Development of an extracurricular event on the topic: “The originality of Bernard Shaw’s play “Pygmalion”

This extracurricular activity can be held in 10th grade. Play

"Pygmalion" is quite an interesting work that can cause heated discussions and discussions on the part of students. Since Bernard Shaw, without any doubt, can be called a great paradoxist, his work, full of paradoxes, will certainly arouse great interest among students and activate their mental activity and make them think about the mysteries that the writer left us.

Target: introduce students to the works of Bernard Shaw.

Tasks:

1) Familiarize students with the basic facts of the playwright’s biography;

3) Develop the creative abilities of students;

Meta-subject results:

1) Formation of the ability to clearly formulate one’s train of thought and draw conclusions;

2) Formation of the ability to organize, plan one’s activities and collaborate with other students;

3) Formation of the ability to competently construct one’s speech in accordance with the assigned tasks;

4) Formation of the ability to listen to an interlocutor, conduct a dialogue with him or discuss competently;

5) Formation of the ability to argue your point of view;

6) Formation of the ability to work with information: the ability to analyze, systematize, etc.;

Personal results:

1) Formation of independent work skills and responsibility for its results;

2) Formation and development of ethical feelings, politeness, goodwill, equality;

3) Formation and development of skills of teamwork and cooperation with peers, the ability to conduct dialogue without conflicts and avoid conflict situations;

4) Formation of skills to adequately assess one’s own activities, the ability to identify one’s strengths and weaknesses;

Planned results:

1) Familiarization with the biography and work of Bernard Shaw;

2) Formation of the concepts of paradox, intellectualism based on the analysis of the play “Pygmalion” and awareness of their role in the writer’s work;

3) Development of students' creative abilities based on writing a short essay;

Extracurricular activity plan.

1) Teacher's word. Determining the structure of the event.

2) Biography of the writer. One of the students gives a short presentation.

3) Conversation about the title of the play. Students talk about the different meanings of the word “pygmalion” and talk about why the author gave this title to his work.

4) The system of characters in the play “Pygmalion”. Students are invited to discuss the main characters of the work, characterize them based on the text of the play and express their point of view.

5) Discussion of the ending of the play “Pygmalion”. Students should pay attention to the ambiguous and ambivalent ending of the work and express their opinion about what kind of ending they expected to see.

6) Writing an essay. Students are encouraged to show their creativity and come up with their own ending to this play.

7) Game “Guess who?” Students are presented with a number of quotes from the text of the play. They must determine which of the characters owns this or that statement.

8) Summing up. The teacher briefly announces the results of the event and thanks the students for their work.

Progress of the event.

1) The teacher's word. Determining the structure of the event.

Good afternoon, dear guys!

Today we will get acquainted with the life and work of the famous English writer, playwright and one of the reformers of the English theater of the 20th century. We will also get acquainted with one of his works, namely the play “Pygmalion,” and talk about the title of the play, the characters and the features of its ending.

2) Biography of the writer.

Speech by a student with a report on the biography of the author. In it, he reflects the main facts concerning the life and work of Bernard Shaw: years of life, main works, information about his family and upbringing, the beginning of his creative path, innovation in the field of drama. (The talk lasts 10 minutes.)

3) Conversation about the title of the play.

(Students were asked to look up the meaning of the term at home

"Pygmalion").

So, the term “pygmalion” has several meanings. Let's voice them.

1) Pygmalion is one of the characters in ancient mythology

Greece, the sculptor who created the beautiful girl Galatea from ivory.

2) “Pygmalion” is a play by English playwright Bernard Shaw.

3) Pygmalion - king of Tyre, one of the characters of ancient mythology.

4) “Pygmalion” - a short film by Georges Méliès.

5) “Pygmalion” is a black and white feature film created according to the script by Bernard Shaw. (1938)

6) “Pygmalion” - a performance by the Maly Theater, which was created based on Shaw’s play of the same name. In 1957, its television version was presented.

7) Pygmalion - a crater on an asteroid.

8) Pygmalion is an asteroid named after the Ancient Greek mythology character Pygmalion.

As we may have noticed, the word “pygmalion” has a large number of meanings.

Let's think about why the playwright chose this title for his play. To do this, we turn to ancient Greek mythology.

The plot of Shaw's play was based on the myth of Pygmalion. It tells about the sculptor Pygmalion, who created a beautiful statue of Galatea from ivory. He gave her gifts, dressed her in beautiful and expensive clothes and treated an ordinary statue as a living creature. And therefore, the sculptor, delighted and in love with his creation, asked Venus to breathe life into this statue and revive it. And the goddess, touched to the depths of her soul, fulfilled the sculptor’s request and turned the statue into a wonderful woman, who later became his wife.

After talking about the myth of Pygmalion, the teacher can ask students the following questions for discussion:

Is the myth of Pygmalion connected in any way with the work of Bernard Shaw?

It is worth drawing students’ attention to the fact that the author did not leave the myth of Pygmalion intact and transferred it to the setting of modern London.

In this regard, you can ask a few more questions: Why did the author choose such an unusual interpretation of the myth? What did the author want to achieve through this interpretation of the myth?

It is after discussing these issues that students will understand one of the important features in the work of Bernard Shaw and become familiar with such concepts as “paradox” and intellectualism in his plays.

The teacher says that the playwright deliberately presented the reader with such an ironic and paradoxical interpretation of the well-known myth of Pygmalion. The reader who just saw the title of the play will probably associate it with the myth of the king of Cyprus. But as soon as he opens the first pages of the work, all his expectations and assumptions will be destroyed in an instant. And it is at this moment that the reader will begin to actively look for images of Pygmalion and Galatea among the characters, and he will begin to reflect on the riddle that the author presented to him.

In this way, the most important task of Shaw's intellectual theater is fulfilled - awakening thoughts and activating thought processes.

Due to the fact that students have come across such a concept as “paradox” in Shaw’s work, you can ask them the following question:

As we have noticed, Shaw used a paradoxical interpretation of the myth.

What other paradoxes did you encounter when getting acquainted with the work of this author?

(Here students can point out that an ordinary street flower girl and a lady differ from each other only in pronunciation. Another example is Eliza’s father, Alfred Doolittle, who was an ardent opponent of the bourgeoisie, but having become rich, could not refuse such

“comfortable” life and favorable conditions. On some level, the image of the professor of phonetics, who taught the young lady correct speech, is also paradoxical, although he himself is far from the manners that he is trying to teach Eliza).

4) The system of characters in Bernard Shaw's play.

Now let's talk to you about the main characters of this play.

Here the teacher can ask students a few questions to find out about their attitude towards the characters in the work:

Which of the characters evoked the most sympathy?

Which character did you like least? Why? What qualities do the characters in the play have?

After the teacher has listened to all the answers, it will be possible to move on to a more detailed discussion of each of the characters in the work.

The image of phonetics professor Henry Higgins.

The students were asked to find characteristics of the main characters in the play (these could be stage directions, dialogues, and monologues of the characters). The teacher asks to voice all the characteristics of Higgins that the students found in the text of the work.

In this regard, you can ask the following questions:

What was your impression of Phonetics Professor Higgins?

Can he be classified as a positive or negative character in the play?

What is the reason for the professor's rude behavior towards Eliza?

Did Higgins' behavior change in any way towards the end of the work?

Most likely, the children will pay attention specifically to the rudeness, lack of restraint, and aggression on the part of the professor towards Eliza. Indeed, he treated the girl very ugly and incorrectly, but the teacher needs to explain to the students that this behavior of Higgins is due to the fact that he is a man of science and is very devoted to his work. For him there is no difference between an ordinary street flower girl and a lady. He behaves with the lady in exactly the same way as with Eliza. In the image of the professor, the author emphasizes his inner freedom and spirit of contempt for the norms and conventions of modern society. It is not without reason that Shaw, in one of his remarks, compares Higgins to a restless child. This is childish and allows him to interfere in the life and destiny of a person without making him think about the consequences.

Also, the teacher should note that Higgins actually changes towards the end of the work. If at the beginning we are presented with a man who treats Eliza with rudeness, neglect, aggression, then at the end of the play the professor understands that the girl occupied a significant part in his life and even indicates that she was a part of his life, in which he I put my soul into it.

Image of Eliza Dolittle.

The teacher asks to voice all the characteristics of Eliza that the students found in the text of the work.

What impression did Eliza Doolittle make on you? Why? How did the girl change throughout the play?

What is the reason for the young lady’s changes?

What thought did Bernard Shaw put into the image of this heroine?

Despite the fact that the girl’s speech is full of vulgarisms and is far from ideal, the image of Eliza will most likely arouse sympathy among students. It is important to note and draw the attention of children to the fact that although the girl lived in poverty, she was still able to maintain her honor and dignity and avoid many of the vices that were inherent in the environment in which she was.

And the further the students get to know this girl, the more her image is revealed to them. The teacher should certainly point out that the reason Eliza has changed is not simply the work the professor has done. Undoubtedly, Higgins’ role in the girl’s metamorphosis cannot be diminished, but what is important is that he awakened in her those vital forces and abilities that were already inherent in her. The amazing abilities of the young lady, her sober outlook on life and faith in her own strength contributed to the wonderful transformation of an ordinary flower girl.

Shaw put a very important thought into the character of Eliza. In his opinion, it is in ordinary people from the people that an incredible reserve of strength and energy lies hidden; they are the very valuable material from which a real work of art can be made. Their consciousness, which is constrained only by poverty, is not corrupted by the lies and hypocrisy that are inherent in the privileged strata of society. Therefore, it is much easier to teach an ordinary flower girl correct and beautiful speech than the duchesses with their corrupt thoughts.

Also, the teacher here can refer to the afterword and analyze it together with the children. It is in the afterword that Shaw says that this experiment is not something incredible and fantastic. As the playwright himself states, such stories happen very often to those women who are not devoid of determination, honor and dignity.

Also, the teacher should note that Eliza herself became Pygmalion for Higgins. After all, it was after the girl rebelled and the professor realized that he could lose her that he first started talking about her soul and thought that in front of him was a person who had occupied a significant place in his life and even taught him something.

Pickering's image.

The teacher asks to voice all the characteristics of Pickering that the students found in the text of the work.

The teacher can then ask the following discussion questions: What impression did Pickering make on you? Why?

How does the colonel feel about Eliza?

What role does his image play in the work?

Students should note the colonel's courtesy and politeness towards Eliza. He repeatedly reprimanded Higgins about his rude attitude towards the girl. From the very beginning, Pickering showed tact and politeness in his treatment of the girl.

The most important thing that the teacher should pay attention to is that, according to Eliza, the colonel played an important role in her transformation into a lady.

As the girl says, it was Pickering’s polite attitude, kindness and even condescension at certain moments that made it possible to feel like a real lady. We can say that Eliza considers him the person thanks to whom the metamorphosis took place.

Alfred Dolittle image.

The teacher asks to voice all the characteristics of Alfred Dolittle that the students found in the text of the work.

After the students have voiced their answers, the teacher asks them the following questions:

What impression does this character make on you? What emotions did this character evoke in you?

Why does Bernard Shaw introduce this character into his play?

The image of Eliza's father Alfred Dolittle is very interesting and important for this work. Students may find this image quite comical and paradoxical. And, indeed, the story of this hero is quite unusual. A person who previously rejected bourgeois morality suddenly becomes its hostage. Having suddenly become rich, Dolittle complains about this difficult burden, but at the same time, he is not ready to give up such a life. The hero's fear of poverty and the desire for comfort does not allow him to refuse favorable conditions.

And therefore, a seemingly minor character is a very important figure and a prominent representative and exposer of a morally sick society.

5) Discussion of the ending of the play “Pygmalion”.

It is worth noting that the play we are considering has a very ambiguous ending. The girl, who rebelled against her creator, is now not ready to give him shoes and grovel before him again. Higgins is amazed at such dramatic changes in Eliza and this is exactly the Eliza he likes. The first time he noticed her was after the girl threw her shoes at him.

The girl now treats the professor with disdain and even some contempt; she is stern and unapproachable. Higgins, in turn, is confident that she will certainly stay with him and even asks him to buy her some things for herself.

Thus, although the writer does not directly say that these two heroes will be together, the reader can hope for a favorable outcome of events. It was not for nothing that Eliza endured such rude attitude from the professor and it was not without reason that she talked about how good she felt with him. Higgins also changed his attitude towards the girl, saw her from a different side, and that is precisely why she interested him.

It turns out that the ending that the playwright presented to us can be considered open.

In this regard, you can ask students:

In the afterword, Shaw talks about Eliza becoming Freddie's wife. Before reading the afterword, what did you think, would Eliza and Higgins be together? And why?

Thus, students are introduced to another feature of Shaw’s work, namely, the introduction of open endings into his works.

6) Writing an essay.

The teacher invites students to come up with their own ending to this play. Which ending would you choose? Would Eliza have stayed with Higgins? Or would you prefer Freddie? Or maybe she would even want to be left alone? And why?

Students write down their thoughts in a notebook in the form of a short essay, and then voice and justify their answers. Here, too, children can give free rein to their imagination and approach this task creatively. This form helps children feel like they are in the writer’s shoes and show their creative abilities.

7) Game. "Guess who?".

Students are asked to guess which character owns a certain quote from the text of the play.

“You see, the difference between a lady and a flower girl lies not only in the ability to dress and speak correctly - this can be taught, and not even in the manner of behaving, but in how others behave around them.” (Eliza Dolittle)

“To create life means to create anxiety.” (Higgins)

“...one has to choose between the Scyllia of the workhouse and the Harbidia of the bourgeois class, but one does not raise one’s hand to choose the workhouse. I'm scared, ma'am. I decided to give up. I was bought." (Alfred Doolittle)

(Higgins)

“...doesn’t it occur to you that this girl might have some feelings?” (Pickering)

“What have you prepared me for? Where will I go? What will happen next? What will happen to me? (Eliza)

“Your idiotic ideas about life have taught me a lot - I confess with humility and gratitude.” (Higgins)

8) Summing up the event.

So, today we got acquainted with the work of the famous English writer Bernard Shaw. Using the example of the play “Pygmalion,” we became acquainted with such important concepts as paradox and intellectualism, talked about the title of the play, the system of characters and the features of the ending.

As you understand, paradox was one of the playwright’s favorite techniques; it was with the help of it that he revealed the whole essence of phenomena and the inconsistency of life, and it was this technique that helped him achieve the important goal that he set for himself - to intensify the mental activity of his reader.

I hope that you enjoyed our event and that you were able to sympathize with this interesting figure.

Thank you for your active participation in the work and creative approach!

Pygmalion

1913(summary)

The play takes place in London. 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 have 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 passers-by 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 origin 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 at his home demonstrates his phonograph equipment to Colonel Pickering. Suddenly, Higgins's housekeeper, Mrs. Pierce, reports that a certain very simple 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 does not even recognize his daughter at first. A couple of months later, Higgins brings Eliza to his mother's house, just on her reception day. He wants to find out whether 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. He 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. Apparently, she will still live in Higgins’ house, since she has become attached to him, just as he has become attached to her, and everything will continue as before.

Analysis of the work “Pygmalion” by B. Shaw

The work "Pygmalion" was written by Bernard Shaw in the genre of drama - it is a play created in 1912-1913. In this play, Shaw took the myth of Pygmalion as a basis and transferred it to the realities of the city of London. The plot of the work is quite ironic due to the parodic stylization, comedy and tragedy of the existence of society, directed against a spiritually rich person, and the main elements of the play are numerous paradoxes and discussions. Thus, the theme of the work emphasizes the spiritual awakening of people, possible with the help of the art of words and creativity. This work is like a psychological love drama, which entailed hatred of its participants towards each other. However, the play itself is humanistic, the work shows how carefully and carefully one should treat all living things, especially humans, the author tells us about fear and the prevention of cold experiments on people. This is precisely the main idea of ​​the work laid down by the author.

The reader has the opportunity to feel the extraordinary charm of Eliza Dolittle already in the first act, when she still communicates in ridiculous jargon. The play "Pygmalion" tells us how people's lives can change thanks to the education they receive. The main characters in the play are: 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). So, the problems of the play are multifaceted. We emphasize that 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 their own,” as a full-fledged person.

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

"Pygmalion" tells the reader how people's lives change thanks to education. Characters: Eliza Dolittle, poor flower girl; her father, a garbage man; Colonel Pickering; young man - scientist Henry Higgins; Mrs. Hill with her daughter and son Freddie. Events take place in London.

... On a summer evening, it rains like buckets. People run to the portico of the church, hoping to hide there from the rain. Among them are an elderly lady, Mrs. Hill and her daughter. The lady's son, Freddie, runs to look for a taxi, but on the way he bumps into a young girl, street flower girl Eliza Doolittle. He knocks the basket of violets out of her hands. The girl scolds loudly. A man writes down her words in a notebook. Someone says that this man is a police informer. It is later revealed that the man with the notebook is Henry Hingins, the author of the Higgins Universal Alphabet. Hearing this, one of those standing near the church, Colonel Pickering, becomes interested in Hingins’ identity. He had long wanted to meet Hingins, since he himself is interested in linguistics. At the same time, the flower girl continues to lament the flowers that have fallen to the ground. Higgins throws a handful of coins into her basket and leaves with the Colonel. The girl is sincerely happy - by her standards, she now has a huge fortune.

The next morning, Higgins demonstrates his phonographic equipment to Colonel Pickering at his home. The housekeeper reports that a “very simple girl” wants to talk to the professor. Eliza Doolittle appears. She wants to take phonetics lessons from the professor because her pronunciation is preventing her from getting a job. Higgins wants to refuse, but the colonel offers a bet. If Higgins can “turn a street flower girl into a duchess” in a few months, then Pickernig will pay for her entire education. This offer seems very tempting to Higgins, and he agrees.

Two months pass. Higgins brings Eliza Dolittle to his mother's house. He wants to find out whether it is already possible to introduce a girl into secular society. The Hill family is visiting Higgins' mother, but no one recognizes the flower girl who came. The girl at first talks like a high society lady, but then switches to street slang. The guests are surprised, but Higgins manages to smooth the situation over: he says that this is a new secular jargon. Eliza causes complete delight among those gathered.

A few months later, both experimenters take the girl to a high society reception. Eliza is a dizzying success there. Thus, Higgins wins the bet. Now he doesn’t even pay attention to Eliza, which irritates her. Only pronunciation distinguishes a street flower girl from a duchess, but Eliza 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 experiment does not go unpunished: Galatea rebels against her creator with all the strength of her offended and indignant soul. She throws her shoes at him. The girl feels that her life has no meaning. At night she runs away from Higgins' house.

The next morning, Higgins discovers that Eliza is not there and tries to find her with the help of the police. Without Eliza, Higgins is “like without hands”: he can’t find where his things are, what day to schedule things for. Higgins' mother knows she can be found. The girl agrees to return if Higgins asks her for forgiveness.

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. But in the end, Eliza Doolittle returns to the Higgins house, and now she is not considered a stupid girl, but is valued and respected as a person.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar documents

Text analysis and its levels. Development of a Russian language lesson with elements of lexical and stylistic analysis based on the story “The Yellow Arrow” by V. Pelevin. Methods for developing expressive speech in high school students. The problem of text in modern science.

course work, added 05/21/2013


Characteristics of the administrative, managerial and methodological activities of the educational institution. Development of a lecture outline on the topic “Development of a small group” and a seminar lesson. Psychological and pedagogical analysis of classes and groups.

practice report, added 03/22/2011


Enriching students' vocabulary is the goal of an English lesson on the topic "I need a desk." Checking the mastery of spelling within the studied material. Work on new material, methods for consolidating it. Checking students' understanding of English speech.

lesson notes, added 11/23/2015


Lesson plan on the topic "Ways of writing algorithms." The concept of an algorithm is one of the main ones in programming and computer science. School lecture, conversation, work with a textbook and book as teaching methods. Documentation for the software and pedagogical tool.

course work, added 05/18/2011


Studying the problem of patriotic education of students in fine arts lessons. Determination of methods, techniques and principles used in art lessons. Development of lesson notes on the topic: “Bashkir national costume.”

course work, added 10/28/2011


Dialectism is a significant unit of language in the novel by M.A. Sholokhov "Virgin Soil Upturned". Reflection of living dialectics in the work. General concept of dialectical vocabulary. Verbs characterizing collectivization in the novel. Folk wisdom on the pages of the novel.

course work, added 01/05/2009


The concept of an artistic image, its general characteristics and functions, structure and elements. Dicteme as a unit of text and a means of embodying imagery in a literary and artistic text. The linguistic structure of the image of nature and its functions in the work.

thesis, added 01/21/2017

Frolova Valentina

Russia, Saint-Petersburg

Bachelor 2 years of study

The work of Bernard Shaw, the problems of the play “Pygmalion”

Bernard Shaw burst into the public life of England in the 80s of the 19th century as an outstanding public figure, speaker and publicist. This was a time of rapid growth of the English labor movement. But he decided to devote his life to writing. If Shaw the publicist sincerely tried to fight for a 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 the sentimental love story usually led to a happy ending, and any social exposure 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 dedicated to the most progressive writers of the era - Leo Tolstoy, Turgenev, Zola. In 1892, Shaw's first play, The Widower's House, appeared, which, although it failed, caused a lot of noise.

Over the course of eight years (from 1892 to 1899), three brilliant dramatic cycles were created: “Unpleasant Plays”, “Pleasant Plays” and “Plays for the Puritans”. Ten plays, varied in genre and theme, were permeated with a sense of sarcastic anger at the bourgeois Pharisees, and a desire to tear off the masks from the “virtuous” pillars of society and 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 reasoned and sharp discussion. The main goal of these plays by B. Shaw is to ridicule and expose English society and world militant imperialism in all its manifestations.

Bernard Shaw's plays fulfill the essential requirement of progressive theatre: that the theater should strive to "depict human nature as 'mutable and dependent on class'." Shaw was interested in the connection between a person's character and his social position. This is especially proven by the fact that he made a radical restructuring of character the main theme of the play Pygmalion. After the enormous success of this play, the story of Eliza, transformed by phonetics professor Higgins from a street girl into a society lady, is today even more famous than the Greek myth. Pygmalion is the legendary king of Cyprus, who fell in love with a statue of a girl he himself created. Shaw's intention in naming the play after a mythical king is obvious, which is meant to recall that Eliza Dolittle was created by Alfred Higgins in the same way that Galatea was created by Pygmalion. Man is made by man - that is the lesson of Shaw's play.

The first problem that Shaw solves in the play is the question of “whether man is a changeable creature.” In the play, a girl from east London, with all the street traits, 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 change in a person is possible in a short time, then the viewer must understand that any other change in a human being is possible.

The second important question of the play is what gives a person the correct pronunciation? Is learning to speak correctly enough to change your social position? Here's what the main character, Professor Higgins, thinks about this: “If you knew how interesting it is to take a person and, teaching 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 the play constantly emphasizes, the dialect of East London is incompatible with the being of a lady, just as the language of a lady cannot be compatible with the being of a simple flower girl from the east of London. When Eliza forgot the language of her old world, the way back there was closed for her. Thus, her break with the past was final.

Bernard Shaw paid a lot of attention to the problems of language. The play, in addition, had another serious task: Shaw wanted to attract the attention of the British to issues of phonetics. He fought for the creation of a new alphabet that would be more consistent 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 combined two equally disturbing themes: the problem of social inequality and the problem of classical English.

One of the theses of the play states that human character is determined by the totality of personal relationships, and 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.

If Eliza does not know how to use a handkerchief, and if she resists taking a bath, then it should be clear to any viewer that a change in her being requires also a change in her daily behavior. 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.

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 found again in the lady.

The thesis about the presence of natural abilities and their importance for creating characters is most convincingly demonstrated by the example of the Higgins-Pickering couple. Both are gentlemen by their social status, but Pickering is also a gentleman by temperament, while Higgins is prone to rudeness. These differences and commonalities between both characters are constantly demonstrated by their behavior towards Eliza. If Higgins treats her rudely, impolitely, and 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 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. However, for all his innate tendency to unceremoniously speak the truth, Higgins does not allow such rudeness in society as can be observed in his treatment of Eliza. When his interlocutor Mrs. Eynsford Hill, in her 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 interpersonal relationships and connections. Man is a sensitive, receptive being, and not a passive object that can be given any form. The importance Shaw attaches to this issue is demonstrated by placing it at the center of the dramatic action.

In the beginning, Eliza is to Higgins a piece of dirt that can be wrapped in newspaper and thrown into the trash. Washed and dressed, Eliza becomes not a person, but an interesting experimental subject 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 stress. The fact that Eliza herself is participating 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 by stating that between him and Pickering, on the one hand, and Eliza, on the other, a human relationship has arisen that has nothing in common with the relationship of scientists to their objects.

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.

“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.

The explanation for the ending of Pygmalion is obvious: what is desirable is not the transformation of the slum dwellers into ladies and gentlemen, but their transformation into a new type of ladies and gentlemen, 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 has nothing in common with the old ideal of a lady from an aristocratic society. She did not become a countess, as Higgins repeatedly said, but she became a woman whose strength and energy are admired.

The play "Pygmalion" was written in the 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 rebels against her creator. Shaw's immediate task, as he tried to emphasize in every possible way in the preface, was 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 with a great social, democratic sound - a play about the natural equality of people and their class inequality, about the talent of people from among 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 one must approach a living person, how terrible and unacceptable a cold experiment on a person is. We feel the charm and originality of Eliza Dolittle already in the first acts, when she still speaks in ridiculous street slang. Only pronunciation distinguishes a street flower girl from a duchess, but Eliza has no intention of becoming a duchess. Galatea rebels 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. 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.

“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. Now. Many years after his death, it becomes clear to humanity who it had and lost in Shaw. It becomes clear that people like him cannot be lost at all - they remain with us forever.

“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.”

The extent to which Shaw was interested in the connection between character and social position is especially proven by the fact that he even made the 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, 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 clear. 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.”

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 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.

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 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, 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 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 disturbing 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 is visibly worried when she watches a flower girl she doesn't know call her son Freddie "dear friend" during a chance meeting on the street.

“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 description 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 was participating in this experiment and as a person was bound to the highest degree by obligation was before his consciousness - as, indeed, also before his 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 a corresponding income. Mrs. Higgins saw from the very beginning that the main problem of turning a flower girl into a society lady could only be solved after her “re-education” was 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