The author is Martha C. Nussbaum, and the subtitle is Opera & Political Freedom. Martha decided she didn’t want to do a podcast after all, so since I’ve put in real time to prepare I thought I’d give some thoughts about the book directly, partly because it doesn’t get strong reviews elsewhere. I suspect that the number of people qualified to review this book, musically and philosophically and historically, is very small.
Overall this is a great book, and if you think you might be interested you should buy it and read it. It shows a significant experience of opera, in part from Nussbaum’s efforts as a singer and performer. Other operas considered for length include Mozart’s great pieces, Verdi’s Don Carloof Beethoven FidelioBenjamin Britten (Albert Herringfor one), and that of John Adams Nixon in China. For Nussbaum, “political freedom” is not exactly a classical form of freedom, but for at least eighty percent of the book that distinction does not matter.
I disagree with his points. Although each appears to be a small matter, I fear that it will reflect a larger truth when Nussbaum grounds his understanding of operas in his broader political and social agenda.
He is very suspicious of you Don Giovannihe considers it a “problem opera,” which I think it is for him. He can’t admit that the right numbers of women can actually be attracted to the Don, suggesting instead that it’s their dire economic woes that lead them to such types. That seems to me to be a serious misunderstanding of the work, given the diversity of centuries of high commentary on the passage. Kierkegaard’s understanding is still ahead of his own, and so is that of the average dramatist.
In general, he is highly suspicious of romanticism, and works hard to resist the idea that romanticism was the natural and perhaps inevitable origin of the classical spirit in music. No wonder Tristan is an abomination to her – “I think Tristan is a boring opera and that the idea of love in it – all unsatisfied longing and no reconciliation – is new and boring.” I would agree that almost all of Wagner’s operas, except maybe Das Rheingoldthey are too long and therefore have a certain element of tedium. But that is hardly an accurate understanding of the libretto or the romantic connection (no repetition??).
One would do well to add Nussbaum and Wayne Koestenbaum The Queen’s Throat. GPT Pro had a good summary of some of Koestenbaum’s most unique ideas:
“A playful voice goes beyond ordinary speech: it’s very high, it’s stylish, it’s very physical, it’s very artique, it’s very emotional.” That excess makes it a political crime because it interferes with the habits of self-control, self-control of men, being real, and the “worthiness” of humanity in society. Opera offers the kind of things that noble culture often needs people—especially people—especially: shame, glamor, sadness, dreams, and desire……it is a place where self-awareness unstable, theatrical, moderate, and extreme. Opera is full of secrets, codes, hidden meanings, homeless passions, and words that say indirectly what cannot be said directly.”
It is by no means an entirely inappropriate tendency, but it complicates any identification of opera with freedom or indeed with other basic political ideas. In some ways, opera often deviates slightly from classical norms.
I take Beethoven to be a more liberal modesty than he is, as I am concerned with the repeated sense of “finality” in his work, and the implied vision of total social integration as the ultimate good. It’s not Beethoven’s fault that even the Nazis played Fideliobut it points to his political music, which Nussbaum pushes off the stage.
Why is Rossini so little in this book? (You find a summary on page 303-304). He is undoubtedly the backbone of opera, and the bearer of the Mozartean tradition, yet he was also a supporter of the French monarchy and its restoration. Even Verdi was a conservative and a monarchist, imposing his own Don Carlo in a slightly different light. I am reminded of Carl Schmitt’s critique of Romanticism, namely that it can transfer allegiance from revolutionary republicanism to reactionary monarchism. 19th century opera is not entirely innocent of this charge, and a more detailed look at the content would have dealt with the issue. Mazzini wrote an entire book on opera and saw it as pro-nationalism above all else. A look at Auber’s history La Muette de Porticiyour work which inspired Belgian nationalism and rebellion in 1830, agrees with this view.
Nussbaum is too preoccupied with his ideas of division, and he is not sufficiently aware of how much opera itself – most of all music – continues to divert our attention elsewhere.
Overall, this is a thought-provoking book, full of deep opera and philosophy. If it is afraid to follow the path where the music itself – and its biggest attackers – have been leading us, that makes it very thoughtful.
