Today's Topics:
Printmaking
los and women
Re: Printmaking
Re: WHich Blake is religious?
Re: What Blake does each of us see at the PArty?
Re: los and women
Re: Because it is irrational -Reply -Reply
Re: los and women
"Hi, in your Utopia would you have parties?"
Re: Because it is irrational -Reply -Reply
Re: PSYCHO-SOCIAL REPRESSION AND THE MISSING CONVERSATION
-Reply
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:42:26 -0400
From: Thora Brylowe
To: "blake@albion.com"
Subject: Printmaking
Message-Id: <360111C1.262E089C@trincoll.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Here's a quick synopsis of Blake's method.
Blake invented a process by called relief etching, in which all his
non-letterpress books were written. This process differed from the
process he used in his profession as a printmaker in the following ways:
1. The plate. Rather than cut lines into the copper as one would do
with an etching or cut lines into a medium that covers the plate as one
would do with intaglio, Blake wrote and drew on the plate WITH the
medium.
2. The etch. This meant that the resulting bath in acid revealed a
wholly bitten plate, with the written-on areas left raised, protected
under the medium. That's the opposite of any other metal printmaking
process. Usually the print is inked and then wiped, leaving only ink in
the grooves that were either cut by the burin or eaten by the acid.
Blake's process worked more like a rubber stamp, where the ink sits
higher than the majority of the plate, not recessed inside.
3. The printing. The plate could be printed with relatively low
pressure. Unlike a conventional etching, where the paper must be
squashed into the crevasses that hold the ink--this required damp, thick
paper & lots of pressure--relief processes require relatively low
pressure.
4. Rammifications. The artistic rammifications are too many to deal
with here, but here is the one that I have been particularly thinking
about: the emphasis on outline, which, as we know from the much-quoted
*Public Address* is the basket in which B's aesthetic eggs were placed;
so shading was shown by color, not by what Essick called the entrapping
network of lines--or worse still, by the evils of stipple, wherein a
mediocre artist could put forth a decent, recognizible image without too
much trouble.
Of course the other terribly important feature of this process is that
he wrote his whole text backward on the copper.
Well, I hope someone found this useful. Again, any suggestions as to
where I might direct my research would be nice.
Thank you, Tim for that useful letter; might you provide me with its
particulars? I would be (even more!) indebted.
Best to all,
Thora
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:47:19 -0500
From: RPYODER@ualr.edu
To: BLAKE@albion.com
Subject: los and women
Message-Id: <980917094719.20c2d7d7@ualr.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
This is in response to Bruce Bigley's response to my question about Los and
women. I think Blake's attitude women and sex in general is pretty problematic,
especially if you take the long view of his career as a whole. I tend to think
that he confronts this issue finally at around plates 87-88 in *J*. Los has
just sung his song to Jerusalem -- a wonderful song that is sung in a universal
moment of pause (J 85:14-21 for that moment of pause). In *The Continuing
City* Morton Paley sees this song as the climactic triumph for Los, a point
that I think is not supported by the text. Los goes home only to find that
Enitharmon is not happy about all the time he has been spending thinking
about Jerusalem and Vala, and they have a big fight, apparently about sex
(87:3-6). Essentially Enitharmon insists on the value of her own creative
impulses:
Enitharmon answerd: No! I will sieze thy Fibres & weave
Them: not as thou wilt but as I will, for I will Create
A round Womb beneath my bosom lest I also be overwoven
With Love; be thou assured I never will be thy slave (87:12-16).
>From there it only gets worse. Clearly Enitharmon does speak "in scorn &
jealousy," but she does have a point as well, and Los's response doesn't help
the situation -- "Los answerd sighing like the Bellows of his Furnaces / I care
not!" (88:1-2). Los then tries to get back to work and Enitharmon goes to
sit by the beach in Sussex. This scene culminates in what is usually seen as
one of Blake's most sexist comments: "The Man who respects Woman shall be
despised by Woman . . . " (88:37ff.).
But we should recognize that these are not "Blake's" words, but the words of
Los's Spectre, and herein lies the way, I think, to deal with so many
problems in Blake, and that is to recognize that these characters are not
"mouthpieces" for Blake as they are so often characterized. Los is *not* Blake,just as Enitharmon, the Spectre, Oothoon, Bromion and all the rest are not
Blake. They are characters in his visionary dramas. In order to dramatize
these confrontations, Blake must be distinct from them. Robert Gleckner told
me one time that he didn't think that Blake spoke in his own person at all
in the *Marriage*, and I would like to extend that insight to all of the
illuminated
books. People quote Blake's poetry all the time -- Blake says this and Blake
says that. Well, maybe Blake wrote that, but does he agree with everything
his characters say? Do we think that Milton agrees with everything Satan,
or Adam or Eve, or even God says? Of course not. The sexism we may see in
Blake is there, but it is not necessarily Blake's. It is rather Blake's
dramatization of these issues as they relate to the characters he has created.
I'm sitll thinking through lots of this myself, but try this out on your class.
Paul Yoder
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:45:19 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Printmaking
Message-Id: <98091709451958@wc.stephens.edu>
Thora's summary of the printing process Blake used is precise and
helpful; I look forward to learning the range of the ramifications
she mentions. I don't have a lot to contribute to this discussion
except to say that some years ago, two students in my Blake
course were awarded a grant to study Blake's printing process
(this was long before Viscomi's essential study--Raymond Lister
and a few others were their only sources) and among the things
they did was to practice writing backward to learn how difficult
that might have been. The printmaker of the pair, in particular,
found that it was very easy and not very time-consuming to learn
to write backward (so long as she thought in terms of design, not
in terms of handwriting and the trusty Palmer method). In fact,
both of them learned to write backward both fluently and elegantly
in a brief period, and they were able to produce prints doing it.
I make no claim that this proves anything, but they assured me
that writing backward would not have been a particularly daunting
process, especially for a trained engraver, and that therefore
Blake's production (in the later books) of substantial texts in
that form would surely not have been "easy," but probably would not
have been as difficult as most of us would imagine.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:51:35 -0400
From: Robert Anderson
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: WHich Blake is religious?
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980917105134.00a0c4fc@pop.oakland.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My quibble was with the use of the word "religious" which suggests
institutionalized religion rather than matters of faith, belief, spirit,
etc. Perhaps it was merely a semantic difference--between religion and
faith/belief/visionary dimensions, but I think that the difference is
crucial to what I see in Blake.
Rob
At 12:57 PM 9/16/1998 +0200, you wrote:
>
>
>>>> Robert Anderson 15/September/1998
>10:51pm >>>
>Which Blake would be counted among "religious people"? The Blake
>who had
>Oothoon exclaim:
>
>The moment of desire! the moment of desire! The virgin
>That pines for man; shall awaken her womb to enormous joys
>In the secret shadows of her chamber; the youth shut up from
>The lustful joy shall forget to generate. & and create an amorous image
>In the shadows of his curtains and in the folds of his silent pillow.
>Are not these the places of religion? the rewards of continence?
>The self-enjoyings of self-denial? Why dost thou seek religion?
>
>***********
>
>Blake attacks the moral proscriptions of the Church and of all those who
>consider themselves religious yet seek to impose narrow ideologies on
>others and on the natural means of expressing love in sexual bodies.The
>archetypal figure whom he continually berates for imposing false visions
>of good and evil is Urizen -- who represents self-righteous Accusers of
>others in every age. ...those who watch out continually for the mote in
>the eye of those they damn and condemn, while viewing themsleves as
>the moral watchdogs of society.
>
>Although there is marked passion in the passage you quote, directed
>against those who impose false visions of good and evil on others, there
>is compassion for the all the young lovers of this world who have been
>deprived of consummating their love freely and who have been made to
>think their passion for one another is sinful. Here, Blake clearly departs
>from orthodox religious dogma such as is represented by Anglican,
>MEthodist, Catholic and particualrly Dutch Reform Churches.
>
>Blake always , however, also believes that we have fallen from eternal
>flux in the spiritual world of Eternity where all beings continually engage
>in the full ardours of love, transcending the small loves of gratified,
>contracted senses such as they are afflicted with on earth.
> SO , I don't find a question phrased in terms of which Blake is religious
>... this , or that.... meaningful. His whole outlook on life, death, and
life's
>meaning is informed by his visions which embrace, heaven, earth and
>hell, and which ncorporate his own responses to the mystical traditions
>of both the West and the East. He was totally eclectic in trying to provide
>a synthesis coherent to all nations and peoples, but rejected vigorously
>and passionately all that did not fit into his holistic , Christocentric
vision.
>Pam.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:59:15 -0400
From: Robert Anderson
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: What Blake does each of us see at the PArty?
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980917105914.00a0caa4@pop.oakland.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Tim, thanks for the brief glimpse into your family history. I have often
wondered if you were connected to Blake's Linnell. Now I know.
Rob Anderson
At 02:27 PM 9/17/1998 +0100, you wrote:
>Pam,
>
>I've read very carefully through your last few posts in order to determine
>the point at issue, which isn't at all clear to me.
>
>Curiously, from your description about the Blake you see at the party, it is
>clear you and I see precisely the same Blake, which is quite encouraging.
>
>I think perhaps we have bashed each other to a point in which we are so
>eager to disagree that we are no longer arguing content, but on the basis of
>what we think the other's position is. I'm certainly guilty of this in
>misinterpreting what you say regarding Blake's outbursts, for which I
>apologize. I had read them as denying Blake's passion (and thereby his
>humanity) by suggesting that his remarks were in some respects considered
>'teachings'. I realise in re-reading your text that this is not what you
>were saying at all.
>
>The crux of the disagreement is the semantics of the word vicious. Both of
>us agree that there were outbursts, and both of us agree that these were
>aimed at those who had thwarted Blake's vision in some way. I do stand by my
>arguments about Blake's capacity for simple and impulsive petulance, but
>'vicious' is perhaps too strong a term - I do not believe in any sense that
>he was an unpleasant man. Nonetheless, much of it is quite nasty and unfair,
>when it is not simply childish (the 'Little Bacon'). As is, of course, the
>name calling employed by Ralph and Tom - when arguing strongly for things we
>believe, tempers get frayed, and the result is often unreasoned remarks.
>E-mail is particularly effective at fermenting seething anger from often
>quite small disagreements.
>
>I also stand by my other comments on the positive value of conflict (whose
>acid burns away apparent surfaces leaving the truth that was hid, to coin a
>phrase), and of the dangers of denying any part of Blake's character,
>whether or not we like it, or by placing him too much to one side or other
>of the divide between the spiritual and the rational, or by approaching him
>with too much reverence. I don't believe I am or have been guilty of so
>doing, although I am always willing to be told otherwise. But I do withdraw
>the similar charge against you, which from what you say in the post on the
>Blake you see is wholly unjustified.
>
>However you are equally wide of the mark yourself in your own assumptions
>about me. I am not trying to pull Blake's vision down into the mire of
>objective reality in order to deny his spirituality, as you seem to assume,
>far from it. My goal is simply to determine the truth about Blake, his
>character, and his visions, whatever it is, because it is closely linked to
>my own family history and tells me much about the character of one of my
>ancestors. This analysis necessarily takes place by considering the
>historical record primarily, with Blake's work being secondary evidence. I
>imagine you approach things in the opposite direction (which is after all
>more normal for people studying literature!). I start from objective
>reality, you start from the visionary writings. It isn't surprising we have
>difficulty crossing into each other's realm.
>
>Where we should agree to differ, because otherwise the argument will never
>end, is in our different views on the truth behind Blake's spiritual work. I
>believe he was wrong in what he believed, and that his visions are more
>plausibly explained in terms of brain chemistry than in the existence of the
>divine. Which does not diminish by one iota my admiration for the man or his
>work.
>
>Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:46:55 -0400
From: Robert Anderson
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: los and women
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980917114654.00ac9bdc@pop.oakland.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This is quite helpful (and a wonderful passage), but I wonder--and have
wondered for some time--if we can be as sure about Milton differing from
what God says in PL as we are about Blake differing from, say Los, or "the
Voice of the Devil"? I think _The Marriage_ makes it difficult to credit
any of the speakers as Blake's mouthpiece, or at least it makes it clear
that even if Blake were speaking directly in it, that is not an
authoritative voice, but a force of imposition. I am not enough of a
scholar of Milton to convince myself one way or the other of Milton's
resistance to imposing.
Rob Anderson
At 09:47 AM 9/17/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>This is in response to Bruce Bigley's response to my question about Los and
>women. I think Blake's attitude women and sex in general is pretty
problematic,
>especially if you take the long view of his career as a whole. I tend to
think
>that he confronts this issue finally at around plates 87-88 in *J*. Los has
>just sung his song to Jerusalem -- a wonderful song that is sung in a
universal
>moment of pause (J 85:14-21 for that moment of pause). In *The Continuing
>City* Morton Paley sees this song as the climactic triumph for Los, a point
>that I think is not supported by the text. Los goes home only to find that
>Enitharmon is not happy about all the time he has been spending thinking
>about Jerusalem and Vala, and they have a big fight, apparently about sex
>(87:3-6). Essentially Enitharmon insists on the value of her own creative
>impulses:
> Enitharmon answerd: No! I will sieze thy Fibres & weave
> Them: not as thou wilt but as I will, for I will Create
> A round Womb beneath my bosom lest I also be overwoven
> With Love; be thou assured I never will be thy slave (87:12-16).
>>From there it only gets worse. Clearly Enitharmon does speak "in scorn &
>jealousy," but she does have a point as well, and Los's response doesn't
help
>the situation -- "Los answerd sighing like the Bellows of his Furnaces / I
care
>not!" (88:1-2). Los then tries to get back to work and Enitharmon goes to
>sit by the beach in Sussex. This scene culminates in what is usually seen as
>one of Blake's most sexist comments: "The Man who respects Woman shall be
>despised by Woman . . . " (88:37ff.).
>
>But we should recognize that these are not "Blake's" words, but the words of
>Los's Spectre, and herein lies the way, I think, to deal with so many
>problems in Blake, and that is to recognize that these characters are not
>"mouthpieces" for Blake as they are so often characterized. Los is *not*
Blake,just as Enitharmon, the Spectre, Oothoon, Bromion and all the rest
are not
>Blake. They are characters in his visionary dramas. In order to dramatize
>these confrontations, Blake must be distinct from them. Robert Gleckner told
>me one time that he didn't think that Blake spoke in his own person at all
>in the *Marriage*, and I would like to extend that insight to all of the
>illuminated
>books. People quote Blake's poetry all the time -- Blake says this and Blake
>says that. Well, maybe Blake wrote that, but does he agree with everything
>his characters say? Do we think that Milton agrees with everything Satan,
>or Adam or Eve, or even God says? Of course not. The sexism we may see in
>Blake is there, but it is not necessarily Blake's. It is rather Blake's
>dramatization of these issues as they relate to the characters he has
created.
>
>I'm sitll thinking through lots of this myself, but try this out on your
class.
>
>Paul Yoder
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:24:19 -0600 (MDT)
From: bigley@selway.umt.edu (Bruce Bigley)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Because it is irrational -Reply -Reply
Message-Id: <199809171624.KAA08617@selway.umt.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I don't know Tertullus(?) sufficiently well to comment.
>
>
>
Yes-- looked it up Tertullian, (2nd Century Roman, Christian Apologist)
Credo quia impossible est. I believe because it is impossible. Apparently
this is a misquote of "It is certain because it is impossible" but the
quotation is so widely known in its other form that it seems unlikely Blake
did not know it and its source.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:33:07 -0600 (MDT)
From: bigley@selway.umt.edu (Bruce Bigley)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: los and women
Message-Id: <199809171633.KAA18682@selway.umt.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks Paul. This is the answer I usually give. Unfortunately we seem to
hear a lot more from voices like Los' Spectre than from Oothoon. And
clearly the whole Spectre/Emanation business is seen all but completely from
a male point of view (there is that one instance of a female Emanation
somewhere).
But as I work through the poetry once again this semester I will keep you
posted.
>This is in response to Bruce Bigley's response to my question about Los and
>women. I think Blake's attitude women and sex in general is pretty problematic,
>especially if you take the long view of his career as a whole. I tend to think
>that he confronts this issue finally at around plates 87-88 in *J*. Los has
>just sung his song to Jerusalem -- a wonderful song that is sung in a universal
>moment of pause (J 85:14-21 for that moment of pause). In *The Continuing
>City* Morton Paley sees this song as the climactic triumph for Los, a point
>that I think is not supported by the text. Los goes home only to find that
>Enitharmon is not happy about all the time he has been spending thinking
>about Jerusalem and Vala, and they have a big fight, apparently about sex
>(87:3-6). Essentially Enitharmon insists on the value of her own creative
>impulses:
> Enitharmon answerd: No! I will sieze thy Fibres & weave
> Them: not as thou wilt but as I will, for I will Create
> A round Womb beneath my bosom lest I also be overwoven
> With Love; be thou assured I never will be thy slave (87:12-16).
>>From there it only gets worse. Clearly Enitharmon does speak "in scorn &
>jealousy," but she does have a point as well, and Los's response doesn't help
>the situation -- "Los answerd sighing like the Bellows of his Furnaces / I care
>not!" (88:1-2). Los then tries to get back to work and Enitharmon goes to
>sit by the beach in Sussex. This scene culminates in what is usually seen as
>one of Blake's most sexist comments: "The Man who respects Woman shall be
>despised by Woman . . . " (88:37ff.).
>
>But we should recognize that these are not "Blake's" words, but the words of
>Los's Spectre, and herein lies the way, I think, to deal with so many
>problems in Blake, and that is to recognize that these characters are not
>"mouthpieces" for Blake as they are so often characterized. Los is *not*
Blake,just as Enitharmon, the Spectre, Oothoon, Bromion and all the rest are
not
>Blake. They are characters in his visionary dramas. In order to dramatize
>these confrontations, Blake must be distinct from them. Robert Gleckner told
>me one time that he didn't think that Blake spoke in his own person at all
>in the *Marriage*, and I would like to extend that insight to all of the
>illuminated
>books. People quote Blake's poetry all the time -- Blake says this and Blake
>says that. Well, maybe Blake wrote that, but does he agree with everything
>his characters say? Do we think that Milton agrees with everything Satan,
>or Adam or Eve, or even God says? Of course not. The sexism we may see in
>Blake is there, but it is not necessarily Blake's. It is rather Blake's
>dramatization of these issues as they relate to the characters he has created.
>
>I'm sitll thinking through lots of this myself, but try this out on your class.
>
>Paul Yoder
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 98 18:00:31 +0100 ( + )
From: Paul Tarry
To: Blake Group
Subject: "Hi, in your Utopia would you have parties?"
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Is a good line for real in-body parties I reckon. Anyway thankyou to
Tim and Pam for an outbreak of peace, or better civility, on the list, I
got a lot more from those two posts than any of the previous related
ones.
I suppose what really interests me about your view of Blake Tim is
that you consciously place yourself in a contrary position as far as
Blake himself would have been concerned. Imagine what he would
have thought of you if you'd told him to his face that his visions were
the result of altered brain chemistry and that infact he was wrong in
much of what he thought. Imagine the notebook poems.
I wonder if Ralph holds similar views in the sense of consciously
disagreeing with Blake? Tim seems openly, well he actually says that
"Blake was wrong" about many things. With Ralph the things that
Blake is actually saying seem to be read markedly differently. Ralph
objects strongly to a mother saying her dead son "had gone to a
better place." In my reading of Blake, the man who sung himself to
death, I would have usually seen him saying similar things to the
mother.
Which is why I am interested in understanding other perspectives, in
trying to grasp something I hadn't thought about. Pizza is ready now
so message close,
All the best
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:58:01 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Because it is irrational -Reply -Reply
Message-Id: <98091711580130@wc.stephens.edu>
A variant but apparently more complete version of Tertullian's
statement: Certum est quia impossibile est.
This is normally translated "It is certain because it is impossible."
According to my source, the version "credo quia impossibile est" is
not actully Tertullian's version, but is commonly [mis?]quoted. It
certainly makes a difference in one's interpretation and response,
I would say, as well as in one's perception of its relevance to
Blake.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: PSYCHO-SOCIAL REPRESSION AND THE MISSING CONVERSATION
-Reply
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980917125058.0e7f8f7c@pop.igc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
If y'all intend to drag out this dispute for the next year, knock yourselves
out, but don't blame me for it. It is impossible to continue in this vein
without getting very personal, and that will lead nowhere. The meaning of
my post is plain as day; clearer it is not possible to be. Therefore it is
a test for whoever reads it, revealing what they've got going for them. One
can only state something clearly, and then let it alone. It is futile to
pursue an argument when one has incontrovertible proof of the inability of
others to comprehend it. I cannot continue to pursue a discussion with the
psychologically impaired. I should be more compassionate toward the
mentally ill, but I'm not, because they give me a pain up my ass and they
never shut up.
Seth's post had me in hysterics. I just raided the icebox and I'm going out
for more beer and a bag of ice. From a scholarly point of view, not much is
getting accomplished lately; however, Blake is the paradigmatic example of
how literature matters to life and not just to dry specialists, and how you
look at it tells the world who you are and what you are about. So one
should not despair that Blake elicits such passionate commitments and strong
emotions.
At 01:52 PM 9/16/98 -0600, Bruce Bigley wrote:
> The point which bothers Ralph seems to
>me to be exemplified in The Chimnew Sweeper from SoI and our reading of Tom
>Dacre's dream. It is of course comforting to him and perhaps to the
>speaker, who are (however briefly) happy and warm as a result of the dream.
>But that should not prevent us a readers from feeling genuine outrage at the
>system that has left these children in such a plight. We must wonder just
>whose duty has not been done to allow such a situation to continue.
Bruce, there's one point I must make. The midwestern housewife I cited was
not comforted by her religious "convictions", which are about as sincere as
a forced midwestern smile. There was no consolation at all. It was pure
denial of her own self-worth and of the value of her life, and this is very
plain even from the few details I provided. That a particular person on
this list denied the obvious indicates a state of psychological repression
and outright mental illness that makes my blood run cold, but not surprising
for a person who is a product of an oppressive and backward society. Since
my last post I've heard even more horror stories about this woman's
passivity in the face of her ex-husband's brutality before and after their
son's death. My friend has correctly linked up religion and patriarchy as a
seamless whole in the conditioning of people to lower their expectations and
passively accept dehumanization.
If the self-proclaimed feminists and more traditional women on this list
cannot see this, they should be ashamed of themselves. As for me, my
sympathy for the victims has its limits, because patriarchy could not last
24 hours without the active, enthusiastic collusion of women, and if they
can't clean up their act, they get no sympathy from me, because people who
don't respect themselves won't respect you either and they'll drag you down
with them, being as reckless with your life as they are with their own.
I've a lifetime of experience to back this up. "He who respects woman shall
be despised by woman"--what jackass could possibly call this a sexist
remark? It's the key to human relations in our time as it was 200 years ago.
Now I'm bowing out of the discussion for good.
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1998 Issue #68
*************************************