In this article Subotnik posits that The Magic Flute achieved such wide appeal to all echelons of society through its degree of “large-scale unity” derived from classical principles that ultimately profess the maxim “so social rank does not equal human worth” (2-3). This is made clear by the musics of Papageno, the Queen, and Tamino, which embody this maxim through the portrayal of what enlightenment thinkers consider to be “natural.”
Papageno’s existence adheres to natural order: his repetitive musical gestures signal a natural cyclicality, and he exists in a world that makes no social distinctions; he does not question his existence or sense of self as he is part of a larger natural order that doesn’t employ reason in drawing distinctions and classifications. The Queen embodies “natural” characteristics through her loss of emotional control which ignores her social rank and duties of which she is completely aware, enforcing the maxim of human worth based outside of social order. Tamino, on the other hand, signifies human worth through his employment of reasonable decisions and creative capacity in his aria that confirms he is a man of culture, an artist. This relates to the enlightenment perspective that “the man who is truest to nature is the man of culture; for it is civilized man who is truest to his own distinctively human nature, which is based on reason” (20).
While Tamino’s use of reason supports the maxim, it reveals a contradiction that is either this author’s folly or a contradiction of enlightenment thought: Papageno is natural due to the lack of reasonable discretion as a man outside of normal culture – for in his world it is unnecessary - whereas Tamino is natural by embodying those very concepts that Papageno autonomously defies. The contradiction is a definition of the “natural” through the non-cultured as well as the extremely cultured. How can this contradiction be reconciled? What is “natural” to enlightenment thinkers, if what occurs in nature (Papageno) does not match what occurs in culture (Tamino)?
Does the queen’s momentary emotional abandonment of social rank justify her “naturalness” even though she’s an evil queen that exploits said rank for personal gain? Her insincerity is as opposite to nature as Tamino’s employment of reason supposedly is. So there is another contradiction in enlightenment thought: How can the opposites of emotion and reason embody the natural?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Last things first: It seems like the Enlightenment was one big struggle to balance the opposition of nature (emotion) and reason (culture). This point was brought up in previous discussions of imitation as expression.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, power corrupts. This is natural. The Queen is simply falling into nature's trap that is set for people of her rank, even though Subotnik claims (albeit confusingly) that she departs from her position. This Queen paradox merits further discussion, as does the paradox of culture and non-culture both being natural and good.
You go, Corey. These are some really amazing questions that I hope we can discuss in class, esp. because I don't have tons of time to write about them now.
ReplyDeleteWhat I believe she's saying is that, although their own sense of "natural" is different, Papageno and Tamino both adhere to the demands, or privileges, upon their version of humanity. Papageno is all natural, not in the sense of his direct connection to nature itself, but in his pure and unquestioned sense of self. In a way, he has no sense, and so just is. Tamino has requirements upon him, as a man and Prince, and lives up to those accordingly. They are both natural because they are what they should be, nothing less and nothing more.