Today's Topics:
Ololon
Re: Blake as a Romantic
Re: Blake as a Romantic
Re: Blake as a Romantic
Keats is to Shelley as feets is to belly
Urizen, unfallen
Re: Blake at MLA -Reply
Re: Urizen, unfallen
Re: Urizen, unfallen
Re: Urizen, unfallen
Blake as a romantic
Re: Blake as a romantic
Re: Blake as a romantic
Re: urizen pronunciation
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:00:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Andrew Elfenbein
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Ololon
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Where in _Milton_ is Ololon explicitly identified by character or narrator
as Milton's Emanation?
Andrew Elfenbein
elfen001@maroon.tc.umn.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:52:27 -0700 (MST)
From: fawman@compusmart.ab.ca (Steven Mandziuk)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake as a Romantic
Message-Id: <199701182052.NAA09711@bernie.compusmart.ab.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have also seen curricula that give late eighteenth century courses with
Blake as a sign of a "new age" and Romantics courses that seek out
affinities between Blake and Wordsworth, Byron, etc. I am also interested
in your source for Keats' knowledge of Blake.
>Dear Steve,
>Just to give you a quick-thought reply, as that's all I have time for
>now:
>
>In graduate school at Boston College Blake was grouped both with the
>Romantics and with eighteenth-centurians in course offerings. This is
>often true in anthologies as well--I won't get into a recitation of
>titles. I will always think of him as one of the "big six" along with
>Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats, Byron, and Shelley, but others more
>knoweledgable may perhaps have more to contribute on the subject of his
>place in the canon.
>
>
>S. Reilly
>
>
>You wrote:
>>
>>I would be interested in getting opinions as to how Blake fits into
>the
>>"Romantic Poets" grouping, I know some of the arguments, but I have a
>>nagging sense that he stands outside of the group just as Turner who
>is
>>often grouped with the "Impressionists" stands apart from them.
>>
>>I know that Blake was definitely aware of Wordsworth, and late in life
>>met with Colridige, and apparently Keats was aware of Blake. It
>seems
>>to me in some senses that Blake stands Wordsworth on his head in his
>>views on Nature, and I see Blake's heroes almost antithetical in
>>character than those of Byron. Any thoughts.....
>>
>>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:02:43 -0600
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake as a Romantic
Message-Id: <97011820024339@wc.stephens.edu>
There is no reference to Blake in Keats's letters, which would suggest
that he knew little of Blake, since he tended to comment on poets whose
work he cared for. One possible source of the notion that Keats may
have known something of Blake occurse on page 327 of Walter Jackson Bates's
biography--Bate is commenting on the unfortunate climate for practicing
poets at the time of Keats's early maturity, and remarks, "Wordsworth,
Byron, Shelley, had each been bold in his way (and so, of course, had
Blake, though Keats knew little if anything of him)." Certainly it;s
not much to go on, but the kind of remark that might have stuck in
part in memory, suggesting a connection. Mona Wilson's biography
says flatly "There is,indeed, no evidence that he [Blake] knew the
work of Coleridge, Shelley, or Keats. Neither did he affect them;
so far as we know only Wordsworth and Coleridge read any of his
poems" (370), and in a footnote, she mentions that in Amy Lowell's
biography of Keats (which I have not read, I confess), Lowell
"tries to trace the influence of Blake on Keats," but dismisses
the suggestion as unfounded. The only reference to Keats in
Bentley's _Blake Records_ mentions the coincidence that both
Keats and Blake liked Hampstead Heath.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:25:38 -0800
From: Steve Perry
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake as a Romantic
Message-Id: <32E17812.31FB@infogenics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I will make a concerted effort to find the Keats reference.
I am partial to the concept of separating Blake from the romantics. I
can see the thinking behind the idea that Blake's thought can be
construed as leaning towards idealism or Platonism, and that when drawn
with a big brush, it could be called Romantic. However, I like the
metaphor of; as Turner to the Impressionists, Blake to the Romantics.
Both Turner and Blake seem to be compelled by different reasons in their
Art, if one looks at Turner's interest in light and optics as compared
to say Monet's interest in light and color; and Blake's interest in
Experience as a source of redemption to Wordsworth communion with
Nature, the similarities seem to drop off. Both Blake and Turner were
building an Aesthetic, generating an architecture of inward vision,
while Wordworth especially and Monet and Seurat particularly are looking
outside to be informed as to that which is within.
Further, if you look at the "father" of Romantic thought, Rosseau, I
would find it hard to believe Blake would have anything to do with
Rousseau's Man in Nature. Additionally it is interesting to look at
Blake's seeming antipathy to the Greek ideal, as opposed to its embrace
by some of the other Romantic poets.
Just poking around for responses.....
Steven Mandziuk wrote:
>
> I have also seen curricula that give late eighteenth century courses with
> Blake as a sign of a "new age" and Romantics courses that seek out
> affinities between Blake and Wordsworth, Byron, etc. I am also interested
> in your source for Keats' knowledge of Blake.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:31:30 -0800
From: Hugh Walthall
To: Blake@albion.com
Subject: Keats is to Shelley as feets is to belly
Message-Id: <32E1B1B2.545A@erols.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Keats did not know Blake, or know of Blake. To this day, in Eternity,
he has never met him or read his works, or seen any drawings etc. by
Blake. It's weird, I grant you. Like Shakespearean characters lost in
a haunted wood, they wander through Kastle Miltonus, never in the same
room at the same time. Two rare earth metals, never present together in
the same ore, yet commonly grouped on most periodic tables. Go figure.
Hugh Walthall hugwal@erols.com
p.s.: p.327 of Bate Bio of Keats: (Oxford Paper edition 1964) Keats knew
little, if anyything, about Blake.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 12:05:40 -0500 (EST)
From: bouwer
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Urizen, unfallen
Message-Id: <199701191705.MAA29181@host.ott.igs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I would like to continue the conversation started by Virginia
de Meres on Urizen. She says: "I associate Urizen strongly with
Lockean thought..." I assume she means by that the fallen Urizen.
I need help thinking about Urizen the unfallen, Urizen as one of
the four energies, called by that name according to Kathleen Raine
because of the implication that his activities engender a "horizon"
which has to be taken into account. He, the man with the flashlight.
I need help because I am locked in cyber-combat with a Cynic. It
all started when my friend, seven time zones to the east, learned
of Carl Sagan's death and sent me the information as an excerpt from
a cynics e-mail list. I did not know before that Cynics were a breed,
that they have a listgroup, that they considered Carl Sagan "a great
teacher and friend." My friend then proceeded to force me to read
Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World." It was then that I discovered why
my cyberfriend had this built-in antipathy to Blake, while at the same
time confessing to knowing nothing about Blake. Sagan, while naming
one of his chapters "Newton's Sleep," has these nasty little asides
about Blake, quoting lines and then "debunking" them in the best
pseudo-scientific manner that he so decries in pseudo-science.
But all this has set me thinking about the cognitive energy and
its function in the scheme of things. And it has made me wonder -
while cognition sheds light on the clearing in the forest, what is
out there in the dark, beyond the limit of its ability to enlighten?
Is the forest already planted, for us to discover? Or is there no
forest there? It seems an academic question. But when one is arguing
with a cynic, it seems to take on an urgent importance. The question
then becomes: is Urizen, the unfallen Urizen, a minor energy compared
to Urthona and the others, or is he indeed an equal among equals. I
sometimes think Urizen is there to be condescended to, even by Blake
enthusiasts.
Can somebody talk to me of Lucifer, before he fell?
What do Greek and indeed other mythologies say about all this?
Gloudina Bouwer
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 11:44:12 -0700 (MST)
From: fawman@compusmart.ab.ca (Steven Mandziuk)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake at MLA -Reply
Message-Id: <199701191844.LAA29650@bernie.compusmart.ab.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I can only echo Marcus Brownell's comments. Here! Here! Fly with your own
wings, indeed, soar with them.
>I'm afraid that you have fallen victim to two Urizenic impositions, as you
>lament in the message appended below. Shake them off and fly with
>your own wings. First, why try to prophecy (in the limited sense of the
>term) the future? Let the future take care of itself. Remember that
>Urizen in FZ achieves wisdom when he casts off futurity. Second, why
>care if prophecy, your chosen specialization, takes center stage in the
>university? Many of us make a happy living pursuing byways that will
>never be featured on the Rosie O'Donnell show. Who was the Nobel
>prize winner a few years ago, a Bible translator who complained that
>fame had interrupted his work in a very disturbing way? Third, I can
>think of no better field of interest than prophecy. What a glorious time
>you have chosen for yourself!
>
>>>> Marcus Rudolf Brownell
>01/13/97 01:38pm >>>
>
>At the moment, I don't see much of a future for me if I say that my
>specialty is prophecy as a genre. This could change of course as
>things tend to in the academy. Any thoughts or questions for me? I'm
>sure I look forward to input from other Blake enthusiasts as I know I still
>have a lot of thinking to do about what prophecy is and why it should be
>more of a concern. Should prophecy be a center of attention at some
>point, I'm sure Blake scholarship would enjoy active participation in the
>University. (Though the preface to _Milton_ makes me wary about
>enjoying a priveleged status in an institution such as the University.)
>
>Thanks for your time,
>
>Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 10:27:45 -0800
From: reillys@ix.netcom.com (susan p. reilly)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Urizen, unfallen
Message-Id: <199701191827.KAA09450@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com>
Gloudina:
Lucifer (Latin for "lightbringer") was the name anciently applied to
Venus as the morning star (but when she follows the sun and appears as
an evening star, she is known as "Hesperus").
The Old Testament Isaiah applied the epithet "Day-star" to the proud
King of Babylon, who boasted that he would ascend to the heavens and
make himself a god, but was cast down to the bottom of a pit.
Accordingly, it was St. Jerome and other Christian exegetes who first
applied the name to Satan; hence Milton and other poets use "Lucifer"
to refer to the unfallen Satan, a demon of sinful pride.
I think the best source for Blake's concept of the unfallen Satan is
"Paradise Lost." If you go to the early books of the poem you will see
what is probably the fullest characterization of Lucifer ever written
outside of exegesis (though Milton did draw on Christain exegesis,
emblem book, mystery play, Genesis, and on the works of other writers
like Fletcher for his portrait of the Tempter). Insofar as the
Physiologus (early and Christianized form of beast fable) was drawm
partially from classical myth and fable, both Hellenic and Egyptian, as
well as Asiatic (Herodotus, Aristotle, Ctesias, Aesop, and others) the
concept of Satan in all his forms (angel, serpent, fox, etc.) has a
long history which predates even Genesis.
You wrote:
>
> I would like to continue the conversation started by Virginia
>de Meres on Urizen. She says: "I associate Urizen strongly with
>Lockean thought..." I assume she means by that the fallen Urizen.
> I need help thinking about Urizen the unfallen, Urizen as one of
>the four energies, called by that name according to Kathleen Raine
>because of the implication that his activities engender a "horizon"
>which has to be taken into account. He, the man with the flashlight.
> I need help because I am locked in cyber-combat with a Cynic. It
>all started when my friend, seven time zones to the east, learned
>of Carl Sagan's death and sent me the information as an excerpt from
>a cynics e-mail list. I did not know before that Cynics were a breed,
>that they have a listgroup, that they considered Carl Sagan "a great
>teacher and friend." My friend then proceeded to force me to read
>Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World." It was then that I discovered why
>my cyberfriend had this built-in antipathy to Blake, while at the same
>time confessing to knowing nothing about Blake. Sagan, while naming
>one of his chapters "Newton's Sleep," has these nasty little asides
>about Blake, quoting lines and then "debunking" them in the best
>pseudo-scientific manner that he so decries in pseudo-science.
> But all this has set me thinking about the cognitive energy and
>its function in the scheme of things. And it has made me wonder -
>while cognition sheds light on the clearing in the forest, what is
>out there in the dark, beyond the limit of its ability to enlighten?
>Is the forest already planted, for us to discover? Or is there no
>forest there? It seems an academic question. But when one is arguing
>with a cynic, it seems to take on an urgent importance. The question
>then becomes: is Urizen, the unfallen Urizen, a minor energy compared
>to Urthona and the others, or is he indeed an equal among equals. I
>sometimes think Urizen is there to be condescended to, even by Blake
>enthusiasts.
> Can somebody talk to me of Lucifer, before he fell?
> What do Greek and indeed other mythologies say about all this?
>
>Gloudina Bouwer
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:08:12 -0600
From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Urizen, unfallen
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The question
>>then becomes: is Urizen, the unfallen Urizen, a minor energy compared
>>to Urthona and the others, or is he indeed an equal among equals. I
>>sometimes think Urizen is there to be condescended to, even by Blake
>>enthusiasts.
>>
>>Gloudina Bouwer
Gloudina, this is a good question. For me, it seems relevant that Urizen
is the architect in Night the Second of _The Four Zoas_: the architect not
only of the Mundane Shell in its abstract sense, but of a "wondrous
building" that seems almost to seduce the speaker with its beauty--he and
we have to keep reminding ourselves that it's built with the work of
slaves. Blake is more explicit about architecture's redemptive function in
_Milton_, where he calls architecture, or "Science," the only one of the
four eternal arts which survives in time and space, making the other three
(poetry, painting, music) "apparent." (I'm looking at _Milton_ plate 27, E
125). Urizen's habit of measuring and setting limits can be either
constructive or destructive, but we tend to see it only in its fallen form.
It's interesting that in _Jerusalem_, when the "golden builders" are
building Golgonooza, Urizen is not mentioned except as the Satan who
"withered up Jerusalem's gates." And back in _The Four Zoas_, when Los and
Enitharmon are busy in Golgonooza creating bodies for souls, Urizen is just
as busy unmaking those bodies through war.
I'm inclined to think Blake originally conceived Urizen as a "bad guy" and
never got around to redeeming him fully. But I'd like to hear what others
think.
Jennifer Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:24:39 -0600
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Urizen, unfallen
Message-Id: <97011921243905@wc.stephens.edu>
A kind of postscript to my earlier comments, prompted by Gloudina's
reminder of Kathleen Raine's version of the etymology of Urizen and
connection of the name to "horizon"--if we read Blake's comments
about the visual arts, especially those in which he rejects the
dawbs of oil painters and rails against various admired painters
because they neglect the "bounding line," we see promptly that
Blake's highest approbation in the visual arts is reserved for
those who produce a clear bounding line--and this applies also
to his preferences in engraving techniques. There is no paradox
here unless we assume that he demonizes Urizen and dismisses him--
in other words, if we assume that Blake espouses a hazy spirituality
and emotionality as preferable to or superior to rational and
precise thought and imagination. Nothing of the kind. Those who
intepret Blake as advocating irrationality or an anti-rational
stance simply miss his point. He may oppose "rationalism"--agreed.
He opposes "deism" and scientism as well. But these are not
reason, theology, or science, only reductive partially understood
versions of them separated from the full range of comprehension
available only to those (of fourfold vision) who are capable of
integrating (through the work of Los) the full range of expression
and comprehension. I believe (with many) that Blake's theory and
practice of his visual arts are fully integrated with his poesis--his
mythopoetic practice. Those who wish to appropriate his work as
illustrative of their own theories are free to do so, but should
not expect such misappropriation to explain Blake.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:41:27 -0600
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: Blake@albion.com
Subject: Blake as a romantic
Message-Id: <97011923412721@wc.stephens.edu>
From: COSMO::TOMDILL "TOM DILLINGHAM" 19-JAN-1997 14:08:53.66
To: COSMO::TOMDILL
CC: TOMDILL
Subj: Re: Blake as a Romantic -Reply
I first encountered the adjective "urizenic" in 1968 when I entered my
first graduate seminar on Blake. (I might add, for those discussing
the relationship of Blake and the Romantics, that it was possible for
a student at a major ivy league university to major in English but
never encounter Blake except as an afterthought or a footnote--with
one exception--the brilliant lectures by R.P. Blackmur in his lyric
course; otherwise, there was a "Five Romantic Poets" taught by
Carlos Baker, among others, with no reference to Blake. Since I was
already a great fan of Blake, I had to continue to read him on my own.)
That's a different thread, however. During the seminar, I inferred from
the conversation that "urizenic" was a common negative epithet among
Blakeans, and it was quickly clear what it meant: it implied a person
of hyperrational tendencies, what now might be called a control freak,
who insisted on logical and linear demonstrations and assumed that only
"natural science" could provide a meaningful access to "truth"; this same
person might well, in social or political contexts, be domineering and
patriarchal, even totalitarian, in relationships. In other words,
"urizenic" was a composite, almost a portmanteau, including many
connotations, all negative.
I have been careful not to capitalize that word for the obvious reason
that the adjectival form, with all its negative connotations (including,
however, the interesting paradox that the representations of urizenic
figures, and of Urizen himself, in Blake's visual art, often present us
with extremely beautiful male figures--not least among them, Newton),
is not the equivalent of Urizen, the figure in Blake's art and myth,
neither in terms of the connotations of the adjective or in any sense
in terms of the function of that energetic figure. Several have made
reference to the "fallen" as opposed to the "unfallen" Urizen. This
seems very important to me. The fallen Urizen might well be the character
implied in the adjective, and that is precisely why it is so important
never to allow oneself to fall into the single or even double vision
versions of Blake interpretation, since they contribute to reducing
Urizen (or the Emanations or Zoas) to single determinate roles and
characters, to confusing individuals and states, etc. It is rather
like assuming that Blake, the poet, would take sides in the
innocence vs. experience conflict, as though it were a mere game with
a potential winner and loser or even a preferable side. If Blake were
on either side, quite simply he could never have written the Songs, much
less the rest of his work.
So it quickly became clear to me that the implication among Blakeans that
Blake might share the scorn and rejection implied in the adjective
"urizenic" must surely be wrong. He might reject those qualities I
have enumerated (just as he would probably be critical of the
corresponding negativities associated with "luvistic" or "tharmatic")
but he would not be so foolish as to eject or advocate the suppression of
Urizen, since his whole artistic and imaginative project is devoted to
finding ways to reintegrate the "four" and their many multiples and
variations, bringing a creative tension among them rather than the
tendency to overwhelm and overween in power struggles.
For this reason, I think it ironic that someone should have referred to
the "war" between Pam and the "Urizens"--my suggestion is that though
Pam espouses a kind of spiritualistic interpretation of Blake's work,
the honor to spiritual and imaginative life is couched in a mode of
thought and interpretation that is typical of the range of thinking
included in my old colleagues' use of the term "urizenic." It is not
the content, obviously, but the manner and application of her
theory that becomes "urizenic" in a negative sense.
AS to whether Blake is a "romantic," surely if we use the term to
refer to a period, he is, without equivocation, at least in the
context of English romanticism. If we think of the term as
implying particular modes of thought or social/political allegiances,
or theories of imagination, or assumptions about the relationship
of human consciousness and the natural world, then the argument i
s a bit more complicated, because we must confront the long understood
fact that there is no single entity called "romanticism," but many
strains and threads of thought, theory, aesthetics, and artistic
production that may occur at any time in human history (you could
presumably find "romantic" elements in some of Euripides' tragedies);
sometimes
"romantic" is a convenient label for differentiating courses (as in
Baker's old Five Romantic Poets--no one, even today, is likely to
be in doubt about which five--definitely not Charlotte Smith or
Letitia Landon, friends), but it is far more difficult to resolve
questions when its real meaning is explored.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 05:40:47 -0800
From: reillys@ix.netcom.com (susan p. reilly)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake as a romantic
Message-Id: <199701201340.FAA24648@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com>
Dear Tom,
Thanks for sharing the bit about where Blake fit (or didn't fit) into
Romantics courses during your graduate studies. Perhaps this is why he
has continued to be omitted from Romantics seminars by professors who
attended ivy-league universities at about the same time as you. All of
which, I think, goes to show what a fickle thing canon-formation can
be, (or at least the formation of literary period-boundaries) and
reinforces the responsibilty resting on professors of English with
respect to Romantic authors and their students. And this doesn't even
begin to the address the question, recently discussed, about Blake
scholarship. "The Big Five," huh?
S. Reilly
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 06:38:52 -0800
From: reillys@ix.netcom.com (susan p. reilly)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake as a romantic
Message-Id: <199701201438.GAA20688@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com>
>
>AS to whether Blake is a "romantic," surely if we use the term to
>refer to a period, he is, without equivocation, at least in the
>context of English romanticism. If we think of the term as
>implying particular modes of thought or social/political allegiances,
>or theories of imagination, or assumptions about the relationship
>of human consciousness and the natural world, then the argument i
>s a bit more complicated, because we must confront the long understood
>fact that there is no single entity called "romanticism," but many
>strains and threads of thought, theory, aesthetics, and artistic
>production that may occur at any time in human history (you could
>presumably find "romantic" elements in some of Euripides' tragedies);
>sometimes
>"romantic" is a convenient label for differentiating courses (as in
>Baker's old Five Romantic Poets--no one, even today, is likely to
>be in doubt about which five--definitely not Charlotte Smith or
>Letitia Landon, friends), but it is far more difficult to resolve
>questions when its real meaning is explored.
>Tom Dillingham
>
In response:
Tom,
As you know, it may currently be more in fashion to speak of "Romanticisms" than
"Romanticism," just as it is with respect to "Feminism" and to other canonical and
theoretical "tags" and terminologies. No doubt in future there will be even more
fracturing of the definition of the period and an ever-more inclusive Romantic canon.
Even recent Romantic anthologies by those I think of as conserative Romanticists are
swelling to twice their former size in an effort to include "minor" and (how I hate
this "tag"!) "women" writers of the period.
I agree that the Big Five will stand as the benchmark, despite the efforts
of some to dislodge them from their thrones on the heights of Parnassus. The subject
of what criteria should be used for inclusion of texts is too complex to enter into
here--(should there be a standard, and if so, what standard, and who decides what the
standard should be?--easy to see why much of the impetus for canon restructuring
originated in the U.S.).
But I do think, and must allow, that there is a stamp of authority which placing texts
into print, and especially into anthologies, gives to those texts. I don't think we
should be too quick to judge the relative merits of "minor" writers, especially when
we consider that Blake himself has been seen as the bastard child of Romanticism from
time to time. There is a critical authority which is generated from seeing certain
writers anthologized time after time, and from seeing their works brought out in
volumes of print, which is quite apart from their "critical" reception and inexorably
linked to their public perception. After the Nth critical edition or volume of X's
work appears in print (and this, admittedly, assumes an audience for these works) it
is more likely to be deemed poetry or prose of the first order.
This, of course, cannot and does not explain why some writers were wildly popular in
their day and then fell out of favor. But these things are at least partly cyclical
and subject to the whims of public and critical taste. And I think, on balance, that
it is dangerous to speak of monolithic works without at least allowing that their
stature may be due to factors which are partly subjective and subject to possible
change.
(Please, list members, don't start railing about Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron,
Keats, and Shelley--I am as enamored as anyone and caught up in the air of their
poetical authority).
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:56:58 -0500 (EST)
From: "Christine R. Gray"
To: TOM DILLINGHAM
Cc: Blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: urizen pronunciation
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I was taught that Urizen = your reason--pronounced very quickly.
christine gray
china@wam.umd.edu
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1997 Issue #4
************************************