Sam w Polsce1 / Sam in Poland

Charles Krance

Narrator od wielu lat jest sam....

       Odtąd czlowiek jest sam.

A. Libera, “Kosmologia Becketta”

It wasn’t perhaps until the 1981 Beckett symposium at Ohio State University, and particularly during the panel on “Beckett’s Recent Dramatic Writings,” that we in the West were made dramatically aware of the fact that Beckett is alive and well in Poland.  For it was during that session, held in the Drake Union theater where Ohio Impromptu enjoyed its world première, that Antoni Libera, fresh off the plane after an eleventh-hour decision, in Poland, to grant him permission to come to Ohio, addressed an audience of several hundred.  Libera, who of the ever-increasing number of Beckettians in Poland is certainly the most active representative (as Beckett’s chief translator, director of plays, essayist, and editor of special journals), told his audience in no uncertain terms—at least I hope they were, as I was called on at the last minute to act as Libera’s translator as he proceeded to read his paper—that Beckett’s presence is continuing to make itself significantly felt in Poland, despite the relative isolation of his country from the rest of the Western world.

Under normal conditions, when a contributor is asked to appraise a number of publications for JOBS, a meta-critical stance is best.  However, given the inaccessibility factor that I am sure applies to most readers of this journal when it comes to Polish publications on Beckett, I have chosen to minimize my own critical afterthoughts, and instead to summarize what I believe are the most salient features to be found in these publications.  I hope, of course, that my summaries in themselves will provide Beckett scholars with potential leads for further reflection and investigation.  If nothing else, however, I trust that what follows will help bring to light the scope of Beckettian activities in Poland—a fertile field that has been too long neglected by the majority of Beckett scholars.  Mindful of the fact that the Federman-Fletcher Bibliography of 1970 lists only one Polish critic, Jan Kott, I will present each of the more current items in its chronological order.

Literatura na Swiecie, no. 49 (May, 1975); guest editor: Antoni Libera.  Beckett section: pp. 4-251.

This special monograph issue was composed in anticipation of Beckett’s seventieth birthday, as a continuation of the universal homage accorded to Beckett in Beckett at Sixty, and in an effort to make Beckett better known in Poland, particularly in terms of his enormous impact on certain key avant-garde currents in contemporary prose writing.  Thus, roughly half of the section is devoted to the presentation of previously untranslated prose texts from the Beckett opus.

Other translations include essays by Martin Esslin, Jérôme Lindon, Harold Pinter, Madeleine Renaud, and Alan Schneider.  There are, in addition, five original essays and a chronology of Beckett’s life and works to 1973.  As with each of the items reviewed here, I will focus primarily on the original essays.

The logical place to begin, it would seem, is with the concluding essay by A. Libera, “Beckett in Poland” (pp. 246-51).  Essentially a plea for a more responsible and consistent practice of translating Beckett into Polish, Libera’s purview acknowledges the debt owed to the founding editor of Dialog, Adam Tarn, as having done the most, to date, to make Beckett’s dramatic works accessible in Poland, as for example in the first issue (1956), which presented translated portions of Waiting for Godot.  Thereafter, Dialog continues to publish a steady stream of Beckett’s plays, as well as translations of reviews of Beckett’s works, and, occasionally, pertinent bibliographical information.   Equally important in its pioneering efforts is the journal Twórczość, which from 1957 on focuses on Beckett’s prose works, and provides reviews of non-Polish essays and monograph studies on Beckett, especially from France and the U.S.  But the bottom line of Libera’s concluding piece remains a rather urgent criticism of the patterns established by the collective and uninformed attempts to provide “instantaneous” translations of Beckett’s works (most notably his theatre); heedless of the problems of form and artfulness in the original language in which Beckett writes his works, such practices too often result in heterogeneous “galimatias,” doing grave injustice to the exceptionally homogeneous character of Beckett’s language (refrains, key words, similarities of structure, etc.).

Another brief article in this volume is a condensed version of an essay by Alojzy Pallasz (“Motywy okupacyjne u Becketta” [”Motifs of the Occupation in Beckett], Przegląd Humanistyczny, no. 3,1972), whose title here is “Three cents’ worth concerning Watt” (pp. 157-60), immediately following Pallasz’s translation of the “garden surrounded by a high barbed wire fence” passage in Watt (pp. 154-5).  Pallasz offers the readers of this volume a biographical sketch of Beckett during the period in which he was composing this novel (with references to M. Esslin and L. Janvier), and casts Watt as an innocent victim and Christ-like martyr.  He concludes, in this spirit, with a reference to First Love as also reflecting the hellish atmosphere of the early 1940s, a period during which Absolute Evil reigned.

Elsewhere in this volume, Pallasz discusses a fragment of the first manuscript version of Godot, where Estragon’s name appears as Lévy (pp. 190-1), and on pp. 233-34 he offers a few observations on “Beckett and Chess,” as exemplified in Murphy and Endgame, with references and comparisons to Borges, Zweig, and Bergman.

Clearly the most original and ambitious of the original contributions in this volume, however, is Libera’s essay on the structure of Ping (“Jak Zbudowane jest ‘Dzyń’ Becketta?”), pp. 192-231.  Written in 1973, and including a new translation, by Libera alone, of the French Bing, Libera’s essay tackles the Berkeleyan-Kantian-Heisenbergian riddle of this text (in my opinion, Beckett’s most difficult composition), by conducting a minute and painstaking analysis based on a close reading of the nine variant versions.  In his analysis, Libera posits a reconstruction of the “epistemological norms” which are shrouded by the illusory differences (i.e., the variant degrees of whiteness and motionlessness on the one hand, and the unreliable permutations which seek to correlate sensation and perception on the other) that keep the barely perceptive subject and the barely perceptible object in a state of constant tension, one with regard to the other, and that create a metaphoric equivalent of life as a never-ending rite of passage, with occasional “pings” (or “bings” and “hops” in the French version) as the only perceptible signs of progression, bringing the subject to within yet another heartbeat of death and darkness.2  Thus, Libera argues (in the first third of his essay), the body of axioms, articulated in the first three phrases, express the Ur theme of the text, constituting a geometric order which (as in the model provided by Spinoza’s Ethics) is then subject to a series of deductive inferences, seeking to establish their own immanent causality—while at the same time being constantly undermined by the intervention of the uncertainty principle (à la Heisenberg).  The second third of the essay (p. 208ff.) examines, in fine detail, the relations between form and substance in “Ping” in terms of its “hardware” and “software,” the latter component including three categories (colour; sound; movement), each one of which is programmed (as it were) according to two distinct criteria: inconclusiveness/conclusiveness.  Thus, the inner articulations, or mechanisms, of Ping are so structured and positioned as to constantly challenge—and be challenged by—the globalising efforts of textual finality qua mathematical cohesiveness qua memory bank.  (“Ping,” or the sound of the loose cog[ito] in the wheel?)  In the process of working out Ping’s intricate configurations (thematic and declamatory... in the musical sense of the word), Libera draws some interesting conclusions (p. 223ff.).  Among these are: a) the suggested connnections between the seventy semantic units of the text, the opening lines of The Divine Comedy where Dante designates the time span of thirty-five years as representing the half-way mark in human life, and Ulysses (especially Ch. 14); b) whereas Dante describes the anthropocentric experience of associating with the extraordinary (i.e., the inhuman world of the beyond), Beckett posits the “anti-anthropocentric” experience of extraordinary association, i.e., the inhuman consciousness of an absolute witness... the object of which—“all known”—is the very ground covered by the ten extant versions of the text; c) finally, Libera suggests a philosophically embedded, thematic kinship between Ping, Ulysses, and the Odyssey, on the one hand, and a similarly related kinship between Lessness, Finnegans Wake, and the Book of the Dead, on the other hand, with The Divine Comedy as the centrally located threshold through which both sets of kinship must pass.

Beckett, ed. Antoni Libera.  Poznań: Państwowy Teatr Nowy, April 1980, pp. 92.

This special programme, dedicated to Beckett on his seventy-fourth birthday, was printed for the opening performances, on 12 April, 1980, of Krapp’s Last Tape, That Time, and Not I.  In addition to the complete texts of the translated versions of these three works (with ample photographic documentation), it also includes translations of: essays by James Knowlson, on Krapp’s Last Tape (from JOBS, no. 1, Winter 1976) and on Not I; Rick Cluchey’s article “My years with Beckett”; Beckett’s notes for the staging of Krapp; Walter Asmus’s rehearsal notes for the German premiere of That Time (from JOBS, no. 2, Summer 1977, pp. 92-95); excerpts from Deirdre Bair’s discussion of Not I (from pp. 623-30 of her biography); the J. Knowlson interview with Billie Whitelaw that appeared in JOBS (no. 3, Summer l978); and an original essay by A. Libera, “How I interpret Not I” (on the ontological status of Mouth, and the parabolic story it tells, as it searches for the ultimate purge of existence through language).

Literatura na Swiecie, no. 120 (April, 1981); guest editor: Antoni Libera.  Beckett section: pp.3-263.

The second monograph issue from this Warsaw review was compiled in observance of Beckett’s seventy-fifth birthday.  It too devotes half the space in the special section to translations of Beckett’s works.  In addition, there are translations of two critical essays, by James Knowlson and Deirdre Bair.

The volume opens with an état présent, by A. Libera (“Beckett in the World,” pp. 4-130), of Beckett’s works published, and plays performed, in Poland, and highlights the significant international milestones in Beckett criticism and scholarship since 1975.  In presenting this special issue, Libera states its dual goal as that of broadening an understanding of Beckett’s dramatic works in Poland, and of filling the lacunae (and updating) with regard to the 1973 anthology, Teatr.  Thus, with the publication of this commemorative issue, almost the whole corpus of Beckett’s dramatic works is now available in Polish, with the sole exception noted being that of Words and Music.  (So that if “The Germans ha[d] translated almost everything” by 1977 (see JOBS, no. 2, p. 65, note 5], the same can now be said of the Poles.)

The second essay is by Marek Kędzierski, titled “Samuel Beckett over the years” (pp. 14-49); it reconstructs a bibliobiographical portrait of the artist through his works and critics, and ends with several excerpts from Libera’s forthcoming translation of Company.  Kędzierski is also the author of an interesting essay, “Descartes, Vico, Beckett,” Przeglad Humanistyczny No. 5,1979.

Immediately following the thirteen Beckett texts (see Appendix I), Libera returns with an essay on “A Piece of Monologue in the light of recent dramatic creations by Beckett” (i.e., Not I, Footfalls, Ghost Trio, ...but the clouds...), pp. 196-212.  This original analysis treats the genesis of Monologue, from its first conception as a prose text to Beckett’s special attention to its staging devices and techniques, as triggered by the 1975 production, by David Warillow, of The Lost Ones, by the Mabou Mines.  After describing the latter production in detail, Libera traces the evolution of Beckett’s staging techniques, which ever since Eh Joe have converged to ascribe a new function to the texts, and concomitantly have led to the gradual effacing of the first-person singular from the dramatic dimensions of his characters.  In its place, it is the absent other (the “signified”) that assigns a new, ontological status to the staging effects, leading towards what Libera designates as “indirect drama” (p. 200) in which the theatrical signs indicate that what they are signs of (the absent signified) is not directly representable; rather, they can only suggest conjectured forms and mechanisms of the world, as well as of the self, and thus provide poetic insights into the hidden structures of existence.  Libera then examines the architectonics of A Piece of Monologue, whose staging itself is a metaphor of the caged form within which the subjective being is confined to its own inner impenetrability, as it contemplates the impenetrable world outside.  What connects the two zones of impenetrability is the contrapuntal arrangement of key, spatial delineations (for example, “edge of frame [...] out of frame”; “parts lips [...] parts the dark”), enframed within the imagined, introspective landscape, whose boundaries reverberate from one “frame” to another.  Within this landscape, Libera calls attention to the “larches,” as an autobiographical allusion and symbolic landmark, delineating the point of demarcation between the unadulterated mental perception of youth and the progressive blindness (and foreshadowing of a new, ephemeral and undefinable light) brought about by the debilitating effects of introspection.  What in the final analysis is conjectured into being, in the text of the monologue itself, is an allegorical representation of human existence, whose mechanism is released in the articulation of the opening word of the text: “Birth” (with the ex-plosive b parting the lips, followed by the forward thrust of the tongue, as it expresses sound from the obstructive rth, thus instantaneously reproducing the dual phenomenon of conception and childbirth, as word is made flesh at the very instant that it “parts the dark”).  What ensues thereafter is an attempt to withdraw (indirectly) into the inner refuge—“the familiar chamber”—of Film, Eh Joe, and Ghost Trio.  The respite, or peace, sought in this inner chamber is at best illusory, for it provides no relief from the unchanging requisite, namely that of creation itself, with no end in view... short of the cemetery, “that place beneath” and beyond the room.  This Piece of Monologue, then, can only give a premonition of the monologue of peace, which, in a world forsaken by God, can’t even get off the ground (“he all but said [...]”).  (I must add at this point that Libera is in part responsible for this pun, when he refers to the analogous space, or room, in Ghost Trio—to which the female voice appeasingly directs our attention: “Look.    The familiar chamber”—as an analogiczny pokój, for pokój means both “room or chamber” and “peace.”)

Next in line is a brief article on “The Journal of Beckett Studies;” by Krystyna Illakowicz (pp. 224-37).  JOBS is highly praised for the scope and quality of its endeavors, especially in the theatrical domain (nos. 1 & 2); summaries of selected essays and book reviews (including the Calder-Israel reactions to Bair’s biography) from the first four issues are presented.

The Beckett section of the volume concludes with an article on “Staging Beckett in Poland,” by Micha Mrozowicki (pp. 248-59).  Presented as a survey of the most significant developments, it is chock-full of information (see Appendix II).

Literatura, April 9, 1981, p. 12: A full five-column page dedicated to Beckett’s seventy-fifth birthday; includes: a) translations of two “Fizzles’ by A. Libera; b) a summary of world-wide Beckett celebrations; c) announces the forthcoming publication of Company in Twórczość (trans. by A. Libera); d) “Swiat w pulapse Prokrusta” (“The World in Procrustes’ Trap”), a pre-publication excerpt from Libera’s essay in Pisma prozą (pp. 127-31; see below), dealing with the two “Fizzles.”

Twórczość, no. 4, 1981, pp. 9-17: translation of “Dante and the Lobster,” by A. Libera and Ewa Jankowski, also in commemoration of Beckett’s seventy-fifth birthday.

Kultura (Poland), 7 June 1981: An interview with Libera, by Jadwiga Kurska, entitled Pociemnialy strop nieba (The dark cope of sky); this is, in my opinion, as good a summary of what Beckett represents in our Western culture, and as sensitive an insight into his uniqueness, as has seen print anywhere in the world.

Samuel Beckett[:] Pisma prozą, by Antoni Libera.  Warsaw: Czyteinik, 1982, pp. 188.  This important volume contains translations of numerous prose works written between 1956-76 (see Appendix 1), as well as a long essay by Libera, titled “Beckett’s Cosmology” (pp. 101-88).  Although the essay is in large part devoted to interpretation and commentary concerning the Beckett works published here, it does much to tie together what might appear as loose ends to the Polish reader who is not current on Beckett’s prose; as such, it provides a service that is analogous to that of John Pilling’s commentaries in Frescoes of the Skull.  Composed in 1979, Libera’s essay gets its title from Beckett’s reference to Milton’s cosmology in From an Abandoned Work (the opening piece in the volume).  Libera begins with an exegesis of “Dante... Bruno.  Vico... Joyce,” whose chief interest is in the way that it establishes the cornerstones of Beckett’s own artistic credo and literary program.  Thus, Libera proposes to guide the reader through the recent prose texts, in view of a reconstruction of Beckett’s primary goals as a creative artist-a procedure whose need became manifest with the publication of Imagination Dead Imagine.  These goals, as Beckett had outlined in his explanation of Joyce’s situation in the evolution of new forms of expression, are: a) to re-instill in man the primacy of his poetic powers, as the only means of providing occasional glimmers of light, and b) to provide the mathematically inspired infrastructure with which to buttress the evocative potentials of language, without which the first goal could not be met; finally, c) with the satisfaction of the first two requisites, to give back to poetic expression its original wholeness.  The Beckett opus thus represents a tireless process of language labouring its way, by trial and error, out of the dark labyrinth of unanswerable questions; and in the bulk of his essay, Libera describes and ccomments on this process as it progresses from More Pricks Than Kicks to Fizzles.  On pp. 110-19, he gives an analysis of the bivalent narrative and multileveled digressions in From an Abandoned Work, and identifies its elements of parable as key metaphors that posit the narrator as a personification of the human race drawing up the balance-sheet of its three-staged evolution in time, in conformity with Vico’s anthro-poetical categories, including the tongue-in-cheek Providence which Beckett seized upon in his “Dante... Bruno [...]” essay.  This leads to the concluding observation that it’s the “tongue in cheek”-ness of a Providential release from the Beckettian pensum that informs Abandoned Work with its ironic, narrative structures (these, to be later radically reduced in “Ping”).

The next section (pp. 119-34) explores Fizzles no. 1-6.  No. 1 is a poetic exploration of a theme in “Dante... Bruno,” namely, “The consciousness that there is a great deal of the unborn infant in the lifeless octogenarian.”  No. 2 exemplifies the narrative hesitancy between spoken and written forms of discourse, and thus highlights narrative uncertainty as to the purported function of discourse itself.  Its narrator is a personification of human existence as a hermetic quality, taunted by the imagined spectre of elementary will (Horn), which traduces the bivalent relationship of seeing and being.  In anticipation of Film, “Horn,” by its foreshadowing of the playful manipulations of the Berkeleyian formula, focuses on the theme of “blockage of expression,” the latter term referring simultaneously to self-expression and the expression of the self’s longing to be identified with a higher order.  With reference to no. 3 and no. 4, Beckett’s representation of the interdependence between the mortal and the immortal is compared to Schopenhauer’s World as Will and Idea, Hölderlin’s “Rhine,” and Simone Weil’s La Pesanteur et la grâce (1947) and La Connaissance sumaturelle (1950).  Well’s principle of creation as divine abdication—with humankind bearing the brunt of God’s benevolent joke—is seen in no.4 as fusing with Vico’s theory of language, to produce the image of immortal being, as conjectured within an inner necessity rather than projected onto the level of the exteriorized sign-as-subjective-disclosure.  The world is thus limitless existence, insatiable in its quest for a suitable form at the same time that it is subject to the Procrustean bed of man’s own insufficiency.  No. 6 is a spontaneous expression of inner resonances, highlighting the theme of unbridgeable, inner separateness between experience and consciousness.  Though its spontaneity is paradoxical, inasmuch as its structure is based on a series of associative links, it is at the same time stressed by the sudden surfacing of a line, in the original foirade no. 5, and just as sudden a disappearance from the English translation, from Canto 7 of the Infemo: Tristi fummo nell’aere dolce.  Canto 7 also furnished Beckett with the allegorical scenario (the Fifth Circle) for How It Is, a work that represents a solitary, intermediate stage in the evolution of narrative forms, between the Fizzles and Imagination Dead Imagine, the latter of which opened the way for the full expression of Beckett’s earliest formulated goals.

There follows a discussion of Enough (pp. 135-43), which, although written one year after Imagination (in the original French versions of both), belongs to the pre-Imagination group of texts, as Beckett himself indicated by placing it before Imagination in the published collections.  Although Libera’s positioning of this text differs from Pilling’s, for whom the “placing [of] Enough in pole position before the other residua” is sign enough of “Its unprecedentedness”(J. Knowlson and J. Pilling, Frescoes of the Skull; Grove Press, 1980, p. 150), the question as to which of these views is more persuasive is, in my opinion, a draw.  On Pilling’s side, “it is only in Enough that Beckett discovers the prose style that breaks decisively with what has gone before,” a prose style characterized by its absence of commas; the Kaminski-Libera translation, on the other hand, presents a challenge to this criterion inasmuch as it reintroduces the commas, following the example of Elmar Tophoven’s translation into German,3 checked and approved by Beckett himself (see Federman and Fletcher’s 1970 bibliography, p. 91).  Another formal criterion that Pilling notes is “the return to paragraphed prose” as “another index of Enough’s individuality,” an observation that leads Pilling to conclude that “Enough is in fact somewhat regressive in its reliance on paragraphs” (Frescoes, p. 151); and further, to cite Pilling as support of Libera’s placing of “Enough,” The Lost Ones is actually much closer in subject-matter to Imagination Dead Imagine than it is to “Enough, the work which immediately preceded it” (Ibid., p. 158).  Another, perhaps more interesting, point of comparison between the Pilling and Libera readings of Enough is the former’s stress on the sexual neutrality of the narrating figure despite the feminine tone and the “accoutrements” which appear in the last line of the text, and the latter’s description of Enough as the feminine counterpart of From an Abandoned Work.  For although Libera acknowledges the importance of narrative androgyny in the original French and English versions, and explains why it is impossible to preserve that neutrality in the Polish translation, for the simple reason that the past tense (in which Enough is narrated) of narratives in Polish, an inflected language, inevitably discloses the sex of the narrator, his analysis refers to the narrator in the masculine form (narrator, rather than narratorka), while he describes the theme of encounter in the story as one which occurs between the narrator as a young female and an old authority figure, the whole story itself being mused over by an old (feminine) narrator left unto her solitary wanderings.  Whatever other ambiguities may lie beneath the narrative surfaces of this text, Libera views it as a condensed Genesis of the relationship of the human species to its maker, from prehistoric eras to the parting of the ways shortly after man’s emergence, with “Aquarius hands,” from the floods.  The “Aquarius hands” (in the fifth paragraph of Enough), for their part, emerge as ręce Wodnika in the Polish translation; Wodnik, or “Water-Bearer,’ also designates a water spider, another form of which, in Polish, is wodnica; this feminine form is derived from the German Nixe (or “nixie”), referring to a female water spirit, or mermaid.  The masculine Wodnik (filtered through the German) thus preserves at least some of its sexual ambiguity.  Ambiguity is perhaps the key issue in this parable.  For man, prematurely forestalled in the process of forming himself when God abandons him, is left pondering the question: “What do I know of man’s destiny?” (in the penultimate paragraph of the text).  His memory, meanwhile, keeps the time of his pre-abandoned state alive, and it can do so only by driving out of the mind the consciousness that something (or anything) lies in the past, including the written opus itself.  The means for the narrator to achieve this type of oblivion is through his/her narration itself.  The paradoxical effect arrived at being that words are made dispensable by the very process of their bringing about a fusion of things as they are with things as they were before the separation; and yet it is through the word, and the word alone, that man can maintain contact with divine being (Libera, p. 143), or, in other words, it is only through the divine word that the past can still be made present.  And, as words go, the title word alone—Enough—is in itself an ambivalent summa of Beckett’s quests in first-person narrative prose.

In the next section (pp. 143-51), on Imagination Dead Imagine, Libera analyzes the depiction of the white rotunda as an allegory of life in the womb, and also of Eden before the expulsion of Adam and Eve (in much the same way, it seems to me, as “Enough [which] is pre-eminently a narrative of separation” [Frescoes, p. 152] can be seen as representing the same motif, that is to say, life before and after birth).  The allegorical dimensions here, however, are only a pretext for challenging the imagination’s potential to project metaphorical equivalents of reality by “shaking off the yoke of perception,” i.e., by immuring the imagination in the milky whiteness of silence (p. 149).  (Note, in passing, Libera’s creative translation of “omit” [the second hypothetical imperative of Imagination] as “zamilknij,” or “fall silent.”)  Finally, Imagination is judged to be a paradigm of the Beckett cycle death of imagination-birth of primitive memory-birth of individual existence-death of observer—settling the score with the systems of Bruno and Vico (see Frescoes, p. 167, for a similar appraisal).

The Lost Ones is discussed on pp. 152-63, where Libera explores life in the cylinder from within the two domains of the narrative: informational and factual, on the one hand, interpretative and hypothetical, on the other.  An English version of this was presented at the 0hio State Symposium and was published in Samuel Beckett: Humanistic Perspectives.  With due reference to Dante’s Purgatory, he describes the cylinder as a highly compressed microcosm of human existence, with the narrative voice representing man’s mythical propensity for penetrating the mysteries of his world on the one hand, and the compromises that his analytical abilities are forced to conclude with the unfathomable, on the other.  The frustrations of the lost ones are compounded by the fact that the unfathomable mysteries are themselves excluded from within the confines of the cylinder, as the channel of communication from within to without is obstinately blocked off.  This sets the stage for a presentation of the world as being caught up in an incessant dialectic, while man’s quests for a way out of the dilemma cut a distinctively regressive path.  The Lost Ones is thus a poetic variation on Vico’s theory, in that what is discovered (Divine Providence, taken here as the will to transform one’s mode of existence) in man’s never-ending quest is not what was originally sought out.

The section on Ping (pp. 163-70), by comparison to Libera’s earlier study (in the first volume reviewed here), presents a compact, yet incisive, analysis of this text, whose seventy, semantic units—beginning and ending with “All [...] over”—represent units of time.  With Lessness (pp. 170-81), Beckett achieves the poetico-ideologico-philosophical summa of his opus (cf. the summa attained in Enough), as Libera demonstrates by way of a detailed, formal analysis of the mathematical configurations of the text’s internal arrangement (as previously done by J. M. Coetzee and J. E. Dearlove; see also JOBS no. 6, p. 71).  The text, broken down into six evenly distributed groups of ten sentences each, offers a totalizing image of life, reduced-and exponentially magnified to astronomical potentialities—to a Platonic idea: the world as a shattered pattern, torn apart by the conflicting forces of the need to create and the impossibility of same.  The theme of totalization is seen as an homage to the last Canto of Paradise, which, informed with the numerical values of three and ten, posits a three-part synthesis of being: content, attribute (or quality), and sign (or manifestation), and also to Vico’s three ages and three institutions.

Libera wraps up his essay with commentary on Still (Fizzle no. 7)... Still, or ‘being there’ in three acts: looking, touching, listening.  For to end yet again (Fizzle no. 8) postulates a prophetic vision of the twilight of humanity and eventual replacement by some other form of existence, the latter being open to speculation.  And, in the Conclusion (pp. 187-88), Beckett is crowned “cosmologist of transitory climes.”

Samuel Beckett, by Jan Bloński and Marek Kędzierski.  Warsaw: Czytelnik, 1982, pp.144.

This co-authored volume (in the Literary Classics of the 20th Century series) contains the following material: an essay by each of the two authors; excerpts of critical reactions to, and appraisals of Beckett’s works, from the U. S., England, France, Germany, and Poland, covering the period of 1931-82 (pp. 87-111); three excerpts from Beckett on Beckett, 1956-61 (pp. 111-14); a biographical outline (pp. 115-26); a bibliography of Beckett’s works published in Poland (p. 127), and sixteen pages of photographs.

Bloński’s eight-part essay, “Samuel Beckett”, (pp. 5-51), is an extended version of his Afterword to the anthology Teatr and begins this volume.  It is a sensitive and intelligent profile of the intellectual and esthetic paradoxes that make up the man and his autonomous creation.  Liberally sprinkled with quotations from various works, it discusses the following topics:

—The circularity of Beckett’s universe; and the spiral configurations in his works, achieved by the endless variations and resumptions of Beckett’s wandering words (with Molloy singled out as the masterpiece of Beckett’s narrative prose), leading to the inevitability that the patterns charted out by the tenacious processes of Beckett’s inspecto sui, in the fiction, were to lead to the stage.

—Beckett’s stage, though characterized by powerlessness, immobility, and confinement, becomes infused with an increasingly resistant temporality.  Time is a palpable substance on the Beckett stage; it sticks to each word and gesture, against which the latter activities (representative of all human activity) rail endlessly by resorting to four essential, and substantially theatrical, processes: rhythmic disruption, annulment, anatomization (or disarticulation), and above all, repetition, albeit anything but mechanical.  Beckett’s theatre is thus a visualization (or, in the case of the radio plays, an audition) of the reciprocity between the reversibility of events, on the one hand, and the circularity of time, on the other, a theme that had surely been inspired in the young Beckett’s mind by Ecclesiastes.  Theatrical time, in Beckett, is a static present, leading nowhere, giving rise to nothing save the sole element of surprise possible: that one of the repetitions will be the last.

—The predominant role of corporeality in Beckett’s theatre is in large part responsible for his humour, which is compared to that of Shakespeare, Bruegel, and Aristophanes, while his merciless treatment of the erotic impulse smacks of a certain irrepressible puritanism.  This creates a paradox, whereby the more “flesh bound” the themes, the more verbose the texts; “in a word, Beckett’s metaphysics is always expressed in terms of physical signs” (p. 23), a metaphysics predicated on the inevitability of corporeal loss, and, in the case of the loss of others, on solitude: “Beckett’s hell is very anglosaxon, individual, and law-abiding.  His victims fall in light of their own will, as they prepare for the self-inflicted punishment to which they have been condemned” (p. 25).  An attendant observation by Bloński is that Beckett’s is a truly classless society (the absence of historical consciousness in Godot makes the facile identification of Pozzo as symbol of ownership and Lucky as symbol of proletariat invalid), made up of the weak and the strong, the cruel and the submissive; in Endgame, on the other hand, evil is revealed in its pure state, inseparably bound with humanity.

—On meaning-lessness in Beckett’s literary universe: this is the fundamental condition against which Beckett’s characters exercise their will to express, if not to signify, creating an extraordinary pathos, whereby speech is the very sign of existence (no more, no less) all the while it gravitates towards death.  Existence is the signified, postulated by the boldfaced lie of literature itself as a signifier of anything at all.  The stories it tells are substitutes for meaning, for goals, for order, and are therefore indispensable for the existence of the Beckett man: this is why his existence is a dying process.

—The tragic element in Beckett’s vision is a purifying motif, as it strips away the moral relativism of historical considerations, and rejoins (in spirit, if not in form) the universality of the tragic in Classical Greece, in that it highlights not so much the tragedy of the paths that lead to death, but rather the ever-shrinking paths themselves.  This shrinking process is due to the cunningly calculated refusal, on the part of whatever it is that we are waiting for, to justify itself as the object of the waiting: “To claim that Godot is only the sign of the waiting is to wriggle out of the issue.  We likewise wait for meat and for the trolley, often to no avail.  The significance of the waiting can only come from whomever or whatever it is that we are waiting for (p. 37).  The riddle of Godot, however, is familiar to those who have been puzzled by the sacrifice of Abraham, the story of Job, or the parable of the workers in the vineyard.  From another angle, and despite the fact that it is not an allegory, Godot can be seen as a never-ending Purgatory, a valley of tears; as is true of virtually all of Beckett’s theatre, there are no clearly defined symbols here.  Instead, we are confronted by an appreciably prevailing metaphysical concern with survival itself—nurtured by the never-ending and admittedly futile quest for dissimilarity, indeed for absolute Otherness—the tools of which are good will and lack of illusions.

—In the face of it all, again, the humour, as a means of periodically distancing us from the pervasive tragedy, a humour which, in itself, does not go unchanged from one version to the other: for example, the English Godot is more subtle and spirited than the French.  As a rule, Beckett’s humour is most effective when, in the circular give and take of the humorous and the tragic, it’s the humorous that starts the ball rolling, for it puts us in a more truthful light, and cushions the fall from grace (or what we think was the case) that mankind, in its presumptuous egocentrism, has always complained about.

—Beckett’s “fiducial point” is an empty place, after God; the tragic element is provided by man’s looking into the emptiness, while the comic element is provided by the emptiness looking back at man.  While the tragic element gives rise to the voice of protest, the comic element is the only one of the two that can accommodate man to his lot, on the condition that he give up the notion of his cosmic primacy.  The comic is born of the void, and rebounds back to the tragic; the tragic, in turn, addresses its plaint to the void, and rebounds in laughter—each performing its necessary role, in turn, endlessly.  This state of affairs is developed to a farcical climax in Endgame, an anti-Godot, a hell that is life, death, and fate all-in-one.

—Thereafter, beginning with Happy Days, Beckett’s theatre becomes a subtle panoply of humanity’s indefatigable, yet knowing, preoccupations with its own triviality, while it is increasingly submerged in the realization of its unpurgeable suffering on the one hand, holding out, on the other, for the possibility—however minimal—that the word, once it will have absorbed all it can of its own superfluousness, may reveal, in the hollow of its own poetic insignificance, a beauty heretofore unspoken.  As Czeslaw Milosz has written,

Civilization is defined by its creations; whosoever wishes to penetrate its essence must take stock of its most honest writer, Samuel Beckett.  The greatness of the capitalist West lies in its having produced and claimed as its own a writer such as Beckett—a writer who chose truth with no illusions, [...] a writer who has formulated the mass-scale consciousness of meta-physical Absence (p. 50).

The essay by Kędzierski (pp. 52-86), titled “Końcówka” [“Endgame”], opens with critical observations on the prominence of the closed-room motif since Malone Dies, and leads into an analysis of Endgame, with special focus on Hamm (as Malone-Pozzo-Lucky, rolled-in-one, and strapped into his Cartesian wheelchair), who in his monologue is seen to be echoing metaphysical concerns of Schopenhauer and Calderon, while leaning towards religious significance, as witnessed by distorted allusions to, and citations from the Bible.  In addition, Kędzierski is setting the record straight, by pointing to key inaccuracies in the J. Rogoźinski translation of Endgame, without, however, overstressing his case.  Rather, his intention is to trace the “Fundamental sounds” with which Beckett had structured his polyphonic text—“structure” being taken in the way Beckett speaks of the “structural” in “Dante... Bruno.  Vico.. Joyce,” i.e., a “decoration of arabesques—decoration and more than decoration [... where] form is content, content is form.”  Thus, Kędzierski examines selected passages from the French, and compares them to the English translation, showing how the Rogoźinski translation gives short shrift to the polyphonous, bicameral structures that inform the two versions of the text with their shared resonance.  He also cautions against the “interpretative paranoia” that ensnares those critics of Beckett who, on the one hand, isolate a given work from the surrounding opus, and on the other hand neglect to take account of structural coordinates within the framework of the individual text under consideration, and who, failing thus to recognize the similarity of structural patterns that creates an inner bond from one work to the other, consequently end up viewing Beckett’s poetic creations as metonymical, rather than metaphorical.  In the same context, he describes the futility of attempts to follow through with any one thread among the many literary or mythical allusions in Endgame, without obviating the interdependency of the two, mutually exclusive, dominant themes at play, namely, ending and playing, whereby the chaos of forever-unwinding linearity is accommodated by the form of endless circularity.  Any critical interpretations of the enclosed space within which this drama occurs must therefore by confined within the network of resonances generated by the arabesque-like reverberations of its “fundamental sounds”—which are themselves reverberations of similarly fundamental sounds in otherly inscribed Beckett texts—whether these be identified as chiefly suggestive of intertextual, biblical, mythological, metaphysical, psychological, or autobiographical motifs.  This, Kędzierski explains, is what Beckett himself had warned, when speaking to the actors of Berlin’s Schiller Theatre he equated the “action” of Endgame to a game of chess, its execution being determined by its preordained failure.

Dialog, vol. 28, no. 3 (March 1983): table of contents, in English (p. 176); includes A. Libera’s translation of Ohio Impromptu (pp. 95-97), and Elżbieta Jasińska’s translation of S. E. Gontarski’s revealing essay, “Ohio Impromptu: Play Against Text” (pp. 98-1 01).   Also included is an original play by Feliks Falk, which in the table of contents is listed as There and Back, while on page 3 (in the Polish table of contents) its title reads: Tam i z Powrotem—which happens to be the title of the Polish translation of Come and Go.  Finally, the back cover of the issue announces the publication of Kolysanka (Rockaby) in a forthcoming issue.

Finally, a few words on the translations: needless to say, it would require a great deal of time and space to do justice to the painstaking and masterful feats accomplished by the various translators represented in these publications.  The sheer volume and rhythm with which Beckett’s Polish translators produce their work is in itself remarkable, and should serve as a reminder that, together with the other languages into which Beckett’s works continue to be translated, there is more than ample material for countless studies to be made.  The scope of the matter is all the more awesome if one takes into consideration the fact that in Polish alone there are often two or more translations of the same text.


1.      The Polish half of the title of this review article means “alone in Poland,” the familiar form of Beckett’s first name—Sam—means alone in Polish; thus, the epigraph that I chose from Libera’s essay, translated into English, would read: “For many years, the narrator has been alone....  Henceforth man is alone.”

2.      For an interestingly Slavic slant on this typically Beckettian perspective—that of subject and object vying (and dying) for the spotlight—I will here allow myself one slight digression.  In reference to the quality of endlessness in Ping (cf. Renée R. Hubert’s monovalent understanding of Beckett’s choice of last word—when he translates achevé as “over”—in L’Herne, no.31 [1976], p.256, note 5), and despite the fact that Libera himself translates achevé as skonczone (“finished”), he speaks of the specificity in the subject-object relationship in these terms: “infinity [in Ping], rather than taking on temporal/spatial significance, suggests that which is peculiar to the relationship between subject and object” (p.215).  The latter terms, in Polish, are podmiot and przedmiot.  Like their English equivalents (from Latin), they each have a prepositional prefix (pod=sub; przed, meaning “before”; “in front of”; “ahead of”), and a suffixal complement: miot is formed from the infinitive miotać (“to throw” or “hurl”), which corresponds to ject; in addition, however, miotać also means “to sputter words, threats, abusive or blasphemous foul talk.”  Hence the tragicomic vision of a subject and object forever insulting each other across the threshold of the verb-a process that in “Ping,” in the absence of any active verb, is reduced to mere sputtering.  The subject, podmiot, or “sub-sputter,” fails to reach the ‘deepest layer’ of the object with which it nevertheless longs to be identified; it has no means to establish correspondence with its substance, for it has been separated from it by infinity” (Ibid.); what we have here is instead a “transvaluational” system of multi-layered “meta-murmurs,” designed to preserve the very existence of the riddle” (p.221)—i.e. which way egress (ceiling? floor?)—in its own insolubility (a meaning? a nature?).

3.      Commas are also present in the translations of The Lost Ones and “Still,” and in each case this is done for reasons of syntactical similarities between Polish and German.

Appendix I

Translations of Beckett’s Works Into Polish


AL – Antoni Libera, AMT – Adam and Mary Tarn, AP – Alojzy Pallasz, CW – Cecylia Wojewoda, EJ – Elżbieta Jasińska, IK – Irena Kowalik, JG – Jacek Gąsiorowski, JL – Jerzy Lisowski.  JR – Julian Rogoźiński, KB – Kaźimierz Blahij.  KC – Krystyna Cekalska, KK – Kaźimierz Karkowski, KW – Krzysztof Wolicki, KZ – Krzysztof Zarzecki, ML – Maria Lesniewska, MS – Maigorzata Semil, MZ – Maria Ziembina, PK – Piotr Kaminski.

Magazines and books:

BBeckett, the special theatre program.  Theatre “Nowy” 1980, Poznań; DDialog /Dialogue/, a monthly review devoted to modern drama, Warsaw; K Kultura /Culture/, a cultural weekly magazine, Warsaw; LLiteratura /Literature/, a cultural weekly magazine, Warsaw; LnsLiteratura na swiecie /Literature in the World/, a monthly review devoted to modern world literature, Warsaw; MMolloy /in Polish/, Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie 1983; NNowele /Stories/, Warsaw: Czyteinik 1958; OOdra /The Odra/, a cultural monthly review, Wroclaw; PPulse /Pulse/, a literary underground quarterly, Warsaw-London; PmPierwsza milość /First Love/, Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie 1973; PpPisma proza /Short Works in Prose/, Warsaw: Czyteinik 1982; TTeatr /Theatre/, Warsaw: PIW 1973; TwTwórczość /Creativity/, a monthly review devoted to modern literature, Warsaw; ZLZycie Literackie /Literary Life/, a cultural weekly magazine, Cracow.  F=from the French; E=from the English.

ACT WITHOUT WORDS I Trans. /F/ by JR in D 5, 1957.

ACT WITHOUT WORDS II Trans. /F/ by JG in Lns 4, 1981.

ALL THAT FALL Trans. /E/ by KZ in D 7, 1957; rep. in T

BREATH Trans. /E/ by JG in Las 4, 1981.

...BUT THE CLOUDS... Trans. /E/ by PK in Lns 4, 1981.

CALMATIVE, THE Trans. /F/ by JR in N.

CASCANDO Trans. /F, E/ by AL in Lns 4, 1981.

CATASTROPHE Trans. /F/ by JG in P 15-16, 1982; trans. /F, E/ by AL in D /forthcoming/.

COME AND GO Trans. /E, F/ by AL in Lns 4, 1981.

COMPANY Trans. /E, F/ by AL in Tw 5, 1982.

DANTE AND THE LOBSTER Trans. /E/ by AL in Tw 4, 1981.




EH JOE Trans. /F/ by JR in D 3, 1966; rep. in T; trans. /E, F/ by AL, used in Warsaw Drama School and Katowice TV School productions.

EMBERS Trans. /E/ by CW in D 12, 1959; rep. in T.

END, THE Trans. /F/ by JR in N.

ENDGAME Trans. /F/ by JR in D 5, 1957; rep. in T.

ENOUGH Trans. /F, E/ by PK and AL in ZL 1, 1977; rep. in Pp.

EXPELLED, THE Trans. /F/ by JR in N.

FILM Trans. /E/ by IK in Lns 5, 1975.

FIRST LOVE Trans. /F/ by MZ in Pm.

FIZZLE 1 /HE IS BAREHEAD/ Trans. /F/ by PK in Tw 6, 1977; trans. /F, E/ by PK and AL in Pp.

FIZZLE 2 /HORN CAME ALWAYS/ Trans. /F/ by PK in Tw 6, 1977; trans./F, E/ by PK and AL in Pp.

FIZZLE 3 /AFAR A BIRD/ Trans. /F/ by AL in Tw 6, 1977; trans. /F, E/ by PK and AL in Pp.

FIZZLE 4 /I GAVE UP../ Trans. /F/ by JG in Lns 5, 1975; trans. /F, E/ by PK and AL in Pp.

FIZZLE 6 /OLD EARTH/ Trans. /F/ by PK in Tw 6, 1977; trans. /F, E/ by PK and AL in Pp.

FOOTFALLS Trans. /E/ by AL in ZL 37, 1976; rep. with corrections /F/ in Lns 4, 1981; trans. /E/ by MS in D 12, 1976.

FOR TO END YET AGAIN Trans. /F/ by AL in Tw 6, 1977; rep. with corrections /E/ in Pp.

FOUR POEMS /DIEPPE, “ my way is...,” “what would I do...,” “I would like...,” Trans. /F/ by MZ in ZL 31, 1972.

FROM AN ABANDONED WORK Trans. /F/ by IK in Lns 5, 1975; trans. /E, F/ by AL in Tw 12, 1979; rep. in Pp.

GHOST TRIO Trans. /E/ by AL in Lns 4, 1981.

HAPPY DAYS Trans. /E/ by AMT in D 12, 1961; rep. in T

HOW IT IS Trans. /F/ by AL in Tw 5, 1972; excerpts.

IMAGINATION DEAD IMAGINE Trans. /F/ by IK in Tw 5, 1972; trans. /F, E/ by AL in O 12, 1980; rep. in Pp.

KRAPP’S LAST TAPE Trans. /E/ by KC and KB in D l1, 1958; rep. in T; trans. /E/ by JG in B.

LESSNESS Trans. /F/ by JL in Tw 7-8, 1970; trans. /F, E/ by AL in Lns 5, 1975; rep. in Pp.

LOST ONES, THE Trans. /F/ by KW in D 12, 1971; trans. /F, E/ by AL in Pp.

MALONE DIES Trans. /F/ by JG in Lns 5, 1975; excerpt.

MOLLOY Trans. /F/ by ML in ZL 46, 1970: excerpt; rep. in M, trans. /F/ by JG in Lns 5, 1975; excerpts.

MURPHY Trans. /E/ by KK in O 1, 1970; first chapter; trans. /F/ by IK in Lns 5, 1975; first chapter.

NEITHER Trans. /E/ by AL in Lns 4, 1981.

NOT I Trans. /E/ by MS in D 10, 1973; trans. /E, F/ by AL in Lns 7, 1979; rep. in B.

OHIO IMPROMPTU Trans. /E, F/ by AL in D 3,1983.

PIECE OF MONOLOGUE, A Trans. /E/ by AL in Lns 4,1981.

PING Trans. /F/ by AL in Tw 5, 1972; rep. with corrections /E/ in Pp.

PLAY Trans. /F, E/ by JR and MS in D 9, 1970; trans. /E, F/ by AL in Lns 4, 1981.

QUAD Trans. /F/ by AL in D /forthcoming/.

RADIO I Trans. /F/ by JG in Lns 5, 1975.

RADIO II Trans. /F/ by AL in L 51, 1975; rep. with corrections /E/ in Lns 4, 1981.

ROCKABY Trans. /E, F/ by AL in D 4, 1983.

STILL Trans. /E, F/ by AL in Tw 6, 1977; rep. in Pp.

TEXT FOR NOTHING I Trans /F/ by JR in Tw 4, 1957.

THAT TIME Trans. /E/ by MS in D 12, 1976; trans. /E/ by PK and AL in K 20, 1977; rep. in B; rep. with corrections /F/ in Lns 4, 1981.

THEATRE I Trans. /F/ by JG in D 5, 1976.

THEATRE II Trans. /F/ by PK in Lns 4, 1981.


UNNAMABLE, THE Trans /F/ by JG in Lns 5, 1975; excerpt.

WAITING FOR GODOT Trans. /F/ by JR in D 1, 1956; excerpts; rep. in T, trans. /F, E/ by AL in PIW /forthcoming/, used in Theatre “Maly” and Warsaw Drama School productions.

WAIT Trans. /F/ by AP in Lns 5, 1975; excerpt.

WHAT WHERE Trans. /E, F/ by AL in D 12, 1983.

Appendix II

Productions of Beckett’s Plays in Poland


1972, Wroclaw, Theatre “Polski,” dir. J. Krassowski.


1978, Warsaw, Polish Radio, dir. Z. Dąbrowski.


1982, Katowice, TV School, dir. D. Pawelec.


1981, Warsaw Drama School, dir. A. Libera.


1982, Warsaw Drama School, dir. A. Libera.

1983, Katowice, TV School, dir. D. Pawelec.


1973, Szczećin Festival “Theatre Week,” dir. P. Stefaniak.


1957, Cracow, Theatre “38,” dir. W. Krygier.

1970, Warsaw, Theatre “Medyk,” dir. M. Grześinski.

1971, Olsztyn, Theatre “Dramatyczny,” dir. M. Krygier.

1972, Wroclaw, Theatre “Polski,” dir. J. Krassowski.

1973, Cracow, Theatre “Slowackiego,” dir. J. Krassowski.

1976, Bydgoszcz, Theatre “Polski,” dir M. Baczewska.

1981, Cracow, Theatre “Stary,” dir. W. D. Asmus.


1979, Wroclaw, Festival of Monodrama Theaters, dir. Z. Sierakowski.


1977, Wroclaw, Festival of Monodrama Theaters, dir. K. Deszcz.

1981, Warsaw Drama School, dir. A. Libera.


1965, Lódź, Theatre “Nowy,” dir. T. Minc.

1965, Koszalin, Theatre “Batycki,” dir. N. Korsan.

1967, Warsaw, Theatre “Wspólczesny,” dir. J. Markuszewski.

1972, Cracow, Theatre “Stary,” dir. B. Hussakowski.

1975, Opole, Theatre “Kochanowskiego,” dir. M. Wachowiak.

1976, Bialystok, Theatre “Węgierki.”

1977, Toruń, Theatre “Horzycy,” dir. M. Okopinski.

1978, Wroclaw, Theatre “Polski,” dir. F. Starowieyski.

1979, Warsaw, Theatre “Maly,” dir. T. Minc.


1959, Cracow, Theatre “38,” dir. W. Krygier.

1980, Poznań, Theatre “Nowy,” dir. J. Gasiorowsk.

1982, Warsaw Drama School, dir. A. Libera.


1979, Jelenia Góra, Theatre “Norwida,” dir. Z. Lozinska.

1980, Poznań, Theatre “Nowy,” dir. A. Libera.

1981, Warsaw Drama School, dir. A. Libera.


1982, Warsaw Drama School, dir.  A. Libera.


1972, Cracow, Theatre “Stary,” dir. B. Hussakowski.

1977, Poznań, Theatre “Polski.”

1982, Warsaw Drama School, dir. A. Libera.


1982, Warsaw, Theatre “Prochownia,” dir. Kaczkowski.


1980, Poznań, Theatre “Nowy,” dir. A. Libera.


1977, Poznań, Theatre “Polski.”


1982, Warsaw, Theatre “Prochownia,” dir. Kaczkowski.


1957, Warsaw, Theatre “Wspólczesny,” dir. J. Kreczmar.

1957, Cracow, Theatre “38,” dir. W. Krygier.

1961, Tarnów, Theatre “Ziemi Krakowskiej”, dir.  M. Sienkiewicz.

1970, Gdańsk, Theatre “Wybrzeze,” dir. S. Hebanowski.

1971, Warsaw, Theatre “Ateneum,” dir. M. Prus.

1972, Bialystok, Theatre “Węgiarki,” dir. B. Orlicz.

1973, Lódź, Theatre “Nowy,” dir. W. Zatorski.

1974, Tarnów, Theatre “Ziemi Krakowskiej,” dir. B. Hussakowski.

1978, Cracow, Theatre “Stary,” dir. R. Prochnicka.

1979, Kalisz, Theatre “Boguslawskiego.”

1982, Warsaw, Theatre “Maly,” dir. M. Grzesinski.

1982, Zielona Góra, Theatre “Kruczkowskiego,” dir. K. Meissner.

1982, Zielona Góra, Theatre “Kruczkowskiego,” dir. K. Meissner.

1982, Katowice, Theatre “Śląski,” dir. J. Żegalski.

1983, Warsaw Drama School, dir. A. Libera.

1983, Szczećin, Theatre “Wspólczesny,” dir. S. Hebanowski.