Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Augustine and Culture
Seminar Program
Writing Awards
Spring 2019
Dear Writing Awards winners,
Congratulations from the ACSP Writing Awards committee on your superb accomplishment! The essays
you have submitted were selected from a wide array of submissions from across the Augustine &
Culture Seminar Program, showcasing the talent, creativity, and high caliber analytical skills of our first-
year students. You should be proud that your work has risen to the top and earned this recognition.
Dating back to 1992, the ACSP Writing Awards were established to honor excellent student essay writing
in the first-year program. Since then, the ACSP and the Honors Program have continued to support and
develop quality student writing and to celebrate and publish the best efforts for the fall and spring
semesters, expanding the categories for submission as well. You are now a part of this long-standing
tradition. Thank you for sharing your work with us, and we wish you the best of luck as you continue
your academic career!
Sincerely,
Prof. Noel Dolan
On behalf of the ACSP Writing Awards Committee
Congratulations to the Spring 2019 award recipients!
Margaret Cecilia Baney Award
Clair Barrett (winner)
“Into Aeneas’s Future”
Written for Dr. Elizabeth-Jane McGuire
Gianna Guttilla (honorable mention)
“A Conversation Between a Philosopher, a God and a Wildcat”
Written for Dr. John Paul Spiro
Robert Russell, OSA, Award
Natalia Moroch (winner)
“Nature and Spiritual Conversion: Augustine’s Transition into a Nature-Loving Christian”
Written for Dr. Chara Armon
Seamus Heaney Award
Dylan Sawyer (winner)
“Markian Stoicism”
Written for Dr. Gregory Hoskins
Earl Bader Award for Creative Writing
Courtney Johnston
“At First a Rushing Wind”
Written for Dr. Timothy Horner
Isidora Martin (honorable mention)
“Second Shepherd’s Play: A Dramatic Revival”
Written for Professor Noel Dolan
Margaret Cecilia Baney Award for
exceptional student writing in the
Augustine and Culture Seminar Program
Winner
Clair Barrett
“Into Aeneas’s Future”
Written for Dr. Elizabeth-Jane McGuire
Honorable Mention
Gianna Guttilla
“A Conversation Between a Philosopher, a God and a
Wildcat”
Written for Dr. John Paul Spiro
Into Aeneas’s Future
Clair Barrett
Written for Dr. Elizabeth-Jane McGuire
Cliffton Strengths defines a person with the strength of Futuristic as someone who is
“inspired by the future and what could be” while also “inspiring others with their visions of the
future.” This strength directly translates into a powerful leadership quality. A true leader is
someone with the ability to fight the temptations to recede into the past and get lost in the
present, while striving to inspire those around them to share a better future. Throughout Virgil’s
The Aeneid, Aeneas is forced to face his past, present, and future all while leading his Trojans
through tumultuous waters, fierce battles, and false homes. An inability to let go of the past and
present introduces a conflict in the mind of Aeneas, prohibiting him from reaching his destined
future. As Aeneas assumes his role as the leader of the Trojans, he quickly realizes that living in
the past and present is of no help to his people. The most significant element of Aeneas’s growth
as a leader is his learning to leave the past and present behind and to look towards the future.
Aeneas becomes completely enthralled in the past when encountering Helen during the
fall of Troy. He is upset at her, believing that her past actions were the cause of the disastrous
pillage of his home. Ready to “pay Helen back, crime for crime,” for supposedly being the cause
of his “fallen country,” Aeneas loses sight of the present and future while focusing his rage on
such a peripheral issue (Aeneid 2:712-14). His preoccupation with this situation, one which is out
of his control, is a poor use of energy and time that should be spent leading his people out of
Troy. Killing Helen would help no one and would only cause anger from the gods, therefore
causing more harm to Aeneas and his people. It is only Venus who reminds him that he has more
important tasks at hand than Helen and her destructive tendencies. A man who is willing to put
his people at risk for the satisfaction of revenge is neither an effective nor focused leader.
Aeneas’s concentration on the past inhibits him from being the ideal leader of a nation that’s
only hope is in looking towards the future.
Through the uncertainty of losing a loved one, Aeneas grows as a leader and finds
reassurance in the future of the Trojans. Aeneas not only leaves Troy behind, but he painfully
leaves his loving wife Creusa behind as well. After telling Aeneas he will find a new wife and
home, her final words to him were, “Hold dear to the son we share, we love together” as he
tearfully tried to hug her spectral body three times (Aeneid 2: 978-86). Aeneas attempting to
grasp his late wife signifies him trying to hold onto his past, realizing that both are not tangible
and slipping through his fingers against his will. At first, he is reluctant to end the leg of his
journey that he has traveled with Creusa; however, this painful separation reassures him that both
Iulus and his people will benefit from his continuation of the voyage. This opens Aeneas’s eyes
for the first time to his fate, acting as a driving force for him to painfully leave his home and his
wife for new territory. Had Aeneas not been reminded of his future by Creusa he could have died
reminiscing about the past, never making it out of his homeland in the first place. Aeneas’
nostalgic tendencies begin to weaken as he leads the Trojans away from their home towards a
more promising destiny. Leading his people after the tragic death of his wife and pillage of his
land overnight allows Aeneas to recognize how fit he is to lead the Trojans to their future.
After dealing with his past, Aeneas begins his battle with the present at Carthage while on
his grueling journey towards the future. What should have been a short stop on the way to Italy
quickly turned into spending years at Carthage. The Trojan people establish a community and
Aeneas falls in love with Dido. Although he is not living in the past anymore, Aeneas falls into
the habit of living for the present. This would not be a problem for those who lack a destiny, a
future forced upon them by the gods and fates. However, Aeneas’s destiny, and that of his
descendants, demands that he settles in Italy instead of Carthage. After Aeneas becomes
comfortable in his current situation, Mercury reprimands him for being “blind to your own
realm, oblivious to your fate!” (Aeneid 4:333), scaring Aeneas into leaving for Italy. Being
startled by a God to both leave a place he has begun to call home and a woman he has begun to
love shapes Aeneas into a more responsible follower of his fate. This emphasizes the mistakes he
has made in relation to his fate, so in the future he is less likely to do it again. Having to
apologize to Dido is Aeneas’s punishment for steering off course, a mistake that allows him to
grow into a leader with greater integrity yet kills Dido in the process. Although he was startled
by Mercury, he still had the option to stay in the comfort of Carthage or leave for uncertain
places. Iulus, his people, and his destiny all were driving forces in his realization that living for
the present is just a way of forgetting the importance of the future. Aeneas’s reluctance to leave
the comfort of the present presents him with the guilt of Dido’s death and possibility of ruining
others’ futures. This realization grants Aeneas a greater feeling of responsibility to guide his
people out of Carthage and into the future.
Leaving his past and present behind, Aeneas reaches a point of self-discovery while
presented with a physical sign of his future. After years of fierce battles, horrible sailing
conditions, and losing many people, Aeneas is faced with yet another hardship. Aeneas must
fight to win the hand of Lavinia, the king’s daughter, in order to become the inheritor of Italy.
Before becoming too disheartened, Venus reminds him of the fate of his descendants by giving
him the shield with the future portrayed on it. Although he “knows nothing of these events” he
enjoys the future he is seeing for his descendants, “lifting onto his shoulders now the fame and
fates of all his children’s children” (Aeneid 8:856-58). The majestic shield shelters him from the
physical and emotional shortcomings he might face in his epic fight against Turnus. Physically,
the divine shield protects him from Turnus and his men’s ferocious attacks. Emotionally, the
celestial safeguard shields him from any doubt that he could have of his future. The mighty gift
from the gods is the most physical affirmation Aeneas has of his fate, for it is irreversibly etched
into the resilient metal. Before the massive battle that is about to occur, this shield reassures
Aeneas of his fate as well as the fate of his successors, allowing him to focus on the important
task that determines his fate and nothing else. It is Aeneas’s fate that reminds Aeneas of the true
reason why he is fighting gruesome battles and leaving the past behind, for the wellbeing and
security for his children’s children.
Once Aeneas has a set belief in his ability to follow his future, his ideas are tested
immediately. When Turnus kills Pallas, Aeneas is overcome with immense grief and anger. In
Aeneas’s eyes, Pallas was a clear symbol of the future and what was to come. Pallas’s death
contradicts Aeneas’ newly found belief that the future is unchanging, because Pallas was an
integral part of his version of the future. While grieving over Pallas’ body, Aeneas mourns that
both Italy and his son Iulus have lost a man that would loyally defend them with his life (Aeneid
11:67-9). Aeneas believed the boy would help fight alongside his own son one day, protecting
the land that he was fighting so hard for when he was slain. This causes Aeneas to guilt himself
for having a living son when Evander has to suffer the loss of his child (Aeneid 11:61-2). This
extensive grieving suggests that Aeneas will cherish the idea of his own son Iulus’ future even
more, because he has already felt the agony of losing a child-like figure. The death of Pallas
shapes Aeneas into a man who understands what the loss of an integral part of one’s future is
like, so that he may never have to feel such a loss again in his lifetime.
Aeneas’s understanding of his future allows him to lead his men ferociously into battle
against the only person standing between him and his fate. In addition to killing Pallas, Aeneas
realizes that Turnus has the possibility of compromising Aeneas’s future, causing some doubt
among the Trojans about their aspirations of reaching their fate. In order to actually fulfill his
fate, Aeneas must fight to the death with Turnus. This final step in the journey of Aeneas’s future
allows him to truly know what it is like to fight for his own fate. Because he was able to grow
into a noble leader and follower of his fate, Aeneas “hearing the name of Turnus, deserts the
walls, deserts the citadel’s heights” (Aeneid 12:809-10) and fights in his honor and the honor of
those to come after him. Because of his new strong sense of fate, and his focus on the future,
Aeneas is able to kill Turnus and succeed in making Italy his people’s new home. Aeneas’s
enlightened views on future allow him to lead his people to a new home where his descendants
will thrive in centuries to come.
Although it is easy to focus on the impressive fact that he is the son of a goddess, a
fearless leader with an epic character, the truth is that Aeneas is a man with a larger burden to
bear. Aeneas might have the privilege of receiving aid from the gods, however this comes at a
hefty price when understanding the unnegotiable duty to future and fate that he is bound to. He
does not have much of a choice while living a life directed by the gods. The journey towards his
future that Aeneas takes is important and relevant today because there are countless people
struggling to find a home in this rage fueled world. There are immigrants and their families
searching for places to settle because their homes are too dangerous to stay. Like Aeneas, they
are not only running away from their harsh pasts but running towards a promising future. They
too bear their own versions of mighty prophetic shields, a physical symbol of their imagined
future, alongside Aeneas. Although they may not receive the same amount of praise and glory as
Aeneas throughout their harrowing journey, that does not mean their journey is any less than his.
In a way, Aeneas can be seen as a role model because of his dedication to his future as well as
the future of his descendants to come. Throughout the world, people are facing the same
situation that Aeneas heroically overcame, making Virgil’s The Aeneid an epically timeless
story.
A Conversation Between a Philosopher, a God and a Wildcat
Gianna Guttilla
Written for Dr. John Paul Spiro
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and the Bhagavad Gita are two renowned works of
literature that have been translated and read throughout the world for the life lessons they have
within them. Both works emphasize the importance of making the right decision and how one
should go about doing this. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle asserts that the best way to
make a decision is through deliberation and finding the mean between the two extremes in a
situation. On the contrary, Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita explains that if one renounces the fruits
of their action, then they will make the best decision possible. While it can be argued that
Krishna’s decision-making method is superior to Aristotle’s, and vice versa, through close
analysis it is evident that neither approach is good by itself and that both are necessary in order
for one to make the most ethical decision in any given situation.
Throughout Ethics, Aristotle spends a significant amount of time discussing how
essential ethical decisions are in order to achieve one’s ultimate goal––the good life. Aristotle
explains how the only way one can make an ethical decision is through deliberation, a process
that is crucial to every decision that is made, regardless of its importance. One practices
deliberation by thinking consciously about the means they should take so they can reach their
desired end. For example, in Ethics, Aristotle explains how when a doctor has a patient they do
not deliberate “whether he shall heal,” only what “means [the healing] will be achieved.” In this
example the doctor only deliberates the mean, how he should heal his patient, and not the end,
whether he should heal his patient or not. Through deliberation comes another one of Aristotle's
main concepts, the intermediate or the mean. Aristotle defines the mean as the outcome that is
“equidistant from each of the extremes,” something that is “neither too much nor too little.” His
idea of the mean can be explained through the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, where
she wants to find the porridge that is not too hot nor too cold, but the perfect “mean” temperature
that she greatly desires. Finding the mean of the situation is something that does not come by
making rash, spur of the moment decisions, rather through disciplined, analytical reflection, or
deliberation. While this method is appealing as it, in most cases, prevents someone from making
a mistake, it requires time in order to be done correctly. Time, unfortunately, is a luxury that is
not always applicable when someone is making spur of the moment decisions, in a time
constraint or just in a conversation with someone. This key requirement to deliberation makes
Aristotle’s method more difficult to apply to everyday decisions, making it less practical.
However, if practiced enough I think deliberation can become a skill that can subconsciously
drive every decision someone makes.
Alternatively, in The Gita, Krishna preaches to Arjuna the importance of renouncing the
fruits of action before making a decision. Krishna explains to Arjuna that his “‘concern should be
with action, never with an action’s fruit’” and in order to do this he has to “‘act without
attachment.’” He stresses this because he wants to stop the human tendency to pursue an action
based off of the potential consequences. Krishna rationalizes that by focusing solely on the
action, and not what follows it, one is able to act with a clear and “pure” mind. This mindset lets
someone see the situation from a more objective lense and allows one to consider acting in a way
they never would have considered if they were focused on the fruit of action. I think Krishna’s
decision-making method could be very advantageous to my life as it could help me broaden my
perspectives before making a decision and also help me to act with less fear. I do however think
that focusing on the end goal of a decision is needed especially when in professional situations,
such as school or work, and when trying to reach long term goals. Despite this, I think this tactic
is a different and helpful a way to go about deciding what to do, especially for people who tend
to overthink or have anxiety when making a decision.
The decision-making processes that Aristotle and Krishna advise are vastly different from
one another, as one tactic focuses heavily on the end goal and the best way to get there, while the
other does not have any regard to the end. This difference highlights how Aristotle values the
future and reaching long term goals more than Krishna does. It also illuminates how Krishna can
more easily live in the moment, an ability that he likely obtains since he is a god and does not
have to concern himself with human troubles as Aristotle does. While there are fundamental
differences between Aristotle’s and Krishna’s methods, they do share some commonalities. For
example, both deliberation and renouncing the fruits of action both are skills that can become
like second nature through practice. Also, using these tactics helps one get closer to the good life,
if using deliberation, and the “Supreme” life, if renouncing the fruits of action. These similarities
prove that regardless of how you go about making a decision, what matters most is making the
right choice.
When trying to figure out whether I agree more with Aristotle or Krishna’s idea, I
discovered that I could not come to a decision as both methods have holes in their reasoning,
causing them not be applicable to all situations. For example, one action that requires
deliberation is shame. The mean regarding shame is modesty, a trait that lies between shyness,
which is how someone acts when they have an excess amount of shame, and shameless, the
behavior one exhibits when they are deficient in shame. While modesty is the mean that Aristotle
would expect and want one to recognize after deliberation, it is a mean that at times can be more
harmful than helpful. For instance, people who identified as transgender, when it was not
accepted in society, had to face the conflict of either coming out, and facing judgement and
shame, or keeping it a secret in order to avoid ridicule. If someone in this situation were to use
Aristotle’s method of decision making, they would deliberate that it would too extreme to not
come out at all yet too extreme to actually change their gender. From this one would likely
conclude that the mean decision for them to make was to come out only their close friends and
family and cross dress as they wish only in the confines of their home. In this case, deliberation
would be hurting the person more than helping them as it makes someone hide who they are in
order to act between the two extremes. This situation highlights how at times it is crucial for
one’s wellbeing and happiness, a virtue that Aristotle stresses, to act based off the extreme, and
shamelessly be transgender. While deliberation can be extremely helpful, it is not the only way
one should come about making a decision. Examples like this are why I do not fully agree with
Aristotle’s idea and why I think someone should use a variety of methods to help them make the
best, or most ethical, decision.
In The Gita, Arjuna is faced with an extremely hard decision to make. He can either go to
battle against the Kauravas, the opposing army comprised of his allies, friends, and family
members, or refuse to fight in the battle and in turn weaken his army’s chance of winning and
disappoint his fellow warriors. Krishna explains that it is imperative for Arjuna to go to war
because it is his duty, or “Dharma,” to do so as a warrior for the Pandava army. He advises
Arjuna to make this decision through renouncing the fruits of action and focusing solely on the
action of fighting the battle, so he can help his people can win the war. Krishna rationalizes to
Arjuna that if he is not attached to the fact that he would be killing the ones he loves and trusts
the most, then he will not have a hard time staying true to his dharma. This situation is an
example of how renouncing of the fruits of action is not applicable in every case. For Arjuna,
using Krishna’s methods will not benefit him in any way because going to war would go against
his morals and desires and cause him immense guilt and pain. Arjuna’s conflict and the way
Krishna advises him to deal with it highlight how not thinking about the outcome of decisions
can end up doing more damage in the long run.
After discovering the cracks that exist in both Aristotle and Krishna’s ideas, I was able to
conclude that it is most advantageous to use these methods together rather than choosing only
one to go by. In my opinion, the best way to make a decision is to first renounce the fruits of
action, and then with this clear mindset, brainstorm all of the different ways one can respond to a
situation. Then, one should use deliberation to see which of their ideas is most close to the mean
of the situation and then act upon it. Using this process is the superior way to make a decision
because it can be applied to any situation, something you do not get when using each method on
its own. Despite the holes that exist within Aristotle’s and Krishna’s approaches, they are both
valid ways to approach making the right decision.
The ideas presented in Nicomachean Ethics, by Aristotle, and The Bhagavad Gita both
introduce insightful methods that one can use to come about making the apt decision. While I
find some of Aristotle’s ideas to be somewhat unrealistic, his idea of deliberation resonated with
me. Aristotle has made me more aware of how I come to a decision since they have a large
impact on myself, my environment and the people I surround myself with. I had a harder time
relating with Krishna due to the fact that I am not a very religious person; however, I found his
idea of renouncing fruits of action to be very applicable to my life. Often, I find myself focusing
too much about the fruits of my actions and how people will think of me after making a certain
decision. This has intensified greatly since I’ve been at Villanova, and Krishna’s teachings have
reminded me how important it is to act true to myself, regardless of what others may think of it.
While Ethics and Gita are different from each other, they both contain collections of useful
lessons that can pertain to any reader’s lifestyle.
Robert Russell, OSA, Award for
exceptional student writing
Winner
Natalia Moroch
“Nature and Spiritual Conversion: Augustine’s Transition
into a Nature-Loving Christian”
Written for Dr. Chara Armon
Nature and Spiritual Conversion:
Augustine’s Transition into a Nature-Loving Christian
Natalia Moroch
Written for Dr. Chara Armon
Augustine’s career as a student and rhetoric teacher leads him to think
carefully about word choice in his texts. For this reason, the eloquent language he
uses in regards to his attitude towards the natural and physical world attracts
attention. At times, Augustine uses nature to represent sin, yet at times indicates
nature as a refuge or something that is present to him during his conversation with
God. Accordingly, Augustine's interpretation of nature changes depending on his
spiritual state. Although Augustine's perception of spirituality first appears to be
superior to the attention gifted towards the physical world, looking more deeply into
his language conveys that he is not consciously aware that God is alive through His
creation around him. Essentially, while Augustine claims the physical world is evil
with the absence of God, Augustine is surrounded by nature, where God is
omnipotent and never leaves his side.
Initially, Augustine stubbornly looks at the physical world as burdened by sin. In the
opening of his confessions, through an opening prayer and meditation, Augustine immediately
conveys that one cannot be content nor peaceful until one seeks a personal relationship with
God. Thus, he makes the polar distinction of the physical world as sinful and the spiritual
world as perfection. Particular phrases that stand out, conveying this separation with nature’s
elements, include “engulfed me in a whirlpool of sins” and “frothed and floundered in the
tumultuous seas of my fortifications” (The Confessions, 25). Here, the natural waves of the sea
are seen as overwhelming and disastrous to Augustine. The words ‘engulfed in a whirlpool of
sins,’ and ‘tumultuous seas’ convey that he feels as though he is drowning and threatened by
the Earth. He attributes this suffering to the lack of God’s guidance during his adolescence and
understands his youth as a time when God was silent. The language used to describe this
account of Augustine’s life incites this feeling that he is stuck in a natural disaster. However,
while this event can be viewed as more disastrous, equally valid is the chance for another to
view it as completely and innocently natural.
At first, Augustine takes a strict hatred to the material world because he believes that
satisfying earthly desires is sinful. There is an evident shift, however, in his perspective as he
transitions to the Christian faith. Further in the text, Augustine writes, “I flung myself down
somehow under a fig-tree and gave free rein to the tears that burst from my eyes like rivers, as
an acceptable sacrifice to you” (The Confessions, 167). Through his conversion and spiritual
revelation, readers also see a progression of Augustine’s view of the natural world. In the
beginning of his dialogue, nature's elements like water carry negative connotations with sin,
but now are seen carrying the relief of sins and praise for God. An example enhancing this
idea further is when Augustine asserts, “May I be flooded with love for you until my very
bones cry out” (The Confessions, 145). All along, it seems as though God never left him; the
waters were there when he was submerged in his sins as well as when he was confessing his
sins and love in God. In fact, these ‘rivers’ and ‘floods’ of waters no longer sound as though
they would suffocate Augustine but guide him along with the flow of the currents towards
God. This water is only one symbolic measure of God's presence, a proof that He never was
negligent of Augustine but in constant motion to guide him.
Augustine’s approach towards nature coincides with the transitioning of his
spiritual state. He first adopts a detached view from the Earth, relating nature with sin and
only God as good. Further in the text, however, Augustine begins to turn to nature as a
means of reaching the divine and all perfect God. First trying to escape nature and neglect
its temptations, Augustine now sees the same nature as a path to satisfy his Godly desires.
Thus, understanding nature is synonymous to understanding God. In this way, forming a
loving relationship with one cannot be done without simultaneously fulfilling the other.
The powerful connection between nature and Augustine’s spiritual relationship with God
is expressed explicitly in The Confessions. In attempts to find what Augustine loves when
loving God, he turns to “the sea and the great deep,” “the teeming live creatures that
crawl,” “the gusty winds,” and the sky, sun, moon, and stars that deny him, for they are not
God but cry “He made us.” Augustine then reflects, “My questioning was my attentive
spirit, and their reply, their beauty” (The Confessions, 202-203). Augustine is satisfied,
wanting to accept these responses from the natural and physical world. With the reflection
of his inner self as a product and beautiful creation of God, he is able to divert and extend
his energy towards God and his complete conversion to the Christian faith.
Augustine’s ideas in The Confessions are strengthened by those in his scriptural
commentary On Genesis against the Manichees, where Augustine speaks about the wholeness
of the universe being much greater than the smaller components that it is comprised of (On
Genesis, 74). While Augustine has used nature’s elements as a language to communicate the
chaos illustrative of the significant distance between him and God, he comes to realize that all
components of nature together are a symbolic representation of God’s capacity to create a
beautifully united world. Rather than looking at certain aspects of the natural world as
‘seemingly’ disadvantageous, it is important to look at creation as having a wholeness and
perfection. Even if one fails to understand this, the parts and each of their contributions
“complete the integrity of the universe” (On Genesis, 74). Thus, one must, like Augustine, be
astonished and amazed as a Christian towards the physical and natural world alike. Showing
awe, appreciation, and delight of one's surroundings is showing love towards God’s creation
and God Himself. Finally, in harmony with his environment, and consequently with God,
Augustine has found a friendship that is stable, reliable, secure, and above all eternal. Devoting
himself in something so grounded and true, he is intellectually credible to convert to being a
Christian.
Being entangled in the Earth is no longer seen as a distraction from spirituality but rather
as an invitation to be closer to God. Augustine no longer sees nature’s elements as barriers to
the path leading to God, but as symbols reminding him to love the Earth. Focused on finding
God in a substantial form, Augustine begins to realize that God cannot be confined to any
physical mass or space because that would limit Him—and He is infinite. In fact, he now looks
to his surroundings for answers because they have God within them, for He is the Creator.
While not in a literal sense, he shouts his love to God through prayer, using his mind to build
this relationship with the divine. Surrounded by creation, nature does not distract Augustine
from God but welcomes and embraces him with a wealth of God’s love. The universe tells the
individual about the Creator, and the best way to encounter the sacred is to encounter creation.
Ultimately, something in the world that pleases an individual is a reminder to praise God and
love Him.
Works Cited
Augustine, Aurelius, and Roland J. Teske. On Genesis: Two Books on Genesis against the
Manichees, and, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis: an Unfinished Book.
Catholic University of America Press, 1991.
St. Augustine, and Patricia Hampl. The Confessions. Translated by Maria Boulding,
Vintage Books, 1998.
Seamus Heaney Award for exceptional
Honors student writing
Winner
Dylan Sawyer
“Markian Stoicism”
Written for Dr. Gregory Hoskins
Markian Stoicism
Dylan Sawyer
Written for Dr. Gregory Hoskins
Brothers and Sisters, in my recent studies, I have come across a text that has proven to be
rather intriguing. It has gotten me to think deeply about our philosophy of life as Markian
Christians. It is called the Enchiridion, and it contains a philosophy known as Stoicism as taught
by a man named Epictetus. The text is fraught with methods deemed useful to achieve happiness
in one’s life. The first, and all-encompassing teaching is that we must take care not to attempt to
control things which are outside of our control, and to ensure our control over those which are
(3). The text then moves into numerous, more specific applications of this rule. It covers topics
such as being true to one's own values (29), finding inner peace (19), and practicing the
principles that one is taught rather than just knowing them (78). Epictetus is able to bring all of
these concepts back to the general concept of trying to live the happiest life one can. After
reading this text, I was left with the inevitable question of whether or not we, as followers of
Christ, could reasonably follow this Stoic teaching while still adhering to the teachings of Christ
in the Gospel of Mark. After thinking for quite a while, I have come to the conclusion that yes,
indeed, we can follow both the word of Epictetus and Christ.
To prove that we can follow both Stoicism and The Son of God, we can simply turn to
the accounts of Jesus’ life throughout the Gospel of Mark. These accounts often include
teachings that line up quite well with the Stoic philosophy presented by Epictetus in the
Enchiridion. Some excerpts where I found a particularly strong connection were in the parable of
the sower (4:1-9), Jesus’ stilling of the storm (4:35-41), His commentary on tradition (7:1-23),
and the parable of the rich man (10:17-31).
In the parable of the sower, Jesus describes a sower planting seeds on four different kinds
of ground, one that was a hard pathway where the seeds were eaten by birds, one that was rocky
where the seeds grew too fast and were burned by the sun, one that was full of thorns which
choked the plants, and one that was good soil which yielded magnificent life. After telling the
story, Jesus explains the symbolism of this parable. The seeds are the Word of God and the paths
represent different kinds of people who might come across the Word. Some will hear it, but it
will quickly be taken away by evil like the seeds on the path. Some will hear it and be happy but
then leave it behind during hardship, like the seeds on the rocks. Some will hear it but be unable
to follow it because of their dedication to earthly desires like the seeds among thorns. Finally,
some will listen and be able to follow it and spread the word in glorious ways, like the seeds in
the good soil.
Knowing this, we see that the teachings here line up very well with Epictetus’ command
to “attach yourself to what is spiritually superior”, regardless of what others may think (29). In
the case of this parable, the people that were not able to flourish were the ones who abandoned
the word of God for various reasons. In one case for evil, in one case to avoid scrutiny and
hardship, and in another case because they insisted on chasing after both worldly possessions and
the spiritually superior Word of God. Jesus makes it clear that this cannot happen. In fact, so
does Epictetus when he says “a half-hearted spirit has no power. Tentative efforts lead to
tentative outcomes” (39). In this quote, he is simply saying that you need to fully commit to
something in order to yield the best results. Those who have one foot next to their worldly
belongings and one foot in the kingdom of God will not get the best of either. Therefore, the
commands to follow what is “spiritually superior” (29), and to devote ourselves fully to our
endeavors (39), are both useful in our call to be the best followers of Christ that we can be.
Next, let us consider the idea of inner peace. If we look at the parable of the rich man, we
can see just how this relates to the Stoic principle of inner peace. In this parable, a rich man
comes up to Jesus asking how he might enter into heaven. He says he has never broken any of
the basic commandments, but Jesus still tells him that to truly enter into the kingdom, he must
sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. At this command, the rich man walked away
very upset.
If we look deeper into the idea of inner peace presented by Epictetus, it is clear that this
man had a dire lack of it. Epictetus, in his teachings, declares that it is better to be without many
possessions as well as without fear than to be rich but constantly worrying and wanting more
(19). Epictetus, in fact, gives the same command as our Lord gave when the philosopher tells his
students to attempt control over themselves by learning to change their attitude toward
inconveniences such as lost things (18). He tells them that nothing can truly be lost but only
returned to where it truly belongs. Therefore, we should not get upset when things that were once
ours are taken or go missing. This is exactly why Jesus tells the rich man to give up his
possessions. The excess wealth does not belong to him alone but all of God’s children.
Therefore, one with excess needs to give such excess to those who lack.
Additionally, I noticed a great deal of similarity between the Gospel of Mark and the
Enchiridion when it came to the emphasis on practicing the teachings you receive. If we recall
Jesus’ remarks on the Jewish customs of eating, we see that he condemned the practicing of
human tradition over the command of God (7:1-13). In this case, he spoke out against the rule of
washing hands before eating and only eating certain dishes. When people practice such customs,
it can often come at the cost of claiming their own rules as God’s commandments or pretending
to be a follower of God when in reality they don’t care about His word or spreading His love.
Jesus Himself quotes Isaiah in this passage saying, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but
their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines’”
(7:6-7). Through this passage, Jesus condemns those who are taught, but do not follow what they
are taught and instead what they have claimed to be true.
Epictetus preaches very similar ideology in the Enchiridion. He says that when we learn
things, it is not enough to proclaim what we have been taught but instead live by this truth (78).
All too often, people are taught a certain way to live, and teach others how to live in such a way,
but fall short when it comes to implementing such ways into their own lives. What is clear is that
both Christ and Epictetus believe that to preach anything outside of what one practices in their
own life is hypocritical, and we as followers of Christ must remember to not be like such
hypocrites.
After reading this text, however, I was discussing my ideas with a fellow student who
disagreed with my idea that Stoicism and Christianity could be practiced together. He claimed
that Epictetus’ text pays no mind to others and is entirely focused on self, making it incompatible
with the teaching of Christ who preached that service to others was the most essential aspect of
life. Admittedly, the text can easily come across as self-concerned. It even explicitly states that
people should put their business before other’s business, that we should only be focused on what
is our own concern (4).
Understandably, this seems rather self-centered. However, I would argue that this is not a
call to put ourselves before everyone else. Instead, I looked at what the text actually says, it says
“to focus entirely on what is truly your own concern” (4). This language does not say to put
ourselves before everyone else, but it says instead to put what is our concern over what others
are concerned with. This is far different than putting ourselves before others because our primary
concern as Christians is the well-being of others. Jesus called His disciples to go and heal those
who need healing (3:15), that is our concern. Our concern is to love God and above all else, and
to love others as we love ourselves (12:30-31). That is our concern. Therefore, by putting our
concerns over the concerns of others, we are putting others before ourselves because others are
our primary concern.
Therefore, brothers and sisters, I believe that this new-found philosophy is quite
compatible with our lives as Christians. The idea of controlling what you can and not worrying
about what is not is already deeply rooted in our faith. Did not Jesus tell us to stop worrying
about what is outside of our control when he scolded the apostles for worrying about the storm
(4:40)? Simply by being followers of Christ, we are practicing Stoicism. Through the
acknowledgment of this fact, we shall gain a deeper appreciation for our faith, become better
children of God, and live a happier life, just as He would want for us.
Works Cited
The Catholic Youth Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Catholic Edition. Saint Marys
Press, 2017.
Epictetus. The Art of Living: The Classical Manual on Virtue, Happiness, and
Effectiveness. Translated by S. Lebell, HarperOne, 1995.
Earl D. Bader Award for exceptional
creative writing in the Augustine and
Culture Seminar
Winner
Courtney Johnston
“At First a Rushing Wind”
Written for Dr. Timothy Horner
Honorable Mention
Isidora Martin
“Second Shepherd’s Play: A Dramatic Revival”
Written for Professor Noel Dolan
At First A Rushing Wind
Courtney Johnston
Written for Dr. Timothy Horner
At first a rushing wind drowns out everything else. Within this, I am becoming heavier
and longer than I have ever been and it hurts. Following the curve of the sounds, a hollowness
opens inside of me. I sputter as the air floods in, trying to catch my breath as the force of the
wind around me crashes into my back. A fog is lifting, and my eyes are opened. I see the sounds
I have only ever heard, and they come from a many limbed, mouthed thing, but are nothing to
me in meaning until I hear, “Woman…she was taken out of man.” And I realize that I have come
from inside the mouth. Woman: this is what I am. What this man, and this being of movement
and changing color next to him made me to be.
I reach my hands to my lips to see if they can make those sounds, but my eyes have
minds of their own. They trace downwards, settling on the vibrant green and moving world
under me. I wonder where this all came from. From these two in front of me, watching me as I
take it all in? The winged creature and I look at each other. It looks a bit like the man, but much
taller and less still. It changes with the light, so that it’s hard to know where the sky starts and
where its head begins. The leaves and grass move slightly with the wind that blossoms from its
wings as they open. Wings fully outstretched, it runs a hand over my head and I feel a
thrumming inside of me. This is the rushing I heard, it came from this being. Then, without a
word, it lifts up and disappears above us; a ripple across the blueness.
Many times, I watch as a darkness peals its course from one side of the sky to meet the
other, before I see the winged creature again. But I hear from the man about him again and again.
After the first of those dark nights, the man shows me the garden and tell me that it was made by
Him, just as we were made by Him. The only time the man leaves my side is each day in the
afternoon. I see a ripple cross the sky and all the trees sigh as their leaves flutter and lift. This is
the most interesting time of the day; watching how all the creatures, trees and the man act when
His presence is near. As I think of this, I come upon the man while he is talking to Him:
overhearing part of their conversation. The winged one sees me and walks over to touch my head
before lifting back into the sky without a word.
“You called the winged one a name. And he called you by name too.” I say to the man.
“He is God, because he created the world, and I am Adam, for he made me into his
likeness from the earth.” Adam responds.
“The trees sigh when he is near, and you go to him.” I say.
Adam does not reply. Instead, he walks over to a tree nearby. I hadn’t realized, but we are
now at the center of the garden. Here stand the two trees that Adam showed me first. The tree of
life and food, and the tree of knowledge and certain death. The day he showed me, I looked to
him and he realized I didn’t know what he meant by death. So, he pointed to a fruit from the tree
of life, which had fallen to the ground. It was brown, and the insides were oozing out. A foul
smell rose up to meet me.
“That is death.” He said simply, and I understood.
Today though, Adam does not offer me the fruit he has gathered from the tree of life. He
watches the sky and I turn away to find one of the hanging, ready pieces he has missed, staring at
the rotting fruit on the ground and thinking about death. In my search, I see that the leaves seem
to be moving slightly even though the tree is not sighing, and God is not in the garden.
“The leaves on the tree are moving.” I say.
Adam looks, but says he sees nothing, returning his eyes to the sky and taking another
bite of fruit.
I say again, “I looks like when a leaf hits the water. It is moving.”
He gets up and walks closer to me and we see that it is a creature hiding in the branches
who is moving the leaves. He is green as the leaves are green, except for the pads of his feet and
his underbelly, which are pink, like the bottoms of our feet. I look to Adam to tell me its name,
and see his eyes are unblinking and he is still.
“Serpent is what he is called,” says Adam, finally, “I named him a long time ago and
have never laid eyes on him since.”
A confused look crossed my face. I didn’t know Adam had named things other than me.
“Adam named me like he named you,” said the Serpent, the sound coming from its
tongue and not its chest. “Adam didn’t name everything though, like these two trees here. But
you would know that if you asked.”
“I don’t know how to ask.” I reply.
At this the serpent smiles. “I shall show you how.”
Adam comes beside me and pulls me to sit with him on the ground. “Only God asks
questions.”
The serpent, who has been looking around the garden returns his gaze to us. “Has God
said, that you shall not eat of every tree in the garden?”
I look to Adam, for I have never spoken directly with God. Adam does not respond, so I
relay just what I have been told.
“We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden: but not the fruit of the tree which is in
the midst of the garden. God said, you shall not eat, nor touch it, lest you die.”
“You will not die. Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good
and evil.” Says the serpent.
“Good and evil?” I said, lifting up my voice at the end like the serpent, when asking his
question.
I turn to Adam. “God told you not to eat?” Inflecting my tone again.
Adam nods.
God, the one that moves through the trees, created me, allowed Adam to name me and
the serpent. God, who has never spoken to me. I hear how the trees sighs when He is close, and
Adam leaves me to go to him. Perhaps if I eat the fruit, I will know why He does not talk to me.
Suddenly, I remember when my eyes first opened. I saw my creator and knew where the
vibrations came from.
“I want my eyes to be opened.” I say.
The serpent smiles and starts to move, and I get up to follow. I see Adam watching us
walk closer to the middle of the garden, his eyes slanted. I think he has chosen to leave me again,
but then he gets up and follows.
The tree is taller than all the others and seems to be moving even though I know God is
not here. The serpent walks to a spot where a branch hangs low and a purple fruit is at my eye
level. I can feel the weight of the eyes of the serpent and Adam on me. My hand wraps around
the flesh and I pull one loose. I pause, leaning forward and backward as the sweet smell makes
my lips open. Finally, I bring it to touch my mouth and the skin is firmer than expected. The
sweet smell doubles in my mouth and a sound escapes. Adam approaches me, so I hand him the
unfinished piece. His takes it, but with his bite, his countenance falls. No sound of delight comes
from him mouth.
He is changing before my eyes, as if his skin is pulled tighter across his frame. I begin to
feel cold. And notice bumps on my arms and legs. My arms and my legs. My body is exposed to
him and I cannot look in his eyes, because they are too large now and are taking in everything
around me; moving with a precision they did not have before. We are different, and I am
different – and he knows this difference, just as I know this difference.
I look around for the serpent with no avail, feeling afraid because I do not know what I
am supposed to do. I have never thought of need to be ‘doing something’ and with this fear, a
burning coldness shoots down my arms and legs. My body is beating with a pulsing from my
chest. It is a force that feels moments away from tearing open the wall that separates me from
everything else. To suddenly understand what I have not is head-aching – a slap to my senses. I
want and don’t want this knowledge all at the same time. I can feel the strength in my legs, the
dirt between my toes, the way the heat of my body emanates out and carries to the only other
being in likeness around.
I cannot know if his chest pounds, or if he feels the heat of his body as profoundly as I
do. For I know realize, I do not know him at all.
He looks at me and asks, “Why are you not covered?”
I look down and see my body, open…not private. Caught off guard, I look back at him,
“You are not covered either.”
“Look away while I find myself something.”
He must not like the heat leaving him.
There is nothing but the leaves of the tree, which he pulls down to cover himself. I
follow, now scared for him to see me without a shield. It is not the heat I am concerned with, but
his eyes, which are fixing upon my naked body as I have been upon his.
The wind in the garden begins to gust and every tree moves and sighs. I gather more
leaves to cover myself and see Adam doing the same. Booming and low, God calls out from the
clearing, “Adam, where are you?”
I see Adam attempt to blend with the tree, as if a serpent. Though there is no need, for the
leaves we pulled cover so much of our bodies. We are tall bushes in the midst of the great tree.
It does not take long for God to find us, however. And when he arrives, I see Adam shake
so that the leaves show me their underside, before he resigns himself to face our creator.
Walking towards God, Adam says, “I was hiding myself because I was afraid, because I
am naked.”
The voice of God resonates with intensity, “Who told you of being naked. Have you
eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”
In answer, Adam points to me and says, “The woman, who you gave to me, brought me
the fruit of the tree.”
God turned his large frame to me, a vibrant red among the sea of green and addresses me
for the first time, “What is this that you have done?”
God’s eyes blaze into me and I reply shakenly that the serpent tricked me into taking the
fruit. God raises a hand and the serpent lands in front of Him on the ground and I watch in terror
and He lays a curse that breaks limbs from the creature’s body. The terror doubles as God looks
to me and moves his hands over my body saying, in sorrow, I too will bring life into the world, a
creator in my own right, with all the grief and responsibility of that act – though the desire will
not come from me, but from my husband. My body shakes with anguish and anger for being a
vessel for Adam’s desire…for the man who just threw me in front of God without mercy or
protection. Hot liquid streams down my face, and I know now that it comes from within this
agony. An agony deep within, which my vessel of limbs and wind-sensing frame cannot contain.
It is through these tears I watch as Adam is cursed to touch the ground yet reap nothing from it.
To have a connection severed, so that the earth will never again give to him what it once
provided.
At last, God casts us out beyond the gates of the garden to the red earth, tearing us away
from him. Other winged beings, covered in fire, move to block our way back into our home. My
feet begin to burn against the scorched earth. So angry, I can’t speak. Spit drags from my mouth
as Adam pulls me farther into the desert. I am walking with a stranger into the night. A stranger I
never asked to be with. I begin to mutter this under my breath until my neck is hoarse and as
swollen as my ankles. I collapse upon the earth as Adam lets go of my hand to make us a
sleeping place for the night. Shivering and cold, I don’t fall asleep. There is no ripple across the
sky and no trees to know if God is near. I am lost in thoughts of His absence, until His plan
shows himself and Adam places one hand on my belly and calls me, Eve. In the closeness of
him, his smell infiltrates my nose, unwelcome and intimate.
Second Shepherd’s Play: A Dramatic Revival
(Scene with rewritten stage directions pages 5-8)
Isidora Martin
Written for Professor Noel Dolan
Mystery Plays were performances developed in medieval Europe, meant to educate the
audience on a bible story, while also entertaining them. These plays relied on connecting with
the audience, in order to make the show enjoyable, and the message relatable. The Second
Shepherd’s Play is an example of a Mystery Play which includes many scenes requiring strong
physicality between the actors, as well as a continuous chain of rhyming lines. The three
personas were written to be relatable to any average person in the audience. Likewise, much of
the verbal comedy and wordplay was scripted towards the crowd members at the time that this
play was written. Some of the humor and references would be lost on a modern audience. A
director could enliven this play for a modern audience by enhancing the physical comedy,
performing it as a farce, and by making the show more interactive.
Normally, in a proscenium theater, the audience is clearly separated from the actors on
stage. However, in an enhanced version of this play, The First Shepherd will be planted in the
audience, dressed in a winter coat like all of the other audience members. He will begin his
monologue by complaining about the weather: “Lord, but this weather is cold! And I am ill
wrapped” (The Wakefield Master 3). If a modernized version of the script is used, audience
members may actually believe that he is just an audience member complaining. After the first
stanza of his monologue, The Second Shepherd will stand up and recite the first stanza of his
monologue from a seat on the opposite side of the theater. By continuing this pattern, the
shepherd’s dialogue will bounce back and forth with their complaints about the cold, being
married, and not having enough money. This directorial decision will make the audience feel like
they are surrounded by daily, universal complaints. As the two shepherds finish their
monologues, they will make their way through the aisles and onto the stage. At this point, any
audience members who have not realized that they are actors in the show, will realize it now. As
the first two shepherds make their way to the stage, the Third Shepherd will begin his monologue
on stage. When he states, “I see some shrews peep. It's two spooks in white, I must see to my
sheep” (The Wakefield Master 5). He will be squinting towards the aisle, watching the two
shepherds approach. When the shepherds find their way onto the stage, he will then see them
clearly and recognize them. Later in this scene, the Third Shepherd will begin his monologue
overdramatically: “Such servants as I who work till, we sweat. Eat our bread quite dry and that
makes me fret” he will begin to walk into the audience, where the other two shepherds
performed their monologue (The Wakefield Master 6). When he begins to descend into the aisle,
the Second Shepherd will grab him and pull him back on stage while saying “Peace, I say, lad,
no more of jangling, Hold your tongue!” (The Wakefield Master 6). This directing choice
demonstrates the power dynamic between the three shepherds. The third shepherd is younger and
less experienced than the other two, so he is often disregarded or underestimated. In this case, the
older shepherd is annoyed at the Third Shepherd for his monologue full of complaints, even
though he himself performed an identical monologue just minutes earlier.
One other moment that could be enlivened is the scene where the shepherds enter Mak’s
home and accuse him of stealing their sheep (seen in the rewrite attached). Mak covers up the
fact that he did in fact steal the sheep by coercing his wife into pretending it is their newborn son.
This scene is full of dramatic irony. The audience is fully aware of Mak and Gill’s plan, but the
shepherds are not. To perform this scene as a farce, the scene could require quick line delivery,
strong physical comedy, and quick timing. To enhance the physical comedy, a director would
make there be many moments where the sheep’s identity is almost revealed. For example, when
Mak says, “Hear you not how she groans? Your hearts should melt” (The Wakefield Master 19).
At this part in the script, the sheep would bleat, and Gill would try and cover it up with a sheep-
like groan. Whenever the sheep’s identity is almost revealed, the shepherds would always be
facing away from Gill’s slip up. The audience would be on the edge of their seat waiting for one
of the shepherds to turn around at the right time. For example, the sheep could be moving around
in the bundle of blankets and fall out at one point. Right before Gill exclaims, “I die! Out thieves
from my home, you come to take what we own”, the sheep could fall out of the blanket, causing
Gill to exclaim (The Wakefield Master 19). When she shrieks, all three shepherds turn to look at
her. To cover up, Gill could toss and turn in the bed dramatically, throwing pillows and blankets
to cause a distraction while she hides the sheep again. A third idea that a director could add into
this scene is the addition of the cookbook, seen in the re-write. This was added into the re-write
to enhance the wordplay in this scene. While complaining about her pain Gill states, “I pray to
God so mild, if ever I you beguiled, That I should eat this child That lies in this cradle” (The
Wakefield Master 19). At the same moment, the Third Shepherd who had been looking around
the house slyly, picks up a book. The book is facing away from the shepherd, so the audience can
read the cover which states, “Delicious Recipes for Lamb and Sheep”. This will be sure to make
the audience laugh, especially when Mak snatches the book away from the shepherd before he
can read it. This line is ironic because the Mak and Gill do plan on eating their “child” which is
actually the sheep. Together, all of these additions enhance the comical tone of this scene.
Making this scene humorous and exaggerated emphasizes the juxtaposition between trivial
problems and the greater message that comes at the end of the play.
The Second Shepherd’s Play could be enlivened for a modern audience by enhancing the
physical comedy and making the show more interactive with the audience. When working with a
play, directors can make the choice of making the show accurate to the time in was written or
modernizing it for the current crowd. The role of dramaturgy has become increasingly more
well-known in play production because of their important role alongside the director, actors and
the script. Dramaturges research the script and history of the show to ensure accuracy in the
performance, as well as maintaining the original message of the play in any directorial decisions.
As directors continue to take advantage of their artistic liberties more so now than ever, it is
important to have someone to bridge the gap between the writing in the script, and the outcome
of the effect of the audience.
Scene with Added Stage Directions
(THE SHEPHERDS enter MAK's house.)
MAK'S WIFE
Be off from the bed, let me breathe, if you please! Each step that you tread from my nose to my
knees Goes through me.
1ST SHEPHERD
Tell us, Mak, if ye may, How fare ye, say?
MAK
(Jumps in front of Gill to block bed and “baby”)
But are ye in town today? Now how fare ye?
Ye have run in the mire, and now are all wet.
I shall make you a fire now we are all met.
(runs to grab wood for the fire. SHEPHERDS turn away from Gill)
A nurse I should hire? What think ye yet? I've been paid now, entire. My dream has been sent I
have bairns, if ye knew,
(SHEPHERDS start to wander around)
Far more than a few,
But we must drink as we brew,
And that is but reason.
I would ye dined 'fore ye went? Ye sweat, as I think.
(MAK wraps arms around the SHEPHERDS shoulders and begins to walk them towards the
kitchen)
2ND SHEPHERD
No, we don't mind tonight if we don't eat or drink.
(2nd SHEPHERD breaks away from MAK’S grasp)
MAK
Why, sir, is everything right?
3RD SHEPHERD
What do you think?
A sheep just went! Stolen in a blink!
(3RD SHEPHERD lifts pillow off of the bed and begins to look around)
MAK
Drink, sirs.
Had I been there They'd have got theirs.
(MAK snatches the pillow from 3RD SHEPHERD and replaces it with a glass)
1ST SHEPHERD
That's what we fear!
Some think you were there!
(1ST SHEPHERD advances towards MAK and points at him)
2ND SHEPHERD
Mak, some men now think it must be ye.
(2ND SHEPHERD advances towards MAK and points at him, mirroring 1ST SHEPHERD)
3RD SHEPHERD
Either you or your spouse, so say we.
(with the word ‘you” 3RD SHEPHERD points at MAK as well, but then swivels to face GILL)
(ALL THREE SHEPHERDS rotate to face Gill)
MAK
Now, don't you suppose it was Gill or me!
Come, go through our house, and then ye may see Who had her.
If any sheep I've got.
And Gill, my wife, rose not
Since down she laid her.
As I am true as steel, to God here I pray,
That this be the first meal that I shall eat this day.
1ST SHEPHERD
Mak, that's not what I feel, then be advised, I say: He learns in time to steal that never could say
nay.
MAK'S WIFE
(Flailing arms and blankets. GILL dramatically rolls around in bed while whaling in attempt to
distract from the moving lump that is the “baby”)
I die!
Out thieves from my home,
You come to take what we own.
(SHEEP bleets and Gill covers it with a groan)
MAK
Hear you not how she groans? Your hearts should melt.
MAK'S WIFE
Out thieves! Leave my babe! Don't come near here!
MAK
Knew you what she'd been through, your hearts would be sore.
MAK'S WIFE
Ah, my middle!
I pray to God so mild,
If ever I you beguiled, That I should eat this child That lies in this cradle.
(While Gill is speaking, 3RD SHEPHERD continues to snoop around and picks up a book from
the desk. He holds it up so the audience can read the title. When Gill says the line “That I should
eat this child” the audience sees the book title “Delicious Recipes for Lamb and Sheep”.
MAK
(MAK Grabs book and slams it shut while giving Gill peeved look)
Peace, woman, for God's pain, and cry not so! Thou spills thy brain, and makes me full of woe.
2ND SHEPHERD
I think our sheep be slain. What say you two?
3RD SHEPHERD
All this is in vain; we may as well go.
1ST SHEPHERD
We have aimed amiss; we be but beguiled.
(SHEPHERDS start to walk out)
2ND SHEPHERD
We have done!
Sir, our Lady him save! Be this child a boy brave?
MAK'S WIFE
Any lord might him have
This child for his son.
When he wakes he snatches; a joy is to see.
3RD SHEPHERD
May he be happy, and in good time, when he Needs godparents to stand by him we'll be ready!
2ND SHEPHERD
Mak, friends will we be, for we are all one.
(They both begin to approach the baby)
MAK
(Pushing them out the door)
We? Count not on me, for amends get I none. Farewell all three! And gladly be gone.
(They leave the cottage.)
Works Cited
The Wakefield Master. The Second Shepherds' Play. Edited by Adrian Guthrie,1999.
