費倫茨·莫爾納

在 20 世紀上半葉，匈牙利劇作家費倫茨·莫爾納（1878-1952）以其作品《莉莉奧姆》（1909 年）和《衛兵》（1924 年）光榮地代表著東歐戲劇。

"The life, death, and something of the after-life of the rough, or rough-neck, Liliom, is shown us- Liliom the barker and ballyhoo artist for a merry-go-round in an amusement park at Budapest. He is a citizen from the fringe of the criminal world with a personality powerfully attractive to simple-minded servant girls. Many of the young women come to ride on the merry- go-round and Liliom pockets their hearts and savings with equal impartiality. As an artist- the best barker in Budapest- he regards himself as a privileged character, and accepts his privileges as a matter of course" (Crawford, 1921 p 308). The play concerns a "tale of an amusement-park barker and bouncer who mistreats his wife, who idles while she works, and who tries to rob a cashier when he needs money for the baby she is expecting is a tragi-comic tribute to the nobility that exists in everybody. Behind Liliom’s worthless behavior and loafer’s bravura hides an affectionate human being; the trouble is only that his good angel is gauche and inarticulate. He is destined to repeat the pattern of his life even in his ghostly existence after he has stabbed himself to avoid arrest for the intended robbery. From the early scenes which bear the stamp of the naturalist school the scene shifts to the only kind of heaven that Liliom could have imagined- a celestial police court. Fifteen years later he is paroled for a day to visit his family, and to redeem himself by a good deed. But Liliom, the useless 'lily', is unchanged. Eager to bring his daughter a gift, he can think of nothing better than to steal a star for her during his descent. Hungering for affection in his gruff way, he slaps her when she shrinks from him, and the Heavenly Police, shaking their heads deploringly, take him back as a hopeless case. But his inchoate love remains a fact that his simple wife- and perhaps heaven, too!- understands fully" (Gassner, 1954a pp 479-480). The “richness of meaning is brought into relief by the quick, subtle gradations from realism to fancy. Almost every scene begins with the disarming simplicity of casual realism and grows, sometimes swiftly, sometimes leisurely, into romance or fantasy, a metaphysical heaven, or a whimsical reincarnation. Thus we have in the first scene a sordid quarrel among uncouth characters leading slowly into the romance of Juli and Liliom, as they rise out of themselves to accept their love. In the second scene, the squalor of drab domesticity is swept clean by the spontaneous, primitively noble cry of Liliom, ‘I'm to be a father.’ In the fifth scene, the few simple details of the delivery of the wounded Liliom to Juli rapidly give place to his pathetic last words, as dying he seems to express what living he could not—and the scene ends still another level removed from the realistic when two heavenly policemen take the dead Liliom away. Most striking of all, in scene seven, into the midst of the prosaically well-ordered life of Juli and her now sixteen-year-old daughter comes Liliom, neither as a ghost nor as himself, but as a beggar, whom Juli does not recognize, not objectively, yet she is touched somehow, supernaturallv, by the same sympathetic chord that brought them together when he was alive. Of such juxtaposition of realism and fantasy in the same scene, the best example is the embankment episode. Liliom and Ficsur await the coming of the cashier. As they rehearse the holdup, Liliom remarks with childlike naivete on the romance of the unending railroad tracks, of the power in the locomotive, of the secret conversations in the telephone wires, of the little bird that looks at him. Here, as elsewhere, the effect is gained by the contrast not only of situation but of the two natures within Liliom himself. The result of such interplay of realism and fancy is a continual titillation of the senses. One is never left on a dead level of the prosaic, yet every flight of fancy is established by the speech and action of real, plain, folk characters” (Gergerly, 1947 p 25). “The tone of harsh laughter that pervades this play is the work of a dramatist who knows his business every inch of the way. Liliom is one of those characters who stand for a universal human trait. And a human trait was never presented in a more engaging manner than in Molnar’s play” (Moderwell, 1972 p 236). "Molnar, like Gerhardt Hauptmann in some of his plays, fused naturalistic and romantic elements into the construction and psychology of 'Liliom', which seems like a conspiracy between ingenuity and poetry. Many were unprepared for this kind of a theatrical experience. To dramatize is to externalize, but not at the expense of the internal perspective of a conflict. Underneath Molnar's sentiments there is sentimentality; his 'transcendental' imagination has nothing to do with the naivete of an angelic spirit. His wisdom is not that of a childlike poet, but of a charitable cleverness participating in the plight of mortality and hopes of eternity” (Remenyi, 1946 p 1195). "Poor Liliom, barker for a merry-go-round in an amusement park, what is he but once more the eternal outcast, wanderer, unquiet one? He hasn't been taught a trade; he can't settle down as a care-taker; he isn't canny like the excellent Berkowitz. But he loves Julie. She weeps over his worthlessness and he strikes her out of misery, to flee from self-abasement, to preserve some sort of superiority and so some liking for himself. She is to have a child and something cosmic and elemental tugs at the bully's heart. Are love and fatherhood only for the canny ones, the treaders in the mill, the hewers of wood? This is the conflict that destroys him. He is, viewed in another fashion, Everyman, and the little play, which has its shoddy, sentimental patches, is a sort of gay and rough and pitiful divine comedy. Liliom did not ask to be born with those imperious instincts into a tight, legalized, moral world. Society demands so much of him and gives him nothing wherewith to fulfil those demands. The world process has not even given him brains enough to think himself beyond demands and restrictions. He struggles with his body and nerves. His mind is docile. He believes that he is a sinner, he doesn't doubt that there are police courts in heaven as there are on earth, that there are cleansing, purgatorial fires, and a last chance, maybe, to be good. But neither the fires of hell nor his belief in them have power to change the essential character with which the implacable universe brought him forth. His notion of an expiatory action is to steal a star from the sky for his little daughter. He is Liliom still, and the joke is on the order with which man has sought to snare the wild cosmos. The joke is on a man-made world and a man-made heaven, because both that world and that heaven have used force. The joke is not on Julie. Julie has used love. 'There are blows that don't hurt; oh, yes, there are blows that you don't feel.' Love does not feel the blows. Love does not demand nor coerce nor imprison. Paradise is in the heart of love. For the sake of that ending you forgive Molnar the shoddy, sentimental little patches, for the sake of that moment which is beautiful, which is indeed great" (Lewisohn, 1922 pp 68-69). “Liliom is the modern anti-hero, shiftless, arrogant, vain, stupid, and cruel. But there is a touch of the lover and poet in his proud, contradictory personality. He beats Julie on the face, arms, and breasts and refuses to go to work. Yet he is fiercely loyal to her and will not return to Mrs Muskat’s employ if he must desert her. He is a bully and a criminal, yet the sounds of the amusement park, with their suggestion of imaginative fantasy, gaiety, gentle fun, art, and artifice, provide a leitmotif that enthralls him. He refuses to settle in a mundane domestic existence and accept the stifling job of caretaker to support Julie and his new child. This pride and independence are both laudable and selfish...His natural instincts about fatherhood are those of pride, tenderness, and hope, yet he realizes that that he will become irrevocably tied to a materialistic, conventional, and demanding world. He insists that he will never become a caretaker and settle down in domestic squalor, but his desperate need to avoid the confinements of society turn him into an outlaw” (Grace, 1973 pp 262-263). “There is something about Liliom that commands admiration. He is a great lover. Apparently his conquests have been notorious for some time. But when he meets Julie, the modest servant girl, he gives her all his heart and makes her supremely happy. Although neither one of them has much gift of speech, their devotion is mutually overwhelming; and when Liliom finds out that he is become a father, his joy is ecstatic. Society and ultimately God are compelled to look with disapproval on his repeated delinquencies. But all the mean and cruel things spring from his love for Julie. He beats her because he cannot bear to see her suffering, the beating being a bully’s cry of helplessness...It is greatly to Molnar’s credit that he could imagine such a dynamic character and carry him through such homely and trifling crises” (Atkinson, 1947 p 157). "A little of Marie's spirit would have accomplished more than all of Julie's spirituality in handling Liliom. Her combativeness was a language he understood. Julie's habit of turning the other cheek increased his fury, patience being no virtue but a weakness in his eyes. She even contributed to his delinquency according to the popular theory that the other person is guilty if he hits you once, but you are to blame if he hits you twice. When Liliom struck Julie it lessened his self-respect (since there is honor, why not self-respect, among thieves?) and this reacted in another blow. Her silent presence accused him. He could not bear her stricken look" (Battey, 1921 p 8). The play “is not only a brilliant examination of the insoluble problem of who is worthy of redemption but also a study of compassion and suffering, a thorough analysis of the relation of the created character to his family, society...Though he has few redeeming qualities, [Liliom] elicits admiration. He refuses to obey society’s laws and vehemently rejects ordinary responsibility...Julie...emerges as the eternal female ideal. She loves unselfishly, with undemanding devotion and endurance, with almost supernatural insight and common sense, she grasps the realities of life and the true nature of her man. Demonstrating the finest ideals of love and wifehood, this simple woman guides their married life with primordial intuition and wins Liliom from the crafty Mrs Muskat. She is taciturn and inarticulate, but her farewell speech to her husband, inevitably a soliloquy, is genuinely moving and poetic. Her character develops before us; through her love, the ignorant, passive Julie metamorphoses into an epitome of wise womanhood. She learns all that can be learned of the cruelty and beauty of life. Instead of marrying her suitor, a well-to-do, reliable carpenter with whom she could enjoy comfort and stability, she remains faithful to Liliom’s memory and brings up her daughter alone, working in a factory… structure, though loose, is crafted with boundless inventiveness, energy, and flowing suggestiveness...The style is...eclectic, highly poetic, symbolic, colloquial, grotesque, as well as sentimental, changing swiftly from episode to episode. The dialogue is pungent with idioms and the racy folksiness of the contemporary social classes it represents. The warm emotional tone is interrupted with pathos, delicate irony, and rhapsodic passion” (Györgyey, 1980 pp 151-154). “The dualistic hero is...a maladjusted creature who ends up doing the wrong things in spite of all his good intentions...Julie, the fragile, shy, uneducated peasant girl...through her unswerving love and blind loyalty to Liliom...becomes the epitome of saintly womanhood” (Györgyey, 1986 p 1345). But many audience members are liable to resent that epitome.

“《衛兵》是一部辛辣、輕浮的喜劇，是對嫉妒的讚頌，展現了一個男人因為覺得自己沒有得到愛，而需要偽裝成他認為妻子想要的樣子。因為他不僅想要證明自己是一個男人，還想展示自己的演技，所以他無論如何都要把自己困在妥協中。評論家警告他：“這看起來不太好，我的朋友，她愛上了你作為衛兵的樣子。你控制不住自己，你會勾引你自己的妻子”。而他幾乎做到了。只是妻子也在偽裝，假裝不知道衛兵的身份，只是在最後揭示她對衛兵的反應也是在演戲，以證明自己作為一名演員的價值。因此，演員的自我揭露被妻子的偽裝所否定。莫爾納在皮蘭德羅之前就對比了相對真理和絕對真理。他不只是處理謊言；他處理的是人們相信的真理的幻象……風格優雅而詩意。莫爾納非常輕鬆地丟擲了這個薄弱且難以置信的故事。充滿諷刺的陰謀氣氛使這部戲具有都市化的精緻。即使在散佈莫爾納哲學時，對話也快節奏，充滿了熱情的活力”（吉爾吉，1980 年，第 94-96 頁）。最後，“她聲稱她從一開始就認出了他，只是演了自己的角色。因此，他必須在作為演員的職業自豪感的傷害和對妻子的信任的喪失之間做出選擇。他內心的丈夫贏了，他相信了她。但這部戲以懷疑的音符結尾，帶著一絲憤世嫉俗”（格格利，1947 年，第 49 頁）。

"莉莉奧姆"

時間：1900 年代。地點：匈牙利布達佩斯。

文字在 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48749 http://www.archive.org/details/liliomlegendinse00molnuoft https://archive.org/details/liliomalegendin00molngoog https://archive.org/details/twentyfivemodern001705mbp https://archive.org/details/theatreguildanth00thea

遊樂園老闆穆斯卡特夫人發現茱莉和她的一個員工調情，這個員工負責旋轉木馬，名叫莉莉奧姆。她警告茱莉不要再回來。茱莉否認自己做錯了什麼，因為莉莉奧姆習慣抓住很多女孩的腰，並奉承她們。她的朋友瑪麗為她辯護。當莉莉奧姆聽到她們的爭吵時，他感到生氣。“我想我每次碰另一個女孩都要徵求你的同意嗎？”他諷刺地對老闆說。“我不允許在我的旋轉木馬上出現任何不雅行為，”她反駁道。但莉莉奧姆無視她。他們爭吵不休，直到她解僱了他。茱莉對事態的進展感到沮喪。莉莉奧姆打算去取回他的衣服，他讓茱莉和瑪麗等他。“你為什麼要等他？”瑪麗問她的朋友。“他說讓我們等他，”茱莉簡單地回答。當莉莉奧姆回來時，他說明了他說的話。“我的意思是你們中的一人要等。”茱莉和瑪麗互相看著對方，最後瑪麗走了。莉莉奧姆和茱莉的談話被兩個警察打斷，其中一個警告茱莉，莉莉奧姆有利用女性並捲走她們錢財的習慣。當莉莉奧姆問她是否害怕警官說的話時，她回答：“我沒在意他說的話。”“假設你有一些錢，我把錢從你手裡拿走了呢？”莉莉奧姆又問道。“那你就拿走吧，就這樣，”她回答。幾周後，莉莉奧姆和茱莉結婚，住在一個破舊的棚屋裡，棚屋的主人是霍倫德太太，她抱怨這個懶惰、無能的男人，沒有工作，沒有前途，並且可能為了自己的目的而拿走妻子的錢。茱莉為他辯護，雖然她承認瑪麗他打過她一次。“他不是好人，”瑪麗評論道。“他其實不壞，”茱莉回答。因為她自己吃了虧，所以霍倫德太太意識到莉莉奧姆在旋轉木馬上的價值，她要求他回來，並規定他必須拋棄妻子，因為已婚男人不會像在那裡那樣受到女性的歡迎。莉莉奧姆接受了提議，但是，當他得知妻子懷孕後，他希望透過其他手段獲得更大的利益。事實上，他和一個朋友菲克蘇爾計劃去搶劫。菲克蘇爾建議他應該帶一把刀。茱莉懷疑莉莉奧姆和菲克蘇爾在搞鬼。當她得知霍倫德太太廚房裡少了一把刀時，她感到害怕。莉莉奧姆和菲克蘇爾等待著傳聞中攜帶 16000 克朗鉅款的出納員的到來。為了消磨時間，他們玩牌，莉莉奧姆輸掉了自己那份贓款。在被兩個想搶劫的人襲擊後，出納員巧妙地抓住菲克蘇爾的手臂，把槍指著莉莉奧姆，嘲笑他們襲擊一個沒有帶錢的人。當警察走近時，菲克蘇爾掙脫了束縛，兩人都試圖逃跑。出納員瞄準了莉莉奧姆，因為他是更好的目標。莉莉奧姆害怕坐牢，於是把刀插進自己的胸膛，倒在了地上。在他臨死前，他承認自己從未給過茱莉任何積極的東西，並要求她告訴他們的孩子，他沒什麼用。在他死後，兩個穿黑衣的男人向他介紹自己是天堂的警察，命令他站起來，跟隨他們去見法官，法官審問他後宣佈，他將被燒死 16 年，在這 16 年結束後，他的未來將取決於他在回到地球的一天內是否能做至少一件好事。在 16 年期限結束時，莉莉奧姆以乞丐的身份出現在茱莉和他們的女兒路易絲面前。他試圖和她們說話，但她們沒有給他多少表達的機會。他也試圖做至少一件好事，但他無法做到。兩個警察在帶走他時訓斥了他，但茱莉仍然繼續對女兒說他的好話。“有人可能會打你、打你、打你，但卻一點也不疼，”她總結道。

“衛兵”

時間：1900 年代。地點：匈牙利布達佩斯。

文字在？

一名演員擔心他同為演員的妻子瑪麗不再愛他。他推測她將來可能會愛上一個士兵，於是他喬裝打扮成俄國帝國衛隊的將軍，讓她認識自己，並定期給她送花。有一天，他承諾如果她在他窗戶上給他一個訊號，他就會去看她。她照做了，他進去了，她自己的丈夫偽裝成情人。在禮貌的交談中，他們同意在普契尼的《蝴蝶夫人》演出期間在歌劇院的前廳見面，在那裡衛兵承認他愛上了她。令他高興的是，她明確表示她永遠不會欺騙她的丈夫。然而，當他問她是否允許他第二天去她的客廳時，她同意了。第二天，演員假裝僱了一名間諜，看到她在歌劇院和一名士兵在一起。她否認了，並提出因為懷疑她而離婚。他否認懷疑她。當他們談論一位同行演員時，他突然以衛兵的制服出現在她面前。她似乎很高興見到他，並向他保證，她從第一眼就認出了他。演員不確定這句話是否屬實，但無論如何都樂於假裝如此。

米蘭·費斯特

另一位匈牙利劇作家米蘭·費斯特 (1888-1967) 在《不幸者》(The wretched, 1923) 中呈現了不那麼愉快的主題。

"不幸者"

時間：1914 年。地點：匈牙利。

文字在？

與丈夫分離 5 年後，胡貝爾夫人走進一間破敗不堪的公寓，尋找她的兒子維爾莫什，卻發現羅扎正在熨衣服，他是她在一家宗教書籍印刷廠的同事，一個她從未聽說過的女人，已經和她兒子同居了 3 年。更令人驚訝的是，羅扎斷言是她支付了公寓的費用，因為維爾莫什把錢花在了其他的女朋友身上，儘管他是她 2 歲兒子的父親，孩子由保姆照顧。實際上，是羅扎的愛慕者，弗蘭茨·西爾瑪，一位屠夫，以性愛作為交換，免費借出他的公寓給羅扎，此外還送來食物，她與胡貝爾夫人分享。羅扎建議胡貝爾夫人可以申請在西爾瑪家做家庭教師，因為令這位母親驚訝的是，另一個女孩將要和這對夫婦住在一起。碰巧，維爾莫什的妹妹羅茲西走了進來，假裝不知道她母親的存在，但也尋找她的兄弟，不知道羅扎是誰。她留下了一條資訊，說她想和他談談。保姆帶著發燒的 2 歲孩子走了進來，維爾莫什走進來說他會派醫生去看他。他母親抱怨羅茲西打她，她的耳朵疼，導致部分失聰。出於同情，羅扎遞給她一條圍巾，以保護她們。胡貝爾夫人離開後，維爾莫什告訴羅扎，他母親比她有錢。弗蘭茨一進來就注意到羅扎的痛苦，但被維爾莫什粗魯地打發走了。他的同事和羅扎的朋友維爾瑪走了進來，要和這對夫婦一起去劇院，但羅扎拒絕了。維爾瑪宣佈，一個陌生人在街上攔住了她，一位醫生，自高中時代就認識維爾莫什，那是維爾莫什試圖自殺的時候。當羅扎出去為維爾瑪準備晚餐時，維爾莫什握住她的手，她憤怒地抽回了手。商店已經關門了，羅扎空手回來，注意到維爾瑪的痛苦，並認出了原因。胡貝爾夫人認為自己落下了包裹，又回來了，羅扎改變了主意，和他們三個人一起去劇院。一個星期後，在印刷廠，胡貝爾夫人告訴她的兒子，因為羅茲西繼續打她，她想讓他把她帶走，然後在看到她進來後突然走了出去。同樣，羅茲西也受夠了不能工作、懶惰且容易偷東西的母親。她堅持讓維爾莫什把她帶走。他憤怒地拒絕了，但試圖用一個已經包好的禮服來軟化她。她注意到地址錯了，當維爾瑪提到的陌生人，貝克醫生，過來和他的老校友打招呼時，她突然離開了，羅紮上前感謝他檢查了她的兒子。貝克醫生想讓維爾莫什幫助他創辦一份新雜誌。維爾莫什會考慮一下，同時想讓他檢查他母親的耳朵。醫生同意了，但當胡貝爾夫人回來時，她看起來很焦慮，不情願地跟著他。不久之後，醫生回來報告說她母親從他身邊逃跑了。維爾莫什笑了，與其說是高興，不如說是羞愧。他告訴維爾瑪他打算辭職，並希望她跟著他。羅扎打斷他們的談話，迅速評估了他們困境。她發現維爾瑪懷孕了。她假裝關心她，勸她不要跟著維爾莫什。兩個女人看到胡貝爾夫人帶著一件給女兒準備的年輕女人的衣服來了，都爆發出一陣笑聲。兩週後，弗蘭茨告訴羅扎，他想要收回自己的公寓，打算讓她和他住在一起。他尤其厭惡看到維爾莫什和兩個女人住在一起。胡貝爾夫人進來，說她又失業了，歸咎於她的耳聾。但她仍然從街上的一個窮人那裡買了一瓶 60 克朗的干邑白蘭地，羅扎還了錢，但她很失望，因為這位老婦人沒有帶什麼東西來墮胎。維爾瑪告訴羅扎，她遇到了貝克醫生，他建議羅扎去看望她仍然生病的 2 歲孩子，她就去了，弗蘭茨也跟著她。當醫生最終檢查胡貝爾夫人時，他發現她的耳聾是裝的：對維爾莫什來說並不奇怪，他一直都知道她討厭工作。就他而言，他拒絕了醫生的提議。弗蘭茨回來報告說孩子病得很重。當他拿出那瓶干邑白蘭地時，他發現裡面只有水。醫生拒絕玩牌，於是弗蘭茨和維爾莫什一起玩牌。維爾莫什經濟拮据，向弗蘭茨借了 5 弗羅林。後者拒絕了，因為這個人已經欠了他 150 弗羅林。但是，當維爾瑪重新進來時，維爾莫什假裝是弗蘭茨欠他 5 弗羅林，於是後者就給了他，以避免羞辱他。羅扎重新進來，說她的孩子正在窒息，虛弱的胡貝爾夫人重新進來，承認她服用了老鼠藥。維爾莫什跑去尋找貝克醫生，碰巧他離開後又回來了，把他的醫藥箱落下了。然而，他來得太遲了，無法救她。一個月後，她的 2 歲孩子死了，羅扎只有一個想法：以任何方式擺脫維爾瑪。她開始給她讀維爾莫什與之有染的第三個女人的來信，但維爾瑪拒絕聽。她的懷孕越來越嚴重，維爾瑪緊張地想知道她會怎樣。羅扎建議弗蘭茨作為一種出路，但維爾瑪對這個想法感到恐懼，當他的學徒來的時候，她拒絕吃肉。他們的談話被羅茲西打斷了，只是說她要離開城鎮，她哥哥再也不會見到她了。學徒回來了，因為弗蘭茨想知道羅扎是否想要食物，但羅扎給了他錢後，維爾瑪再次把他拒之門外。但他還是回來了，因為弗蘭茨拒絕接受她的任何錢。羅扎藉此機會把孩子送到維爾莫什款待第三個女人的客棧，讓他回家。看到維爾瑪顯得更加絕望，羅扎拿出了一支左輪手槍，放在桌子上，但聽到父親謝凱利的聲音，維爾莫什在商店的老闆，他放下了一份急件手稿給維爾莫什。學徒帶著維爾莫什的酒回來了，準備等他犯困了才回家。神父出於對這兩個女人的同情，前往客棧，把維爾莫什帶回來。維爾瑪羞愧於被發現生活在這樣的環境中，尤其是被一個神父發現。羅扎利用她的痛苦，遞給她一把藏在窗簾後面的左輪手槍。維爾莫什不顧一切地走了進來，然後又走了出去，沒有注意到這兩個女人。羅扎憤怒於維爾瑪沒有自殺，她扯她的頭髮，抓她，然後把她拉回到窗簾後面。維爾莫什回來取手稿，聽到一聲槍響。很快，羅扎走了出來，說維爾瑪自殺了。

維托爾德·貢布羅維奇

在這個時期，波蘭劇作家維托爾德·貢布羅維奇 (1904-1969) 也值得關注，他是《伊沃娜，勃艮第公主》(Ivona, princess of Burgundia, 1935) 的作者。

"伊沃娜，勃艮第公主" "可以被視為一個怪誕的童話故事，有點像畢希納的《利翁茨和萊娜》(Leonce und Lena, 1836)、雅裡的《烏布王》(Ubu the king, 1896)，以及稍晚一些時候，施瓦茨的風格化的《藝術童話》……故事發生在宮廷世界，坐落在一個模糊的童話般的王國裡，充滿了令人窒息的習俗、階級偏見和傲慢，此外還有嚴格定義的權力和地位等級制度，從專制的國王到最貧困的乞丐，這似乎可以解釋，貢布羅維奇對這種環境的迷戀，這種社會模式的行為完全由形式支配。但形式的世界，與真實存在相反，當王子違反時間久遠的風俗，把選定的未婚妻，一個名叫伊沃娜的平民，帶入宮廷時，便被打破了，她是“最低階層的花朵”，她的奇怪的衰弱狀況讓整個宮廷陷入恐慌……最後，宮廷，以及更廣泛的社會，拒絕承認自身醜陋的真相，拒絕與低階且植物般的伊沃娜認同，導致了不受歡迎的入侵者被謀殺，“正常秩序”恢復……當宮廷成員開始感到受到伊沃娜的威脅，並密謀以讓她被一條多刺的魚刺死來除掉她時，每個人都回到了按照習俗規定的角色：王子變得更加意識到自己的“王子氣質”和性慾；國王的獨裁統治現在開始呈現出一種險惡和偏執的特徵；王后恢復了她的優雅和沉著，正如“她身份地位所應有的一樣” (Iribarne, 1971 pp 62-70)。

該劇“體現了不惜一切代價維護外表所帶來的致命困境。在一定程度上，它是一個相對容易識別的諷刺童話故事（解構了嫁入貴族階層的灰姑娘版本，揭露了掌權者的貪婪、貪得無厭和殺戮性），但它還加入了具有戈姆布羅維奇特色的分析，即這種行為得到了對良好形式堅持的支撐和證明......該劇的節奏遵循了典型的鬧劇升級，皇室成員在他們越來越荒唐的陰謀詭計中失去了所有尊嚴。伊沃娜的黑洞似乎對既定的秩序施加了越來越快的混亂速度。因此，她成為荒誕本身力量的象徵，在波蘭經歷的從十八世紀到二十世紀一系列權力交替的荒誕事件的星座中。荒誕似乎是畸形的、醜陋的、難以理解的、口齒不清的，不可接近的，但它堅定地存在著，它體現了一種下層階級的、局外人的、不和諧的、破壞性的能量，這種能量的作用不是維持，而是摧毀”(Yarrow, 2015 pp 118-119)。

“伊沃娜的特點是不討人喜歡、冷漠、虛弱，她顛覆性的力量很奇怪，因為它主要是被動的和沉默的”(Brodsky, 1986 p 770)。“儘管她膽怯，伊沃娜卻表現出獨立自主，她不試圖取悅他人。這種漠不關心激怒了他們，使他們對她充滿敵意和攻擊性......她不玩社交遊戲......她使其他角色的社交自我癱瘓，暴露了他們精心隱藏在周圍人視線之外的內心世界。菲利普王子覺得伊沃娜的冷漠是在指出他不是一個應該具備的強勢而果斷的王儲。朝臣們從伊沃娜的行為中發現了他們自己秘密缺陷的幻覺......例如，女官們突然想起她們戴著假髮和假牙。王后擔心她寫的矯揉造作的詩歌被人發現”(Thompson, 1979 pp 46-47)。“該劇的真正問題是一個真正模稜兩可的問題：誰是傻瓜，誰是正常人？誰是野獸，誰又是太過人性化”(Biró, 2000 p 102)。

“伊沃娜病態的害羞在所有社會中最正式的社會——宮廷——創造了無形，因為她無法對周圍的人做出適當的反應。因此，她打破了行動-反應的迴圈，製造了混亂，釋放了每個人精心隱藏的醜陋......童話故事的型別......被中心人物扭曲了，她應該是一位美麗的公主，最好處於某種困境中，但實際上，她是一位醜陋、沉默、悶悶不樂的平民，完全無法履行自己的角色......王子試圖透過拒絕認真對待她來擺脫伊沃娜的愛：“我已經改變了。我改變了我的語氣，突然一切都改變了！......哈哈，哈哈！......即使你在這裡站上一整年，你的憂鬱和困難也無法戰勝我的輕鬆和自在。”笑聲被呈現為對抗形式的最強大的武器之一。不幸的是，王子的任何行為都不能阻止伊沃娜想他，更重要的是，不能阻止他認為她在想他，因此他被迫重新認真起來......伊沃娜的害羞最終威脅要摧毀社會這一事實證明了個人驚人的力量”(Baraniecki, 1985 pp 241-244)。

“身份、面目模糊、人類的徹底孤獨等問題經常交織在戈姆布羅維奇戲劇的結構中，尤其是在《伊沃娜，勃艮第公主》(1935)和《婚姻》(1946)中......伊沃娜是戲劇的中心。她象徵著三位主要主角的負面方面：菲利普的弱點、王后的過去縱情聲色、國王以前的謀殺——這些人物和他們的行為所產生的罪惡。她實際上是他們的影子。她令人不安，具有挑釁性，她在破壞現狀（宮廷中盛行的和平與和諧，象徵性地來說，創造了一種靜止的氣氛，阻礙了成長過程）方面與邪惡或魔鬼在社會中的存在一樣重要。像光明使者路西法一樣，像刺激者一樣，伊沃娜，混亂的創造者，帶來了新的能量，也帶來了創造的可能性......菲利普王子是一個典型的想要獨立的青少年。為了實現獨立，他拒絕了他的父母和隨從......他試圖改造她；把她塑造成宮廷中其他人的樣子。然後他被自己行為的更深層意義所吸引......國王和王后沒有個人名字。他們在本劇中只作為功能存在，與任何人幾乎沒有聯絡，甚至與他們的兒子——任何人的兒子——也沒有聯絡。他們當然對菲利普的行為感到困擾，這相當於對他們的權威提出質疑。然而，他們擁有某種智慧，與其強行執行自己的意志，他們認為這可能會導致父母和孩子之間的誤解，以及菲利普和伊沃娜之間不良關係的加固，他們選擇置身事外，默許他的任性。他們似乎很瞭解他們的兒子：缺乏毅力、膽怯、反覆無常和冷酷的本性”(Knapp, 1971 pp 75-79)。

"伊沃娜，勃艮第公主"

時間：1930年代。地點：虛構的勃艮第國。

文字在？

菲利普王子的一位朋友鼓勵他享受愛情關係，其中一位熱情地脫口而出：“讓我們以我們歡快的動物青春的功能來發揮作用。”相反，王子的目光卻被伊沃娜吸引，她是一位沉默寡言的醜陋女人。令他的朋友們驚訝和沮喪的是，他向她求婚。她看起來漠不關心，沒有人能讓她甚至向國王和王后行屈膝禮。“你相信基督為了你在十字架上受難嗎？”他問道。“是的，”她輕蔑地回答。最後，菲利普注意到伊沃娜正在注視著他，他認為，以一種不合適的性感方式。他惱怒地威脅要割斷她的喉嚨，但隨後又說他只是在開玩笑。一位無辜的宮廷侍衛帶著令人驚訝的訊息出現，他也以一種更謙遜的方式愛著伊沃娜，伊沃娜憤怒地讓他離開。侍衛長認為，由國王來發現她的感受。國王起初猶豫，然後同意，但他越靠近她，她就越往後退，這讓他非常生氣。菲利普決定採用另一種策略：他假裝與另一個女人睡過，並要拋棄她。她唯一的反應是拾起對手頭上的一根頭髮，然後離開房間。看到每個人都束手無策，侍衛長有了一個主意：邀請伊沃娜參加一個盛大的宴會，邀請許多人參加，這樣，在她感到害怕和慌亂的情況下，也許會因魚刺噎死。國王和王子同意了，但在宴會期間，他們改變了主意，提醒她吃鱸魚的危險性。儘管他們警告過她，她還是被魚刺噎死了。