# Vilest, Most Evil Operatic Character



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I don't have the answer, but Don Pizarro of Beethoven's Fidelio comes to mind. But surely there are many others.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Scarpia, Scarpia, Scarpia. The character we love to watch die. A monster without a shred of an excuse. And don't tell me he was molested by a diva at age five.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Mao, Elagabalus, Caligula, and Constantine come to mind.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Definitely has to be Iago, albeit not a very complex villain.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Claggart in Billy Budd

_"With no power to annul the elemental evil in him, though readily enough he could hide it; apprehending the good, but powerless to be it; a nature like Claggart's, surcharged with energy as such natures almost invariably are, what recourse is left to it but to recoil upon itself and, like the scorpion for which the Creator alone is responsible, act out to the end the part allotted it."_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Dr. Shatterhand said:


> Mao, Elagabalus, Caligula, and Constantine come to mind.


I don't see that Mao comes across as villainous in the Adams Opera. Kissinger on the other hand... :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> Claggart in Billy Budd
> 
> _"With no power to annul the elemental evil in him, though readily enough he could hide it; apprehending the good, but powerless to be it; a nature like Claggart's, surcharged with energy as such natures almost invariably are, what recourse is left to it but to recoil upon itself and, like the scorpion for which the Creator alone is responsible, act out to the end the part allotted it."_


A closet case, perhaps...


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

I would agree on Scarpia, but maybe because of the modern times, I think the vilest person in Opera (that I know) would be the Duke of Mantua. I don't remember Lord Enrico or Lady Macbeth enough. Boris Timofeyevich could be a candidate.


----------



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

As well as some of the others already mentioned I would also nominate Peter Quint, even though he's dead.


----------



## pianoville (Jul 19, 2018)

I would say Hagen is one of the most evil characters. Iago is also a contender for sure.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I haven't seen much opera, but Don Giovanni is a real scumbag.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Equal opportunities here for women, surely?

Turandot.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

Claggart (what a deliciously evil *******), Scarpia, Iago. 

The Grand Inquisitor is also pure evil. He's like the Palpatine to Philip's Vader.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Without a doubt -- Iago. He has no feelings, no soul ... no conscience. He is pure unadulterated evil like the kid in the "Bad Seed".

Claggart is just a mean spirited, discontented, jealous person who is only happy when he torments. 
Sadly he had a private longing for Billy which he knew could never come to fruition so instead he turned his feelings into evilness against Billy to save his own soul.

Scarpia? Nah! Not evil -- just an egotistical leader who enjoys getting whatever he wants anyway he wants. He's small potatoes next to the other two.

Now the Grand Inquisitor!! There's a case for evil!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The Grand Inquisitor? Torquemada of course! Especially as played by the vile and terrifying Mel Brooks in his musical!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I was going to go for Iago, but when I saw Claggart I was tempted to change my mind. One of the two. 

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

For me it's a toss up between Scarpia, Claggart and Iago.

The Macbeths anyone?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Don Basilio in Il Barbiere...


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Vilest, Most Evil Operatic Character


Salome, Richard Strauss Salome.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> Salome, Richard Strauss Salome.


Nah. She just needs a juvenile correctional counselor, or maybe a stint in the military.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Nah. She just needs a juvenile correctional counselor


that is, a Jochanaan?.. but it would only make the matters worse.



Woodduck said:


> or maybe a stint in the military.


i fear for the military safety then.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Definitely has to be Iago, albeit not a very complex villain.


I think the latter leads to the former. He's just manipulating people to cause them pain.

That brings to mind Nottingham from _Roberto Devereux_. We can sort of understand him being upset about his wife, but his revenge is calculated and cruel. In a related situation the Queen is upset, but she also feels her hands are tied and is hoping the various official ways out of having to carry out the execution work out. And when she fills in the missing pieces instead of getting more upset, she calls to save Roberto.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

How about Henry VIII in Saint-Saëns' Henry VIII and in Donizetti's Anna Bolena?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> For me it's a toss up between Scarpia, Claggart and Iago.
> 
> The Macbeths anyone?


The lady certainly qualifies.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> For me it's a toss up between Scarpia, Claggart and Iago.
> 
> The Macbeths anyone?


The thing that sets the Macbeths and Scarpia apart is that they have something to gain from their evil actions, whereas Claggart and Iago actually enjoy the evil actions themselves and gain pleasure from inflicting pain on others with no significant gain to themselves.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> The thing that sets the Macbeths and Scarpia apart is that they have something to gain from their evil actions, whereas Claggart and Iago actually enjoy the evil actions themselves and gain pleasure from inflicting pain on others with no significant gain to themselves.
> 
> N.


That's a good point. However I'm not sure it makes them any less evil. Someone who will do anything (murder, rape, framing someone else for their crimes) to get what they want seems to me to be just as morally reprehensible.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Hmmm, what about Bluebeard of Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle?


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Re: Claggart - the New York Times has an op-ed piece on "Billy Budd" today on the centenary of the posthumous publication of the nover. The op-ed covers the novel, the opera and the film.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/billy-budd-opera.html


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Hmmm, what about Bluebeard of Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle?


What do you think makes him evil?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Hmmm, what about Bluebeard of Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle?


I don't see him as evil, more tortured.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Perhaps I don't understand Bluebeard's Castle, but it seems he reigns over this dark and foreboding edifice and shuts up his wives in a room. Though apparently he has not murdered them, yet blood is found in parts of his castle.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Perhaps I don't understand Bluebeard's Castle, but it seems he reigns over this dark and foreboding edifice and shuts up his wives in a room. Though apparently he has not murdered them, yet blood is found in parts of his castle.


It's all symbolism. His rooms are the contents of his subconscious containing the memories of his past, which Judith tries to probe. His wives are his memories of love for other women who came too close for comfort. I think he's tragic rather than evil.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> It's all symbolism. His rooms are the contents of his subconscious containing the memories of his past, which Judith tries to probe. His wives are his memories of love for other women who came too close for comfort. I think he's tragic rather than evil.


Well, I have a copy I got for 50 cents at a library sale. I think I'll have to give it a spin now.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

To take a slightly different route on this topic, I think a good candidate for an evil 'character' in Opera is the burrough, collectively, in Britten's Peter Grimes. Although Grimes proves to be a villain in the end, the mob is only barely justified in its' negative judgements, yet is so horribly eager to act on them. It's so terrifying because this is the way world works - we _are _these fundamentally social creatures that let hearsay escalate into truth, and reliably do terrible things as a result. The mob are lucky that their victim happened to be a wrong'un.

Even if your Iagos and Scarpias represent a more 'pure' evil, Britten's mob strikes a nerve that the former do not.


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

JoeSaunders said:


> Although Grimes proves to be a villain in the end


Does he? I don't think the opera is so clear one way or another about that. From what we can tell he is most likely very hard on his apprentices, possibly abusive, but the death of the second boy that pushes him into madness seems to be pure accident.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It's all symbolism. His rooms are the contents of his subconscious containing the memories of his past, which Judith tries to probe. His wives are his memories of love for other women who came too close for comfort. I think he's tragic rather than evil.


I think that the rooms are symbols of BOTH his subconscious and conscious and her subconscious and conscious all at the same time. Neither character's intentions are entirely good or evil, it's complex mixture just like most human beings. Being a Romantic though, I think they BOTH are good people who love each other. The opera shows the "un-examined" and "instinctual" ways in which male and female humans express their love.

To my mind, with knowledge of the differences in the male and female human brains and their "instinctual" behaviors, each can respect the other and compromise for the other. (I do think this is demonstrated a bit by Bluebeard.)


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

ManateeFL said:


> Does he? I don't think the opera is so clear one way or another about that. From what we can tell he is most likely very hard on his apprentices, possibly abusive, but the death of the second boy that pushes him into madness seems to be pure accident.


I agree that there's ambiguity, but it's clear that Grimes' primary goal is to prove the burrough wrong and is willing to ignore the child's well-being to achieve that aim. Yes, the child's death is accidental, but had he, by chance, not died that way, Grimes could easily have ended the child by some other negligent means. Even before he goes totally bonkers, it's obvious he does not care for the boy.

And after I put it that way, I guess Grimes is a pretty evil villain too! (though madness excuses it to some extent...)


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

JoeSaunders said:


> I agree that there's ambiguity, but it's clear that Grimes' primary goal is to prove the burrough wrong and is willing to ignore the child's well-being to achieve that aim. Yes, the child's death is accidental, but had he, by chance, not died that way, Grimes could easily have ended the child by some other negligent means. Even before he goes totally bonkers, it's obvious he does not care for the boy.
> 
> And after I put it that way, I guess Grimes is a pretty evil villain too!


I'm not sure that makes him an evil villain. He may, and probably does deserve prosecution, but not persecution.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Fritz, I ADORE--no exaggeration whatsoever--this opera. Let's all/the two of us--you decide--discuss this more in depth before you watch it and DEFINITELY you must watch the Robert Lloyd version. It was on YouTube complete and with English subtitles.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

ManateeFL said:


> I'm not sure that makes him an evil villain. He may, and probably does deserve prosecution, but not persecution.


Possibly. A lot of this hinges on personal definitions of what an 'evil villain' is, which I'm sure varies massively between people. And I agree he does not deserve persecution, at least based on the knowledge of the mob, as per my earlier point.

But nonetheless I do think that behaving in such a supremely reckless way that endangers a child is horrendous, especially when one has been brought to a court on similar charges before. There isn't any moral defence of his behaviour here. Whether you call it 'evil' is a matter of preference.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> I think they BOTH are good people who love each other. The opera shows the "un-examined" and "instinctual" ways in which male and female humans express their love.
> 
> To my mind, with knowledge of the differences in the male and female human brains and their "instinctual" behaviors, each can respect the other and compromise for the other. (I do think this is demonstrated a bit by Bluebeard.)


Bluebeard gives in to Judith's nagging, but how does she accommodate him? Seems to me, she's determined to know his secrets regardless of the consequences, and ends up just another memory in his museum of memories. It also appears that she'll be the last; the previous three represented the dawn, midday and dusk of his life, and she is the night. It's a deeply pessimistic view of love between man and woman.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

It COULD be deeply pessimistic if:

'one assumes that you are watching the "events" in chronological time. The Robert Lloyd version (at least) beings and opens the same way, he is sitting in his chair with his eyes closed. Maybe (and I lean this way more and more), the wedding hasn't happened yet. Yes, he might have already married three times, but each one of those women were extremely different and he was younger and less experiences and knowledgeable during those marriages. He's "playing" out in his mind his hopes and fears about what will happen with Judith.

He is thinking that she might be the last love of his life and she might. But he is older than her and I think he has accumulated a great deal of knowledge and experience in those years, when he gets out of that chair and actually marries her and brings her to their home, she might in reality already understand quite a bit about the psychological differences of the sexes, or if she doesn't know yet, then he can open his mouth and explain it to her. From the age and experience he might have learned enough now (from life in general and past wifes) how to tell her and teach her in a kind and effective manner.


Remember, Bartok (who I get the sense was a very good man) dedicated this piece to his new bride.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Bluebeard gives in to Judith's nagging, but how does she accommodate him? Seems to me, she's determined to know his secrets regardless of the consequences, and ends up just another memory in his museum of memories. It also appears that she'll be the last; the previous three represented the dawn, midday and dusk of his life, and she is the night. It's a deeply pessimistic view of love between man and woman.


Another reason it is not pessimistic to me is that i have been extremely fortunate to see two wonderful and successful marriages: the most helpful in this case, is the one with people approx. my own age who are close enough for me to observe and ask them things. Both had done reading about human development; differences in male/female brains and behavior; loved each other whole-heartedly; and were willing to compromise reciprically. It can and has been done.

I also think there is an important clue in the door with his kingdom. Remember we both found a disturbing incongruity between the "kingdom" and the music. What I have worked out in my mind is that he is worrying that SHE will see the kingdom as very-little that she will not look-up to him in this aspect of himself. Symbolically his kingdom could represent himself in many different ways. In my view, it hasn't actually happened. He is afraid that it will happen. We are watching his fears.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Your view of the opera is interesting. Judith's fate isn't what _has_ happened, but what Bluebeard is afraid _will_ happen...

All I can say is that if I were a woman newly married and my husband presented me with a present like _Bluebeard_, I'd be looking for a marriage counselor!


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Your view of the opera is interesting. Judith's fate isn't what _has_ happened, but what Bluebeard is afraid _will_ happen...
> 
> *All I can say is that if I were a woman newly married and my husband presented me with a present like Bluebeard, I'd be looking for a marriage counselor!*


When I first read it was dedicated to her I first thought OMG I hope someone gave her a really heavy cast iron pan as a wedding gift! and I still am not comfortable with it, BUT maybe the two of them had already shared their fears/thoughts/experience with each other and maybe Bartok learned something from her and then he composed this masterpiece as a thank you.



A smiley doesn't do that thought justice, does it.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Not opera related - but I'd say most people on public transport.


----------



## Dick Johnson (Apr 14, 2020)

Scarpia, Iago, and Don Giovanni all meet the modern definition for psycopathy.
Of the three, I think Don Giovanni is probably the scariest. Like many real psycopaths, he is superficially charming and even liked. The Don is able to hide the fact the he enjoys ruining peoples's lives from most of his acquaintances - until the action of the opera leads to his narcissistic collapse.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

One villain who usually gets forgotten (because he's not the kind of show-stealer Iago and Scarpia are) is Paolo Albiani. He's a petty, mediocre little weasel. We rarely meet diabolical supervillains in real life, but Paolo? This type is everywhere. A coward, kind of a creep (dude she's like half your age) and a traitor.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

gellio said:


> Not opera related - but I'd say most people on public transport.


Hilarious this, thanks you made me smile. :lol:
I am bloody serious


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Haven't visited this thread in a long time, so excuse me if this character was already posted, but Gottardo the Podestà, the mayor in Rossini's La gazza ladra, is a pretty vile character, perhaps right up there with Scarpia.



> Isacco passes by again, and Ninetta sells him the silver her father had entrusted to her. Giannetto and others return, and Lucia notices that a spoon is missing. *The Mayor starts an immediate investigation, stating the draconian penalty for domestic theft: death.* Lucia and the Mayor accuse Ninetta, who in her distress drops the money she had exchanged from Isacco. The peddler is brought back and reports that he has already sold the spoon, but he recalls the inscription "F.V.", initials shared by Fabrizio and Fernando. The stunned Ninetta, desperate to protect her father, is unable to refute the accusations, and the Mayor orders her arrest.
> 
> *The Mayor now arrives and tells [the imprisoned] Ninetta that if she accepts his advances he will get her freed - she replies that she would rather die. *The Mayor is called away, but Antonio has heard all and offers to help Ninetta any way he can. Ninetta asks Pippo to sell a gold cross and put some money for her father in an agreed hiding place - a chestnut tree. Ninetta is brought to trial, found guilty, and condemned to death.


Source: Wikipedia


----------



## Amara (Jan 12, 2012)

Don Fatale said:


> Equal opportunities here for women, surely?
> 
> Turandot.


I don't see Turandot as evil. She simply doesn't want to be forced into marriage. If the men volunteer for her riddle game, they know what they're signing up for.

For evil women, how about the princess in Rusalka? Doesn't she try to ruin Rusalka's relationship with the prince just for the hell of it?

For male characters, I'll nominate Kaspar from Der Freischutz. He tries to sell his friend's soul to the devil! Kind of the definition of evil.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Amara said:


> I *don't see Turandot as evil*. She simply doesn't want to be forced into marriage. If the men volunteer for her riddle game, they know what they're signing up for.
> 
> For evil women, how about the princess in Rusalka? Doesn't she try to ruin Rusalka's relationship with the prince just for the hell of it?
> 
> For male characters, I'll nominate Kaspar from Der Freischutz. He tries to sell his friend's soul to the devil! Kind of the definition of evil.


Must confess someone who treats her subjects like she does reminds me of a female Mao


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Amara said:


> I don't see Turandot as evil. She simply doesn't want to be forced into marriage. If the men volunteer for her riddle game, they know what they're signing up for.
> 
> For evil women, how about the princess in Rusalka? Doesn't she try to ruin Rusalka's relationship with the prince just for the hell of it?
> 
> *For male characters, I'll nominate Kaspar from Der Freischutz. He tries to sell his friend's soul to the devil! Kind of the definition of evil.*


While Kaspar is certainly "evil", his not evil in the same psychological way as Scarpia or Iago. Technically speaking his also not the definition of evil as that would much rather be the devil. Selling one's sould to devil is in fact a very common theme in many European fairy tales and as I've grown up with those it doesn't strike me the same way as more psychologically disturbing evil characters. What differentiates Weber's _Der Freischütz_ from e.g Wagner's _Ring_, that is also based on a mythology, is the fact that Weber just retells the story through his opera, while Wagner manipulated the original myth to bring out the psychology and philosophy of the characters making their evilness more apparent and disturbing.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Like Dick Johnson, I too find psychopaths even more interesting than evildoers and much rarer in opera.
Mefistofele is another such charmer like The Don, Iago and Scarpia. People are mesmerized by him and he's fun to be around.
Bluebeard is another that comes to mind.
More interesting seems to be the fact that it is harder to find a female psychopath. (Turandot does not fit the mold).


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> Like Dick Johnson, I too find psychopaths even more interesting than evildoers and much rarer in opera.
> Mefistofele is another such charmer like The Don, Iago and Scarpia. People are mesmerized by him and he's fun to be around.
> Bluebeard is another that comes to mind.
> More interesting seems to be the fact that it is harder to find a female psychopath. (Turandot does not fit the mold).


Why does Turandot not fit the mold?

Female psycopaths - Lady Macbeth and Ortrud. Armida?

N.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Why does Turandot not fit the mold?
> 
> Female psycopaths - Lady Macbeth and Ortrud. Armida?
> 
> N.


Turandot does not fit the mold because a typical psychopath has no fears and is charming, out-going and friendly to their peers. In a word: charismatic. I am not convinced that Lady Macbeth is a lauded and popular character that invites crowds of delight.
I am not familiar enough with the other two but it doesn't sound like they fit this charismatic, charming mode.
I think of the Pied Piper of Hamlin when I think of psychopaths.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

Turandot's repression of the populace, while awful, is pretty standard stuff for monarchs. Plenty of European monarchs not generally considered as uniquely evil ordered drawing and quartering, beatings, torture, boiling alive, etc.. The point of _Turandot_ is that Turandot simultaneously embodies the spirit of righteous anger on behalf of the destruction of the innocent (Principessa Lou-Ling), and the vicious tyrant who destroys innocence, (Liu, which sounds awfully close to "Lou-Ling" to be coincidence). Turandot is not a psychopath. She has been damaged by the world and by the cruelty of it, and has become cruel herself to cope. Bear in mind that as a princess, like most princesses throughout history, her job is not to marry the man she loves; it is to marry someone of good station who can advance the political objective of the kingdom. The answers to her riddles tell us exactly what she wants in a man: blood (passion), hope, and to know who she truly is (someone able to understand the riddle that is Turandot). She's a much more complex and understandable character than she's made out to be.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

annaw said:


> While Kaspar is certainly "evil", his not evil in the same psychological way as Scarpia or Iago.


Kaspar's evilness is more a byproduct of the fix he has gotten himself into by becoming allied with the Devil. Now he does not want to pay the price, so in a craven manner, is trying to offload that price onto anyone he can. IMO he is more of an evil character in the vein of Dr. Smith of Lost in Space fame.


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

Nixon - who was not a fictional character.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> Turandot does not fit the mold because a typical psychopath has no fears and is charming, out-going and friendly to their peers. In a word: charismatic. I am not convinced that Lady Macbeth is a lauded and popular character that invites crowds of delight.
> I am not familiar enough with the other two but it doesn't sound like they fit this charismatic, charming mode.
> I think of the Pied Piper of Hamlin when I think of psychopaths.


Lady Macbeth charms her husband and the other nobles, however the audience see her true inner self from the start and Ortrud has that sort of charisma and the cunning manipulation characteristics with Elsa. Armida is a seductress who fools the crusader knights into not seeing her evil side (but I'm not sure how prevalent that evil side is). I think at least the first two count, although I see why Turandot doesn't.

N.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

Medea, Azucena, Enrico VIII, that scumbag guy Adriana Lecouvreur loves (Maurizio), Giorgio Germont, Amonasro .

Well apart from the first three, the rest aren't exactly evil but I really hate them for what they did.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Ya got me.
What did "that scumbag Maurizio" do? He fell in love with another woman and even tried gallantly to protect his first flame by asking his present love to save her. What is so terrible about that? Now if you had said the Principessa de Boullion, who actually poisoned Adriana to death, you might have something!
And Giorgio Germont? The gentleman from another culture was doing nothing out of the ordinary that any father would not do to protect his daughter and family. (Selfish and unthinking of Violetta perhaps, but certainly human and understandable.)
And Amonasro? What is more passionate than for a leader to try to save his country even at the cost of his daughter's happiness? Not a nice guy but there are more operas than I care to name with a similar premise. We'd be here all night naming mean and selfish characters for a cause -- none of whom are actually evil.
Why didn't you mention Claggart? Now there's a mean spirited and hateful character that caused the death of Billy Budd.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

Azucena has some severe PTSD and other issues. Not that burning children is okay, but the whole "my mom's ghost is screaming at me for revenge" makes her understandable at least.

Althoguh I'm not sure WHY Ghostly Mom wasn't satisfied when the old Count died and still wants his sons to pay. They were just kids at the time.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Mentally damaged and PTSD people do not stop to think rationally.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

For revenge to be total it has to afflict the children too. I mean, the God of the Old Testament takes revenge on the fourth generation.


----------



## Tuoksu (Sep 3, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> Ya got me.
> What did "that scumbag Maurizio" do? He fell in love with another woman and even tried gallantly to protect his first flame by asking his present love to save her. What is so terrible about that? Now if you had said the Principessa de Boullion, who actually poisoned Adriana to death, you might have something!
> And Giorgio Germont? The gentleman from another culture was doing nothing out of the ordinary that any father would not do to protect his daughter and family. (Selfish and unthinking of Violetta perhaps, but certainly human and understandable.)
> And Amonasro? What is more passionate than for a leader to try to save his country even at the cost of his daughter's happiness? Not a nice guy but there are more operas than I care to name with a similar premise. We'd be here all night naming mean and selfish characters for a cause -- none of whom are actually evil.
> Why didn't you mention Claggart? Now there's a mean spirited and hateful character that caused the death of Billy Budd.


Like I said I mentioned these not because I think they're necessarily evil, but because of the gravity of the outcome of their actions. I hate Maurizio for doing nothing and abandoning Adriana when she needed him most, allowing Princesse de Boullion to get to her. He couldn't even take her side in public. What kind of love is that?
Giorgio Germont comes off as also selfish and manipulative. Not the mention the destructive outcome of his actions. 
Amonasro was basically blackmailing Aida and we all know what happened afterwards.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Barnabas in La Gioconda. He's a trial run for Iago.


----------



## Autumn Leaves (Jan 3, 2014)

Leandro and Clarice from _The Love for Three Oranges_. Their scene in the first act can be summarized as:

Clarice: My cousin may still outlive us all! What are you doing to kill him off? I think I won't marry you, you are really useless. 
Leandro: I'm gradually poisoning him. 
(In most productions, cuddling ensues). 
Clarice: Still. We need decisive action! Give him opium or a bullet!

Their villainy looks even worse because the opera as a whole is a light-hearted avant-garde fairytale comedy - and then there are these two, who look like they've accidentally wandered into the plot from a Shakespearean tragedy.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

There was a discussion as to whether Puccini's music reflected a softer side of Scarpia when it came to God, religion and the Church. Some remarked that his religious remarks were actually not real but superficial and that he was not in actuality a religious man and that nowhere in Puccini's music was there evidence to the contrary.
I suggest if anyone is interested in watching and "listening" to the music carefully and watching the sudden changed expression on Scarpia's face when the children start singing in the last 15 seconds of the 1st act of Tosca (on today for the entire day at the Met website with Verrett/Pavarotti and MacNeil), you might agree (or not!) that this part of Scarpia's religious fervor was not phony but rather is almost as though he suddenly reverted back to his childhood where religion was an important part of his upbringing.
Watch his expressions carefully which seem to match with the devoutness of the music.
Comments appreciated.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

nina foresti said:


> There was a discussion as to whether Puccini's music reflected a softer side of Scarpia when it came to God, religion and the Church. Some remarked that his religious remarks were actually not real but superficial and that he was not in actuality a religious man and that nowhere in Puccini's music was there evidence to the contrary.
> I suggest if anyone is interested in watching and "listening" to the music carefully and watching the sudden changed expression on Scarpia's face when the children start singing in the last 15 seconds of the 1st act of Tosca (on today for the entire day at the Met website with Verrett/Pavarotti and MacNeil), you might agree (or not!) that this part of Scarpia's religious fervor was not phony but rather is almost as though he suddenly reverted back to his childhood where religion was an important part of his upbringing.
> Watch his expressions carefully which seem to match with the devoutness of the music.
> Comments appreciated.


The problem with facial expressions and the majority of acting in general is that they are dependent on the singer. One singer might do one expression and another one would do a different one. If Puccini didn't write down that the singer should do such expression, then it should be regarded as an interpretation rather than Puccini's own intention which we can mainly understand through his libretto, other writings if such exist and, maybe more abstractly but very importantly, through the music. But I agree that an interpretation can certainly provide a different take and understanding of the character than we are otherwise used to.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

annaw said:


> The problem with facial expressions and the majority of acting in general is that they are dependent on the singer. One singer might do one expression and another one would do a different one. If Puccini didn't write down that the singer should do such expression, then it should be regarded as an interpretation rather than Puccini's own intention which we can mainly understand through his libretto, other writings if such exist and, maybe more abstractly but very importantly, through the music. But I agree that an interpretation can certainly provide a different take and understanding of the character than we are otherwise used to.


I agree with you. This is where interpretation comes in. I've always thought, and this is my interpretation, that there is no sincerity in Scarpia's religion. He does what he's always done, but I doubt he believes in any of it. It probaby doesn't happen so much now, but I've come across so many people who go to church every sunday but don't actually believe any of it. It's not so much a religious rite as a social one for them. It is what they've always done and society demands it of them, but they are not really devout.


----------



## Autumn Leaves (Jan 3, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I agree with you. This is where interpretation comes in. I've always thought, and this is my interpretation, that there is no sincerity in Scarpia's religion. He does what he's always done, but I doubt he believes in any of it. It probaby doesn't happen so much now, but I've come across so many people who go to church every sunday but don't actually believe any of it. It's not so much a religious rite as a social one for them. It is what they've always done and society demands it of them, but they are not really devout.


My interpretation as well. Scarpia only goes to church because his status demands it - he has to be seen praying with everyone else. The extent of his belief in God is summed up in his second aria: "God has created the world for ME to amuse myself".


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I agree with you. This is where interpretation comes in. I've always thought, and this is my interpretation, that there is no sincerity in Scarpia's religion. He does what he's always done, but I doubt he believes in any of it. It probaby doesn't happen so much now, but I've come across so many people who go to church every sunday but don't actually believe any of it. It's not so much a religious rite as a social one for them. It is what they've always done and society demands it of them, but they are not really devout.


I too agree that Scarpia's "softer side" comes through as interpretation of the character. But who is to say that that particular interpretation wasn't what the composer had in mind in the first place?
I am sorry that you did not see the performance put forth by Macneil (a person I normally would never stop and say, "wow what depth") and yet there it was, and so very different from his religious "posings" throughout the act. Observe in the last 30 seconds of the 1st act, a moment in time when his entire persona took on a shocking change, as the children started to sing, it was revealing and showed that there are less than a few persons in this world, as much as we might deem them Hitler evil, that actually wear the crown.
At the very least, the interpretation showed a side of the character that was never seen before and certainly made for a much more interesting study of a person.


----------



## Autumn Leaves (Jan 3, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> I too agree that Scarpia's "softer side" comes through as interpretation of the character. But who is to say that that particular interpretation wasn't what the composer had in mind in the first place?
> I am sorry that you did not see the performance put forth by Macneil (a person I normally would never stop and say, "wow what depth") and yet there it was, and so very different from his religious "posings" throughout the act. Observe in the last 30 seconds of the 1st act, a moment in time when his entire persona took on a shocking change, as the children started to sing, it was revealing and showed that there are less than a few persons in this world, as much as we might deem them Hitler evil, that actually wear the crown.
> At the very least, the interpretation showed a side of the character that was never seen before and certainly made for a much more interesting study of a person.


Perhaps… It depends on the viewer's interpretation as well, of course. I've just rewatched MacNeil's performance and maybe, yes, it can be like you say, him suddenly realizing he is in church and praying with real reverence. I mean, it has happened to myself (not, er, at Scarpia's level, I hope - usually it was just me being sleepy) - getting distracted in church and snapping back to my senses mid-service, and it probably looked like this as well.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

nina foresti said:


> I too agree that Scarpia's "softer side" comes through as interpretation of the character. *But who is to say that that particular interpretation wasn't what the composer had in mind in the first place?*
> I am sorry that you did not see the performance put forth by Macneil (a person I normally would never stop and say, "wow what depth") and yet there it was, and so very different from his religious "posings" throughout the act. Observe in the last 30 seconds of the 1st act, a moment in time when his entire persona took on a shocking change, as the children started to sing, it was revealing and showed that there are less than a few persons in this world, as much as we might deem them Hitler evil, that actually wear the crown.
> At the very least, the interpretation showed a side of the character that was never seen before and certainly made for a much more interesting study of a person.


We'll never know, he might have had that in mind but he also might have had not. There's no way to say that. It's been a very long time since I listened to _Tosca_ so I cannot draw straight examples from the libretto but maybe it would be useful to compare him to Count di Luna. The contrast between these essentially similar but still very different characters could explain the extent of evilness Puccini emphasises through Scarpia. Assuming that Puccini was acquainted with _Il Trovatore_, I wouldn't be overly surprised if he actually did use Count's character as a sort of basis for creating Scarpia.

The deal is the same in both operas: the female romantic lead in exchange for the freedom of the male romantic lead. Differently from Scarpia, di Luna actually intended to fulfil this promise. The fact that Puccini decided so is only emphasising Scarpia's evilness and thorough cruelty. Verdi also built a second storyline and that is the storyline that we mostly associate with Azucena, who's in my opinion infinitely more evil than the Count. In this second storyline one has to see the Count and Manrico as the sufferers and this is also the only storyline that will remain because when Leonora and Manrico die, we are left with the Count who has just understood that he himself killed his beloved brother - the romantic storyline is dead. The fact that he did indeed love his brother, at least the idea of him, shows his inherent humanity. We get a very real understanding of his pain and guilty conscience. In Puccini there doesn't seem to be a similarly important somewhat redeeming storyline.

I personally don't even know whether some theoretical Christian sympathies would make him much better. If he had Christian sympathies throughout the whole opera and the way he acts is what he understands as putting Christianity into practice, then they would only show that he's understanding of Christianity is deeply questionable. In my opinion, if the composer wants us to see a different side of the character, as it seems Verdi wanted in the Count or Wagner in Alberich, he would emphasise it in a more concrete way.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> We'll never know, he might have had that in mind but he also might have had not. There's no way to say that. It's been a very long time since I listened to _Tosca_ so I cannot draw straight examples from the libretto but maybe it would be useful to compare him to Count di Luna. The contrast between these essentially similar but still very different characters could explain the extent of evilness Puccini emphasises through Scarpia. Assuming that Puccini was acquainted with _Il Trovatore_, I wouldn't be overly surprised if he actually did use Count's character as a sort of basis for creating Scarpia.
> 
> The deal is the same in both operas: the female romantic lead in exchange for the freedom of the male romantic lead. Differently from Scarpia, di Luna actually intended to fulfil this promise. The fact that Puccini decided so is only emphasising Scarpia's evilness and thorough cruelty. Verdi also built a second storyline and that is the storyline that we mostly associate with Azucena, who's in my opinion infinitely more evil than the Count. In this second storyline one has to see the Count and Manrico as the sufferers and this is also the only storyline that will remain because when Leonora and Manrico die, we are left with the Count who has just understood that he himself killed his beloved brother - the romantic storyline is dead. The fact that he did indeed love his brother, at least the idea of him, shows his inherent humanity. We get a very real understanding of his pain and guilty conscience. In Puccini there doesn't seem to be a similarly important somewhat redeeming storyline.
> 
> I personally don't even know whether some theoretical Christian sympathies would make him much better. If he had Christian sympathies throughout the whole opera and the way he acts is what he understands as putting Christianity into practice, then they would only show that he's understanding of Christianity is deeply questionable. In my opinion, if the composer wants us to see a different side of the character, as it seems Verdi wanted in the Count or Wagner in Alberich, he would emphasise it in a more concrete way.


Both operas are based on plays and so the storylines weren't developed by the composers (although they did choose to set those stories). It's unlikely that Sardou (who wrote La Tosca) was thinking of Trovatore when writing the play and the rape/free your lover plot device was standard fare for 19th century melodrama, I believe. I don't know if Scarpia is more fleshed out in the play or given a softer side, but it would be worth reading it to find out. The Wikipedia summary of the character in the play does seem to rule that theory out though: _"Baron Vitellio Scarpia is from Sicily, where he was known for his ruthless law enforcement. When Naples took control of Rome in 1799, he was appointed the city's Regent of Police, and quickly gained a reputation for the cruelty and licentiousness that lay beneath his seemingly courteous exterior. Angelotti characterises him as a religious hypocrite and an "impure satyr" from whom no woman is safe. Before Scarpia set his sights on Floria Tosca, he had tried to force himself on Angelotti's sister, who fled from him in terror."_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Tosca

Your suggestion to compare the two characters is very apt and it does show that there is a softer side to Di Luna (also doesn't he want Leonora to marry him in return for freeing Manrico, whereas Scarpia wants one night of passionate lust?) I cannot see anyone but a complete hypocrite claiming to be a christian then going on to torture Tosca in the way Scarpia does. For a more complex portrayal of a 'christian' in that set up see Carlisle Floyd's Susanah.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> *Both operas are based on plays and so the storylines weren't developed by the composers *(although they did choose to set those stories). It's unlikely that Sardou (who wrote La Tosca) was thinking of Trovatore when writing the play and the rape/free your lover plot device was standard fare for 19th century melodrama, I believe. I don't know if Scarpia is more fleshed out in the play or given a softer side, but it would be worth reading it to find out. The Wikipedia summary of the character in the play does seem to rule that theory out though: _"Baron Vitellio Scarpia is from Sicily, where he was known for his ruthless law enforcement. When Naples took control of Rome in 1799, he was appointed the city's Regent of Police, and quickly gained a reputation for the cruelty and licentiousness that lay beneath his seemingly courteous exterior. Angelotti characterises him as a religious hypocrite and an "impure satyr" from whom no woman is safe. Before Scarpia set his sights on Floria Tosca, he had tried to force himself on Angelotti's sister, who fled from him in terror."_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Tosca
> 
> Your suggestion to compare the two characters is very apt and it does show that there is a softer side to Di Luna (*also doesn't he want Leonora to marry him in return for freeing Manrico, whereas Scarpia wants one night of passionate lust?*) I cannot see anyone but a complete hypocrite claiming to be a christian then going on to torture Tosca in the way Scarpia does. For a more complex portrayal of a 'christian' in that set up see Carlisle Floyd's Susanah.
> 
> N.


Thanks for the input, it's a very fair correction! That's exactly what happens when one tries to analyse Italian opera the same way as Wagner . Luckily the comparison between these two characters still sort of works.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> Thanks for the input, it's a very fair correction! That's exactly what happens when one tries to analyse Italian opera the same way as Wagner . Luckily the comparison between these two characters still sort of works.


Absolutely and interestingly, reading the Wikipedia article, Sardou _was_ accused of plagiarism due to the Tosca/Scarpia bargain which had appeared in a play called Nadjezda. Sardou's defense was that it was a common device that also appears in Measure for Measure.

N.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Annaw:
Characters like you've mentioned are sprinkled all over the opera world -- especially as visualized by Verdi (and we ARE speaking of the opera only and not of the original development of the character in the written sense). 
Let's not forget the rotten through and through Wurm who also bargains for Luisa's body and Daddy's freedom. I still do not see what these mean spirited characters have to do with my example of Scarpia's sudden, however momentary, religious breakthrough imbued when he was too young to even know it was placed into his brain. His is not a thinking thing -- like much of religion -- it was a sudden "feeling" thing that surfaced and one of shame. It's there on his face (at least in the interpretation by Macneil) who deftly rounded out the character and in doing so, proving that there are really relatively few truly 100% evil beings, though many ruthless, hateful, selfish and mean-spirited ones.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

nina foresti said:


> Annaw:
> Characters like you've mentioned are sprinkled all over the opera world -- especially as visualized by Verdi (and we ARE speaking of the opera only and not of the original development of the character in the written sense).
> Let's not forget the rotten through and through Wurm who also bargains for Luisa's body and Daddy's freedom. I still do not see what these mean spirited characters have to do with my example of Scarpia's sudden religious breakthrough imbued when he was too young to even know it was placed into his brain. His is not a thinking thing -- as is much of religion -- it was a sudden "feeling" thing that surfaced and one of shame. It's there on his face (at least in the interpretation by Macneil) who deftly rounded out the character and in doing so, proving that there are really relatively few truly 100% evil beings, though many ruthless, hateful, selfish and mean-spirited ones.


The fact that I approached my mini-analysis from a slightly wrong angle weakens my initial argument but I still don't see Scarpia's sudden enlightenment as something that's evident from Puccini's own work. I fully respect your interpretation though! (The goal of comparing Di Luna and Scarpia was rather to show that it's possible to create a Scarpia-like character who still evokes some sympathy, at least in me.)


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

annaw said:


> The fact that I approached my mini-analysis from a slightly wrong angle weakens my initial argument but I still don't see Scarpia's sudden enlightenment as something that's evident from Puccini's own work. I fully respect your interpretation though! (The goal of comparing Di Luna and Scarpia was rather to show that it's possible to create a Scarpia-like character who still provokes some sympathy, at least in me.)


Actually, I don't disagree with that. I also can find some form of sympathy for practically all mean-spirited human beings and find it difficult to stamp very many like Iago as one who is inherently (by his own lips), true evil.
I believe I could find a case for the majority of characters that have been suggested as pure evil as having qualities that save them from that fate.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> There was a discussion as to whether Puccini's music reflected a softer side of Scarpia when it came to God, religion and the Church. Some remarked that his religious remarks were actually not real but superficial and that he was not in actuality a religious man and that nowhere in Puccini's music was there evidence to the contrary.
> I suggest if anyone is interested in watching and "listening" to the music carefully and watching the sudden changed expression on Scarpia's face when the children start singing in the last 15 seconds of the 1st act of Tosca (on today for the entire day at the Met website with Verrett/Pavarotti and MacNeil), you might agree (or not!) that this part of Scarpia's religious fervor was not phony but rather is almost as though he suddenly reverted back to his childhood where religion was an important part of his upbringing.
> Watch his expressions carefully which seem to match with the devoutness of the music.
> Comments appreciated.


I haven't commented explicitly on this before now because I hadn't seen the excerpt in question. Now that I have watched it, I'm afraid I can't see what you mean at all. (But its subjectiveness is part of the beauty of art.)

I think the passage you mention (the last fifteen seconds of act one) needs firstly to be put in context by looking at how the libretto and Puccini build up the character of Scarpia and what they tell us about him. The first mention of Scarpia is before he appears. Cavaradossi describes him as, "Scarpia? Bigotto satiro che affina colle devote pratiche la foia libertina e strumento al lascivo talento fa il confessore e il boia!" - "Scarpia? That licentious bigot who exploits the uses of religion as refinements for his libertine lust, and makes both the confessor and the hangman the servant of his wantonness!" Therefore our very first description of the character in the libretto before we see him is that of a religious hypocrite, one who pretends to follow and believe in a religion only as a cover for getting what they want.

Shortly later Scarpia enters to his leitmotive (which mirrors the 'devout' music in those last fifteen minutes of the act). It's clear that he is commanding and oppressive. I find Macneil's interpretation of the role rather like a poor man's Gobbi (and interestingly this production of the opera was by Tito). Macneil is rough and stentorian to reflect Scarpia's natural overbearing nature (which is all there in the forceful music Puccini wrote for him). Macneil only softens when Tosca enters and his singing becomes quieter and more lyrical, but this isn't kindness or sincere charm on his part, it's clear from the libretto that he is manipulating her and using her for his own ends (firstly to find out where Angelotti is so that he can torture it out of her later and then to arrest Cavaradossi so that he can blackmail her into being raped by him). He says in an aside, "Già il veleno l'ha rosa!" - "The poison bites home already!" He is putting thoughts in Tosca's head (the poison) so that he can inspire jealousy in her and thus manipulate her.

In this particular production we can see smiles from Macneil as he watches Tosca suffer and once she has exited he goes back to his gruff forte singing, which further reinforces that his suave legato singing from earlier was just an act for her. He orders Spoletta to have her followed, arrest the lovers and take them to the Farnese Palace and then the Te Deum takes place. This is an incredibly clever bit of writing on the part of Puccini. It doesn't sound like Roman liturgical music from 1800 (Paisiello appears in the play as a minor character). However, we have a grand bit of church music that sounds as forceful and overbearing as Scarpia, whilst also being full of passion, just as he is. I have watched those last fifteen minutes and I can't see what you mean at all. There is a wide shot where we can't really see Macneil's face clearly and he lifts his hands as he looks upwards as if savouring the plot he has hatched and how it will give him what he wants. Then he turns and we get a close up where his face is passive and granite like. I don't see religious fervor or any sign that he might be having tender thoughts of his childhood. More importantly the orchestra blares out the Scarpia leitmotive relentlessly and I don't hear religious devoutness of any sort. Instead it reminds me more of George Orwell's famous description, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

Whilst I agree with you that Scarpia is differentiated from Iago, as this latter enjoys evil for evil's sake whereas Scarpia's interests lie in what he can obtain, I don't think there is a great deal of difference between those two levels of evil. I also agree that rarely are people all bad, however going by what we are presented with in the opera I can't find any redeeming features for Scarpia.

Perhaps on his way from the church to the Farnese Palace he helps an old lady across the road, but there is no evidence for that in the score or libretto!

I think Scarpia is the depiction of a classic narcissist (and possibly an extreme form of one, so actually a sociopath or psychopath). You may find this video interesting which gives the key 30 traits of a narcissist and I think most (if not all) of these apply to Scarpia and explain why some may find him charming at first glance.





N.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

The Conte:
Very interesting post and much of it I agree with. 
My exceptions are:
1. I do not believe him to be a psychopath or even a sociopath. He is not charming and friendly enough (phony or not) for that. But I certainly concur that he is a narcissist of the first order. Me, me, me first.

2. If you missed his "light-bulb-above-the-head" shameful look when the children begin to sing, his childhood suddenly flooding back and shadowing anything else but obeying his true Christian beliefs, I am sorry but very respectfully we can no longer discuss it because you did not see what was very evident to my eyes.

I thank you very much for this interesting repartee. Do stay safe in these vulnerable times -- thanks to another narcissist.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Klingsor...........


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I'll probably go with Iago for the time being. _Otello_ is for me one of the most painful operas to watch. Most things between the end of Act I and _Niun mi tema_ are like mere psychological torture. _Otello_ is one of my favourite Verdi operas though.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

annaw said:


> I'll probably go with Iago for the time being. _Otello_ is for me one of the most painful operas to watch. Most things between the end of Act I and _Niun mi tema_ are like mere psychological torture. _Otello_ is one of my favourite Verdi operas though.


Truly I too find Iago stands apart from the others in his psychopathic evilness. And _Otello_ is also one of my top 3 favorite operas (depending upon which day I am listening to which.)


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Lysiart in Weber's Euryanthe.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Sieglinde said:


> Claggart (what a deliciously evil *******), Scarpia, Iago.
> 
> The Grand Inquisitor is also pure evil. He's like the Palpatine to Philip's Vader.


Wow you are absolutely correct!


----------



## Autumn Leaves (Jan 3, 2014)

The stepmother from Rimsky-Korsakov's _The May Night_. She is a witch who wraps her husband around her little finger - all right, that's just your usual fairytale behavior. But it's only the beginning. Right after her wedding, she tries to kill her stepdaughter, without even any pretext (not even any usual "fairest-of-them-all" stuff), just out of the blue. The girl manages to fend her off, so the stepmother first makes her work like a slave and then persuades her husband to kick the girl out of the house for good, without giving her a loaf of bread. The stepdaughter, desperate, drowns herself.

Does it end here? No, it doesn't. The stepmother continues to plague the girl's afterlife! When the stepdaughter, now a rusalka, tries to drown her, she turns into a rusalka as well, hides among the spirits of suicidal maidens and continues to make the girl's bleak afterlife even worse with her sorcery.

Thankfully, she is not very cunning (or maybe the rusalki aren't very smart in general), so she doesn't particularly hide her true self and gets found out when she enthusiastically plays the villainous character in a game.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Klingsor...........


Klingsor, like all Wagner's villains, is ambivalent. He aspired to be a knight of the Grail, but lacked strength of will and cheated. Kundry taunts him, asking him "Are you chaste?", and we can tell from both the words and music of his reaction that this is an open wound:

_Why do you ask this, accursed witch?_

(He sinks into gloomy brooding)

_Dire distress!
So now the fiend mocks me
that once I strove after holiness?
Dire distress!
The pain of untamed desire,
most horrible, hell-inspired impulse
which I had throttled to deathly silence -
does it now laugh aloud and mock
through you, bride of the devil? -
Beware!
One man already repents his contempt and scorn,
that proud man, strong in holiness,
who once drove me out.
His race I ruined;
undredeemed shall the guardian
of the holy treasure languish;
and soon - I know it -
I myself will guard the Grail._

As with Alberich, a character turns to seeking power over others out of failure, frustration and rage against a world that denies him satisfaction of his greatest desire. In Alberich's case this is straightforwardly the desire for love (in a primal, infantile form); in Klingsor's, the love sought is of a more sophisticated sort (the Grail being a feminine symbol of spiritual nourishment). Without going deeper into a comparison between these two, whom I consider fundamentally similiar in character and dramatic function, I'll suggest that they are more complex and comprehensible, and thus perhaps less evil, than the more straightforward villains such as Iago and Scarpia, whose manipulations of others seem purely psychopathic, unexplained and unmotivated, and denied even a moment of our sympathy by composer or librettist.


----------

