Page 274 [274]
ANDRÁS VISKY
but he is an angel, and as God’s anti-footman he seems a devil of smaller format
than Mephistopheles. This is also demonstrated by the fact that there is no pact
between the Lord and Lucifer, there’s no agreement one can call on. History
is a dream which, however — this exemplary dream-dramaturgy! — we must
make the viewer forget in order to preserve the dramatic deeds for him. The
awakening, the intrusion of the pregnant Eve among us, this deus ex machina
must be a great and experiential turn of events, not merely a simple reminder
of the “unseriousness” of the theatrical play up to that point.
Antal Németh writes about the highly successful Vienna production, which,
by the way, he names a “cash register piece” (not bad!): “The main objective of
the [Hermann] Robbeling dramaturgy was the most thorough possible elimi¬
nation of resemblances to Faust, so that nothing should remind the viewer of
Goethe’s opus.”?! That’s understandable. And for us, our main objective was
a sweeping, accosting, then-and-there performance that wipes away all prior
knowledge and invites the viewer into his own life.
Lucifer carries forward the tradition of the small(er) platea-devils, dipped,
of course, into the conceptual world of the Enlightenment. Because of the
Phalanstery scene, Madach is forced (or so it seems, at least) to forgive him,
since there, in the community of overdone scientificality, handled ironically,
Lucifer becomes Adam’s co-conspirator, and — for the duration of one scene
— not his opponent. He contradicts his own principles when he introduces
Adam to the self-annihilating world of “cold” science.
Another possible parallel comes up, which may assist the concrete thespian
construction of the character in depicting the chief plot lines. And this is
the example of the prodigal son: the older son who stays at home and doesn’t
squander his patrimony resembles this Lucifer in several ways, since, per defi¬
nitionem he, too, regards himself as a member of his father’s house. Most
importantly, Lucifer’s sense of offense is striking: he feels he has been unjustly
sentenced to repeat a grade. In the example of the prodigal son, the debauched
wastrel, who nonetheless returns, chastened, becomes the positive hero, while
the elder sibling is, in fact, condemned as a calculating mediocrity.
Purcarete initially headed in the direction of radical minimalism. The ab¬
sence of masks (and other items) at the end of the Roman scene lead in a dif¬
ferent direction. They don’t crucify the apostle Peter upside down on the two¬
branched wooden ladder — I’m going to miss that! His speech is simple and
free of anger: he is the sad, tired prophet who does not believe in the greatness
of his mission, but despite that, still carries the miracle through to the end in
the name of “holy love.” He doesn’t even take stock of his actions: he performs
what the text prescribes with wavering faith. He is not only the apostle-actor
but also Silviu Purcärete. And the miracle happens.
91 Koltai: Ibid., 38.
s 272 +