Toby Stanford

Why was opera most often associated with the aristocracy in this period? Could it have survived
without that association?

Opera has long been associated with the aristocracy, representing a zenith of culture and
entertainment, and frequented by the upper echelons of society enrobed in all their finery. The two
major operatic subgenres of the 18th Century, opera seria and opera buffa, are tightly woven into
these associations at the very foundation of their existence, albeit with subtle differences. Such
associations are largely concerned with hierarchy and the reinforcing of a supposedly ‘natural’ social
order; as such, the opera became a major tool in the sovereign’s arsenal to maintain his power.
Opera not only reinforced social hierarchy, however, but also challenged it. In many ways, the opera
can be conceived of as a social critique, and its physical manifestation arguably renders it more of a
litmus test for social change, rather than a puppet of the aristocracy to ensure the continuation of
their power.

In understanding the linkage between opera and aristocracy, opera seria is essential. The genre
‘reigned supreme among all musical, and theatrical genres across most of 18 th Century Europe’, and
the opportunity to write the music, or more importantly the poetry, was a great privilege 1. Opera
seria, the colloquial term for dramma per musica, refers to the noble and serious style of Italian
opera. Typically based on heroic or tragic mythology, the plot of an opera seria would present the
(usually male) protagonist with a clear moral dilemma, his response to which would resonate with
and reaffirm the moral conceptions of the predominantly aristocratic audience. This grants the opera
a social function, but it goes deeper than a mere massaging of aristocratic egos, into reinforcing the
principles of social hierarchy itself. The opera was a ‘dramatic form that allegorized sovereignties
throughout Europe’, demonstrated by the existence of courtly public theatres such as the Italian San
Carlo theatre, and when a public theatre was not directly associated with the court, it was at least
overseen by a ruling person or group, ranging from aristocratic families to oligarchic societies 2. As a
result of this, opera seria invariably reflected and reinforced the prevailing social structure by
‘broadly supporting the absolutist trope of sovereignty’ 3. This was particularly important due to the
multiplicity of ruling structures across Italy in the 18 th Century; kingships, dukedoms, oligarchic
republics and the Papal monarchy all had a stake in reinforcing the idea of ‘natural social hierarchy’.
It is clear then that opera seria was directly associated with the aristocracy, not just in terms of
practicality with the funding of opera houses and production companies, but also woven into the
very social fabric of the 18th Century.

Whilst this implies some reliance of opera on the aristocracy to survive, this relationship was
arguably bilateral, with the ruling classes relying in turn on opera to sustain their position in society.
The public opera house provided a visible space for class difference to be displayed, built into the
theatre, and the city, itself. Hierarchies are portrayed largely in the seating plan, with the royal box
at centre stage, as it were, with boxes rising up on all sides looking down on the pit, where the cheap
seats were. By paying for a box, ‘the less well you could see, but the better you could be seen’; the
boxes not only had a restricted view of the stage, but were also enclosed, often with an atrium,
meaning the inhabitants would be almost cut off from the opera itself and often ignore it entirely,
opting instead to play cards, or discuss who they could see in the boxes around them 4. These
members were also typically wealthy aristocratic patrons, renting the box for a season and often
seeing the same opera a number of times. As such, the opera becomes less of a form of

1
M. Feldman, ‘Opera and Sovereignty: Transforming Myths in Eighteenth Century Italy’
2
M. Feldman, ‘Opera and Sovereignty: Transforming Myths in Eighteenth Century Italy’
3
M. Feldman, ‘Opera and Sovereignty: Transforming Myths in Eighteenth Century Italy’
4
D. Charlton., ‘Opera in the Age of Rousseau: Music, Confrontation, Realism’
 Toby Stanford

entertainment or art, and becomes a social exercise in class distinction; whilst this might seem to
increase opera’s reliance on the aristocracy, this relationship is arguably reversed, with opera
becoming a necessity to the upper classes’ desperate bid to stay relevant.

The opera buffa also deals with issues of social hierarchy, but from a slightly different angle. Being a
comedic artform, it relies not on the classical myths and legends upon which the plots for opera seria
are constructed, but on newly devised scripts, often especially prepared. Without the traditional
frameworks of morality to rely on, new frameworks had to be constructed; this was largely realized
in terms of the household. By presenting a typical, aristocratic household, buffa succeeds in
presenting class distinctions, albeit rather crudely. Characters’ ranks are announced, with noble
characters granted titles, middle-ranking characters occupational titles (e.g. mayor), and the lowest-
ranking characters mere occupations (e.g. servant) or referred to in terms of family origin (e.g. son of
a cook). These character ranks are established early on, or printed in the programme, and are
reinforced through a musical profiling; for example, a poor peasant girl might be given a light,
pastoral theme, whereas a military officer would likely receive a major-key, homophonic, triumphant
aria. Whilst ideas of sovereignty are rarely explicitly present in buffa, they are implied through the
presentation of an assured hierarchical structure, with the ‘rural fief’ or the ‘noble household’ being
a ‘not-unusual miniaturization of the kingdom’ 5. This resonates with the ideas ‘allegorized
sovereignty’ in opera seria, demonstrating once more the social link between the opera and the
aristocracy.

Such a relationship, however, is not always favourable. In fact, buffa could be interpreted on many
levels to be a social critique of aristocracy and the very social hierarchies it presents. This is
particularly clear in Cimarosa’s ‘The Secret Marriage’, an opera buffa following a fairly typical plotline
concerning a marriage in secret between Isabella, a nobleman’s daughter, and Paolino the
manservant, which is complicated by her father’s wish that she marries the Count. Whilst this takes
place in the typical buffa framework of the noble household, there is certainly a critical element to
the plotline. The nobleman, Geronimo, is not only physically ailed (almost completely deaf, from
which much of the humour is derived), but morally bankrupt, perfectly willing to rearrange the
marriage of his daughter Elisetta to Isabella once the Count lowers his condition of a dowry by half.
Whilst the moral qualms here are certainly more pronounced today than on a contemporaneous
performance, these characters are a far cry from the heroic, morality affirming protagonists of opera
seria; here, the aristocracy is made the butt of the joke, compounded further by the presentation of
the lower class character (Paolino) as the moral hero, receiving his happy ending.

Both in terms of reinforcing and critiquing social hierarchy, the opera clearly is linked inextricably
with the aristocracy. Its reliance on the aristocracy to survive, however, is far from certain. Class
relations in the 18th Century were in a state of flux; the name meant less and less as generations
passed with an ‘increased fluidity of rank and status’, to the point that any merchant could assume
the privileges of high rank6. The newfound social mobility transforms the way in which the opera
house functioned. It was no longer the exclusive, courtly endeavour of the early years of opera, but a
‘proto-capitalist bourgeois form’, attended by a mixed, paying, and in many cases social climbing
populace, typically made up of middle class professionals such as lawyers and bankers 7. Moreover,
as well as being public, opera house funding moved away from the sovereign also, and theatres were
supported through state, court, and private funding. The opening up of opera into the commercial

5
M.K. Hunter, ‘The Culture of Opera Buffa in Mozart’s Vienna: A Poetics of Entertainment’
6
M.K. Hunter, ‘The Culture of Opera Buffa in Mozart’s Vienna: A Poetics of Entertainment’
7
M. Feldman, ‘Opera and Sovereignty: Transforming Myths in Eighteenth Century Italy’
 Toby Stanford

sphere resulted in a ‘broad and fluctuating assemblage of competing social positions’, indicating a
movement away from the archaic quasi-feudal social order to on in which no ‘one person or group
could claim its symbolic capital in toto’ 8. The dynamic shifts in social order bring into sharp focus the
need to reinforce the social hierarchical values demonstrated in both seria and buffa, and also begs
the question: could the aristocracy have survived without opera?

Taking sovereignty as an indexer of the ‘old’ social order, we can see that the propagation of myth
through operatic form as pivotal to maintaining the idea of assumed regal superiority. Shared myths
have been crucial to the cooperation of the human species since the birth of religion amongst
Animist tribes in prehistoric times; in this sense the myth is not just a tale, in and of itself, but a
‘privileged narrative’, taken to be traditional and usually deployed for political or other such
legitimizing purposes. As such, these myths often become foundations upon which political,
religious, or national ideologies are built: a prime example of this would be the Holy Roman Empire,
a development of the myth of Christ into a political system, a widespread religious doctrine, and at
one time a sprawling, conquering nation. No myth was so crucial to the survival of the monarchy as
the Divine Right of Kings, but this was under threat from the evolving political thought and social
strata at the time. Liberal thought was gaining traction in the mid-18 th Century, culminating in the
French Revolution of 1789 which saw the overthrow of Louis XVI and the establishment of a
republic, and similar movements away from absolute monarchy were occurring across Europe.
Never was it more important for the monarchy to reinforce ideas of social hierarchy, and it did this
by ‘propagating itself’ narratively and performatively, as myth’ in opera through a presentation of
the ‘natural’ social order as agiven. Opera seria is often considered a staging of ‘stories derived from
mythical traditions’, but myths and histories flow into one another and are in no way mutually
exclusive; the aristocracy needed opera as its method of ‘turning histories into myths’ 9.

To say that the opera could not have survived without the aristocracy is to fall into the trap of
perceiving the genre as a crystallized, static form, an object subject to the conditions surrounding it.
This is a misconception; opera is a mediative, procedural phenomenon constantly in dialogue with its
audience and the socio-political conditions it finds itself in. The genre was certainly associated with
the aristocracy in the 18th Century, due to it being the most influential, socially active, and above all
wealthy class, making it in reality the only area of society capable of staging opera; but the opera is
not subject to the aristocracy, existing independently from it, and capable of both reinforcing and
criticizing its values. Therefore, to say that opera could not have survived without the aristocracy is
in part true, but it is not the parasitic, unilateral relationship that statement suggests; instead, opera
exists at once separately from and submerged in the conditions surrounding it, and it subject to
evolution with these conditions as much as any art form.

Good with many well- made and substantiated points.

8
M. Feldman, ‘Opera and Sovereignty: Transforming Myths in Eighteenth Century Italy’

9
M. Feldman, ‘Opera and Sovereignty: Transforming Myths in Eighteenth Century Italy’
 Toby Stanford

Bibliography:

M. Feldman, ‘Opera and Sovereignty: Transforming Myths in Eighteenth Century Italy’

M.K. Hunter, ‘The Culture of Opera Buffa in Mozart’s Vienna: A Poetics of Entertainment’
D. Charlton., ‘Opera in the Age of Rousseau: Music, Confrontation, Realism’

Comments:
A good essay. The order might be tweaked a little? Start with the whole financial aspect before going
on to moral issues? Aspects of power and wealth are nonetheless discussed well. Be careful with
the section on social critique – we will cover this later in the term. Buildings are important, though
here too the patronage of productions is more important. Operas could – if need be – be produced
in theatres (as opposed to purpose build opera houses).

Make sure all works and books are presented in Italics. Also, provide dates of the publications used
in the Bibliography.

Opera buffa is an interesting issue – to a large extent they were a continuation of aristocratic
patronage and enforced social rank; though some opera did go beyond. More on this next week.