1. 1
Politics and Society in the works of Henrik Ibsen, George Bernard Shaw, and Oscar Wilde.
Date: 01/05/2015
SID: 1201371
Supervisor: John Gardner
Title of Award: BA (Hons) English Literature
Word Count: 10,024

2. 2
Contents
Abstract P.3
Introduction P.4
Chapter 1: Politics and the people, the individual in society P.6
Chapter 2: Society and the people P.15
Chapter 3: Wilde and the Victorian Society P.24
Conclusion P.35
Bibliography P.37

3. 3
Abstract
My dissertation will address how each playwright I have chosen uses their plays to develop
an attack on society. Through the use of online articles and specific books written about the
playwrights, I argue that Henrik Ibsen starts a platform for his contemporary playwrights to
expand upon in their own unique ways. My dissertation expands the use of dramatic
techniques through the medium of certain themes such as: marriage, love and wealth. In each
of the chapters I argue how each writer seems to flow into the next, highlighted by how I
have structured my dissertation. It is no coincidence that I chose to start with Ibsen, before
progressing onto George Bernard Shaw and finishing with Oscar Wilde. As all the
playwrights are never disassociated from the society they lived in, it is easy for critics to find
allusions to their own backgrounds and personal views. After I have argued through three
chapters how each playwright attacks society, I will finally conclude by discussing all six
plays together focusing on the key themes: politics and power, family, and the representation
of women.

4. 4
Introduction
This dissertation will seek to explore the variety of ways in which Henrik Ibsen, George
Bernard Shaw, and Oscar Wilde contend with political and societal issues. Using: An Enemy
of the People (1882), Hedda Gabler (1890), Mrs. Warren’s Profession (1893), Major
Barbara (1905), An Ideal Husband (1895) and The Importance of Being Earnest (1895). I
will show how well each playwright contends with the relationship between politics and
drama. I feel that each play I have chosen could be attributed to any of the playwrights I am
studying, as they all compliment and allude to one other. I decided on Ibsen as he seemed to
be the stepping stone for further tragedies and morality plays. Then it seemed logical to
follow with Shaw into Wilde as they both differed in their portrayal of Victorian Society. I
decided on three non-English playwrights as I believe they have the most accurate portrayal
on life in society as a whole.
I have chosen to base my dissertation on the politics and society surrounding the plays due to
societal issues prevalent at the time of performance. My choices of plays all depict and react
to controversial issues such as: prostitution, capitalism, religion, and economics. Each author
tackles them in different ways. The Norwegian Ibsen is the earliest of the writers and focuses
on the ostracizing of an individual from society as my Chapter One will argue. I chose An
Enemy of the People and Hedda Gabler as in both plays the respective protagonists are faced
with deep moral dilemmas which lead to unhappy lives; resulting in suicide in Hedda
Gabler’s case, and being ostracized from society in Dr. Stockman’s.

5. 5
Chapter Two expands on Ibsen’s views on the individual in society. The chapter is based on
Shaw depiction of society as a whole. Shaw makes extensive use of the portrayal of
individuals in certain occupations and the ways in which they use their wealth. Shaw directly
attacks Victorian Society by questioning how it is possible that so many people can live in
poverty whilst the wealthy become even wealthier. Using Mrs. Warren’s Profession and
Major Barbara I will examine how Shaw depicts the family relationship. Society deems both
Mrs. Warren and Andrew Undershaft’s professions immoral. With over ten years spanning
the two plays you could switch them around and know no difference. Shaw once remarked
that: ‘Perhaps a more suitable title for this play, save for the fact of repetition, would have
been Andrew Undershaft's Profession’ (Berst, 1968:p.73).
My final chapter is about An Ideal Husband and The Importance of Being Earnest. I chose
Wilde because he occupies a position parallel to Shaw’s. They both attack Victorian Society,
but unlike Shaw, Wilde opts to isolate certain elements of society. The popular reaction to
Wilde’s plays was more sympathetic than the reaction to Shaw’s. This was due to the
difference in the ways in which the two playwrights criticized Victorian Society. Wilde opted
for the farcical approach, whilst Shaw was far more direct with his attack. I’ve chose these
two plays because they mark the pinnacle of Wilde’s career, both were successful in their
own right, and were performed at the same time.

6. 6
Chapter One
Politics and the people, the individual in society
In this chapter I will examine how the individual becomes isolated and ostracized from
society in two of Ibsen’s plays. In An Enemy of the People Dr. Stockman is a victim of social
and political power but he believes the minority will prevail in his speech in Act Four. “The
majority has the power – unfortunately – but the majority is not right! The ones who are right
are a few isolated individuals like me! The minority is always right!” (p.193, 1991). Dr.
Stockman is always true to his morality and is manipulated even when confronted with
bankruptcy. He is seen as an enemy to society due to higher powers such as his own brother
Peter Stockman and the editors of The Peoples’ Messenger Billing and Hovstad as well as
Aslaksen head of the Property Owners’ Association.
Stockman seems to have nothing left for him even if for now the majority seems right, in time
the truth will come out as Stockman has scientific evidence. In Hedda Gabler, Hedda is
ostracized due to a patriarchal society in which she is not allowed to express herself her
inevitable end comes in her “having lost hope of transforming her world, Hedda turns against
what she has vaguely sensed all along to be her real enemy, life itself” (1970: p.60). This
links perfectly to Dr. Stockman, as he becomes an enemy of the people, but Hedda’s enemy
is life and how male dominance in society suppresses her and tries to conform her into a
perfect house wife. J. W. Walkington states “the patriarchal production of the helpless
woman stereotype, the woman unfit for any real share of power in society. Ibsen's fascinating

7. 7
protagonist is a woman frustrated by male society's constraints upon her talents and freedom”
(1991:p.64, Walkington). Hedda is unable to reach any power in society, and is called a
coward by Lovborg:
Hedda: I’m too much afraid of scandal
Lovborg: Yes, Hedda, at bottom you’re a coward (p.218: 1990)
Is she really a coward for committing suicide or does this make her a martyr for the cause of
women? Was Ibsen trying to truly break patriarchal society by showing the tragic demise of a
woman?
In Act One of An Enemy of the People we come across the conflict between society and Dr.
Stockman, as the Mayor tells him:
You will always insist on going your own way. And that’s almost equally
inadmissible in a well-ordered community. The individual must learn to fall in line
with the general will – or, to be more accurate, with that of the authorities whose
business is to watch over the common good. (1991:p.130)
This is a hypocritical statement as the common good spoken about is the community of the
town but Stockman is thinking about the greater common good. Keeping to his morals he
can’t stand knowing the baths are diseased, whereas the authorities are thinking about the
economy of the town not the health and well-being of the society. Mordecai Roshwald agrees
with this point, “he is concerned about the well-being of human beings; they are interested in
gaining political advantage. For him the issue is the health and lives of men; for them the

8. 8
concern is political power. He is committed to Right; they worship Might” (2004:p.229).
Interestingly Roshwald uses the words ‘right’ and ‘might’ in a conflicting manner. Right
being the truth and might the government power run by the Mayor. Peter is trying to advise
and persuade him that corruption is the only way to save the town and keep power in politics
and society. The ideal of worshipping might is a taste for power where the majority even if
wrong will have the power. This well-ordered community is governed by himself, and as both
being high men of society Peter is trying to stop conflict.
Tor Hernes argues ‘Ibsen illustrates in a number of different plays how organizational
hierarchy, capitalism, bourgeois values and politics may force people into deep moral
dilemmas’ (2007:p.1266). This applies to Dr. Stockman, not only is he being ostracized in
society but he is forcing his family back into poverty because of his own moral dilemmas in
life. This is backed up by Tian Sørhaug ‘To achieve his goals, the male protagonist is risking
not only the destruction of his own reputation, career and economy. He is destroying the
capacity and will of love both in his beloved ones and, not least, in himself’ (Sørhaug,
2007:p1285-6). Stockman’s reputation as a doctor is slandered he has lost his job on the Bath
committee and has to hope his wife and family will stand by him. Petra loses her job because
of her father ‘Oh, mother, she’s not nasty. It was quite obvious she didn’t like doing it. But
she said she dared not do otherwise. So I got the sack’ (p.205: 1991) the teacher dared not do
otherwise, if she defied then both would have lost their job.
Unwilling to stick to her ideals she was thrown into her own deep moral dilemma. Fear
comes from propaganda by the press and government, Stockman was being slandered and
these meant parents’ did not want their children taught by an enemy of society’s daughter:
‘Mrs Busk showed me no less than three letters she’d received this morning’ (p.206:1991).

9. 9
Word had already spread quickly and pressure was being mounted upon anyone with
association to Stockman. Mrs. Stockman stuck by her husband throughout this and in Act
Three when the Mayor manipulates Aslaksen, Billing and Hovstad against Stockman he lost
the majority and became the minority. Mrs. Stockman tells Hovstad ‘never you mind his
family, Mr. Hovstad’ (1991:p.180) he tried to manipulate Stockman’s wife by appealing to
her sentiments but she stands by her husband: ‘then I’ll show them that an – an old woman
can be a man – for once. I’m sticking with you, Thomas’ (1991:p.181). This show of loyalty
is what Stockman needed to stay strong and not be fazed by fear of being ostracized from
society. Not only this, but Ibsen has given a female character a strong voice showing family
still means everything in society.
The press are portrayed with a vast amount of power and by the editors own admission
publish for economic gain instead of the truth. Petra tells Hovstad why they are wrong: ‘it’s
true isn’t it! You do! Oh, it’s a wonderful vocation you’ve chosen! To be able to pioneer
neglected truth and brave new doctrines – the mere fact of standing fearlessly forth to defend
a man who’s been wronged’ (p.170:1991). Here the paper is helping to conceal these lies to
society themselves because they feel they are helping but in reality they are just telling
society what they want to hear. James G. March argues the ideals of lying in society by
stating ‘the instruments of society, such as the media, join in protecting the lies.
In Act III of An Enemy of the People, when Petra accuses the newspaper editor, Hovstad, of
knowing very well that he is publishing lies, he agrees with her ‘You’re perfectly right; but
then an editor can’t always do what he might prefer’(2007:p.1280-1). Aslaksen’s printing
press has the power meaning they have to conform to his ideals which results in Billing and
Hovstad giving up their morals to hide this lie. At the end of Act Three Stockman declares

10. 10
‘well, my fine gentlemen, let the trumpets sound! Let’s see whether meanness and mediocrity
have the power to gag a man who wants to clean up society’ (1991:p.202), Stockman just
wants to have the truth, known everyone else is thinking about economics and how society
will react. Peter does not want to be known as corrupt and as for Stockman’s credibility in
society with propaganda and lies from the press and the Mayor, society feel they have to start
believing it from fear of being ostracized themselves.
Mordecai Roshwald argues that ‘neither intimidation nor temptation will make him swerve
from the path of righteousness’ (2004:p.232). I have already spoken about the intimidation
Stockman received from his brother and the press but temptation as such comes in Act Five
from Morten Kill:
Do you know what money I’ve used to buy these shares with?
No, you can’t; but I’ll tell you. It’s the money Catherine and the boys are going to
inherit when I’m gone. I’ve managed to put a little aside, you see. (1991:p.213)
Temptation here is to sell his morals for his family, if he swerves from righteousness then at
least his family will be secured for life, but this deep moral dilemma means he just cannot
give in. Stockman questions himself but never wavers: ‘(wanders around restlessly). If only I
weren’t so sure - ! But I know I’m right’ (1991:p.214). This restlessness Stockman is feeling
shows he had to take considerate thought before remembering he has given society many
chances to help him save the baths, and now he will carry on the fight regardless of anyone
trying to get in the way. Ibsen ends the play with Stockman declaring ‘the fact is, you see,
that the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone’ (1991:p.222), this means he
who stands outside of society and looks back inside can only truly see what is around them.

11. 11
This can be linked back to one of Mordecai Roshwald’s quotes previously mentioned: ‘He is
committed to Right; they worship Might’ (2004:p.229). They cannot carry on this way
always deceiving people with ‘might’ to get their well organized society. Whereas Stockman
stays true to his morals and will always be ‘right’. It can be seen as a credible man of society
going mad, but the play shows the way in which Stockman was forced and ostracized out of
society.
‘For once in my life I want to feel that I control a human destiny’ (1990:p.226). Hedda
struggles to come to terms in the play with the ideals of being a conventional housewife,
married to Tesman now it seems as though she should have children and become the ideal
woman. However, she always wants to control people in her life, this quote is about Lovborg
and Mrs. Elvsted questions about her husband, who seems to have just been a marriage
through necessity, before her window of getting married closed. Chengzhou He states that:
Hedda is convinced that Brack will sooner or later use the position he has obtained to
achieve his purpose--to manipulate her sexually. Ironically, Hedda, who has had the
desire and ambition to manipulate the fate of others, ends up living under someone
else's control. It is this reversed pattern of life that she cannot submit to (p.452).
Everything nearly works out perfectly for her except for the last patriarchal power left with
any control over her, Brack who from the start wanted to get inside her inner circle. “D’you
know ... this sort of ... let me put it, this sort of triangular relationship ... it’s really highly
convenient for all concerned” (1990:p.203). The triangular is Hedda, Brack and Tesman. This
relationship means Brack can entertain Hedda whilst Tesman does his academic work. It is
most convenient for Brack who in the long run wants to possibly gain some sexual advantage

12. 12
from Hedda. Hedda had almost completed her manipulative plan in life with the destruction
of the manuscript and Lovborg’s death, but Brack has a hold over her: ‘[bends over her and
whispers]. No, Hedda Gabler ... not if I hold my tongue’ (1990:p.261). The whisper is
seductive and bending over her, Brack is blackmailing her. If he holds his tongue then the
owner of the pistol will not be found. After being told that he will not abuse his position,
Hedda replies ‘in your power, all the same. Subject to your will and your demands. No longer
free! [she gets up violently.] No! That’s a thought that I’ll never endure! Never”
(1990:p.262). Hedda’s last line is “yes, you’re looking forward to that, aren’t you, Mr. Brack?
Yourself as the only cock in the yard”’ (1990:p.264) Brack thinks he has won in this
patriarchal society but in reality she will never endure his demands as she shoots herself right
after. Brack was ‘one last push that eventually transforms desire into action’ (2001:p.450).
Chengzhou He believes Brack was the final push, she had no real desire to act upon her
thoughts but the only way for her freedom was suicide. Earlier in the final act she says:
‘[clenches her hands as though in desperation]. Oh, it’ll kill me … it’ll kill me, all this!’
(1990:p.251) her desperation comes from the lies and manipulation throughout the whole
play. Suppressed by society Hedda has been lied to since the start having a six month long
honeymoon for Tesman to do his research and not being able to entertain like she was
promised. Eventually it does kill her but only because Brack knows the truth does she
eventually have to commit suicide.
Penny Farfan looks upon the General Hedda’s father as the overriding patriarchal figure ‘as
the sole parent of a female child, the General instilled in Hedda a taste for such traditionally
masculine activities as shooting and riding, as well as a male-associated impulse toward self-
determination’ (2002: p.4). Hedda was never going to be able to conform to the ideals of
being a self respecting housewife in society, as she had only ever known patriarchal power.

13. 13
This power gave her the impulse for self-determination which meant Hedda had to either
“accept the subordinate roles available to women within her social environment or to
conceive of alternatives to those roles other than death” (2002:p.4). Hedda was never happy
to be told she was in love with Tesman and especially didn’t like his hints at pregnancy ‘yes,
but have you noticed how well and bonny she looks? I declare she’s filled out beautifully on
the trip’ (1990:p.178), Hedda replies ‘I’m exactly the same as I was when we left’
(1990:p.178). Marriage and pregnancy will not change Hedda, however there seems to be
only one option left for her which is death. Farfan mentions what the men in the play
represent in society ‘certainly, he represents for Hedda no greater prospect of autonomy than
her husband George Tesman, who offers the possibility of motherhood, or the blackmailer
Judge Brack, who seeks to subjugate her sexually’ (2002:p.5). The he mentioned is Lovborg,
who Hedda has had a previous relationship with and tries to keep it a secret especially from
Mrs. Elvsted. Lovborg may have been better for Hedda but his prospect was still motherhood.
This is why she turns towards self-determination she wants to feel she is in control of her life,
but as she is a woman she has no power in society. Hedda ends up being ostracized and
unheard before shooting herself.
Hedda’s destruction of the manuscript is a very pivotal point in the play as it shows how
much she wants to control and also destroy lives. Whose life Hedda destroys is Thea’s, as
Lovborg’s masterpiece, their child has been destroyed. Outraged at Lovborg Mrs. Elvsted
tells him: ‘For the rest of my life it’ll be for me as though you’d killed a little child’
(1990:p.243). Hedda hears this and realized how much enjoyment she could get from burning
the manuscript. “Now I’m burning your child, Thea! With your curly hair! [throws a few
more sheets into the stove.] Your child and Eijert Lovborg’s. [Throws in the rest.] I’m
burning … burning your child.” (1990:p.246). Hedda truly believes she is burning their child,

14. 14
which is so easy for her to do and in a way Hedda wishes that she could get rid of her baby so
easily as well. This manuscript is also Hedda’s final outburst as Farfan mentions the
destruction is a rejection of “the conventional gender roles that Lovborg's manuscript is
premised upon and consequently projects into the future, but the conventionality that is as
much a part of her character as her rebelliousness leaves her unable to imagine any more
constructive alternative” (2002:p.5). This view is stating Hedda’s character was never able to
conform to societies values; she was on a collision path to ostracizing herself through her
inability to live in a patriarchal society.
Ibsen’s plays all deal with characters being ostracized from society in the case of this essay
Dr. Stockman finds himself outside of society for being an individual and going against the
norm. Exactly the same as Hedda except she rejects a patriarchal society in trying to break
this she self destructs herself. Stockman’s society tried to banish him from his own town,
whereas Hedda’s left her to find an only option which was suicide, nothing else could satisfy
her more than her own death.

15. 15
Chapter Two
Society and the People
Much like Ibsen in chapter 1, George Bernard Shaw grapples with writing about society in
his plays Mrs Warrens Profession and Major Barbara. Rather than focusing on individual
characters being exiled, Shaw takes a more political viewpoint on how society forces those
living in poverty to act sinfully to provide a living. Mrs. Warren is a prostitute and Major
Barbara’s father owns a munitions factory. Charles A. Berst argues ‘As Undershaft's élan
vital pushes him into armaments, armaments become a part of his soul and emerge informed
by religious spirit. The motto of both the prostitute and the armorer may consequently quite
naturally be "UNASHAMED"’ (1968:p.74). In neither of the plays do the characters show
remorse, they are unashamed because they are proud of themselves for surviving in a society
where poverty consumes them. Another similar theme in both texts is the ideal of salvation
though not just on the subject of religion. Shaw wanted to see salvation in society, he
expressed ‘in the creation of each character his affirmation of the belief that society could
"salvage" itself, and indicating in the variety of characters in his plays that that salvation
might be achieved in the striving toward the ideal Superman’ (Scott, 1960:p.294). We see this
in Vivie who strives to be independent and become more than her mother was, as well as
Barbara disgusted by capitalism in the form of her father and the effect it has on society.
Money is a driving force of society, stemming from capitalism; you will push whatever limits
you can to get money. ‘I thought Barbara was going to make the most brilliant career of you
all. And then what does she do? Joins the Salvation Army; discharges her maid; lives on a

16. 16
pound a week;’ (2000:pp.53-4). Barbara wants to help the people whom she feels need
salvation and gave up a life of luxury to lead her life. The capitalism comes from
Undershaft’s munitions factory. Lady Britomart argues that ‘Andrew Undershaft and Lazarus
positively have Europe under their thumbs’ (2000:p.55). The vast wealth and the business of
munitions mean they can control Europe diplomatically. Barbara chooses to be against what
her father stands for, by helping the community his company has forced into poverty through
the economics of society. John Gassner argues that:
Shaw maintained the cold-sober argument that all moral problems had their source in
economics. In Major Barbara, the real benefactor of mankind, it is bizarrely argued, is
none other than the munitions magnate Andrew Undershaft who builds the good
society with the well paid, well housed, and well entertained employees of his factory
(1962:pp. 520-1).
This good society works very well the employees are looked after, although they are helping
Undershaft make money. However, economics was the problem here he is creating a
business, but outside of his company society was still poverty stricken – even the upper
classes were struggling. This is portrayed through Lady Britomart in Act One, who cannot
continue to accept financial help from her father: ‘you know how poor my father is: he has
barely seven thousand a year now; and really, if he were not the Earl of Stevenage, he would
have to give up society’ (2000:p.55). Her income cannot support her children when they are
in separate houses, even an Earl is struggling to support them. All this is happening whilst the
father of the children is wealthy. The moral dilemma characters do not understand is
Undershaft’s conscience ‘who made your millions for you? Me and my like. Whats kep us
poor? Keeping you rich. I wouldn’t have your conscience, not for all your income’

17. 17
(2000:p.88). The poor believe having a clear state of mind is better than being rich they
would not trade places with the wealthy. They know it is the likes of Undershaft keeping
them in poverty and they suffer at the bottom of society to keep his business flowing.
Undershaft, clearly having no conscience ‘I wouldnt have your income, not for all your
conscience, Mr Shirley’ (2000:p.88) .Undershaft’s life is all about money and as previously
mentioned he is unashamed, he has chosen his place in society and instead of living in
poverty he is living in the sin of a munitions factory. As mentioned Barbara has a love for the
common people and Undershaft argues his defense in being happy to be a millionaire:
This love of the common people may please an earl’s granddaughter and a university
professor; but I have been a common man and a poor man; and it has no romance for
me. Leave it to the poor to pretend that poverty is a blessing: leave it to the coward to
make a religion of his cowardice by preaching humility: we know better than that.
(2000:p.97)
Undershaft, once again, is very unashamed of who he has become. As the reader we know
now that he has suffered through poverty before: he has had absolutely nothing and worked
hard for his wealth. Undershaft did not find ‘romance’ in his poverty, the whole idea of the
poor seeing poverty as a blessing is ignorance. Undershaft liberated himself from poverty so
why can others not? This emphasizes the argument that it is not society’s fault that the
common people live in poverty. Surely Undershaft could have done more for the poor once
he made his millions. Religion is also attacked in Shaw’s satire this preaching humility using
God and religion as a farce because even if you have nothing in life there is always salvation
in religion.

18. 18
Barbara has the first deep moral dilemma in Mrs. Baines accepting Undershaft’s money.
Barbara believes in true salvation and that it cannot be bought: ‘I know he has a soul to be
saved. Let him come down here; and I’ll do my best to help him to his salvation. But he
wants to send a cheque down to buy us, and going on being as wicked as ever’ (2000:p.107).
There is a compromise being made here but who is getting hurt? And who benefits? Major
Barbara leaves her religion behind by the end of Act Two, although Undershaft and Lord
Saxmundham are seen to be helping the poor in reality they are benefitting as helping the
Salvation Army keep their barracks open. Barbara is the most hurt as she says ‘I can’t pray
now. Perhaps I shall never pray again’ (2000:p.110), she has lost her whole religion due to
the Salvation Army being bought by capitalism. Though surely if she was so devoted she
wouldn’t lose her faith in her religion, she would just be disgusted in how a religious
organization can sell themselves to the rich. Undershaft states to Cusins ‘all religious
organizations exist by selling themselves to the rich’ (2000:p.98), Undershaft feels so
powerful with his wealth that anyone can be bought for the right amount of money.
In Act Three Shaw delves deeper into the mind of Barbara and her religion: ‘I was safe with
an infinite wisdom watching me, an army marching to Salvation with me; and in a moment,
at the stroke of your pen in a cheque book, I stood alone; and the heavens were empty’
(2000:p.140). Barbara was convinced that her religion and beliefs were only respectable
when she could depend on the loyalty of her army. Undershaft considers religion with a
business mind: ‘if your old religion broke down yesterday, get a newer and better one for
tomorrow’ (2000:p.141), just like in his munitions factory if it does not work move on to the
next thing. However religion is something you are meant to have full faith in and devote your
life to, so how can Undershaft’s philosophy work? Barbara cannot see how Undershaft is
giving his workers salvation but he states ‘you gave them bread and treacle and dreams of

19. 19
heaven. I give them from thirty shillings a week to twelve thousand a year’ (2000:p.141).
Money is his driving force, he believes saving someone from a life of poverty and bringing
them into a better society where they can eat and live is saving their soul. Whereas Barbara
believes you have to guide them to salvation on their own. It is the case of money over
conscience, is it better to have money and no conscience or other way around? Or is it even
possible to have both? Undershaft also twists the seven deadly sins in his mind. They are
‘food, clothing, firing, rent, taxes, respectability and children’ (2000:p.141) in which ‘nothing
can lift those seven millstones from man’s neck but money’ (2000:p.141). Once again money
drives his philosophy and it was this money that enabled Barbara to become a Major.
However dreadful she thinks her father is, it if wasn’t for him, she would have never been
able to give the salvation to those who needed it.
Undershaft, a self-made millionaire and the devil in this play, used to care about poverty:
I had the strongest scruples about poverty and starvation. Your moralists are quite
unscrupulous about both; they make virtues of them. I had rather be a thief than a
pauper. I had rather be a murderer than a slave. I dont want to be either; but if you
force the alternative on me, then, by heaven, I’ll chose the braver and more moral one.
(2000:p.143)
Having already called poverty a crime, Undershaft is showing the moral choices you have to
make in society, so he would rather the crime than the alternative. This means if owning a
munitions factory and striving for freedom and not living in poverty then this is the choice he
will make.

20. 20
Much like Mrs. Warren’s choice of prostitution in her argument with Vivie: ‘do you think I
did what I did because I liked it, or thought it right, or wouldn’t have rather gone to college
and been a lady if I’d had the chance?’ (1986:p.246), society forced her into this profession.
Mrs. Warren tried hard honest ways to make a living but none of it worked. However we later
find out she is still in the business with Crofts so even when out of poverty she continued as
she enjoyed her job and the wealth that followed. Vivie argues the socialist point of view:
People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I dont believe in
circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and
look for the circumstances they want, and, if they cant find them, make them.
(1986:246)
This sounds like Mrs Warren’s choices were made to improve her circumstances, but actually
she was given everything by her sister Liz. Vivie is very naïve to society, she believes there is
something for everyone, and you just have to fight for what you want. Mrs. Warren certainly
had help in jobs, but the problem was that she felt she was being exploited and getting paid a
lot less for the work she was doing. Mrs. Warren had a business mind, as we can determine
from her statement about beauty: ‘we could trade them in ourselves and get all the profits
instead of starvation wages? (1986:p.249). It is all about money and striving for more, why
should they have starvation wages when they can have a business of their own? An argument
Tracy C. Davis agrees with: ‘He condemns the economic system where women find their best
(and perhaps only) avenue to riches (and perhaps survival) through their sexuality’
(2002:p.446). Shaw wanted to show how economic gain for women could only be achieved
through their sexuality. These two quotes work well together as Davis is agreeing with the
condemnation portrayed through Mrs. Warren’s act of prostitution: if that was the way she

21. 21
could make her riches and fund her family then why not use it? However, the economy
should have never been that dismal Shaw would argue. Rather, women should not be pigeon-
holed for choosing a profession that seems to be their only avenue, when other choices are
probably worse.
Vivie tries rationalizing her mother’s decision: ‘you were certainly quite justified – from the
business point of view’ (1986:p.249). Understanding fully the implications put upon her
mother from a business point of view, she was correct - ‘Justified’ by saving and making a
life for her and Vivie. Charles A Berst argues ‘what would have been for Vivie a means to an
end of greater freedom, has been for Mrs. Warren a fascinating occupation, an end in itself,
and financial independence has led not to greater things but only to further involvement in the
corruption of society’ (1966:p.396). This argues that even when Mrs. Warren has stopped
living in poverty and can sustain herself, she carries on contributing to a corrupt society by
showing through prostitution that she can save herself from poverty even though it is
immoral. This challenged Vivie as she ‘has much of the character of a young Fabian socialist
being tested by the vanities and vicissitudes of the wayward world’ (1966:p.393). Berst is
emphasizing Vivie’s views on society disgusted with the world and every character seems to
tempt her away from her ideal views to their own.
So far, this chapter has attempted to convey that Shaw is not defending prostitution rather
than the play is an attack on society. Alfred Turgo argues ‘his aim is not to recommend this
woman’s specific behavior as a model for emulation, but to attack the society which in effect
left her no alternative course of action’ (1976:p.70). This reoccurring theme carries resonance
throughout the play and is a parallel to Major Barbara, because Undershaft chose a life of

22. 22
guns and money deemed immoral way the majority of society. Mrs. Warren encapsulates that
theme in this speech:
Of course it’s worthwhile to a poor girl, if she can resist temptation and is good-
looking and well conducted and sensible. It’s far better than any other employment
open to her. I always thought though that oughtnt to be. It cant be right, Vivie, that
there shouldnt be better opportunities for women. I stick to that: it’s wrong. But it’s
so, right or wrong; and a girl must make the best of it. (1986:p.250)
Mrs. Warren defends it as she is using her good looks, so why should she not make the most
of a bad situation society has handed her? Aware that she was wrong, she carried on
regardless to make a life for her daughter, and to live in luxury. Shaw is attacking typical
views on society once again as Mrs. Warren had a misguided moral compass. The play was
condemned because Shaw attacked the Victorians ‘purity, and its sense of economic
respectability. And so, critics have gone out of their way to assert that the play is, to the
contrary, quite moral – its motivation being to reform a blind and corrupt society’
(1966:p.391). Shaw in my opinion never tried to hide the fact he was a reformist and this play
certainly tried to attack the imbalance of Victorian society. If women in poverty feel they are
given a chance in life by serving as a prostitute then the temptation was too much to risk
because other alternatives could mean death. Mrs. Warren tried honest work and it failed her
‘I always wanted to be a good woman. I tried honest work; and I was slave driven until I
cursed the day I ever heard of honest work’ (1986:p288). Honest work for people in poverty
did not exist. Everyone was exploited and everyone struggled, however the woman suffered
more.

23. 23
Shaw uses in both plays a parent child dynamic: Undershaft and Major Barbara, Mrs. Warren
and Vivie. Shaw wanted to show how wealth in Victorian Society sometimes could mean
more than family. The parents both shared rising out of poverty in a way that society would
deem immoral, Shaw developed throughout the play how the children, Vivie and Major
Barbara come to terms with their parents chosen professions. This chapter attempted to argue
how Shaw’s view on society was that the poor could not continue if the rich continued
becoming rich.

24. 24
Chapter Three
Wilde and the Victorian Society
An Ideal Husband and The Importance of Being Earnest fall under the farcical theme in
which Wilde subverts the ideals of Victorian Society. SOS Eltis argues The Importance of
Being Earnest ‘was as deceptive as its predecessors; its nonsensical frivolity was the
camouflage for Wilde’s most subversive and satirical work’ (1999: p.171), to be able to
‘camouflage’ his play and subvert Victorian ideals using satire he created a: ‘particular form
of comedy in which to display his mocking imitation of England, a form which satisfied his
audience, and which seemed, by its adroit resolutions, to suggest that all was well with
society’ (Raby, 1998:p.159).
Merging Eltis’s and Raby’s quotes it emphasizes how Wilde managed to get away with many
risqué moments because his audiences’ were ‘satisfied’ they were not left feeling like they
and the society they live in were being attacked. Wilde lied to get his play performed in
theatres’ whereas he knew he could be more truthful whilst attempting to get it published as
Eltis also states ‘yet, years later, when preparing the play for publication, Wilde emphasized a
very different aspect of the play: Earnest was not as harmless as he had first pretended, but
something more risqué and harder for the public to stomach’ (1999:p.174). Meaning he
opened up to his true views on Victorian Society, thinking after such success in theatre he
could be more risqué. This chapter will show how Wilde differs from the tragedies and
moral-conscious plays written by Ibsen and Shaw, by using more farcical and satirical
elements. ‘Wilde mocks the morality which traditionally lies beneath them’ (1999: p.199)
Wilde’s mocking of Victorian society in his plays emphasize a more comical effect, seeing as

25. 25
the audience would be the middle to upper class society they could relate to Wilde’s
characters. This chapter will use Peter Raby’s explanation that: ‘Wilde worked within the
theatre conventions of his time, and with the world he knew, even if he did not belong to it’
(1998:p.157) to show how an outsider to society can infiltrate and understand the ideals using
‘the theatre conventions of his time’, these ‘theatre conventions’ are Wilde’s farce and satire.
Whilst examining themes such as marriage, leading doubles lives, ideals and
money/inheritance to show ‘the world he knew’ in society.
An Ideal Husband deals with lives of high political profiles in England. However, politics
never seems to be the straightforward theme. For example Lord Goring in Act One says: “I
adore political parties. They are the only place left to us where people don’t talk politics’
(1969:p.28), Wilde is making farce out of the situation surely a political party would be the
best place to get business completed, mixing with people working in politics. Eltis argues ‘An
Ideal Husband criticizes the late-Victorian demand for absolute purity in its political leaders
– a public assumption of higher morality which meant that the politically ambitious must in
private resort to hypocrisy and subterfuge in order to succeed’ (1999:Pp.148-9). Wilde uses
Sir Robert to bring into contention the public versus private. This is because his marriage to
Lady Chiltern seems to be the ideal marriage; however Mrs. Cheveley is determined to ruin
Robert’s marriage by informing Lady Chiltern of Robert’s rise to success and wealth. Using
Robert she says ‘you know the sort of things ministers say in cases of this kind. A few
ordinary platitudes will do’ (1969:p.41). This proves how easily government is manipulated,
as if someone with relative power pushes something using the ‘ordinary platitudes’ which in
all senses are meaningless but has the effect needed achieve manipulation. Lady Chiltern
states her love for Robert at the end of Act One ‘I will love you always, because you will
always be worthy of love. We needs must love the highest when we see it’ (1969:p.69) to her

26. 26
Robert will always be deemed worthy of her love because of his political life achievements.
However she cannot live in a marriage where her husband has fallen from high grace when
she could have put a stop to it, which could be seen as emotional blackmail. At this moment
though, Lady Chiltern is unaware of the truth behind her husband’s career.
Lord Goring and Robert have a close friendship as Goring tells him: ‘you underestimate
yourself, Robert. Believe me, without wealth you could have succeeded just as well’
(1969:p.78), Robert never believed this and was tempted in corruption by a deal from Baron
Arnheim. Wilde believes English politics were corrupt and dealt only with the rich upper
classes. Robert Chiltern in Act Three tells Goring ‘it is a sort of open secret that Baron
Arnheim left her the greater portion of his immense fortune’ (1969:p.159) this fortune gave
her power in society as well as having access to a letter that Robert thought was destroyed.
The most interesting part of the conversation is Roberts’s mention of spies: ‘oh! Spies are of
no use nowadays. Their profession is over. The newspapers do their work instead’ (19:p.159),
newspapers can ruin political careers by finding out secrets of their own and publishing them
for the whole of society to see. This point is further accredited by Eltis ‘the link between
social hypocrisy and the power of the press was to be of tragic relevance to Wilde’
(1999:p.151) the press had the power to destroy anyone’s career, in the case of Robert both
his private marriage would be made public as well as becoming a scape goat for political
corruption.
Marriage and love features in both plays but not in a conventional Victorian way. Wilde
delves into aestheticism in society; dealing with fashion and who fits into London society.
Early in Act One Lady Markby gives her view ‘ah, nowadays people marry as often as they
can, don’t they? It is most fashionable’ (1969:p8) this is an outlandish statement as the

27. 27
Victorians regarded marriage very highly. It was the only thing women were meant to do in
life; find a suitable husband and make a family. It being fashionable to marry more than once
shows how the ruling class of England felt. Katherine Worth states ‘Of all Wilde’s comedies
this has the most wide-ranging implications as a criticism of English society. We are at the
heart of power in the Chilterns’ house: these lords and ladies really do rule England’ (p.127).
Seeing as we are at the heart of English society, we only see the view of the ruling classes in
parliament. In Act Three Lord Goring the dandy bachelor asks his father ‘if I am to get
married, surely you will allow me chose the time, place, and person? Particularity the person’
(1969:p.155), this in modern society would never have to be asked, as surely a man in
Victorian Society would never have to ask his father’s permission. There never seemed to be
free will everything was determined by where your position was in society, Goring’s father
replied with:
That is a matter for me, sir. You would probably make a very poor choice. It is I who
should be consulted, not you. There is property at stake. It is not a matter for
affection. Affection comes later on in married life (1969:p.155).
Lord Caversham is worried about heritage and money key features of Victorian Society.
Caversham believes you should marry for prestige and possibly never love. Affection is used
instead of love which is only a gentle feeling towards someone. Not only this there is no trust
between father and son if anyone wanted to marry Goring it would have to go through his
father who would decide if they have any financial purpose towards his son and their family.
Looking back at Worth’s statement we are seeing a portrayal of ruling lords and ladies, so
Wilde’s views in this play can be seen by critics as an attack on Victorian society and social
norms.

28. 28
Marriage Proposals feature in both plays most notably in An Ideal Husband when Mabel
speaks of Mr. Trafford:
When Tommy wants to be romantic he talks to one just like a doctor. I am very fond
of Tommy, but his methods of proposing are quite out of date. I wish, Gertrude, you
would speak to him, and tell him that once a week is quite often enough to propose to
any one, and that it should always be done in a manner that attracts some attention
(1969:p.107).
Mabel here is emphasizing her need to have a man declare his love publically and with loud
proposals, however surely she would want them to stop altogether. This has social
implications as women want their peers to know they are adored by the opposite sex. Not
only is this but the amount of times Tommy has proposed absurd. Why not just decline and
that is the end of it? Wilde is subverting proposal ideals, Mabel does not want one perfect
proposal she wants many loud public proposals. Mabel also mentions ‘oh! I wouldn’t marry a
man with a future before him for anything under the sun’ (1969:p.108) isn’t this just what a
Victorian woman of high society would want? Seeing as Lady Chiltern married Robert for his
future even if it was a tainted career. Unlike Ibsen and Shaw, Wilde is more creative in his
support for women ad strays from social norms for entertainment.
This tainted career is the revelation Lady Chiltern finds out at the end of Act Two. Robert
tries defending himself by trying to convince her that women should not make ideals of men:
‘let women make no more ideals of men! Let them not put them on altars and bow before
them, or they may ruin other lives as completely as you – you whom I have so wildly loved –

29. 29
have ruined mine’ (1969:p.133). Once again Wilde is using farce to subvert the ideals where
usually it is the men who put women on altars. Not only this but for his wife wanting Robert
to do the right thing, she is wrong. How could she have possibly ruined him? It was Robert’s
own fault he is in this situation, as well as letting her love him based on a lie.
Peter Raby comments ‘An Ideal Husband with its echoes of contemporary politics, and The
Importance of Being Earnest, an ostensible farce. You could look from one to the other, and
back again, and wonder which represented English society more acutely’ (1998:p.159). This
quote compares these two plays. Wilde uses farce against politics, creating two separate plays
with the same effect, representing Victorian society. In my opinion the farce of The
Importance of Being Earnest is more acutely correct because of characters leading double
lives: Jack and Earnest, Algernon and Bunbury, Cecily and her diary. Subverting ideals as
mentioned is a technique Wilde uses throughout his plays. Most notable in the opening of Act
One of The Importance of Being Earnest is Lane on marriage: ‘I have only been married
once. That was in consequence of a misunderstanding between myself and a young person’
(1992:p.28). It is absurd to think marriage could be a misunderstanding between two people;
as Lane is a servant this adds to the farce. No one else could have been given this line and
received the same effect, being of the lower classes it seems strange his only chance of
marriage would have been wasted. Algernon then comments on the use of the lower classes:
‘Lane’s views on marriage seem somewhat lax. Really, if the lower orders don’t set us a good
example, what on earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have absolutely no sense
of moral responsibility (1992:p.28)’. This is a comment on society, but it has been flipped.
Normally, it is the upper class setting the moral code and why do they need moral
responsibility? Lane does his job perfectly well and lives as far as the reader can tell a normal
life.

30. 30
Marriage in The Importance of Being Earnest is based on complete farce Lady Bracknell can
only ever see the social and economic possibilities: ‘Lady Bracknell, unlike Lady Brancaster,
conceals her will beneath a polite veneer of maternal, wifely, and social duty, while, without
addressing Jack directly, she reduces her daughter’s suitor to a social impossibility’
(1999:p.180). This is clear in her interview with Jack, the questions start fairly normal: age, if
he smokes, and most importantly money. However when where he lives is questioned ‘the
unfashionable side. I thought there was something. However, that could easily be altered’
(1992:p.42), nothing seems to be a problem for Lady Bracknell she could make anyone
acceptable in society. If we contrast this to Act Three when she is introduced to Cecily, who
is engaged to her nephew, after finding out she has money in funds her perception is changed:
‘yes, quite as I expected. There are distinct social possibilities in your profile’ (1992:p.78).
Everything is about being accepted in society here it does not matter who you are but there
are possibilities in how she looks. Lady Bracknell picks out her chin for style: ‘the chin a
little higher, dear. Style largely depends on the way the chin is worn. They are worn very
high, just at present’ (1992:p.79) being fashionable was very key in Victorian Society, but for
a chin to be used for style is ridiculous. Eltis proposes this ‘So, when Lady Bracknell appeals
to the unalterable rules of polite society she renders them ridiculous’ (1999:p.193). Lady
Bracknell appears to know everything about society and certainly in the play she sets the
code for society with her: strong views and political parties. However, Wilde twists ideals
and using farce means she contradicts herself. No more so than her admitting she married into
her position for money:
Dear child, of course you know that Algernon has nothing but his debts to depend
upon. But I do not approve of mercenary marriages. When I married Lord Bracknell I

31. 31
had no fortune of any kind. But I never dreamed for a moment of allowing that to
stand in my way. Well, I suppose I must give my consent (1992:p.79).
This speech seems paradoxical as Lady Bracknell does not want Cecily to marry Algernon to
take him out of his debts. However she was more than happy to marry Lord Bracknell to gain
his ‘fortune’. Wilde is showing there is one rule for men and another for women, but Lady
Bracknell saying ‘I suppose I must give my consent’ proves she cannot be hypocritical, she
never dreamed of letting ‘no fortune’ stop her from being married to a man of wealth.
Further more to this Eltis also believes ‘This separation between the lovers’ and Lady
Bracknell’s view on marriage is important to the satirical thrust of the play’ (1999:p.191).
Algernon and Jack both only have engagements on the false belief their names are Earnest
which is the separation between the lovers:
We live, as I hope you know, Mr. Worthing in an age of ideals. The fact is constantly
mentioned in the more expensive monthly magazines, and has reached the provincial
pulpits I am told: and my ideal has always been to love someone of the name of
Ernest. There is something in that name that inspires absolute confidence. The
moment Algernon first mentioned to me that he had a friend called Ernest, I knew I
was destined to love you. (1992:p.38).
This scene is the first of many satirical moments surrounding marriage and love. To have an
ideal of marrying someone with a specific name is more of Wilde’s farce. Everyone seems
destined to love someone else, but the name is always separating the lovers from each other.
Living in an age of ideals was central once again to Victorian Society everyone lived by a

32. 32
rule be it: fashion, money, or marriage. Each tied in with one another. Gwendolen mentions
an expensive monthly magazines but she is only told about them which shows she knows she
needs an ideal as that is the age they live in but, she is so busy to even read them herself,
knowing that society deems her to have knowledge on subjects. In Act Two Wilde replays the
same scene again except with Cecily and Algernon:
Algernon: Oh I don’t care about Jack. I don’t care for anybody in the whole world but
you. I love you, Cecily. You will marry me, wont you?
Cecily: You silly boy! Of course. Why, we have been engaged for the last three
months. (1992:p.61)
Cecily’s diary is her form of a double life away from her boring lessons with Miss Prism, so
for her she believes she is already in love with Ernest and they are engaged to be married.
However this is the first time Algernon meets her. Love is overused in the play so the usual
connotations connected with it begin to lose their impact. For me Wilde was commenting on
the ideals of Victorian marriage, true love was never known and people lied to benefit
themselves. Cecily also shares the same dream as Gwendolen:
You must not laugh at me, darling, but it had always been a girlish dream of mine to
love someone whose name was Ernest. There is something in that name that seems to
inspire absolute confidence. I pity any poor married woman whose husband is not
called Ernest (1992:p.63)
This ideal of marrying a man with the name Ernest stops Algernon and Jack marrying their
respective partners, it seems to be the only way anyone can have a happy marriage. The

33. 33
fashionable name is worth marrying not the personality or worth of the respective partner.
Wilde is commenting on society Katherine Worth mentions: ‘there is obviously a dig here at
the troublesome idealists of earlier plays: the whole ideal-orientated ethos is reduced to
absurdity. It is a philosophical as well as a social joke’ (1983:p.162), how can one name hold
so much importance in an ideal?
In my opinion Wilde’s plays lack resolution and these are no different. Alan Sinfield
mentions Powell’s argument:
that it is a mistake to expect these plays to conclude tidily, in the manner of a
contemporary problem play. He sees, rather, "an unresolved struggle between the
author's own fragmented personality - socialist and socialite, husband and
homosexual, father and feminist, Paterian and puritan.” I would add that the stresses
and indeterminacies in Wilde's life and writings were not his alone. They manifest the
ideological faultlines, in class, gender, and sexuality, that fractured his culture’
(1994:p.41).
So much was going on in Victorian Society and Wilde covers a vast amount in these two
plays. Wilde subverts ideals, concludes untidily, focuses on marriage and love as a farce in
itself different to Ibsen and Shaw in these ways. Eltis uses a quote from ‘The Soul of Man’ by
Wilde: ‘For it will not worry itself about the past, nor care whether things happened or did
not happen. Nor will it admit any laws but its own laws; nor any authority but its own
authority’ (1999:p.200). If you analyze Wilde alone and don’t compare his views as a
socialist you can see how he was so successful and he certainly did fracture the culture he
lived in.

34. 34
Wilde within The Importance of Being Earnest created ‘a deceptively familiar farcical
structure, he not only smuggled in sharp satirical criticism of his society and its mores, he
also gave imaginative life to his perfect anarchist state’ (Eltis: 1999: p.199). This ‘anarchist
state’ mentioned focuses on Algernon and Jack and their actions: lying about their names,
creating havoc at Jacks country estate, but most notably Lady Bracknell’s strange views on
society. Comparing The Importance of Being Earnest against An Ideal Husband I was able to
show how Wilde attacked society in the political life, as well as the idealistic lifestyles of the
wealthy.

35. 35
Conclusion
This thesis has demonstrated how society has been presented differently by Ibsen, Shaw and
Wilde. Ibsen in An Enemy of the People tackles governmental power in society using the
character of Dr. Stockman’s brother, Peter. Peter, as the town’s mayor, believes that just
because he and his government are corrupt he could attempt to persuade his brother to
succumb also. Contrasting this with Wilde's An Ideal Husband, it is the English political
system, specifically the House of Commons, under scrutiny rather than a local government.
Ibsen uses both Hedda Gabler and Dr. Stockman to show how the individual faces deep
moral dilemmas when faced with being ostracized from society.
Across all six plays I have discussed, each writer uses family but for different reasons. Ibsen
puts his characters in moral dilemmas where they have to choose between family or a place in
society. Dr. Stockman maintains his integrity and is supported by his wife and daughter.
Hedda tries to help her husband Tesman by burning a incriminating manuscript, but her plan
was not fully completed and she consequently committed suicide. Shaw uses the parent-child
dynamic in which the children Barbara and Vivie are disgusted with their respective parents’
choice of profession. Wilde uses Caversham and Lady Bracknell as a means to determine if
they have enough wealth to give their partner and whether they fit in with society, rather than
if their partners are worthy of their love.
Each play contends with the place of the woman in an oppressive society. Hedda Gabler is
unable to express herself which leaves her vulnerable to blackmail and ultimately ends with
her suicide. In contrast Ibsen provides Mrs. Stockman with a powerful voice which is
subversive of the norm. Shaw provides Mrs. Warren with the wealth and independent means

36. 36
to pursue a life of luxury. Vivie is portrayed as strong and independent and doesn’t desire to
fit into a patriarchal society. Mrs. Cheveley is a manipulative character who can control Sir
Robert with an old secret, once again not a trait commonly associated with women. Sir
Robert’s views on love and ideals were subverted. His belief is that women should not have
made ideals of men. Rather than putting them on pedestals they should acknowledge that they
are capable of fault. The Importance of Being Earnest has the most powerful female in any of
my chosen texts. Lady Bracknell is seemingly omniscient, possessing a supposedly all
knowing knowledge of society and has control of almost all the characters in the play.

37. 37
Bibliography
Berst C A, ‘The Devil and "Major Barbara"’, PMLA vol.83 No. 1, New York: MLA, 1968
Berst C A, ‘Propaganda and Art in Mrs. Warren's Profession’, ELH, Baltimore:JHU, Vol. 33,
No.3, 1966
Davis T C, ‘Apprenticeships as a Playwright’ George Bernard Shaw’s plays A Norton
Critical Edition, London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2002
Eltis S, Revising Wilde Society and subversion in the Plays of Oscar Wilde, Oxford: OUP,
1999
Farfan, P. ‘Reading, writing, and authority in Ibsen's "women's plays"’, Modern Drama 45.1,
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002
Frank J, ‘Major Barbara-Shaw's "Divine Comedy"’ New York: PMLA, Vol. 71, No. 1 1956
Gassner J, ‘Bernard Shaw and the Making of the Modern Mind’, College English, Vol. 23,
No. 7, Urbana: NCTE, 1962
Grene N, ‘Bernard Shaw: Socialist and Playwright’, The Crane Bag, Vol. 7, No. 1, Socialism
& Culture, Richard Kearney: Boston, 1983
He C, ‘Hedda and Bailu: portraits of two "bored" women’, Comparative Drama, 35.3, 2001
Henn T R, ‘The Shavian machine’, G. B. Shaw a collection of critical essays, R. J.
Kauffmann, Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 1965
Hernes T, Organization Studies, August, Vol.28 (8), ‘Introduction-learning from the
playwrights: Henrik Ibsen and the organized society’ 2007
Ibsen H and McFarlane J, Four Major Plays, Middlesex: Signet Classic, 1990
Ibsen H and Meyer M, Plays: Two, Methuen: London, 1991
Innes C, The Cambridge Companion to George Bernard Shaw, Cambridge: CUP, 2000
Jackson R, ‘The Importance of Being Earnest’, The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde,
Peter Raby, Cambridge: CUP, 1998
March J G, Organization Studies, August, vol. 28, ‘Ibsen, Ideals, and the Subornation of
Lies’ 2007
Raby P, ‘Wilde’s comedies of society’, The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde,
Cambridge: CUP, 1998
Roshwald M, Modern Age, Vol.46, no.3, ‘The Alienated Moralist in An Enemy of the
People’, 2004

38. 38
Scott C, ‘Genus, Superman; Species, Multiform’, Educational Theatre Journal, Vol. 12, No.
4, Baltimore: JHU, 1960
Shaw B and Laurence D H, Plays Unpleasant, London: Penguin Books, 1986
Shaw B and Laurence D H, Major Barbara, London: Penguin Books, 2000
Sørhaug T, Organization Studies, August, vol. 28, ‘The Drama of Society: Capitalism,
Labour and Love’ 2007
Turgo A, Shaw’s moral vision The Self and Salvation, London: Cornell University Press,
1976
Walkington J. W. The English Journal, vol.80, no.3, ‘Women and Power in Henrik Ibsen and
Adrienne Rich’, 1991
Webb, E Modern language quarterly, ‘The radical irony of Hedda Gabler’, Durham: Duke
University Press, 1970
Wilde O and Bristow J, The Importance Of Being Earnest And Related Writings, London:
Routledge, 1992.
Wilde O and Ross R, The First Collected Edition of the works of Oscar Wilde 1908-1922,
London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1969
Worth K, Modern Dramatists Oscar Wilde, London: Macmillan Press, 1983