Why 'translate' opera in English?

Surtitles could kill off a company whose remit is to sing in English

I return to the subject of the English National Opera and its chairman, Mr Martin Smith, not on this occasion to talk about its finances nor Mr Smith's cap-in-hand approach to the Arts Council, nor even his memorable description this week of ENO music director Paul Daniel as the man "who runs the music side of the business".

No, I wish to look at a matter purely concerned with the presentation of opera. It was, though, raised by Mr Smith at this week's press conference to discuss the ENO's financial crisis. And it was raised in a quite brilliant manner, a manner which almost makes me take my hat off to the ENO chairman.

While detailing the shopping list that he had taken to the Arts Council for an extra £12m, he said in a casual, off-hand and relaxed way: "And, not surprisingly, we will be looking again at the question of surtitles."

That "not surprisingly" was a masterstroke. Why was it not surprising? I'd say it was very surprising; I'd say it was enormously surprising; I'd say it was so surprising that it is likely to revolutionise and, one day, could even close the ENO. But with those words "not surprisingly" and the off-hand mention coming in the middle of an avalanche of figures showing debts and deficits, it is understandable that other things took precedence in reports the next day.

Yet, I predict that in a few years time the details of the ENO's financial mismanagement will be forgotten. The surtitles, though, will continue to be hotly debated. Mr Smith may or may not be right in his implication that introducing surtitles will bring in bigger audiences. Surtitles, of course, are commonly used at Covent Garden, Glyndebourne and many other houses. But has Mr Smith thought through the implications of projecting English words on a screen above the stage, when the opera itself is being sung in English, as is every opera at the ENO?

I am most certainly not saying that they would not on occasion – on many, many occasions – be jolly useful. Many arias and many choral sections are incomprehensible even when the opera is being sung in one's own language. Covent Garden has very occasionally had recourse to surtitles for English-language operas – though some music critics ridiculed the decision.

If the ENO is to use surtitles as a matter of course, then audiences are going to ask why the company does not stage the operas in their original language. The romantic, lyrical beauty of Italian is, frankly, better suited to the works of Verdi and Puccini than the English translations. "La Donna e mobile" has that certain rich, lascivious challenge that "woman is fickle" does not.

But the ENO stages its operas in English, not for reasons of ideal harmony between language and music, but for reasons of ideology. It is to bring opera to the people. Once you admit that the audience is having difficulty hearing or understanding their own language clearly and needs it spelled out on a screen in front of them, then what exactly is the point of not singing in the language of the original composition?

There is no point in singing a foreign text in translation if an English text appears up there line by line. And if there is no point singing in English, is there a point in having an English National Opera? I admit that on the many times I have failed to decipher parts of the libretto, I have yearned for surtitles. But logic tells me that once they arrive, it will be the death knell for a publicly subsidised company whose remit is to sing in English. It's a dilemma for me as an ENO lover. It's a much bigger dilemma for Mr Smith.

d.lister@independent.co.uk