Frrev Servants Essay

Nina Gannes 260311406 MUHL 387, opera research essay Due December 1, 2009 Operatic Servitude: Before and After the French Revolution The French Revolution of 1789-1799 converted 18th century France from a monarchy to a constitutional republic. Revolutionaries fought for liberté, egalité, fraternité—liberty, equality and brotherhood. King Louis XIV was executed in favor of a legislative assembly embodying the principle of greater equality amongst social classes. During the Revolution, France was undertaken by sweeping social changes, spurred by the peasants and bourgeois. Opera, like all other art forms, was used as a political platform before, during, and after the French Revolution. Using Mozart’s Don Giovanni and Rossini’s Il Barbiere di Siviglia, in this essay I will examine the differences in how servants were portrayed from a pre- versus post-Revolutionary perspective. Mozart’s Don Giovanni (premiered in 1787) and Rossini’s Il Barbiere di Siviglia (premiered in 1816) are both comedic opera buffas, set in the same town of Seville (in the 1600s and 1700s, respectively). They recount the romantic exploits of male, upper class characters (Don Giovanni and Count Almaviva respectively). Don Giovanni is a morallyabject libertine who ultimately succumbs to damnation because of his refusal to repent for his sinful habits. Count Almaviva is in love with a chaste young heiress whom he ultimately marries, despite facing varied obstacles to their union. While Mozart’s opera was written later in his life after he had already gained acclaim, Rossini’s was his debut to the national scene. Despite some initial hurdles at the premiere of Il Barbiere di Siviglia, both operas quickly became accepted into the composers’ oeuvres as representative masterpieces.

In Don Giovanni and Il Barbiere di Siviglia, key servants are central components of advancing the drama. Leporello is the enabler and assistant to Don Giovanni’s narcissist whims while Figaro orchestrates Count Almaviva’s tryst with Rosina. However, in music and action, Leporello is distinctly stuck in the pre-Revolutionary class system while Figaro is clearly distinguished as a post-Revolutionary man. Master-Servant Relationships: Leporello and Figaro are both of the servant class, and therefore are constantly defined in reference to their masters. Analyzing the characters of their masters is therefore integral to understanding the characters of the servants. While Don Giovanni is a pre-Revolutionary character, Count Almaviva is decidedly post-Revolutionary. Likewise are Leporello and Figaro. Leporello’s world revolves around the whims and wishes of Don Giovanni. Although he constantly complains about his situation, he is envious of the Don (especially his sexual exploits) and unable to avoid serving the Don. In contrast, Figaro is a barber, but not Count Almaviva’s full-time servant. He works on a job-by-job basis for Almaviva and therefore has more freedom and flexibility. He serves Count Almaviva but is himself the orchestrator of Almaviva’s desires and destiny. While he does faithfully serve, Figaro simultaneously manipulates his master to his humor (making Count Almaviva dress up as a drunken sailor) and advantage (making Count Almaviva pay him gold for his services). Don Giovanni is fundamentally a pre-Revolutionary character, and so the opera which revolves around his life is consequentially a pre-Revolutionary opera. While the Don has many humorous exploits, he is ultimately subjected to divine fate. This preEnlightenment worldview is characteristic of the pre-Revolutionary belief that God ultimately has power over the destiny of men. Don Giovanni is certainly master of

himself in his earthly, daily affairs—but he cannot escape the power of divine judgment. In the opera “only divine intervention can banish evil. Humans can cope with it…but never conquer it. Men are basically wicked. They must rely on salvation through grace, or else face damnation” (Schenbeck 2004, p 8). Like the pre-Revolutionary class structure, in Don Giovanni a higher power prevails over the affairs of man. Contrary to the Revolutionary ideals about man’s independence, in Don Giovanni a man is not the master of his own ultimate fate. In Don Giovanni, Leporello is inextricably linked to Don Giovanni. He is defined by his servitude from his very first lines of music. Short, rhythmically predictable quarter notes in a simple pattern, grounded around the tonic, immediately reveal that nothing Leporello does will be a big surprise (see Figure 1). The simplicity of the music defines

QuickTimeª and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Figure 1: ‘Notte e giorno faticar:’ Leporello’s first lines of music in the entire opera Leporello as a member of the lower class. Throughout the opera Leporello’s personality

is judged in comparison to the Don’s, and his actions are dictated by the Don’s whims: Leporello is traditionally viewed as a foil to the Don. He is the complementary, opposite side of the coin: where the Don is brave, Leporello is the abject poltroon; where the Don acts, Leporello merely wished to act or suffers the action; the Don commands and Leporello obeys. (Downs 1976, p 78) Leporello is defined—not on his own terms—but by his servile relationship to the Don. His character is so dependent upon the Don that there is no way of envisioning Leporello musically or dramatically sans the Don. He is a servant and is therefore musically and dramatically predictable. While he is simultaneously disgusted by and envious of the Don, his character revolves around and is defined by his master. Leporello complains relentlessly about Don Giovanni (see Figure 2) but he is, again, “a foil to Don Giovanni in all aspects” (Schenbeck 2004, p 4). Everything the Don does, Leporello assimilates. He lacks the courage of Don Giovanni when facing danger, his attempt to play his master while wooing Donna Elvira ends in failure and, at the end of the opera, his opportunity for a life of self-direction is quickly extinguished with his resolve to find a new master and continue his servitude. Leporello is locked in his class structure. This inflexibility is characteristic of the immobile, pre-Revolutionary social structure. Figure 2: Leporello complaining in ‘Notte e giorno faticar’

QuickTimeª and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

In contrast, Il Barbiere di Siviglia is fundamentally a post-revolutionary opera. While the Beaumarchais play upon which it is based was written before the Revolution,

the play has a distinctly post-Revolutionary worldview which is intensified in` the opera. The main character, Count Almaviva, is at all times in control of his destiny. With the assistance of Figaro he is able to successfully orchestrate his marriage to Rosina. He steps in and out of various disguises throughout his pursuit of Rosina, able to flexibly reside in all social classes and positions to suit his own purposes. While Don Giovanni musically walks through social classes to his ultimate destruction, Count Almaviva does the same to his ultimate self-benefit. This victory is firmly engineered by human characters and not divine providence. Even more significantly, this victory is engineered by Figaro—the servant figure. Figaro is his own man from the outset of the opera. His entrance is a lively cavatina, one in which he is able to extol his own virtues independent of Count Almaviva (see Figure 3). He easily juggles his given notes, displaying his virtuosity and independence at all turns (Johnson 2004, p 169). Furthermore, he is knowledgeable of his

QuickTimeª and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Figure 3: Figaro defines himself outside the context of his servitude in Largo al Factotum’ special independence, “his words comment on his song, not the other way around” (Johnson 2004, p 169). Figaro’s control is particularly symbolic: his music is diegetic. Rather than the orchestra betraying Figaro’s inner feelings (as is typical to most characters), Figaro is in control of the orchestra and thus in control of every aspect of his persona. It is Figaro who brings about the marriage of Rosina and Count Almaviva. Figaro

invents all the Count’s disguises and distracts Doctor Bartolo when necessary. From his exasperated asides and pointed self-affirmations, it is clear that Figaro sees himself as more intelligent than the Count. Figaro embodies the etymology of a barber: as one who “‘exercise[s] one’s superiority over people’” (Johnson 2004, p 162). As the more clever and enterprising of the pair, it is Figaro who is in control of both his destiny and that of his master’s. In the words of Beaumarchais he is the machinist, driving the opera. Figaro “‘weaves the intrigues and leads the theatrical action’” (Beaumarchais in Johnson 2004, p 167). This attribute is typified by his duet with the Count, All’idea di quell metallo, wherein Figaro metronomically drives the action forward by seventy-three iterations of the note D (Johnson 2004, p 168). Although still a servant like Leporello, Figaro, in contrast, is master of himself and able to drive and manipulate the class structure to serve his personal whims. Control over class and destiny is a distinctly post-Revolutionary trait that would have been unimaginable to a pre-Revolutionary servant. Musical examples: In opera, any interpretation is fundamentally incomplete without an in-depth musical analysis. As Kerman points out, “opera is a type of drama whose integral existence is determined from point to point and in the whole by musical articulation. Dramma per musica” (Kerman 1988, p 10). When looking carefully at the score to Don Giovanni and Il Barbiere di Siviglia, it is clear that there is also musical support for the differentiation of Leporello and Figaro’s characters on pre and post-French Revolutionary lines.

Leporello opens the opera in Notte e giorno faticar, simultaneously introducing the scene and taking the first possible opportunity to give the audience an impression of himself in his own words, before anybody else describes him from a biased viewpoint. Yet when he describes his affairs (see Figure 1) he is subjected to a predictable, rhythmically-uninteresting melodic line. Even calling Leporello’s pitter-patter around the note C a melody would be a stretch—it is rather merely a curt embellishment of a simple tonic-dominant pattern in F major ending in an unanswered half cadence. Leporello is so limited he is unable to even resolve to a perfect cadence on his own. It is only when Leporello describes Don Giovanni that he is truly allowed to sing melodically and operatically, with long three-measure phrases (see Figure 4). Yet as soon as he adopts his

QuickTimeª and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Figure 4:’ Notte e giorno faticar:’ Leporello’s melodicism and simple arpeggiation

own persona once more (“No, no, no, no, no”) he is relegated to simple arpeggios (see Figure 4). Furthermore, Leporello’s cowardice (in sharp contrast to a nobleman’s acclaimed courage) is quickly revealed when he believes he hears Don Giovanni coming. Frightened, Leporello can only summon the aptitude to sing a string of thirty-three repeated quarter note and half note Fs (see Figure 5). In this introduction Leporello boxes himself into a dull and predictable servitude, the constrains of which he will fail to escape throughout the duration of the opera. Leporello’s next substantial dramatic opportunity is his aria, Madama! Il catalogo è questo. Yet again, the entire aria is absorbed with Leporello singing about the exploits of Don Giovanni. He lists Don Giovanni’s conquests as if he could not resist donning his master’s cape and trying out his sword. This servant proceeds from his own characteristic parlando eight notes to the pomp and somewhat oily grace (as he sees it) of a nobleman’s dance. Again he reveals a desire to play the gentleman—and not any gentleman, but an incorrigible libertine. (Schenbeck 2004, p 11) Leporello desires the Don’s lifestyle but he is never able to successfully enact it. As he proceeds into a near-frenzy in cataloguing the Don’s numerous conquests, Leporello’s

QuickTimeª and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Figure 5: Thirty-three Fs in ‘Notte e giorno faticar’

attempt to mimic the opulence of Don Giovanni grows rushed, and always predictable. Were he truly imbibing the nobleman he lavishly describes, Leporello might more properly break into an aria in the opera seria style. Instead, he is confined to a limited reenactment of his master’s exploits in his typical, rhythmically and melodically predictable opera buffa form. Figaro, in contrast, is master of his music from the outset. Figaro introduces himself in a cavatina, Largo al factotum. Immediately self-absorbed, Figaro spends his entire cavatina relating to the audience how great he is. While his cavatina is also rife with arpeggios, in this case they serve the function of accentuating accomplishments through joyful la-la-la-ings. It is as if Figaro is momentarily so overcome with satisfaction with himself that words would be unable to properly express his excitement about being him (see Figure 6). He is constantly congratulating himself, in fact with “the placement of the words ‘bravo, bravissimo’ and ‘pronto, prontissimo’…he applauds himself at the end of both the A section and the oversized coda” (Johnson 2004, p 169). Unable to contain his enthusiasm about himself, Figaro’s cavatina becomes a tour de force as he crescendos into the technically demanding finale wherein he seamlessly extols his virtues with barely any pause for breath (see Figure 7).

QuickTimeª and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Figure 6: ‘Largo al Factotum’

QuickTimeª and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Figure 7: ‘Largo al Factotum’ finale With its predictable arpeggios and in contrast to later, more embellished cavatinas in the opera (such as Rosina’s Una voce poca fa), it is clear that Figaro is still a member of the servant class. Largo al factotum is not exemplary of the decorated Italian bel canto style consistent of the opera’s upper class characters. However Figaro is a character with no regrets about his social station. He exhibits none of the class-climbing longing extolled by Leporello. He exploits every opportunity given for dramatism in his cavatina. While the cavatina does still define him as a servant, he is a different type than Leporello: he is agile, intelligent and in no way self-deprecating or cowardly.

In his duet with Count Almaviva, All’ idea di quell metallo, Figaro verbally and musically duels with the Count as an equal. It is always Figaro who first proffers a melody, and the Count quickly mimics him both rhythmically and melodically in his response (see Figure 8). Figaro schemes and the Count attentively listens, copying his

QuickTimeª and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Figure 8: Imitation in ‘All’ idea di quell metallo’ every action—even though it entails re-articulating the music of a lower class. Figaro is

able to prolong the duet, gaining more money from the Count in exchange for advice on wooing Rosina. The Count always follows Figaro’s musical lead. By being able to musically control his superior Figaro proves himself a post-Revolutionary man. Class is no longer an obstacle to him: he can manipulate it to his benefit in the way and form of his choice. Leporello and Figaro represent fundamentally different visions of the role of servants in society. In Mozart’s Don Giovanni there is no possibility of Leporello playing a more dynamic role than the stereotypical servile buffoon. Servants played set roles as befit their social stations. Leporello exemplifies the pre-Revolutionary servant: his life is shaped by his master, he is unimaginative and cowardly, and he has no possibility of breaking free from this defined role. In contrast, Figaro embodies the independent, free-thinking man idealized by Revolutionary principles. While the Beaumarchais comedy upon which Il Barbiere di Siviglia was based was written in 1775, the play, and (more importantly) Rossini’s interpretation of it, are both distinctly post-Revolutionary. Figaro is a servant neither defined nor confined by his social station. He gallivants through the opera, free to advise and manipulate as he pleases. While still the servant of Count Almaviva, it is clear that only Figaro is the true master of himself. With his musical virtuosity and class mobility, Figaro is the new vision of servitude and the exalted lower class after the French Revolution. This brief exploration of servile roles in opera evinces the extent to which the political ideals of the French Revolution permeated social life. By careful examination of their operas, it is possible to reconstruct the political-ideological climates within which

Mozart and Rossini composed. As evidenced by their portrayals of servant characters, clearly Mozart and Rossini as artists and social commentators were both profoundly affected by the political circumstances under which they composed, before and after the French Revolution.

Bibliography Downs, Philip G. “Mozart’s use of the commentator in drama.” Studies in music from the University of Western Ontario 1 (1976): 71-87. Kerman, Joseph. “Prologue: Opera as Drama.” In Opera as Drama, Revised ed. Berkeley: University of California Press (1988): 1-17. Johnson, Janet. “Il barbiere di Siviglia.” In The Cambridge companion to Rossini. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press (2004): 159-174. Mozart, W.A. Don Giovanni. New York: G. Schirmer, (1787). Reprint: n.d. Rossini, Mozart. Il Barbiere di Siviglia. New York: G. Schirmer, (1816). Reprint: MCMLXII Schenbeck, Lawrence. “Leporello, Don Giovanni,and the Picaresque.” The Opera Quarterly 11:4 (1994): 3-16.