home → New statuses The functioning of stylistic devices in Bernard Shaw's work "Pygmalion". Analysis of the play by B. Shaw “Pygmaleon Pygmalion genre

The functioning of stylistic devices in Bernard Shaw's work "Pygmalion". Analysis of the play by B. Shaw “Pygmaleon Pygmalion genre

"Pygmalion" is a play by Bernard Shaw written in 1912.

"Pygmalion" analysis

The main characters of Pygmalion- a lower-class flower girl named Eliza Doolittle; her father, who works as a garbage collector; Colonel Pickering; scientist Henry Higgins; and Mrs. Hill and her children (a daughter and a son named Freddie).

IDEA of the play "Pygmalion" is that even a poor and uneducated person can become cultured and beautiful if he works!

"Pygmalion" problematics

In Pygmalion, Shaw combined two equally exciting themes: the problem of social inequality and the problem of classical in English.

B. Shaw was especially able to highlight in his work the problem of inequality of people in society. At the end of the work, Eliza, already educated, is left with nothing, as she was before, only with a tragic awareness of her financial situation and a subtle sense of boundless injustice towards people from the lower class. As a result, the girl returns to Higgins’s home, but she is already valued there and accepted as an equal, “one of our own,” as a full-fledged person.

The play also has instructive and educational value regarding education. After all, proper education and upbringing play an important role in the life of any harmonious and self-sufficient individual.

Shaw himself defined the purpose of his play as follows: ““Pygmalion” is a mockery of fans of “blue blood”...

Shaw's position as a convinced socialist included demands for the liberation of society from prevailing lies and injustice, promotion spiritual development and the vital well-being of all social groups. main idea plays: the upper classes differ from the lower ones only in clothing, pronunciation, manners, education - and these social gaps can and must be overcome. Higgins's talent and Pickering's nobility truly make a duchess out of the flower girl, and this can be understood as a symbol of the future social progress and emancipation that Shaw and his associates called for.
To establish justice in a society, the playwright argues, the main thing is to defeat poverty and ignorance. Eliza's deliverance from these troubles strengthens the best personality qualities that were inherent in her before - decency, feeling self-esteem, spiritual sensitivity, energy. For less strong characters, like Father Dolittle, poverty has a destructive effect. Higgins, who during the “experiment” contributed to Eliza’s spiritual liberation, did this unintentionally; he is unable to rise above purely selfish considerations. Mental callousness Higgins, incapable of understanding and respect for Eliza, personifies the soullessness of English society, and this is the tragedy of the final situation of the play.

“All of Shaw’s plays fulfill Brecht’s essential requirement for the modern theatre, namely that the theater should strive to “portray human nature as changeable and dependent on class.”

How interested Shaw was in the connection between character and social status is especially proven by the fact that he even made a radical restructuring of character main theme plays "Pygmalion". After the exceptional success of the play and the musical My Fair Lady based on it, the story of Eliza, who, thanks to the professor of phonetics Higgins, turned from a street girl into a society lady, today is perhaps better known than the Greek myth.
Pygmalion was a fairy-tale king of Cyprus who fell in love with a statue of a girl he himself created, whom he later married after reviving her
Aphrodite at his urgent request. Shaw's intention in naming the play after a mythical king is quite obvious. Name
Pygmalion should be a reminder that Eliza Dolittle was created by Alfred
Higgins in the same way as Galatea by Pygmalion. Man is made by man—that is the lesson of this, by Shaw’s own admission, “intensely and deliberately didactic” play. This is the very lesson I was calling for
Brecht, demanding that “the construction of one figure be carried out depending on the construction of another figure, for in life we mutually shape each other.”

Among literary critics There is an opinion that Shaw's plays, more than the plays of other playwrights, promote certain political ideas.
The doctrine of the changeability of human nature and dependence on class affiliation is nothing more than the doctrine of the social determination of the individual. The play "Pygmalion" is a good textbook that addresses the problem of determinism. Even the author himself considered it “an outstanding didactic play.”

The main problem that Shaw skillfully solves in Pygmalion is the question
“Is man a changeable being?”

This position in the play is concretized by the fact that the girl from the East End
London with all the character traits of a street child turns into a woman with the character traits of a high society lady

To show how radically a person can be changed, Shaw chose to move from one extreme to the other. If such a radical change in a person is possible in a relatively short time, then the viewer must tell himself that then any other change in a human being is possible.

Second important question plays - how much speech influences human life.

What does correct pronunciation give a person? Is it enough to learn to speak correctly to change social status?

Here's what Professor Higgins thinks about this:

“But if you knew how interesting it is to take a person and, having taught him to speak differently than he spoke before, make him a completely different, new creature. After all, this means destroying the gulf that separates class from class and soul from soul.”

As is shown and constantly emphasized in the play, the dialect of the East of London is incompatible with the essence of a lady, just as the language of a lady cannot fit in with the essence of a simple flower girl from the eastern district
London. When Eliza forgot the language of her old world, the way back there was closed for her. Thus, the break with the past was final. During the course of the play, Eliza herself is clearly aware of this. This is what she says
Pickering:

“Last night, as I was wandering the streets, a girl spoke to me; I wanted to answer her in the old way, but nothing came of it.”

Bernard Shaw paid a lot of attention to the problems of language. The play had a serious task: Shaw wanted to attract the attention of the English public to issues of phonetics.
He advocated the creation of a new alphabet that would be more consistent with the sounds of the English language than the current one, and which would make it easier for children and foreigners to learn this language.

Shaw returned to this problem several times throughout his life, and according to his will, he left a large sum for research aimed at creating a new English alphabet. These studies are still ongoing, and just a few years ago the play was published
“Androcles and the Lion”, printed in the characters of the new alphabet, which was chosen by a special committee from all the options proposed for the prize.

Shaw was perhaps the first to realize the omnipotence of language in society, its exceptional social role, which psychoanalysis indirectly spoke about in those same years. It was Shaw who said this in the poster-edifying, but no less ironically fascinating “Pygmalion.” Professor Higgins, albeit in his narrow specialized field, was still ahead of structuralism and post-structuralism, which in the second half of the century would make the ideas of “discourse” and “totalitarian linguistic practices” their central theme.

In Pygmalion, Shaw combined two equally exciting themes: the problem of social inequality and the problem of classical English.

He believed that the social essence of a person is expressed in various parts of the language: in phonetics, grammar, and vocabulary. While Eliza emits such vowel sounds as “ay - ay-ay - ou-oh,” she has, as Higgins correctly notes, no chance of getting out of the street situation.
Therefore, all his efforts are concentrated on changing the sounds of her speech. That the grammar and vocabulary of man's language are no less important in this respect is demonstrated by the first great failure of both phoneticians in their efforts at re-education. Although vowels and consonants
Eliza is excellent, the attempt to introduce her into society as a lady fails.
Eliza’s words: “Where is her new straw hat that I was supposed to get? Stolen! So I say, whoever stole his hat killed his aunt” - even with excellent pronunciation and intonation, this is not the English language for ladies and gentlemen. Higgins admits that along with new phonetics, Eliza must also learn new grammar and new vocabulary. And with them a new culture.

But language is not the only expression of a human being.
Going out to see Mrs. Higgins has only one drawback - Eliza does not know what is being said in society in this language.

“Pickering also recognized that it was not enough for Eliza to have ladylike pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. She must still develop the interests characteristic of a lady. As long as her heart and mind are filled with the problems of her old world: murders over a straw hat and the beneficial effect of gin on her father's mood, she cannot become a lady, even if her language is indistinguishable from that of a lady.

One of the theses of the play states that human character is determined by the totality of personality relationships, linguistic relationships are only part of it. In the play, this thesis is concretized by the fact that Eliza, along with studying the language, also learns the rules of behavior. Consequently, Higgins explains to her not only how to speak the lady's language, but also, for example, how to use a handkerchief.

The totality of behavior, that is, the form and content of speech, the way of judgment and thoughts, habitual actions and typical reactions of people are adapted to the conditions of their environment. The subjective being and the objective world correspond to each other and mutually permeate each other.

The author required a large expenditure of dramatic means to convince every viewer of this. Shaw found this remedy in the systematic application of a kind of alienation effect, forcing his characters from time to time to act in foreign surroundings, and then gradually returning them to their own surroundings, skillfully creating at first a false impression as to their real nature. Then this impression gradually and methodically changes.

The “exposition” of Eliza’s character in a foreign environment has the effect that she seems incomprehensible, repulsive, ambiguous and strange to the ladies and gentlemen in the audience. This impression is enhanced by the reactions of the ladies and gentlemen on stage. So, Shaw makes Mrs.
Eynsford Hill becomes visibly worried as she watches a flower girl she doesn't know chance meeting on the street he calls her son Freddie “dear friend.”

“The end of the first act is the beginning of the “process of re-education” of the prejudiced spectator. It seems to indicate only mitigating circumstances that must be taken into account when convicting the accused Eliza.
Proof of Eliza's innocence is only given in the next act through her transformation into a lady. Anyone who really believed that Eliza was obsessive because of an innate baseness or corruption, and who could not correctly interpret the description of the environment at the end of the first act, will have their eyes opened by the self-confident and proud performance of the transformed Eliza.”

The extent to which Shaw takes prejudice into account when re-educating his readers and viewers can be demonstrated by numerous examples.
The widespread opinion of many wealthy gentlemen, as we know, is that the residents of the East End are to blame for their poverty, since they do not know how to “save”. Although they, like Eliza in Covent Garden, are very greedy for money, but only so that at the first opportunity they again spend it wastefully on absolutely unnecessary things. They have no idea at all about using the money wisely, for example, for vocational education. The show seeks to first reinforce this prejudice, as well as others. Eliza, having barely received some money, already allows herself to go home by taxi. But immediately the explanation of Eliza’s real attitude towards money begins. The next day she hurries to spend it on her own education.

“If the human being is conditioned by the environment and if the objective being and the objective conditions mutually correspond to each other, then the transformation of the being is possible only by replacing the environment or changing it. This thesis in the play “Pygmalion” is concretized by the fact that in order to create the possibility of Eliza’s transformation, she is completely isolated from the old world and transferred to the new.” As the first measure of his re-education plan
Higgins orders a bath in which Eliza is freed from her East End heritage. The old dress, the part of the old environment closest to the body, is not even put aside, but burned. Not the slightest particle of the old world should connect Eliza with him, if one seriously thinks about her transformation. To show this, Shaw introduced another particularly instructive incident. At the end of the play, when Eliza has, in all likelihood, finally turned into a lady, her father suddenly appears. Unexpectedly, a test occurs that answers the question of whether Higgins is right in considering Eliza’s return to her former life possible:

(Dolittle appears in the middle window. Throwing a reproachful and dignified look at Higgins, he silently approaches his daughter, who sits with her back to the windows and therefore does not see him.)

Pickering. He's incorrigible, Eliza. But you won't slide, right?

Eliza. No. Not anymore. I learned my lesson well. Now I can no longer make the same sounds as before, even if I wanted to.

(Dolittle puts his hand on her shoulder from behind. She drops her embroidery, looks around, and at the sight of her father’s magnificence, all her self-control immediately evaporates.) Oooh!

Higgins (triumphantly). Yeah! Exactly! Oooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Oooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Victory! Victory!".

The slightest contact with only a part of her old world turns the reserved and seemingly ready for refined behavior of a lady for a moment again into a street child who not only reacts as before, but, to her own surprise, can again say, It seemed like the already forgotten sounds of the street.

Due to the careful emphasis on the influence of environment, the viewer could easily get the false impression that the characters in the world of Shaw's heroes are entirely limited by the influence of environment. To prevent this undesirable error, Shaw, with equal care and thoroughness, introduced into his play a counter-thesis about the existence of natural abilities and their significance for the character of a particular individual. This position is concretized in all four main characters of the play:
Eliza, Higgins, Dolittle and Pickering.

“Pygmalion is a mockery of fans of “blue blood”... each of my plays was a stone that I threw at the windows of Victorian prosperity,” this is how the author himself spoke about his play.

It was important for Shaw to show that all of Eliza's qualities that she reveals as a lady can already be found in the flower girl as natural abilities, or that the flower girl's qualities can then be found again in the lady. Shaw's concept was already contained in the description of Eliza's appearance. At the end of the detailed characteristics of her appearance it says:

“Without a doubt, she is clean in her own way, but next to the ladies she definitely seems dirty. Her facial features are not bad, but the condition of her skin leaves much to be desired; In addition, it is noticeable that she needs the services of a dentist.”

Dolittle's transformation into a gentleman, just as his daughter's transformation into a lady, must seem a relatively external process. Here, as it were, only his natural abilities are modified due to his new social position. As a shareholder of the Friend of the Stomach cheese trust and a prominent spokesman for Wannafeller's World League for Moral Reform, he, in fact, even remained in his real profession, which, according to Eliza, even before his social transformation, was to extort money from other people , using his eloquence.

But the most convincing way the thesis about the presence of natural abilities and their importance for creating characters is demonstrated by the example of a couple
Higgins-Pickering. Both of them are gentlemen by their social status, but with the difference that Pickering is a gentleman by temperament, while Higgins is predisposed to rudeness. The difference and commonality of both characters is systematically demonstrated by their behavior towards
Eliza. From the very beginning, Higgins treats her rudely, impolitely, unceremoniously. In her presence, he talks about her “stupid girl”, “stuffed animal”,
“so irresistibly vulgar, so blatantly dirty”, “nasty, spoiled girl” and the like. He asks his housekeeper to wrap Eliza in newspaper and throw her in the trash. The only norm for talking to her is the imperative form, and the preferred way to influence Eliza is a threat.
Pickering, a born gentleman, on the contrary, shows tact and exceptional politeness in his treatment of Eliza from the very beginning. He does not allow himself to be provoked into making an unpleasant or rude statement either by the intrusive behavior of the flower girl or by the bad example of Higgins. Since no circumstances explain these differences in behavior, the viewer must assume that there must still be something like an innate tendency towards rude or delicate behavior. To prevent the false conclusion that Higgins's rude behavior towards Eliza is due solely to social differences existing between him and her, Shaw makes Higgins behave noticeably harshly and impolitely also among his peers. Higgins doesn't try very hard to hide from Mrs., Miss, and Freddie Hill how little he considers them and how little they mean to him. Of course
The show allows Higgins' social rudeness to manifest itself in a greatly modified form. For all his innate tendency to unceremoniously speak the truth, Higgins does not allow such rudeness as we observe in his treatment of Eliza. When his interlocutor Mrs. Eynsford
Hill, in his narrow-mindedness, believes that it would be better “if people knew how to be frank and say what they think,” Higgins protests with the exclamation “God forbid!” and the objection that “it would be indecent.”

A person’s character is determined not directly by the environment, but through interhuman, emotionally charged relationships and connections through which he passes in the conditions of his environment. Man is a sensitive, receptive being, and not a passive object that can be given any shape, like a piece of wax. The importance Shaw attaches to this very issue is confirmed by its promotion to the center of the dramatic action.

In the beginning, Higgins sees Eliza as a piece of dirt that can be wrapped in newspaper and thrown into the trash can, or at least a “grimy, grimy little bastard” who is forced to wash herself like a dirty animal, despite her protests. Washed and dressed, Eliza becomes not a person, but an interesting experimental subject on which a scientific experiment can be performed. In three months, Higgins made a countess out of Eliza, he won his bet, as Pickering puts it, it cost him a lot of stress. The fact that Eliza herself is participating in this experiment and as a person in highest degree was bound by an obligation, to his consciousness - as, indeed, also to the consciousness
Pickering - does not reach the onset of open conflict, which forms the dramatic climax of the play. Much to my surprise,
Higgins must conclude by stating that between himself and Pickering, on the one hand, and Eliza, on the other, a human relationship has arisen that no longer has anything in common with the relationship of scientists to their objects and which can no longer be ignored, but can only be resolved with pain in the shower.

The viewer understands that Eliza became a lady not because she was taught to dress and speak like a lady, but because she entered into human relationships with the ladies and gentlemen in their midst.

While the whole play suggests in countless details that the difference between a lady and a flower girl lies in their behavior, the text asserts the exact opposite:

“A lady differs from a flower girl not in how she carries herself, but in how she is treated.” These words belong to Eliza. In her opinion, the credit for turning her into a lady belongs to Pickering, not Higgins. Higgins only trained her, taught her correct speech, etc. These are abilities that can be easily acquired without outside help. Pickering's polite address produced those inner changes that distinguish a flower girl from a lady.

Obviously, Eliza’s assertion that only the manner in which a person is treated determines his essence is not the basis of the play’s problematics. If treatment of a person were the decisive factor, then Higgins would have to make all the ladies he met flower girls, and Pickering all the women he met would be flower ladies. The fact that both of them are not endowed with such magical powers is quite obvious. Higgins does not show the sense of tact inherent in Pickering, either in relation to his mother, or in relation to Mrs. and Miss Eynsford Hill, without thereby causing any minor changes in their characters.
Pickering treats the flower girl Eliza with not very refined politeness in the first and second acts. On the other hand, the play clearly shows that behavior alone does not determine the essence. If only behavior were the deciding factor, then Higgins would have ceased to be a gentleman long ago. But no one seriously disputes his honorary title of gentleman. Higgins also does not cease to be a gentleman because he behaves tactlessly with Eliza, just as Eliza cannot turn into a lady only thanks to behavior worthy of a lady. Eliza's thesis that only the treatment of a person is the decisive factor, and the antithesis that a person's behavior is decisive for the essence of the individual, are clearly refuted by the play.
The instructiveness of the play lies in its synthesis - the determining factor for a person’s being is his social attitude towards other people. But social attitude is something more than one-sided behavior of a person and one-sided treatment of him. Public attitude includes two sides: behavior and treatment. Eliza becomes a lady from a flower girl due to the fact that at the same time as her behavior, the treatment she felt in the world around her also changed.

What is meant by social relations is clearly revealed only at the end of the play and at its climax. Eliza realizes that despite the successful completion of her language studies, despite the radical change in her environment, despite her constant and exclusive presence among recognized gentlemen and ladies, despite the exemplary treatment of her by the gentleman and despite her mastery of all forms of behavior , she has not yet turned into a real lady, but has become only a maid, secretary or interlocutor of two gentlemen. She makes an attempt to avoid this fate by running away. When Higgins asks her to come back, a discussion ensues that reveals the meaning of social relations in principle.

Eliza believes she faces a choice between returning to the streets and submitting to Higgins. This is symbolic for her: then she will have to give him shoes all her life. This was exactly what Mrs. Higgins had warned against when she pointed out to her son and Pickering that a girl who spoke the language and manners of a lady was not truly a lady unless she had the income to match. Mrs Higgins saw from the very beginning that main problem The transformation of a flower girl into a society lady can only be resolved after her “re-education” is completed.

An essential attribute of a “noble lady” is her independence, which can only be guaranteed by an income independent of any personal labor.

The interpretation of the ending of Pygmalion is obvious. It is not anthropological, like the previous theses, but of an ethical and aesthetic order: what is desirable is not the transformation of slum dwellers into ladies and gentlemen, like the transformation of Dolittle, but their transformation into ladies and gentlemen of a new type, whose self-esteem is based on their own work. Eliza, in her desire for work and independence, is the embodiment of the new ideal of a lady, which, in essence, has nothing in common with the old ideal of a lady of aristocratic society. She did not become a countess, as Higgins repeatedly said, but she became a woman whose strength and energy are admired. It is significant that even Higgins cannot deny her attractiveness - disappointment and hostility soon turn into the opposite. He seems to have even forgotten about the initial desire for a different result and the desire to make Eliza a countess.

“I want to boast that the play Pygmalion enjoyed great success in Europe, North America and here. Its instructiveness is so strong and deliberate that I enthusiastically throw it in the face of those self-righteous sages who parrot that art should not be didactic. This confirms my opinion that art cannot be anything else,” Shaw wrote. The author had to fight for the correct interpretation of all his plays, especially comedies, and oppose deliberately false interpretations of them. In the case of Pygmalion, the struggle centered around the question of whether Eliza would marry Higgins or
Freddie. If Eliza is married off to Higgins, then a conventional comedic conclusion and an acceptable ending are created: Eliza's re-education ends in this case with her embourgeoisification. Anyone who marries Eliza to the poor Freddie must simultaneously recognize Shaw's ethical and aesthetic theses.
Of course, critics and the theater world unanimously spoke in favor of a bourgeois solution.

List of used literature:

B. Shaw Complete collection of plays in 6 volumes. M. “Art” 1980. T. 4

F. Denninghaus. "The Theatrical Vocation of Bernard Shaw." M. "Progress"

M. Raku. "Bernard Shaw as a 'perfect Wagnerian.' New Literary Review. Electronic version

E. Huich "Bernard Shaw" ZhZL. M. “Young Guard” 1966

I. Maisky “B. Shows and other memories." M. “Art” 1967

-----------------------

1978. P. 128
there
216
in the same place S. 270
M. Raku. "Bernard Shaw as a 'perfect Wagnerian.' New Literary Review. Electronic version
B. Shaw Complete collection of plays in 6 volumes. M. “Art” 1980. T. 4 P.255
F. Denninghaus. "The Theatrical Vocation of Bernard Shaw." M. "Progress"
1978.
Ibid.
there
B. Shaw Complete collection of plays in 6 volumes. M. “Art” 1980. T. 4 P.
282
I. Maisky “B. Shows and other memories." M. “Art” 1967. P. 28
B. Shaw Complete collection of plays in 6 volumes. M. “Art” 1980. T. 4 P.
212
E. Huich "Bernard Shaw" ZhZL. M. “Young Guard” 1966. P. 136

Among the works written in the pre-war period, Shaw's most popular play was the comedy Pygmalion (1912). Its title recalls the ancient myth, according to which the sculptor Pygmalion, who sculpted the statue of Galatea, fell in love with it, and then the goddess of love Aphrodite, who heeded the pleas of the desperate artist, revived it. The show gives its own, modern version ancient myth. .

In the play Pygmalion, Shaw transferred the myth of Pygmalion and Galatea to the setting of modern London. But the paradoxist could not leave the myth untouched. If the revived Galatea was the embodiment of humility and love, then Shaw's Galatea rebels against her creator; if Pygmalion and Galatea of antiquity got married, then Shaw's heroes should under no circumstances marry. Thus, contrary to the traditional ideas of the viewer, caused by the title of the play, its plan took shape. But the logical course of action and the truth of the images captivated the writer, and in many respects he turned out to be much closer to the myth and to the sincere expectations of the audience than he would like.

In Pygmalion, Shaw combined two equally exciting themes: the problem of social inequality and the problem of classical English. .

Phonetics professor Higgins makes a bet with Colonel Pickering that in a few months he will be able to teach a street flower vendor to speak correctly and make sure that “she can successfully pass for a duchess.”

We feel the charm and originality of Eliza Dolittle already in the first acts, when she still speaks in ridiculous street slang. We feel them in her energy, gaiety, inner dignity, stern morality, which she preserved in the world of the slums.

Only pronunciation distinguishes a street flower girl from a duchess, but Eliza Doolittle has no intention of becoming a duchess. It is Higgins, in his scientific enthusiasm, who shouts that in six months he will turn Eliza into a duchess.

The second important question of the play is how much speech affects human life. What does correct pronunciation give a person? Is learning to speak correctly enough to change your social position? Here's what Professor Higgins thinks about this: “But if you knew how interesting it is - to take a person and, having taught him to speak differently than he spoke before, make him a completely different, new creature. After all, this means - destroy the gulf that separates class from class and soul from soul." .

But language is not the only expression of a human being. Going out to see Mrs. Higgins has only one drawback - Eliza does not know what is being said in society in this language.

"Pickering also recognized that it was not enough for Eliza to master ladylike pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. She must also develop ladylike interests as long as her heart and mind were filled with the problems of her old world: the straw hat murders and the beneficial effect of the gin on her father's mood, she cannot become a lady, even if her tongue is indistinguishable from that of a lady." .

But Eliza looks at life more soberly - she dreams of becoming a saleswoman in a large flower shop, where she is not hired because she speaks very poorly. However, Higgins himself admits that the profession of a maid in a rich house or a saleswoman in a reputable store requires even more careful work on the language, even more refined pronunciation than the position of a duchess.

Eliza's training is completed in a much shorter time thanks to her abilities. But Higgins made a fatal mistake: he did not think about the living soul of the man that was in his hands. The experiment does not go unpunished: Galatea rebels against her creator with all the strength of an offended and indignant soul; the wind of tragedy breaks into the small world of the salons where the results of the experiment were tested.

From the very beginning, Higgins displays a brutal indifference to Eliza as a person. When she appears at his house, he does not greet her, does not invite her to sit down, and, making sure that her dialect is already represented in his notes, tells her: “Get lost!” The girl herself, who grew up in the slums, still has an idea of the rules of politeness; she remarks that he could offer her a seat if he is a gentleman; after all, she came on business. In response, the astonished Higgins asks: “Pickering, what should we do with this scarecrow? Should we invite her to sit down or lower her down the stairs?” .

Mrs. Pierce, the housekeeper, a woman of the people, and Colonel Pickering, a man of a more subtle mental organization, feel this rudeness and try to reason with Higgins. Mrs. Pierce demands maximum correctness from Higgins in the presence of the girl.

Colonel Pickering is polite to Eliza, invites her to sit down, calls her "Miss Dolittle." Subsequently, having become an elegant society woman, she says to Pickering: “Do you know when my upbringing really began? The minute you called me Miss Dolittle... That first awakened my self-respect.” .

However, to imagine Higgins only as bourgeois scientists would be a simplification and a distortion of Shaw's intention. The show in every possible way emphasizes Higgins' inner freedom and his complete lack of servility. With noble ladies, he behaves as arrogantly and rudely as with Eliza. His mother always talks about his inability to behave in society. He hurts and insults people without any bad intentions, simply because he is not interested in them. He is only interested in his science. In Higgins's relationships with people, Shaw sees a conflict between genius and ordinary people.

Shaw managed in his play to highlight the issue of social inequality of people. Educated Eliza remains the same beggar as she was when she sold flowers. The only thing that has increased is the tragic awareness of one’s poverty and limitless inequality between people. All Eliza’s reproaches to Higgins reflect precisely this moment: “You pulled me out of the mud! And who asked you? Now you thank God that everything is over and you can throw me back into the mud!.. What will happen to me? What will happen to me? .. What am I good for? What should I do? What will happen to me now?.. I used to sell flowers, but now you have made me a lady, and I am nothing. I can’t trade except for myself. It would be better if you didn’t touch me!.. Which of my things belongs to me... I want to know what I have the right to take with me. I don’t want to be called a thief later... ". .

These exclamations convey both Eliza’s mental turmoil and the cruel truth that appeared before her - she cannot overcome social inequality, a piece of bread and honest work are not guaranteed for her, despite the acquired polish and some education.

Unlike his daughter, her scavenger father has no moral virtues. Poverty, dirty work, the position of a pariah among London residents, drunkenness - all this fostered in him a kind of cynicism and indifference to people. In the afterword, Shaw calls him a Nietzschean. Extorting money from Higgins in payment (as he thinks) for the honor of his own daughter, Dolittle shows exceptional eloquence and delights Higgins with this.

Of course, Shaw does not give in Dolittle a typical image of a man of the people, and does not strive to give one. The best traits of the English people are embodied in Eliza with her strict morality and colossal hard work. But Father Dolittle also has a certain amount of charm that is felt by those around him. He is very intelligent and frank in his opinions; Shaw puts into his mouth a poisonous characterization of bourgeois society. At the end of the play, according to Shaw's plan, he receives money from the will of an American millionaire and becomes a slave to the bourgeois morality that he always denied - he even goes to church to marry his fifth friend, a grumpy and always drunk woman. Yesterday's worker, he became a minion of the bourgeoisie, a participant in its profits. Dolittle characterizes his situation as follows: “For me, an unworthy poor man, the only salvation from the State bed is this money, which drags me into the company of the bourgeois bastard - excuse the expression, ma'am! .. I have to choose between the Cecilia of the workhouse and the Charita of the bourgeoisie; but I don’t have the courage to choose a workhouse. I’m telling you; I’m intimidated.” .

Thus, falling as usual into rhetorical turns and distorting the words he heard somewhere (Scylla and Charybdis), Dolittle quite aptly characterizes the position of that part of the working class that is forced to take handouts from the bourgeoisie.

There's something Dickensian about Papa Dolittle's transformation from ragged scavenger to wealthy gentleman in a shiny top hat. Shaw managed to resurrect here the atmosphere of an English realistic novel, replete with such transformations.

Pygmalion has an unclear and ambiguous ending. All characters They go to a fashionable church for the wedding of Eliza’s father and her stepmother, and a jubilant (for reasons unknown to us) Higgins instructs Eliza to buy a tie and gloves for herself.

For viewers with a direct psychological sense, another meaning lurks behind this minor ending: Eliza will be Higgins' wife. No wonder her love for him, the desire to become everything to him, burst forth in every indignant word she said. And he has already repeatedly told her and the audience that he cannot live without her. So, Eliza must accept all his demands, all the whims and eccentricities of the great scientist, become his devoted life partner and assistant in his scientific works. But under the influence of this extraordinary woman, he too will perhaps become softer and more humane. .

The show takes readers to this logical conclusion, but ends the play... and then, in the afterword, declares that Eliza will marry Freddie, a puny young aristocrat to whom she has not paid the slightest attention.

For Shaw, it is important to shock the audience, to stun them at the end with some unexpected turn of action, to destroy their traditional romantic ideas. Everyone is waiting for the marriage between Pygmalion and Galatea, this is also demanded ancient myth, which is the basis of the play. And that is why the stubborn paradoxist dismisses the expected “happy ending” and laughs at the puzzled viewer.

Pygmalion(full title: Pygmalion: A Fantasy Novel in Five Acts, English Pygmalion: A Romance in Five Acts listen)) is a play written by Bernard Shaw in 1913. The play tells the story of phonetics professor Henry Higgins, who made a bet with his new acquaintance, British Army Colonel Pickering. The essence of the bet was that Higgins could teach the flower girl Eliza Doolittle the pronunciation and manner of communication of high society in a few months.

The play's title is an allusion to the myth of Pygmalion.

Characters

Eliza Doolittle, flower girl. Attractive, but not having a secular upbringing (or rather, having a street upbringing), about eighteen to twenty years old. She is wearing a black straw hat, which has been badly damaged in its lifetime from London dust and soot and is hardly familiar with a brush. Her hair is some kind of mouse color, not found in nature. A tan black coat, narrow at the waist, barely reaching the knees; from under it a brown skirt and a canvas apron are visible. Shoes, apparently, also knew better days. Without a doubt, she is clean in her own way, but next to the ladies she definitely seems like a mess. Her facial features are not bad, but her skin condition leaves much to be desired; In addition, it is noticeable that she needs the services of a dentist
Henry Higgins, professor of phonetics
Pickering, Colonel
Mrs Higgins, professor's mother
Mrs Pierce, Higgins's housekeeper
Alfred Dolittle, Eliza's father. An elderly, but still very strong man in the work clothes of a scavenger and in a hat, the brim of which was cut off in front and covered the back of his neck and shoulders. The facial features are energetic and characteristic: one can feel a person who is equally unfamiliar with fear and conscience. He has an extremely expressive voice - a consequence of the habit of giving full vent to his feelings
Mrs Eynsford Hill, guest of Mrs. Higgins
Miss Clara Eynsford Hill, her daughter
Freddie, son of Mrs Eynsford Hill

Plot

On a summer evening, the rain pours like buckets. Passers-by run to Covent Garden Market and the portico of St. Pavel, where several people had already taken refuge, including an elderly lady and her daughter; they are in evening dresses, waiting for Freddie, the lady's son, to find a taxi and come for them. Everyone, except one person with a notebook, impatiently peers into the streams of rain. Freddie appears in the distance, having not found a taxi, and runs to the portico, but on the way he runs into a street flower girl, hurrying to hide from the rain, and knocks a basket of violets out of her hands. She bursts into abuse. A man with a notebook is hastily writing something down. The girl laments that her violets are missing and begs the colonel standing right there to buy a bouquet. To get rid of it, he gives her some change, but does not take flowers. One of the passersby draws the attention of the flower girl, a sloppily dressed and unwashed girl, that the man with the notebook is clearly scribbling a denunciation against her. The girl begins to whine. He, however, assures that he is not from the police, and surprises everyone present by accurately determining the place of birth of each of them by their pronunciation.

Freddie's mother sends her son back to look for a taxi. Soon, however, the rain stops, and she and her daughter go to the bus stop. The Colonel shows interest in the abilities of the man with the notebook. He introduces himself as Henry Higgins, creator of the Higgins Universal Alphabet. The colonel turns out to be the author of the book “Spoken Sanskrit”. His name is Pickering. He lived in India for a long time and came to London specifically to meet Professor Higgins. The professor also always wanted to meet the colonel. They are about to go to dinner at the colonel’s hotel when the flower girl again starts asking to buy flowers from her. Higgins throws a handful of coins into her basket and leaves with the colonel. The flower girl sees that she now owns, by her standards, a huge sum. When Freddie arrives with the taxi he finally hailed, she gets into the car and, noisily slamming the door, drives off.

The next morning, Higgins demonstrates his phonographic equipment to Colonel Pickering at his home. Suddenly Higgins's housekeeper, Mrs. Pierce, reports that a certain very ordinary girl wants to talk to the professor. Yesterday's flower girl enters. She introduces herself as Eliza Dolittle and says that she wants to take phonetics lessons from the professor, because with her pronunciation she cannot get a job. The day before she had heard that Higgins was giving such lessons. Eliza is sure that he will happily agree to work off the money that yesterday, without looking, he threw into her basket. Of course, it’s funny for him to talk about such sums, but Pickering offers Higgins a bet. He encourages him to prove that in a matter of months he can, as he assured the day before, turn a street flower girl into a duchess. Higgins finds this offer tempting, especially since Pickering is ready, if Higgins wins, to pay the entire cost of Eliza's education. Mrs. Pierce takes Eliza to the bathroom to wash her.

After some time, Eliza's father comes to Higgins. He is a scavenger, a simple man, but he amazes the professor with his innate eloquence. Higgins asks Dolittle for permission to keep his daughter and gives him five pounds for it. When Eliza appears, already washed, in a Japanese robe, the father at first does not even recognize his daughter. A couple of months later, Higgins brings Eliza to his mother's house, just on her reception day. He wants to know if it is already possible to introduce a girl into secular society. Mrs. Eynsford Hill and her daughter and son are visiting Mrs. Higgins. These are the same people with whom Higgins stood under the portico of the cathedral on the day he first saw Eliza. However, they do not recognize the girl. Eliza at first behaves and talks like a high-society lady, and then goes on to talk about her life and uses such street expressions that everyone present is amazed. Higgins pretends that this is new social jargon, thus smoothing over the situation. Eliza leaves the crowd, leaving Freddie in complete delight.

After this meeting, he begins to send ten-page letters to Eliza. After the guests leave, Higgins and Pickering vying with each other, enthusiastically telling Mrs. Higgins about how they work with Eliza, how they teach her, take her to the opera, to exhibitions, and dress her. Mrs. Higgins finds that they are treating the girl like a living doll. She agrees with Mrs. Pearce, who believes that they "don't think about anything."

A few months later, both experimenters take Eliza to a high society reception, where she is a dizzying success, everyone takes her for a duchess. Higgins wins the bet.

Arriving home, he enjoys the fact that the experiment, from which he was already tired, is finally over. He behaves and talks in his usual rude manner, not paying the slightest attention to Eliza. The girl looks very tired and sad, but at the same time she is dazzlingly beautiful. It is noticeable that irritation is accumulating in her.

She ends up throwing his shoes at Higgins. She wants to die. She doesn’t know what will happen to her next, how to live. After all, she became a completely different person. Higgins assures that everything will work out. She, however, manages to hurt him, throw him off balance and thereby at least a little revenge for herself.

At night, Eliza runs away from home. The next morning, Higgins and Pickering lose their heads when they see that Eliza is gone. They are even trying to find her with the help of the police. Higgins feels like he has no hands without Eliza. He doesn’t know where his things are, or what he has scheduled for the day. Mrs Higgins arrives. Then they report the arrival of Eliza's father. Dolittle has changed a lot. Now he looks like a wealthy bourgeois. He lashes out at Higgins indignantly because it is his fault that he had to change his lifestyle and now become much less free than he was before. It turns out that several months ago Higgins wrote to a millionaire in America, who founded branches of the League of Moral Reforms all over the world, that Dolittle, a simple scavenger, is now the most original moralist in all of England. That millionaire had already died, and before his death he bequeathed to Dolittle a share in his trust for three thousand annual income, on the condition that Dolittle would give up to six lectures a year in his League of Moral Reforms. He laments that today, for example, he even has to officially marry someone with whom he has lived for several years without registering a relationship. And all this because he is now forced to look like a respectable bourgeois. Mrs. Higgins is very happy that the father can finally take care of his changed daughter as she deserves. Higgins, however, does not want to hear about “returning” Eliza to Dolittle.

Mrs. Higgins says she knows where Eliza is. The girl agrees to return if Higgins asks her for forgiveness. Higgins does not agree to do this. Eliza enters. She expresses gratitude to Pickering for his treatment of her as a noble lady. It was he who helped Eliza change, despite the fact that she had to live in the house of the rude, slovenly and ill-mannered Higgins. Higgins is amazed. Eliza adds that if he continues to “pressure” her, she will go to Professor Nepean, Higgins’ colleague, and become his assistant and inform him of all the discoveries made by Higgins. After an outburst of indignation, the professor finds that now her behavior is even better and more dignified than when she looked after his things and brought him slippers. Now, he is sure, they will be able to live together not just as two men and one stupid girl, but as “three friendly old bachelors.”

Eliza goes to her father's wedding. The afterword says that Eliza chose to marry Freddie, and they opened their own flower shop and lived on their own money. Despite the store and her family, she managed to interfere with the household in Wimpole Street. She and Higgins continued to tease each other, but she still remained interested in him.

Productions

- First productions of Pygmalion in Vienna and Berlin
- The London premiere of Pygmalion took place at His Majesty's Theatre. Starring: Stella Patrick Campbell and Herbert Birb-Tree
- First production in Russia (Moscow). Moscow Theatre of Drama E. M. Sukhodolskaya. Starring: Nikolai Radin
- “Pygmalion” State Academic Maly Theater of Russia (Moscow). Starring: Daria Zerkalova, Konstantin Zubov. For staging and performing the role of Dr. Higgins in the play, Konstantin Zubov was awarded the Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946)
- “Pygmalion” (radio play) (Moscow). Starring: Daria Zerkalova
- "Pygmalion" State Academic Art Theater named after. J. Rainis of the Latvian SSR
- musical “My Fair Lady” with music by Frederick Loewe (based on the play “Pygmalion”) (New York)
- “Pygmalion” (translation into Ukrainian by Nikolai Pavlov). National Academic Drama Theater named after. Ivan Franko (Kyiv). Staged by Sergei Danchenko
- Musical “My Fair Lady”, F. Lowe, State Academic Theater “Moscow Operetta”
- Musical “Eliza”, St. Petersburg State Musical and Drama Theater Buff
My Fair Lady (musical comedy in 2 acts). Chelyabinsk State Academic Drama Theater named after. CM. Zwillinga (director - People's Artist of Russia - Naum Orlov)
"Pygmalion" - International Theater Center "Rusich". Staged by P. Safonov
“Pygmalion, or almost MY FAIRY LADY” - Dunin-Martsinkevich Drama and Comedy Theater (Bobruisk). Staged by Sergei Kulikovsky
2012 - musical performance, staged by Elena Tumanova. Student Theater "GrandEx" (NAPKS, Simferopol)

Film adaptations

A country	Name	Director	Eliza Doolittle	Henry Higgins	A comment
Great Britain	Pygmalion	Howard Leslie and Anthony Asquith	Hiller Wendy	Howard Leslie	The film was nominated for an Oscar in the categories: Best Picture, Best Actor (Leslie Howard), Best Actress (Wendy Hiller). The prize was awarded in the category Best Adapted Screenplay (Ian Dalrymple, Cecil Lewis, W.P. Lipscomb, Bernard Shaw). The film received the Venice Film Festival Award for Best Actor (Leslie Howard)
USSR	Pygmalion	Alekseev Sergey	Rojek Constance	Tsarev Mikhail	Film-play performed by actors of the Maly Theater
USA	My fair lady	Cukor George	Hepburn Audrey	Harrison Rex	Comedy based on Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalion and the musical of the same name by Frederick Loewe
USSR	Benefit performance of Larisa Golubkina	Ginzburg Evgeniy	Golubkina Larisa	Shirvindt Alexander	The television benefit performance by Larisa Golubkina was created based on the play “Pygmalion”
USSR	Galatea	Belinsky Alexander	Maksimova Ekaterina	Liepa Maris	Film-ballet by choreographer Dmitry Bryantsev to music by Timur Kogan
Russia	Flowers from Lisa	Selivanov Andrey	Tarkhanova Glafira	Lazarev Alexander (Jr.)	Modern variation based on the play
Great Britain	My fair lady		Mulligan Carey		Remake of the 1964 film

The episode of writing the play “Pygmalion” is reflected in the play “Dear Liar” by Jerome Kielty
From the play, the Anglo-American interjection “wow” came into widespread use, which was used by the flower girl Eliza Doolittle, a representative of the London “lower classes”, before her “ennoblement”
For the script for the film Pygmalion, Bernard Shaw wrote several scenes that were not in the original version of the play. This extended version of the play has been published and is used in productions