Does Handel's "Messiah" Refute Deism?

In 1972, Al Booth, a Chicago real estate businessman, attended a community sing-along performance of George Frideric Handel's Messiah in a parish church in Kent, England.  He was so deeply moved by the experience that he decided he should organize something similar for Chicago.  In 1976, the first "Do-It-Yourself Messiah" occurred in Chicago.  It has been repeated every Christmas season since then.  I just participated in the 38th annual performance in the Harris Theater in Chicago.  Over the years, many other communities across Illinois, the United States, and the world have established this as a Christmas tradition.

Until recently, tickets for this were free.  Now the charge is a nominal $10 to help cover some of the expenses.  Except for the four solo singers, the other professional and amateur performers volunteer their time.  The tickets sell out quickly, and every performance is jammed with thousands of people.  It's all organized by the International Music Foundation, originally established by Al Booth, which supports hundreds of free classical music concerts around the Chicago area.

Handel's Messiah is an oratorio written for an orchestra, four solo singers, and a chorus.  At a Do-It-Yourself Messiah the choral singing is done by the entire audience.  Audience members are seated according to their vocal range--soprano, alto, tenor, and bass-baritone--corresponding to the four parts in the choral singing.  At this performance, conductor Stanley Sperber began by leading the audience through thirty minutes of rehearsal.  The success of all this depends on having lots of people in the audience who know the music well enough and have enough singing skill that they can take the lead for others in the audience with less knowledge and skill.  People come to the performance with well-worn copies of the vocal score, indicating their seriousness in their study and performance of Handel's music.

This is instructive in at least two ways.  First, it shows how the natural desire for the musical arts stimulates communities in a free society to organize musical events as largely spontaneous orders with only minimal governmental planning.  If they have the freedom to do so, human beings will seek out the high cultural activity of the fine arts to satisfy their longing for aesthetic beauty.  Critics of liberal democracy like to speak disdainfully about the cultural mediocrity of bourgeois life in liberal societies and lament (with the later Nietzsche) the flat soul of the "last man."  Events like this remind us that a liberal social order allows people in civil society--in their families, their churches, their schools, their arts organizations, and other social institutions--to express and cultivate moral, intellectual, and artistic excellence.

This also shows how the natural desire for religious understanding drives the enduring appeal of religious art as shaping the religious culture of human life, even in a liberal pluralist society without the coercive legal enforcement of religious belief. 

As the title indicates, Handel's Messiah tells the story of Jesus as the Messiah--as the Son of God who fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of one who would be sent by God to redeem human beings of their sins, who would be born of a virgin, suffer and die, be resurrected, and return to defeat Satan and to bring the resurrection of the believers to eternal life.  The libretto for the oratorio was written by Charles Jennens, who drew the words from the Bible, mostly Old Testament texts that were cited in the New Testament as prophecies of a Messiah that were fulfilled by Jesus.  Handel then composed his music for orchestra and voice to animate Jennens' Biblical story with the emotional charm of music.

The Messiah was first performed in 1742.  This was a time of intense debate between orthodox Christians and Deists over the Bible.  Beginning in the seventeenth century--with books like John Toland's Christianity Not Mysterious (1696)--the Deists had argued that once God had created the universe and human beings, He left human beings to live by their own natural reason, with no need for divine intervention or supernatural redemption.  They thought Jesus was not divine, and there was no need to see him as the Messiah.  Many orthodox Christians regarded Deism as a disguised form of atheism.  To answer the arguments of the Deists, many books were written by orthodox Christians claiming to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, because he fulfilled Old Testament prophecies.  Jennens knew these books, and in composing his libretto, he was probably consciously contributing to this debate.  Handel's setting of the libretto for music was designed to infuse the Biblical texts with the emotional power of music.  This history of the Messiah as an answer to the Deists is surveyed in Ruth Smith's Handel's Oratorios and Eighteenth-Century Thought (Cambridge University Press, 1995) and Calvin Stapert's Handel's "Messiah": Comfort for God's People (Eerdmans Publishing, 2010).

Like other oratorios, the Messiah serves both the theater and the church.  This created a controversy during its early years of performance.  Some people thought it was too sacred for performance in a theater, while others thought it was too theatrical for performance in a church.  Today, it's commonly performed both in churches and in theaters, and modern audiences see no conflict here.  Christians can see it as a powerful statement of their faith.  Those who are not Christians can appreciate the artistry of its emotional religiosity without embracing its doctrinal faith.  All can see it as a sublime expression of the religious longings of the human soul.  A liberal social order fosters a pluralist diversity in religious allegiances, while also allowing people from different faith traditions and those without any religious faith to come together in communal celebrations like a Do-It-Yourself Messiah.

So does the Messiah refute the deistic denial that Jesus was the Messiah? 

After an overture, the Messiah begins with three movements (2-4) that use the words of Isaiah 40:1-5 (from the King James translation):

"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God; speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned.  The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.  Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill made low: the crooked straight and the rough places plain.  And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."

The New Testament identifies "the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness" as John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1-3, Mark 1:1-3, Luke 1:17, and John 1:23), and thus Jesus is identified as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament in whom "the glory of the Lord shall be revealed."

But if one looks at the context for this passage in Isaiah, it becomes clear that the Messiah identified by Isaiah is Cyrus, the King of the Persians, who invaded Babylon in 539 B.C. and liberated the people of Israel from their captivity, so that they could return to Jerusalem and restore the Temple (Isa. 41:1-7, 44:28-45:7).  As the Deists pointed out, this is generally true of the Old Testament passages interpreted by Christians as prophecies of Jesus as the Messiah: if one looks at the contexts of the Old Testament passages, one sees that prophecies of a Messiah were references to political leaders in the history of Israel.

I must have been one of the very few people in the audience in the Harris Theater who thought about this--Cyrus is the Messiah, not Jesus!--while singing "And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."

I remembered that Koresh is the Hebrew word for "Cyrus."  When a young man, Vernon Howell, joined an apocalyptic sect called the Branch Davidians, he renamed himself "David Koresh," thus invoking both Cyrus and David as messianic figures of the Hebrew Bible.  He led his followers into martyrdom in a standoff with federal law-enforcement agents in Waco, Texas, in 1993, which Koresh saw as the battle of Armageddon and the fulfillment of the prophecies in the book of Revelation.

I'm sure most of the audience was enjoying Handel's music.  For example, one feature of Handel's musical art is "madrigalism"--the technique prominent in the madrigals of the Renaissance of musically imitating a word or phrase in the music.  Explaining movement number 4, Stapert writes:

"All this leads to the climactic chorus: 'And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed.'  The text features four components.  Handel gave each its own characteristic musical gesture and combined them in a variety of ways within the overall framework of a lively dance.  The phrase 'And the glory of the Lord' is always sung to a rising line that reaches its peak on 'Lord.'  'Shall be revealed' always descends, suggesting the incarnation. . . . 'And all flesh shall see it together' is suggestive of a down-to-earth rustic dance; its music is simple, repetitive, and rhythmically infectious.  The fourth phrase, 'for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,' stands out from the rest.  To suggest the rock-solid certainty of God's word, Handel set the phrase to long, strong, repeated notes.  It is sung only by the outer voices, framing the music from top to bottom" (92).

So here is Handel's musical refutation of Deism.  Even if our careful reading of the Biblical text suggests that it is referring to Cyrus and not Jesus, we cannot resist Handel's musical rhetoric that teaches us that Jesus is the Messiah "for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."  What we might know intellectually is swept away by the emotional persuasion of his musical art.

We might have the same experience in hearing movement number 8 based on Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Emmanuel, God with us."  If we're studying this verse, we might notice that the King James translators followed the Greek Septuagint text, which has the Greek word parthenos for "virgin," rather than the Hebrew Bible, which has the word almah, meaning "young woman."  Is God speaking differently in Greek and Hebrew?  Or do we see here that the Bible was written by different human beings with different ideas? 

Of Handel's music here, Stapert writes: "Unlike the recitatives in the previous scenes, this one is secco, accompanied only by the harpsichord and cello.  The simple, natural declamation of the voice matches its minimal accompaniment.  The great mystery of the virgin birth is appropriately announced with little fuss" (97).  Thus is our scholarly quibbling about the text swept away by the simple power of Handel's music.

Of course, the most familiar and most popular part of the Messiah is the Hallelujah Chorus, movement number 44, the last movement of Part Two: "Hallelujah!  For the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth!  Hallelujah!  The Kingdom of this world is become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever.  King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Revelation 19:6, 11:15, 19:16).

Revelation is the bloodiest book of the New Testament, because it describes the last battle in history between the armies of Christ and the armies of Satan.  Although Jennens does not convey that militant violence here, he does indicate the violent vengefulness of God in the immediately preceding movements (42-43) with words from Psalms.  "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh them to scorn; the Lord shall have them in derision" (Ps. 2:4).  "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron.  Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel" (Ps. 2:9).  Handel's music is emphatic in conveying God's angry violence. 

Stapert writes: "A short recitative leads effectively into a vengeful aria in which Handel emphasized the verbs 'break' and 'dash.'  The violins' melody is broken by large leaps.  It starts high with a fast, quavering motive, which might depict shaking with rage or derisive laughter--or both.  Then follows a large downward leap to two accented eighth notes. . . . The instrumental bass part and the voice part are full of rests that literally break their melodic lines into little pieces.  In the voice part the words 'BREAK them,' 'DASH them,' and 'PIE-ces' invariably occur on downward leaps, illustrative of throwing down, dashing to the ground" (130).

Why should we sing "Hallelujah!" to this angry God who enjoys torturing people?  Stapert admits that this is disturbing.  But he observes: "'Thou shalt break them' is  . . . out of balance unless it is taken in the context of Messiah as a whole, for in it God's love far overshadows his anger" (132).

But if this is true, it is only because the Messiah says nothing about the teaching of orthodox Christianity that most human beings will be eternally punished after death in Hell.  The afterlife is the primary subject of Part Three of the Messiah.  Relying primarily on the 15th chapter of First Corinthians, Jennens' text proclaims the eternal resurrection of dead bodies to life--"Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (movement number 46, I Cor. 15:21-22).  There is no explanation or description of what a resurrected  body would be like.  Will we have exactly the body that we had at death?  Or will we be given the body of a 30-year-old, as Augustine claimed?  This is left as a mystery: "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be chang'd, in a moment, in the twinkling of any eye, at the last trumpet" (movement number 47, I Cor. 15:51-52).  And nothing is said about the resurrection of those who will be condemned to eternal punishment.  Do Jennens and Handel fail to mention this because it raises questions about God's loving mercy, or because they actually don't believe in Hell?  This silence about Hell is good for audiences today, since it seems that most Biblical believers today don't believe in Hell and eternal punishment.

Thus does studying the Messiah raise difficult theological and philosophical questions.  But such questions probably don't occur to most listeners to the Messiah--or to participants in a Do-It-Yourself Messiah--who are swept up in its musical ecstasy.

A complete performance of the Messiah can be found on YouTube., with Christopher Hogwood conducting the Academy of Ancient Music Choir in Westminster Abbey.

Some posts on related topics can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Apocalyptic Violence: Handel's Messiah and the Jihadist's Mahdi

This is the flag of the Islamic State.  "No god but God" is in white across the top.  "Muhammad is the Messenger of God" is in black inside a white circle.  Spokesmen for the Islamic State explained its flag's design with a prayer: "We ask God, praised be He, to make this flag the sole flag for all Muslims.  We are certain that it will be the flag of the people of Iraq when they go to aid . . . the Mahdi at the holy house of God."  The house of God is the Ka'ba in Mecca.  The Mahdi is the Muslim savior who will lead the Muslims in the Last Battle of the Apocalyptic End of Days (McCants 2015, 22).

In his nationally televised speech of December 6 on the threat from Islamic State terrorism, President Obama said this:

"We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world -- including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we're to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate."

"That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity."

So while the Islamic State "does not speak for Islam," it does speak for an "extremist ideology" that is one of the "interpretations of Islam" that supports religious intolerance and violence.  Obama did not explain the content of this interpretation of Islam or why it is wrong.

One good explanation would be that the Islamic State is founded on an Apocalyptic interpretation of Islam.  This is a vision of the world coming to an end through the Great Battle between the forces of Satan and the forces of Allah that will bring the leadership of the Mahdi, the Muslim savior, who will establish the world-wide rule of the Caliphate that will bring justice to all of humanity in the Day of Judgment. 

The Islamic State was first proclaimed in 2006.  Abu Ayyub al-Masri was one of its main leaders.  When he was appointed the Islamic State's minister of war, Masri explained: "The war is in its early stages. . . . and this is the beginning of the battles. . . . We are the army that shall hand over the flag to the servant of God, the Mahdi.  If the first of us is killed, the last of us will deliver it" (McCants 2015, 32).

Apparently, this is what has attracted young men and women from around the world who have travelled to Iraq and Syria to join the jihadist army of the Islamic State.  It's thrilling to think that one is fighting in the Great Battle in which the world will come to an end, with the triumph of the believers over the infidels.

One of the prophecies attributed to Muhammad is that the Day of Judgment will come after the Muslims defeat Rome at al-A'maq or Dabiq, two places close to the Syrian border with Turkey.  In 2014, Islamic State fighters took the village of Dabiq, and they were jubilant that they were fulfilling prophecy.  When a masked British member of the Islamic State beheaded an American aid worker in Dabiq, he declared: "Here we are, burying the first American Crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive" (McCants 2015, 105).

In the Republican presidential debate last night, Rick Santorum alluded to this when he warned that if the U.S. were to move troops into Syria, this would be seen as confirming the Apocalyptic prophecies used by the Islamic State.

When we see horrific violence like that carried out by the Islamic State, we are often inclined to think the perpetrators must be sadists or psychopaths who lack any moral sense.  But the Apocalyptic violence of the Islamic State shows how the most brutal violence is often morally motivated.  The ISIS jihadists are convinced that what they are doing serves a higher moral good--the final defeat of Satan and the salvation of humanity.  I will come back to this point in some future posts on the evolutionary psychology of moral violence.

In looking for the coming of the Mahdi at the end of history, Muslims have built on the Apocalyptic thinking of Jews and Christians who have looked for the coming of the Messiah at the end of history (Filiu, 2011).  For Christians, this will be the Second Coming of Jesus as the Messiah.  (Much of this Apocalyptic thinking is probably derived from the Zoroastrianism of ancient Persia.)

"Apocalypse" is derived from a Greek word for "uncovering," and it refers to the disclosing or revelation of hidden realities about the movement of history to some final end.  One of the primary sources of such thinking is the last book of the New Testament, which is called The Apocalypse or Revelation.  This biblical text has been interpreted in many different ways (see Kirsch 2006; McGinn, Collins, and Stein, 2000).  But the most influential interpretation sees it as a prophecy of the end of the world.  The satanic Antichrist will become a powerful ruler, who will oppress and persecute Christians for seven years, which is called the period of Tribulation.  Jesus will then descend to earth and lead an army of saints and martyrs to defeat the satanic armies of the Antichrist at the Battle of Armageddon.  Once he is defeated, Satan will be bound in a deep pit under the earth.  Jesus will then rule over an earthly kingdom for a thousand years.

At the end of this millennium, Satan will break out of his confinement; and Jesus will be forced to lead a second battle to finally defeat Satan.  The dead will then be resurrected, and all human beings will be judged by God.  The earthly world will be destroyed and replaced by "a new heaven and a new earth."  The believers will live forever in perfect happiness in Paradise.  The unbelievers will be punished forever in Hell with Satan.

By the end of the nineteenth century, some American fundamentalist Christians were persuaded by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)--an Anglo-Irish preacher--to add two prophecies to this Apocalyptic story: the Rapture and Christian Zionism.  Darby found the prophecy of the Rapture in Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians:

"For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.  And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord" (I Thess. 4:16-17).

Darby saw this as a prophecy that the true Christians would not have to suffer the seven years of Tribulation under the power of the Antichrist, because just before the arrival of the Antichrist, all Christians living and dead would be transported--raptured--from earth to Heaven.  They would be brought back down to earth once Jesus returned to defeat Satan and the Antichrist.

Darby did not reflect on Paul's suggestion in this passage that this prophecy would be fulfilled in his own lifetime--"we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds."  If this is so, then we would have to say that Paul's prophecy was mistaken.  Similarly, in the book of Revelation, it is repeatedly said that the Apocalyptic prophecies "must shortly come to pass," and "the time is at hand" (1:1-3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20).  Now, after two thousand years, we still have not seen the fulfillment of these prophecies that were originally presented as what must "shortly come to pass."  That has been a recurrent problem for these prophecies.  In almost every generation, people have believed that the Apocalyptic events were soon to occur, only to be disappointed.  Considering this past record, there is no reason to believe that the Islamic State's Apocalyptic predictions will be fulfilled.

In addition to the Rapture, Darby made a second contribution to the Apocalyptic prophecies.  He reasoned that at the end of history all of the biblical prophecies would have to be fulfilled, including the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible about the restoration of the Jewish community in Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem.  Darby inferred, therefore, that before the end days could come, the Jews would have to reclaim the land of Israel.

Consequently, those fundamentalist Christians who accepted Darby's interpretations of the Bible became Christian Zionists who supported the establishment and expansion of the Jewish state of Israel.  The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and the Israeli liberation of the Old City of Jerusalem in the Six Day War of 1967 were seen by Christian Zionists as dramatic evidence that the end of the world was drawing near.  This explains why American fundamentalist Christians have been such strong supporters of Israel.  This Christian-Jewish alliance is strange, however, in that these Christians foresee that at Judgment Day all of the Jews that have not been converted to Christianity will be condemned to burn eternally in Hell.

The continuing appeal of this Christian Apocalyptic vision is indicated by the astonishing success of recent books predicting that the Rapture, the Antichrist, Armageddon, and the Last Judgment are coming soon.  In the 1970s, Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth sold over 20 million copies.  Beginning in 1995, Tim LaHaye's novels in the "Left Behind" series have sold over 50 million copies.  In the beginning of his first apocalyptic thriller--Left Behind--LaHaye portrays a commercial airline pilot called Rayford Steele, who discovers that half of his passengers have suddenly disappeared from the plane.

"I'm not crazy!  See for yourself!" screams a flight attendant.  "All over the plane, people have disappeared."

"It's a joke.  They're hiding, trying to--"

"Ray!  Their shoes, their socks, their clothes, everything was left behind.  These people are gone!"

All around the world, all of the true Christians have been raptured into Heaven, so that they will not suffer through the Tribulation.  LaHaye then tells the story of how the Antichrist takes control of the world.  The Antichrist is a Jewish politician with his headquarters in Iraq.

The Apocalyptic story told by the Islamic jihadists is rather different.  They haven't adopted Darby's ideas about the Rapture and Zionism.  From Muhammad's prophecies, they see the final battles as a fight between Islam and the infidels (including Christians and Jews) led by the Antichrist.  The Mahdi and Jesus will lead the Muslims against the Antichrist and the infidels.  At the Last Judgment, the Muslims will be saved for eternal bliss, and the infidels will be condemned to eternal punishment.  The violence of jihadist fighting, including suicide terrorism, is all morally justified as serving the end of divine judgment and redemption of the believers.

A few years ago, Joel Richardson, in his book The Islamic Antichrist (2009), pointed out the remarkable parallels between the Christian and Muslim prophecies of the Apocalypse, but with the roles of bad guys and good guys reversed.  He argued that the Islamic Mahdi is actually the Antichrist, and thus Satan will be using Islamic jihadists to carry out his great battle against Christianity in the End Days.

A few days ago, I found myself thinking about the problem of Apocalyptic violence while attending a performance of Handel's Messiah with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Chorus.  Two years ago, I wrote a post about the Messiah as a defense of orthodox Christianity against Deism.  But this time I began to wonder whether Handel and Charles Jennens (who wrote the libretto) had revised the Apocalyptic story of the Bible to make it less violent.

The most familiar and most popular part of the Messiah is the Hallelujah Chorus, movement 44, the last movement of Part Two, which uses lines from the book of Revelation: "Hallelujah!  For the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth! Hallelujah! The Kingdom of this world is become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever.  King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Revelation 19:6, 11:15, 19:16).

The libretto of the Messiah is remarkable for what it leaves out of the story in Revelation.  Nothing is said about the two battles--Armageddon and the Final Battle.  There is no reference to Satan or the Antichrist.  And nothing is said about the condemnation of the damned to eternal punishment in Hell, which leaves us with the impression that everyone will enjoy eternal bliss in Heaven.  Consequently, almost all of the bloody violence of Revelation is eliminated.

The only violence in Messiah comes in the four movements (40-43) immediately preceding the Hallelujah Chorus.  It is said that the "nations" and the "kings of the earth" have risen up against God and the Messiah.  God will have to defeat them.  "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel" (Psalms 2:1-4, 9).

Many listeners have found this part of Messiah disturbing in its suggestion that God enjoys torturing people.  In his commentary on Messiah, Calvin Stapert observes: "'Thou shalt break them' is . . . out of balance unless it is taken in the context of Messiah as a whole, for in it God's love far overshadows his anger" (132).

Thus, if there were an Islamic version of Handel's Messiah, it would give no support to the Apocalyptic violence of the Islamic State.


REFERENCES

Filiu, Jean-Pierre. 2011. Apocalypse in Islam. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kirsch, Jonathan. 2006.  A History of the End of the World: How the Most Controversial Book in the Bible Changed the Course of Western Civilization. New York: HarperCollins.

McGinn, Bernard, John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein, eds. 2000. The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. New York: Continuum.

McCants, William. 2015. The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Stapert, Calvin. 2010. Handel's Messiah: Comfort for God's People.  Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

The Lockean Liberalism of King Charles III's New Testament Christian Monarchy

The St. Edward's Crown of the British monarch was made for the coronation of Charles II in 1661, after the previous crown was melted down in 1649, following the execution of Charles I.  It is made of solid gold and set with precious stones.  It is surmounted with the Cross of Jesus.

The coronation of Charles III and his wife, Camilla, as king and queen of the United Kingdom will take place Saturday, May 6, at Westminster Abbey.  It will begin at 11:00 am London time and 6:00 am Eastern time in the U.S.  This will be the 40th royal coronation at Westminster Abbey since that of William the Conqueror in 1066.

That Charles has chosen the name Charles III evokes the unsettled history of the monarchy under Charles I, who was beheaded by English revolutionaries, and Charles II, who restored the monarchy in 1660, after the interregnum (1649-1660), and tried to restore a Filmerian divine right absolute monarchy.  This name might also suggest that King Charles III will correct the mistakes made by Charles I and Charles II by moving away from the absolutist Christian monarchy of the Stuart dynasty to the classical liberal Christian monarchy of the House of Windsor.  That will be made clear by the coronation designed by Charles, which combines traditional symbols of the coronation that go back as far as the Coronation Rite of King Edgar in 973 with the new symbolism of monarchy in a liberal social order.  

The best source of information about the coronation is the official website.  The "Authorised Coronation Liturgy with Commentary" is particularly helpful, and I will be citing that document.  

Ian Bradley has an essay on the religious significance of the coronation.  Bradley is the author of the newly published book God Save the King: The Sacred Nature of Monarchy.

I have written about the evolutionary rise and fall of monarchy by symbolic cultural group selection, and about the silly arguments from Alt-Right theorists like Curtis Yarvin for restoring a Filmerian absolute monarchy as the best regime.  I have also argued that the New Testament teaches Lockean classical liberalism.  Now we will see in this coronation the ritual symbolism of a New Testament Christian monarchy.

The most striking feature of the coronation ceremony is how it manifests the sacred nature of monarchic authority as invested with the sanctity of Biblical religion.  But there's an inherent tension in this appeal to Biblical religion for political authority, because the Old Testament and the New Testament offer contradictory teachings about the divine authority of political rule.  The Old Testament in its account of how God chose the rulers of the people of Israel to enforce obedience to the Mosaic law favors theocracy, in which religious authorities coercively enforce Judaism and punish those outside the Jewish faith.  This has allowed many Christians to invoke the Old Testament as supporting a Christian theocracy, in which Christian kings rule by divine right to coercively enforce the Christian faith and punish heretics, infidels, and atheists.  By contrast, the New Testament suggests a separation of church and state, so that those in the church cannot coercively enforce their faith, and there is no legal establishment of religion.  This has allowed some Christians to invoke the New Testament as supporting religious liberty and toleration, so that churches become voluntary associations that cannot use legal coercion to enforce their faith.

In the debate over the divine right of kings in 17th century England, Christians like Robert Filmer embraced the theocratic tradition of the Old Testament to justify the absolute power of the Stuart monarchs as the "defenders of the faith"--that is, the faith of the Church of England--against those who did not share that faith.  On the other side of the debate, Christians like Roger Williams and John Locke interpreted the New Testament as denying this theocratic denial of religious liberty.  That's what I mean when I say that the New Testament teaches Lockean liberalism.

Now, in the Coronation Liturgy for King Charles III--as designed by Charles himself--we can see a subtle interweaving of Old Testament and New Testament traditions that reconciles the conflicts between them by favoring the Lockean liberalism of the New Testament.

Let's start at the beginning of the planned coronation.  At the head of the coronation procession into Westminster Abbey will be "faith leaders and representatives from the Jewish, Sunni and Shia Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Bahai and Zoroastrian communities" (2).  They will be followed by the procession of ecumenical leaders of the Christian faith, which will include not just the Anglican Church, but also the Greek Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, and other Christian churches in Great Britain.  This has never happened in any previous coronation of the British monarch.

A crucial part of every coronation has been identifying the monarch as the "Defender of the Faith," which means defender of the Church of England as opposed to all other faiths, whether Christian or non-Christian.  In the 16th century, "Defender of the Faith" was the title given by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII for his defense of Catholicism.  But then when Henry broke with Rome to form his own English Church, he held onto the title with the idea that he would be defending the Anglicanism of the Church of England against Catholics and Christian dissenters.

Charles has had a life-long fascination with all faiths.  And in 1994, he said that as heir to the throne, he saw himself as less "defender of the faith" and more as "defender of faith"--of all the religious faiths.  He said, "People have fought to the death over these things, which seems to me a peculiar waste of people's energy, when we're all actually aiming for the same ultimate goal."  Although Charles' mother--Elizabeth II--was a devout Anglican Christian, she agreed with him about this.  She once said, "The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly underappreciated.  Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions.  Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country."  She also said that "gently and assuredly, the Church of England hs created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely" (7).  In a reception at Buckingham Palace days after his mother's funeral, Charles said that his mother was right about this, and that his Anglican faith committed him to "the common good of freedom."  That's what I mean by the Lockean liberalism of his New Testament Christian monarchy.  Actually, Charles has gone beyond Locke in arguing for defending the freedom of Catholics and atheists.

Early in the coronation as planned by Charles, he will be presented with the Bible as the guide for his rule (6).  Then, the Archbishop of Canterbury will administer the Coronation Oath by declaring: "Your Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely.  The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law" (7).  (Here "beliefs" seem to include atheism.)

Notice that he invokes the Gospel of the New Testament and interprets it as ensuring that "people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely," which departs from the Mosaic theocracy of the Old Testament.

After taking the Oath, Charles will recite a private prayer, which concludes: "Grant that I may be a blessing to all they children, of every faith and conviction, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace, through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen" (9).  To keep religious peace, Charles will secure freedom for "every faith and conviction."  (Here "conviction"--as distinguished from "faith"--suggests atheism.)

Not long after this, the Prime Minister--Rishi Sunak--will read from the New Testament book of Colossians (11).  This is remarkable because Sunak is Hindu, and yet he can be comfortable reading a New Testament passage.

Later in the coronation, there will be a thanksgiving for the Holy Coronation Oil and then the anointing of Charles with that oil.  Here we can see the Archbishop of Canterbury invoking a subtle combination of Old Testament and New Testament ideas in the anointing of the king with oil: "Blessed art thou, Sovereign God, upholding with thy grace all who are called to thy service.  Thy prophets of old anointed priests and kings to serve in thy name, and in the fullness of time thine only Son was anointed by the Holy Spirit to be the Christ, the Savior and Servant of all.  By the power of the same Spirit, bless and sanctify this oil" (15).

The Archbishop's prayer recalls how the kings of Israel (like Saul and Solomon) were anointed with consecrated olive oil in the Old Testament (1 Kings 1:32, 38-40; 1 Samuel 2:10, 10:1).  But then he immediately reminds us that Jesus in the New Testament was anointed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38).  In Greek, the word Christ means "anointed," and the Hebrew word for this is "Messiah."

As John Locke pointed out in his Letter Concerning Toleration, while the kings of Israel were anointed to rule over an "absolute theocracy," Jesus was anointed to rule over his followers by the persuasiveness of his preaching, and he never attempted to establish a Christian theocracy.  Moreover, the New Testament makes clear that the first Christian churches were voluntary associations that exercised no theocratic rule.  Locke explained:

"The Commonwealth of the Jews, different in that from all others, was an absolute Theocracy; nor was there, or could there be, any difference between that Commonwealth and the Church. . . . But there is absolutely no such thing, under the Gospel, as a Christian Commonwealth.  There are, indeed, many Cities and Kingdoms thaqt have embraced the Faith of Christ; but they have retained their ancient Form of Government; with which the Law of Christ hath not at all meddled.  He, indeed, hath taught men how, by Faith and good Works, they may attain Eternal Life.  But he instituted no Commonwealth.  He prescribed unto his Followers no new and peculiar Form of Government; Nor put he the Sword into any Magistrate's Hand, with Commission to make use of it in forcing men to forsake their former Religion, and receive his" (Hackett edition, 44-45; Liberty Fund edition, 42).

The coronation of Charles will indicate how his kingship will follow the model of Christ's persuasive kingship rather than the theocratic kingship of ancient Israel.  At the beginning of the coronation, Charles will be greeted by a Chapel Royal chorister: "Your Majesty, as children of the Kingdom of God, we welcome you in the name of the King of Kings."  Charles will respond: "In his name, and after his example, I come not to be served but to serve" (3).

Here Charles will echo the words of Jesus when he warned his followers not to strive for authoritative rule over others:  "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you.  Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave--just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:25-28).

It seems that Charles will be intimating here that he is a king who has no coercive authority over his people, particularly in matters of religious belief.  At most, he can only exercise the sort of persuasive authority that comes through Christian preaching, and for that he needs the persuasive symbolism of being anointed with Coronation Holy Oil.  

Rendering that oil holy required a special preparation (15).  It was from olives from groves on the Mount of Olives at the Russian Orthodox Monastery of Mary Magdalene, which is the burial place of Charles' paternal grandmother, Princess Alice of Greece, who was a Greek Orthodox believer.  The Mount of Olives, outside Jerusalem, is a holy place for Jews, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants.  The olives were pressed just outside Bethlehem.  The oil was then perfumed with essential oils--sesame, rose, jasmine, cinnamon, neroli, benzoin, amber, and orange blossom.  The oil was then consecrated by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III, and the Anglican Archbishop in Jerusalem, the Most Reverend Dr. Hosam Naoum.  Thus, this oil has an ecumenical holiness that comes from symbolic links to all the major Biblical religious traditions.

The actual anointing of Charles will be the only part of the coronation that will be hidden from both the audience in Westminster Abbey and the television cameras.  An Anointing Screen, specially designed and woven for this purpose will be arranged around the Coronation Chair.  Behind the screen, the Archbishop of Canterbury will anoint the King's hands, breast, and head (16).  Hiding this from view gives an air of mystery to this most sacred moment of the coronation.

As the King is being anointed, the Choir of Westminister Abbey will sing Georg Frederick Handel's "Zadok the Priest" anthem.  The text of this anthem has always been part of the English Coronation Rite.  But it was made famous when Handel set it to music for the coronation of George II in 1727.  Here's the text, which is based on the anointing of King Solomon in 1 Kings 1:32-35:

"Zadok the priest

"and Nathan the prophet

"anointed Solomon king.

"And all the people rejoiced and said:

"God save the King!

"Long live the King!

"May the King live forever!

"Alleluia!  Amen!"

                                                            Handel's "Zadok the Priest"

I have written about how Handel used his Biblical music (like the Messiah) to refute Deism and defend religious orthodoxy.  Does this anthem serve the same purpose by using the power of his music to support the Biblical teaching about the divine authority of rulers?

The anointing of King Charles is followed by the presentation of the regalia--the Spurs, the Sword, the Bracelets, the Robe Royal, the Stole Royal, the Orb, the Ring, the Glove, the Sceptre, and the Rod--each of which has some distinctive symbolic meaning.

Finally, the King will be crowned with the Crown of St. Edward, and all in the Abbey will shout "God save the King!"  There will be a musical fanfare, a Gun Salute, and the Abbey bells will ring for two minutes (25).

Then, for the first time in the history of coronations, the Blessing of the King will come not just from the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, but also from a Catholic archbishop, a Greek Orthodox archbishop, and from representatives of other Christian churches in Great Britain.  Such an ecumenical affirmation would have been impossible in previous coronations, even as late as the 1953 coronation of Elizabeth (26).

After the King has been enthroned, there will be oaths of allegiance.  The first will be from the "Homage of the Church of England" expressed by the  Archbishop of Canterbury.  The second will be the "Homage of Royal Blood" coming from William, the Prince of Wales: "I, William, Prince of Wales, pledge my loyalty to you and faith and truth I will bear unto you, as your liege man of life and limb.  So help me God."  This will be the most painful moment for Prince Harry--a reminder that he is far down the line of succession, and that William is most likely to be the next King.

Remarkably, this will be followed by "The Homage of the People," which is another novel move that has never been done in a coronation:

"Archbishop of Canterbury:

"I call upon all persons of goodwill of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the other Realms and the Territories to make their homage, in heart and voice, to their undoubted King, defender of all."

"All who so desire, in the Abbey, and elsewhere, say together:

"All:

"I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors acording to law.  So help me God.

"A fanfare is played (28)."

In all previous coronations, the Homage has been pledged by the hereditary peerage in order of degree.  But now the Homage of Peers has been replaced by the Homage of the People.  Notice that this is voluntary--"all who so desire."  So, here the King explicitly recognizes that whatever persuasive authority he has over the people must come from their voluntary consent.  And to win that consent, he must convince them that he really is God's Anointed One.

Next, the King's wife--Camilla--will be crowned as the Queen Consort, and she will be anointed by the Archbishop, but without a screen, suggesting that the anointing of a consort is not as sacred as the anointing of the King (29).

Following this, there will be other ceremonies, songs, and prayers.  

After the singing of the national anthem ("God Save the King"), the King will march in procession out of the Abbey.  At the end of the procession, he will be greeted by representatives of five non-Christian faith communities:  Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Buddhist.  They will deliver their greeting in unison: "Your Majesty, as neighbors in faith, we acknowledge the value of public service.  We unite with people of all faiths and beliefs in thanksgiving, and in service with you for the common good" (41).

As with so much else in this coronation, this has never been done in any previous coronation.  This ending matches the beginning with the procession of faith leaders and representatives of faith communities (2).

Finally, the King goes to the Gold State Coach, which will take him back to Buckingham Palace.

                                                                  The Gold State Coach

Will it work?  

When the people are asked for their homage, will millions of people across Great Britain and the Commonwealth swear their allegiance "in heart and voice" to the King?  Will they willingly accept a monarchy that claims only a persuasive authority and not a coercive theocratic authority, and therefore a monarchy that poses no threat to the personal, political, or religious liberty of the people?  Or will they laugh or smirk as they think about how foolish Charles is to think all this religious mumbo-jumbo will persuade them that Charles is their divinely anointed King?

Great Britain is one of the most secularized societies in the world.  Some surveys report that most people identify themselves as having no religious belief.  Only a small minority of the people participate at least once a week in some kind of religious worship service.  So, we have to wonder whether the King truly believes that his appeal to the sacred character of the British monarchy will work.

George Anastaplo and Hugo Black: Is the Right to Revolution Unconstitutional?

In a few days, I will be participating in the Memorial Service for George Anastaplo.  Here's the program:

Memorial Service for George Anastaplo

November 7, 1925 – February 14, 2014

Bond Chapel, The University of Chicago

June 6, 2014, 4 pm

Prelude, “Simple Gifts”
The Spektral Quartet

Welcome and Introductions
Michaelangelo Allocca

Reading of Excerpts for Justice Hugo Black's Dissenting Opinion in In re Anastaplo (1961)
Larry Arnhart

 Largo, “Winter,” Vivaldi’s “Four Seasons”
The Spektral Quartet

Remarks

Keith Cleveland

Christopher Colmo

Francis Wolfe

Second Movement, Beethoven’s Sonata No. 8 Daniel Cheng

Remarks

David Bevington

William Braithwaite

Harry Mark Petrakis

\
Largo, Handel’s “Xerxes” The Spektral Quartet

Conclusion
Michaelangelo Allocca

Postlude
The Spektral Quartet

I will be reading the last five paragraphs of Justice Hugo Black's dissenting opinion in In re Anastaplo.  Anastaplo argued his bar admission case before the Supreme Court in December of 1960.  In April of 1961, the Court ruled against him in a 5-4 opinion.  Justice Black wrote the dissenting opinion, with the concurrence of Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices William Brennan and William O. Douglas.

In September of 1971, Justice Black died.  His funeral at Washington National Cathedral drew of crowd of over 1,000 people, including most of the most prominent political and legal leaders in Washington.  For one part of the service, Black's son selected excerpts from five of Black's most eloquent opinions to be read.  One of those was his opinion in the Anastaplo case.

I have just been reading over some of the material related to this case--much of which appears in Anastaplo's The Constitutionalist: Notes on the First Amendment (SMU Press, 1971), pages 331-418.  What is most remarkable about this case is the intellectual depth of the philosophical questions that it raises.  The primary question concerns the wisdom of invoking a right to revolution and whether such a right is compatible with constitutional government.

Anastaplo graduated at the top of his class at the University of Chicago Law School in 1950, and he passed his bar examination.  When he appeared before the Committee on Character and Fitness, he was asked whether he thought members of the Communist Party should be eligible for admission to the Illinois bar.  He answered that he saw no reason why they should be considered ineligible.  One member of the Committee responded by observing that Communists believe in revolution.  To which Anastaplo responded that Americans generally should believe in the right to revolution as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  That then became the point that most bothered the Committee.

In The Constitutionalist, Anastaplo observes:

"It was my defense of the revolutionary principles of the Declaration of Independence that most fiercely aroused the Illinois bar authorities against me a generation ago.  It was difficult to make them recognize that the Declaration reminds us of the old-fashioned proposition that there are standards outside and above the agreements and teachings of men, government, and era, standards superior even to what 'the people' might at any moment believe or choose.  That is, the right to revolution implies an insistence upon the supremacy of man's reason in the conduct of human affairs.  It is as a reminder of political truths, and indeed of the nature of man, that the Declaration of Independence remains our founding instrument: to defend it is, as Lincoln knew, to be patriotic in the deepest sense." (332)

This was rejected by the Supreme Court, however, in Dennis v. United States (1951).  (The Committee on Character and Fitness announced its decision against Anastaplo shortly after the decision in the Dennis case was announced.)  In the Smith Act of 1940, the Congress had made it a crime to teach the desirability "of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence."  And thus, it seemed that teaching the right to revolution could be a crime.  Members of the American Communist Party were arrested for peacefully teaching Marxism, which includes the doctrine that capitalism must someday be overthrown in a socialist revolution.  When they appealed their case to the Supreme Court, they lost.  In the Dennis decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Smith Act, and Chief Justice Vinson in effect declared the right to revolution to be unconstitutional and adopted the reasoning of Thomas Hobbes that all government must necessarily reject such a right:

"That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion.  Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that thee is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.  We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy."

Even Hobbes admits, however, that although there is no natural right to rebel against government, rebellion is the "natural punishment" for "negligent government of princes" (Lev., chap. 31).  It is natural for human beings to resist oppressive government, and so revolution is natural insofar as it is rooted in human nature. 

And yet, as the Declaration of Independence teaches, "prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Here are the two great themes running through Anastaplo's thought--nature and prudence.  We need to look to standards of natural right rooted in human nature.  But we also need prudence to judge how those standards are to be applied in ways that do not unreasonably disrupt the governmental forms to which we are accustomed.  And although the Constitution does not specifically mention the Declaration of Independence or the right to revolution, Anastaplo argued, the Constitution does implicitly rest on the philosophical principles of nature and prudence stated by the Declaration.  The implicit constitutional affirmation of natural right and the right to revolution is clearest in the Ninth and Tenth amendments, while the advocacy of the right to revolution is protected by the First Amendment (see Anastaplo, The Amendments to the Constitution: A Commentary [1995], 93-102). 

In making this argument, Anastaplo was following the political thought of Lincoln, while also following the political thought of Socrates in the appeal to natural right.  Freedom of speech was the constitutional right by which citizens could invoke these principles of the Declaration of Independence in political debate.

That Justice Black saw this in Anastaplo's case is eloquently indicated in the last five paragraphs of his dissenting opinion:

The effect of the Court's 'balancing' here is that any State may now reject an applicant for admission to the Bar if he believes in the Declaration of Independence as strongly as Anastaplo and if he is willing to sacrifice his career and his means of livelihood in defense of the freedoms of the First Amendment. But the men who founded this country and wrote our Bill of Rights were strangers neither to a belief in the 'right of revolution' nor to the urgency of the need to be free from the control of government with regard to political beliefs and associations. Thomas Jefferson was not disclaiming a belief in the 'right of revolution' when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. And Patrick Henry was certainly not disclaiming such a belief when he declared in impassioned words that have come on down through the years: 'Give me liberty or give me death.' This country's freedom was won by men who, whether they believed in it or not, certainly practiced revolution in the Revolutionary War.

Since the beginning of history there have been governments that have engaged in practices against the people so bad, so cruel, so unjust and so destructive of the individual dignity of men and women that the 'right of revolution' was all the people had left to free themselves. As simple illustrations, one government almost 2,000 years ago burned Christians upon fiery crosses and another government, during this very century, burned Jews in crematories. I venture the suggestion that there are countless multitudes in this country, and all over the world, who would join Anastaplo's belief in the right of the people to resist by force tyrannical governments like those.

In saying what I have, it is to be borne in mind that Anastaplo has not indicated, even remotely, a belief that this country is an oppressive one in which the 'right of revolution' should be exercised.  Quite the contrary, the entire course of his life, as disclosed by the record, has been one of devotion and service to his country-first, in his willingness to defend its security at the risk of his own life in time of war and, later, in his willingness to defend its freedoms at the risk of his professional career in time of peace. The one and only time in which he has come into conflict with the Government is when he refused to answer the questions put to him by the Committee about his beliefs and associations. And I think the record clearly shows that conflict resulted, not from any fear on Anastaplo's part to divulge his own political activities, but from a sincere, and in my judgment correct, conviction that the preservation of this country's freedom depends upon adherence to our Bill of Rights. The very most that can fairly be said against Anastaplo's position in this entire matter is that he took too much of the responsibility of preserving that freedom upon himself.

This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that Anastaplo has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar.  It shows, not only that Anastaplo has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost. It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law-men like Malsherbes, who, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his family, sprang unafraid to the defense of Louis XVI against the fanatical leaders of the Revolutionary government of France – men like Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., later Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, who stood up for the constitutional rights of socialists to be socialists and public officials despite the threats and clamorous protests of self-proclaimed superpatriots – men like Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who, while against everything for which the Communists stood, strongly advised the Congress in 1948 that it would be unconstitutional to pass the law then proposed to outlaw the Communist Party  -- men like Lord Erskine, James Otis, Clarence Darrow, and the multitude of others who have dared to speak in defense of causes and clients without regard to personal danger to themselves. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.

But that is the present trend, not only in the legal profession but in almost every walk of life. Too many men are being driven to become government-fearing and time-serving because the Government is being permitted to strike out at those who are fearless enough to think as they please and say what they think.  This trend must be halted if we are to keep faith with the Founders of our Nation and pass on to future generations of Americans the great heritage of freedom which they sacrificed so much to leave to us. The choice is clear to me. If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free.

I do have one question about the relationship between Black's constitutional reasoning and Anastaplo's.  Did Anastaplo agree with Black's general incorporation interpretation of the 14th Amendment--the claim that the 14th Amendment applied the first eight amendments of the Constitution to the States?  In his bar admission case, Anastaplo seemed to agree with Black that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech from congressional abridgment now applies to the states, because he argued that being required by the Illinois bar to answer questions about his political beliefs was a violation of his constitutionally protected freedom of speech.  But later, in The Constitutionalist (35-49, 710-13), Anastaplo argued that the First Amendment was directed only to the Congress ("Congress shall make no law"), that this left the states free to abridge freedom of speech, and that the incorporation interpretation of the 14th Amendment (beginning with the Gitlow decision in 1925) was mistaken.  This argument contradicts Black's position, and even Anastaplo's earlier position in his bar admission case.

George Anastaplo's Tombstone in Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery in St. Louis, With the Last Sentence of Justice Black's Opinion: "We Must Not Be Afraid to Be Free."

Here is my post on Anastaplo's death.

The Political History of Beethoven's 9th Symphony: Odes to Joy and Freedom

Leonard Bernstein Conducts Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on Christmas Day 1989 in Berlin.  The "Ode to Freedom" Movement Begins 57 Minutes into the Performance.

Ever since its premiere in 1824, Beethoven's 9th Symphony has deeply moved many millions of listeners.  It is widely considered one of the best symphonies ever composed, and some would say it is the greatest.  Can the social bonding theory of music explain the powerful appeal of this symphony?

Now, as I have indicated, no one claims that social bonding is the only function of music. Even if social bonding was the original evolutionary function of music, once music has emerged, it can serve many different functions for different people in different circumstances.  But still if this theory is correct, we should expect that music often does have a social bonding effect for many people.  And that does seem to be true for Beethoven's 9th.  After all, the "Ode to Joy" explicitly invokes the brotherhood of all humanity--a universal social bonding.  Moreover, Beethoven's 9th has a long political history of being used as a musical anthem by which people can mark their membership in a national or multinational community.  Esteban Buch has covered this history in his book Beethoven's Ninth: A Political History (2003). 

ANTHEMS AS MARKERS FOR SOCIAL MEMBERSHIP

That Beethoven's music can serve as a national or even international anthem that binds people together was asserted by Marcelo Lehninger in his conducting of the performance I heard in Grand Rapids.  He began by speaking to the audience.  He said that we needed to hear this music because "in these divisive times," we "need the message of brotherhood."  

He then began the concert by conducting the orchestra in playing the Star-Spangled Banner, which is customary for the opening night of a new concert season.  In 1931, the U. S. Congress passed a resolution to recognize this as the official national anthem for the United States.  Previously, My Country 'Tis of Thee and America the Beautiful had been two other informally accepted national anthems, and they are still often sung as if they were the national anthem.  This national anthem is a hymn (sacred or profane) sung by a chorus of people celebrating the unity of America.  Even when there's a solo singer, many in the audience will sing along.  

The Francis Scott Key's lyrics for the Star-Spangled Banner were inspired in 1814 by his seeing the U.S. flag flying triumphantly over Fort McHenry after a night of bombardment by the British Royal Navy in the Battle of Baltimore in the War of 1812, which was a sign that the British had failed to destroy the fort.  So here the flag as a symbol of victory in battle represents America.

My Country 'Tis of Thee (or America) has the same melody as God Save the King, the British national anthem, but for the American song, the only king is God himself ("Great God, our king").  And this American anthem celebrates America as the land of liberty or freedom:

My country, 'tis of thee,
sweet land of liberty,
of thee I sing:
land where my fathers died,
land of the pilgrims' pride,
from every mountainside
let freedom ring!

So this anthem for America could be called An Ode to Freedom.

America the Beautiful is also sung as if it were the national anthem.

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

Here there are three interconnected themes for unifying America into one people: the natural beauty of the American countryside, God's grace for America, and the brotherhood of Americans within the borders of America ("from sea to shining sea"). 

Similarly, in the fourth movement of the 9th Symphony, the chorus of mankind celebrates its unity--proclaiming "All men will become brothers."  But here the brotherhood is universal.  

We have to wonder: Can music really do that?  Can music make us believe in the myth of a nation--or even the whole world--speaking with a single choral voice?  And if so, what is the unifying theme through which millions or even billions of people can be one people?  If "Joy" is the theme, does that have any clear meaning?  Is "Freedom" a better theme with a clearer meaning?  Or is the intellectual meaning of the lyrics unimportant as long as the music creates an emotional experience of social bonding?  To have that emotional experience must the music have the sacred aura of a hymn that requires religious belief?  Or can we enjoy the religious feelings of a patriotic hymn without believing any religious doctrines?

I have argued that a natural desire for social membership in an imagined community is part of our evolved human nature.  It's an imagined community because it's a symbolic niche construction of our minds that we create by consenting to it, by agreeing to its reality.  Singing an anthem is one way that we imagine ourselves as belonging to such a community.  It's like a password or shibboleth.

In composing his 9th Symphony, Beethoven was building on a tradition that began in the 18th century.  George Frederic Handel composed anthems for chorus and orchestra for the Hanoverian kings of England.  The most memorable one--Zadok the Priest for the coronation of George II in 1727--used a revised biblical verse from the First Kings (1:39-40) about the coronation of Solomon:

Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed Solomon king.
And all the people rejoiced and said:
God save the King! Long live the King! God save the King!
May the King live for ever. Amen. Hallelujah.

The Priest and the Prophet anoint the King.  And then the people collectively rejoice and pray for the King.

But the first true national anthem for the British became popular in 1745--God Save the King--when it was sung in support of George II after his defeat at the Battle of Prestonpans by the army of Charles Edward Stuart, the grandson of King James II and the Jacobite claimant to the British throne.  It was a prayer from the people asking God to give the King victory over Charles.  

God save our gracious King!
Long live our noble King!
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the King!

O Lord our God arise
Scatter his enemies
And make them fall
Confound their politics
Frustrate their knavish tricks
On thee our hopes we fix
God save us all

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On him be pleased to pour;
Long may he reign.
May he defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the King!

God Save the King begins with the same biblical phrase as Zadok the Priest, but now it is a prayer by "us" the people, asking God for the victory and safety of "our" King.  The people ask for divine protection in the face of a political and military threat not only to the King but to the whole community.  Instead of the Stuart doctrine of divine right, the people suggest a contract between ruler and ruled: the people will be loyal to him only as long as he defends "our laws" and "ever give us cause, with heart and voice to sing, God save the King."

The God of Battles answered the people's prayer by giving George II victory over the Jacobites in the Battle of Culloden in 1746, which ended the Jacobite rising of 1745.  This is what Locke called the "Appeal to Heaven," in which divine providence is decided on the battlefield.

Two years ago, I wrote about the importance of such choral hymns for the coronation of King Charles III and how Charles transformed the Coronation Liturgy into a Lockean liberal proclamation of individual liberty, religious toleration, and popular consent to government, which was open not only to people of all faiths but also to atheists.

BEETHOVEN'S PATRIOTIC MUSIC

In 1803, Beethoven composed piano variations on God Save the King and Rule Britannia.  In 1813, he arranged God Save the King for soloist and unison chorus with an instrumental trio.  In his notebook, he wrote: "I must give the English some notion of the blessing they have in their God Save the King (Buch, 73).  This was part of Beethoven's patriotic action in supporting the English and their allies who were fighting against Napoleon's invading armies.  

The Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) became one of the deadliest series of wars in human history--with a death toll of over 4 million human beings.  In 1803, Beethoven began work on a symphony that would eventually become the Eroica symphony, but in 1803 he called it Bonaparte, because he saw Napoleon as a heroic leader and liberator who was spreading the humanistic ideals of the Enlightenment.  But then, on December 2, 1804, Napoleon entered the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, and in the presence of Pope Pius VII, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of France by placing the Charlemagne Crown on his head.

When Beethoven heard this news, he complained to his student Ferdinand Ries: "So he too is nothing more than an ordinary man!  Now he also will trample all human rights underfoot, and only pander to his own ambition.  He will place himself above everyone else and become a tyrant!"  He then took up the title page of the symphony, ripped it in two, and threw it to the floor (Swafford, 2014, 384).

That Beethoven was right about Napoleon being a tyrant who would suppress all human rights soon became clear.  A few months after Napoleon's crowning himself Emperor, the French government issued an "Imperial Catechism" and directed the Church to teach this new catechism, which included these responses:

Q.  Why are we obligated to all of these duties to our Emperor?

A.  First, because God, who created empires and distributes them according to His will, in heaping on our Emperor gifts, both in peace and war, has established him as our sovereign and rendered him the minister of His power and image on earth.  To honor and serve our Emperor is thus to honor and serve God himself.

Q.  What should one think of those who fail in their duty to the Emperor?

A.  According to the Apostle Saint Paul, they would be resisting the order established by God Himself, and would render themselves worthy of eternal damnation.

Q.  What is forbidden to us by the Fourth Commandment?

A.  We are forbidden to be disobedient to our superiors, to injure them, or to speak ill of them (Swafford, 2014, 385-86).

In his biography of Beethoven, Jan Swafford has shown that Beethoven was a man of the eighteenth-century European Enlightenment who looked forward to a world ruled by reason, science, and the rights of man, which explains why he was so disgusted with Napoleon's tyrannical denial of freedom and human rights.  When Immanuel Kant asked the question "What Is Enlightenment?" he answered: Saper aude!  Dare to know!  "Have the courage to use your own understanding! is thus the motto of Enlightenment."  Similarly, Beethoven wrote: "Only art and science can raise men to the level of gods."  When one of his colleagues wrote on a score, "Finished with the help of God," Beethoven wrote under it, "O Man, help yourself!"  Beethoven also resolved: "To do good wherever we can, to love liberty above all things, and never to deny truth though it be at the throne itself." Swafford observed that while Beethoven "never quite spelled out those ideals in words," those Enlightenment ideals "would be found in his music, and in the lyrics he chose to embody in music--above all, An die Freude" (Swafford, 2014, 47-50, 54, 129, 306, 853).

This explains why Beethoven composed music in 1813 celebrating the victory of the Duke of Wellington leading allied troops against Napoleon's army on June 21, 1813, near the Spanish village of Victoria.  A few months later, Beethoven composed Wellington's Victory, or The Battle of Vittoria--often referred to as the "Battle Symphony."

This also explains why Beethoven became a composer of official state music for the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), which was a series of international diplomatic meetings in Vienna to develop a plan for restoring peace and order to Europe after the fall of Napoleon.  The Congress was chaired by Austrian statesman Klemens von Metternich, who called the Congress's plan "The Concert of Europe."  Friedrich von Gentz, the Congress's secretary described the purpose of the plan: "By their geographic situation, through their customs, their laws, their needs, their way of life and their culture, the states of this continent, taken as a whole, constitute a great political federation that has--and rightly--been called the European Republic."  This echoed Immanuel Kant's proposal for a federation of European states that would enforce international peace and human rights (Buch, 2003, 76).

In 1814, Beethoven premiered his opera Fidelio, a revised version of Leonore, which had originally appeared in 1805.  Fidelio became so popular in Vienna that it had multiple performance, including a performance before an audience of political and diplomatic dignitaries in Vienna for the Congress.

In the opera, Fidelio is actually Lenore, a noblewoman disguised as a boy who plots to free her husband Florestan from prison where he is being held as a political prisoner and a victim of political tyranny.  The opera becomes a hymn to freedom and liberation from tyranny.  

After Leonore persuades a prison guard to allow the prisoners to walk in the courtyard for a few moments, the prisoners enjoy the open air and sunlight and talk about their hope that they will someday go free.  The chorus of prisoners sing about freedom (Freiheit), shouting : "O freedom, freedom, will you return?"

Later, we see Florestan alone in a dark dungeon.  He murmurs about his cruel fortune.  But then he has an ecstatic vision of Leonore as an angel who leads him to freedom.  Zur Freiheit!--"To Freedom!"--he cries over and over in spine-chilling high notes.

When Leonore finally succeeds in freeing Florestan, the two of them sing beautiful arias about the "inexpressible joy" (O namenlose Freude) they feel in being reunited as husband and wife.  In celebrating the happiness or joy that comes from conjugal love, the chorus sings a line from Schiller's Ode to Joy: "Happy he whom Heaven has granted/To be loved by such a wife!"

Fidelio thus suggests that freedom is the precondition of joy because we must be free to pursue joy.

At the Congress of Vienna, Fidelio was generally seen as a celebration of the defeat of the Napoleonic armies and as an allegory for a Europe liberated from tyrannical conquest.

Beethoven encouraged this interpretation of his music.  During the early months of the Congress, he composed The Glorious Moment, a cantata for soloists, chorus, and orchestra that was a musical representation of this European Moment that was announced in the opening statement:

Europe is risen!  Europe is risen!

And the times in their headlong rush,

The chorus of peoples and former centuries,

Look on in amazement!

This European Moment was universalized in the repeated phrase: "In the peaceful union of brothers/Liberated mankind itself embraces!"  Thus, the "chorus of peoples" invokes the freedom and brotherhood of mankind in the glorious European moment.

Here Beethoven's political music representing the Enlightenment vision of international peace, liberty, and brotherhood anticipated what he would do in 1824 in the 9th Symphony's Ode to Joy.

THE NINTH SYMPHONY

In his program notes for the GRSO's performance of the 9th Symphony, John Varineau suggests that "the first three movements can be heard as a search for that ultimate expression signifying the fellowship of humanity that we hear in the fourth."  He then explains:

The last movement begins in chaos with the woodwinds and brass.  The cellos and basses, imitating an operatic baritone, demand to know what is going on.  The orchestra tentatively suggests the first movement.  No!  Then the second.  No!  The third?  No!  The cello and basses then suggest the answer with the famous tune.

That famous tune is taken mostly from Friedrich Schiller's poem Ode to Joy, except for the first few lines added by Beethoven (indicated by italics).  Here's the English translation: 

O friends, not these sounds!
Let us sing more cheerful songs,
More songs full of joy!
Joy!
Joy!

(1)  Joy, beautiful spark of divinity,
Daughter from Elysium,
Fire-inspired we tread
Within thy sanctuary.
Thy magic power re-unites
All that custom has divided,
All men become brothers,
Under the sway of thy gentle wings.

(2)  Whoever has been lucky enough
to become a friend to a friend,
Or has won
A true and loving wife,
All who can call at least one soul theirs,
Join our song of praise;
But those who cannot must creep tearfully
Away from our circle.

(3)  All creatures drinks in joy
At nature's breast.
Good and Evil 
Alike taste of her gift;
She gave us kisses and the fruit of the vine,
A true friend even in death.
Even the worm can feel sexual desire,
And the cherub stands before God!

(4)  Gladly, like the heavenly bodies
Which He sent on their courses
Through the splendor of the firmament;
Thus, brothers, you should run your race,
Like a hero going to victory!

(5)  You millions, I embrace you.
This kiss is for all the world!
Brothers, above the starry canopy
There must dwell a loving Father.
Do you bow before him, you millions?
World, do you sense your creator?
Seek Him above the canopy of stars;

Above the stars must He dwell. 

When the baritone soloist first shouted "Oh friends, not these sounds!", that was the first time that a singing voice had entered a symphony.  The search for "more joyful sounds" requires a combination of instrumental and vocal music--a choral symphony. The baritone identifies all the members of the orchestra and the singers as his friends.  And throughout the Ode, "friends" (Freunde) and "joy" (Freude) are linked, which is underscored in German by the similarity of the two German words.  Originally, Schiller wrote his Ode as a tribute to his close friend Christian Gottfried Korner.  But then the poem expands to include all forms of love or social bonding, including not only friendship but also conjugal love, brotherly love, love of God ("the cherub stands before God"), and God's love for His creatures ("a loving Father").  Joy, it seems, is found in love.  And the most joyful sounds are the music of love. Joy is first identified as the "beautiful spark of divinity, / Daughter from Elysium," the afterlife in Greek mythology.  But then this image of joy as a supernatural infusion is followed in the third stanza with the claim that joy comes from natural longings.  "Every creature drinks in joy at nature's breast," and even the worm feels something like joy in his sexual desire. How can the pursuit of joy be both natural and supernatural?  Could it be a natural desire for happiness that can never be fully satisfied in this life because it's really a desire for the supernatural happiness of eternal bliss with God in Heaven?  That was C. S. Lewis's primary argument for the existence of God: the desire for Joy points to God as the supernatural object that will satisfy that desire.  We all desire whatever we think will make us fully happy or joyful.  But then when we possess the object of our desire, we discover that it does not give us Joy.  Lewis wrote: "A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food.  A duckling wants to swim, water exists to do it.  So if I find within myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most likely explanation is that I was made for another world." "I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it."  That was C. S. Lewis's claim in Mere Christianity that he had rational arguments for showing how the weight of the evidence supported Christianity.  In the Reason/Revelation debate, Lewis thought that Reason could prove, or at least render probable, the truth of Christian Revelation.   I have responded to Lewis by arguing that while there is an evolved natural desire for religious transcendence, or for what Lewis calls "Joy," the existence of this desire provides no evidence for the real existence of the supernatural object--God--that would satisfy this desire.  In the Reason/Revelation debate, neither side can conclusively refute the other.  But the debate must continue because this is the deepest debate that human beings can have--the debate over whether the highest good for human beings is earthly happiness or Joy in the natural world that we can experience, or whether that highest good can only be found in the eternal happiness or Joy of Heaven. The "Ode to Joy" is not clearly on one side or the other in this debate.  The last stanza does lean towards Revelation's vision of heavenly happiness: "Do you bow down before Him, you millions?/Do you sense your Creator, O world?/Seek Him above the canopy of stars!/He must dwell beyond the stars."  And yet this could also be intimating my position--that while many people will feel a natural desire for religious Joy in Heaven with God, the natural reality of this desire does not prove the supernatural reality of the Heavenly Joy that is sought.  Notice that the Ode speaks of people seeking God, but it does not say that they will surely find what they seek. If Fidelio is correct in suggesting that freedom is the precondition of joy because we need to be free to pursue joy, that should apply here.  Only in a free society are we free to openly debate Reason and Revelation in arguing about whether our natural desire for happiness or joy can be satisfied in this life, or whether it points to a Heavenly Joy.  As I have indicated in my posts on Lewis, he was free to debate these issues in the Oxford Socratic Club, and other venues, where religious believers debated atheists and agnostics, because he lived in a modern liberal society that secured freedom of thought and speech.  In an illiberal closed society, this would not have been possible.  As I have indicated, Lewis understood this, and  that's why he was a Lockean liberal who rejected theocracy as a form of tyranny, who believed that government should not have the power to legally enforce Christian orthodoxy, and who thought the only proper aim of government was to secure individual liberty from legal interference except when necessary to prevent harm to others. THE POLITICAL RECEPTION OF THE ODE TO JOY The many attempts to adopt Beethoven's Ode to Joy as an anthem for a political community or political ideology are often confusing because of their implausible appropriations of the music.  For example, as planned by Joseph Goebbel, Hitler's birthday in 1937 was celebrated with a performance of the Ninth Symphony conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler with the Berlin Philharmonic.  This was repeated in 1942.  Some of the Nazi cultural leaders said that Beethoven and Wagner were the two poles of truly German music that had been united in the personality of Adolf Hitler.  But in 1938, Hanns Eisler, a famous German-Austrian composer and a communist anti-Nazi, ridiculed the idea that the Ninth Symphony was pro-Nazi: "All men become brothers, with the exception of all the peoples whose lands we want to annex, with the exception of the Jews, the Blacks, and a great many others to boot" (Buch, 2003, 205-209). The same absurd adoption of the Ode to Joy as an anthem for a racist regime occurred in 1974 when Ian Smith's white supremacist government in Rhodesia adopted the Ode to Joy as a national anthem to replace God Save the Queen.  A music critic for the Rhodesian Herald wrote that he was "stupefied" by the "plagiarism" for "local nationalistic ends" of music with "supra-national associations" and "indissolubly linked with ideas on the brotherhood of mankind" (Buch, 2003, 243-47). A more credible appropriation of the Ode to Joy as a political anthem occurred in 1972 when a purely instrumental version of the opening melody of the Ode to Joy was adopted by the Council of Europe as the anthem of Europe.  In 1985, it was adopted by the European Union.                                                       Anthem of the European Union It's hard to imagine that an instrumental Ode to Joy without the singing can ever have the power of the original.  After all, Beethoven's baritone soloist was clear that a "more joyful sound" would have to be a song rather than a purely instrumental melody.  Moreover, it's not clear that this music has the emotional power to bind the European nations into one multinational community. If the people of Europe were to sing an anthem that would express their membership in the European Community, what would be the words for that song?  Generally, national anthems tell stories about the heroic historical events that have made the nation great.  What heroic story could a European anthem tell?  Could the lyrics of the Ode to Joy--perhaps slightly altered--tell that European story? One answer to those questions came on Christmas Day in 1989 in Berlin when Leonard Bernstein conducted a performance of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony that was broadcast by satellite transmission to countries around the world.  Bernstein made one change in the Ode to Joy: he replaced Freude with Freiheit.  In a program note for the concert, he wrote: There is apparently conjecture that Schiller may have produced a second sketch of his poem, Ode to Joy, which carried the title Ode to Freedom. Most researchers today are of the opinion, however, that this rumor is a fraud originated by Friedrich Ludwig Jahn.  Whether true or not, I believe that this is a heaven-sent moment when we should sing the word "Freedom" wherever the score reads "Joy."  If there ever were a historical moment in which one can neglect the theoretical discussions of academics in the name of human freedom, this is it.  And I believe that Beethoven would have given us his blessing!  Let freedom live!" (Buch, 2003, 261-62). The "historical moment" was the first year of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of communism that began with mass protests against communist rule across Eastern Europe.  In November of 1988, Estonia became the first Soviet Republic to declare its independence from Moscow.  Others followed.  On November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell.  It had been built in 1961 to keep people in communist East Berlin from running away to freedom in West Berlin.  Once the Berlin Wall came down, it became clear that East and West Germany would eventually be reunified under the rule of a liberal democratic government. Thus, in the fall of 1989, it seemed that the Cold War was coming to an end, and that the "Free World" had defeated communism.  In the journal The National Interest, Francis Fukuyama proclaimed "The End of History": history as the human search for the fully satisfying social order had come to an end, he argued, because most people in the world today agree in principle that liberal democracy is the best social order because it secures the freedom that allows human beings to pursue their happiness.  Fukuyama's article provoked an international debate over whether his argument was correct. Apparently, Bernstein agreed with Fukuyama that 1989 was the "historical moment" for celebrating the triumph of freedom.  And if I am right about the message of Fidelio, Bernstein was justified in thinking that Beethoven would have given his blessing to turning the Ode to Joy into an Ode to Freedom because freedom is the precondition for joy. So we see that music really can bind human beings into a social order--perhaps even a global social order--particularly when the theme of that music is the universal human longing for freedom. REFERENCES Brown, Donald.  1991.  Human Universals.  Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Buch, Esteban.  2003.  Beethoven's Ninth: A Political History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Conard, N. J., M. Malina, and S. C. Munzel. 2009.  "New Flutes Document the Earliest Musical Tradition in Southwestern Germany."  Nature 460 (7256): 737-740. Darwin, Charles.  2004.  The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd edition.  New York: Penguin Books. Dissanayake, Ellen.  2021.  "Ancestral Human Mother-Infant Interaction Was an Adaptation that Gave Rise to Music and Dance."  Behavioral and Brain Sciences, doi:10.1017/S01405225X20001144, e68. Dunbar, R. I. M.  2012a.  "On the Evolutionary Function of Song and Dance."  In N. Bannan, ed., Music, Language, and Human Evolution, 201-214.  Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dunbar, R. I. M.  2012b.  "Bridging the Bonding Gap: The Transition from Primates to Humans."  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Science, 367 (1597): 1837-1846. Dunbar, R. I. M., and S. Schultz.  2010.  "Bondedness and Sociality."  Behaviour 147 (7): 775-803. Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2018.  "Four Principles of Biomusicology."  In Henkjan Honing, ed., The Origins of Musicality, 23-48. Gardner, Howard.  2011.  Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.  New York: Basic Books. Honing, Henkjan, ed.  2018.  The Origins of Musicality.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer.  2009.  Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Martens, Marilee A., Sarah J. Wilson, and David C. Reutens.  2008.  "Research Review: Williams Syndrome: A Critical Review of the Cognitive, Behavioral, and Neuroanatomical Phenotype."  The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49 (6): 576-608. Mehr, Samuel A., et al.  2019.  "Universality and Diversity in Human Song." Science 366: 957-970. Miller, Geoffrey F.  2000.  "Evolution of Human Music Through Sexual Selection."  In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, and S. Brown, eds., The Origins of Music, 329-360.  Cambridge, MA:  MIT Press. Morley, Iain.  2018.  The Prehistory of Music.  Oxford: Oxford University Press. Patel, A. D.  2010.  "Music, Biological Evolution, and the Brain."  In M. Bailar, ed., Emerging Disciplines, 1-37.  Houston, TX: Rice University Press. Patel, A. D.  2018.  "Music as a Transformative Technology of the Mind: An Update."  In Henkjan Honing, ed., The Origins of Musicality, 113-126.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Prum, Richard O.  2012.  "Aesthetic Evolution by Mate Choice: Darwin's Really Dangerous Idea."  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 367: 2253-2265. Prum, Richard O.  2017.  The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World--and Us.  New York: Doubleday. Sachs, Matthew E., Robert J. Ellis, Gottfried Schlaug, and Psyche Loui.  2016.  "Brain Connectivity Reflects Human Aesthetic Responses to Music."  Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience, 884-891, doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw009. Sacks, Oliver.  2007.  Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Thakur, Donovon, Marilee a. Martens, David S. Smith, and Ed Roth.  2018.  "Williams Syndrome and Music: A Systematic Integrative Review."  Frontieres in Psychology 9:2203.  doi: 109.3389/fpsyg.2018. 02203. Savage, Patrick E., Psyche Loui, Bronwyn Tarr, Adena Schachner, Luke Glowacki, Steven Mithen, and W. Tecunseh Fitch.  2021. "Music as a Coevolved System for Social Bonding." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 44, e59: 1-22.  doi:10.1017/S0140525X20000333. Savage, Patrick E., S. Brown, E. Sakai, and T. E. Currie.  2015.  "Statistical Universals Reveal the Structures and Functions of Human Music."  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112 (29), 8987-8992. Swafford, Jan.  2014.  Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.