Opera on the Move in the Nordic Countries during the Long 19th ...

***
Introduction
Methodological transnationalism forms a strong undercurrent in our anthology.
Understanding opera as a transnational cultural practice (instead
of as a strictly national one, enhanced by a nationally motivated approach)
directs interest towards the European opera tradition and how its canons
were created, disseminated and adapted in the Nordic countries, which were
culturally and geographically situated far away from the great European opera
houses (for a broader European perspective, cf. Fauser & Everist, eds.
2009; Poriss 2009; Marvin & Thomas, eds. 2006; Hallman 2002; Everist
2002). For this reason, the political potentials of opera (in gender, language,
religion, power) are considered here in relation to transnational repertoires
and their particular adaptations in various Nordic countries.
With this choice we join in the criticism of methodological nationalism
voiced, among others, by Cohen & O´Connor (2004), Berger & Lorenz
(2010) and Kettunen (2008) and distance ourselves from nationalistic historiography
(see, particularly Aspelin-Haapkylä 1906–1910 and Pikkanen
2012 for its critique), under whose auspices “nation” and “national” have
become naturalising, pre-determined categories, for instance, national opera
cultures and national institutions (histories of national opera houses; for
example, see Lampila 1997 for Finnish opera as well as Schepelern 1995
and Schiørring 1977–1978 for Danish opera). Furthermore, historiography
written from the perspective of methodological nationalism has resulted in
national (male) composers being represented as the most important agents
within opera culture through their works (Camilla Hambro’s article in this
volume offers an alternative view of operatic composition in the Nordic
countries). This view, still embarrassingly dominant in the history of music,
is under deconstruction in this research project whereby individual works,
such as Wagner’s operas or Halévy’s La Juive, still continue to matter, although
not as privileged, fixed, autonomous objects within a narrative of
their composers and (master)works, but as representatives of a malleable
context themselves within a history of music-making that involves events,
performances, performers and ideas (see Jens Hesselager’s, Kristel Pappel’s
and Joakim Tillman’s articles in this volume; cf. also Marvin & Thomas
2006; Fauser & Everist 2009; Poriss 2009; Rutherford 2009). What
also matters are the interconnections between historically constituted
formations (Werner & Zimmermann 2006), in this case, the web of opera
professionals, including vocal education (see in particular the contributions
herein by Marianne Liljas Juvas and Marianne Tråvén as well as Ulla-Britta
Broman-Kananen).
11