Pygmalion

Act IV outlines the falling action of the play. As the play works toward its resolution, it continues to challenge conventions by making it clear that there will be no happy, romantic resolution between the main characters. If the play were truly a romance, Eliza and Higgins should declare their love for each other in Act IV after their triumph at the ball. The bet was won. Yet the structure of the play suggests that this bet was not the primary conflict of the play, as the drama continues for two more acts after the bet’s resolution. This suggests that Eliza’s transformation is not complete when she passes her tests. In Act IV, she becomes an independent woman who demands to be treated as one who is worthy of dignity and respect.

In this act, Higgins fulfills the role of the antagonist, functioning as an adversary who opposes Eliza’s burgeoning confidence and self-respect rather than as a legitimate romantic prospect. His slippers are the focal point for the conflict over Higgins’s views of other people. He does not see Eliza bring him his slippers, just as he did not see the work she did for the experiment. Having returned from the ball and won the bet, he is more concerned with locating his slippers than with acknowledging Eliza’s accomplishments. Higgins and Eliza have a different understanding of who won the bet. He argues that he alone is responsible for the win, seeing Eliza as a tool he used. Eliza, however, insists that she is the victor: “I’ve won your bet for you” (Act IV, Page 97). She sees herself as an equal participant in the bet. This disagreement underscores the pair’s differing views of social class and gender dynamics in their relationship.

Eliza worries about “[w]hats to become of” her (Act IV, Page 99). Unlike Higgins, she had significant personal stakes in this experiment, and now she is in a difficult position. She can create the illusion of being a duchess through her speech and manners, but she has no way to support herself. She can no longer work on the street, but she does not have the means to support herself in a life of luxury as a lady. Higgins’s lack of concern and his inability to see this difficult position demonstrates his continued lack of empathy, despite having worked with Eliza for months.

Shaw’s views on marriage become even clearer in Eliza’s reaction to Higgins’s suggestion that she find a random man to support her; she identifies the transactional nature of genteel marriage. In comparing it to her old life, she comments upon middle-class hypocrisy: While this class accuses women on the streets of being loose and lascivious, the street women are “above” selling themselves through marriage (Act IV, Page 99). On the street, Eliza “sold flowers” and “didnt sell” herself (Act IV, Page 100). As a “lady,” however, she is “not fit to sell anything else” (Act IV 100) other than her body, framing marriage as a form of sex work that is accepted by the middle and upper classes. Life on the street gave Eliza dignity and independence that she can’t have as a lady. Shaw does not position marriage as a love match but as a transaction. This point of view is common across Shaw’s comedies, in which he often attacks romantic notions about love, marriage, and the position of women.

When Eliza returns the jewelry that was given to her, this includes a ring. She states, “This ring isn’t the jewellers; its the one you bought me in Brighton. I dont want it now” (Act IV, Pages 101-02). Unlike the other jewelry, this was owned by Higgins, and rejecting it equates to rejecting him. As the giving of a ring often symbolizes a romantic engagement, her disposal of it also suggests that the play will not have a romantic resolution. By having Higgins throw it into the fire like Eliza’s street clothes, Shaw suggests that Eliza’s identity is undergoing another transformation. When Eliza, too, returns the ring to the fire, it cements her transformation from a docile lady of the house to an independent woman.

Eliza’s ability to pay for an all-night cab ride with Freddy highlights that she straddles two classes now. Unlike his position of genteel poverty, she can afford this luxury. The constables’ response to Eliza indicates that she still appears to be a lady, as they ask them only to move. If she appeared to be a street girl, the police would “hunt” her off the street (Act IV, Page 105). Since the taxi functions simultaneously as a space that is both public and private, the couple will be free to be themselves while also maintaining the appearance of middle-class morality. In the cab, the police “wont touch [them]” (Act IV, Page 105). The permissibility of romantic affection between a seemingly genteel couple in a semi-public place further underscores Shaw’s understanding of marriage as a transaction. For financial support, the woman gives her husband physical affection, just as a sex worker does for her customer.