John Bull's Other Island

by George Bernard Shaw

John Bull's Other Island is a comedy about Ireland, written by George Bernard Shaw in 1904. Shaw himself was born in Dublin, yet this is one of only two plays of his where he thematically returned to his homeland, the other being O'Flaherty V.C.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Irish Literature, Ireland, Classics, Fiction, Theatre

62 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1904

About the author

George Bernard Shaw stands as one of the most prolific and influential intellectuals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a man whose literary output was matched only by his fervent commitment to social reform. Rising from a modest background in Dublin to become a global icon of letters, Shaw redefined the purpose of the stage, transforming it from a place of mere entertainment into a forum for rigorous intellectual debate and moral inquiry. His unique "Shavian" style—characterized by sharp-witted dialogue, paradoxical reasoning, and a relentless assault on Victorian hypocrisy—ensured that his voice resonated far beyond the footlights. As a playwright, critic, and philosopher, he remains a singular figure in history, being one of only two individuals to have been honored with both a Nobel Prize in Literature and an Academy Award. This rare crossover of high-art recognition and mainstream cinematic success speaks to his versatility and the enduring relevance of his narratives. His dramatic work, which includes over sixty plays, often tackled the most pressing issues of his day, from the rigid structures of the British class system to the complexities of gender roles and the ethical dilemmas of capitalism. In masterpieces like Pygmalion, he used the science of phonetics to demonstrate the artificiality of class distinctions, a theme that would later reach millions through the musical adaptation My Fair Lady. In Man and Superman, he delved into the philosophical concepts of the "Life Force" and the evolution of the human spirit, while Major Barbara forced audiences to confront the uncomfortable relationship between religious idealism and the industrial military complex. Beyond his theatrical achievements, Shaw was a foundational force in political thought, serving as a leading light of the Fabian Society. His advocacy for gradual socialist reform, rather than violent revolution, helped shape the trajectory of modern British politics and social welfare. He was instrumental in the creation of the London School of Economics, an institution that continues to influence global policy and economic theory. Shaw was also a formidable critic, whose reviews of music and drama set new standards for the profession, characterized by an uncompromising honesty and a deep knowledge of the arts. His personal lifestyle was as distinctive as his writing; a committed vegetarian, teetotaler, and non-smoker, he lived with a disciplined focus that allowed him to remain productive well into his ninth decade. He was a man of contradictions, often engaging in provocative public discourse that challenged the status quo, even when his views sparked intense controversy. His fascination with the "Superman" archetype and his occasional support for authoritarian figures reflected a complex, often elitist worldview that sought the betterment of humanity through radical intellectual evolution. Despite these complexities, his core mission was always rooted in a profound humanitarianism and a desire to expose the delusions that prevented society from progressing. He believed that the power of the written word could strip away the masks of respectability that hid social injustice, and his plays continue to be staged worldwide because the human foibles he satirized remain as prevalent today as they were during his lifetime. By blending humor with gravity and intellect with accessibility, Shaw created a body of work that serves as both a mirror and a compass for modern civilization. His legacy is not just in the scripts he left behind, but in the very way we think about the intersection of art, politics, and the individual’s responsibility to the collective good. He remains the quintessential public intellectual, a man who never feared to speak his mind or to demand that the world become a more rational and equitable place.

Reviews

[Fionnuala]

I read this because I'd seen a reference to it in relation to Finnegans Wake which I had been reading at the time. I didn't really find any parallels between the two except for the time they were set in, and the politics of that period that are mentioned. Shaw's Irishman made-good, who returns to his homeplace to modernize it, is a peculiar type - I hadn't come across a character like him before, and the Englishman he takes along with him is quite thoroughly ridiculous. The locals equally so. Over the top satire, all in all. But enjoyable. Some good speeches.

[Liam Porter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Seems to portray the typical well-fed liberal Englishman in his quest to make common ground with a people who have endured hardships beyond his understanding and are split between humouring him good-naturedly or rebelling against the insidious form of British influence he represents. It seems endlessly relevant.

[Tehreem · Rating 5 out of 5]

This, of course, after Pygmalion, is one of the unsurpassed plays George Barnard Shaw has jotted down. You actually roll off your bed whilst reading this tongue-in-cheek humor, quite very waggish. About Ireland, seemingly, this play spoofs English Imperialism. Exceptionally well-written, I’d like to re-read :)

Published: 1904

______________________________
NORA [looking earnestly and a little doubtfully at him]. Surely
if you let one woman cry on you like that you'd never let another
touch you.

BROADBENT [conscientiously]. One should not. One OUGHT not, my
dear girl. But the honest truth is, if a chap is at all a
pleasant sort of chap, his chest becomes a fortification that has
to stand many assaults: at least it is so in England.

NORA [curtly, much disgusted]. Then you'd better marry an
Englishwoman.

BROADBENT [making a wry face]. No, no: the Englishwoman is too
prosaic for my taste, too material, too much of the animated
beefsteak about her. The ideal is what I like. Now Larry's taste
is just the opposite: he likes em solid and bouncing and rather
keen about him. It's a very convenient difference; for we've
never been in love with the same woman.

NORA. An d'ye mean to tell me to me face that you've ever been in
love before?

BROADBENT. Lord! yes.

NORA. I'm not your first love?

BROADBENT. First love is only a little foolishness and a lot of
curiosity: no really self-respecting woman would take advantage
of it. No, my dear Nora: I've done with all that long ago. Love
affairs always end in rows. We're not going to have any rows:
we're going to have a solid four-square home: man and wife:
comfort and common sense--and plenty of affection, eh [he puts
his arm round her with confident proprietorship]?

NORA [coldly, trying to get away]. I don't want any other woman's
leavings.

BROADBENT [holding her]. Nobody asked you to, ma'am. I never
asked any woman to marry me before.

NORA [severely]. Then why didn't you if you're an honorable man?

BROADBENT. Well, to tell you the truth, they were mostly married
already. But never mind! there was nothing wrong. Come! Don't
take a mean advantage of me. After all, you must have had a fancy
or two yourself, eh
_________________________________
BROADBENT [stiffly]. Devil is rather a strong expression in that
connexion, Mr Keegan.

KEEGAN. Not from a man who knows that this world is hell. But
since the word offends you, let me soften it, and compare you
simply to an ass. [Larry whitens with anger].

BROADBENT [reddening]. An ass!

KEEGAN [gently]. You may take it without offence from a madman
who calls the ass his brother--and a very honest, useful and
faithful brother too. The ass, sir, is the most efficient of
beasts, matter-of-fact, hardy, friendly when you treat him as a
fellow-creature, stubborn when you abuse him, ridiculous only in
love, which sets him braying, and in politics, which move him to
roll about in the public road and raise a dust about nothing. Can
you deny these qualities and habits in yourself, sir?

BROADBENT [goodhumoredly]. Well, yes, I'm afraid I do, you know.

KEEGAN. Then perhaps you will confess to the ass's one fault.

BROADBENT. Perhaps so: what is it?

KEEGAN. That he wastes all his virtues--his efficiency, as you
call it--in doing the will of his greedy masters instead of doing
the will of Heaven that is in himself. He is efficient in the
service of Mammon, mighty in mischief, skilful in ruin, heroic in
destruction. But he comes to browse here without knowing that the
soil his hoof touches is holy ground. Ireland, sir, for good or
evil, is like no other place under heaven; and no man can touch
its sod or breathe its air without becoming better or worse. It
produces two kinds of men in strange perfection: saints and
traitors. It is called the island of the saints; but indeed in
these later years it might be more fitly called the island of the
traitors; for our harvest of these is the fine flower of the
world's crop of infamy. But the day may come when these islands
shall live by the quality of their men rather than by the
abundance of their minerals; and then we shall see.

LARRY. Mr Keegan: if you are going to be sentimental about
Ireland, I shall bid you good evening. We have had enough of
that, and more than enough of cleverly proving that everybody who
is not an Irishman is an ass. It is neither good sense nor good
manners. It will not stop the syndicate; and it will not interest
young Ireland so much as my friend's gospel of efficiency.

BROADBENT. Ah, yes, yes: efficiency is the thing. I don't in the
least mind your chaff, Mr Keegan; but Larry's right on the main
point. The world belongs to the efficient.

[Orla · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for school 🥴

[Leslie · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5*

This pre-WW1 play about the Anglo-Irish relationship is less dated than some of Shaw's other plays, perhaps because the situation it portrays lasted for so long. While there were some funny scenes, overall it struck me as a bitter play. Perhaps I would like it more if I could see a performance.

[Sinziana (cititorisme) · Rating 4 out of 5]

a great play about the tremendous effect of colonialism on the local values and traditions of a people - in this case, Irish people - and the way in which the obsession of outgrowing your own identity might determine one to embrace the destroyer's identity;

an amazing antithetical display of the self-colonized man who returns and destroys everything that fed him while growing up

“Standing here between you the Englishman, so clever in your foolishness, and this Irishman, so foolish in his cleverness, I cannot in my ignorance be sure which of you is the more deeply damned”

[Michael Meeuwis · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not really in love with this. As a play, loose and unformed; as a set of political opinions, Shaw seems to be manifesting that tendency towards what this play will call "efficiency," and what later on will seem to develop into his late-career taste for something like fascism. I don't know that it says anything particularly novel about Ireland, save how much better it would be if it had the English (or, to be fair, the denationalized technocratic classes, most of whom wind up being English) running it.

Also I believe this title page precedes goatse by forty-odd years.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this in my Irish Drama class my senior year of college, and was blown away. John Bull's Other Island is the only play Shaw wrote about Ireland, and he comes at it with a fascinating perspective. Powerful, intense, and as detailed as any of Shaw's work.

[ouliana · Rating 4 out of 5]

i wish ireland was real

[B · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the second edition to this book, Shaw writes a new preface in commemoration of the then assured prospect of Home Rule being on the horizon. He disparages his original preface, calling it an example of how quickly political writing dates. As if to prove his point, a mere four years after the publication of this "Home Rule Edition", a group of rebels stage the Easter Rising and guarantee that Home Rule will never be an option for Ireland. Following the end of the first World War came the Irish War of Independence, and then the tragic Irish Civil War.

In the light of the later bloodshed, can Broadbent's optimistic, naive and patronising attitude towards the prospect of Home Rule really be seen as a negative? As Yeats reflected, "Was it needless death after all? /For England may keep faith..." Was refusing to trust a colonising power to grant Ireland greater freedom truly a wise choice? Would those rebels have made that choice if they knew that theirs would not be the only blood spilled as a result of their actions? That it would not be merely Irish blood spilled by English bullets, but brother against brother, family lines torn apart, the guerilla warfare learned in response to British tactics turned against one another.

The storyline of this comedy reads like a tragedy. Two business partners, Broadbent and Doyle, return to Doyle's home village where the woman he once loved still resides and waits on his return. Doyle's emotional insecurity and his inability to charm like his friend Broadbent lead to him losing his childhood love to his sentimental business partner. In theory, it is tragic. In execution, it is overwhelmingly comic. This is perhaps the only way that politics can be depicted. Tragedy is a genre of resignation to the universal conditions of human existence. In comedy, roles and power move around in a carnival of vitality. The private experience is essentially a serious, noble and tragic one. The public experience is bustling, explosive and comic. Thus it is with John Bull's Other Island. The only characters that can survive in a comic world are those who treat it like a comedy and not merely sneer spitefully while internally lamenting.

[Jacob Hurley · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a long time, the best thing to do for any great Irish writer (or any other profession) was to move to England, establish oneself as an Irish Gentleman & there exploit the mediocrity of the Anglo competition to great profit. This trend was reversed only when WB Yeats, hoping to impress Maud Gonne & her revolutionary designs, began an Irish Literary Revival, which centered around a popular theater for native writers on traditional Irish themes. Bernard Shaw, one of the old vanguard of Irish emigres, assisted in logistics & personnel, but hesitated at Yeats’ many (eventually annoying) requests that Shaw himself compose a play for the Irish revival. Only after many years did he finally write John Bull’s Other Island, concerned with the this phenomenon of Irish emigres in England, designed perhaps ironically to question the meaning of the Irish Literary Revival.

Shaw was, in many regards, a bizarre & often rather stupid character; much of his life & artistic output was devoted to his home-brewed socialist heterodoxy & to his mediocre music criticism (including absurdly hysterical disdain for Brahms), two trends which converged to produce a ridiculously inept commentary on Wagner’s Ring of Nibelungen. His plays frequently reflect these wide-ranging & often dilettantish perspectives, furnished with prologues & epilogues sermonizing on the story’s (imagined) political morals & characters��� financial futures.

The preface to John Bull’s Other Island is longer than the play itself, explaining in detail Shaw’s complex understanding of Irish culture, its relation to England & some political predictions that were immediately refuted by the Anglo-Irish & Irish Civil wars (fewer than 20 years after its 1904 publication). Shaw’s thesis is that the Irish are divided into two uneven parts, a Catholic majority & Protestant minority: despite abundant evidence to the contrary (at the time Ulster & the rest of Ireland were each unambiguously radicalizing towards their own respective denomination), Shaw asserts that there is regular & individualized conversion back & forth, such that an intelligent minority invariably become Protestantism, move to London & live a life of extreme success; the Catholic majority, meanwhile, remain in Ireland, indefinitely mired in convoluted & neurotic disputes amongst themselves. Shaw feels that Anglos are so comically stupid as to redeem themselves, by their constant earnesty & good-natured naiveté; this, then, renders the Anglo-Irish relation symbiotic, providing a safe environment in England where the Protestant Irish can succeed, while retaining Anglo rule over Ireland to prevent calamitous Irish Catholic in-fighting.

As such, Shaw almost feels that English rule over Ireland is a good thing & that in an ideal world it could continue happily. Only with a lengthy summary of human rights abuses by English colonialists elsewhere in the world, particularly in the massacre of an Egyptian town over a trifle, does Shaw abruptly arrive at the conclusion that colonialism of any kind is morally wrong & unsustainable, and that Ireland must become free. Shaw’s prediction was that Ireland would be granted Home Rule (independent self-government, as opposed to rule by English parliament) and piecemeal acquire total independence over a long & gradual process. Within ten years of Shaw’s preface, Ireland & England were at war, refuting Shaw; five years thereafter, Ireland was partitioned in two, with the Catholic Republic of Ireland in a violent civil war, as Shaw had perhaps foreseen.

The play itself is about a law firm in England, comprised of the cynical Irishman Doyle and his gullible Anglo partner Broadbent, who travel to Doyle’s home country in Ireland, in hopes of influencing a parliamentary election there. While in Ireland, Doyle struggles to reconcile with his old family & friends, while Broadbent in a series of comical accidents succeeds in finding a wife & becoming the member of parliament for the Irish county in question; the implication is that both his Irish wife & his new constituency benefit vastly more from the charmingly aloof stupidity of the bumbling Broadbent, than from anything the resentful & self-loathing Irish psyche could produce for itself. While this plot, prima facie, is merely a roundabout illustration of the theses of Shaw’s essay, the play itself is constantly entertaining, written in high-fidelity Irish dialect as good as anything in Synge or O’Casey, and contrasted to great humor with Broadbent’s anglo warblings.

Shaw, in general, is a writer one must often take with a grain of salt: so much of his creative writing & intellectual theories are heavily limited by his fixations & idiosyncrasies, and for the most part he is of interest as weird little world unto himself. This play, however, is monumental because Shaw was one of the few writers familiar enough with both sides to meaningfully depict the dilemma of Anglo-Irish relations in that era. Shaw’s contrarian provocations, irritating in so many other cases, here provide an absurd yet nearly valid counterargument against Irish liberation, posing necessary questions: was a stable Irish republic possible? were the problems of Ireland completely due to purely exogenous factors? was life under England really worse than the alternative? As history has shown, these questions required many decades & a great deal of violence to answer.

Shaw’s vision of England as a redemptive zone for the Irish is manifestly silly, when accounting for the innumerable abuses & genocidal efforts made by the Anglos onto the Irish; however, the fundamental premise of the argument, that Ireland itself is a place of neurosis & hostile in-fighting, remains true. An variant of Shaw’s theory, mutatis mutandis, might uphold America, rather than England, as the utopian elysium where the cunning of the Irish intellect can thrive, free of the constraints of its homeland. One need look only at the rapid flourishing of Irish immigrants in north-eastern America in the early 20th century to confirm that emigration is almost essential to Irish thriving. In many ways, the Plastic Paddy drinking flat Guinness at a Boston Celtics Irish bar, so successful if so deracinated, is the ultimate fulfillment of this dream. The Departed (2006) could be considered a sequel to John Bull’s Other island.

Addendum: Shaw has the merit of being one of the only communists in history to encourage his readers, upon learning how farcical & exploitative “capitalism” is, to simply use this information to become rich themselves.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superb satire on the mutual regard between the Irish and the English about 120 years ago. Plenty here to make both parties angry. Shaw's three prefaces set out some complementary history.

Shaw wrote the third preface after the Irish had won home rule, and it is an incisive and grim summary of how Ireland finally got free (mostly) of England. "And so we settled the Irish question not as civilized and reasonable men should have settled it, but as dogs settle a dispute over a bone." One of his few understatements.

[Thibault Jacquot-Paratte · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty funny in parts, fun characters well established. Some passages (supper scene) that would require imagination to stage. A bit overly "spiralling" in some parts. I could actually relate to some of it, or, to Larry vis-a-vis the place he's from.
What sinks it a bit for me i suppose is that some of the action feels like it popped out of nowhere, or was forced. Especially the trying-to-be-vaudeville romance just didn't hit right. Then, in a similar way to e.g. Major Barbara, the play is almost too contemporary. I mean, i'm pretty well read, but for instance in act III, a few footnotes could have been good.

Then again, it was a good play.

[Asun · Rating 3 out of 5]

3/5.

I want to say I like this play but unfortunately...I did not enjoy it as much as I thought I would even though Bernard Shaw wrote it. I can appreciate the irony and sarcasm of the characters, especially when they talk about Ireland, Irish people, migration and the current state of the country; however, I felt that the stage directions were rather long, dull and unnecessary and made you lose track of the plot.

[Lois · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of only two plays that Shaw set in his native Ireland, and it satirizes the romantic stereotypes of the Irish people and culture, as well as the English sense of superiority. Although seldom staged nowadays, it seems curiously relevant for today’s political climate in its portrayal of a real estate developer who seeks to force out local farmers in order to build a golf resort. He also decides to run for political office. Hmm!

[Victoria · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 ⭐️’s

When I began reading this, I didn’t think I was going to like it very much. Luckily, I was pleasantly surprised by it. I enjoyed the critique of colonialism, and (the class I’m reading this for is centered around different utopias) the different utopian views for the country each character had. Of course, I wish the woman played a bigger role than just being there to be the homemakers and help the men, but I’ll take what I can get.

[John Longmore · Rating 2 out of 5]

Discouraged

So good in beginning, than the characters bored me. Tried to finish...but to no avail I got confused with the characters chattering nonsense. I love Shaws reads....but this one?

[Mahmoud Khaleil · Rating 3 out of 5]

هجوم حاد وعنيف من برنارد شو على المستعمر الانجليزي الذي دنس بلادنا يوما ما ، كتبها شو بمناسبة حادثة دنشواي وصب فيها السخرية على بلاده هو بالذات " أيرلندة " قبل ان تنال استقلالها ، وفضح ممارسات المستعمر الانجليزي مع الشعب المسالم الفقير وكيف فرض هيمنته عليه وعلى بلاده وثرواتها وخيراتها

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

I definitely enjoyed this. It was a bit long winded in parts, but I found the politics of the play very interesting. Besides, who doesn't love a good caricature?

[Betül · Rating 5 out of 5]

beautifully sad

[megan · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars

[•Judah• Cunneen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yayyy gentrify Conan O’brian!!!

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scarily still relevant, but the pig and the car!! I die every time!

[Ryan O'Malley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A satirical take on the relationship between Ireland and England meant to criticize the English understanding of the Irish question during the debate on Home Rule. Fun, quick, political.

[hannahfrench · Rating 4 out of 5]

i really enjoyed this but i feel like i need to see it performed to fully appreciate it- as with most plays i read

[Dawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

The writing reminded me more of a novel than a play but I enjoyed it none the less. I liked how Shaw was able to make me get annoyed of posh Englishman in Ireland, but here we are now I guess.

[Mac · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is "John Bull's Other Island," you may ask? Why, Ireland, of course! George Bernard Shaw's native Ireland, I should say. This was one of Shaw's funniest, most enjoyable plays. And, like all of his work, it has a pointed message too. In this case, it shows how a liberal, high-minded, patronizing Englishman can easily manipulate the Irish into attaining his own self-serving goals.

The play sends up both the stereotypical portrayal of the Irish and the bloated, if unconscious, self-importance of the English. It's a good read.

[Evan Ruane · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a tricky one. There was many interesting observations about the Irish character and Irish politics, all in relation to England, most of which can be found in Shaw's biting, insightful, and lucid Preface.

However, the drama feels flat in comparison. It never feels more than a dramatisation of the Preface. The same points are hit, the same rebuttals made. The characters become mere vessels for their respective political arguments, never evolving into fully fledged human beings. That is not to say that politics does not belong in art, or the theatre, but the eloquent, thoughtful and wordy speeches from Broadbent and Doyle should have been consigned to a political tract, not a play.

Because of this need of Shaw's to hit all of the points made in his Preface throughout his play, the plot is contorted and twisted into shape to fit them all. Shaw wanted to write a play about "Ireland", and all the problems he sees in it. But the play's focus becomes too broad, and the focus on Broadbent and Doyle, one a fool, the other a cynic, tends to make all these concerns feel trivial, never life or death.

The moment when the drama moves into life is the conversation between Hodson and Haffigan, because it is the one that feels most real, the most life or death. The moment when Hodson drops the "valet" act is genuinely surprising, considering that before this scene, he was little more than a background prop up to this point.

[Dr.J.G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

About the other English speaking island in Europe and the relationship between the two - England and Ireland, or rather Britain and Ireland; about their perceptions of themselves vs their perceptions of one another, and of matters of life and so forth in general. How English perceive Ireland romantically and yet would exploit it and the Irish people, how Irish would complain about the British but give them control of the land easily, and how each thinks the other quaint and ridiculous.

Perhaps it has occurred to others before, but is it possible Ireland makes Britain safer and more livable, being the buffer between Atlantic winds and waves and Britain, while Britain is surrounded by the warm gulf stream?

[Dr.J.G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

About the other English speaking island in Europe and the relationship between the two - England and Ireland, or rather Britain and Ireland; about their perceptions of themselves vs their perceptions of one another, and of matters of life and so forth in general. How English perceive Ireland romantically and yet would exploit it and the Irish people, how Irish would complain about the British but give them control of the land easily, and how each thinks the other quaint and ridiculous.

Perhaps it has occurred to others before, but is it possible Ireland makes Britain safer and more livable, being the buffer between Atlantic winds and waves and Britain, while Britain is surrounded by the warm gulf stream? 1D

Monday, January 20, 20014.