In this case, the sound that Vladimir and Estragon may or may not have heard is announcing not the coming of Godot but the coming of Lucky and Pozzo. The relationship of Lucky and Pozzo is so suggestive of a God-man relationship, and of the psychological power that Godot holds over the two main characters, that one wonders if Pozzo is not in fact Godot and therefore, symbolically, God. In fact, Vladimir and Estragon do think that Pozzo is Godot until Pozzo tells them otherwise. Even this denial on Pozzo's part is not necessarily an indication that he is not Godot, since Vladimir and Estragon were never quite sure of Godot's name in the first place.

In Act I, Pozzo is clearly the God of Lucky's world, even if he denies being the Godot of Vladimir's and Estragon's world. Pozzo keeps Lucky on a long leash, but it is clear that Lucky does not need the leash; he willingly responds to any of Pozzo's requests and does not drop his burden even when he might be allowed to. This devotion is repaid by horrible treatment from Pozzo. Their relationship is very similar to that of Job and God in the Old Testament. Job serves God wholeheartedly, and God responds by reducing Job's world to grief, pain, and pestilence. God has his reasons, unknown to Job, and it may be that Pozzo has his reasons as well, unknown to Lucky, Vladimir, Estragon, and the audience.

Lucky and Pozzo reappear in Act II, but the dynamic has changed entirely. Lucky remains on the leash, but he now leads Pozzo as Pozzo has gone blind. When Lucky passes out, Pozzo is helpless, relying on the confused, erratic good will of Vladimir and Estragon. The most concrete God figure presented in the first act, and the closest thing to Godot ever to appear in the play, only retains his power in that Lucky remains his servant -- again willingly, since he clearly has an advantage over his weak master and can leave at any time. The situation is muddied even more when Pozzo...

As Estragon points out, "He's all humanity" (96).
The play ends without Godot ever appearing, leaving his identity a mystery despite his looming presence in the lives of Vladimir and Estragon. There are strong implications, however, that Pozzo may have been Godot all along, and that both Pozzo in the flesh and Godot in concept represent God and his relationship to man. Every time that Pozzo appears, Vladimir and Estragon think that he is Godot, and they only think otherwise because of the name difference. The Pozzo of Act I has all of the trappings of the Old Testament God -- an announcement by "the wind in the reeds," a willing but abject servant in the form of Lucky, and a capricious and temperamental nature. The Pozzo of Act II has all the trappings of the New Testament God in the form of Christ -- at the mercy of his servant, representing "all humanity." Or perhaps the Pozzo of Act II is God in the modern age -- beaten, bedraggled, yet carried forward by the devoted.

What was Beckett attempting to tell the audience with this muddled symbolism? It is unlikely that he was trying to elucidate the role of God in the lives of men, or to give a concrete philosophical argument about the existence or non-existence of God, since the audience is not left with answers on either count. It seems instead that he uses the confusion and anticipation of Vladimir and Estragon, the erratic presence of Pozzo, and the constant absence of Godot to shed light on the fundamental paradox of the human condition: the need to find a cause for discomfort and a greater purpose to serve, even if cause or purpose never appears.

Works Cited

Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1982. Print.