Pygmalion ~ Bernard Shaw ~ 6/05 ~ Great Books Export

Everyone is invited to join our discussion of Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion. Shaw has been called a futurist, a man ahead of his time, a defender of women's rights, a master of satire and Shavian wit. His work lives on in performances of the play and productions of "My Fair Lady."

This play is based on a story from Ovid's Metamorphoses. Pygmalion was a man who loathed the wickedness of the women who surrounded him and fell in love with the perfect woman he had crafted from ivory.

Shaw's story is a romantic comedy in which the phonetics instructor, Henry Higgins is the artist who fashions the flower girl, Eliza Doolittle into his idea of the perfect "lady." In his inimitable style, Shaw alters Ovid's myth.

For Your Consideration

June 28 - 30 ~ Sequel

1. Why has Shaw felt compelled to write a real ending to the story in the sequel to his play, when he never intended for it to be staged?

2 Why does Eliza conclude that Higgins does not fit her definition of good husband material? Where and when did she get these ideals?

3. Does Liza's continual nagging and snapping at Higgins belie her resentment at his indifference towards her?

4 . Do you think that Eliza's secret wish to get Higgins away on a desert island is a good indication of her true feelings towards him throughout the play? Why do you think Shaw included that little tidbit in the Sequel? Do you see contradictions in the ending of the sequel?

5. Has Higgins succeeded in creating a real woman, more real perhaps than the mythical Pygmalion he has chosen for his title? What was Shaw's intention when writing this play? Do you feel he succeeded?

Related Links: Pygmalion - The Complete Play (searchable)// Ovid's Metamorphoses // Eliza's room - Act I (asterisks) //Bathtub scene (asterisks, Act II) // Eliza at the Embasssy ~Act III (asterisk text) // Freddie and Liza's night on the town - Act IV (asterisk text) // Childhood Influences in Ireland // Shaw and Women //Shaw/Religion // Our favorite Shavian quotes

Discussion Leader ~ Joan P

B&N Bookstore | Books Main Page | Book Discussion Guidelines | Suggest a Book for Discussion
We sometimes excerpt quotes from discussions to display on pages on SeniorNet’s site or in print documents.
If you do NOT wish your words quoted, please Contact Books

Hello! We meet again. So happy you decided to spend the last two weeks in June revisiting one of Shaw's plays. This one promises to be lighter than Saint Joan - classified as a ROMANTIC COMEDY. How did you classify Saint Joan?

Of course, Shaw doesn't write anything without an underlying purpose. I just think we'll have a bit more fun with this one! He based it on a story from Greek myth and Ovid's Metamorphoses. It's an interesting story and you begin to get an idea of where Shaw might take it...

Welcome!

I'm glad we got a quorum. Now all I have to do is find my copy of the play. I know it's in the house somewhere, but haven't seen it for years.

You have a little time between now and the 15th, Pat. I put the Metamorphoses link in the heading - that's something to read! I'm wondering how Shaw is going to involve himself and his views in this one! Happy to have you with us, Pat. You get first choice of seats in the house. I read somewhere that Pygmalion was first performed in Germany - Shaw waited until he got rave reviews there before he tested the British/American audiences. As it turned out, he needn't have worried!

The rain in Spain- falls mainly.... I'm in, particularly if it's only a 2 week discussion.

I had planned to participate here but I will be away from the 6th until the 18th of June and then will be leaving again on the 23rd and be away until the 27th. So don't count on me. I will come in and read when I can.

Joan Grimes

We'll be gone the last week in June, but I plan to lurk and enjoy the conversation.

I plan to join you for the Pygmalion discussion. Will C U on the 15th,

JOAN, a two-week engagement is fine with me.

There are two reasons for my not having participated in the discussion of St. Joan,
first my involvement in my own discussion of "The King Must Die", now concluded, and (2) my belief that there is no finer dramatical treatment of the historical Jeanne d'Arc than Friedrich von Schiller's Die Jungfrau von Orleans = The Maid of Orleans, in my humble opinion.

But count me in for "Pygmalion".

Yes, Joan, I'm looking forward to participating in the Pygmalion discussion starting June 15

Enjoy your son's graduation at least as much as he will.

Kathleen

A fine group of theater-lovers assembling here. I see some of you will be away for part of the discussion, but will appreciate your comments while you are with us. I think we are going to see a different side of Bernard Shaw than we did in Saint Joan.

Shaw calls this play "a romance in five acts." Expect more comic elements and light playfulness, we read in the Introduction.

But don't expect the Eliza of "My Fair Lady" - Shaw is still Shaw. In his own preface he claims to be "didactic." His satire this time is aimed at the inequities of the class system and the typecasting of women.

Methinks it would be a good idea for those of you already seated in audience, to read Shaw's Preface (not very long), so that we are ready for the Act I when the Curtain rises on the 15th.

Since Shaw has titled his play, "Pygmalion" - it is clear that he begs contrast between his Professor Higgins and Ovid's Pygmalion, between Ovid's Galatea and his Eliza Doolittle. The link to Ovid's story is HERE and in the heading too. It is interesting and important to read Ovid's story first, I think.

And finally, before heading West, I would like to address the delicate matter of that word never before mentionned on any stage before this. A real show-stopper it was. Can anyone tell me something about the word, "bloody" and why it is considered such a terrible faux pas to utter in public? I hestitate to bring this up, but think now would be as good a time as any to have it explained to this born-yesterday creature.

I'm looking forward to the 15th. This should be fun! More fun than Joan, I'll wager. It is full of surprises for those familiar with "My Fair Lady"...

Yeah, I'd like to read Pygmalion. I'll pick up a copy at the library next week. I find Shaw plays quick and easy to read, even if the discussions are a lot harder. :/D

Babi

Yaaay, Babi's here! We'll do this one quick and easy just for you, Babi! I think it will be a whole lot more fun too. Shaw takes some getting used to...

When I was growing up, I learned that, to the English, "bloody" was regarded as coarse and vulgar, totally unacceptable in polite society. I still don’t know exactly why, except that a dirty word is whatever people say is a dirty word.

Here’s what the Oxford English Dictionary says:

A. adj. 10. In foul language, a vague epithet expressing anger, resentment, detestation; but often a mere intensive, esp. with a negative, as ‘not a bloody one’. Examples from 1840 and 1880.

B. adv. 2. As an intensive: Very....and no mistake, exceedingly, abominably, desperately. In general colloquial use from the Restoration to c1750; now constantly in the mouths of the lowest classes, but by respectable people considered ‘a horrid word’, on a par with obscene or profane language, and usually printed in the newspapers (in police reports, etc.) as ‘b....y’. There follows an extensive speculation as to the origin of this use, concluding at, offensive as it is, there is no profanity involved.

I'm not sure how bad a word it is now. I've also seen "ruddy" used as a euphemism for it.

JOAN, it's true that "bloody" is an absolute no-no for the English. You just DO NOT say, "the bloody bills are driving me crazy", or (even worse because of the wrong pronoun), "me bloody car quit on me".

Unfortunately I can't access any of the links at the end of the header.
They all show a series of meaningless letters and numbers. That's a first, even for me (and a techie I'll never be- vbg= very big grin).

I did a Google search for slang dictionaries and as might be expected the list is endless. Some are quite specific for UK, Australian, New Zeeland, and of course American.usage Many of the English, but not all, include a definition for “bloody.” Most like http://www.peakenglish.com/exec/slangSearchForm?command=detail&wordId=32858 , consider the use of the word as an intensifier giving emphasis to what ever subject word that follows. Click the link above for an example.

I note the word is very common in English course slang, but never seems to have immigrated to North America. The above link translate “bloody” as the equivalent of “damn” in US English

JOAN and posters,

I took your question to WREX (my # 524) because two of the WREXERS are English, and our own kiwi, CAROLYN, is highly knowledgeable about things British as well.

Please see their responses in WREX # 525 and # 526.

traude, can you give us a link to those responses, or let us know where to find WREX?

MARY Z,

my apologies for not having given the full information.

WREX stands for the Writers Exchange, which is a folder right here in SN.org. Mal Freeman is its leader.

If there were a public scale for technical competence, I'm afraid my rank on it would be quite low. JANE, MARJORIE or PAT can give you much better directions and links than I.
Surely one of them will come in and help --- if and whenever needed.

Thank you.

JOAN, must report, to my dismay, that the phenomenon of the blissfully right-wandering, margin-ignoring text is reappearing here.
The "fit window" option has not helped; the opening curtain is still uneven, just as it was in the St. Joan folder-- at least on my MacIntosh monitor.

PAT, I don't know if it's correct, but I did read somewhere an explanation of 'bloody' as foul language. It supposedly originated, back when England was still Catholic, as a blasphemous corruption of the phrase "by our Lady", or 'by the Lady". referring of course to the Virgin Mary. Eventually it evolved to 'bloody'

Babi

Here's Traude's question/post about "bloody" in the WREX discussion: Traude S, "Wrex - The Writers Exchange~New" #527, 6 Jun 2005 8:50 am

The responses follow in subsequent posts.

Traude: I don't know why the links won't work for you. You might try these...with the urls written out...or try copying and pasting them into your browser for the world wide web...be sure you're outside the AOL "shell." I'd suggest trying to just click on each of these first:

http://www.tesc.edu/~rprice/pygmalion.htm

http://www.online-literature.com/george_bernard_shaw/pygmalion/

http://www.seniornet.org/gallery/bookclubs/st.joan/childhoodinfluences.txt

http://www.seniornet.org/gallery/bookclubs/st.joan/womenshaw.txt

http://www.seniornet.org/gallery/bookclubs/st.joan/religionshaw.txt

I also don't know why your monitor is showing text running off the page or the uneven curtains. I don't see that on my screen with any of my three browsers. Is anyone else seeing the text running off the screen and having to scroll?

jane

Jane--Nope. no scrolling off the page here. Looks fine to me.

I hope to join you at least part of the time. This is such a wonderfully classic myth throughout our culture--the creation of woman as man would like her to be. Even Cindarella, although the fairy godmother does the work, is created to suit the image expected by Prince Charming. This discussion should be an excellent sidebar to the feminist discussion of Phyllis Chesler's book.

Hello...have just crossed the burning desert to reach Barstow, CA before car ran out of gas, or we starved to death. Happy now, water, gas, dinner and a few minutes to check mail and come in here. You'd be surprised how many places have no local aol numbers!

Horselover, it would be great if you can find some time to do Pygmalion with us. Shaw is quite playful in this play...but he's still shockingly Shaw. Half the time I don't know what to make of him. I'm glad to have your company.

Thank you all for the "bloody" explanation. It was a real no no for this word to have been uttered on stage...by a woman at that! Babi, I had the same sense that the word had a rather profane origin...didn't think of Mary though. In Shakespeare, "his blood" wa commonly used on stage...in much the same way- for shock value.

I've been reading the play out loud in the car for the last few days. (Bruce knows how to tune me out - he's had years of experience.) It is great fun - but oh my, this is NOT My Fair Lady! I wish I had the movie script to compare with Shaw's play. I won't say more. Will be ready to hit the ground running on the 15th.

I had an idea when reading Shaw's own Preface to Pygmalion though...this isn't really a Preface. He has written a Sequel instead. If you get a chance will you read it before we begin the play - and tell what you think of Henry Sweet? Insufferable? Any redeeming qualities - at all? Does he remind you of Shaw in any way?

Another question - what do you know of Shaw's "Shavian" Alphabet? Maryal, I believe you mentioned it before we started St. Joan. Can you tell more? Can anyone find out WHEN Shaw wrote his phonetic alphabet - before or after he wrote Pygmalion. Are you sensing autobiographical influences on the Henry Higgins character...

We should get to San Diego tomorrow - all sorts of graduation celebrations scheduled. If I can, I'll bet back in

JOAN, I like that idea of reading the play aloud. Not the whole thing, maybe, but I sometimes like to read aloud parts I especially like.

Babi

Babi, when we were reading Iliad with Ginny, I read most of it aloud, and it was a different experience. Of course, that was immortal poetry and this isn't, but I bet it's a good idea.

JANE, the last two links are still "coded".

The text is still meandering.
It did that from Day One in St. Joan: the dark red curtain is very visibly off center, and it still is in "Pygmalion".

The "fit window" option does not correct it.

I haven't found my copy of "Pygmalion" yet (my book-recorganizing project, begun for my fall, is unfinished). Before I buy a new copy I'd like to know whether a copy of the play is accessible on line.

Let me see what I can do, Traude.

The links appear to be corrupted.

I don't see the scrolling or off center.

Does anyone else see the header as Traude describes it...and if so, what browser is being used?

jane

It looks good to me. The links work for me.

In AOL 7, the last three letters of every post are off to the right and there is a very small margin on the right. I don't see any coding in either IE or AOL 7.

Traude...how do these work for you?

shavian quotes

Religion quotes

Childhood Influences in Ireland

Shaw and Women

Ginny...the coding shows in Firefox and apparently whatever browser Traude is using. I hope the above are ok for those of us with Firefox or AOL.

I don't know that there's anything we can do about the heading being off screen for AOL people. Maybe Joan can work on that when she gets back from her trip.

jane

Good morning! We got in late last night...a crazy cab ride home as the driver's right hand never touched the steering wheel the 20 miles from the airport! But we made it - just in time for opening day.

I hope you are ready to hit the ground running this morning as we have allotted only two weeks to discuss this play. I have to tell you, I was blown away at the play's end - gained such a personal insight into one of the unanswered questions in my own life! Can't wait to talk with you about it, But I'm jumping ahead.

Let's spend the next two days considering the Preface and Act I, okay? Do you get the idea that Shaw is going to tell a love story - by his title choice - "Pygmalion, a romance in five acts" - I suppose the first question has to be - do you consider Ovid's story of Pygmalion and Galatea a romance? Did Pymalion love Galatea, did Galatea love Pyg? Or - what is love?

Can't wait to hear from you! It's good to be back. Thanks for looking into technical difficulties, Jane. Really appreciate it!

Joan

Given the way marriages were arranged in the ancient world, I suppose it could be called a romance. Pygmalion requires beauty and innocence, which Galatea has. Galatea, awakening from nothingness, has no expectations, and is presumably grateful to her creator, who clearly adores her.

To a modern person, it seems a bit thin. No allowance is made for personality, or friendly liking. When JoanK and I were in grade school, we wrote several plays based on Greek myths. In our version of Pygmalion, Galatea turned out to be smart-alecky, sarcastic, and hard to get along with, and the appalled Pygmalion prayed to have her turned back to stone.

LOL!! Pat, your version of Pygmalion sounds like fun. If you or Joan still have it around, you should dig it out and let the kids put it on.

I was pleased to have Mr. Shaw's description of Henry Higgins. It definitely helped me to understand how a supposedly well-brought-up gentleman could be so totally insensitive to others. But he is simply an 'overgrown baby', snatching at whatever of interest comes before his eyes and completely self-absorbed.

The description of Eliza and her small apartment, with the fashion prints on the walls; her response to perceived attacks on her reputation, give us a picture of a young woman not yet broken in spirit by poverty, and with some small dreams of better things. And she does more than dream. She takes the bit of extra money that has come her way and wants lessons in how to speak properly, so she can work in some fine shop. The supremely self-confidant Prof. Higgins was lucky here; he would not have been able to transform just any young woman from the streets, IMO.

Babi

1. Did you consider Ovid's Pygmalion and Galatea a true love story? When Shaw refers to his play as "a romance in five acts" do you anticipate a love story?

My initial response to this question is that the Ovid story of Pygmalion and Galates was a delightful love story. This is one of the rare cases in which the ancient goddess Aphrodite seems to have allowed a mortal a happy ending, a conclusion that Shaw seems to have denied his 20th century Pygmalion, Henry Higgins. But more on this conclusion must be left until the end of our discussion

2. After reading Shaw's Preface, do you expect the play to be a "didactic" piece on speech and class differences or a romance? Both, and 4. What do you learn of the principle characters in the introductory Act I? Are any of them likable?

I remember my first reading of the play in 1950 when I was impressed by how much Information about the characters was available from the relatively short dialog of Act I. I think it is the setting with the after theater crowd sheltered from a sudden thunderstorm; its orchestration seems to have opened the individuals in the crowd to one another. We meet, not only Liza, Henry Higgins, and Pickering, but also Mrs Eynsford Hill and her brood apparently minor characters but actually of greater importance than I initially realized.

Apparent in Act I is the great class contrast existent in early 19th century English society with Liza, the poor flower girl poles apart from the gentile theater goers. Liza can’t even speak her language sufficiently well to work in a flower shop. I guess Joan I am sort of surprised that you would ask, “Are any of them likable? I guess I don’t really see anything to violently dislike in any of them. Subject to their typical pre-WW II peculiarly English reserve, I might like them all. Certainly I see nothing to dislike Or am I maybe missing something?

Harold and Pat, I'm hung up on your perception of Ovid's story of Pygmalion and Galatea as "romance." Harold, you see it as a "delightful love story" and Pat, you are thinking of arranged marriages in the ancient world when you conclude that this is "romance." Is this little story a glimpse into the past, then? Were things so very different from "modern" times? Was there a difference between the stories told about love and actual romance in antiquity. Were human beings really different in their emotional attachment?

I've tried (in vain) to find any indication of Galatea's love for Pygmalion. He's happy, yes...he has created the perfect woman out of ivory, free from the faults of the other women he knows. But Galatea? Is Ovid playing with us - is this meant to be irony?

"...and the girl felt the kisses he gave her, and blushed. Timidly raising her eyes, she saw her lover and the light of day together."

hahaha, Babi, it sounds as if the twins and Shaw reacted to the myth in the same way - rewriting the story of "perfect love" to make it more realistic! I'll bet you and "little Joan" hadn't read Shaw yet when you reacted to the myth, had you Pat? Another question - when DID you read Shaw's Pygmalion for the first time?

Harold, I too was interested in the way Shaw introduced his characters - revealing so much about them in the first act as they huddled together in the Church portico to keep dry - before even telling us their names! I must admit that I was surprised to hear you say that you liked ALL of the characters? Are you including the NOTETAKER? I have to admit that I found him objectionable to the point of being unbelievable. I saw none of the "typical English reserve" in him that you see, in fact I found him painfully insensitive to the others, as Babi did. He knew none of the people huddled in the doorway...and yet he brings the little flower girl close to tears when he tells her that "a woman who utters such disgusting sounds as she does, has no right to be anywhere."

Babi, the little scene in Eliza's damp tattered room with the patched up window did much to explain her circumstances...yet this scene isn't played on the stage, did you notice? I love reading Shaw's stage directions - he begins Pygmalion with the note for Technicians that the scenes set apart by asterisks were not intended for the stage - but he writes the scenes with such care.

Harold notes how class differences are displayed in this opening act. Did you notice how some are delighted, some are mortified at the Notetaker's ability to pinpoint their roots from their accents? It was like some sort of parlour game - the Professor totally insenstive to the reactions of the assembled. I admired Eliza's spunk in defending herself against his put downs. Also, the way some stood up for her against his insults, others comforted her, others did not understand why she was overreacting.

Harold...I am so looking forward to your response to the play after having read it some fifty years ago.

I was surprised to hear you say that you liked ALL of the characters? Are you including the NOTETAKER? I have to admit that I found him objectionable to the point of being unbelievable. I saw none of the "typical English reserve" in him that you see, in fact I found him painfully insensitive to the others,

Of course Joan you do have a point in forming your negative opinion of the Note Taker who turns out to be Henry Higgins. Most, probably all, of the individuals in the small crowd were shocked at the news that they were being recorded. The first thought was that he was the Police recording them for some official purpose. But Higgins purpose were certainly innocent enough being only for his professional purpose of study. You ask a good question but I suppose I continue to refuse to dislike him under these circumstances on this account. This judgment excusing Higgins for his noisiness comes to me rather easily because of the way Higgins responded to his discovery. After a few lines of dialogue he had the much of the crowd on his side after demonstrating his ability to fix their origin to within a few blocks after hearing them talk.

I suppose a similar crowd today would be similarly unenthusiastic if a middle aged professional looking guy in a suit was discovered to have a tape recorder in his pocket recording their exchange of conversation. Though the recording of a private telephone conversation has been made a crime, I know of no law that would prohibit such a clandestine tape recording today. Sometimes I think Americans, me too, make to much ado about their privacy, in a very public, un-private world.

I admired Eliza's spunk in defending herself against his put downs. Also, the way some stood up for her against his insults, others comforted her, others did not understand why she was overreacting.

I’ve go to admit language like, “A woman who utters such depressing and disgusting sounds has no right to be anywhere--no right to live.”, is more than rude, it is downright demeaning and insulting. But no question about it Eliza was not dumb and she certainly had a street persons instinct to defend her turf. We see this in Act one; and if I remember again in a later act when she confronted Higgins directly on his many imperfections. I am reminded of similar dialog in one of the Seinfeld plots in which a similar New York wprlomg c;ass girl took on Seinfeld or the other characters in defense of her turf.

JOAN, I've never seen the play acted on stage. My only visual frame of reference is the film "My Fair Lady". That, of course, included a rather poignant scene with Eliza singing "All I Want Is A Room Somewhere".

Give the limited experience mentioned above, I was surprised that the play spent virtually no time showing us Eliza's lessons. The film used these so effectively to show the growing relationship between Eliza, Higgins and Pickering, as well as Eliza's transformation.

Two of my favorite characters, by the way, are Col Pickering and that truly remarkable woman, Mrs. Pearce. She is fabulous.

Babi

Babi

Click Here for information on the 1938 film version of the Shaw play staring Leslie Howard. I saw this film in 1950 about the time I first read the play. I think it follow the original Shaw script. Many of you will remember Leslie Howard for his role in “Gone With The Wind.” He was Killed in 1943 when the plane bringing him to the U.S. was shot down by German fighters over the Bay of Biscay. I will check to see if a DVD or VCR of this film is available. . .

Netflix will rent you the DVD of the 1938 film. I saw it on television sometime in the 1980s, and remember feeling it was pretty close to the play, which I had recently reread. The first time I read the play was so long ago I don't remember when--probably in the 1950s.

I simply must see "My Fair Lady" again...My memory is sooo bad. I remember the musical's Professor Higgins putting down Eliza throughout, insensitive to her feelings, but just DON'T remember the biting language he's using in Shaw's play. I need to see the filmed play and the musical back to back. Just checked our library's holdings - one of the branches has the 1938 "Pygmalion" - and the Central Library has "My Fair Lady." Will be over there first thing in the morning when they open.

Harold, I'm not seeing anything likable in Higgin's "rude, demeaning, put downs" - as you refer to them. He assumes that Eliza has no feelings - because she is a street person, or because she speaks abominable English. I'm thinking of Pygmalion and his ivory Galatea, also incapable of feeling.

Doesn't Higgins question her morality as well? Eliza seems sensitive to the fact that her character is being questioned..."I'm a good girl I am." Is she being overly sensitive?

Girls - women who are on their own, living on the streets seem so vulnerable to me. There were many homeless women on the streets in San Diego last week. Life is so hard on them. None were young like Eliza. She seems to be doing remarkably well fending for herself, selling her flowers to pay her rent. Did you notice the furnishings in her room - discarded from suburban homes? (Did you wonder at the American "alarum" clock? Have you seen this form of "alarm" before?)

Shaw seems to be telling us that it's a mistake to assume that because folks are poor they are without values. That just because one does not speak the King's English, he is without dignity. Don't you love the way Shaw works? I'm seeing so much of him in his Henry Higgins character, yet he is using this character to look down at the poor, whose rights, he, Shaw, champions!

- was the first play that I ever saw on Broadway. I was besotten (besotted?) after that night and to this day still get goose bumps and shivers when the orchestra opens a show. I've seen the play and the movie twice. I have never read Pygmalion so will love to compare it to the play as we move along. ---------------------------------------------------
I loved the opening scenes that introduced us to the characters with all of the loud, thunderous activity. I think it's a great atmosphere for what "the notetaker's" senses must endure as he listens to Eliza fracture the English language. There is no harmony in her sounds and what could be more important than musical accordance and euphony to a pompous arse like Henry? Proper diction and articulation is of the utmost! He finds it difficult to endure her crude, harsh abuse of his native tongue. After all, he is a master of phonetics. He prides himself for being well-schooled in the command of elocution and rhetoric, doesn't he? (Just ask him, he'll tell you.)
"Remember that you are a human being with a soul and the divine gift of articulate speech: that your native language is the language of Shakespear and Milton and The Bible; and dont sit there crooning like a bilious pigeon."
What an over-bearing ass this guy is, but you must give the devil his due- he knows what he's talking about. Eliza's verbiage is akin to the proverbial nails scraping against the chalk board. Speaking of nails, I don't believe I've ever heard that phrase that she accuses him of - "being stuffed with nails."

Harold, I'm not seeing anything likable in Higgin's "rude, demeaning, put downs" - as you refer to them. He assumes that Eliza has no feelings - because she is a street person, or because she speaks abominable English. I'm thinking of Pygmalion and his ivory Galatea, also incapable of feeling.

Of course Joan I do have to recognize that Higgin’s, “rude, demeaning, putdowns” were not likeable. Higgins was certainly no saint, but this is only one side of him, the bad side.

Yet his character must be judged not just by his words in Act I, but by his actions through to the end of the drama. As a man engaged in the development of a new profession with his whole life dedicated to his work, Higgins seems to emerge in a better light. Even so I’ve got to admit that self centered Higgins never really changes, and I suppose one could look upon the Liza experiment as shamefully using her to win a silly bet. Yet Higgins never tried to take any personal advantage of Liza, and another better view would judge it a noble demonstration that even the language deprived can be treated successfully Though self centered Higgins may not have been changed, language deprived Liza was certainly changed. It was Higgins who was her teacher effectively making it possible for her to live the new, not problem free, but better life pictured by Shaw in the Sequel. As Alf has judged him, at least “give the devil his due.”

Perhaps this conclusion can be discussed in more detail as we conclude our discussion?

I am going to again be out of pocket in the Country over the Weekend. I'll be back Sunday evening for the NBA game

Go Spurs! ????????????? an this point I don't really think so.

Ok, Harold, ok, Andy, I will "give this devil his due" - and trust that we will see the other side of him in later scenes. Yes, I'll agree in this scene, Eliza's pronuciation is like the "nails on the chalkboard" to him, Andy. He's taking notes on the accents of the milling crowd, and hers seems to be the absolute worst. I am not going to let him get away with his rude talk though, just because he's a master of phonetics. He'll have to show another side of himself before the final curtain. Higgins is so much like Shaw...I wonder if the author will portray his good qualities - in self defense.

You saw Julie Andrew and Rex Harrison on Broadway, Andy! What a treat! Your first play too! No wonder you were "besotted!" I'll bet you thought they were all going to be that good...

I am so happy to report that I was able to find both the 1964 movie version of "My Fair Lady" with Audrey Hepburn (why not Julie?) and Rex Harrison and also the 1938 "Pygmalion" with Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller at the local library...2 for 2 on the shelf, unbelievable! Wasn't Leslie Howard a busy man? He also played the part of Ashleigh that year in "Gone with the Wind."

I intend to watch both of them, back to back this afternoon...

The temptation was too much...I just had to take a look at the opening scenes of both movies - before I finished my housework! Andy, both of them capture the excitement, the flurry of activity that you remember from the musical. I have to admit that "Pygmalion" filmed in 1938 is really a winner...filmed right on location in Covent Gardens. Lovely music, as lovely as in the musical. I had to laugh at the apologies for the "film scrotches" and "negative dirt" in the old film. ((From what I've seen, it is just fine.) An interesting factoid - The film's cinematographer, Harry Stradling Sr., who won an Oscar for My Fair Lady, also shot the 1938 version, Pygmalion.

It looks as if both were filmed on site right in Covent Gardens...but the old cars in the rain in a traffic tie-up in front of the theater in "Pygmalion" really send you back to the early 1900's. St. Paul's portico is the setting for both...Doesn't it look like a stage? Can't you just picture the action there?

I googled the Church and find that it is called the Actors' Church. Right in the middle of the theater district. Shaw must have been a regular in this area.

"Famous parishioners Many famous names have been connected with St Paul's - John Wesley preached here, J.M.W Turner and W.S Gilbert were baptised here, and those buried here include Sir Peter Lely, Samuel Butler, William Wycherly, Grinling Gibbons, Thomas Arne, and Thomas Rowlandson. The ashes of Ellen Terry and Edith Evans repose here." St. Paul's, Covent Gardens

I just have to ask - do you think there's a reason why Shaw set Act I in the Church portico? Do you see any signs in Act I that spirituality will be an issue in the play?

On the subject of Higgins' roughshod language and treatment, I refer back to Shaw's description of him as an overgrown baby, focused entirely on what interests him and oblivious to all else. I don't think he believed Eliza had no feelings; I think he was bewildered that 'feelings' came into it at all. His attention was on his obsession, language and diction. So far as he was aware, Eliza could have been made of ivory, too.

I never saw Julie Andrews in the stage performance, yet as much as I admire her, I can't help feeling Audrey Hepburn would be more believable as a London waif. While Andrews is a magnificent performer, she is too intrinsically aristocratic in her appearance to be convincing, IMO, as Eliza. I can recall her as, for example, a charwoman on the Carol Burnett show. Carol, I could believe. Julie, I couldn't.

Babi

Babi - I watched the movie version of "My Fair Lady" last night...was especially interested in the early scenes. Much of Shaw's language is included in the musical. Higgins DOES insult Eliza right away - for her terrible speech. The music seems to take the edge off of his insults. I learned something else - something important about the Higgins character - he insults EVERYONE - equally. It seems to be a personality trait- his insults are not directed only at the poor, the uneducated, but the rich get his sarcastic tongue-lashings too. He treats everyone equally - badly! In Act II, his own mother asks him to leave because she won't have any friends if he stays around to insult them.

I can't wait to watch the "Pygmalion" movie of Shaw's play tonight with Wendy Hiller - am expecting a better performance as Eliza than Audrey Hepburn's. I'm curious too about Leslie Howard as the sharp-tongued Higgins. I guess I will always see him as Ashley Wilkes in GWTW.

Andy, just reread the quote you posted...in red.

"Remember that you are a human being with a soul and the divine gift of articulate speech: that your native language is the language of Shakespear and Milton and The Bible..."

I'm reminded of Eliza's response to the Notetaker's admonition - "stop the detestable boo-hooing or seek shelter in some other place of worship." She comes right back at him that she has a right to be there, same as himself. Is Shaw saying that all are equal in the eyes of God? Let's watch for this in later scenes...

One more question about the first scene before moving on to the next - What is Eliza doing with the birdcage? It must mean something to her. When she moves in with Higgins, she leaves behind her clothes...but takes along the birdcage. Shaw isn't telling us any more than that. Can you speculate? Is it symbolic?

Quite a contrast between Eliza's room and Higgins' parlour, no? Except for his proper speech... you don't get the idea that he is an aristocrat in the first Act, do you? A teacher of phonetics would speak the King's English. It must have been intimidating for Eliza when she was shown into the parlor...

GOOD POINT, JOAN. Higgins is not being nasty to the poor and uneducated; he is an equal opportunity tyrant. He feels no necessity whatsoever to suffer fools (by his definition) gladly, and is always ready to tell them precisely what kind of fool they are! So, no...if Shaw is raising the social issue of upper class arrogance to the poor he is not, IMO, doing it thru' Higgins.

I think the birdcage is important to Eliza in that it represents that she once had something poor people can seldom afford..a pet to be fed and tended. I except cats in that category, as they are expected to feed themselves by keeping down the mouse population. Don't you think the birdcage, like the page of fashion plates she pinned to the wall, represented aspirations to better things?

On Q. #5, it occurs to me that Mr. Doolittle, accent and all, is much like Higgins in his eloquence and self-centeredness. A counterpoint to the proud and prosperous Professor? I think I will be watching to see if other parallels can be drawn between these two characters.

Babi

I think when Eliza says that she has "a right to be there, same as himself" it foreshadows the independence she will show later when Higgins tries to return her to a subservient position.

For me, this play is an eye opener...I thought the musical was an adaptation of Shaw's play...far from it. The closest to attraction, romance, love, is Freddy's feeling for Eliza.

From the beginning it is apparent Eliza is poor and uneducated, but there is evidence of intelligance and self confidence, and this is carried through the whole play. Shaw's Eliza is not, I don't think, an example of a poor, broken, street beggar that is found in any poverty stricken place. Yes, her speech is alian to those with money and education, but in her own world, she stands out as being clever, and that is what Higgins finds challenging. In the book I am using, "Pygmalion has as its subject theme the institutions man has constucted to help perpetuate both the privileges of the rich and the servility of the poor.

Eliza's father is at least a few steps from poverty, so Eliza had some recognition of the difference between poverty and being self sufficient. Her way of having money is the same as his...selling something for more than it is worth and in upper class places.

Her decision to seek Higgins to teach her how to speak better comes as a surprise, but Higgins is not.The scene with Mrs. Pearce, Higgins, and Pickering is hilarious, as is the rest of the play. The discussion between Eliza and Higgins about her future clearly shows how Higgins sees her...someone will probably go back to the streets, and Eliza being adamant about being a lady.

Shaw spent the best part of his youth , the decade of his twenties, tramping the streets of London observing the extremes of wealth and poverty. Much of Pygmalion probably comes from those years. He used his Cockney Cinderella as a symbol of the world's dispossessed whose hope lies in the availability of education and the good will of those more fortunate among us.

Shaw found his own voice- in plays comically saturated with paradox and irreverence, a genre now known as Shavian comedy

And now I'm going to listen to "My Fair Lady"

For me, this play is an eye opener...I thought the musical was an adaptation of Shaw's play...far from it. The closest to attraction, romance, love, is Freddy's feeling for Eliza.

From the beginning it is apparent Eliza is poor and uneducated, but there is evidence of intelligence and self confidence, and this is carried through the whole play. Shaw's Eliza is not, I don't think, an example of a poor, broken, street beggar that is found in any poverty stricken place. Yes, her speech is alien to those with money and education, but in her own world, she stands out as being clever, and that is what Higgins finds challenging. In the book I am using, "Pygmalion has as its subject theme the institutions man has constucted to help perpetuate both the privileges of the rich and the servility of the poor.

Eliza's father is at least a few steps from poverty, so Eliza had some recognition of the difference between poverty and being self sufficient. Her way of having money is the same as his...selling something for more than it is worth and in upper class places.

Her decision to seek Higgins to teach her how to speak better comes as a surprise, but Higgins is not.The scene with Mrs. Pearce, Higgins, and Pickering is hilarious, as is the rest of the play. The discussion between Eliza and Higgins about her future clearly shows how Higgins sees her...someone will probably go back to the streets, and Eliza being adamant about being a lady.

Shaw spent the best part of his youth , the decade of his twenties, tramping the streets of London observing the extremes of wealth and poverty. Much of Pygmalion probably comes from those years. He used his Cockney Cinderella as a symbol of the world's dispossessed whose hope lies in the availability of education and the good will of those more fortunate among us.

Shaw found his own voice- in plays comically saturated with paradox and irreverence, a genre now known as Shavian comedy

And now I'm going to listen to "My Fair Lady"

A laryngoscope and half of a human head? Is this guy a doctor as well as a phoenetics teacher? Did I miss that? Chocolates? Well, quite honestly I'd sing for chocolates too. We're told that "He is of the energetic, scientific type, heartily, even violently interested in everything that can be studied as a scientific subject, and careless about himself and other people, including their feelings."
Well that's a given isn't it with Mr Higgins? Eliza, for a shilling (love the description of half bewildered and half rebellious) wishes only to "be more genteel" and sophisticated . Well good heavens the stuffy HH could polish her up in no time. She appeals to his sense of adventure and experimentation. He asks "what is life but a series of inspired follies?" This appeals to a man like Henry, I'm sure, as he moves thru days of absurd ridiculous ideas and silliness and then he falls, hook, line and sinker, offering Liza his hankie. He believes in himself, not Eliza and insults her "properly" calling her an ingrate and accusing her of being a sot.

Henry asks a good question, - " do any of us understand what we are doing? If we did, would we ever do it?" That gave me pause. What is Shaw saying?

.

Babi - Shaw likes to plant little references in the beginning of his acts that grab our attention and won't let us get away without finding out more. Remember the kingfisher in Saint Joan and Fouquet's Boccaccio? Unless you figure out the significance of these references, you miss out on some of Shaw's message. Either his 1920's audience knew what he was referring to - or he wanted them to question them, doesn't it?

I like your explanantion of Eliza's attachement to that birdcage - "aspirations for better things" - "all I want is a room somewhere" - a real home, a bird in the cage to care for. The fact that she drags this cage to Higgin's home shows her self-confidence and determination that Kathleen talks about. She will have that room some day!

Look at the furnishings in Higgin's home at the start of Act II. Andy has already noted the laryngoscope and the half of the human head, so we know he is really interested in the science of how speech is produced - he is not merely a phonetics instructor, as Eliza assumes. But look at the furnishings in his living room. The grand piano - the paintings on the wall. No, wait, not oil paintings, but Piranesi etchings. I almost skipped right over that - but thought to myself, what is Shaw specific about this artist? ...Look!
Piranesi's Imaginary Prison
I googled and learned this about the artist and this particular etching -

""Piranesis" (from the first stage direction) -- Piranesi, Giovanni Battista (1720-1778), "Italian graphic artist, famous for his engravings and etchings. . . . Piranesi's collection of engravings entitled Carceri d'Invenzione (Imaginary Prisons, 1745) greatly influenced 19th-century romanticism and also played a role in the development of 20th-century surrealism. (from Ecarta bio)

So, we have Eliza with the empty bird cage, (determined to fill it?) and The Professor who hangs a print of an Imaginary Prison on his wall. What does this say to you??? Who is the prisoner?

Horselover - Eliza has rights, a mind of her own and PRIDE too, doesn't she? She brings her money to pay for lessons. She could have spent it on something frivolous - but she has an agenda. She wants to speak well enough to work in a flower stall. Admirable.

Higgins doesn't believe this. Don't you find it amazing that this man who claims to believe that education is "sacred" plans to send his "student" back to the gutter where she came from? Does this indicate the belief that education is wasted on the poor?

Babi, we need to look closely at what the "self-centered" Mr. Doolittle is saying about the undeserving poor. He likes his state. Doesn't want to rise. Doesn't want to be forced to conform to middle class morality... Are we talking about morality in this play?

Andy, I'm going to put that quote on our list of memorable quotes in the heading - AFTER we've figured out exactly what it means! I find myself agreeing with Shaw, but not sure why - Let's look at the context - Mrs. Pearce and Pickering are concerned that Eliza doesn't completely understand whay will happen to her after the six month experiment. Higgins replies that she is "incapable of understanding anything." (Another view the upper class has about the lower?) Then Higgins adds the quote _
"Besides, do any of us understand what we are doing? If we did, would we ever do it?"
Does it sound as if the Professor is including himself in the "we"? I'm looking for signs of vulnerability in the man!

I assume that Higgins has Piranesi on his walls for their austere, architectural quality—no riotous colors or emotions. But that imaginary prison is remarkable. Its geometry reminds me of M.C. Escher’s works—I bet he knew it and was inspired by it.

Mr. Doolittle is a real hoot, and extremely Shavian. He illustrates a standard Shaw line—turning around some standard piety. The undeserving poor need more than the deserving poor, because they eat as much and drink a lot more. His missus won’t marry him because being unmarried is the only hold she has on him. He will accept 5 pounds for Eliza because he and his missus can drink it up over the weekend, but he doesn’t want 10 pounds because that’s enough that they might be cautious about spending it.

"Pygmalion has as its subject theme the institutions man has constucted to help perpetuate both the privileges of the rich and the servility of the poor."

Language is certainly one of them. In the U.S., white people discriminate against those who speak 'black English' or have a Latino accent. Southerners resent a Yankee accent, and so on.

Our tax system is constructed by the rich to help perpetuate the priviledges of the rich.

Our health care system also helps perpetuate access to better care by the rich.

Access to better colleges is easier for the rich, which then guarantees them better jobs, higher pay, etc.

We all know that the legal system favors the rich who can hire better lawyers and escape the more severe penalties. Death row, in those states where the death penalty is still in effect, is populated mostly by the poor who could not afford the best defense.

But I think Shaw is also trying to show that the world of the rich is dependent upon the services of the poor. The rich need to keep the poor in their place because without them, their comfortable world would collapse.

Pat - the "austere quality" of the Imaginary Prison etching on Higgins' wall - "no riotous colors - or emotions" - that's IT! Higgins'own colorless personal life! He's in a prison of his own making. I loved his explanation of why he can't let a woman in his life. He's afraid she will change him - and leave him.

Eliza, poor as she is, is free to do as she pleases. So is her father - free from middle class morality. We are beginning to see morality as an issue in this Act, don't you think? The only thing that concerns Mr. Doolittle is that he is a "slave" to his woman, because he's not her lawful husband and therefore he has no hold over her. Yes, his arguments are a "hoot" reducing serious issues to a good laugh. As you say, Pat, Shavian wit - at its best. Higgins finds his arguments irresistable, the same as others have found Shaw. Another similarity between the two, Babi.

In this Act, there are two disagreements - between Higgins and Eliza over the lessons and between her father and Higgins regarding payment for Eliza. Higgins semms to win one and lose one. Whey did Eliza to stay after having been insulted royally? And Why did Higgins wind up paying Doolittle for Eliza, when he though it was immoral to do so?

Horselover, language is certainly an easy way to identify those who are poor - and to descriminate against them. But Higgins believes that a few months of instruction can change the language - and remove the discrimination. Is he saying that education is the way to remove class differences? This is one of Shaw's pet issues. Is it Higgins'? Does he really believe that the "new" Eliza will end up back in the gutter when the experiment is over, as he tells Colonel Pickering and Mrs. Pearce?

Higgins paid Doolittle for Eliza partly because he was so amused by his arguments, and partly because it was the easiest way to get rid of him. Going to any trouble for other people isn't exactly Higgins' strong point.

Eliza says "Now I know why ladies is so clean. Washing's a treat for them. Wish they saw what it is for the like of me."

Not only her language place Eliza, but if she wanted to, it would be almost impossibly difficult to be clean and neat enough to look middle class.

I think Shaw/Higgens appreciated a good talker, and Doolittle was certainly that. I heard Shaw's Irish gift of gab in Doolittle. He paid him to get rid of him? hahaha, I didn't think of that. He must have realized that there was no way to win an argument with the man.

I loved the bathtub scene... it said so much about the way the poor lived, while being thoroughly amusing. Eliza was most afraid of being cold. This was one of the scenes separated by the three asterisks...meaning the scene was not meant for the stage, only for film. Shaw thought of everything.

Did you notice a different attitude towards Eliza in Mrs. Pearce after that scene? She came down and told Higgins that he needed to watch his mouth and his dress while Eliza was in the house. Maybe she became aware of Eliza's innocence and modesty during the struggle to get her clothes off?

Golly, I just noticed that schedule...we're moving quickly with this play. Today we are to look at Act III... we meet Mrs. Higgins. I'm really eager to hear your reactions to her in Shaw's play. She comes off as a snob and not much else in "My Fair Lady." I found myself liking her and look forward to hearing what you all thought.

The version I am reading does not have the asterisked bathtub scene, nor the description of Eliza's room at the end of Act I. Neither does the online version of the play in the link in the heading.

Joan, I do believe, as does Higgins, that language can help erase class differences to a degree. When I taught English, I tried to show students that the way they spoke could help or hinder them when they applied to colleges or applied for jobs. Accent, vocabulary, grammar--all play a role in the way the world sees you. Clothes, as Shaw points out, help complete the picture along with manners. But some things are difficult to change. The whole background of culture--the things we talk about or don't talk about--are the most difficult to reproduce quickly, as Higgins finds out.

The Vail-Ballou Press, Binghampton, NY, printed the text I am reading from. It carries no publication date but was certainly before 1950 , the year I acquired it. It carries No ISBN or other modern Library of Congress reference numbers. It does not contain the for movie bathroom scenes set off in asterisks mentioned in yesterday’s posts. Probably Shaw added these considerably later than the original 1912 publication date.

I vaguely remember somewhere reference to Liza bringing a birdcage as mentioned in a post Sunday, yet after rereading Act 2, I found no reference to her arriving with a birdcage. There is the author’s usual rather detailed description of her dress and hat but no birdcage. Could this have been in the Asterisk bracketed later scenes? Later Dolittle arrived bring other Liza possessions that he got from her previous landlady, but still no mention of a birdcage. Was the birdcage the product of the later movie scenes? The Doolittle character is certainly a strong addition to the play. While many in and audience might not admire his character, he is none-the-less hard not to like. Here in Act II the audience hears Doolittle’s view of middle class morality. The rich are above morals, the poor are below morals leaving the middle class the only group subject to its rigid rules of conduct. This theme is a favorite of Shaw appearing also in other plays.

Harold, good to have you back with us again - it's good for me to know that the asterisked scenes are not included in all editions of the play. I have no idea when Shaw inserted them. At the start of the play, right before Act I, there is the following note - (which sounds as if Shaw was preparing for "cinema" scenes - the scenes are clearly Shavian written by Shaw.)

NOTE FOR TECHINICIANS. A complete representation of the play as printed for the first time in this edition is techinically possible only on the cinema screen or on stages furnished with exceptionally elaborate machinery. For ordinary theatrical use, the scenes separated by rows of asterisks are to be omitted.

The birdcage was first mentioned in one such asterisk scene in the first Act...which you wouldn't have seen - but later in Act II, Doolittle refers to it when he comes to Higgins to bring her luggage...no closthes, but "a musical instrument, a few pictures, a trifle of jewelry...and a birdcage." I'm quite certain you will find that in the play you have, Harold. Doolittle made much of the fact that her luggage contained these items, but no clothes - and what was he to think of that?

I scanned the bath scene from Act II for Pat, Harold and anyone else whose copy does not include it...and will put it into the heading later today.
THE BATHROOM SCENE from Act II

Harold, I agree, Doolittle is a strong addition to the play. I've been thinking of the Doolittles, both of them - from the same poor background, yet while Eliza wants to change, to improve, Doolittle boasts of his situation - has no desire to move up. A different set of morals, or sense of pride in each? What is Shaw saying? Is he drawing a comparison between the DESERVING and the UNDESERVING poor? I'm not sure, but he seems to be using them for contrast.

Horselover, can you just imagine PAPA Doolittle taking speech lessons to improve his situation? hahaha, NEVER! Here in Act III we find Eliza, beautifully dressed, much improved diction, and yet she fails her first test (or does she?) with Higgins mother's friends with her famous, (infamous?) "not bloody likely" comment. Before the guests arrive, Henry warns his mother that before her guest arrive to limit the conversatation to health and weather.

"You have to consider not honly how a girl pronounces, but what she pronounces."

Horselover - no matter how one speaks, or what one wears, it's WHAT one has to say that matters...don't you think? I like Mrs. Higgins - I think it's because she speaks her mind. (As does her son!) Nothing fussy about her surroundings either. (I love William Morris prints)

She is now "over sixty and long past taking the trouble to dress out of the fashion"....she came across as more of a snob in MFL than she does here. I can understand why she didn't want Henry in her parlour - with his abominable manners when she entertained...

I think there's a reason for portraying this strong mother figure...

I hadn't read that part before and enjoyed Eliza's "baptism" as she is christened into high society. the poor thing! she is so child-like in this play. She truly is an innocent, a newborn into the real world, isn't she? She's never had the pleasure of a bath or clean clothes. She is modest and shy although she certainly is not retiring or unassuming. She tells it like it is! Love that child-like quality, I do.

Henry's mother is a joy who sees the handwriting on the wall when it comes to Miss Eliza. Henry claims to have seen into Eliza's soul as he closely scrutinizes her diction. Henry (and Pickering) are bemused and addled and the fools don't even know it.

Andy, I'm glad to hear that you are a fan of Mrs. Higgins too. I thought you would be - you are another who doesn't mince words.

I just popped in to share something with you. I love the way Shaw slips in little references through detail...so rewarding if one follows up on them.

In his description of Mrs. Higgins' parlour, he mentions not only William Morris, but also the rich paintings of Edward Burne-Jones - Look at this:Edward Burne-Jones - Pygmalion and the Image. Also, Shaw describes a portrait of Mrs. Higgins in her youth..."when she defied the fashion of her time in one of the beautiful Rossettian costumes"...look: Rosetti's Lady of Shalott ...a comment on Rossetti -

personal significance "...the knight is shown gazing at the dead Lady of Shalott, just as Rossetti would gaze at beauty, especially feminine beauty, and transform it into art" (Faxon 93)

Do you remember anything about Shaw's mother from our discussion of "Saint Joan", his relationship with her and more importantly, his relationship with other women?

Eliza's conversation in Mrs. Higgins' parlor, delivered in perfect diction, is one of the funniest scenes in the play. And I'm finding a lot to laugh about reading it!

Babi

Mrs. Higgins and her guests were amused too, weren't they, Babi? Especially Freddie. Only Henry Higgins thought Eliza had failed. Her aunt bit off the bowl of the spoon! They "done er in." Shaw made many points in between the laughs on the habits of the poor, don't you think?

Mrs. Higgins did not think Eliza was ready for the embassy party, however but by the time Henry has prepped her, she enters a different Eliza, all of her spark is gone - she walks in "like a somnambulist", as Shaw describes her. She might have been a wooden doll - Pygmalion's ivory doll...beautiful, but lifeless.

Oh, golly what a morning. I made the startling discovery that the missing text in the play (between those asterisks) which some of you mentioned (including the electronic version in the heading) - referring to Eliza's room in Act I and then the Bathtub scene in Act II - is much worse in Act III. This is a very famous all-important scene in which Eliza wins the bet for Higgins - with flying colors! I could not understand why this happened, and spent some time searching until I found this review:

Average customer rating: "Wonderful play, but this version...

I know many will look at my low rating and think, "What!" However, the rating is not based on the play, which is wonderful, but this version of the play. Many will be attracted to this version because of the price, but there is a reason why this book is so cheap. There are several humorous or key scenes missing from the Dover Thrift version. Just to name a few: the bath scene, the whole ball/party scene with Nepommuck and Freddy's proposal.
If you're looking for just a taste of the play or if a reader has low/limited attention span, than this might be the version for you. But if you are looking to read the play as it was written, to enjoy the humor and satire of Shaw, than I suggest a different version--perhaps the Penguin Classics edition." Shortened version of the play

Sooo, let's spend another day on this important Act III...just in case you've missed it. I scanned the five missing pages - FIVE OF THEM, you may have missed! I'll put scene into the heading too.

Eliza at the Embasssy ~Act III (asterisk text)

No wonder I couldn't understand the last question in the heading. Thanks for posting the missing scene. It is indeed irony that Nepommuck, thinking he has unmasked Eliza, has actually been taken in by her.

I am reading a biography of Shaw--"The Ascent of the Superman" by Sally Peters. It has lots of interesting information, not the least of which is a collection of great photos. One of them is a two-page spread showing the playwrite reclining buck naked on the sand at the beach. This was taken in his younger days; his hair and beard are still dark.

Reading this book, I can see how his life and relationships with women creep into "Pygmalion." In one of his letters to a woman, he wrote: "I will make you fall in love with me merely to show you how clever I am." Can't you just hear Professor Higgins saying something similar?

Shaw also once said that "The ideal love-affair is one conducted by post." This implies that,like Higgins, he prefers a kind of fantasy relationship where he keeps the loved one at a distance and deals with his mental creation of her. His most famous courtship of the actress,Ellen Terry, was called a "paper courtship." Sally Peters describes it as: "Forged by pen and paper, fantasy and art, it was Shaw's most imaginary courtship, too fragile to withstand the brutal realities of the flesh." Higgins goes one step further and tries to create his fantasy in the flesh, but still does not want to actually touch his creation or hold it close.

Peters says that "Shaw's language in the letters resembles that of the high romantic who thrives on the thrill of obstacles." And, of course, Higgins also thrives on obstacles. The bet is simply a means to create a challenge for him to overcome. Once he wins the bet, the thrill is gone.

Joan, you mention that "all the spark is gone" from Eliza at the Embassy party. I suspect this tells us less about any change in her than that she knows this is the hardest thing she has ever done, is scared stiff, and is totally concentrating on her task.

I grow fonder of Col. Pickering with each scene. He is unfailingly kind, considerate..a true gentleman. Yet even he cannot seem to grasp that he and Higgins have made changes in Eliza's life that present her with extremely difficult problems. Where does she go from here?

I find it incredible that even Higgins can fail to notice Eliza getting up, leaving the room, bringing in his slippers and setting them down right in front of him! To my mind there has to be some major mental blockage going on here. I will avoid delving into psycho-babbble, but I feel sure a psychologist could make a great deal out of Higgins consistent 'blindness' where Eliza is concerned.

Babi

Higgins and Pickering were remarkably lucky in the person they chose for their experiment. She turned out to be good looking enough to play the part (Doolittle: "I never thought she’d clean up as good looking as that"). She also had a remarkably quick ear; she could imitate any sort of speech they exposed her to, and, with no previous experience, she could play any tune she heard on the piano. Those aren’t common abilities. Of course, she was also self-selected in that she had the initiative to recognize an opportunity and come to Higgins. But she couldn’t have recognized that she had the essential abilities.

Obviously also Eliza had a remarkablly quick mind, a high IQ, that enable her to grasp the materal coming form her instructors. She certainly was no dumb street girl.

I don’t see in Higgin's relationship with his mother anything too abnormal either by early 20th standards or by those of today. He certainly was not dependent upon her, nor was she dependent on him. Though Mrs. Higgins was not in any way enthusiastic about his non-conforming lifestyle aside from an occasional critical comment she seems quite content to let him live his life as he choose. Higgins too seemed to maintain a proper paternal respect. His independent style may have offended her friends but I am sure he was there when she needed his support.

Well, I'm still reeling about the missing scenes from some editions - this is frustrating because I don't know where to direct my outrage! How can anyone justify this? There is another big scene missing from Act Four as well. I'll scan that and post it here this afternoon.

Nepommuck's revelation that Eliza is a princess of royal blood in the missing scene is key don't you think? I particularly enjoyed Higgins' disagreement with him - that she was an ordinatry girl from Drury Lane. Of course they are both wrong - there is nothing ordinary about our Eliza, as both Pat and Harold have noted. She's not only a looker, (I did notice somewhere that she needed dental attention...did anyone else pick up on that?) - but there are brains behind that pretty exterior. And what an ear she had! Her ability to pick up Beethoven, Brahms...Lionel Monekton (?) as if she'd played them all her life...I can't imagine such raw talent. Higgins would not have had such success with another flower girl, do you think?

I'm wondering if Shaw realizes what a uniquely remarkable girl she is? I rather get the feeling that he is saying that any girl from "the gutter," given the benefits of education and hot water can be as much of a lady as one born to it. I'm watching the different Elizas from act to act to see if she is really changing - inside - from the girl we first that rainy night under the portico at St. Paul's. Pat comments that Eliza's demeanor, walking through the ambassador's party like a somnambulist says it all...Eliza is trying very hard - to be someone she is not. It is indeed irony that Nepommuck, thinking he has unmasked Eliza, has actually been taken in by her. He himself is a fraud. Is Henry Higgins a fraud in this scene too?

Have Pickering and Higgins really changed Eliza into a completely different human being by creating a new human being by changing her clothes and speech pattern?

Horselover, I read your account from Sally Peters biography with interest. You wrote that you can see how Shaw's personal life and relationships with women creep into the Higgins' character in Pygmalion -

"Shaw also once said that "The ideal love-affair is one conducted by post." This implies that,like Higgins, he prefers a kind of fantasy relationship where he keeps the loved one at a distance and deals with his mental creation of her. Higgins goes one step further and tries to create his fantasy in the flesh, but still does not want to actually touch his creation or hold it close.

Peters says that "Shaw's language in the letters resembles that of the high romantic who thrives on the thrill of obstacles." And, of course, Higgins also thrives on obstacles. The bet is simply a means to create a challenge for him to overcome. Once he wins the bet, the thrill is gone."

Your post reminded me of other biographical information - from Harold Bloom and others, regarding Shaw's relationships with his mother, his wife and other women. Yes, he did marry - an Irish heiress, Charlotte Payne Townshend. They were both in their early 40's. The marriage was never consummated. A "marriage blanc" they called it. (Last night I read that this was at Charlotte's insistence.) Although he had numerous, mostly unconsummated affairs with his leading ladies, during their nearly fifty years of marriage, their remains are buried together at their home in England.

The Eliza character was written for one of his loves, the actress, Mrs. Patrick Campbell. She was Irish, sometimes her speech patterns revealed her roots and Shaw was always critical of this. She played the leading role in Pygmalion - even though the two had "broken up" by the time the play went into production. I'd be interested to hear what Sally Peters has to say about Mrs. Campbell and the Eliza role written for her, Horselover. Bloom writes that his relationship with Mrs. Campbell nearly wrecked the Shaw's marriage.

I'm not clear about Shaw's relationship with his mother. Bloom writes that he married Charlotte (and remained married to her?) because she was like his mother - "a substitute mother compensating for a childhood of neglect." Hmmm...

He also writes that Shaw lived off of his mother's earnings as a music teacher until he was 30.

Eliza must have been extraordinarily intelligent and gifted, but her father also had his abilities, though he didn't use them. Higgins, highly amused by Doolittle's language and arguments, says "Pickering: if we were to take this man in hand for three months, he could choose between a seat in the Cabinet and a popular pulpit in Wales." Doolittle refuses, saying "it's a dog's life....Undeserving poverty is my line." I seem to remember that later he does use his ability to milk the system.

Since we are into Act IV now, I have to say I find Higgins gruff to be point of brutality here, and I'm having a hard time accepting it. He is unquestionably self-centered and thoughtless, but I would not have thought he would respond to Eliza's unhappiness as he does here.

Eliza:"Whats to become of me? Whats to become of me?"

Higgins:"How the devil do I know what's to become of you? What does it matter what becomes of you?

This is really coldhearted. Even for Higgins, it seems too much.

Babi

Just as Mrs. Higgins predicted, the problem of Eliza's future materialized as soon as the experiment was successfully completed. And Henry did not have an answer; he had won his bet but it appeared at best a shallow victory. At the end of Act IV Henry Higgins seemed confused. Eliza was as mad as a wet hen and Henry was finally beginning to realize he would no longer have Eliza to pick up after him and bring his slippers. The play at that point was in desperate need of another act to bring it to a successful conclusion. .

Scene IV ends with Eliza storming off - to spend the night on the town with Freddie! Some versions, including the on-line text in the heading - have eliminated this scene entirely. Another asterisk scene. I'm wondering if Shaw didn't add these scenes to the play AFTERWARDS? Here it is...I've added it to the heading too...
Freddie and Liza's night on the town - Act IV (asterisk text)

In order for me to understand Higgins' self-centeredness, I think that it is necessary to consider what Shaw is trying to to with this character -
Who is the leading character in the play?
To understand what Babi considers Higgins' unacceptable gruffness and brutality towards Eliza at the end of the scene, maybe we need to look at this scene from the beginning? Harold sees Higgins "beginning to realize he would no longer have Eliza to pick up after him, to bring him his slippers. " When the realization hits, it shocks him into the realization that Eliza is leaving the house. He hadn't considered that? So he says.

Without Higgins' blustering, outrageous comments, would Eliza have reacted as she did? Imagine the gentlemanly Pickering in his place. Does Eliza need the unfeeling remarks as a catalyst to grow and realize her own strength?

Well I just read the Act IV asterisked text, "Freddie and Lisa's Night on the Town." Interesting, It makes me wonder how Liza ended up at Higgin's mother's house for Act 5? Also this late Shaw addition obviously was the inspiration for "On the Street Where You Live" (or something like that) in the "My Fair Lady" musical.

Since much of my Pygmalion background comes from reading the original script in my particular publication supplemented by the old Leslie Howard movie and the Musical these asterisked scenes are new to me. My text does include Shaws sequel which clearly brings Freddie into Liza's post Act V life. But more on the sequel next week.

Fortunately, my edition of Pygmalion includes all the scenes, whether early or late, and I was able to read without interruption.

At the time during which this play is set, Eliza is left in a particularly awkward position. How can she return to life as a flower girl after learning what comfort can be had. Clean body, nice clothes, good food, warmth. All these simple thing which she has sampled for all of six months. She has been made into a 'lady', and a lady cannot work at a job like females of the lower orders. Mrs. Higgins, of course, foresaw this from the beginning but could not get those two "infinitely stupid male creatures" to understand that. Frankly, if it were not for Mr. Doolittle's timely elevation to prosperity, Eliza would likely have found herself forced to continue in her equivocal position as 'handmaid' in Higgins' home. Freddy would have been ready to marry her, but Freddy and his family had no money either.

Ah, but the closing scenes between Eliza and Henry Higgins are coming up and Shaw will be at his best. Truth!, spoken with crystal clarity!

Babi

Harold, you saw the 1938 film of the play - with Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller! How I wish all of you could see it! I'm reading a 1968 biography of Shaw by Olivia Coolidge, who relates how closely he worked with the film - no one but himself had the authority to edit a single word...only he could write in any connecting scenes for the movie. BUT the asterisked text was already in place - had been published before the film was made. Here's a photo of Shaw, working with the film producers and the leading lady...Pygmalion, 1938 film

The first Eliza on stage - Mrs. Patrick Campbell (Stella) was one of the leading ladies Shaw romanced.

She was his "Stella Stellarum."
When she read the script for the first time, her response was", (according to Olivia Coolidge,) - "You beast, you wrote this for me, every line of it!" By the time the play went into production, the two had separated - she left Shaw and became engaged to a younger man. (Shaw made it clear that he never intended to marry, that he was happily married to Charlotte.) He was 56 at the time. Life imitates art?

Babi, Mrs. Higgins had warned Henry, Mrs. Pearce had done the same back in Act II. Had anyone warned Eliza of the "awkward position" she'd be in when the experiment was over? If so, she didn't understand - until this moment in the study when she asks, as if for the first time - "what will become of me?" She knows instinctively she can't return to Drury Lane and sell flowers - but why not let Col. Pickering set her up in a flower shop? Wasn't this her original dream - the whole reason she came to Higgins in the first place? To improve her speech so that she could work in a shop, rather than work the streets? Do you get the feeling that she sees herself too much of a lady now to work in a shop?

I don't think she was out of line thinking that she meant something more than an experimental guinea pig to Higgins. What did you think of that ring he gave her in Brighton? What was that all about? Why did he give it to her? Did it mean anything to him when he gave it to her? It did to Eliza - she scrambled to retrieve it from the ashes in the fireplace once he left the room. What is any girl to think when a man gives her a ring - at a seaside resort?

After her successful "performance" at the ambassadors, Eliza had every expectation that she would participate in the celebration. When they return, she brings him his slippers - (out of habit?) - but the more he talks, she begins to realize the reality of her situation. She's got to think about leaving...or continuing on as his servant. Why did he give her the ring if she means nothing to him?

Wonderful to actually hold the library book in hand, but sad to discover that helpful (?) web people, anonymous apparently, took great liberties with this play and, in their "infinite wisdom" (?), arbritrarily left out important sections, and that is censorship in my book.

As an aside I'd like to ask, how reliable, complete and accurate IS information given on the web? This is a valid concern but I will not dwell on it now.

JOAN, the on-line text does not show a (brief but intersting) NOTE FOR TECHNICIANS in the Preface.
Act I in the on-line version ends with Freddy saying, "I' m dashed".
There is no such passage in my printed edition, NOR is that the end of the act.
Act II in the online version ends with "Higgins: Pickering, we have taken on a stiff job. Pickering (with conviction): Higgins, we have."

But that, again, is NOT the end. The act ends with the description of a sample lesson for Eliza, most interesting and essential to understanding Eliza's painful metamorphosis.

Forgive me for giving vent to my frustration. I will now lay aside the printed online version and concentrate solely on the "real McCoy".

JOAN, after six months of an intense, day-after-day involvement with Higgins and Pickering, of course Eliza would expect that she had come to mean something to them. She thought she was a partner in what they were attempting to do; that they shared a common goal. I believe she had come to care for them both and assumed they cared something for her.

To return triumphant from the Embassy party, and have the two men congratulate each other as though they had done it all themselves must have been galling. To have Higgins treat her with such carelessness and disregard would have been terribly painful.

She had become useful to Higgins, and he wanted her to continue to be useful. If he had become fond of her, he was quite firmly denying it from himself. He wanted her to continue to contribute to his comfort, but otherwise remain in the background, unnoticed. The man is selfish to an astonishing degree.

If the two men had included Eliza in their compliments and celebration, and then thoughtfully considered, with her, what would be best for her next, the outcome would have been entirely different. In that case, Pickerings offer to set Eliza up in a shop of her own might have worked out well...her reward for her hard work and efforts from those she had a right to expect to be her friends. As it was, she was deeply hurt and greatly offended, and I don't blame her in the least.

Babi

Babi, did you notice that BOTH Col. Pickering and Higgins overlooked Eliza's part in the successful evening at the party? BOTH treated her as part of their experiment. When Eliza gave the jewelry back to Higgins and asked about which of the clothes were hers to take with her, she tells Higgins he will need them for the next girl they take on for a makeover. I think this is what really gets to Higgins, who has no such intention. I think she hurt him at that moment, causing him to lose his temper - something he says he has never done in his life! Is this the first time he has felt deeply enough - abut anything - to lose his temper?

Good morning, Traudee-Come-Lately (but not too lately.)
- You've made it before the final curtain after all! The play ends with Act V. The published "Sequel" was written in response to the attempts of stage directors and producers to create a more satisfactory ending>

Today and tomorrow, let's look closely at the ending Shaw wrote and consider the message with which his audience left the theater. Did they come out smiling? Surely they were animated and chattering about Eliza's future and what she chose to do with it. What WERE her options?

ps. There are no asterisked passages in this text. Perhaps some of the stage directions do not appear in some editions or in the on-line. Traudee, don't blame the Internet editors for the missing text. There are some paper texts - Harold and Pat have them, which do not include crucial scenes. We haven't discovered when these scenes were added (or deleted). The scene at the Embassy party with Nepommuck was an important part of the original play. This is one that is missing from some of the texts! And then the one at the end of Act IV with Eliza slipping out to spend the night with Freddy...or at least part of the night. She does end up at the most understanding Mrs. Higgins in the a.m. in all versions at the start of Act V.

Tell me! Does the way Shaw injects Doolittle’s elevation to the gentile class tell us something of Shaw’s rather light comic view of Americans? For his story purpose the invented Ezra D. Wannafeller with his Pre-Digested Cheese Trust;. Wannafeller of course was a comic take off the well-known John D Rockefeller.

Now because of Higgins meddling by a letter he wrote to Wannafeller identifying Doolittle as the “most original moralist at present in England,” the rich American it seems immediately amended his will and promptly died leaving 3000 pounds a year to Doolittle from his trust. Isn’t there something innately comic about Cheese, particularly with the Pre-digested prefix inserted in front of it?

And of course the effect of this is to instantly ruin Doolittle’s living structure. He is no longer one of the undeserving poor; instantly he is elevated to the middle class fully subject to the rigid jurisdiction of middle Class Morality. The result, his lady immediately demands a church wedding, leading in the musical to the song, “Get Me To the Church On Time.” Fortunately also it appeared to Higgins at any rate to offer an answer to the “What to do with Eliza question since a financially independent Doolitttle could now provide for his daughter Actually this result does not seem to have materialized.

Oh Harold, don't get Shaw started on the philantropic, well-intentioned Mr. Ezra D. Wannafeller. Shaw, with his socialistic views goes way back with his disdain for the Rockefeller Foundation and its endowments...

"... the large endowment invested so that the income could be used "in perpetuity" to serve general purposes: the well-being of mankind. The philanthropic values of a single individual guided by strong religious beliefs have become institutionalized not only in foundations but in the philanthropic giving of the corporations that generated his wealth and that of his descendants." Rockefeller Foundation

Shaw is against such endowments and the moralistic strings he sees attached to the money. The whole idea of leaving a large bequest to a "moralist" suggests the attempt to corrupt the moralist, doesn't it? Shaw himself never accepted financial windfalls...not even the money that was associated with the Nobel Prize. Here's a humorous annedote on Shaw and endowments.

He's is having a good time with it in this play...poking fun at the Pre-Digested Cheese Foundation...with the character of Alfred Doolittle. Whenever Eliza's father comes on stage, you just know it is going to be a good time. Yes, "cheese" - any cheese ("Pre-digested" only makes the rich man's money more laughable.)

Shaw is not being overtly didactic here - but I think the message comes across, though we are diverted by the comedy from the message, don't you think. The whole idea of leaving a large bequest to a "moralist" suggests corruption of the the moralist, doesn't it? Shaw himself never accepted financial windfalls...not even the money that was associated with the Nobel Prize.

Does Doolittle appear happy with his new found wealth? Remember how much he wanted to marry the missus to put an end to the endless spending to keep her happy? Now that he has the money and has risen in social position, middle class morality demands that he marry her. On the state of matrimony Doolittle woefully remarks..."the happy days are no more."

This reminds me of Eliza's earlier comment on marriage in Act II. "Who would want to marry me," she asks when Mrs. Pearce suggests that she might be married. Now that she has risen in social position for all appearances, she's considering marriage as an option for the future. What else can she do? Will her newly rich father take care of her now?

What were the options for most girls at this time? She certainly doesn't want Professor Higgins' mother to find her a rich husband - looks upon such a marriage as "selling herself."

Marriage? Does she really want to marry Freddy?

Joan, but what choices did Eliza have ? Marriage at that time was the safest bet. She would have married Higgins if he had asked, I'm certain, but he, confirmed bachelor and snob, would never have asked - anyone.

He was pedantic, ornery, and selfish. He could never have shown consideration for a woman, or affection, much less adoration, like Freddy. Pickering, on the other hand, had a heart.

Higgins was a boor, a living contradiction:
though obsessed with precise speech and flawless manners, he used profanities liberally, he tirelessly mocked those he considered inferior, and definitely did not practice what he preached.

Shaw was concerned, I believe, not so much with education (he didn't have one himself, leaving school at l5) but with society, "ordinary" people versus the (often ignorant and gullible) titled rich.

Joan, I did not mean to disregard the questions.

re 1.
It's easy to see that Liza has true grit. She takes the initiative that leads to her betterment, shall we say. Yes, she changes with her increasing awareness.

re 2. Higgins is blunt to the point of rudeness; Pickering is polite and shows genuine feeling.

re 3. Higgins shows little emotion, if any. He is thin-skinned, impatient and easily agitated. The only thing on his mind is the experiment.

re 4. The renamed Eliza is free to a certain extent -- but still tied to her two co-recreators by an invisible umbilical cord.

re 5. After the splendid performance, both men ignore her completely instead of congratulating and complimenting her. She has become a part of the scenery, is taken for granted, like a potted plant.

That's why Eliza turns to Freddy who, she knows, is in love with her. At that moment he is there , he provides warmth, he listens to her in a way Higgins never could.

Good Monday morning!

Traudee's got her groove back! A good question to consider today - "What choices does Eliza have?" You mention that she "could have married Higgins if he had asked." You know, I don't think she could have done that. She tells him - "I won't care for any body who does not care for me." That brings up two new questions -

Would she marry him IF he asked her, knowing that he would never care for her in the way she wants him to?
Does Higgins care for her - enough to marry her?

I thought he presented a very reasonable alternative to her marrying Freddy - reasonable to him, anyway. He invited her to stay on in his house at Wimpole St. -

LIZA. What am I to come back for?

HIGGINS. For the fun of it. That's why I took you on.

LIZA. And you may throw me out tomorrow if I dont do everything you want me to?

HIGGINS. Yes: and you may walk out tomorrow if I dont do everything you want me to.

Higgins believes he has created the ideal woman, (a modern woman?) who would chuck convention and live outside the rules - as he does. Has Eliza really changed in her basuc attitude towards marriage? Weren't you SHOCKED when her father invited her to his wedding? Doolittle is about to make the concession to middle class morality and marry the woman he's been living with and apparently, the woman he loves. And Eliza's response?
You're going to let yourself down to marry that low common woman!
How do you all see Eliza at this point? A better question might be - How does Eliza see herself?

Joan, Eliza had no model of romantic love in her family such as it was. For her, I believe, marriage represented respectability, a roof over the head, to be taken care of. A place in "proper" society. That's what good girls did, get married.
"I'm a good girl, I am", she says over and over. She knew what the bad girls did, and she wanted no part of that.

Eliza did not like the woman who had thrown her out of the house, when Alfred was too weak and selfish to protest. What was it, the sixth or seventh "flame" of Alfred's? after her mother (whom he had never married, unbeknownst to Eliza). Eliza was surprised that her father would marry the woman now - since with his new-found wealth he could have found someone more "suitable", she may have thought.

Yes, I think Eliza would have married Higgins had he asked. She gave him ample opportunity but he would not budge. Nor would theirs necessarily have been a satisfying union.

What would they have talked about, what did they have in common? Would every festivity to be attended, every invitation they extended have been preceded by rehearsals of topics/subjects that might come up for discussion? (A learning period of a mere 6 months has never made anyone an expert in anything.)

She had considered marriage, she even compared Higgin's and Pickering's respective age. I believe she may have fallen in love with Higgins, but she had no illusions. The best option under her circumstance was Freddy. It was not the end of her relationship with Higgins and Pickering, though.

Pickerig stood by, suggested job and business training for the couple- a bit of a waste - and bailed them out when needed. Everything righted itself once bookkeepers were hired. It was a happy end of sorts, wasn't it?

I've missed something here, TRAUDE. I can't find where Pickering suggested job and business training for the couple, or bailed them out. The last comment I find from Pickering, he is telling Eliza he really hopes she will forgive Higgins and 'come back to us'.

Naturally in these closing scenes one expects to find the points Shaw particularly wants to make. Some key points, IMO, are in the final scene in Mrs. Higgins drawing room.

Eliza to Pickering: "But is was from you that I leant really nice manners; and that is what makes one a lady, isn't it? You see it was so very difficult for me with the example of Professor Higgins always before me. I was brought up to be just like him, unable to control myself, and using bad language on the slightest provocation. And I should never have known that ladies and gentlemen didn't behave like that if you hadn't been there."

"You see, really and truly, apart from the things anyone can pick up (the dressing and the proper way of speaking, and so on), the difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she's treated. I shall always be a flower girl to Professor Higgins, because he has always treated me as a flower girl, and always will; but I know I can be a lady to you, because you always treat me as a lady, and always will."

That to my mind, sums it up quite nicely, and puts Prof. Higgins quite properly in his place.

Babi

Traudee, I think you've jumped ahead when concluding the play ends happily. Are you referring to what you read in the Sequel? Theater-goers don't ever see this. All they see is the end of Act V. Shaw hated endings, preferring to leave the outcome open and the audience wondering how it would play out.

Those who directed the play, from the very first production, wanted it to end happily - but not with Eliza marrying Freddy. Their idea of a happy ending was to see Eliza choosing Higgins.

Shaw wouldn't agree to this...BUT in the filming of the play in 1938, he agreed to have Eliza return to the heartbroken Higgins who sits in his room listening to the early recording of her voice. When he sees that she has returned, he settles back in his chair, tips his hat over his face, smirking, and tells Eliza to bring him his slippers. That's how the musical, "My Fair Lady" ends too. You are still left wondering whether she trounce out again, or decide to stay, accepting him as he is. Neither the play, the film or the musical really end "happily" in my estimation. Humorously, yes, Eliza stronger than she was - but not what I'd call "happy" with her decision.

Babi, I find that a number of Shaw's pet issues, class differences, the lack of education for the poor - women's rights...all take a back seat to the telling of the story in this play. They are present, but he doesn't seem to be obvious in making his points. More subtle for Shaw? The audience does not feel preached to, but rather they are entertained and may not even notice the underlying messages.

As you write, MANNERS are the issue, Appearances count - BUT wait, there's another argument going on here.

. When Eliza tells Pickering -

"the difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she's treated. I shall always be a flower girl to Professor Higgins, because he has always treated me as a flower girl, and always will; but I know I can be a lady to you, because you always treat me as a lady, and always will."

...Shaw is perhaps speaking through Higgins when he tells Eliza that he "treats a duchess as if she were a flower girl" - "everybody the same." (How nice if he treated all women the same - like duchesses!) I get the feeling Shaw is trying to justify himself when he says -

"The great secret, Eliza, is not having bad manners or good manners or any other particular sort of manners, but having the same manner for all human souls...behaving as if you were in Heaven, where there ar no thrid-class carriaged, and one soul is as good as another."

How would you argue with him?

Sorry, JOAN, I failed to pay proper attention to the assignment for the week and rushed forward, overly eager to answer your questions.

BABI, I was prematurely referring to the sequel. I am sorry.

PAT H has a computer virus, and may have trouble getting on to Seniornet for a few days. But she'll be back.

Oy...computer glitches never occur at a good time. (Can you get over to her place and fix the problem?) Thanks for letting us know, Sis. Pat has been a steady contributer and her ending thoughts are much anticipated. Will you tell her we are leaving the lights on for her? I'm more interested in what we see onstage in Act V than in the silly Sequel Shaw felt compelled to add anyway. (Don't know why I find it so annoying.)

Let's continue the discussion of Act V for another day. There is so much we have not addressed yet.

Do you remember who utters these pearls of advice in Act V? It's important, I think. Do you believe that Eliza can appreciate Freddy?

When Henry Higgins claims, "By George Eliza, I said I'd make a woman of you, and I have" - are you reminded of the Pygmalion myth? What is it about Eliza that causes him to say this? I don't see him comparing the new Eliza to Pygmalion's Galatea, do you? Don't recall anyone counselling Galatea to make a choice. Shaw's definition of a "real woman" and Pygmalion's do not seem to agree...

Joan, The quote you asked about is said by Higgins toward the end of Act V when he and Eliza are arguing about how he has treated her and what she might expect if she returns to Wimpole Street.He tells her that if she can't tolerate the sort of life she had with him, she should "Marry some sentimental hog or other with lots of money, and a thick pair of lips to kiss you with and a thick pair of boots to kick you with. If you can't appreciate what you've got, you'd better get what you can appreciate."

Higgins is accustomed to regarding people as extensions of himself to be used for higher purposes. He can't understand all this concern by others for "feelings." He doesn't mean any harm; he just doesn't think about what might happen as a result of his experiment. He doesn't mean his behavior to be unkind, or to hurt Eliza's feelings. He just has a complete lack of empathy for other people. Eliza is, at first, a thing to be taught, and then later, a thing that would be agreeable to have around the house. At the end of the play, it would be difficult to imagine that Eliza could be satisfied to return to Wimpole Street under Higgins' terms, although the film version does imply that this is what happens.

The great secret, Eliza, is not having bad manners or good manners or any other particular sort of manners, but having the same manner for all human souls...behaving as if you were in Heaven, where there ar no thrid-class carriaged, and one soul is as good as another."

JOAN, in answer to your question, I would have to take exception to Higgins viewpoint. If one's manner to everyone is uniformly rude and uncaring, I hardly think that is something to be proud of! Courtesy to all souls equally is certainly desirable. As for third class carriages, they will remain with us, since people who can't afford more costly niceties still want to travel. It is not a commentary on their human worth that they travel cheaply. Higgins tries to make a virtue out of his rudeness, but I'm not buying it.

Babi

So, it is Higgins who counsels Eliza to go out and "get" what she can appreciate since she doesn't appreciate what she can have with him. He doesn't want her to go - he's accustomed to her being there, but he can't express his feelings either. Can any human being truly be so devoid of feeling? Or is it more a matter of having feelings, but not being able to express them?

Horselover, when you say Higgins regards Eliza at first "as a thing to be taught and later a thing that would be agreeable to have around the house" - I'm reminded of Pygmalion. Doesn't Higgins fit the role of Pygmalion as he assumes Eliza is Galatea - a thing, a beautiful thing, but a thing of his own creation?

And what of Eliza...she does have feelings for her Pygmalion, I think - or she wouldn't be in such conflict about what to do...she'd simply leave, now that she is free and run off with the person she really loves. I don't see that Eliza has feelings for Freddy, do you? If she chooses Freddy it is because he has feelings for her.

What does it come down to then? Her growing realization that she faces a future of bringing her Pygmalion his slippers every evening - or having Freddy bring her hers? In other words, Eliza is as guilty of marrying for convenience and her own feelings have little to do with the decision. I don't see this as a straightforward romantic ending any more than the Pygmalion myth was a happy ending.

Babi, at least Higgins is consistant in his treatment of everyone the same. Remember how he was with his mother's aristocratic friends? He wasn't awed by rank or position. He treated everyone as equals. Well, maybe he treats everyone as though they are not deserving of special deference because he doesn't believe they are. "There are no third class carriages in heaven." Would it have been better if he said there are no first class carriages? No one more deserving than another? Is Shaw expressing his Socialist beliefs now?

The one person Higgins seems to respect is Colonel Pickering. And Colonel Pickering seems to like him...do you find that odd? Is it because Colonel Pickering treats EVERYONE with respect - including his boorish friend?

I read somewhere that Pickering represents the audience - us. And that when the audience sees that Pickering can tolerate his friend's outspoken ways, this communicates to the audience that Higgins might not be such a bad chap after all - that we should tolerate him and read behind his words to what he is really saying.

I always have considered the Freddy character as one who would not be very attractive to young hotties as a prospective husband. While most certainly Higgins would not be attractive for that role it sure seems to me that in the end Eliza could do better than Freddy. My advice to her would be don’t be hasty making a commitment. She should play the field and see what develops. Who knows she might even have ended up herself a duchess.

The truth is I don’t think I ever read the sequel ,even though it was available to me, until 3 weeks ago when I was preparing for this discussion. I just assumed that Eliza would stay with Higgins as was implied in the movie, and the play itself. I guess I was willing to accept this uncertain ending as adequate though I suppose I would have preferred a more definitively positive ending. Perhaps this was the reason for Shaw’s writing of the sequel. Perhaps he too he sensed that his audience was assuming an ending quite different from his real intention causing him to add the sequel to re-direct interpretation as he intended

Pickering represents the audience? This is a strange idea for me. I've never heard before of a character in a play being intended to represent the audience. Ready to be educated, JOAN, if you can elaborate.

I can readily see many of the audience identifying with Pickering. He is unquestionably the nicest person in the play, tho' Mrs. Higgins could share the honors. I applaud her handling of her social disaster of a son and her support of Eliza.

Babi

Harold, I was surprised that the 1938 film of Pygmalion ( on which Shaw worked closely with the director) - AND the musical, "My Fair Lady," both end the exact same way. After Eliza and Higgins state their respective positions and Eliza realizes he won't ever change, she sweeps out, only to return, mellowed in the final scene - UNTIL he tells her to fetch his slippers - as if testing her. CURTAIN...Shaw leaves her reacton to his request to the audience's imagination.

There's a story about the ending of the very first production of the play on the London stage starring Shaw's romantic interest, Mrs. Patrick Campbell. Both she and the producer, who also played Henry Higgins, Herbert Tree, felt the play needed a better ending - just as you did, Harold. Shaw (who hated endings) refused to make any changes. At the end, Tree, not saying a word, tossed a bouquet of flowers that were on the piano top - to Eliza. The audience loved it, wanting Higgins and Eliza to come to terms for the happy ending they were hoping for.

I'm not sure why Shaw wrote this sequel. He really didn't want Eliza and Higgins to go off in the sunset together. That would negate the progress Eliza had made in the course of the play. But Freddy??? Marry Freddy? Ha! Harold, you will have to admit, the Sequel left you with questions about Eliza's choice...She's still imagining herself on a desert island with the Professor. Didn't she negate the progress she had made in becoming a strong woman by marrying the first respectable looking person who asked her? Is this a happy ending? I think what's important to remember is that the audience never sees the Sequel. The play when staged, ends with Eliza leaving to marry Freddy, the audience not quite believing that she will.

Yes, that's what I meant, Babi. You like Pickering because he is kind..."the nicest person in the play." His character represents the behaviour the audience would choose to identify with. Higgins is unconventional...and unacceptably rude, as you pointed out a few days ago. You didn't find his behavior very funny. Enter the Colonel. Always friendly and polite to everyone, regardless of social standing. If a decent man like Pickering finds Higgins amiable and talented, can't the audience then overlook some of his rough edges too? If Higgins is such an insufferable, boarish man, would a sweetheart like Pickering choose to stay on with him on Wimpole St.?

Joan I wonder if copyright considerations dictated the similarity of the endings of the musical with the original play? I suspect the Shaw Estate still had considerable control over the musical when it was conceived in 1956 (and probably still do). From the account you describe in message 117. it appears it was the original “Pygmalion” cast that was first dissatisfied with the ending. Shaw was adamant in his refusal to change but wrote the sequel that in my view at any rate gave an even less satisfactory ending. Perhaps the trustees of the Shaw estate in 1956 felt they should honor his intent and keep his original ending.

At this point I don’t see that Shaw accomplished much by writing the sequel. I say this because I really doubt that the audience at the Naval Academy production that Deems described had read the Sequel when they saw the play. This sseems even more likely to be the case with other current productions to a more general type of theater audience (or so it might seem to me).

Click Here for information concerning :My Fair Lady” history.

You too can see “My Fair Lady” in N.Y City this Sept. Click Here for information.

Hmmm,.. I don't think Pickering find Higgins 'amiable'; he is shocked more than once by his rudeness. They have their common interest in languages and the fascination of their work. Other than that, it looks to me more like a 'male thing'. As Pickering said more than once, "He doesn't mean anything by it. It's just his style."

I don't think there was any real likelihood of Eliza marrying Freddy. If I didn't misread the ending of the play, it closed with Eliza still unaware of her father's new-found prosperity. Her options were no longer limited to a choice between Freddy and Higgins, and I don't think she would have taken either.

Babi

Babi, perhaps the Colonel behaves towards his host with the same polite respect, deference, consideration he shows to everyone - treating every flower girl as a duchess, every rude, boarish Higgins as a Prince - or Duke...

An interesting observation on copyright considerations, Harold - which also still extend to productions of "St. Joan" as I understand.

I sure wish Shaw hadn't written that Sequel. From what I know of Shaw now, it would be just like him to tack on this Sequel in response to some particular critics who wanted to write their own ending to his play. If he wanted to leave the ending open for his audiences to draw their own conculsions, the Sequel would silence those who were providing a Higgins/Doolittle union at the end. The Sequel would not be staged, but would provide his view that Eliza had grown into a new, strong woman, who would never kowtow to the whims of a Higgins again.

But to marry her off to Freddy? Preposterous! The new, strong, enlightened woman would would not run off with the first eligible (?) suitor, even one professing to care for her...would she? I liked it when Shaw ended his play with these questions - and concluded as you did, Babi, that Eliza wouldn't/couldn't have chosen either. The Sequel spoiled the ending for me. Maybe I assumed too much from Eliza's transformation.

Harold, it's a date! Broadway in September!

Higgins’ attitude toward Eliza seems inconsistent. He starts off seeing her as a new toy. Most of the time he seems totally oblivious to her. She does finally manage to rile him at the end of Act IV. Their argument in Act V does seem to have some sexual tension, but then damps down to the old pattern.

On the whole, in spite of his philosophizing, Higgins is unable to interact with other people on a personal rather than intellectual level.

When we discussed whether to read St. Joan or Pygmalian first, Deems said she had a reason for putting Joan first, which she wouldn't tell us until later. What was it, Deems?

after a long computer glitch. I hope this post will go through.

JOAN, Act V warrants closer examination; I agree with you.
Now let's see first whether t his post will "take" and I'm really back IN. Mercy.

Hi, Pat H--I think I said what I did because I consider this play a far better one. It is still problematic for me, but Shaw always has that effect (on me). I really think Joan is a failure on stage. I saw it--and quite well done too--and I still think it has basic flaws round it. The tone of that play is ungraspable and I don't know quite how to take Shaw's humor and his use of accents to portray country folk. It's dated to me.

I didn't want to say how much I dislike Joan at the beginning I guess (!)

Good to see that you are back online. I hope your computer is now sterile and reliable.

Traudee, Pat, happy you have both overcome Technology! It is good to have you back with us...we'll keep the lights on for a few more days until you've had a chance to weigh in with your always welcome observations.

Pat, is Higgins really inconsistant?

>"On the whole, in spite of his philosophizing, Higgins is unable to interact with other people on a personal rather than intellectual level."

I think you're right about this and the more I think about it, I believe the same can be said about Shaw himself. I'm reminded of his mariage blanc and the "romances" with prospective leading ladies. From two of the biographies I've read, he seems to begin each liaison intent on finding the ideal star for a new play, woos her into the role and then cools off, "damps down to the old pattern," as you put it so nicely.

I noted some inconsistancies in this play that he, Shaw, never follows up with explaining...the ring Henry Higgins gives to Eliza in Brighton. That made no sense to me in the context of teacher/student relationship which Henry maintains he never overstepped. Yet he became enraged when she returned it to him. It made no sense in the play, BUT before Shaw broke off his "affair" with Mrs. Patrick Campbell, leading lady of Pygmalion for whom Shaw wrote the play, the two spent time in Brighton - after which she decided to marry someone else. Did the ring scene really happen between these two?

Maryal, at last we understand your hesitance to do "Saint Joan" after all these years! Well, I finally got that one out of my system and you won't find me nominating it again and again!

I've read that Shaw viewed just about ALL of his plays as opportunities to preach/teach/expound his own philosophic views. "Pygmalion" was considered one of his "Pleasant Plays" - written before WWI. His views are included, but not prominent, and folks could enjoy the play without even noticing the underlying messages. After the war, Shaw was a changed man and he used the plays mainly to satirize and to preach, rather than to entertain. We know that his edgy "Saint Joan" was written after the war and was/is considered one of the "Unpleasant". Knowing you, Maryal, you prefer pleasant to the unpleasant..any day of the week.

Thanks, Joan, but let me correct the characterization a little. I don't mind "unpleasant" as long as it goes all the way down to seriously unpleasant subjects, like death, sacrifice, and suffering, for example. In other words, I enjoy tragedy. If I am in a bad mood, I can't bear to watch a comic movie, but tragedy always fits. If I'm in a good mood, I can watch either.

What I don't like about Shaw I think you put your finger on--his preaching and I would add, his snipeiness. I don't like sarcasm (which I think he comes very close to at times). I appreciate irony which is an altogether different subject.

Thank you Deems, for your explanatory comment on St Joan. You have substantially cleared up some reservations in my mind about that play. The way I might put it, its theme somehow just don’t come together. I can see where it would be a hard project to do on the stage, and the flaws you mentions carry-over in the film versions.

In contrast I think Pygmalion comes together quite well though individuals might not like the ending. Also I don’t think Shaw accomplished any improvement by later writing the stand alone narrative sequel lacking as it does any firm connection to performance of the play.

I’ll again be away for two days holiday and I suppose when I return Monday evening or Tuesday morning this project will be on its way to the archives. Thank you Joan for bringing us these GBS masterpieces.

Maryal, thanks for not saying what you thought of the plays before we read them. It might have discouraged us, and, though I somewhat agree with you, I have really enjoyed picking the plays apart. St. Joan is not a good play, but it has good parts and I got a lot out of it. Pygmalion is OK as a play, and I have always liked it.

I hadn’t read any Shaw for a long time, and it’s good to see what I think of him now. I have always found him cranky, both in the sense of crabby and the sense of eccentric. And I always have a bone or two to pick with him, and find some of his logic flawed, but he is amusing.

My electronics problems aren’t over, and nature has added to my woes. The day I fixed the computer and the phone system, a thunderstorm knocked out electric power for most of the evening. It did it again last night, just before I started posting again. Now I have to get another DVD player (mine died) so I can watch the Wendy Hiller movie, but I’ll be back later if I still have power.

Mrs. Higgins is extremely well drawn, and I like her a lot. However, she has failed in one respect. Higgins doesn’t consider marriage because she is his ideal, and other women can’t measure up to her. I don’t think Higgins is good marriage material, and I don’t feel that marriage is a useful life choice for everybody, BUT, as a mother, I would feel I had failed a bit if one of my children felt they couldn’t cut loose as much as needed. You don’t have to do it, but you have to be able to do it.

Eliza is not quite Galatea. She is not created de novo by Higgins. She has had a rough childhood and been thrown out at an early age to make her own living. She rejected the easy solution of selling herself (easy until the consequences catch up with you) and managed to make a go of life. This is far from a formless block of marble. She is totally believable, except her musical and phonetic abilities are somewhat unlikely. She remains the tough and passionate person she was.

What a relief it is to be able to post again! Thank you, JOAN.

I agree with PAT H: we can't compare Eliza to Galatea.
Galatea was given breath by Pygmalion; he made her human (with the aid of Venus) and put every single thought she had into her head.

Not so with Eliza, as PAT pointed out. Higgins "refined" and "finished" her, but she had an identity before she became his pupil, and by virtue of her innate strength was able to declare her independence, as it were.

She may well have developed an attachment to Higgins, not such an unusual occurrence between a teacher and a student. But on the evening of her successful "presentation" she came to see him as he was: rude, selfish, "a cruel tyrant", she calls him in Act V.
In that regard he is remarkably consistent, I believe. His own mother doesn't want him to go to Doolittle's wedding "because he can't behave himself in church. He makes remarks out loud all the time on the clergyman's pronunciation."
He calls Eliza a fool, an idiot and other insulting names and yet fully expects her to come back to fetch and carry for him. Act V, I believe, is a battle of wills, and Higgins lost it.

In the very first sentence of the Preface, Shaw tells us
"As will be seen later on, Pygmalion needs, not a preface, but a sequel, which I have supplied in its due place."

But do we need it?

Not if we read and re-read Act V. It's all in there, really. Oh Higgins knew very well what he could have done or should have said, but he didn't want to; it was not in his nature to accommodate anyone. He did as he pleased.

Similarly, I believe it is merely a ruse when Higgins blames his unmarried status on the inimitable perfection of his mother. He didn't really WANT to get married. His life was comfortably arranged with servants to handle the quotidian chores and necessities, and he was without the responsibilities of a household with a wife and children.

The Preface shows that Shaw himself knew and had rather strong opinions about language, accents and even shorthand, specifically as perfected by Pitman and Gregg. If the wonderfully helpful Speed-writing method, which I learned when I came to this country a half century ago, had been invented in his lifetime, he may well have mocked that too in the Preface.

It seems that Shaw had worked out his own peculiar form of private life: married celibacy.
As he confessed to one of his biographers, Frank Harris, he was a virgin till twenty-nine, had several affairs during his thirties, but at forty-three decided (in 1898) on lifelong companionship without family and without intercourse. The plan worked, and the pair were together until Charlotte died. The only publicly known cloud in the sky of his companionship was the passion Shaw conceived around the time of his mother's death (1912) for the actress Mrs. Patrick Campbell, and even Mrs. Campbell was probably never his mistrss.

Pygmalion was first performed in Berlin in the Lessing Theater on November 1, 1913, and in the United States for the first time in German at the Deutsches Theatre, New York, in April of 1914.

Very interesting, and telling, in Act V are Alfred Doolittle's speeches. His new-found financial security intimidates him and actually makes him almost unhappy.
Also, he has a clear awareness of Eliza's quandary when he says,
"They played you off very cunning, Eliza, them two sportmen. If it had been only one of them, you could have nailed him. But you see, there was two; and one of them chaperoned the other, as you might say. ... I don't (be)grudge you two getting the better of Liza. I shan't interfere ..."

The lack of apostrophes in the contractions (dont, shant, etc.) has not been mentioned so far, nor the use of "shew" for show .

When I read the Preface I thought of Eat Shoots and Leaves by Lynn Truss, which we discussed last year. Rememeber how she lamented the infrequent use of semicolons.
Well, there are plenty of semicolons in Shaw's Preface to Pygmalion.

MARYAL, thank you for # 128. I feel exactly the same way about Shaw, his driving home concepts, messages and such. I dislike sarcasm (and not only in plays).

I have not read Shaw's St. Joan in many, many moons, but when I did, a lifetime ago, I felt it could not hold a candle to Schiller's moving drama Die Jungfrau von Orleans = The Maid of Orleans.

It comes down to Shaw's choice of a title for the play, doesn't it? Don't you wonder when he decided on "Pygmalion" - before or after he got into his story? Pat, Traude, since neither of you see Eliza as Galatea to Higgins' Pygmalion, what do you see as Shaw's message in so naming his play? Why does he want us to remember the myth every time we refer to the play by name? Either he truly sees a transformation in Eliza due to the changes in her outward appearance and speech or he intends the title to convey another message...

Do you see any real changes in Eliza from the opening scene in Covent Garden?

Other characters played significant roles, I thought. Pickering and Doolittle, aside from providing some of the best comedy, represent differences between the classes - and similarities too. Doolittle, Mrs. Pearce and Eliza represent differences within the same class.

Are we to hold Mrs. Higgins responsible for her son's eccentricities? Pat, you see her as a "failed" mother for not making it her business to cut the apron strings. She doesn't seem to know how to do that. At what age should a mother stop telling her son to sit down, to get his hands out of his pockets, to stop fidgeting, to be quiet in church...? I'm wondering if Henry doesn't marry because other women pale in comparison to his mother, or because he just didn't want to get married, as you say, Traudee? Does he not want to marry because he sees another woman attempting to correct and change him as his own mother continues to do?

There's a song in the musical..."Let a Woman in Your Life" based on a scene in Act II of the play that reveals a self-knowledge that I find impressive...

"...the moment I let a woman make friends with me, she becomes jealous, exacting, suspicious...I find that the moment I let myself make friends with a woman, I become selfish and tyrannical.
"I suppose the woman wants to live her own life; and the man wants to live his; and each tries to drag the other on to the wrong track."

Good reasons he should remain a bachelor. Good reasons for Eliza not to entertain ideas about a future with such a man.

Harold, thank you for all you have brought to this discussion. We're looking forward to "Moon and Sixpence" with you and Eloise in August!

Super Sunday, everyone!

JOAN, before I set off to join my son's family on this Perfet Ten day, I'd like to answer as best I can.

We can only speculate about Shaw's choice of title. I daresay it was deliberate, and designed to reflect the fact that some men still long to press their own personal stamp on women to mold them into their perceived idea, or ideal, of perfection.

It worked exceedingly well for Pygmalion and the maiden made of marble.
One day, touching her wrist, he felt blood cursing there. "Venus", he thought. According to the myth, Venus herself graced their marriage with her presence, but we don't know what happened afterwards, except that Pygmalion named the maiden Galatea and that their son, Paphos, is the name of Venus' favorite city.

In other words, there is no guarantee of success, especially not in Shaw's play, it seems to me. We have been conditioned and pleased by the prettified version of "My Fair Lady" and accepted (expected too) the implied happy ending. We have Rex Harrison's half-sung half-spoken "Marry Freddy ????" and his "I've become accustomed to her face ..." ringing in our hears. But we are considering the play here, not the musical.

And the play implies no such happy ending. Eliza had a mind of her own and made her own choice. She exerted her free will, and no one was more astonished than Higgins, who thought she'd be lost without him. We have to give Eliza credit, even if we do so grudgingly.

Mrs. Higgins was a level-headed person. I don't think she tried to reform her son (no one could). After all he sought HER out, even on the day she had told him NOT to visit. Apparently he had hurt the feelings of her friends with his criticisms of their language and/or accent(s) and she wanted a day free of his interruptions. But he barged in nonetheless. He did not respect her wishes; he imposed on her.

Nor can she be held responsible for her son's eccentricities. She tried to calm him down, speak to him, make him listen to reason, even as he jumped restlessly, impatiently up and down from one chair to another in Act V. She didn't want him to come to church for fear he would "talk out loud" during the Doolittles' marriage ceremony (and he most likely would have, too, true to form).

She would have been happy to see him married and out of her hair, I believe. It was Higgins who resisted the idea. He was a difficult, disagreeable, and above all, a stubborn man, perhaps not unlike Shaw himself.

I am sorry but I can draw no other conclusion.

Wishing everyone a VERY HAPPY FOURTH.

...a difficult man, "perhaps not unlike Shaw himself." I agree with you, Traudee, I think too that Shaw is revealing himself in his portrayal of the Henry Higgins' character - sometimes damning, sometimes defending, but yes, I do see MUCH of Shaw in Higgins.

I didn't know that about Pygmalion and Galatea - that they had a son. Thank you for that. Can you imagine a union between the Professor and Eliza Doolittle? The two of them raising a child together defies the imagination! Do you think the childless Shaw felt the same way about raising children? Messy business, to say the least -

Off to the Mall in DC for the annual Folk Festival and then a family cookout - followed by fireworks. Don't know how close the babies can tolerate...but I DO have to hear them to feel it is really and truly the fourth! Lovely weather here in the Nation's Capital today...
A 'AP P Y FOURTH , EVERYONE!