What does Higgins mean when he says, “teaching would be impossible unless pupils were sacred”? Affirm, dispute, or qualify the validity of Higgins' statement.
"Teaching would be impossible unless pupils were sacred." (2.165)
In this scene, Higgins exclaims to Colonel Pickering his philosophies on his teaching ethics, and assures him that he will treat Eliza with her education first and foremost on his mind, and wouldn't do anything to violate the sanctity of their relationship. But does this end up being the case?
We see later in the play that they do end up with feelings for each other, but instead of pointing fingers and naming who is responsible for the violation of this code, one must look at it simply: was love the intent for either party? Of course not. Higgins simply wanted to win a bet, and Eliza wanted to make the best life she could for herself. Love could simply be regarded as a confounding variable in this instance.
But this calls into question the validity of Higgins' earlier statement. What happened to Eliza's teaching once she and Henry started having feelings for each other? Certainly once that tutor/pupil boundary is broken with love it is hard to maintain healthy instruction--in the very least it is impossible to maintain the same sort of instruction.
This, then, affirms Henry's statement. Once Eliza was not sacred as a pupil, but regarded as an equal, it became impossible to teach her in the same way he once had. In a sense this could be seen as foreshadowing, as his statement proved to be true later in the play.
Okay, but so what? What point is Shaw attempting to make with this? Is he trying to say that pupils should never be loved? Maybe, but in the context of this question romantic and mutual love must be differentiated. There needs to be a thin barrier between tutors and pupils. They cannot grow too close, because instruction is best administered from a few feet away. Complications arise when that barrier doesn't exist.
So what would have happened if the two of them had never started caring for one another romantically? Certainly the play wouldn't be nearly the same, especially in regards to the parallels of the original myth, where Galatea is given life as a reward for Pygmalion, and it was the intent for the two to fall in love. Along with that, the drama and complications that arise because of their relationship wouldn't have happened, and perhaps Eliza and Freddy really would have fallen in love naturally. Perhaps Eliza would continue to stay close to Higgins and Pickering, being an intellectual and caring friend and guest always welcome at Higgins' home. Life would most likely have been a lot easier and perhaps even happier had they not fallen in love, because that way they at least would not have lost each other. But as much as life has a habit of getting in the way of things and suddenly growing difficult and tragic, it still goes on.
"Teaching would be impossible unless pupils were sacred." (2.165)
In this scene, Higgins exclaims to Colonel Pickering his philosophies on his teaching ethics, and assures him that he will treat Eliza with her education first and foremost on his mind, and wouldn't do anything to violate the sanctity of their relationship. But does this end up being the case?
We see later in the play that they do end up with feelings for each other, but instead of pointing fingers and naming who is responsible for the violation of this code, one must look at it simply: was love the intent for either party? Of course not. Higgins simply wanted to win a bet, and Eliza wanted to make the best life she could for herself. Love could simply be regarded as a confounding variable in this instance.
But this calls into question the validity of Higgins' earlier statement. What happened to Eliza's teaching once she and Henry started having feelings for each other? Certainly once that tutor/pupil boundary is broken with love it is hard to maintain healthy instruction--in the very least it is impossible to maintain the same sort of instruction.
This, then, affirms Henry's statement. Once Eliza was not sacred as a pupil, but regarded as an equal, it became impossible to teach her in the same way he once had. In a sense this could be seen as foreshadowing, as his statement proved to be true later in the play.
Okay, but so what? What point is Shaw attempting to make with this? Is he trying to say that pupils should never be loved? Maybe, but in the context of this question romantic and mutual love must be differentiated. There needs to be a thin barrier between tutors and pupils. They cannot grow too close, because instruction is best administered from a few feet away. Complications arise when that barrier doesn't exist.
So what would have happened if the two of them had never started caring for one another romantically? Certainly the play wouldn't be nearly the same, especially in regards to the parallels of the original myth, where Galatea is given life as a reward for Pygmalion, and it was the intent for the two to fall in love. Along with that, the drama and complications that arise because of their relationship wouldn't have happened, and perhaps Eliza and Freddy really would have fallen in love naturally. Perhaps Eliza would continue to stay close to Higgins and Pickering, being an intellectual and caring friend and guest always welcome at Higgins' home. Life would most likely have been a lot easier and perhaps even happier had they not fallen in love, because that way they at least would not have lost each other. But as much as life has a habit of getting in the way of things and suddenly growing difficult and tragic, it still goes on.