http://www.jstor.

org
Beckett and Shakespeare
Author(s): Normand Berlin
Source: The French Review, Vol. 40, No. 5 (Apr., 1967), pp. 647-651
Published by: American Association of Teachers of French
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/384670
Accessed: 28/08/2008 19:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=french.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Beckett and
Shakespeare
by
Normand Berlin
BY AN INTERESTING CHAIN OF
CIRCUMSTANCES,
modern
audiences have been
exposed
to a view of
Shakespeare
reflected in a mirror
held
by
an
English director,
fashioned
by
a Polish
critic,
and
reflecting
at
the same time an Irishman
writing
his
plays
in French. Peter Brook's
production
of
King
Lear was
inspired,
as he himself
claims, by
Jan Kott's
book
Shakespeare,
our
Contemporary,
which
attempts
to
bring together
Beckett and
Shakespeare
as our
contemporaries.
Kott's book was
highly
praised by
Martin
Esslin,
who was
pleased
with Kott's demonstration that
Shakespeare's plays
are "akin in their ultimate sense to the
contemporary
Theater of the Absurd."
1
It is to this statement that I wish to address
myself.
One must
agree
with Esslin that
Shakespeare
and Beckett are "akin"
if he means that both writers deal with the human
condition,
man's
nature,
man's
mortality,
the
mystery
of his existence. This is a
kinship they
share
with all
great
dramatists. But after
meeting
on this common
ground,
Beckett and
Shakespeare part ways.
A close look at this
parting
reveals
much about each dramatist.
Kott
presents
a number of
specific comparisons
between Beckett and
Shakespeare-all suggesting
that the world Beckett
presents
in
Waiting
for
Godot and
Endgame
and the world
Shakespeare presents
in
King
Lear
are similar. On the surface these similarities seem
compelling. Among
the
most
important
are:
Edgar
and
Gloucester,
like
many
of Beckett's charac-
ters, acting
out a
pantomime
on
stage-with
Gloucester
climbing up
an
imaginary
cliff and
falling
from
it;
the failure of the suicide
attempts
of
Gloucester, Vladimir,
and
Estragon;
the similar statements on life of
Pozzo and
Edgar,
and of Pozzo and
Lear;
the fact that both Lear and
Estragon
have shoes that
pinch.
But each of these
aspects
of action and
language
is controlled
by
a
larger philosophical
vision in each dramatist.
Each,
when seen as an intrinsic
part
of a dramatic
whole, points
not to
similarities,
but to essential differences.
Kott's comments on Gloucester's
attempted
suicide in the
pantomimic
1
Martin
Esslin,
introduction to Jan Kott's
Shakespeare,
our
Contemporary (New
York, 1964), p.
xix.
647
FRENCH REVIEW
scene vi of Act IV are used to demonstrate that in
King
Lear we are
dealing
with the
grotesque,
"the theater of
clowns,"
not with
tragedy,
"the theater
of
priests."
But his discussion of the scene
neglects
its most
important
aspect-a
dutiful son is
leading
his father
away
from
despair. Edgar is,
in
effect, serving
as his father's
priest, curing
him of a
great
Christian sin.
He does this
by directing
and
acting
in a
pantomime
of his own
devising
in order to fool his father into
hope.
Because a mime is
being enacted,
Kott
calls the
performers clowns, philosophic
buffoons. But the intent of the
pantomimic
climb
up
the cliff is
charged
with
philosophic significance.
Kott states that "the
Shakespearean precipice
at Dover . . is the
abyss, waiting
all the time. The
abyss,
into which one can
jump,
is
every-
where." 2 He
stops there,
for this is the kind of statement that
brings
Shakespeare very
close to Beckett.
We, however,
cannot
stop
there-for
Gloucester was saved from
falling
into the
abyss;
his
experience
has
taught
him what his son wished to teach him. His attitude toward the
gods
has
changed.
In
short, something
of
significance
has
happened
to Gloucester.
The
pantomime
had a result.
Henceforth,
he
says,
he will "bear
affliction,"
which he
does,
and when he
dies,
his heart bursts
"smilingly."
It is mis-
leading
to
ally
the suicide
attempts
of Vladimir and
Estragon
with Glouces-
ter's. The failure of the
tramps
to commit suicide leads to no realization
on their
part.
Their
attempt
has no
relationship
to
any spiritual
certainties.
Their mime is
absurd,
because it is
performed
on a
morally empty stage.
Pozzo,
in his second
appearance,
when he has been
ravaged by time,
utters words which are filled with
hopelessness:
... one
day
I went
blind,
one
day
we'll
go deaf,
one
day
we were
born,
one
day
we shall
die,
the same
day,
the same second....
They give
birth astride
of
a
grave,
the
light gleams
an
instant,
then it's
night
once more.
After
quoting
this
passage,
Kott
says
that
"Shakespeare
had said as
much,
in fewer words." "Men must endure
/
Their
going hence,
even as their
coming hither; / Ripeness
is all."
Indeed, Shakespeare says
"as much"
when he
succinctly depicts
the life
cycle,
but he
says
more when he
charges
his statement with the word "endure." The notion of endurance is im-
portant throughout King Lear;
this
statement, spoken by Edgar,
is meant
to cheer
up
his
father,
who wishes "to rot even here." Gloucester's
simple
answer to
Edgar's
statement-"And that's true too"-affirms the
gift
of
man to
endure, perhaps
even to
ripen
to fulfillment. Pozzo's words contain
no such idea.
They superbly express
the condition of
humanity
as felt
by
a
man
completely
without
hope.
Another statement
by
Pozzo is
presented by
Kott to demonstrate
2
Kott, p.
103.
648
BECKETT
-
SHAKESPEARE
Pozzo's closeness to Lear. The blind
Pozzo,
like the blind Hamm in End-
game,
comes to "understand
everything," says Kott,
when he utters:
Pozzo: I woke
up
one
fine
day
as blind as Fortune.
VLAD.: And when was that?
Pozzo: I don't know ... Don't
question
me! the blind have no notion of time.
The
things of
time are hidden
from
them too.
For
Kott,
Lear's words: "No rescue?
What,
a
prisoner?
I am even
/
The
natural fool of fortune" seem to echo Pozzo's. But
again,
the words are
part
of a dramatic situation. Lear is
frantically running away
from the
Gentleman sent
by Cordelia,
the child who redeems nature. He is not a
prisoner;
his statement
here,
like so
many
of his
statements,
stems from a
mistaken view of the world around him. The
"everything"
that Pozzo
understands is based on the truth of Beckett's
world;
the
"everything"
that Lear understands is
nothing.
He is not
ready
to
open
his
eyes
to a new
aspect
of
nature;
he cannot as
yet
see some of the
positive
values in a cruel
world.
The shoes of Lear and
Estragon pinch,
Kott is
happy
to
point
out. I
have been unable to find
pinching
of shoes in
King Lear,
but even if there
were,
the
shoes,
after
all,
would
belong
to different feet. And
here, perhaps,
is the clearest
example
of the
danger
of
superimposing
Beckett on Shake-
speare.
For Lear is a
king,
and
Estragon
is a
tramp.
The
king may
become
a fool and
madman,
but he was a
king
when he first
appeared
on
stage
and
he is a
king
when the
play
ends. His life is
intrinsically
connected with the
life of the state and the
world;
he becomes a "ruined
piece
of
nature";
his
fall is the fall of the
world,
"the
promised
end." In
short,
he has a definite
place
in a
spiritual landscape;
he is a
specific part
of a world
picture.
And
his
journey through
the
play
is a
journey
toward
recognitions. Estragon
is a
tramp
who never
had,
and never will
have,
shoes that fit. His life has
no connection with a state or world. In
fact,
there is no
specific
state or
world he can be
part
of. He does not
go
on a
journey; he,
with his
friend,
waits and whiles
away
the time.
By finding
Beckett in
Shakespeare,
Kott transforms
Shakespeare's
characters into Beckett's.
Edgar
is most misunderstood because
he,
as
disguised
lunatic and naked
beggar,
fits most
easily
into a
picture
of the
absurd and
grotesque.
Because of
this,
Kott denies
Edgar
the
right
to
sustain "the
gored
state." "In
King
Lear there is no
young
and resolute
Fortinbras to ascend the throne of Denmark.... In
King
Lear there will
be no coronation. There is no one whom
Edgar
can invite to it."
3
But
Edgar
need invite no
one,
for
he,
as
Shakespeare clearly indicates,
will
8
Kott, p.
109.
649
650 FRENCH REVIEW
undertake the
job
of
restoring
the state.
He,
because of his
symbolic disguise
and his elemental life as Bedlam
beggar,
has
gone
on his own
journey
of
suffering,
which
qualifies
him to
help
restore
harmony
to a disordered
world. The
young
man so
easily duped
in the
beginning
of the
play
becomes
not
only
the wise
philosopher
of Lear's mad
mind,
but
truly
the wise
philosopher
of the
play-"Ripeness
is all."
Esslin's comments on
Shakespeare
in his influential book on the Theater
of the Absurd
point up
the basic
problem
I have been
discussing.
He states
that "... above
all,
there is in
Shakespeare
a
very strong
sense of the
futility
and
absurdity
of the human condition."
4
He
quotes
Gloucester's
"As flies to wanton
boys,
are we to the
gods;
/
They
kill us for their
sport." He,
like
Swinburne,
believes this to be
"Shakespeare's conception
of life." This must be considered a
faulty
critical
judgment,
not
only
in
connection with the other
plays
that
Shakespeare wrote,
where life is
usually presented
as a
meaningful experience,
but in connection with the
very play containing
the
quotation.
Gloucester himself realizes his error
in
making
the
statement,
and it is the
pantomimic
scene at
Dover,
with
which
my
discussion
began,
that
helped
him to realize his error. The
statement is
profoundly pessimistic,
and
applies
neither to
Shakespeare's
conception
of life nor to Beckett's-for both
dramatists, meeting
on that
common
ground,
realize that life's
questions perhaps
have no
answers,
but that man must continue to ask the
questions.
In his introduction to Kott's
book, Esslin, applauding
Kott's
attempts
to see Beckett in
Shakespeare,
states that "the
proof
of
puddings
... is
in the
eating,"
for Kott's ideas
spurred
Peter Brook to
guide
Paul Scofield
to "one of the finest
performances
within
living memory."
5
Such a
strong
assertion demands
qualification.
The result of
evoking
Beckett to
present
Shakespeare
is
interesting,
but not truthful to
Shakespeare's
intentions.
By emphasizing
the chaos and
futility,
and
by diminishing,
almost
erasing,
the
positive
values in the
play,
Brook has
presented
a Beckettian
King
Lear which
possesses
some
stunning
theatrical
moments-especially
the
blind
Gloucester,
alone on
stage, sitting
and
decaying,
while the
off-stage
noises sound the chaos of the world-but in
doing
so he has taken
away
the
grandeur
that is Lear.
This,
of
course,
is
why Scofield,
a brilliant
actor,
was unable to move the audience in the last
excruciating
moments of the
play.
He
was, throughout
the
production,
closer to the
hobo, waiting,
than
to the
raging king, rushing along
a
path
of destruction toward new aware-
nesses. A fine
performance,
but
essentially unsatisfying,
not because of
the
acting itself,
but rather because the
acting
served an idea of the
play
which made Lear a smaller man than
Shakespeare
intended.
Martin
Esslin,
The Theater
of
the Absurd
(New York, 1961), p.
234.
6
Esslin,
intro. to
Kott, p.
xix.
BECKETT
-
SHAKESPEARE
One cannot
deny
that there is in
Shakespeare potential "Beckettism,"
for
Shakespeare's plays
contain a wide
range
of attitudes toward human
existence. One can
point,
for
example,
to Macbeth's famous
speech
on life
as "a tale
/
Told
by
an
idiot,
full of sound and
fury, / Signifying nothing"
as an
anticipation
of the moods and ideas
presented by
Beckett. But when
such a statement is
made,
it should
carry
with it an
explanation-the
kind of
explanation
that Kott and Esslin seem reluctant to
provide.
The
Macbeth
speech, by itself
and
expressing
the mood of a character at a
particular point
in the
play,
does look forward to
Beckett,
but the
play
as a whole
rejects
the notion that man has no
dignity,
that life is absurd.
For
Shakespeare gives
us the
life-giving images
connected with the
gracious
Duncan;
he
gives
us a Malcolm who will heal and restore
Scotland;
and he
presents
a Macbeth whose sterile evil is
destroyed by
the forces of fertile
vitality.
The
potential Beckettism, therefore,
when
fully investigated,
becomes the
object
of a
Shakespearean
denial.
In
Shakespeare
we confront an action that
moves,
a
story line,
not
only
the
progress
of time but the use of time
(for
destruction and
restoration),
suffering
which leads to
recognitions.
In Beckett we encounter
frozen,
static situations-one cannot move in an
ashcan;
one cannot
hang
oneself
without
strong rope.
One
day
is not
only
like the
next,
it is the next.
Shakespeare
trusts
language, allowing
it to communicate
meaning.
Beckett
uses
language,
but to show that there is no
meaning
to be communicated.
Most
important,
and
controlling
all other
points
of
comparison,
the human
condition is not absurd in
Shakespeare.
His vision in
King
Lear is
dark,
filled with
anguish
and madness and
suffering,
but it is not absurd. For
absurdity
attaches itself to characters who are
small,
who
wait,
who
forever hear
only themselves,
who cannot communicate because there is
nothing
to
communicate,
who are
spiritually empty, who,
not
being part
of a world
picture,
are on the circumference of no circle. This is the vision
which Beckett
presents brilliantly.
He is our
contemporary.
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUGGESTIONS,
ANYONE?
The Committee
charged
with
studying
the functions and
procedures
of
the offices and bureaux of the AATF will welcome
any suggestions
from
the
membership.
Since the recommendations of this Committee
may
affect
the entire future
organization
of the
Association,
it is
important
that we
have all
possible expressions
of
opinion.
If
you
have
any
recommendations
or
questions you
wish
considered, please
write to the Committee chairman:
Professor
Jacques Hardre,
Box
771, Chapel Hill,
N. C. 27514
651