Samuel Beckett's Signature in Years 1929–1938

The abstract qualities of my definition of the signature will be predominantly based on notions introduced by Yuri Lotman. My main interests will pivot around the concept of the ‘semiosphere,’ the uniformed semiotic space that generates meanings on the semiotic signs and that uses the ‘boundary’ to filter the signs from the outer, the non-textual world. That juxtaposition between the external—internal and the text—non-text is also visible in other Lotman’s notions, i.e., ‘I’ and ‘other.’ All these terms suggest that the act of signature is happening in-between these two spheres, where the ‘I’ of the artist needs to intermingle with the ‘other,’ understood as the receiver of the text. Owing to that the artist’s signature requires a certain degree of recognition in the collective consciousness of the ‘others,’ such a consciousness allows the receiver to decode the artist’s signature without a need of its physical representation, such as a painting or a sculpture.

The third aspect of the signature is the role that the natural language plays in it. The language should be recognised as a transmitter that not only conveys meanings between these two spaces but also play a role of a generator of new meanings. The motifs, notions and ideas that a language has cumulated in itself will allow the artist, in our case Beckett, to artistically modulate and create new meanings. In that case, the significance of Lotmanian ‘I’ needs to be discussed once again. On the one hand, the ‘I’ conveys in itself the artist’s individuality and uniqueness, on the other the ‘I’ intermingles with the ‘other,’ where that sense of uniqueness is multiplied and infiltrated by the ‘Is’ of the ‘others.’ That feature of the signature finds its reflection in Derek Attridge’s term of ‘singularity,’ the singular experience that is happening within the artist’s work and that allows the receiver to reveal his or her signature. Thus, the sense of uniqueness (singularity) is recognised as an intellectual act where the artist’s well-known signature is revealed to the receiver as a singular experience every time the receiver encounters the work of art.

I also found useful Brigitte Le Juez’s Beckett before Beckett: Samuel Beckett’s Lectures on French Literature (2008) that analyses the memories on Beckett as a literary scholar at Trinity College Dublin in 1930–1931, John Pilling’s Beckett before Godot (2004) that concentrates on the write’s formative years as well as Ruby Cohn’s A Beckett Canon (2005) which attempts to describe all Beckett’s works, including less-known pre-war texts. In the recent years the critical versions of the early writings are becoming more and more popular. In addition to the already mentioned scrupulously edited ‘Echo’s Bones,’ we should mention Christopher Ackerley’s Demented Particulars: The Annotated Murphy (2010) that scrutinise Beckett’s first published novel. Samuel Beckett’s texts that I work on are, in general, versions published in The Selected Works of Samuel Beckett Volumes I-IV (2010). The only exceptions are Dream of Fair to Middling Women (2012) and Echo’s Bones (2014) since they were published separately.

The thesis is divided into two parts, Part One consists of five chapters while Part Two of four chapters. Whereas Part One is of a theoretical character and attempts to define the notion of the signature in general, not only in Beckett’s context, Part Two concentrates on interpretation of Beckett’s texts in a chronological order through his signature. Chapter 1 of Part One concentrates on distinguishing the qualities of the signature – in particular, on its relation with physical qualities (1.1). It is also presented why I have decided on the term ‘signature; instead of ‘manner,’ ‘style’ or ‘poetics’ (1.2). Section 1.3. examines the features of the signature as an act and event, following Derrida and Attridge.

Chapter 2 of Part One focuses on the definition of signature in general terms as well as on defining the artistic signature of Samuel Beckett. It needs to be mentioned that Sections 2.1 to 2.3 cover more general views on the definition of signature and do not focus on Samuel Beckett’s signature as the latter will be examined from Section 2.4. Section 2.1 concentrates on the role of the receiver in the signature seen in light of Eco’s principles. Section 2.2. presents differences between the terms ‘signature’ and ‘poetics,’ whereas section 2.3 attempts to define the term ‘signature.’ Section 2.4 concludes the principles of Beckett’s artistic signature by evidencing three leading themes that appear to be the core for the author’s interests, namely language, neutrum and memory. The search of ‘pure’ language, i.e., the language that, without conveying any meaning, can only exist in a neutral space and is aimed at a maximal reduction, to a single sign, as understood by Blanchot, appear to be the second theme of Beckett’s interests. Even though Beckett became familiar with Blanchot’s text as late as after the Second World War, he presents similar observations in his early works. The next three chapters attempt to characterise core elements of Beckett’s signature defined in this book. Chapter 3 presents the origins of the writer’s interests in the language itself, including information on Beckett’s early language education. Chapter 4 attempts to define the neutrum, by referring to different philosophers and notions such as Blanchot’s ‘neutrum,’ Hill’s ‘aporia,’ and Husserl’s ‘epochē.’ It is worth mentioning that information about Beckett’s reading covered in Samuel Beckett’ Library are a vital element of tracing what books or ideas could have influenced Beckett’s intellectual development, thus a vast number of names used in the whole thesis can find its reflection in Nixon and van Hulle’s book.