Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett produces a truly cryptic work. On first analyzing the
play, one is not sure of what, if anything, happens or of the title character's significance. In
attempting to unravel the themes of the play, interpreters have extracted a wide variety
symbolism from the Godot's name. Some, taking an obvious hint, have proposed that Godot
represents God and that the play is centred on religious symbolism. Others have taken the
name as deriving from the French word for a boot, godillot. Still, others have suggested a
connection between Godot and Godeau, a character who never appears in Honore de Balzac's
Mercadet; Ou, le faiseur. Through all these efforts, there is still no definitive answer as to
whom or what Godot represents, and the writer has denied that Godot represents a specific
thing, despite a certain ambiguity in the name. Upon study, however, one realizes that this
ambiguity in meaning is the exact meaning of Godot. Though he seems to create greater
symbolism and significance in the name Godot, Beckett actually rejects the notion of truth in
language through the insignificance of the title character's name. By creating a false
impression of religious symbolism in the name Godot Beckett leads the interpreter to a dead
end.
For one to make an association between God and the title character's name is completely
logical. In fact, in producing the completely obvious allusion, Beckett beckons the interpreter
to follow a path of religious symbolism. Throughout the play, references to Christianity are so
often mentioned that one can scarcely identify a religious undercurrent; the presence of
religion is not really below the surface. In the opening moments of the play, Vladimir asks
"Hope deferred make something sick, who said that?" (8A).The real quotation, "Hope
deferred maketh the heart sick," comes from Proverbs 13:12 of the Bible. Shortly after,
Vladimir asks if Estragon has ever read the Bible and continues on a discussion of the
Gospels, the "Saviour," and the two thieves surrounding Christ during the crucifixion (8B9B). By inserting religious discussions in the first few moments play, the playwright
encourages the interpreter to assume the play's themes are greatly connected with religion.
Then, when the discussion turns to Godot, Estragon associates their request from Godot with
"A kind of prayer" (13A). The connection between God and Godot is seemingly firmly
established, leaving room for a variety of interpretations. Vladimir and Estragon are the
faithful adherents to God, and wait for Him, or a messianic figure, to come. Perhaps Vladimir
and Estragon are representatives of hope by demonstrating unwavering faith to a God who
does not present himself or, on the other hand, are showing the folly of blind faith as
espoused by Beckett. Considering Lucky's burdens and suffering and his alteration on Jesus'
last words in his speech, "unfinished," he could be a Christ figure (29B). Pozzo could
represent the earthly form of a God that treats his adherents like he treats Lucky. The range of
possible religious interpretations is virtually endless.
In truth, the proponents of these interpretations have fallen victim to a ruse, for Godot does
not represent God. Considering that the work becomes nearly incomprehensible at times, one
finds the religious explanation too simple. If Beckett provides such clear references to
religion, it seems he would simply call his title character God. Furthermore, Beckett, himself,
has denied the existence of a key or myth to the play. The playwright did not produce
religious ambiguities because Godot represents God; the ambiguities themselves hold the true
significance. The word Godot is meaningless in itself, and those who associate the word with
religious themes are fooled by Beckett's language. The play leads some along a long and
tedious path of interpretation; ultimately, the path hits a dead-end. Language is not
language. While the play contains obvious ambiguities into the word's meaning, they are all
for show. There is no real meaning. The interpretation of Godot's religious significance, while
this significance is clearly alluded to, leads to interpreter into a long, blind alley of
meaninglessness. Just as Estragon's boots contain nothing inside them, there is no central
meaning to the word Godot. Furthermore, this meaninglessness can be expanded to all of
Beckett's language; full of hints of a greater significance, language hides the triviality of all
things described. Only after this revelation can one finally get towards the central meaning of
Beckett's play; there is no meaning. His characters engage in ridiculous language to pass the
time and to "give [them] the impression [they] exist" (44B). Illusions of significance continue
throughout the play, but, in truth, the play comes from nothing and ultimately ends in
nothing. Beckett exposes the pitfalls of a language that attempts to create meaning when none
exists. Waiting for Godot is not a commentary on religion or really anything for that matter.
Its meaning comes in its meaninglessness. That is the play's greater truth.
BECKETT:
Waiting for Godot is not a traditional allegory; its allusions and apparent symbols
like Kafkasdo not yield a single coherent explicable meaning, though their
resonance has evoked intriguing interpretations. Like Eliots fragments shored
against my ruins", Becketts allusions , including the plays many overt Christian
references (e.g., the crucified thieves, the sheep and goats), are shards of a culture,
used in the play for their suggestiveness but without exact allegorical equation .
Among readers and audience members, as among the characters whom Beckett
What this new school of dramatists is telling us is that all the subjects which have
traditionally engaged the attention of practitioners of the art reversals of fortune,
fall of princes, star-crossed lovers, etc are superficialities, and that the real
subject for the playwright is the basic minimum of human life , something that is
not changed one jot by such trifles as jealousy or anger or lust.
Anthony Hartley
from Cathleen Culotta Andonian
The play does not, as it progresses, create a context in which one can risk an
interpretation; its words and action do not grow "to something of great constancy";
and when pressed to tell what the play finally means, [one] may want to say with
Bert Lahr, who played Estragon in the first American production, "Damned if I
know".
Brooks Atkinson, of the New York Times, . . . was disarmed by the play: "Waiting
for Godot is all feeling. Perhaps that is why it is puzzling and convincing at the
same time". Norman Mailer , apologising for an earlier attack on Godot, suggested
that Luckys speech "is the one strangled cry of active meaning in the whole
play, . . . a cry across the abyss from impotence to Apollo"; he added in
parenthesis, " I am not altogether unconvinced that Lucky himself may be
Godot it is, at the least, a possibility".
Brechts description of the alienation effect in Chinese acting helps explain the
way Godot works:
[T]he audience was hindered from simply identifying itself with the characters in
the play. Acceptance or rejection of their actions and utterances was meant to take
place on a conscious plane, instead of, as hitherto, in the audiences subconscious.
While certainly not a piece of epic theatre, Godot hold members of the audience at
a distance , insists throughout that they are watching a performance, and keeps
them continually struggling, "on a conscious plane", to make sense of what is
happening on the stage, of what is seen and heard.
"The "symbolism", said Jacques Audiberti in a review of the first Paris production,
"is optional" and, one might add, too easily detachable from the words and action
of the play, "but applause is obligatory".
Godot simultaneously demands that we interpret it and eludes all our efforts to do
so. The play leaves us with another uncertainty as well, as Beckett suggested in
one of his best-known comments on Godot: "There is a wonderful sentence in
Augustine. . . . Do not despair: one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume: one
of the thieves was damned." Like King Lear, Waiting for Godot ends in a
question. It asks not whether Godot will ever come but, more profound and
troubling, whether we live in a sane or a lunatic universe. The question can never
be answered, and yet, as Godot insists, it must always remain a question lest we
give way to the arrogant presumption of certitude or the debilitating despair of
scepticism.
Having shown how Waiting for Godot is life materialised, [one] can then discuss
other "matters" of literature and drama: literary allusions, the nuances of language,
. . . Becketts writings , it might well be argued, are more than mere illustrations of
the point-of-view of existentialist philosophers like Heidegger and Sartre;
they constitute the culmination of existential thought itself, precisely because they
are free of any abstract concepts or general ideas, and thus escape the inner
contradiction of existentialist statements that are couched in the form of
generalisations.
determination to face the stark reality of the human situation and to confront the
worst without even being in danger of yielding to any of the superficial
consolations that have clouded mans self-awareness in the past; to be in contact
with a human being utterly free from self-pity, utterly oblivious to the pitfalls of
vanity or self-glorification, even that most venial complacency of all, the illusion
of being able to lighten ones anguish by sharing it with others ; to see a long
figure, without hope of comfort, facing the great emptiness of space and time
without the possibility of miraculous rescue or salvation, in dignity , resolved to
fulfill its obligation to express its own predicament to partake of such courage
and noble stoicism , however remotely, cannot but evoke a feeling of emotional
excitement, exhilaration.
Martin Esslin Samuel Beckett
[In attempting to understand the play, we consider] the intellectual and artistic
climate of postwar Europe, the culmination of a centuries-long attack on Christian
and humanist notions of humanity as part of a divinely ordered creation with
established social and metaphysical definitions of meaning. We consider the
undermining of this worldview by the Enlightenment; by developments in science,
psychology, social science and philosophy; by industrialism and two world wars,
and by breakdowns in the conventions of artistic representation. We consider
philosophical existentialism as a reflection of this historical and cultural milieu: a
radical denial of external meaning, a philosophy of human abandonment in a world
where "existence precedes essence" (Sartre, Philosophy) . . . [and] the following
quotations:
The poem of the mind in the act of finding
What will suffice. It has not always had
To find: the scene was set; it repeated what
Was in the script.
Then the theatre was changed
To something else. Its past was a souvenir.
. . . It has
To construct a new stage. It has to be on that stage
And, like an insatiable actor, slowly and
With meditation, speak words that in the ear,
In the delicatest ear of the mind, repeat,
Exactly, that which it wants to hear, at the sound
Of which, an invisible audience listens,
Not to the play, but to itself, expressed
In an emotion as of two people, as of two
Emotions becoming one.
(Wallace Stevens, "Of Modern Poetry")
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But,
on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man
feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of
the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce
between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of
absurdity. (Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus)
As Alain Robbe-Grillet notes in an essay on Becketts drama, "The condition of
man, says Heidegger, is to be there. The theatre probably reproduces this situation
more naturally than any of the other ways of representing reality. The essential
thing about a character in a play is that he is on the scene: there."
. . . What is the experience of silence, of speechlessness? when one is alone? when
one is with others? What is the specific experience of theatrical silence, the quality
of being when a roomful of people sit without speaking? . . . [we attempt] to
uncover the particular fullness of theatrical silence, the anxiousness, even the
unbearableness of that stillness when language stops . . . the physiology of silence
the awareness of heartbeat and respiration, a heightened attentionand we note
an acute consciousness of those around us, that awkward and inescapable
proximity of others that silence heightens. We note the experience of self that
rushes in when the shield of language gives way, the "suffering of being" that
seems such an intrinsic part of self-consciousness, and we explore the urge to fill
this silence with thought, distraction, anything. During such and exercise, it
becomes clear that the theatre is (in Jean-Louis Barraults words) an "Art of
Sensation" and that Becketts drama explores the "mystery of Presence" that the
theatre shares with life. . . . It becomes clear, too, that the language games of
Becketts worldthe little cantersare responses to felt urgencies, ways of
shielding oneself from the nakedness of exposure. Viewed this way, language
in Waiting for Godot becomes a way of shaping silence, an almost sculptural act by
which the stillness of theatrical space is alternately contained and liberated. The
cross talk and routines, even Luckys torrential monologue, are seen as defensive
manoeuvres, against the perceptual weight of a silence that the audience is made to
share. Forced into an awareness of its own responses, Becketts audience listens,
"Not to the play, but to itself, expressed/In an emotion as of two people, as of
two/Emotions becoming one."
A tantalising gloss on the material "thereness" of Becketts world comes from
Chekhov, in a 1904 letter to Olga Knipper: "You ask: What is life? That is just the
same as asking: What is a carrot? A carrot is a carrot, and nothing more is known
about it".
Stanton B Garner, Jr Teaching the Theatre, Teaching Godot
from June Schlueter and Enoch Brater Approaches to Teaching Beckett's
Waiting for Godot
On that cold day in January 1965 I went hopefully to Sloane Square, feeling as
though I was to be given a half-hour sance with Shakespeare or Racineanyone
who thinks this exaggerated should read George Devines account in Beckett at
Sixty: "To meet Samuel Beckett for the first time must be described as the
experience of a lifetime. . . . In that half-hour, I was in touch with all the great
streams of European thought and literature from Dante onwards . . . "
Colin Duckworth: Is Luckys speech intended to be a parody of the Joycean
style?
SB: No
CD: Does Godot come in the interval?
SB: No
CD: Do you feel a desire for self-destruction in the face of the horrors of
the world?
SB: The autobiographical aspect is not in the least important in Godot. I
express no personal opinions in it.
CD: Is a Christian interpretation of the play justified?
SB: Yes, Christianity is a mythology with which I am perfectly familiar. So
naturally I use it.
. . . the play [is] both splendidly comic and unmitigatedly pessimistic. The piece is,
after all, a tragicomedy, and it deals with that "mysterious situation before which,
horrified, we laugh" (Sartre). Vladimirs emphasis on the story of the two thieves,
dwelling on its textual uncertainties, betrays his own conflicting hope and despair.
Becketts placement of this story early in the play indicates his authorial concern
with establishing immediately the theme of blighted hope, the tone of grieving
despair. The comic mode of delivery underscores the tragicomic nature of the play.
characters really are or where they come from, and endings tend to be
inconclusive.
Moreover, language itself, in the light of so much uncertainty, will be perceived as
being far from so unproblematic a medium of exchange and communication as it
appears in traditional realistic theatre. The characters talk to each other, but are
they really communicating? Or is language merely a form of reassurance that they
are still there, that some sort of contact is still in being?
In stressing the "absurdity" of human existence, its evanescence and nugatory
nature in the face of eternal mystery and the absence of a discernible purpose of
our lives, even the saddest events cannot be taken too seriously, mustin the face
of eternal darkness and the inevitability of deathappear as comic. The highest
form of laughter (the "risus purus" Beckett calls it in his early novel Watt) is the
laughter about human unhappiness.
Yet, ultimately, this tragicomic theatre is life-enhancing: for it tries to remind the
audience of the need to face human existence "knowing the worst", which
ultimately is a liberation, with the courage and the humility of not taking oneself
and ones own pains too seriously , and to bear all lifes mysteries and
uncertainties, and thus to make the best of what we have rather than to hanker after
illusory certainties and rewards.
Martin Esslin Beckett and the "Theatre of the Absurd"
from June Schlueter and Enoch Brater Approaches to Teaching Beckett's
Waiting for Godot
4Thought-block
5Failure of communication
6Catatonia=spells of physical immobility, as at the end of Acts I and II
7Obscene outbursts
8Preoccupation with disorders of excretory functions
9Suggestibility
10Frenzied outbursts
11Periods of silence and inertia
12Neglect of personal hygiene
13Flight of ideas (e.g. Luckys speech)
14Word "salads", neologisms, auto-echolalia (Luckys speech)
15Polyvalent ambiguous symbolism, vague metaphysical ideas and religious
references
Godot is full of these things. It is interesting to note that Dr Curran mentions that
some schizophrenics are successful in the theatre, the audience relishing the
allusive odd style of talking.
I do not imply that Beckett himself suffers from the rather terrible disorder of
Schizophrenia, in spite of the unfortunate photograph published with the play, but
that he has learned to copy its mode of expression. There is certainly a grotesque
sense of the comic Godot but one would need the sort of literary equivalent of
coprophilia to find anything "beautiful" or "artistic" in it if these terms any longer
have meaning.
From a medical point of view it is my opinion that this sort of play (and I am sure
that Godot is far from being the worst of its genre) is dangerous to the immature
unstable youngsters that today seem to gain entrance to our "universities" if it
propagates an offensive noxious nihilistic anti-religious idea of life. Adherents of
this barren idea solace themselves with drugs, sex and uncouth behaviour, and
arrive at my Hospital Emergency Department poisoned or injured. They arrogantly
replace the splendid positive attitudes which produced the great art of Florence and
Venice with a series of boring platitudes . . . and wonder why they become
miserable. The Chinese call it "seeking the Sacred Emperor in the low-class tea
rooms".
Somebody ought to make a study of the psychopathology of novels and plays
written since 1918; they are a mine of morbid introspection, nihilism, depression,
schizophrenic ideas etc. Freudian free-association and the use of eccentric imagery
and vague symbolism is commonplace to any doctor who has attended a
psychiatric clinic, but I can understand its apparent novelty to lay persons. It offers
an enormous and fascinating field of writing to those without much talent, being
very easy to acquire, dispensing with rules and therefore difficulties, and being
fashionable. . . . there is nothing clever about Beckett in thisI could do the same
myself.
. . . in Waiting for Godot . . . he seems to be treating simultaneously on the stage the two basic
selves of the split mind, the inner-self and the pseudo-self, embodied in a pair of characters
whose inter-relationship is ambivalent , being based on mutual antagonism and mutual
dependence. Though constantly at loggerheads they are at bottom "like to a double cherry,
seeming parted, but yet an union in partition."
G C Barnard Samuel Beckett: A New Approach
EXISTENTIALISM
If we stand back from the play and try to see it whole, we can read it as a parable that points
into the philosophical domain. It is the parable of Two Tramps Waiting, in which waiting is
the ontological position of humankind. Like a New Testament parable, Godot reveals the
situation of the human being sub specie aeternitatis.
That the tramps represent all humanity is clear not so much from what they say (" all
mankind is us ", which might only be a convenient aphorism and must anyway be unreliable)
as from their unexplained, provisional and vulnerable status. They are human beings in a
classic allegorical position, on a road. Unlike Bunyans Christian, however, they are not on a
journey, instead they have nowhere to go. They are not travelling, but waitingGodot has
achieved almost mythic status as the waiting play. Sartre best expresses the meaningful side
of the parable when he deals with waiting in Being and Nothingness.
Everything in the play is subsumed under the heading of waiting. Luckys speech, for
instance, is at first waited for as if it might reveal something important: when he is ordered to
speak. Vladimir and Estragon are at once "all attention ". But when nothing is revealed,
Vladimir and Estragon "protest violently" and then fall on Lucky, punishing him, surely, for
his failure to deliver what they have been waiting for. Pozzo waits to sell Lucky but is unable
to do so. He waits for illumination, but he goes blind. Pozzo falls and waits for help to get up;
the tramps assist him only because it is dramatically necessary that they are alone onstage at
the end of the play. As soon as they get him off the stage, he collapses again.
In Being and Nothingness, Sartre describes the limitations that freedom imposes on freedom:
we freely choose to do something in the present, but the meaning of this choice will only
become apparent in the future when, by another free choice, we confirm or deny what we
thought we were about. Adolescents going through a religious phase may grow into adults
who look back at that time when they were "passing through a crisis of puberty";
alternatively, they may "engage . . . in earnest in the way of devotion", in which case they will
see their adolescent faith as the first step on the ladder of perfection. Only the future, then,
allows us to know what the present is, but by the time we reach the future, the present will, of
course, be the past. This predicament, says Sartre, creates the "necessity for us to wait for
ourselves. Our life is only a long waiting: first a waiting for the realisation of our ends . . .
and especially a waiting for ourselves". According to Sartre, people are human to the extent
that they "temporalise" or tell stories about themselves. "Thus it is necessary to consider our
life as being made up not only of waitings but of waitings which themselves wait for
waitings". For Sartre, human beings can never catch up with themselves or be in any final or
satisfying way. They are forever engaged in playing provisional rles, in expectation of
becoming fulfilled.
LANGUAGE
Becketts choice of French as his medium is unique. Political or geographical necessities have
often compelled writers to abandon their native languages, and a desire to imitate the classics
prompted many English poets to turn their classical education into a reality.
Becketts decision, however, differs in purpose from all the accepted reasons. It seems to
have been both voluntary and a necessity: voluntary because the decision was made without
impersonal pressure, a necessity because it was urged by one of the frequent impasses at
which his art arrives. Moreover the transition from English to French was made feasible by
Becketts self-imposed exile in France. In this he deliberately chose the condition of his early
exemplars, Joyce and Dante, and it is not likely that he was unaware of its effect on the artist.
For exile forces writers to consolidate a vision of the world and to attempt to give the latter
total expression in their works.
In Becketts case . . . his adopted language proved more tractable and assisted in the creation
of his vision which became at once more complete and incisive than it had been in the
English novels. In French his hero discovers his true accent and assumes a universal
significance; . . . This achievement was doubly unique because it involves not only the use of
French but also the arduous process or retranslation into the authors native tongue.
. . . As a language English is more prone than most to diversions of meaning: its power of
suggestion far exceeds the more explicit French. Moreover in the writers native tongue
assimilated, concealed meanings are more difficult to discern than in the rational process of
using a learnt language. The use of French, therefore, helps Beckett to maintain the tension
on which his writing depends . . .
In French Beckett creates another literary personality, one who is able at times to separate
himself from the tissue of implied meanings within the words. The tone now suggests
fragments brought back from the edge of experience. The comparative certainty of the thirdperson narrative is replaced by the pained and worried first-person whose monologue is
broken into breath pause and articulatory emphasis by the obsessive comma.
When asked about the contradiction which must exist if one continues to write under the
conviction that language cannot convey a meaning, Beckett replied, "Que voulez-vous,
Monsieur? Cest les mots; on na rien dautre." [What do you want? They are words, we
have nothing else.]
In the theater, or at least in the theatrical tradition with which Beckett aligns himself,
language is only one vehicle among many and not the most important. The total meaning of a
performance includes mime, silence, decor and above all action, that which is actually seen to
take place by an audience.
This promises a firmer reality than a subjective monologue written and read in isolation:
perhaps on the stage the reality behind the words may be revealed by the action which often
contradicts their literal meaning. For example:
E:
Well? shall we go?
V : Yes, lets go.
They do not move.
The theatre allows Beckett a double freedom; the opportunity to explore the blank spaces
between the words and the ability to provide visual evidence of the untrustworthiness of
language.
Michael Robinson The Long Sonata of the Dead
HUMOUR:
The superficial comedy of the play which provokes in us an initial laughter is abruptly
corrected by our sudden recognition of the potential tragedy in the human situation as it is
portrayed here. However, there is every likelihood that the play comes full circle, so that
though we may not realise it, we are perhaps called upon to laugh at things we do not usually
laugh at. What may be appropriate here is the dianoetic laughter (the mirthless, the sardonic
laugh) which comes with the recognition of an absurdity which overrides the tragedy in the
human condition.
In other words, it is not so much a question of whether we have here a tragedy or a comedy
but rather that a unilateral response to En attendant Godot is not appropriate. We, the
audience, do not readily make this third step which would complete the cycle of responses
from comedy to tragedy to comedy, but it is likely that Beckett himself has made the
necessary transitions. He may then laugh not only at the characters in his play but at us when
we "weep" for them.
If, then, Beckett views this tragic plight with which we tend to sympathise as ultimately
comic, his opinion of man is indeed pessimistic and raises the question as to what his artistic
ends may be. Again conventional answers, such as catharsis, punishment through ridicule,
and so forth, are unacceptable.
Just how Beckett views art can be discerned to some extent from the play itself. We find
evidence here (as in his other writings) that art may constitute a diversion, however
momentary, from the tedium and the ennui of existence, as it may also deter withdrawal. If
this is the case, then we are confronted with a paradox, and Beckett may be as much against
as for art.
That aspect of comedy . . . is conventional in nature, having its origins in commedia dell-arte,
pantomime and vaudeville traditions. Comic devices belonging in this category include
physical comedy found in such things as falling and stumbling, and in the voyeurism of
Estragon. On a somewhat higher level, we have linguistic comedy coming from puns,
misunderstandings, scatalogical word play and from ceremonial and ritualistic uses of
language. . . .
. . . What we are laughing at here is for the most part limitations in both the physical and
intellectual domains. Our laughter in these cases may be classified as social because we are in
agreement concerning the subject for laughter.
However in Godot the superficial comedy is extended to grotesque exaggerations. These
appear in the egotism of the characters, especially the pompousness and platitudinousness of
Pozzo, as well as his mistreatment of Lucky. They can also be observed in the macabre
appearance of Lucky, and in the frenzied pace of games with which Estragon and Vladimir
intend to cope with the ever-present ennui. This grotesqueness underlying the superficial
comedy leads us , whether correctly or incorrectly, to the tragic mode.
. . . the tragic element . . . has been called an anti-play , on the grounds that it has no character
development and no plot. . . . This is true because insofar as there are no events
in Godot there can be no possibility of an outcome, no tragic recognition and no
transcendence. In addition, we have in this play stylisation or character "types" without any
clear identity. There is no development of the characters, no evolution, and indeed, if
anything, a declension. This, of course, is to be expected, in view of the fact that these men
are victims of their habits and are thus incapable of voluntary change. In fact, no one of the
men can be designated as the tragic hero who falls (conventionally from great heights), and
there is thus no sublimity involved.
Although in Godot there is no delving into individual psychological makeup of the four
characters, they are psychological types. Furthermore, collectively these characters represent
universal man. We do not identify with any one of the characters as we would do with a tragic
hero, but rather with the general human situation as well as with the particular situation in
which each character finds himself.
While in the case of the tragic hero we identify with his exceptional and his uncompromising
nature, we recognise in these four men another side of ourselves, that side which is all too
willing to compromise. The characters of Godot compromise not only with each other but
also with their situation, and this is in part why the play can be called an ultra-modern
tragedy. That is to say we do not have a catastrophe or some tragic condition which has been
brought about through tragic error; it is mans situation itself, neither remediable nor
provoked by human manipulations, which is tragic.
The play, then, is tragic in the sense that it portrays man as a victim of himself, a victim of his
own finite nature. It is a tragedy portraying the limitations of reason as well as of
imagination. It is deterministic, showing that the will is limited and yet capable of putting
man in a position of willful false optimism if not a willful lack of preoccupation with the
tragic elements of his existence. Instead, the characters, who are bound to the realm of
forfeiture described by Heidegger, are preoccupied only with trivia . . .
Mans tragedy as seen here has, in fact, a double sourcean internal one arising from his
finite nature and an external one in which that nature collides with the cosmos. In En
attendant Godot we have horror without exaltation. Our reaction to the scene that unfolds
before us is one of horror and despair. We sympathise, whether rightly or wrongly, with the
characters, who may also have a feeling of horror and despair, although with them it must be
considered largely subconscious.
Be that as it may, by the close of the play we feel the despair and ennui of existence; we are
made mindful of the foolishness of all activity between birth and death. What is proposed is a
tendency toward death in the form of absolutes, of withdrawal, of a denial of life.
The central irony of all this is that while the compromises depicted result in absurdity through
their imprisoning consequences, correctives such as withdrawal result in absurdity through
their freedom. And this freedom must be viewed as paradoxical freedom because it represents
life apart from life, a kind of death in life. It is freedom which is isolationist and nihilistic,
freedom without responsibility.
. . . Just as we have superficial comedy, so also do we have physical suffering, the most
elementary kind of suffering. Estragons feet hurts; he is hungry; he receives beatings during
the night. Because of his condition, Vladimir cannot laugh but only smile (thus physical
suffering may hamper the comic response), and he must urinate frequently (a source of
amusement to Estragon).
On the other hand, while Lucky does not in any way shows signs of resentment over the
physical abuse heaped upon him, he experiences anguish on another level when Pozzo
threatens to get rid of him. However, from Pozzos point of view, whatever sorrow Lucky
feels over this is short-lived. Indeed, as far as Pozzo is concerned, all states of suffering are
momentary, and life is perpetually tossed between the tragic and the comic. He says, "the
tears of the world are a constant quantity . For each one who begins to weep somewhere else
another stops. The same is true of the laugh." This contention seems to be borne out in the
play by the fact that whatever spiritual anguish the characters experience appears to be of a
fleeting nature. . . . They are creatures who are willfully avoiding the basic issues of despair
and death, and it is not unreasonable to think that Beckett views them as non-tragic because
they do not suffer to any significant degree.
Indeed, upon close scrutiny we discover that the nihilism, the ironies, the ambiguities
portrayed in the play are probably not tragic in the eyes of Beckett, but, rather, comic in a
very special way. One might imagine Beckett is here indulging in what is . . . "the laugh of
laughs . . . the laugh laughing at the laugh, the beholding, the saluting of the highest joke, in a
word, the laugh that laughs silence please at that which is unhappy ."
This laughter , which is sardonic and mirthless, compounds the horror of the play by laughing
at what is essentially evil, the metaphysical condition of man as demonstrated through his
many limitations. Such laughter is basically non-social in nature. In conventional comedy the
main character is ridiculed, . . .however, in Godot Beckett is not ridiculing but mocking the
main characters, who is, in reality, a composite of all four characters. That is to
say, universal man is being mocked in this play.
The majority of us are too involved with the tragic elements to have proper perspective.
Perhaps we also have habits in our concepts of tragedy and comedy which keep us from the
greater suffering which comes from seeing humour in that which is unhappy. We are tempted
to sympathise with the characters, or else with their situation, when we should perhaps be
holding it in disdain. This is in part why we, the audience, are viewed as being dead. . . .
As Beckett himself writes , "Either we speak and act for ourselvesin which case speech and
action are distorted and emptied of their meaning by an intelligence that is not ours, or else
we speak and act for others in which case we speak and act a lie." . . . [This is] the
recognition that language inescapably separates a person from himself as well as from
others . . . [which reflects] the desire of the literary artist to create the "perfect" work of art, a
desire to make a full artistic and intellectual statement, but a desire which can, or course,
never be fulfilled.
This ideal work of art is Becketts Godot, which he hopes for but can never attain, for he must
necessarily distort his vision, whether he attempt to formulate it through language, with all its
limitations, or through the mime, which, though less confining in one sense, is more so in
another. The irony here is that Beckett knows that he cannot get at the perfect, undistorted art
work and yet he continues to try because he must. Is his compulsion partially grounded in
habit like the compulsions of Vladimir and Estragon?
Although Beckett writes that "suffering opens a window on the real and is the main condition
of the artistic experience", in Godot we find Estragon unable to transcend his existence,
unable to appreciate things external to himself (such as the landscape), unwilling to grasp
nuancesall of which things would be necessary for the appreciation or creation of art. His
boredom"Boredom that must be considered as the most tolerable because the most durable
of human evils"obviates the possibility of an aesthetic experience.
The audience too is brought into the realm of the play . . . in Act I the audience is viewed as
a bog hence, like Estragon who says he is sunk in the mire and sand, it is unable to grasp
the full intellectual and aesthetic portent of the play. Furthermore, in Act II the audience is
viewed as being dead , hence beyond hope of being reached by the artist.
It is precisely because the destructive forces of the twentieth century have given the lie to
progress, reason, stability, perfectibility and simplicity that Beckett subscribes to none of
them and his writing is as it is.The one fundamental behind all of Becketts work is the
ancient tragic knowledge which has been revived by the absurd, of mans solitude,
imprisonment and pain in an intolerable universe that is indifferent to this suffering.
The world in which Beckett begins to write is without unity, clarity, rationality or hope, and
where man, absurdly conscious that he is conscious and bound to die, feels himself alone and
a stranger in a place which itself will one day cease to exist. The conflict between the worlds
irrationality and mans hopeless desire for unity is most acute in the artist who, having once
believed in his near omnipotence is now forced to recognise his almost total impotence.
Yet there remains the right to fail. Creating, or not creating, changes nothing, and the words
which are written will remain at best, only a hesitant approximation of those finer words
which, if they do exist, continue to elude his need.
But if he persists in this endeavour which he knows to be futile he will have sustained his
consciousness in the face of the universe and its absurdity. The artist is his own clown. For
him too, his perseverance is his dignity and his failure the emblem of his unextinguished
revolt. For Beckett it is the writing, not the writer nor the reader, that ultimately matters:
a cause which, while having need of us to be accomplished, was in its essence anonymous,
and would subsist, haunting the minds of men, when its miserable artisans should be no
more.
Ramona Cormier and Janis L Pallister
from Cathleen Culotta Andonian Critical Response to Samuel Beckett
Beckett in interview:
I speak of an art . . . weary of puny exploits, weary of pretending to be able, of being able, of
doing a little better the same old thing, of going a little further along a dreary road.
And preferring what?
The expression that there is nothing to express, nothing with which to express, nothing from
which to express, no power to express, no desire to express, together with the obligation to
express.
The kind of work I do is one in which Im not master of my material. The more Joyce knew
the more he could. Hes tending toward omniscience and omnipotence as an artist. Im
working with impotence, ignorance. I dont think impotence has been exploited in the past.
Kevin J H Dettmar Waiting for Godot and Critical Theory from June
Schlueter and Enoch Brater Approaches to Teaching Beckett's Waiting for
Godot
In an essay on Beckett Alan Schneider relates an "apocryphal story about Sams next play":
"Untitled, of course. In two acts, the usual pause between. In the first act, the curtain rises on
a bare stage. No actors, of either sex. Runs about half an hour. In the second act, the curtain
doesnt rise at all; but its a very short act."
Lois Oppenheim Directing Beckett
. . . Finally, and fundamental to all Becketts works, there is his compassion; an intense and
moving regard for mans condition in this world from which meaning is withheld and
mortality "a long days dying" the one certainty. In Godot the tree flowers between the
acts but Godot still does not come. Pozzo goes blind, Lucky dumb, things human decay and
Luckys famous speech of the first act is realised. This speech is a lament for:
"man in short or man in brief [who] wastes and pines . . . abandoned . . . and . . . for reasons
unknown [continues] to shrink and dwindle [into] the great cold the great dark the air and the
earth abode of stones in the great cold alas alas . . . "
It is in this that the universality of Becketts writing lies, and the haunting, poetically resonant
language of such passages is the flowering of his futile yet continual revolt against the whole
idea of mortality, . . . His writing in this dimension does not make any ultimate pretensions
for our existence or attempt to provide a final answer.
Instead he speaks of the heroic absurdity of human endeavour in the fact of death , a subject
which always leads to his most sustained passages of poetic prose filled with a basic imagery
and emotion yet all the more powerful for their constraint within a form that is classical in its
precision.
This revolt . . . . is against the intolerable imprisonment of man within the determination of
cause and effect , of beginning and ending, of being obliged to end because something else is
beginning or begin because something else is ending in the transient course of life. At its
most basic it is a revolt against the meaningless limitations and compulsions of birth and
death, and the universe which imposes such conditions on man can never be accepted even if
the earth is neutral. As Beckett writes . . . in what might be taken as an epigraph for all his
work, the superb and enigmatic comment: "the whisky bears a grudge against the decanter."
Michael Robinson The Long Sonata of the Dead
Heidegger stated the theme clearly: "As soon as a man is born, he is old enough to
die."
Godot, the drama of non-communication, depends upon the tension that it may not
always be so, that something valid will be said that will release the waiting tramps
perhaps through the intervention of Godot himself. This situation is essentially
dramatic for through their demands on each other the characters exist in conflict.
The pairs in the plays, Vladimir and Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky . . . are firmly
bound to one another, and their relationships are complex. At times the eternal
couple, tormenting and tormented, they show at others a moving tenderness and
compassion. They are brought together by solitude even the overlord Pozzo
needs companionship: "I cannot go for long without the society of my likes "
only to find themselves imprisoned in a mutual dependency they would desperately
like to break.
In . . . the first mention Godot receives, the music hall technique not only fixes the
audience within the evenings entertainment but also in the universal state of
waiting outside the theatre which the play reflects.Vladimirs "we" applies to the
audience and actors alike (in the French text the sentence "On attend Godot" is
more inclusive) and establishes them both, at the beginning, in the same anguished
condition. Not to realise this shared predicament, which the tramps commentary
on the action reveals, is to limit and endanger the comprehensive meaning and
image of the play. There is no escape. The tramps remind the audience that what
they are seeing tonight is not unique; that a performance was also enacted here last
night:" What did we do yesterday ? In my opinion we were here", and that
tonights entertainment is not the last.
Each night they begin again, attempt again and repeat again the failure of tonight, a
failure that cannot be dismissed as a mere entertainment for it has the reality of
life. And this reality is not conveyed as a photographically accurate representation
of life but within the nature of the performance itself. Not only are the tramps here
every night, an audienceany audience, it does not matterchooses to join them
and so wait for their time to pass.
Michael Robinson The Long Sonata of the Dead
For certain people, Waiting for Godot is a fantastical drama. It is for them a play
that is curious, obscure, uprooted from life, arbitrary, strange, capricious. Maybe
also a posthumous secretion of "surrealism". Maybe also an obscure illustation for
an extravagant philosophy of existence. Maybe finally the pure objectification of
delirium. It becomes thus, for the audience, a drama that has nothing to do with
their lives, with their commute to work, with their office, with their conversations.
Waiting for Godot is for them a sort of bizarre animal in the theatre; like the
dramatisation of a dream or a magical experience. For others, they are up against
something worse: facing a hallucination or a work conceived during a psychotic
episode, or simply the jeering speculation of an author who tried to shock nave
men. At any rate, "this" is something that "doesnt concern us", or that, at least,
"shouldnt upset us too much" . We can put our hands in our pockets and whistle.
TIME
Apart from young people, there is one other social group whose lack of ingrained
theatrical expectations left them wide open to the impact of a Beckett play: longterm convicts. . . . [Consider] the reaction of fourteen hundred convicts in San
Quentin penitentiary when they saw Godot in 1957. They wrote a series of articles
in their prison newspaper showing how the play had expressed their own
situation by virtue of the fact that its author expected each spectator to draw his
own conclusions. . . . The following year some prisoners put on their own
production of Waiting for Godot, and from that a Drama Society flourished in the
prison. It was so successful that in 1970 they had written a play and had been
paroled in order to tour the United States with it.
. . . A common factor in all of Becketts dramas is that the figures portrayed are all
imprisoned. Some can move away for a short time, in a restricted area, but they are
all quite incapable of extended mobility; which forces our attention upon the extent
to which we normally depend on mobilityboth in life and in literature. Mobility
offers the chance of escape from an undesirable situation , and the possibility of
communication with other beings outside our immediate vicinity. Without mobility
we are reduced to a vegetative, passive existence. But we are mobile, are we
not? . . . On the other hand, our area of choice is strictly limited by time and space .
Man is limited by his achievement, he will never reach infinity. Perhaps too within
one step of infinity, but never there. Man is imprisoned within his life-span, but for
Beckett it is not so simple as it is for those who believe there is an end to it. Most
of us cling to the idea of continuation or resurrection of identity, but supposing this
means going on for ever? Will not the end be increasingly desired as it draws near?
Shall we not long to be freed into a state of blessed nothingness? This depends on
the quality of the existence in store for us, and about this we are mercifully
ignorant, although we may entertain private hopes.
Beckett represents for us , in many varied images and forms, the imprisonment of
the human consciousness within the bounds of infinity and eternity not very
promising ground, on the face of it, for fiction and drama. He has faced the
challenge of the intransigent nature of the subject by scaling down the dimensions
of the problem without changing its fundamental elements. He shows us human
destiny in an accelerated, concentrated form, and he manages to remain amusing
and compassionate while he is doing it. The vision is dark, but laughter lends
wings.
Colin Duckworth Angels of Darkness
by Protestants, but clearly it was when he came to read Dante that it captured his
imagination.
. . . According to Christian theologians, a place of eternal torment is properly called
Hell. In Becketts Purgatory , however, . . . we face something worse than pain or
penalty: the meaninglessness of a kitten chasing its tail. Hell is at least part of
Gods plan and He knows what goes on there, . . . my own severest criticism of
Becketts oeuvre is based not on its pessimism but on its proneness to self-pity,
even though that self-pity is of a very special kind, expressed by his characters on
behalf of the human race. It is more than a joke when Didi and Gogo insist that
their sufferings are greater than Christs because "where he lived it was warm, it
was dry! . . . Yes. And they crucified quick."
Vivian Mercier Beckett/Beckett
The presence and the immanence of the most fugitive character in modern theatre
must be felt on the stage throughout the play; he is as real and present as the void
he inhabits. Lamentations 3:26 may outline the fundamental dramatic situation
of Godot: "It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation
of the Lord" ; but in Romans 8:24-25 we learn the function of absence: "For we are
saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he
yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for
it."
The tramps suffering is spiritual and physical. Psalm 40 begins, "I waited patiently
for the Lord; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry. He drew me up from the
desolate pit, out of the miry bog and set my feet upon a rock, making my steps
secure." The fulfillment of that prophecy in the New Testament was the rock,
Simon Peter, the foundation of the Christian church and the first in line of the
apostolic succession. Beckett parodies this imagery in the iconography of the stage
and in the imagery of Luckys speech where the labours of two rocks, Steinweg
("stone road" in German) and Peterman (Rockman) are lost. The rock on which the
hope of the world was to be built has become a wasteland. In the third section of
Luckys speech, the theme "earth abode of stones" is repeated four times and
alluded to at least twice more. The phenomenal stone we see onstage is the one on
which Estragon rests to relieve the suffering not of his soul but of his feet, of
which, like the two thieves, one is damned, the other saved. The play is built
around such simultaneity of echoes and opposites, such dialectical tensions, . . .
The very physically present Vladimir and Estragon may be the issue of a dreaming
mind. The very absent Godot must be as present as the tree.
S E Gontarski "Dealing with a Given Space": Waiting for Godot and the
Stage from June Schlueter and Enoch Brater Approaches to Teaching
Beckett's Waiting for Godot
The passing of time for Becketts clowns is the passing of time for the audience as
well. A friend who had directed Godot once speculated that in coming to the play
as audience, we only do what Vladimir and Estragon do without knowing it; we
also participate in a process, and if Godot fails to come for the pathetic specimens
of humanity represented onstage, he also fails for the specimens offstage as
well. Our own search in life (or in attending the play) for meaning or, barring that,
at least for entertainment, is identical with that of the unworthies before usand
around us and behind us, I might add. Like the clowns onstage, we are surrounded
by" all humanity "; yet perhaps in our single rle as spectator each of us might be
all humanity as well. Each struggles alone or with others to find an acceptable
allegory for the nontime, nonplace, nonaction of Godot.
We assist in this creation, this present, by coming to the theatre. Like the clowns,
we work, even if it be waiting in our seats; even the audience members at the
Coconut Grove premiere who stalked out in disgust contributed to the waiting by
enacting the alternative to those staying in their place. The actors do likewise
onstage, held there by convictions as characters (they have been told to wait) or as
actors (it is their rle). In this dual partnership of actor and audience, both
depending on the other for their present existence, we collectively establish an
artifice against an imposed Godot-ruled world, against the difficult, at times
incomprehensible reality that for them is "A country road. A tree. Evening." and for
us all that lies outside as well as inside the theatre.
. . . by Act II, the dark questions of who is Godot and will he come give way to the
human instinct for survival, to that creative urge which will fashion something out
of nothing, which will snatch from impending defeat (such as the nonappearance of
the divinity) a modest victory (passing the time with dialogue, putting the events of
Act I in some sort of order, albeit minimal). If we are chained to waiting, we will
still find a little leverage, a little breathing and creative space in our
chains. Godot is not a romantic play, but it is realistic. It is not about death, not
about suicide. To wait or to go onthese are actions, not nonactions; and waiting
and going on are the two alternatives to death. Vladimir and Estragon wait; they do
not go on. Pozzo and Lucky go on, and they disappear, accordingly and
appropriately, from the present play. The clowns stay with us, both to and at the
end: "They do not move". We are also the clowns, for in our seats we have done no
more, nor no less, than Vladimir and Estragon. Like us, they speculate about the
meaning of the play. For them, as for us, the play, even in the absence of meaning,
is a way of passing time, though time would have passed anyway, as Estragon
observes.
We share the same anxieties, though however aware they may be of the audience
the tramps cannot know this. If there is no Godot to witness and ratify their
actions, we are there, the "Godot" for whom they have waited. Without us their
audience shrinks to one, Estragon for Vladimir, Vladimir for Estragon. The two
other spectators are a sorry lot, mute and egotistical. Again, they are not there at the
end as we are. Vladimir is right, albeit a bit melodramatic, when he raises the idea
that all one can say of his life is "that with Estragon my friend, at this place, until
the fall of night, I waited for Godot". "Waited"he uses the word as a slur, as if
the time spent were nothing but a bag of actors tricks; and it is, it is. In the absence
of anything elseand Vladimir cannot imagine that we as audience both ratify and
interpret his stage "life"to have waited is to have lived, . . .
If one goal is not realised, that meeting with Godot, then another is, namely, the
creative powers of the human imagination that will draw the image of a rose from a
dunghill, that, in the absence of roses or of dunghills, will pass the time and avoid
the abyss by dialogue.
Again, nature signals its approval of this creation with its own scrawny leaves in
Act II. Vladimir and Estragon, I maintain, are not the same in the second act; nor
are we. We will not let ourselves not grow. Time passes and with time there is
change, be it progressive or cyclical or inevitable. At its roots "growth" implies
only change, not necessarily quality. As long as words are imposed on the
chronology of seconds and minutes and hours, time is not an abstraction but only a
measuring stick for a civilisation marked by language. We cling to life; we avoid
the abyss by talking. Every syllable uttered is a second gained. The frustration of
the unending wait is, from another perspective, a sign for limited joy; death is kept
at arms length, as is silence, as is loneliness.
As audience, we are asked to consider the meaning of our existence on lifes stage.
There are revolutionaries galore for whom the theatre is a mere trifle or an example
of decadent entertainment. For "everyone knows" we must accomplish something
in life, or do things, oracting as if any human motives could be purehelp our
comrades whether they want that help or not. In the presence of such challenges to
the meaning of our existence, we can only sayand say onlythat on any given
night of a performance of Godot we acted not alone put in concert, not with an
excessive trust in physical life, nor, given the physical nature of the stage, with a
pseudo-intellectual, let alone spiritual dismissal of physical reality. Together, actors
and audience, we waited for Godot . . .
Sidney Homan Beckett's Theatres: Interpretations for Performance
. . . what Gogo and Didi do is not what they are thinking; nor can we understand
their characters by adding and relating events to thoughts. And the action of the
playwaitingis not what they are after but what they want most to avoid. What,
after all, are their games for? They wish to "fill time" in such a way that the vessel
"containing" their activities is unnoticed amid the activities themselves. Whenever
there is nothing "to do" they remember why they are here: To wait for Godot. That
memory, that direct confrontation with Time, is painful. They play, invent, move,
sing to avoid the sense of waiting. Their activities are therefore keeping them from
a consciousness of the action of the play. Although there is a real change in
Vladimirs understanding of his experience (he learns precisely what "nothing to
be done" means) and in Pozzos life, these changes and insights do not emerge
from the plot, but stand outside of whats happened. Vladimir has his epiphany
while Estragon sleepsin a real way his perception is a function of the sleeping
Gogo. Pozzos understanding, like the man himself, is blind.
Structurally as well as thematically, Godot is an "incomplete" play; and its
openness is not at the end but in many places throughout: it is a play of gaps and
pauses, of broken-off dialogue, of speech and action turning into time-avoiding
games and routines. . . . Waiting for Godot is designed off-balance. It is the very
opposite of Oedipus. In Godot we do not have the meshed ironies of experience,
but that special anxiety associated with question marks preceded and followed by
nothing.
[When Vladimir says to the boy" tell him you saw me "] the "us" of the first act is
the "me" of the second. Habits break old friends are abandoned, Gogofor the
momentis cast into the pit. When Gogo awakens, Didi is standing with his head
bowed. Didi does not tell his friend of his conversation with the Boy nor of his
insight or sadness. Gogo asks, "Whats wrong with you," and Didi answers,
"Nothing."Didi tells Estragon that they must return the following evening to keep
their appointment once again. But for him the routine is meaningless: Godot will
not come. There is something more than irony in his reply to Gogos
question, "And if we dropped him?" "Hed punish us," Didi says. But the
punishment is already apparent to Didi: the pointless execution of orders without
hope of fulfillment. Never coming; for Didi, Godot has come . . . and gone.
In the first act, Gogo/Didi suspect that Pozzo may be Godot. Discovering that he is
not, they are curious about him and Lucky. They circle around their new
acquaintances, listen to Pozzos speeches, taunt Lucky, and so on. Partly afraid,
somewhat uncertainly, they integrate Pozzo/Lucky into their world of waiting: they
make out of the visitors a way of passing time. And they exploit the persons of
Pozzo/Lucky, taking food and playing games. ( In the Free Southern Theatre
production, Gogo and Didi pick-pocket Pozzo, stealing his watch, pipe and
atomiserno doubt to hock them for necessary food. This interpretation has
advantages: it grounds the play in an acceptable reality; it establishes a first act
relationship of doubt exploitation Pozzo uses them as audience and they use him
as income. ) In the second act this exploitation process is even clearer. . . .
Gogo/Didi try to detain Pozzo/Lucky as long as possible. They play rather cruel
games with them, postponing assistance. It would be intolerable to Gogo/Didi for
this "diversion" to pass quickly, just as it is intolerable for an audience to watch it
go on so long. . . . When they are gone, Estragon goes to sleep. Vladimir shakes
him awake:" I was lonely ." And speaking of Pozzo/Lucky, "That passed the time."
For them, perhaps; but for the audience? It is an ironic scenethe entire cast
sprawled on the floor, hard to see, not much action. It makes an audience aware
that the time is not passing fast enough.
If waiting is the plays action, Time is its subject. Godot is not Time, but he is
associated with itthe one who makes but does not keep appointments. (An
impish thought occurs: Perhaps Godot passes time with Gogo/Didi just as they
pass it with him. Within this scheme, Godot has nothing to do [as the Boy tells
Didi in Act Two] and uses the whole play as a diversion in his day. Thus the "big
game" is a strict analogy of the many "small games" that make the play.) The basic
rhythm of the play is habit interrupted by memory, memory obliterated by games.
Why do Gogo/Didi play? In order to deaden their sense of waiting. Waiting is a
"waiting for" and it is precisely this that they wish to forget. One may say that
"waiting" is the larger connect within which "passing time" by playing games is a
sub-system, protecting them from the sense that they are waiting. They confront
Time (i.e.., are conscious of Godot) only when there is a break in the game and
they "know" and "feel" that they are waiting.
To wait and not know how to wait is to experience Time. To be freed from waiting
(as Gogo/Didi are at the end of each act) is to permit the moon to rise more rapidly
than it can (as it does on Godots stage), almost as if nature were illegally
celebrating its release from its own clock. Let loose from Time, night comes all of
a sudden. After intermission, there is the next dayand tomorrow, another
performance.
There are two time rhythms in Godot, one of the play and one of the stage.
Theatrically, the exit of the Boy and the sudden night are strong cues for the act
(and the play) to end. We, the audience, are relievedits almost over for us. They,
the actors, do not moveeven when the Godot-game is over, the theatre-game
keeps them in their place: tomorrow they must return to enact identical routines.
Underlying the play (all of it, not just the final scene of each act) is the theatre, and
this is exactly what the script insinuatesa nightly appointment performed for
people the characters will never meet. Waiting for Godot powerfully injects the
mechanics of the theatre into the mysteries of the play.
Richard Schechner Godotology: There's lots of time in Godot from
Frederick J Marker and Christopher Innes Modernism in European Drama:
Ibsen, Strindberg, Pirandello, Beckett
WHO IS GODOT?
Source of Godot:
[Another] story has Beckett rejecting the advances of a prostitute on the rue Godot
de Mauroy only to have the prostitute ask if he was saving himself for Godot.
Becketts longtime friend and English publisher John Calder summarises Becketts
position on the play thus: "He wanted any number of stories circulated, the more
there are, the better he likes it."
S E Gontarski "Dealing with a Given Space": Waiting for Godot and the
Stage from June Schlueter and Enoch Brater Approaches to Teaching
Beckett's Waiting for Godot
Without either accepting or rejecting the widespread view that Waiting for
Godot is a religious allegory, let us consider what problems confront a dramatist
who wishes to write a play about waitinga play in which virtually nothing is to
happen and yet the audience are to be cajoled into themselves waiting to the
bittersweet end. Obviously those who wait on stage must wait for something that
they and the audience consider extremely important.
We are explicitly told that when Godot arrives, so Vladimir and Estragon believe,
they will be "saved". An audience possessing even a tenuous acquaintance with
Christianity need no further hint: an analogy , they deduce, is being drawn with
Christs Second Coming . They do not have to identify Godot with God; they do,
however, need to see the analogy if the play is not to seem hopelessly trivial. In
secular terms, salvation can mean the coming of the classless society, that of the
Thousand-Year Reich, or any other millennial solution. Ultimately, though, the
concept of the Millennium is itself religious in origin, being present in the Old
Testament as well as the New; a Jewish audience would remember that they are
still awaiting the Messiah.
In other words, a play like Waiting for Godot could hardly "work" artistically if it
did not invoke the Judaeo-Christian Messianic tradition and its political derivatives
(Having grown up in Ireland at the time of the struggle for independence, Beckett
was doubtless aware of the millennial salvationist hope implicit in all nationalist as
The two thieves are Didi and Gogo; the two thieves are Pozzo and Lucky; the two
thieves are you and me. And the play is shaped to reflect that fearful symmetry.
Ruby Cohn Back to Beckett
At the end of Act I, when the boy arrives to say that Mr Godot" wont come this
evening but surely tomorrow " and Vladimir proceeds to question him about his
"credentials", the boy reveals that he minds the goats and his brother minds the
sheep. Placing these two words together is enough to suggest one of Jesuss bestknown parables, frequently used in art and sermon, the parable of the sheep and the
goats :
. . . From all this we may gather the Godot has several traits in common with the
image of God as we know it from the Old and New Testament. . . . The
discrimination between goatherd [Satanic] and shepherd [priestlyagnus dei] is
reminiscent of the Son of God as the ultimate judge [judicare vivos et mortuos] . . .
while his doing nothing might be an equally cynical reflection concerning mans
forlorn state. This feature, together with Becketts statement about something being
believed to be " in store for us, not in store in us ," seems to show clearly
that Beckett points to the sterility of a consciousness that expects and waits for the
old activity of God or gods.
Whereas Matthew (25,33) says: "And he shall seat the sheep on his right hand, but
the goats on the left" in the play it is the shepherd who is beaten and the goatherd
who is favoured. What Vladimir and Estragon expect from Godot is food and
shelter, and goats are motherly, milk-providing animals. In antiquity, even the male
goats among the deities , like Pan and Dionysos, have their origin in the cult of the
great mother and the matriarchal mysteries , later to become devils.
. . . today religion altogether is based on indistinct desires in which spiritual and
material needs remain mixed. Godot is explicitly vague, merely an empty promise,
corresponding to the lukewarm piety and absence of suffering in the tramps.
Waiting for him has become a habit which Beckett calls a "guarantee of dull
inviolability", an adaptation to the meaningless of life. " The periods of
transition ," he continued, "that separate consecutive adaptations . . . represent the
perilous zones in the life of the individual, dangerous, precarious, mysterious and
fertile, when for a moment the boredom of living is replaced by the suffering of
being.
Eva Metman Reflections on Samuel Beckett's Plays
. . . the question of Godots identity does more than tantalise spectators of Becketts
play: it is a paradigm of textual tantalisation itself. Its answer appears to lie outside
the play, encouraging criticism to return to that realm it once called home: the
authors intentions. However, this ancient ground of textual meaning now seems
abandoned, most explicitly in Becketts work, where its vacancy is announced,
paradoxically, in the form of a text strongly marked with intentionality: the direct
nonfictional statement of authorial intent. I am referring, of course, to Becketts
notorious riposte to the question of Godots identity. "If I knew," Beckett said, "I
would have said so in the play."
. . . If indeed Beckett is not deliberately withholding the identity of Godot but
really does not know it (a supposition implying that there is something to be
known), then he is displacing the traditional notion of textual meaningfulness . . .
For if we take Becketts remark at face value, we are confronted with the incredible
spectacle of a work of art based on expressive deficiency, a work of art that lacks
the one necessary condition of art: mastery. It is surely significant that critics have
generally been unable to accept this feature in Becketts work and have preferred to
characterise Godots nonarrival as an effect of Becketts authorial power rather
than of the impotence and ignorance he himself insists on.
. . . origin is gone, nonexistent. For, on closer inspection, the original audience we
have posited is not the integrated, stable starting point of a process that will
continue beyond its encounter with the play: rather, it is an audience already in
process, divided against itself. The plays repetitious structure is such that it
partakes of their referentiality. The question of his identity, while it can never be
answered, cannot be wished away either.
Una Chaudhuri Who is Godot? A Semiotic Approach to Beckett's Play from
June Schlueter and Enoch Brater Approaches to Teaching Beckett's Waiting
for Godot
In ancient Egyptian art, the Tree is depicted as bringing forth the Sun itself. This
Cosmic Tree, the living Source of radiant energy/be-ing, is the deep Background of
the christian cross, the dead wood rack to which a dying body is fastened with
nails. As [Helen] Diner succinctly states: "In Christianity, the tree becomes the
torture cross of the world".
Thus the Tree of Life became converted into the symbol of the necrophilic S and M
Society. This grim reversal is not peculiar to Christianity. It was a theme of
patriarchal myth which made christianity palatable to an already death-loving
society. Thus Odin,worshiped by the Germans, was known as "Hanging God", "the
Dangling One", and "Lord of the Gallows". [Jungian Erich] Neumann remarks that
"scarcely any aspect of their religion so facilitated the conversion of the Germans
to Christianity as the apparent similarity of their hanged god to the crucified
Christ." In the cheerful German version, the tree of life, cross and gallows tree are
all forms of the "maternal" tree. . . .
The christian culmination of the Tree of Life is analysed by Neumann in the
following manner:
Christ, hanging from the tree of death, is the fruit of suffering and hence the
pledge of the promised land , the beatitude to come; and at the same time He is the
tree of life as the god of the grape. Like Dionysis, he is endendros, the life at work
in the tree, and fulfills the mysterious twofold and contradictory nature of the tree.
. . . we are told that the Cross is a bed. It is not only Christ's "marriage bed" , but
also it is "crib, cradle and nest". It is the "bed of birth and . . . it is the deathbed".
Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology
[quoting Beckett]:
If life and death did not both present themselves to us, there would be no
inscrutability. If there were only darkness, all would be clear. It is because there is
not only darkness but also light that our situation becomes inexplicable. Take
Augustines doctrine of grace given and grace withheld: have you pondered the
dramatic qualities of this theology? Two thieves are crucified with Christ, one
saved and the other damned. How can we make sense of this division? In classical
drama, such problems do not arise. The destiny of Racines Phedre is sealed from
the beginning: she will proceed into the dark. As she goes, she herself will be
illuminated. At the beginning of the play she has partial illumination and at the end
she has complete illumination, but there has been no question but that she moves
toward the dark. That is the play. Within this notion clarity is possible, but for us
who are neither Greek nor Jansenist there is not such clarity. The question would
also be removed if we believed in the contrarytotal salvation. But where we have
both dark and light we have also the inexplicable. The key word in my plays is
"perhaps".
. . . I would gloss his commentary as follows: Vladimir and Estragon stand for the
"we", two moderns befogged in the inexplicable greyness of "perhaps". Pozzo is
Phedre: a relic, an anachronism, an erstwhile truthbut even so the logical
historical argument to the contrary. That is, if one were posing a contrast that
would illustrate how far we have come from an accountable universe, it might be
the dark world of tragedy which has, at least, the comfort of being designed and
instructive. Pozzos destiny, like Phedres is sealed from the beginning; he
proceeds into the dark, and though we do not see the scene, we presume that "as he
goes" he is illuminated. I am assuming that what Beckett means by "illumination"
is the process by which the tragic hero is made aware . . . of what the journey into
the dark means. In other words, tragedy is "a complex act of clarification". In
Pozzo this act is condensed into one speech in which he stands outside time in a
brief space of temporal integration. What he says is that all crises, from the coming
hither to the going hence, take place in the same second. The light gleams an
instant, then it is night once more.
Actually, Pozzo might have answered Vladimirs question (" Since when ?") even
more philosophically by quoting one of Becketts favourite secular thinkers: "Our
own past," Schopenhauer says, "even the most recent, even the previous day, is
only an empty dream of the imagination. . . . What was? What is? . . . Future and
past are only in the concept. . . . No man has lived in the past, and none will ever
live in the future; the present alone is the form of all life. . . . "
Bert O States The Shape of Paradox: An Essay on Waiting for Godot
Godot cannot finally be equated either with the "other" of the existentialists or with
God, but together with other hints, the stress on witnessing and being witnessed
and the frequent references to the Bible do push us in the direction of both
equations. Luckys speech starts off by postulating "the existence as uttered forth in
the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with
white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension."
Ronald Hayman Samuel Beckett
A scene in Act I illustrates how Beckett builds into his plays the impossibility of
satisfactory explanation of actions and the reliance on visual images instead of
words. Estragon repeatedly tries to ask about the pairs connection with Godot,
about whether they are "tied to Godot". The questioning is interrupted by the
appearance of Lucky, who enters with a rope around his neck. He covers half the
distance of the stage before the audience and the pair see who is holding the rope.
A man held by an invisible power, tied to an unseen element, is a visual
concretisation of the very question Estragon has been trying to ask. "Tied" in the
person of Lucky becomes palpable: Estragon tied to Vladimir, the pair tied to
Godot, Lucky tied to Pozzo, and this second pair tied to the force that keeps them
walking. Here Beckett uses physical presence to circumvent words and to offer up
whatever meaning is possible. . . . Lucky tied to an unseen wielder of the rope
provides a visual image that cannot finally be reduced to simple declaratory
statements.
Linda Ben-Zvi Teaching Godot from Life from June Schlueter and Enoch
Brater Approaches to Teaching Beckett's Waiting for Godot
We are habitually adapting, falsifying and faking evidence in order to adjust the
human organism to the conditions of its existence.
. . . To be sure of the reality of your own existence, you need to be sure of what has
happened to you. Which is impossible without an independent witness This is why
Vladimir and Estragon spend so much time arguing about what happened
yesterday. And if you cannot be certain about yesterdays events, how can you be
certain of todays? Are they really happening or is it all in the mind?
. . . The need for a witness from outside is the strongest reason of all for wanting
Godot to be real.
Ronald Hayman Samuel Beckett
. . . the tree in Waiting for Godot can be seen as equivalent to both the Old
Testament and the New Testament "trees". Two other references support the
significance of the tree as the Cross and as the centre of life for the community of
the faithful. One is from Revelation: ] "And the leaves of the tree were for the
healing of the nations" (22:2). It would be surprising if Beckett, who appears to
know the Bible so well, were not acquainted with this verse. Purgatorio, Becketts
favourite book of the Divine Comedy, contributes the other reference, from Canto
32, lines 37-60, where the leafless tree burst into leaf and blossom after the
Griffon, symbolising Christ, ties the chariot (the church), to the trunk of the
tree. . . .
The theme of the Cross having thus been introduced early in the play, a few
moments later Vladimir says that they are to wait "by the tree". The use of the
article "the" cannot be an accident, for Beckett made his own translation of the
play. This is not just any tree, but "the" tree.
They wonder on which day they are to meet Godot, and Vladimir "thinks" it is
Saturday. In "Samuel Becketts Long Saturday", Josephine Jacobsen and William
Mueller have made their case for Saturday as the day of "Waiting for Godot", the
Saturday on which the shattered and grief-stricken disciples of Jesus scattered in
despair , believing their Lord had been destroyed, not knowing what was to come
on the morrow. But in the text of the play Estragon replies, "But what Saturday ?
And is it Saturday? It is not rather Sunday? [traditionally celebrated as the day of
the Resurrection] (Pause) Or Monday? (Pause) Or Friday?" At the mention of
Friday, traditionally the day of the crucifixion [and the day which Beckett claimed
as his birthday], Vladimir, "looking wildly about him, as though the date was
inscribed in the landscape", says, "Its not possible!" Why does he make this
strange comment? Because Vladimir remembers and understands Christian
tradition better than Estragon, although that is not saying very much. Estragons
reply to this is, "Or Thursday?" Thursday traditionally is the day of the institution
of the Holy Communion and of the prayer vigil in the Garden of Gethsemane. In
the sacrament of the Holy Communion Christ is recalled into the midst of the
faithful. Thus, if one assumes the day of waiting for Godot is Thursday rather than
Saturday, hope is inherent in the amanuensis of Christ in the sacrament. On
Thursday also the disciples fell asleep in the garden while their Lord was praying.
Likewise, right after this conversation, Estragon falls asleep.
. . . some critics conclude that Beckett is only satirising religion. Yet a careful
reading of Waiting for Godot will show, I believe, that the object of satire is not the
waiting and longing for Godot. The objects of satire are . . . : first, sexual desire
and its apparatus (through Vladimir and Estragon), then power and brutality
(through Pozzo and Lucky), and finally academic pedantry (through Luckys
speech).
The words of [German theologian] Paul Tillich in The Shaking of the
Foundations (1948) are strikingly parallel to, almost a gloss on, the content of the
play:
The state of our whole life is estrangement from others and ourselves, because we
are estranged from the Ground of our being, because we are estranged from the
origin and aim of our life. And we do not know where we have come from, or
where we are going. We are separated from the mystery, the depth, and the
greatness of our existence. We hear the voice of that depth, but our ears are closed.
We feel that something radical, total, and unconditional is demanded of us, but we
rebel against it, try to escape its urgency, and will not adept its promise. We cannot
escape, however. If that something is the Ground of our being, we are bound to it
for all eternity, just as we are bound to ourselves and to all other life. We always
remain in the power of that from which we are estranged. That fact brings us to the
ultimate depth of sin; separated and yet bound, estranged and yet belonging,
destroyed and yet preserved, the state which is called Despair. Despair means that
there is no escape. Despair is "the sickness unto death". But the terrible thing about
the sickness of despair is that we cannot be released, not even through open or
hidden suicide. For we all know that we are bound eternally and inescapably to the
Ground of our being. The abyss of separation is not always visible. But it has
become more visible to our generation than to the preceding generation, because of
our feeling of meaninglessness, emptiness, doubt and cynicismall expressions of
despair, or our separation from the roots and meaning of our life. Sin in its most
profound sense, sin as despair, abounds amongst us.
. . . in the chapter "Waiting" in the same book, [Tillich] strikingly expresses the
paradox of the mystics waiting for God; the book also contains an extraordinary
chapter titled "Born in the Grave", a phrase reminiscent of Becketts " They give
birth astride of a grave ". Tillich says:
Waiting is not despair. It is the acceptance of our not having, in the power of that
which we already have.
Our time is a time of waiting; waiting is its special destiny. And every time is a
time of waiting, waiting for the breaking in of eternity. . . . Time itself is waiting,
waiting not for another time, but for that which is eternal.
This, I believe, is the meaning of the play.
Hlne L Baldwin Samuel Beckett's Real Silence
. . . in his "think" speech, which Pozzo suffers as part of his own initiation, Lucky
offers the half-mad babbling that is the result of his own experience of the abyss,
the nothingness of the void. Lucky, who embodies the dying certainties of past
civilisation in Act I, seems in his muteness to embody death itself in Act II, so that
Pozzo, who is tied first to the dying and then to Death itself, comes to accept the
burden of his own mortality, even though he continues to despise that burden.
Unable to rest in Luckys stance, nor to make do with Godot, Vladimir comes to a
crisis of faith at the plays climax that Estragon experiences before and after him.
Led by Pozzo as initiatory guide to the brink of the abyss, Vladimir undergoes the
plays central initiation into the sacred void, exploring as part of that experience the
mysterious relationship of life to death. . . . Vladimirs epiphany, unlike Pozzos, is
not an angry statement but an exploration of the levels of reality in his world. . . .
Vladimir questions, in Prospero fashion, the reality of his world, its truth or
meaning. Of what does that world consist? A faithful waiting for Godot, blows for
Estragon, friendship, death, the alleviation of suffering through habit. Placing
Godot in the wings on one side, and death in the wings on the other, Vladimirs
initiation involves a vision in which he brings the two face to face. Looking at the
now sleeping Estragon, whose nightmares he has refused throughout the play to
hear, he concludes his epiphany with a declaration of his own profound ignorance.
"At me too someone is looking , of me too someone is saying, he is sleeping, he
knows nothing, let him sleep on". It is as if he has been able, through his initiatory
confrontation with death, to move outside of himself and observe himself from
another perspective. Unlike Pozzo, however, who can go on in the face of the
unknowableness of life, Vladimir says, "I cant go on". As surely as Oedipus
comes to know the deeds he has done and the self that he is, Vladimir comes to
know that he will never possess his deeds or know himselfthat whether Godot or
death comes, he must share the darkness that Pozzo inhabits. But the rebirth that
initiation is all about and that Pozzo has experienced, eludes him.
BECKETTS INFLUENCES
Vaudeville:
. . . The most important trick in the style and structure of Waiting for Godot is the
old music-hall trick of protracted delay. No question can be answered and no action
can be taken without a maximum of interlocution, incomprehension, and
argument. You never go straight to a point if you can possibly miss it, evade it, or
start a long discussion about a shortcut.
. . . There is also a great deal of vaudeville business with hats and boots and
pratfalls. The bowler hats that all four characters wear belong to the tradition of
Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy. Vladimir has a comic walk and a comic disability
that makes him rush off to pee in the wings each time he is made to laugh, and
Lucky has elaborate comic business with all the things he has to carry, dropping
them, picking them up and putting them down.
. . . Another important trick is the way Beckett uses interruption. Almost
everything in the play gets interrupted Luckys big speech, Estragons story about
the Englishman in the brothel, and Vladimir interrupts his own song about dogs
digging a dog a tomb. But it is a song that circles back on itself, so, as with
Luckys speech, we welcome the interruption because we feel that otherwise it
would have gone on forever.
Ronald Hayman Samuel Beckett
Hobbes:
The relationships between the four characters are inherently fortuitous and
unstable. In the state of nature, they are governed by calculations of immediate
interest; in the commonwealth [Pozzo-Lucky], they are founded on the artificial
creation of the sovereign. As Pozzo remarks, it is only by "chance " that he is
Luckys master rather than vice versa. By the same token, all four are potentially
masters or slaves of each other. Didi and Gogo begin by mistaking Pozzo for
Godot, and there is no reason why he cannot become Godot if he and they wish
it. . . . "Godot" can be anyone who is willing to play the part.
Beckett demonstrates this interchangeability in a variety of ways. He undermines
the stability of character by reversal and self-contradiction. Lucky, who is mute,
unleashes a torrent of words. Gogo, who cannot identify Christ at the beginning of
the play, claims to have imitated him all his life. Pozzo, who prides himself on
punctuality, declares he has "no notion of time ". . . . The exchange of roles
between Didi and Gogo is symbolised by the furious exchange of hats. Names
themselves are subversive of identity. "Pozzo: becomes Bozzo , Gozzo, Godot;
"Godot" is Godin or Godet. . . . In the end, all the protagonists become Everyman.
. . . Pozzos repudiation of time signifies the collapse of the commonwealth, of the
socially ordered sequence of chronos, of hierarchy and meaning. He is "all
humanity ", a blind wanderer-king like Lear or Oedipus, helpless and stricken, yet
greater naked than in his shabby pomp.
. . . Gogo, inspecting the fallen pair, addresses Pozzo as "Abel" and Lucky as
"Cain". Beckett is not idle in his choice of names; Lucky has been designated as
the slayer, if not of Pozzo the man, then of that artificial person and social hero, the
sovereign. Yet rebellion has not severed the bond between master and man, only
rendered it inefficacious. Lucky, who is free to abandon his blind master, does not
do so; nor does Pozzo, though helpless, forsake command. Unlike Didi and Gogo,
who can exchange roles at will, they are chained to one another until
death. Rebellion cannot liberate either one, but only circumscribe them both more
closely; for those who have taken up the burden of society, there is no return to the
state of nature [chez the Rationalist philosophers]
Robert Zaller Waiting for Leviathan
Blake:
. . . these four characters are Becketts equivalent of William Blakes Four Zoas.
Blake held that the perfect man maintained a harmonious balance between four
functions of the psyche: Imagination, Reason, Passion and bodily Sensation, which
he personified as giants named Los, Urizen, Luvah and Tharmas. Mans Fall, and
all evil, arose because these functions warred against each other; in particular
Urizen tried to usurp power over the rest. In his Prophetic Books Blake gave
various, and somewhat conflicting, accounts of this internal, psychological strife.
In Becketts play is may well be that we have a different account of the same
warfare within the split psyche. Pozzo corresponds to Tharmas, the sensations; he
has enslaved Lucky , who corresponds to Urizen, or thought . The tenderhearted Vladimir is Luvah (feeling) and he alternatively quarrels with and
embraces the poet Estragon who represents imagination (Los).
G C Barnard Samuel Beckett: A New Approach
Jung:
[in the gravedigger puts on the forceps speech ] . . . Vladimir becomes aware of a
difference between two possible ways of living life. One awake. One in a state of
twilight. And he even realises that he cant go onwith what? With an existence in
which the womb and the tomb seem to fit together like two hemispheres which are
life apart for a brief moment to let in a ray of light. But, at this very instant, when
Vladimir is about to wake up, Godots boy-messenger appears and destroys the
process that was just about to take place in Vladimir . Godots function seems to be
to keep his dependents unconscious. His messenger does not know anything either;
. . . He even fails to recognise the tramps he had seen the day before (the French
version states that it is the same boy).
In Waiting for Godot we saw the inability of the two figures in each couple to let
each other go, although the stagnating quality of their togetherness was amply
expressed. The wish to control (Pozzo) and the wish to be protected (Lucky)
remain inseparable. So do the impotence of consciousness (Vladimir) and the
power of unconsciousness (Estragon).
Eva Metman Reflections on Samuel Beckett's Plays
STRUCTURE:
. . . Even before the curtain rises, the program informs us that there will
be two acts , though we do not know how the second will reflect the first. The set
pits the horizontal road on the stage board against the vertical tree. The action will
balance four characters falling down against their looking up at the sky.
The very names of the four main characters indicate their pairing : Pozzo and
Lucky contain two syllables and eight letters each; Estragon and Vladimir contain
three syllables and five letters each, but they address one another only by
nicknamesGogo and Didi, childish four-letter words composed of repeated
monosyllables. Even the fifth character, the nameless boy, has a brother, . . .
Godot is as arbitrary as the God of Matthew 25?32-33: "And before him shall be
gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd
divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand but
the goats on the left." Sheep and goat become saved thief and damned thief of St
Augustines symmetry.
Pozzo and Lucky have no nicknames and we view them formally, externally,
during their intermittent presence before us. Their clothes are elaborate but dated,
their relationship is repulsive, but it is not really our business. . . .
. . . And Godot has subsequently been explained as God, a diminutive god, Love,
Death, Silence, Hope, de Gaulle, Pozzo, a Balzac character, a bicycle racer, Time
Future, a Paris street for call-girls, a distasteful image evoked by French words
containing the root god (godailler to guzzle; godenot, runt; godelureau,
bumpkin; godichon, lout). Beckett told Roger Blin that the name Godot derived
from French slang words for bootgodillot, godasse. A decade after Godot was
produced I informed Beckett of a San Francisco morticians firm, Godeau Inc.
Ruby Cohn Waiting
Although there are four major characters in the play, they are used in such a way as
to minimise any possibilities of story elaboration and to constitute what amounts to
an "armature" or single portrait of "man in Essy". For one thing, Becketts people
condense, like Cain and Abel, into pairs or cooperating identities, and this alone
tends to subvert any conflict of competitive wills to a symbiotic tension: Vladimir
and Estragon , as we say, form the complementary parts of individual man
(mind/body, soul/appetite); Pozzo and Lucky form the complementary parts of the
social hierarchy (master/servant, capitalist/philosopher), Pozzos rope being less a
tether or rein than a reciprocal bond and the visible symbol of civilisations
unfortunate continuity.
On one hand, the world represented by Pozzo and Lucky implies a concept of
cause and effect, of sin and punishment, or at least of Fortune striking with some
justification. The world of Vladimir and Estragon, on the other, is one in which
Pride does not go before a Fall but before a vast silence. Hence the impression of
an unchanging essential: of time without content, chronicity without chronology.
Everything happens, as it were, at a distance and leaks through the surface of a
diversionary routine which is the last refuge of the dying ego. There is only a
vestige of the oppressive society in the form of thugs who administer unprovoked
beatings under cover of night, and all that remains of the demanding god is a dim
historical memory with barely enough gravitational pull to keep his "subjects" in a
vague orbit of supplication. But the Vladimir/Estragon plot is intelligible largely as
a "last bridge" in this whole burdensome history of obligation and ego-frustration.
. . . we might think of Becketts narrative problem in Godot as being essentially a
biblical one: how to keep the Vladimir/Estragon situation from becoming a
tautological bore; how, in short, to give this circularity enough linear drive to make
it interesting without compromising the all-important theme that the essential
doesnt change. To this end, Pozzo and Lucky give the play a considerable
narrative boost: theirs is the drama of mans "charge" through time; they are the
personifications of historical motion and thrust , of becoming, of man burdened
with the baggage of a sinful past and bound for a future which will come, like the
Judgement, when they least expect it. Put side by side as purely temporal rhythms,
these two plots also have something of the same relationship that tragedy has to the
history play : tragedy (the isolation and death of the hero) completes its action,
implying that everything that is important happens one fatal time; the history play
(the trials of the nation, or race) implies a fresh beginning in every ending, and
assures us that what has been done will have to be done again and again.
Bert O States The Shape of Paradox: An Essay on Waiting for Godot
Circularity:
Although it brilliantly contains a circular, cyclical world, the real genius of Waiting
for Godot is that the play itselfits form and movementis circular, like a wornout wheel of fortune at a deserted fairground, mysteriously turning. Indeed, the
idea of refrain, or repetition, is seen in several details, and it is the focal point of
the entire structure, for the "dramaturgy" of the play is cyclical. . . . It reinforces
the perfect circularity of time. Nothing ever finishes, and everything begins
again. The heroes of the plays . . . are condemned to pause forever in the stasis
where the curtain leaves them, eternally approaching and never entering the future
beyond. What they seek to complete is the arbitrary series begun by birth, to reach
that end where time is no more and where their present unreality is changed into
the certainty of their own identity or existence.
Barbara Reich Gluck Beckett and Joyce
DIDI/GOGO - REFERENCES TO SPECIFIC LINES:
. . . And yet when one looks at photographs of the first Paris staging of Godot,
apparently supervised with care by Beckett, one sees that both Vladimir and
Estragon are more shabby-genteel than ragged. A stage direction mentions
Estragons "rags " (haillons), but the pair are dressed in intact though far from
pristine dark clothes. Vladimir actually wears a stiff collar and a tie; although
Estragon wears a scarf round his neck and presumably no collar, the fact that both
wear intact bowler hats suggests they still have aspirations to gentility.
. . . Although they dont know where they are or what day of the week it is, they
can talk intelligently in a large vocabulary on a variety of subjects. Within a
passage of a few lines, Gogo compares themselves to caryatids and Didi uses the
Latin tag Memoria praeteritorum bonorum . [The past is always recalled to be
good] . . .
Estragon adapts Shelleys "To the Moon": "Art thou pale for weariness /Of
climbing heaven and gazing on the earth . . .?" . . . Beckett inserted this passage
into the English quite self-consciously, so as to leave no doubt that Didi and Gogo
are not merely "natures gentlemen" but have received some formal education.
Vivian Mercier Beckett/Beckett
Art thou pale for weariness
"As we look at them [Didi and Gogo], we suddenly realise the main function of
theatre, which is to show what the fact of being there consists in. For this is what
we have never seen on the stage before, or not with the same clarity, not with so
few concessions and so much force. A character in a play usually does no more
than play a part, as all those about us do who are trying to shirk their own
existence. But in Becketts play it is as if the two tramps were on the stage without
a part to play."
Stripping his characters down to their irreducible humanity and mortality, Beckett
also reduces the theatre to its pure naked essence . His plays become, in a Platonic
sense, the very Idea of a play people on a stage conscious that they are people on
a stage:
V: Well come back tomorrow.
E: And then the day after tomorrow.
Form, in the Platonic sense of Idea is all; content becomes minimal: . . . The shape,
the structure, is what matters, . . . The stress of form over content, on shape over
substance is an emphasis that Beckett himself is conscious of and has
acknowledged:
"I take no sides. I am interested in the shape of ideas. There is a wonderful
sentence in Augustine: Do not despair; one of the thieves was saved. Do not
presume; one of the thieves was damned. That sentence has a wonderful shape. It
is the shape that matters."
Barbara Reich Gluck Beckett and Joyce
[This poem was used by Beckett in an earlier novel] Moreover in Act II of this play
Estragons nightmare is concerned with falling from a height which plausibly could
be a cliff .
G C Barnard Samuel Beckett: A New Approach
Haha!Haha!
[In Carmina Burana] this is sung by a solo baritone as a mock church chant: the
Goliard play "abbot" before a rowdy tavern group of drunkards [another example
of the sermon joyeux see notes on Luckys speech]. The Goliard reveals himself
as an inveterate gambler, and rather than freeing a person of his sins, the Goliard
"frees" him of his garments and money.
Judith Lynn Sebesta Carmina Burana
Vladimirs second act circular song , from the original French version, and the
original German drinking song that influenced it:
Un chien vint dans loffice A dog came in the kitchen
Et prit une andouilletteAnd took a piece of sausage
Alors coups de louche With blows of the ladle
Le chef le mit en miettes. The cook beat him to a pulp
Les autres chiens ce voyant The other dogs, seeing this
Vite vite lensevelirent Quickly buried him and wrote
Au pied dune croix en bois blanc At the foot of the cross
O le passant pouvait lire: Where the passer-by could read:
Un chien vint dans loffice
[NB: The melody for "Ein Hund kam in die Kuche" is the same as that for the
German children's song "Mein Hut", a song taught to English-speaking children as
"My hat, it has three corners", based on Paganini's Carnevale di Venezia. This
melody was used in the San Quentin production, directed by Jan Jnson and
supervised by Beckett.]
E (avec volupt)Calme... Calme... (Rveusement) Les Anglais disent
cm. . . .
[E:
(voluptuously) Calm . . . calm . . . (Dreamily) The English say
cawm. . . . ]
My child, my sister,
Dream of the sweetness
Of going far away to live together!
To love at leisure
To love and die
In the land that resembles you!
The dewy sun
In the burning sky
Charms my spirit
As mysteriously
As do your traitorous eyes,
When they glitter with tears.
L, tout nest quordre et beaut, There, all is naught but order and
beauty
Luxe, calme et volupt.
Rich, calm and voluptuous.
Des meubles luisants,
Glimmering furnishings,
Polis par les ans,
Polished by the years,
Dcoreraient notre chambre;
Would decorate our room;
Les plus rares fleurs
The rarest flowers
Mlant leurs odeurs
Infusing their odours
Aux vagues senteurs de lambre,With the wafting perfume of amber
Les riches plafonds,
The ornate ceilings,
Les miroirs profonds,
The deep mirrors,
La spendeur orientale,
The oriental splendour,
Tout y parlerait
All would speak to
A lme secret
Our secret soul
Sa douce langue natale.
In its sweet native language.
L, tout nest quordre et beaut,
Luxe, calme et volupt.
Vois sur ces canaux
See how, on the canals
Dormir ces vaisseaux
The vessels sleep
Dont lhumeur est vagabonde; That wander by whim;
Cest pour assouvir
It is to satiate
Ton moindre dsir
Their least desires
Quils viennent du bout du monde.That they come to the edge of the world.
Les soleils couchants
The setting sun
Revtent les champs,
Clothes anew the fields,
Les canaux, la ville entire,
The canals, the entire city,
Dhyacinthe et dor;
In lavender and gold;
Le monde sendort
Dans une chaude lumire.
Beaudelaire wrote this poem about his mistress Dorothe, a mulatto prostitute. His
romanticisation of the "far-away land"of her ancestry is not only an echo of most
19th-century imperialistic idealisation of exotic colonial holdings, but this poem in
particular became emblematic of the paradisical object of escapist fantasies in
general. As arguably the most well-known poem ever written in French, the refrain
"Luxe, calme et volupt" is almost universally recognised; and Becketts
juxtaposition of these words in Gogos line would not likely be missed by even the
most rudimentarily educated reader.
Although Vladimir is technically correct that "of the other three [evangelists] two
dont mention any thieves at all", Mark 15:32 refers to others not called thieves but
executed at the same time: "And they that were crucified with him reviled him".
Line-by-line examination [shows] the pattern of affirmation and negation, the
juxtaposition of opposites, that constitutes part of the comedy of this sequence and
that ultimately determines the overall tenor of the play. The assertion "One of the
thieves was saved" (a thoughtful reference to a serious story) is followed by what
could be either a flippant or a serious judgement: "Its a reasonable percentage " .
Whether or not the comedy of that line is maximised by the mode of delivery, the
line itself introduces considerations of a different order: the secular world of
economics, mathematics, sociology; the world of cost-benefit analysis rather than
the divine order of the souls salvation. The irreverence implied by this quite
sudden shift from the divine to the secular shocks and surprises an informed
audience, and from this experience of shock and surprise comes a response of
uneasy humour. And so the sequence continues throughout. The serious issue of
repentance is undercut by the comic evasiveness of not going into details. The
best-selling book of the Judeo-Christian tradition is trivialised to some pretty
coloured maps. The central figure in Christianity becomes a vaudeville double
take: "Our Saviour". . . "Our what?". A significant theological term, a work used
daily by ordinary people is momentarily forgotten as if it were abstruse: Vladimir
searches for the opposite of saved and finally remembers damned. . . . the
juxtapositions and the rapidity of their presentation, not the subject, provide the
humour.
Estragon is bored with a story he does not want to hear (does the audience laugh at
his sarcastic "I find this really most extraordinarily interesting " because its
thoughts have been voiced?). Yanked unwillingly through a tired old problem from
the nineteenth-century Higher Criticism and forced to face the critical question of
which evangelist to believe, Estragon quips, "Who believes him ?" While some
audience members may accept the Bible as truth, others may not believe "the old
stories": thus Estragons annoyed irreverence can produce a gasp of shocked
surprise and a laugh of recognition. The next pair of lines similarly engages the
audience: "Everybody [believes him]. Its the only version they know" is met by
the judgement "People are bloody ignorant apes ". Once again, the audience can be
shocked and amusedbut this time caught as well. For they realise that they, too,
may have only a vague knowledge of the crucifixion story and the two
thieves: having been lured into laughing at other people as "bloody ignorant apes",
they then find themselves included.
The biblical material has thus been used to achieve two ends: it introduces a theme central
to the play as a whole and sounds a note of cynical humour that is heard throughout. The
theme, of course, is that suffering permeates human life, makes it a kind of hell; the
cynical humour depends on seeing the major story of the Christian tradition, meant to be
good news, as really bad news, garbled and ineffective. The joke is on those who have
believed it. "Hope deferred maketh the something sick ," Vladimir says, groping for
Proverbs 13:12: "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh,
it is a tree of life." Waiting for what does not come indeed makes the heart (and
feet and other body appendages) sick. And yet, by a withered tree, he and Estragon
continue to wait.
Im sure someone has already noticed this, but Ive wondered if there isnt a
possible connection between Didi and Gogo and Dysmas and Gestas, the names
given to the two thieves in the Middle Ages, . . . It would be an interesting point for
a director to bear in mind for an audience with theological scruples, particularly in
the placement of the two men in the second "Crucifixion" scene. Dysmas (crucified
to Christs right) was the repentant thief. He entered heaven with a cross on his
shoulders, the first mortal redeemed by Christs death. But which tramp should
have the honour? Didi seems the logical beneficiary, given his preoccupation with
repentance and crucifixion throughout the play; and at the end he does speak the
words, "Christ have mercy upon us ". Unfortunately, this would consign Gogo to a
fate worse than death, and that is hardly what the play has in mind. But if the
reader finds this idea far-fetched, consider one propounded by Beckett himself on
Estragons chances: "One of Estragons feet is blessed, and the other damned. The
boot wont go on the foot that is damned, and it will go on the foot that is not. It is
like the two thieves on the cross." I simply dont know what to make of this: it
seems to be carrying thievery to the limit of subtlety (Should one presume, or
despair?). Perhaps we should call it a stand-off: Estragon gets at least one foot in
the gate, which is more than we can clearly say for
Vladimir.
The Crucifixion is kept before the audience by references
such as Vladimirs use of the clich " To every man his
little cross " and by Estragons Crucifixion posture when
he does the exercise "the tree", asking, " Do you think
God sees me ?"; the implied answer seems to be no since
he cries out for pity. Estragons comparison of himself
with Christ emphasises the protracted suffering of human
life: if the terrible slow torture of Christs Crucifixion is
considered "quick", then the pain and despair of Vladimir
and Estragons lingering life is even further
accentuated. Vladimirs false alarm concerning Godots
arrival is met with a line suggesting a messianic herald:
"The wind in the reeds " echoes Jesuss remarks about
John the Baptist:
What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed
shaken with the wind? . . . But what went ye out for to
see? A prophet yea, I say unto you, and more than a
prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I
send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare
thy way before thee. (Matthew 11:7-10)
This reference to hope and salvation, along with the others, ironically indicates the
extent to which Vladimir and Estragon have been misled by their culture, conned
into desiring, awaiting the impossible or the nonexistent.
Other biblical or theological and religious references in the play serve similar
ironic functions: the well-known biblical injunction "Seek and ye shall find" is
garbled to "When you seek you hear . . . . That prevents you from finding"; Pozzo,
condescending and punitive, seems at time a parody of God the Father, though "not
particularly human", happy to meet "the meanest creature", "of the same species as
Pozzo! Made in Gods image ", "even when the likeness is an imperfect
one"; Vladimir and Estragon seem parodies of humankind, Estragon giving his
name as Adam and Vladimir sententiously concluding that " all mankind is us ";
Godot seems a parody of popular imaged of God, having a significant white beard,
little boys for messengers (angels) and a nasty tendency to punish those who refuse
to wait on him. The irony of these references keeps alive in the play what the story
of the two thieves had suggested, that there is no happy salvation for Vladimir and
Estragon.
Kristin Morrison Biblical Allusions in Waiting for Godot from June
Schlueter and Enoch Brater Approaches to Teaching Beckett's Waiting for
Godot
The sense that Vladimir and Estragon will not be saved is reinforced by a second
parable, the well-known story of the wise and foolish virgins:
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their
lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and
five were foolish. They were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom
tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made,
Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. . . . and they that were
ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came
also the other virgins [who had gone to buy oil for their lamps], saying, Lord, Lord,
open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
Watch, therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour therein the Son of man
cometh. (Matthew 25:1-13)
The biblical words "Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him" are
echoed in Vladimirs triumphant announcement," Its Godot ! Were saved! Lets
go and meet him!". Like attendant virgins of ancient ceremony, these two derelicts
have awaited one who they are sure has a special claim on them and in waiting
have proved themselves worthy: "What are we doing here , that is the question.
And we are blessed in this, that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in this
immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come".
In the parable, the bridegroom does finally arrive and takes those who are ready
into the wedding feast (an image for the kingdom of heaven or salvation; see
Matthew 22:1-14 for a similar parable associating darkness and damnation). But in
this play, Vladimir is wrong, they are not saved (or blessed), and Estragon is right,
they are "in hell ". Once again, a biblical parable serves as ironic contrast to the
dramatic scene:the received wisdom of Vladimirs world is untrue; Vladimir may
regulate his behaviour and set his expectations according to the old stories, but in
fact these stories are not reliable: he may keep his appointment, but the bridegroom
does not. In the parable, of course, the bridegroom tarries, arriving finally at
midnight; it is precisely this detail of the story that traps Vladimir, who never
knows whether he has waited long enough: perhaps Godot will come tomorrow,
"without fail ".
Vladimir is not, of course, consciously referring to this parable; but its ethic resides
in him, as his echo of its words suggests. Thus the audience senses one more
grimly comic moment of blighted hope: "your only hope left is to disappear ". But
Didi and Gogo continue to wait, hoping for a salvation, a deliverance, even though all their
biblical stories of salvationthe two thieves, the sheep and goats, the ten virginsmock
those hopes.
Kristin Morrison Biblical Allusions in Waiting for Godot from June
Schlueter and Enoch Brater Approaches to Teaching Beckett's Waiting for
Godot
Vladimir, looking again at the sleeping, dreaming Estragon, can say, " At me too
someone is looking , of me too someone is saying, He is sleeping, he knows
nothing, let him sleep on". The line echoes Christs observation of Peter in
Gethsemane (Mark 14:41): "Sleep on now and take your rest."
S E Gontarski "Dealing with a Given Space": Waiting for Godot and the
Stage from June Schlueter and Enoch Brater Approaches to Teaching
Beckett's Waiting for Godot
. . . Luckys famous speech with its confusion of garbled knowledge recalls the
Doctor in ancient farce while the improvisation of the two tramps suggests the
endless semantic speculations and misunderstandings of the Commedia
dellArte. . . . each has his own set-piece to perform, an exact and welltried lazzo such as the exchange of hats. . . . If language does threaten to assert
itself, its pretensions are burst by the pratfall. At times the pratfall works from
within language itself as in Pozzos inflated speech which portends, in the
beginning, to be the definitive speech we have come to the theatre to hear: after
leading his audience to a climax of expectation he cannot sustain the illusion and
gloomily concludes" Thats how it is on this bitch of an earth ."
More frequently , however, it is solely physical and often disgusting. It deflates the
platitudes and expressions of sentiment with which the characters clothe their
isolation, as for example where Vladimir and Estragon, out of habit and the
boredom of the condition, attempt a reconciliation:
E: Come Didi. (silence) Give me your hand. (Vladimir turns) Embrace me!
(Vladimir softens.
They embrace. Estragon recoils) You stink of garlic.
V: Its good for the kidneys.(silence). Estragon looks attentively at the
tree) What do we do now?
E: We wait.
The pratfall returns them to the painful level of reality from which they will begin
another "little canter " towards the same end. This is the clowns weapon, the
undignified, ceremonious collapse of human pretension, a levelling down from the
upright to the horizontal . In Act II the tramps, Pozzo and Lucky all stumble and
fall together to form a pile of bodies centre stage. It is the universal pratfall.
V: Weve arrived
P: Who are you?
V: We are men.
Detached from history and society Vladimir and Estragon have time to be
men. Though they are sharply individualised, have their own past and are
concerned, in the present, with the vagrants usual preoccupationswhat to eat;
where to sleep; beatings and the state of their bootsThey achieve a universal
dimension. . . . they present a commentary on life and a definition of man:
humanity considered in its residue, left facing itself.
Vivian Mercier Beckett/Beckett
. . . The pitiful struggle they are waging to keep up the semblance of action is
probably so impressive only because it mirrors our own fate, that of modern mass
man . Since, through the mechanisation of labour, the worker is deprived of the
chance to recognise what he is actually doing , and of seeing the objectives of his
work, his working too has become something like a sham activity. . . . On the other
hand, by this kind of work, man has become so thoroughly unbalanced that he now
feels the urge to restore his equilibrium during his leisure time by engaging in
substitute activities and hobbies , and by inventing pseudo-objectives with which
he can identify himself and which he actually wishes to reach: thus it is precisely
during his leisure time and while playing that he seems to be doing real work. . . .
And this is not even the extreme case. For mass-man today has been deprived so
completely of his initiative and of his ability to shape his leisure time himself
that he now depends upon the ceaselessly running conveyor belt of radio and
television to make time pass . . . . If the silly seriousness with which Estragon and
Vladimir struggle to produce a semblance of activity strikes us as so deadly serious
and so fantastically symptomatic for our time, it is only because today working
time and leisure time, activity and indolence, real life and playing, have become so
inextricably intertwined.
Gnther Anders Being without Time: On Beckett's Play Waiting for Godot
Vladimir and Estragon pass the time while waiting by playing at a series of games
language gameswhich are two key concepts in much of contemporary
thought; . . . Godot is the play of Vladimir and Estragons words, not any agreedupon meaning for them, which constitutes their social bond. This postmodern
social bond is suspended in Godot by Vladimir and Estragons drive to recuperate a
transcendent principlerepresented by Godotwhich they feel while give
meaning to their lives and their speech, thereby legitimating their society. All their
games have reference to one metagame: waiting for Godot.
. . . In postmodern society, it is
precisely in the social bond of
language and language games that
we can legitimate our own society.
In such a postmodern society,
people have untied themselves from
the belief in a metaphysical, transhistorical, absolute ground for their
existence. It has become apparent
that no such system exists, but this
does not reduce postmodern society
to barbarity and chaos, as the
modernists thought it would.
Postmoderns look to themselves
and their communicational
interaction in society to legitimate
their existence.
In Godot, Gogo and Didi have such
a communicational society but they
do not realise it because of their
deep-seated drive toward
legitimation in Godot. Early in the
play we see how this belief in a
static metaphysical support displaces any postmodern notion of society:
E:
V:
E:
V:
Lets go
We cant
Why not?
Were waiting for Godot.
This simple sequence occurs several times throughout the play, and always after a
long pause following the final "trick" played in a language game:when their games
break down or are played out, they constantly refer back to their metagame, their
metadiscourseGodot. For example, after Pozzo and Lucky leave near the end of
the first act, we have this exchange:
P: Adieu
Long silence
V: That passed the time.
E: It would have passed in any case.
V: Yes, but not so rapidly.
Pause
E: What do we do now?
V: I dont know.
E: Lets go.
V: We cant
E: Why not?
V: Were waiting for Godot.
Significance (i.e., Godot, for whom we wait) is always a suspense and a test of
meaning, perpetually in crisis. It depends on what narrative can produce: narrative
manipulates character. Meaning is as "dark as [it is] in a head before the worms get
at it" (Stories). This production of meaning is generally seen, then, as an
illumination, a function of insight. Beckett reverses this dead metaphor of insight
a fundamental cultural metaphorby showing narrative as a function rather of
blindness (Pozzo) or, at best, or partial sight (all five characters), which is
Becketts Platonic metaphor for the interaction of language and meaning. Nor do
characters "produce" dialogue in Godot, but what I have called the two registers of
language produce their own distinct dialogue; indeed, this narrative produced the
characters. The lecture, as recitation, and the lecture, as reading, separate and
interact to suspend and to test meaning. This dialogue of reading characterises the
entire text of Godot, . . .
The opening exchange of the play, between Gogo and Didi, is an introduction to
and immersion in the confrontation of lecture and lecture.
E: Nothing to be done.
Didi has not addressed Gogo at all, nor has he addressed the audience or reader
outside the play. He has "read" a text here, one that remains concealed from the
reader or view of Godot, an underlying text whose authority is never questioned or
revealed. This unrevealed, authoritative text, which gives Didi such weighty and
ponderous delivery, is the text of the politician, the philosopher, the rhetorician,
and it is utterly unavailable to Gogo. Having delivered his lecture, Didi slips out to
Gogos experiential world:
V: So there you are again.
This transitional remark is itself caught between two kinds of discourse; it marks
the emergence and the nonsynthesis of layers of language.
Jeffrey Nealon from Cathleen Culotta Andonian Critical Response to Samuel
Beckett
In the course of the play it becomes increasingly apparent that Vladimir and
Estragon are, relative to Godot, in the same servile position Lucky is, especially
with respect to the doubly-violent end to his deconstructive think. For example,
near the end of the playafter the boy has told Vladimir and Estragon that Godot
again will not come todaywe have this exchange:
E:
V:
E:
V:
E:
V:
E:
V:
If we dropped him?
Didi leans toward rhetoric. Their very nicknamesgo go and dis dis (from
French dire) summarise the polarity . . . At the end of Act I, it is the active Gogo
who asks, " Well, shall we go ?" and the meditative Didi assents, "Yes, lets go."
Act II closes with the same lines, but the speakers are reversed .
Ruby Cohn Philosophical Fragments in the Works of Samuel Beckett
For the tramps, their nobility lies in their persistent search for meaning; their
tragedy in the impotence of the intelligence to overcome the incommensurables
that surround it.
Of the two Vladimir thinks more and is therefore more eloquent: his anguish is
intellectual. Consequently he appears to be the stronger. . . . But Vladimirs
thinking is fallible and exposes him to greater anguish than Estragon. When they
discuss the idea of hanging themselves Estragon sees at once that Vladimir, who is
the heavier of the two, may break the bough, but Vladimir has to have it explained
to him as if he were a child and then says, "I hadnt thought of that ." And it is
Estragon who often destroys his painfully built intellectual certainties: "Nothing is
certain when youre about ". Vladimirs head is a " charnel house " of dead ideas,
and when he needs to think he takes off his hat and peers inside as if looking for
somethinga pantomime of the intellectuals hollow crown. When Lucky leaves
his hat behind Vladimir exchanges it for his, perhaps preferring other mens ideas
to his own.
Vladimir is also capable of thinking of others whereas Estragon is only concerned
by his own pain. . . . But as it proves intellectual compassion is not boundless:
Vladimirs sympathy is for the suffering of the moment.
Estragon . . . is more petulant, stubborn and egotistical than Vladimir. He sulks like
a child, sitting inert on the mound while Vladimir paces restlessly about with his
eyes searching the horizon as if the answer to his agony might be found there. His
imagination is spontaneous and he habitually personalises the universe, thus when
he talks of Christ it is not surprising to find him identifying himself with him or
that he claims, looking at his rags, to have been a poet.
Vladimir read the Bible for instruction, Estragon for the coloured maps of the Holy
Land . . . His suffering is physical, as with his boots, or emotional, but he still
delights in the body and in physical coarseness as when Vladimir (who despises it)
has to relieve himself. Then he stand in the middle of the stage and enjoys the
spectacle. Estragon is also more naturally a victim . . . and in his innocence of
thought seems to be more beloved by whoever it is who introduces the several
mysterious acts of grace into the evening. In the first act he struggles to get his feet
into his boots; after the interval they have been replaced by a pair a little too
large. Beckett told Harold Hobson: "One of Estragons feet is blessed, and the
other is damned. The boot wont go on the foot that is damned; and it will go on
the foot that is not." Finally, Estragon is closer to timelessness than Vladimir. All
landscapes are now the same to him and his memory is incapable of reaching back
even to the previous day. Once completed an event is forgotten; and in his mind,
which makes no distinction between events in time, his thoughts belong to the
infinite number of repeated present moments in which they are spoken. Thus he is
easily pleased by their improvisations and when he is, is confident for the
tomorrow of which he cannot form
any real conception, unlike Vladimir
who dreads the always coming of the
night.
The dialogue in which the tramps
attract and repel, demand and reject,
possess and elude one another,
expresses a friendship which is
situated somewhere between fatigue
and ennui. . . . Each feels closer to his
own Self without the other who
reminds him of his imprisonment in
time . They remain unknown and
unknowable to one another but prefer
to continue a relationship which
repeatedly stresses their inviolable
isolation, rather than separate and
endure the inescapable self-perception
of life alone. Both feel pain and call
on the other to recognise their
suffering but neither is capable of
penetrating to the others being: Vladimir suffering intellectually is a spectacle for
Estragon; Estragon suffering physically is beyond Vladimirs comprehension.
. . . Suffering doesnt ennoble or create a human solidarity; it is unsharable and it
brutalises. When he is kicked Estragon spits at Lucky and later, when the latter is
incapable on the ground, belabours him with fists and feet. Again when Estragon
calls on God for pity, Vladimir, his friend, is excluded from the plea:
E: God have pity on me!
V: And me?
E: On me! On me! Pity! On me!
Like all who love, or are close to another, they are adept at wounding. Rejection is
followed by counter rejection and Estragons selfish wants encourage Vladimir to
sarcasm and bitterness. . . . But despite the suffering which sets a distance between
them , and the others presence which emphasises their essential loneliness, there is
also a profound need which can sometimes transform the irritations of hatred into
tenderness and their anger into a compassion which is close to love. Vladimir
needs someone to listen to him explain the conflicting evidence in his
head (" Come on , Gogo, return the ball, cant you")and the childlike Estragon
wants protection from himself and others ("When I think of it . . . all these
years . . . but for me . . . where would
you be . . ? Youd be nothing more than
a little heap of bones at the present
minute.").
Pozzo and Lucky are representatives of
the ordinary world from which the
tramps are excluded. "Weve lost our
rights ?" Estragon asks. Vladimir
prefers to say "Weve waived them."
Even the tramps will to assert their
importance as free agents by insisting
that their exclusion is voluntary. By
contrast with Pozzo and Lucky,
however, it is the tramps lives which
appear normal. . . . In a world where
man awaits a revelation, Pozzo, the
master, is the nearest approach to what
is absent. Life, for Pozzo, is important.
When he enters he still values the body
(the provisions he has brought for
himself); he is capable of enjoying sensual delight and depends upon a collection
of cherished possessions (his pipe and vaporisor [much like relics prized by the
many established religions, notably the Roman Catholic church]). Pozzos is a
fixed and well-regulated world in contrast to the stationary confusion of the tramps
where everything is in flux, and his behaviour echoes the image which the tramps
have of Godot (so does his name).
Michael Robinson The Long Sonata of the Dead
Estragon , who was once a poet, is predominantly the withdrawn inner self . On the
stage he several times attempts to go to sleep and dream; when woken up by
Vladimir he loses his temper and with a gesture towards the universe exclaims
"This one is enough for you ?" He has given up the struggle ("Nothing is to be
done"), and twice he suggests that they both hang themselves; in fact we learn that
years ago he tried to drown himself in the Rhne but Vladimir rescued him. The
suicidal impulses of the inner self are often countered by the pseudo-self which is
more closely identified with the body than is the other; . . .
In his rle as the inner self we find that Estragon is the cold member of the pair,
who refuses the embrace of his more warm-hearted companion and is generally
more surly and even occasionally cruel. His contributions to the dialogue are apt to
be terse, shrewd and gloomy, but sometimes he bursts out furiously and shouts
with no apparently adequate provocation. Several times he suggests going away
and separating from Vladimir, but actually he clings to his friend whose presence
he needsin fact they could not exist apart for long; as single cherries they would
rot immediately.
Apparently, however, they do lose each other each night (when the body-bound
pseudo-self sleeps) and during the day (when the pseudo-self is occupied with the
outer world) and only come into communication during the twilight of evening . . .
. Vladimir is joyous at their reunion and wants to embrace his friend, but Estragon
is sulky. It seems that once again unknown persons have beaten him during the
night; the life of the inner self in the periods when it is completely divorced from
the pseudo-self is not [a] cosy state, . . . but is unfortunately likely to consist of
terrifying phantasies.
G C Barnard Samuel Beckett: A New Approach
Vladimir is more emotional, more easily hurt, and more dependent on friendship
than is Estragon. He is also rather more hopeful, not quite convinced that there is
"nothing to be done". He is the relatively practical one . . . Vladimir, too, is the one
who has a sense of time; . . . Estragon has very little sense of time and hardly any
memory; . . . and when asked about what was said at the beginning of this very
evening can only reply "dont ask me. Im not a historian ."
G C Barnard Samuel Beckett: A New Approach
Estragon . . . [believes] that his whole life has been one long crucifixion. Beckett
constantly uses the cross as a symbol of the agony of human life rather than of
redemption in this play it appears on the stage as a tree on which Estragon
proposes they should hang themselves, and behind which he tries in vain to hide
and abandons with the comment: " Decidedly this tree will not have been of the
slightest use to us ."
G C Barnard Samuel Beckett: A New Approach
[The] schizophrenic split [as embodied by Pozzo and Lucky] was one in which the
imaginative part , the function which William Blake called the poetic Genius, was
shut off and made into a feeble inner self, while the remainder of the ego built up a
pseudo-self which was occupied with material prosperity. As time went on the
pseudo-self grew more and more domineering, self-important and callous but also
more unsure of itself; on the other hand the inner self became more unreal and
impoverished.
The split as embodied in Estragon and Vladimir is not so severe ; they still retain
feelings of affection for each other, come together each evening for mutual support
and are visibly human beings who suffer. But Pozzo and Lucky represent a much
more radical split in which the elements of feeling and imaginative thought have
been suppressed and starved while a swollen ego has successfully pursued selfish
material ends.
G C Barnard Samuel Beckett: A New Approach
Dialogue proves to be even more repetitious and circular than physical gestures.
The conversations of Didi and Gogo possess a litany like structure, with constant
verbal repetition and recurrence of phases and motifs . . . In many such " canters "
Estragon and Vladimir change places, each asking or declaring what the other had
just a few moments before . . . Conversation to both is a " ball " that has to be
"returned", another game to pass the time until Godot comes. . . . at their best, the
short, stichomythic speeches of Didi and Gogo are a lilting counterpoint, poetic as
well as musical.
Barbara Reich Gluck Beckett and Joyce
Two single speeches exemplify this extraordinary ability of the dialogue to turn
back on itself. Luckys monologue in Act I . . . establishes the pitiful mortality of
man and his works. . . . the whole tour de force finally culminates in lines whose
repeated echoes of "stone" and "skull" evoke the image of the graveyard that is
every mans end. Death imagery also pervades Vladimirs second-act song, . . .
which is capable of infinite expansion (or rather, regression). Circular in structure,
repetitious in vocabulary, the song is a symbol of the play itself, a "closed plot
from which there is no exit."
. . . [the] influence of Joyce and Finnegans Wake in particular can be seen
in Waiting for Godots careful balancing of opposites. The overwhelming tendency
to circular movement is countered if not conquered by an effort at linear
progression. Against the monotony of the circle is set the fearful descending line
that ends in the grave.
Barbara Reich Gluck Beckett and Joyce
POLARITY:
Distinct individuals, Gogo and Didi are also two complementary halves of a single
personality. Vladimir is mans mental aspect, Estragon his physical body. If
Vladimirs mouth smells, Estragons feet stink; if Vladimir continually plays with
his hat, Estragon is always trying to take off his boots. Both will to see Lucky
perform, but Vladimir wants him to think and Estragon wants him to dance.
. . . Pozzos right lung [in Estragons lampooning of his use of the vaporiser] is
good, but his left one is bad, and Beckett[said] "one of Estragon's feet is blessed,
and the other is damned. The boot wont go on the foot that is damned; and it will
go on the foot that is not."
Finally, Waiting for Godot balances the opposites of art and artifice. A play, it is
aware, as are all of Becketts works, of its own theatrical illusion. Far from
pretending that their stage has four walls, Gogo and Didi are highly conscious of
the audience watching them. "Inspiring prospects " is Estragons comment on the
playgoers. Vladimir, not so polite, perhaps voices the secret hostility of many an
author when he turns toward the auditorium and says, "that bog . . .". Estragon, like
an usher, directs Vladimir to the mens room. . . while Vladimir appropriately
responds, Keep my seat ." Aware that he and Vladimir are actors uttering lines,
Estragon comments directorially on their delivery: "That wasnt such a bad little
canter ."
Barbara Reich Gluck Beckett and Joyce
GODOT:
. . . In Waiting for Godot the central point to which all four figures are constantly
drawn is the tree, the Cross (by extension of significance), the symbol of the deity
to whom Vladimir and Estragon both appeal(" Do you think God sees
me ?""God have pity on meAnd me!"). But these appeals to God, to
the control deity, set him quite apart from Godot, who has many of the attributes of
the old-style conventional image of God with a white beard. Are there, then two
gods? Why not? Becketts view is a simple gnostic ambiguity: there is a demiurge
who created this imperfect and suffering world, and there is hope for a Redeemer
who may set all things to rights when he chooses, for reasons unknown but time
will tell.
Colin Duckworth Angels of Darkness
While Estragon broods to one side Vladimir questions the boy about Mr Godot and
learns that he does nothing. On being told that he has a beard Vladimir asks "fair or
. . . (he hesitates) . . . or black?" The boy thinks that it is white, at which Vladimir
exclaims "Christ have mercy on us!" He was prepared to find that Godot was the
Saviour or even the Devil; but appalled by the possibility of him being Jehovah,
the God of the Judgment Day.
G C Barnard Samuel Beckett: A New Approach
Vladimir is careful to let Pozzo announce himself; his whole position would be in
danger if the concept of Godot could not also be a precept. But like the blustering
Satan of Paradise Lost, Pozzo is disappointed that he has been summoned and yet
they do not know him. The new arrivals increase ones sense of possibility. Lucky
is like Estragon, in snatching the sleep he can get, but Pozzo introduces the notion
of "species" and can laugh where Vladimirs timidity and querulousness do not
allow him to. At the same time, Pozzos epicureanism is dependent on the
continued enslavement of Lucky. . . . Pozzo pretends Lucky is an analogue of the
Kenotic Christ or Suffering Servant, but he is committed to a closed system that
denies Christianity, and trying to father it on Lucky does him no good.
John Pilling Samuel Beckett
(silence)
Pozzo!
(silence)
At his first entrance Pozzo has no doubts; he knows who he is and the audience,
who, like the tramps, probably mistake him for Godot, believe that the waiting will
now be resolved. For several minutes he sustains the illusion. With the aid of his
vaporiser he recites a speech describing the fall of night. This is the true
performance, patiently, studied and rehearsed frequently spoken and owing nothing
to the improvised passages that have been offered earlier in the evening. It is
lyrical, prosaic and vibrant, uses dramatic pause and a variety of accepted theatrical
gestures ("hand raised in admonition; he raises his eyes to the sky") to increase its
effect. Afterwards the artiste asks his audience, represented by Estragon and
Vladimir, "How did you find me ?", thanks them for their automatic enthusiasm
and concedes: "I weakened a little towards the end, you didnt notice?
The general effect, however, has been disappointing; as Estragon says: "Ive been
better entertained ." Pozzo is not Godot as the second act makes clear. The evening
is not saved for he needs the tramps as the audience needs them and Lucky needs
him; it is another of those chains of cause and effect . . . The deadening repetition
of dialogue and action is demonstrated in the theatrical situation itself. If the
necessity of being seen compels the actors to return before an audience night after
night, the audience, for the moment the tyrant or witness, comes because it too is
committed to wait. And if, during the evening, any progress is made . . . the next
night returns them to the same point on the circle once again.
Michael Robinson The Long Sonata of the Dead
When Vladimir says that he and Estragon waived their rights rather than lost them
he is consciously adopting an importance which he does not possess. "Were not
tied ?" asks Estragon. "No question of it!" replied Vladimir. "For the moment." The
tramps, like those in the society from which they are excluded, want to believe that
their individual decisions change things and that these decisions are made without
duress. But, despite their apparent freedom as outcasts, their condition is as
circumscribed as Pozzos. They need Godot to give a meaning to their
universe: they depend on his arrival, and so long as Godot does not come to
resolve their waiting everything that happens is only provisional.
Godot, because he exists for the tramps and directs the course of the evening in
progress, is as real a character as any of those we see. . . . To the tramps he lives in
the capitalist world of family, agents, correspondents and bank accounts. They
identify his power with what is more familiar to them in the only world they have
experience of: authority. But to the boy who brings his messages Godot has a white
beard and his life is occupied by the far older mastership over the sheep and the
goats.
Beckett employs Christian imagery to broaden his effects. In the theatre of life
there exists this strange disposal of approval and disapproval, or blessedness and
damnation, it is difficult to know what, which applies to Estragons feet as well as
to Cain and Abel or the two thieves. Vladimir regards the Bible as a document to
be verified, not as the repository of the word of God , and is tormented by the
discrepancies which exist between the four Gospels. What Vladimir seeks is not
the Christian solution that end either in heaven or hell but simply , as he says, to be
saved "from death" which extinguishes all meaning. That one of the thieves
succeeded in finding a way round death is what compels his imagination, never
who saved him. Godots existence is the result of mans inability to be a nihilist: he
is the creation of mans profound need for meaning. When man is shown, as here,
to be incapable of accepting his own insignificance in a slowly dying world, and of
realising that his suffering is meaningless, Godot is the necessary unknown at the
end of the series who is introduced to justify existence by the rational leap into the
dark. He is the missing quantity in the universe which the tramps can define in no
other way, the answer to the unanswerable question who would, if he appeared,
integrate the world that is always disintegrating and restore man, out of
meaningless, into meaning.
A God who conceives such a world in the full consciousness of what he has created
must either, in his desire to hear the cries of another, be the most monstrous of
tyrants, or elseand this seems the more likely as he continues to refrain from
extending an upholding handhe is not there.
Michael Robinson The Long Sonata of the Dead
ETYMOLOGY/NAME ANALYSIS:
Estragon
Synonyms: dragonne, serpentine
Tarragon originated in Russian Asia and Mongolia and was introduced to Europe in
the Middle Ages, by the Mongol invasions and the crusaders. The Arabs had
named the herb tharkhoun after the Tartar planes. The name evolved to tarcon or
targon and dragon, giving tarragon in English and estragon in French. The term
dragon, and the subsequent petit serpent or serpentine comes from the shape of the
roots. In contrast to most other Artemisia oils, the essential oil of Artemisia
Dracunculus is a sweet smelling, spicy oil. The plant is a small member of the
Compositae family, growing wild in many European and Asian countries. It is
widely cultivated as a culinary herb or household spice for its sweet anisic,
somewhat celery leaf like and fresh green flavor for use in vinegar, pickles,
seasonings, meat sauces, etc. Estragon Oil is a colorless or very pale yellow to
greenish yellow liquid with a sweet anisic, green spicy, slightly celery like odor,
very similar to that of the fresh herb. Like anise and basil oils, estragon oil tends to
resinify on ageing and becomes dark yellow and sticky, viscous and loses its fresh
green note and pleasant aroma. Estragole is the main constituent of estragon oil
and it is found in pine oil and in American turpentine oil. Growing used as a herbal
tea (20-30 grams per liter) to stimulate the appetite; if that works too well, the
tarragon herbal tea is also good to help digestion. Chew a leaf to stop hiccups.
Used as antidiarrheal, antirheumatic, aperitif, appetizer, carminative, digestive,
diuretic, emmenagogue, hypnotic, insecticide, stimulant, stomachic; recommended
for childrens ailments, common cold, digestive problems, gastro-intestinal
disturbances, insomnia, swelling, urinary ailments, womens ailments.
the air is the same and the earth [as it is]known the air
lair est le mme et la terre assavoir lair
and the earth by the great coldness[of]air and[of]
et la terre par les grands froids lair et
the earth made for the stones by the great
la terre faits pour les pierres par les grands
coldness alas in the seventh[century]22 of their era
froids hlas au septime de leur re
the ethereal the earth the sea for the stones from
lthere la terre la mer pour les pierres par
the great depths the great coldness on the sea
les grands fonds les grands froids sur mer
on earth and in the precious air I reiterate one
sur terre et dans les air peuchre je reprends on
knows not why despite the tennis the facts
ne sait pourquoi malgr le tennis les faits
are there one knows not why I reiterate
sont l on ne sait pourquoi je reprends
it follows in brief finally alas it follows for the
au suivant bref enfin hlas au suivant pour les
stones who can doubt it I reiterate but let us anticipate
pierres qui peut en douter je reprends mais nanticipons
not I reiterate the head at the same parallel time one
pas je reprends la tte en meme temps paralllement on
knows not why despite the tennis it follows the
ne sait pourquoi malgr le tennis au suivant la
beard the flames the tears the stones so blue so
barbe les flames les pleurs les pierres si bleues si
calm alas the head the head the head the head
calmes hlas la tte la tte la tte la tte
in Normandy despite the tennis the labours
en Normandie malgr le tennis les labours
abandoned unfinished more serious the stones in brief
abandonns inachevs plus grave les pierres bref
I reiterate alas alas abandoned unfinished the head
Je reprends hlas hlas abandonns inachevs la tte
the head in Normandy despite the tennis the head
la tte en Normandie malgr le tennis la tte
alas the stones Conard Conard(Mle. Lucky pushes on
hlas les pierres Conard Conard... (Mle. Lucky pousse encore
with a few more shouts.)Tennis The stones so calm
quelques vocifrations.) Tennis! ...
Les pierres! ... Si calmes!
Conard Unfinished
... Conard! ...
Inachevs! ...
2
Apathy
3
Imperturbability
4
Muteness
5
Daughter of Prospero; the name means "admirable"
8
calcus related to Latin root for rock. In this case, "calcus"
roughly means bedrock. Foreshadowing of repeated use of the word "stone".
9
French pun. By omitting the first syllable of tablie,
established, Lucky echoes the final two syllables tabli, tabled; e.g., to
put aside (like the work of Testu and Conard).
11
Sexual pun on the inability to achieve orgasm.
12 conationword coined by Beckett, using his favourite word con
(stupid asshole) as a root; in this context, it refers to being a dumb
asshole for sport.
13
Cure for syphilis
14
Sexual pun, referring to post-coital penis.
15
Satiric names for French dpartements (roughly equivalent to
counties), all centred around the confluence of the Seine, Oise and Marne
rivers in Paris. There actually exists a dpartement called Seine-et-Marne,
but the other names are takeoffs on this.
16
These dpartements do exist and were regions in which a number of
WWI battles took place.
17
Another sexual pun.
18
Continuation of previous pun: Voltaire was impotent.
19
Further continuationreference to masturbation.
20
Another sexual pun; in this case, well-hung.
22
The century in which St Augustine produced his writings. Didi
quotes Augustines meditation on the two thieves earlier in the play.
The most striking speech in the whole play, Luckys monologue when ordered to
think, rivets our attention at first by its shocking mixture of seeming sense and
evident nonsense, mingling reflections on "this existence . . . of a personal God . . .
with white beard. . . . outside time without extension . . " (If God is without
extension, how can he be said to have a white beard?).
But as an audience loses the thread of the progressively more disrupted sentence, it
ceases to try to understand and is swept away by the verbal torrent which, in
English, breaks down into the heavily accented dimeters already noted in Becketts
free verse:
/
the air the earth
/
the sea the earth
/
abode of stones
/
/
/
/
/
in the great deeps
/
/
the great cold
/
/
on sea on land
/
/
and in the air
/
I resume
/
for reasons unknown
/
/
in spite of the tennis
/
/
the facts are there
/
/
but time will tell. . . .
Biblical or theological and religious references in the play serve similar ironic
functions: the well-known biblical injunction "Seek and ye shall find" is garbled to
"When you seek you hear. . . . That prevents you from finding" ; Pozzo,
condescension and punitive, seems at time a parody of God the Father, though "not
particularly human", happy to meet "the meanest creature", "of the same species as
Pozzo! Made in Gods image ", "even when the likeness is an imperfect one";
Vladimir and Estragon seem parodies of humankind, Estragon giving his name as
Adam and Vladimir sententiously concluding that " all mankind is us "; Godot
seems a parody of popular images of God, having a significant white beard, little
boys for messengers (angels) and a nasty tendency to punish those who refuse to
wait on him. The irony of these references keeps alive in the play what the story of
the two thieves had suggested, that there is no happy salvation for Vladimir and
Estragon.
Luckys monologue also sounds the note of blighted hope. . . . [a] paraphrase of
Luckys argument: Despite the supposed existence of a personal Godboth
popular (with white beard) and philosophical (God qua God)who supposedly
loves humankind (while at the same time having neither sensitivity to human
suffering nor power to relieve that suffering and sometimes even causing torment)
and despite supposed intellectual and physical progress, humankind wastes and
pines: No distractions of physical activity or mental contrivance can hide the fact
that humankind is only a "skull", fading, dying, only a skull that has been
abandoned unfinished. . . . The discourse is unfinished; humankind, that mere
skull, is unfinished.
In a play where the word saved is used frequently and desperately, in a play that
virtually begins with a "sacred" but untrustworthy story about salvation, it can be
unsettling to hear even chaotic denial of the main hope of Western thought
concerning the relationship between God and human beings. The
word skull climaxes that denial. Not only does skull obviously suggest death and
disintegration, but to those who know their Bible it also suggests the name
"Golgotha", that place of the skull (as the name signifies [Matthew 27:33]) where
the two thieves were crucified. If, as Luckys monologue indicates, humankind is
only a skull, then special places like Golgotha and special salvations from dying
Gods or delaying Godots are the mere delusion Vladimir uneasily fears they may
be. Luckys "discourse" thus becomes one more story to put beside Vladimirs
story of the two thieves, both ironic commentaries on the present situation of
blighted hope.
Kristin Morrison Biblical Allusions in Waiting for Godot from June
Schlueter and Enoch Brater Approaches to Teaching Beckett's Waiting for
Godot
Philosophical issues such as freedom form part of Godot, but they are discussed to
comically and inconclusively for us to be able to say that any philosophy has been
done. Even in Luckys speech philosophy is used and not done . What he delivers
is a pastiche of an academic lecture, with its references to learned authorities
("Puncher and Wattmann", "Fartov and Belcher") and its absurdly calm "I
resume"s. The subject of the lecture is the diminution of the human species in
physical size. Not only is the delivery of this lecture hopelessly garbled, but the
audiences attention is diverted by the actions of the other three characters onstage,
who groan, protest and finally attack Lucky to silence him. Most audience
members cannot get more than a few shreds of the speech, but the impression of
complete senselessness is slightly modified by its philosophical scraps. The God
mentioned at the outset is "without extension", as in Descartes for whom the
mental-spiritual world of God (and res cogitans is not "extended" in space (as
opposed to the material world, which is res extensa). From Descartes, too, comes
the method of systematic doubt in philosophical inquiry: "all other doubt than that
which clings to the labours of men". "Essy" and "Possy" are English
pronunciations of esse and posse"being" and "being able". Taken from the
Scholastic philosophy of the Middle Ages , the words appear courtesy of "Testew
and Cunard". Bishop Berkeley, for whom the existence of things was a
philosophical question (for whom "essy" was "being perceived") also makes a brief
and enigmatic appearance.
These ill-heard and
unconnected scraps do not
mean that Luckys speech is a
farrago of nonsensical
elements. His inability to
"think" properly reflects a
desperation that is not merely
satiric. He balances the
labours of scholars and the
hope that they offer ("God",
"beyond all doubt",
"penicilline") with the despair
of ignorance and uncertainty
("quaquaquaqua", "the labours
unfinished", "for reasons
unknown"), and he places
particular emphasis on "man",
about whom it is hard to say
anything at all: "it is
established what many deny
that man in Possy of Testew
and Cunard that man in Essy that man in short that man in brief in spite of the
strides of alimentation and defecation . . . " We are left with King Lears
"unaccommodated man", to whom philosophy seems hopelessly irrelevant or even
threatening in that it asks unanswerable questions and leaves us to the "labour
unfinished" of waiting for Godot.
Lance St John Butler Waiting for Godot and Philosophy from June Schlueter
and Enoch Brater Approaches to Teaching Beckett's Waiting for Godot
The centerpiece of Becketts theme of reading and recitation is, of course, Luckys
speech near the end of Act I. It is the single time in the play when, for Lucky,
words suspend physical action but do not supplant it. The speech is itself physical
action, as Becketts stage directions indicate: Pozzos first instruction, "Think,
pig !" results in a dance since Lucky cannot remember what think means (he
subsequently "remembers" better than any of the other characters do). Think here
means "language", and its manifestation is a ritualised recitation. . . . Camus,
in The Myth of Sisyphus, argues that the absurd is precisely the suspense and
tension, the abyss, in the human being, instigated by the thought of being caught
between the arbitrary irrationality of the world and the rage for order in the
mind. Just such a rage for order lies behind both Luckys speech and Becketts
structure of reading and recitation in Godot. For Camus, as for Beckett, meaning
The usual view [of Luckys speech] is that it is a definition, in garbled syllogistic
form, of the human predicament as the play itself acts it out; given the existence of
a personal God, it is established beyond all doubt that man is plunged in torment,
wastes and pines, the skull fading, fading. And it ends in a corruption of Christs
last words on the cross which gives rise to the idea that Lucky, like Estragon, sees
life as a perverted ongoing Crucifixion.
There is little doubt that the speech is spun out on some such bleak axis. What this
view sacrifices, however, is the sheer pictorial density of its mass. What happens as
the speech proceeds is that this frenzied attempt to "establish" as basic proposition,
or certainty, about man in the world becomes hopelessly engulfed in the variety in
which the world asserts itself. In short, the speech may be a parody of academic
"thinking", but it is also a great verbal frieze, or the ruin of one, depicting a whole
world bound on one side by the processes of life (labour, physical culture,
alimentation, defecation, etc) and on the other by the processes of nature. For all
this, it is not a real world because it lacks connective tissue, contingency; but
something like a logic emerges. In fact, the salient dramatic feature of the speech is
that it simulates an explosion: as it builds, the human world of Fulham and
Clapham gradually "fades" and is overwhelmed by a catastrophe that sounds
suspiciously like the death of a star ("the rivers running water running fire . . . and
then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the earth abode of stones
in the great cold"). At the centre one somehow sees a group of busy scholars
labouring the big questions of God, man and matter in the Academy; and outside,
on the fields and lakes and lawns, the rest of humanity is making great strides in
sports of all kinds; all this against the backdrop of the world of the elements
churning awayin spite of the tennistoward entropy or toward some sort of
apocalypse. So we end with something like a rewriting of Montaignes dictum:
" . . . there is no constant existence, either of our own being, or of that of what we
observe. Both we and our judgement and all mortal things are incessantly flowing
and rolling on."
All in all, it is an excellent example of a "containing" speech: it reaches out
toward essential matters (man in Essy), the idea being that if a dramatist would
examine man thoroughly, he must put him in some sort of a universe, not merely in
a locale. And one might say that Becketts main purpose in giving Lucky this
speech, carefully "cured" in his long silence preceding it, was to expand the
implications of waiting into final realms: tennis and thought in the context of the
firmament.
Bert O States The Shape of Paradox: An Essay on Waiting for Godot
jour,
ne vous suffit pas,
jour pareil aux autres
est devenu muet,
un jour
je suis devenu aveugle,
un jour
nous deviendrons sourds,
un jour
nous sommes ns,
un jour
nous mourrons,
le mme jour,
le mme instant,
a ne vous suffit pas?
[One day,
is that not enough for you,
a day like all others
he went dumb
one day
I went blind
one day
well go deaf
one day
we were born
one day
we shall die
the same day
the same second
is that not enough for you?]
mens fortunes wax and wane, but even her power over the world seems to wax
and wane, viewed from mans standpoint. Thus she is like the moon, which waxes
and wanes. . . . she is obscure and cloaked as to her presence, intent and effect.
Controlling all, a natural force as immanent in the universe as heat and cold, she is
rightly called Imperatrix Mundi [Queen of the World].
From the Carmina Burana, the collection of quasi-secular mediaeval poems which
Carl Orff used for his oratorio of the same name, the first two songs are dedicated
to Fortune.
O Fortuna
O Fortune
velut Luna
like the moon
statu variabilis,
you are changeable,
semper crescis
ever waxing
aut decrescis;
and waning;
vita detestabilis
hateful life
nunc obdurat
first oppresses
et tunc curat
and then soothes
ludo mentis aciem,
as fancy takes it;
egestatem,
poverty
potestatem
and power
dissolvit ut glaciem.
it melts them like ice.
Sors immanis
Fatemonstrous
et inanis,
and empty,
rota tu volubilis,
your whirling wheel,
status malus,
you are malevolent,
vana salus
well-being in vain
semper dissolubilis,
and always fades to nothing,
obumbrata
shadowed
et velata
and veiled
michi quoque niteris;
you plague me too;
nunc per ludum
now through the game
dorsum nudum
She is variable and veiled in purpose and action. Her apparent blessings may be in
reality losses, and vice versa. The one favoured by her is happy and elevated and,
like a king, is crowned, with flowers. The floral imagery, however, is used
ironically. Flowers last but a season, and then wither: they metaphorically suggest
that the happiness Fortune gives is as ephemeral. Fortuna gives worldly prosperity
only to take it away as she did from
Hecuba.
If Fortuna is Imperatrix Mundi, what is
her relationship to God, the supreme
governor of the universe? If she is
independent of Him, He is not omnipotent.
If she is subservient to Him, in what way is
she Imperatrix?
Dante was one of those who was most
responsible for the Christianisation of
Fortuna. In the Inferno, Vergil explains to
Dante Fortunas true rle in Gods scheme,
a rle which is commonly misunderstood
by men. Just as He created the angels to
guide the celestial phenomena, so God
created Fortuna to guide the Earths splendours. To the extent that she is above
men, as the angels are, human reason cannot totally comprehend her or her actions
and she appears to be hidden to it.
She is often shown as being two-faced, one face frowning. If she is depicted
single-faced, the artist represents the duality of good and bad fortunate by making
one half of her face white, the other black. She may have wings, for Fortuna is
fleeting; she may be blind-folded, or even blind, since she seems not to regard
merit in handing out rewards or ruin. Often she has only a forelock of hair and is
bald on her head to show how difficult it is to snatch at Fortune.
The Italians called her, among other things fallace (deceitful)
and favorvole (favourflightly). The French addressed her as cruelle (cruel)
and belle (beautiful). By English poets she is termed blind and double (doubledealing). Writers of mediaeval Latin verse described her
as amara (bitter), fera (untamed) and, of course, volubilis (changeable).
The average man saw her as being in full control of his life. In many illustrations
she is shown stranding on a ball which symbolises both the earth, over which she
rules, and her inherent instability. Most commonly, however, she is shown standing
near a wheel which she turns. The wheel is perpendicular to the ground and below
it, usually is a deep pit or grave.
The various stages in which Fortuna favours and then abandons man are shown in
reference to the wheel. Men, standing in line, approach it, waiting their turn for
Fortunas favour. One has begun to climb onto the wheel, ready to take his chance
at success, fame and fortune. Sometimes a whole series of men, clothes as
merchants, nobles or bishops, are strapped to the wheel; sometimes only four men
are shown with little inscriptions indicating their relationship to Fortuna. The man
at the top of the wheel usually holds a sceptre and wears a crown: his inscription
reads Regno (I reign). To his right, a figure falling from the wheel grabs at his
crown as it slips from his head; his inscription reads Regnavi (I used to reign). At
the bottom of the wheel, stretch out, bereft of crown and sceptre, is the figure
titled Sum sine regno (I am without power). On the wheels left, a man is climbing
up, undaunted by the fate of the last two figures; he is described as Regnabo (I
would reign).
[In other words, in the pagan/extra-JudaeoChristian world all men are slaves to
Fortune, and those whom Fortune chooses to favour are called "Lucky"]
" They give birth astride a grave, the light gleams an instant then it's night once
more. "
Ognuno sta solo sul cuor della terra
Everyone is alone in his heart on earth
Trafitto da un raggio di sole
Transported by a ray of sunlight
Ed subito sera.
And it is suddenly evening.
Salvatore Quasimodo, 1942
Another example of the sermon joyeux-style parody of the Catholic liturgy, the
penultimate chorus of Carmina Burana includes a parody of the Hail Mary in
which the young girl, who has consented to have sex with the singer, is
transformed from the Virgin Mary into the more pagan Venus:
Ave, formosissima,
Hail, most beautiful one,
gemma pretiosa,
precious jewel,
ave, decus virginum,
Hail, pride among virgins,
virgo gloriosa.
glorious virgin,
ave, mundi luminar,
Hail, light of the world,
[This poem was used by Beckett in an earlier novel] Moreover in Act II of this play
Estragons nightmare is concerned with falling from a height which plausibly could
be a cliff.
The essence of Luckys speech is that man "wastes and pines, shrinks and
dwindles", and these four verbs are all translations of the German verb schwinden.
The images in the poem are strewn through the speech in a typically schizophrenic
manner (technically called asyndetic thought) by which the exact thought is not
reproduced by the precise word but is conveyed approximately by a number of
closely related words.
Thus the image of water is replaced by "the seas the rivers the great deeps"; and
Hlderlins cliffs are not mentioned, but instead we have "the mountains" and "the
abode of stones". Again, the idea of a fall into an abyss appears behind "in the great
deeps the great cold" and "the great cold the great dark".
The schizophrenic is unable to hit the definite word or image but produces near
misses which are clearly connected with the image, as in this example the ideas of
great depth, cold and darkness are with the abyss. All these images, of course, are
poured out higgledy-piggledy without any logical links so that the whole speech is
disjointed.
In the final twelve lines of the speech a new image, the skull, occurs eight times
although it has no apparent linkage with surrounding words like tennis, stones and
Connemara; but of course it is the natural image for mans ultimate fate, the end
product of his wasting, pining, shrinking and dwindling in spite of the Deitys love
and the progress of science and physical culture.
G C Barnard Samuel Beckett: A New Approach
Two single speeches exemplify this extraordinary ability of the dialogue to turn
back on itself. Luckys monologue in Act I . . . establishes the pitiful mortality of
man and his works . . . . the whole tour de force finally culminates in lines whose
repeated echoes of "stone" and "skull" evoke the image of the graveyard that is
every mans end.
Death imagery also pervades Vladimirs second-act song , . . . which is capable of
infinite expansion (or rather, regression). Circular in structure, repetitious in
vocabulary, the song is a symbol of the play itself, a "closed plot from which there
is no exit."
. . . influence of Joyce and Finnegans Wake in particular can be seen in Waiting for
Godots careful balancing of opposites. The overwhelming tendency to circular
movement is countered if not conquered by an effort at linear progression. Against
the monotony of the circle is set the fearful descending line that ends in the grave.
Barbara Reich Gluck Beckett and Joyce
. . . Luckys famous speech with its confusion of garbled knowledge recalls the
Doctor in ancient farce while the improvisation of the two tramps suggests the
endless semantic speculations and misunderstandings of the Commedia
dellArte. . . . each has his own set-piece to perform, an exact and welltried lazzo such as the exchange of hats . . .
If language does threaten to assert itself, its pretensions are burst by the pratfall. At
times the pratfall works from within language itself as in Pozzos inflated speech
which portends, in the beginning, to be the definitive speech we have come to the
theatre to hear: after leading his audience to a climax of expectation he cannot
sustain the illusion and gloomily concludes"Thats how it is on this bitch of the
earth."
More frequently, however, it is solely physical and often disgusting. It deflates the
platitudes and expressions of sentiment with which the characters clothe their
isolation, as for example where Vladimir and Estragon, out of habit and the
boredom of the condition, attempt a reconciliation:
E:
Come Didi.(silence) Give me your hand. (Vladimir turns) Embrace
me! (Vladimir softens. They embrace. Estragon recoils)You stink of garlic.
V: Its good for the kidneys.(silence). Estragon looks attentively at
the tree)What do we do now?
E: We wait.
The pratfall returns them to the painful level of reality from which they will begin
another "little canter" towards the same end. This is the clowns weapon, the
undignified, ceremonious collapse of human pretension, a levelling down from the
upright to the horizontal. In Act II the tramps, Pozzo and Lucky all stumble and fall
together to form a pile of bodies centre stage. It is the universal pratfall . . .
V:
Weve arrived
P:
V:
We are men.
indulge in self-pity but represses its fear with narcissistic pomposity: "Do I look
like a man who can be made to suffer?" but deeply hidden under the mask of
hardness there lies an unconscious nostalgia for lost values.
. . . In Lucky , on the other hand, we can see the destroyed contact with the creative
sources of the psyche. It becomes more and more evident in the course of the play
that Lucky takes it for granted that only within the pattern of a mutual
sadomasochistic relationship between himself and Pozzo can there be any safety
for him.
Eva Metman Reflections on Samuel Beckett's Plays
[The] schizophrenic split [as embodied by Pozzo and Lucky] was one in which the
imaginative part , the function which William Blake called the poetic Genius, was
shut off and made into a feeble inner self, while the remainder of the ego built up a
pseudo-self which was occupied with material prosperity. As time went on the
pseudo-self grew more and more domineering, self-important and callous but also
more unsure of itself; on the other hand the inner self became more unreal and
impoverished.
The split as embodied in Estragon and Vladimir is not so severe; they still retain
feelings of affection for each other, come together each evening for mutual support
and are visibly human beings who suffer. But Pozzo and Lucky represent a much
more radical split in which the elements of feeling and imaginative thought have
been suppressed and starved while a swollen ego has successfully pursued selfish
material ends.
[Luckys speech] is a wonderful piece of schizophrenic oratory, a torrent of broken
sentences and repeated phrases which makes a stream of apparently comic
nonsense. But it contains a perfectly sane exposition of the fundamental impasse
that has baffled all the theologianshow to reconcile our instinctive belief in a
transcendent and beneficent Divine power with the undeniable experience of evil
and misery. This thread of the speech may be summarised as follows:
"Given the existence of a personal God with white beard who loves us dearly (with
some exceptions) and suffers with those whom (for reasons unknown but time will
tell) he has damned and plunged into hell; yet it is certain that man, both potential
and actual, wastes and pines; in spite of all our science, medicine, sports and
physical culture man shrinks and dwindles. In short, humanity suffers and we know
not why."
This speech shows many of the technical characteristics of schizophrenic thought
disorders, such as the frequent repetitions of phrases quite out of context, echolalia
(as in "Feckham Peckham Fulham Clapham" [another example of risqu reference]
or "apathia athambia aphasia") , and the combination of two mutually contradictory
ideas , as for example his statement that God loves us dearly "from the heights of
divine apathia"for the word signifies complete indifference and lack of feeling.
G C Barnard Samuel Beckett: A New Approach
This Hegelian symbol of the motor of history steps onto the stage embodied by the
figures Pozzo and Lucky, onto the stage on which, so far, nothing had reigned by
" being without time ". . . . however shy Vladimir and Estragon may feel when first
facing the new pair, there is one thing they cannot conceal: that they regard them as
enviable. . . . And even though they pass the two timeless tramps by without
knowing that they have already done so the day beforeas "blind history" as it
were, which has not yet become aware of its being historythey nevertheless,
whether dragged or pushed, are already in motion and therefore, in Estragons and
Vladimirs eyes, fortunate creatures.
Gnther Anders Being without Time: On Beckett's Play Waiting for Godot
audience night after night, the audience, for the moment the tyrant or witness,
comes because it too is committed to wait. And if, during the evening, any progress
is made . . . the next night returns them to the same point on the circle once again.
Michael Robinson The Long Sonata of the Dead
Pozzo and Lucky are representatives of the ordinary world from which the tramps
are excluded. "Weve lost our rights ?" Estragon asks. Vladimir prefers to say
"Weve waived them." Even the tramps will to assert their importance as free
agents by insisting that their exclusion is voluntary. By contrast with Pozzo and
Lucky, however, it is the tramps lives which appear normal.
. . . In a world where man awaits a revelation, Pozzo, the master, is the nearest
approach to what is absent. Life, for Pozzo, is important. When he enters he still
values the body (the provisions he has brought for himself); he is capable of
enjoying sensual delight and depends upon a collection of cherished possessions
(his pipe and vaporisor [much like relics prized by many established religions,
notably the Roman Catholic church]). Pozzos is a fixed and well-regulated world
in contrast to the stationary confusion of the tramps where everything is in flux,
and his behaviour echoes the image which the tramps have of Godot (so does his
name).
Pozzo is a temporal substitute for Godot: he is the man who has taken it upon
himself to act as if the answers are known, who lives exclusively in terms of
power, and whose existence is circumscribed by time. Lucky, it seems, is fortunate
in his having found this substitute. His bondage is an alternative to the tramps
unbearable waiting.
. . . when Vladimir asks [Pozzo] a question which, as an appeal to another, is the
most precious form of linguistic contact, Pozzo prepares his answer like a teacher
or a priest. If Lucky has found a substitute Godot, Pozzo avoids the tramps waiting
by filling his life with illusion. Pozzo on his journey clings to his condition: the
tramps who remain where they are are always seeking to change theirs.
It is Lucky who has transformed the world for his master and given Pozzo what
intelligence and culture he now possesses. However, this has changed . . .
and Luckys thinking is now not the rationalist consolation it once was but total
scepticism which illuminates the agony beneath appearances.
This becomes apparent in Luckys great speech which terrifies the other characters
because it foretells the extinction of the world. The authorities, bent on establishing
"beyond all reasonable doubt" the exact truth about man . . . discover that in spite
of all the researches of science, the intuition of the artist, the physical culture of
sport and the endurance of the earth, everything is condemned to waste into the
great dark of nothing. This is the only certainty which his intelligence has
discovered . . .
The change which has overtaken Pozzo and Lucky by the second act is not simply
a comment on the inevitable deterioration of the master-slave society, though
Pozzos blindness does create a tragic image of his earlier refusal to see human
existence as it really is. Rather it belongs to the larger context of Becketts
treatment of man in time.
When he first appears Pozzo is still firmly immersed in normal time. At first he
notices that "all subsides . A great calm descends . . . Pan sleeps", and then he starts
to lose his possessions, first his pipe, then his vaporizer and finally his watch.
When this happens he experiences difficulties in remembering what he has just
said and his hold on what he insists is reality begins to weaken.
During the interval the process is completed. In the time since "yesterday" he has
gone blind and Lucky dumb. Even Estragon is surprised at the rapidity of the
change. "Since when ?" he demands to know . . . Pozzos great cry which provides
the answer contains all of Becketts pent-up anguish over man in time: in our
conception is our end and yet we have to live it out to this dreadful conclusion
which men are powerless to alter ("One day, is that not enough for you . . . They
give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then its night once
more.")
Michael Robinson The Long Sonata of the Dead
. . . Lucky has been taken to be Pozzos soul " But for him all my thoughts, all
my feelings would have been of common things". There was a stage in Pozzos life
when he learned from Lucky, but this is over now; and having exploited, abused,
denied and finally silenced the spiritual side of his own nature until the very
presence of Lucky seems like a reproach, Pozzo, the materialist, wants to be rid of
him altogether.
In the French version of the play, he is going to sell him in the "March du Saint
Sauveur". . . . In this particular case the body-soul interpretation is illuminating up
to a point, and it fits beautifully with Pozzos line: "One journeys all alone . . . and
never a soul in sight."