William Blake’s The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, a poem conceived at
the time of the French Revolution, consisting of equal parts prophetic,
dialectic, wild fantasy, and political commentary, contains many startling and
ambiguous images: angels and devils conversing in space, huge spiders stalking
the cosmos, and the famous section titled Proverbs of Hell, many lines of which
have passed into popular consciousness. One of the images that is paid less
attention, perhaps because it is at once a familiar image both in Blake and
apocalyptic literature generally is that of Leviathan; specifically the
Leviathan that appears in the phantasmagorical journey that makes up plates 17
to 20. Above you can see Blake’s etching that appears at the end of plate 20
and which includes the barely legible motto “opposition is true friendship”.
What could this curious combination signify? What is the function of Leviathan,
the great ‘apocalypse fish’ in Blake’s mythology? And what significance can be
gleaned from that strange motto which suggests in its combination with the
image a more productive relationship between such extreme eschatological
figures?
Leviathan: Apocalyptic Fish for all Seasons
The figure of Leviathan occupies a strange position between theology
and politics. Its roots are deep in the history of ancient near eastern religion
where it is variously associated both with creation myths and eschatological
prophesy. In Canaanite mythology it goes by the name Lotan and is linked with
the turbulence and force of the sea, an association that represents one of
Leviathan’s few stable characteristics across the aeons. In the myth it is the Gods
Ba’al Hadad, and later in the Hebrew version, Yahweh which are required to
subdue the sea beast in order to reign over the world. And it is here that
another of Leviathan’s archetypal characteristics, that of being a kind of
serpent or dragon, are revealed: “you smote Leviathan the slippery serpent, and
made an end of the slippery serpent, the tyrant with seven heads” (Trans Gibson
in Cohn 1993 pg124). The reference to a tyrant with seven heads is an
interesting one and pops up in later Christian eschatological sources, not
least in the description of The Beast from the Sea in The Book of Revelations. Remnants of this ancient creation myth find
their way into the Old Testament and form part of a community lament recited at
Passover by some Jewish traditions. The Psalm is both a lament and a plea to
God not to forget the peoples of Israel during their plight under the
Babylonian captivity:
Thou didst divide the sea
by thy might;
Thou didst break the heads
of the dragons on the waters.
Thou didst crush the heads
of Leviathan,
Thou didst give him as food
for the creatures of the wilderness.
(Psalm 74)
However
in Isaiah 27:1 Leviathan’s role is transmuted from creation to eschaton and is called that wriggling serpent
(some versions of the Bible say twisted, coiling or crooked) that will be
killed at the end of time. And again in a Jewish rabbinic legend found in the
Siddur there is described a great battle which will take place at the end of
time between Leviathan and its traditional land based monstrous counterpart
Behemoth: "...they will interlock with one another and engage in combat,
with his horns the Behemoth will gore with strength, the fish [Leviathan] will
leap to meet him with his fins, with power. Their Creator will approach them
with his mighty sword [and slay them both]." Then, "from the
beautiful skin of the Leviathan, God will construct canopies to shelter the
righteous, who will eat the meat of the Behemoth and the Leviathan amid great
joy and merriment." The idea of using
the body of the slain beast as a shelter is found in another prayer to be recited
at the end of the Sukkot festival (festival of booths or tabernacles) which
entreats God that the righteous might dwell in the sukkah (booth) made from the skin of Leviathan in
Jerusalem in the Time to Come. Judaism abounds with references to the great
fish; sometimes paired with a female counterpart, sometimes battling with Behemoth
or at other times with God himself, and in some versions, as above, ending up
slaughtered and fed to the righteous without concern over whether its meat is
Kosher.
In
medieval Christianity Leviathan increasingly became associated with Satan and
evil in general, a force opposed to creation, thus entirely reversing its
association with the birth of the world in the Canaanite myths. In its apocalyptic
guise the role of feeding and sheltering the righteous in the World to Come was
also lost. The serpent (serpens)
described in the Moralia of Gregory
the Great is said to be the origin of capital sin, by working up its whole
inside and discharging a bane of spite to infect the soul of the sinner deeply.
Later in the Summa Theologica Thomas Aquinas
would come to quote this association of Gregory’s in his discussion of Envy (Secunda Secundae Question 36).
A late apocalyptic image of Leviathan can also
be found in the Hortus Deliciarum of Herrad of Landsberg (Image Left). In this wild vision Leviathan is
shown caught by God, here cast as a fisherman using the Cross as a hook and
Christ himself as bait! The idea
clearly took on some degree of significance at this time as Carl Schmitt
reports in his text on the Leviathan in Thomas Hobbes that German crusaders
would sing a marching song which went:
O blessed cross,
consisting of the best
wood,
on you was caught
the greedy leviathan
(Schmitt 2008 pg8)
Aside from these colourful representations perhaps the best known
evocation of Leviathan in the Judaeo-Christian tradition is found in the book
of Job chapter 41. It takes the form of a lengthy description the last twelve verses
of which are:
The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable.
His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone.
When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing.
The sword that
reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
Iron he treats like
straw and bronze like rotten wood.
Arrows do not make
him flee, sling stones are like chaff to him.
A club seems to him
but a piece of straw, he laughs at the rattling of the lance.
His undersides are
jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing-sledge.
He makes the depths
churn like a boiling cauldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
Behind him he leaves
a glistening wake; one would think the deep had white hair.
Nothing on earth is
his equal— a creature without fear.
He looks down on all
that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud.
Taken together these varied images form a rich vein of
demonology and eschatological prophesy. Despite their varying character there
are it seems several common traits to Leviathan that I think are worth
remembering in the subsequent discussion of Blake. Leviathan is associated with
internal strength, disruptive or chaotic power, is opposed to external order
and stasis, and is inevitably linked to the sea and serpent like creatures. More
ambiguous is Leviathan’s association with evil; and it is this ambiguity that
Blake at first sight appears to play on in his poem, as we shall see.
...and its appropriation by Hobbes
In political theory the Leviathan is almost exclusively
associated with the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, whose mid 17th
century text of the same name sought (amongst the books many aims) to
articulate a modern theory of the state, of freedom and political
representation, and to rebut the republican sentiments of many of the
parliamentarian and so called “democratical” writers of his time. Hobbes’ appropriation of Leviathan is taken straight from the book
of Job, going so far as to place the Latin gloss of the penultimate line from
the description above on the famous frontispiece to his book: non est potestas Super Terrum quae
comparetur ei (There is no power on earth to be compared with him). It is
however the beast’s strength and image of impregnable unity which Hobbes is
interested in drawing into his theory of the state, not its eschatological
significance. Indeed elsewhere in the book the rationalist Hobbes explicitly
describes the book of Job as a fiction design to illustrate a moral lesson but
not conveying a historical account (Hobbes 1996 pg255).
The themes of unity and of a force second only to God is central to
Hobbes’ appropriation of the religious figuration of Leviathan. The argument he
wishes to make is that only a state that maintains both civil and ecclesiastic
power under the direction of an absolute sovereign has the requisite force to
maintain peace and security, to guard against invasion or the decent into the Bellum omnium contra omnes (War of all against all) which according to Hobbes occurs when there are no shared moral and political norms, and the multitude of individuals maintain their right to all things. In Job’s Leviathan he saw just such a figure that could represent his idea, a fearless creature, looking down on all those who are haughty, and reigning as king over the children of pride. Based on his sovereign power, he alone determines by law, in questions of justice, what is right and proper and, in matters pertaining to religious beliefs, what is truth and error (Schmitt 2008 pg53).
Having sided with the great fish as the mythologem of his
commonwealth, Hobbes’ historical account of the English Revolution through
which he lived and which shaped so much of his thought in Leviathan, naturally
took the title of Behemoth. For Hobbes then, at least in a figurative sense,
the conflict between State and revolution, Concordia
and Discordia, were analogous with
the conflict between these great eschatological monsters. That he decided to
adopt the figure of a beast which throughout the Middle Ages had been
associated with evil is perhaps more of a measure of his rational interest in
the beast’s physical characteristics and its position of domination over man
second only to God himself. It is however not surprising that many of his
contemporaries found it a rather horrifying idea. Hobbes was on the wrong side
of history in his own time, and in the end, as Schmitt points out, the unity of
his Leviathan was instead defeated by the more powerful and for the English
nation more suitable might of the sea and of commerce. The energies of sea
power stood on the side of revolution (Schmitt 2008 pg79).
From Hobbes’ perspective the theory of the state he articulates and
a literal interpretation of the eschatological motifs from which he drew the figures
of Leviathan and Behemoth are simply incompatible. It is however a strange fact
that the association of the State with Leviathan, with evil and domination fits
far better into a possible Marxist Millenarian schema; the capitalist State,
like Leviathan, to be slain at the End of Time, its body to be broken up and
consumed by the righteous (read proletariat) in a strange parody of the state’s
withering away under communism. This isn’t the place for a detailed comparison,
but it may be worth bearing in mind when we look at Blake’s text.
Leviathan as ‘Bride’ in Blake’s Marriage of Heaven and Hell
In order to situate the Leviathan within Blake’s mythology it’s
important to understand that the poem is not just a fantastical exercise in
prophesy and a satirical polemic against the revelations of the scientist
turned Christian mystic Emanuel Swedenborg, but also a political and philosophical
manifesto designed to reveal the polar nature inherent in Man’s being and to
contest the normative moral categories of his time, most explicitly the
teaching of rationalised religion. It is from this provocative standpoint that
Blake seeks a marriage of heaven and hell, or more accurately a re-evaluation
of those ‘contraries’ which have been
set in fixed opposition to each other and denoted with the normative categories
Good and Evil. In the mode of Blake’s apocalyptic prophetic this includes
marrying, or at least inviting to the ceremony, some of the more outlandish
figures incarnating Christian morality, sea beasts and all.
The poet provides the clearest explanation of this aim in plate 3 of
the work, a section titled The Argument which bristles with veiled references
to the French Revolution and of the return of Man to paradise. Blake is here
setting out both his general thesis and the position which he wishes to
overcome by the end of the poem.
Without Contraries is no
progression. Attraction
And Repulsion, Reason and
Energy, Love and
Hate, are necessary to
Human existence.
From these contraries
spring what the religious call
Good and Evil. Good is the
passive that obeys Reason
Evil is the active
springing from Energy.
Good is Heaven. Evil is
Hell.
Plate 3
As Michael Phillips contends in his commentary to the Bodlean
Library edition of the poem, Blake may be employing a parodic version of Aristotle’s
logic. Parodic since in Aristotle contraries take the form of propositions
which cannot both be true (A and not A cannot hold simultaneously), whereas
here Blake lists antithetical concepts which in his theory are both meant to
obtain (Blake 2011 pg95). Aristotle is
also mentioned at the end of plate 20 where his analytics are likened to a
group of primates dismembering and consuming each other. This is thought to be another
pop at the method of scientific demonstration through empirical observation; “picking
the flesh off of his own tail” i.e. knowledge gained a posteriori, from experience.
The Leviathan makes its appearance in the fourth of a series of
passages titled A Memorable Fancy where Blake’s narrator having visited Hell
and come away having studied the proverbs of infernal wisdom is accosted by an
angel who reproaches him for having undertaken such a task and offers to show
him his lot (future/fate) if he would choose to continue on this perilous path.
Thus begins the often humorous adventure of the two lots. Firstly the angel takes
Blake’s narrator down into the earth to his “burning dungeon”, and then the narrator
himself forcibly takes the angel up on a bizarre space flight out towards
Saturn. It’s however down in the black void of the earth that we find
Leviathan.
a cloud and fire burst and rolled thro' the deep
blackning all beneath, so that the nether deep grew
black as a sea & rolled with a terrible noise; be-
-neath us was nothing now to be seen but a black
tempest, till looking east between the clouds & the
waves, we saw a cataract of blood mixed with fire
and not many stones throw from us appeard and
sunk again the scaly fold of a monstrous serpent
at last to the east, distant about three degrees ap-
-peard a fiery crest above the waves slowly it rear-
-ed like a ridge of golden rocks till we discoverd
two globes of crimson fire. from which the sea
fled away in clouds of smoke, and now we saw, it
was the head of Leviathan. his forehead was di-
-vided into streaks of green & purple like those on
a tygers forehead: soon we saw his mouth & red
gills hang just above the raging foam tinging the
black deep with beams of blood, advancing toward
us with all the fury of a spiritual existence.
Plate 18/19
Martin Nurmi has convincingly argued that “east three degrees” is another concealed reference to the French Revolution. From his work engraving geographical books Blake would have know that along three degrees longitude to the east of London lay Paris (Nurmi 1975 pg82). Blake appears then to be directly identifying Leviathan with the revolution, perhaps revolutionary force in general. Also of note is the description of the Leviathan as having tiger like marks on its forehead. This is an addition to the mythological appearance of the animal specific to Blake and may well refer back to one of the famous proverbs of hell: the tigers of wrath being wiser than the horses of instruction. The beast is observed arising from the sea and advancing towards London “with all the fury of a spiritual existence”, emphasising the fear at the time that the revolution in France might cross the channel. The angel clearly intends this scene to be horrifying, but the narrator having passed through the previous expository passages and memorable fancies where the contraries of hell are given their due, does not share the angel’s one sided perspective. Blake’s rejection of this absolutist position of condemnation is confirmed in the following lines where after the angel departs the narrator finds himself in moonlight on the bank of a calm river where a harpist sings “the man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, & breeds reptiles of the mind”. This suggests that Blake may wish us to understand the tempestuous image of the Leviathan as something of an exaggeration on the angel’s part. While Blake doesn’t seem to dispute the potentially terrifying ferocity of revolutionary violence, and often alluding to it in his work in apocalyptic terms, he nevertheless does not see it either in moral terms or as eternal. Instead in keeping with his theory of contraries he seems to impute this perspective to the development of rationalised hard and fast distinctions between aspects of human existence which at their extreme end leads in political action to ‘corporeal war’, oppression and destruction (Nurmi 1976 pg74).
Are we then to conclude that Blake deploys Leviathan in a fairly
orthodox manner as an eschatological figure of upheaval linked to the
destruction of the existing order and the unveiling (the literal translation of
the Greek apokalypsis) of the new world? Not exactly it would seem.
Firstly there is the problem of the metaphysics that are at work in his theory
of contraries. We learn from The Argument at the beginning of the poem that
there is no progression without contraries; love and hate; good and evil are all
necessary to human existence. Thus it seems unlikely then that Blake thought
the new world would be ushered in on Leviathan’s back by the sword and cannon of
unfettered revolutionary fervour. This again would be taking one side to an
undesirable extreme. Blake was however a supporter of the revolution, going so
far as to wear the bonnet rouge out in London at a time when such open support
for the Jacobin cause was a risky business. And although how close their acquaintance was
is a matter of some dispute, Blake’s extended circle did included Thomas Paine
and Mary Wollstonecraft. What then is
the status of the destructive energies in Blake’s scheme? One answer is alluded
to in plate 16 which poses the duality of Man’s Being in terms of the Prolific
and the Devouring:
Thus one portion of being,
is the Prolific. The
Other, the Devouring: to
the devourer it seems as
If the producer was in his
chains, but it is not so,
He only takes portions of
existence and fancies
That the whole.
But the Prolific would
cease to be Prolific
Unless the devourer as a
sea received the excess
Of his delights.
Some will say, Is not God
alone the Prolific?
I answer, God only Acts
& Is. In existing beings
Or Men
These two classes of men
are always upon
Earth. & they should be
enemies; whoever tries
To reconcile them seeks to
destroy existence.
Plates 16/17
The Devouring here is described as receiving the excess of the
Prolific like a sea. This image is again in keeping with the mythological
tradition by associating destructive chaotic power with the sea, and by
association with Leviathan. This passage also marks a significant development
in the proto-dialectics of The Marriage. Previously it might have been possible
to conclude that the contraries were to be set against each other in such a way
as to cancel each other out, or through some form of synthesis transform
themselves into a third alternative. This expository section however tells us
that these two sides to Being, the Prolific and the Devouring – which crudely
we might associate with creative and destructive energies- are always present
in Man and cannot be reconciled. Indeed to attempt to reconcile them, as Blake
claims Religion does, is to threaten all existence. Whatever relationship the
contraries have to each other it cannot be akin to Hegel’s aufhebung. Blake’s
contraries do not disappear in a form of higher synthesis. Nor is the
progression in which they function one in which they change their identities,
as the opposites do in Hegelian dialectic. The progression of human life to
which they are essential is the progression of continued creativity; and if it
goes anywhere it goes toward fuller realization of the divinity that is in
humanity through continued fruits of a life lived with the divine imagination,
rather than nature, as the ground of being (Nurmi 1976 pg75)
There is also evidence in other Blake sources that the poet did not
associate Leviathan solely with the forces of revolution. In 1805 he produced
two paintings with similar themes: The
Spiritual form of Pitt Guiding Behemoth, and The Spiritual Form of Nelson Guiding Leviathan. Both pictures were
shown at an exhibition Blake held in 1809 and where he described Pitt - who was
British Prime Minister at the time of the French Revolution - as “that Angel
who, pleased to perform the Almighty’s orders, rides on the
whirlwind, directing the storms of war”. Nelson of course was the naval
commander who defeated Napoleon at Trafalgar.
The meaning of the association
here appears to be Nelson (left) as directing the war at sea (hence the sea monster
Leviathan) and Pitt (below) directing the land war (hence the land monster Behemoth).
Blake then is not making use of the form of apocalyptic prophesy described
above wherein the two monsters themselves battle to the death at the end of
time, each representing one or other force in the world. Nor certainly is he
playing on Hobbes’ use of the monsters in distinguishing between the State and
civil war. Rather it appears that Blake wishes us to associate these terrible
beasts with corporal war in general, that excessive and destructive consequence
of dividing the world up into abstract Manichean categories such as Good and
Evil which persists to this day.
Agonism: An Opposition in True Friendship
What then might a more productive and less apocalyptic form of
political opposition look like, one which makes good on the motto that
‘opposition is true friendship’, and
preserves the contraries in all parties? We have already seen that Blake
was a republican, albeit a rather strange one. So far as I know there is no
republican theory which maintains the necessity of an apocalypse, which Blake believed
was the event in which Man’s true Being will be unveiled. Quite what form
Blake’s apocalypse might take baring in mind his rejection of so much Christian
thought is unclear. Certainly post-apocalypse would be a state in which Man’s
dual nature would be allowed free play; a state where those contraries, reason
and energy, love and hate, could be harnessed towards the production of
creative genius without falling into warring conflict through the attempt to
cancel each other out. Despite the lacunae in Blake’s prophetic vision we might
risk drawing one analogy from modern political theory, one which has some precedent
in the ancient world and republican thought, and which bares at least some
schematic resemblance to the form of productive opposition suggested by Blake’s
theory of contraries. The idea is Agonistic
Pluralism.
The basic idea behind an agonistic approach to human life can be
drawn from the Greek word agon (ἀγών) which denotes a series of
meanings related to contests or struggles (notably Olympic contests) in which
the aim is not the total defeat or elimination of the ‘Other’ but rather a
contest which is marked by the parties mutual respect and recognition that the
agonistic relationship is productive on both sides. Or as Foucault puts it: At
the very heart of the power relationship, and constantly provoking it, are the
recalcitrance of the will and the intransigence of freedom. Rather than
speaking of an essential antagonism, it would be better to speak of an
‘agonism’ – of a relationship that is at the same time mutual incitation and
struggle; less of a face to face confrontation that paralyzes both sides than a
permanent provocation (Foucault 2000 pg342).
The ineliminable nature of conflict and indeed the positive impact
that some types of conflict can have on the human genius is what I think Blake
is alluding to in his motto placed alongside the image of Leviathan, and which
is at the core of his theory of contraries. One of Blake’s principle complaints
against both the modern church and the mechanised enlightenment age itself is
that it produces a highly rationalised vision of the world. Fixed moral categories which are meant to
apply universally, the rationalism inherent in the scientific method which
Blake saw exemplified in the image of dark satanic mills reducing human endeavour
to a utilitarian drudge; all this renders the world into fixed oppositions
which do not admit of a mutual enduring struggle but rather the exclusion or elimination
of the opponent. Just as Hobbes wished to eliminate the possibility of rebellion
against the sovereign, or the church wished to exclude that which it called
evil; when these kinds of absolute positions take hold of nations and
institutions, antagonistic conflict, the desire to dominate the ‘other’, and
corporal war often result. As Blake puts it in plate 24 of the poem: One Law
for Lion & Ox is Oppression.
But of course Blake was
writing at the end of the 18th century whereas the agonistic theory
of politics has only been explicitly formulated in the 20th. So if
Blake did have in his mind a more agonistic form of political life where may he
have been exposed to it? Here we can only speculate, but we do know that his
circle included Thomas Paine and Mary Wollstonecraft two people who certainly
were aware of much historical republican theory where agonistic approaches to
political life (albeit not explicitly presented as such) are espoused. To take
one such source: Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy contains several chapters
which argue against the notion that the political conflict in the early Roman
Republic between the plebeians and the Senate was a sign of a disorderly
republic made great only through a combination of good fortune and military
prowess. In fact Machiavelli claims that is was precisely this ongoing conflict
that was the primary cause of Roman liberty. “And suppose someone were to say:
the means were extraordinary and almost barbarous – see how all the people are
crying out against the senate, the senate against the people; how they are
running wildly through the streets, closing shops; and how all the plebeians of
Rome are leave the city altogether – events which terrify even those who read
about them; I will respond that every city must possess its own methods for
allowing the people to express their ambitions , especially those cities that
intend to make use of the people in important affairs” (Machiavelli 2008 pg30).
 |
| Secessio Plebis (Secession of the Plebs) Engraving by B. Barloccini, 1849 |
Finally, it could well be said that this interpretation of Blake’s
theory turns his Leviathan into something of a household pet in that it
drastically tones down the messianic edge to his work. That much is obvious, and
I’m certainly not suggesting that Blake’s mytho-historic imagery is all a
complex obfuscation of an essentially modern vision of democratic life. As I’ve
already said, republicanism is not a millenarian theory and so has no need of
an apocalypse. But for Blake, and seemingly for many people during his time
such an apocalypse did seem to be a necessity when faced with the intractable
forces of monarchy, the Church of Rome, and the world altering powers of the
industrial revolution. Agonistic Pluralism though is primarily a theory
applicable to democratic societies and has little to say about how to fight
tyranny. Blake held out the hope for a new form of human life beyond the veil
of tears and mind forged manacles of late eighteenth century Europe, to a time
where Empire is no more. To this end, open revolt, revolution and resistance
were necessary, as they still are today, even if for a time it plunges the
whole world into a maelstrom of corporal conflict.
Paradoxically I would claim that this vision of revolutionary conflict and
the association of Leviathan with the extreme end of that conflict is a rather pragmatic
one on Blake’s part. He doesn’t try to sanitise the horrific consequences of
wars of liberation or struggle against tyranny, nor does he fall into Hobbesian
territory by viewing conflict as something to be avoided at all costs, even
if the cost is your liberty. For Blake the great fish will forever remain untameable and
allied to no-one; a signifier of messianic time and revelation, the beyond of
which can never be predicted in advance. Blake’s theory of contraries and the
agonistic form of life they hint at does however suggest a world beyond the
fire, one which in our time might be considerably more attainable than in his. Whether or not we still need the awesome power of Leviathan to change the world is a question I will have to leave open.
Let the Priests of the
Raven of dawn,
no longer in deadly black,
with hoarse not
curse the sons of joy. Nor
his accepted
brethren whom, tyrant, he
calls free: lay the
bound or build the roof.
Nor pale religious
letchery call that
virginity. That wishes
but not acts not!
For every thing that lives
is Holy
(Marriage of Heaven and
Hell Plate 27: A Song of Liberty – Chorus)
References
Blake,William 2011 – The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (Oxford, The
Bodleian Library)
Cohn,Norman 1993 – Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come (London, Yale
University Press)
Foucault,Michel 2000 – The Subject and Power in The essential Works of Michel Foucault, Vol 3: Power (New York,
New Press)
Hobbes,Thomas 1996 – Leviathan (Oxford, Oxford University Press)
Machiavelli,Nicolo 2008 – Discourses on Livy (Oxford, Oxford
University Press)
Nurmi,Martin 1976 – William Blake (Kent State University Press)
Schmitt,Carl 2008 – The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas
Hobbes (London, University of Chicago Press)
Tully,James 2008 – Public Philosophy in a New Key Vol 2 (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press)
