Amfiteater, letn. 13, št. 1, 2025
UDK 821.163.6.09-2Božič P.  
DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2025-1/142-159
Abstract
Peter Božič was a Slovenian playwright whose most important plays were written at the 
beginning of his career, between 1955 and 1961. This writing is strongly connected to the 
then-avant-garde theatre Oder 57 (Stage 57), which presented opposition to the then-
prevailing style of socialist realism in Yugoslavia. Young dramatists, directors and actors 
sought new ways of expression, leaning on existentialist philosophy, Artaud's theatre and 
modernist literature.
However, when asked about the influences on his work, Božič replied: “When I was writing 
Človek v šipi (Man in the Window – his first play), I was leaning on my own life experience, 
not knowing that this form was in fact avant-garde theatre. Only later, when I first saw 
Ionesco on stage, did I realise, this is it.” When he later explains the influence of Beckett 
and Ionesco on his plays, he admits that they were important to him in “the cultural sense. 
However, when it comes to my plays’ content, the war had a much stronger influence. 
During the war, all my values were shattered to pieces.”
How authentic was the development of the avant-garde theatre of Peter Božič on the 
European periphery? To what extent can it be compared to the works of Beckett and 
Ionesco?
The author analyses this relationship between the centre in France and the periphery in 
Slovenia by comparing the early plays of Peter Božič and the works of Beckett and Ionesco 
that Božič saw or read in Slovenia – The Bald Soprano and The Lesson by Ionesco and 
Waiting for Godot and Endgame by Beckett.
Keywords: Peter Božič, Eugène Ionesco, Samuel Beckett, Theatre of the Absurd, avant-garde
142

Gašper Troha holds a PhD from the Department of Comparative Literature and Literary 
Theory, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. His research interests include the sociology 
of literature, especially the contemporary world and Slovenian drama and theatre. He is a 
researcher at the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana and 
the managing director at the Slovenian Theatre Institute. He has published in numerous 
national and international scientific journals. He is a co-author with Vanesa Matajc and 
Gregor Pompe of History and its Literary Genres (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), 
Literarni modernizem v »svinčenih« letih (Literary Modernism in the “Leaden” Years, 
Študentska založba, 2008) and Lojze Kovačič: življenje in delo (Lojze Kovačič: Life and 
Work, Študentska založba, 2009). In 2015, he published the monograph Ujetniki svobode 
(Prisoners of Freedom, Aristej), in 2025 a monograph Slovenska dramatika in tuji vplivi po 
letu 2000 (Slovenian Drama and Influences after 2000, Beletrina).
gasper.troha@guest.arnes.si
143

Peter Božič and the Question of the Authentic 
Theatrical Avant-Garde in Slovenia in the 
Second Half of the 20
th
 Century
Gašper Troha  
Slovenian Theatre Institute and the Academy of Theatre, Film, Radio and Television, 
University of Ljubljana
Introduction
The second half of the 20
th
 century was a period of intense cultural and artistic 
experimentation in Europe, marked by the rise of avant-garde movements that 
sought to challenge traditional forms and conventions.
1
 In the context of Yugoslavia, 
which was navigating its unique path between Eastern and Western ideological 
influences, Slovenian theatre became a fertile ground for exploring new aesthetic and 
philosophical ideas. Among the key figures in this movement in Slovenia was Peter 
Božič, a playwright whose works from the late 1950s to the early 1960s played an 
important role in shaping the avant-garde theatre landscape in Slovenia and Yugoslavia. 
His plays were intrinsically linked to Oder 57 (Stage 57), a theatre group that emerged 
in Ljubljana as a counterpoint to the prevailing doctrine of socialist realism, which 
dominated the cultural scene under the influence of the ruling communist ideology.
Despite his clear alignment with the avant-garde, Božič’s statements regarding his 
influences reveal a nuanced understanding of his own work. In reflecting on his first 
play, Človek v šipi (Man in the Window), Božič claimed that it was not initially conceived 
as a piece of avant-garde theatre but rather emerged from his personal life experiences. 
He noted that it was only after encountering the works of Ionesco, The Bald Soprano 
and The Lesson, in 1957 that he recognised a kinship between his approach and that 
of the European avant-garde. Furthermore, Božič acknowledged the cultural impact of 
Beckett and Ionesco on his work but emphasised that the thematic substance of his 
plays was more profoundly shaped by his experiences during World War II, which had a 
lasting impact on his worldview and shattered his sense of traditional values.
1 The article was written within the research programme Theatre and Interart Studies P6-0376, which is financially 
supported by the Slovenian Research and Inovation Agency.
144

This distinction highlights an important aspect of Božič’s work: while the stylistic and 
formal elements of his plays might resonate with the broader avant-garde movement – 
characterised by absurdity, existential despair and a breakdown of conventional narrative 
structures – the content and thematic preoccupations are deeply personal and tied to the 
historical and cultural milieu of post-war Slovenia. Božič’s avant-garde theatre thus seems 
to occupy a unique position on the European periphery, where it simultaneously engages 
with international avant-garde trends and responds to local sociopolitical realities.
By leaning on the research of Sascha Bru, Tyrus Miller and Tomaž Toporišič, the 
paper will address the following questions: How is Božič positioned in the European 
avant-garde movement? How did Božič’s background and experiences influence the 
thematic focus of his plays? To what extent are his early plays authentic, and to what 
extent can we trace in them the influences of Beckett and Ionesco? 
By comparing Božič’s early plays with the plays of Beckett and Ionesco, this paper will 
provide a deeper understanding of Peter Božič’s role in the development of avant-garde 
theatre in Slovenia and offer insights into the broader dynamics of cultural exchange 
and influence between the European centre and periphery during the mid-20
th
 century.
Peter Božič and the Avant­Garde: Rebellion, Context and Influence
Peter Božič emerged as a significant voice of dissent against the cultural and artistic 
norms imposed by the Yugoslav socialist state. After World War II, Yugoslavia – under 
Josip Broz Tito – promoted a cultural narrative rooted in social and socialist realism, 
characterised by its optimistic portrayal of the future, the glorification of communist 
ideals and clear moral distinctions. Artistic productions were expected to align with 
this vision, focusing on heroic characters who embodied ideological purity and 
supported the communist cause. Deviations from this narrative were discouraged, 
creating a homogenised cultural environment that left little room for alternative 
viewpoints or aesthetic experimentation.
As Peter Božič remembers in 1985:
The centre of action is a character-subject who is positive in a moral and ethical sense as 
well as a member of the progressive social class. His/her opposition is the world, a group 
of characters or an object. This relationship between subject and object (hero and its 
entourage) is defined through ideology, which is the ultimate truth. Thus, the hero always 
wins this conflict between him or herself and his/her entourage. (“Razvoj” 12)
2
Božič’s early plays Zasilni izhod (Fire Exit), Križišče (The Crossroads) and Vojaka Jošta 
ni (There Is No Soldier Jošt), written between 1957 and 1961, stand in stark contrast 
2 Unless otherwise noted, all translations of Slovenian sources are by the author of this article.
145

to this uniformity. His writing rejected the glorification of the future and the simplistic 
moral binaries prevalent in socialist realist art. Instead, his works explored themes of 
disillusionment and existential angst and used a fragmented form.
Božič explains this form in the play The Lesson by Eugène Ionesco:
In The Lesson, such a unifying idea and protagonist do not exist, so the vertical composition 
simply vanishes. The conflict exists on the same level between two equal protagonists 
(the Professor and the Pupil) and not between the personification of the ideology and the 
characters that have not yet grasped the importance of the Idea. (“Razvoj” 16)
This divergence from the official artistic doctrine can be traced back to Božič’s 
personal experiences during the war, particularly his displacement to Dresden, 
Germany, and the harrowing exposure to bombings and civilian suffering at the age 
of 13. Later on, his education was interrupted after high school because of his writing 
in the school magazine that opposed the ruling ideology. These experiences shattered 
his previously held values and influenced his view of the world, prompting him to 
adopt a rebellious and often schizophrenic stance in his artistic expression. For Božič, 
the world was not one of clear ideological victories but rather a space marked by 
absurd, moral ambiguity, chaos and uncertainty. 
Connections to the European Avant­Garde: Conscious and 
Unconscious Influences
Although Božič claimed that his early work was primarily shaped by his life 
experiences rather than direct artistic influences, it is evident that his plays resonate 
with the broader currents of the European avant-garde. Božič’s theatrical style 
exhibits affinities with existentialist thought and the Theatre of the Absurd, aligning 
him with the likes of Samuel Beckett and Eugène Ionesco. He explicitly acknowledged 
the impact of Ionesco’s The Lesson on his play There Is No Soldier Jošt, indicating that 
he was not entirely isolated from the influence of European avant-garde movements. 
Furthermore, his dramatic works echo the existential despair and absurdity found 
in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Endgame. Božič’s engagement with these themes, 
however, is rooted in his unique historical and cultural context of the Central European 
periphery and also by living on the social margin.
Božič’s rebellion against the conformist tendencies of Yugoslav socialist realism 
positions him within the avant-garde tradition, particularly in his efforts to 
break free from prescribed ideological narratives and explore more personal and 
fragmented modes of expression. However, unlike the purely autopoietic (self-
creating and self-referential) approach that some avant-garde movements pursued, 
146

Božič’s theatre was deeply connected to the sociopolitical realities of his time. His 
plays did not seek to create a new autonomous world divorced from the constraints 
of reality. Instead, they sought to challenge and critique the prevailing social and 
political order with a different and more complex image of reality. 
To further understand Božič’s position within the avant-garde, we can draw on 
Sascha Bru’s theoretical insights from his chapter “Revolution Reconsidered: The 
Three Avant-Garde Traditions” in the book The European Avant-Garde – A Hundred 
Years Later. Bru argues that the historical avant-garde was revolutionary not merely 
because of its stylistic innovations but because of its active engagement with history. 
According to Bru, the avant-garde discovered that art could serve as a space where 
the fabric of history – past, present and future – could be rewired aesthetically. This 
perspective frames the avant-garde as a dialectical force capable of making its own 
history, much like the revolutionary subject in Marxist thought. 
Maybe the historical avant-garde was the first formation to actually discover that art 
was also the place where the very fabric of history, past, present and future, potentially 
could be rewired aesthetically, and the first to claim the right to be the revolutionary 
subject of its own history. And perhaps only by seeing the avant-garde dialectically as 
a force making its own history, that is, recalling the Marx of the Eighteenth Brumaire, 
by recognising it does not make its history as it pleases (purely autopoietically, that 
is), will we come to see it as the truly revolutionary social agent it was and maybe still 
is today. (Bru 40)
Applying Bru’s theory to Božič’s work, we can view Božič’s early plays as part 
of this revolutionary avant-garde tradition. His dramas not only deviated from 
the formal and thematic constraints of socialist realism but also challenged the 
teleological vision of history promoted by the Yugoslav state. By presenting 
a world without clear heroes, where existential despair and absurdity took 
centre stage, Božič rewired the narrative of his contemporary society. His plays 
reflected a fragmented post-war reality that stood in opposition to the official 
narrative of progress and ideological purity. In this sense, Božič’s theatre can be 
seen as an avant-garde practice that sought to reclaim from the state the right to 
interpret reality, placing the complexities and contradictions of individual human 
experience at the forefront of his artistic exploration.
Mia Janžeković, a member of Oder 57 and an actor in all three early plays by Božič, 
remembers that no one really understood the plays. However, the actors felt the 
importance of the production and were intuitively drawn to the plays. 
Božič was almost completely misunderstood. The closest to him were the actors, 
who did not approach the texts rationally but through some other channels […] The 
starting point of Peter’s plays was death. He was utterly marked by his experience of the 
147

bombardment of Dresden. He was very close to knowing what life meant. The audience 
was not interested in such writing. The halls were empty, but we were not discouraged. 
The reviews were horrible. (Janžeković qtd in Jesenko 349)
Tyrus Miller’s perspective on the avant-garde, as articulated in his chapter “ Anaphorizing 
Histories: On the Entanglement of Paleo-, Neo-, and Tardo-Avant-Gardes”, provides 
another useful lens for analysing Božič’s work. Miller suggests that the avant-garde is 
characterised by both repetition and innovation, implying that the narrative of the avant-
garde is not linear but instead operates as an anaphora, that is, a rhetorical figure that 
involves the repetition of certain forms or ideas in new contexts. Miller argues that the 
avant-garde cannot be understood solely as a progressive movement. Instead, it must 
be seen in relation to the broader sociopolitical contexts that shape its development. 
This approach recognises that avant-garde practices are not isolated phenomena but 
are deeply embedded in specific historical and cultural circumstances.
The paintings implied, as well, that the historical rhythms of the Cold War Western and 
Eastern artworlds were divergent, because of the influence of the different socio-political 
contexts in which they developed. Any claim to a normative status for a progressive 
avant-garde narrative such as was put forward by Clement Greenberg would have to be 
relativized in light of the variable geo-political shaping of art-historical time. (Miller 59)
Applying Miller’s theory to Božič’s theatre highlights the interplay between innovation 
and the sociopolitical context in shaping his avant-garde expression. Božič’s plays, 
while innovative in their rejection of socialist realism and their embrace of existential 
and absurdist themes, were also deeply informed by the specific historical conditions 
of WWII and post-war Yugoslavia. His avant-garde was not an isolated quest for artistic 
innovation but was rooted in a critical response to the sociopolitical environment in 
which he found himself. 
Combining the insights of Bru and Miller allows for a more nuanced understanding 
of Peter Božič’s role within the avant-garde movement. Bru’s emphasis on the avant-
garde as a revolutionary force that actively engages with history aligns with Božič’s 
approach to theatre as a form of sociopolitical critique. Božič’s plays do not merely 
reject the stylistic conventions of socialist realism; they challenge the ideological 
foundations of the Yugoslav state by presenting an alternative narrative of the post-
war experience. Miller’s thesis helps us understand the relationship between the 
centre and the periphery, where specific circumstances of the environment, as well as 
the personal experiences of the author, are taken into account.
148

Božič, in Comparison to Beckett and Ionesco
Samuel Beckett’s plays Waiting for Godot and Endgame share a striking thematic and 
stylistic resonance with the early plays of Slovenian playwright Peter Božič, despite 
Božič’s later denial of Beckett’s influence. 
As I do admit an influence of Ionesco’s The Lesson, the only Ionesco play I knew at the 
time, on my play There Is No Soldier Jošt, there has been no influence on writing my two 
one-act plays. I was not interested in dramatic literature. Furthermore, at the time, we 
did not know much about writing for theatre, especially not the contemporary one. The 
lid of our Yugoslavian pot was slowly lifting, but I was not among the people who got a 
chance to look out of it. (Božič qtd. in Petan 49)
Although it is unlikely that Božič had seen or read Beckett’s work prior to his own 
creations (The Fire Exit and The Crossroads were written in 1957, and There Is No 
Soldier Jošt in 1961), both writers convey a similarly bleak worldview characterised 
by a profound sense of pessimism and existential void. This commonality reflects their 
broader philosophical engagement with themes of meaninglessness, the passage of 
time and the interdependence of human relationships.
Both Beckett and Božič engage with a sense of existential emptiness that permeates 
their characters’ lives. In Waiting for Godot, Vladimir and Estragon wait endlessly 
for the arrival of the mysterious Godot, who never comes, embodying the futility of 
human hope and the absence of inherent meaning in life. Similarly, in Endgame, the 
characters Hamm, Clov, Nagg and Nell exist in a static, decaying environment where 
time seems to drag on without purpose or resolution. This setting underlines the 
bleakness of their existence, where the action is minimal, and the dialogue revolves 
around repetitive routines and memories of a better past.
Božič’s plays, like Beckett’s, are also steeped in a sense of despair and futility. The 
Fire Exit depicts a ragpicker, a salesman and a young lady who are trapped in an 
underground shelter and seeking a way out. The salesman and the lady believe 
that the ragpicker knows the way out, and they try to convince or force him to lead 
them. He, however, is trying to explain to them that there is no point in escaping 
as there is no meaning in this world. In the end, it turns out it was just a drill, but 
the characters seem to have stepped into another reality. The second play, The 
Crossroads (they were first performed as a double bill on 15 May 1961 by Oder 
57), is thematically connected to The Fire Exit. The salesman sends an invitation 
to the lady and the ragpicker to come to the crossroads on an anniversary of the 
events in the shelter. Here, the situation reminds us of the one in Waiting for Godot. 
The salesman is convinced that the ragpicker ruined his life. They exchanged dogs 
in the shelter. As he remembers:
149

In those crucial days, we exchanged dogs. I gave him something concrete that barks and 
cannot bite much, as it is as old and powerless as me but nevertheless exists, which felt 
to be just enough for itself. He left me with something indefinite, something that might 
not even be a dog at all. If it reminds me of a dog, it is only because it is as aggressive as 
a cold, black animal. (Božič, The Crossroads 8)
The ragpicker gave the salesman a sense of a void, an existential emptiness that he 
could not stand and could not get rid of. He is waiting for the ragpicker to come and 
exchange the dogs again so he can have his life of illusion back. However, in the end, 
the stranger comes and, similarly to The Boy in Godot, announces that the ragpicker 
is not coming.
The salesman: Who are you? What are you doing here? I haven’t called anybody … That 
means, I have called someone …, but you were definitely not invited. I am expecting only 
the ragpicker.
The stranger: He is not coming!
The salesman: What are you talking about? Get lost. There is nothing for you here.
The stranger: This is no nonsense. I am here to tell you that the ragpicker is not coming. 
He cannot come here. Never! […] If you would like to see him again, you have to find him 
yourself. (Božič, The Crossroads 33)
However, Vladimir and Estragon seem to find a kind of a solution in being together. 
As Michael Y. Bennett argues in his book Reassessing the Theatre of the Absurd, it is 
this idea of togetherness that represents the solution. Beckett’s play is thus not only 
a depiction of the modern world of emptiness but also a parable of how to live in this 
world with neither values nor moral compass.
“Let’s go” contrasts with the first spoken line of the play, “Nothing to be done.” It is almost 
as if the two tramps have learned throughout the course of the two days how much they 
need each other and that their lives are meaningful because of this relationship. The two 
constantly “go on” because they always “resume the struggle,” but most importantly, 
Didi and Gogo go on together. (Bennett 51, emphasis in original)
Božič offers a similar solution, as the salesman has to find the ragpicker, but he has 
to do it alone. This shared vision of a void – an absence of purpose or fulfilment – 
connects the works of both playwrights, suggesting a universal human condition that 
transcends specific cultural or temporal contexts.
Beckett and Božič both experiment with the form and structure of their plays, 
deliberately breaking away from traditional narrative and dramatic conventions to 
emphasise the emptiness and absurdity of their characters’ lives. The plot is essentially 
non-existent; the play revolves around the act of waiting, with dialogue that loops 
back on itself and repetitive actions. The characters are confined to closed spaces, 
150

symbolising both their physical and existential entrapment. This lack of conventional 
progression underscores the static nature of the characters’ existence.
Both playwrights’ characters similarly lack depth in the traditional sense. They 
represent archetypes or existential conditions rather than fully fleshed-out individuals. 
This lack of clear identity reinforces the themes of alienation and the absence of 
intrinsic meaning. Like Beckett, Božič’s focus is not on character development in the 
conventional sense but on the portrayal of a universal human experience of emptiness 
and disillusionment (for further analyses, see my chapter “Peter Božič and his Role 
in Affirmation of the Theatre of the Absurd in Slovenia” and the chapter by Tomaž 
Toporišič in the book Before the World Began).
When writing There Is No Soldier Jošt Peter Božič was influenced by a performance 
of The Lesson by Eugène Ionesco (opening night on 31 March 1958, Oder 57, directed 
by Žarko Petan). Božič writes that “very rarely did a play cause such a radical leap 
forward in the development of Slovenian theatre as did the performance of The Lesson 
by Eugène Ionesco, produced by Oder 57 and directed by Žarko Petan” (“Razvoj” 15). 
He continues to explain the reason for this:
It is thus a complete change in approaching the content. The main Idea is no longer an 
ethical ideal and the ultimate truth, as it was in the mainstream theatre of the time. One 
must sacrifice his/her life for the idea, but this time (in Ionesco’s play), someone else’s 
life and not in the name of the Idea. The idea is only a means for the Professor to satisfy 
his personal needs. (“Razvoj” 15)
The characters are no longer judged according to their ability to align their lives to 
the main idea but rather are portrayed as people who use the idea in order to satisfy 
their personal needs. This radically different approach to the contents that was also 
mirrored in the fragmented form – where plot, characters and dialogue fall apart, are 
interchangeable and repetitive – was a starting point for Božič when he was writing 
his last early play.
Furthermore, he wanted to radicalise the presentation of void and emptiness. In 
1985, Božič writes: “The basic difference between Ionesco’s play and There Is No 
Soldier Jošt can be found in the fact that Ionesco uses the Idea in already mentioned 
way, while Božič dismisses it altogether. […] The Idea is simply absent from this play. 
Instead, there are a number of relationships between the characters that do not differ 
in any way, not even in the sense that the characters would be conscious of their own 
motivations” ("Razvoj" 17). The latter was achieved by a special formal principle of 
action, namely by using a mise en abyme.
Actions are repetitive and interchangeable – the carpenter Jošt is being proclaimed 
dead and a hero, but he is alive and protesting against it; the Master kills his servant 
151

every day, but he is still alive, etc. Božič approaches the theme of heroism, the central 
theme of the mainstream playwriting at the time, with irony. He represents it as 
a hollow form, as the society proclaims Jošt as a hero in order to address its own 
conflicts. The characters seem to be completely interchangeable and thus have no 
identity. The dialogue is meaningless and falls apart:
The Master: Shut up, let me think this over. Carpenter Jošt will come and tell me whether 
the dreams of this servant are real, and if they are, what can be done. Then, the servant 
will go to the city to arrange a visit, and the visit will be something else entirely. And the 
maid will then go to the pharmacy and bring a cream for the eyes.
The Mistress: And I will surely die of hunger.
The Master: And I will stop being a fake after midnight. (Božič, There Is No Soldier 17)
Although it seems to be very close to the banal lessons and themes of the Professor in 
Ionesco’s play, it is even more radical in its absence of meaning, which was the result 
of Božič’s wish to write a play that would mirror his personal disillusionment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Peter Božič’s three early plays reflect a complex interplay between the 
local sociopolitical and cultural frameworks and the broader European avant-garde 
movements. This interplay is similar to the one analysed by Tomaž Toporišič in the 
case of the retro-avant-garde in Slovenia: 
They [historical avant-gardes] eclectically assimilated some “foreign” ideas into their 
own cultural frameworks and added specific features. Similar procedures were at work 
during the period of the 1980s and 1990s with the eclectic retro-avant-garde artistic 
characteristics of the postmodern politicised art like Neue Slowenische Kunst (NSK) 
and its collectives Irwin, Laibach and the Sisters Scipion Nasice. (“Trieste” 33)
Božič’s theatre, much like Beckett’s and Ionesco’s, embodies a deep sense of 
existential despair and moral ambiguity. However, his work is not a mere imitation 
of the European avant-garde but a distinctive response to the historical and cultural 
milieu of post-war Slovenia. The thematic content of Božič’s plays is deeply rooted 
in his personal experiences, which had a profound impact on his worldview, driving 
him to question traditional values and the ideological narratives propagated by the 
Yugoslav state. This connection to his personal history differentiates Božič’s work 
from that of his Western counterparts, making it uniquely Slovenian and particularly 
relevant within the specific sociopolitical context of Yugoslavia.
Furthermore, the comparison of Božič’s plays with those of Beckett and Ionesco shows 
that his theatre is distinguished by its direct engagement with the sociopolitical issues 
152

of his time. His works do not merely echo the stylistic innovations of the European 
avant-garde; they actively participate in a dialogue with the historical and cultural 
realities of Slovenia, making his contributions to the avant-garde both contextually 
grounded and innovative.
In summary, Peter Božič’s early plays represent a significant and unique chapter in 
the development of avant-garde theatre in Slovenia. His works are a testament to 
the power of theatre as a medium for sociopolitical critique and cultural expression, 
blending personal experience with broader existential and absurdist themes. Božič’s 
legacy within the avant-garde movement is one of rebellion, context and influence, 
positioning him as a critical figure in the history of Slovenian and European theatre. 
153

Literature
Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. Grove Press, 1994.
Bennett, Michael Y. Reassessing the Theatre of the Absurd: Camus, Beckett, Ionesco, 
Genet, and Pinter. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Božič, Peter. “Razvoj gledališke literature in gledaliških sredstev v slovenskem 
gledališču v obdobju od leta 1945 do današnjega dne” [The Development of Theatre 
Literature and Means of Expression in Slovenian Theatre since 1945]. Maske, no. 1, 
1985, pp. 11–22.
—. Križišče [The Crossroads]. Obzorja, 1970.
—. Vojaka Jošta ni [There Is No Soldier Jošt]. Obzorja, 1970.
—. Zasilni izhod [The Fire Exit]. Obzorja, 1970.
Bru, Sascha. “Revolution Reconsidered: the Three Avant-Garde Traditions.” The 
European Avant-Garde – A Hundred Years Later, edited by Polona Tratnik, Brill, 
2024, pp. 15–44.
Ionesco, Eugène. Four Plays. Grove Press, 1958.
Jesenko, Primož. Rob v središču [The Margin in the Centre]. Slovenski gledališki 
inštitut, 2015.
Miller, Tyrus. “ Anaphorizing Histories: on the Entanglements of Paleo-, Neo-, and 
Tardo-Avant-Gardes.” The European Avant-Garde – A Hundred Years Later, edited by 
Polona Tratnik, Brill, 2024, pp. 45–62.
Petan, Žarko, and Tone Partljič, eds. Oder 57 [Stage 57]. Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 
1988. Knjižnica MGL, 103.
Toporišič, Tomaž. “Trst, Ljubljana, Zagreb in Beograd med obrobjem in središčem: 
od zgodovinskih do neo-, post- in retroavantgard” [Trieste, Ljubljana, Zagreb and 
Belgrade between Periphery and Centre: From Historical Avant-Gardes to Neo-, 
Post- and Retro-Avant-Gardes]. Amfiteater, vol. 11, no. 2, 2023, pp. 14–34.
—. “Rapsodično gledališče Petra Božiča” [Rapsodic Theatre of Peter Božič]. Še preden 
se je začel svet [Before the World Began], edited by Tomaž Toporišič and Ivo Svetina, 
Slovenski gledališki muzej, 2011, pp. 31–36. 
Tratnik, Polona, ed. The European Avant-Garde – A Hundred Years Later. Brill, 2024.
Troha, Gašper. “Peter Božič in njegova vloga pri afirmaciji drame absurda pri nas” 
[Peter Božič and His Role in Affirmation of the Theatre of the Absurd in Slovenia]. 
Še preden se je začel svet [Before the World Began], edited by Tomaž Toporišič and 
Ivo Svetina, Slovenski gledališki muzej, 2011, pp. 45–52.
154

Amfiteater, letn. 13, št. 1, 2025
UDK 821.163.6.09-2Božič P.  
DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2025-1/142-159
Povzetek
Peter Božič je bil slovenski dramatik, čigar najpomembnejše igre so nastale na začetku 
njegove kariere, med letoma 1955 in 1961. To pisanje je močno povezano z Odrom 57, ki je 
predstavljal opozicijo takrat prevladujočemu slogu socialističnega realizma v Jugoslaviji. 
Mladi dramatiki, režiserji in igralci so iskali nove načine izražanja, ki so se opirali na 
eksistencialistično filozofijo, Artaudovo gledališče in modernistično literaturo.
Vendar je Peter Božič na vprašanje o vplivih na svoje delo odgovoril: »Ko sem pisal Človeka 
v šipi [njegova prva igra, op. a.], sem se naslanjal na lastne življenjske izkušnje, ne da bi 
vedel, da je ta oblika pravzaprav avantgardno gledališče. Šele pozneje, ko sem prvič videl 
Ionesca na odru, sem spoznal, da je to to.« In ko pozneje pojasnjuje vpliv Becketta in 
Ionesca na svoje igre, priznava, da sta bila zanj pomembna v »kulturnem smislu. Vendar 
pa je na vsebino mojih iger veliko močneje vplivala vojna. Med vojno so vse moje vrednote 
razpadle na koščke.«
Kako pristen je bil razvoj avantgardnega gledališča Petra Božiča na evropskem obrobju? V 
kolikšni meri ga lahko primerjamo z deli Becketta in Ionesca?
To razmerje med centrom v Franciji in slovensko periferijo razprava analizira s primerjavo 
med zgodnjimi dramami Petra Božiča ter deli Becketta in Ionesca, ki jih je Božič videl ali bral 
v Sloveniji – Plešasto pevko in Učno uro Ionesca ter Čakajoč Godota in Konec igre Becketta.
Ključne besede: Peter Božič, Eugène Ionesco, Samuel Beckett, drama absurda, avantgarda
156

Gašper Troha je doktoriral na Oddelku za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo 
Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Ukvarja se s sociologijo literature, zlasti sodobne 
svetovne in slovenske dramatike in gledališča. Je raziskovalec na Akademiji za gledališče, 
radio, film in televizijo Univerze v Ljubljani ter direktor Slovenskega gledališkega inštituta. 
Objavljal je v številnih domačih in mednarodnih znanstvenih revijah. Skupaj z Vaneso Matajc 
in Gregorjem Pompetom je soavtor knjige History and its Literary Genres (Cambridge 
Scholars Publishing, 2008). Je tudi urednik in avtor knjig Literarni modernizem v »svinčenih« 
letih (Literary Modernism in the “Leaden” Years, Študentska založba, 2008) ter Lojze 
Kovačič: življenje in delo (Lojze Kovačič: Life and Work, Študentska založba, 2009). Leta 
2015 je izdal monografijo Ujetniki svobode (Aristej), leta 2025 pa monografijo Slovenska 
dramatika in tuji vplivi po letu 2000 (Beletrina).
gasper.troha@guest.arnes.si
157

Peter Božič in vprašanje avtentične 
gledališke avantgarde v Sloveniji v drugi 
polovici 20. stoletja
Gašper Troha  
Slovenski gledališki inštitut in Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, Univerza 
v Ljubljani
Razprava obravnava vpliv in vlogo Petra Božiča v razvoju avantgardnega gledališča 
v Sloveniji v petdesetih in šestdesetih letih 20. stoletja
1
. Božič je bil pomembna 
osebnost eksperimentalnega gledališča, povezana predvsem z Odrom 57. Njegove 
zgodnje drame se umeščajo v evropsko avantgardo, a je nanje pomembno vplivala 
tudi njegova osebna izkušnja druge svetovne vojne.
Po drugi svetovni vojni je bila v Jugoslaviji kulturna produkcija v veliki meri pod 
vplivom socialističnega realizma, ki je poudarjal optimistično vizijo prihodnosti, slavil 
komunistične ideale in vzdrževal jasne moralne dihotomije. Božič je bil eden izmed 
tistih, ki so zavrnili enostranski prikaz resničnosti in v svojih dramah raziskovali 
deziluzijo, eksistencialno tesnobo in fragmentirano obliko pripovedi.
V igrah Zasilni izhod (1957), Križišče (1957) in Vojaka Jošta ni (1961) Božič zavrača 
idealizirano prihodnost in poenostavljene moralne binarnosti, ki so bile značilne za 
socialistični realizem. Njegovo delo zaznamujejo pesimizem, kaos in negotovost, ki 
so tesno povezani z njegovimi osebnimi izkušnjami iz otroštva med vojno, ko je bil 
pri dvanajstih letih priča bombardiranju Dresdna. Ta izkušnja je trajno zaznamovala 
njegov pogled na svet in prispevala k njegovemu uporniškemu in eksistencialno 
skeptičnemu izrazu.
Podobno kot Samuel Beckett in Eugène Ionesco je Božič razvijal občutek eksistencialne 
praznine in brezizhodnosti. Beckettovi junaki v Čakajoč Godota in Konec igre se 
soočajo z neskončnim čakanjem in nepremostljivo absurdnostjo obstoja, Božičevi 
liki v Zasilnem izhodu in Križišču doživljajo podoben občutek ujetosti v brezizhodni 
situaciji. V Zasilnem izhodu so liki ujeti v zaklonišču in zaman iščejo izhod, podobno 
v Križišču, kjer protagonist zaman čaka Cunjarja, da bi ponovno našel svoj smisel. 
1 Članek je nastal v okviru raziskovalnega programa Gledališke in medumetnostne raziskave P6-0376, ki ga financira Javna 
agencija za raziskovalno in inovativno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proračuna.
158

Dialogi so fragmentirani in polni ponavljanj, kar utrjuje občutek brezizhodnosti. Ta 
formalna podobnost z gledališčem absurda nakazuje, da je Božič ne glede na lastno 
zanikanje delil nekatere ključne značilnosti evropske avantgarde.
Božič je eksplicitno priznal vpliv Ionescove Učne ure na njegovo dramo Vojaka Jošta 
ni. Po ogledu Ionescove predstave v izvedbi Odra 57 je Božič našel nov pristop k 
pisanju dram, ki ni temeljil na ideoloških resnicah, ampak na razkrivanju absurda 
človeškega obstoja. Medtem ko je Ionesco uporabil idejo kot orodje za manipulacijo, 
je Božič popolnoma opustil kakršnokoli idejno sidrišče in predstavil svet brez smisla, 
v katerem se dogodki ponavljajo in izgubljajo vsakršen pomen.
Razprava ugotavlja, da Božičevo delo ni zgolj posnemanje evropske avantgarde, temveč 
je izraz specifičnega kulturnega in političnega trenutka v Sloveniji oz. Jugoslaviji. 
Podobno kot kasnejše gibanje retroavantgarde v osemdesetih letih (npr. NSK in skupina 
Laibach) je tudi Božič eklektično prevzemal tuje ideje in jih prilagajal lokalnemu 
kontekstu. Peter Božič je s svojimi zgodnjimi dramami ustvaril ključne temelje za drugi 
val avantgardnega gledališča v Sloveniji. Njegove igre združujejo osebno izkušnjo, 
eksistencialni pesimizem in družbeno kritiko, hkrati pa izkazujejo vpliv evropske drame 
absurda. Kljub določenim podobnostim z Beckettom in Ionescom ostaja Božič samosvoj 
avtor, ki se je odzival na specifične slovenske družbeno-politične razmere. Njegova 
dramatika je pomemben del slovenske gledališke zgodovine in prispeva k razumevanju 
kulturnih in ideoloških premikov v Jugoslaviji druge polovice 20. stoletja.
159