Adoption in Endgame

Adoption in Endgame PAUL LAWLEY The terminal world of Beckett's Endgame , with its "corpsed'" aspect outside the stage-refuge and its barbed play inside, sustains life solely, it seems, by reason of its ruler's procrastination. "Enough, it's time it ended, in the refuge too," proclaims Harnm at the outset. "And yet I hesitate, I hesitate to . .. to end" (p. 93). His hesitation is a problem not least because of"that hatred of nature as process (birth and copulation and death) which runs through the whole play.,,2 For if Harnm's hesitation necessitates a prolongation of life in the refuge, the processes of nature, in one form or another, are surely unavoidable. There is one course of action open to Hamm which offers perpetuation of life without direct involvement in the processes of nature: adoption. Indeed, this seems to be a vital means of continuation for the (now) refuge-dynasty. The legless, ashbin-bound Nagg and Nell are the biological parents of Hamm, but Hamm's central narrative, referred to by him as his "chronicle" (p. 121) though presented as a fiction, provides a possible version of the adoption of Clov, Harnm's present servant and "son.,,' The crucial question towards the end of the play surrounds the possible adoption of a small boy reported by Clov to be still alive outside the refuge. In view of these instances, one is not surprised that, according to S.E. Gontarski, a note written as Beckett was embarking on a two-act holograph of the play "suggests that [Hamm'sl father and son are adopted; that is, Nagg too may have been someone taken into the shelter as a servant: •A un pere adoptifI un fils adoptif. ,,,4 Thus although three generations are represented on the stage, we cannot be sure, despite what is said, that the characters constitute a genetic line. The connection between adoption and servanthood is an important one. Hamm sees all relationships, whether with his "son" or with his toy dog (these two are associated more than once5 ), with his retainers or with his "bottled" 530 PAUL LAWLEY father, in terms of dominance and servitude. Upon an adopted son he can bring to bear a pressure of obligation: HAMM ... It was I was a father to you. CLOY Yes. (He looks at HAMMfuedly.) You were that to me. HAMM My house a home for you. CLOY Yes. (He looks about him.) This was that for me. HAMM (Proudly.) But for me (gesture towards himself) no father. But for Hamm (gesture towards surroundings) no home. (pp. 110- I I) The adopted child is expected to feel he owes a debt because he was chosen. The trouble with biological parenthood, as one of the play's funnniest exchanges suggests, is that you can't choose: HAMM Scoundrel! Why did you engender me? NAGG I didn'( know. HAMM What? What didn't you know? NAGG That it'd be you. (p. 1I6) Hamm's experience in his relationship with Clov has been one of dominance and control, as much now (at least on the face of it) as in the scenario of choice so lovingly fictionalized in the chronicle. In contrast Nagg has always been a subject of his son. In his toothless second childhood, the immobile papa calls out to his own child for "me pap!" (p. 96), and, having been tricked into listening to Hamm's chronicle by the promise of a non-existent sugar-plum, he presents a rich counterpoint to his current situation in his "curse." The counterpoint suggests that Hamm has retained power over his father not by growing into an independent adult but by remaining a dependent son: Whom did you call when you were atiny boy. and were frightened, in the dark? Your mother? No. Me. We let you cry.Then we moved you OUl ofearshot, so that we might sleep in peace. (Pause.) Iwas asleep, as happy as aking, and you woke me up to have me listen to you. It wasn't indispensable, you didn't really need to have me listen to you. Besides I didn't listen to you. (Pause.) I hope the day will come when...