What do you think?
Rate this book
Major Barbara
This is a reproduction of the original artefact. Generally these books are created from careful scans of the original. This allows us to preserve the book accurately and present it in the way the author intended. Since the original versions are generally quite old, there may occasionally be certain imperfections within these reproductions. We're happy to make these classics available again for future generations to enjoy!
98 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1905
About the author
George Bernard Shaw
1,699 books3,836 followersGeorge Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright, socialist, and a co-founder of the London School of Economics. Although his first profitable writing was music and literary criticism, in which capacity he wrote many highly articulate pieces of journalism, his main talent was for drama. Over the course of his life he wrote more than 60 plays. Nearly all his plays address prevailing social problems, but each also includes a vein of comedy that makes their stark themes more palatable. In these works Shaw examined education, marriage, religion, government, health care, and class privilege.
An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.
In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.
He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.
Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.
An ardent socialist, Shaw was angered by what he perceived to be the exploitation of the working class. He wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles. For a short time he was active in local politics, serving on the London County Council.
In 1898, Shaw married Charlotte Payne-Townshend, a fellow Fabian, whom he survived. They settled in Ayot St. Lawrence in a house now called Shaw's Corner.
He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). The former for his contributions to literature and the latter for his work on the film "Pygmalion" (adaptation of his play of the same name). Shaw wanted to refuse his Nobel Prize outright, as he had no desire for public honours, but he accepted it at his wife's behest. She considered it a tribute to Ireland. He did reject the monetary award, requesting it be used to finance translation of Swedish books to English.
Shaw died at Shaw's Corner, aged 94, from chronic health problems exacerbated by injuries incurred by falling.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 262 reviews
September 25, 2023
- تتجاذب هذه المسرحية بين نيتشة وميكافيللي، وتصوب على المفاهيم الدينية للمحبة و "ادارة الخد الأيمن" والهزء والإستهزاء ب "جيش الخلاص" ومفهوم "الخلاص"، وهي تظهر لنا عبقرية برناردشو في صياغة الحوار وقدرته على اجتراح التعليل المناسب لكل قضية واخذ الحوار في اتجاه "الأقوى" والأكثر سيطرة ونفوذاً.
- برناردشو يظهر قدرة المادة (المال) وتأثيرها في الحياة، يظهر الجوع والخوف والحرمان الذي ينخر بالمجتمع من جهة والوفرة والأموال والنفوذ والسادية من جهة اخرى، يتحدث عن خلاص الجسد (الشبع) قبل خلاص الروح!
- ما يشفع له في هذه المسرحية من ان تكون هذه فلسفته او وجهة نظره هو جعل والد باربارا "لقيط" ووريثه لقيط آخر، فيسبغ حكماً على ان اولئك التجار والمتحكمين بالعالم ما هم الا لقطاء، وبهذا يخلص نفسه من فلسفة المسرحية التي بنيت عليها.
- مسرحية مادية، سوداوية، قاتمة، ميكافيلية بإمتياز، لكنها ضمن عباءة كوميدية ساخرة على عادة برناردشو.
- برناردشو يظهر قدرة المادة (المال) وتأثيرها في الحياة، يظهر الجوع والخوف والحرمان الذي ينخر بالمجتمع من جهة والوفرة والأموال والنفوذ والسادية من جهة اخرى، يتحدث عن خلاص الجسد (الشبع) قبل خلاص الروح!
- ما يشفع له في هذه المسرحية من ان تكون هذه فلسفته او وجهة نظره هو جعل والد باربارا "لقيط" ووريثه لقيط آخر، فيسبغ حكماً على ان اولئك التجار والمتحكمين بالعالم ما هم الا لقطاء، وبهذا يخلص نفسه من فلسفة المسرحية التي بنيت عليها.
- مسرحية مادية، سوداوية، قاتمة، ميكافيلية بإمتياز، لكنها ضمن عباءة كوميدية ساخرة على عادة برناردشو.
April 23, 2023
إنهم ثلاثة في قطار واحد. بعضهم يقود القطار و بعضهم يمتلك القطار نفسه بينما الأغلبية يدهسهم القطار في طريقه بعد ما يمتعهم قليلا بالركوب.
القصة ليست جديدة فقد نُشرت منذ أكثر من مئة عام و هي أيضا ليست قديمة فما زالت صالحة لكل العصور و قابلة للتعميم على كل الأقطار.
أنا الحكومة. هل تعتقد أنك و نصف دزينة من الهواة أمثالك من الجالسين في البرلمان بوسعهم التحكم بي؟ لا .. أنت مخطئ يا صديقي. ستفعل ما نمليه عليك فقط. ستشن حربا عندما يناسبنا ذلك. و تضع السلام عندما يناسبنا ذلك أيضا. ستعرف أن وجودك هناك يحتاج إلى مهارات خاصة نحن نحددها. عندما أريد شيئا يرفع أرباحي ستكتشف أن رغباتي هي مصلحة وطنية. و عندما يريد غيري إنقاص أرباحي. ستطلب الشرطة و الجيش. و في مقابل ذلك ستلقى مني الدعم و التصفيق و التطبيل في صحفي. و فرحة تصورك بأنك رجل سياسة عظيم.من هو صاحب السلطة الحقيقة. إن كنت من ركاب الدرجة الثالثة أو حتى الثانية المميزة فستقول السلطة للشعب. إجابتك خطأ. من في المقصورة الرئيسية إن تجشم عناء الإجابة فسيقول أن السلطة بيد رجال المال و الأعمال و ما الحكومة إلا لعبة بين أيديهم و هي إجابة ينقصها الكثير. هنا يأتي دور رجال الدين المنتشرين في كل درجات القطار و سيقولون لك أن عندهم القول الفصل المنزل من السماء و الذي يحمل الحقيقة المطلقة التي لا يأتيها الباطل من بين يديها و لا من خلفها. السلطة لله. و لكن أين الله؟ هل سيفصل بنفسه و ينزل من ملكوته و يحكم بين الناس هنا و الآن؟ سيقولون لا. و لكن نحن من نمثله هنا. نحن من ننقذ روحك من دنس الدنيا و شرورها و نحن من نفسر ما أنزل الله من أحكام و نصدر التشريعات اللازمة التي تجعل كل شيء في الحياة يسير كما أراد الله فلا تزل قدم بعد ثبوتها. إن صدقتهم فقد سلموك إلى رجال الأعمال و رجال السلطة و قاموا بدورهم على خير وجه في تهيئة المواطن الخاضع المستسلم الذي لا خوف منه على أي سلطة. و إن كذبتهم فقد سلمت نفسك للشيطان إن كنت بلا ظهر من السلطة يحميك بطشهم. و إن تشككت فأنت كالمنبت. لا ظهرا أبقيت و لا أرضا قطعت.
إيه العمل في الوقت ده يا صديق
غير اننا عند افتراق الطريق
نبص قدامنا على شمس أحلامنا
نلقاها بتشق السحاب الغميق
رأيت الجوع و الشقاء في المقر الذي كنت تعملين فيه. كنت تعطيهم الخبز و تدعيهم يحلمون بالفردوس. بينما أنا أعطيهم مرتبات تجعلهم يحققون أحلامهم.المال ينقذك من جوع الجسد و الدين ينتشلك من جوع الروح و ستظل الحاجة إلى رجال المال و رجال الدين موجودة ما بقي الجوع و هم حريصون كل الحرص على استمرار هذا الجوع الذي يبقي الحاجة إليهم دائما و يبقي مصالحهم دائرة و سلطتهم مؤثرة.
لقد أمنت لك السكن المحترم و الحياة الكريمة وأطعمتك وألبستك و زودتك بالمال اللازم لمتطلباتك و هكذا أنقذتك من الخطايا السبع المميتة. الغذاء – الكسوة – الدفء – الإيجار – الضرائب – الاحترام – الأطفال. لا شيء بوسعه حمل أعبائها الثقيلة عن كاهل الإنسان سوى المال. و لا تستطيع الروح أن تسمو ما لم ترتفع عنها هذه الأعباء السبعة. و أنا رفعتها عن روحك و أنقذتك من جريمة الفقر.
تشارلز لوماكس: أنت غبي. أدولفوس كاسوس: أنت ماكر. ستيفن: أنت لص. باربارا: أنت مجنونة. أندرو: أنت تاجر مبتذل. الآن الجميع بات يعرف رأيي فيه. و قد ارتاح ضميري.من أبرز شخصيات القصة: الليدي برايتمورت. زوجها صانع سلاح و ابنتها الكبرى ناشطة في جيش الخلاص التبشيري المسيحي و باقي أولادها يعيشون عالة على المجتمع. هي مثال للشخص الذي يعتقد أنه بتدينه الشكلي الزائف و تربية أبنائه على ما يظن أنه الفضيلة قد نال بذلك الرضى عن النفس و الاحترام في الدنيا و الجنة و رضى الله في الآخرة. لذلك هي تصدر أحكام قطعية على كل من يخالفها رأيها و معتقداتها.
المسرحية ساخرة متهكمة قامت بتعرية المجتمع الإنجليزي أمام نفسه و فضحت القيم التي يتشدق بها الجميع و لا يحترمها أحد أما نحن هنا في هذه البلاد السعيدة فقد سلمنا من كل تلك الترهات لأن الله حبانا بمجتمع لا تشوبه أي شائبة.
November 1, 2020
مسرحية من 3 فصول كتبها برنارد شو عام 1905
تساؤلات عن مفاهيم الخير والأخلاق والشر, المال والفقر
هل الفقر جريمة؟ هل للشر أكثر من وجه وهل بإمكانه أن يدعم الخير؟
يعرض شو ارتباط الأمن والحرية بالمال والسلاح, فهما القوة التي تحكم وتفرض شروط الحرب والسلام
شخصية المليونير صاحب مصانع السلاح هي الشخصية الأكثر حضورا في المسرحية
قوته في الوضوح, يفعل ويقول ما يؤمن به بدون أي محاولة للتخفي أو الإدعاء
تساؤلات عن مفاهيم الخير والأخلاق والشر, المال والفقر
هل الفقر جريمة؟ هل للشر أكثر من وجه وهل بإمكانه أن يدعم الخير؟
يعرض شو ارتباط الأمن والحرية بالمال والسلاح, فهما القوة التي تحكم وتفرض شروط الحرب والسلام
شخصية المليونير صاحب مصانع السلاح هي الشخصية الأكثر حضورا في المسرحية
قوته في الوضوح, يفعل ويقول ما يؤمن به بدون أي محاولة للتخفي أو الإدعاء
November 28, 2021
A brilliant summation of the place of capital in war-mongering and peace-striving. The Salvation Army proposes peace, but in order to keep the charity going to support peace, Major Barbara elicits contributions from her father Undershaft the munitions maker. Undershaft is the perfect representative of the "military-industrial complex," to use Eisenhower's term. Peace itself depends upon Undershaft and his war manufactures.
Read as a college freshman, struck with Shaw's insight and character portrayal. My Freshman Humanities professor was Rolfe Humphries, the great translator and fine poet (evidently displaced from the top by Roethke, who wrote maybe 7 good poems--like Plath).
Rolfe Humphries had played football at Amherst College, and his Latin translations are brilliant, delightful. Our Amherst class read his Aeneid, but later as a Latin minor in grad school I read his Ovid, his Juvenal and others. Humphries also loaned me his Loeb Seneca tragedies from his wall of Loeb. He said they glossed the Greek tragedy we were reading, Antigone. I think I read Thyestes, but maybe I read it once I was writing my Ph.D. on 17C English verse, because Andrew Marvell* translated part of the chorus just before Thyestes enters from exile.
(Gave me the idea that 2nd year Latin in H.S. should be Seneca, his plays, not Julius Caesar, who was included first in England to train military grads.)
* Climb at Court for me that will
Tottering favors Pinacle;
All I seek is to lie still.
Settled in some secret Nest
In calm Leisure let me rest.
And far off the publick Stage
Pass away my silent Age.
Thus when without noise, unknown
I have liv'd out all my span,
I shall die, without a groan,
An old honest Country man.
Who expos'd to others Ey's,
Into his own Heart ne'r pry's,
Death to him's a Strange surprise.
Read as a college freshman, struck with Shaw's insight and character portrayal. My Freshman Humanities professor was Rolfe Humphries, the great translator and fine poet (evidently displaced from the top by Roethke, who wrote maybe 7 good poems--like Plath).
Rolfe Humphries had played football at Amherst College, and his Latin translations are brilliant, delightful. Our Amherst class read his Aeneid, but later as a Latin minor in grad school I read his Ovid, his Juvenal and others. Humphries also loaned me his Loeb Seneca tragedies from his wall of Loeb. He said they glossed the Greek tragedy we were reading, Antigone. I think I read Thyestes, but maybe I read it once I was writing my Ph.D. on 17C English verse, because Andrew Marvell* translated part of the chorus just before Thyestes enters from exile.
(Gave me the idea that 2nd year Latin in H.S. should be Seneca, his plays, not Julius Caesar, who was included first in England to train military grads.)
* Climb at Court for me that will
Tottering favors Pinacle;
All I seek is to lie still.
Settled in some secret Nest
In calm Leisure let me rest.
And far off the publick Stage
Pass away my silent Age.
Thus when without noise, unknown
I have liv'd out all my span,
I shall die, without a groan,
An old honest Country man.
Who expos'd to others Ey's,
Into his own Heart ne'r pry's,
Death to him's a Strange surprise.
April 17, 2022
Major Barbara a pre-WWI play (1905) by George Bernard Shaw is essentially a kind of battle of wits between a father, Undershaft, who is an obscenely wealthy weapons-maker and his estranged daughter, Barbara, who is a Major in the Salvation Army. Dad, after several years, has come home and everyone really despises him. Undershaft is without principles; he’ll shaft anyone if he can make a few bucks from it. While her religion is Chistianity--she only cares about saving souls--his religion is capitalism.
Cusins: What on earth is the true faith of an Armorer? Undershaft:. To give arms to all men who offer an honest price for them, without respect of persons or principles: to aristocrat and republican, to Nihilist and Tsar, to Capitalist and Socialist, to Protestant and Catholic, to burglar and policeman . . .
He’s not in favor of democratic deliberation:
“When you vote, you only change the names of the cabinet. When you shoot, you pull down governments, inaugurate new epochs, abolish old orders and set up new.”
He sometimes makes quasi-religious pronouncements:
“If God gave the hand, let not man withhold the sword.”
In other words, he’s your basic charter member of the NRA or the Defense Deapartment. War makes peace, Orwell had some fascists say; War makes war, Undershaft crows with delight. More guns makes more murder, and all the better for him. I listened to a production because I am trying to read a few war texts while totalitarian forces destroy Ukraine for profit. Major Barbara is one of the great satirical anti-war plays (and in 1905!), in the tradition of Lysistrata. When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?
Cusins: What on earth is the true faith of an Armorer? Undershaft:. To give arms to all men who offer an honest price for them, without respect of persons or principles: to aristocrat and republican, to Nihilist and Tsar, to Capitalist and Socialist, to Protestant and Catholic, to burglar and policeman . . .
He’s not in favor of democratic deliberation:
“When you vote, you only change the names of the cabinet. When you shoot, you pull down governments, inaugurate new epochs, abolish old orders and set up new.”
He sometimes makes quasi-religious pronouncements:
“If God gave the hand, let not man withhold the sword.”
In other words, he’s your basic charter member of the NRA or the Defense Deapartment. War makes peace, Orwell had some fascists say; War makes war, Undershaft crows with delight. More guns makes more murder, and all the better for him. I listened to a production because I am trying to read a few war texts while totalitarian forces destroy Ukraine for profit. Major Barbara is one of the great satirical anti-war plays (and in 1905!), in the tradition of Lysistrata. When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?
December 27, 2016
A witty but devastatingly subversive play which mocks Christianity in general and the Salvation Army in particular. And as is always the case with Shaw, it comes with a long-winded, preachy preface designed to hammer home the author's ideology, just in case the stupid reader did not get it from the play.
March 28, 2021
Read this at uni and saw various productions of this drama. I never get tired of George Bernard Shaw. He holds up common prejudices and social norms to ridicule, then shows us a better way to think and believe. Quite the snake charmer, was Shaw, but he kept us laughing while he tried to reform us!
July 10, 2017
“You cannot have power for good without having power for evil too. Even mother's milk nourishes murderers as well as heroes.”
March 30, 2024
I could read every line by Andrew Undershaft, the exceedingly wealthy arms manufacturer who is one of the main characters in this play, over and over again without tiring of them. But if I never had to re-read or re-hear another one of the cockney-infused lines by the poorer characters in this play I would be fine. I am not sure if this reflects some warped and biased taste on my part or is George Bernard Shaw's fault for the way in which he created the characters, making one sparkling, counterintuitive and challenging while the others into stock and sometimes even condescending specimens of poverty with no originality or soul. I lean towards the later but am open to the former.
Stepping back, I came to this after asking a colleague in the English department whether there is any fiction with positive portrayals of capitalism or capitalists, with the positivity not related to charity or personal rectitude but the business itself doing good for the world. He suggested this as an intriguing and debatable possibility so I set out to read it (I should say, my wife has since come up with a clearer example, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and I would add bonus points for the movie Wonka which depicts both the benefits of capitalism but also the importance of antitrust enforcement against cartels).
Shaw sets out with a tough case: an absentee father arms manufacturer who is, by our conventional standards of morality, ammoral. He develops even deadlier weapons and believes in selling them to any side of a conflict. He states that "there are two things necessary to Salvation... money and gunpowder." This is contrasted with his daughter, Barbara, who is a Major in the Salvation Army and is focused on ministering to and providing crumbs for people in poverty while working on their salvation.
We visit a Salvation Army camp and see people who are pretending to have worse moral problems than they have to get assistance, who are still poor (albeit less miserable about it than they should be, for example they no longer mind the cold), and whose Salvation Army efforts end up failing. This is all a contrast with the arms factory we also end up seeing which, it is asserted more than shown, provides people with a well ordered life that takes care of most of their needs leaving them what seems like happy and busy.
It is never clear what exactly Shaw is satirizing and what he is agreeing with. I found that a good aspect of the play. I read much (but not all) of his very long preface where he complains that audiences took the wrong message from it, which seems to me a good thing about the play and the audiences--but if I'm wrong it is more of a failure on Shaw's part than on the audience's part. Regardless, it becomes clear that he meant some of his key points quite unironically: "In the millionaire Undershaft I have represented a man who has become intellectually and spiritually as well as practically conscious of the irresistible natural truth which we all abhor and repudiate: to wit, that the greatest of evils and the worst of crimes is poverty, and that our first duty—a duty to which every other consideration should be sacrificed—is not to be poor. 'Poor but honest,' 'the respectable poor,' and such phrases are as intolerable and as immoral as 'drunken but amiable,' 'fraudulent but a good after-dinner speaker,' 'splendidly criminal,' or the like."
Of course, Shaw is a Fabian socialist not a capitalist. He genuinely believes that capitalism needs poverty and that it needs a police force to impose that poverty. It is not entirely clear how you would understand this strictly limited to the play itself but from the preface and his broader writings.
The Andrew Undershaft character feels reminiscent of Dick Dudgeon from The Devil's Disciple (I haven't read or seen much Shaw, something I will set out to remedy, so he may resemble many others as well) in that he does his good for the world despite his pretenses and outward affect not as an extension of it. The opposite of, say, a Mrs. Jellyby in Bleak House (although in some ways like another Dickens character, Sydney Carton). This creates an analogy between capitalism--and its unintended but positive consequences--and a certain moral outlook that is focused more on deeds and consequences than words and intentions.
As for the play as a whole, the best parts are spectacular but overall it is too long and uneven. It begins as a drawing room comedy that feels like a somewhat less witty continuation of Oscar Wilde before introducing Undershaft and his scenes. Undershaft's biological son plays an important role in illustrating his character and commenting on merit versus inheritance but I could not figure out why his other daughter and her partner, both of whom were shallow, silly and one dimensional, needed to be included in a play that was already on the very long side. But all of that is less important than what I took away from reading it--and often enjoyed immensely in the process.
Stepping back, I came to this after asking a colleague in the English department whether there is any fiction with positive portrayals of capitalism or capitalists, with the positivity not related to charity or personal rectitude but the business itself doing good for the world. He suggested this as an intriguing and debatable possibility so I set out to read it (I should say, my wife has since come up with a clearer example, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and I would add bonus points for the movie Wonka which depicts both the benefits of capitalism but also the importance of antitrust enforcement against cartels).
Shaw sets out with a tough case: an absentee father arms manufacturer who is, by our conventional standards of morality, ammoral. He develops even deadlier weapons and believes in selling them to any side of a conflict. He states that "there are two things necessary to Salvation... money and gunpowder." This is contrasted with his daughter, Barbara, who is a Major in the Salvation Army and is focused on ministering to and providing crumbs for people in poverty while working on their salvation.
We visit a Salvation Army camp and see people who are pretending to have worse moral problems than they have to get assistance, who are still poor (albeit less miserable about it than they should be, for example they no longer mind the cold), and whose Salvation Army efforts end up failing. This is all a contrast with the arms factory we also end up seeing which, it is asserted more than shown, provides people with a well ordered life that takes care of most of their needs leaving them what seems like happy and busy.
It is never clear what exactly Shaw is satirizing and what he is agreeing with. I found that a good aspect of the play. I read much (but not all) of his very long preface where he complains that audiences took the wrong message from it, which seems to me a good thing about the play and the audiences--but if I'm wrong it is more of a failure on Shaw's part than on the audience's part. Regardless, it becomes clear that he meant some of his key points quite unironically: "In the millionaire Undershaft I have represented a man who has become intellectually and spiritually as well as practically conscious of the irresistible natural truth which we all abhor and repudiate: to wit, that the greatest of evils and the worst of crimes is poverty, and that our first duty—a duty to which every other consideration should be sacrificed—is not to be poor. 'Poor but honest,' 'the respectable poor,' and such phrases are as intolerable and as immoral as 'drunken but amiable,' 'fraudulent but a good after-dinner speaker,' 'splendidly criminal,' or the like."
Of course, Shaw is a Fabian socialist not a capitalist. He genuinely believes that capitalism needs poverty and that it needs a police force to impose that poverty. It is not entirely clear how you would understand this strictly limited to the play itself but from the preface and his broader writings.
The Andrew Undershaft character feels reminiscent of Dick Dudgeon from The Devil's Disciple (I haven't read or seen much Shaw, something I will set out to remedy, so he may resemble many others as well) in that he does his good for the world despite his pretenses and outward affect not as an extension of it. The opposite of, say, a Mrs. Jellyby in Bleak House (although in some ways like another Dickens character, Sydney Carton). This creates an analogy between capitalism--and its unintended but positive consequences--and a certain moral outlook that is focused more on deeds and consequences than words and intentions.
As for the play as a whole, the best parts are spectacular but overall it is too long and uneven. It begins as a drawing room comedy that feels like a somewhat less witty continuation of Oscar Wilde before introducing Undershaft and his scenes. Undershaft's biological son plays an important role in illustrating his character and commenting on merit versus inheritance but I could not figure out why his other daughter and her partner, both of whom were shallow, silly and one dimensional, needed to be included in a play that was already on the very long side. But all of that is less important than what I took away from reading it--and often enjoyed immensely in the process.
August 28, 2016
قال أفلاطون يا صديقي: إن المجتمع لا يكون آمناً ما لم يصنع الفلاسفة الإغريق البارود أو أن يصبح صانعوا البارود فلاسفة للإغريق.
مسرحية من ثلاث فصول تمثل الصراع الإنساني على مر التاريخ بين الخير والشر، إبداع لا متناهي من العملاق الأيرلندي وأحداث تتسم بالجدية والتناسق.
حينما تستدعي شيطان إلى منزلك، يجب أن تكون في تمام الإستعداد له فهو مستعد لك تمام الإستعداد، وإلا غلبك وأوقعك في شرك أنت صنعته بيدك.
حسناً.. المال لا يشتري الأمتعة فقط، يشتري النفوس، يشتري المبادئ والقيم، فلندع الشعارات الزائفة جانباً...
من يملك المال يملك كل شئ.
February 21, 2013
شو يتناول قضايا العملية الاقتصادية في صراع مع المثالية الأخلاقية
November 4, 2020
ليتها كانت رواية
October 22, 2018
Always on the lookout for more clever and interesting plays to read, I stumbled across George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion a couple of years back, not realizing that it was pretty much the verbatim origin of the classic My Fair Lady. I wanted to read more Shaw! The next thing I knew, our theater arts teacher told me that he spent the summer reading Major Barbara. And who is that by? I asked. Why, George Bernard Shaw, he answered.
And here we are.
Shaw does not disappoint. He has a very incisive mind, with a keen eye for compelling ideas and realistic, complex characters. Not a whole lot actually happens in the play, action-wise, but there is plenty to think about and characters that you don’t mind spending time with, even if it is just to listen in on their philosophic takes on morality.
Putting it that way probably makes it feel more heavy than it is. Well, it is heavy, but it is also entertaining. Lady Britomart (a smashing character name derived from the award winning warrior woman in Edmund Spenser’s Færie Queene) is forced by circumstance to seek her long since absent husband for financial support with her now-grown children. Mr. Undershaft, another fantastic name choice, is charming, generous, reasonable, and makes you wonder why Lady Britomart would ever distance herself from him, since he clearly still has feelings for her and desires to connect to his children. His amoral position as a weapons manufacturer, however, is the cause of Lady Britomart’s hesitance and gives a dangerous edge to his interactions with other characters as he matter-of-factly--as opposed to deviously--deconstructs any semblance of moral necessity within society.
Barbara, his daughter, is the supposed opposite on the spectrum. She is a Major in the Salvation Army and, unlike many of the volunteers there, has a strong sense of moral purpose and integrity. For example, her father offers to help save their Salvation Army station by donating obscene amounts of money to the cause. The station superintendent is thrilled, but Barbara sees it as dirty money and quits the Salvation Army rather than be associated with such a move. Her intentions are purely moral, spiritual, and she seeks to better society through Christian conversion.
This is all interesting enough, and then we get to the arms factory in the third act where Shaw leads us down an ultimately unsatisfactory, albeit stimulating, conclusion. Again, the role of morality, its purpose or pointlessness within society is explored. While Shaw does not surrender to the cold rationality of amoral sovereignty, he definitely has Barbara retreat to live out a desperate siege against it in a futilely valiant and unheralded finish.
So, while I did not agree with the ending, I appreciated the thought-provoking scenarios and character dialogues along the way. Plus, it’s entertaining. Mr. Shaw and I are not done by a long shot.
P.S. If you are looking for an admirable rebuttal to the ideas Shaw puts forth in Major Barbara (or any of his other noteworthy plays), the brilliant mind of his contemporary, G.K. Chesterton, does a far better job than I could ever do in breaking down and then breaking apart Shaw’s philosophic premises. Chesterton’s mind is as equally sharp as Shaw’s, and his reasoning abilities are powerful enough to have helped inspire C.S. Lewis to religion from atheism. What is most refreshing in all of this is that he and Shaw were actually friends. Imagine disagreeing with someone fundamentally on some pretty divisive political and philosophical grounds and still being strong friends! I wonder if that is something we could learn from today.
And here we are.
Shaw does not disappoint. He has a very incisive mind, with a keen eye for compelling ideas and realistic, complex characters. Not a whole lot actually happens in the play, action-wise, but there is plenty to think about and characters that you don’t mind spending time with, even if it is just to listen in on their philosophic takes on morality.
Putting it that way probably makes it feel more heavy than it is. Well, it is heavy, but it is also entertaining. Lady Britomart (a smashing character name derived from the award winning warrior woman in Edmund Spenser’s Færie Queene) is forced by circumstance to seek her long since absent husband for financial support with her now-grown children. Mr. Undershaft, another fantastic name choice, is charming, generous, reasonable, and makes you wonder why Lady Britomart would ever distance herself from him, since he clearly still has feelings for her and desires to connect to his children. His amoral position as a weapons manufacturer, however, is the cause of Lady Britomart’s hesitance and gives a dangerous edge to his interactions with other characters as he matter-of-factly--as opposed to deviously--deconstructs any semblance of moral necessity within society.
Barbara, his daughter, is the supposed opposite on the spectrum. She is a Major in the Salvation Army and, unlike many of the volunteers there, has a strong sense of moral purpose and integrity. For example, her father offers to help save their Salvation Army station by donating obscene amounts of money to the cause. The station superintendent is thrilled, but Barbara sees it as dirty money and quits the Salvation Army rather than be associated with such a move. Her intentions are purely moral, spiritual, and she seeks to better society through Christian conversion.
This is all interesting enough, and then we get to the arms factory in the third act where Shaw leads us down an ultimately unsatisfactory, albeit stimulating, conclusion. Again, the role of morality, its purpose or pointlessness within society is explored. While Shaw does not surrender to the cold rationality of amoral sovereignty, he definitely has Barbara retreat to live out a desperate siege against it in a futilely valiant and unheralded finish.
So, while I did not agree with the ending, I appreciated the thought-provoking scenarios and character dialogues along the way. Plus, it’s entertaining. Mr. Shaw and I are not done by a long shot.
P.S. If you are looking for an admirable rebuttal to the ideas Shaw puts forth in Major Barbara (or any of his other noteworthy plays), the brilliant mind of his contemporary, G.K. Chesterton, does a far better job than I could ever do in breaking down and then breaking apart Shaw’s philosophic premises. Chesterton’s mind is as equally sharp as Shaw’s, and his reasoning abilities are powerful enough to have helped inspire C.S. Lewis to religion from atheism. What is most refreshing in all of this is that he and Shaw were actually friends. Imagine disagreeing with someone fundamentally on some pretty divisive political and philosophical grounds and still being strong friends! I wonder if that is something we could learn from today.
March 1, 2009
I last read this play as a teenager, and I don't remember it as well as I would ideally wish. I recall the moral as being, roughly, that the Christian world-view was entirely compatible with the ethos of the military-industrial complex. Can that really be right? Maybe there was some level of irony I wasn't properly getting? I should re-read it. But, ironic or not, full marks to Shaw for prescience: the term "military-industrial complex" wouldn't even be invented for another few decades, and I don't think many other people were linking it with Christianity at that point in history.
Another odd thing about the play is that the most brilliant and memorable passage isn't by Shaw at all. It's a couple of verses from Euripides, translated by his friend Gilbert Murray, which one of the characters quotes about halfway through Act II. Since they aren't as well-known as they deserve to be, I'll reproduce them here:
One and another
In money and guns may outpass his brother;
And men in their millions float and flow
And seethe with a million hopes as leaven;
And they win their will; or they miss their will;
And their hopes are dead or are pined for still;
But who'er can know
As the long days go
That to live is happy, has found his heaven.
Is it so hard a thing to see
That the spirit of God --- whate'er it be ---
The law that abides and changes not, ages long,
The Eternal and Nature-born: these things be strong?
What else is Wisdom? What of Man's endeavor,
Or God's high grace so lovely and so great?
To stand from fear set free? To breathe and wait?
To hold a hand uplifted over Fate?
And shall not Loveliness be loved for ever?
Another odd thing about the play is that the most brilliant and memorable passage isn't by Shaw at all. It's a couple of verses from Euripides, translated by his friend Gilbert Murray, which one of the characters quotes about halfway through Act II. Since they aren't as well-known as they deserve to be, I'll reproduce them here:
One and another
In money and guns may outpass his brother;
And men in their millions float and flow
And seethe with a million hopes as leaven;
And they win their will; or they miss their will;
And their hopes are dead or are pined for still;
But who'er can know
As the long days go
That to live is happy, has found his heaven.
Is it so hard a thing to see
That the spirit of God --- whate'er it be ---
The law that abides and changes not, ages long,
The Eternal and Nature-born: these things be strong?
What else is Wisdom? What of Man's endeavor,
Or God's high grace so lovely and so great?
To stand from fear set free? To breathe and wait?
To hold a hand uplifted over Fate?
And shall not Loveliness be loved for ever?
September 27, 2011
First of all, I'd like to mention that 'Major Barbara' just like the female protagonist of the play, 'saved my soul' not through the salvation army but by being the first book I had read in almost a fortnight! The depression that had followed was unbearable and 'Major Barbara' literally pulled me out of it today, when I started reading it again!
Now about the play:
You read a lot of plays. Some are tragic, some are comic and some are simply Shavian. You go about the world, with your own notions and then along comes Shaw and turns your world upside down. When you read Major Barbara , for some time you are a little confused with Shaw's ideology and you begin to wonder whether poverty really is the biggest sin and whether man's real aim is to avoid being poor? Is pity really the scavenger of misery? And charity a rich man's excuse to compensate for those who are sacrificed for their sake?
This play, more than any other Shavian play makes you thin. Sometimes, it makes no sense and sometimes, you just can't tell whether your thinking has been wrong all these years or whether Shaw smoke something weird before he conceived Major Barbara ! With this play, than any other and through Undershaft, Shaw reverses your concept of good and bad, moral and immoral.
Now about the play:
You read a lot of plays. Some are tragic, some are comic and some are simply Shavian. You go about the world, with your own notions and then along comes Shaw and turns your world upside down. When you read Major Barbara , for some time you are a little confused with Shaw's ideology and you begin to wonder whether poverty really is the biggest sin and whether man's real aim is to avoid being poor? Is pity really the scavenger of misery? And charity a rich man's excuse to compensate for those who are sacrificed for their sake?
This play, more than any other Shavian play makes you thin. Sometimes, it makes no sense and sometimes, you just can't tell whether your thinking has been wrong all these years or whether Shaw smoke something weird before he conceived Major Barbara ! With this play, than any other and through Undershaft, Shaw reverses your concept of good and bad, moral and immoral.
June 15, 2016
From BBC Radio 4 - Drama
After a long absence George Bernard Shaw returns to the Radio 4 airwaves in this new 2 part drama.
Starring Eleanor Tomlinson as Barbara and Rebecca Front as Lady Britomart.
1/2: Barbara's mission is to save East End souls in the West Ham
Salvation shelter. A tale of rich privilege and a battle of wills. All
wrapped up in a romance, the return of a long lost father and
a little matter of finding a foundling to carry on the Undershaft
arms and gunpowder empire.
2/2: While Barbara is out in the East End trying to
save souls and raise money for the Salvation Army,
Undershaft tells Dolly the two things
necessary for Salvation are money and gunpowder
and once he's got the Army he'll have Barbara too.
Is he, as Dolly suspects, an infernal old rascal?
Concertina played by Colin Guthrie and the
Cornet by Peter Ringrose
Produced and Directed by Tracey Neale
Major Barbara, written in 1905, is funny, enjoyable and crafty in dividing opinion and it leaves you pondering whether anything has changed over the years. It cleverly splits into two episodes for this Radio 4 production.
At its heart - a simple and intriguing conflict: the struggle between arms manufacturer Andrew Undershaft and his Salvationist daughter Barbara. Can a father win his daughter's heart and mind?
All the best things about George Bernard Shaw are here - the humour, the teasing paradoxical thinking and the sense of life being both absurd and deadly serious. How should people be ruled and how should they be helped? And who is really pulling the strings in the struggle for power - politicians or money?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07dk01s
After a long absence George Bernard Shaw returns to the Radio 4 airwaves in this new 2 part drama.
Starring Eleanor Tomlinson as Barbara and Rebecca Front as Lady Britomart.
1/2: Barbara's mission is to save East End souls in the West Ham
Salvation shelter. A tale of rich privilege and a battle of wills. All
wrapped up in a romance, the return of a long lost father and
a little matter of finding a foundling to carry on the Undershaft
arms and gunpowder empire.
2/2: While Barbara is out in the East End trying to
save souls and raise money for the Salvation Army,
Undershaft tells Dolly the two things
necessary for Salvation are money and gunpowder
and once he's got the Army he'll have Barbara too.
Is he, as Dolly suspects, an infernal old rascal?
Concertina played by Colin Guthrie and the
Cornet by Peter Ringrose
Produced and Directed by Tracey Neale
Major Barbara, written in 1905, is funny, enjoyable and crafty in dividing opinion and it leaves you pondering whether anything has changed over the years. It cleverly splits into two episodes for this Radio 4 production.
At its heart - a simple and intriguing conflict: the struggle between arms manufacturer Andrew Undershaft and his Salvationist daughter Barbara. Can a father win his daughter's heart and mind?
All the best things about George Bernard Shaw are here - the humour, the teasing paradoxical thinking and the sense of life being both absurd and deadly serious. How should people be ruled and how should they be helped? And who is really pulling the strings in the struggle for power - politicians or money?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07dk01s
November 23, 2021
Honestly smitten ....
Who'd have thought it-a play about the Sallies mixed in with a munitions manufacturer! But seriously, this is a play with a beating heart and sympathetic socialist brain which, for once, isn't clouded in rhetoric.
There's for once, the spectre of life imitating art; Alfred Nobel, Carnegie, Cadbury, Krupp, all those kingpins of industry who turned to philanthropy in their dotage. Who refused their tainted money? Hospitals, academic institutions, charities...no, they couldn't get enough of it.
And, here, Shaw brings it back to the personal level; but does it in a way that harks back to the original playwrights and philosophers of the Western World, the Greeks. And he does it by bringing in the common man, in Cockney dialect, not just the capitalist and the titled. There's a couple of brawls and some music as well. It's a lively, comic, active play which somehow still feels current in its sentiments.
The characterisations of the Salvation Army volunteers feel timeless; the poor and the homeless grifters whom they assist are welldrawn-Snobby Price has to be one of the best rascals he has written. Then there's the Undershaft family who are beautifully drawn-the selfmade straight-talking millionaire; his no nonsense wife, Lady Britomart; and the 3 children-the eponymous Major Barbara, her dizzy sister, and the spoiled but underdog brother. But the fun does not stop there. The 2 daughter's suitors are a complementary masterpiece-one a Professor of Greek, the other an idle toff who's got a well-developed sense of humour. So there's the love interest also, which invites intrigue.
There's religion, of course, and the military form of evangelical religion the Sallies are known for, but somehow this does not jar with the munitions, in fact, it feels, the yin of one to the yang of the other. Of couse, there's irony and satire, but it's done with a lighter hand than I've previously seen Shaw address. Indeed, he's really not "poking the Borax" at all. It feels a more natural exposition than previous theatrical explorations of spirituality he has incorporated in those of his plays I have read to date.
The plot revolves around money and inheritance, to which there's a biblical catch. The settings also appeal. The initial Act in a library of a smart London home: the second Act in a Salvation Army mission; the last in a purpose built factory town. Somehow, it just feels perfectly formed?
I'm told this is one of Shaw's most complex plays. But, to me, I found it far the best that I have read to date, and can imagine, the entertainment that it would provide on stage!
Who'd have thought it-a play about the Sallies mixed in with a munitions manufacturer! But seriously, this is a play with a beating heart and sympathetic socialist brain which, for once, isn't clouded in rhetoric.
There's for once, the spectre of life imitating art; Alfred Nobel, Carnegie, Cadbury, Krupp, all those kingpins of industry who turned to philanthropy in their dotage. Who refused their tainted money? Hospitals, academic institutions, charities...no, they couldn't get enough of it.
And, here, Shaw brings it back to the personal level; but does it in a way that harks back to the original playwrights and philosophers of the Western World, the Greeks. And he does it by bringing in the common man, in Cockney dialect, not just the capitalist and the titled. There's a couple of brawls and some music as well. It's a lively, comic, active play which somehow still feels current in its sentiments.
The characterisations of the Salvation Army volunteers feel timeless; the poor and the homeless grifters whom they assist are welldrawn-Snobby Price has to be one of the best rascals he has written. Then there's the Undershaft family who are beautifully drawn-the selfmade straight-talking millionaire; his no nonsense wife, Lady Britomart; and the 3 children-the eponymous Major Barbara, her dizzy sister, and the spoiled but underdog brother. But the fun does not stop there. The 2 daughter's suitors are a complementary masterpiece-one a Professor of Greek, the other an idle toff who's got a well-developed sense of humour. So there's the love interest also, which invites intrigue.
There's religion, of course, and the military form of evangelical religion the Sallies are known for, but somehow this does not jar with the munitions, in fact, it feels, the yin of one to the yang of the other. Of couse, there's irony and satire, but it's done with a lighter hand than I've previously seen Shaw address. Indeed, he's really not "poking the Borax" at all. It feels a more natural exposition than previous theatrical explorations of spirituality he has incorporated in those of his plays I have read to date.
The plot revolves around money and inheritance, to which there's a biblical catch. The settings also appeal. The initial Act in a library of a smart London home: the second Act in a Salvation Army mission; the last in a purpose built factory town. Somehow, it just feels perfectly formed?
I'm told this is one of Shaw's most complex plays. But, to me, I found it far the best that I have read to date, and can imagine, the entertainment that it would provide on stage!
June 4, 2021
"Major Barbara" is a great play for the Shaw Festival where it is performed on a regular basis. It poses the question that remains as relevant in the 21st century as it was when the play was first performed in the first decade of the 20th century: that is to say which is worse: making weapons of mass destruction or promoting a religion. For Shaw, a socialist, the answer is obvious. Religion is the opium of the people which diverts their attention from the real problems that must be dealt with; weapons on the other hand are the normal instruments of historical change. Shaw however does present both sides of the argument at least in partial form. The key to a great outing then is to attend a matinée with friends at the Festival Theatre and then rehash the many arguments of the play at one of the many delightful restaurants that can be found within a fifteen minute walk from the theatre.
The problem with "Major Barbara" is as is typical for a Shaw play is that it begins with a false premise and then concludes with an untrue solution. The protagonist is the daughter of an arms manufacturer who rebels and becomes a Major in the Salvation Army where she self-righteously calls upon the poor to convert. My objection is that the Salvation Army was never composed of sanctimonious members of the middle class who felt that the poor needed to be instructed in how to mend their ways. The Salvation Army was at the time Shaw wrote Major Barbara a true working class church composed of reformed sinners who recruited others who were going through the same troubles that they had at a earlier point in time.
Shaw seems only to have seen the clownish side of the Salvation Army specifically the wearing of military uniforms, and the playing of brass instruments in the street. The Salvation Army however was not a middle class but a thoroughly working class organization. It goes without saying that nobody attending the play when it was first performed would have had the slightest notion about who belonged to the Salvation Army and what their methods were. The same remains true today. Thus the Salvation Army continues to be the butt of Shaw's uninformed sarcasm.
Arguably, Shaw does an even worse job with Major Barbara's arms manufacturer father who seems neither to have met nor to have bribed a politician. The many books that I have read on the arms industry all argue that a major focus of the upper management of any arms producer is to network with politicans and bribe them ensure that their products are purchased.
"Major Barbara" is entertaining but the events take place in a world that does not exist and never has existed. The closer you look at it, the more dishonest it seems.
The problem with "Major Barbara" is as is typical for a Shaw play is that it begins with a false premise and then concludes with an untrue solution. The protagonist is the daughter of an arms manufacturer who rebels and becomes a Major in the Salvation Army where she self-righteously calls upon the poor to convert. My objection is that the Salvation Army was never composed of sanctimonious members of the middle class who felt that the poor needed to be instructed in how to mend their ways. The Salvation Army was at the time Shaw wrote Major Barbara a true working class church composed of reformed sinners who recruited others who were going through the same troubles that they had at a earlier point in time.
Shaw seems only to have seen the clownish side of the Salvation Army specifically the wearing of military uniforms, and the playing of brass instruments in the street. The Salvation Army however was not a middle class but a thoroughly working class organization. It goes without saying that nobody attending the play when it was first performed would have had the slightest notion about who belonged to the Salvation Army and what their methods were. The same remains true today. Thus the Salvation Army continues to be the butt of Shaw's uninformed sarcasm.
Arguably, Shaw does an even worse job with Major Barbara's arms manufacturer father who seems neither to have met nor to have bribed a politician. The many books that I have read on the arms industry all argue that a major focus of the upper management of any arms producer is to network with politicans and bribe them ensure that their products are purchased.
"Major Barbara" is entertaining but the events take place in a world that does not exist and never has existed. The closer you look at it, the more dishonest it seems.
June 11, 2012
The problem with Shaw is that I always feel crabbier when I read him. Even Pygmalion, which strikes me as a superior play, makes me slightly irritable, and Major Barbara doesn’t have any musical tunes to hum while you’re trudging through Shaw’s dreary I Am So Keenly Critical and Nuanced dialogue. The other problem is that, in my opinion, he’s neither keen nor nuanced. He’s bigoted and cranky, and his weak humor begs an unfavorable comparison to Oscar Wilde, who probably didn’t like this play either. I know – Shaw brings up interesting questions about individual and corporate responsibility toward those who purchase goods, and he explores the question (impossibility) of a utopia. These are good issues, and not easily resolved in or out of the play. But Shaw’s antagonism toward religion and his disgust for human beings in general are so off-putting that I want to toss the book at his feet. Too bad someone didn’t tell him that misanthropy gets tiresome.
In retrospect, possibly what pushed me over the edge wasn’t actually Shaw’s play, but having to listen to self-righteous classmates discuss it. “It’s awful that the Salvation Army hands out bread and soup instead of providing job training!” “Yes, in fact it’s EVIL when you think about it!” No, it’s not. Isn’t it bad enough to have to read about ridiculous characters? Must I also have to listen to ridiculous comments from actual people??
In retrospect, possibly what pushed me over the edge wasn’t actually Shaw’s play, but having to listen to self-righteous classmates discuss it. “It’s awful that the Salvation Army hands out bread and soup instead of providing job training!” “Yes, in fact it’s EVIL when you think about it!” No, it’s not. Isn’t it bad enough to have to read about ridiculous characters? Must I also have to listen to ridiculous comments from actual people??
December 3, 2016
When we talk about God, by extension we are talking about poverty, illiteracy, weakness, and suffering. Wealth is a source of happiness, arrogance, pride, and oppression. The former view is held by Mr. Undershaft while the latter view by he daughter, Barbara. Question is, can we all be wealthy? Can we aolish poverty? Gearge Bernard Shaw thinks we can. He proposes the introduction of the minimum wage for everyone. He through Mr. Undershaft believes that poverty is the worst crime on earth.
Barbara on the other hand believes that there is honor in poverty. Truth, honor, and happiness are the hallmarks of religion. This is a debate that will never go away. What is clear is that man will always worship something. Be it money or canons as Mr. Undershaft states. Cusin, Barbra's fiancee throws a spanner into the works by stating that Mr. Undershaft is powerless in his power. He is a slave to those who make him rich. He is not in control of his will as he is supposed to do. Maybe that is the answer to our pursuit for wealth and rejection of God.
Barbara on the other hand believes that there is honor in poverty. Truth, honor, and happiness are the hallmarks of religion. This is a debate that will never go away. What is clear is that man will always worship something. Be it money or canons as Mr. Undershaft states. Cusin, Barbra's fiancee throws a spanner into the works by stating that Mr. Undershaft is powerless in his power. He is a slave to those who make him rich. He is not in control of his will as he is supposed to do. Maybe that is the answer to our pursuit for wealth and rejection of God.
June 13, 2013
After reading so many plays by Shaw, I liked only this play, In it i like Shaw the satiric but not necessarily Shaw the intellectual, although i preference socialism, but have an unrest about the the western Europeans - and Americans - Socialists specially the celebrity ones.
Back to the play, I think the most remarkable element about it is its characters, Shaw's sarcasm of every one - except maybe Undershaft - is clear - at least for me. In this screen version he is free to present the scenes as he liked and so the dialogue don't hold alone the burden of clarify the idea, And this maybe the cause of the weakness of the play: the unnecessarily and repeated ideas presented in characters dialogues when it's very clear by the events itself.
Back to the play, I think the most remarkable element about it is its characters, Shaw's sarcasm of every one - except maybe Undershaft - is clear - at least for me. In this screen version he is free to present the scenes as he liked and so the dialogue don't hold alone the burden of clarify the idea, And this maybe the cause of the weakness of the play: the unnecessarily and repeated ideas presented in characters dialogues when it's very clear by the events itself.
May 3, 2015
This is a play about capitalism verses human rights, about the military industrial complex, what religion is really about, and what is right and wrong. Yet, this play was written over a hundred years ago, yet is as fresh as if it were written today. There will not be a reader or viewer, despite their political or religious leanings, that will not have at least one long cherished belief challenged to its core. Many plays are cotton candy, this is a meat and potatoes play. Lastly, you will laugh as well.
April 5, 2024
أمامي نسخة من طبعة سنة 1966 ترجمة أحمد النادي وهي ترجمة يوجد بها عامية مصرية أحيانا و خصوصاً حديث بل ووكر وغيره
ولكن لا أعرف دائما ماذا ينوي الراحل برنارد شو أن يقول هل نستسلم لصانعي الموت في العالم أم نقض عليهم؟.
ومعا ذلك يشرح مشكلة الخير و الشر بالنسبة للشرير و الخير وغير ذلك وجهة النظر
أول عمل معا برنارد شو أنصح به.
ولكن لا أعرف دائما ماذا ينوي الراحل برنارد شو أن يقول هل نستسلم لصانعي الموت في العالم أم نقض عليهم؟.
ومعا ذلك يشرح مشكلة الخير و الشر بالنسبة للشرير و الخير وغير ذلك وجهة النظر
أول عمل معا برنارد شو أنصح به.
December 26, 2022
نمایشنامه دیگه ای از جورج برنارد شاو طبق معمول خوشخوانه و حین خوندنش خسته نمیشید
مواردی که در این نمایشنامه وجود دارن و بشه بهشون اشاره کرد: طبقات اجتماعی، خیریه ها، تدین، سرمایه داری، جنگ و صنعت ساخت اسلحه و یه خانواده به شدت اِفدآپ
مواردی که در این نمایشنامه وجود دارن و بشه بهشون اشاره کرد: طبقات اجتماعی، خیریه ها، تدین، سرمایه داری، جنگ و صنعت ساخت اسلحه و یه خانواده به شدت اِفدآپ
February 5, 2021
Absolutely adored the humour in this and I think it really does stand the test of time and many people would really enjoy it today, as it kind of still fits our society.
December 27, 2015
G.B.S. is a masterful devil's advocate. In this play, his most vibrant character, Undershaft, is a capitalist; a munitions magnate. He makes a better case for individualism and capitalism than Ayn Rand ever did. You wouldn't know from reading this that the author was a socialist.
Shaw was a lifelong member of the socialist Fabian Society, who advocated the technique of permeation. Its members, many of whom had friends in the halls of power, could express their ideas to those politicians persistently and gently, and therefore, it was thought, gradually influence the course of events.
Shaw eventually became disenchanted with permeation. He was also disenchanted with democracy. What he hoped for was a strong leader to emerge, to be able to forcefully bring socialist ideas into effect. Undershaft was an early thought experiment of Shaw's toward that ideal. Undershaft creates a company that is able to feed, house, clothe, and generally satisfy the human needs of its workers to an extraordinary degree, thereby creating a loyal workforce and a sound basis for profit. This levelling-up of the worker would be good for democracy. A worker who has a full belly and time to study and think would make better decisions in the voting booth. There are some corporations these days with that philosophy: treat employees well; riches and social good will follow.
Undershaft's daughter, Barbara, a Salvation Army evangelist, and Barbara's boyfriend, Adolphus, a professor of Greek, come to be influenced by Undershaft after he shows them that there is much of selfishness in the salvation of souls, and that the work of salvation can't be done without the plutocrats. It is hinted that, when the generational shift occurs, Barbara and Adolphus may turn the company to even more beneficent ends than Undershaft was able to.
This play is certainly, and in a good way, a head-scratcher. A paradox, if you know Shaw and his work. He really is able to get outside his own head and see the world and explain the world from another perspective.
Note: this play is a signpost to an intellectual drift that would later trip Shaw up. In wishing for strong, transformative leaders, he later sympathized for a time with English fascist Oswald Mosley and with dictators like Mussolini and Stalin (before it became obvious what directions they were to take).
Shaw was a lifelong member of the socialist Fabian Society, who advocated the technique of permeation. Its members, many of whom had friends in the halls of power, could express their ideas to those politicians persistently and gently, and therefore, it was thought, gradually influence the course of events.
Shaw eventually became disenchanted with permeation. He was also disenchanted with democracy. What he hoped for was a strong leader to emerge, to be able to forcefully bring socialist ideas into effect. Undershaft was an early thought experiment of Shaw's toward that ideal. Undershaft creates a company that is able to feed, house, clothe, and generally satisfy the human needs of its workers to an extraordinary degree, thereby creating a loyal workforce and a sound basis for profit. This levelling-up of the worker would be good for democracy. A worker who has a full belly and time to study and think would make better decisions in the voting booth. There are some corporations these days with that philosophy: treat employees well; riches and social good will follow.
Undershaft's daughter, Barbara, a Salvation Army evangelist, and Barbara's boyfriend, Adolphus, a professor of Greek, come to be influenced by Undershaft after he shows them that there is much of selfishness in the salvation of souls, and that the work of salvation can't be done without the plutocrats. It is hinted that, when the generational shift occurs, Barbara and Adolphus may turn the company to even more beneficent ends than Undershaft was able to.
This play is certainly, and in a good way, a head-scratcher. A paradox, if you know Shaw and his work. He really is able to get outside his own head and see the world and explain the world from another perspective.
Note: this play is a signpost to an intellectual drift that would later trip Shaw up. In wishing for strong, transformative leaders, he later sympathized for a time with English fascist Oswald Mosley and with dictators like Mussolini and Stalin (before it became obvious what directions they were to take).
December 27, 2016
I really like this play. Shaw pushes the boundary of society. Answers our darkest questions about society without any remorse or fear. This play bashes all the "do-gooders" out there by essentially saying "Yes you do good. But is it really good is it causing more harm? How can you stand in the light smiling whilst shaking hands with the dark? The same dark that you spit on."
It's a play that really gets you thinking about the way society is built. Are our actions of good really befitting the society or are we just acting according to preset motions controlled by corporate puppet masters.
My favourite character was surprise surprise, Mr. Undershaft. He is the most wittiest/sly/cunning/manipulative/cheeky character I have seen in almost all of my reading life. I think there are only a few who are better then him. I wanted to highlight every line of his in the play. Sadly this copy belonged to the library. He has a smart retort to every jab his family takes at him and every retort is something deep. So deep that it reveals the depth of Shaw's intelligence and thought. It's a magnificent view on life. One that I find myself agreeing with (because I'm a proud hypocritical cynic. Don't ask, it somehow works.) You only need to take a look at the world around you to see what Mr. Undershaft and ultimately, this play is trying to tell the reader.
The only reason I didn't give this a higher rating is that, beside Mr. Undershaft and the message of the play, I found the plot and other characters boring. I didn't care about what happened or what other characters were thinking/saying. Also, there was one character whose lines were extremely hard to read just because the author was trying to emphasize his accent. I get it but it gave me a headache to read it.
Still a solid play that I treasure because of its message. Give it a go and don;t be too put off by the plot. It's not a long play and Mr. Undershaft's character and thoughts are some that people should be more aware about.
It's a play that really gets you thinking about the way society is built. Are our actions of good really befitting the society or are we just acting according to preset motions controlled by corporate puppet masters.
My favourite character was surprise surprise, Mr. Undershaft. He is the most wittiest/sly/cunning/manipulative/cheeky character I have seen in almost all of my reading life. I think there are only a few who are better then him. I wanted to highlight every line of his in the play. Sadly this copy belonged to the library. He has a smart retort to every jab his family takes at him and every retort is something deep. So deep that it reveals the depth of Shaw's intelligence and thought. It's a magnificent view on life. One that I find myself agreeing with (because I'm a proud hypocritical cynic. Don't ask, it somehow works.) You only need to take a look at the world around you to see what Mr. Undershaft and ultimately, this play is trying to tell the reader.
The only reason I didn't give this a higher rating is that, beside Mr. Undershaft and the message of the play, I found the plot and other characters boring. I didn't care about what happened or what other characters were thinking/saying. Also, there was one character whose lines were extremely hard to read just because the author was trying to emphasize his accent. I get it but it gave me a headache to read it.
Still a solid play that I treasure because of its message. Give it a go and don;t be too put off by the plot. It's not a long play and Mr. Undershaft's character and thoughts are some that people should be more aware about.
October 1, 2019
from Bernard Shaw’s Major Barbara
Act II, Scene I
CUSINS. Pardon me. We were discussing religion. Why go back to such an uninteresting and unimportant subject
as business?
UNDERSHAFT. Religion is our business at present, because it is through religion alone that we can win Barbara.
[…] Keep to the point. We have to win her; and we are neither of us Methodists.
CUSINS. That doesn't matter. The power Barbara wields here—the power that wields Barbara herself—is not
Calvinism, not Presbyterianism, not Methodism—
UNDERSHAFT. Not Greek Paganism either, eh?
CUSINS. I admit that. Barbara is quite original in her religion.
UNDERSHAFT [triumphantly] Aha! Barbara Undershaft would be. Her inspiration comes from within herself.
CUSINS. How do you suppose it got there?
UNDERSHAFT [in towering excitement] It is the Undershaft inheritance. I shall hand on my torch to my daughter.
She shall make my converts and preach my gospel.
CUSINS. What! Money and gunpowder!
UNDERSHAFT. Yes, money and gunpowder; freedom and power; command of life and command of death.
George Bernard Shaw in this play criticizes the hypocrite view of non-believers over religion. The
one which has been used as a tool to dominate people. These are pre-enlightenment traditions and
conditions George Bernard Shaw fights with.
The lines show the characters of Cusins and Undershaft clearly, the key lines to character analysis
and how the characterization is done in well-made plays.
The lines are quite lengthy and show the style of dialogue-writing in the early days of the twentieth century.
Act II, Scene I
CUSINS. Pardon me. We were discussing religion. Why go back to such an uninteresting and unimportant subject
as business?
UNDERSHAFT. Religion is our business at present, because it is through religion alone that we can win Barbara.
[…] Keep to the point. We have to win her; and we are neither of us Methodists.
CUSINS. That doesn't matter. The power Barbara wields here—the power that wields Barbara herself—is not
Calvinism, not Presbyterianism, not Methodism—
UNDERSHAFT. Not Greek Paganism either, eh?
CUSINS. I admit that. Barbara is quite original in her religion.
UNDERSHAFT [triumphantly] Aha! Barbara Undershaft would be. Her inspiration comes from within herself.
CUSINS. How do you suppose it got there?
UNDERSHAFT [in towering excitement] It is the Undershaft inheritance. I shall hand on my torch to my daughter.
She shall make my converts and preach my gospel.
CUSINS. What! Money and gunpowder!
UNDERSHAFT. Yes, money and gunpowder; freedom and power; command of life and command of death.
George Bernard Shaw in this play criticizes the hypocrite view of non-believers over religion. The
one which has been used as a tool to dominate people. These are pre-enlightenment traditions and
conditions George Bernard Shaw fights with.
The lines show the characters of Cusins and Undershaft clearly, the key lines to character analysis
and how the characterization is done in well-made plays.
The lines are quite lengthy and show the style of dialogue-writing in the early days of the twentieth century.
July 5, 2011
This is the first play /work by Shaw that I read, and I liked it so much, even it is old written in 1905. I am going to read his other plays and novels. Well I am going to read it again and may be I will edit this review.
--------------------------------
If God Gave the Hand, Let Not Man Withold the Sword.
All Have the Right to Fight: None Have the Right to Judge.
To Man the Weapon: To Heaven the Victory.
--------------------------------
Beautiful!!!
Having said this, The play Major Barbara is written to portray strength of realism over that of Salvation Army (whatever -ism it is). I think, the whole charitable organization and the people working for the organization are unrealistically and artificially shown to be shallow. At times it feels like, Shaw is doing mockery of anything of animate character. That includes "God", "Soul", and "faith".
The point he makes and the arguments and dialogues are very powerful.
--------------------------------
If God Gave the Hand, Let Not Man Withold the Sword.
All Have the Right to Fight: None Have the Right to Judge.
To Man the Weapon: To Heaven the Victory.
--------------------------------
Beautiful!!!
Having said this, The play Major Barbara is written to portray strength of realism over that of Salvation Army (whatever -ism it is). I think, the whole charitable organization and the people working for the organization are unrealistically and artificially shown to be shallow. At times it feels like, Shaw is doing mockery of anything of animate character. That includes "God", "Soul", and "faith".
The point he makes and the arguments and dialogues are very powerful.
August 13, 2015
Read as part of my Kindle omnibus "The Plays of Shaw".
Very witty satire about Barbara Undershaft, a major in the Salvation Army, and her family, most notably her father who owns & operates a munitions factory. The debate about physical versus moral power is a bit wordy in places otherwise I might have given this a 5 star rating. Now I am off to watch the film version with Rex Harrison and Wendy Hiller...
Very witty satire about Barbara Undershaft, a major in the Salvation Army, and her family, most notably her father who owns & operates a munitions factory. The debate about physical versus moral power is a bit wordy in places otherwise I might have given this a 5 star rating. Now I am off to watch the film version with Rex Harrison and Wendy Hiller...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 262 reviews