What do you think?
Rate this book
Androcles and the Lion
A retelling of the consequences following the meeting of Androcles, the slave, and a wounded lion.
159 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1912
34 people are currently reading
826 people want to read
About the author
George Bernard Shaw
1,941 books4,105 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 64 reviews
October 11, 2023
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.
Androcles and the Lion ~~ George Bernard Shaw
#10 of my 2018 Shaw Project
Androcles and the Lion is a thorny look at the origins of the Roman Catholic Church. Shaw’s 1912 adaptation of one of Aesop’s fables was a bit of a dramatic lightening rod when it first premiered, attacking religious and political hypocrisy and calling instead for earnestness and honesty. More slapstickish than any of Shaw's plays, Androcles and the Lion is worth stepping into the den.
2023 Reread
I felt the urge to read some George Bernard Shaw. I settled upon Androcles and the Lion. Here, Shaw, mixes romantic comedy, social satire, political commentary, religious rumination, children’s pantomime and vaudevillian slapstick ~~ all brilliantly. Not the best place to begin a Shaw journey, but well worth your time if you like Shaw.
After reading 10 of Shaw's plays this week, it's time to take a break. Later this year, I hope to revisit Candida, Saint Joan, Caesar and Cleopatra, and The Dark Lady of the Sonnets.
Androcles and the Lion ~~ George Bernard Shaw
#10 of my 2018 Shaw Project
Androcles and the Lion is a thorny look at the origins of the Roman Catholic Church. Shaw’s 1912 adaptation of one of Aesop’s fables was a bit of a dramatic lightening rod when it first premiered, attacking religious and political hypocrisy and calling instead for earnestness and honesty. More slapstickish than any of Shaw's plays, Androcles and the Lion is worth stepping into the den.
2023 Reread
I felt the urge to read some George Bernard Shaw. I settled upon Androcles and the Lion. Here, Shaw, mixes romantic comedy, social satire, political commentary, religious rumination, children’s pantomime and vaudevillian slapstick ~~ all brilliantly. Not the best place to begin a Shaw journey, but well worth your time if you like Shaw.
After reading 10 of Shaw's plays this week, it's time to take a break. Later this year, I hope to revisit Candida, Saint Joan, Caesar and Cleopatra, and The Dark Lady of the Sonnets.
February 28, 2016
Ο George Bernard Shaw χρησιμοποιεί έναν από τους μύθους του Αισώπου. Ο Ανδροκλής είναι ο αδύναμος άνθρωπος με μεγαλείο ψυχής, που η ζωή του ανταποδίδει τις καλοσύνες που έχει κάνει. Από την άλλη το λιοντάρι δεν ξεχνάει την ευγνωμοσύνη που δέχτηκε από τον ευεργέτη του.
February 16, 2010
Shaw was a man of conflicts, and though some came from without, the majority were simply Shaw running roughshod over himself. He was quick to adopt new ideas, then vehement in defending them for as long as he kept them--which was rarely very long.
He first fought to abolish censorship, then supported the right of a fascist regime to silence undesirables. He was a lifelong supporter of the people's revolution against economic tyranny, but praised totalitarian rule by both Stalin and Hitler. He condemned Romanticism in drama, and then wrote plays about beautiful, wealthy people and their conjugal angst, ending with double marriages. He unquestioningly accepted the health benefits of vegetarianism, but held a lifelong grudge against inoculation.
Nothing better represents Shaw's internal conflict than a comparison of one of his plays to the preface that precedes it. His prefaces were long--often exceeding in length the play which followed--sometimes by twice or more. They were drawn from long lectures which Shaw gave to various radical political groups, combining his pet interests with whatever new idea he had recently digested.
Rarely did the prefaces resemble the plays, either in tone, philosophy, or argument. They may have related to the plays by theme, but the combination of two thematic pieces which share no common point of view does not create anything more in conjunction than they might have, alone.
The preface to Androcles and the Lion does take Christianity as its central motif, and so is more aligned to its play than many of his others. In the preface, Shaw begins with a thoughtful analysis of the gospels, showing how each disagrees with the others and reveals the bias of its author.
It is an amusing and thoughtful deconstruction of Christian myth, showing that no sooner had Jesus been martyred than his message was subverted into several inconsistent political movements. Jesus' time as the messiah did nothing to patch the schisms already present in the Levantine faith, and the moment he was gone his followers were more than glad to use his name to their own ends: whether it was Paul returning the church to John the Baptist's tradition, Mark obsessing with early prophecy, or Luke making Jesus into a mighty hero of romance.
They don't agree on where he was born, where he lived, what he said, what he did, what others did around him, or how or why he died. Shaw tries to read between the lines to find the real Jesus, and eventually determines he is an outspoken man who breaks with tradition to bring a personal faith based on deeds, not thoughts, and who became obsessed with the old myth of martyrdom and rebirth, and hence committed a crime which carried a penalty of death and refused the ways out which were offered to him.
All this is interesting enough, if not revolutionary in the realm of biblical scholarship. Shaw then ends his concrete analysis of how men have perverted the life of Jesus for political ends and begins instead to interpret the life of Jesus to match his own political ends, namely: Jesus the father of communist revolution.
What could better show the schism in Shaw's mind than the fact that he can move from ridiculing other men for rewriting Jesus' philosophy, then doing it himself in the span of a few pages whithout showing the least recognition of the irony? He goes on and on about how Jesus' church is the Socialist party and how his goals were the Socialist goals of abolishing and equalizing wealth, and other such pats on the back.
He then abruptly switches gears again, to a yet more unasked-for argument. No longer does he talk about Jesus or Socialism, but about how people come to believe what they believe. Yet, what he presents is both old and useless: The Skeptic's Argument.
This might also be termed 'The Six-Year-Old's Argument' or 'The First Year Philosophy Major's Argument', as it boils down to responding to every statement with "what if that's not true?" or "why?" Shaw suggests that we don't really know anything, and so believing one thing or another thing is merely a matter of taste.
He gives the example of the 'sacred number' seven, which was often given in earlier times as an answer to various questions. He suggests that if the king asked his magistrate how far the sun was from the Earth, the magistrate might say "seven-hundred seventy-seven miles", and be declared correct on the basis of using a sacred number for a sacred measurement.
He then goes on to suggest that the new sacred number is 'a million', and that our new experts telling us the distance of the sun is millions of miles is the same as a medieval astrologer saying seven-hundred seventy-seven. He then suggests the same relationship between a million (rightly, billions of) bacteria and seven evil spirits. This allows him to come back around to his perennial hatred of doctors and especially, inoculation.
There is a viable defense against the Skeptic's Argument, and it is the mere fact that we all act, we all feel, we all argue, and some of us even write complex philosophical arguments. If it was merely a case of 'sacred numbers', then there would be no point to argue, to convince, or even, to believe. If it really all was the same either way, then everyone would be equally successful with various methods.
You could give a rocket seven-hundred seventy-seven miles worth of fuel or ninety-three million miles worth and get the same result. All that is required to refute Shaw's sophistry is to place an eye up to a microscope and simply count the bacteria. Of course, that requires enough knowledge of optics and medicine to recognize what you're looking at, which often seems to mark the difference between theories which stand the test of time and the delusions of pseudoscience.
Unfortunately, Shaw is not renowned for his due diligence. When enraptured by an idea, he would rather be interesting than well-informed, from changing Cleopatra's age by a decade in 'Caesar and Cleopatra' to his confused geography in 'The Devil's Disciple'.
His politics are equally unfounded. His love of Socialism amounts to a love of his fellow man and a desire that all should be treated equally. He declined to equalize any of his own fortune, arguing (quite rightly), that anything he gave to the poor would be quickly snatched up by taxation and rent, thereby changing nothing.
Yet, he gives us nothing else--certainly no economic theory--to argue how a revolution might come about, or even why it should. To Shaw, it seems better that men should not suffer unequally under the yoke of power, and that is enough. Like Marx, he seems to assume that the poor will eventually tire of the inequality and overcome it. Certainly, it upsets him enough.
But the same inequality of power has marked every culture throughout history--when will the patience of the proletariat be well and truly exhausted? He might as well suggest that since violence is harmful, we should quickly tire of it and move on to something else. Shaw's notions are much too lovely a dream for a man who loathes the "dishonesty of Romanticism".
Eventually, we finish the prelude and get to the play, itself, which is Shaw's retelling of a Roman fable about a man who shows kindness to a lion and receives kindness in return. The story has sometimes been attached to Aesop, and indeed it proceeds as an instructional fable, but Shaw rewrites it in the form of a Christian parable.
Even though we have left the prelude behind, we have not left the realm of Shaw's internal conflicts, for this play proceeds along familiar lines: once again, Shaw the philosopher seems intent on producing some deep message but Shaw the humorist will always undermine it by presenting it under the auspices of an aimless farce.
In some plays, the philosopher takes over, but these we rarely hear of and never see performed, for they are as uninformed and overwrought as his introductions. The humorist has created the more popular works, which are usually along the lines of the classic English social farce, as practiced by Wilde and Wodehouse.
'Androcles and the Lion', contrarily, is a less witty comedy, relying on caricatures, physical humor, and absurdly realized arguments. The play contains a Christian allegory and a satire against the unfaithful, and if Shaw had stopped there, he would have simply produced propaganda. But the allegory is wholly fused with a satire against the pride, meekness, and thoughtlessness of Christians.
We might imagine that Shaw is endeavoring to achieve the same effect of his role model, Shakespeare, who would place so many contrary opinions in his carious characters' mouths that the reader might never guess what bias the author carried. Yet Shaw is writing a fable, a Christian allegory, and has peopled his play with caricatures who, while sometimes vividly drawn, are not written as real people, but as symbols. They are the voices of Shaw's many ideas, and as such, are supported not only by their own words, but by the sweep of the story and the acts of those around them.
There is a tonal bias which carries along the argument. It feels as if, in writing the argument or slight, Shaw is able to convince himself of a notion, and hence his work changes enough to admit it--at least, until he can convince himself of the opposing view.
By the end of the play, all the heroes have been ridiculed and all the villains have been made appealing, and each argument has swung into prominence and out again, so that the audience is left asking what Shaw's purpose is: what has been achieved?
In the realist movement, which influenced Shaw through Ibsen, the author deliberately writes in such a way as to negate his character's arguments, and to allow different points of view to be considered, and in the end, leaves nothing decided. This does not leave the audience confused, because Realism intends to depict actual people and conflicts, and for something to remain undecided is a perfectly natural notion. That isn't to say that a Realist play should be just like life, but that its form approximates and subverts the way life feels, if not the way it is.
Human beings create patterns and symbols even where none exist, so it does not strike us as false to see archetypes or metaphors played out, as long as they are well-written enough to leave the author's hand hidden. There is a certain notion of sprezzatura in Realism: the author wants to construct something carefully and deliberately, but without calling attention to himself.
Shaw's works aspire to many aspects of realism--such as shifting morality and vivid, sometimes absurd characters--but as an author he is almost never invisible. He writes with his tongue in his cheek, winking at his audience, trying to allude over their heads, bringing in the newest ideas (before they have had time to mature), and drawing heavily on archetypal stories, both allegorical and Romantic.
Another aspect of his writing which encourages disbelief is his reliance on soliloquies and structured, symbolic debates. Again, he evokes the style of Shakespeare, who also interjected allusion, wit, and light fourth-wall breaks. In the end, what separates their presentation of ideas is how much Shaw seems to commit himself to one idea or the other at any particular time. While Shakespeare can always be read wryly, Shaw can almost always be read earnestly.
We know from his prologues that he has no qualms about attaching himself to ideas, even ideas which are contrary to what he has said or done before, or contrary to his own interests. There is a fine line walked by all writers who mean to tackle and confront grand ideas. The author must be conceited enough to think he has something new to say in the first place, but self-deprecating enough to know when to bow out.
Shaw is given many grandiloquent titles by his adherents, from visionary to prophet, and these terms are more often given to those who go too far than those who do not go far enough. It is easier to impress and overawe with pomposity than with austerity, but what author is driven to write because it is the easy thing to do?
In the end, and author's bombasticity must equal to or exceeded by his competence and diligence. There are such authors, like Twain or Nietzsche, who are more-or-less capable of maintaining this balance, but Shaw overreaches. It is his nature and his delight to overreach. He does it from all sides, and his philosophical over-commitment conflicts with his humorous over-commitment.
He is capable of being both profound and amusing, but he is neither funny enough nor profound enough to finally save this play's lack of purpose. He cannot fall back on the British class humor of his best plays, and his awkward combination of Christian allegory, Roman fable, religious satire, Realist philosophy, and slapstick humor is somewhat less than the sum of its parts.
He first fought to abolish censorship, then supported the right of a fascist regime to silence undesirables. He was a lifelong supporter of the people's revolution against economic tyranny, but praised totalitarian rule by both Stalin and Hitler. He condemned Romanticism in drama, and then wrote plays about beautiful, wealthy people and their conjugal angst, ending with double marriages. He unquestioningly accepted the health benefits of vegetarianism, but held a lifelong grudge against inoculation.
Nothing better represents Shaw's internal conflict than a comparison of one of his plays to the preface that precedes it. His prefaces were long--often exceeding in length the play which followed--sometimes by twice or more. They were drawn from long lectures which Shaw gave to various radical political groups, combining his pet interests with whatever new idea he had recently digested.
Rarely did the prefaces resemble the plays, either in tone, philosophy, or argument. They may have related to the plays by theme, but the combination of two thematic pieces which share no common point of view does not create anything more in conjunction than they might have, alone.
The preface to Androcles and the Lion does take Christianity as its central motif, and so is more aligned to its play than many of his others. In the preface, Shaw begins with a thoughtful analysis of the gospels, showing how each disagrees with the others and reveals the bias of its author.
It is an amusing and thoughtful deconstruction of Christian myth, showing that no sooner had Jesus been martyred than his message was subverted into several inconsistent political movements. Jesus' time as the messiah did nothing to patch the schisms already present in the Levantine faith, and the moment he was gone his followers were more than glad to use his name to their own ends: whether it was Paul returning the church to John the Baptist's tradition, Mark obsessing with early prophecy, or Luke making Jesus into a mighty hero of romance.
They don't agree on where he was born, where he lived, what he said, what he did, what others did around him, or how or why he died. Shaw tries to read between the lines to find the real Jesus, and eventually determines he is an outspoken man who breaks with tradition to bring a personal faith based on deeds, not thoughts, and who became obsessed with the old myth of martyrdom and rebirth, and hence committed a crime which carried a penalty of death and refused the ways out which were offered to him.
All this is interesting enough, if not revolutionary in the realm of biblical scholarship. Shaw then ends his concrete analysis of how men have perverted the life of Jesus for political ends and begins instead to interpret the life of Jesus to match his own political ends, namely: Jesus the father of communist revolution.
What could better show the schism in Shaw's mind than the fact that he can move from ridiculing other men for rewriting Jesus' philosophy, then doing it himself in the span of a few pages whithout showing the least recognition of the irony? He goes on and on about how Jesus' church is the Socialist party and how his goals were the Socialist goals of abolishing and equalizing wealth, and other such pats on the back.
He then abruptly switches gears again, to a yet more unasked-for argument. No longer does he talk about Jesus or Socialism, but about how people come to believe what they believe. Yet, what he presents is both old and useless: The Skeptic's Argument.
This might also be termed 'The Six-Year-Old's Argument' or 'The First Year Philosophy Major's Argument', as it boils down to responding to every statement with "what if that's not true?" or "why?" Shaw suggests that we don't really know anything, and so believing one thing or another thing is merely a matter of taste.
He gives the example of the 'sacred number' seven, which was often given in earlier times as an answer to various questions. He suggests that if the king asked his magistrate how far the sun was from the Earth, the magistrate might say "seven-hundred seventy-seven miles", and be declared correct on the basis of using a sacred number for a sacred measurement.
He then goes on to suggest that the new sacred number is 'a million', and that our new experts telling us the distance of the sun is millions of miles is the same as a medieval astrologer saying seven-hundred seventy-seven. He then suggests the same relationship between a million (rightly, billions of) bacteria and seven evil spirits. This allows him to come back around to his perennial hatred of doctors and especially, inoculation.
There is a viable defense against the Skeptic's Argument, and it is the mere fact that we all act, we all feel, we all argue, and some of us even write complex philosophical arguments. If it was merely a case of 'sacred numbers', then there would be no point to argue, to convince, or even, to believe. If it really all was the same either way, then everyone would be equally successful with various methods.
You could give a rocket seven-hundred seventy-seven miles worth of fuel or ninety-three million miles worth and get the same result. All that is required to refute Shaw's sophistry is to place an eye up to a microscope and simply count the bacteria. Of course, that requires enough knowledge of optics and medicine to recognize what you're looking at, which often seems to mark the difference between theories which stand the test of time and the delusions of pseudoscience.
Unfortunately, Shaw is not renowned for his due diligence. When enraptured by an idea, he would rather be interesting than well-informed, from changing Cleopatra's age by a decade in 'Caesar and Cleopatra' to his confused geography in 'The Devil's Disciple'.
His politics are equally unfounded. His love of Socialism amounts to a love of his fellow man and a desire that all should be treated equally. He declined to equalize any of his own fortune, arguing (quite rightly), that anything he gave to the poor would be quickly snatched up by taxation and rent, thereby changing nothing.
Yet, he gives us nothing else--certainly no economic theory--to argue how a revolution might come about, or even why it should. To Shaw, it seems better that men should not suffer unequally under the yoke of power, and that is enough. Like Marx, he seems to assume that the poor will eventually tire of the inequality and overcome it. Certainly, it upsets him enough.
But the same inequality of power has marked every culture throughout history--when will the patience of the proletariat be well and truly exhausted? He might as well suggest that since violence is harmful, we should quickly tire of it and move on to something else. Shaw's notions are much too lovely a dream for a man who loathes the "dishonesty of Romanticism".
Eventually, we finish the prelude and get to the play, itself, which is Shaw's retelling of a Roman fable about a man who shows kindness to a lion and receives kindness in return. The story has sometimes been attached to Aesop, and indeed it proceeds as an instructional fable, but Shaw rewrites it in the form of a Christian parable.
Even though we have left the prelude behind, we have not left the realm of Shaw's internal conflicts, for this play proceeds along familiar lines: once again, Shaw the philosopher seems intent on producing some deep message but Shaw the humorist will always undermine it by presenting it under the auspices of an aimless farce.
In some plays, the philosopher takes over, but these we rarely hear of and never see performed, for they are as uninformed and overwrought as his introductions. The humorist has created the more popular works, which are usually along the lines of the classic English social farce, as practiced by Wilde and Wodehouse.
'Androcles and the Lion', contrarily, is a less witty comedy, relying on caricatures, physical humor, and absurdly realized arguments. The play contains a Christian allegory and a satire against the unfaithful, and if Shaw had stopped there, he would have simply produced propaganda. But the allegory is wholly fused with a satire against the pride, meekness, and thoughtlessness of Christians.
We might imagine that Shaw is endeavoring to achieve the same effect of his role model, Shakespeare, who would place so many contrary opinions in his carious characters' mouths that the reader might never guess what bias the author carried. Yet Shaw is writing a fable, a Christian allegory, and has peopled his play with caricatures who, while sometimes vividly drawn, are not written as real people, but as symbols. They are the voices of Shaw's many ideas, and as such, are supported not only by their own words, but by the sweep of the story and the acts of those around them.
There is a tonal bias which carries along the argument. It feels as if, in writing the argument or slight, Shaw is able to convince himself of a notion, and hence his work changes enough to admit it--at least, until he can convince himself of the opposing view.
By the end of the play, all the heroes have been ridiculed and all the villains have been made appealing, and each argument has swung into prominence and out again, so that the audience is left asking what Shaw's purpose is: what has been achieved?
In the realist movement, which influenced Shaw through Ibsen, the author deliberately writes in such a way as to negate his character's arguments, and to allow different points of view to be considered, and in the end, leaves nothing decided. This does not leave the audience confused, because Realism intends to depict actual people and conflicts, and for something to remain undecided is a perfectly natural notion. That isn't to say that a Realist play should be just like life, but that its form approximates and subverts the way life feels, if not the way it is.
Human beings create patterns and symbols even where none exist, so it does not strike us as false to see archetypes or metaphors played out, as long as they are well-written enough to leave the author's hand hidden. There is a certain notion of sprezzatura in Realism: the author wants to construct something carefully and deliberately, but without calling attention to himself.
Shaw's works aspire to many aspects of realism--such as shifting morality and vivid, sometimes absurd characters--but as an author he is almost never invisible. He writes with his tongue in his cheek, winking at his audience, trying to allude over their heads, bringing in the newest ideas (before they have had time to mature), and drawing heavily on archetypal stories, both allegorical and Romantic.
Another aspect of his writing which encourages disbelief is his reliance on soliloquies and structured, symbolic debates. Again, he evokes the style of Shakespeare, who also interjected allusion, wit, and light fourth-wall breaks. In the end, what separates their presentation of ideas is how much Shaw seems to commit himself to one idea or the other at any particular time. While Shakespeare can always be read wryly, Shaw can almost always be read earnestly.
We know from his prologues that he has no qualms about attaching himself to ideas, even ideas which are contrary to what he has said or done before, or contrary to his own interests. There is a fine line walked by all writers who mean to tackle and confront grand ideas. The author must be conceited enough to think he has something new to say in the first place, but self-deprecating enough to know when to bow out.
Shaw is given many grandiloquent titles by his adherents, from visionary to prophet, and these terms are more often given to those who go too far than those who do not go far enough. It is easier to impress and overawe with pomposity than with austerity, but what author is driven to write because it is the easy thing to do?
In the end, and author's bombasticity must equal to or exceeded by his competence and diligence. There are such authors, like Twain or Nietzsche, who are more-or-less capable of maintaining this balance, but Shaw overreaches. It is his nature and his delight to overreach. He does it from all sides, and his philosophical over-commitment conflicts with his humorous over-commitment.
He is capable of being both profound and amusing, but he is neither funny enough nor profound enough to finally save this play's lack of purpose. He cannot fall back on the British class humor of his best plays, and his awkward combination of Christian allegory, Roman fable, religious satire, Realist philosophy, and slapstick humor is somewhat less than the sum of its parts.
Want to read
May 10, 2025This is a book that F. Scott Fitzgerald recommended in his College of One, a set of 40 books he considered necessary for an education: https://www.listchallenges.com/f-scot...
August 9, 2025
This play may have been written over a hundred years ago but I found it very easy to read. There wasn't any of those strange, outdated words in here. And while I had never read this before - I never heard of the author before - I found the story vaguely familiar.
This play actually asks a very interesting question: what would you be willing to do to get out of a nasty situation (being in jail and facing the prospects of being fed to a lion). Would you be willing to do anything? Would you break the deepest faiths and morals you believe in?
But it gets more complicated! What if you only had to light some incense?? Sounds so easy, yes? But what if by lighting that incense it was going to some other god or goddess? Would you still do it to save your life? Or no??
This is the question that many of the Christians in here face.
The main character is named Androcles. And he meets a lion. He is quite the bold person, actually. And he certainly seems to have a gift with animals.
Now I have to admit I did guess the end here (but not the exact details of the end - that was very surprising and humorous!) and you will probably guess it too. But the end was also very satisfying!
In fact I think the end of this short simple play was probably the most satisfying end of any book that I have read this year.
I could have done without the middle of this play. I do feel there was lots of extra chat between some prisoners and the guards - but I think it was also necessary to introduce these characters for the story. Still, I just wanted to get on with Androcles and the lion. Because we all like lions, right?
Androcles is most definitely brave. But he's not being brave to show off or anything...it's just his natural personality. I think there is a big difference. He can also be humble. It's an odd combination: bravery and humbleness... But maybe it's not actually bravery; maybe it's just him wanting to help everyone including lions. But most people would be terrified of lions so...
But the end is perfect...
I wonder how they would do this on a stage? Do they use a person in a lion costume? Obviously they can't use a real lion.
Some of the stuff in here was funny! Especially the stuff with Caesar (the emperor). Those Christians create many unique problems! I am unsure if it's meant to be funny or is it only funny to me?
This was a quick, easy to read play... I will definitely have to check out more plays by this author.
This play actually asks a very interesting question: what would you be willing to do to get out of a nasty situation (being in jail and facing the prospects of being fed to a lion). Would you be willing to do anything? Would you break the deepest faiths and morals you believe in?
But it gets more complicated! What if you only had to light some incense?? Sounds so easy, yes? But what if by lighting that incense it was going to some other god or goddess? Would you still do it to save your life? Or no??
This is the question that many of the Christians in here face.
The main character is named Androcles. And he meets a lion. He is quite the bold person, actually. And he certainly seems to have a gift with animals.
Now I have to admit I did guess the end here (but not the exact details of the end - that was very surprising and humorous!) and you will probably guess it too. But the end was also very satisfying!
In fact I think the end of this short simple play was probably the most satisfying end of any book that I have read this year.
I could have done without the middle of this play. I do feel there was lots of extra chat between some prisoners and the guards - but I think it was also necessary to introduce these characters for the story. Still, I just wanted to get on with Androcles and the lion. Because we all like lions, right?
Androcles is most definitely brave. But he's not being brave to show off or anything...it's just his natural personality. I think there is a big difference. He can also be humble. It's an odd combination: bravery and humbleness... But maybe it's not actually bravery; maybe it's just him wanting to help everyone including lions. But most people would be terrified of lions so...
But the end is perfect...
I wonder how they would do this on a stage? Do they use a person in a lion costume? Obviously they can't use a real lion.
Some of the stuff in here was funny! Especially the stuff with Caesar (the emperor). Those Christians create many unique problems! I am unsure if it's meant to be funny or is it only funny to me?
This was a quick, easy to read play... I will definitely have to check out more plays by this author.
March 28, 2024
A very witty play.
February 3, 2019
From BBC radio 4 Extra:
Recorded in 1967, George Bernard Shaw interprets of one of Aesop's Fables, first published in 1912.
Although a comedy, the piteous plight of the early Christians under their Roman masters gives Shaw a forum for his thoughts on human frailty, religion and martyrdom.
Starring Leslie French as Androcles and John Graham as the Lion. With Antony Viccars, Peter Baldwin Carol Marsh and Sian Davies.
Adapted by Peggy Wells
Producer: Archie Campbell
First broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in 1967
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039...
Recorded in 1967, George Bernard Shaw interprets of one of Aesop's Fables, first published in 1912.
Although a comedy, the piteous plight of the early Christians under their Roman masters gives Shaw a forum for his thoughts on human frailty, religion and martyrdom.
Starring Leslie French as Androcles and John Graham as the Lion. With Antony Viccars, Peter Baldwin Carol Marsh and Sian Davies.
Adapted by Peggy Wells
Producer: Archie Campbell
First broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in 1967
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039...
June 2, 2015
I hadn't realized until just a few weeks ago that the tale of Androcles and the lion was current in the Roman Empire, but as a fact, not a fable. A lion actually did spare its intended victim in the Coloseum, apparently showing affection towards him. I found the reference in an academic study of the history of Roman gladitorial contests.
July 9, 2023
I was advised to read this for the preface. Turns out the preface is longer than the play. So I read that, too. And now I'm off to reread Andy and the Lion.
Preface is one of Shaw's essays, "On the Prospects of Christianity: Why not give Christianity a trial."
I've no hope of giving you enough samples for you to appreciate Shaw's wit and insight; you should read it yourself; I'm sure that it's in the public domain. But in the meantime, here's a sample:
"... The iconolaters have never for a moment conceived Christ as a real person who meant what he said.... Thus it is not disbelief that is dangerous in our society: it is belief. The moment it strikes you ... that Christ is not the lifeless harmless image he has hitherto been to you, but a rallying center for revolutionary influences which all established States and Churches fight, you must look to yourselves; for you have brought the image to life; ..."
"Belief is literally a matter of taste."
"In England 9/10 of the wealth goes into the pocket of 1/10 of the population." (1915)
"Honest Hugh Latimer, who was burned by us, was worth 50 Stephens and a dozen Peters."
"The drive of evolution, which we call conscience and honor, ceases on such slips [sins], and shames us to the dust for being so low in the scale as to be capable of them." (Shades of Frans de Waal.)
Henrik Ibsen is quoted as saying, "Your God is an old man whom you cheat."
" government is impossible without a religion; that is, without a body of common assumptions." (Well no wonder we have the Woke vs. Book Banners (for example) nowadays. We are not capable of sympathizing with the view of the other.)
The play itself is not nearly so quotable, but it is fascinating nonetheless. It does have this:
" we cannot afford to throw away lions as if they were mere slaves." (Which pretty much sums up Shaw's view of the use of religion [the Church] to the powerful [the State].)
There's also a short afterward by Shaw, also well worth reading.
I really should read more Shaw. These two works (the essay and the play can easily be counted separately) are the 4th and 5th, I think... but he's funnier, snarkier, and wiser than I remember to credit him. So much more than the inspiration for My Fair Lady. I encourage you to find something in his oeuvre to sample.
Preface is one of Shaw's essays, "On the Prospects of Christianity: Why not give Christianity a trial."
I've no hope of giving you enough samples for you to appreciate Shaw's wit and insight; you should read it yourself; I'm sure that it's in the public domain. But in the meantime, here's a sample:
"... The iconolaters have never for a moment conceived Christ as a real person who meant what he said.... Thus it is not disbelief that is dangerous in our society: it is belief. The moment it strikes you ... that Christ is not the lifeless harmless image he has hitherto been to you, but a rallying center for revolutionary influences which all established States and Churches fight, you must look to yourselves; for you have brought the image to life; ..."
"Belief is literally a matter of taste."
"In England 9/10 of the wealth goes into the pocket of 1/10 of the population." (1915)
"Honest Hugh Latimer, who was burned by us, was worth 50 Stephens and a dozen Peters."
"The drive of evolution, which we call conscience and honor, ceases on such slips [sins], and shames us to the dust for being so low in the scale as to be capable of them." (Shades of Frans de Waal.)
Henrik Ibsen is quoted as saying, "Your God is an old man whom you cheat."
" government is impossible without a religion; that is, without a body of common assumptions." (Well no wonder we have the Woke vs. Book Banners (for example) nowadays. We are not capable of sympathizing with the view of the other.)
The play itself is not nearly so quotable, but it is fascinating nonetheless. It does have this:
" we cannot afford to throw away lions as if they were mere slaves." (Which pretty much sums up Shaw's view of the use of religion [the Church] to the powerful [the State].)
There's also a short afterward by Shaw, also well worth reading.
I really should read more Shaw. These two works (the essay and the play can easily be counted separately) are the 4th and 5th, I think... but he's funnier, snarkier, and wiser than I remember to credit him. So much more than the inspiration for My Fair Lady. I encourage you to find something in his oeuvre to sample.
February 14, 2017
Shaw was a complicated man, alright. As others have noted, the bulk of this play is a long and densely packed criticism of the historical and literary merits of the bible as an interpretation of questionable motives and events of Jesus and his crew. I was put in mind of C.S. Lewis, but I think he did it better, or at any rate his writings were more accessible to my brain. The play itself was enjoyable but did not move me the way that others of his plays have, namely - "Man and Superman," "Saint Joan," and "Major Barbara."
March 3, 2025
This was my introduction to Shaw; rest assured I have every intention of reading many, many more of his works!
EDIT: Reading this again, you can tell that Shaw is not a Christian. But, I think he touches on some truths, even if he doesn't completely reach it. Nevertheless, this is still a highly entertaining play.
EDIT: Reading this again, you can tell that Shaw is not a Christian. But, I think he touches on some truths, even if he doesn't completely reach it. Nevertheless, this is still a highly entertaining play.
August 24, 2018
Is farcical seriousness a thing?
This is a play in which farce and deep wisdom coexist without contradicting or undermining each other. The plot becomes predictable to those who are familiar with the ancient history of Christianity, but one must read on for the theological musings that the author inserts in the play. These theological musings are not of the high-brow kind of religious philosophies, but rather they are human, they account for the humanity. Most religious texts want us to be righteous, never once considering that we lack the ability to be completely righteous. Androcles is the beautiful dramatisation of that fact. Another prodigious aspect of the play is that it unabashedly shows how seriously religion is considered by a vast majority of people. The handsome captain's admiration of Lavinia, a heathen in his eyes, is a clear representation of the hypocrisy of religion. It conveys that the good among us, despite our difference, will and can come together simply because of our human nature and nothing else. It is perhaps because of this conspicuous portrayal of the self-seriousness of religion that the play was banned in some parts of the world.
But then, having all that to say, the play does have a man dancing away into the jungle with a lion. They waltz. The early proceedings of the play map out a clear ending where Androcles will have to face the very lion he saved and the lion, out of gratitude, does not kill him. But, there's more. As good and never-worn that fable-like ending is, it would have been out of place in a play that said so much about some really serious concepts. It needed a resolution. The way Shaw arrives sort of allegorical, I think, I'm not entirely sure. He starts with harmony between man and beast. Some that can kill, something that can be killed. The harmony can be achieved despite the clear differences in doctrines. Maybe I'm thinking too much into that, but that's what it felt like.
This is a play in which farce and deep wisdom coexist without contradicting or undermining each other. The plot becomes predictable to those who are familiar with the ancient history of Christianity, but one must read on for the theological musings that the author inserts in the play. These theological musings are not of the high-brow kind of religious philosophies, but rather they are human, they account for the humanity. Most religious texts want us to be righteous, never once considering that we lack the ability to be completely righteous. Androcles is the beautiful dramatisation of that fact. Another prodigious aspect of the play is that it unabashedly shows how seriously religion is considered by a vast majority of people. The handsome captain's admiration of Lavinia, a heathen in his eyes, is a clear representation of the hypocrisy of religion. It conveys that the good among us, despite our difference, will and can come together simply because of our human nature and nothing else. It is perhaps because of this conspicuous portrayal of the self-seriousness of religion that the play was banned in some parts of the world.
But then, having all that to say, the play does have a man dancing away into the jungle with a lion. They waltz. The early proceedings of the play map out a clear ending where Androcles will have to face the very lion he saved and the lion, out of gratitude, does not kill him. But, there's more. As good and never-worn that fable-like ending is, it would have been out of place in a play that said so much about some really serious concepts. It needed a resolution. The way Shaw arrives sort of allegorical, I think, I'm not entirely sure. He starts with harmony between man and beast. Some that can kill, something that can be killed. The harmony can be achieved despite the clear differences in doctrines. Maybe I'm thinking too much into that, but that's what it felt like.
September 1, 2022
A very strange book. Contains a fascinating examination of the four Gospels and a fairly convincing argument for adopting the teachings of Jesus in ‘modern’ society.
Less impressive is the sceptical viewpoint he puts forward which suggests that the accounts of Jesus’ life are just as credible as the latest scientific developments. I lost confidence in the man during that section.
This all comes in the preface, before the play itself, which is twice as long! As for the play, it is a mildly amusing retelling of the old myth as suggested by the title. I liked it, but the preface was more interesting.
Overall, I enjoyed the style, which is full of flair and interesting references. I can see why he built a reputation as a fierce critic and polemicist.
Less impressive is the sceptical viewpoint he puts forward which suggests that the accounts of Jesus’ life are just as credible as the latest scientific developments. I lost confidence in the man during that section.
This all comes in the preface, before the play itself, which is twice as long! As for the play, it is a mildly amusing retelling of the old myth as suggested by the title. I liked it, but the preface was more interesting.
Overall, I enjoyed the style, which is full of flair and interesting references. I can see why he built a reputation as a fierce critic and polemicist.
December 7, 2024
Filozofski heterogeni likovi na jedan fluidan način suprotstavljeni jedni drugima, međutim priča nije dovršena, a nedostaje joj čitav jedan junak koji će ponuditi drugačiju antagonističku filozofiju, a ne samo onu distinktivnu.
Kvalitet drame je neupitan, međutim, subjektivnost autora je dovela do toga nedostatka da ne postoji lik koji je u konkretnoj temi (religije nasuprot vjere) itekako stvaran i neophodan.
Naime, izuzetno dobro prikazani tipovi ljudi čija je vjera krhka, koji su licemjeri, kao i oni koji ekstenzivno tumače religiju, ali ne postoji niti jedan lik koji vjeruje čvrsto iskonski i čija vjera je u sinergiji sa religijom.
Kvalitet drame je neupitan, međutim, subjektivnost autora je dovela do toga nedostatka da ne postoji lik koji je u konkretnoj temi (religije nasuprot vjere) itekako stvaran i neophodan.
Naime, izuzetno dobro prikazani tipovi ljudi čija je vjera krhka, koji su licemjeri, kao i oni koji ekstenzivno tumače religiju, ali ne postoji niti jedan lik koji vjeruje čvrsto iskonski i čija vjera je u sinergiji sa religijom.
February 12, 2019
Shaw's (extremely long) preface to "Androcles and the Lion" was quite interesting. He presents his version of the gospel stories of Jesus, highlighting the differences in each evangelist. He then argues that the church, through the influence of St. Paul, has subverted Jesus's real message. This is not an original argument in itself, but it is rewarding (even for a believer like myself) to read a provocative thinker's critique.
The play itself was frankly a disappointment. There was a lot of lowbrow slapstick in the titular interaction between Androcles and the lion. I was expecting more bite to Shaw's dramatization of the Roman empire versus Christianity, but to me it fell flat.
In an epilogue, Shaw congratulates himself on the play being banned in Germany due to its criticism of imperialism. He only wishes his homegrown censors in London had reacted similarly. But he created only a shallow provocation—he should have honed his targets more sharply!
The play itself was frankly a disappointment. There was a lot of lowbrow slapstick in the titular interaction between Androcles and the lion. I was expecting more bite to Shaw's dramatization of the Roman empire versus Christianity, but to me it fell flat.
In an epilogue, Shaw congratulates himself on the play being banned in Germany due to its criticism of imperialism. He only wishes his homegrown censors in London had reacted similarly. But he created only a shallow provocation—he should have honed his targets more sharply!
April 17, 2014
The Emperor is the Defender of the Faith. In throwing you to the lions he will be upholding the interests of religion in Rome. If you were to throw him to the lions, that would no doubt be persecution.
THE CAPTAIN: What is God?
LAVINIA: When we know that, Captain, we shall be gods ourselves.
And from the preface:
The modern practical form of the communism of Jesus is therefore, for the present, equal distribution of the surplus of the national income that is not absorbed by simple communism.
Paul succeeded in stealing the image of Christ crucified for the figure-head of his Salvationist vessel, with its Adam posing as the natural man, its doctrine of original sin, and its damnation avoidable only by faith in the sacrifice of the cross. In fact, no sooner had Jesus knocked over the
dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus.
The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life. Whether Socrates got as much happiness out of life as Wesley is an unanswerable question; but a nation of Socrateses would be much safer and happier than a nation of Wesleys; and its individuals would be higher in the evolutionary scale.
THE CAPTAIN: What is God?
LAVINIA: When we know that, Captain, we shall be gods ourselves.
And from the preface:
The modern practical form of the communism of Jesus is therefore, for the present, equal distribution of the surplus of the national income that is not absorbed by simple communism.
Paul succeeded in stealing the image of Christ crucified for the figure-head of his Salvationist vessel, with its Adam posing as the natural man, its doctrine of original sin, and its damnation avoidable only by faith in the sacrifice of the cross. In fact, no sooner had Jesus knocked over the
dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus.
The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life. Whether Socrates got as much happiness out of life as Wesley is an unanswerable question; but a nation of Socrateses would be much safer and happier than a nation of Wesleys; and its individuals would be higher in the evolutionary scale.
January 23, 2015
I keep trying to think of something to say about this play, but I have found that there is not much for me to say except for this: I think that Shaw made a point of looking critically at the Church by using an ancient example. Androcles is a rather weak man who is saved from death because of his friendship with the lion that is supposed to kill him. His kind nature is what saves him, because instead of scorning the lion when he first sees him at the start of the play, he treats it with kindness.
More than anything, I see this play as an exploration of the human nature as well as a criticism of the operations of the church. Of course, criticism is something to be expected from Shaw- Saint Joan seems to do something very similar. I also really like the way that Shaw can sometimes pull off the criticism. Althugh he explains himself in lengthy introductions (ugh), the plays themselves hide the criticism deep in the framework. Digging around for that is the fun part.
More than anything, I see this play as an exploration of the human nature as well as a criticism of the operations of the church. Of course, criticism is something to be expected from Shaw- Saint Joan seems to do something very similar. I also really like the way that Shaw can sometimes pull off the criticism. Althugh he explains himself in lengthy introductions (ugh), the plays themselves hide the criticism deep in the framework. Digging around for that is the fun part.
August 30, 2015
One of Shaw's plays that are wholly devoted to discussing religion, and Christianity in particular. A lengthy introduction to the short 2-act play is actually in unison with the Shavian tradition! Nonetheless, it's an enjoyable introduction indeed, although nothing compares to the magic of drama.
Shaw renovates the old fable of Androcles and the Lion, in order to serve his view of the essence of Christianity; a true socialistic essence according to his own judgement, twisted and manipulated by those with psychological instabilities like Paul and subsequently by successive dynasties since the time of Jesus.
It's worth reading like all that I already read of Shaw. The guy was a master of the art of controversy, and definitely a gifted and unique playwright, and to tell the truth, I - in short - believe that what he states of Christianity applies also to Islam!
Shaw renovates the old fable of Androcles and the Lion, in order to serve his view of the essence of Christianity; a true socialistic essence according to his own judgement, twisted and manipulated by those with psychological instabilities like Paul and subsequently by successive dynasties since the time of Jesus.
It's worth reading like all that I already read of Shaw. The guy was a master of the art of controversy, and definitely a gifted and unique playwright, and to tell the truth, I - in short - believe that what he states of Christianity applies also to Islam!
March 27, 2022
George Bernard Shaw is a bit like that smart alecky friend who likes to play the devil's advocate, and who does it so well, he convinced himself he was better than Shakespeare. The Preface of this play is essentially a deconstructionist view of Christianity from the perspective of an economist, atheist and Fabian socialist.
"Androcles and the Lion" is a farce on early Christians waiting to be executed, full of witticisms. The characters seem certain GBS will rescue them in the end (and he does). Okay, it's entertaining and fun, but also a bit sadistic joking about walking dead men.
"Androcles and the Lion" is a farce on early Christians waiting to be executed, full of witticisms. The characters seem certain GBS will rescue them in the end (and he does). Okay, it's entertaining and fun, but also a bit sadistic joking about walking dead men.
December 28, 2009
The bulk of this is not the play, but a dizzying (and I think more enjoyable) literary and historical criticism of the Bible (New Testament mostly). Perhaps half of what he says was with a smirk, but all of it serious to varying degrees.
In some very prominent ways, Shaw can be read alongside Tolstoy's essays on religion and, along with some Romantics, Transcendentalists and Liberationists, they can be very useful perspectives on grassroots and anarcho-Christianity.
In some very prominent ways, Shaw can be read alongside Tolstoy's essays on religion and, along with some Romantics, Transcendentalists and Liberationists, they can be very useful perspectives on grassroots and anarcho-Christianity.
May 23, 2016
Shaw uses the framework of Aesop's tale of Androcles and the lion to examine how different people exhibit (or fail to exhibit) Christian virtues. In particular importance in the play is the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek. There were many ideas similar to those in "The Devil's Disciple" but as a play I think that this one isn't as good entertainment as "The Devil's Disciple" was.
read as part of the Kindle omnibus The Plays of Shaw
read as part of the Kindle omnibus The Plays of Shaw
February 26, 2015
I don't know if I should begin with the 109 page "preface" or the fact that the entire book felt a bit preachy... There were times when the play itself was actually funny.
December 31, 2022
The book version of Shaw's short play is really two books. We get the play, a resetting of the ancient folktale attributed to Aesop of the slave who befriends a lion through kindness and then later has the kindness returned. Shaw sets the story in probably the second century, as an account of the clash between Christian ideology and Roman ideology, essentially a story of how the Establishment (Rome) treats eccentric ideas (Christianity). Modern Christians will probably not really recognize the Christianity that Shaw portrays, and may balk at how Shaw portrays the Romans as ordinary, willfully ignorant citizens who just don't like having their boats rocked rather than as angry, terrified oppressors out for Christian blood. Shaw, however, is a non-believer in Christianity. He likes the social message of Jesus, but despairs that Christians just cannot stick to it. Shaw has little regard for the theology, which he thinks no one really believes anyway. Neither is Shaw much interested in the mythology of any religion. This is the one point that The Captain (good Roman that he is) and Lavinia (good Christian that she is) agree on. The stories are irrelevant. Only the ideas matter, and only those that seem worthy to stake one's life on. Shaw portrays the Christians as a collection of "cranks" as he calls them, meaning those who choose to live by their own ideals rather than by society's ideals. Each of the Christians has a different view of what being a Christian means. It's no wonder that the Romans are rather confused by Christianity and cannot fathom what Christians stand for. As Shaw plays go, "Androcles and the Lion" is lighter than the major plays such as "Pygmalion" and "Candida" and "Major Barbara." It is not, however, frivolous.
The second book is actually the first part of the published volume, the Preface, which is twice as long in pages as the play. The Preface, written three years after the play, lays out Shaw's theories concerning Jesus, Christianity, the Gospels, Paul, communism, and what became of Christianity after Jesus died. Typically, Shaw's ideas are rather eccentric, but not lacking in foundation. The most important parts are that Shaw separates Jesus from Christ. The first is a person who held particular views and did particular things. The second is a role created from the smashing together of Jewish and Greek religious ideologies. Shaw is much more interested in Jesus than in Christ, and hints several times that it was a mistake for Jesus to come to the idea that he was the Christ because doing so derailed Jesus' ministry. Shaw thinks that before he declared himself the Son of God, Jesus was in all essentials a proto-communist. Shaw is not the first nor only thinker to come to this conclusion (Umberto Eco later makes quite a case of his own for this in "The Name of the Rose"), but few have made the case so thoroughly. There is much more involved here, particularly with Shaw's argument that when Saul became Paul, he hijacked Christianity and replaced the sensible ideas of Jesus with conflicted ideas of sin and redemption, mostly involving stigmatizing sex, replaced Jesus' doctrine of fairness and forgiveness with the catastrophic doctrine of "original sin," and thus created the Christianity that exists today, a creed that Jesus would not only not recognize, but would also thoroughly reject. The Preface explores in great detail the various points of view of the characters in the play without once mentioning any character or detail from the play.
Combined, the two complementary pieces of the book provide a reader with much to think about, and with many ideas that believer and unbeliever alike would love to argue with Shaw.
The second book is actually the first part of the published volume, the Preface, which is twice as long in pages as the play. The Preface, written three years after the play, lays out Shaw's theories concerning Jesus, Christianity, the Gospels, Paul, communism, and what became of Christianity after Jesus died. Typically, Shaw's ideas are rather eccentric, but not lacking in foundation. The most important parts are that Shaw separates Jesus from Christ. The first is a person who held particular views and did particular things. The second is a role created from the smashing together of Jewish and Greek religious ideologies. Shaw is much more interested in Jesus than in Christ, and hints several times that it was a mistake for Jesus to come to the idea that he was the Christ because doing so derailed Jesus' ministry. Shaw thinks that before he declared himself the Son of God, Jesus was in all essentials a proto-communist. Shaw is not the first nor only thinker to come to this conclusion (Umberto Eco later makes quite a case of his own for this in "The Name of the Rose"), but few have made the case so thoroughly. There is much more involved here, particularly with Shaw's argument that when Saul became Paul, he hijacked Christianity and replaced the sensible ideas of Jesus with conflicted ideas of sin and redemption, mostly involving stigmatizing sex, replaced Jesus' doctrine of fairness and forgiveness with the catastrophic doctrine of "original sin," and thus created the Christianity that exists today, a creed that Jesus would not only not recognize, but would also thoroughly reject. The Preface explores in great detail the various points of view of the characters in the play without once mentioning any character or detail from the play.
Combined, the two complementary pieces of the book provide a reader with much to think about, and with many ideas that believer and unbeliever alike would love to argue with Shaw.
December 23, 2023
(4/5) this was so much more fun than i expected it to be.
i had to read this for english (obviously. i dont read plays in my free time) and i only picked it because of the vibes. i just got good vibes from it. but then i read the description and immediately wanted to pick a different play. it just sounded very religious to me and as you all know, i am not a religious person. its not a topic that i enjoy reading about so i was nervous going into this book.
but then i read the prologue and i was hooked. like this man was so sweet he removed a thorn from a lions paw and then danced around with it a little bit. you got me, i'm on board.
this play has everything: lions, religion, the roman empire, a dude who really likes animals, dudes that really like being christians, dudes that really hate christians, a dude that really likes one christian, a little... romance? (these people interacted twice and i was so here for them. lavinia and the caption i love u).
i dont think this play is painfully religious. it is a central theme because it focuses a lot on the persecution of christians in the roman empire, which was a lot more interesting than i thought it was going to be. i love the way that the two themes (religion and kindness) culminated together. it was so funny. i was telling my friend about it and she was so envious that she didnt pick my book.
this play is short and so easy to read. im not a big play reader and the only thing i really have to compare it to is shakespeare, but this play just felt so smooth. i found it really easy to follow and i love how much stage direction there was because it really set the scene. i read some of my friends play and i fucking hated that because it was so confusing and there was literally no stage direction; it was just people talking. the thing about this play is that even though its a play and its mostly dialogue, its not just people standing around talking. and i like that.
this was fun. maybe ill read more plays who knows.
i had to read this for english (obviously. i dont read plays in my free time) and i only picked it because of the vibes. i just got good vibes from it. but then i read the description and immediately wanted to pick a different play. it just sounded very religious to me and as you all know, i am not a religious person. its not a topic that i enjoy reading about so i was nervous going into this book.
but then i read the prologue and i was hooked. like this man was so sweet he removed a thorn from a lions paw and then danced around with it a little bit. you got me, i'm on board.
this play has everything: lions, religion, the roman empire, a dude who really likes animals, dudes that really like being christians, dudes that really hate christians, a dude that really likes one christian, a little... romance? (these people interacted twice and i was so here for them. lavinia and the caption i love u).
i dont think this play is painfully religious. it is a central theme because it focuses a lot on the persecution of christians in the roman empire, which was a lot more interesting than i thought it was going to be. i love the way that the two themes (religion and kindness) culminated together. it was so funny. i was telling my friend about it and she was so envious that she didnt pick my book.
this play is short and so easy to read. im not a big play reader and the only thing i really have to compare it to is shakespeare, but this play just felt so smooth. i found it really easy to follow and i love how much stage direction there was because it really set the scene. i read some of my friends play and i fucking hated that because it was so confusing and there was literally no stage direction; it was just people talking. the thing about this play is that even though its a play and its mostly dialogue, its not just people standing around talking. and i like that.
this was fun. maybe ill read more plays who knows.
January 16, 2019
I have lied in choosing this wonderful old Penguin edition as the book I just finished. I have Shaw's complete plays in six volumes and read the play therein, but I cannot really review that and single out this wonderfully subversive play, and it is subversive. You expect it to question the practicality of Christianity, but Shaw also questions Roman values and culture, and the human foible of allying oneself to a cause greater than you are. It is all some kind of vanity. Shaw had a point, and this play is a great vehicle for expressing that point. Whichever edition you chose to read, be sure that edition has Shaw's introduction.
As I write this, there is a much abridged version of the play on the BBC iPlayer. It is just great, but there is more in the play than there is on the iPlayer, so be sure to read the play as well.
As I write this, there is a much abridged version of the play on the BBC iPlayer. It is just great, but there is more in the play than there is on the iPlayer, so be sure to read the play as well.
December 1, 2018
Bernard Shaw, drawing from Aesop's Fables: The Lion and the Mouse and The Shepherd and the Lion presents the reader with this play. Androcles comes upon a lion wounded with a thorn in his paw. Later when the Romans throw Androcles to the lions to be eaten alive, the lion turns out to be the lion who he aided with the thorn removal. I especially liked Bernard Shaw's afterword in which he enumerates on the various religions, and elaborates on the myriad types of Christians, ranging from the wayward to the free thinkers to the devout Christians. Anyone interested in religion will find a wealth of information here.
August 17, 2019
Shaw's central contention that religious persecution is not based on any theological conundrum is a fascinating idea. But he does not get this across in the play. There is vagueness that proceeds throughout this play, and although his is usually hard line, to the point, this play is left in a timid atmosphere who's central character is undetermined. For some reason I wonder if the play even need be two acts with a prologue, when there is only maybe two scenes of material worth presenting. This play is fragment of an idea with a hell of a lot of extravagant crap that doesn't serve the presentation.
April 27, 2023
Como no aparece el libro en castellano, lo haré en el de inglés.
Le he dado dos estrellas por el diálogo entre un capitán romano y una cristiana, en el que el capitán va adecuando su discurso a sus actuaciones. "Si se miran las cosas de este punto de vista, es evidente que cualquier cristiano que perece en la arena del circo no hace más que suicidarse en realidad".
A ratos me parece que critica todo el cristianismo y a ratos que es un defensor de la religión cristiana. Es entretenida pero no he sacado ninguna conclusión más.
Le he dado dos estrellas por el diálogo entre un capitán romano y una cristiana, en el que el capitán va adecuando su discurso a sus actuaciones. "Si se miran las cosas de este punto de vista, es evidente que cualquier cristiano que perece en la arena del circo no hace más que suicidarse en realidad".
A ratos me parece que critica todo el cristianismo y a ratos que es un defensor de la religión cristiana. Es entretenida pero no he sacado ninguna conclusión más.
June 20, 2025
“The Captain: A martyr, Lavinia, is a fool. Your death will prove nothing. Lavinia: Then why kill me?”
This story was quite humorous while also making you think about the juxtaposition about Roman society and early Christian faith. Also, while looking into the history of this play, it is quite amusing that the author created his own orthography (Shavian alphabet) and released this story in the title of: "·𐑨𐑯𐑛𐑮𐑩𐑒𐑤𐑰𐑟 𐑯 𐑞 𐑤𐑲𐑩𐑯." Bro was wildin' in 1912.
This story was quite humorous while also making you think about the juxtaposition about Roman society and early Christian faith. Also, while looking into the history of this play, it is quite amusing that the author created his own orthography (Shavian alphabet) and released this story in the title of: "·𐑨𐑯𐑛𐑮𐑩𐑒𐑤𐑰𐑟 𐑯 𐑞 𐑤𐑲𐑩𐑯." Bro was wildin' in 1912.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews