Summary
The scene changes to evening in the arid Spanish countryside, which Shaw describes as the Sierra Nevada. On a hill stands a man in the outfit of a Spanish goat herder. Further down the hill are about a dozen “scoundrels,” whose merits Shaw discusses in the stage directions. Ultimately, he decides that they, like us, hope to be “gentlemen of fortune.” The leader of the group, Mendoza, sits in the center, surrounded by the men. Shaw describes him as having black hair, a “Mephistophelean affectation,” and notes that he speaks English. In the stage directions, which span several pages, Shaw also notes that all of the men appear to be fairly young.
The action begins with Mendoza reminding the group, called the Brigands, that they have spent the past three days debating whether anarchists or social-democrats have more personal courage. He summarizes the two sides: there is one anarchist in the group of scoundrels and three social-democrats, each with their own view of their ideology. Mendoza’s descriptions raise a significant hubbub among the men, leading one of them to call Mendoza a “sheeny,” a derogatory word for a Jew. Mendoza admits that he is, in fact, a Jew, but also a socialist. He then reveals to the audience that the group of men intend to hold up cars traveling through the Sierra Nevada in order to “secure a more equitable distribution of wealth.” Using the language of socialist redistribution, the men acknowledge that they intend to stick up passing cars.
Tanner and Straker drive through the valley in their car and hit a patch of nails that the Brigands have laid out on the road. Mendoza introduces himself to the men as the President of the League of the Sierra and makes his intentions to rob Tanner clear. Tanner introduces himself and Straker as his friend and chauffeur. Mendoza asks whether Straker is a friend or a chauffeur because, he explains, chauffeurs get to keep a cut of the ransom and drive on freely. After a heated political exchange between Duval, one of the Brigands, and Straker, Mendoza disperses the group and calls it a night, noting that it is customary in Spain to put off business until the next day.
Tanner agrees to not discuss his ransom until morning and asks Mendoza if everyone in the group is a socialist. Mendoza explains that the group believes that socialism must be put into action, not just confined to academia. Tanner is surprised at Mendoza’s urbane manner and intelligence and asks why he has decided to live this life instead of enjoying high society back in London. Mendoza reveals that he was previously a waiter in one of the restaurants frequented by society-types and offers to share his life story.
Mendoza tells the men that he was once in love with a woman who refused to marry him because he was a Jew. He explains that the woman he loved believed that Jews had contempt for the English because they “are dirty in their habits.” Dismayed by her rejection, Mendoza left England and became a highway robber. But, he says, his love for the woman, Louisa Straker, remains. When Straker hears the name of Mendoza’s beloved, he jumps up, startled to hear the name of his sister. Straker grows angry and tries to fight with Mendoza. Tanner steps in to calm things down between the two men and Straker storms off to bed. However, the interaction has left Mendoza thinking about Louisa. Tanner derides his monomania but lets Mendoza read him a poem about Louisa. While Mendoza is reading, Tanner falls asleep and the scene fades to black.
Analysis
Just like in the previous two acts, George Bernard Shaw doesn’t hold back on the scene-setting here. He begins the act with a vivid, highly detailed description of the Sierra Nevada, specifying both the atmospheric effects of the scenery and the logistical, spatial arrangements of the stage. Some playwrights treat their scripts more like guidelines for individual directors, offering a starting point for various visions of the play. Shaw, however, prefers to maintain relatively strict control over his scenes, and these opening stage directions provide a perfect example of that proclivity. Another effect of these detailed stage directions is that they lay the groundwork for a stark contrast between England, the setting of the first two acts, and Spain. Shaw tends to work in contrasts, portraying an extreme version of something (for example, the English middle class) and then pivoting to a very different focus. In this case, England appears all the more English, and a bit more absurd, when placed beside this contrasting landscape.
Within these complex stage directions, Shaw also posits a political and philosophical theory, in a tone that straddles sincerity and irony. He explains that laborers are widely mistreated, and that the most logical path for a working-class person to take is total reliance on the state and refusal to work. In fact, he argues, the only reason that most people labor in difficult and thankless jobs is because of an animal-like instinct that drives most people to work. And, Shaw quips, wealthy men of leisure are admired, while poor ones who refuse to work are condemned, even though their motives and personalities are usually the same. This moment of the play grapples with the same issues of socialism, class, and labor that have arisen numerous times already. For instance, in act two, Henry Straker scoffs at the implication that physical labor is inherently dignified—rather, he says, he prefers to work less. Though Shaw’s tone here is arch, he does seem to make a consistent argument throughout the play about the hypocrisy of wealthy people on the intellectual left. While people like Jack Tanner exoticize hard physical labor, Shaw argues that nobody should be expected to work, much less to be enthusiastic about working.
The men in this scene are idealistic in much the same way as Jack Tanner is. They are mostly English or American, and dressed in the customary clothes of their own countries, making them look out of place in this Spanish landscape. Furthermore, their conversation—which dwells on the relative merits of two political ideologies—is wildly abstract within their rural setting. Shaw appears to take some delight in pointing out the contradictions inherent in any ideology: for instance, when an anarchist raises his hand on a point of order, Mendoza shoots him down partly on the basis that anarchists “don’t believe in order.”
A series of political ideologies and prejudices are brought up in this scene with dizzying speed. The social-democrats present have somewhat diverging visions of socialism, but are eager to point out the importance of labor. The one anarchist, meanwhile, meekly tries to argue that anarchism, an anti-hierarchical political ideology, has nothing to do with promoting disorder. One of the socialists at the meeting apparently has anti-semitic leanings, trying to dismiss Mendoza’s leadership by pointing out his Jewishness. Mendoza responds in a typically grandiose manner by invoking Zionism, the belief in establishing a Jewish state.
In a fashion that will feel familiar to audience members at this point, Shaw portrays the adherents of these various beliefs with such intensity that their ideologies seem ridiculous. This is partly because of the irony of a group of men debating various leftist ideologies in an isolated mountain range miles from workers or politicians, but it’s also partly because the men are rather childlike. They pledge to commit a series of minor robberies, sure that they can ensure a fair distribution of wealth with this haphazard plan, and Mendoza in particular exaggerates the bravery necessary for such a mission. The men seem to be playing pretend, casting themselves in a grand political struggle even when their own contributions appear fairly unhelpful. They reference Marx and Shakespeare nearly at random, as if hoping to prop themselves up by invoking famous men.
Shaw pushes the scene into even more absurd territory when Tanner and Straker arrive. It takes very little for Mendoza to dismiss politics, telling the wealthy Tanner that he has nothing to fear and that only a few of his surrogates are true ideologues. This comes as a marked contrast after Mendoza’s speechifying about the personal risk involved in robbing the wealthy. However, while Shaw mocks certain proponents of socialism, he never quite seems to dismiss the necessity of greater economic equality. Tanner claims to be so rich that he need not worry about paying a ransom, which in itself comes as a fairly convincing argument for redistributing wealth. The play’s quibble seems to be not so much with socialism itself as it is with those who use politics in order to feed their own egos. Tanner, for instance, seems to use radical politics in order to rebel against staid gentlemen like Ramsden, and Mendoza seems to do the same in order to maintain power over a tiny band of outcasts. Straker, ever-blunt, puts it best: when Tanner confesses to being a socialist, he points out that “most rich men are.” Still, even Straker isn’t completely free from irrational impulses. His dramatic response to finding out that Mendoza is in love with his sister hints that Straker, too, is probably capable of certain errors of judgment.
