“For all that,

For all that,

Let us be poor

Wealth is a stamp on gold

And the golden one is ourselves.”

R. Burns

The world-famous English playwright Bernard Shaw lived for a whole century, probably because he knew how to look at the world and see paradoxes in it that saved him from unsolvable problems. So he ironically and made fun of the ability of people to understand nothing of what is happening under their very noses. I read his notes to The Devil's Apprentice and Pygmalion, in which he says so bluntly that the relationship between heroes and heroines is not at all standard love, which will end either with a wedding or heroic self-denial in the name of duty.

And what is the connection with the myth of Pygmalion now?

Indeed, in the myth, the sculptor received a brainless and shapeless piece of marble, hewn it the way he, the artist, wanted. He could make a horse or Medusa Gorgon, or he could make a figure of a woman. The stone didn't care, it was just an object. The sculptor did not want to carve a horse out of stone, and Galatea came into the world at the behest of her creator. Being a generalization of all feminine virtues, she struck her creator, and he begged Aphrodite to revive the stone. The goddess of love respected the feelings, and the statue came to life and everything. Here the fairy tale ended and the true story began, about which the Greeks did not tell anything.

The show also did not tell what would happen next, and this, in my opinion, is the only similarity with the myth.

In fact, it was not Henry Higgins who chose Eliza Doolittle from thousands of London flower girls, but she did, and even promised to pay. The young student was a worthy daughter of “the most original moralist of modern England”, a scavenger and a digger, had an undoubted linguistic talent and was already pretty, especially if she was brought to the state of “a Japanese woman of dazzling purity”, in which her own father did not recognize. No wonder Colonel Pickering was worried about whether his new friend was honest with women, and received a reassuring answer that of course not. Miss Eliza wasn't dirty at all, it's just that it's easy for a lady to be clean as she has a bathtub and lots of special appliances...

So, Miss Doolittle is not at all an object of hewing and polishing, as was the case with a piece of marble from the real Pygmalion, but, one might say, an equal participant in a linguistic experiment.

Now let's see if a connoisseur of vowel sounds is suitable for Pygmalions, that is, for masters who carve and polish out of dead material. Alas, even if Eliza were a piece of an inert mass, it would not be for Mr. Henry to do this, for the great scientist himself is so uncouth that his own mother begs him not to come on her visiting days, and his extremely phonetically correct speech is strewn with swearing and abuse, which in strange English, unless the dictionary is lying, the same thing. Not for Higgins to educate Eliza, not for Higgins to teach her everything that is not phonetics, not for Higgins to reveal to the city mess that she no worse society girls (and judging by the behavior of the unfortunate Freddie, it’s better in every sense), it’s not for Higgins to instill in her a noble restraint of feelings. The same feelings that Eliza had before and beyond Mr. Henry. Having learned to correctly pronounce the sounds of her native, but literary language, Elizabeth Doolittle did not change internally, remaining a hard worker and a person in the full sense of the word. The viewer understands this, Pickering understands this, any character in the play understands this. Except for Mr. Higgins, who seriously believes that he "created" this girl who does not obey him. The scientist does not shine with intelligence, tact, and gratitude. What is Pygmalion...

The gray-haired mocker-author again played a trick on us. Nothing to do with the myth of Pygmalion in the play is somehow not visible. However, Shaw would not be Shaw if he really thought in the way he tries to convince us with all his might. material from the site

After all, someone created Higgins to be not a useless society young man like Freddie? Who put into the soul of a street girl with a terrible reprimand: "Keptin, buy a Lucci flower from a poor girl," self-respect and the desire to rise above one's position in exceptionally honest and direct ways? There is a bitter episode in the play when Eliza talks about how low she has fallen: she used to sell flowers, and now she is offered to sell herself. Who taught her this, if not her father, who at one time valued his paternal feeling in five pounds received from the participants in the bet? Why are the characters of Henry, Pickering, the housekeeper, father and daughter Dolittle so powerful, and why are the drawing-room people so sluggish and weak, even the undeniably smart and broad Lady Higgins? The action of the play never leads us to church, and, probably, the author does not consider the Almighty the creator of strong and beautiful people, despite all their weaknesses.

Who creates beautiful and strong characters if the source material is good for anything? Or what?

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

If you believe these statements are true:

1. Pygmalion fell in love with a marble statue
2. The statue was called Galatea
3. The statue came to life on a pedestal and descended to its creator

then you are really wrong

So, we open Ovid's "Metamorphoses" (with comments) and read:

Long ago, there lived in Cyprus a dear young man named Pumayaton, named after the Phoenician king, a relative of Dido.
The ugly name was not liked by the descendants - the aesthetes of the Greeks, and he entered literature as Pygmalion.

The famous love story of Pygmalion began with the fact that his neighbors went crazy.
They were called propetids - after their father, a certain Propetus. And these girls amused themselves by sacrificing travelers.
The goddess Aphrodite was angry with the girls. And not because of the murders of passers-by, but for the reason that the girls dared to say that Cyprida is not a deity. And this is in Cyprus!
Due to the wrath of the goddess, they were forced to sell their bodies (perhaps to engage in temple prostitution, perhaps even on the roads).
But apparently, it turned out badly for them, because Aphrodite did not calm down, and turned them either into stones or into cows.

(Roden)

It is said that after seeing what happened to the propetids, Pygmalion lost interest in women. Completely and completely.
He suffered severe mental trauma.
Further events, my habit of thinking badly about everyone, as well as elementary logic, make me wonder - where exactly was Pygmalion and what was Pygmalion doing at the moment when the prostitutes were turned into stone, what did it affect his psyche so much and led to impotence?

Time passed. Something had to be done. Pygmalion was engaged in his craft - the manufacture of sculptures.
It should be noted that he did not work on marble. And for ivory.
Maybe he also used gold. It is then called the chrysoelephantine technique.
Chrysoelephantine statues (chryso = gold, elephant = ivory) consisted of a wooden frame, on which ivory plates were glued - "a naked body". Clothes and hair were made of gold. And the eyes were made by inlaying mother-of-pearl and precious stones, and therefore they looked just like living ones - they had a "look". Eyelashes were made of metal.

It is not surprising that the statue gave the impression of a living person - tea, not stone!

(Burne-Jones)

Pygmalion began to pound from such beauty. Yes, and a chaste life made itself felt.
Here is a quote from Ovid:

Often he stretched out his hands to the statue, torturing,
Body in front of him or bone.

He kisses the maiden and imagines that it is mutual; speaks to her,
He touches - and it seems to him that his fingers are pressed into the body,
He is afraid that a bruise will come out on the touched place.

(Jerome)

Either he caresses her, or things that are cute for girls
Gives: or brings her shells, or small pebbles,
Chicks, or flowers with petals of a thousand colors,
Lilies, or colorful balls, or from a tree of fallen tears
Dev Heliad.

He decorates her with clothes. In the stones
She removes her fingers, in necklaces - a long neck.
Light earrings in the ears, pendants fall on the chest.
Everything suits her. But no less she is naked and beautiful.

(Engraving by Borcht)

He puts on the bedspreads that from the shells of the ala of Sidon,
The lodge calls her a friend, bowed neck
Undead on soft down, as if she could feel!

In general, he worked the statue as best he could.
This is especially interesting from the point of view that after the propetid was turned into stone, he did not succeed with living women - but with a solid one, behold, it did.

(Howard, Normand)

All this could go on indefinitely, but then the feast of Aphrodite happened. Pygmalion went there and prayed: “If everything is available to you, oh gods, Give me, I pray, a wife (I didn’t dare to mention that girl made of bone), so that she looks like mine, which is made of bone!”

And Aphrodite took pity on her comrade. In fact, it was her fault in the first place.

(again Burne-Jones, Shtuk)

What does the Metamorphoses say?

Returning to the house, he runs to the desired image of the virgin
And, bending over the bed, he kisses, - has it really warmed up?
He kisses her again and touches her chest with his hands, -
And under the hand softens the bone; her hardness was gone.
Here it lends itself to fingers, yields - Hymettian in the sun
This is how the wax softens, under the thumb it takes
Different forms, then it becomes fit for business.

He became full of timidity and fun, afraid of mistakes,
In a new impulse, he touches his desires again.
Body before him! Under the pressing finger, the veins clogged.
Here only the pathos hero finds full-fledged speeches,
To thank Venus. Mouth presses
He finally to genuine lips - and smells kisses
Virgo, she blushes and, raising her timid eyes,
Light to the light, at the same time he sees heaven and a lover.

In general, everything was not as romantic as we used to think.
But still quite positive.

The psychiatric problem of the male complex was resolved with the help of the goddess.
According to one version, the couple had three children - two boys and a girl. One of the boys was named Kinir.
It is curious that the daughters of Kinir were turned into the steps of the temple of Hera, since they considered themselves more beautiful than her.
After that, Kiner committed suicide.

Some obviously unhealthy relationship with mineralogy in this family.
In the case of Pygmalion, this is generally called Agalmatophilia
Well, at least not Doll Fetish

By the way, another interesting fact:
Pygmalion's wife was not called Galatea in Greek mythology. This name honestly belonged to one of the non-irids.
The statue remained unnamed.
The name Galatea for the statue appeared for the first time in 1762 in the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau "Pygmalion". Goethe, for example, calls her Elisa in general.

If you believe these statements are true:
1. Pygmalion fell in love with a marble statue
2. The statue was called Galatea
3. The statue came to life on a pedestal and descended to its creator
then you are actually wrong.

So, we open Ovid's "Metamorphoses" (with comments) and read:

Once upon a time there lived in Cyprus a nice young man named Pumaiyaton, named after the Phoenician king, a relative of Dido.
The ugly name was not liked by the descendants - the Greek aesthetes, and he entered literature as Pygmalion.

The famous love story of Pygmalion began with the fact that his neighbors went crazy.
They were called propetids - after their father, a certain Propetus. And these girls amused themselves by sacrificing travelers.
The goddess Aphrodite was angry with the girls. And not because of the murders of passers-by, but for the reason that the girls dared to say that Cyprida is not a deity. And this is in Cyprus!
Due to the wrath of the goddess, they were forced to sell their bodies (perhaps to engage in temple prostitution, perhaps even on the roads).
But apparently, it turned out badly for them, because Aphrodite did not calm down, and turned them either into stones or into cows.

It is said that after seeing what happened to the propetids, Pygmalion lost interest in women. Completely and completely.
He suffered severe mental trauma.
Further events, my habit of thinking badly about everyone, as well as elementary logic, make me wonder - where exactly was Pygmalion and what was Pygmalion doing at the moment when the prostitutes were turned into stone, what did it affect his psyche so much and led to impotence?

Time passed. Something had to be done. Pygmalion was engaged in his craft - the manufacture of sculptures.
It should be noted that he did not work on marble. And for ivory.
Maybe he also used gold. It is then called the chrysoelephantine technique.
Chrysoelephantine statues (chryso = gold, elephant = ivory) consisted of a wooden frame, on which ivory plates were glued - "a naked body". Clothes and hair were made of gold. And the eyes were made by inlaying mother-of-pearl and precious stones, and therefore they looked just like living ones - they had a "look". Eyelashes were made of metal.

It is not surprising that the statue gave the impression of a living person - tea, not stone!

Pygmalion began to pound from such beauty. Yes, and a chaste life made itself felt.
Here is a quote from Ovid:

Often he stretched out his hands to the statue, torturing,
Body in front of him or bone.

He kisses the maiden and imagines that it is mutual; speaks to her,
He touches - and it seems to him that his fingers are pressed into the body,
He is afraid that a bruise will come out on the touched place.
Either he caresses her, or things that are cute for girls
Gives: or brings her shells, or small pebbles,
Chicks, or flowers with petals of a thousand colors,
Lilies, or colorful balls, or from a tree of fallen tears
Dev Heliad.

He decorates her with clothes. In the stones
She removes her fingers, in necklaces - a long neck.
Light earrings in the ears, pendants fall on the chest.
Everything suits her. But no less she is naked and beautiful.

He puts on the bedspreads that from the shells of the ala of Sidon,
The lodge calls her a friend, bowed neck
Undead on soft down, as if she could feel!

In general, he worked the statue as best he could.
This is especially interesting from the point of view that after the propetid was turned into stone, he did not succeed with living women - but with a solid one, behold, it did.

All this could go on indefinitely, but then the feast of Aphrodite happened. Pygmalion went there and prayed: “If everything is available to you, oh gods, Give me, I pray, a wife (I didn’t dare to mention that maiden of bone), so that she looks like mine, which is made of bone!”

And Aphrodite took pity on her comrade. In fact, it was her fault in the first place.

What does the Metamorphoses say?

Returning to the house, he runs to the desired image of the virgin
And, bending over the bed, he kisses, - has it really warmed up?
He kisses her again and touches her chest with his hands, -
And under the hand softens the bone; her hardness was gone.
Here it lends itself to fingers, yields - Hymettian in the sun
This is how the wax softens, under the thumb it takes
Different forms, then it becomes fit for business.

He became full of timidity and fun, afraid of mistakes,
In a new impulse, he touches his desires again.
Body before him! Under the pressing finger, the veins clogged.
Here only the pathos hero finds full-fledged speeches,
To thank Venus. Mouth presses
He finally to genuine lips - and smells kisses
Virgo, she blushes and, raising her timid eyes,
Light to the light, at the same time he sees heaven and a lover.

In general, everything was not as romantic as we used to think.
But still quite positive.

The psychiatric problem of the male complex was resolved with the help of the goddess.
According to one version, the couple had three children - two boys and a girl. One of the boys was named Kinir.
It is curious that the daughters of Kinyra were turned into the steps of the temple of Hera, since they considered themselves more beautiful than her.
After that, Kiner committed suicide.

Some obviously unhealthy relationship with mineralogy in this family.
In the case of Pygmalion, this is generally called Agalmatophilia.

By the way, another interesting fact:

Pygmalion's wife was not called Galatea in Greek mythology. This name honestly belonged to one of the non-irids.
The statue remained unnamed.
The name Galatea for the statue appeared for the first time in 1762 in the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau "Pygmalion".

Goethe, for example, calls her Elisa in general.

from source: http://shakko-kitsune.livejournal.com/346955.html?thread=5220171

MYTH ABOUT PYGMALION

It is no secret that ancient myths are incredibly attractive sources of comparisons and metaphors. We will certainly compare a beautiful girl with Aphrodite, a young man with Apollo, a strong old man with a firm look - with Zeus - the Thunderer. There are many more examples and much more beautiful and poetic.

Unfortunately, a person who claims to be original has nothing to profit from here: most of the most romantic characters are already occupied by the classics of world literature. Take at least the ancient drama. Here every self-respecting Greek poet created his "Medea", "Hipolita" or "Alcesta". And later authors drew inspiration from mythology, so there were no free Greek heroes left: they are all already sung, all of them have already entered our lives as some kind of higher ideals, with which we certainly strive to compare ourselves and our actions.

However, the author, not wanting to claim any heights of originality, nevertheless ventured to write an essay about Pygmalion. Indeed, what new can be said about this truly extremely heroic figure? Not everyone decides to fall in love with a statue, or rather, not everyone has enough common sense for this. But what else can be said now? We can only draw the juices from the achievements of our great ancestors.

What is good about the image in general? We perceive the image, unlike a living person, devoid of contradictions. The image is firm, consistent and reliable. When we imagine Pygmalion or anyone else, we will never doubt that he is "beautiful" only at the moment, and tomorrow the Moon will enter a different phase, and he, just look, will not say: "I'm a fool! I cry for days on end near some statue.

No, we don't think of that. Our Pygmalion is not like that! Doubts are unknown to him, he is perfect in his faith and will never change himself.

I think no. And that's why.

The thing is that loving a statue is not at all difficult. True, it is complicated by the need to produce a certain amount of tears, but this duty can also be made pleasant. But what a plus! Before her revival, Galatea was just the perfect life partner for the romantic, sublime Pygmalion. She was never capricious, did not demand to carry her in her arms, to give gifts. She was never sad, and Pygmalion never had to try to cheer her up. She didn't say stupid things, and our undeniably well-educated sculptor didn't have to listen to them with a pretty face and agree. She did not require him to take out the garbage at the very moment when he was completely absorbed in the creative impulse.

She did not demand anything from him at all! But Galatea fully shared the interests of Pygmalion himself. Indeed, she fulfilled his dream - she was absolutely the way he wanted to see her. No joke, he created it himself!

Yes, this is a real idyll! As they say, so that everyone lives. And then suddenly, as always with the Greeks, Aphrodite appears, and of course out of good intentions, puts an end to everything. Poor, poor our Pygmalion! Let's not talk about Galatea. Being a statue, she did not realize all the charms of her position.

But life will now be completely different. Ordinary life instead of romantic dreams of creativity. Sweet dreams, languishing hope and faith in miracles are in the past. It has begun ... however, everyone knows what has begun.

But the author (horror!) does not seek to stop for the time being. He intends to move from the ancient and mythical Pygmalion to the modern Pygmalion. In ancient times, pygmalions had a limited set of technical means: a hammer, a chisel, ivory. But progress does not stand still, and the modern pygmalion is equipped with all sorts of numerous gadgets. It is clear that the ancient pygmalion spent quite a lot of time on the creation of Galatea. The life of a modern pygmalion is greatly simplified, and it only takes a couple of mouse clicks to create your own Galatea. This makes it possible to create more than one Galatea, and if necessary, put their production on stream.

The author no longer talks about what a diverse choice the modern pygmalion has (if he is too lazy to create Galatea himself, you can use a blank or template to taste). If the pygmalion still has a sociable disposition, he can find other pygmalions, and together they can create Galatea for themselves. Why not?

The modern pygmalion does not need to languish in anticipation of the goddess who will revive his creation. The modern pygmalion is much more practical. He is fully aware that love for someone alive and really existing will bring with it responsibility, make him suffer, forgive, and also threaten him with disappointments. That's the beauty of creating your own Galatea, your own reality, which will satisfy all his requests. No, the modern pygmalion is definitely smarter than its mythical namesake!

In addition, our times differ from mythical times in that it is even easier to meet a hero in life than then. Go to a dating site, a forum for avid gamers, and, why go far, to a completely ordinary social network - how many pygmalions you will meet there! And each with his own Galatea.

It turns out that mythical times differed from modern times in a more reverent attitude to real life than real times (I apologize for the repetition).

Each person himself will have to choose what he likes more: invent his own world, love it and live in it, or accept the real world as it is and try to change it for the better. It is easier to choose the first, because you will have to consult only with yourself, and create what you need exclusively for yourself. In the second case, constant interaction with others is required, attempts to come to a common opinion and take into account common interests, which is often so difficult that a false feeling can be created, which is impossible.

In a word, everyone chooses for himself.

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 carved a statue of Galatea, fell in love with her, and then the goddess of love Aphrodite, who heeded the pleas of a 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 recognized 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 are 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 solid 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.

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.

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 poor man, 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.