‘If the head be evill the body cannot be good’: Legitimate Rebellion in Gascoigne and Kinwelmershe’s Jocasta
Allyna E. Ward
University Newcastle upon Tyne
Allyna E. Ward. "‘If the head be evill the body cannot be good’: Legitimate Rebellion in Gascoigne and Kinwelmershe’s Jocasta". Early Modern Literary Studies 14.1/Special Issue 18 (May, 2008) 3.1-33<URL: http://purl.oclc.org/emls/14-1/article2.htm>.
1. The collaborative translation that was the
first English version of Euripides’ play Phoenissae,
the tragedy Jocasta, first performed
during the Christmas revels in 1566 at
3. Like Thyestes, the action in Jocasta is framed by a curse from Hell
that is a punishment for the sins of Laius, Oedipus’ father, and places the
damnable acts of the two sons of Oedipus and Jocasta within this frame. Jasper Heywood elaborated on the link between
tyranny and Hell when he added a final scene to his translation of Seneca’s Thyestes. The original play opens with the Fury Megeara
rousing Tantalus with threatening words to remind him of the consequences of
his sins for his descendants:
Onward, damned shade, and goad thy sinful house to madness [furiis]. Let there be rivalry in guilt of every kind; let the sword be drawn on this side and on that; let their passions know no bounds, no shame; let blind fury [caecus furor] prick on their souls; heartless be parents’ rage, and to children’s children let the long trail of sin lead down; let time be given to none to hate old sins – ever let new arise, many in one, and let crime, e’en midst its punishment, increase (Thyestes, 24-32).By adding an additional scene in which Thyestes, not Atreus, begs for punishment from the infernal deities, Heywood returns the play to Hell, where it began. The audience is meant to feel uncomfortable with Atreus’ victory over his brother and Thyestes’ passive faith in the heavens. For Seneca, this difficult end perfectly represents human irrationality and the effects of uncontrolled passions. But for Jasper Heywood, this moral paradox was not suited to a modern Christian audience; in the added material at the end of the drama he transforms Seneca’s morally unresolved tragedy with Christian eschatology. All the events in the tragedy are thus framed by the infernal realm and we can map the intrusion of Hell onto the earthly events of the play (3).
To scourge the cryme of wicked Laius,Laius was punished because he abducted the son of Pelops (4), Chrysippus, and raped him. At the start of Euripides’ play, Jocasta reveals that her husband Laius was warned by Phoebus against having children. But because he was drunk and full of lust he impregnated Jocasta and tried to hide his sin by disposing of their baby Oedipus. In Seneca’s play, the exiled, and mad, adult Oedipus swears to his daughter Antigone that he can see his father’s ghost haunting him and seeking revenge:
And wrecke the foule Incest of Oedipus,
The angry Gods styrred up theyr sonnes, by strife
With blades embrewed to reave eache others life (Jocasta, 244).
My Fathers ghost to bidde me come apace, and not to deare.5. In the English Renaissance retelling of the story, Gascoigne and Kinwelmershe close the argument with a statement about unhappy fortune (Fortunatus Infoelis): ‘Creon is King, the [figure] of Tyranny, / And Oedipus, myrrour of misery’ (244). Crucially, this mention of tyranny is not a point made in either Seneca or Euripedes and is the first indication of the impetus behind Gascoigne and Kinwelmershe’s adaptation of the text. Ironically, it is Creon who is cast as a legitimate king despite Jocasta’s and Antignone’s fears about his character and the identification of him as a tyrant in the Argument. In the author’s exploration of good kingship and its converse, tyranny, the tragedy shows that Creon wants to rule well but he is, like Sackville’s Gorboduc, mortal and fallible. When faced with the decision to save his own son for the benefit of the realm or allow
[. . . ]
And loe, dost thou not plainly see, how he my panting Ghost
With raking pawes doth hale and pull, which grieves conscience most?
Dost thou seene Ghostes in such grisly guyse?
Thebias 102). Newton
In Euripides’ tragedy, Creon is both
grief-stricken by the news of his son’s death, which occurs offstage, and also
proud of his son’s sacrifice for the nation: ‘My child has perished, dying for
the land. / The name he leaves is noble, but sad for me’ (Euripides 1312-13).
But in the Renaissance version of Euripides’ play, Creon finds out about his
son’s death onstage, thus giving him a motive for seizing power in
7. The English Reformers argued that if God ordained tyrants to reign on earth and men believe it is just to resist them, then we problematically make God the author of evil. They both resolved this dilemma by suggesting, quite controversially, that not all powers are ordained by God. The arguments of John Ponet and Christopher Goodman vary in their methodology but in the end they both reach the same conclusions: “When our rulers are tyrants or oppressors, ‘they are not God’s ordinance’, so that ‘in disobeying and resisting such, we do not resist God’s ordinance’” (Cited in Skinner 228). Tyrannous magistrates, argue Ponet and Goodman, come to their position accidentally – or when the people make the wrong decision. They determined, from evidence in Scripture, that God preordained magistrates and enabled His people to recognise and accept His choice (by the gift of grace). Ponet and Goodman eventually devised a list of criteria to support deposing a tyrant from office in defence of the private-law argument for resistance. This was based on different biblical passages and history, but the criteria differed even between the two English Reformers.
8. Ponet and Goodman supplied lists of criteria for choosing and electing a ruler, demonstrating that if the ruler is tyrannical then it is the fault of the people, not God. In A Short Treatise on Political Power (first published in 1556) Ponet established how to distinguish a tyrant from a godly magistrate. Defining the tyrant, he determined, “an evil governor men properly call a tyrant”, he addresses the question of whether it was lawful for men to depose a tyrant. Both secular and Biblical history, he argued, provided many examples of instances where it was just and lawful to depose or kill a tyrant: “to depose and punish wicked governors has not been only received and exercised in political matters, but also in the church” (Ponet 5, 6). Ponet emphasised how Christians have a duty to uphold God’s commandments even if that means resisting their ruler and his argument for resistance includes positive examples of men and nations who resisted tyranny. In closing Ponet offers English Christians the following warning:
Read all the history of the Bible, and the prophecies of the prophets, and you will evidently see how people and nations have been destroyed for maintaining such idolaters and wicked men as the papists are, and where such wickedness has been used and not corrected (Ponet 21).In the 1550s the English Protestant reformers saw resistance to tyranny as an obligation Christians had to their God. Failure to meet this obligation and permitting tyrants and idolaters to rule leads to the annihilation of nations and people.
9. Goodman proposed a slightly altered doctrine for resistance in his treatise, How Superior Powers Ought To Be Obeyed By Their Subjects: And Wherein They May Lawfully By God's Word Be Disobeyed And Resisted, published in 1558. His proposals differed from Ponet’s because he supported the private-law theory proposed by Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon. With the reissue of Melanchthon’s Epitome of Moral Philosphy in 1546 and Prolegomena to Cicero’s Treatise on Moral Obligation in 1554, the Reformers enforced the theory that when a magistrate behaves immorally and exceeds the limits of his office then he eliminates himself from an ordained position. The unlawful magistrate reduces himself to a private citizen and therefore is subject to the laws of that society.10. In contrast to Ponet’s arguments, the popular Tudor document “A Homily Against Disobedience and Wilful Rebellion” defends passive resistance to tyrannous regimes. The homily, which was printed first in 1547 and then reissued in 1570, states that the only way to overcome the punishment that God sends is to pray for forgiveness so that he may send a good prince, or make a tyrant act like a king. The author offers a warning that men must remain obedient or be condemned to Hell, like Lucifer:
Wherefore, good people, let us as the chyldren of obedience feare the dreadfull execution of God and lyve in quiet obedience to be the chyldren of everlasting salvation. For as heaven is the place of good obedient subjectes, and Hell the pryson and dungeon of rebels against God and their prince, so is that realme happy where most obedience of subjectes doth appeare, being the very figure of heaven; and contrarywyse where most rebellions and rebels be, ther is the expresse similitude of Hell, and the rebels them selves are the very figures of feendes and devyls, and their captayne the ungratious patterne of Lucifer and Satan, the prince of darknesse, of whose rebellion as they be folowers, so shall they of his damnation in Hell undoubtedly be partakers (Bond 229, My Emphasis).The threat of damnation for rebels contrasts with the author’s reflections on heaven and obedient subjects so that the reader clearly understands that rebellion should be regarded as a devil’s game and indicative of damnation.
Here, Jocasta frames the play in the context of a Hellish curse on her family. Euripides’ text puts it plainly: ‘When [Oedipus’] sons beards had grown, they shut him up / behind the bolts that [his] fate might be forgotten / which needs too much intelligence to explain it. / There in the house he lives, and struck by fate / he calls unholy curses on his children’ (63-7). In turn, the brothers agree to divide their rule of
There buried in the depthe of dungeon darke,
(Alas) [Oedipus] lead his discontented life,
Accursing still his stony harted sonnes,
And wishing all th’ infernall sprites of Hell,
To breathe such poysned hate into their brestes,
As eche with other fall to bloudy warres,
And so with pricking poynt of piercing blade,
To rippe their bowels out, that eche of them
With others bloud might stayne his giltie hands,
And bothe at once by stroke of speedie death
Be foorthwith throwne into the Stigian lake
(Gascoigne Jocasta, 250-1).
12. It was not just the moral character of the tyrant the Elizabethans found noteworthy, but also of the victims of tyranny. The scope of the discussions on obedience and resistance demonstrate that both sides of the debate used the threat of damnation for very different ends: Ponet, for example, said that by allowing a tyrant to reign subjects disobey God and therefore bring their own damnation, but the Homily threatened damnation to those who rebelled against any of God’s magistrates.
The writings of the reformers on the continent and in
14. Criticism of Gascoigne and Kinwelmershe’s translation points to the text as an English imitation, rather than a translation from either the Greek or the Italian. The tragedy is made particularly English when the authors transform the tone by including a comment on divine order in the ‘Argument’; which effectively alters the political tenor of the play. David Bevington comments that the tragedy is evidence for a specifically Elizabethan anxiety concerning tyranny:
Jocasta reveal[s], in the translator’s marginalia and prefatory material, a preoccupation with defining the ‘tyranny’ of Creon and the laudable resistance of Antigone, in seeming disregard for the play’s original theme of conflict between a religious code and the needs of a secure state (Bevington Tudor Drama, 164).Bevington’s remarks are somewhat over-zealous and suggest his own agenda to place the play in the category of what he calls, ‘tyrant plays’. The play does certainly fit into this category but Bevington does not account for the Italian influence of Ludovico Dolce. Furthermore, there is minimal evidence in the play for Antigone’s actions being rewarded; despite her steadfastness she still loses out in the end by being banished along with her father (5). As Bevington notes, the play is concerned with the tyranny of Creon and resistance to it, but, importantly, in light of the fact that the brothers are bad rulers.
15. The gloss emphasises the point about bad kingship, ‘if the head be evill the body cannot be good’, but the Dumb Shows, of the authors’ own invention, reveal a preoccupation not just with degrees of tyranny, but bad kingship and ambition. The play proper begins with an explanatory ‘Argument’, that details the events of the play, together with the dumb show that introduces ambition as a primary theme in the play. The first dumb show presents an allegory for ambition: ‘[this spectacle] representing unto us Ambition, by the hystorie of Sesostres king of Egypt, who [. . .] did in like maner cause those Kinges whom he had so overcome, to draw in his Chariote like Beastes and Oxen, thereby to content his unbrideled ambitious desire’ (246). From the meaning of the dumb show the audience anticipates a spectacle of unbridled ambition in the first act, especially when Jocasta mentions her warring sons and Servus comments: ‘Oh thunbridled mindes of ambicious men’ (251). Gascoigne and Kinwelmershe show this ambition to command two distinct political paths: one towards rebellion and one towards tyranny.
In the tragedy Jocasta manipulates her speech in order
to comment on the difficulty in trying to determine to what extent an official
king or magistrate may be considered a tyrant. Her advice to Eteocles about his
ambition and desire to rule is contrasted with Polynices’ introduction of a
foreign threat to
Dermot Cavanagh examines the language of counsel during this significant period
and his reading of Sackville and Norton’s drama Gorboduc places the play in a tradition of reshaping
The capacity of speech to destroy (and to order) society is a central aspect of [Sackville and Norton’s] historical concerns, but again the capacity to distinguish between these forms of language and to extinguish (or sustain) their use is far from assured (Cavanagh 37).18. According to Ponet and Goodman, if a prince, such as Eteocles, fails to protect his people and works for his own personal glory instead, then that ruler reduces himself to the status of an ordinary citizen and ought to be punished accordingly. Both English reformers based their arguments on the contention that not only are all rulers ordained by God but also, that rulers are ordained in order to uphold goodness, not evil. The discussions between Jocasta and her sons is crucial to our understanding of the play because she casts Eteocles as morally culpable for the ruin that befalls Thebes by emphasising his desire for personal satisfaction over the concerns of the people. The Chorus at the end of the first act stress the lesson about sovereign obligation that Jocasta tries to teach Polynices regarding his actions against
Yet Polynices, with signe of lesse disdaine,
Against this land hath brought from countries farre,
A forraine power, to end this cruell jarre,
Forgetting quite the dutie, love, and zeale,
He ought to beare unto this common weale (260).
By introducing the foreign threat, Polynices is as guilty as his tyrannous brother Eteocles and both sons are cast in culpable roles.
19. Although Jocasta’s condemnation of Eteocles casts him in the perpetrator role, it does not necessarily cast Polynices as a victim. Jocasta asks her rebellious son what glory he can hope to achieve by attacking his own country:
What spoyles? what Palmes? what signe of vi[ct]orie
Canst thou set up to have thy countrie woonne?
What title worthie of immortall fame,
Shall blased be in honor of thy name? (Gascoigne 274).
Polynices is not actually a ruler. He should
be in charge of
The authors complicate any coherent understanding of resistance theory by
presenting the audience with this difficult problem of judgement. So far the audience’s sympathies lie with
Polynices because his brother behaves tyrannously and deprives him of his
legitimacy and he is seeking justice. His error is a methodological political one, not an ethical error;
instead of listening to his mother’s advice to make peace he actively rebels
against Eteocles’ rule and introduces the foreign threat. His obstinacy against Jocasta’s counsel marks
him as a bad candidate for leadership in
Then thinke you now, that I can give consent
To yeld a part of my possession,
Wherin I live and lead the monarchie (271).
Eteocles’ desire to rule and deafness to his mother’s pleas and counsel cast him as both ambitious and as a bad ruler.
21. At one stage Jocasta offers her obstinate son Eteocles a warning about ambition and evil desire when she compares him to a tyrant:
If so thou nill O sonne, O cruell sonne,
In whose high
may justice builde hir boure brest
When princes harts wide open lye to wrong?
Why likes thee so the tipe of tyrannie
With others losse to gather greedy gaine? (273).
authors’ gloss clarifies Jocasta’s connection between the tyrant and his
people, ‘If the head be evill the body cannot be good’, and corresponds to the
advice in the Prologue of Cambises when
22. At the beginning of Jocasta the ‘Argument’ revealed that the gods are angry for the wicked crimes of Laius and the incest of Oedipus. As punishment, the gods cause the fatal strife between Eteocles and Polynices and replace them with Creon, ‘the [figure] of tyranny’ (Gascoigne Jocasta, Argument 244). Creon’s tyranny is commented on by his concerned niece Antigone before he ever appears on stage. Speaking with her brothers’ advisor Bailo, Antigone admits her distrust of her uncle:
Besides all this, a certaine jelousie,23. The Renaissance imitators still recalled Euripides’ emphasis on Creon’s tyranny but Gascoigne and Kinwelmershe never show him behaving as a tyrant. Instead the Elizabethan authors depart from their source material, merely alluding to Creon’s tyranny and making him the only suitable candidate to govern
Lately conceyved (I know not whence it spring)
Of Creon, my mothers brother, appaules me much,
Him doubt I more than any danger else (257).
O Fierce and furious Mars, whose harmefull harte,In this invocation to Mars, the Chorus blame the god of war for replacing fraternal love with wrath. Following this the Chorus chastise the gods for creating a mirror of Hell on earth by causing the brothers’ discord:
Rejoyceth most to shed the giltlesse blood
[. . .]
Father of warre and death, that dost remove
With wrathfull wrecke from wofull mothers breast,
The trustie pledges of their tender love
Wherwith thou raisest from the depth of Hell,After blaming Oedipus (for the curse), then Mars, the Chorus’ excitatio reproaches the furies for coming up from Hell to increase their kingdom (‘[to enrich] that pit’) (6). Gascoigne’s trope (he is identified at the end as the author of this passage) imprints a link in the audience’s mind between the brothers’ actions on earth and Hell; looking ahead to the villainy of Marlowe’s bombastic conqueror Tamburlaine, the scourge of God, who boasts to the Soldan, ‘Hell and Elysium swarm with ghosts of men / That I have sent from sundry foughten fields / To spread my fame through hell and up to heaven’ (I Tamburlaine V.i.466-7).
The wrathfull sprites of all the furies there,
Who when they wake, doe wander every where,
And never rest to range about the coastes,
Tenriche that pit with spoile of damned ghostes
24. Gascoigne’s Chorus concludes with a prayer to God to end the misery in the city:
And thou great God, that doest all things decree,
[. . .]
Regard not [Oedipus’] offence but heare our cries,
And spedily redresse our miseries
For what can we poore wofull wretches doe
But crave thy aide, and onely cleave therto?
their call to Mars and prayer to God, the Chorus place the tragedy of
When both of Oedipus’ sons are cast in the roles of villains, one a rebel and
the other a tyrant, the authors then attempt to vilify Creon who uses the
internal chaos in
Hereto it commes when kinges will not consent
To grave advise, but followe wilfull will.
[ . . . ]
These mischiefes spring when rebels will arise
To work revenge and judge their princes fact.
This, this ensues when noble-men do faile
In loyall trouth, and subjectes will be kinges
Eubulus’ lines allocate the blame for the misfortunes in
Rather than sacrifice his own son, Creon insists that Meneceus leave
Will might duke Creon driven by destinie,
(If true it be that olde Tyresias saith)
Redeme our citie from this miserie,
By his consent unto Meneceus death,
Who of himselfe wold faine have lost his breth:
But every man is loth for to fulfill
The heavenly hest that pleaseth not his will (294).
The Chorus interpret Creon’s actions according to a crucial ‘if’, thus making it entirely ambiguous how the audience should regard his motives. Creon’s challenge against Tyresias’ prophecy as the word of Jove contrasts with Horestes, who believes the malicious advice of a Vice figure and proceeds to kill his mother.
27. The concluding lines of the Chorus serve to highlight the political lesson of resistance:
That publique weale must needes to ruine goIn light of Creon’s unwillingness to sacrifice his son, the Chorus say that the only way to save
Where private profite is preferred so.
Yet mightie God, thy only aide we crave,
This towne from siege, and us from sorowe save (294).
Meneceus, like his father, is strong-willed, but,
unlike his father, he considers the commonwealth before his personal
comfort. Before leaving the city,
Meneceus dies as a result of a self-inflicted wound to his heart and asks a
messenger to tell his father his dying words: ‘(sith Jove will have it so) /
To save your lives, I may receive my death’ (304). In light of his son’s sacrifice and Tyresias’
prophecy, Creon accepts that it is his destiny to rule
In the closing scenes of the play, Creon learns that all the possible
candidates for the throne, his sister Jocasta and nephews Eteocles and
Polynices, are dead. He approaches
Oedipus and Antigone with news that he was named as the heir before Eteocles
died, that Antigone will marry Haemon and that Oedipus must leave the city
walls so that the curse on
Tyresias he that knoweth things to come,Here Creon finally attempts to fulfil the role of king by addressing the safety of the commonwealth by banishing Oedipus. Neither a rebel like Polynices nor a tyrant like Eteocles, his claim is legitimised and he is now cast as a suitable king. His rule came to him only by the unfortunate events between his nephews and therefore, by exercising a form of passive resistance and as a named heir, in the eyes of the law, Creon is a legitimate ruler.
By trustie tokens hath foretolde the towne,
That while thou didst within the walles remayne,
It should be plagued still with penurie (318).
The final stages of the play complicate any sense of legitimacy that has been
established through the contrast between Oedipus’ rebellious and tyrannous sons
and the obedient Creon. On one hand
Creon must banish Oedipus for the safety of
At the end of the play the rebels are either dead or banished and the obedient
subjects are rewarded. The Chorus and
the Epilogue offer the tragedy of
a plaine Type or figure of unstable fortune, who dothe oftentimes raise to heighte of dignitie the vile and unnoble, and in like manner throweth downe fr[om] the place of promoti[on], even those wh[om] before she hir selfe had thither advaunced (308).The point about Creon’s variable fortune is made by both the link with the lines of the argument: ‘[Antigone] a lothesome lyfe doth leade, / Yet rather chose to guide hir benisht sire, / Than cruell Creon should have his desire. / Creon is King, the type* of Tyranny’, where the gloss for the word ‘type’ is ‘Figure’, and by the action that follows the lesson about Fortune: ‘after hir departure came in Duke Creon’ (308). Creon is identified as a suitable, and legitimate, king in the end because he does not actively rebel or resist Polynices or Eteocles. That events turn in his favour before he acts is wholly outside the scope of resistance theory and are attributed to Fortuna’s unexpected blessing, indicated in the final dumb show.
Contemporary discussions of tyranny and obedience were complex and under
constant revision; where once it was morally wrong to resist a tyrant, it later
became morally wrong to endure the reign of a tyrant. Creon is a complex character; although he is identified
as a tyrant at the start of the play, he proves to the audience and the people
Due to the varying degrees of resistance theory it is evident that
Elizabethans, as one might expect, struggled to adopt a consistent approach to
dealing with a tyrant. The discussions
on resistance and obedience alternated between supporting a theory of
resistance and totally condemning resistance in favour of complete obedience at
all times. Creon passively watches the
events in the political arena, only expressing his condemnation of Polynices
and Eteocles on a verbal level, and refuses to act until he is handed the throne
peacefully and his adversaries are punished for their transgressions. Gascoigne and Kinwelmershe’s tragedy
illustrates a point about unquestioning faith:
Creon’s refusal to sacrifice his son for
1 For over a century critics have recognised the distance between the Elizabethan text Jocasta and the Euripides’ Greek drama, Phoenissae and the English authors’ debt to Dolce. See, for example, Foster. For a detailed discussion of Dolce’s translation and its similarities to Seneca’s Oedipus see Terpening; especially 92ff.
2 Further analysis of
the printing industry in the 1570s also points to the text’s value as a literary document rather than a drama
solely for the theatre. By the time
Jocasta was printed the publishers were looking to appeal to a wider market
than just academics and gentlemen. Greg
Walker summarises this new trend in printing history: ‘printers would have been
wise to attempt to sell their playbooks to a wider market than players
alone. And there is evidence that they
did so [. . .] By the 1570s at the latest it is clear that a number of plays
were being printed primarily for readers.
[. . .] it is clear that printers were aware of and seeking to exploit a
market among private readers beyond schools in universities’ (
3 Similarly, Seneca’s version of Phoenissae, called Thebias by the Elizabethan translator Thomas Newton in 1581, is also framed within Hell. Some scholars believe that Seneca’s play was left unfinished since it does not follow his traditional five act-structure and is without a chorus. Additionally, the Latin text is unusually short at just 664 lines. R.J. Tarrant contests this and argues that the play is complete and represents a new form for the Roman writer. See Tarrant.
4 Pelops was the son of Tantalus and Dione. Tantalus cut Pelops into pieces and made his flesh into a stew, then served it to the gods, for which he was punished. This is the subject of Seneca’s tragedy Thyestes.
5 Bruce R. Smith explores the combined affect of sensation and sententiousness that occupies the play both verbally and visually. Renaissance authors (including Dolce) depart from Euripides, and render the play ‘modern’ by emphasising the moral justice of the situation. In contrast Euripides emphasised the irony and the incongruity between human suffering and the ineluctable plans of the gods. Like Smith, Robert S. Miola is also concerned with the way the Elizabethan imitators altered the Greek play. He focuses on the process of Christianising the ancient pagan text. See Miola and Smith, especially, ‘Tragedy’.
6 On how much of this invocation to Mars can be attributed to the Elizabethan imitator, rather than Euripedes or Dolce, Cunliffe states that all the material that diverges from the Greek source can be found in Dolce. On the invocation to Mars Cunliffe comments, ‘Gascoigne has totally deserted the rich imagery of Euripides, yet has found means to form an original ode, which is by no means destitute of pathos or imagination’ (Cunliffe lxxxiv). He goes on to credit the English imitators with the ‘smoothness of the English rendering’.
7 See also e.g., 278, 282-3, 294, 300, 307.
8 See Cavanagh’s argument that Sackville and Norton were interested in the importance of opening issues up to debate in the political arena in order to carefully consider all sides before making a decision, and hence the importance of counsel in Gorboduc, 45-52. For the relationship between the discourse of counsel and virtue see 52-7.
Responses to this piece intended for the Readers' Forum may be sent to the Editor at M.Steggle@shu.ac.uk.
© 2008-, Matthew Steggle (Editor, EMLS).