Christopher Webber wrote:

> ...Should we perform Handel's "Tamerlano" in mediaeval Mongol and
>Persian getup?

Of course not, because that's not what Handel and his librettist
intended.

>To do so would go against the ethos of the whole work, which is
>grounded in 17th/18th century concepts of order against divine right.

So far, so good.

>No, an 18th or 20th century setting is much more appropriate.

18th century, yes - see above.  20th century - no, it makes no sense.
The concept of "order against divine right" became obsolete a long time
ago.

>A production of mine even set in it 19th c. revolutionary Cuba, without
>violence either to Handel's drama or his music;

That's your opinion; I think it make no sense and it does violate Handel's
intention.  And his music, too.

>at all events, fox furs and yashmaks were not a practical option for us!

Did Handel use yashmaks, whatever this is?

>Part of Anne Ozorio's point was that operas have often not been staged
>in the time and place specified by the libretto, even at first.

But that's not the point: it's the time and place intended by the
librettist and composer that count.

>Her example of Wagner's own stagings of his operas is a very good one:
>he didn't set his Bayreuth "Lohengrin" in a realistic Mediaeval Brabant
>water meadow any more than he set "The Ring" in the land of the sagas.
>As the Matter of Germany was infinitely more important to him than the
>matter of either the Low Countries or Iceland, as a designer he set both
>of them in his own, fantastic 19th c. vision of Teutonic myth, to which
>'real' mediaeval or dark age places or people were subsidiary. Brabant
>was certainly not on the itinerary for "Lohengrin"'s creator.

No, but Wagner had a very precise idea of a fantastic myth, HIS myth,
and that what's important.

>...I wonder how the cunning old theatrical fox would react to today's
>stagings? Who can say. One thing I'm quite sure of: whatever he might
>have thought of the stagings, he'd have adored the controversy! For him,
>it was 'Opera as Drama' or nothing at all.

And how can you be sure?  Can you read his mind?  Now?  You are projecting
your ideas on somebody else.

>... I can sympathise with Jan for finding this messy, and yearning to
>keep things pure. Alas, theatre can by its nature have nothing to do
>with this theoretical purity: but it does - sometimes - work!

Sometimes - there are always exceptions - but very rarely.  I'm afraid
that most of the time all this "re-examining" is nothing more than a
fad, a compulsion to come up with something different, without a good
reason.

-Margaret Mikulska