Beckett and the Bible

Biblical Allusions in Waiting for Godot

Biblical Allusions

Writers employ allusions in literature to make indirect references in order to support a point. They often aid the writer in conveying an important message to the reader through casual implications. Biblical allusions in particular are used in writing to relate to the reader on a deeper, more spiritual level. In Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett uses a combination of intentionally altered proverbs to force the reader to slow down and analyze what the characters are saying, and direct references to specific biblical events to allow the reader to relate and make connections to the text.

Critics do not always agree on the purpose or meaning behind Beckett’s choices, but that is what makes his work so dynamic and interesting. He applies biblical allusions to his writing in various ways to encourage the reader to relate to the text as an individual and, eventually grasping more complex understanding. Beckett achieves a complex play, heavy with biblical references by using his nontraditional views to influence his writing choices, juxtaposed with his traditional background for meaningful content. He utilizes his writing to comment on possible personal views of the Christian documentation system. Beckett cleverly implements cynical humor, and touches on the themes of salvation and humanity through biblical stories and allusions. His writing also allows readers to venture outside of the box to find a deeper meaning within the text.

Beckett’s Life

Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot is an absurdist play, first performed in the twentieth century. The play features two main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, who find themselves unable to move forward for they are waiting for the mysterious man Godot. Throughout the play, a combination of biblical proverbs and stories are seen within the dialogue of the characters. This is especially interesting since Beckett identifies himself as atheist. Although he grew up in Dublin, where his family belonged to the Anglican Church of Ireland, Beckett asserted that he was a non-believer. (Cousineau 25). When his mother and brother were dying, Beckett determined that his faith did not bring him solace, stating, “It [faith] has no more depth than an old school tie.” (Bair 18). Furthermore, he asserted that the Christian allusions seen in his works were merely used to serve as dramatic intentions.

Some critics might find this interesting since a large amount of his writing, especially Waiting for Godot, seems to be centered on biblical references. Before Estragon even utters the first line, biblical overtones are evident in Beckett’s establishment of a distinct background. The single tree where the two main characters wait is often interpreted as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from the Garden of Eden, or the cross on which Christ was crucified. (Cousineau 26). Although some critics often interpret this setting as a possible biblical allusion, other critics identify that readers are taking a greater spiritual meaning out of the work than what was originally intended.

The assertion that Beckett is atheist, and therefore wasn’t using biblical references to achieve spiritual connections, but rather to add drama is further supported by Thomas Cousineau’s observation that Beckett “touches on the unreliability of the documentary evidence on which the Christian faith is based.” (Cousineau 26). Throughout the beginning of the first act, Vladimir and Estragon discuss the story of the two thieves, where they constantly get confused and can’t seem to tell the story exactly the right way. Revealing a lack of chronology to the reader. Cousineau also points out that later in the play a conversation is exchanged between Vladimir and Estragon where Estragon quizzes Vladimir on the time that they agreed to meet Godot. He points out the names and days of the week that are associated with the death and resurrection of Christ,

“But what Saturday? And is it Saturday? Is it not rather Sunday? (Pause.) Or Monday? (Pause.) Or Friday?” (Beckett 2. 348–351).

lines point out a definite biblical reference. However, Beckett’s word choice, and stage directions indicate that he wanted Estragon to sound confused, supporting Cousineau’s observation of the unreliability seen within the record keeping

Drama vs. Faith

Many portions of the play are seen as controversial since there is no general consensus that Beckett used biblical references to evoke drama, or emphasize faith. In particular, the first modified proverb found in the play is often further investigated for a deeper meaning from both sides. The line is introduced by Vladimir;

“The last moment… (He meditates.) Hope deferred maketh the something sick, who said that?” (Beckett 1.38).

Vladimir’s line is partially accurate to the Bible, however the actual proverb is “Hope deferred makes the heart sick; but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life.” (Holy Bible, Proverbs. 13:12). One way to interpret Beckett’s alternative proverb choice is to continue with the theme of drama, achieved through biblical allusions. Essentially viewing the quote from the nonbeliever perspective that Beckett claims to follow. However, most readers analyze the proverb in correlation with the overall theme of waiting, and come to the conclusion that hope is like waiting, and the heart (or will to wait) becomes sick. Vladimir and Estragon continue to sit and wait for Godot who never appears, which would be identified as a hope perpetually deferred. When addressing the second half of the proverb, some people argue that the tree of life identified in the proverb is actually the almost dead tree depicted through Beckett’s stage directions. This comparison gives way to another commentary on life and death within the play.

To take things a step further, June Schuler, co-editor of, Approaches to Teaching Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, argues that the biblical material in the text is used to introduce a central theme that “suffering permeates human life,” and establishes a continuous cynical sense of humor. Schuler asserts that the humor is dependent upon the view the reader takes. She believes that the traditional Christian views readers interpret as good, should actually be interpreted as bad. When applied to this particular proverb, Vladimir and Estragon are waiting, which could be viewed from a positive perspective. This is especially evident when paralleled with the concept of hope. But should actually be taken from a very negative perspective where in context the proverb is “garbled and ineffective.” (Schuler 58).

Even though Vladimir and Estragon are established as the main pairing of characters in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, the characters Pozzo and Lucky also play a large role in the play. They help to establish some sense of the passing of time, and function as a distraction for Vladimir and Estragon.

Beckett has one minor character, the Boy, who is the only person to know anything about Godot. The boy appears at the end of both acts to convey the message that Godot is not coming. In Reading Godot, Lois Gordon argues that Beckett achieves a conglomerative effect in his writing through the retelling of the story of Cain and Abel, found in Genesis. Gordon focuses on two small conversations in Waiting for Godot to highlight the parallels between the text, and Genesis 4. She asserts that the timeless setting of Beckett’s work is equally as mysterious as the one found in Genesis 4. This is because both settings feature a world where grace and punishment are forced upon the characters.

The story of Cain and Abel tells of two children who are “all humanity” and are each other’s witnesses to existence. The concept of humanity is steadfast throughout the Beckett’s work as well, where he highlights the loss of humanity through his characters. In the biblical story, God essentially beats one brother, while rewarding the other, testing their loyalty to each other. Gordon states, “Like Vladimir and Estragon, Cain and Abel are called upon to define themselves as brotherly in a universe bereft of definition.” (Gordon 87). Through the writings of Beckett, the reader is told in an indirect way that we should watch over our brothers. Gordon even points out that the two pairs of parallel subjects share the same fate where the final punishment isn’t quite complete, leaving the sufferers feeling like they are missing something. The theory is much more complex when every detail of both writings is scrutinized, but the overall concept establishes a distinct parallel between Beckett’s characters, and the story of Cain and Abel.

GODot

A consistent argument throughout the play is that Godot is actually a representation of God. This can be seen in many biblical allusions throughout the play, as well as a play on nicknames between Vladimir and Estragon. Early in the first act, before Pozzo and Lucky arrive, Vladimir and Estragon ponder the biblical story of two thieves and a savior. It has been argued that this story is an allusion to the play itself, and the dynamic between Vladimir, Estragon, and Godot, the savior. By portraying Godot as the savior, Beckett puts a large emphasis on the theme of salvation. This is arguably the most famous salvation allusion in the play. The dialogue starts out with Vladimir, who is addressing Estragon,

“Two thieves, crucified, at the same time as our Savior. One— / Our what? / Our Savior. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other… (he searches for the contrary of saved) … damned. / Saved from what? / Hell. / I’m going.” (1.72–77).

This can be seen as a comical scene because of Estragon’s failure to understand the main term. According to Thomas Cousineau, the reader does not have to interpret that Godot is a possible representation of God. Even if it were proven that Godot is not a symbol for God, Vladimir and Estragon would continue to wait for him since they “live in a world that has been molded by the Christian hope of salvation.” (Cousineau 28). Cousineau states that Godot does not have to be identified as God as long as the reader can identify that there is indeed a supernatural element in the text that Vladimir and Estragon feel the need to ask for salvation from. Godot still retains dominance as a character or supernatural being, but a biblical title isn’t necessary to grasp the meaning. It is ultimately up to the reader to decide if they want to interpret Godot as God, or just as a supernatural being, or a simple mysterious figure.

The assertion that Godot represents God is further supported by the recognition of Vladimir and Estragon’s nicknames for each other. Frequently, Estragon is referred to as Gogo, and Vladimir is often called Didi. These two nicknames combined are very reminiscent of the name Godot. This connection between names has also been used to relate the text back to the core concepts of absurdity and nothingness. Some critics have asserted that Waiting for Godot is really a play about waiting for God to come save humanity, but humanity is already lost. This is seen in a somewhat controversial line where Estragon says,

“On the other hand it might be better to strike the iron before it freezes.” (1.237).

In this case, Beckett changed the line to question existentialism through the use of a metaphor. When the reader delves deeper into the meaning behind the line, it states that humanity does not have enough time to wait for the spiritual ponderings to offer them enlightenment. In relation to the play, Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot who does not have the time to save humanity. Salvation and humanity go hand in hand, and in some opinions, Vladimir and Estragon do indeed achieve some sort of salvation. According to Cousineau, it is possible that Vladimir and Estragon achieve a form of salvation through their loyalty to Godot. This view is further supported by the fact that Vladimir and Estragon still stand above the level of Pozzo and Lucky who ignore the existence of Godot, and therefore are not able to achieve salvation. This theory stretches a little too far to told truth due to its lack of support in comparison with other theories, but could still be considered valid.

In Conclusion

Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot is cleverly crafted to allow readers a chance to analyze biblical references in unconventional ways. His personal views and traditional background force the reader to take outside events into account, and not just deem Waiting for Godot as just another nonsensical Theater of the Absurd piece. Through investigating his stylistic choices, it becomes increasingly more evident that there are many layers within one play with two acts. A seemingly simple play with five, arguably six, basic characters transforms into a structural gold mine as biblical overtones are uncovered in the setting, and cynical humor is revealed beneath nonsensical dialogue. Interactions between interchangeable pairs of characters lead readers to overarching themes of humanity and salvation, even dipping into the concepts of the supernatural. Samuel Beckett layered Waiting for Godot with biblical allusions, controversial humor, and nonsense to create a final product that successfully caught reader’s attention and coaxed them to investigate the piece as individuals.

More Samuel Beckett goodness:
https://medium.com/@SOOZ_AY3/so-controversial-critics-named-an-award-after-it-f5b85d02bf0#.kciz68dlr

An in depth look at the London 1955 performance of Waiting for Godot.

Sources:

Bair, Deirdre. Samuel Beckett: A Biography. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978. Web.
Beckett, Samuel. “Waiting for Godot — Act 1.” Waiting for Godot — Act 1 & 2. N.p., n.d. Web. Print. 13 May. 2014.
Cousineau, Thomas. Waiting for Godot: Form in Movement. Boston, MA: Twayne, 1990. Print.
Crone, Anna Lisa. “Dostoevsky, Fyodor.” World Book Advanced. World Book, 2014. Web. 14 May 2014.
Gordon, Lois G. Reading Godot. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2002. Print.
Holy Bible, The Washburn College Bible. Oxford Vers. New York: Oxford UPq, 1980. Print.
Kelsch, Amanda L., “Reading Waiting for Godot through the Lens of Christian Existentialism” (2007). Master’s Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. Paper 41. http://commons.emich.edu/theses/41
Schlueter, June, and Enoch Brater, eds. Approaches to Teaching Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1991. Print. III.