Talk:Jephtha (Handel)

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

move to Jephtha (Handel)

as per my project to unify the naming conventions amongs handel oratorios (discussed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera a little bit ago), I will move this article to "Jephtha (Handel)" early next week. Any objections? Fred 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

Article might be improved by indicating that Handel borrows from Masses by Franz Johann Habermann (1708-1782) in the opening and later scenes, and that the second part's finale contains some of his finest music, leading to a setting, the libretto of which the manuscrript, published in facsimile by Chrysander in 1885, suggests might possibly be a late afterhought, of Pope's famous line "Whatever is,is right". Both the setting and the events of Act III cast some interesting light on the implications of the line.Delahays (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with including more information about the borrowings. I don't believe that the issue of Handel's borrowings (and reuse of his own music) is covered very well on WP, however I think the issue needs a coordinated approach so that it doesn't become presented in a disparate fashion across articles. Where do you think a good central location for the discussion about how to present his borrowings and reuse would be? GFHandel ♬ 21:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that for the moment the sensible thing to do would be to include specifics, where known, in the article on each major work. A separate article on Handel's borrowings would drive whoever has to write it into a deep depression and ( for some wikipedians even worse) the dreaded Original Research. Also the issues are very complex - a good many other baroque composers borrowed, and interpolation by other hands occurred in Handel opera productions in his own lifetime, though as far as we know not those under his own supervision. Some of Handel's borrowings (e.g. the Postillons movement in "Belshazzar") are from Telemann, who was a close friend - they even exchanged plants. There are distinctions to be made between literal incorporation of borrowings in entirety, and partial recompositions, not to mention partial incorporations ( as in at least one Jeptha number). But at least the article on Israel in Egypt should be an early target for revision. If you read Tovey's analysis - a useful secondary source, but no more - you will get some idea of the complexities of the borrowings in this one oratorio, admittedly the extreme case. Piecemeal accretion first - synthesis if you get lucky, later.Delahays (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protest. I wrote the above in good faith using no technique I haven't already tried. Why has it not been properly transferred to the talk page, as it should have been? If someone can fix this, please do so. I find Wikipedia's little quirks the opposite of professional, and most unfriendly.Delahays (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. See Help:Editing and Help:Wiki markup. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I hope GF Handel gets round to reading it. Best wishesDelahays (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To come back to this vexed issue of borrowing. The Handel Institute suggests that 19 of the 44 numbers in Jeptha are derived from earlier compositions - 10 of them by Handel himself, and 9 from 6 masses by Frantisek Habermann, including 7 of the 9 choruses. That's a substantial proportion. Surely it should be mentionedDelahays (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jephtha (Handel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory Paragraph

"Unlike the original Biblical story, an angel intervenes to stop the sacrifice, and Iphis only needs to dedicate her life to the Lord. In contrast, the Biblical story states that her father chose to sacrifice her, but a short reprieve is arranged, after which Iphis dutifully returns and is killed."

This is too definitive. The biblical story is deliberately ambiguous, hence the whole debate about what happened to her. The bible does not say she is "killed", it says he "did with her according to his vow that he had made". I suggest the paragraph here should reflect that.Adondai (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jepththa's vow was to sacrifice the first living thing he saw on his return, which turned out to be his only child, so if he "did with her according to his vow" it is clear that he sacrificed her, it does not have any element of ambiguity. In any case WP editors are not supposed to interpret primary texts such as the Bible for ourselves but to cite reliable sources and that information comes from [1] "In the Bible there is no question that the sacrifice was carried out" and [2] "he must execute his only child, his daughter Iphis. This sequence of events actually only takes one chapter in the Bible and there Iphis is sacrificed." It is what the sources say, unequivocally. I am not aware of any "debate" about it, but am guessing that it must be fundamentalist or literalist Christians who don't want to think that the Bible endorses human sacrifice, but this is an article not about religious belief but an oratorio and the WP:RS for the oratorio state that the Bible story ends with Jephtha sacrificing his daughter. I have added citations to that sentence in the article to indicate that this is what the sources say.Smeat75 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vow of sacrifice... or service?

Not heard the oratorio myself, but discussion on Radio 4 just now indicates that the vow was to sacrifice _or dedicate to a life of service_ but that on his return, and meeting his daughter, the hero forgets the second part of his vow and, instead, thinks he has vowed to kill her. 79.76.88.90 (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]