# Most Honorable, Morally Upright Operatic Character



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I can think of several characters in Beethoven's Fidelio (Don Fernando, Florestan, Leonora), but surely there are many others.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Violetta - she scarifices her own happiness for someone she's never met.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Cato in Vinci's _Catone in Utica _- rigidly so.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Hans Sachs. What he did to Beckmesser was a bit cheeky, but overall he's one of the most endearing characters in opera.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Tito Vespasian from _La clemenza di Tito_


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

Simon Boccanegra is certainly a good candidate - he used to be a pirate, but the kind of pirate who defended his homeland, and generally he's a kind, forgiving, pacifist man. (How he has the patience to put up with Adorno's Tenor[SUP]TM[/SUP] Drama is beyond me.) Yeah, he makes Paolo curse himself, but that's kind of like a full Paragon Shepard taking that ONE renegade interrupt against Kai Leng.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Wolfram von Eschenbach in Tannhauser.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Leonora in Fidelio. No contest!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I'll go with Leonora
Sachs is a pretty good guy too.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Brunhilde. Leonora gives up the world to save her husband. Brunhilde gives up her husband to save the world.

N.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

*Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth......*

Liu (signore ascoulta, turandot)


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Most Honorable, Morally Upright Operatic Character


Sarastro, hands down.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Lohengrin, maybe. And for a supporting character, Pimen from _Boris Godunov_.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

How about Ernani, who's so honorable that he keeps a promise to kill himself when he hears the sound of a horn in the distance. Not only that, but he does it at his own wedding, while his bride is standing right there watching. 

Geez...Who writes these things?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> How about Ernani, who's so honorable that he keeps a promise to kill himself when he hears the sound of a horn in the distance. Not only that, but he does it at his own wedding, while his bride is standing right there watching.
> 
> Geez...Who writes these things?


Most honorable, not most stupid!

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Most honorable, not most stupid!
> 
> N.


Honor was obviously serious business back then.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Perhaps Siegfried qualifies for honorable. All his dishonorable deeds were done in ignorance and/or under the love potion. He did slay the evil dragon.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Fafner was not evil. People were scared of him but that's because those that sought to bother him/steal his treasure would get eaten. He was perfectly happy to slumber on his pile rather than going around destroying villages or using the ring to control people or attack the gods. Fafner having the ring was about as safe (for Wotan) as the Rhine daughters having it.

I don't think I'd offer up Siegfried mostly because he really didn't think or care about what he was doing most of the time. He's not evil but he's also not trying to be good.

If we want someone from the Ring trying to be good we can look at Siegmund. When we meet him is on run after risking his own life to trying to save a young woman being married against her will. Then Brünnhilde comes to collect him for Valhalla and he refuses to go without Sieglinde, knowing that if he abandons her she will either be recaptured by Hunding and either killed or taken back to be abused.

Now his actions may conflict with the "most honorable" part of the question. Indeed Fricka was mad about him running off with Sieglinde (Hunding, too) but that's because she's only concerned about marriage (law, custom), not love (goodness, morality). That's a big part of what the Ring (and _Die Walküre_, specifically) is about: the conflict between law and morality.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

mountmccabe said:


> Fafner was not evil. People were scared of him but that's because those that sought to bother him/steal his treasure would get eaten. He was perfectly happy to slumber on his pile rather than going around destroying villages or using the ring to control people or attack the gods. Fafner having the ring was about as safe (for Wotan) as the Rhine daughters having it.


Good point. The gold was at rest until Siegfried got involved. But wasn't he prompted by Mime? But I think Fafner was evil in that he killed his brother for the gold.



> I don't think I'd offer up Siegfried mostly because he really didn't think or care about what he was doing most of the time. He's not evil but he's also not trying to be good.


The problem here is that Mime failed to send Siegfried to Sunday School. Siegfried didn't know right from wrong.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Perhaps Siegfried qualifies for honorable. All his dishonorable deeds were done in ignorance and/or under the love potion. He did slay the evil dragon.


And an unarmed dwarf!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> How about Ernani, who's so honorable that he keeps a promise to kill himself when he hears the sound of a horn in the distance. Not only that, but he does it at his own wedding, while his bride is standing right there watching.
> 
> Geez...Who writes these things?


Victor Hugo.
_____________


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

mountmccabe said:


> Fafner was not evil.


how is he not evil after killing his brother?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> how is he not evil after killing his brother?


And listing after the gold and the Ring


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

I have to answer this question by saying "any and all of them" - this question can be answered by naming the hero of nearly any opera. That's because ultimate honor and ultimate heroism is a standard trope of opera. Countless operatic characters are presented as morally "perfect" - how can one perfect character be more perfect than another? So I agree with all the answers listed above, and there are so many more possible answers as well.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Victor Hugo.
> _____________


Unlike "Les Mis," _Ernani _needs music to make it palatable (not completely ridiculous). Too bad Verdi didn't set Hugo's _Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ but maybe he thought one opera about a hunchback was enough.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

marceliotstein said:


> I have to answer this question by saying "any and all of them" - this question can be answered by naming the hero of nearly any opera. That's because ultimate honor and ultimate heroism is a standard trope of opera. Countless operatic characters are presented as morally "perfect" - how can one perfect character be more perfect than another? So I agree with all the answers listed above, and there are so many more possible answers as well.


And I would say "none of them" as opera plots are almost always about conflict of some sort and completely upstanding characters are uninteresting or often seem to be upstanding because we know so little about them.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Unlike "Les Mis," *Ernani needs music to make it palatable (not completely ridiculous).* Too bad Verdi didn't set Hugo's _Hunchback of Notre Dame,_ but maybe he thought one opera about a hunchback was enough.


Does it? I have seen Hugo's Lucrece Borgia, but not Hernani, I imagine it works in the theatre (and they still perform it at the Commedie Francaise where it caused a riot).

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Does it? I have seen Hugo's Lucrece Borgia, but not Hernani, I imagine it works in the theatre (and they still perform it at the Commedie Francaise where it caused a riot).
> 
> N.


Well, here's a description of the final scene:

"Sol and Hernani are married, but, as they enjoy their wedding feast, Hernani hears the call of the horn blown by Ruy Gomez. As Hernani is about to drink poison, Doña Sol enters the room and tries to convince him that he is hers and he does not have to listen to her uncle. She is unable to persuade him otherwise. Doña Sol, shocked by Hernani's decision to kill himself, drinks half of the poison. Hernani drinks the other half and they die in each other's arms. Ruy Gomez de Silva kills himself."

If you find that palatable, bon appetit! :tiphat:


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Becca said:


> And I would say "none of them" as opera plots are almost always about conflict of some sort and completely upstanding characters are uninteresting or often seem to be upstanding because we know so little about them.


Pondering how it is that we have opposite answers to this! It just seems to me that opera stories focus on those crucial moments in life in which a person proves themselves selfless and heroic. To take just one example: Aida. Yes, of course, Aida's situation in this opera is riven with terrible conflict and massive imperfection. But the opera shows us how she navigates through this conflict to find an ultimate moral solution - involving her own willing death - that transforms the story of conflict into a story of glorious resolution.

So, I'm definitely not denying that these conflicts exist in these operas - but I think it is a standard trope of opera to build to an ending in which at least one character makes a tremendous sacrifice that provides moral resolution to all the conflict. To the degree that this is a common theme in many operas - and I think it is - we can say that many operas have a heroic character who transcends all his or her earthly problems and conflicts to reach a state of ultimate holy grace. That's why I answered how I did. Fascinating question anyway!


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Fritz Kobus said:


> But I think Fafner was evil in that he killed his brother for the gold.





Zhdanov said:


> how is he not evil after killing his brother?


Fafner killed Fasolt because of the power of the ring. If we can give Siegfried a pass on forgetting Brünnhilde, I think it only makes sense to do the same for Fafner coming under the sway of the ring.

We've already seen that Fafner as a dragon will eat people to defend the ring. I don't think we're to believe he ate people before the ring. Similarly he worked to build Valhalla with his brother; their relationship was fine. But once Fafner got the ring, he had no problem killing his brother to defend it.

I'm not trying to offer up Fafner as the most honorable character in the Ring, or anything like that. But he's also not an "evil dragon" in the generic fairy tale sense where a valiant prince saves a village terrorized by a menacing dragon (though of course that story has been subverted for millenia). We hear of no villages ravaged by Fafner. And Siegfried didn't kill Fafner as justice/revenge for Fasolt; Siegfried certainly had no knowledge of events that took place 35 or 40 years earlier. Siegfried initially approached Fafner hoping that the dragon would be his friend. (Siegfried had a similar approach with Gunther, "nun ficht mit mir, oder sie mein Freund!", that interaction just went the other way).

Siegfried isn't morally upright because he killed a horrible dragon. The dragon wasn't that horrible, and Siegfried did it almost randomly, not out of moral duty or an attempt to protect or save anyone.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> Fafner killed Fasolt because of the power of the ring. If we can give Siegfried a pass on forgetting Brünnhilde, I think it only makes sense to do the same for Fafner coming under the sway of the ring.


The ring can't make people kill each other. It has no power over those who don't crave power, except when they become victims of those who do.

The giants are rather stupid, but different from each other. Fasolt is susceptible to feelings of love; Fafner is not. Fafner wants the ring enough to kill for it, but his idea of power is simple possession. He's like a politician who'll do what it takes to defeat his opponent to get elected but wants nothing more than the prestige of occupying his office; he has no ideas, seeks only to preserve the status quo, and acts as a drag on any sort of social progress. For anything to happen in the world he needs to be unseated.

Fafner's evil is of a low-grade sort, but it's real. He needs to be "unseated" by Siegfried.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Oddly though, the ring had so much power, yet it did not seem to have any power over Siegfried. He treated it as just an ordinary ring until he was enslaved under the power of the love potion. 

Could Wagner have written an alternate, happy ending to the Ring, I think it might have been that Siegfried gave the ring back to the Rheinmaidens and then perhaps Hagen would pursue them for the ring and drown. Then the potion would wear off, Siegfried would ago back to Brunnhilde and the two of them would take over Valhalla and rule the world in justice and peace.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Oddly though, the ring had so much power, yet it did not seem to have any power over Siegfried. He treated it as just an ordinary ring until he was enslaved under the power of the love potion.
> 
> Could Wagner have written an alternate, happy ending to the Ring, I think it might have been that Siegfried gave the ring back to the Rheinmaidens and then perhaps Hagen would pursue them for the ring and drown. Then the potion would wear off, Siegfried would ago back to Brunnhilde and the two of them would take over Valhalla and rule the world in justice and peace.


Cute story. It would send the kids to bed happy.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The ring can't make people kill each other. It has no power over those who don't crave power, except when they become victims of those who do.
> 
> The giants are rather stupid, but different from each other. Fasolt is susceptible to feelings of love; Fafner is not. Fafner wants the ring enough to kill for it, but his idea of power is simple possession. He's like a politician who'll do what it takes to defeat his opponent to get elected but wants nothing more than the prestige of occupying his office; he has no ideas, seeks only to preserve the status quo, and acts as a drag on any sort of social progress. For anything to happen in the world he needs to be unseated.
> 
> Fafner's evil is of a low-grade sort, but it's real. He needs to be "unseated" by Siegfried.


I agree that the ring can't make people kill each other. But I think it amplifies your root desires, and lets you get what you want. Alberich wanted to control people, so he set out at that. Fafner... wanted a nap.

There's an interesting parallel between the Rhinedaughters and Fafner; they were happy to play, and only mocked Alberich when he bothered them. Fafner was happy to slumber, and only ate people that came in to try and steal his hoard. I don't see taking the gold from the Rhinedaughters as a moral act, and think much the same about retrieving it from Fafner. You're right that both "needed" to happen for there to be interesting operatic events, but that's about it.

I'll accept that Fafner is a "low-grade" evil, but it's not enough that I'd go around calling him evil. If his level of evil counts, then it's just not a useful descriptive term.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

mountmccabe said:


> If we can give Siegfried a pass on forgetting Brünnhilde, I think it only makes sense to do the same for Fafner


but we can't. Brunnhilde or not. Siegfried as a character is not about moral values.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

and there ain't no morally upright characters in des ring.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> and there ain't no morally upright characters in des ring.


Not even it's author! :lol:


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> and there ain't no morally upright characters in des ring.


Some of them significantly more so than others, I'd say.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Oddly though, the ring had so much power, yet it did not seem to have any power over Siegfried. He treated it as just an ordinary ring until he was enslaved under the power of the love potion.
> 
> Could Wagner have written an alternate, happy ending to the Ring, I think it might have been that Siegfried gave the ring back to the Rheinmaidens and then perhaps Hagen would pursue them for the ring and drown. Then the potion would wear off, Siegfried would ago back to Brunnhilde and the two of them would take over Valhalla and rule the world in justice and peace.


Siegfried is not trapped by the power of the ring because he doesn't value power more than love (as we're discussing in a parallel in this thread, that's the distinction between Fasolt and Fafner). He tells the Rhinedaughters "der Welt Erbe gewänne mir ein Ring: für die Minne Gunst miss' ich ihn gern" ("though the ring were to win me the world's inheritance, for the sake of love's favours I'd gladly forgo it")

This plays out well before he takes the potion, Siegfried gives Brünnhilde the ring as a token of his love. ("...als Weihe-Gruβ meiner Treu'!"), preferring keeping her happy over winning the world via the ring's power.

I used to put more stock in Siegfried's first explanation for his refusal to give the Rhinedaughters the ring, that his wife (thinking of Gutrune) would be mad. He doesn't name Fricka, but still is in that old way of thinking. I guess I dismissed his later offer of giving it to them (just after the lines quoted above) as teasing. But I don't think Siegfried is that complicated.

The Rhinedaughters are, once again, more interested in motivations than actions. Sure, one of them could debase themselves to Siegfried to win back the ring, but would that really solve anything? Would it be moral? I'd answer no to both.

And also note that the Rhinedaughters ask Siegfried for the ring in act 3 of _Götterdämmerung_. Brünnhilde is not at her rock; she's already been abducted and married to Gunther. Similarly Siegfried is already married to Gutrune. A happy ending does not make narrative sense at this point. I don't think there was any turning back.

Even if Siegfried had been acting thoughtfully and given the ring to the Rhinedaughters freely (without trying to trade it for love) that wouldn't have brought back Wotan's power. And even if Siegfried and Brünnhilde could get their new marriages annulled, there's neither reason to think they could rule the world, nor that they would wish to. And neither of them have any interest in peace, and while Brünnhilde has a sense of justice, giving the ring back to the Rhinedaughters would be the first time Siegfried ever had justice as a motivating factor (and, again, that's only if in this alternate scenario his motivation is justice).


----------



## pianoville (Jul 19, 2018)

I would say Gurnemanz belongs to the most honorable opera characters and so does Hans Sachs. I don't know if I would call any character in the ring honorable to be honest.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

When it comes to Wagner, applying common moral categories to his characters is of limited value and may even hinder our understanding of his work. To a great extent the behaviors of his mythical personages seem like expressions of compelling forces, forces greater than ordinary motivations; heroes and villains alike are part of a larger movement of the cosmos, they are in a sense instruments of the gods, and the things that they do, whether good or evil, are things that need to happen for the cosmos to move forward to the next phase in its evolution. For me, at least, this sense affects my perception of their virtues and vices and prevents me from experiencing simple feelings of judgment.

Wagner himself clearly didn't judge his characters as if they were his neighbors, friends or enemies, which is seen in how he allows us to sympathize, at various points, with even the worst of them. I think they were the inhabitants of his dreams and represented facets of himself, facets whose relationships in his stories show the struggle within the human soul to reconcile its conflicts and contradictions in the quest for integrity and peace. For me Wagner's mythic tales are akin to dreams, and as I listen or watch I find I can identify with even an "evil" character like Alberich or Klingsor in a strange way that I never could with Iago or Scarpia, who are simply repugnant or horrifying.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

amfortas said:


> Some of them significantly more so than others, I'd say.


only Erda qualifies.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Erda is definitely upright. Apparently she even sleeps that way.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

All most honorable and morally upright characters have weaknesses and shortcomings and are occasionally tipped over or they would have no dramatic interest... They would be as bland and uninteresting as warm vanilla.  Everyone gets tested somewhere along the line usually with the opportunity to rise to the occasion. Then there’s such a thing as moral ambiguity, such as Cio-Cio San taking her own life in Madame Butterfly out of honor, abandonment, and loss because of Pinkerton.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

In answer to the original question, both God and Jesus appear in Jerry Springer: The Opera, surely the most profound utterance of the last hundred years.

Are you all doubting THEIR moral credentials??? :devil:


Being serious for a moment, does anyone have any comments on the morality of the central character in Hindemith's Mathis Der Maler? He's one or the other, I've never worked out which, though......... perhaps that's the point?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

CnC Bartok said:


> In answer to the original question, both God and Jesus appear in Jerry Springer: The Opera, surely the most profound utterance of the last hundred years.
> 
> Are you all doubting THEIR moral credentials??? :devil:


I would have to see the synopsis. Is the opera reverent? or irreverent?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I would have to see the synopsis. Is the opera reverent? or irreverent?


I suspect "irrelevant" would be far more appropriate than either, Fritz. Extremely daft silly and pointless too.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Surprised that two of the top morally upright characters were never mentioned: Desdemona and Liu.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

CnC Bartok said:


> I suspect "irrelevant" would be far more appropriate than either, Fritz. Extremely daft silly and pointless too.


Well, looking at description from the Wikipedia page on it, it is beyond irreverent; it is blasphemous!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Violetta - she scarifices her own happiness for someone she's never met.


I agree.
Case closed.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

nina foresti said:


> Surprised that two of the top morally upright characters were *never mentioned: Desdemona and Liu.*


Except in post #11......

It took Parsifal years of pilgrimage and enlightenment to discover what Liu knew instinctively: the greatest of all human virtues lies outside of self concern, it is *empathy towards others*


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

DarkAngel said:


> Except in post #11......
> 
> It took Parsifal years of pilgrimage and enlightenment to discover what Liu knew instinctively: the greatest of all human emotions lies outside of self concern, it is *empathy towards others*


Parsifal is dumbass tenor who has negative points in Int/Wis XD


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Oops! I missed it. So where is Desdemona? 
And what of Cio Cio San who gave up her child for the betterment of his future?


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Yes, as I hear examples like Desdemona and Cio Cio San I have to say again that I think this question needs to be rephrased. There can be no single answer, since the heroic self-sacrificing perfect soprano is a standard opera trope. They are all perfect and therefore all equally honorable and morally upright.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

*Ariane (from Dukas' Ariane et Barbe-Bleue)
*-> She unselfishly tried to restore the wives of Barbe-Bleue their self-esteem and their sense of liberation, only to be disappointed once the wives decided to stay in the castle and tended Bluebeard, who arrived at the castle wounded by the peasants' rage.

*Tamara (from Anton Rubinstein's The Demon)
*-> Good, virtuous, but torn between her attraction towards the Demon and her sense of honor.

*Kochubey (from Tchaikovsky's Mazeppa)
*-> Kochubey (the wealthy Cossack whose daughter elopes with Mazeppa) who actually managed to successfully keep Mariya from him. He turned Mazeppa in to the Tsar four years after Mazeppa asked for her hand.

*David (from Nielsen's Saul and David)
*-> a worthy candidate here.

*Guercoeur (from Magnard's opera of the same name)
*-> Guercoeur is a noble hero, a visionary ruler, who had freed his people from tyranny. But he died and is transcended to Heaven discontented with what's happening on his obscured city-state.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

The Conte said:


> Brunhilde. Leonora gives up the world to save her husband. Brunhilde gives up her husband to save the world.


Clever! I like it


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

DarkAngel said:


> It took Parsifal years of pilgrimage and enlightenment to discover what Liu knew instinctively: the greatest of all human virtues lies outside of self concern, it is *empathy towards others*


I am a swan, and I disagree


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> and there ain't no morally upright characters in des ring.


Sieglinde?

Oh wait... incest


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Sieglinde? Oh wait... incest


she also betrayed her husband.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> she also betrayed her husband.


Well, he was a monster.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> she also betrayed her husband.


Well thank goodness for that, or the _Ring_ would have been only three hours long instead of fifteen.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> she also betrayed her husband.


But since it was a forced marriage was she really obligated?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Well, he was a monster.


still it isn't ok to betray husbands, be they monsters or not.



Fritz Kobus said:


> But since it was a forced marriage was she really obligated?


well, she at least should not have run off with like this.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> well, she at least should not have run off with like this.


I have no idea how a woman should get out of/avoid a forced marriage. It is apparently a common thing historically and presumably still happens all the time in some countries today. What are her obligations in such case? Seems to me that forced marriage is akin to slavery. I say be free at the first opportunity.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> still it isn't ok to betray husbands, be they monsters or not.
> 
> well, she at least should not have run off with like this.


Why not? (not that it isn't absurd to discuss it, of course, but just out of curiosity...)


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I have no idea how a woman should get out of/avoid a forced marriage.





Woodduck said:


> Why not?


she may do what she wants but in the context of this topic she cannot be virtuous therefore.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> she may do what she wants but in the context of this topic she cannot be virtuous therefore.


I presume you're referring to the virtues of servitude and misery.


----------



## pianoville (Jul 19, 2018)

Sieglinde running away from her husband is definitely a dishonorable act. From what we see of Hunding he doesn't seem like that bad of a villain. Before he found out who Siegmund was he had no intention to kill him and even provided him with food and shelter. I would also be pretty pissed if someone ran away with my wife! Other than being pretty rude I don't see what makes him so bad that it makes it okay for Sieglinde to run away, and especially not the way she did it.

What do we actually get to know about how Hunding treats Sieglinde?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

pianoville said:


> Sieglinde running away from her husband is definitely a dishonorable act. From what we see of Hunding he doesn't seem like that bad of a villain. What do we actually get to know about how Hunding treats Sieglinde?


With all due respect, one would think that certain people here have never even heard_ Die Walkure_.

Sieglinde's words:

"This house and this wife call Hunding owner."

"You cannot bring misfortune here, where misfortune has made its home!"

"The kinsmen gathered here in the hall, to honor the wedding of Hunding: the woman he chose, unwooed by him, miscreants gave him as his wife. I sat there sadly while they were drinking."

Hunding married Sieglinde against her will and regards her as property. There is not a moment in the opera when he treats her as anything else, or in which any bond of affection is apparent between them. Hunding doesn't have to be horribly villainous to be acting in accordance with the norms of a primitive, brutal and inhumane culture. All this is clear from both words and music. What more justification for escaping a life of misery is needed? Sieglinde would be culpable if she did _not_ act upon her love and give herself a chance at life - which of course goes to the conflict between Brunnhilde and Fricka, a conflict which tears Wotan apart. It's a conflict central to the meaning of the _Ring. _


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

We have Sieglinde repeatedly expressing that she's unhappy, talking about how her house is already full of sorrow, that she was unhappy on her wedding day, about how much she suffers. We have Hunding's brusque commands to Sieglinde in their scene together. Wotan calls Hunding and Sieglinde's relationship unloving during his argument with Fricka.

Hunding is, at least, honorable to the men we see him deal with, from his kinsmen to Siegmund. He seems to see Sieglinde as property, or a servant. I think this is the standard interpretation, more or less. Some productions go pretty hard on this (Zambello's for Washington National Opera and San Francisco Opera has a Hunding that is particularly brutal to Sieglinde, groping and flinging her around; she is covered in bruises when Siegmund meets her. The production also has him quite rude to Siegmund, not feeding him and chaining him up before going to bed).

I'm not sure how generous a production can be to Hunding, without ignoring what is behind the text. He at least does not know or does not care that Sieglinde is deeply unhappy, unless we force in the idea that Sieglinde is dishonest with Siegmund and to Brünnhilde. There's little sign that Hunding thinks his wife is dishonest, so that means our theoretical kind Hunding is also dimitted.

We also have to accept that Wotan is outright lying to Fricka when he says the marriage is unloving; this doesn't fit with their conversation, where (other than that possible point) they don't lie outright to each other. Because, well, they know who they're talking to. Now Wotan of course seeks to deceive Fricka, but not by making untrue statements. He's pushing hard for a version of the truth, or to focus on certain aspects of reality.

I think the idea of Hunding as a monster is pushing it too far, but I think so would the idea of him being a kind, loving man to Sieglinde.


EDIT: My response was to pianoville; I had not seen Woodduck's response.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

pianoville said:


> Sieglinde running away from her husband is definitely a dishonorable act. From what we see of Hunding he doesn't seem like that bad of a villain. Before he found out who Siegmund was he had no intention to kill him and even provided him with food and shelter. I would also be pretty pissed if someone ran away with my wife! Other than being pretty rude I don't see what makes him so bad that it makes it okay for Sieglinde to run away, and especially not the way she did it.
> 
> What do we actually get to know about how Hunding treats Sieglinde?


It would also be dishonourable to to take as a wife a woman who does not want to be his wife. She apparently left at the first opportunity she had whereby she would not be found by another barbaric man who would capture her for his wife, by leaving with a man whom she appreciated and knew could be her protector in a dangerous world.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I presume you're referring to the virtues of servitude and misery.


big words like 'servitude' or 'misery' will serve you only to impress like the media would but do nothing to understand and sort out the complicated matter whilst you suggest using that ostrich policy.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Sieglinde's words:


since you bring up someone's words as if they prove something, you should have also remembered Sieglinde's remorse for being unfaithful she expresses near the end of Act II.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Fritz Kobus said:


> It would also be dishonourable to to take as a wife a woman who does not want to be his wife.


at the time this was widespread and considered as normal.

however, adultery is adultery, let us not attempt sweep it under the rug.

or you guys just can't keep things clear, perhaps?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I remember reading the incenstuous relationship of the twins was reflecting one Wagner's own adulterous relationships at the time with Frick representing his wife in her disapproval. I wonder how many here would be chuffed if your wife's brother ran off with her! Would you consider her virtuous?


----------



## MaxKellerman (Jun 4, 2017)

Zhdanov said:


> since you bring up someone's words as if they prove something, you should have also remembered Sieglinde's remorse for being unfaithful she expresses near the end of Act II.


I don't believe any such remorse exists. What she actually says is "Although I found bliss with the man I love (meaning Siegmund), and although I belonged to a man who took me without love (meaning Hunding), I am cursed, disgraced, a source of shame to you." A source of shame to Siegmund. Not Hunding. Siegmund recognizes that Sieglinde's shame is rooted in her reliving the sexual slavery of her marriage and the sense of pollution it has instilled in her, and he assures her that her disgrace will be paid for by Hunding's blood. She then expresses *fear* for *Siegmund* from Hunding's vengeance when she enters a state of delirium and imagines hounds tearing Siegmund apart.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I remember reading the incenstuous relationship of the twins was reflecting one Wagner's own adulterous relationships at the time with Frick representing his wife in her disapproval. I wonder how many here would be chuffed if your wife's brother ran off with her! Would you consider her virtuous?


The prohibition on brother-sister marriage was instituted in the Book of Leviticus. Prior to that there apparently was no prohibition. Abraham married his half sister (Genesis 20:11-12), a practice later prohibited (Deuteronomy 27:22). Adam and Eve could not have propagated the human race if not for close relations intermarrying. Regardless, it is entirely possible that in Wagner's Ring world, there is no such prohibition. The world of the Ring is not our world.

Just because a society condones treating women like slaves, does not make it right. Sure Hunding would be angry at his brother-in-law taking his wife. It was theft, but then Hunding taking her in the first place is theft also. Had Sigmund only rescued her from slavery, without the romantic relationship complicating things, then we could perhaps look at it more objectively.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> since you bring up someone's words as if they prove something, you should have also remembered Sieglinde's remorse for being unfaithful she expresses near the end of Act II.


Take a closer look at what Sieglinde actually says. In Wagner, things are not always as they at first appear.

Sieglinde says to Siegmund: "I have defiled your embrace." "Fly from the accurst one." "This disgraced woman, who was owned by a man and lay loveless in his arms." "The purest hero I must abandon." "How can this guilty wife dare to love him?" "To you, the most glorious, I can never give myself. I would bring shame to the brother, shame to the rescuing friend."

Notice that she doesn't say that loving Siegmund would bring shame to Hunding, but rather to the "purest, most glorious hero," Siegmund. What she's saying is that, having lain loveless in Hunding's arms, she is defiled and unworthy of the holy love of her brother, friend and savior, Siegmund.

The subversion of conventional, rule-based morality is a prominent dramatic theme in Wagner's work.

EDIT: I see that MaxKellerman makes the same point in post #76.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

MaxKellerman said:


> I don't believe any such remorse exists.





Woodduck said:


> Take a closer look at what Sieglinde actually says.


and she first says "men, pierce *me* with your swords first" - remorse before the both of them.

lest we also forget that Fricka does not smile upon the incestuous pair and sides with Hunding instead.

the goddess of wedlock is a person to count with and one whose verdict is most important here.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

This is thrilling, it's like act two of Walkure playing out before our very eyes only in internet text form.

N.

P.S. Can I be Brunhilde?


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> and she first says "men, pierce *me* with your swords first" - remorse before the both of them.


I don't see where you're seeing her showing remorse there. As she said in act 1, she feels like horrible things happen to everyone around her (in part because they do, thanks to Wotan). She's suicidal (as she is in act 3), not wishing for them to enact their vengeance on her.

And it's just a subtle difference, but I don't like that translation. The line is "Haltet ein, ihr Männer! Mordet erst mich!" Spencer translates this "Stop, you menfolk! Kill me first!" which isn't terribly different, but it makes it clear that she's trying to stop the fight, which she thinks is her fault.

She is totally devastated by Siegmund's death; that's all she cared about. I see no reason to believe she would have given even a moment's thought to Hunding, much less been contrite.



Zhdanov said:


> lest we also forget that Fricka does not smile upon the incestuous pair and sides with Hunding instead.
> 
> the goddess of wedlock is a person to count with and one whose verdict is most important here.


Her verdict means almost nothing. It's essentially automatic. She is the goddess of marriage, she must support marriage. That's... what she is? She doesn't care about love, she doesn't care about goodness, she doesn't care about morality. She just cares about supporting marriages, no matter who they're between, no matter how awful they are for those involved.

Wotan is a little bit more than one-dimensional, but it's his downfall. He must support his contracts... and he gives in to Fricka because she points out that his scheme is against his nature and will ruin the gods.

The entire Ring is about the fall of the gods because they are inflexible, metaphorically about the failure of rigid morality to deal with edge cases, difficult situations, and when others act in bad faith.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> This is thrilling, it's like act two of Walkure playing out before our very eyes only in internet text form.
> 
> N.
> 
> P.S. Can I be Brunhilde?


I haven't had a look at you, so I don't know whether you can or not. In a regie production, maybe?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

mountmccabe said:


> I don't see where you're seeing her showing remorse there.


like, *everywhere*, and i don't see how you're not seeing it.



mountmccabe said:


> Her verdict means almost nothing.


to whom? to you alone? why not speak for yourself?



mountmccabe said:


> She doesn't care about love, she doesn't care about goodness, she doesn't care about morality.


she *does* care about morality alright.



mountmccabe said:


> She just cares about supporting marriages, no matter who they're between, no matter how awful they are for those involved.


that's what is called 'law and order' besides *any* marriage can get awful one day, even though it was happy before.



mountmccabe said:


> The entire Ring is about the fall of the gods because they are inflexible


yeah? Wotan does not look 'inflexible' at all, rather opportunistic.



mountmccabe said:


> metaphorically about the failure of rigid morality to deal with edge cases, difficult situations, and when others act in bad faith.


had Wotan displayed 'rigid morality' then everything would have been ok and no Gotterdammerung occured.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> yeah? Wotan does not look 'inflexible' at all, rather opportunistic.
> 
> had Wotan displayed 'rigid morality' then everything would have been ok and no Gotterdammerung occured.


Wotan _wants_ to be inflexible. But he can't. That's why he gives in to Fricka, because she points out that his scheme is against his nature. Messing around with human children is one thing; but setting them up to steal back the ring and go against his contract is a problem.

And if Wotan stuck entirely by his contracts and such the gods - and all of the other beings we see in the Ring - would have been overrun by Alberich and his armies. An actual battle would have occured, and all the heroes of Valhalla would not have been enough to win the day.

Of course, out of context, running off with someone's spouse is not virtuous.

But the Hunding-Sieglinde match was never a good one (for her), it was never a happy one (for her), and it was never about love (for either of them). In the time we see him not once does Hunding express anything kind or tender to Sieglinde. She has been thoroughly traumatized by living with Hunding.

Marriage can be a very good thing, and should be celebrated. But "is there a limit to that" is the question. Fricka must say no; that is her make-up. She does not and can not look at other considerations. She must be inflexible, when it comes down to it. (That's what I mean when I say her verdict means nothing; she will make that decision no matter what the marriage is like, no matter what the offender is like).

A very similar thing is going on with the Wotan-Brünnhilde conflict; Brünnhilde was brought up to do Wotan's bidding, but "is there a limit to that." And she sees one, too. If she had not, Siegmund would have killed himself and Sieglinde, and we're back to only Alberich scheming to reacquire the ring, which Hagen would be able to accomplish and we're back at the gods (and everyone else) being overrun by armies from Nibelung (or Gibichung).

Wotan could not let Siegmund win. Brünnhilde tried, and lost her status as a Valkyrie as a result. She made her own complicated moral decision and that disqualifies her from being an immortal.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

But I can see how if one does not accept any sort of flexible morality that the Ring would be difficult to enjoy.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

mountmccabe said:


> Wotan _wants_ to be inflexible. But he can't. That's why he gives in to Fricka


quite the opposite, he wants to be flexible, for he in fact is an opportunist, and it was only his spouse to call him to order.



mountmccabe said:


> if Wotan stuck entirely by his contracts and such the gods - and all of the other beings we see in the Ring - would have been overrun by Alberich and his armies.


if he gave the accursed gold back to the water maidens, as they implore him to do and which be in accordance with his contracts, the situation would have been sorted and the disaster thwarted.



mountmccabe said:


> the Hunding-Sieglinde match was never a good one (for her), it was never a happy one (for her), and it was never about love


how often marriages are about love, except those from literature?



mountmccabe said:


> In the time we see him not once does Hunding express anything kind or tender to Sieglinde. She has been thoroughly traumatized by living with Hunding.


time heals, so husbands and wives can adjust to each other later on.



mountmccabe said:


> Fricka must say no; that is her make-up. She does not and can not look at other considerations. She must be inflexible, when it comes down to it.


in that she is morally upright.



mountmccabe said:


> I can see how if one does not accept any sort of flexible morality that the Ring would be difficult to enjoy.


not at all, because that one finds in there yet another proof to how being 'flexible' can ruin the world.


----------



## Fredrikalansson (Jan 29, 2019)

Back to original question... I'm surprised no one has nominated Tatiana in Eugene Onegin. She was head over heels in love with a jerk who jilted her. Years later same jerk throws himself at her feet. She still loves him, but she's married now, and she chooses to remain with her husband. Honorable, moral, and smart too!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Fredrikalansson said:


> Back to original question... I'm surprised no one has nominated Tatiana in Eugene Onegin. She was head over heels in love with a jerk who jilted her. Years later same jerk throws himself at her feet. She still loves him, but she's married now, and she chooses to remain with her husband. Honorable, moral, and smart too!


Excellent choice!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Desdemona comes to mind immediately.


----------



## Autumn Leaves (Jan 3, 2014)

The fact that Tchaikovsky's _Iolanta_ is so little-known outside of the former USSR is often attributed to the reason that it _only_ has moral and honorable characters - therefore the conflict gets resolved too easily!

The best of them is probably Duke Robert: he is betrothed to Iolanta as a child, then he grows up and falls in love with another woman. However, he still goes to marry Iolanta and is ready to be a faithful husband, only loyal to his beloved in his heart. But first he plans to ask Iolanta's father King René if maybe, just maybe the betrothal could be called off. Which he does, and King René is impressed by such honesty and releases him from his word (and, conveniently, Robert's friend Vaudemont has fallen in love with Iolanta). Several minutes later, Robert learns that Iolanta is blind and that she is now having an operation on her eyes, and he is genuinely anxious for the outcome and later praises God with everybody else when the operation is a success - even though he barely knows Iolanta, he is aware how much she means to his best friend.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Agree about Desdemona and add a Posa and a Cio Cio San.


----------



## Dick Johnson (Apr 14, 2020)

A nomination for most morally upright minor character: Giorgio in I Puritani.
He is the "uncle" character that in so many operas tries to force the soprano to marry against her wishes. Playing against the stereotype, he listens to Elvira's wishes and then advocates for her.

A major character with unimpeachable moral strength: Guglielmo/Guillaume Tell. While the others vacillate, he remains the moral center of the opera.


----------



## Dick Johnson (Apr 14, 2020)

A nomination for most morally upright minor character: Giorgio in I Puritani.
He is the "uncle" character that in so many operas tries to force the soprano to marry against her wishes. Playing against the stereotype, he listens to Elvira's wishes and then advocates for her.

A major character with unimpeachable moral strength: Guglielmo/Guillaume Tell. While the others vacillate, he remains the moral center of the opera.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

No contest - Jesus - in Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Jesus Christ Superstar"... Case closed...


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

Tell is amazing. Badass rebel, always ready to risk his life for his friends, tyrant killer, loving dad and husband, Good Baritone, and manages to get through the opera alive! Also, Archery 100.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

It's gotta be Minnie from _La fanciulla del west_.


----------



## Ulfilas (Mar 5, 2020)

Without a doubt, Leonore/Fidelio.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Duncan said:


> No contest - Jesus - in* Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Jesus Christ Superstar"*... Case closed...


Is that an opera?


----------



## Ulfilas (Mar 5, 2020)

SixFootScowl said:


> Is that an opera?


Maybe if Wagner had composed his planned opera "Jesus of Nazareth".


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

SixFootScowl said:


> Is that an opera?


"Jesus Christ Superstar" is an "opera" in the same way that "Sweeney Todd" is an "opera"...


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Duncan said:


> "Jesus Christ Superstar is an "opera" in the same way that "Sweeney Todd" is an "opera"...


Not like The Marriage Of Figaro, though.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Mozart was a composer who farted a lot, and AL Webber is a fart that composes a lot (plagiarised?). No Thank you.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

HenryPenfold said:


> Not like The Marriage Of Figaro, though.


You're thinking of "Cats"... That was Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Le nozze di Figaro"... except with cats...


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Nothing wrong with musicals, but they are not operas. A middle ground perhaps is Operetta.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Moses from Schoenberg's _Moses and Aron_.

God in that story is a bit of a dick, though.


----------



## Admiral (Dec 27, 2014)

Duncan said:


> "Jesus Christ Superstar" is an "opera" in the same way that "Sweeney Todd" is an "opera"...


Ah Steve, what treasures he has given us! I saw Sweeney Todd on Broadway - my first musical that I saw there. Just fantastic and I think most operagoers would love it and see a lot of parallels to any number of operas.


----------



## Autumn Leaves (Jan 3, 2014)

Prince Gvidon from Rimsky-Korsakov's _The Tale of Tsar Saltan_. He was one of the main characters in the original fairytale as well, but the opera gives him a larger part. He is not only honorable, but also amazingly cheerful and optimistic.

You are exiled to an empty island in the middle of nowhere, with no supplies? Why, but the island is so pretty and the weather is wonderful! And a branch and a reed cane will totally be a great bow and arrow!

You are offered to become a prince of a rich magical city? Ask for your mother's blessing and _then_ agree.

Your aunts plotted against your mother, which led to the aforementioned exile? Only punish them with two bumblebee stings and then pardon them completely.

Your father is indirectly responsible for the same plight? Invite him to your wedding and never show any hard feelings.


----------

