|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Thursday, 18 December 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
The theatre after classicism by Gwen Herat The decline of the theatre was imminent during the classical age mainly for its refusal to revive the Restoration which by its brilliance was responsible for the magnificent flowering of the theatre. During this uncertain time the form of literature had lost its vitality.
The decline would have been worse if not for the few poets who surfaced to keep it alive. As the theatre declined, literate too was reaching its lowest point. This period was 1740-1770. However came the time when the literary public increased in numbers forcing the declining theatre to sit up. It is as accepted fact that the eighteenth century was an epoch of great actors (only males). The aristrocrats lent their patronage so the theatre remained among others a source of entertainment and of intellectual life. The traditional theatre goer was from the middle class as the preference of class and culture too played a vital role in its survival. It was not for the want of spectators that the masterpieces in the drama were fewer than from before the period of classisicm. If to judge by the English Renaissance, the dearth of genius explained the normality in the phases of flowering were exceptional.
It was during this uncertain period that Germany produced a Master who was to give new twist to the prevailing conditions in the theatre. His presence explained a precise cause which the theatre at that time was not able to comprehend but did later. It was in the new society of mixed character in which the middle class traits and aspirations superseded the sophisticated aristocracy who equally fancied the theatre and considered it an exceptional part of their cultural life. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) Goethe is considered as the consummate German classicist and poet along with his counterpart, Friedrich Schiller. He is most remembered for the epic classic in the two-part tragedy of 'Faust' which is still accepted as one of the few brilliantly written pathos with nothing left for imagination. His other masterpieces included 'Iphgenie Auf Tauris' and 'Torquato Tasso'. His poems included Wanderer's Night Songs and To The Moon and the cycle of poems West-Eastern Divan and his autobiography 'Poetry and Truth' and examples of his rich literary oeuvre. Among his novels, 'Wilhelm Mister' and 'Elective Affinities' placed him in a pedestal with Homer's epics, Dante's 'Divine Comedy' and Shakespeare dramas. Goethe and his friend Schiller set the standard for what come to be known as the 'Weimar Classical Style'. Goethe spent some time in Italy and was decisively influenced in his commitment to the classical style. It manifested his masterpieces and his epistolary novel 'the Sorrows of Young Werther' shot him to instant fame around Europe early in his life and helped boost the narrowing theatre. Goethe was also invited by the Duke Charles Augustus to the court of Saxe-Weimmer in 1775 where he played a big role in shaping up the duchy-Weimer became the centre of German intellectual life where icons like Lucas Cranch, Johann Sebastian Bach and Franz List lived and rose to fame because of their wonderful scoring. This was later to have an impact on the theatre because around Europe and bind the countries in artistic bondage. However, the music of Bach and Liszt never deputed in the theatre until much later. Serious opera and ballad opera were brilliantly successful throughout this century and the theatre benefitted by their settings and scenery and along with magnificent costumes, the theatre attained a high calibre in artistic virtuosity. The spirit of the staging became more realistic. It gave the personages traits that were clearly defined and individual and reduced the indefinite adaptability. Many people blamed the actors in bringing down the decline. The cause may have been as I see, the actors were less or not academic enough to handle the dialogue of the writers of the era. On a better lit stage by 1762, it was cleared of all those weaklings and made room for better and eminent actors to take over. From among them, Mrs. Siddons and Kemble emerged. Elsewhere other actors were surfacing and for those who learned about the early actors of Shakespeare drama, will remember the name of Siddons as one of the best loved Bard artists. She did much to spread the cult of Shakespeare without attracting attention of theatre goers who had already been given over to superficial drama. The decadence of the theatre resulted in these diverse reasons that threw light upon them. The middle- class spirit never showed its potent inspiration as far as the real theatre was concerned. Not that they suffered an aesthetic inferiority but because it detached itself from the prestige of social and lower ranks. Moral, social and philosophical problems were brought in without the slightest reserve. They undermined the widening horizon of the theatre but infused bold and liberated aspect of the writer who had direct impact on the theatre. England did not possess much of an audience that was divided in ethics and waited for drama to utilize the theatre to the fullest advantage. And that was the advent of sentimental comedy and middle-class drama represented in Johnson's days. Linked by intimate affinities with the Renascence appeal, it remained distinct from Elizabethan tradition and the Shakespearean modes. It was an age marked with favour and in secret harmony with the theatre presentations. English theatre from 1730-1790 was a hazard and the struggle for new forms against the authority of regular comedy and tragedy such as in Restoration and handed down to Classicism, was sentimental in force and inspirational. The inner movement of the theatre remained passive while it favoured the realistic drama. The ascendency and descendency of the theatre drifted backwards and forwards resulting at times in mediocrity. However, towards the end of the century they were in complete control. George Lillo (b1693) was the first to stage a comic opera in the BOURGEOIS spirit. He was a member of the then dissenting sect with (an ardour) to be a man of letters. His moral figure resembled Richardson who was more robust in talent and class. But Lillo was different to Richardson who had the courage to exploit to the full, the realm of drama. He was also exceptional and in some measure had a following. During this time, Defoe also remained brilliant but in order to see the results and effects of the spirit of modern realism, one had to wait for the advent of Crabbe, Wordsworth and Dickens. But Lillo had set the precedence and the stage was set for the theatre to embrace drama at higher level. Regular tragedy was not productive of any masterpiece. The parity between literary concepts and drama found it rather difficult for adaption because the theatre had failed to progress whereas new and clever writers were coming to the fore with wonderfully brilliant work. For example, in England a writer called Edward Moore in search of a worthy disciple of Lillo failed to eclipse latter's work. He was even superior to his master. But Moore wrote verse and produced two comedies for the theatre. Meanwhile the theatre goers were enjoying the popular tragedies of the Restoration. All conventions impelled in Romanticism in their extravagance showed up to the delight of the middle class audience. By now, they could cope up and digest versions like HORACE (The Roman Father) in 1750 by William Whitehead who made a lasting impression on the theatre. In the literary fabric of this age, many were combined in an effort to oppose the serious sentiments and rational scepticism. The audience was still not sophisticated enough to grasp the inner meaning of what the theatre was. They were still used to light opera and comedy. The world had to wait for the following century to embrace the intellect theatre and genuine literary works that went into it. ############# In memory of Professor K. N. Seneviratne Dr. M. P. J. Senaratne, a Consultant Cardiologist, will fly all the way from Canada at his own expense to deliver this year's K. N. Seneviratne Memorial Oration. Few university teachers of this country in recent history can evoke that kind of loyalty from their former pupils.
The truth is that Prof. K. N. Seneviratene (or "Bull" as he is affectionately called) was a magnificent specimen of the species called Homo sapiens. He had bright, kindly eyes, lightening intelligence, a magnetic personality. Well-spoken with a deep, slightly husky voice, he moved with the majestic dignity of the exceptionally tall and powerfully built. One felt that he must have been irresistible to the impressionable young women he taught. Professor Kamini Mendis was doubtless voicing the common feeling of her gender when she reminisced during the course of her K. N. Seneviratne Memorial Oration delivered in 1994: "...his lectures were lucid and glowing and they were the high-point of our day..". He walked into the lecture hall without a scrap of paper and held forth for one hour on the physiology of the nervous system in all its intricate complexity. Having to lecture to students who had been mesmerized by him was a daunting challenge to me. It was only his generous encouragement that saved me from a stunning sense of inferiority. K. N. Seneviratne graduated MBBS with honours in 1954, gaining a distinction in Medicine and winning the Gold Medal for Operative Surgery. He obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh, working under Professor David Whitteridge, FRS. In 1968, at the age of 39, he succeeded Prof ACE Koch in the Colombo Medical School. From 1968 to 1981 he was Professor of Physiology - and my boss. No physiologist working in this country acquired the international recognition he achieved. He became something of a world authority on diabetic neuropathy. In 1974, he was hand-picked by the relevant authorities to set up the Institute of Postgraduate Medicine, which later came to be called the Postgraduate Institute of Medicine. He was its founder director from 1974 to 1979. In 1981 he joined the WHO and became a Senior Public Health Adviser in Health Manpower Development. He was on a WHO assignment in Bali, Indonesia when he died. He had wished for a quick, sudden exit and he somehow contrived to fulfil that wish too. As it happened, he was alone in a hotel room, listening to his favourite composer Johann Sebastian Bach when death laid its icy hands on him. As his heart-broken wife Alison Alexander sighed in a letter she later wrote to me: "What a lovely way to go, but such a shock to those who left behind..." Such was the man whose memory will be commemorated on the 19th of this month at 6.30 pm at the Lionel Memorial Auditorium at 6, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 7. Prof K. N. Seneviratne would have heartily endorsed the theme of Dr. M. P. J. Senaratne's oration: "Cardiovascular deaths - can we identify risk and prevent them?" All are welcome. - Prof Carlo Fonseka |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
A massive heart attack felled the large-hearted, sharp-brained Kirthi
Nissanka Seneviratne on the 10th of August 1986. Some 13 years after his
exit, there are still former pupils who fondly remember him. I was not his
student, but his junior colleague. From 1957 to 1981 he bestrode the
Department of Physiology of the Colombo Medical School like a colossus.
Like envious Casca in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, I couldn't help
wondering upon what meat did K. N. Seneviratne feed that made him so
great.
