Aspects of dramatic communication: action, non-action, interaction^[1]

Jenny Stelleman

"For in every action what is primarily intended by the agent, whether he acts from

natural necessity or out of free will, is the disclosure of his own image. Hence it comes about that every agent, in so far as he acts, takes delight in acting; since everything that is desires its own being, and since in action the being of the agent is somehow intensified, delight necessarily follows.... Thus, nothing acts unless by acting it makes patent its latent self." Dante

"I speak in order to be." D. Charms

This study is aimed at describing the dramatic means of important transitional (in the sense of innovative) Russian dramas, such as Chekhovian, Symbolist (Blok) and Absurdist (D. Charms) Drama. The reduction of action and plot, the 'disturbed' communication, the alienation of man and the conveying of a permanent condition instead of logical-causal events are investigated here. The main emphasis lies on the relationship of the communication/interaction with the prevailing non-action. J. Mukarovsky's speechtypes, R. Jakobson's communication functions, and P. Watzlawick's interaction theory, in combination with Ju. Lotman's plot concept seem to be adequate means to describe this relationship.

The theoretical concepts

1. Action.

First we will make a distinction between action and plot. As the concept of action is only relevant to 'Ivanov' we deal with this complex matter only generally, and will thereby refer to the 'Bochumer Diskussion', in which the different aspects of action are discussed.

The concept of 'action' which has been made the norm of drama ever since Aristotle still occupies a central position in our mind. The general and all too easily used statement 'there is no action' illustrates the tenacity of the concept, as it is applied to all kinds of different dramatic genres, such as, as is relevant here: Chekhovian, symbolist as well as absurdist plays. The problem of the non-accomplishment of action manifests itself at the level of the characters and reflects the problem of modern time, in which the "Handlungsohnmacht" of people with respect to themselves, the others and their situation is emphasized (cf. M. Kesting 1976:396). Whether the term 'action' has always had the same implications or not (cf. Kesting 1976:421), it is a fact that the conflictual nature of drama is generally hold on to.

In general 'action' has to do with a transition from one situation to another, so, in fact, we are dealing with a change, (cf. Pfister 1977:269; Elam 1980:121).

This change may be viewed as a relation between, or an operation on, possible worlds or states of affairs. More particularly, a change implies a difference between world-states or situations and hence requires a temporal ordering of worlds. (Van Dijk 1977:168, quoted in Elam 1980:121).

This change requires a

being, conscious of his doings, who intentionally brings about a change of some kind, to some end, in a given context. (Elam 1980:121) (Italics mine)

Although it is customary to favour human 'action' in drama, it is also possible to realize 'event' or 'Geschehen'. Elam looks upon the 'action' as "a kind of event", (ibid.) Pfister looks upon it as two quantities dependent on whether the 'situation' has been set in an atmosphere of conflict or non-conflict. (1977:272) In other words, in the case of 'action', the subject is consciously changing the situation; in the case of an 'event' the subject becomes an 'object', yet a conscious 'object' of a changing situation. Conscious in the sense that he perceives the change.

In C. Brémond's description of the three phases of an action (here adapted to dramatic action) we find the same elements we also accentuated above, viz. awareness and change:

1. There is an initial situation which allows for change;

2. This possibility is acknowledged and actualized;

3. The result of this actualization is a new situation. (1972:201)

Let us have a closer look at the different implications of the statement 'there is no action', which in general, as mentioned already above, can be observed in Chekhov's, symbolist, and absurdist drama:

1. In the case of Chekhov as well as in the case of symbolist (Maeterlinckian) drama, the statement as to the absence of an 'action' means realizing 'events', i.e. that the characters are subject to outer forces and not able to bring about a change whatsoever themselves. I. Dlugosch observes the same phenomenon in the "The Three Sisters":

Mit Cechov beginnt in der dramatischen Literatur der Personentyp, der in dramatischen Situationen nicht handelt, sondern mit dem von aussen gehandelt wird. (...) Der eigentliche Gegner aber ist das Leben selbst. (1977:85).

Herta Schmid holds the same view. According to her the action-reaction pattern within the action of Cechov's drama (particularly in 'The Three Sisters') has not been applied in the traditional sense of the word: the external situation has an 'action-character', whereas the characters have a 'reaction-character'. (1976:204) She connects this with the second phase of Brémond's action-model, arguing that if an action is not accomplished, or not fully realised, the component of awareness of the acting characters plays an important role:

Denn das Bewusstsein ist der Umschlagplatz zwischen der Innensicht der Person und ihrer ausseren Situation. Es fungiert wie ein Bedeutungsfilter, und von diesem Filter hangt dann die Entscheidung der Person ab, ob sie überhaupt handeln will. (ibid).

In the analysis of 'The Three Sisters' Schmid departs from the idea that the three heroines are either not able, or are unwilling to become aware of the 'action' (viz. 'villainy' according to Propp) of the antagonist (i.e. the outer situation and Natasa, the personified force of the 'outer situation'), and in this she observes a logical-causal connection with their inadequate reactions. (1976:202)

2a. Another implication of the 'absence of action' can be discerned with respect to the dominance of 'inner' or mental action. Cf. Dolezel's (1976) differentiation in physical and mental action. (The former changes the outer situation, the latter has to do with the changes inside the characters, e.g. thoughts, emotions, etc.) If the 'inner action' is formulated explicitly, we can attribute the label 'reflexive' drama. This can be observed in dramas in which reflection has either taken over or delayed the action. The prototype is 'Hamlet' in which we clearly see how reflection delays the action. The reflection may also substitute the action entirely. Thus, when the action is not realized, it can be characterized as a so-called 'minus-device'. Ju. Lotman compares the 'minus-device' with the physical concept of a 'hole':

The concept of a 'hole' by no means refers to the simple absence of matter, but rather the absence of matter in a structural position which implies its presence. Under these conditions, a 'hole' behaves so much like 'matter' that its weight can be measured - in negative terms, of course. (1977:103).

Particularly this "in a structural position" implies that the constituents of 'action', though not realized, are, nevertheless, strongly felt as elements that should be there. (Which is closely connected, of course, with the recipient's 'Erwartungshorizont'.) As a result the unrealized action may be even more strongly felt confirming the prevailing standards with regard to action than the realized action. However, the reflection or the mental action carries the same constituents as the 'action', as we will see later on with 'Ivanov'.

2b. According to many scholars, Cechov's dramas show the variant of the unuttered inner action - Stanislavsky denotes this as 'podvodnoe tecenie' ('undercurrent'). S. Baluchatyj notices that the action is replaced by restricted emotion. (1969:9) All theoreticians agree that the cause of non-accomplishment of action must be sought at the level of the typical dialogue of Cechov's plays. Familiar notions only applicable to his drama so far, such as 'Das-nicht-zu-Ende-sprechen', (the 'dialog vne partnera' (dialogue beyond the addressee); the excessive use of silences ('breaks') etc. have up to now been used to explain the lack of action in terms of disturbed linear communication.In the analysis of 'The Three Sisters' we will discuss the relevance of these notions.

In the above-mentioned cases we see how many different meanings the statement 'there is no action' can have. However, in all the meanings (although this may come as a surprise with regard to the statement 'no action' above) we can speak of a 'change of situation' sui generis. Not a change actively brought about by the hero, but a passively undergone change: not an outer, but an inner change. The latter can be differentiated in: explicitly uttered or implicitly suggested. As the component 'change' is related to 'action', we may ask ourselves if in the cases described above we do not simply mean all kinds of variants of 'action', c.q. 'event'.

3. The statement 'there is no action' is also used to denote a significant characteristic of the absurdist drama. Here, however, no change can be discerned: "Das Geschehen nimmt hier [in 'Waiting for Godot', J.S.] also die Form eines Spiels an, das selbstzweckhaft und ziellos in sich kreist" (Pfister, 1977:271) (Italics mine). This element of 'play' can also be discerned in 'Elizaveta Bam'. The great difference between 3 and all above-mentioned other cases is that the conflictual nature of drama does not manifest itself and that the constituents for action are absent. At the root of all conflicts lays, evidently, the element of oppositions. "Der Konflikt (...) unterscheidet sich von anderen Arten, die Personen zu gruppieren, dadurch, dass er sie um ein Oppositionsverhaltnis gruppiert, das also den Kern des Konflikts ausmacht." (Steen Jansen, 1973:412). In Chekhov's case we would like to discern with what kinds of dramatic means he reduces those elements which traditionally result in conflict or action, or, to put it in other words, how he makes the oppositions merge. This is especially relevant to 'The Three Sisters' in which no action takes place, although all constituents for action are present. In 'Ivanov' action is accomplished only at the end of the play. To describe the delay of the action and its eventual accomplishment at the level of the characters we will make use of C. Brémond's action-concept. From the viewpoint of the author, as an arranging instance, we will analyze this same problem now using the plot-concept of Ju. Lotman.

2. Plot.

The absence of linear, logically causal actions in the drama of Chekhov (in our research esp. 'The Three Sisters') as well as in 'Balagancik' and 'Elizaveta Bam', may raise the question as to whether we can still speak of 'plot'. I. Dlugosch (1977:225) cites Eugene O'Neill who observes that "Cechov plotlos schreibe, aber seine Stücke seien in dieser Art volkommen."

Ju. Lotman makes a distinction significant with respect to our investigation between 'plot' and 'plotless', between the presence and absence of 'event' respectively. Here we will temporarily refer to the Russian word 'sobytie' to avoid confusion with the previously discussed 'action - event'. "Sobytiem v tekste javljaetsja peremescenie personaza cerez granicu semantičeskogo polja." (A 'sobytie' in a text is the shifting of a persona across the borders of a semantic field.) (1971:282) Whether a 'sobytie' can be perceived as such, is, of course, dependent on the type of culture, the type of text, the type of world view etc. Another factor with regard to appreciation of the 'sobytie' is the degree of probability: the less probable the more it is appreciated. According to Lotman obligatory elements of any plot will include:

1) some semantic field divided into two mutually complementary subsets;

2) the border between these subsets, which under normal circumstances is impenetrable, though in a given instance (a text with plot always deals with a given instance) it proves to be penetrable for the hero-agent;

3) the hero-agent. (1977:241)

In his comparison with plotless texts Lotman points out a crucial difference with regard to the quality of the 'boundary', or in Lotman's terms 'border' of a 'semantic field':

What the plotless text establishes as an impossibility is the very thing that constitutes the content of the plot. The plot is the 'revolutionary element'' in relation to the world picture. (1977:238)

Of primary importance is the plotless text which classifies certain confined worlds (semantic fields) and consolidates the boundaries.

(...) the initial point of plot movement is the establishment of a relation of distinction and mutual freedom between the hero-agent and the semantic field surrounding him: if the hero's essence coincides with his environment, if he is not invested with the capacity to distinguish himself from that environment, the development of plot is impossible. (240)

If those relations between the hero-agent and his surroundings have been realized, and the agent performs no act, he is an "idle agent" (Ibid).

Therefore the agent is a mobile persona. The personae who do not have such a relation with the surroundings are the 'immobile personae'. They are, as it were, the representatives of the semantic field, the classificatory elements of the plotless text, for whom the boundary is impenetrable, as they are not aware of an alternative field. Once the agent has shifted across the boundary to the other semantic field, and "if movement is to cease, he has to merge with the field, to be transformed from a mobile into an immobile persona. If this does not happen, the plot sequence is not concluded and movement continues" (1977:241) So, "the mobile persona is distinguished from the immobile personae because he is permitted to act in certain ways forbidden to the others." (1977:243) The nature of the semantic oppositions and the boundary is determined by the nature of the classification system. "It conditions the entire system, in particular the form in which plot functions will be realized." (ibid: 242)

A key-note in Lotmanian semantic field is the concept of the boundary: the question may be debatable whether the boundary is crossed or not. The component 'awareness' as well as the other component 'change' is possible, but not necessary. We have stated above that, by definition, personae cannot perform a 'sobytie'; To their atmosphere of doings Lotman attributes the term 'obstojatel'stvo', the English translation 'circumstance', and we will refer to it as activities: they only occur within the boundaries of one semantic field and never result in shifting across boundaries. Activities have, of course, a strong homeostatic character within a semantic field as they consolidate this semantic field. In system theory, from which this term stems, 'homeostasis' means that all the changes the system (or what we call the semantic field) is exposed to are reduced to a minimum, as a result of which we may speak of a consolidation or stability, which is also maintained by means of the so-called negative feedback mechanisms (Watzlawick 1967:146). We will revert to this homeostasis when discussing interaction. From now on we will use the term 'action' in the sense of Lotman's 'sobytie', and the term 'activity' in the sense of Lotman's 'obstojatel'stvo', with which I think it is possible to express both the 'variable ' (the transition from one situation to another) and the 'invariable' aspect (permanent condition).

3. Watzlawick's communication theory.

In a theory of drama which has long been ruled by the notion of action it is only natural that communication (here meant in the narrow sense of the word, verbal exchange), or rather dialogue, be also comprehended in logical-causal, teleological terms. The essence of communication is seen in the conveying of verbal information between individuals uttered in the action-reaction structured dialogue. On the basis of the information provided and/or on the basis of the information possibly withheld (the misunderstanding) traditional dramatic action is able to develop. The impulses to convey information originate, as we shall see in 11,4 in the psychological-social and/or the material situation. The relationship 'sender-addressee' is usually conceived of as unilateral. When the addressee reacts appropriately to the message (which means in the way the sender intended), one usually speaks of successful communication. When he does not react or not in the way, which was intended, one usually speaks of disturbed communication.

The same holds true for the traditional action-orientated drama theory, where these basic principles of action-reaction can be successfully applied not only to the level of 'action' but also to the level of dialogue, (cf. Herta Schmid 1976:179-180.) This is possible because, as we have seen before, action has a linear logical-causal structure.

Especially, because of his specific attention to the reflection of disturbed communication and relationships A.P. Cechov is called a predecessor of the absurdist drama, (cf. Chapter I) The characters of his major dramas do not seem to notice these disturbances. Generally the studies of absurdist drama describe the so-called 'disturbed' communication in terms of the disconfirmation of the well-known postulates of Grice. (cf. a.o Revzin and Revzina, Sherzer.) They in fact depart from a linear-causal principle, operating more or less with the formula that in most cases the disturbances originate in the incongruity of the verbal reaction to the verbal action. The temptation to split up the dialogue into segments of action-reaction patterns is great, as there are mostly only two or three characters present in the absurdist drama.

However, in Cechov's major dramas, esp. in the last three, we are dealing with large groups of characters. This is not the only reason why it is difficult to split up the dialogue. The extreme scarcity of the author's notes concerning non-verbal reactive behaviour also contributes to this. It is possible to conceive of Cechovian communication as a disturbed one, which accounts for the typical notions to describe his peculiar dialogue, such as 'dialog vne partnera' (dialogue beyond the addressee) or 'Das-nicht-zu-Ende-sprechen'. We must bear in mind, however, that these 'disturbances' are discerned with respect to the linear causality. The theory of Watzlawick c.s. offers the possibility and the instruments to comprehend the interaction in its circular quality. Jan Remmerswaal sketches the historical context out of which this theory evolved. Studies in ethology have revealed that body-language has a number of important relational functions. Body movements are, apparently, a kind of code which regulates and stabilizes the relationships between animals within a group. These relationships especially concern affiliation (the preserving of alliances) and dominance (the preserving of positions of power and/or the fight against these positions). (1982,11: 58)

Thus, this concept is a 'correction' of or an addition to the earlier, more unilateral concept of speech, in which the conveying of verbal information (message) was predominant: here it is considered that the content is more or less secondary with respect to the relation. So, now emphasis is in particular laid upon the interaction, which does not express itself in terms of individual viewpoints but in terms of the system in which the interaction between individuals occurs and the objectives of affiliation and dominance are safeguarded.

The general theory of systems plays an important role in the communication theory of the so-called Palo-Alto group, in which psychiatrists and psychoanalysts are dealing with the pragmatic aspect of communication and its potential pathologies. An important feature of communicational disturbances and/or pathologies is that they tend to continue rather than change the actual conditions. How this happens will be shown when we discuss the interaction as a system. The British psychiatrist R. Laing deals with more or less the same problems: we will bring up Laing's findings when he to some extent completes and/or refines the concepts of Watzlawick c.s.

Besides The Pragmatics of Human Communication Watzlawick has written a number of less well-known books. In cooperation with J. H. Weakland and R. Fisch he wrote in 1973 'Change: principles of problem formation and problem resolution'. In this work he deals with mental changing processes. This book forms a kind of general theoretical background for his later, more practical book (written for the therapist): 'The Language of Change' (1978). Basic assumptions were taken from 'The Pragmatics of Human Communication', but now extended with neurological research combined with the experiences of M. Erickson: an American hypnotherapist who in a remarkably 'simple' and fascinating way managed to get a mental changing process going by means of specific uses of speech and communication. Erickson's original view on man's mental processes and the influence that speech and communication exert upon these processes, have played an important part which should not be underestimated, on the theory of the so-called 'neuro-linguistic programming', developed in the eighties.¹² At the end of chapter VI on 'Elizaveta Bam' I will return briefly to some assumptions of Erickson.

In 'How Real is Real?' (1976, esp. chapter II) Watzlawick discusses the relationship communication - worldview. Again with respect to 'Elizaveta Bam' I shall touch on this matter.

I made mention of some of Watzlawick's studies since this scholar, though from a totally different discipline, enters upon the same phenomena of 'change' c.q. 'continuation', which we also discussed in 11,1. Watzlawick c.s. connect these phenomena with communication and interaction, offering interesting possibilities for application to the field of drama, particularly to those forms of drama in which changes do not occur according to linear-causal patterns.

We will refer to the complex matters from Watzlawick's other books only generally, when this becomes relevant to the separate analyses of the plays. Let us now turn to the basic assumptions of 'The Pragmatics of Human Communication'.

Watzlawick distinguishes the following terms:

The pragmatic aspect of the theory of human communication is referred to as 'communication'. A single communicational unit is a message. A series

of messages exchanged between persons is an interaction. Higher-level units of communication are patterns of interaction. (50) The basis of the theory is founded on the assumption that "all behavior, not only speech, is communication, and all communication -(...)- affects behavior." (22) Then five axioms follow:

1. One cannot not communicate. This follows from the above-mentioned assumption that communication is behaviour. "As behavior has no opposite (...): one cannot not behave. Now, if it is accepted that all behavior in an interactional situation has message value, i.e., is communication, it follows that no matter how one may try, one cannot not communicate. Activity or inactivity, words as well as silences all have message value." (48/49)

2. Every communication has a content and a relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is therefore metacommunication, (as it is of a higher logical order). "In other words in every communication the participants offer each other definitions of their relationship, or, more forcefully stated, each seeks to determine the nature of the relationship." (132-133) Like Watzlawick we will reserve the term metacommunication exclusively for those occasions when persons explicitly discuss their relationship.

3. The nature of a relationship is contingent upon the punctuation of the communicational sequences between the communicants. (54) This is the coherence that is meant by the communicant regarding his own as well as the other partner's utterances. By punctuation in the restricted sense (inter-personally) the specific impression is meant which you want to make upon the other and also the specific incorporation of the other in your own system; in a broader sense it means the modelling of the world, the "specific way of 'being-in-the-world'." (262) "Disagreement about how to punctuate the sequence of events is at the root of countless relationship struggles." (56)

4. Human beings communicate both digitally and analogically. "Digital language has a highly complex and powerful logical syntax but lacks adequate semantics in the field of relationships, whereas analogic language possesses the semantics but has no adequate syntax for the unambiguous definition of the nature of relationships." (66/67) In essence this axiom is an extension of the second axiom. Now it is added that "the content aspect is likely to be conveyed digitally whereas the relationship aspect will be predominantly analogic in nature." (64) So the analogic communication is virtually all non-verbal communication, which comprises: posture, gesture, facial expression. To Watzlawick voice inflection, the sequence, rhythm, and cadence of the words themselves belong also to non-verbal communication, (cf. 62)

5. All communicational interchanges are either symmetrical or complementary, depending on whether they are based on equality or difference. In symmetrical interaction the partners tend to mirror each other's behaviour and minimize the differences, while complementary interaction is based on the maximization of difference. "One partner does not impose a complementary relationship on the other, but rather each behaves in a manner which presupposes, while at the same time providing reasons for, the behavior of the other: their definitions of the relationship fit." (69) "Symmetrical and complementary relationship patterns can stabilize each other, and changes from one pattern to the other and back again are important homeostatic mechanisms." (110) In the third chapter of their book the authors elaborate on the disturbances and pathologies that each of the axioms implies. The previous sequence of the numbers of axioms will be maintained; the subdivisions a, b, etc. refer to the different pathologies.

1-a. the impossibility of not communicating seems to be a part of the schizophrenic 'dilemma': "the schizophrenic is faced with the impossible task of denying that he is communicating and at the same time denying that his denial is a communication itself." (51) The attempts not to communicate in the field of schizophrenia can vary from very condensed messages to which all kinds of possible and even incompatible meanings could apply, to an unstoppable flow of messages or to speaking a private language not accessible to others (cf. 73).

1 .b The attempt not to communicate is also apparent in a more daily context, namely when the commitment inherent in all communication is avoided. Let' us take the context of an elevator where two strangers meet: A wants to talk and B does not. B cannot leave and cannot not communicate. These reactions are possible: - rejection: He explicitly rejects communication, in doing so a factual (rather painful) relationship has been established; - acceptance: he accepts and makes conversation. - disqualification:

B may defend himself by means of the important technique of disqualification, i.e., he may communicate in a way that invalidates his own communications or those of the other. "Disqualifications cover a wide range of communicational phenomena, such as self-contradictions, inconsistencies, subject switches, tangentializations (i.e. meaningless digressions, J.S), incomplete sentences, misunderstandings, obscure style or mannerisms of speech, the literal interpretations of metaphors and the metaphorical interpretation of literal remarks, etc." (76) "'Crazy' communication (behavior) is not necessarily the manifestation of a sick mind, but may be the only possible reaction to an absurd or untenable communication context." (78)

- symptom of communication:

"Finally B can avoid response by feigning sleepiness, deafness, drunkenness, ignorance of the language, or any other defect or inability that will render communication justifiably impossible. (...) This invocation of powers or reasons beyond one's control still has a rub as A knows B is cheating. But the communicational 'ploy' becomes perfect once a person has convinced himself that he is at the mercy of forces beyond his control and thereby has freed himself of both censure by significant others as well as the pangs of his own conscience." (78-79) This is called the symptom of communication i.e. a non-verbal message saying, it is something beyond my control, that makes me incapable of communicating.

2.-a Many problems arise by confusion between the content and relationship aspects of an issue. Monotonous redundant pseudo-disagreements in the context of intimate relationships e.g. husband-wife, in which only the issues (content) differ, often concern the relationship level.

Communicating with each other, people offer each other definitions of their relationship and, by implication, of themselves. To these self-definitions three reactions are possible:

- confirmation:

B can accept A's self-definition. Confirmation contributes to mental development and stability of man.

- rejection:

Rejection, no matter how painful, presupposes at least limited recognition of what is being rejected and, therefore, does not necessarily negate the reality of A's view of himself.

- disconfirmation:

"Disconfirmation, as we find it in pathological communication, is no longer concerned with the truth or falsity - if there be such criteria - of A's definition of himself, but rather negates the reality of A as the source of such a definition. In other words, while rejection amounts to the message 'You are wrong', disconfirmation says in effect 'You do not exist'. (86) Here I would like to point to the fact that besides the content and the relationship levels a third one can be distinguished, which, following Jan Remmerswaal, I will call the existence level. (1982:72-75) R. Laing also refers to this level and considers it to be the most basic one of communication. (Watzlawick sees the existential level not as another level but as an extension of the relationship level.) Only by communicating can man's identity be acknowledged and he himself can present his identity; to underscore this, Laing quotes William James:

No more fiendish punishment could be devised, even were such a thing physically possible, than that one should be turned loose in society and remain absolutely unnoticed by all the members thereof. (1961:89)

So, disconfirmation, actually, belongs to this existential level.

3.a Discrepancies in the punctuation of sequences of events occur, of course, in all those cases in which at least one of the communicants does not possess the same amount of information as the other but does not know this. Metacommunication could solve such a problem. Unresolved discrepancies in the punctuation can lead directly into interactional impasses in which eventually the mutual charges of madness or badness are proffered. As we have stated before, punctuation in its broader sense means the specific, individual modelling of reality. Many discrepancies are caused by the fact that everyone assumes that the other models the world or reality in exactly the same way, in other words that there is only one reality.

Generally these cases of discrepant punctuation are marked by conflict about what is cause and what is effect, when in actual fact neither of these concepts is applicable because of the circularity of the ongoing interaction. The afore-mentioned is linked with the well-known concept of 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. From an interactional viewpoint it is "behavior that brings about in others the reaction to which the behavior would be an appropriate reaction. What is typical about the sequence and what makes it a problem of punctuation is that the individual concerned conceives of himself only as reacting to, but not as provoking, those attitudes." (99)

4.a Analogic message material lacks many of the elements that comprise the morphology and syntax of digital language. Thus, in translating analogic into digital messages, these elements have to be supplied and inserted by the translator. "Analogic message material (...) lends itself to very different and quite often incompatible digital interpretations. Thus not only is it difficult for the sender to verbalize his own analogic communications, but if interpersonal controversy arises over the meaning of a particular piece of analogic communication, either partner is likely to introduce, in the process of translation into the digital mode, the kind of digitalization in keeping with his view of the nature of the relationship." (100)

4.b "All analogic messages are invocations of relationship (...) they are therefore proposals regarding the future rules of the relationship." (101) So analogic material is not assertive or denotative as digital material is. The analogic proposal always needs an attribution of positive or negative future truth value by the other. This, needless to say, is the source of countless relationship conflicts.

5. By the ever-present danger of competitiveness a symmetrical relationship tends to a rapid escalation, when it breaks down. Normally the rejection rather than disconfirmation of the other's self can be observed in these relationships. The pathologies of complementary relationships tend to amount to disconfirmations rather than rejections of the other's self.

A typical problem arises in a complementary relationship when P demands that O confirm a definition of P's self that is at variance with the way O sees P. This places O in a very peculiar dilemma: he must change his own definition of self into one that complements and thus supports P's, for it is in the nature of complementary relationships that a definition of self can only be maintained by the partner's playing the specific complementary role. After all, there can be no mother without a child. (108)

Normally the patterns of a relationship change with time. "Thus, depending on the context, the same pattern may be highly self-confirming at one time and disconfirming at a later (or premature) stage in the natural history of a relationship." (108/109) After the description of the five axioms and their implied pathologies, Watzlawick c.s. elaborate a higher level of communication, viz. the interactional system.

"Interactional systems shall be two or more communicants in the process of, or at the level of, defining the nature of their relationship. "(121) A definition of a system needs a definition of 'environment':

for a given system, the environment is the set of all objects outside of the system: a change in the attributes of these environmental objects affects the system: its objects and their attributes are changed in their turn. In a sense, a system together with its environment makes up the universe of all the things of interest in a given context. Subdivision of this universe into two sets, system and environment, can be done in many ways which are in fact quite arbitrary... It is clear from the definition of system and environment that any given system can be further subdivided into subsystems.(121)

Objects belonging to one subsystem may well be considered as part of the environment of another subsystem. Interactional systems are organic, open systems: meaning they exchange materials, energies, or information with their environments.(121-122)

Open systems have specific formal properties, such as: Wholeness:

Every part of a system is so related to its fellow parts that a change in one part will cause a change in all of them and in the total system; this applies also to changes in the environment, which of necessity affect the way the parts of a system hold together. This means that a system behaves not as a simple composite of independent elements, but coherently and as an inseparable whole. This wholeness implies non-summativity, which means that there are characteristics of the system, that is, interactional patterns, that transcend the qualities of individual members, (cf. 135) It also implies that the relations are non-unilateral:

Although an interactional sequence may be punctuated (by the participants or the observer) into a pattern of one-way (e.g. A-B) causality, such a sequence is in fact circular, and the apparent 'response' must also be a stimulus for the next event in this interdependent chain. (126)

In circular systems the notions of feedback, redundancy and equifinality are highly important and the appropriate causal models for a theory of interactional systems.

"A chain in which event a effects event b, and b then effects c, c in turn brings about d, etc., would have the properties of a deterministic linear system. If, however, d leads back to a, the system is circular and functions in an entirely different way." (30/31) The specific nature of a feedback process is of much greater interest than origin and, frequently, outcome. (127) "Feedback is known to be either positive or negative; the latter will be mentioned more frequently since it characterizes homeostasis (steady state) and therefore plays an important role in achieving and maintaining the stability of relationships. Positive feedback, on the other hand, leads to change, i.e., the loss of stability or equilibrium. In both cases, part of a system's output is reintroduced into the system as information about the output. The difference is that in the case of negative feedback this information is used to decrease the output deviation from a set of norms or bias - hence the adjective 'negative' - while in the case of positive feedback the same information acts as a measure for amplification of the output deviation, and is thus positive in relation to the already existing trend toward a standstill or disruption" (31) (cf. also Oomkes 1986:32). Or as Fauconnier puts it: "Feedback means the mechanism of balance between a system and its environment." (1986:140)

The notion ''redundancy' is used here as synonymous with 'pattern'. (34) Adapted to the pragmatics of human communication redundancy means that within an interaction-system repeated behavioural patterns or rules can be observed. These patterns, as the authors stress, could indicate something, but their unambiguous explicative or symbolical meaning is not always evident.

In a circular and self-modifying system, 'results' (in the sense of alteration in state after a period of time) are not so much determined by initial conditions as by the nature of the process, or the system parameters, which reflect the so-called equifinale behaviour of the system. This is a great difference with closed systems, where the final state is fully determined by the initial conditions. So, in the case of the open system, "organizational characteristics of the system can operate to achieve even the extreme case of total independence of initial conditions: the system is then its own best explanation, and the study of its present organization the appropriate methodology. "(129)

Finally some general rules regarding ongoing relationships are also relevant to our research:

A family can be characterized as an ongoing interactional system, in which stability is an important factor. "A system is stable with respect to certain of its variables if these variables tend to remain within defined limits. "(129) As has been stated before, in every interactional system each participant responds with his own definition of the relationship. In an ongoing relationship this defining of the relationship cannot be varied over and over again, so it must be stabilized. This stabilization is called "the rule of the relationship." This rule may regard symmetry or complementarity, a particular punctuation etc.

In fact this rule stems from another important phenomenon, which is embedded in the nature of communication itself, namely "the limiting effect of communication"', or, 'limitation', i.e. "that in a communicational sequence, every exchange of messages narrows down the number of possible next moves. The manifest messages exchanged become part of the particular interpersonal context and place their restrictions on subsequent interactions. "(131)

So far the most important elements of Watzlawick's pragmatic communication theory have been given. The emphasis lies on the study of interpersonal relationships, the way the participants define their relationship, the way they 'punctuate' the relationship (or reality), how the relationship is stabilized or changed, how conflicts are dealt with, etc. They give a set of instruments with which we can analyze circular-equifinal interactional systems. Actually we have entered the field of psychology and psychiatry. Of course, we must not forget that all aspects of human communication are treated here as a part of reality, whereas we will study these same aspects as referents of literary utterances, which are subordinated to specific rules and norms of the artistic expression. Through observation of verbal communication Watzlawick tries to grasp hidden aspects of man (diagnosis). In dramatics, however, dialogues are a part of the artistic system. They refer not only to the psychological habitus of man (dramatis persona), but also to the situation, the plot and to the intentions of the author as well, (see 11,6).

4. The organization of the dialogue.

As we have previously pointed out, the traditional drama-theoretical concept of action implies a logical linear-causal order. This action-reaction pattern in the action can also be applied to the dialogue: the smallest segments of the formal dialogue sequences (the clauses) can be split up into action-reaction patterns, as well. Since we intend to examine the dialogue as an interaction at large, we should first distinguish higher forms of organization which the dialogue in general may adopt. The dialogue is defined as follows:

dialogue is a verbal utterance delivered by two or more alternating speakers who, as a rule, address their speeches to each other. Dialogue, therefore, differs from monologue in that it unfolds not only in time but also in space. (Veltrusky 1977: 10).

This 'here and now' is of course constantly changing in the flow of discourse. A dialogue is one of the two basic patterns of utterances, the other is a monologue. Mukarovsky defines a monologue as

an utterance that - though addressed to a listener - is in its continuity largely freed from a consideration for his immediate reaction and from a close bond with the actual and spatial situation in which the participants of the utterance find themselves. (Mukarovsky 1977:113).

Following Jan Mukarovsky we distinguish 3 basic types of dialogue which are determined on the basis of the alternating dominance of three constant elements; Mukarovsky observes within the dialogue in general, the 'psychological situation', the 'material situation' and the 'specific kind of semantic construction' respectively.

If the psychological situation dominates, which is characterized by the psychological relation or the tension between the subjects, we speak of 'personal' dialogue. Here "emotional and volitional elements come to the fore especially distinctly in a dialogue oriented in this way." (1977:89). If the partners in the dialogue focus their attention on the material situation, i.e the external situation when they are engaged in dialogue, we speak of 'situational dialogue':

Talks of this kind lack strong emotional coloration; there is no tension between the speakers; these talks do not turn into physical interaction but into action with respect to the situation. (1977:91)

In both speechtypes the components of the extra-verbal situation (i.e. the psychological and the material together), viz. the sender, addressee and the context, play an important role. The choice of topics is very much dependent upon this extra-verbal situation. With the help of a number of functions which we can derive from R. Jakobson's functional communication model, we can specify these speechtypes even further. These functions can be divided into extra-verbal (viz. sender, addressee and context) and verbal ones (viz. contact, code and message.) In the personal dialogue the emotive, the conative and the referential function, probably in this order, will be the most essential functions. In the situational dialogue the conative and referential function will probably be more dominant than the emotive one. The third type of dialogue is the 'conversation' in which the specific semantic structure of the dialogue is accentuated.

If both of the preceding aspects (i.e. psychological and material, J.S.) are provided by the external circumstances, this third aspect lies in the discourse itself. (Mukarovsky, 1977:87) Because the contextures (i.e. the different attitudes of the participants towards the theme, J.S.) which interpenetrate in this way in a dialogue are different, often even contradictory, sharp semantic reversals occur on the boundaries of the individual replies (ibidem:88).

The difference between the third speechtype and the first two is far more significant than between the first and the second speechtype.

This is because dialogue of the third type is, relatively speaking, removed to a considerable degree from a direct dependence on external circumstances, both on their interlocutor's emotional and volitional and on the material situation. A pure play with meaning is both its aim and its extreme limit. Its prerequisite is a concentration of attention on the dialogue itself as a chain of semantic reversals. (1977:91) (Italics mine, J.S.)

As the components of the extra-verbal situation do not play a decisive role, a choice of the theme of the conversation can, on the one hand be free, since it is not dependent on the extra-verbal situation; on the other hand, however, it may be limited, because general topics must be found, which are accessible and, 'risk-free', to each participant.

The relation to reality (...) cannot be completely suppressed, but the main emphasis in the conversation is not placed on it. Hence the tendency toward the variability of the theme during a conversation in contrast to dialogues of the first two types which usually stick to the original theme or at least stubbornly return to it. (1977:93) (..) even when conversation concerns some concrete case, what 'is meant' by it is a generality. (1977:94).

The phatic function seems to dominate most here. Not in the sense of R. Jakobson's first illustration, i.e. in order to check the communication channel, but in the sense of his second example, viz. the little child that makes contact by means of communication, before it can receive or give verbal information by means of communication (1977: 91). Cf. Beck who also distinguishes both components of the phatic function:

1. "in den auf angestrebte Störungslosigkeit des Verbindungskanals bezüglichen Appell (Sehen Sie mich?, horst du mich?!) 2. the pure existential need to have interpersonal contact: "(...) alle harmlos nicht-informationellen Gesprache, die die Menschen fiihren, um sich zu zerstreuen, um nicht durch Schweigen Fehldeutungen ihres Beziehungsverhaltens zu provozieren (...)" (1980:201/202).

Here, the phatic function is considered to be a relational element which may generate a strong relation - and/or group stabilizing effect.¹⁷ In the conversation the personal commitment is limited to a minimum. We cannot really speak of a specific addressee, everybody is a possible addressee for the utterances which merely consist of generalizations. We may even say here that within the conversation, there is a strong taboo on the realization of the emotive and the conative function by the participants. Often sanction is imposed if the taboo is broken down. Like Tarde, Mukarovsky considers the conversation to be mainly a cultural and not an existential phenomenon.

Normally speaking, the three types of dialogue which have been presented here as 'ideal types', cannot be so easily distinguished: it is difficult to determine, whether, or to what extent the topic is dissociated from the psychological and/or material situation. As mentioned at the end of the previous section, we should bear in mind that these speechtypes are also based on everyday dialogues which differ to a considerable extent from the dramatic communication situation, in which we find a double dialogue, viz. that of the direct participants in the dialogue and that of an indirect participant, viz. the dialogue author - recipient, (see 11,6.)

5. Types of dialogue and the action.

In the personal and the situational dialogue we find the strong presence and influence of the extra-verbal situation. After all, it is the situation that provides the topic. In other words, the dialogue realized in these speechtypes is strongly situation-involved. It is obvious, therefore, that, as far as the dialogue is concerned, they are the appropriate forms of organization as far as the dialogue is concerned, for dramas in which 'action' is realized. With regard to the first two speechtypes we are mainly concerned with the explicit verbal informational quality of communication, in which the appeal to the other and the actual referential meaning are significant. With regard to drama we can observe that this referential meaning is developed in the progress of an action-reaction pattern. As traditional drama has shown us these action-reaction patterns can easily be established, because dialogue usually takes place in the form of a duologue rather than a polylogue. (cf. the division in scenes which is also linked with this.) With regard to conversation the informational and referential value is far less significant than making and maintaining contact. In the case of this speechtype it is sometimes possible to distinguish an action-reaction pattern (as we shall see in the case of 'Ivanov'), although within the dynamics of a group, to which conversation is an extremely suitable means of communication, this is more difficult.

As it is stated above, the conversation offers from its mechanism the possibility not to refer to an actual situation. It is the appropriate speechtype in which the utterances need not have any consequences, as it is only talking for the sake of talking. As the conversation itself has a strongly stabilizing and consolidating effect, this type of dialogue in drama texts does not seem to be appropriate to develop action. Circular interactions, as described by Watzlawick, can occur in all speechtypes. Without actually referring to these types, as we have done, Watzlawick, in fact, analyses a personal 'circular' dialogue in E. Albee's play 'Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?' (1967: chapter five).

A circular interaction, realized in both a personal dialogue (viz. of the dynamic characters) and a conversation (by the static ones) can be found in Cechov's 'Ivanov'. The personal dialogue may then be split up in duologues and in action-reaction patterns. The same applies to the conversation in 'Ivanov'. This is not the case in 'The Three Sisters'. Here the conversation is structured in a totally different way and is not a 'realistically' reflected speech type.

6. The communication levels in drama-texts.

We have continually discussed dialogue in its everyday context. However, we should always be aware of the fact that, when applying these theories, we are dealing with dramatic dialogues c.q. interaction.

From now on we will use the terms macrocommunication level, which denotes the author-recipient communication and microcommunication level, which reflects the character-to-character communication. We will reserve the term intermediary communication level to denote the narrator's function as is common in epic (Brechtian) drama.

'Balagancik'

The play 'Balagancik' by the Russian Symbolist poet A. Blok is the first and the best known of a series of three 'Lyrical Dramas' that he wrote in 1906. It is one of his most important works and marks a turning-point in Blok's personal development as a symbolist.' In the world of the theatre 'Balagancik' is considered equally important, as it was the first play to introduce so clearly the phenomenon of 'theatricality'. It was Vs. Mejerchol'd who worked out this feature in his performances of 'Balagancik'. (Mejerchol'd 1969:70,117) No doubt these performances have contributed to the fame of the play, much to the surprise of Blok himself, who wrote in the preface to the 'Lyrical Dramas' that he had not intended the plays to be performed on the stage. (1981:384)

Together with A. Belyj and V. Ivanov A. Blok belonged to the so-called second generation of symbolists. The question of appearance and essence (vidimost' i suscnost'), or better still, the reality and the 'higher (transcendental) reality, was a central one for the symbolists, but to Blok it was a main issue. Theatrical material was of course highly appropriate to blend appearance and essence. In 1906, after Blok had written his poem 'Balagancik', he was asked by Culkov to make a drama out of it. The poem is about a theatrical performance of the 'balagan' [the fairground booth], commented on by a little girl and a boy, each of them attributing a different meaning to what is going on. The 'balagan' is a pure theatrical art:

The theatre of the mask has always been a fairground show, and the idea of acting based on the apotheosis of the mask, gesture and movement is indivisible from the travelling show (i.e. balagan, J.S.). (Mejerchol'd 1969:134).

So, the two-dimensionality, in the performance as well as in the dialogue, is inherent to the very code of the 'balagan', "where entertainment always precedes instruction and where movement is prized more highly than words." (ibid: 127)

We will revert to this at the end of the analysis.

Symbolist drama before 'Balagancik' had been influenced considerably by the Belgian M. Maeterlinck, whose works were introduced into Russia at the end of the 19th century. They offered a sharp contrast to the psychological-realistical plays performed so successfully by the Moscow Art Theatre in those days. Stanislavsky's theatrical productions were built on the art of 'living through': the actor attempted to identify fully with the character, had to 'be' him, enabling the public to identify with the character in its turn. On the other hand, in symbolist drama the dramatis persona was not seen as a 'character' in the above mentioned sense, but as the personification of an abstract idea and was, so to speak, part of the total scenery. It was fundamental in this kind of symbolist theatre to bring about a certain mystical atmosphere, stressing man's powerlessness when confronted with his destiny. In an abstract manner of speaking, one might say that symbolist drama presented static melancholic tableaux vivants. Action was absent in these plays, because man's strong sense of predestination made any action seem superfluous.

What is innovative about 'Balagancik' is that a combination of traditional theatrical and dramatic elements (such as stock types from the Commedia Dell'Arte and the symbolist theatre as well as the whole theatrical scenery) and metaphysical elements that have their origin in Blok's own Symbolism should result in a play - a play that sometimes turns into a caricature of a debate about literary and theatrical constructions of meaning. This element of caricature not only functions at the level of reference, as a parody of dogmatic symbolist drama in the style of Maeterlinck, but is also inherent in the phenomenon of the 'balagan', the fairground booth. By using the 'balagan', which is based on breaking through illusions with its plain theatricality and artificiality, Blok enlarged the semiotic character of the theatre.

In Blok's symbolism the paralyzing sense of destiny, which is present in Maeterlinck's plays, is much less important. In Blok one always finds the quest for the 'Prekrasnaja Dama' [Beautiful Lady], who represents a 'higher' reality, a transcendental world and who is a priori unattainable.² (At a highly abstract level, as there is no psychological motivation here, we might discern an anology with the Moscow dream in 'The Three Sisters'.) This unattainability leaves the subject constantly in doubt, not only as to the object of his quest, but also as to the sincerity of his quest. (Masing-Delic 1973:85)

In 'Balagancik' we see the symbolist poet and his quest for the Beautiful Lady partly reflected in the main theatrical figure, Pierrot, who, cast in his predefined part from the commedia dell'arte, also seeks his forever unattainable bride Columbine. In the preface to the 'Lyrical Dramas' Blok states that the three different main characters of the three plays embody in fact the "perezivanija otdel'noj dusi" [the experiences of a single soul]. (383) The identification of the symbolist poet with the clown Pierrot touches at many different levels on those aspects that Blok himself designates as the binding factors of the three dramas. Not only his identification with the subject but also his quest for the Beautiful Lady are so to speak transformed into elements that belong to a theatrical code, viz. of the commedia dell'arte. Therefore we may view Pierrot as a fusion of Blok's Symbolism and the commedia dell'arte; in other words, the semantic field of the commedia dell'arte Pierrot is extended with features belonging to the semantic field of the poet's Symbolism.

To a lesser extent this also applies to Columbine, Harlequin and the so-called Amorosi (the three couples), who have also been derived from the commedia dell'arte. The buffoon is derived from the Italian Improvised Theatre. The other figures have their origin in different theatrical periods: the Mystics and their president, taken from Maeterlinck's Symbolist Theatre, and the classical chorus. Lastly, there is a figure, who is not at all typical for the 'balagan', nor for the commedia dell'arte and functions as an important element of 'estrangement' of the theatrical code. This figure is the 'author', who can be looked on as the personification of a fictitious author, comparable to a fictitious narrator, commenting on the incidents and figures of his 'drama'. (With respect to this commenting function, in which the 'author' displays complete non-comprehension of what is going on, he might be equated with someone who has the attitude of the general ignorant recipient.)

The figures in 'Balagancik' do not play their standard parts with any specific relation to the dramatic action, notwithstanding the fact that they bear names and wear costumes that correspond with the parts in the commedia dell'arte. The point is that the meaning of the costume is not necessarily transferred to the part, which accounts also for the 'fusion' with the symbolist code. Only Pierrot's costume reflects a part that is actually acted, even though 'acting' this traditional part means no more than that Pierrot relates the course of events in the form of a narration to the public. This is, of course, not in accordance with the traditionally silent Pierrot. It is especially this narrating instead of a playing that leads to the assumption that the non-dramatic meaning of the parts must be more important here. (Especially, when we realize that the triangle Pierrot- Colombine-Harlequin lends itself quite well for a scenic representation.) Even clearer is the case of Harlequin: his meaning on the basis of his costume, is indicated in the author's notes: "strojnyj junosa v plat'e Arlekina" (12) [a handsome youngster in the costume of Harlequin]. The same applies to the three couples who embody a certain meaning according to the shapes and colours of their costumes, which is accentuated by their movements and the dialogue.

There is no description of the appearance of the 'author', which is explained by the fact that at the level of the micro-communication he does not play any part and by the fact that he does not belong to the balagan. (When he does want to interfere at the micro-level, at the end of the play, the effect is disastrous: the stage collapses!) As the play goes on, it becomes clear that the figures themselves are not aware of the standardized meaning of the costumes used. When figures from one theatrical code (e.g. the Mystics from the symbolist theatre) are confronted with a representative from another theatrical code (e.g. Pierrot from the commedia dell'arte) they do not recognize each other. They are likewise not aware of their own standard meaning - this is often strengthened by the bizarreness of their dialogue. Even the 'author' is not able to assign to the figures their proper meaning: he recognizes in Pierrot neither his commedia dell'arte nor his symbolist attributes. The figures from the different theatrical codes seem to lead a separate existence and do not even seem to notice each other at all unless a 'confrontation' makes this unavoidable. By means of such a 'confrontation' the lack of real communication between the different theatrical codes becomes most apparent.

The binding element relating these apparent coexistent representatives of the theatrical codes to each other is the enigmatic appearance of a "krasivaja devuska v belom" [A beautiful girl in white], who is later designated as Colombine. Her position is central both at the level of reference, but most of all at that of the dialogue. At the first level she is the object to which a number of figures, the Mystics, Pierrot, Harlequin and the 'author', feel they must assign meaning to. The fact that she 'prompts' the drama is strongly related to the dramatic use of the dialogue, since at this level the appearance of Columbine sparks off a verbal contest about the different meanings they all want to ascribe to her. This 'confrontation' is enacted by Pierrot and the president of the Mystics.

The Mystics, bearing the code of Maeterlinckian Symbolism, give her an allegorical meaning: Death. Pierrot, who originates in the commedia dell'arte, suggests another meaning: Columbine, and this is supported by Harlequin, who, after all, acts upon the same code. Next, on a different communication level, the contest is continued by the 'author', who turns against both the Mystics and Pierrot, but especially against the latter. The 'author' represents the realistic code and he looks on Pierrot and Columbine as the heroes of his "real'nejsaja p'esa" (13) [most real play].

So the confrontation offers the following picture: first dogmatic Symbolism (the Mystics) against Blok's Symbolism (Pierrot), then Realism (the 'author') against Symbolism. This could be another reason why the 'author' does not communicate with Pierrot or the Mystics: he represents another different theatrical code, (see also below.) When Harlequin has carried off Columbine, we are told by means of a monologue of Pierrot that his beloved was really no more than a cardboard doll.⁴ Pierrot points to the illusionary quality of her appearance, which holds true both at the level of the theatrical material as at the metaphysical level. Only at the very end of the play the same central object reappears, now unmistakably embodying the meaning, which was attributed to her by the (now absent) Mystics, viz. Death. But when Pierrot physically draws near, according to the author's notes she assumes the features of Columbine. At that moment the 'author' forces his way in at the microlevel. Joining their hands he wants to bring together 'the lovers from Petersburg'. This act leads to a total collapse of the stage.

The dramatic use of the dialogue verbally represents the confrontation between the Mystics and Pierrot. The confrontation between the 'author' and these two representatives of Symbolism takes place without any interaction, it is a one-sided affair in which the 'author' does all the talking. So far we can state that the assigning of meaning of which the dialogue consists determines the sequence of the scenes, the composition of the play.

The middle part of the play - when Pierrot holds his lyrical monologue and the three couples appear on the stage - is marked by the absence of verbal contest and the central object. Now the non-dramatic use of the dialogue is dominant: this sort of use of the dialogue is a mocking comment on the meaning of the characters, which could be considered as a stylistic variant of a monologue. The middle scenes, traditionally the climax in a drama, here represent as it were the antithesis of a climax (e.g. the attainment of the ideal of love), both with respect to form and content. The form is determined by Pierrot's lyrical monologue and the mock dialogues of the three couples, the Amorosi. As to the content, the monologue and the mock dialogues amount to the same thing: a caricature of the main theme, the 'ideal of love or life'.

Now it may be char that the twofold composition of 'Balagancik' (determined by the dramatic and the non-dramatic use of the dialogue) lies at the root of a twofold elaboration of the main theme. This results in an active, dynamic part, the guest for the ideal of love (first and last scenes), in fact the act of assigning; a meaning, and in a 'passive' part that represents the different stock types of that 'attained' ideal (the middle scenes), which is expressed by the demonstration of the poverty of the assigned meaning. The connection between these two parts lies in the monologue by Pierrot, who narrates how the attainment (by Harlequin) of the ideal of love proved to be an illusion (the cardboard doll). This theme is further developed by the demonstration of the three couples: each of their ideals of love is an illusion and a caricature of the true, unattainable ideal of love/life symbolized by the Beautiful Lady.

With a clear view of the composition we may take a closer look a-t the meaning of the characters, particularly the meaning of the fusion of Blok's Symbolism and the commedia dell'arte - elements which have been briefly touched upon above in connection with Pierrot. Probably this fusion is at the centre not only of the problem of assigning meaning at the micro-commmication level (fundamental in connection with the image of Columbine) but also at the level of the recipient, viz. of the macro-communication. At this level the assigning of meaning applies to the play in its entirety, to all its figures; in this content it is clear that the 'author' and the Mystics are openly parodied and that their remarks are irrelevant to the above-mentioned fusion, i.e. to the thematic essence of the play.

The meaning of the 'author' (i.e. of the realistic code in opposition to those of the commedia dell'arte and Symbolism) only transpires at the end of the analysis. The meaning of the other figures will now be discussed in order of appearance.

The Mystics, "who start the play, are mainly characterized by the bizarreness of their dialogue: the rigid order of the speakers (1st, 2nd, 3rd Mystic), who keep giving each other essentially the same information. There even comes a moment (just before their 'death') when this order is no longer necessary: they have become interchangeable and are only fit to convey a certain mood collectively. It is not just their dialogue which is ridiculous, but also the way they respond to someone whose arrival they had prepared so solemnly. Quite unexpectedly, however, it is Pierrot who reacts with reverence: he kneels before Columbine and is so moved that he is not able to speak. The Mystics react like this:

U odnogo bespomoschno boltalas' noga. Drugoj proizvodit strannye dvizenija rukoj. Tretij vykatil glaza. (11)

[The First helplessly dangles his feet. The Second makes strange movements with his hands. The Third rolls his eyes]

The meaning the Mystics attribute to the appearance - Death - is caused by the fact that the figure in question wears a "kosa", which is in Russian a homonym for 'scythe' and 'plait'. In Russian symbolism a symbol has its own particular nature. Usually an object is taken from the material world, which subsequently develops into a symbol of entities from a metaphysical, immaterial world. The genuine symbol has infinite meaning and is as such never attainable. Here the dogmatic symbolists, the Mystics, are parodied and so explicitly criticized for reducing this richly symbolical world to time-worn, rigid allegorical images: Death and his scythe. Surprisingly, this 'wrong' image of Columbine is taken to its 'logical' conclusion: her smile at Harlequin results in a 'theatrical' end of the Mystics. Nothing remains of them but their costumes.

In the beginning, the meaning of Pierrot is first of all determined by the meaning of his corresponding part in the commedia dell'arte. His two lyrical monologues, though, already list some typical images of Blok's Symbolism, like e.g. the snow, the snowstorm and the green star. In his first monologue Pierrot summons the (absent) Columbine to join in with the other amorous couples. In this brief monologue a variety of elements occur that return later in the play, albeit not always with exactly the same meaning. Examples are the 'streetlamps' that later correspond with the 'torches' in the middle scene of the masked ball; the amorous couples appear there as well; and the chorus, first in its original meaning of a band of dancers, later as a classical theatrical element and as a symbol for the people, whose real leader should not be Harlequin, but Pierrot.⁸ When Columbine first appears, her name is not yet mentioned in the author's notes. She is described as a beautiful girl, clothed in white, a plait down her back, who stands motionless (sic!) on the stage. So, from the author's notes it is hard to distinguish whether she is a living being, or a scenic prop. The Mystics immediately assign their meaning to her, convinced as they are by her 'whiteness' and the 'emptiness' of the eyes. Pierrot starts the verbal contest by stating that the Mystics are wrong:

Eto - Kolombina! Èto - moja nevesta! (11) [This is Columbine! This is my bride!]

The president of the Mystics and Pierrot do not arrive at a real discussion, they call each other mad and Pierrot decides to leave the lists. (It seems here that Pierrot actively cooperates in not attaining his bride.) When Columbine unexpectedly addresses Pierrot and makes her only (!) pronouncement "Ja ne ostavlju tebja" (12) [I shall not leave you], Pierrot feels impelled to stay.

This utterance can be interpreted at two levels. As far as the scenic plot is concerned, it is not true: only one moment later she leaves Pierrot for Harlequin. This proves Pierrot, who had called Columbine "nevernaja" (8) [unfaithful] right. But staying within the conventions of the symbolist drama as well as of the commedia dell'arte, this utterance is only too true: she will never leave Pierrot/the symbolist poet. They will go on forever in their quest for Columbine/the Beautiful Lady, as the end of the play proves.

As required by the tradition of the commedia dell'arte, Pierrot in 'Balagancik' is faced with a rival who is always somewhat luckier, viz. Harlequin. What now follows is really a kind of 'antithesis' of the expected dramatic conflict between two rivals - the way Pierrot lets himself to be eliminated is no less than a caricature, as the author's notes show:

On kladet ruku na pleco P'ero. - P'ero svalilsja navznic' i lezit bez dvizenija v belom balachone (13) [He (Harlequin, J.S.) lays his hand on Pierrot's shoulder,

Pierrot falls down backwards and remains lying motionless on the stage in his grubby-white coat.]

So when the lucky Harlequin carries off Columbine, both the Mystics and Pierrot have been ruled out. Here we come across the important problem of identity, which is now not a psychological (as it was in Cechov's dramas), but a theatrical-semiotic problem. It is interesting that Columbine, with all the different identities that are attributed to her in this play, at the same time and quite unexpectedly conforms to her predictable part from the commedia dell'arte. In this traditional part she disguises herself continually, causing various intrigues, which are all based, as in 'Balagancik', on problems of identity. The difference with the commedia dell'arte is that now Columbine does not play an active part in changing her identity. Instead, the other figures ascribe different identities to her, which correspond with their different perceptions of phenomena, based upon various theatrical codes. Since Columbine is never characterized by her utterances and since she is not explicitly described in the author's notes either, to the public her appearance is likewise enigmatic. So the attribution of meaning to Columbine, as a central theatrical sign, poses a problem both for the characters and the public. It is only Pierrot's second monologue, in which he narrates what has been going on, which makes clear how traditional elements from the commedia dell'arte acquire a new, innovative meaning by their incorporation in Blok's Symbolist world. So after Pierrot has exposed Columbine as a card-board doll, he comes to the conclusion that she was an illusion. (The aspect whether something is a prop or a living being may be equated with the element of improvisation common in commedia dell'arte, by means of which a figure can pretend that a scenic prop is e.g. another figure after which the prop again assumes its proper meaning.) Just because no definite meaning can be assigned to her, Pierrot/the symbolist poet realizes that the Beautiful Lady, as a genuine Symbol, is always unattainable.

In Symbolist terms, Harlequin can here be thought of as Pierrot's evil genius, his 'double', who leads the symbolist poet/Pierrot astray from the straight path of Symbolism into a world of metaphysical falsehoods. The attribute of Pierrot, to laugh and cry at the same time, acquires here a symbolist meaning as well, because Harlequin and Pierrot are still two sides of the same identity here. Essentially, we have the same motive (Harlequin leads to falsehood) repeated at the end of the play, when Harlequin sets himself up as the (false) leader of the chorus (the crowd). Instead of entering the (right) world of golden Symbolism, he leaps through a window that proves to consist of no more than illusive gold-coloured paper. (Here we must notice that Harlequin's traditional thirst for material things, and not for spiritual ones, is at the same time exposed.) In this motif of the evil genius-double (of which Harlequin is the personification) the vanity of the attempt to attain the Beautiful Lady finds its theatrical expression. The same motif is apparent in connection with the three amorous couples.

Let us return again to Pierrot's second lyrical monologue, which he delivers, seated on a bench in the centre of the stage, where, according to the author's notes, Venus and Tannhauser used to kiss each other. Around him, a masked ball is going on with dancing couples. We can regard the scenic attribute of the bench as an indication of the main theme: the ideal of love, which is varied five times. The first variant concerns the unattainability of love (i.e. Harlequin- Columbine-Pierrot). The next four variants concern the 'attainment of the ideal of love', with the couple of Venus and Tannhauser as the mythical variant. The three couples that are introduced on the stage may reflect the so-called Amorosi from the commedia dell'arte. They differ as to costumes (colour), movements (rhythmic-static) and dialogue.

The first couple is dressed in the traditional baby-colours: the woman in pink, the man in blue. Their movements are quiet, almost static. The dialogue is equally quiet, and referentially oriented. All the time they speak two lines of poetry, which form together a quatrain of crossed rhyme. This monotony is interrupted by the woman, who suddenly utters a complete quatrain that in sound, form and content anticipates the dialogue of the second couple. Here the woman expresses that she is alerted by the danger of an unknown third party, threatening their relationship (the motif of the double). The man does not recognize the danger, and the dialogue is continued as before. We could regard this couple as the humdrum example of the ordinary, legal marriage.

The second couple provides a contrast with the first couple. The colours of their costumes are red and black and are arranged chiastically. (Her mask is black, his is red, her coat is red, his is black). The woman in her role of the devilish temptress has robbed the man of his personality and reduced him to an object without a will of his own. Their movements are dynamic and are also reflected in the restless rhythm of their dialogue, which is full of emotive and conative exclamations. Here both espy a third party, here literally called 'dvojnik' [double]. This relationship stands for sinful, passionate love.

Again the third couple is static. Only the characteristics of the man have been indicated, both with regard to the costumes, the movements and even the dialogue. The woman imitates the movements of the man and merely echoes the last word of every utterance of his. The man, as it were, creates the woman, he credits her with properties she obviously does not possess. This couple is probably an example of Courtly Love, which is mocked by the buffoon.

What the three couples have in common is that they show three stock types of the ideal of love. In each case this 'love' is threatened by a somewhat vague third party, to whom they never attach any real importance. (Notice the allusions to illusionary plot development!) This third party shows that their relationships are essentially a sham: for in the symbolist view the Beautiful Lady can never be attained. This may explain the negative aspects which the female halves display in all the three variants and which strike us more or less as a caricature: the ordinary, legally married woman; the ruthless, devilish temptress; and the ludricous echo of the creative male spirit.

After the chorus, which appears after the three couples, has announced the coming of the dawn and Harlequin has disappeared through the paper window, the object of the action is reintroduced, and the thread running through the first scenes is taken up again. In the author's notes the object of action covers the same range of meanings as in the first scenes. This correspondence of meanings (also in the order of their occurrence) indicates that each group of characters was correct in its respective attributions of meanings to the object of action. This, however, does not apply to the meaning attributed by the 'author', which is not listed. Perhaps that is why the 'author' tries to force his meaning on the action, forcing his way into the microlevel. After the resulting collapse of the stage, only Pierrot remains as a positive outcome of the fusion of Symbolism and the commedia dell'arte. The very reason that Pierrot is the only one to remain on the stage, is that he, unlike the others and very much unlike the traditional Pierrot, realizes that the Beautiful Lady can never be attained; that there will never be an end to his quest. So, 'Balagancik' ends with a monologue by Pierrot, which is, at the same time, the beginning of a new play, a new quest for his Columbine/the Beautiful Lady.

Now that the layers of meaning resulting from the fusion of the commedia dell'arte and Blok's Symbolism have been dealt with, there remains the character of the 'author' to be discussed. As mentioned before, we are concerned here with a fictitious author's comments on the various ways the play is staged at the expense of the realistic code, which he represents. The 'author' is only tolerated - and within narrow limits at that - at the intermediary communication level as a kind of unreliable critic of the production. This is shown each time by the manner and the place of his appearance on the stage and also by the way he may suddenly be removed again, for instance by a mysterious 'hand' which, apparently, belongs to the abstract author.

The stage direction for Pierrot which tells us that he has not paid attention to the 'author' (9) perhaps indicates that at least the following traditional dramatic rule in 'Balagancik' applies: no communication is possible between the micro-communicational and the intermediary level. Apart from this rule, it is important to be aware of the fact that the 'author' is a representative of Realism (unlike the Mystics and Pierrot who represent Symbolism). These two factors may explain why the 'author' chooses the fictitious audience as his addressee.¹² It is interesting to notice here that we have now practically arrived at a kind of cross-section of the communication-structure of a play in general: the dialogue at the microlevel can be heard by the 'author' (intermediary level); this dialogue induces him to talk to the fictitious audience. Then he is heard by the abstract author, who, by means of a 'mysterious' hand breaks off the dialogic contact 'author'-fictitious audience to let the characters carry on with their own dialogue. These are all elements of the epic drama avant le lettre.

It appears from the information by the 'author' that 'his' play is not performed in the way he has dictated. He disapproves of the time and place of action - which should be "zimoj v Peterburge" (9) [in wintertime in Petersburg] - the costumes, and the allegoric instead of realistic performance. Only the theme is (almost) the same: the mutual love between two young people with the obstacle in the form of a third party to overcome and the final marriage of the lovers, a happy ending, to conclude the play. The 'author' holds the 'actors' responsible for all these misconceptions, disregarding the most important (manipulating) authority, viz. the abstract author, who (as a punishment?) removes him from the stage.

Realism as personified by the 'author' is criticized for not being able to see, let alone use, the countless potentials of meaning that lie hidden both in Symbolism and the commedia dell'arte, and, beyond, in their fusion. The solution (the 'happy ending') as posited by Realism not only contradicts the symbolist premise (of the unattainability of the ideal), but more particularly denies the ultimate effect and destination of the theatrical signs that occur in 'Balagancik'. This constitutes the most probable explanation for the collapse of the stage - a revolt by the theatre itself against the imperfect intellect and the anachronism calling itself Realism.

By making the 'balagan' as the main code, all theatrical elements, which normally function as a 'frame' (ramka) are being provided with a sign-function, which they usually do not display, (cf. Lotman 1977:209) In his essay about the dynamics of the theatrical sign J. Honzl designates this as "the action value of the sign". (1976:91) This in its turn is balanced by the degrading sign-function of plot- and dialogue elements, which we already have discerned in the analysis.

'Elizaveta Bam'

0. Introduction

The end of the Russian avant-garde is marked by the group OBERIU (The Association of Real Art) of whose existence the West became aware only in the sixties. As the manifesto indicates, the group consisted of various art sections, such as literature, theatre, film and music and it maintained close contact with the painters P. Filonov and K. Malevich. The Oberiuty were especially known for their performances which were intended to shock the audience and to which every art section contributed.' Aleksandr Vvedenskij and Daniil Charms were the driving forces and the most well-known members of the OBERIU. Their literary work (prose, poetry and drama) can be characterised as 'absurd avant la lettre' and is influenced by the works of Chlebnikov and Krucenych, although the Oberiuty explicitly reject their transrational language, viz. zaum'. As I have already mentioned, their work transpires an existential dimension, which is generally quite uncommon in the Russian avant-garde.

We will now examine an OBERIU-drama, 'Elizaveta Bam', which was written by Daniil Charms in 1927 in accordance with the objectives of the OBERIU-manifesto. In my opinion 'Elizaveta Bam' is a transitional play in that it features not only typical characteristics belonging to the avant-garde, such as the 'de-hierarchizing' of literary conventions, the accentuation of the constructivist principle, the de-personalization of the figures, the so-called 'sdvig' etc. But it has also characteristics concerning dialogue and communication with which it anticipates the West-European absurdist drama of the neo-avant-garde in the 50s and 60s. By analysing certain aspects of 'Elizaveta Bam' I would like to demonstrate its unique transitional position.

Though the word 'absurd' has been mentioned, it was not the intention of the Oberiuty themselves to try and denote its exact implications. What they had in mind with 'absurdism' were the incongruous, a-logical relations between facts or the realisation of fanciful patterns. They more or less rejected the idea of 'plot':

Na smenu emu (dramaturgiceskomu sjuzetu, J.S.) - prichodit sjuzet sceniceskij, stichijno-voznikajuscij iz vsech elementov nasego spektaklja (297) [This (the dramatic plot, J.S.) is replaced by a scenic plot which arises spontaneously from all the elements of our spectacle.]

They stated that the theatrical act, the object or the words must be seen as independent entities that were acted out in different sequences according to their own natural (i.e. artistic) logic. The puzzling term 'real' in the name of the group could be explained by the fact that they do not intend to alienate art from life. On the contrary, they desire another approach to life, to reality. Thus concrete, real subjects, objects and situations, swiftly succeeding one another, are represented in simple, everyday language. It is the succession without any or, rather, without the usual discernible connection or coherence that renders the, in themselves recognisable, everyday subjects, objects, words and situations unrecognisable. A general comparison with an important credo of modernism, viz. the 'montage principle', could be made (cf. A. Flaker, 1979:179). 'Reality' is approached differently, with another logic, which, however, does not make it 'unreal'.⁴ In the manifest is said that

... ono [i.e. Oberiu, J.S.] iscet organiceski novogo mirooscuscenija i podchoda k vescam (289)

[it (i.e. the Oberiu) is looking for an organically new perception of the world and approach to the things]

The spectator, used to a logical development of the plot in traditional plays, is therefore thwarted in his expectations. That is why the Oberiuty give the spectator the following advice:

Pridja k nam, zabud'te to, êto vy privykli videt' vo vsech teatrch (...) vy chotite najti tu privyënuju logièeskuju zakonomernost', kotoruju - vam kazetsja - vy vidite v zizni? No ee zdes' ne budet. (296-7)

[If you come to see us, forget everything that you are used to see in all the theatres (...) Do you want to find that usual logical pattern, which you - at least you think so - always see in life? You won't find it here.]

In the following analysis we will first touch upon those aspects which contribute to the disintegration of the play: the scenic system of a sequence of heterogeneous performances of the figures in each of the nineteen sections; the repeatedly complete turnover of the figure's relationships in flagrant opposition to the situation in foregoing and following sections; the conflicting roles assigned to one and the same person (acting now the part of the murderer, now that of the victim and then of the prosecutor); the fanciful element of creative play in performances, relationships and roles, based upon the laying bare and making strange of traditional devices of literary construction; the extension of this element to forms of oral communication. The two leitmotifs which can be distinguished seem to be one of the unifying principles. For the sake of brevity emphasis will be placed on the principles of arrangement; aspects of content will only be discussed in so far as they vary the hidden leitmotifs or - occasionally - illuminate the play with traditional forms, the exchange of roles, etc. In consequence a clear-cut assessment of the thematic complexity might be missed. I hope, however, that in the following analysis the play's essential suggestions of life's reality will be made clear: death and the countless endeavors to postpone this final outcome.

The scenic system.

A striking aspect of 'Elizaveta Bam' is its division into 19 rather short 'kuski' [pieces], as Charms himself called them, each of which has its own caption. A. Martini formulates the implications of the word 'kusok':

Dadurch wird einerseits die relative Geschlossenheit des einzelnen Segments, deren Bruchstückhaftigkeit andererseits, und ihre lose Aneinanderreihung signali-siert. (1981:155)

Another implication of the Russian word 'kusok', as well as of the English word 'piece' can be added here, viz. that every 'kusok' represents a cross-section of the whole. Perhaps this meaning does not cover all the 'kuski', but, as we shall see, certainly a number of them, viz. those which continually vary the dynamic leitmotif. Because of the confusion that may arise with the use of the word 'piece' - which in English may connote either a part of a play or the play itself - it is perhaps better to adhere to the term 'scene', though the reader must bear in mind that this term used here has nothing to do with the traditional act-scene qualifications.

The captions are usually equated with stage directions serving the director only, but they could also be meant to be 'played' or announced for the public.To give an impression of the nature of the captions, we will sum up the first seven in succession:

1. Kusok Realisticeskaja melodrama. 2. Zanr realisticeski komedijnyj 3. Nelepo komiceski-naivnyj/zanr/ 4. Realisticeskij zanr. Bytovoj-komedijnyj. 5. Ritmice-skij /Radiks/ Ritm avtora. 6. Bytovoj Radiks. 7. Torzestvennaja melodrama podcerknutaja radiksom.

[1. Piece Realistic Melodrama; 2. Realistically comical genre; 3. Absurd comical-naive /genre/; 4. Realistic genre. Banal-comedylike; 5. Rhythmic/Radix/-Rhythm of the author; 6. Banal Radix: 7. Solemn melodrama underlined by Radix.]

In the first four scenes there are references to two different dramatic sub-genres, accompanied by specifications as 'realistic', 'absurd', etc. The very term 'melodrama' offers a literary justification for the adding of captions to the subsequent scenes; in 19th century melodrama this was quite common. (Baluchatyj 1927:75)

In scene 1 the concrete designation of melodrama is fully realised: in an abundance of emotional exclamations the heroine describes her desperate situation. She is being persecuted by two men (Petr Nikolaevic and Ivan Ivanovic), who accuse her of having committed a serious crime. Perhaps due to their incredibility, the heroine succeeds in sowing discord between her persecutors. In the third scene the initial threatening situation has progressed in such an absurd and comic way, that even one of the persecutors himself no longer knows in which quality he is present and thus leaves. We could say that the first three scenes form a kind of plot-sequence which is totally abandoned in the subsequent scenes. Most convincingly the orientation towards a plot - and also the designation of the genre - finds expression in heading and content of the opening scene. The designations of scenes 2, 3, and 4 are less concrete: references to literary tradition are given only attributively, consequently it seems to be more difficult to explore the exact realization of the captions.

It is, of course, no coincidence that the very first scenes refer to literary tradition: the traditional, the normative and the archetypal can be opposed only when they have first been referred to. As Flaker says:

Es klingt paradox, aber gerade die Avant-Garde muss, wenn sie avant-garde sein will, zwangslaufig die kulturelle Tradition in Erinnerung rufen! (1979:167)

After the reader has been reminded of the existence of a literary system in the first four scenes, something new is introduced, the 'Radix'. At this moment the reader can hardly have any expectations, because it is not clear what exactly 'Radix' is. In the captions of scenes 5 and 6 'Radix' is accompanied by the specification 'Rhythmic', 'Rhythm of the author' (5) and 'Banal' (6). The caption of scene 7 re-establishes the connection with literary tradition: 'Solemn melodrama underlined by Radix', tradition being framed, or, as the caption says, underlined by 'Radix'.

What exactly is 'Radix'? It literally means 'root' and it was the name of the theatrical company founded in 1926 by a.o. Charms and Vvedenskij, before their OBERIU-period. G.N. Katzman, the director, stated that Radix was thought of as 'pure' theatre, theatre of experiment, meaning that it was not so much an orientation towards the public or a final result, but rather the experience of the pure theatrical act by the actors themselves. M. Mejlach adds to this that 'Radix' not only meant 'root' but at the same time had the connotation of 'radical theatre'. (Vvedenskij 1984:Tom 2:233)

The caption of scene 5, "Rhythmic Radix", and the added "Rhythm of the author" could be a parody of the all-comprising, harmonious rhythm of Tairov's stage-productions. The stage directions "taktykovyj stich" [chanting] and "napevno" [singing] indicate the rather unusual rhythm of the dialogue. Its contrast with the (trite) substance of the dialogue makes it impossible to speak of a harmonious rhythm here. In scene 6, "Banal Radix", everyday situations are predominant: Elizaveta Bam's playing hide and seek, the appearance of a Beggar (symptomatic of the daily life) and Ivan Ivanovich's clowneries and jokes. Though the word 'rhythm' is absent in the caption to scene 6, we may say that there is a very restive rhythm here. This rhythm contrasts with that of scene 7, which has a more solemn ring. Petr Nikolaevic solemnly describes his unexpected misfortune, which calls to mind the initial situation and provides further (contradictory) details of the charges brought against Elizaveta Bam. The theme of the story, the house, the creeping door, the burning lamp and the sudden appearance of an intruder is all very much reminiscent of Maeterlinck's play 'l'Intruse'. Here the silent unexpected intruder is Death herself, in 'Elizaveta Bam' death is personified by the heroine. According to Ivan Ivanovic, who continues the story, she took Petr Nikolaevic's life in a fair man-to-man fight. Thereupon Elizaveta Bam reacts in a somewhat contrary way using the festive word "hurrah" - a cry of joy, perhaps because she did not murder Petr Nikolaevic but killed him in the context of a fair fight. But then again she is accused of murder; Ivan Ivanovic in his turn employs the word "ura" [hurrah], now connected with this appalling crime. 'Melodrama' here is twofold: it can be understood (1) as melodrama, because the theme of the innocent accused is taken up again and 2) as 'melodious drama'. The specification "underlined by Radix" certainly has something to do with the sound of the piano and the whistle from backstage, which at times interrupt and /or underscore Petr Nikolaevic's speech. The musical element was and will again be present in the other 'Radix'-scenes ( 5,12 and 13) in the form of rhythm, a chorus and instrumental music.

In the first seven scenes we were first presented with literary tradition, then with the opposition against it. In the three scenes that follow, the captions touch on other aspects of theatrical art. Scene 8, "Peremescenie vysot" [Changing heights], shows the movements in space of Elizaveta Bam and Ivan Ivanovic. She reaches higher and higher by climbing a chair, while he crouches lower and lower and gradually sinks to the floor level.

The designation also refers to changing intensity of sounds and voices. The caption to scene 9, "Kusok pejsaznyj" [Piece of the landscape], emphasizes the change in the stage scenery, which is enforced by the pastoral motifs in the scene itself and also by the echo-effect of the sustained final sounds of the characters' utterances. Whereas the captions of scene 8 and 9 had to do with the choreography and the sets respectively, the caption to scene 10, "Monolog v storonu" [An aside], with the added "Kusok dvuchplannyj" [Piece on two levels], introduces a characteristic feature of the classic theatre, viz. communication with the public. An aside is a typically dramatic device by means of which a character can supply the public with information to which the other characters do not have access. In this respect such a monologue always functions 'on two levels'. Papasa's aside does not give any relevant information, he tells a fairy tale-like story which takes place in a "bolee otkrytoe mesto" [more open space] (a reference to the space created by the change of the sets?).

In scene 11, "Spic" [Speech], no specific theatrical and/or dramatic aspects are accentuated. The scene is connected with the preceding one to the extent that it offers a new variety of a monologue which is public-oriented, yet is not included in the dramatic code. The caption is a word-play which functions at different levels. It of course refers to the "speech" held by Ivan Ivanovic. Here Bertram Muller correctly sees a parody of the communist party assembly in which

(...) das Pathos dieser Zusammenkünfte (...) in keinem Verhaltnis zu den dort besprochenen Themen steht. (1978:89).

But the word 'spic' also refers to a specific habit of the speaker, viz. the striking of matches (in Russian: spicka). When we write the Russian word as 'spic-ka' we see that its meaning 'little speech' is realized as well.

In the caption to scene 12 "Kusok cinarskij" [piece chinarsky], the reader is once more presented with an unfamiliar notion. Before their OBERIU-period Charms and Vvedenskij used to call themselves 'cinar', a word that does not exist in Russian. Ja. Druskin uses the word 'cinarskij' as an equivalent to the musical term 'atonal' (1985:384). "Piece chinarsky" (scene 12) and "Radix" (scene 13) are, as we have seen, terms connected with the Oberiu-theatre. Since no further specifications are added (as in scenes 5,6 and 7), we may conclude that in these two scenes we are presented with Oberiu-theatre 'pur'. At this point it will suffice to say that it is striking that in these very scenes the motifs of the fabula such as threat, pursuit, escape, exhaustion, resurrection, execution, etc. are reiterated and predicted in rather enigmatic phrases. In scene 12 the chorus (a surprisingly classic constituent combining theatrical with musical elements) narrates the fabula in a three-stanzaic song.In scene 13 Ivan Ivanovic refers to the fabula in even more enigmatic terms. (On the difficulty to establish the positions of speaker and addressee here see 4. language and communication). After this, three scenes follow, in which 'pathos' functions as an important component of the tragic fabula (this pathos-sequence is interrupted by scene 16 ("Kuranty" [Bells]). Pathos is respectively specified as 'klassiceskij' [classic] (scene 14), 'baladnyj' [ballad-like] (scene 15) and 'fiziologiceskij' [physiological] (scene 17).

'Pathos' implies the use of stilted, lofty speech which at the same time may also be very emotional. It is used in both forms especially in the tragedy. "Classic pathos" (scene 14) is therefore reminiscent of literary tradition and strongly contrasts with the preceding 'Radix'-scene. At the same time, however, 'pathos' is connected with scenes 10 and 11 in which we were presented with a type of speech, whereas here we are confronted with a mode of speech. In scene 14 the lyrical description of the little house, the philosophical-metaphysical ("erhabene") words of Petr Nikolaevic, the ode to Elizaveta Bam (by Papasa) and the ode to Petr Nikolaevic (by Ivan Ivanovic) display on the one hand the lyrical-pathetic style, on the other hand the declamatory-pathetic style. (Lausberg 1973:1073) Both styles are frequently interrupted by the ordinary, down-to-earth language in Ivan Ivanovic's and Petr Nikolaevic's utterances.

In scene 15 the "Ballad-like pathos" pertains to a kind of play-within-a-play; all kinds of literary and oral styles intermingle; the scene starts with a zaum'-like utterance resembling at the same time a magical formula to threaten the opponent. This is followed by a lyrical, stilted speech, then by an ode "chvala zelezu" [glory to the iron], a topic belonging to the Futurists. The "Physiological pathos" of scene 17 is manifest in Mamasa's rather vulgar speech. On the other hand, it may also refer to Mamasa's physiological change: her face petrifies and she says she is a cuttlefish. The scene interrupting the pathos-sequence, scene sixteen, is headed "Bells". The chiming of bells is often associated with something important about to happen. Here it might herald the turning-point in Elizaveta Barn's fate, or (a bit too early) the end of the play as a whole. "Bells" may also refer to the verbal tick-tacking between Elizaveta Bam and Ivan Ivanovic. As far as theme and setting are concerned, this scene forms a strong contrast with the preceding one and time seems to have moved forward enormously; cf. the end of scene 15:

138.

4. The language and the communication

The dialogues in the play mostly consist of rather short sentences in which simple, everyday language dominates. The inexplicability of the utterances is thus not the result of, e.g. a complex syntax or semantics but rather of their sequence. In the first instance the reason for this must be found in the captions to the scenes, which imply a staggering range of literary and non-literary communication possibilities. In particular the literary communication possibilities referring to dramatic subgenres are often worked out in accordance with the principle of 'sdvig'. (see e.g. scene 15 where the dignified style of the ballad-genre clashes with the non-serious, uncommon subject matter.)In addition the unclear identities of the figures and the varying interaction-model of the dynamic leitmotif cause this inexplicability of the utterances.

In those scenes in which literary genre is not referred to and in which the leitmotif is not actually realized, it seems to be mainly the communication itself which forms the theme of the interaction. In scene 8 the spatial positions are verbally reflected by the interactional positions in which dominance plays a role. Ivan Ivanovic reacts to Elizaveta Bam's utterances. However, he reacts in a peculiar way and at various levels: he reacts to sound, content, to only one word of the preceding utterance, to a syntactical construction or to an association the preceding words evoke. All these reactions are accepted by the other figures.

The function of the dialogue in scene 9 seems to be to accentuate thematically the rural elements and acoustically the spatial echo-effect by sustaining the last sounds of the utterances. The aside in scene 10 and the speech in scene 11 are both congruous with the title as far as form and incongruous as far as content is concerned. We have already discussed scene 12, in which Elizaveta Bam formulates the escape-motif in an opening and (not quite) closing refrain. In between the refrains the communication can be described as "a verbal ping-pong game", (cf. Sherzer 1972:276) It appears that the figures do take each other's utterances into account, that they do respond to each other by some kind of mutual agreement, an agreement, however, which is observed to a lesser and lesser extent towards the end of the scene. When rules are no longer followed, the verbal game probably comes to a natural end.

The Radiksscene 13 is both communicatively and semantically the most enigmatic scene. It is difficult to establish here whether Ivan Ivanovic speaks to himself, whether he addresses Petr Nikolaevic or whether he functions as the voice of Petr Nikolaevic who is the only one standing in the limelight. Who is the speaker and who is spoken to? Has the sound of the instruments here been made equivalent to the bodyless voice, as A. Martini (1981:159) and B. Muller (1978:89) claim, or do they underscore the cryptic utterances, as in scene 7? A general ambience of defeat and chaos and a cry for help sums up what we can say about the meaning of the utterances. Here the reader finds himself confronted with a fragment of text, in which any 'law' fails. Perhaps in this manner, the ambience of the scene reflects the condition of the reader in which he finds himself trying, in vain, to orientate himself.

In scene 16 ("Bells") another verbal game, similar to that in scene 12, seems to be played. Here Elizaveta Bam playfully attaches the prefix 'pol-' [half-] to different nouns in one and the same sentence. When all possibilities are exhausted Ivan Ivanovic seems to continue the game with other words in another sentence. Elizaveta Bam puts an end to it quite suddenly: playing games is over.

Talking and acting seem to be equal factors in these scenes. In fact, at a more abstract level they are: both set up order in a disorderly world, "the play shapes that which is apparently shapeless". (Huizinga 1950:5) (Transl. mine)

As we have already talked about 'games' in the above- mentioned elements, we will now discuss their implications for 'Elizaveta Bam'.

5. The play-element.

It is very tempting to reduce all aspects of 'Elizaveta Bam' to the same denominator of 'play': a play with literary conventions, a play with the identities and relations, play variants of a leitmotif, and a play with language and communication. An overall play with the public's expectations. In juxtaposition with 'play', we find 'non-play', and this is where we seem to find the elusive essence of 'Elizaveta Bam'. The paradoxical relation play-reality is, in fact, embedded in 'play' itself, cf. Vygotskij, who observes:

It is remarkable that the child starts with an imaginary situation that initially is so very close to the real one. (...) Play is more nearly a recollection of something that has actually happened than imagination. It is more memory in action than a novel imaginary situation. (1987:103).

Srazenie dvuch bogatyrej okonceno

[The fight between two 'bogatyrs' has come to an end]

versus the beginning of scene 16:

Ja tol'ko cto byla v kooperative [I was just in the co-op].

By its very heading, "Realisticeski sucho" [realistically dry], scene 18 contrasts with the preceding 'pathos'-scenes. It seems to be identical with scene 1 (they also have the same decor), but it is more realistic, a.o. because here the word "arrest" is explicitly uttered.

The last scene is called "Koncovka opery. Dvizenie kulis, predmetov, zadnika i ljudej" [Opera finale. Movement of wings, objects, scenery and people]. We might put a colon after 'opera' in view of the fact that the end of an opera is often characterized by a great many turbulent movements. The principal characteristics of the opera, vocal and instrumental music, are not at all realized here. Together with other elements of the theatre, however, they were manifest throughout the play, which gives sufficient grounds for the use of the word 'opera'."

The preceding discussion shows that the captions of the scenes are mostly realised in an unexpected way. In the course of the play expectations raised in the conscience of the public (particularly owing to the captions of the first scenes) become more and more the subject of a conscious play on the part of the author. This happens on the part of the public too, because a caption can be realised at more than one level. A consequence of this free play with literary traditions is a certain depreciation and "Dehierarchisierung" of these traditions, a typical avant-garde-device. (Flaker 1979:163-4) This is effectuated not only by an incomplete or an unexpected realization of the various genres and/or their specific manifestations, it is also effectuated by the juxtaposition of specific literary and non-literary designations, such as for example "melodrama" and "Change of heights" or "Bells" etc.

As we have stated above, the subdivision into scenes, which is particularly emphasized by the various captions, has the effect of more or less compelling the reader to view them as separate entities. This autonomy of the scenes is only relative and can only be so (the use of 'kusok' already implied this), because in spite of the differences and contrasts that may exist between the subsequent scenes, they often appear to be connected - though very much implicitly so - as far as meaning is concerned.

So far the following quotation from Flaker seems to be fully applicable to 'Elizaveta Bam':

(...) der Aufbau eines Werkes 'auf dem Prinzip der Verbindung unvereinbarer Elemente' <...>, setzt die standige Bestatigung eines kiinstlerischen Systems in der Erinnerung des Lesers und die Stürzung dieses Systems durch den Text voraus. (1979:166)

The following analysis will demonstrate this system of construction and demolition at the level of characterization. In the scope of this study I will only briefly touch upon this second element which contributes to the incomprehensibility of the play, viz. the undefinable relationships of the figures.

The interrelationships of the figures.

It appears that we can determine two pairs of figures, (Petr Nikolaevic and Ivan Ivanovic; Papasa and Mamasa) and two individuals, (the heroine Elizaveta Bam and the almost negligible Beggar). The interrelationship of the pair-like figures is very curious. The relationship between Mamasa and Papasa appears to be only suggested by their names (they do not display any parent-like behaviour) and possibly by their joint entrance and exit on the stage (scenes 3, 12 and 17), as well as by Elizaveta Bam's childlike attitude towards them (scene 3 and 17). They never operate together (except for their joint "hurrah" in scene 11), only individually. The actions and/or speeches of the one are never directed towards the other.

Petr Nikolaevic and Ivan Ivanovic form a kind of pair, friends or colleagues. Sometimes they are even identical (scene 7, 13 and 18). Their relationship is primarily based upon their dependence on each other and in fact is a complementary one. The interest in or perhaps just their acquaintance with Elizaveta Bam seems to connect these four figures. It must be noted that this interest is more dominant in relation to Petr Nikolaevic - Ivan Ivanovic than it is in relation to Papasa-Mamasa, who both seem to be much less, and if at all, only temporarily, involved. It appears that the participation of Mamasa and Papasa is tolerated in specific scenes and is excluded from others. Their peripheral spatial (stage) positions confirm their positions as outsiders, as does their absence in scenes 1 and 18. It may indicate that they are representatives of the world outside the play, which, on the one hand, explains their considerable un-involvement, but, on the other hand, shows their possibility to intervene at will. As a matter of fact, their suggested roles of helpers and adversaries of Elizaveta Bam respectively neutralize each other. We will return to the meaning of their apparent un-involvement later, (see 5.)

The family and/ or social relations between figures usually belong to a static system. This is, obviously, not the case in 'Elizaveta Bam'; here these types of relations belong to a dynamic system and are only suggested in this play: the figures may have both a family and a social relationship with one another. Sometimes, e.g., the impression is created that Elizaveta Bam is Mamasa's and Papasa's daughter or in scene 15 Papasa's mistress, that she is Ivan Ivanovic's sister (scenes 9 and 12) or Petr Nikolaevic's wife (scene 15). In scene 17 Ivan Ivanovic and Petr Nikolaevic seem to be one person, viz. Mamasa's son. At the same time, however, Ivan Ivanovic and Petr Nikolaevic may be government officials arresting Elizaveta Bam, a civilian, and Mamasa turns out to be their helper in scene 17, while Papasa is Elizaveta Barn's helper in scene 15.

As the play continues a kind of development could be distinguished in view of these family and/or social relationships. The initially official relation between Ivan Ivanovic, Petr Nikolaevic on the one hand and Elizaveta Bam on the other becomes more and more personal, sometimes even coming to resemble an intimate family relationship. The 'anti-climax' of the threatening arrest and the violent death are connected with this. At the end of the play, however, the relations are once more official and have even more businesslike undertones than in the beginning. It is then that the actual 'realistic' components of arrest and threatening execution seem to begin to function again completely. At this point we come to the unifying element of the play, namely, the so-called leitmotifs.¹⁵ In fact there are two leitmotifs, one central, to which I would like to refer as the dramatic-dynamic. Besides this leitmotif a secondary, more static one can be observed.

The two leitmotifs

Apart from the suggested family and social relationships we can establish another kind of system of relationships which functions throughout the play as a leitmotif and is as dynamically elaborated as the above-mentioned relations. This system is based on the initial situation which is characterized by the accusation of a not specified crime and/or the threat of death. In a substantial part of the further interaction, various elements of the accusation and/or threat seem to become gradually apparent. (From now on we will refer to 'accusation'). This is the central leitmotif which is often, yet not everywhere, varied in an unexpected manner.

A second leitmotif which, as we will see at the end of this chapter, is closely connected with the first, is 'dom/domik' [house/cottage] accompanied by a number of attributes.

Let us first have a look at the dramatic-dynamic leitmotif, where according to the accusation-model the following relationship can be established:

murderer victim prosecutor

Elizaveta Bam Elizaveta Bam Elizaveta Bam

Petr Nikolaevic Petr Nikolaevic Petr Nikolaevic

(Papasa) Ivan Ivanovic

(Papasa) (Mamasa)

Throughout the text we find utterances of the prosecutors, showing this basic model: A accuses B of killing A or C. In the accusation the time may be varied, it may be referred to as past or future.

As has been shown above, each of the figures is cast as prosecutor once or more than once, and those that are cast as murderers are identical with those cast as victims. When I apply the above model to all the fully realized, i.e. verbally uttered accusations in the text, there appear to be two groups of accusers: 1. Petr Nikolaevic and Ivan Ivanovic (with the possible inclusion of Mamasa in scene 17) say that Elizaveta Bam has killed Petr Nikolaevic. 2. Elizaveta Bam, Petr Nikolaevic (with the possible inclusion of Papasa in scene 14/15) say that Petr Nikolaevic/Ivan Ivanovic are going to kill Elizaveta Bam. (The impact on the recipient of the scenically realized murder by Papasa and the accusation by Mamasa will be discussed in 5.) Elizaveta Bam was thus the murderer and Petr Nikolaevic the victim; she is going to be punished by her resurrected victim. The time-sequence seems logical: the victim in the past will punish his murderer in the future. The 'factual absurdity' here is that the victim, who is supposed to be dead, is alive.¹⁶ As long as the victim keeps resurrecting, the transformation from murderer to victim can continue eternally. Elizaveta Bam's ultimate defeat and foretold death could mean a disruption of this vicious circle. The fact of a person being both murdered and alive, both victim and murderer, makes a further elaboration of the 'accusation' in logical terms impossible. This applies to virtually all its elements, which include, besides the murderer and the victim, the time factor, the crime, the motive, the pursuit, the arrest and the punishment. Hence a comical-absurd and also frightful significance can be read in these elements, which are mainly referred to verbally and sometimes suggested by movements (e.g. running after each other).

We will now elaborate on the leitmotif per scene. In scenes 1, 2, 7, 17 and 18, which are characterized as realistic and/or as melodrama (scene 17 excepted), Elizaveta Bam is explicitly accused. However, in these scenes one or more essential elements of the accusation are not realized. In the other scenes, isolated elements of the 'accusation' (i.e. the constituents of or the connotations with the act of 'accusation') are realized which often are, yet sometimes are not, connected with Elizaveta Bam.

In the first scene the nature of the crime of which she is accused, is not specified. Moreover, in the second, her prosecutors appear to have insufficient authority and such physical defects as to cause the accusation to lose its credibility. Also due to this, she, in turn, can accuse her prosecutors of possessing no conscience and she accuses Ivan Ivanovic specifically:

Vy prosto moshennik (174) [You are simply a swindler]

Most remarkably, the latter is upset by the accusation:

Ja vam ètogo ne proscu (175) [I won't forgive you for this!]

Petr Nikolaevic tries to restore the original positions:

Ne vam mne govorit' derzosti. Vy - prestupnica. (176)

[It is not for you to tell me impertinent things. You are a criminal.]

When Elizaveta Bam asks why she is a criminal, Petr Nikolaevic reverses cause and effect:

Potomu cto vy liseny vsjakogo golosa. (176) [Because you have no right to speak]

Elizaveta Bam denies this. In scene 3 Petr Nikolaevic himself initiates an absurd situation: he avails himself of the official cliché that he has posted a sentry at the door and that at the slightest push ... Ivan Ivanovic will hiccup sideways. Subsequently this scene develops in such a way (also by elaborating on the established and completely absurd connection between 'push' and 'hiccuping') that Ivan Ivanovic takes upon himself the role of the persecuted towards the end of the scene and thus in fact repeats m.m. the initial situation. Scene 4 could contain a possible consequence of the charges brought against Elizaveta Bam i.e. the escape motive concealed in her proposal to go for a walk. In scene 5 Ivan Ivanovic and Petr Nikolaevic again resume the roles of persecutors; they seek Elizaveta Bam intending to kill her. It is here that the possible consequence of an accusation is realized, i.e. the element 'punishment'. The threatening words "ctoby ubit'" [to murder] are weakened as it were, or neutralised by the rhythmical speaking mode.

In scene 6 the act of pursuit is put into the harmless shape of a kind of game of hide and seek. When the object Elizaveta Bam is eventually-found, however, attention is evidently diverted due to the arrival of a new ('banal') figure, Niscij [Beggar]. The punishment and the threatening death play no further role. On the contrary, we see here a domestic scene, in which Elizaveta Bam wonders where her husband could be. After this, Petr Nikolaevic takes the initiative and introduces a game in which someone is pointed at by word or gesture:

ty pjatnashka (183) [You're it]

We interpret this pointing at someone as a playful variation on the theme of 'accusation', which theme in fact also involves somebody being indicated. This time it is Ivan Ivanovic who is pointed at. Elizaveta Bam verifies this in passing. In scene 7 a story began by Petr Nikolaevic, which asserts that

vsjakoe nescast'e nastupaet neozidanno (184) [all misfortune comes unexpectedly]

is suddenly taken over and continued by Ivan Ivanovic, who then simultaneously is victim, witness and prosecutor. (The fact that this 'misfortune' takes place at night can also possibly suggest a dream.) He accuses Elizaveta Bam of the 'murder' of Petr Nikolaevic. It is curious that at this point, when the culprit is pointed at, all figures momentarily become one and speak as one. The sentence started by Ivan Ivanovic:

Togda ona (i.e. Elizaveta Bam, J.S.) byla pochoza... (185) [At that time she looked like...]

is completed by them with "na menja" [me]. This is possibly intended to express the arbitrary nature of the accusation: anybody can be accused. Subsequently, before he repeats the accusation against Elizaveta Bam, Ivan pronounces

Govorju ctoby byt' (185) [I speak in order to be]

A variant of the Descartian "cogito ergo sum", which unsettles the meaning of all pronouncements, including the accusation, as it implies an indifference to what is said, as long as something is said. To Elizaveta Barn's question "Cto vy govorite." [What do you say], this philosophical pronouncement is repeated, immediately followed by the accusation that she has 'murdered' Petr Nikolaevic, but apparently within the context of a fair fight, due to which she cannot really be charged with murder. In the context of a fair fight, Ivan Ivanovic's question as to the motive ("zacem" [why]) is not very logical. "Ura, ja nikogo ne ubivala" [Hurrah, I did not kill anybody.], answers Elizaveta Bam.

In scene 8 she exchanges the role of scapegoat ascribed to her in scene 7, for a spatially higher and verbally dominant speaking position to which Ivan Ivanovic more or less orientates himself. (Speaking in order to exist is acted out here, apparently). Here we find vague allusions to the preceding accusation situation, in particular the word "hurrah", followed by "I didn't say anything" establishes the direct, but only connection with scene 7. In scene 9 an implicit accusation can be observed in Ivan Ivanovic's story about a certain Kol'ka which is told three times in different ways and amounts to the question:

Ty chto, jabloki kupil ili ukral? (188)

[Well, did you buy the apples or steal them?]

The leitmotif is not realised in scene 10, 11 and 13. In scene 12 the escapeand pursuit-motive are realised both by the characters physically pursuing each other, and verbally by Elizaveta Barn's refrain-like words:

otorvalas' otovsyjudu, otorvalas' i pobezala (190)

[I tore myself away from everywhere, I tore myself away and ran.]

In scene 14 Petr Nikolaevic remembers Elizaveta Bam once again, also her forthcoming death the following night. Papasa now accuses him, and according to the classic code of honour he constitutes himself her defender. In his call "zabyt' Elizavetu Bam, zakonam vopreki" (190) [to forget Elizaveta Bam, despite the law] he refers to this official aspect (the law) of an accusation. In the next scene Petr Nikolaevic is murdered. Scene 16 does not contain any element of the accusation we could expect to be directed at Papasa, only to recur more dramatically in scene 17, where Mamasa (!) pronounces the accusation. It is, surprisingly, not directed at Papasa, but once again at Elizaveta Bam who allegedly murdered her son. This takes us into scene 18 in which all elements of the accusation have been verbally realised. From a verbal point of view everything is "Realistic dry", everything to be pronounced at an official accusation has indeed been pronounced. However, when Elizaveta Bam opens the door to her persecutors, the factual absurdity becomes apparent: the murdered victim (Petr Nikolaevic) is also the persecutor. Both he and Ivan Ivanovic are now dressed up like firemen (explicit stage directions) which makes the arrest slightly more serious in comparison,with their appearances in scene 2. The uniform serves a psychological purpose: the identical appearance allows less space for possible manipulation of one of the two. In the last scene the prisoner is led away, persisting in her claim of innocence, but eventually she resigns herself to her fate. It is a fact that the initial and final situation show identical relation patterns. Elizaveta Bam is and remains the scapegoat or the accused and Ivan Ivanovic and Petr Nikolaevic are the accusers. These three are the primary persons who vary this leitmotif. The scenes set within this 'framework' show possible alternative varieties of relations, but, remarkably, they do not seem to affect the final result.

This is also a characteristic of the absurdist drama in which the notion of Fatum is ever-present at the end, despite the play-acting at the level of the dialogue.

If we assume the perspective of the 'heroine', we may suggest that she avails herself of the variations of relation-fluctuations to escape the accusation. In particular the first scenes suggest such a psychologic-realistic motivation: she manipulates the unstable relations of her accusers to such an extent that Ivan Ivanovic assumes the role of the pursued at the end of the third scene. Although the interaction is initiated with this possibly psychological motive, it does not recur at all in the subsequent scenes. The leitmotif is a kind of variable constant which can be determined in the tangle of all possible utterances.

The manner in which this leitmotif is varied, has to do with the designations in the captions to the scenes. It seems that the figures' communication (= behaviour) is repeatedly 'attuned' to the literary and non-literary conditions designated by the captions.

We have seen that the captions do not form a very strict nor binding framework, as they allow for improvisation. Thus, the captions provide the interaction with the manner, the atmosphere and the tone, whereas the leitmotif as a kind of basic theme vitalizes the positions of the figures. If they get carried away by the improvisation possibilities the captions offer, then due to the leitmotif, the figures will resume their original interactional positions (i.e. the initial accusation-situation) from which disorder may evolve again, followed by order etc.

The second leitmotif is only put into words and varied by Elizaveta Bam, Ivan Ivanovic and Petr Nikolaevic. Since the (varying) meanings of 'house/cottage' refer to 'space' we will first look at the scenically realised space. The first eight scenes are situated in concrete space, viz. the room of Elizaveta Bam, with its most essential attribute 'the door'. Elizaveta Bam implies she is able to shut out the 'danger', by not opening the door. Yet, the security of the house is relative: the door can be forced open. In scene 8 with his statement "Kubatura ètoj komnaty nam neizvestno" (187) [We don't know how many cubic feet there are in this room] Ivan Ivanovic refers to the immediately following changes of decor. Although this change of decor does influence thematic elements and the manner of speech (e.g. scene 9, "Piece of the landscape"), it is of no further importance at all with regard to any psychological effect, viz. of unlimited escape possibilities. To these possibilities Elizaveta Bam refers in scene 12, but she does not proceed to action. This and the fact that space is verbally indicated in the play may lead us to infer that this change of space is a superfluous element, just a mechanical element which is prescribed by the dramatic genre. The pronouncement on "beskonecnyj dom" [an infinite house] as brought forward by the chorus in scene 12, seems to be the most adequate, an in itself paradoxical description of the concrete, scenic space.

Let us now discuss the pronouncements which have made 'house/cottage' their subject. In scene 3, and again in scene 11, Ivan Ivanovic describes a safe home, with a wife and children. In scene 6 'house' in the tag-game acquires the meaning of 'base'. In scene 7 Petr Nikolaevic describes a cottage with new attributes, such as a cockroach and mice, and again a creaking door. Death (here personified by Elizaveta Bam) has succeeded in forcing its way inside. In scene 14 we read again about the cottage, now described as a kind of ideal, fairy-like space. Here, to 'cottage' is attributed a paradisiacal connotation: a kind of self-regulating system undisturbed by human influences. At the end of scene 15, just before Petr Nikolaevic dies, he advises Elizaveta Bam to go to this same cottage where she will be safe. In scene 19 the heroine seems to reflect on the same paradisiacal connotation except for the cockroach to which now a symbol of Death is added: the axe. She gives expression to this vision after (in scene 18) the decor has been changed once again into her room, after she has refused to open and the threat to force the door open has been uttered.

The two leitmotifs are not only connected with each other because they are referred to by the same figures and because they occur in the same scenes, but also because they have a complementary meaning at a more abstract level. The second leitmotif reflects a confined, static space in which a sense of order and, apparently, of safety reigns. This illusion is repeatedly broken by the dynamic leitmotif of threat and accusation. We have already observed that a large number of scenes vary the leitmotifs, but not all the scenes. The language and the communication seem to define the nature of those remaining scenes.

Besides being enhanced by the very nature of the realistic and, in the days of Charms, very actual situation itself, the sense of realism is sharpened by the word 'realistic' in the title of scenes 1 and 18, by the compositional positions of these sections, viz. at the beginning and at the end and by the somewhat 'normal' logical-causal communication. We have already said that we find the leitmotif attributes a basis to the interaction, to which one returns again and again, regardless of one's position.

Here we encounter a formal and essential feature of the 'play', viz. the repetitiveness. We have observed the same characteristic also in those scenes in which not the leitmotif, but the language and communication establish the theme. The repetitive alternating elements of the repeated, though never substantiated threats up to scene 18, and the harmless verbal games in the course of the play, leads us to the almost logical conclusion that the very threat is a verbal game as well. The presence of scene 18, however, seems to thwart this apparent logic, as we will see later.

We have already discussed the positional, spatial limitation with the second leitmotif: this was best described with the paradox 'infinite house'. This paradox, based on the antinomy - unlimited and limited - applies to all the established constituents of 'Elizaveta Bam' so far: the captions to the scenes seem to want to break through the (limited) literary conventions in conformity with the avant-garde principles, a.o by means of the contrast with non-literary subjects (here, offering an unlimited range of possibilities) and by the principle of 'sdvig'. The identities and the relations of the figures fluctuate to such an extent that their names give the recipient little or no hold. The leitmotif of threat and accusation, which as an interactional model can also be varied (as implied by the captions) and unlimitedly repeated, is never substantiated (in fact, when it is substantiated it is in a paradoxical context of the victim being the persecutor). The same applies to the communication: the verbal games can continue forever and be varied without any consequences, as is also true for the manner in which they vary the 'normal', i.e. logical-causal communication.

Then there is the last paradox connected with the realistic first and penultimate scenes and with the in between scenes showing an absurdistic amalgam of literary traditions, figures' performances, various ways of using the language system (scenes 2-17). This paradox amounts to the question, whether the intimation is play and/or reality? There is a scene in which the play, viz. as a play-within-a-play, is over-emphasized as an intrinsic dramatic component (scene 15). Apart from the composer and the choreographer, the text-writer is also mentioned: Immanuil Krajsdajtejrik. (A name strongly reminiscent of Immanuil Kant.) Here the murder of Petr Nikolaevic by Papasa takes place. As we have mentioned before, this actual, i.e. scenically realized, murder is not followed by any accusation against Papasa. This 'action' has no consequences at all. The reason for this may be that it is only a play-within-a-play or that the figures are perhaps more susceptible to words than to actions. A third explanation may be that Papasa, as he is not a primary but a secondary participant in the dramatic-dynamic leitmotif, cannot be accused for that very reason.

Bertram Muller also talks about the play-element in 'Elizaveta Bam', but in general he only applies it to the scenes within the so-called realistic framework:

Die vergehende Zeit wird im irrationalen Kern (scenes 3-17, J.S.) von 'Elizaveta Bam' mit Gesprachen und mit Spielen ausgefiillt. (1978:87)

Subsequently he quotes one of the characteristics of play which Huizinga distinguished, viz. that in a play situation ordinary life resumes its rights. In Miiller's concept of 'Elizaveta Bam' the two framing realistic scenes are

"die von Bedrohung gekennzeichnete Wirklichkeit" and the interjacent scenes "das Spiel (...) (das, J.S) eine Ersatzwelt schafft, wobei die Wirklichkeit immer wieder durchschlagt." (Ibidem).

Actually, Muller only refers to the clownish elements "im irrationalen Kern" (viz. scene 3-18) as 'play'. A. Martini also sees in 'Elizaveta Bam' "einer auswegslosen Kreis". (1981:154)

Der Uneinheitlichkeit (der Stücke, J.S.) übergeordnet ist jedoch das vereinheit-lichende existentielle Wissen um Bedrohung, Angst und Tod, das in den beiden abschliessenden Bildern analog dem Anfang wieder konkrete und realitats-bezogene Konturen annimmt. (1981:155)

At this point we must take a critical look at the correct function of these scenes: should we consider them to be isolated from the other scenes, do they really differ from the other scenes? What argument keeps us from assuming that these two scenes are also one of the many "Spiele und Gesprache" (Muller 1978:87). As we stated above, the word 'realistic', the somewhat logical-causally realized communication and the composition are probably responsible for this interpretation of the play.

Such an interpretation is based upon the (possible) psychological effect of the entire play on the reader/spectator, an effect which is very reminiscent of the (therapeutic) methods of M. Erickson, as described by Watzlawick, viz. the Confusion and the Intersperse Techniques. These methods aim to block temporarily the critic-analytical, logic censorship of our mind (viz. the left cerebral hemisphere) in order to allow a number of factual suggestions to penetrate uncensored into the correct (i.e. right) cerebral hemisphere. This blocking of the left cerebral hemisphere is effected by means of

exceptionally complicated pseudologic explanations, (...) by means of extraordinarily profound, complicated and therefore confusing references to the most banal facts (...). This meaningless and obscure flow of words is now interspersed with a number of factual suggestions (...) from now on inaccessible for intellectualization. (1978:95/96)

It is certainly possible to interpret the play, as Martini and Muller do: the factual suggestions in 'Elizaveta Bam' are the variants of the dynamic leitmotif; death and fear as the only 'real', existential components. This means that the word "realistic" is interpreted as mimesis of the reality, but this may be in conflict with the starting-points of the OBERIU-manifest, as well as with the 'factual absurdity' in the realistic scenes.

In my opinion it is also possible to reduce the so-called 'realistic' scenes to the same denominator of 'play', thus considering 'realistic' a manner of playing, but the realistically performed play is still not reality.

Play is not the 'ordinary' or 'real' life. It is non-seriousness, but it does include seriousness. (Huizinga 1950:36)

The play and its players are, as it were, evoked by the heroine herself in the first scene. The exact rules of the play remain unclear: what is clear is that we have the dynamic leitmotif, and that the primary players are Elizaveta Bam, Ivan Ivanovic and Petr Nikolaevic. Mamasa, Papasa and Niscij are not really involved in the play, i.e. although they are tolerantly allowed to participate in the verbal and literary games, they are excluded from the varying of the two leitmotifs. The text allows this option. We have already observed this in the characterization. When in scene 3 Ivan Ivanovic performs his clownish act, Elizaveta Bam introduces Mamasa:

/kricit/ Mama! Pojdi sjuda. Fokusniki priechali. Sejcas pridet mama... Pozna-kom'tes' Petr Nikolaevic, Ivan Ivanovic. Vy cto-nibud' nam pokazite. (177) [/shouts/ Mother! Come here. Magicians arrived. Mama will come right away... Meet Petr Nikolaevic, Ivan Ivanovic. Show us something.]

However, 'mama' does not come at all, she is as absent as before. So, the introduction is only verbally realised, it is 'a game'. When Mamasa and, later, Papasa enter they do so without any greeting or ceremony and merely function as spectators: they sit down and stare. This may indicate that they are representatives of the. world outside the play which, on the one hand, explains their considerable uninvolvement but on the other hand, shows their possibility to intervene at will. The idea that intervention implies intention should not be considered here. The mere appearance of somebody other than the primary players may give the play an unexpected turn. Cf. Niscij in scene 6.²⁰ And also the intervention of Papasa, who suddenly constitutes himself the helper of Elizaveta Bam. Thus the construction 'play-within-a play' seems to have been applied to allow Papasa to play his part. Mamasa's intervention in scene 17 can be similarly explained. In scene 16 it was already obvious that Elizaveta Bam no longer felt like playing games. This may be a clue that the first sequence of the play is finished. When Mamasa repeats her accusation against Elizaveta Bam, we may consider her involvement in the 'play' as follows: 1) She is a spoil-sport, who, against the rules, needlessly varies the beginning, although the play has already come to an end. (Almost immediately after this, both Mamasa and Papasa 'disappear' into the side-scenes.) In my opinion, the initial situation is more or less repeated in scene 18 to allow the other and final possibility of the play to be played, viz. that of 'the accused resigns himself, with which the play comes to a natural end.

Therefore, in my view the scenes 1 and 18 do not constitute a 'frame', they are rather two identical situations, each with a different outcome, i.e. play-variants. In the first sequence (1-17) the accusation does not appear to be substantiated, in the second sequence (18-19) it is substantiated.

1. Mamasa is allowed to play, and merely due to the repetition, viz. the noteable third and for this sequence last accusation of Elizaveta Bam, we arrive at the natural repetition of the initial situation in which the above-mentioned play-variant is applied.

3. As a representative of the outside world, Mamasa 'really' confirms the accusation. In this case, there is an existential dimension to scene 18, viz. what started as a game has suddenly become very realistic: the heroine is actually arrested. Yet this latter interpretation is subject to criticism, as we may say that in scene 18 we are dealing with a 'factual absurdity' (viz. the accusation of murder by the resurrected victim), thus eliminating the objective judgement of the outside world in scenes 18 and 19. Again, an unsolvable paradox.

If we over-emphasize the 'realistic' framework, we may run the risk of neglecting a substantial number of important aspects within the interjacent scenes, in particular the element of 'play'. However, if we take the 'play' as our starting-point, then nothing will be neglected. Even the element of 'reality' will not be affected. On the contrary, it is the triumphant, insolvable paradox which, as it were, covers all the other paradoxes which have been discussed. We approach the boundaries of our rational capacity.

Whether 'Elizaveta Bam' is looked upon as reality or play, in both cases the existential factor plays an important role. After all, the existence and function of aesthetic norms and systems are not questioned in the avant-garde. On the contrary, this is the implicit axiom which grants the avant-garde the right to exist. The extensive use of different, contrasting known and unknown literary, dramatic, theatrical and also non-artistic codes by the figures acquires an existential dimension: as long as we can play games on the basis of both old and newly-invented codes, our downfall can be postponed. This 'playing with' and this 'breaking through' of the genres appears to become existence itself: as long as we play, or rather talk, and our talking appears to be a game, we will not cease to exist. Thus the aesthetic (whichever this may be) has acquired an existential dimension.

'Elizaveta Bam' finds itself continuously balancing on the borderline between logic and paradox. I hope that the analysis of all the elements discussed has permitted an insight into these paradoxes and into the complexity of 'Elizaveta Bam'.

References

Amal'rik A.

1970 P'esy. Fond imeni Gercena. Amsterdam.

Auzinger H.

1960 "Cechov und die Kunst des-nicht-zu-Ende-Sprechens", in: Die Welt der Slaven, 5, 233-244.

Baluchatyj S.

1926 Ètjudy po istorii teksta i kompozicii cechovskich p'es. Leningrad.

1927 "K poètike melodramy", in: Poètika III. Leningrad.

1969 Problemy dramaturgiceskogo analiza Öechov. W. Fink Verlag. München. Nachdruck der Ausgabe Leningrad 1927.

Bandier R. / J. Grinder

1975 The structure of Magic. A book about language and therapy. Science and Behavior Books. Palo Alto.

1976 The Structure of Magic II. A Book about Communication and Change. Science and Behavior Books. Palo Alto.

Beck G.

1980 Sprechakte und Sprachfunktionen. Niemeyer. Tubingen. Belyj A._v

1968 "Cechov", in: Vesy 8. 1904. Kraus Reprint. Liechtenstein. Tom 1. Berdnikov G.

1967 "Ivanov, an analysis", in: Chekhov. A Collection of critical essays. Engle-wood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Bitsilli P. M.

1983 Chekhov's art. A stylistic analysis. Ardis. Ann Arbor. Blok A.

1981 Sobranie socinenij v sesti tomach. Chudozestvennaja literature. Leningrad.

"Bochumer Diskussion"

1976 in: Poëtica, Bd. 8. Heft 3-4. p. 321-451.

Brauneck M.

1986 Theater im 20. Jahrhunderl. Programm-schrifte, Stilperioden, Reformmodelle. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. Reinbeck bei Hamburg.

Brémond С.

1973 "Die Erzahlnachricht", in: Literaturwissenschafi und Linguistik, Bd. Ill: 177-217. ed.: J. Ihwe. Athenaum. Frankfurt am Main-

Charms D.

1974 Izbrannoe. Würzburg.

1978 Sobranie soëinenij. Tom I, 2, 3. K-Presse. Bremen.

1988 Polet v nebesa. Stichi. Proza. Dramy. Pis'ma. (Vved.: A. Aleksandrov.) Sovetskij Pisatel'. Leningrad.

Chances E.

1982 "Cechov and Xarms: Story/Antistory", in: Russian Language Journal, Winter-Spring. Vol. XXXVII.

Cheron G.

1983 "Michail Kuzmin and the Oberiuty: an Overview", in: Wiener Slaw. Alma-nach 12. Bnd.

Cechov A.P.

1978 Polnoe sobranie socinenij i pisem v tridcati tomach- Izd. Nauka. Moskva. Cudakov A.P.

1971 Poètika Cechova. Izd. Nauka. Moskva. Dfvis K.

1983 Kommunikative Strukturen im tschechischen Drama der 60er Jahre. Verlag Peter Lang. Bern.

Dlugosch I.

1977 Anton Pavlovié Öechov und das Theater des Absurden. W. Fink Verlag. München.

Dolezel L.

1976 "Narrative Semantics", in: PTL I, 129-151.

Drama und Theater

1991 Theorie - Methode - Geschichte. (Hrsg. Herta Schmid und H. Krai.) Verlag Otto Sagner. Munchen.

Drijkoningen F.

1978 "Problemen rondom de Avant-Garde", in: Avant-Garde en traditie in het moderne toneel. Coutinho. Muiderberg.

Druskin Ja. S.

1985 "Cinari" and "Stadii ponimanija", in: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach Band 15, p. 381-403 and p. 405-413.

Elam K.

1980 Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. Methuen. London. New York. Eng J. van der

1984 "Asthetische Dominante und Fiktionalisierung Wahrheitsanspruch und Inten-sivierung der Information Autor und Leser", in: Text, Symbol, Weltmodell. Verlag Otto Sagner. München.

Erler G. R. Grübel, К. Manicke-Gyöngyösi, P. Scherber (eds.)

1979 Von der Revolution zum Schriftstellerkongress. Entwicklungsstrukturen und Funktionsbestimmungen der russischenLiteratur und Kultur zwischen 1917 und 1934. Wiesbaden.

Ermilov V.

1951 A. P. Cechov. Dramaturgija Cechova. Sovetskij pisatel'. Moskva. Esslin M.

1980 The Tlieatre of the Absurd. Revised and enlarged edition. Penguin Books Ltd. Harmondsworth.

Ètkind E.

1986 "Zabolockij i Chlebnikov", in: Velimir Chlebnikov (1885-1922): Myth and Reality, p. 543-569. Rodopi. Amsterdam.

Fauconnier G.

1986 Algemene communicatie theorie. Martinus Nijhoff Leiden. Flaker A.

1979 "Das Problem der Russischen Avantgarde", in: Von der Revolution bis zum Schriftstellerkongress. Hrsg.: G.Erler,R. Grübel, K. Manicke-Gyöngyösi, P. Scherber. Berlin.

Gibian G.

1971 Russia's lost literature of the Absurd. Ithaca.

Gor'kij M.

1967 "Fragments of Reminiscences", in: Chekhov. A collection of critical essays, p. 195-205. Ed. R.L. Jackson. Englewood Cliffs, New lersey.

Grebenckova R.

1984 "Zu zwei Cechov-Stücken", in: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Bd. 14 Haley J.

1973 Uncommon Therapy: the psychiatric techniques of M.H. Erickson. M.D. W.W. Norton and Company. New York.

Hoenderdos Т.

1986 Van Communicatie naar Hypnose. Zwaag. Honzl J.

1976 "Dynamics of the Sign in the Theater", in: Semiotics of Art. Eds. L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik. The MIT Press. Cambridge, London.

Huizinga J.

1950 "Homo ludens", in: Verzamelde Werken, deel 5, p. 26-246. Tjeenk Willink. Haarlem.

Jachnow H.

1982 "Zum Metasprachlichen in der Objektsprache", in: Kodikas/Code Vol. 4/5. No. 2. Günther Narr Verlag. Tubingen.

Jakobson R.

1979 Poetik. Ausgewahlte Aufsatze 1921-1971. Suhrkamp. Frankfurt am Main. Jansen S.

1973 "Entwurf einer theorie der dramatischen Form", in: Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik. Bd. III. Hrsg.: J. Ihwe. Frankfurt am Main.

Kandinskij V.

1947 Concerning the Spiritual in Art. Dover Publ. Inc. New York. Kasack W.

1976 "Daniil Charms. Absurde Kunst in der Sowjetunion", in: Die Welt der Slaven Jhrg. XXI, Heft 2, p.70-80.

Kaverin V.

1973 Sobesednik. Moskva.

Resteren A. van & H. Schmid (eds.)

1975 Moderne Dramentheorie. Scriptor Verlag GmbH. Kronberg Ts.

1984 Semiotics of Drama and Theatre. New Perspectives in the Theory of Drama and Theatre. J. Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam.

Resting M.

1959 Das epische Theater. W. Rohlhammer Verlag. Berlin.

1976a "Maeterlinck und Artaud. Über die Beziehungen zwischen Symbolismus und Surrealismus", in: Forum Modernes Tlieater Bd.l, Günther Narr Verlag.

1976b "Handlung - Behavior - Reflexion und ihr Echo im modernen Drama", in: Poëtica, 8. Bd. heft 3-4.

Roschmal W.

1983 Das poëtische System der Dramen 1. S. Turgenevs. Studiën zu einer pragma-tischen Dramenanatyse. Verlag Otto Sagner. München.

Rrömer W.

1976 Die Italienische Kommedia dell'Arte. Darmstadt. Ruiper P.C.

1977 Neurosenleer. Van Loghum Slaterus. Deventer. Laing R.

1969 Self and Others. Tavistock Publications Ltd. London.

1970 Knots. Pantheon Books. New York.

Lausberg H.

1973 Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. München. Lotman Ju.

1971 Struktura chudoiestvennogo teksta. Brown University Press. Providence. 1977 The Structure of the Artistic Text. Ann Arbor.

Maeterlinck M.

1980 Oeuvres. Editions Jacques Antoine.

Martini A.

1981 "Retheatralisierung des Theaters: D. Charms' 'Elizaveta Bam'", in: Zeitschrift filr Slawische Philologie, 42, 1, p. 146-166.

1984 "The Syncretism of Dramatic Structure and the Failure of L.N. Andreev's Dramas", in: Theater and Literature in Russia 1900-1930. Eds: L. Rleberg and N.A. Nilsson. Stockholm.

Masbic-Verov I.

1969 Russkij Simvolizm i Put'Aleksandra Bloka. Rujbysev. Masing-Delic I.

1973 "The Mask Motif in A. Blok's Poetry", in: Russian Literature 5: 79-101.

Medvedev P.

1928 Dramy i Poemy A. Bloka. (Ich istorii ich sozdanija.) Leningrad.

Merezskovskij D.

1968 "O Cechove", in: Vesy, no.ll. Rraus reprint. Tom 2. Liechtenstein.

Mejerchol'd Vs.

1967 "Naturalistic Theater and Theater of Mood", in: Chekhov. A Collection of critical essays. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

1969 Meyerhold on Theatre. Ed. Edward Braun. New York.

Milner-Gulland R.

1984 '"Kovarnye stikhi': Notes on Daniil Kharms and Aleksandr Vvedensky", in: Essays in Poetics, 9.1.

Mukarovsky J.

1977 Tlie Word and Verbal Art. Yale Univ. Press New Haven and London.

Muller В.

1978 Absurde Literatur in Rusland. Enlstehung und Entwicklung. Diss. Röln.

Nakhimovsky A.S.

1982 Laughter in the Void. An Introduction to the writings of Daniil Kharms and Alexander Vvedensky. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. Sonderband 5. Wien.

Nilsson N.A.

1967 "Intonation and Rhythm in Chekhov's Plays", in: Chekhov. A collection of critical Essays, p. 161-174. Ed.: R.L. Jackson. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Oomkes F.R.

1986 Communicatieleer. Boom. Meppel.

Papernyj Z.

1982 'Vopreki vsempravilam... ' P"esy i vodevili Cechova. Iskusstvo. Moskva.

Peters J.

1981 Farbe und Licht. Sagner. Munchen.

Pfister M.

1977 Das Drama. Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Munchen.

Platz-Waury E.

1980 Drama und Theater. Eine Einfiihrung. Günther Narr Verlag. Tubingen.

Propp V.Ja.

1969 Morfologija skazki. izd. 2-е. Nauka. Moskva.

Remmerswaal J.

1982 Groepsdynamika I, Inleiding. Groepsdynamika II, Kommunikatie.

Groepsdynamika III, Groepsontwikkeling. H. Nelissen Baarn.

Revzina O.I Revzin I.I.

1975 "A semiotic experiment on stage: the violation of the postulate of normal communication as a dramatic device", in: Semiotica, 14.

Roskin A.

1950 A. P. Cechov. Stat'i i ocerki. Moskva. Schmid H.

1973 Strukturalistische Dramentheorie. Scriptor Verlag. Kronberg Ts.

1975 "Entwicklungssschritte zu einer modernen Dramentheorie im Russischen Formalismus und im Tschechischen Strukturalismus", in: Moderne Dramentheorie. Scriptor Verlag. Kronberg.

1976 "1st die Handlung die Konstruktionsdominante des Dramas?", in: Poëtica 8. Band. Heft 2. Verlag. B.R. Gruner. Amsterdam.

1978 "Zur descriptiven dramatischen Poetik", in: On the theory of descriptive poetics: Anton P. Chekhov as story-teller and playwright. The Peter de Ridder Press. Lisse.

1984 "Cechov's Drama and Stanislavsky's and Mejerchol'd's Theories of Theater", in: Theater and Literature in Russia 1900-1930. Eds.: L. Kleberg & N.A. Nilsson.

Schmid W.

1973 Der Textaujbau in den Erzahlungen Dostoevskijs. Munchen. Sherzer D.

1973 "Dialogic Incongruities in the Theatre of the Absurd", in: Semiotica 22, 3-4, p. 269-285.

Skaftymov A.

1967 "Principles of structure in Chekhov's Plays", in: Chekhov. A collection of critical essays. Ed.: R.L. Jackson. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

1972 "K voprosu о principach postroenija p'es A.P. Cechova" and "P'esa Cechova 'Ivanov' v rannich redakcijach", in: Nravstvennye iskanija russkichpisatelej. Izdatel'stvo 'chudozestvennaja literature'. Moskva.

Stanislavskij K.S.

1980 My life in art. Methuen. London. Stelleman J.M.

1985 "An Analysis of 'Elizaveta Bam'", in: Russian Literature XVII, p. 319-352.

1989a "Innovative use of commedia deH'arte-elements in A. Blok's 'The Fairground Booth'", in: Convention and Innovation in Literature. Eds.: T. D'haen, R. Grübel and H. Lethen. John Benjamin's Publishing Company. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

1989b "The Configuration in A. Blok's 'Korol' na Ploscadi'", in: Festschrift fur Herta Schmid. Amsterdam.

1991a "The Role of Metalanguage in Action and Discourse in Chekhov's 'Ivanov' and 'Three Sisters'", in: Drama und Tlieater. (Theorie, Methode, Geschichte) Hrsg. Herta Schmid und H. Krai. Verlag Otto Sagner. Munchen.

1991b "The Transitional Position of 'Elisaveta Bam' between Avant-Garde and Neo-Avant-Garde", in: Avant Garde, 5/6, p. 207-229.

Stender-Petersen A.

1960 "Zur Technik der Pause bei Cechov", in: A.P. Cechov 1860-1960. Ed. T. Eekman.

Stroeva M.N.

1967 "The Three Sisters in the Production of the Moscow Art Theater", in: Chekhov. A Collection of critical essays, p. 121-135. Ed. R. L. Jackson. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Szondi P.

1959 Theorie des modernen Dramas. Suhrkamp Verlag. Frankfurt am Main.

Veltrusky J.

1977 Drama as Literature. The Peter de Ridder Press. Lisse. Vvedenskij A.

1980 Pol'noe sobranie soiinenij. Tom 1.

1984 Pol'noe sobranie socinenij. Tom 2. Ann Arbor.

Vygotsky L.S.

1987 Mind in Society. Eds. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman. Harvard Univ. Press. London/Cambridge.

Watzlawick P., J. Beavin Bavelas & Don J. Jackson

1967 Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York. London.

Watzlawick P., J.H. Weakland (eds.)

1977 The interactional View. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, New York. Watzlawick P.

1973 Change: Principles osf Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. Palo Alto.

1976 How real is 'real'? Palo Alto.

1978 The Language of Change. Palo Alto.

Amsterdam International Electronic Journal for Cultural Narratology (AJCN)

Aspects of dramatic communication: action, non-action, interaction^[1]

Jenny Stelleman

References

NOTES

Amsterdam International Electronic Journal for Cultural Narratology (AJCN)

Aspects of dramatic communication: action, non-action, interaction[1]

Jenny Stelleman

References

NOTES

Aspects of dramatic communication: action, non-action, interaction^[1]