Today's Topics:
"The Chimney Sweeper"
Leaving the Blake List
Re: [Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?]
Re: Is Blake a Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: 2 questions
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: 2 questions
Blake's Formal Art Education
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: "The Chimney Sweeper"
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:26:14 -0500
From: "R.H. Albright"
To: blake@albion.com
He exists in both "Innocence" and "Experience". Which one is better? In
both poems, I as reader feel indignation at conditions in the material
world, even if I am concerned with ideas of the "spirit", which are of
course made up by we creatures here in the material world as ideals toward
which we reach.
So, yes, if we are to follow a face-value "stick with innocence" viewing,
perhaps the Chimney Sweeper in innocence has the better opinion. Do your
duty, know that when you are released from this world, all will be fine.
But as we have discussed in this group before, there is a sense of
indignation that comes out of this world view, a resignation, in fact, that
the world of "experience", often maligned, gives a chance to use the
"contrary" thinking and, in the name of Mercy, Pity, Love, etc., at least
*try* to alleviate the plight of someone like the Chimney Sweeper.
Granted, this can slip into "those that sometimes want to do the most good
end up doing the most harm" (Oscar Wilde paraphrase).
However, given the rampant Deist, Unitarian, and other radical circles in
which Blake was moving, I personally do not think it is too much to say
that Blake asks questions, challenges orthodox Christianity to the point of
making the "lamb" as pathetic as Nietzsche would later characterize it,
glorifies the "tyger" both by the power of words as well as the subverting
force of the visual image of it looking like a cute, stuffed cat... which
can tie back into what *some* at that time (and now) know as a
Lucifer-Promethean struggle against oppression........
There is a pen and ink drawing sometimes on view at the Tate of what *looks
like* a Christ-like figure guiding a child (and when we read how much Blake
corrected Christ, or discounted works that Christ did, such as the
miracles-- again, it subverts how much the "mortal" Christ should really be
worshipped compared to Blake's own ideals of how he rose to become a
Jehovah of Compassion, and "invisible" God, afterwards) down a river. On
one bank is a mother and child, if my memory serves me corectly, and the
Tate explains that this might represent innocence. On the other bank is a
bearded man with a book (again, if my memory serves me correctly-- feel
free to clarify if I am in error) which the Tate speculates represents
"experience". So... is "experience" that bad?
Reading the Old Testament can be like a bad joke for Blake-- again, a
Gnostic footnote, perhaps, as shown in the "Elohim Creating Adam" compared
to Michelangelo's "God Creating Adam". Not only that, but in those books,
we constantly see wars struggling to get freedom, falling into complacency
or getting conquered by new Bad Guys. This may tie in with "The Mental
Traveller" again, how history is a broken record at times. Is Blake just
the cynic in "Island on the Moon", or... is there a bit of the
Pythagorean-Utopian in him, too, as told by Ovid at the end of
_Metamorphoses_, who suggests that *we* (the Four Zoas within me) can try
to redeem the world, or try to leave it a bit better off than we found it
as we then ascend into the next dimension? Will others, too, forgive all
that they do not approve of, and remember the exuberance?
Just some questions.
--- Randall Albright
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Leaving the Blake List
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 99 11:22:08 -0800
From: Seth T. Ross
To: blake@albion.com
CC: watsonj@papa.uncp.edu
> take me off your list
Please help yourself.
To leave the Blake List, send an email message to
blake-request@albion.com with the word "unsubscribe" in the
SUBJECT field, like so:
TO: blake-request@albion.com
SUBJECT: unsubscribe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?]
Date: 25 Feb 99 14:36:20 PST
From: mark peterson
To: blake@albion.com
blake-request@albion.com wrote:
When this discussion started off on such an imbecilic note and proceeded to go
downhill from there, I could barely contain myself, but I decided to keep out
of it unless I could add something productive to the discussion. For some time
I've thought about addressing certain aspects of the political question that
were never dealt with, but not along the lines that were discussed here
--
I was waiting for something "not along the lines that were discussed here..."
but your e-mail response had little going for it in terms of anything new--
except for the pompous tone. I, for one, think you need to look at where your
own Fred Flintstone toenails are dragging on the ground and move into the
discussion in a more learned way. The limited vision your writing shows of
Blake's spiritual connection to his ancient brothers (see his biographer's
quote of R describing how Blake 'talked with Socrates and faintly remembers
having conversations with Jesus...')leaves me wondering if you yourself need
to look closer at the political writings and Message of Socrates and Jesus--
especially the Synoptic passion narratives and the Fourth Gospel's scene with
Pilate. You might ask what Blake shared with Socrates & Jesus (the
consummation of the emblematic Torah/Prophets [Moses/Elijah]transformation;
or, as Blake would say, the investing of the Divine Imagination which
transfigured the religion of Israel...)-- and see more than just "people
walking around like trees" (Mk 8) as in your put-downs of others on this
e-mail list.
____________________________________________________________________
More than just email--Get your FREE Netscape WebMail account today at http://home.netscape.com/netcenter/mail
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is Blake a Political Writer?
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:38:41 -0500
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
The other week, I suggested a page on Emerson and Swedenborg.
It is actually part of a larger effort that some
students are putting together on
the American Transcendentalist Movement.
This as the *core* site:
http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transweb
This WebSite talks about the Swedenborg footnote to these
"Transcendentalists."
I must warn you, however, that in
_American Heralds of the Spirit, Emerson, Whitman and Melville_
by John Fentress Gardner (1992),
he warns that to group these three artists
as "transcendentalist" is... well, in some way
*violent*
and
anti the *individual*
spirit
within each of them.
or...
Emerson says, in "The Transcendentalist" essay itself,
beyond distinguishing between
*the materialist* versus *the idealist*,
(which we will see Bergson continue to use as
differentiating points or... rather...
not denying *either*
in his _Creative Evolution_ of 1910)
Emerson says, in that essay, that in HIS definition
of the word "transcendental:"
"...whatever belongs to the class of intuitive thought, is
popularly called
at the present day Transcendental."
Intuitive thought.
What is lost when you only have your reason?
Or can't see beyond the lines of your *own* horizon?
Did Blake enjoy pleasures of the flesh,
even though Los, Eternal Prophet of the Imagination,
is perhaps a way to describe the "source" of Blake's beliefs,
inwardly formed, just as Swedenborg also said
that the whole universe could be
as we are part of it......
And even though Urizen
helped a great deal more
than Blake would have us believe.......
Isn't there an aspect of Orc, even as he is later "redeemed"
into Luvah--
that embodies Blake as well?
The spirit of rebellion
as well as the loins of Tharmas?
The goat, questioning authority.
Does that mean the goat has *answers* to authority?
No. But if the goat was in the position of authority,
be it be an Evil OR "Good" Angel in "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
it would be in favor of what William James later called
"melioration."
Funny coincidence, isn't it, that William James
was brought up as the son of what Charles Sanders Peirce
once called "an eloquent apostle of a form of
Swedenborgianism"? (_The Nation_, July 2, 1891)
Actually, no. Because from what I've learned
from my favorite Swedenborgian friend
is that it's really a kind of "antinominanism"--
you have direct contact with God, and for God's sake--
you don't *Swedenborg* to get there!
But he meant a lot to Blake at more than one point,
and when he went in that church that had a sign that said
basically "All Things Allowed Now"
as if the Apocalypse had happened and
you could start living your life...
I think the concept was better
than the execution.
Just like Golgonzoola
may be the best we get to Jerusalem.
And yes, we Zoas here in Blake On-Line,
even as we continue to become
what we are
are just us, reading and *seeing* William Blake.
~~~~~~~
"Only what we partly know already inspires us with a desire to know more."
--- William James
~~~~~~~~
*Inspire*--------
You see-----
There are *Spirits*---------
and--------
Now what do you see?
There's an elegant universe.
It's got at least 10 dimensions, plus time, and........
But what do you *see*?
--- one of your Chinks,
Randall Albright
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:40:21 GMT
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
>>It is oversimplistic to try and polarize the situation and claim Blake as
>>wholly one thing or the other. But his concerns, rightly or wrongly,
>>were mostly spiritual in nature, at least in my opinion.
>
>I agree Tim is is oversimplistic. For Blake the Spiritual is Political.
Two points here. In the first place, my original comment was that Blake's
background was in religious dissent more than political dissent, but not
excluding political engagement. This is not being simplistic, merely a
matter of simple historic record, and it is an important contextual point,
which had not been mentioned in other posts, and so I put it forward. I did
not deny Blake political engagement, but (twice) explained, I hope clearly,
how I feel that one should not view him as a political writer working at the
level his illustrious contemporaries were.
Secondly, glibbly stating that 'for Blake the Spiritual is Political'
without a supporting argument is just a semantic game. I have given clear
definitions of what I understand by Political, which is to say working
towards the improvement of the human condition within the material world,
and Spiritual, which is working towards the salvation of the soul as it
aspires to the infinite. I have then argued a tenable position based on the
definitions. But if you want to change the definitions then the rules of
engagement change, and I can't do anything about that except ask you to
explain what you are actually trying to say and what your arguments for
saying it are.
Ralph - I knew that you would not agree with my appropriation of your
statement on Blake's refusing to deal with the world on its own terms, which
struck me very much when I read it last year, but then again I don't agree
with your own interpretation completely. But it's late and I want to go to
bed, so will duck this discussion for the moment.
Tim Linnell
PS: One thing I will do if I have time is to scan in the charter of
religious dissenters which I have in an 1817 edition of the Baptist
Magazine. It is of great interest in this context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:28:07 -0600 (CST)
From: funchion@creighton.edu
To: William Blake mailing list
>
>
> 1. Were Blake's parents literate? We know his wife was and we know his father's
> occupation was hosier but I am lacking references regarding the literacy of his
> parents.
>
> 2. Did Blake attend formal school? My sources are conflicting on this. Some say
> he never attended school, others say he received only sufficient "schooling"
> (not necessarily from a proper school) for him to read and write.
>
> Thanks in advance for your answers.
>
> Rgds.
---------------------
If I recall correctly, Blake's father was indeed literate, and Blake did
not receive a formal, academic education as his father disapproved of it.
However, I can't recall exactly what sort of trade/artistic education he
received. Interestingly enough, Blake's lack of a formal education bears
some resemblance to Rousseau's ideal as depicted in his Emile.
If you're looking for more information on this subject, I would pick up a
copy of Mona Wilson's biography, and you might want to look into a speech
written by A.M. Wilkinson which specifically addresses Blake's education.
--John Funchion
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:10:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
At 10:40 PM 2/25/99 GMT, Tim Linnell wrote:
> I did
>not deny Blake political engagement, but (twice) explained, I hope clearly,
>how I feel that one should not view him as a political writer working at the
>level his illustrious contemporaries were.
Not at the same level, granted. But to suggest that Blake's "escapist"
approach to solving the social ills against which he protested with every
breath implies a complete indifference to material conditions in this world
is not believable.
>Secondly, glibbly stating that 'for Blake the Spiritual is Political'
>without a supporting argument is just a semantic game. I have given clear
>definitions of what I understand by Political, which is to say WORKING
>towards the improvement of the human condition within the material world,
>and Spiritual, which is WORKING towards the salvation of the soul as it
>aspires to the infinite. I have then argued a tenable position based on the
>definitions. But if you want to change the definitions then the rules of
>engagement change, and I can't do anything about that except ask you to
>explain what you are actually trying to say and what your arguments for
>saying it are.
I don't think anybody is playing arbitrary games with definitions or
willfully stretching the definition of the political beyond recognition.
Notice your key word above, "working", (my emphasis added): the implication
seems to be that working is acting, engaging in overt political activity,
not writing. But Blake was a writer and artist, who took definite positions
as a writer if not as an activist on issues of hunger, poverty, tyranny,
imperialism, slavery, and much more besides. How you could interpret this
as indifferent to improvement of the human condition in the material world
is beyond me.
>Ralph - I knew that you would not agree with my appropriation of your
>statement on Blake's refusing to deal with the world on its own terms, which
>struck me very much when I read it last year, but then again I don't agree
>with your own interpretation completely. But it's late and I want to go to
>bed, so will duck this discussion for the moment.
This is where a productive discussion should begin, rather than end. I hope
I am not remembering something different than you are, but what comes to
mind is the question of Blake's attitude towards the literal: is the sun a
flaming disc that looks like the size of a guinea or the heavenly host
screeching holy holy holy? Such symbolic acts of defiance of material
reality have yet to be properly analyzed by anyone on this list, including
me, esp. in conjunction with some more down-to-earth statements such as "we
eat little we drink less /this earth breeds not our happiness." There is an
issue of psychological resistance to material conditions in the face of
which one is powerless, but these gestures of psychological resistance, that
come from real, material, palpable suffering and the will to endure, cannot
be reduced to New Age suburbanite hippy-dippy drivel that changing your
interpretation changes what's happening, tiptoeing through the tulips as if
one gets a free ride to live in a fantasy world.
I would be interested to know whether the scholarly Blake literature
addresses all these questions, because I've not seen any that has to date.
Rather than continue explicating my own views, let me pose a series of
riddles to advance the discussion onto the next level:
(1) How are we to analyze Blake's statements of resistance in defiance of
material conditions?
(2) How are we to analyze the political claims of Blake's vague and
symbolic descriptions of apocalyptic conditions which somehow result in
redemption, the new Jerusalem, in the light of how social change takes place
and was taking place in front of Blake's eyes?
(3) When Blake says it was a mistake for Jesus to get involved in politics,
and otherwise excuse his own disengagements from the political realm
(including the statement Tim cites about how an educated citizenry would be
immune to tyranny, and the statement that creation burns up when people
cease to behold it), what kind of claim is actually being made? Is Blake
advocating that everybody is wasting their time trying to change the
political, material conditions of their lives, or merely that prophets like
Jesus and himself are ill-advised to get mixed up in potentially
life-threatening political situations in which they cannot possibly win?
By pursuing questions such as these, which all follow a similar pattern, I
think we can progress much further through this murky character of Blake;
symbolic politics relates to material societal conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:27:49 +0000
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
>I don't think anybody is playing arbitrary games with definitions or
>willfully stretching the definition of the political beyond recognition.
>Notice your key word above, "working", (my emphasis added): the implication
>seems to be that working is acting, engaging in overt political activity,
>not writing. But Blake was a writer and artist, who took definite positions
>as a writer if not as an activist on issues of hunger, poverty, tyranny,
>imperialism, slavery, and much more besides. How you could interpret this
>as indifferent to improvement of the human condition in the material world
>is beyond me.
The Chimney Sweep pair is an excellent example of what I am attempting to
say here. Yes there is social injustice, but the solution is the divine
light, not political upheaval. Blake, at least as an intelligent,
compassionate and empathic young man, is an occasional witness to the evils
of society, but a more or less passive one in any material sense. As he grew
older, his concerns lay increasingly elsewhere and indeed came to accept his
own rejection with absolute indifference. His positions were being stated by
others - the Baptist Church as an example was a bastion against slavery and
in promoting the equality of man (before God) - and in many cases were more
effectively put forward and in ways that acted to instigate actual change,
which Blake's work never did because it was too obscure and introspective
(the killing joke here is the adoption of 'Jerusalem' as a nationalist anthem).
I have no time to develop this, but this is the crux of the argument.
Tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:02:04 +0400
From: Nigel Davies
To: blake@albion.com
Thank you very much indeed for your response.
funchion@creighton.edu wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 1. Were Blake's parents literate? We know his wife was and we know his father's
> > occupation was hosier but I am lacking references regarding the literacy of his
> > parents.
> >
> > 2. Did Blake attend formal school? My sources are conflicting on this. Some say
> > he never attended school, others say he received only sufficient "schooling"
> > (not necessarily from a proper school) for him to read and write.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your answers.
> >
> > Rgds.
> ---------------------
>
> If I recall correctly, Blake's father was indeed literate, and Blake did
> not receive a formal, academic education as his father disapproved of it.
> However, I can't recall exactly what sort of trade/artistic education he
> received. Interestingly enough, Blake's lack of a formal education bears
> some resemblance to Rousseau's ideal as depicted in his Emile.
>
> If you're looking for more information on this subject, I would pick up a
> copy of Mona Wilson's biography, and you might want to look into a speech
> written by A.M. Wilkinson which specifically addresses Blake's education.
>
> --John Funchion
--
______________________________________________________________________
ndavies@emirates.net.ae
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Blake's Formal Art Education
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:18:09 -0500
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
He entered the Royal Academy as an engraving student in 1779 at the age of
21. Although he did not care for Sir Joshua Reynolds (to put it mildly),
President of the Royal Academy, during his period of study there he met
John Flaxman, Thomas Stothard (both of whom were two years older than
Blake), and Henry Fuseli.
One source for this information is the "Young Husband, Poet and Husband"
chapter of _William Blake, A New Kind of Man_ by Michael Davis (1977).
--- Randall Albright
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:54:38 -0500 (EST)
From: johnmartinevansiii
To: blake@albion.com
First off, let me state that I really am out of my league here, having at
21 amassed not one fraction of the depth and detail of contextual
knowledge displayed by this list.
That said, I will open my mouth, if only to insert my foot.
I feel like we're being a little unfair to good William, and holding him
up to standards to which he doesn't belong. I am remembering for instance
the comparison to Thomas Payne. Well, clearly Blake is not the political
writer that he was, or that any number of contemporaries were, as has been
much discussed. But Blake is first and foremost an artist. He wrote and
printed his works in his own time, at night, when he could. I would
prefer to compare him to the poetic tradition to which belongs.
Before Blake the major canonic poet is Alexander Pope, and in general the
highly artificial Neoclassical school. After Blake is of course the rise
of the Romantics, and I maintain that Blake is more a Romantic progenitor
rather than a full-fledged member. His poetry engages in none of the
complex introspection of the Romantics, lacks the intense all-focusing
relationship to nature which characterizes them, and certainly wants for
the titanic egos of a wordsworth or byron. Wordsworth for instance writes
occasionally about the plight of the underclasses, just like Blake, but
only for narrative effect, such as in "Michael" or "Goody Blake". My
point simply is that given his context in poetical terms, Blake is
remarkably political. To ask that a poet who produces private works by
candlelight be as active and effective as the Baptist church is rather
unfair, and certainly no other writer could survive the same scrutiny. An
artist is valuable for his powers of reimagination, to see things in new
ways, and to the extent that Blake was passionately reimagining the
political state, I think we have to grant that he is to a certain extent a
political artist.
Finally, (because if your foot is in your mouth you might as well cram it
deep) I wanted to say that I find the distinction made between religious
dissent and political dissent very instructive and fascinating. But I
think it is an ENDS-oriented distinction (distinguishing between HOW we
achieve a better society, not why, or what that society entails). And so
although Blake does outline that "how" through largely religious terms,
the "why" and the "what" of the New Jerusalem are founded on political
critique. The issues he's addressing in society are overwhelmingly
political, and far more so than any major poets around him. So my point
is that if Blake is uniquely political-critical in his subject matter, we
shouldn't deny him inclusion in the political sphere just because he
chooses to advocate religion and not social action as the solution to
the societal ills he's critiquing.
-John
John M. Evans III
(203)764-7217
Yale University
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Ralph Dumain wrote:
> At 10:40 PM 2/25/99 GMT, Tim Linnell wrote:
> > I did
> >not deny Blake political engagement, but (twice) explained, I hope clearly,
> >how I feel that one should not view him as a political writer working at the
> >level his illustrious contemporaries were.
>
> Not at the same level, granted. But to suggest that Blake's "escapist"
> approach to solving the social ills against which he protested with every
> breath implies a complete indifference to material conditions in this world
> is not believable.
>
> >Secondly, glibbly stating that 'for Blake the Spiritual is Political'
> >without a supporting argument is just a semantic game. I have given clear
> >definitions of what I understand by Political, which is to say WORKING
> >towards the improvement of the human condition within the material world,
> >and Spiritual, which is WORKING towards the salvation of the soul as it
> >aspires to the infinite. I have then argued a tenable position based on the
> >definitions. But if you want to change the definitions then the rules of
> >engagement change, and I can't do anything about that except ask you to
> >explain what you are actually trying to say and what your arguments for
> >saying it are.
>
> I don't think anybody is playing arbitrary games with definitions or
> willfully stretching the definition of the political beyond recognition.
> Notice your key word above, "working", (my emphasis added): the implication
> seems to be that working is acting, engaging in overt political activity,
> not writing. But Blake was a writer and artist, who took definite positions
> as a writer if not as an activist on issues of hunger, poverty, tyranny,
> imperialism, slavery, and much more besides. How you could interpret this
> as indifferent to improvement of the human condition in the material world
> is beyond me.
>
> >Ralph - I knew that you would not agree with my appropriation of your
> >statement on Blake's refusing to deal with the world on its own terms, which
> >struck me very much when I read it last year, but then again I don't agree
> >with your own interpretation completely. But it's late and I want to go to
> >bed, so will duck this discussion for the moment.
>
> This is where a productive discussion should begin, rather than end. I hope
> I am not remembering something different than you are, but what comes to
> mind is the question of Blake's attitude towards the literal: is the sun a
> flaming disc that looks like the size of a guinea or the heavenly host
> screeching holy holy holy? Such symbolic acts of defiance of material
> reality have yet to be properly analyzed by anyone on this list, including
> me, esp. in conjunction with some more down-to-earth statements such as "we
> eat little we drink less /this earth breeds not our happiness." There is an
> issue of psychological resistance to material conditions in the face of
> which one is powerless, but these gestures of psychological resistance, that
> come from real, material, palpable suffering and the will to endure, cannot
> be reduced to New Age suburbanite hippy-dippy drivel that changing your
> interpretation changes what's happening, tiptoeing through the tulips as if
> one gets a free ride to live in a fantasy world.
>
> I would be interested to know whether the scholarly Blake literature
> addresses all these questions, because I've not seen any that has to date.
> Rather than continue explicating my own views, let me pose a series of
> riddles to advance the discussion onto the next level:
>
> (1) How are we to analyze Blake's statements of resistance in defiance of
> material conditions?
>
> (2) How are we to analyze the political claims of Blake's vague and
> symbolic descriptions of apocalyptic conditions which somehow result in
> redemption, the new Jerusalem, in the light of how social change takes place
> and was taking place in front of Blake's eyes?
>
> (3) When Blake says it was a mistake for Jesus to get involved in politics,
> and otherwise excuse his own disengagements from the political realm
> (including the statement Tim cites about how an educated citizenry would be
> immune to tyranny, and the statement that creation burns up when people
> cease to behold it), what kind of claim is actually being made? Is Blake
> advocating that everybody is wasting their time trying to change the
> political, material conditions of their lives, or merely that prophets like
> Jesus and himself are ill-advised to get mixed up in potentially
> life-threatening political situations in which they cannot possibly win?
>
> By pursuing questions such as these, which all follow a similar pattern, I
> think we can progress much further through this murky character of Blake;
> symbolic politics relates to material societal conditions.
>