Bernard Shaw's Remarkable Religion: A Faith That Fits the Facts
Bernard Shaw's Remarkable Religion: A Faith That Fits the Facts
Bernard Shaw's Remarkable Religion: A Faith That Fits the Facts
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
128 <strong>Bernard</strong> Shaw’s <strong>Remarkable</strong> <strong>Religion</strong><br />
perhaps even Barbara), o<strong>the</strong>rs are not convinced (Marriage 75–79). Turco,<br />
for example, believes that <strong>the</strong> play ultimately fails because Shaw does not<br />
succeed in presenting Cusins as a clear advance over his predecessor. Most<br />
critics now would reject Chesterton’s view that religion, represented by<br />
Barbara, is defeated by materialism in <strong>the</strong> person of her fa<strong>the</strong>r. Turco, in<br />
particular, has noted <strong>the</strong> many similarities between fa<strong>the</strong>r and daughter.<br />
The difficulty is that critics are inclined to seek salvation in Cusins. Many<br />
find this view appealing, and <strong>the</strong>re is evidence in <strong>the</strong> play to support it, but<br />
it is wrong. The play can be interpreted in a Hegelian manner, but Cusins<br />
does not represent <strong>the</strong> syn<strong>the</strong>sis that emerges from <strong>the</strong> play as a whole.<br />
The real enemy is idealism, which is <strong>the</strong> refusal to look hard truths in <strong>the</strong><br />
eye. Like Candida, but on a much deeper level, Major Barbara develops a<br />
conflict from an underlying unity, and <strong>the</strong> point is that <strong>the</strong> conflict is illusory<br />
or unnecessary. Many of <strong>the</strong> complexities and apparent contradictions<br />
are <strong>the</strong> result of <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> moral conflict, which first appears to<br />
Cusins so unavoidable, is artificial. The play does not deny <strong>the</strong> existence of<br />
evil, insisting emphatically that it cannot be avoided; it only denies <strong>the</strong><br />
possibility of isolating and destroying it. Evil is not something that can be<br />
cut out like a cancer; it can only be transformed. It is part of us and we are<br />
part of it. We can try to repudiate it as alien to us, and we will find that we<br />
can do so only by choosing death over life, declaring a victory while accepting<br />
annihilation. But <strong>the</strong> play does represent <strong>the</strong> defeat of idealism, and if,<br />
like Chesterton, you are unable to see religion as o<strong>the</strong>r than a form of<br />
idealism, you must perforce agree with him about <strong>the</strong> moral of <strong>the</strong> play.<br />
From such a point of view <strong>the</strong> play must be unbearably pessimistic.<br />
More important, much would appear irrelevant or incomprehensible, so<br />
complete understanding demands a realistic point of view. The play’s purpose<br />
is to show us <strong>the</strong> path to heaven, a path forever invisible to idealist<br />
eyes. Only from <strong>the</strong> realist’s point of view do all of <strong>the</strong> pieces of <strong>the</strong> dramatic<br />
picture—a map of <strong>the</strong> world and <strong>the</strong> spirit—fit meaningfully toge<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
Responsibilities and Choices<br />
In Major Barbara, as in Shaw’s o<strong>the</strong>r plays, <strong>the</strong> issues develop through <strong>the</strong><br />
relationships of different sets of characters. One of Shaw’s favorite devices<br />
is a triad of characters representing a range of approaches to a particular<br />
ethical or social problem. They might be presented in <strong>the</strong> abstract, like <strong>the</strong><br />
Philistine, idealist, and realist of <strong>the</strong> Quintessence, or as three major char-