Skip to Main Content (Press Enter)

Signet Essay Contest Winner 2015: Kevin Zheng

Kevin Zheng

The majority of male characters in Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion appear to be fundamentally flawed in some important way. Freddy Eynsford-Hill is raised as a gentleman and, thus, is a “fool” who has trouble hailing a cab, let alone finding any suitable occupation for himself. Henry Higgins is well-educated but ill-mannered, alienating him from society due to his inconsideration for others. Alfred Doolittle appears to lack any sort of morals and “seems equally free from fear and conscience.” The only male figure who stands out is Colonel Pickering, who seems talented, respectful, and compassionate compared to his competition. Even so, Pickering is only superficially a gentleman; his concern, respect, and treatment for others are overshadowed by his lack of growth and the play’s criticism of gentlemanly behavior as a whole.

Pickering’s true concern and compassion for others, particularly Eliza, distinguish him from the other male characters. His first words to Eliza are, “won’t you sit down?” (Shaw II, 39). This courtesy, which Higgins does not extend, rightfully suggests that he “thought and felt” about her “as if [she] were something better than a scullerymaid,” much to Higgins’ chagrin (V, 122). At the same time, Pickering is not “infatuated” unlike Freddy (V, 130), who laughably spends most of his nights on Wimpole Street because “it’s the only place where [he’s] happy” (IV, 106). All Eliza wants is “a little kindness,” and Pickering, who is neither inconsiderate nor incompetent, is the only one who can provide it without simultaneously being entirely smitten (V, 130).

To be sure, Pickering’s actions and behavior highlight deficiencies in others. He is a foil: Freddy is inept, Pickering is accomplished; Higgins is rude; Pickering is graceful; Doolittle is immoral, and Pickering is virtuous. Like Higgins, Pickering shares a great love for phonetics, but isn’t stubbornly nor narrowly focused on it, either. He is willing to defend Eliza, despite having barely known her at all. In protest of Higgins’ treatment of Eliza, for example, Pickering scolds, “Does it occur to you, Higgins, that the girl has some feelings?” (Shaw II, 43). Pickering cares for Eliza, but at a respectful distance. Of course, Pickering is also aghast at Doolittle’s lack of morals, demanding, “Have you no morals, man?” Pickering is the perfect gentleman – considerate, polite, and charming. Yet, this consideration forgets one important thing – that the converse may also be true. Unlike Higgins, does Pickering simply lack a passion for his art? Unlike Freddy, is Pickering incapable of romance? Unlike Doolittle, has Pickering lost his sense of reality?

In fact, Pickering is far from a shimmering beacon of gentlemanly greatness. Despite his agreeable personality, Pickering has his own fair share of flaws. He remains a “confirmed old bachelor” and, with Higgins, makes “a pretty pair of babies, playing with [their] live doll” (Shaw III, 81). By themselves, these flaws are not enough to disqualify Pickering from gentleman status. What is troubling, however, is the apparent lack of growth and development in his character. It is important to remember that Pickering himself says nothing of considerable importance in the play. As much as Pygmalion is about Eliza’s transformation, it is also an observation of Higgins’ – and therefore by implication – Pickering’s growth. Although Higgins concedes that he “can’t change [his] nature,” he also admits that he has “grown accustomed” to Eliza’s presence. Pickering makes no such concession; to the contrary, Eliza understands that his manners are “the same to everybody” (Shaw V, 126). Pickering is a character who lacks growth; it almost seems that the road to being a gentleman entails becoming as unremarkable as Pickering.

Pickering’s nobility is confounded by the play itself, which is simultaneously a criticism of class. Among all things, Pygmalion is a social satire – by chastising Freddy’s utter incompetence and poking fun at Doolittle’s unfortunate rise to “middle class morality.” Most importantly, Eliza is herself a product of this criticism; altering her manner of speech and dress convinces high society to believe that a “squashed cabbage leaf” is, in fact, a princess. Pygmalion suggests that the distinction between class is meaningless and, thus, undermines Pickering’s function as a “true gentleman.” The question Higgins poses to Eliza is “not whether I treat you rudely, but whether you ever heard me treat anyone else better” (Shaw V, 126). Pickering, as he points out, is agreeable with everybody, and so while Pickering’s compassion for others may be nice, it does not necessarily suggest that he has feelings for anyone in particular. Pickering stands out only because he is different; in a vacuum he would not count for much. Pickering may be the only gentleman, but even that doesn’t give him a whole lot of credit.

Eliza’s judgment of Pickering as a gentleman is, therefore, not surprising, considering that his competition is rude, incompetent, and spineless. Pickering’s respect, ability, and virtue undoubtedly beat his competition, but at what cost? He says nothing particularly noteworthy but even worse, does not appear to undergo any sort of change. Instead of being a shining beacon, Pickering’s insignificance reduces his role to that of a support character. Despite his clear compassion and care for others, Pickering is only superficially a gentleman who does little more than obey the standards for basic mutual respect. Pickering is almost a symptom of everything wrong with the notion of a gentleman. He is absolutely unremarkable, he is overly polite, and does nothing of importance. It is true that a little kindness does go a long way, but it takes a lot more than kindness to be truly remarkable.

 

Work Cited

Shaw, Bernard. Pygmalion. London: Penguin Group, 2000. Print.[1]

[1]    Pagination refers to the 1st edition of Pygmalion published by the Penguin Group.

Back to Top