Words and language in opera

My first Summer School at Oxford was on Verdi and Shakespeare.  Verdi had written operas for Macbeth Othello.  His last opera was Falstaff.  The tutor, who was excellent, explained why in his view Italian was the best language for opera – which is theatre set to music.  It all sounded very logical, and we discussed the differences with English and French – and giggled when we spoke of German – just a little bit of Jingoism at Oxford.

But I recalled a previous visit to England when I saw a great performance of Billy Budd at Covent Garden.  This was in the 90’s when the AO was blazing.  I had asked Moffat Oxenbould, the Artistic Director of the AO, whether I should see Billy Budd or La Bohème.  One reason he gave in favour of the former is that it would be good for me to hear an opera in my own language.  This was very good advice, because at that time I found the music of Britten to be challenging.  Billy Budd is now my favourite opera – beside Falstaff.  (I would add Die Walküre, with the proviso that I must skip the second act – and watch the closing duet at the bar.)

*

Simone Young will conduct Wagner’s Ring Cycle at La Scala.  (She was the first female conductor of it at Bayreuth, just as she had been the first female conductor with the Vienna State Opera and the Vienna Philharmonic.) 

She will share the function with a younger conductor who has learned under her.  (The person first appointed pulled out at short notice.) 

Simone had come to Wagner via Barenboim, who in turn came to Wagner via Furtwangler.  She and Barenboim had started their roles in Wagner on the piano.  Since Furtwangler is my favourite conductor, this is some pedigree. 

You can get an idea of what is involved by watching a video of Young talking in fluent Italian about preparing for Das Rheingold.  (She had previously held a long appointment at Hamburg.)  It is a great comfort to see learning being passed down from one generation to another in this high art form.

*

Young told The New York Times that it was essential for the conductor to concentrate on the words in the libretto, as well as the music – then she knew how to place the accents of the orchestra – if I may be permitted the phrase. 

That makes sense.  The composer of the music wrote it to be played with the libretto written for just that purpose.  And it was written to be played with the score in the language in which the libretto was written.  Nessun dorma can’t come out like ‘None shall sleep.’

*

Now, when we who speak English see Shakespeare, we follow it in our own tongue – and miss some of the archaisms of plays written more than four hundred years ago.  We get the meaning and the poetry at the same time.  And while we may cut the text, and take other liberties, no one has suggested that we may in some way flirt with the text itself.  That would be the civil equivalent of blasphemy.  Like fiddling with the text Dante or Goethe.  Or the opening chords of Don Giovanni.  Or the background to the Mona Lisa.

Poetry, like music, is a mix of imagination, form, and rhythm – and, for the want of a better word, alchemy.  (When Wordsworth referred to a ‘spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings’ he was expressing a view good for Keats, but not so good for Wordsworth.)  And if you fiddle with either the music or the poetry, you might just wreck it.  Hamlet in French is a very different beast compared to Hamlet as it was written.

But most Australians who go to see the big operas of Mozart, Verdi, Wagner or Puccini do not speak the language in which the opera was written.  And with the possible exception of late Puccini, they are not the same as the audiences for which the operas were originally created.  Recording only started in the twentieth century.

This will not trouble those who go along to hear the big numbers and just bide their time otherwise.  (The Italians were notorious for gossiping until a set piece came on – when they exploded with applause – or derision.  Rather like a soccer match – or a bull fight.  Simone Young said that some thought that you had flopped in Germany with Wagner unless you got both raspberries and applause.  On the other hand, on one of my visits to Glyndebourne, the loudest applause came from the toff behind me who snored the loudest.)

But for the rest of us, at least two issues arise.  We are not getting the opera in the manner that its creators intended, and we cannot match the music to the language of the script.  We therefore have to put our trust in the translator, and in those directing the opera. 

*

These misgivings – and that is what they are – show the wisdom of the advice I got from Moffat Oxenbould about listening to operas written in English.  This has led me to something like an addiction to Britten. 

Curiously, I have also become attached to Janacek, who was a fanatic about linking the music exactly to the text.  He used to patrol the streets listening to people and watching them speak, so that he could mould his compositions accordingly. 

My absorption with Janacek and Britten came at a time of extended leave from the great Italian composers.  I got to the stage that I had got to with Swan Lake and Giselle many years ago – if I heard La Bohème or La Traviata yet again, I might just give it all away.

*

I doubt whether this gap for most of us between the text and the music in opera is grasped by many in the audience at the opera house or at home.

We are familiar with the problem with, say, French poetry.  On a good day, I can stagger through Verlaine and some of Victor Hugo.  (I subscribe to Paris Match, but I may say that is mostly for the photos – which is the precise opposite of what we schoolboys said when we smuggled in a Playboy.)  With Latin, I am on much firmer ground, and I have the luxury of not being called on to speak it. 

But take a well-known part of the Aeneid by Vergil.

Sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt.

We can have a sporting chance of translating that.  ‘Even things have tears, and our mortality touches our minds’.  That may get the meaning of the words, but it sounds ugly, and however we translate it, we know it does and cannot have the poetic effect of the original text.  Latin has a very different structure and ring to it compared to English.

Or take an example plucked from Gutenberg:

In the midway of this our mortal life,
I found me in a gloomy wood, astray
Gone from the path direct: and e’en to tell
It were no easy task, how savage wild
That forest, how robust and rough its growth,
Which to remember only, my dismay
Renews, in bitterness not far from death.

That is among other things ugly and apparently wrought.  This is how Dante began the Divine Comedy.

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita

mi ritrovai per una selva oscura,

ché la diritta via era smarrita.

Ahi quanto a dir qual era è cosa dura

esta selva selvaggia e aspra e forte

che nel pensier rinova la paura!

Tant è amara che poco è più morte;

ma per trattar del ben chi vi trovai,

dirò de laltre cose chi vho scorte.

You do not have to speak a word of Italian to know that the translation into English now sounds like an act of strangulated butchery.

*

In course of the opera named after him, the third in the Ring Cycle, Siegfried kills his foster father before the latter kills him; he slays the dragon; he talks to the birds; he walks through a fire to free Brunnhilde from the spell put on her by her father; and then he takes off with her to the tune of what Simone Young says is one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written.  The final two lines of the text are:

Leuchtender Liebe,

Lachender Tod!

Even allowing that Siegfried is the dull child who refuses to grow up, those lines could surely not be as banal as their translation:

Radiant love,

Laughing death!

(And there is certainly nothing to laugh about in the death of either in Götterdämmerung.

The splendid Penguin version of the text and translation gives this comment of Nietzsche, who knew something about this.

Wagner’s poetry is all about revelling in the German language, the warmth and candour in his communion with it, something that as such cannot be felt in any other German writer except Goethe.

That is close to saying the text in this context is barely translatable. 

The score of the Ring was formally dedicated ‘with faith in the German spirit’.  You would not want it get into the wrong hands, especially one who like Wagner wanted to plant frenzy in the German audiences; a leader who, like the master, could wield magnetic power over the German psyche; a German whose favourite opera was Götterdämmerung, but who failed to see that it prophesied the fall of his regime, and of the whole German volk.

*

There is another way of looking at what happens when the demands of the audience or reader require tampering with the work of a genius.  Goethe and Pushkin are celebrated in their own country to about the same extent as Shakespeare is in England, but neither travels well.  (Ibsen and Chekhov do not have the same problems.  Homer is seen as untouchable, in part because of intellectual snobbery, and the myth of Oxbridge that ancient Greece was civilized.) 

It is hardly surprising that mutilation carries huge risks.  Rare people of nerve and imagination and the soul of a director can occasionally succeed.  Nearly forty years ago, I took my young daughters to see Goethe’s Faust put on at the little Russel Street theatre, blessed of memory.  I warned them that it might be long and tedious.  I think a young Barrie Kosky directed it.  At the start, the lights went right out.  Gorillas were just seen running up and down each side aisle.  Then, two spotlights shone down the middle aisle.  A gorilla emerged at the front of center stage.  From out of it emerged the smiling face of Barry Otto.  There may have been the sound of machine-gun fire.  And our close attention was held for the duration.  I still recall it.

*

Which brings me back to the suggestion that Italian is the ‘best’ language for opera.  Well, opera was born in Italy, and a majority of its superstar composers were also born there, but, putting to one side what experts in linguistics and phonetics might say, you may want to be careful in expressing that view in Amsterdam, Bayreuth, Berlin, London, Madrid, New York, Salzburg, Stockholm, Vienna and other cities that know something of music and theatre.  Or Commedia dell’ Arte.

And the discovery of the meaning of what you have heard so often may have its own entertainment value.  Nessun dorma is the best-known aria.  Who knows the real circumstances of ‘None shall sleep’?  Who knows just how plain silly Siegfried, the great hero of the Ring, is?  (Even the Master thought he was stupid.  The Rheinmaidens knew he was mad.  And by the time he finally gets to depart, we do not go into mourning.)  Heaven knows how many times I had heard Jussi Bjoerling sing Mama chel vino es generoso, before I saw Cavalleria Rusticana, and I started to giggle.  ‘Well might you need a stiff drink from your Mum, Comrade, because you are about to greet the guy with whose wife you have been playing tootsies, and in your part of the world, there can only be one result.’

*

We should be careful about talking about meaning in this context.  We have trouble with the meaning of some passages in Hamlet because our language has changed – it is always evolving.  We have even more trouble with Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, but with some tuition and encouragement – like I got at another Oxford Summer School – you can get by.  Then Beowulf is beyond all but those taught at tertiary level.

It is obviously silly to ask the meaning of the Pietà or the Moonlight Sonata – or Rigoletto or Don Giovanni.  Or Ode to a Nightingale. 

Macaulay said that ‘perhaps no person can be a poet without a certain unsoundness of mind…. Truth indeed is essential to poetry; but it is the truth of madness.’  That may sound over the top, but Ibsen admired Michelangelo because he had ‘the courage to commit a madness now and then.’  A psychiatrist asked – ‘Why cannot more light enter a mind that is cracked than one that is whole?’  Einstein and Keynes would have had a view on that (as would Barrie Kosky).  Keynes said that Newton was ‘the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians…. the last wonder-child to whom the Magi could do sincere and appropriate homage.’  And, of course, Newton was up to his neck in alchemy.

*

When we speak of a libretto in a foreign tongue, we are in some kind of hinterland when it comes to meaning.  Logical analysis is on very shaky ground.  We face three filters.  First, we depend on the conductor and director to present their version of this musical drama called opera.  Secondly, we depend on the translators to tell us their view of the meaning of the script in English.  And, finally, we get a very different account of the carefully managed marriage between the music and the text. 

You would not want to be on an ascent of Everest or undergoing heart surgery on such a wobbly footing.

*

Opera translated into English does not have a good name – for good reason.  (One exception is the Mackerass Makropoulos Case.)  There is therefore a lot in favour of operas created in our own language.  We could never have survived Faust in German with voice over or subtitles.  Like the time some well intentioned internationalist got us at a Melbourne festival to see a Romanian theatre group do Titus Andronicus – in Romanian!  And our Romanian friends just hung their heads in horror. 

This was I think the ultimate risk in fiddling with the work of a giant, but at least to some extent, we take on some of that risk whenever we go to see most of the operas that are put on, especially in the straitened times since Covid.

*

And the great success of Simone Young in Bayreuth, Berlin, Hamburg and Vienna is a sad reflection of the decline of the AO since its glory days of the nineties. 

I had been to a talk given by Simone on Tristan, which she opened with a thundering chord on the piano, and I saw her conduct that opera and a Wagner gala.  On each occasion, I was transfixed.  A chairman of the AO told me that Simone had allowed him to stand at the back of the pit during a performance.  He said his hair stood on end as she entered the pit, and she stayed back later to talk to the orchestra.  She may be our best export since Melba or Sutherland – but she is just not seen by those up the back as having that éclat.

*

Well, at least my girls got to see our team at its best.  But it is sobering for an eighty-year-old lawyer who has been listening to or going to the opera for more than sixty years to reflect that not only can he not read the score – he cannot even read the script. 

That is just one of the reasons why I wonder if I am not much better off watching the live theatre of a test match – cricket or rugby – or a Grand Prix or Grand Final.  Or the Melbourne Cup.  Then I know just what is going on, but I have no idea how it all may end.  There is a lot to be said for that – it is called drama.

Then there is the shortest poem of Chris Wallace-Crabbe.  ‘Whatever Christ meant, it wasn’t this.’

Falstaff at Covent Garden – a kind of alacrity in sinking


This is how Sir John Falstaff reflects on the ignominy of being dumped in the Thames with filthy washing.

Have I lived to be carried in a basket like a barrow
of butcher’s offal, and to be thrown in the Thames?
Well, if I be served such another trick, I’ll have my
brains ta’en out and buttered, and give them to a
dog for a New Year’s gift.  S’blood, the rogues
slighted me into the river with as little remorse as
they would have drowned a blind bitch’s puppies,
fifteen i’ th’ litter! And you may know by my size
that I have a kind of alacrity in sinking; if the bottom
were as deep as hell, I should drown. I had
been drowned, but that the shore was shelvy and
shallow—a death that I abhor, for the water swells
a man, and what a thing should I have been when
I had been swelled! By the Lord, I should have
been a mountain of mummy.

This may remind you of the philosophical reflection of a sometime Spanish knight after a similar humiliation.  After being trampled on by a herd of bulls, Don Quixote laments:

Here I am with my name in the history books, a famous man of arms, courteous in my conduct, respected by princes, sought after by damsels, and just when I was expecting palms, triumphs, and crowns, I find myself this morning, as a climax to it all, trodden under foot, battered and kicked by a herd of filthy animals.

These are probably the two most famous characters in our literature.  They were created at about the same time.  In saluting what we may call the modern era, or the end of the Middle Ages, they stand for the end of all that moonshine about chivalry.  In the case of The Merry Wives of Windsor, we seethe arrival of the middle class as the centre of attention on our stage, a kind of Elizabethan prelude to Coronation Street, Neighbours, and Friends – although we had to wait centuries before Jennifer Anniston became the most photographed person on the planet, and bowed out in front of 52 million television viewers.

Well, that is one factor behind the snobbery that this play of Shakespeare attracts.  It may be his only play for which he supplied most of the plot, but the lead, Sir John Falstaff, had exploded on the stage in two history plays, before being killed off in another. 

But, as fans of Shakespeare are wont to remind fans of Verdi, the Falstaff of the comedy is much softer than the Falstaff of the history plays.  The brash insolence, fraud, drunkenness, cowardice, and womanizing are constant.  But in the comedy, and the Verdi opera Falstaff, we are spared watching Falstaff the recruiter accepting bribes to allow some poor blighters to be be despatched for cannon fodder.  If he cannot be said to rat on his mates, it’s because he does not have any.  It was this kind of nastiness, which gives a guilty edge to our glee, that led Sir Anthony Quayle call Falstaff ‘frankly vicious.’

The play and the opera are both put on to make us laugh and give us a good time – and reconcile ourselves to our condition.  Well, God only knows how much we need that release and therapy now.  Someone in the trade got up Verdi’s nose by saying he could not write an opera for comedy like Rossini.  Falstaff was Verdi’s answer.

At the beginning of the play, Page is discussing the form of his greyhound, which had just been outrun.  He tells Falstaff they have a hot venison pasty for dinner, and says ‘Come, gentlemen, I hope we shall drink down all unkindness.’  At the end of the play, his wife says ‘let us every one go home, And laugh this sport o’er by a country fire….’  That is precisely the tone of the whole show – and it is precisely the tone of the whole Verdi score.  It may be the most remarkable marriage of script and score that I know.

Still, some snobbery attaches to the play – but not I think to the opera.  W H Auden just refused to lecture on the play.  Well, at least he had the courtesy to refer his audience to the opera.  My own view is that if you are not uplifted by any decent performance of the play, you need help.  As for the opera – Shakespeare is the best playwright that we know, and there are only two challengers to Verdi for that position as composer of opera.  In the result, Falstaff is not just my favourite Verdi opera, but my favourite across the board.  (I may say that I have never taken to the opera Macbeth, and that the play Othello gives me the willies.   Strawberries out of order have the same effect on me as they did on Humphrey Bogart in The Caine Mutiny.)

And for those who have been cruelled by Wagner, Falstaff has one unassailable charm.  It is not too long.  It takes less time than the final act of Wagner’s comedy.

Well, those who turned out to Covent Garden in October, 1999 to see a new production of Falstaff sure got their money’s worth.  The house, especially behind the famous curtain, had just had a major rebuild.  The lead was played by a popular local, Bryn Terfel.  The band was conducted by the urbane and unflappable Bernard Haitink.  The costumes and sets were alarmingly attention-grabbing.  The full crowd was expectant and knowing – and they got all that they wanted.  This is, after all, a show in which the English may claim some rights.  And I was at home, with Opus Arte, red at hand, cheering them all on.

At first, I thought the sets and costumes were overdone, and distracting.   But I acclimatised, especially after hearing the director say later that this is after all an Italian opera, and that the story had Italian roots.  (In the extras, Haitink said this is the one opera of Verdi where not one note, not one, is out of place.  Terfel in interview was entirely at ease and bore a remarkable resemblance to Richard Burton in so many ways.  The commentary on the massive work backstage is riveting.) 

This is an opera where the music is integral to the whole show to an extent rarely seen outside of Mozart and Wagner.  As it goes, it gets ethereal, but we always come back to what it is there for – to give us a great night out and send us home more at peace with our neighbours and the world.  And that’s God’s work.

The highlight of this show was the peak of dramatic irony where Falstaff is telling Ford disguised as Brook how he will get Ford’s wife into bed.  The incoming bourgeoisie, the future rulers of television and the world, are terrified of being cuckolded.  You may as well be castrated.  The English language has no female counterpart to ‘unmanned.’  The sequence is as paralyzingly funny as the mirror sequence with Groucho Marx in Duck Soup, and is a warrant for the value of filming this kind of theatre, so that we can see close-up the facial contortions of the splendid Italian actor.  For some reason, his pain and anguish at the cruelty of fate reminded me so strongly of that of Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners.  There are times when we get almost viscerally grabbed by the universality of theatre going right back to commedia dell’ arte and the Greeks.  And all this at what used to be a convent, then a red-light area, and now one of the more singular tourist traps on this earth.

And with it all there is a sense of elegy – unless that is just my coming to grips with coming gutsers as I get older.  Falstaff is not what he was.  They know it, and so does he.  An autumnal wistfulness pervades Henry IV Part II until it is shattered by an act of brutal betrayal.  We are spared this in the comedy and opera based on it, but not in Orson Welles’ Chimes at Midnight also entitled Falstaff.  (I do think it was a bit rich to give Jeanne Moreau second billing, when the tart Doll Tearsheet gets about three lines.)

In his play, Parolles gets his come-uppance too, but his decline and fall is total, and the pathos is scarcely funny.  As Tony Tanner remarked in discussing All’s Well, Falstaff in the comedy ‘dusts himself off fairly breezily…his attitude is more resigned – you win some, you lose some, and as you get older you lose more.’ 

I know just what he means, and perhaps that is why this play and opera just keeps getting better for me as I age.  It calls to mind a desolate Friday lunch in an Adelaide pub after court about forty years ago with a fading silk.  ‘You know, Mate, we are just like cats.  For every fight you have, you have one less to give.’

The Australian Opera put on a show of Falstaff in Melbourne about twenty years ago that mesmerised me and converted me to being a life-long a fan of both the play and the opera.  Well, this show at Covent Garden, now on film, is up there with the best – perhaps the locals can claim a home ground advantage, even if we now miss the subtle charms of the Crush Bar.  If anyone wants to challenge the West End as the beating heart of world theatre, they will have to get up bloody early.