Today's Topics:
Re: Izak's answer
Blake and Ginsberg
Re: re. Ralph's questions
Re: BLAKE RECORDS
Re: symbolic or literal?
Innocence and Experience
Re: Ralph's questions
Re: Blake and Ginsberg
RE: re. Ralph's questions
OT: Beyond Words
RE: Ralph's questions
Re: Belligerent Blakeans
RE: re. Ralph's questions
RE: re. Ralph's questions
Blake sighting: Boorstin's Seekers
RE: re. Ralph's questions
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:42:31 -0800
From: ndeeter
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Izak's answer
Message-Id: <35F952F7.7C12@concentric.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ralph Dumain wrote:
> There isn't? Then you try to carry on a discussion in poetry, and I don't
> mean like rap. It is rather difficult to analyze a poem by writing another
> poem, though not impossible. I've tried it a few times; it's like inventing
> aphorisms and proverbs, it takes work. How many of us could write a MILTON
> and how often? The point is, you still have to have the smarts to find the
> best way to say what you want to say, and that is a far cry from the
> doggerel in verse one finds on this list.
Yes. It is difficult. And if you practice writing and accessing the
poetic mind everyday for eight years, you might be able to write one
decent response in poem to a poem. But then of course, we all practice
writing prose every day of our lives so prose is of course easier to
write.
> BTW, I doubt our minds are functioning in prose when we read Blake or any
> other poem. I don't think that is possible to read a poem in such a way,
> unless you are reading it for the 50th time.
Sure it is. Rewrite it taking away the line breaks so it is only a
block, a paragraph of text. Read against the music. Speed-read it to
yourself and highlight the main idea. But why would you want to read
poem as prose?
> I am not a trained literary critic, so the bells I
> slobber at are not academic ones.
The bells don't necessarily have to be polished academic bells tolling
the top of the hour; they might be old rusty cow bells you kick around
in the field one day. It's still a bell to slobber at.
Nathan Deeter
ndeeter@concentric.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:43:34 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Blake and Ginsberg
Message-Id: <98091112433444@wc.stephens.edu>
I can't remember whether this has been mentioned on the list before, so
if it has, I apologize for the repetition. There is a videotape available
called _Allen Ginsberg Sings Blake_ that provides an 80-minute performance
by Ginsberg of his "tunings" of Blake's songs (30 of them). These are
not the same performances issued on the lp by Verve/MGM years ago, though
the tunes are similar. The video is copyright 1995, but it is not
clear when it was actually recorded--I would guess considerably earlier
than that. Anyway, it is not expensive (15.95 from CDNOW) and I would
think any Ginsberg fan would want it, as would many Blakeans who have
attuned their ears to Ginsberg's visionary sounds.
(I might mention also that the Verve/MGM recording seems not to be
available--the performances on the 4-cd set of Ginsberg's poems and
performances are also not the same as those on the lp, so far as I can
tell.)
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: re. Ralph's questions
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980911134555.0dfff666@pop.igc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Beyond a certain critical point, participation in the theater of the absurd
becomes counterproductive. One can only make one's points two or three
times and then leave it alone. It is interesting to see all the nutcases
baying in unison, the mutual admiration of Swami Asshole and Von Schlock,
people spouting gibberish and making proclamations without anything to back
them up, surely a symptom of our diseased times. Well, the nuts have as
might right to be here as I do, but that doesn't mean they get a blank
check, so I'll give them a drubbing from time to time and then retreat into
silence.
At 03:59 PM 9/11/98 +0200, Huw Edwards wrote:
>Not only is the essence of spirituality within, it is also
>unique to the self: a very basic precept which you seem not to have
>grasped.
How would you know, since you can't read?
>Your reference to spirituality being some kind of search for
>superiority hints more at your own insecurities than at the ignorance of
>'idiots'. As do your other petulant outbursts.
You are not paying attention, hence you're reflecting your own
incomprehension through your own ego, and nothing smacks of obtuseness and
selfishness and superiority more than this statement.
> The incomprehensible academic rhetoric
>that you use is as much based on opinion as everything else in this
>world.
How many times do I have to repeat that I'm not an academic. I try to write
in plain English and make sense. As for opinion, you are spouting opinion
with nothing and nothing to back it up.
>Admittedly, my experience of this board is limited, but my
>perception thus far is of you trying to reduce everything to a "my
>brain is bigger than your brain scenario".
And this is just a childish, egocentric response, signifying nothing.
>Might I suggest a little humility.
Humility is a fraud, as your own behavior demonstrates. I don't believe you
know a thing about the spirituality you spout. You're bluffing. But I'll
be happy to leave you to your own unaccountable devices.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: Henriette Stavis
Cc: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: BLAKE RECORDS
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980911134552.0dff8788@pop.igc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This information is useful, thanks.
I've been gathering more references on Bourdieu and Romanticism and a few on
Bourdieu on science and philosophy and reading various odds and ends. I
have not yet been able to determine whether the objectionable stuff I'm
reading is about is due to Bourdieu himself or to the inevitable hucksterism
that corrupts all ideas that pass over from Europe to the USA.
As you explore the Internet further, you will likely find that Blakean
belligerence is tame compared to a whole cyber-universe of belligerence that
awaits you. There's no remedy for it, so one might as well enjoy the world
going up in flame wars.
At 12:25 PM 9/11/98 +0200, Henriette Stavis wrote:
>It would seem that I've promised you too much. The book that I carried
>home was BLAKE RECORDS and not BLAKE BOOKS. So there isn't anything on
>German idealism, Hegel & co.
>
>But since you haven't seen the book, I thought you might be interested in
>the table of contents:
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: symbolic or literal?
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980911134558.0e275614@pop.igc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ms. Von Schlock is deteriorating at a rapid pace. I'll not bother to engage
her further. I note that in recent weeks she has gotten nastier, more
irascible, more disconnected, more obtuse and unreasonable than ever,
starting with her hysterical responses to Walthall and Dillingham. If she
weren't so psychologically crippled, I would have taken her down a long time
ago, but I've been restraining myself. I think it's best to disengage
myself completely at this point. It would be best if we carry on multiple
conversations on this list at one time and try to stick to some and stay out
of others.
At 10:17 AM 9/11/98 +0200, P Van Schaik wrote:
>Mr leger-de-main is at it again
>THinking only he has a brain.
>
>Even doggerel can convey meaning clearly.
It's still pointless, but clear for once.
>Blake himself thought that what he wrote described literal reality, like
>the Prophets of old:
>The Prophets describe what they saw in visions as real and existing
>men, whom they saw with their imaginative and immortal organs...
>(Decriptive Catalogue, 37)
Again, you've contradicted yourself. Imaginative and immortal organs, real
or not, are not the literal organs we're all talking about. Your
imaginative liver, spleen, kidneys, gall bladder, etc., are not the same as
your physical giblets. Blake does not confuse the physical and imaginative,
as you do when you blather what you don't know about quantum mechanics.
>I see Albion sitting upon his Rock in the first Winter,
>And thence I see the Chaos of Satan & the World of Adam...(Jerusalem I)
>
>In order to open the eyes of mortals to the inward worlds within them
>which expand into Eternity, Blake has to visualise on the stage of his
>mind the entire Fall, while at the same time, making it clear what he thinks
>of the mean-spirited minds he encounters in the Schools, Universities
>and Churches of the world. So here, the symbolic and literal worlds
>are blended into poetic drama which is intended to free the mind from
>prejudice.
Which does not contradict my point at all. You are getting more obtuse,
inattentive, and disconnected by the second.
>When Leger-demain calls any spiritual observation slop, then the ongoing
>battle between building and destroying Golgonooza/Jerusalem is
>resumed. And whenever anyone scores a point against him he calls
>foul by sneering and name-calling.
You'd be better off standing in front of the mirror and repeating the above
paragraph. Your writing is slop, self-serving, self-referential. There's
no accountability. Nobody is abridging your right to free speech, so keep
on blathering away. But you don't get a blank check to spout your deranged,
small and provincial piffle while everybody else stands silent. Keep on
baying at the moon with Swami Asshole, Randy Allblight, and the rest of your
juvenile jamboree. I'll not interfere. Just stay out of my conversations
if you can.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:57:46 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Henriette Stavis
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Innocence and Experience
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Re: Kerry McKeever and Ralph Dumain's discussion of innocence and experienc=
e
Kerry and Ralph were discussing the dichotomy of innocence and experience=
=20
as 'innocent' amateurs and 'experienced' academics.
My take on the discussion is that if academics ('professional readers' as=
=20
Ralph calls it) don't have an elements of the 'innocent' amateur in them,=
=20
then they've lost contact with what Blake is all about. Blake once wrote=20
that 'Science is the Tree of Death' (The Laoco=F6n) and if we read Blake=20
clinically and dissectingly, then we end up watering the Tree of Death.
In Danish we have a very scientific term for the study of literature:=20
'litteraturvidenskab', which translates into 'the science of literature'.=
=20
And although I'm sure that it's a wonderful term for people who smack=20
systems and theories on literature, I find it very distressing.=20
Literature isn't science. Blake is a wonderful opportunity to immerse=20
oneself in a poetic universe, and only secondarily a career opportunity.
PS. Dear Ralph,
Thank you for the golden string on innocence and experience. I thought it=
=20
made a lot of sense.
Henriette
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 15:21:56
From: Izak Bouwer
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Ralph's questions
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980913152156.3527f0c6@igs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 06:26 PM 9/8/98 -0700, Ralph Dumain wrote:
>A contemporary Blake might have to create an entirely
>fictional mythology, like a science fiction writer,
>because we know too much>about the different religions,
>mythologies, and literatures of the world to
>be satisfied by Christian symbolism alone.
Of course, Blake is a unique product of a unique time
and place in history. As lovers of Blake, we find it
rewarding to enter his world, but one may well ask if
he could still have used his method of symbolic
language and art (as pictures of fairies in flowers,
or odd-looking lions pulling a chariot) today to
convey his insights. I would say yes, probably, if he
chose to. Just some names would change - for instance,
where are the deists now?
The 'truth' is 'perennial', and is accessible in many
ways, but needs a special kind of cultivation of the
understanding.
Ralph Dumain quotes:
>"One basis for science and another for life is a priori
>a lie." -- Karl Marx
Blake:
"The Artifice of the Epicurean Philosophers is to Call
all other Opinions Unsolid & Unsubstantial than those
which are derived from Earth." (_Anno Reynolds_ K474)
Izak Bouwer
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 20:25:00 EDT
From: Chatham1@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake and Ginsberg
Message-Id: <826775a4.35fc625c@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mr. Ginsberg'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:42:57 +0200
From: Huw Edwards
To: "'blake@albion.com'"
Subject: RE: re. Ralph's questions
Message-Id: <71B7CE499BB9D111909A0060B03C49A115E5B2@netchevy.publicis.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain
This letter's a hoot Ralph. Thanks. Nothing like a good forum
where we can all practice being rude to each other. Who knows, with
enough time, and if we really put our minds to it, we may even progress
to the level of abuse. Wouldn't that be something hey? But then, who's
really got the time. Besides, it doesn't look as if you could stay with
me anyway. The fact that you've already retreated behind infantile
name-calling is enough to convince me that you're not really up to it.
Goodbye
Huw
> ----------
> From: Ralph Dumain[SMTP:rdumain@igc.apc.org]
> Reply To: blake@albion.com
> Sent: Friday, 11 September, 1998 7:52PM
> To: blake@albion.com
> Subject: Re: re. Ralph's questions
>
> Beyond a certain critical point, participation in the theater of the
> absurd
> becomes counterproductive. One can only make one's points two or
> three
> times and then leave it alone. It is interesting to see all the
> nutcases
> baying in unison, the mutual admiration of Swami Asshole and Von
> Schlock,
> people spouting gibberish and making proclamations without anything to
> back
> them up, surely a symptom of our diseased times. Well, the nuts have
> as
> might right to be here as I do, but that doesn't mean they get a blank
> check, so I'll give them a drubbing from time to time and then retreat
> into
> silence.
>
> At 03:59 PM 9/11/98 +0200, Huw Edwards wrote:
> >Not only is the essence of spirituality within, it is also
> >unique to the self: a very basic precept which you seem not to have
> >grasped.
>
> How would you know, since you can't read?
>
> >Your reference to spirituality being some kind of search for
> >superiority hints more at your own insecurities than at the ignorance
> of
> >'idiots'. As do your other petulant outbursts.
>
> You are not paying attention, hence you're reflecting your own
> incomprehension through your own ego, and nothing smacks of obtuseness
> and
> selfishness and superiority more than this statement.
>
> > The incomprehensible academic rhetoric
> >that you use is as much based on opinion as everything else in this
> >world.
>
> How many times do I have to repeat that I'm not an academic. I try to
> write
> in plain English and make sense. As for opinion, you are spouting
> opinion
> with nothing and nothing to back it up.
>
> >Admittedly, my experience of this board is limited, but my
> >perception thus far is of you trying to reduce everything to a "my
> >brain is bigger than your brain scenario".
>
> And this is just a childish, egocentric response, signifying nothing.
>
> >Might I suggest a little humility.
>
> Humility is a fraud, as your own behavior demonstrates. I don't
> believe you
> know a thing about the spirituality you spout. You're bluffing. But
> I'll
> be happy to leave you to your own unaccountable devices.
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 10:42:22 +0100 ( + )
From: Paul Tarry
To: Blake Group
Subject: OT: Beyond Words
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
We began before words, and we will end beyond them.
It sometimes seems to me that our days are poisoned with too many
words. Words said and not meant. Words said and meant. Words
divorced from feeling. Wounding words. Words that conceal. Words
that reduce. Dead words.
If only words were a kind of fluid that collects in the ears, if only they
turned into the visible chemical equivalent of their true value, an
acid, or something curative - then we might be more careful. Words
do collect in us anyway. They collect in the blood, in the soul, and
either transform or poison people's lives. Bitter or thoughtless words
poured into the ears of the young have blighted many lives in
advance. We all know people whose unhappy lives twist on a set of
words uttered to them on a certain unforgotten day at school, in
childhood, or at university.
We seem to think that words aren't things. A bump on the head may
pass away, but a cutting remark grows with the mind. But then it is
possible that we know all too well the awesome power of words -
which is why we use them with such deadly and accurate cruelty.
We are all wounded inside in some way or other. We all carry
happiness within us for some reason or other. Which is why we need
a little gentleness and healing from one another. Healing in words,
and healing beyond words. Like gestures. Warm gestures. Like
friendship, which will always be a mystery. Like a smile, which
someone described as the shortest distance between two people.
Yes, the highest things are beyond words.
That is probably why all art aspires to the condition of wordlessness.
When literature works on you, it does so in silence, in your dreams, in
your wordless moments. Good words enter you and become moods,
become the quiet fabric of your being. Like music, like painting,
literature too wants to transcend its primary condition and become
something higher. Art wants to move into silence, into the emotional
and spiritual conditions of the world. Statues become melodies,
melodies become yearnings, yearnings become actions.
When things fall into words they usually descend. Words have an
earthly gravity. But the best things in us are those that escape the
gravity of our deaths. Art wants to pass into life, to lift it; art wants to
enchant, to transform, to make life more meaningful or bearable in its
own small and mysterious way. The greatest art was probably born
from a profound and terrible silence - a silence out of which the
deepest enigmas of our lives cry: why are we here ? What is the
point of it all ? How can we know peace and live in joy ? Why be
born in order to die ? Why this difficult one-way journey between two
mysteries ?
Out of the wonder and agony of being come these cries and
questions and the endless stream of words with which to order
human life and quieten the human heart in the midst of our living and
distress.
The ages have been inundated with vast oceans of words. we
have virtually drowned in them. Words pour at us from every angle or
corner. They have not brought understanding, or peace, or healing
or a sense of self-mastery, nor has the ocean of words given us the
feeling that, at least in terms of tranquility, the human spirit is getting
better.
At best our cry for meaning, for serenity, is answered by a greater
silence, the silence that makes us seek higher reconciliation.
I think we need more of the wordless in our lives. We need more
stillness, more of a sense of wonder, a feeling for the mystery of life.
We need more love, more silence, more deep listening, more deep
giving.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:23:38 +0200
From: Huw Edwards
To: "'blake@albion.com'"
Subject: RE: Ralph's questions
Message-Id: <71B7CE499BB9D111909A0060B03C49A115E5B5@netchevy.publicis.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain
> ----------
>
> The 'truth' is 'perennial', and is accessible in many
> ways, but needs a special kind of cultivation of the
> understanding.
>
Izak
Doesn't the truth simply present itself. Are you suggesting that it is
hidden in some way? What kind of cultivation of understanding are you
suggesting - an intellectual one? Or perhaps a more meditative approach?
The way we access the truth is surely dependent on our motives. As is
the way we understand Blake. Jeez, I hope you're not saying that Blake
is out of my reach simply because I have no idea what he's on about most
of the time. I am interested more in the mechanics; nouns and verbs;
trochees and spondees etc. Does this still qualify me as a valid
Blakean?
Not too many big words in your reply please!
Huw
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:48:57 +0100
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Belligerent Blakeans
Message-Id: <199809141048.LAA30866@merlot.controls.eurotherm.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>And although Blake says that without contraries there is no progression,
>he also writes that when the four zoas are in disharmony, Albion will
>remain in a state of slumber.
Blake showed himself to be more than enthusiastic in laying viciously into
all and sundry in his various annotations, his descriptive catalogue,
generally reported conversations, and such Dumaineisms as describing Fuseli
as being 'The only man that e'er I knew / who did not make me almost spew'.
So I don't think you can regard him as being the very spirit of peaceful
accord or innocent agreement.
What I think Blake meant by his remark about contraries and progression (and
opposition being true friendship) is that in a mutually supportive
enviroment, error tends not to be challenged, and is thereby propagated.
Robust debate hones arguments and does ultimately advance the discussion,
even if tempers get frayed from time to time, particularly in a medium where
the normal body language used in face to face arguments is absent, and which
has an immediacy which tends to preclude mature reflection.
I fully agree with you say in a later post on the dangers inherent in over
analysis, and it is also very refreshing that you allow your students to
make up their own minds and argue their cases for themselves.
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:52:50 +0100
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: re. Ralph's questions
Message-Id: <199809141052.LAA31341@merlot.controls.eurotherm.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> This letter's a hoot Ralph. Thanks. Nothing like a good forum
>where we can all practice being rude to each other. Who knows, with
>enough time, and if we really put our minds to it, we may even progress
>to the level of abuse. Wouldn't that be something hey? But then, who's
>really got the time. Besides, it doesn't look as if you could stay with
>me anyway. The fact that you've already retreated behind infantile
>name-calling is enough to convince me that you're not really up to it.
Dear Mr Pot,
I believe I had already noted the blackness of the kettle, but I am obliged
to you for having pointed it out.
with sincere thanks
Ladle.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:38:18 +0200
From: Huw Edwards
To: "'blake@albion.com'"
Subject: RE: re. Ralph's questions
Message-Id: <71B7CE499BB9D111909A0060B03C49A115E5B6@netchevy.publicis.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain
> ----------
> From:
> timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk[SMTP:timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk]
> Reply To: blake@albion.com
> Sent: Monday, 14 September, 1998 12:52PM
> To: blake@albion.com
> Subject: RE: re. Ralph's questions
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Pot,
>
> I believe I had already noted the blackness of the kettle, but I am
> obliged
> to you for having pointed it out.
>
> with sincere thanks
>
> Ladle.
>
>
Charming use of metaphor Tim, thanks. Are you trying to
insinuate something? Drugs? Hypocrisy?
Where I come from, this comment could be construed as being
racist. Better to just say what you mean. It's more efficient.
But I am heartened by the fact that you finally believe
something. It alludes to something taken on faith.
Well done.
Huw
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 08:15:45 CDT
From: Mark Trevor Smith
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Blake sighting: Boorstin's Seekers
Message-Id: <199809141324.NAA21308@uu6.psi.com>
Daniel Boorstin's newest book, THE SEEKERS (in the tradition of THE
DISCOVERERS and THE CREATORS), on the subject of the history of
inquirers into the how and why of human existence, features on its
dust jacket a version of Blake's ANCIENT OF DAYS in the clouds with
compasses. As pictured at amazon.com, the jacket has flipped the
painting on the horizontal axis. Thus, the creator wields his
compass with the right hand on the dust jacket, the left hand in the
original. Some people pooh-pooh any implications of the creator's
use of the sinister hand, but some people give Blake's right-left
designations great significance.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:47:54 +0100
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: re. Ralph's questions
Message-Id: <199809141547.QAA24879@merlot.controls.eurotherm.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Where I come from, this comment could be construed as being
>racist. Better to just say what you mean. It's more efficient.
Well, they are fools where you come from (I should move if I were you).
Here, I'm pleased to say, we consider all kitchen implements to have been
created equal, whatever their creed, shape, or purpose. Except those damned
Moulinexes, of course (or should that be Moulinice?)
But don't strain too hard looking for significance: I shall explain. The
allusion was firstly to Blake:
"The sow came in with the saddle,
The little pig rocked the cradle,
The dish jumped o' top of the table
To see the brass pot swallow the ladle.
The old pot behind the door
Called the kettle a blackamoor.
'Odd bobbs' said the gridiron, 'can't you agree?
I'm the head constable, bring them to me.' "
and then the old expression, 'the pot calling the kettle black' which is the
basis of part of the poem. Not being blessed with different skin
pigmentation, pots and kettles are equally blackened by sitting on the fire,
and so the expression means that when someone criticises another in the same
terms of that which he is complaining, he is really criticising himself.
> But I am heartened by the fact that you finally believe
>something. It alludes to something taken on faith.
>
> Well done.
With respect, I certainly believe on the basis of the evidence you seem only
too eager to place before me that you are a little too quick to jump to
conclusions and highly sarcastic.
Tim
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1998 Issue #64
*************************************