Today's Topics:
Re: invoking spirits
RE: invoking spirits
Re: invoking spirits
Re: a dusting ------Milton & megaphones
William, not Samuel
against his will
Re: invoking spirits
Re: a dusting ------Milton & megaphones
Re: a dusting ------Milton & megaphones
RE: a dusting ------Milton & megaphones
Re: a dusting -Crptic, Silly, & Ig
Re: a dusting ------Milton & megaphones
Re: Blake & Printmaking
Re: a dusting -Crptic, Silly, & Ig
Re: Re: invoking spirits
Re: Re: invoking spirits
Re: Re: invoking spirits
Re: William, not Samuel
Re: invoking spirits---Bert
Re: invoking spirits---Bert
Re: invoking spirits---Bert
William and Catherine
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:34:30 -0400
From: bert@kvvi.net (Bert Stern)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: invoking spirits
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Who knows what, other than dreams, drugs, and "madness" brings
visions. And how can a conversation on the subject begin without some
consideration of noetic systems. In general, at least, we live in a world
of fixed objects. We don't tend to see trees as the slow events that they
are, for example. Nor do we see--though we may know--that the world that
is the case is an energy field, of which we're part. All that, it seems to
me, is, to coin a phrase, "abundantly obvious."
The sticky part begins when we entertain notions of existing within
the energy field as opposed to the object field. What that means in terms
of fluidity of self and fluidity of field perhaps only the Buddhists really
wrestle with. The Buddhists and the artists, the artists and the
lunatics--and of course the lovers, amen to the Bard.
Surely we can't contain as literature the core injunction that "If
the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it
is, infinite." Maybe because I'm semi-retired and live in the mountains a
somewhat isolated life, maybe because I'm an old man on the brink of some
kind of eternity or other, I think abut these things.
Witness a diary entry:
"Panicked as I've been for days. Describe it. It is a kind of
amorphous body in my body, extending from my chest into my head. It's
lifeless and leaden. It stands between me and joy. So I go on doing what
I am doing but without pleasure. If I were to look into a diary I wrote
fifty years ago the entry, alas, would probably be quite the same.
"But the day is out there, people too. I have errands to do this
afternoon--pick up chainsaw, get book from Ben, interview Trudy? I'm sick
of the sky. I'm sick of the meadow. What's vivid to me is the asparagus
fern and the white pine next to the house, which is scheduled for felling.
The fern and clusters of needles are flooded with light, overloaded,
almost, so that they seem on the point of disolving into something other
than their material forms. They remind me of the sunpictures by Amanda
Means that I saw at Atea Ring's gallery the other day. Those, like these,
were natural forms nearly erased of light--flowers drained of their colors,
all their romance and sweetness gone, but something stark and real revealed
now, embryonic, energy-driven, life in the act of making a syllable, an
utterance. So we fall into the unfamiliar universe where we in fact live.
When we free it of our packages it's troubling, unsettled, alive in its own
terms."
I'm going on too long, and I hope not egoistically, and I hope not
off the subject. But it's not for nothing that this list has trouble
confining itself to literature. The man said we should mark well his words
because they are of our eternal salvation. Doesn't mean he's right, of
course, but it certainly does mean that when he claimed prophetic stature
he meant no less than Isaiah when he claimed his.
Bert Stern
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:03:49 -0500
From: RPYODER@ualr.edu
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: invoking spirits
Message-Id: <980923120349.20c56983@ualr.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Indeed, Blake claimed that his divine dictation was often against his will.
Paul Yoder
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Jay
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: invoking spirits
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Tim Linnell wrote:
> There's no evidence that I know of apart from his gazing into
> the fire and seeing imagined shapes there - which we have all done, I
> suspect - of any conscious activity by Blake to induce vision.
Thanks to all for clearing up my ignorance. It was very helpful. BTW, I
fully expected the experts to ignore my question and that I'd converse in
the corner with other amateurs.
On the other hand, if there's an expert who'd be interested in being an
academic advisor to my project, I'd be delighted. I've been focused on
primary sources, but will check out overviews of his life and creative
process now. I'm on a tight timeframe, so guidance is particularly
helpful to me.
In any case, I'll keep my posts infrequent and more informed!
Thanks again,
--Jay
www.jamesjay.com/wordup
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:39:18 -0800
From: ndeeter
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: a dusting ------Milton & megaphones
Message-Id: <36093246.5ECF@concentric.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Chatham1@aol.com wrote:
> just take things at face value---a statement is a statement
> and idea is an idea
A rose is a rose. A poem is a poem. Blake is Blake. Nothing is what you
get when you take things at face value.
> A comment can be agreed with, disputed, elaborated, refuted, or turned on its
> head
>
> "it all depends on what we mean by 'is'...."
I don't know how to agree with that, dispute it, elaborate upon it,
refute it or turn it on its head. It sounds like a cavalier way of
saying that it really doesn't make a difference what someone says, that
"Cain slew Abel" means exactly the same as "Abel slew Cain" simply
because we're using the same words. Don't you think?
Nathan Deeter
ndeeter@concentric.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:36:58 MET
From: "D.W. DOERRBECKER"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: William, not Samuel
Message-Id: <1AA7AF281D5C@netwareserver.uni-trier.de>
The following note has just been returned to me; some sort of mail
delivery failure with Izak Bouwer's address. This is why I am now
posting it to the list, in spite of my intentions as stated in the
very last paragraph.
- - - - - Weitergeleitete Nachricht folgt - - - - -
Von: Self
An: "IZAK BOUWER"
Betreff: William, not Samuel
Absendedatum: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:20:05
September 23rd, 1998
Dear Izak Bouwer:
You refer to the (first or second?) Erdman and Stevenson edition of
Blake's writings in the Longman's Annotated English Poets series as
the source of your identification of H with Samuel Haines. I
apologize for not having consulted my copy of this edition in order
to find out about Stevenson's "evidence" for Haines's Christian name,
yet I firmly believe that "Samuel" represents not more (and no less)
than a slip of the annotator's pen.
For one thing, my "evidence" is right there *in* the very plates you
(and Stevenson) refer to as part of your own "evidence"; Haines
signed (or rather, the writing engraver who, of course may have been
mistaken) the plate in Hayley's 1809 *Life of Romney* as "W.
Haines", not "S. Haines" -- and I did take the time to check *that*!
For another, no engraver with the name "Samuel Haines" and the same
dates of birth and death as William Haines has been recorded in the
standard dictionaries of artists and engravers of the period. (The
status and authority of "standard dictionaries" is, of course, open
to discussion. However, since I cannot find a single reference to
Sam, while Bill Haines is referred to in Graves's lists of R.A. and
British Institution exhibitors, in the respective volumes of the
*DNB*, of the Thieme-Becker *Kuenstler-Lexikon* and of Benezit's
*Dictionnaire*, or in Lister's *Prints and Printmaking* and
Blaettel's *Index of All Miniature Painters*, etc., it seems fairly
reasonable to assume that Stevenson got the name wrong, not all the
others. Moreover, Bentley's two-volume edition of WB's writings also
refers to William, not Samuel Haines as the possible target of
Blake's verses.)
Particularly since we differ only where the engraver's Christian name
is at stake, I don't think that the above information warrants
"publication" on WBonline, which is why I'm posting this to you
privately.
Best wishes,
DWDoerrbecker,
Fach Kunstgeschichte, FB III
Universitaet Trier
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 13:42:22 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: against his will
Message-Id: <98092313422238@wc.stephens.edu>
Paul is certainly right that Blake claimed his divine visitations/dictations
were sometimes against his will (but not always); it may or may not be
relevant, but this is also a fairly standard plaint among prophets--it's
not only Jonah who resists (or at least expresses a feeling of
unworthiness or inadequacy) when the prophetic afflatus comes upon
him or her. The language and tropes of prophecy were certainly
familiar to Blake, which is *not* (please note) to say that he was merely
echoing or imitating others, but that the language of a particular kind
of expression naturally recurs in those who participate in that tradition,
whether as acolytes or as resisters.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:26:22 -0400
From: Robert Anderson
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: invoking spirits
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980923152621.00b29ebc@pop.oakland.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I, for one, would appreciate periodic notices about the progress of your
project, Jay (if I remember right, and yours is the Blakean juggling act).
I think it sounds remarkable--and would love to see it if it appears within
driving range of Detroit.
Rob Anderson
At 10:19 AM 9/23/1998 -0700, you wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Tim Linnell wrote:
>> There's no evidence that I know of apart from his gazing into
>> the fire and seeing imagined shapes there - which we have all done, I
>> suspect - of any conscious activity by Blake to induce vision.
>
>Thanks to all for clearing up my ignorance. It was very helpful. BTW, I
>fully expected the experts to ignore my question and that I'd converse in
>the corner with other amateurs.
>
>On the other hand, if there's an expert who'd be interested in being an
>academic advisor to my project, I'd be delighted. I've been focused on
>primary sources, but will check out overviews of his life and creative
>process now. I'm on a tight timeframe, so guidance is particularly
>helpful to me.
>
>In any case, I'll keep my posts infrequent and more informed!
>
>Thanks again,
>
>--Jay
>
>
>www.jamesjay.com/wordup
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:23:01 EDT
From: Chatham1@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: a dusting ------Milton & megaphones
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 9/23/98 9:25:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, RPYODER@ualr.edu
writes:
>
> Sorry, Chatham, but without some context a comment doesn't have much
> meaning
> for me. I don't much believe in face value. This is one of the things we
> learn from Blake and Milton, too, for that matter.
>
> Paul Yoder
>
Paul---how about the context of readers of literature interested in thought
provoking discussion---does this work for you??????
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:02:37 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: a dusting ------Milton & megaphones
Message-Id: <98092316023708@wc.stephens.edu>
Impertinence, ignorance, and sentences tossed like spitballs do not
qualify as thought-provoking discussion of literature or anything else.
Since "Chatham" has offered nothing else, it is difficult not to
conclude that "Chatham" is merely another AOL provocateur.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:48:54 -0500
From: RPYODER@ualr.edu
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: a dusting ------Milton & megaphones
Message-Id: <980923164854.20c55ef7@ualr.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
This will be my last response to Chatham, as he himself seems uninterested in
thought provoking *discussion*. Rather just provoking.
Paul Yoder
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:52:39 EDT
From: Chatham1@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: a dusting -Crptic, Silly, & Ig
Message-Id: <4ebd667c.360989c7@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 9/23/98 10:29:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tomdill@wc.stephens.edu writes:
> If "Chatham" wants to say something worth
> discussing or elaborating, fine, but so far it appears that there is
> nothing but an effort to disrupt the list and attract attention
> or create annoyance.
----The running discussion, though I.C.S. (Ignorant, Cryptic, & Silly) was
centered on the different relationship the writers (Blake & Milton) had to
their work.
Tom had miscast Blake as an artist detached from his work and was quite guilty
of Miltonizing him. A consequence dire and dreadful if we are seeking insight
and understanding of WB and his relationship to Milton. Mr. Dillingham
pronounced, "...one must conclude that he (Blake)is outside of and separate
from the actions of his "characters," observing them from an ironic (if not
godlike distance. "
"Milton and Megaphones" was referring to the fact that Milton gives voice to
his characters (much in the manner described by Tom above). However, Blake
speaks thru his characters---they act as megaphones of his own voice.
Blake's relationship to his characters is dynamic---"He is their author, they
are his muse."
Please accept my apologies,Tom, if any of my comments tarnished your armor.
Chatham, I.C.S.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:55:51 EDT
From: Chatham1@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: a dusting ------Milton & megaphones
Message-Id: <88b32158.36098a87@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I guess I'll have to add a "P"
Chatham, I.C.S.P.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 23:46:18 -0400
From: Thora Brylowe
To: PRINTS-L@raven.cc.ukans.edu, "blake@albion.com"
Subject: Re: Blake & Printmaking
Message-Id: <3609C089.B08AAB13@trincoll.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >that one can see how the transferred block of text sometimes slipped during
> >the transfer. Traditional hard grounds are not necessarily sticky and he
> >was already expert at drawing intricate designs with the brush on the
> >plate.
>
I have followed this string with a great deal of interest. I shall now leap
into the fray: Joseph Viscomi is considered to be the expert on Blake's
techniques & he has demonstrated, as Tim suggests, that any capable printmaker
would have a facility for writing backward, and it has been proven (at least to
my satisfaction) by several independent inquiries that Blake did not use
transfers for his "printed MSS." What I find particularly exciting about this
is that, preliminary working sketches aside, the real process of creation
occurred ON the copper. This is unique--as opposed traditional printmaking,
wherein the engraver generally worked either from a copy or (in the case of an
original print) from a drawing scratched into the substrait on the print. But
here, the drawing and the substrait are one; thus, the reader/viewer has a
direct, interpretation-free look at the very creation of the work.
Philosophical rammifications aside, though, the only accounting I can make for
the appearance of something resembling a smudgy transfer is that Blake went over
the printed lines in later presses of the printed MSS with pen & ink. (As his
conception of these volumes changed from primarily word-oriented to
orniment-oriented.) That's my (fairly) educated conjecture.
In my thesis, I plan to say that the fact that the Songs of Innocence were
written in roman typeface, which was more difficult to effect successfully, also
speaks to Blake's impulse, at the inception of his invention, toward a more
book-like product. And as he progressed, the conception of this product became
more visually--artistically--striking, because (as Viscomi, demigod among Blake
scholars, asserts) Blake's intentions for his invention changed, and his
conception of his product ceased to be a book, printed in editions, & took up
being a piece of art, produced individually, with great care & attention to
color & detail.
As always, your thoughts & suggestions are welcome, appreciated, read carefully,
&c.
Best to all,
Thora
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:17:36 +0100
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: a dusting -Crptic, Silly, & Ig
Message-Id: <199809240616.HAA27834@merlot.controls.eurotherm.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Tom had miscast Blake as an artist detached from his work and was quite guilty
>of Miltonizing him. A consequence dire and dreadful if we are seeking insight
>and understanding of WB and his relationship to Milton.
Why?
Regards
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:04:02 EDT
From: TomD3456@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Re: invoking spirits
Message-Id: <96ae2af8.360a7b82@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Blake's visions are described by him as happening more or
>less spontaneously as he did other things, for example walking in the
>countryside. There's no evidence that I know of apart from his gazing into
>the fire and seeing imagined shapes there - which we have all done, I
>suspect - of any conscious activity by Blake to induce vision.
I haven't read all the posts for some time, due to lack of time and sheer
volume, but I have to jump in on this one. We have at least one story of
"preparation," I think in Gilchrist's biography. It goes something like this:
Crabb Robinson (?) or some other interlocutor was with the Blakes, and they
were discussion visions. Blake said "What do we do, Kate, when the visions
don't come?" And Catherine replied, "We kneel down and pray, Mr. Blake."
Pardon me if this is repeating something others have already posted.
-Tom Devine
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:30:07 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Re: invoking spirits
Message-Id: <98092414300759@wc.stephens.edu>
Tom Devine points to a valid example of invoking spirits; I guess I
was reacting to Jay's post as being a question about more exceptional
ritual or artificial means of inducing spiritual states (as with the
whirling dervishes, for example, or possibly juggling). While prayer
seems more in the normal course of activities for a person in 19th
century London, it surely would seem from that reference that Blake
saw it as a means of establishing contact with spiritual experiences.
It seems less of a stretch, however, than was implied in Jay's post.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 07:40:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Watt James
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Re: invoking spirits
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Tom Devine! Good to hear your voice. I, too, have been swamped lately
and haven,t been able to follow the group at all. I just checked in this
time to see what you were saying (I've got a minute or so to kill before
class). I think, though, you're mis-remembering the incident. I recall
the response, but it wasn't to Crabb Robinson (my favorite Blake stooge).
It was to one of the young painters, the "disciples" of the later years
and it was in response to his anxiety about his faltering inspiration. If
I have time today I'll try to find it in Bentley.
Jim Watt
Butler University
in the (not so alien) corn fields of Indiana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:15:45 EDT
From: Chatham1@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: William, not Samuel
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 9/23/98 3:06:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, DOERRBEC@uni-
trier.de writes:
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 9/23/98 2:33:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bert@kvvi.net
writes:
> Who knows what, other than dreams, drugs, and "madness" brings
> visions.
What an intro!!!
-----Thoroughly enjoyed your thoughts and musings, thank you for sharing your
insights----a refreshing breath of air----I would be interested in knowing
what prompted your perceptions in the last paragraph--
Chatham, I.C.S.P.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:41:08 -0400
From: bert@kvvi.net (Bert Stern)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: invoking spirits---Bert
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks. In one sense I indicated what prompted the perception--the
experience a few days earlier of seeing some direct contact photographs of
flowers drained of color and washed in light. Though I've always liked
a remark I heard Alan Ginsberg make about how we don't choose what's vivid
to us, maybe it does have a kind of history. Some remarks by Samuel
Palmer about "cast light," which I can't at the moment find or bring to
mind, are probably part of that history. And a wonderful book called
"Sensitive Chaos" which again, because of my currently gypsy existence, I
can't put my hands on.
And then, inevitably there's Blake himself. This one from VLJ, 82;
E:560 is talismanic for me:
"if the Spectator could Enter into these Images in his Imagination
approaching them on the Fiery Chariot of his Contemplative Thought if he
could Enter into Noahs Rainbow or into his bosom or could make a Friend &
Companion of one of these Images of wonder which always intreats him to
leave mortal things as he must know then would he arise from his Grave then
would he meet the Lord in the Air & then he would be happy."
Another passage that for me is crucial in this context occurs
during the "awakening of Albion,' in 'Milton'." In the great chant fr 25:66
to 26:12, L celebrates (in anticipation) the fulfillment of the generative
world in its imaginative forms--that is, the redemption. It is alive,
accoring to the formula of 25:20-21, with singing, dancing constellations,
of gorgeous clothed flies that dance & sport in sumer (note the suggestion
of "unified field" here in the metaphoric links betw constellations and
flies), in trees on the mountains uttering propehecies. These, Blake says,
are the sons of Los. These are aspects of the fourfold world that is all
around us, though we do not choose to see. ". . .We see only as it were
the hem of their garments / when with our vegetable eyes we view these
wond'rous Visions (26:11-12) Here is the world in which "every Natural
Effect has a Spiritual Cause, and Not / A Natural: for a Natural Cause
only seems, it is a Delusion / of Ulro."
I'd quote the passage in full, but you will all have it handy. All
the creatures gather around the Wine presses, rejoicing "with loud jubilee,
even
. . .the Nettle that stings with soft down; and there
The indignant Thistle: whose bitterness is bred in his milk:
Who feeds on contempt of his neighbour: there all the idle Weeds
That creep around the obscure place, shew their various limbs.
Naked in all their beauty dancing around the Wine-presses.
(I'll pass over the darker turn the passage takes when "in the
Winepresses the Human grapes sing not, nor dance.")
Anyway, all this is for me an aspect of "reading Blake." And I'm
perfectly happy to call it literature, I guess, as long as we're ready to
grant literature its power to transform us.
Bert Stern
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com, blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: invoking spirits---Bert
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980925170425.3ecf5858@pop.igc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:41 AM 9/25/98 -0400, Bert Stern wrote:
>And then, inevitably there's Blake himself. This one from VLJ, 82;
>E:560 is talismanic for me:
>
>"if the Spectator could Enter into these Images in his Imagination
>approaching them on the Fiery Chariot of his Contemplative Thought if he
>could Enter into Noahs Rainbow or into his bosom or could make a Friend &
>Companion of one of these Images of wonder which always intreats him to
>leave mortal things as he must know then would he arise from his Grave then
>would he meet the Lord in the Air & then he would be happy."
It's not only a powerful statement but it reinforces two realizations I
think are important to gather about Blake: (1) Blake is not just interested
in propagating doctrines; he wants you to enter into the concrete
imaginative experience of the scenes he portrays, hence the importance of
the literal imagination and how it should not be arbitrarily imposed upon by
"reason" (cf. e.g. the Marriage); (2) focus on the workings of the literal
imagination means a negation of the literalness of what we call the literal
world; Blake jumps levels completely and shows his indifference to what he
calls the natural world. This I contend is radically different from what
even the most idealist of philosophers do, as one of their prime purposes is
to keep a tight grip over the material world and see to it that everybody
follows orders.
>Another passage that for me is crucial in this context occurs
>during the "awakening of Albion,' in 'Milton'." In the great chant fr 25:66
>to 26:12, L celebrates (in anticipation) the fulfillment of the generative
>world in its imaginative forms--that is, the redemption. It is alive,
>accoring to the formula of 25:20-21, with singing, dancing constellations,
>of gorgeous clothed flies that dance & sport in sumer (note the suggestion
>of "unified field" here in the metaphoric links betw constellations and
>flies), in trees on the mountains uttering propehecies. These, Blake says,
>are the sons of Los. These are aspects of the fourfold world that is all
>around us, though we do not choose to see.
Awakening implies sleep, but is it just us sleeping or is nature sleeping
too? It would seem that what we call Nature must also undergo a
transformation and not just our perception. Then again, I suppose the
formulation of this question is also depending who and what comprises "our".
> ". . .We see only as it were
>the hem of their garments / when with our vegetable eyes we view these
>wond'rous Visions (26:11-12) Here is the world in which "every Natural
>Effect has a Spiritual Cause, and Not / A Natural: for a Natural Cause
>only seems, it is a Delusion / of Ulro."
Delusion or not, we're still stuck in this mess. My memory has gone soft
here. How does Blake explain natural events? He doesn't believe that
natural disasters and misfortunes are God's punishment for sin, unless I've
forgotten something. Is it the devil's work? Or is it just the spontaneous
workings of the fallen world? Then what are the spiritual causes? What is
the spiritual meaning of viruses and bacteria, hurricanes and bee stings?
What were Blake's views on medicine? How did Blake maintain his view in
the light of his own need to practically manage his affairs? A person who
says he doesn't see a flaming disc the size of a guinea but sees the
heavenly host of the Almighty is not telling me much about he navigates his
way about daily life, which he must do Delusion or no.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 08:33:50 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: William and Catherine
Message-Id: <98092808335043@wc.stephens.edu>
If the following has already been posted, I apologize. Our server has
been acting strangely and I think I may have missed some posts.
The anecdote about Blake's saying to Catherine "when the visions forsake
us, what do we do then, Kate?" and her reply, "We kneel down and pray,
Mr. Blake." is attributed to George Richmond, one of the pious young
artists who treated Blake as a spiritual father toward the end of his
life. It is reported in Gilchrist's life (p. 343 of the Phaeton reprint
of the second edition) and on pages 293-294 of Bentley's _Blake Records_.
Tom Dillingham
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1998 Issue #72
*************************************