things assume a differen t colour under ourmodern condition s . The thoughts whichassa i l Jul i et (Act II, Sc . II ) are s impl ic i tyi tsel f compared with those which vexhercounterpart to-day . The family feud : thefea r of Romeo ’ s death a t the hands o f herkin smen : a touch of shame a t the thoughto f her spoken word : these are the cons iderations which trouble her , and note thatthey are almost a ll externa l cons ideration s .To-day the scene o f drama has sh i fted fromwithout to with in the soul o f man . Fearsconcern ing family or kin smen trouble thelovers less than th e d iffi culties wh ich a ri sewithin themselves .Take Va lentin e and Glori a in You Never

Can Tell . Glori a resents even her

Bern ard Shaw

mother ’s inter ference on her behal f. Icannot bel i eve tha t anyone has any righteven to th ink about th ings that concern meon ly . Now such a conception i s utterlyforeign to Jul i e t, because in her time thech ild was regarded a s absolutely a t the d isposa l o f i ts parents , benefi cent or otherwisethe ch i ld had no option in the matter .The conception o f th e chi ld as a separateindividua l with a destiny to ach ieve without coerc ion from parents o r fri ends i s o fqu ite modern growth . Nevertheless theend i s the same in e ither case th e ch i ldhas i ts way . This i s Jul i et ’ s

LADY CAPULETMarry, my chi ld

, early next Thursday morn ,

The gal lant , young, and nob le gen tleman ,

The Coun ty Paris, at Sain t Peter ’s Church,Shal l happily make thee there a j oy ful bride.

JUL IET :Now by S aint Peter ’s Church, and Peter too,He shal l not make me there a j oy ful bride .

The next po int to be con s idered withregard to the Shavian consciousness i sthe wide extent o f its operation . Forhuman consc iousness not only intens ifies

Bern ard Shaw

ever, the increas e o f dramati c consc i ousnesshas le ft i ts mark on th e p lays themselves .Notice the description o f each new chara cter which precedes h i s or her en try .

Take as an example the descr iption o fAndrew Undersha ft in Maj or Barbara

$ Andrew i s, on the surface, a stouti sh ,ea sy-going elderly man , with kindly pati entmanners , and an engaging simpli c i ty o fcharacter. But h e has a watch ful , delibcrate, waiting, l i sten ing face , and form idab l e reserves o f power, both bodi ly and m en

ta l , in h i s capacious chest and long head .

His gentleness i s partly that o f a strongman who ha s l earnt by exper i ence that hi snatural grip hurts ord inary people un le sshe handles them very care fully, and partlyth e mellowness o f age and success .”There you have a characteri sti cally Shav i an expos ition o f the man , reveal ing atonce h i s menta l and phys i ca l qual i t i es ;giving a b road h in t, too , o f the Shavianfa culty o f ca lculating the power o f the physical to revea l the mental .Again , note th e depth o f Shavian con

sciousness. I t i s th i s very faculty o f diving6o

D ramatic Con sciousn ess

for and bringing to l ight the inner sp i ri tua ls ign ificance o f men ’s l ives which has ledto much misunderstanding o f the plays .B ernard Shaw ’ s a im in each cas e has beento d ivin e the heart and soul o f the problem ,

to reveal th e rea li ty which underl i es sel fdeception and pretence o f every kind . Sowhen he i s most in earnest as in the lasta ct o f Man and Superman

, for examplehe o ften seems to the casua l observer to bej oking, or worse , to b e indulging in somewanton folly . Throughout Man and Superman , a s regards the relations betweenAnn and Tanner, Shaw i s translating inst inct into a ct . I t i s mere fool i shness tosuppose tha t Ann ’ s words in the fourth act,for in stance , are intended to represent l i terally a conversation that would actuallytake p lace . But th ey are none the less truein sp i ri t for a ll that . B ernard Shaw hasfound words for a s i lent instinct .

TANNER : I w il l not marry you. I will not marryyou .

ANN : Oh , you w il l , you wil l .TANNER : I te l l you, no, no, no.

ANN : I te l l you, yes, yes, yes.

Bern ard Shaw

I t i s a s wel l to b ea r thi s cons ideration inmind when thinking o f the p lays as a whole .There i s a pa ssage in the $ uintessence o fIbsen i sm

,which gives a very noteworthy

key to the comprehens ion of Shaviandrama . Playwrights who formerly onlycompounded plays a ccording to the re

ceived prescription s for producing tears orlaughter, are already taking thei r profess ion ser iou sly to the full extent o f the i rcapacity, and venturing more and more tosub st i tute the in cidents and cata stropheso f sp iritual h i story for the swoons , su rpri ses , d i scoveri es , murders , duels, a ssassinat ions and in trigues wh ich are thecommonp laces o f the theatre a t presen t .Remember that most i lluminating phrase

the inc idents and catastrophes o f sp i ri tua lh i story.

” I t i s with such inc idents tha tShavian drama i s p rinc ipally concerned .

The ma in di stinction to b e drawn between Shakesp earean drama and Shaviandrama i s tha t the scen e o f action ha s sh i ftedfrom the cosmos outs ide man to the cosmoswith in . The E l i zabethan s dealt primari lywith man in hi s relation s w ith the externa l

D ramatic Con sciousn es s

world . They l ived in a time when thephys ical counted for much , when l i fe wa sfresh and eager and vigorous , when man

’ sadventuring with the elements was a daringand a pass ionate th ing . Man himsel f, a sthey conce ived him , was a creature o f amazing s implic i ty, ful l o f warring pass ion s , amb ition s , dreams : but a lways a lert, a lway sal ive , a lways looking ahead to the gloriousposs ibi l i ti es o f the unknown .

”With the deepen ing consciousness o f thef ace , man

’ s con sc iousness o f h imsel f asrevealed in l i terature ha s deepened too .

Owing to the progress o f sci ence , masteryover the elements , over space and t ime , i sso much nearer real i zation ,

that man i scorrespondingly freer to develop hi s sp iri tu a l energies . Hence he has become preoccup i ed with himsel f. Formerly the worldwas hi s workshop : now h e finds thi s withinhi s Own soul . Just a s former dramati cconfl i ct s b etween good and evi l are nowrepla ced by the subtl er confl i ct betweengood and a h igher good stil l : so a l ikesubtlety attends the change which decreesthat wherea s the older plays were full o f

Bern ard Shaw

confl i cts b etween men ’ s bod ies so themodern plays are full o f confl i cts betweenmen ’ s souls . $ I f th i s were fully real i sedwe should hea r less non sen se about theabsence o f action in Bernard Shaw ’s plays .There i s plenty o f a ction but it i s Sp i ri tu a l a ct ion , not phys i ca l ; and the crit ic s havenot yet become accustomed to the change .Out o f thi s change o f subj ect a change

o f form directly proceeds . $ The soul i sform and doth the body make . Whereasin Shakespear

s An tony and Cleopatra , forexample, you have five acts and a greatnumber o f scen es , some o f them very shortindeed : in Shaw ’ s plays the tendency i sincreas ingly to s impli fy the dramati c instrument .I t is tru e tha t in the majority o f ca ses he

reta ins the divi s ion in to acts . S ix o f hispubl i shed plays are wr itten in three a cts ,five o f them in four, and on ly one in five ;so th at in the matter o f acts a lone i t wil lb e seen that the process o f s implificationha s gone fa r .

$ Note t he s ign o f th is chan ge a ff orded by the t it les of

modern p lays : Waste : St ri fe : Misal l ian ce .

D ramatic Co n sciousn es s

But he goes much farther than this .He di scards the subdivi s ion in to scenesa ltogether. In th i s matter he i s very muchin advan ce o f his time .Con s iderable l ight i s thrown on this sub

j ect by a statemen t in the $ uin tessence o f

Ibsen i sm $ The h ighest type o f p layi s comp letely homogeneous

,o ften cons ist

ing of a s ingle very comp lex incident .” I t

i s well to bear th i s statemen t in mind , forexamp l e , when deal ing with Shaw ’ s latestp lay

,Getting Marr i ed . The critics might

have been p repared for the thunderboltwh ich i s launched at conven t iona l dramatictheory by thi s p lay, by the previous production o f D on Juan in Hell a t the CourtTheatre . D on Juan forms the third a cto f Man and Superman , but a s Shaw saysin the Pre face , i t i s $ a tota lly extraneousact

”: i t i s qu ite ab le to stand alone on i ts

own merits . Now in D on Juan in Hellthe action i s ent ir ely sp i r itual . Shaw describes it thus : My hero

,en chanted by

th e a i r o f the S ierra , has a dream in

which hi s Mozarti an ancestor appears andphilosophize s a t grea t length in a Shav io

Bern ard Shaw

Socrati c d ia logue with the lady, the statue ,and the devil .” I t i s qu i te obvious thatfor the purpose o f such a d ialogue changeo f scene i s not only unnecessary but purposeless and di stracting .

Getting Marri ed i s described by B ernard Shaw a s a Conversation— it i s notdivided into acts and scenes . In an in terv i ew ih the D aily Telegraph, which preceded the production of the play, h e i sreported to have spoken as follows :INTERVIEWER : Would it be indiscreet to ask you

to l ift a corner o f the curtain p rematurely, and givesome notion o f the plot o f the p lay $MR. SHAW : The play has no p lot . Surely nobody

expects a p lay by me to have a p lot . I am a dramaticpoet

, not a p lot-monger.INTERVIEWER : But at least there is a story.

MR. SHAW : Not at al l . I f you look at any Of the

old editions of our classical p lays, you w il l see thatthe description o f the p lay is not cal led a p lot or a

story, but an argument . That exact ly describes thematerial of my p lay. I t is an argumen t—an argumen t lasting nearly th ree hours, and carried on w ithunflagg ing cerebration by twelve peop le and a beadle.

I t i s true tha t for the sake o f my argumen t I have h ere considered two extremeexamples ; but the princip le I have enun

Bern ard Shaw

To-day man ’s thought concern ing h imse l f has changed ; he sees that he i s a t a llt imes master o f h i s fate ; and th is imposesupon h im an enormous respons ib i l i ty

an amount o f.

activ i ty h itherto unknown .

He sees that instea d o f submitting to theDivine Will , h e must fulfi l it— so thatinstead o f regard ing h i s rel ig ion as anexcuse for mere laz iness h e finds in i t anincentive to the utmost exertion o f h i spowers .Maj or B arba ra i s an excellent example

o f a Shaw play considered from thi sstandpoint. Maj or Barbara i s a s ingularly courageous young woman who findsher sp iri tua l nature unsati sfied by theordinary l i fe o f Soci ety. So she goes tothe other extreme, and b ecomes a Maj orin the Sa lvation Army.

Here she i s bl i ss fully happy for a time ,consciou s that she has become merged ina wider l i fe , in the fulfilment o f a purposewhich fa r transcends the petty preoccupat ions she has le ft beh ind her . But herhappiness is short-l ived . The Army i sdesperately in need o f money : she finds

Dramatic Con sciousn ess

that her mill iona ire father, Andrew Undersha ft, maker of cannons , and Bodger, th edisti ller , are able to buy the army— i.e.

to keep the Shelters '

open by their munificent contributions , in sp ite o f the wickedness from her poin t o f Vi ew o f thei rsevera l o ccupations . For a time she i splunged in despa1r : for the work o f Bodgerand Undersha ft stands in her mind fordrunkenness and murder and thethought that through them the Army(wh i ch ex i sts to fight them ) should besaved i s intolerab le . Then she i s takento see her father ’ s cannon works , and findsa model ci ty, with cleanliness and ordereverywhere, and a complete ab sence o f thesta rvation , degradation and misery aga instwh ich she ha s to strive a t the Army shelter .As Undersha ft says : In your salvationshelter I saw poverty, misery, cold andhunger . You gave them bread and treacleand dreams Of heaven . I give from thirtysh i ll ings a week to twelve thousand a year .They find the ir own dreams ; but I looka fter the dra inage .”

$ I t i s cheap.

work converting starving69

Bern ard Shaw

men with a B ible in one hand and a s li ceo f bread in the other I wi ll undertaketo convert West Ham to Mahom etamsm

on the same terms . ‘ Try your hand on

my men : the i r souls are hungry becausethe i r bodi es are full .”Out o f th i s experi ence Major Barbara

learns her great lesson . By i t her futurei s determined

BARBARA : My father shal l never throw it in my

teeth again that my converts were bribed with bread.

[S he is t ransfigured. ] I have got r id of the bribe of

bread. I have got r id of the bribe of heaven . L et

God’

s work be done for it s own sake : the work hehad to create us to do because it cannot be done except by living men and women .

I have to ld th e story o f Maj or Barbarahere because i t i s important to realiz e thesort o f drama wh i ch may rightly b e considered a s $ sp iri tua l h i story . The playi s the story o f Barbara ’s soul : o f her firstfa ith , o f i ts test by real ity (a lways theShavian test) ; o f i ts fa ilure and o f th eb i rth o f the new pass ion wh i ch will inSpire her hence forward .

I t should b e added tha t the word70

- Dramatic Con sciousn es s

spi ri tua l ” in the phrase inc idents andcatastrophes o f spiritual h i story ” hasfound a peculi arly l itera l appli cation inth i s instance . In the other plays the confl icts may be more properly called intellectual or pass ionate , but all come underthe broad class ification o f sp iri tua l historyf

Chap ter V

Ph ilosophy of L ife

IF I were asked to give the main ten eto f Bernard Shaw ’s phi losophy I should

at once rep ly the sancti ty o f l i fe . I t i supon thi s ma in foundation that h i s a tti tudetowards man , and parti cularly towards man

in hi s soc ia l relations , depends . A violence~

done to l i fe not to phys i ca l l i fe a lone ,but also

to menta l and sp i ri tua l l i fe (a k indof violen ce which i s o ften , comparativelyspeaking

,thought l ightly o f or ignored), i s

to h im the unpardonable sin . We are hereat the behest '

of the Li fe Force , to preserveand enhance to the fullest poss ible extentthe flame o f divin i ty which has b een en

trusted to our ca re .I t i s for thi s reason that Shaw wishes

to protect the arti st aga in st th e forces o fmodern civi l i zation which would perverthi s art in order to feed the van i ty and

flatter the conce i t o f his audi ence . The7 2

Philo sophy o f L ife

mission o f art in the world i s to producebeauty and truth in such gui se a s to st imu

late and engender fresh l i fe in the beholder .The fact that the arti st, while he is a t work ,may b e conscious of noth ing but the blindin stinct to create, does not affect the i ssuein the least .Now i t follows from thi s proposition

that in the case o f every work of art inwhich the arti st has consciously violatedhi s message in order to fl atter h i s audience ,an inj ury i s done , first to himsel f, andsecondly to every human being who comesin contact with h i s work . For just in sofa r a s the message i s v iolated , the workb ecomes, not an insp i ration , but a l i e .Adroitness and subtlety in the presentationo f the message are qu ite another th ing, att imes essenti a l i f the arti st has no amb ition to be stoned and very o ften wise .To return to the Shavian ph i losophy .

You may trace th e origin o f Bernard Shaw ’ sconviction of the sacredness o f l i fe back tothat devotion o f real i ty, wh i ch has beendiscussed in previous chapters . His wholedes ire i s for the sanct ificat ion and further

Bern ard Shaw

ance o f the rea l . So in Act III o f Manand Superman he defines Hell a s $ thehome of the unrea l and o f th e seekers forhapp iness , as the only re fuge fromheaven , which i s the home o f the mastersOf real ity, and from earth , wh i ch i s thehome o f the slaves o f rea li ty .

Then we come to the crux o f the wholematter . Li fe i s defined a s the force thatever str ives to atta in greater power o fcontemplating i tsel f.” Throughout th eevolutionary process Li fe was driving a tbra ins a t i ts darl ing obj ect : an organ bywh i ch i t can atta in not only sel f-consc iousness but sel f-understanding .

” La ter on

th i s bra in power i s more closely definedLi fe i s evo lving to-day a mind ’ s eye thatshall see , not the phys i ca l world , but thepurpose o f Li fe , and thereby enable theindividua l to work for tha t purpose insteado f thwarting and bafll ing i t by sett ing upshorts ighted persona l a ims a s a t present”,I t wil l b e seen at once that thi s philosophy increases man ’ s personal respons ib i l i tyfor the well-being o f the world enormously.

I t says , in effect : $ You must, to the ut74

Bern ard Shaw

I t was Woman who taught me to say Iam ; there fore I th ink .

’ And also Iwould th ink more ; there fore I must bemore . ’

The grea t lesson wh i ch the world i slearning to-day i s tha t the purpose o fLi fe cannot be ach ieved without the co

opera tion o f man and woman . In orderth at we may ri s e to the he ights o f ourdestiny (heights wh i ch modern ph i lo sophyreveals o r rather suggests a s unth inkablygrea t) man must take advantage o f a ll theweapons wh i ch the Li fe Force has putwith in h i s power . And the greatest of

these i s Woman . Man does not a t firstth ink th i s . He th inks tha t h i s destinymay be ach i eved by h imsel f a lone . Dest in i es so ach i eved are l ikely to b e veryone-s ided— to be characteri sed by bra inconsciousness , and to lack be ing-consc iousness . The hardest th ing Bernard Shawhas ever sa id of woman (Tanner

’s sayingin Man and Superman : the greatest common measure o f a man and a woman i snot necessari ly greater than the man ’ ss ingle measure) hardly affects the ques

t ion,s ince he lacked the generosity to

poin t out that the propositi on i s o ftenequally true when reversed .

One of the greatest evil s o f the presentday is the developmen t o f man at the ex~pens e o f woman . Men forget that thewoman who goes (or rather i s sent) to

th e wall b ecomes the mother o f ch i ldrenand that her weakness means further weakn ess in her sons . So to a ll those who urgethe preservation and enl ightenment o f therace I would say Look to your womenfolk : the men are ab le a t thi s stage inthe i r evolution to take ca re o f themselves .Do not forget the inh eritance o f strengthor weakness wh i ch the mother no less thanthe father bequeaths to her ch i ldren .

In a memorab l e phrase Bernard Shawexpounds the educationa l value o f th elove-encounter to the persons concerned .

$ That moment introduced me for thefirst t ime to mysel f, and , through mysel f,to the world .

”I t i s only when you come

into contact with a force stronger thanyoursel f that you learn the measure o fyour own strength . When the Li fe Force

Bern ard Shaw

takes two people by the scruffs o f the 1rl i ttle necks ,” a s Va lentine says , and usesthem in sp ite o f themselves for a purposeabove and b eyond the i r own , then theyfind out for the first t ime the i r rela tivevalu e in the universa l scheme . Unti l thatmoment they have only known the i r personal valu e : they have used thei r individua l j udgment

,have done as they

thought fit : but now a greater powerthan they have h i therto known comesinto thei r l ives , and they b egin to vi ewthemselves and the world in a new and

broader l ight . I t i s a t th is point thatShaw introduces h i s great prophecy con

cerning the future o f the race . Thedwindling birth-rates , wh i ch are causingso much comment to-day, will b e replacedby the great centra l purpose o f breedingthe race

, ay, breeding i t to heights nowdeemed superhuman . I t only rema insto add that Bernard Shaw is already justified by the activiti es o f th e EugenicsSoci ety .

We now reach the centra l point o f theShav i an phi losophy.

I tell you that a s long as I can conceive something better than mysel f I can

not be ea sy un less I am striv ing to bringi t into existence or clearing the way fori t . That i s the law o f my li fe . That i sthe working within me o f Li fe ’ s incessanta spi ration to higher Organization , wider ,deeper

,intenser sel f-consc iousness , and

clearer sel f-understanding .

” Th i s i s theprincip l e wh i ch l i es a t the root o f evolut ion . The terms in which i t i s expressedare eminently characteri sti c o f the p ion eerqual i ty o f the Shavian phi losophy . I t i sa preparation for that which i s to come .

/Now it i s j u st this centra l law wh1ch

gives due proportion to all the other depar tments o f l i fe . This i s the Spiritua lPrincip le , wh ich , among all the mutation swhich are constantly taking p lace , doesnot change , nor fa lter , nor repen t . ”Love , art, and rel igion may at times fa i lto console : this grea t purpose o f the Li feForce a lone rema ins certa in to encouragethe soul o f man .

After all , i t i s the princip le wh i ch findsexpress ion in the h ighest love

,the most

Bern ard Shaw

potent ar t, the most s incere rel ig ion . Forthese are a ll attempts to create the morebeauti fu l thing . Nature, whose sole a imi s to evolve the most per fect l iving creature , del iberately casts an a tmosphere o fi llus ion over her chi ldren . No lover ha sever loved , no arti st ha s ever worked , nodevotee ever prayed with such pass ionbe fore . So th inks every lover, everyarti st, every devotee . And by her worksNature i s j ustified .

But observe that the purpose o f th eLi fe Force i s the same throughout . Man

i s the obj ect of a ll i ts endeavour . I t doesnot care intrin s i ca lly for great pa inting orpoetry or musi c , nor for the j oy o f loverso r the mysterious b eauty o f cathedralsbut i t ca res intensely for the fru i t o f a llthese th ings — the perfected sou l o f man .

In order to obta in th i s r esult —in order ,in th e ages which are coming, to evolvethe Superm an i t u rges‘ on a ll humanactiv i ty through i ts appointed channels ,through the unth inkab le infinitude o ftime .”

Here i t i s well to give B ernard Shaw ’s80

Phi lo sophy o f L ife

definition of the Phi losopher ’ s funct ion .

The ph ilosopher i s in the grip o f theLi fe Force . This Li fe Force says to h imI

ave do‘ne a thousand wonderful things

uncon sciously by merely wi ll ing to l iveand following the l ine o f least r es i stancenow I want to know mysel f and my destination , and choose my path ; so I havemade a specia l bra in —f a philosopher ’sbra in to grasp thi s knowledge for me asthe husbandman ’s hand grasp s the ploughfor me . ’ The obj ect o f th i s knowledgeon the part o f the philosopher i s $ to b eable to choose the l ine o f greatest advantage instead o f y i elding in the di rect ion of

the least res istance . Then in a few wordsthe whole ca se i s magn ificently summedup : $ The philosopher i s Nature ’s p i lot

to be in hell i s to dri ft ; to b e inheaven i s to steer .I t i s very s ign ifican t that The Dream in

Act III o f Man and Superman should end

on the note $ woman .

” The s ign ificancewould seem to be th i s : j ust a s man l earn sfrom woman the secret o f being-consciousness, so woman learn s from man

Bern ard Shaw

the secret o f bra in-consciousness . Womani s l earn ing th i s lesson more and more perfect ly every day.There sounds a triumphant note o f insp iration for the futur e o f th e race forthe united consciousness o f bra in and

being - in the cry o f Ana at the close o fthe dream :

$ A fath er a father for theSuperman $

Bern ard Shaw

Much has been heard , s ince he leap t intofame, o f the syn icism o f Shaw . No greatermistake ha s ever been made with regard toa man o f gen ius . Shaw ’ s so-called cyn i c i smi s noth ing more nor les s than the outwardeffect o f an inten s e desire to have no secondbest in any department o f l i fe . He seesthe good in exi sting in sti tutions a s clearlya s we do ; h e has sa id so over and overaga in . But he sees the mistakes too ; andhe knows tha t there i s no rhyme nor reasonin h i s wasting hi s intellectua l capacity bytell ing us how well we have done, when heknows that i f our faults are po inted out to

us , we shall b e enabled to do so muchbette r. The whol e question i s one o feconomy. We have no t ime to waste . Weare here for a l i ttle while in the sun , bornwith a sp ir i t o f a lmost infin i te poten cy , anda body o f p iti able weakn ess . He says tous : D o not stay : do not rest : do not

be sati sfied : there i s more ahead, unknownlands to which the sp iri t o f man may atta in ,where h e may become t ransfigured, glorified, one with God. All these m istakes ,these wrongs , these fallings-back a re keep

Bern ard Shaw and the Wo rld

ing you from the Land of Beat itude wh i chi s be fore you .

I t has been sa id of Coleri dge that hehungered for etern i ty . I t sha ll b e sa id o fB ernard Shaw that he so hungered for theinfin i te goodness o f God that he dedicatedh i s l i fe to man ’ s a tta inmen t thereto .

I intend in thi s chapter to deal withsome o f the favourite gibes which havebeen l evelled at Shaw by m en whose op inion deserves to carry con s iderable we ight .First there are those who deny him any

serious inten tion whatever . They r e feryou comp rehens ively to hi s wi t, as i f thatwere not on ly his chi e f, but hi s sole asset .I f he states a truth wh ich sounds to themdifferen t from the A B C o f art and moralson which they have been brought up , theydub i t a gay paradox and say i t i s So l ikeShaw .

In reply to th is I should l ike to say first,that in j udging that Bernard Shaw woulddeal with any sp iri tual truth out of wantonwit they are reckon ing without the ir man .

No keen er arti sti c consci ence than hisexi sts a t the present time few so keen .

Bern ard Shaw

There i s noth ing o f the doctrine o f artfor art ’s sake ” about him .

$ For art ’ ssake a lone ,

” he says , I would not face theto il o f writing a single sentence . Takethe s imple test o f superfluity. You con

stan t ly see the assert ion that Shaw’ s play s

are all talk .

” I t i s in ferred that he writesad l ib . ,

730 to speak . In a very l imitedsense th i s i s per fectly true : the man ’ scop iousn ess o f thought and fel ic i ty o f

utterance a re amaz ing . But the rea l testo f h is qual i ty i s , Can you leave anythingout $ Try : and you will find that seriousinj u ry to h i s ma in subj ect will result . Iti s a l l inevi tab le and essenti a l ; i t a ll has aplace and a purpose . For Shaw ’ s work ,l ike Whistler ’s

,i s not a matter o f taste , but

o f knowledge .But in these prel iminary remarks we

have not reached the heart o f the matter .The an swer to thi s cr1t 1c1sm o f Shaw ,

which says th a t he has no rea l po int o fVi ew , l i es deeper ; and a care fu l studyo f h i s works wil l convince you that thetruth i s to b e found at the very oppos itepole . The fact that he i s a dramatist has

put peop le Off the scen t There are twoquotation s from h i s works wh ich shouldbe studi ed s ide by s ide in this connection .

One i s a passage from the Pre face to Manand Superman : Not that I di scla im thefullest respons ib i l ity for his (Tanner

’s )op in i ons and for those o f all my characters ,p leasan t and unpleasant . They are a llright from the i r severa l po ints o f Vi ew ;and thei r points o f vi ew are , for the dra

matic momen t,

$ mine also.

I have taken th i s quotation first because ir reveals toyou the dramatic a spec to f th e Shavian mind . Couple with i t thefollowing from

[The San i ty o f Art : Thenotion that the grea t poet and arti st cando no wrong is a s misch ievously erroneousa s the notion tha t the $ ing can do no

wrong . In my last p lay, The Doctor ’ sDilemma , I recognized th i s by dramati z inga rasca lly gen ius , with the di squ i etingresult tha t severa l h ighly intell igen t and

sens itive persons pass ionately de fendedh im , on the ground , apparen tly, that h igharti sti c faculty and an ardent arti sti c

Ital ics are m in e R. M. D .

Bern ard Shaw

imagination en ti tl e a man to be recklesslydi shon est abou t mon ey and r ecklesslyselfish about women .

You wil l rightly in fer from thi s la stquotation tha t there is a Shavi an po in t o fVi ew .

At this po in t I sha ll take up aga in th emuch ridi culed comparison between Shawand Shakespear , because much may belearnt from i t in the present connection .

Bernard Shaw cla ims that Shakespear ha sle ft u s no intellectually coherent drama ”

and speaking elsewhere o f D icken s andShakespear, h e says : $ The i r pregnantobservations and demon stration s o f l i feare not co-ordinated in to any philosophyor rel igion .

Let us examin e th is'

charge aga instShakespear . I s i t true $One thing at l east i s certa in . I f he

had any message to give us , any insp iration o f a constructive character, we a rej ustified in looking for i t in those playswhich represen t h i s r ipest experi ence

$ For fu r ther discuss ion o f the case in The D octor’

D ilemma, see the San ity of A r t, pp . 1 2—1 3 .

Bern ard Shaw and the World

most mature j udgmen t plays such asThe Temp est and The Winter ’ s Tale .

What do we find there $ These p lays al lclose on the note of peace , o f reconci l i at ion , o f ca lm a fter storm

S leepe after toyle, port after storm ie seas,

Ease a fter warre, death after life, does great ly p lease.

.Th i s i s a very beauti ful conception . Butwe must face the facts , and they clearlypo int to th i s : tha t for Shakespear therewas no active look ing forward , but on lycalm at the end. B ernard Shaw ’s wonderful revelati on o f $ the prophetic Soul o fthe wide world dreaming on things tocome ” was not in h i s age , was not poss ible for h i s time . I t i s not for us to cavi la t Shakespear because th is i s so ; ratherwe should accep t h i s magica l bounty o ftruth and beauty in the frank and joyfulsp ir i t in which i t i s offered . What I wishto po int out i s that Shaw can o ffer us afurther gi ft not more comfort

,but more

courage . Throughout h is work the discern ing eye can see the s igns o f preparation . A great time i s a t hand . The old

Bern ard Shaw

modes o f l i fe and thought are shi fting ,changing , giving place to new . And be

h ind al l the changes,as the motive power

and inner cause o f them all , l i e s theconception o f the Superman . Towardsth i s the evolution o f woman ’s soul ,through various channels but with i tsown pecul i a r and individua l function , i sa ssuredly moving .

Th is sense o f a h igh j udgment-seatb eh ind Shaw ’ s various dramati c pageantryi s our surety and stand-by, our guaranteeo f h i s good fa ith . I t i s thi s which givesun i ty to h i s work— th i s consc iousness o fa message wh ich he has been sent to

del iver, and which appears over and overaga in under different aspects and in different forms . I have heard people grumblebecause , they sa id , B ernard Shaw haddelivered h i s message and had nothingmore to say . Apart from the fact thatthese people differed cons iderab ly a s tothe nature o f the message he had alreadydel ivered

,I would remind them that no

man of gen ius ever ha s more than one

message to del iver to the world . This90

Bern ard Shaw

sturdy exterior, a shrinking heart ; but wecannot dece ive h im ; and presently westand revealed

,in a l l our futi l i ty and

cowardice , in a ll our emp tiness o f heartand bra in . I can imagine h im echoing thewords o f the Revelation $

$ I know thyworks , tha t thou a rt n e ither cold nor hot :I would thou wert cold or hot . B ecausethou sayest

,I am rich

, and increased withgoods , and have need o f nothing ; and

kn owest not tha t thou art wretched , andmiserable , and poor, and bl ind , and naked .

I remember di scuss ing You Never CanTell with an extremely intell igent womano f my acqua intance , and re ferr ing to th efamous love scene b etween Va lentin e andGloria

,she sa id : That ’s a funny sort o f

love scene .” I t was an ab solutely honestremark : and i t revealed to me in a flashthe a tti tude o f th e genera l mind towardsthe Shavian expos itions o f these confl i cts ofsoul . As I have di scussed th i s parti cu la rscene elsewhere I will only say here thatthe $ funny ” mean ing extraordinarycharacter o f th i s love scen e ari ses enti rely

Close o f Act I I.

from the fact that i t i s treated analyt ica lly .

I t i s not a l itera l rendering of a love-cri s i si t rep resen ts rather the mysti c and innertruth o f that pass ionate encounter . It i sa s i f some sp ir itual report er had been presen t , and had noted in h is book , not whatthe lovers sa id Wi th thei r l ips , but whatthey felt in thei r souls .Over and over aga in I have tested

B ernard Shaw ’ s work— h i s ins ight intohuman character, and in parti cular, h i srevelation o f Iri sh l i fe and mind ; and hehas invari ably triumphed . Independenttestimony pours in from all s ides to thesame effect. A lady who had l ived muchin Ireland once a ssured me that she couldlay her finger , so to speak, on a ll th e Irishtypes described in John Bull ’ s Other I sland . Another lady, when the conversationwas enti rely independent of Shaw, paraphrased in s imp l e prose Larry ’s greatspeech n ea r the beginn ing o f John Bull ,her po in t being to prove that I ri sh chara cter i s the product Of the Irish cl imate . $

$ The speech r e fer r ed to is the one beg inn ing :$ No, no

the c l imat e is diff eren t .”

Bern ard Shaw

Once in a London club when the subj ecto f discuss ion was whether B ernard Shaw ’ swomen characters were true to nature ornot, I saw a man stand up to championMrs . George

,surpri sed that no one had

been found to bring her any tribute . Thesame man bore testimony to the truth-tol i fe-ness o f Morel l and Eugene in Candida .

A friend o f mine once sa id tha t he knewpeop le who , i f they were placed in the sames i tuations a s the characters in The Ph i landerer, would act in preci sely the same way .

I could cite many other examples , but thesea re enough to serve my present purpose .The charges whi ch in the n ature o f th ingsare most frequently made aga inst the pioneer are those which are most o ften b roughtaga inst Shaw . It i s , for in stance, frequen tlystated that h is phi losophy is destructiverather than constructive , and thi s i s re

garded a s a de fect in h im . This charge i son ly in part true , and in so fa r a s i t i s trueit should be regarded as a virtue and not asa de fect .Go to h i s works first (not , as i s so o ften

done, to the remarks made by his a ccusers),94

and a fter r eading th em , ask yoursel f i f thecharge i s a true one . Can you honestlysay

,a fter a perusa l o f Man and Superman ,

for examp le , tha t h i s phi losophy i s dest ruct ive $ No more constructive ph ilosophywas ever Offered to mankind . The playteems with pos itive in sp i ration for futuregenerations . There i s in i t enough sp ir itua lforce to provide the inmost soul o f futuredrama— to supp ly the bas i c fabri c uponwhi ch that drama will b e bu il t up , so thatdramati sts for years to come will pati entlyreap where Shaw has sown

,expati ating , en

larging upon and elaborating his primaryinsp i ra tions . Take, for examp le , the following passage from Man and Superman ,

which enunc iates the philosophi c pr incipleunderly ing all Shavian drama : This i sthe true j oy in l i fe , the b eing used for apurpose recogn i z ed by yoursel f as a mightyone ; the being thoroughly worn out beforeyou are thrown on the scrap heap ; thebeing a force o f Nature instead o f a feverish , selfish li ttle clod o f a i lments and gr ievauces comp la in ing that the world wi ll notdevote i tsel f to making you happy .

Bern ard Shaw

Look for a momen t a t Bernard Shaw ’ splays a s a p rotest aga inst conven tional i smand the employment o f obsolete ideas indrama . Can i t b e den i ed that h i s revoltaga inst romance (romance which had degen erated into a mere feti sh instead o fbeing a l iving in sp i ration , a s wi th Shakespear) has don e the very best th ing thatcould b e don e for drama , tha t i s to say, hass et the dramati c form free to find i ts ownpath

,to evolve a ccording to i ts own inner

n ecess i ty $ Cash el Byron , in The Adm irable Bashville, voices preci sely one ’s feel ingabout the drama which Shaw has superseded. O God, let me b e natural a moment $ The solution o f the whole problem li es in the fact that the Shakespeareanepoch th e epoch o f Romance i s at anend. B ernard Shaw is the prophet o f thenew era the era o f Real ity : but

,a s usua l

we take a long while to b ecome accustomedto the change .But i t i s on th i s very account— because

hi s ideas are new— that so many peop l eobj ect to Shaw , and dub hi s philosophydestructive . Ideas are not n ecessari ly de

Bern ard Shaw

Structive because they are new They willin their turn become Old, and meanwhilethey have prepared the way for other andfar-reach ing truths they have let in l ightfor us to see the new truths by . There i sno need for anyon e to take up a superioratti tude towards those who do not at presen t appeciate Bernard Shaw . Many to-dayare on the borderland o f do ing so : and U n

dershaft rightly interprets the ir state o fmind when he says to Major BarbaraYou have learn t something . That a lwaysfeels a t first a s i f you had lost someth ing .

Finally, I would urge that i f the Shavi angen ius i s partly destructive , th i s i s a virtuein i t, and not a de fect . On ly by an in fu

s ion o f new truth can the world progressand destruction alon e can prepare the wayfor the coming of the new truth . SO Tan

ner in Man and SupermanANN [bored] : I am afraid I am too fem in ine to

see any sen se in destruction . Destruction can on lydestroy .TANNER : Yes . That is why it is so u se ful . Con

struction cumbers the ground w ith in stitution s made

by busy-bodies . Destruct ion clears it, and gives us

breath ing space and l iberty .

Bern ard Shaw

The would-be worsh ipp ers o f Construction wi ll doubtless dub thi s passage an

archi ca l . I there fore insert here a fewauthori tat ive words wh i ch are to the pointin th i s conn ect ion .

$ There i s a prevalent idea tha t theconstructive genius i s in i tsel f somethinggrander than the cri t i ca l , even though theformer turns out to have merely made asymmetrica l rubb ish heap in the middleo f

the road o f sc i ence wh i ch th e latterhas to clear away before anybody can getforward These words apply withspeci a l force to Shaw ’ s posi tion in theworld of dramati c l iterature to day .

Finally, I contend that the gen ius o fBernard Shaw i s ult imately constructive .For p roo f, tu rn to the second act o fCae sar and Cleopatra : by h i s own wordshe i s j ustified .

The Library of A lexandria is in fl ames.

THEODOTU S [knee l ing, w ith genuine l iterary emo

tion : the passion of the pedan t] : Caesar : once in

ten generations o f men , the world gain s an immortalbook.

$ Huxley’s Method and Resul ts.

Chap ter VII

Function of BernardS haw

We are led to bel ieve a lie

When we see wi th not through the eye,

Which was born in a n ight to perish in a nigh tWhen the soul s lept in beam s o f l ight .”

WILL IAM BLA$ E.

BLA$ E and Shaw , so diss imila r fromthe merely externa l po int o f Vi ew , are

enti rely a t one on the myst i ca l p lane . Shawhas drawn publ i c a ttention to the sympathywhi ch exists b etween them : but the subj ect may be pursued a l i ttle further withadvantage .The arti st-mysti c (or the arti s t-philosopher : the terms are interchangeable , fori t ha s been well sa id that the myst i c hasthe root o f phi losophy in h im ) the arti stmysti c i s the greatest o f seers , the m ostmighty of a ll the creators o f mind . He

Fun ction o f Bern ard Shaw

ploughs the so i l o f thought : the arti stswho follow him in the s ame epoch do butreap where he has sown . The distinctionbetween th e arti s t and the arti st-mysti c ISmade clea r in the cas e of Dubedat in TheDoctor’ s Dilemma . Dubedat was an art ist , a gen ius , but $ a rascally genius .”Lest anyone should be tempted , however

, in a rash momen t ,‘

to under-estimateh i s work I shall quote here h i s beauti fu lpro fess ion o f fa ith , at once an in sp i rationand a prophecy . I b el i eve in MichaelAngelo , Velasquez , and Rembrandt, in themight of des ign , in the mystery o f color ,in the redemption o f a ll things by Beautyeverla sting , and the message Of Art thathas made these hands blessed . Amen .

Amen .

I t i s customary to consider BernardShaw primari ly as a phi losopher and to

depreciate h is talent a s an arti st, i f not todeny him all arti st i c ta len t whatsoever .This j udgmen t i s a mistaken one

Hisartist i c apprehen sion i s s ingularly acute ,and the evidence o f thi s i s wri t largeOver all h i s plays . The pr imary demand

Bern ard Shaw

wh i ch we make of the arti st i s , that heshall feed the human soul through thechannel o f E stheti c b eauty . Beauty shallclothe h i s work a s i t were with a garment .To the arti st pure and s imple , indeed ,beauty i s in i tsel f sati s fy ing enough . To

$ eats , dying in hi s early noon , i t soseemedA th ing of beauty is a j oy for everIts love l iness increases ; it w i l l neverPass in to noth ingness ; but stil l w il l keepA bower quiet for us, and a s leepFu l l o f sweet dream s, and health, and quiet breathing .And aga inSp ite o f despondence, o f the inhuman dearthO f nob le natures

, o f the gloomy days,Of all the unhealthy and o

er -darkened waysMade for our search ing : yes, in sp ite of al l,Som e shape o f beauty moves away the pal lFrom our dark spirits .

Yet we see even here , tha t $ eats wa srap idly develop ing from the point o fVi ew o f the arti st pure and s imple , tothat o f an arti st-mysti c o f a very h ighorder .But the Shavian conception o f the rela

Bern ard Shaw

to hi s curative power . He does notwallow in the miseries which . con stitutethe soc ia l problem o f to-day . In a mannerwhich can on ly be compared to that o f

the fin est a rti st-philosophers B lake , forExamp l e, and Bunyan he states the whol efcase conc i sely , and presents the problemin so unmistakable a fash ion that i t can no

longer be$ hedged or evaded in any

way . The Truth, says Will i am Blake ,can never be told so a s to b e understood

and not be bel i eved .

” I t i s imposs ible toread the U np leasan t Plays and to remainunmoved by an urgen t sense o f soc ia l sin .

But observe h i s method o f deal ing withthe s in s o f soc i ety .

” Contrast with i ttha t of so many modern authors , who l ingermorb idly over the symptoms of disease inour soc ia l system , and be ing powerless tosuggest a cu re , l eave the reader or spectator in a state o f mind bordering on

desp a i r . Take , for examp le, a play call edLinks , translated from the Dutch , and

recen tly presen ted by the Stage Soci ety .

$ Taking the ph rase in it s w ides t app l icat ion , of cou rse

using t he word$society ”

to imp ly the whole social system.

Fun ction o f Bern ard Shaw

The play i s d istinctly clever , and it wasacted to admiration , espec ia lly by Mr .Fisher White , to whom it a fforded avaluable opportun i ty . But Christi an ’ sfeel ings in the Slough o f Despond musthave been tep i d compared with those o f

the un fortunate p laygoer who stumbledhal f bl ind with horror, out o f that Sundayeven ing per formance o f Links .The ultimate cause o f Bernard Shaw ’ s

superiority in th is di rection i s to b e foundin hi s humour , using the word in theh ighest sen se of which i t i s capable .Let us not forget ,

” says the Bi shop o f

Chelsea,

$ that humour i s a divin e at t r i

bute . ” I would go further, and wouldsay that humour, as I am about to definei t, i s the d ivinest o f al l a ttributes . Byhumour, here , I mean the comedic sen se :preoccupation with l i fe , not death ; withsalvation ,

not sin ; with a j oy ful fa ith inthe ultimate ach ievement o f God , not

with despa ir . In spi te of a ll the diseasesymptoms wh ich Bernard Shaw Observesin Soci ety, and has dep i cted for us withan accuracy so relen tless and so terrible

Bern ard Shaw

that h e ha s spared n e ither h imsel f nor us ;in fa ce

,I repeat

,o f the direst o f these

symptoms,hi s head i s yet held h igh, h i s

courage i s unfa iling , hi s insp iration re

main s supremex/ It i s th e greatest o f h i sd i st inctions, tha t he i s a lways on the s ideo f the forces o f l i fe a s opposed to theforces o f death : in short , that he bel ievesin l ife. I f th i s one fact about h im has beenmade clear, th is book wi ll not have b eenwritten in va in .

THE END

GE ORGE B E RNARD S HAW

GIL BE RT $ . CHE S TE R'

An Illus trated B iog raphyCloth. IZmo. net . Postage It s.

It is a fascinating portrait study and I am proud to have been the

pain ter’ s model . ”—G. B. Shaw in The Na tz on (London) .

Scintillates with good things.—Baj

a laIllustra ted Times.

The cleverest man in all the world,w ith the second cleverest as

his subj ect, is here doing his c leverest writing . No t since S t .

Augu stine have the gods sen t u s such a man who cou ld m ake the

incredib le so fascinatingly probab le .

—T/ze Sma rt Set .

A most entertain ing book fu ll of illum inating phrases on manysubj ects .

— The Outlook.

D ecidedly good reading and emphatically good compan ionship .

—Tow n and Country .

Human as wel l as clever. Al l abou t Shaw ,when it is not more

directly concerned w ith God and G . $ . Chesterton .

”—B rueningS tanda rd and S t . James Ga z ette (London) .

Will justify every favorab le expectation which cou ld be formed

of it . Will take rank with the very best things he has ever written .

His thoughtfu l analysis of Shaw ’

s character w ill help many a readerto an understanding . ” —Philadelphia Public Ledger .

Amusing—daz z ling—apparen tly irresponsib le , Chesterton ’

s portra1t is like one of Rodin’

s conceptions in scu lpture MrChesterton has never been c leverer than in his latest biography .TorontoNew s .

The most readab le book of this character ever pub lished.

$A s entertain ing as anything Mr. Chesterton ’

s exuberan t gen iushas yet produced . Al l h is won ted sureness .

” —T/z e D za l .

$ Not to be able to be du l l is G . $ . Chesterton ’

s most remarkab lecharacteristic . Ev en ing New s .

Always 0riginal .”— C/z z'eago Tr z 'éune.Orthodoxy . U n iform with Heretics .

I z mo. $ 1 .50 net . Postage 1 2 cents .

$ Here is a man with something to say.

”—B r ooklyn L if e.

A work of genius .

”Ch icago E ven ing Post .

$ ‘Orthodoxy 'is th e most importan t religious work that has ap

peared since Emerson .

” —Nor t$z Amer ica n Review.

$ Is likely to produce a sensation . An extraordinary book whichwil l be much read and talked about . - 1Vew Yor k Globe.

Al l Th ing s Cons idered. Essays on various subjects ,such as :

Conceit and Car icature ; S pir itual ism ; S cience and

Religion ; Woman , etc.

1 2mo. net . Postage 1 2 cents .

$ Fu ll of the author’s abundan t v itality, wit and unflinchingoptimism .

”—B ook News .

The Napoleon of Not t ing Hill. I z ma.

$ A bril lian t piece of satire, gemmed wi th ingen ius paradox.—B oston Hera ld.

Georg e B ernard S haw . An il lustrated B iography.

I z ma. net . Postage 1 2 cen ts .

Th e Ba l l and th e Cross . 1 2mo.

Gilbert $ . Ches terton . A C rit icism .

Cloth . 1 2mo. $ 1 .5 0 net . P ostage 1 2 cen ts .

An il lust rated biography of th is bril l ian t author ; also anable rev iew of h is works .

$ The anonymous author is a critic with uncommon discriminationand good sense . Mr . Ches terton possesses one of the best at tributes of gen iu s—impersona li ty .

$ —B a l t z'

mor e News .

A . NE IL LYONS

ROB E RT B L ATCHFOR D

The S ket ch of 3. Pe rs ona lity.

An E s t imate of S ome Ach ievemen t .

A sp lendid figure for b iographical study . -T/1e Ca l l .

Cot tag e P ie Clot/z . 127710.

A Country Spread. A Novel .

S ixpenny P iecesTh e S tory of a S ixpenn y D octorNot since famous No . 5 John S treet has been offered so tel l

ing and characteristic a work. Power t o stir human hearts and

sway human sympathies . Holds the in terest With a grip of iron and

w il l make many think .

” —C/z icagoRecord Hera ld.

Un ique in style and matter and in ten se in human in terest .Louisfvi l le Cour ier Journa l .

Notab le,pathetic, humorou s and tragic . In realistic force and

convincing t ruth of characteriz ation it is a striking achievemen t .S lum life has never been better portrayed.

” —Brooklyn Eag le.

Arth ur ’s Hot e l can . 127m . $1 50.

Sketches of low life in London . The book w il l de light Vi si torsto the slum s .

—New Yark Sun .

THE MARTYRD OM’

OF MAN

W INWOOD READE

Glat/z . $1 . 50 net . Postage 15 cents

New E d ition . Portra it F ron t ispie ce and 3.

B iog raphy of th e Author.

I. War

Egypt—VVestern A sia—The Persian s—The Greeks—The Mace

don ian s—A lexandria—The Phoen ician s—Carthage and Rom e

Roman A frica—The A rabs.

II. Re lig ionThe Natural History of Religion—The I sraelites—The Jews—TheProphets— The Character of Jesu s—The Christians—A rabiaMecca —The Character of Mahom et—D escription of A frica—TheMahom etan s in Cen tral A frica .

111. L ibertyA nc ient Europe- The German Invasion—The Castle—The Town

—The Church—Ven ice—A rab Spain—The Portuguese D iscoveriesT he S lave T rade—Abo lition in Europe—A bo lition in Am ericaMaterials of Human History .

IV . In te l le c tA n imal Period of the Earth—Origin and Early History of Man

Summary of Un iversal History—The Future of the Human Race

The Re ligion of Reason and Love.

€¦ · chapter i dramatic theory bernard shaw, with emi nently characteristic ge nerosity, has...

Documents

punctuation clues

mystery clues

context clues

clues from an ecological theory of event - cornell...

clues & mnemonics

context clues trivia using the clues to find the meaning

bone tumors clues and cues bone tumors clues and cues

chord clues - a quick guide to chord theory · chord clues...

bone tumors by dr. ahmed hosny. clues by appearance of...

6 psychoanalytic theory: clues from the brain: commentary by...

three clues

differences in language used by deceivers … · leakage...

context clues context clues concept map what are context...

blue's clues

evidence of evolution. four clues support the theory of...

context clues

context clues context clues by by mrs. evans mrs. evans

clues: roots of a scientiﬁc paradigm carlo ginzburg theory...

ginzburg clues