1. Introduction Opera, myth, and society: how do they correlate? This question has been asked for many years but still evokes new interpretations which we can examine in some major theoretical works relevant to this topic, both methodologically and in terms of the specifics of opera, yet receive no mention in the piece of one's epistemology. For example: Carolyn Abbate, Mary Cicora, Herbert Lindenberger, and others. Therefore, it is not at all unusual to apply ideas of mythology and models from the domains of opera analysis, musico-historical theory or hermeneutics to opera. Musicologists, opera historians and other proficient figures in the field have always been interested in exploring convergences and orthodoxies of the relationship between the evolution of operatic genre, mythology, and society and have either studied the theme of artistic pieces, or the nature of the art form as such, emphasising the effects of musico-historical and societal backgrounds of works, the system of production, or the changing nature of libretto, and the content of creative expression. Taking into account that it has been for a long time widely recognised and accepted that the interpretation of opera can be associated with the myth, this paper will focus on the specific features of a particular repertoire as well as on some specific underdeveloped subtopics within this broad theoretical domain. Therefore the article may be interesting for readers who are not familiar with certain recent characteristics of the Slovenian operatic activity. On the other hand, it may seem somewhat behind the state of the art to the readers who are familiar with the culture-theoretical approaches to opera. The essay reflects some mythical aspects of representations of the opera. In Roland Barthes's words, the starting point of this reflection is some kind of naturalness and self-obviousness with which operatic art and its common sense imagery constantly dress up a reality which, even though it is one we live in or just pass by, is undoubtedly determined by standardised codes of understanding (Barthes 2000:11). As an anthropologist who was (is) educated in Slovenia during transition period, my approach to opera is maybe an idiosyncratic one. Opera as musical, compositional, stylistic and aesthetic structure is by far the most difficult field to analyse. Why? This question in itself could be and is an anthropological problem. But if we take into account opera's component, we can say something about its social power according to the methods sociologists and anthropologists use to understand phenomena: by studying the use of their own scientific practices. Opera is peculiar: its signs produce incongruities and miscalculations. It invites a multiplicity of approaches, challenges orthodoxy, and embraces ambiguity. As the editors of the collection Analyzing Opera: Verdi and Wagner point out in their introduction, analysing opera is one of the liveliest (and most polemical) areas in modern-day musical scholarship (Abbate & Parker 1989), but is getting an increasingly visible position also in other sciences and in the humanities. 2. How does peripheral society mythologise opera? That opera is, among the cultural representations, unusually revealing of pressures within the society that creates it is not a new idea. In the early 20th century, many connoisseurs (e.g. Edward J. Dent, Paul Bekker, Donald J. Grout, and others) were aware of it, but they did not care to deal with the question systematically. What has brought about a new approach in understanding the relationship between opera phenomenon and its background is the rapid spread, from the mid-1970s, of an interest in the or collective dimension of history, partly under the influence of the group of French historians (Marc Bloch, Fernand Braudel). Then in sciences in the 1980s (Theodor W. Adorno, Rosanne Martorella, John Rosselli, Herbert Lindenberger, et al), and in the 1990s with the movement of the so-called new musicology (Carolyn Abbate, Roger Parker, Arthur Groos, Gary Tomlinson, and many others). …