Back to Methuselah

George Bernard Shaw published this series of five linked plays in a single volume in 1921. It was first performed in 1922 in New York. We begin in the year 4004 BC. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve discover death, and a serpent teaches them what it is to conceive new life. It is the early twentieth century. The brothers Barnabas are discussing the political need for people to live for three centuries when the leaders of the Liberal party arrive to convince one of them to run for Parliament. It is the year 2170. British public services are provided so effectively by the Chinese that government has become largely ceremonial and Parliament full of the insane. Life expectancy is 78, the public are expected to work from the age of 13 through to retirement at 43, and the Accountant General discovers that the Archbishop is 283 years old. It is the year 3000. An elderly short-lived man is visiting Ireland from Baghdad, the capitol of the British Commonwealth, with the British Prime Minister and the Emperor of Turania, who have come to ask for advice from the Oracle. He finds that even though everyone speaks the same language, he can’t communicate with the local long-lived population. It is the farthest future, the year 31,920. In idyllic surroundings people hatch, physically mature, spend four years playing and dancing, and then live for an eternity, changing their physical forms as they wish. A new child is born, a Festival of Art is held, and a youth has discovered how to breath life into artificial humans. When staged, Back to Methuselah tends to be split across multiple evenings, or is heavily abridged; some critics have argued that it was intended to be read and not staged. In a lengthy preface Shaw discusses the need for humans to learn to live longer and to gain more wisdom to be able to govern effectively. In it he argues against both the theory of Darwinian evolution and the church, writing that the purpose of the plays is to “homeopathically educate” the population against Darwinist thinking when choosing their political leaders. His counterarguments are the Lamarckian view of evolution, his concept of the Life Force (which he previously explored in Man and Superman), and the importance of intentionally striving rather than accepting outcomes as down to chance.