Skip to main content

Shakespeare and Opera

I'm working on something for Just sheet music about the large portion of the operatic canon that has Shakespearean inspiration.

Front Cover

Consider this a preview. One of the operas I plan to highlight is Le Marchand de Venise (1935), by French composer Reynaldo Hahn and librettist Miguel Zamacois. I've just described Hahn as a "French" composer advisedly. Though he was born in Venezuela in 1874, he arrived in Paris at the age of three, and stayed there through two world wars, dying there in 1947. Indeed, one reference book calls Hahn "one of the most fragrantly Parisian of composers."

I'm not sure that isn't a misprint. Wouldn't "flagrantly" have been a more natural turn of phrase?  Nothing in the context supports the notion that it's an intentional pun. But, hey, follow the above link and decide that for yourself.

The opera involves the usual compressions: the five acts of the Shakespeare original are turned into three, and some characters are dropped in the process.

Here's 12 minutes of it, courtesy of YouTube.

In 1994, a critic writing in The New York Times lamented that this work is too seldom pertformed. The critic, Allan Kozinin, wrote admiringly of the "touches of tone painting" such as "the gently bobbing music that underlies the discussion of the gondola that will spirit away Jessica and Lorenzo."

Historically, Merchant has been an especially fraught play because its blatant appeal to the anti-Semitism expected of its earliest audiences raises tangled questions about the relationship between aesthetic appreciation and moral judgment. Harold Bloom has written that were he a director, he would be baffled by "how to stage a romantic comedy that rather blithely includes a forced Jewish conversion to Christianity on penalty of death. When Shylock brokenly intones, 'I am content,' few of our audiences are going to be content, unless you can conjure up a cheerfully anti-Semitic audience somewhere."



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers