In her analysis of the "unity" displayed in Mozart's The Magic Flute, Rose Rosengard Subotnik (what a name!) argues that the Enlightenment-era maxim, "Social rank does not equal human worth" can be applied to the characters of Papageno, the Queen of the Night, and Tamino. Each of these characters, through musical and textual elements evident in their respective introductory solo numbers, reflect certain levels of nature and society to create a social commentary based on the importance of social unity. This commentary stems from the depiction in the music of "a standard of human worth based on the relation of the character[s] to some conception of nature" (3).
Through this analytical lens, we can see that Papageno represents the most natural of men, completely devoid of an awareness of social constructs of any kind. At the other end of the spectrum, the Queen of the Night utilizes her social power and cultural awareness in a way that is so contrived and artificial as to alienate her from anything natural or human. Tamino, then, is the best of both worlds: "the man of ultimate worth" (20). His character combines nature and culture with reason, which is the main goal of the Enlightenment.
So what, then, are we to take away from this article? I will admit I found her close analysis of the music very illuminating, but her overall analysis lacking. She does not, in my opinion, effectively tie her musical analyis back to her thesis in a way that let's me know what she wanted me to gain from the article as a whole. It seems to me as if she merely provided more evidence to an assertion about the opera's meaning that is fairly straightforward. On the one hand, she astutely ties her analysis into the ideas of the Enlightenment; however, she fails to expand upon her mention of the concept of unity from a nineteenth-century perspective. I would have been interested in reading about how a nineteenth-century critic would analyze the same pieces she did and come up with a different interpretation of Mozart's message to society.
Therefore, I will turn that question over to you guys: in what ways would someone from the nineteenth century view the message of this opera differently? What factors would lead to those differences?
Thinking back to Lowe's article on social context and understanding of meaning and symbolism in music, would you say that Subotnik's Enlightenment-centered analysis is more valid than one from the nineteenth-century?
What are your thoughts on Subotnik's analysis of the Queen's aria with regards to trickery, authenticity/sincerity, and manipulation? Do these things imply an absence or loss of an individual, natural self?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also did not find the argument convincing. For sure, it is an interesting idea to analyze character from the music, but Subotnik's explanation seems too adrupt.
ReplyDeleteI cannot think of 19c view of this opera, but I would view the message in terms of good and evil. Between the 1st and 2nd Act, the "evil" role shifts from Sarastro to the Queen of the Night. For me, the story's moral is that "who is evil/good is depends on perspective. There is no absolute evil/good."
I like the first major-mode section of the aria. The Queen is telling her daughter to kill Sarastro with the beautiful melody. This part sounds like the Queen is trying to behave as "good" mother, but her anger achievs the point that she cannot hide it any more, and the melody become more harsh in minor-mode.
I think this gives the Queen more personality, human-characteristic. It is natural for human people in society to want to be nice, to be liked by others. This aria shows full of individual, natural and social characteristic of the Queen.
I agree with the majority of what you're bringing up, Margaret. I found myself wondering if a student wrote this article; it seems written to reach an end, rather than support found evidence. It's as if she thought, " Saying 'Social rank doesn't equal human worth' applies to the Magic FLute sounds like a great idea! What can I scrounge around and find to support it?" She rambles a bit in the beginning, then finally makes her point with strong, textually based arguement.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't know if I believe everything she says. All the different characters and arias can be seen in so many different ways, and change depending on what perspective you have on them. I feel as if her belief is only one of many ways to view the intricacy and details of the Magic Flute, and that is why this particular opera has lasted so long: the ability and power of the audience to interpret it for themselves. She may have a point, but her's is nowhere near the only one.