Goodness through Utopia Christof Loy in conversation with dramatic advisor Hendrikje Mautner (excerpt) Leaving aside the numerous productions surrounding the Mozart anniversary, La clemenza di Tito is a Mozart opera hardly ever put on stage, compared with the Da Ponte operas or the Magic Flute. This reluctance is frequently tied to a rather negative view about the opera seria in general and its reputation as an inflexible baroque genre with a rigid pattern of recitative and aria. How true is this assumption of ‘rigidity’ for La clemenza di Tito? To be precise, Tito is not so much a typical opera seria as the adaptation of an opera seria libretto. After all, its libretto was written more than sixty years before it was offered to Mozart for scoring. I suppose he was more tempted to explore the form itself rather than to blindly follow the Metastasio libretto. In my opinion, Mozart demonstrates very well that the subject is full of potential for characters who are thoroughly, deeply human, and anything but stereotypes – characters who, I feel, are truly timeless. Concerning the recitatives: I think it is too harsh a judgement to label the opera seria as difficult, lifeless, or schematic. The librettos are dramatic texts, and the recitatives are often comparable to the quality of a Racine or a Voltaire. for me, the dramatic action evolves through the recitatives, which implies that even in the early days, the performance of recitatives was an artistic challenge to the singers/actors. This demand for considerable acting skills is something to which I refer, and on which my work is based. As dialogue does in drama, the recitatives prepare the climate for the following musical part to make sense. There are arias in Tito which function as a poetic conclusion, a quintessence of the preceding action, while others push along the plot in the manner of spoken parts. The reserve against the opera seria’s supposedly stereotyped form often goes hand in hand with criticism about its characters – they tend to be dismissed as cookie-cutter affairs devoid of any character deployment. I beg to differ. The opposite is true: the characters in Mozart’s Tito are no cookie-cutter stereotypes but individuals who love and live to the full, and whose rivalling sentiments, plans and desires allow for stimulating character sketches. It is my conviction that pieces such as La clemenza di Tito by Gluck are similarly amazing and should be put on stage as soon as possible. Great Tito compositions already existed prior to Mozart. This disdain for the opera seria makes me think of people who use Wagnerian operas as a standard for judging pieces like Tito or Idomeneo. In that sense, a Salieri opera for example, which is grounded in altogether different principles and aesthetic ideals, would be viewed as a total failure. Yet it is so tangible that Mozart has given a specific shading to every character, and that character composition in Tito is just as careful as in, say, Le nozze di Figaro, where Mozart gives individual musical profiles to everyone from the countess to the gardener. At a superficial glance, the plot of La clemenza di Tito seems to suggest that Titus only ever reacts: the Roman people disapproves of his relationship with Berenice, so he breaks it off. Servilia declares her love for Annius, so he abandons this plan for marriage as well. Sextus spearheads a complot against him that ends with the capitol in flames, and Titus pardons him. Is Titus a boring do-gooder who only reacts to the events around him? Let’s put it like this: in order to state that he only reacts to his surroundings, we have to take into account that things happen the way they do only because Titus is the man he is. In this sense, he is the driving force of action. He is the one who is loved, at times even stalked, by the antagonist, and his way of binding people to himself creates a social network around him that is at least as complex as the constellation in, say, Don Giovanni. Titus embodies, and this is highly exceptional, the opera’s erotic and intellectual centre simultaneously. This ability to bind people to himself stems from Titus’s ‘clemenza’, his goodness. How is ‘clemenza’ conceptualised here: as a political, or as an ethical stance? For me, Titus’s ‘clemenza’ is in part a character trait – which he himself does not realise or accept at the beginning – and in part a moral stipulation in the sense of Kant’s categorical imperative. Titus is determined to act according to such high standards, and this is where the political dimension comes into play: where a sovereign adheres to such maxims, this will stimulate the climate of a country. It is equally important that at the onset, Titus finds himself in the role of a lonely leader who is trying to overcome his loneliness through friendships. Both Vitellia and Sextus, by the way, are extremely lonely individuals, and just like Titus, they strive to lessen this loneliness by strengthening their social contacts. And none of the three realises that they have chosen an altogether mismatched partner. Deep down, they may feel that they are on the wrong track, but they refuse to acknowledge it. In the case of Titus, the seeming friendship leads to the betrayal through his confidant. I really think it is of supreme importance that his forgiveness in the end transcends the personal, the private. It is a fundamental act of grace rather than a friendly turn. And it takes a longwinded process for Titus to arrive at this goodness. back