home › Chassis › "Pygmalion" analysis. Pygmalion (play) Artistic means of expression in the play Pygmalion

"Pygmalion" analysis. Pygmalion (play) Artistic means of expression in the play Pygmalion

Composition

Fundamentally new for the characterization of the image of the heroine is her appearance in the fourth act of the play. Here - for the first time! - attention is sharpened not on her appearance, not on behavior, but on her inner world, emotional experiences. This is how we see Eliza: “Elise opens the door and, illuminated by the light from the hall, appears in expensive jewelry and luxurious evening clothes ... She goes to the fireplace and turns on the light. It can be seen that she is tired: a pale complexion, full of tragedy, contrasts sharply with dark eyes and hair. She takes off her cloak, puts it together with gloves and a fan on the piano - and silently, sits down on a bench. There is no doubt that this is indeed a qualitatively new "appearance" of the heroine. Before the viewer appears, first of all, a tired young girl, and this person is experiencing, as you might guess, a deep spiritual drama. If not a tragedy. Tragedy and sadness - that's what defines her state of mind, and the remark emphasizes this.

And further events, conversations and behavior of Higgins and Pickering, their dismissive attitude towards Eliza reveal the origins of these feelings, this tragedy. The stage directions, which show Eliza's reaction to the conversation between Higgins and Pickering, also create a new image of the heroine for the play. Here is how she reacts to statements that are offensive to her: “Elise looks at him gloomily - she suddenly jumps up and leaves the room”; “Eliza already cringes, however, men do not even pay attention to her. She takes control of herself again…”; Eliza's beauty takes on an ominous aspect. As you can see, she is silent, but this silence hides deep feelings. Self-esteem, self-respect keeps Elisa from saying everything they deserve to “respectable” interlocutors, and this is what remarks convey. At the same time, such behavior is the behavior of a person that we have not seen before. Since now in the image of Eliza external perfection and human dignity, tact, humanity are combined.

We believe that it is precisely this appearance of Eliza, her long-lasting eloquent silence that prepares the perception of her next conversation with Higgins: the viewer understands and feels that he is no longer just a “masterpiece” of the professor’s pedagogical skills and tailor’s sophistication, but a living person with deep emotional experiences, moreover the person is extremely humiliated. As it turns out over time that she is denied the right to be a living person, she is assigned the role of a soulless doll, which should only do what Higgins wants to see. Eliza's “appearance” in Act 5 again markedly contrasts with the way we left her after the raging showdown with Higgins: “Elise enters, proud and sedate, her face radiating affability. She dominates herself as never before and keeps surprisingly at ease. She has a small work basket in her hands. It is clear that she feels at home here.”

We have never seen such Eliza in the play, such a heroine has never been! And it's not just that she keeps herself "surprisingly at ease." Although this is a lot, because until now it was “excessive impressionability” that was the defining feature of the heroine. The main thing is that in the end Eliza found peace of mind and self-respect. Now her external beauty is in complete harmony with the naturalness and ease of behavior, internal culture. Now neither Higgins nor anyone else will be able to manipulate this person with words or any “signals”. Since she made her choice, therefore, from now on, this person is self-sufficient. From now on, only she herself will decide what to do and how to behave in any case. The next “appearance” of the heroine in the play completes - in terms of composition - the moral transformation of the image of Eliza Doolittle. A certain paradox (Shaw's style!) of this transformation lies in the fact that in the last act of the play, her heroine represents the same "harmony of form and content" - from the point of view of a holistic artistic image - as in the first! But when it comes to the personality of the heroine, this integrity is on a qualitatively different level. This time before the viewer and reader there is not a “bunch of rotten carrots”, but a self-sufficient person, an original personality who will never allow himself to be “crushed” by anyone. The sequence of “appearances” of Eliza Doolittle recreates the main stages of the moral development of the heroine, determines the main stages of gaining her true self-esteem, awareness of herself as a person.

So, in this way, we were convinced that the use of elements of compositional analysis in the process of working on an image-character greatly facilitates the students' holistic comprehension of it. Elements of compositional analysis should also be used when we are trying to figure out the playwright's intention as a whole. The artistic canvas of "Pygmalion" makes it possible to use the technique, which we conventionally called "the reverse appearance of heroes." Its essence lies in the fact that in "Pygmalion" the author consistently builds the logic of the appearance on the stage of each image according to the general plan of the work.

Accordingly, “unraveling” this logic reveals to schoolchildren the general intention of the author. Let's consider this using the example of the sequence of appearances in the play of Eliza and her father at the beginning and at the end of the work. First we get acquainted with Eliza, and later with Alfred Doolittle. There is much in common in the images of the daughter and the father: both are poor, they are on the lower rungs of the social hierarchical ladder. At the same time, they are also united by the fact that each of the characters is a bright and original personality. There is, of course, a significant difference: Eliza seeks to escape from poverty, to take a worthy place in life, while his father is completely satisfied with his current state. The sequence of appearance “daughter - father” here not only represents each of the characters, but also makes it possible to better understand the character of Eliza - by getting to know her only relative, with the primary environment that formed the girl. But in the fifth act, the order of appearance of the heroes is changed: first the father appears in his new image, then the daughter.

Also in a new look… Why is that? Recall that the current Alfred Doolittle is a “impressively dressed” man in the latest fashion, a financially secure person who now has three thousand pounds of annual profit! The external contrast between this gentleman and the former scavenger cannot but strike, but ... In fact, as we will learn later, no personality changes have occurred ... Alfred Doolittle, who now has a lot of money, and Alfred Doolittle, who recently skillfully fooled Higgins five pounds, it's the same man! Wealth, prosperity cannot make a person better, they cannot change his essence for the better. This can only be done by upbringing, constant work on self-improvement - that's why after the father a daughter appears, who actually has become different.

Although she shows her surprise at the family reincarnation with the same indescribable terrible sound, which is also in the first act! In fact, as we have already noted above, we have before us a different, qualitatively better person. With the help of the “reverse appearance of heroes” technique, Shaw embodies in his work the leading Fabian idea, which claims that only education can change a person for the better, improve him, thereby taking a step towards a just and perfect society.

So, the use of elements of compositional analysis during the study of works of art can help the teacher to make work more effective, both on the comprehension of images-characters, and on the processing of a work of art as a whole. Features of the use of elements of compositional analysis in working with a specific text are determined by its genre characteristics, the creative individuality of the author and the specifics of age and literary development.

The popular English playwright, second only to Shakespeare, Bernard Shaw left the deepest imprint on world culture.

His work was marked by two prestigious awards: the Nobel Prize was awarded to the great novelist for his contribution to literature, and the Oscar for the screenplay based on the play of the same name by Bernard Shaw Pygmalion. Summary of the play in this article.

Pygmalion and Galatea

Literary scholars and critics have made various suggestions as to what motivated Shaw to write this play. Some refer to the famous myth of Ancient Greece and offer to recall the legendary sculptor who created the statue of a beautiful girl. Others believe that Shaw recalled Gilbert's play Pygmalion and Galatea. Still others have gone so far as to accuse Shaw of almost plagiarism, pointing to Smollet's novel as a borrowing source.

In fact, the history of writing Pygmalion began with the great playwright's passion for actress Stella Campbell, which he wrote about in his diary. He often had novels in the form of correspondence with actresses, among whom were Florence Farr and Ellen Terry, but Stella occupied an exceptional place in the life and work of Shaw.

The correspondence continued for several years. But Shaw did not want to change anything in his life. Stella, on the other hand, was faithful to her unlucky husband, who lived on her income. Bernard recognized her as a brilliant actress and tried to help her financially. But she refused financial assistance. Having once seen the performance of Forbes-Robertson and Mrs. Campbell in Hamlet, he decided to create a play for her.

In one of his letters to Ellen Terry, he shared the idea that he would like to write a play where Robertson would be a gentleman and Stella a girl in an apron. While the London diva was thinking about whether to play a dirty flower girl, the premiere of the play took place in Vienna, then it was a resounding success in Berlin. On the English stage, the play "Pygmalion" was staged only in April 1914, with Mrs. Campbell playing the main role.

Characters

London flower girl Eliza, turned into a society lady by the eccentric professor of phonetics Higgins, has become one of the world's favorite theatrical stage heroes. This role has become a favorite female role and glorified many theater actresses, bypassing all world scenes - from the famous London diva to the Russian D. Zerkalova. Which is not surprising.

As will be seen from the summary below, Pygmalion by Bernard Shaw is a cheerful, brilliant comedy, the last act of which contains an element of drama: the flower girl coped well with the role of a society lady and is no longer needed. The main characters of the play are Eliza and Professor Higgins with Colonel Pickering, who made a bet:

Eliza, the flower girl, is a girl of eighteen or twenty, and cannot be called attractive. She is wearing a hat, badly damaged by dust and soot, which was hardly familiar with the brush. Hair of an unnatural color that needs soap and water. The faded black coat barely covers her knees. Eliza's shoes have known better days. Everything shows that the girl is clean, but next to others she looks like a mess.
Phonetics Professor Higgins is a man in his forties, strong and healthy. He wears a black frock coat, a starched collar, and a silk tie. He belongs to the people of science, who are interested in everything that can become the subject of research. Everything that attracts his attention, he treats with genuine passion. If something turns out not according to him, the good-natured grouchiness of the professor is replaced by outbursts of anger. But everyone forgives him, because he is very sincere.
Colonel Pickering is an exemplary gentleman. It was his courtesy that played an important role in the transformation of Eliza.

Other participants in the play

In the amazing transformation of Eliza, not only the main characters played an important role. Pygmalion No. 1 can be called the girl's father. In social terms, the scavenger is, one might say, at the bottom. But Alfred is a bright and unusual personality. The flower girl owes many positive character traits to her father. His impressive behavior is obvious: the ability to explain himself to any person, originality of thinking, self-esteem.

An interesting personality Alfred adapts to any situation and remains himself. In other words, circumstances may change, but a person will not change: a person will remain a person. However, Shaw would not have been Shaw if he had not put self-respect into the soul of a street girl, and would not have made interesting a man who valued his father's feeling at five pounds. Why are the characters of Henry, the housekeeper, Pickering, Eliza, and the girl's father so powerful, and the drawing-room people so weak? How skillfully the great playwright succeeded in this can be seen from the summary of Pygmalion. Bernard Shaw also made interesting personalities from minor characters:

Eliza's father Alfred Doolittle is an elderly but strong man. He's wearing scavenger clothes. An energetic person who knows no fear and conscience.
Professor Higgins' housekeeper is Mrs Pierce.
Professor Higgins' mother is Mrs. Higgins.
Mrs Hill's daughter is Clara.
Mrs Hill's son is Freddie.
Mrs. Higgins' guest is Eynsford Hill.

In five acts of the play "Pygmalion" Shaw, as a wise and insightful artist, discovered in a street girl those features that made possible her transformation, unexpected but plausible. He says that it is worth changing the conditions of existence, creating a favorable environment, and you will see how a miracle will happen: natural abilities will open up, self-esteem will increase.

Eliza will pass a severe test of social manners and social ritual. Passes for a duchess at a reception at any embassy. Such is the development of the artistic thought of Bernard Shaw. In the summary of Pygmalion, you can get to know Eliza and follow her amazing transformation from a dirty girl into a duchess.

Summer rain

A violent pouring rain gathered several people under the portico of the church. Two ladies, chilled in their evening gowns, were waiting for the taxi that Freddie had gone to fetch. A passer-by, having heard their conversation, said that it was impossible to find a taxi, as people were leaving the theater at that time and, moreover, it was pouring impenetrable rain.

Freddie, the son of an old lady, came and said he couldn't find a taxi. The mother sent him back. Freddy, accompanied by his sister's indignant exclamations and thunder, went back to look, and ran into a flower girl who was hurrying to cover. The street vendor did not reach into her pocket for a word: picking up flowers, she lamented in the dialect of a commoner and angrily answered the questions of the ladies.

Then she caught sight of an elderly gentleman hurrying to take cover from the rain. The flower girl switched to him, persuading him to buy a bouquet. A passer-by noticed the girl that a guy standing nearby, probably a policeman, was writing down everything in a notebook. Those present immediately drew attention to the man standing with a notebook. He explained that he was not a policeman and, nevertheless, told who was born where, down to the street.

The gentleman, who is also a colonel, showed interest in this man. So the acquaintance of the creator of the Higgins alphabet and the author of the book "Conversational Sanskrit" Pickering took place. They were going to meet each other for a long time, so they decided to continue their acquaintance over dinner. Higgins tossed a handful of coins into the flower girl's basket on the way. The girl, who got hold of a huge amount, gets into the taxi that Freddie caught and leaves.

Professor and Colonel's Bet

The next morning Higgins received Colonel Pickering at his house and demonstrated the phonographic apparatus. Mrs. Pierce, the housekeeper, reported that a certain girl had come to him and wanted to talk to him. When she was called in, the professor recognized her as yesterday's flower girl. Eliza explained that she wanted to take phonetics lessons from Higgins, as she could not get a good job with her terrible pronunciation.

The money is small, but the colonel encourages Higgins to prove that he can, as he assured, turn a street vendor into a duchess. They make a bet, and the colonel undertakes to pay all the expenses for training. The housekeeper takes the flower girl to the bathroom to launder.

After some time, the girl's father showed up at Higgins' house. The drink-loving type demands five pounds from the professor and promises not to interfere. Higgins is surprised by the eloquence and persuasiveness of the scavenger, for which he received his compensation. Eliza Doolittle enters the room in an elegant kimono and no one recognizes her.

Entering a secular society

After a few months of training, Higgins decided to check how his student coped with the task assigned to her. As an exam, he takes the girl to his mother's house, who gives the reception. Mrs. Hill is also there with her daughter and son Freddie. They don't recognize the girl as the flower girl they met a few months ago.

Eliza behaves impeccably, but when it comes to her life, she breaks into common language. Higgins saves the day by explaining to those present that this is the new secular jargon. When the guests have left, the colonel and the professor tell Mrs. Higgins how they teach the girl, take her to the theater and opera. In addition, she has an excellent ear for music.

In response to their enthusiastic stories, the professor's mother remarks that the girl should not be treated like a living doll. They, somewhat disappointed, leave Mrs. Higgins' house and continue their studies, taking into account all the mistakes that the elderly lady pointed out to them. Freddie did not remain indifferent to the charming guest, and showered Eliza with romantic messages.

Eliza's Success

Higgins, having devoted a few more months to his student, arranges a decisive exam for her - he takes her to an appointment at the embassy. Eliza is a resounding success. Upon returning home, the colonel congratulates the professor on his success. No one pays attention to Elise anymore.

An annoyed girl expresses to her teacher that she cannot lead her former life. He asks what will happen to her now, where will she go and what should she do now? The professor is unable to understand her soul. The girl throws slippers at the professor in anger, and leaves the Higgins house at night.

twist of fate

The Colonel and the Professor arrive at Mrs. Higgins' house and complain about Eliza's disappearance. The professor admits to his interlocutors that without her, he, as if without hands, does not know what is planned for the day, where his things lie.

The girl's father comes to the house - he looks different - a quite wealthy bourgeois shows Higgins that it was his fault that he had to change his lifestyle. A few months ago the professor wrote to the founder of the Moral Reform League that Alfred Doolittle was perhaps the most original moralist in England. The millionaire left in his will to the scavenger an annual allowance, on the condition that he lecture at the League several times a year.

Mrs. Higgins is relieved that there is now someone to take care of the girl. Eliza arrives and explains alone with the professor. Higgins believes that he is not guilty of anything and demands the girl to return. To which she replies that she will immediately go to his colleague, get a job with him as an assistant and reveal the Higgins method known to her now.

The professor defiantly instructs the girl to make purchases on the way home. To which Eliza replies with contempt: "Buy it yourself." And he goes to the wedding of his father, who, given his current situation, is forced to officially marry the woman with whom he lived for twenty years.

Metamorphoses of "Pygmalion"

The analysis of this comedy shows a brilliant and impressive plot, turning into a realistic drama in the finale. Fascinated by a linguistic experiment, Higgins discovers that he has created more than just a beautiful girl capable of delivering sophisticated speeches. To his amazement, he realizes that before him is a human being with a soul and a heart.

George Bernard Shaw pursued this goal: to show the representatives of the blue blood that they differ from the lower class only in clothes, pronunciation, education and manners. For the rest, decency and spiritual sensitivity, nobility and self-esteem are inherent in ordinary people. The playwright wanted to show that the difference between them could and should be overcome. And he succeeded.

The open end of the play, as left by the author, caused a lot of criticism and indignation from the public. The excellent playwright, in turn, did not want to repeat anyone. George Bernard Shaw showed originality and ingenuity, embodying an artistic concept. In the subtitle, he indicated that it was a fantasy novel, and by this he accurately defined the genre features of the play.

As the author himself later wrote, he called the play a novel because it is a story about a poor girl who, like Cinderella, met a handsome prince and was turned into a beautiful lady by him. And for the indignant public, lost in conjecture - for whom Eliza will marry, he wrote comments in which he did not state, but assumed the future of the girl. Shaw supplemented the play with new scenes for the film script, which premiered in 1938 and was a resounding success.

Among the works written in the pre-war period, Shaw's most popular play was the comedy Pygmalion (1912). Its title is reminiscent of an ancient myth, according to which the sculptor Pygmalion, who sculpted the statue of Galatea, fell in love with her, and then the goddess of love Aphrodite, who heeded the pleas of the desperate artist, revived her. The show gives its own, modern version of the 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 raises a rebellion against her creator; if Pygmalion and Galatea of antiquity married, then the heroes of Shaw should never marry. So, contrary to the traditional ideas of the viewer, caused by the title of the play, its plan was formed. 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 heartfelt expectations of the audience than he would like.

In "Pygmalion" Shaw connected two topics that were equally exciting for him: the problem of social inequality and the problem of classical English. .

Professor of phonetics Higgins makes a bet with Colonel Pickering that in a few months he will be able to teach a street flower vendor the correct speech and make it so that "she could successfully pass for a duchess."

We feel the charm and originality of Eliza Doolittle already in the first acts, when she still speaks in ridiculous street jargon. We feel them in her energy, her gaiety, her inner dignity, the harsh morality she has preserved in the world of the slums.

Only pronunciation separates a street flower girl from a duchess, but Eliza Doolittle isn't going to be a duchess. It is Higgins, in his scientific enthusiasm, who shouts that in six months he will turn Eliza into a duchess.

To show how radically a person can be changed, Shaw chose to go from one extreme to another. 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 also possible.

The second important question of the play is how much speech affects human life. What gives a person the correct pronunciation? Is it enough to learn how to speak correctly to change social position? Here is 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, so far, to make him a completely different, new creature. After all, this means - destroy the abyss that separates class from class and soul from soul." .

Shaw, perhaps, was the first to realize the omnipotence of language in society, its exclusive social role, which psychoanalysis indirectly spoke about in the same years. It was Shaw who said this in the poster-edifying, but no less ironic and fascinating Pygmalion. Professor Higgins, albeit in his narrow specialized field, nevertheless outstripped structuralism and post-structuralism, which in the second half of the century will make the ideas of "discourse" and "totalitarian language practices" their central theme.

But language is not the only expression of a human being. Going out to see Mrs. Higgins has the only mistake - Eliza does not know what they are talking about in society in this language.

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

One of the theses of the play says that the human character is determined by the totality of personality relations, language relations are only a part of it. In the play, this thesis is concretized by the fact that Eliza, along with language lessons, also learns the rules of behavior. Consequently, Higgins explains to her not only how to speak the language of a lady, 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.

But Eliza looks at life more soberly - she dreams of becoming a saleswoman in a large flower shop, where she is not taken, as she speaks very badly. 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 a person that was in his hands. The experiment does not go unpunished: Galatea rises against her creator with all the strength of an offended and indignant soul; the wind of tragedy breaks into the small little world of salons where the results of the experiment were tested.

From the outset, Higgins shows gross 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, he tells her: "Get out!" The girl herself, who grew up in the slums, still has an idea of \u200b\u200bthe rules of politeness; she remarks that he might invite her to sit down if he is a gentleman; because she came on business. In response, the astonished Higgins asks: "Pickering, what should we do with this scarecrow? Offer her to sit down or go down the stairs?" .

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

Colonel Pickering is polite to Eliza, invites her to sit down, calls her "Miss Doolittle". Subsequently, having become a graceful society woman, she says to Pickering: "Do you know when my upbringing really began? The minute you called me Miss Doolittle ... It first awakened my respect for myself." .

However, to imagine Higgins only as a bourgeois scientist would be an oversimplification and a distortion of Shaw's intention. The show in every possible way emphasizes Higgins' inner freedom, the complete absence of servility in him. With noble ladies, he behaves as haughtily and rudely as with Eliza. His mother talks all the time about his inability to behave in society. He hurts and offends people without any ill intention, simply because they are not interesting to him. He is only interested in his science. In Higgins's relationship with people, Shaw sees a conflict between genius and the townsfolk.

Shaw managed in his play to highlight the issue of social inequality of people. The educated Eliza remains as poor as she was when she was a flower trader. Only the tragic awareness of their poverty and boundless inequality between people has been added. All Eliza’s reproaches to Higgins reflect this very 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 have you adapted me for? Where shall I go? What shall I do? What will become of me now?... I used to sell flowers, but I didn't sell myself. Now you've made me a lady, and I'm nothing more." "I can't trade except for myself. I wish you didn't touch me!... Which of my things is mine... 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 spiritual confusion and the cruel truth that appeared before her - she cannot overcome social inequality, a piece of bread and honest work are not provided for her, despite the acquired gloss and some education.

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

Of course, Shaw does not give Dolittle a typical image of a man of the people, nor does he seek to give one. The best features of the English people are embodied in Eliza with her strict morals and colossal diligence. But Father Doolittle also has a certain amount of charm that others feel. He is very intelligent and outspoken in his judgments; in his mouth Shaw puts 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 that bourgeois morality that he has always denied - even goes to church to marry his fifth girlfriend, a grumpy and always drunk woman. Yesterday's worker, he became a henchman of the bourgeoisie, a participant in its income. Doolittle characterizes his situation in this way: “For me, an unworthy pauper, the only salvation from the State bed is that this money that drags me into the company of bourgeois bastards - pardon the expression, ma'am! .. One has to choose between the Caecilia of the workhouse and the Harita of the bourgeoisie; and I don't have the heart to choose a workhouse. I tell you; I'm scared. I've been bought." .

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

From the transformation of Father Dolittle from a ragged scavenger into a wealthy gentleman in a shining top hat, it smells of something Dickensian. Shaw managed to resurrect here the atmosphere of the English realistic novel, replete with such transformations.

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

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

For viewers with a direct psychological sense, there is a different meaning behind this minor ending: Eliza will be Higgins' wife. It was not for nothing that her love for him, the desire to become everything for him, broke through in her every indignant word. Yes, and he has repeatedly stated to her and the audience that he cannot live without her. So, Eliza must accept all his demands, all the whims and eccentricities of a great scientist, become his devoted life partner and assistant in his scientific works. But he, under the influence of this extraordinary woman, will perhaps become softer and more humane. .

The show takes readers to that logical end, but cuts off the play... and then, in an afterword, declares that Eliza will marry Freddie, a petty young aristocrat whom she paid no attention to.

For the show, it is important to shock the audience, to stun them at the end of the day 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 required by the ancient myth underlying the play. And that is why the stubborn paradoxicalist brushes aside the expected "happy end" and laughs at the bewildered spectator.

Frolova Valentina

Russia, Saint-Petersburg

Bachelor 2 years of study

The work of Bernard Shaw, the problems of the play "Pygmalion"

Bernard Shaw broke into the public life of England in the 80s of the 19th century as an outstanding public figure, orator and publicist. It was a time of rapid upsurge of the English labor movement. But he decided to devote his life to writing. If Shaw the publicist sincerely tried to fight for the new society, then Shaw the writer and theater critic led the fight for a new drama.

The English theater of the second half of the 19th century was filled with insignificant, "well-made" plays, where a sentimental love line usually led to a happy ending, and any social denunciation was simply unthinkable. Shaw began his struggle for a new drama by promoting the work of the Norwegian writer Ibsen. He organized a series of lectures on the most progressive writers of the era - Leo Tolstoy, Turgenev, Zola. In 1892, Shaw's first play, The Widower's House, appeared, which, although a failure, caused a lot of noise.

Within eight years (from 1892 to 1899) three brilliant dramatic cycles were created: Unpleasant Plays, Pleasant Plays and Plays for Puritans. Ten plays, varied in genre and subject matter, were permeated with a sense of sarcastic anger at the bourgeois Pharisees, the desire to unmask the "virtuous" pillars of society and the family. They were also united by the playwright's innovative method - his persistent and bold appeal to paradox, to the constant turning inside out of common truths, to a reasoned and sharp discussion. The main goal of these plays by B. Shaw is to ridicule and denounce English society and world militant imperialism in all its manifestations.

The plays of Bernard Shaw meet the most important requirement for progressive theater: the theater should strive to "depict the nature of man as" amenable to change and dependent on class. The show was interested in the connection between a person's character and his social position. This is especially proved by the fact that he made a radical restructuring of character the main theme of the play "Pygmalion". After the huge success of this play, the story of Eliza, who was transformed from a street girl into a society lady by phonetics professor Higgins, is today known even more than the Greek myth. Pygmalion is the legendary king of Cyprus, who fell in love with a statue of a girl he himself created. It is clear that Shaw's intention was to name the play after a mythical king, which is meant to be a reminder that Eliza Doolittle was created by Alfred Higgins in the same way that Galatea was created by Pygmalion. Man is created by man - such is the lesson of this Shaw play.

The first problem that Shaw solves in the play was the question "is a person a changeable being." In the play, a girl from East London, with all the character traits of a street, is transformed into a woman with the character traits of a lady of high society. To show how radically a person can be changed, Shaw chose to go from one extreme to another. If such a change in a person is possible in a short time, then the viewer must understand that any other change in a human being is also possible.

The second important question of the play is what gives a person the correct pronunciation? Is it enough to learn how to speak correctly to change social position? Here is what the protagonist Professor Higgins thinks about this: “If you knew how interesting it is to take a person and, having taught him to speak differently than he has spoken so far, make him a completely different, new creature. After all, this means destroying the abyss that separates class from class and soul from soul.

As the play repeatedly emphasizes, the dialect of East London is incompatible with the being of a lady, just as the language of a lady cannot be with the being of a simple East London flower girl. When Eliza forgot the language of her old world, the way back was closed for her. Thus, her break with the past was final.

Bernard Shaw paid much attention to the problems of language. The play, in addition, had another serious task: Shaw wanted to draw the attention of the English to phonetics. He fought for the creation of a new alphabet that would be more in tune with the sounds of the English language than the current one, and which could make it easier for foreigners to learn this language. In Pygmalion, Shaw connected two topics that were equally exciting for him: the problem of social inequality and the problem of classical English.

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

If Eliza does not know how to use a handkerchief, and if she is reluctant to take a bath, then it should be clear to any spectator that a change in her being also requires a change in her daily behavior. The form and content of speech, the way of judgment and thoughts, the 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.

It was important for the author to show that all the qualities of Eliza that she reveals as a lady can already be found in the flower girl as natural abilities, or that the qualities of the flower girl can then be rediscovered in the lady.

The thesis about the presence of natural abilities and their importance for the creation of characters is most convincingly demonstrated by the example of the Higgins-Pickering couple. They are both gentlemen by social standing, but Pickering is also a gentleman by temperament, while Higgins is prone to rudeness. These differences and commonalities of both characters are constantly demonstrated by their behavior towards Eliza. If Higgins treats her rudely, impolitely, unceremoniously from the very beginning, then Pickering, on the contrary, is a born gentleman, and always shows tact and exceptional politeness in dealing with Eliza. Since no circumstances explain these differences in behavior, the viewer must assume that perhaps there is still something like an innate tendency to rude or delicate behavior. To prevent the false conclusion that Higgins' rude behavior towards Eliza is due solely to social differences between him and her, Shaw makes Higgins behave noticeably harsh and impolite among his peers as well. However, for all his innate propensity for unceremoniously speaking the truth, Higgins does not allow such rudeness in society as can be observed when he treats Eliza. When his interlocutor Mrs. Einsford Hill, in her narrow-mindedness, believes that it would be better "if people could be frank and say what they think," Higgins protests with the exclamation "God forbid!" and the objection that "it would be indecent".

The character of a person is determined not directly by the environment, but through interpersonal relationships and connections. Man is a sensitive, receptive being, and not a passive object that can be given any shape. The importance that Shaw attaches to this issue is confirmed by its placement at the center of the dramatic action.

In the beginning, Elise is for Higgins a piece of dirt that can be wrapped in newspaper and thrown into the dustbin. Washed and dressed, Eliza becomes not a person, but an interesting experimental object on which a scientific experiment can be performed. In a short time, Higgins made a countess out of Eliza, so he won his bet, which cost him a lot of effort. The fact that Eliza herself participates in this experiment does not reach his consciousness - as well as Pickering's consciousness - until the onset of open conflict, which forms the climax of the play. To his surprise, Higgins must conclude that between him and Pickering, on the one hand, and Eliza, on the other, a human relationship has arisen that has nothing to do with the relationship of scientists to their objects.

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

"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 the correct speech, etc. These are abilities that can be easily acquired without outside help. Pickering's courteous address brought about that inner change which distinguishes a flower girl from a lady.

The explanation for Pygmalion's ending is obvious: what is desired is not to transform the slum dwellers into ladies and gentlemen, but to transform them into a new kind of ladies and gentlemen whose self-esteem is based on their own work. Eliza, in pursuit of work and independence, is the embodiment of a new ideal of a lady who has nothing to do with the old ideal of a lady from an aristocratic society. She did not become a countess, as Higgins had repeatedly said, but she became a woman whose strength and energy are admired.

The play "Pygmalion" was written in years. In this play, Shaw used the myth of Pygmalion, transferring it to the setting of modern London. If the revived Galatea was the embodiment of humility and love, then Shaw's Galatea raises a rebellion against her creator. Shaw's immediate task, as he did his best to emphasize in the preface, is the promotion of linguistics, and primarily phonetics. But this is only one side of an interesting, multifaceted play. At the same time, this is a play of great social, democratic sounding - a play about the natural equality of people and their class inequality, about the talent of people from the people. This is also a psychological drama about love, which for a number of reasons almost turns into hatred. And, finally, this is a humanistic play, showing how carefully and carefully you need to approach a living person, how terrible and unacceptable a cold experiment on a person is. We feel the charm and originality of Eliza Doolittle already in the first acts, when she still speaks in ridiculous street jargon. Only pronunciation separates a street flower girl from a duchess, but Eliza isn't going to be a duchess. Galatea rises up against her creator with all the strength of an offended and indignant soul. Shaw managed in his play to highlight the issue of social inequality of people. The educated Eliza remains as poor as she was when she was a flower trader. Only the tragic awareness of their poverty and boundless inequality between people has been added.

"Pygmalion" is a mockery of the fans of "blue blood" ... each of my plays was a stone that I threw into the windows of Victorian prosperity, ”the author himself spoke of his play. Now. Many years after his death, it becomes clear to mankind who it had and lost in the person of Shaw. It becomes clear that people like him cannot be lost at all - they remain with us forever.

"All Shaw's plays meet the most important requirement presented by Brecht to the modern theater, namely, that the theater should strive to "depict the nature of man as amenable to change and dependent on class."

How Shaw was interested in the relationship of character and social position is especially proved by the fact that he even made a radical restructuring of character the main theme of the play Pygmalion. After the exceptional success of the play and the musical My Fair Lady, based on it, the story of Eliza, who turned from a street girl into a society lady thanks to the professor of phonetics Higgins, is perhaps more known today 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. It is clear that Shaw's intention was to name the play after a mythical king. Name
Pygmalion should be reminded that Eliza Doolittle was created by Alfred
Higgins in the same way as Galatea by Pygmalion. Man is created by man - such is the lesson of this, by Shaw's own admission, "intensely and deliberately didactic" play. This is the lesson for which
Brecht, demanding that "the construction of one figure is carried out depending on the construction of another figure, because in life we mutually form each other."

There is an opinion among literary critics that Shaw's plays, more than the plays of other playwrights, promote certain political ideas.
The doctrine of the variability of human nature and dependence on class is nothing but the doctrine of the social determinism of the individual. The play "Pygmalion" is a good guide that deals with the problem of determinism. Even the author himself considered it "an outstanding didactic play."

The main problem, which Shaw skillfully solves in Pygmalion, was 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 lady of high society

The second important question of the play is how speech affects human life.

What gives a person the correct pronunciation? Is it enough to learn how to speak correctly to change social position?

Here is what Professor Higgins thinks about this:

“But if you only knew how interesting it is to take a person and, having taught him to speak differently from what he has said so far, to make him a completely different, new being. After all, this means destroying the abyss that separates class from class and soul from soul.

As the play shows and constantly emphasizes, the dialect of the London East is incompatible with the being of a lady, just as the language of a lady cannot be with the being of a simple flower girl from the east.
London. When Eliza forgot the language of her old world, the way back was closed for her. Thus, the break with the past was final. Eliza herself, in the course of the play, is clearly aware of this. Here's 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 much attention to the problems of language. The play had a serious task: Shaw wanted to draw the attention of the English public to the issues of phonetics.
He advocated the creation of a new alphabet, which 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 repeatedly throughout his life, and according to his will, a large sum was left by him for research aimed at creating a new English alphabet. These studies are still ongoing, and just a few years ago the play
"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, perhaps, was the first to realize the omnipotence of language in society, its exclusive social role, which psychoanalysis indirectly spoke about in the same years. It was Shaw who said this in the poster-edifying, but no less ironic and fascinating Pygmalion. Professor Higgins, albeit in his narrow specialized field, nevertheless outstripped structuralism and post-structuralism, which in the second half of the century will make the ideas of “discourse” and “totalitarian language practices” their central theme.

In Pygmalion, Shaw connected two topics that were equally exciting for him: 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. As long as Eliza emits vowel sounds like "ah - ay - ay - ow - ow", 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 human language are no less important in this respect is shown by the first major failure of both phoneticians in their efforts at reformation. Although vowels and consonants
Eliza is excellent, the attempt to introduce her into society as a lady fails.
Eliza's words: “But where is her straw hat, new, which I should have got? Stolen! So I say whoever stole the hat, he killed the aunt ”- even with excellent pronunciation and intonation, they are not English for ladies and gentlemen. Higgins acknowledges that along with the 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 the only mistake - Eliza does not know what they are talking about in society in this language.

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

The author required a large expenditure of dramatic means to convince every viewer of this. The show has found this remedy in the systematic application of a kind of alienation effect, forcing its characters from time to time to act in an alien environment, then to return them step by step to their own environment, skillfully creating at first a false representation of their true 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 auditorium. This impression is reinforced by the reactions of the ladies and gentlemen on stage. So Shaw makes Mrs.
Eynsford Hill is visibly agitated when she watches a flower girl she doesn't know call her son Freddie "dear friend" by chance on the street.

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

The extent to which Shaw takes into account prejudice in re-educating its readers and viewers can be proven by numerous examples.
The widely held opinion of many wealthy gentlemen, as you know, is that the inhabitants of the East End are to blame for their poverty, because they do not know how to "save". Although they, like Eliza in Covent Garden, are very greedy for money, but only in order to spend it again wastefully on absolutely unnecessary things at the first opportunity. They have no idea at all to use the money prudently, for example, for vocational education. The show seeks to reinforce this prejudice, as well as others, first. Eliza, having barely got any money, already allows herself to go home by taxi. But immediately begins an explanation of Eliza's real attitude to money. The next day, she hurries to spend them on her own education.

“If a 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 when the environment is changed or changed. 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 one. As the first measure of his plan of re-education
Higgins orders a bath in which Eliza is freed from her East End heritage. The old dress, the closest part of the old environment to the body, is not even set aside, but burned. Not the slightest particle of the old world should connect Eliza with him, if you seriously think about her transformation. To show this, Shaw set in motion another particularly instructive incident. At the end of the play, when Eliza, in all likelihood, has finally turned into a lady, her father suddenly appears. Unexpectedly, a test occurs that gives an answer to the question of whether Higgins is right in considering it possible for Eliza to return to her former life:

(Doolittle appears in the middle window. Casting a reproachful and dignified glance 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 don't roll, do you?

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 splendor, all her restraint immediately evaporates.) Woo-aaaaaaa!

Higgins (triumphantly). Aha! Exactly! U-u-aaaa-u! U-u-aaaa-u!
Victory! Victory!".

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

In view of the careful emphasis on environmental influences, the viewer could easily get the false impression that the characters in the world of Shaw's characters are entirely amenable to environmental constraint. To prevent this undesirable misconception, Shaw, with equal care and thoroughness, introduced into his play the counterthesis of the existence of natural abilities and their significance for the character of this or that individual. This position is concretized immediately in all four main characters of the play:
Elise, Higgins, Dolittle and Pickering.

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

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

“Without a doubt, she is clean in her own way, but next to the ladies she definitely seems like a mess. Her 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.

The transformation of Dolittle into a gentleman, just as his daughter into a lady, must seem to be a relatively external process. Here, as it were, only his natural abilities are modified due to his new social position. As a shareholder in the Friend of the Stomach Cheese Trust and a prominent spokesman for Wannafeller's World Moral Reform League, he actually 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 thesis about the presence of natural abilities and their importance for the creation of characters is demonstrated by the example of a couple
Higgins-Pickering. They are both socially gentlemen, but with the difference that Pickering is also a gentleman by temperament, while Higgins is predisposed to rudeness. The difference and commonality of both characters is systematically demonstrated in their behavior towards
Elise. Higgins treats her rudely, impolitely, unceremoniously from the very beginning. In her presence, he speaks of 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 it in the dustbin. The only norm of conversation with her is an imperative form, and the preferred way to influence Eliza is a threat.
Pickering, a born gentleman, on the contrary, in his treatment of Eliza from the very beginning shows tact and exceptional courtesy. He does not allow himself to be provoked into an unpleasant or rude statement either by the obsessive behavior of the flower girl or by Higgins' bad example. Since no circumstances explain these differences in behavior, the viewer must assume that perhaps there is still some kind of innate tendency to rude or delicate behavior. To prevent the false conclusion that Higgins' rude behavior towards Eliza is due solely to social differences between him and her, Shaw makes Higgins behave noticeably harsh and impolite among his peers as well. Higgins makes little effort 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' rudeness to appear in society in a significantly modified form. For all his innate propensity for cavalier truth-telling, Higgins does not allow such rudeness there as we see in his treatment of Eliza. When his companion Mrs. Einsford
Hill, in his narrow-mindedness, believes that it would be better "if people could be frank and say what they think," Higgins protests with the exclamation "God forbid!" and the objection that "it would be indecent".

The character of a person is determined not directly by the environment, but through interpersonal, emotionally colored 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 that Shaw attaches to this very issue is confirmed by its placement at the center of the dramatic action.

In the beginning, Eliza is for Higgins a piece of dirt that can be wrapped in newspaper and thrown into the dustbin, in any case, "a grimy, filthy slobber" who is forced to wash like a dirty animal, despite her protests. Washed and dressed, Eliza becomes not a person, but an interesting experimental object on which a scientific experiment can be performed. In three months Higgins made a countess of Eliza, he won his bet, as Pickering puts it, it cost him a lot of effort. That Eliza herself was participating in this experiment and, as a human being, was highly bound, before his consciousness - as, indeed, also before his consciousness.
Pickering - does not reach up to the onset of an open conflict, which forms the dramatic climax of the play. Much to my surprise,
Higgins must conclude by stating that between him and Pickering on the one hand, and Eliza on the other, a human relationship has arisen which no longer has anything to do 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 talk like a lady, but because she entered into human relations 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 behaviour, the text asserts the exact opposite:

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 problematic. If the treatment of a person were the decisive factor, then Higgins would have to make all the ladies he meets flower girls, and Pickering all the flower girls he meets. The fact that both of them are not endowed with such magical powers is quite obvious. Higgins does not show Pickering's sense of tact, either towards his mother or towards Mrs. and Miss Eynsford Hill, without thereby causing a slight change in their characters.
Pickering, in Acts I and II, treats the flower girl Eliza with a not-too-refined courtesy. On the other hand, the play clearly shows that behavior alone does not determine the essence either. If only conduct 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 doesn't stop being a gentleman just because he treats Eliza tactlessly, just as Eliza can't turn into a lady just because she behaves like 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 person, are clearly refuted by the play.
The instructiveness of the play lies in the synthesis - the determining factor for the essence of a person is his social attitude towards other people. But the social relation is something more than one-sided behavior of man and one-sided treatment of him. Public attitude includes two sides: behavior and appeal. Eliza from a flower girl becomes a lady 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 relation is clearly revealed only at the end of the play and at its climax. Eliza realizes to herself that in spite of the successful completion of her studies in the language, in spite of the radical change of environment, in spite of the constant and exclusive presence among the recognized gentlemen and ladies, in spite of the exemplary treatment of her by a gentleman and in spite of her mastery of all forms of behavior herself , she has not yet turned into a real lady, but has become only a maid, a secretary or an interlocutor of two gentlemen. She makes an attempt to escape 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 that she is faced with a choice between returning to the street or submitting to Higgins. This is symbolic for her: then she will have to give him shoes all her life. Just what Mrs. Higgins warned against happened, drawing the attention of her son and Pickering to the fact that a girl who speaks the language and manners of a lady is not yet truly a lady if she does not have the appropriate income. Mrs. Higgins saw from the very beginning that the main problem of turning a flower girl into a society lady could be solved only after her "re-education" was completed.

The essential property of a "noble lady" is her independence, which can only be guaranteed by an income independent of any personal labor.

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

“I want to boast that the play Pygmalion enjoyed the greatest 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-satisfied sages who, like parrots, say 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 to oppose deliberately misinterpreting them. In the case of Pygmalion, the struggle centered around the question of whether Eliza would marry Higgins or
Freddie. If Eliza is given in marriage to Higgins, then a conditional comedic ending and an acceptable end are created: Eliza's re-education ends in this case with her bourgeoisification. Anyone who passes Eliza off as a poor Freddie must simultaneously recognize both the ethical and aesthetic theses of Shaw.
Of course, critics and the theater world were unanimous 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 the 'Perfect Wagnerian'". New Literary Review. Electronic version

E. Hugh "Bernard Shaw" ZhZL. M. "Young Guard" 1966

I. Maisky “B. The Show and Other Memories. M. "Art" 1967

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

1978, p. 128
there
216
ibid S. 270
M. Raku. "Bernard Shaw as the 'Perfect Wagnerian'". New Literary Review. Electronic version
B. Shaw Complete collection of plays in 6 volumes. M. "Art" 1980. V. 4 S.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. The Show and Other Memories. M. "Art" 1967. S. 28
B. Shaw Complete collection of plays in 6 volumes. M. "Art" 1980. T. 4 p.
212
E. Hugh "Bernard Shaw" ZhZL. M. "Young Guard" 1966. S. 136