'Pygmalion' As Narrative Bridge Between The Centuries
'Pygmalion' As Narrative Bridge Between The Centuries
'Pygmalion' As Narrative Bridge Between The Centuries
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40681708?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Shaw
Shaw's version of the Pygmalion tale offers two basic revisions of Ovid's
story: the change from supernatural agency to natural explanations, and
the replacement of physical creation by linguistic transformation. The rela-
tionship between the supernatural and natural in Shaw's play is evident at
the beginning as the scene opens in a storm possessing, as Errol Durbach
points out, "all the portents of supernatural awe,"2 with lightning and thun-
der to accompany the meeting of Eliza and Freddy, which initiates all that
is to come. Yet Durbach also notes that the play itself does not sustain this
mythically auspicious beginning: "[Shaw] empties the process of all its mys-
tery and insists upon the commonplace nature of the transfiguration" (23).
Durbach sees this emptying as reason enough to ignore the classical roots
and search elsewhere for influence. Irrespective of influence, Shaw's
revision of the story allows him to collapse the distinction between the cre-
ator-god and the creator-artist, between the supernatural and the natural.
By replacing Ovid's Pygmalion-Venus duo with Higgins alone, Shaw raises
The central core of Shaw's Pygmalion project is this tension between the
fiction of reality and the fiction of the fictive. As far as Higgins is con-
cerned, Eliza's "reality" is merely her voice - initially "guttersnipe,"
eventually "duchess" - a diametrically opposed duality. Yet Shaw ensures
that readers see the error of this viewpoint by having the socially accom-
plished Eliza revert to guttersnipe speech in moments of stress or
excitement. As Lisa S. Starks asserts, "Eliza . . . learn [s] how to perform the
'feminine masquerade.'"16 The duchess "self is thus only one of the
assorted collections of stories that individuals, such as Eliza, can tell about
themselves, or that others can tell about them. Eliza's "reality" is Shaw's
postscript - marriage to Freddy, flower shop, and all. Her "fiction" involves
the entire collection of personae she has inhabited, whether or not they
occupied legitimate social space. Thus Shaw asserts the primacy of both
modes in locating a "real self," collapsing the artificial dichotomy in order
to include both external and internal factors in the piecing together of an
individual identity.
Twentieth-century critics and novelists seem willing to further Shaw's
project, exploring the nature of identity through narrative and theory. For
J. Hillis Miller, "prosopopoeia, Pygmalion's creative gesture, is the correct
name for what author, narrator, and reader do."17 In a sense, then, every
author, narrator, and reader is a Pygmalion, a Higgins, bringing to life or
giving identity to the various selves of the story. Twentieth-century novel-
ists, in their experimentation with narrative form and subject matter, have
gone beyond what Miller suggests. If, as Miller argues, "what Pygmalion
does is a usurpation of divine power,"18 then the Pygmalion project in the
hands of modern and contemporary novelists must be changed to reflect
their questioning of the omniscient, godlike role accorded to the Victorian
author.
Notes
1. George Bernard Shaw, Pygmalion, ed. Dan H. Laurence (1913; London: Penguin Books,
1957). All references are to this edition.
2. Errol Durbach, "Pygmalion: Myth and Anti-Myth in the Plays of Ibsen and Shaw,"
English Studies in Africa 21 (1978): 23.