… "And the government shall be upon his shoulders"
As I was getting up this morning, the local classical station was playing Handel's Messiah and that familiar phrase above is oft repeated, as I am sure you are well aware. It has always struck me as quite strange. I am hoping some of our musicological members can help me understand the meaning and intent of Handel giving that phrase such a prominent place in the work. Certainly, it seems to run counter to Christ's own teaching that we should "render under Caesar, the things that are Caesar's, and to God, the things that are God's".
I am aware that our modern American notion of separation of church and state was not the case in the Europe of Handel's time. Also that the medieval church had maneuvered itself into the rather convenient arrangement with earthly Kings that their right to rule proceeded from God. Which was known as the divine right of kings. This fortuitous arrangement put the church officials in the position of validating earthly power as the manifestation of God's will. But all of that still doesn't quite square with the mantra, "and the government shall be upon his shoulders".
From everything I have ever learned Christ did not give a fig for earthly power. Is this as big a contradiction as it appears? Is Handel's Messiah a propaganda piece?
"Every Valley": The Desperate Lives and Troubled Times That Made Handel's "Messiah" by Charles King.
Oh, the completion of big projects in the era before computers is always a great read, thank you @sargonicuse My previuos faves included Brunelesci's Dome and Longitude, though neither musically related. |
Whether that is true or not for the faith in the text of the libretto this does not seem to be the intended interpretation:
Most certainly words of praise and power as opposed to worldly strife with an oppressive regime, or the foreshadowing of a human sacrifice. |
Speaking from a historical and literary context, the OP has inadvertently hit upon one of the great tensions of the old and new testament with this quote. Messiah was composed in 1741 during the reign of George II and takes this text from the King James version of the bible, published in 1611. The tension I speak of is the desire for a political messiah vs. the apolitical messiah of personal growth. For many, if we take the gospels as accurate, Jesus was not the messiah that was wanted. They wanted a messiah that centered the Israelites as a dominant political force. A new David or Moses was what was being asked, which Jesus was not about to be. I point this out because this tension, the need for divine right to rule never really goes away. Certainly not by Handel’s time. Honestly this argument, that Jesus was apolitical and our politics should be a-religious is quite modern. The separation of church and state in our founding documents was passionately argued for and against. No one was having an argument over whether Kings should be appointed by God or not, they were arguing whose version of God should be appointing kings, and hence the birth of the Church of England. AFAIK, those who supported King George II and those who opposed were often divided among religious labels. What’s the point? That a writer in these times might not have been keen on taking up the fight for the "true" Jesus/Messiah and their true place in political power anymore than we are willing to take up that fight now. Alluding that the then current political king of England as standing on the shoulders of Jesus seems quite normal for the time in which it was written. PS - I adhere to none of these religious beliefs and I only comment upon the undercurrents which might have resulted in this musical work. |
