Content-Type: text/plain blake-d Digest Volume 1996 : Issue 107 Today's Topics: RE: holding C.A.S. -Reply -Reply Re: Key Passage in MHH BLAKE'S MODERNISM -- MORE ON STERN ET AL Re: Key Passage in MHH -Reply -Reply re:flying phalli RE: holding C.A.S. -Reply -Reply -Reply BLAKE'S MODERNISM -- MORE ON STERN ET AL -Reply Transcending conformity and disagreeable disagreement via Shelley & Blake Re: Key Passage in MHH Re: Key Passage in MHH -Reply -Reply Re: BLAKE'S MODERNISM -- MORE ON STERN ET AL Re: Key Passage in MHH Re: Transcending conformity and disagreeable disagreement via Shelle Teaching Blake Re: BLAKE'S MODERNISM -- MORE ON STERN ET AL Re: Key Passage in MHH Re: Key Passage in MHH 18th c chronology website Re: Key Passage in MHH Blake mailing list archive MORE ON MODERNISM, et. al. Unidentified subject! Re: Unidentified subject! ----- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 10:40:12 -0500 (CDT) From: RPYODER@ualr.edu To: blake@albion.com Subject: RE: holding C.A.S. -Reply -Reply Message-Id: <960903104012.20253f9b@ualr.edu> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Pam, We should note that from the passage you cite from *Jerusalem* plate 3, the most important words for defining the audience were gouged out by Blake: "Dear," "forgive," "love," "lover," lover" [again], along with "love," "friendship," and "blessed" to mention only those most relevant to your point about audience. Clearly Blake's attitude toward his audience changed at some point; it is less clear that this change was permanent, I think, but copper plates (and email) are unforgiving, and the gouges testify more to the intensity of his disillusionment than to its persistence. How this fits with the ongoing discussion of holding contrary opinions simultaneously, I'm not sure. It would suggest, though, a somewhat less than unified Blake. Paul Yoder ----- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:02:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Avery F. Gaskins" To: Subject: Re: Key Passage in MHH Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: Text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Elisa, I wouldn't worry about Blake's assertion of having spoken with prophets as evidence of possible insanity. Much of MHH is a parody of Swedenborg and his philosopy/theology. The dinner passage is a parody of Swedenborg's own claims of having done so. Erdman has often argued that Blake has a better sense of humor than many critics want to admit. This is a good example to back up his claim. (To the list: Sorry I can't append Eliza's note, as I haven't the tech- nological expertise to do so. But, you remember reading it. It was on the list very recently.) Avery Gaskins ----- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 23:33:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Dumain To: blake@albion.com Subject: BLAKE'S MODERNISM -- MORE ON STERN ET AL Message-Id: <199609040633.XAA29456@igc4.igc.apc.org> Now that I'm working offline, I can stretch out and clarify certain remarks. Bert Stern wrote the following: >Because Pam does still belong to that same semi-barbarian tribe >that Blake belonged to, and because we've all be thoroughly >schooled to the tribe of "the inheritors," Peacock's tribe, it's >inevitable that Pam, for all her efforts to keep the conduits >open between two very different noetic systems, will sometimes >strike others as rigid, or, at least, inadequately post modern. This is a highly questionable way of framing the issues, and suggests an in-group professional mentality quite alien to most people's concerns with literature. The give-away is: "we've all be [sic] thoroughly schooled ...." thanks to which Pam's position will seem "inadequately post modern." Have we all been so thoroughly schooled, or is it you who makes smug assumptions about we all? Because you frame the issue in this manner -- post-modern sophisticates vs. semi-barbarian tribe of backward-looking crab-crawlers -- you have created an entirely false framework of interpretation. The (post)modern spirit is ostensibly skeptical, ironic, anti-metaphysical, etc., etc., whereas people like Blake ((and Pam) still have those fuddy-duddy notions of truth, prophecy, and firm conviction. I deny that we all are what you say, though many of you all probably are. (I believe I once used the phrase "academic puppy dogs.") But your problems are not my problems. Why must a person with that old-fashioned sense of conviction be the crab-species you describe? And if there is a problem with Pam, must it lie in having some old-fashioned notion of sincerity and conviction, or is it that her "spirituality" leaves out some of the inconvenient ingredients of both life and literature? The irrelevant quote from Peacock is galling on so many levels, especially that crab-like stuff. A couple of paragraphs earlier Stern writes: >It strikes me that one of the differences between Pam's reading >of Blake and most peoples' is that she assumes him to be >describing the actual. She knows, as Blake miraculously and >instantly did too, that a new kind of mindset had closed in over >the West finally, ..... If Blake loved the old mindset and hated only the new, how do we account for Blake's linkage, in a single lineage of binding and restraining, Moses' dark delusions on Mt. Sinai with the finally completed philosophy of five senses in the hands of Newton and Locke? Blake's opposition to the modernist/capitalist social order also includes settling accounts with all the oppressiveness of pre-modernity as well. For Blake, modernity opens up possibilities even as it degrades, for it prepares the way for apocalypse. The fact that Blake would deploy the flotsam and jetsam of religious and occult traditions as tools to combat the reduction of man to a machine should not deceive us as to the entirely modern nature of Blake's method and outlook. One can emphasize whatever aspect of Blake most interests one, but to downplay the modern and political aspects of Blake in favor of some form of spiritual traditionalism is a crime. I admire Pam's sincerity, but to suggest that The Tempest be read "spiritually" is too much to swallow, and those references to Yeats and Eliot are the tip-off to what is most reactionary in her methodology. I shall settle accounts with her another time. To Avery Gaskins: once again, I am decidedly not using "modernism" to refer to a 20th century literary movement. I absolutely reject such a limitation to the term. And I was referring to Blake's modernism, not to anybody else's. Now back to Stern: >What turns Ralph Dumains' stomach obviously can't be of much >concern to me, since I seem to be part of it. But with as much >"due respect" as I can muster, I invite him to consider that the >"modernism" that was most visible to Blake was Urizenic >methodizing. It was the wounded triumph of reason, after all, >that is the essential aftermath of the fall. That triumph Blake >properly understood as a noetic system that marginalized the >imagination The worst aspects of modernity are a distillation of all the poisons to be found in feudalism, raised to a general, abstract principle. Blake hates the imagination of feudalism as he hates the one-dimensionality of modern capitalism, but he links them both as oppressive systems. (BTW, didn't Blake know that Catholicism, which he hated, made a big deal out of reason?) You describe symptoms without approaching causes. Yes, you are a part of what turns my stomach. Too bad for you that is of no concern to you, for you can surely do better than spew the silliness you have treated us to thus far. ----- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 09:26:15 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: blake@albion.com, GASKINS@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU Subject: Re: Key Passage in MHH -Reply -Reply Message-Id: Avery, I fully agree with all that you say in your last posting re the `Proverbs' ... for me, personally, it also has bearing on the mental constructs which polarise some of us on this forum. It seems we can't really apprehend the world without taking up a mental position backed up by strong emotional, intuitive feelings and it is this which ultimately, probably, leads to incessant conflict in the world. This would seem to mean that if we are to live peacably, we either have to conform more and more to each other's ideas (which sounds like a type of Blakean `Hell') or be very tolerant and better still, highly responsible in what we hold up for our children `to behold' since Blake sees that we tend to `become what we behold'. Sorry to ramble on - you brought the whole idea of mental constructs so uppermost in my mind, that I went into a reverie on the keyboard. Re `death' in Arcadia, I was musing that I had learned something new from our whole debate on Arcadia and that I was surprised to have found myself discovering that there is a type of `death' in all of Blake's (other than the highest, fieriest) realms closest to the source of God. Death to the Selfhood (what Blake refers to as continual washing off the non-human and the `rotten garments' of the hardened fibres of the flesh would apply more particularly to the `fallen world', but , even in Beulah, where spirits are not incarnated, the continual fading and dissolving of Self through mingling `essences' with all the others in the Divine Brotherhood, is a kind of `death' although one from which the unique self of each being rises renewed and strengthened in the love of God. Pam ----- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 09:38:33 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: blake@albion.com, rbroglio@ucet.ufl.edu Cc: GASKINS@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU Subject: re:flying phalli Message-Id: Ron, Perhaps the flying phalli derive from Persian (Zoroastrian?) motifs in which there is often a winged figure with a human head but serpent-like lower portion. I do think that Blake is pointing us towards a wonderfully various and spiritually agapic and erotic heaven. In Classical times they had little figurines called erotes some of which I saw in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge and my immediate thought was - here we come close to how Blake might have imagined `those glancing wings'.. there are. of course, other such wings on the figure in the flower, illustrating "Infant Joy" and on the `Fairy' that skips onto Blake's knee in ~Europe~, if I recall correctly. Pam vs ----- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 10:09:29 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: blake@albion.com, RPYODER@ualr.edu Subject: RE: holding C.A.S. -Reply -Reply -Reply Message-Id: Paul, Thanks for pointing out Blake's gougings. Whether or not he became disillusioned with his readers ( a matter which , being autobiographical we have no way of confirming) doesn't, however, impinge on his own unified and sustained evocation of his own mental construct of heaven , in my opinion. What do others think? Is e-mail so unforgiving , as you seem to imply? Must one look behind oneself at every step and not risk exposure of flaws even on a Blakean line? Sad, if so and I shan't be intimidated, hopefully. Pam ----- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 10:51:58 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: blake@albion.com, rdumain@igc.apc.org Subject: BLAKE'S MODERNISM -- MORE ON STERN ET AL -Reply Message-Id: Ralph, Thank you for gallantly leaping to my defence as the supposed victim of Bert's statements. However, I am not at all offended by what he says of me since he accurately portrays me as having a less than post-modern stand. In fact, I am deeply honoured by what he says. I don't at all regret not having got caught up with literary theories that would skew the meaning of those I read for me, and can fully empathise with Blake when he thanked God for not being sent to school to be `flogged into being a fool'. I think you, too, take an independent stand and resist with all your might all that you think is unworthy. However, please release Bert from being pabulum... he is a wonderful fellow- Blakean. Pam ----- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 12:09:39 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: blake@albion.com, rbroglio@ucet.ufl.edu Cc: GASKINS@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU Subject: Transcending conformity and disagreeable disagreement via Shelley & Blake Message-Id: Wanting to look again at Shelley's `Defence of Poetry', I opened instead his essay `On Love' in which he sounds positively Blakean: What is love? Ask him who lives, what is life? ask him who adores, what is God? To me this sounds very like Blake's "Thel's Motto": Does the Eagle know what is in the pit? Or wilt thou go ask the Mole? Can Wisdom be put in a silver rod? Or Love in a golden bowl? In the lines in `Jerusalem', addressing those whom he hopes will be ideal readers of his work, those he (initially, at least, in the light of what Paul Yoder recently contributed) assumes love Jesus and revere God as a prolific fountainhead of creativity, Blake may well have visualised readers such as Shelley describes who are capable of revering their men of genius - or, even better, actually loving them. Shelley writes: {Love} ... is that powerful attraction towards all that we conceive ....beyond ourselves... when we seek to awaken in all things that are, a community with what we experience within ourselves. If we reason, we would be understood; if we imagine, we would that the airy children of our brain were born anew within another's; if we feel, we would that another's nerves should vibrate to our own ..... that lips of motionless ice should not reply to lips quivering and burning with the heart's best blood. This is Love. This is the bond and the sanction which connects not only man with man, but with everything that exists. Imagine Shelley reading Blake with an attitude like this. He is surely the type of Reader Blake hoped for ... and surely, even in this modern age, deserves? Such quivering nerves of love may make some of us moderns want to squirm with embarrasment, or feel sick to the stomach, but do we not have to make the effort, as interpreters and critics, to transcend the conformities and sensibilities of our own time and try to respond to the type of sensibility of the persons we encounter in Romantic literature? I imagine that the answer to all this will be that literary theroetical debate has long ago left behind issues such as these - that God, Blake and his texts are really not even real subjects for debate any more and that multiple interpretations (whether or not they accurately reflect Blake whose intentions, god forbid, can never be known as all those familiar with intentional fallacy must know) are all OK provided the methodology and rhetorical range is correct. Anyway, I've really broken cover here and the chase is on ....watch the hare run. Pam I hear you say `Crap - how could this be weighed, measured, judged as literary criticism?' Would it not be a rare spectacle to see academics attempting to adjust their modern cliches and jargon to that of the Romantics? Oh, well please indulge this Memorable Fancy a little longer because I can't resist quoting Shelley once more: Poetry strengthens the faculty which is the organ of the moral nature... ##The great secret of morals is love; or a going out of our own nature, and an identification of ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person, not our own. A man to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and comprehensively....the great instrument of moral good is the imagination. Surely, this is what Blake envisaged true (as opposed to Urizenic) morality to be, and what he hoped the Builders of Jerusalem to be like? Why, then, as critics should we not aspire to this ideal? Will the children of `a future age' endorse as good anything less? Pam ----- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 96 08:35 EDT From: "Elisa E. Beshero 814 862-8914" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Key Passage in MHH Message-Id: <9609041235.AA13005@uu6.psi.com> Avery, --Thanks for the lead! I hadn't seen this passage as a parody on Swedenborg before (gotta read more Swedenborg--will add to Comprehensive Exam Booklist) . . . --enlightened, --elisa - - The original note follows - - Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:02:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Avery F. Gaskins" To: Subject: Re: Key Passage in MHH Resent-From: blake@albion.com Reply-To: blake@albion.com Elisa, I wouldn't worry about Blake's assertion of having spoken with prophets as evidence of possible insanity. Much of MHH is a parody of Swedenborg and his philosopy/theology. The dinner passage is a parody of Swedenborg's own claims of having done so. Erdman has often argued that Blake has a better sense of humor than many critics want to admit. This is a good example to back up his claim. (To the list: Sorry I can't append Eliza's note, as I haven't the tech- nological expertise to do so. But, you remember reading it. It was on the list very recently.) Avery Gaskins ----- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:23:06 -0500 From: tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Key Passage in MHH -Reply -Reply Message-Id: <96090408230662@womenscol.stephens.edu> My own favorite passage in MHH is the familiar: All that we saw was owing to your metaphysics: for when you ran away, I found myself on a bank by moonlight hearing a harper -- ----- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 10:20:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "Avery F. Gaskins" To: Subject: Re: BLAKE'S MODERNISM -- MORE ON STERN ET AL Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: Text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Ralph, I got your message the first time. I see now that you are using the term "modern" in a way many current historians are using it in backing the modern era into the Renaissance. You don't seem to go back that far, perhaps to the rise of the industrial revolution and the middle-class, tyrannical entrepren- eurs it produced and the intellectuals whose ideas fostered their rise. I am sure Blake was as disgusted with them as with the aristocracy. It's unfortunate that T.S. Eliot and other of his contemporaries called themselves "The Moderns" because of the confusion which prevails every time someone uses the term "modern" in a discussion today. Avery Gaskins ----- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 09:27:54 -0500 From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Key Passage in MHH Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have to cast my vote for Plate 14, which ends with cleansing the doors of perception. Hey, I know it's become cliche, but the expansion of perception through Blake's "infernal" printing seems key to all of his work. The "whole creation will be consumed," but its *appearance* is what will change, not the creation itself, which has always been infinite. Second place would go to Plate 11, in which "All deities reside in the human breast." Again, this passage gives divine agency not only to human beings, but specifically to poets, who "animated all sensible objects." A question for the list: by "sensible" does Blake mean "perceptible to the senses" or, as we tend to use the word, "possessing sense or sensation"? The latter doesn't quite seem to fit because a sensible object would already be animate. Jennifer Michael (who would like to add immodestly that she just successfully defended her dissertation) ----- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 10:32:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Avery F. Gaskins" To: Subject: Re: Transcending conformity and disagreeable disagreement via Shelle Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: Text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Probably the most un-Blakean thing Shelley ever wrote were the words he gave to Demogorgon in _Prometheus Unbound_: The deep truth is imageless." Avery Gaskins ----- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 11:20:31 -0400 From: Scott A Leonard To: blake@albion.com Subject: Teaching Blake Message-Id: <199609041520.LAA39094@unix1.cc.ysu.edu> I'm sure this question has been answered before, but I wasn't tuned in... Can anyone recommend a comparatively inexpensive biography on Blake. It would be ideal if the biographer attempted to connect Blake to his more famous contemporary poets, but not essential. I'm teaching an introduction to Blake this fall and wanted to use Ackroyd (because he's latest), but $35 for a hardback on top of the Erdman seems a bit too steep for my blue-collar neighborhood. Save bandwidth and reply privately to Scott A. Leonard Youngstown State University saleonar@unix.cc.ysu.edu ----- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 13:43:11 +0000 From: sternh@WABASH.EDU To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: BLAKE'S MODERNISM -- MORE ON STERN ET AL Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Ralph Dumain's little billet-doux reminds me of Hopkins' crack about Browning, whom he thought of as a man jumping up from the table, his mouth full of bread and cheese, roaring that he won't put up with any damned nonsense. What are you going to do with a roarer who can't listen? My old friend John Swan wrote that the enormous task First Amendment people faced today was to find "a way to allow the maximum breathing room for a multiplicity of sometimes hostile beliefs which must now share, in an increasingly literal sense, the same space." Dumain, with his uzi-mouth, reminds me what a tough job this will be. I don't know what's worth clarifying in such a context, but I'll try this little piece. What I said that all of us, post moderns and "crabs" alike, had been educated to is skepticism and empricism. We all--not just Ralphy boy--bear the stamp of the crew Paul Ricoueur calls "masters of supicion"--viz. Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. The question becomes, what baby did the triumph of science and skepticism throw out with the bathwater? Is the fragmentation that Blake understood more clearly and earlier than anyone else simply to be accepted as a permanent legacy, or does there remain a task that can be addressed only with the help of "vision" (H. Bloom: Blake. . . meant by 'vision' a program for restoring the human"). Maybe Ralph is as good as it gets, and thoughts of restoration are Quixotic against the shadow he casts. There's certainly, to some of us at least, a terminal stench coming up out of history these days. But if he's not, it seems to me that the task of resoration, for us, with the help of the filters Blake's vision provides, ought to be the real work. Bert Stern ----- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 96 13:46:43 MDT From: "Roderick Mcgillis" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Key Passage in MHH Message-Id: <9609041946.AA20618@acs1.acs.ucalgary.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 34 Congratulations Jennifer Michael. ----- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 07:15:44 -0500 (CDT) From: William Neal Franklin To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Key Passage in MHH Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, J. Michael wrote: > Again, this passage gives divine agency not only to human > beings, but specifically to poets, who "animated all sensible objects." A > question for the list: by "sensible" does Blake mean "perceptible to the > senses" or, as we tend to use the word, "possessing sense or sensation"? > The latter doesn't quite seem to fit because a sensible object would > already be animate. I wouldn't eliminate either meaning, but would add that Blake meant "senses" in more than a vegetable way, including the intuitive sense(s) as well. Beware the word "or." Also, it is the poet who does the animating of the objects, rendering deities from woods, for example. (The passage you cite is also my favorite from _The Marriage.... I have about a dozen such passages, depending upon where I happen to be casting my gaze at the moment.) ----- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 07:43:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Suzanne Araas Vesely To: blakelist Subject: 18th c chronology website Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Since I've been off the list a while, this may not be news, but there is a web with a good summary in it of the complications of dating Blake's work; gives our boy a higher profile at that site than he might otherwise have. The address is: http://humanitas.ucsb.edu/projects/pack/rom-chrono/chrono.htm. Lots of other good stuff, too. Suzanne Araas Vesely ----- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 11:09:34 +0000 From: David Rollison To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Key Passage in MHH Message-Id: <322EB4EE.4A20@marin.cc.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hear, Hear! Roderick Mcgillis wrote: > > Congratulations Jennifer Michael. ----- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 96 18:36:43 -0700 From: Seth T. Ross To: blake@albion.com Subject: Blake mailing list archive Message-Id: <9609060136.AA00954@albion.com> Content-Type: text/plain Dear Blakeans: You can find an up-to-date text-only archive of postings to Blake Online since the beginning of 1995 at the URL: http://www.albion.com/indexBlake.html Cheers, Seth Ross PS To leave the Blake list, send a note to blake-request@albion.com with the word "unsubscribe" as the SUBJECT of the message. ----- Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 09:43:13 -0500 (EST) From: WATT To: Albion Blake Subject: MORE ON MODERNISM, et. al. Message-Id: <3113430906091996/A53452/OVID/11A9326B0600*@MHS> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Ralph Dumain suggested that he would be "settling accounts" with Pam at a later date. (An interesting metaphor considering his anti-Capitolist stance) and, judging from Pam's gentle demeanor that won't be difficult. But as a kind of eavesdropper on the whole thing, and as an actual, in-the-flesh friend of Bert Stern, I feel compelled to put myself in the docket and take my punishment. Ralph also stated (as an article of faith, needing no defense) that "to downplay the modern and political aspects of Blake in favor of some form of spiritual traditionalism is a crime." If so, I'm guilty. Guilty. Guilty! "Some form of spiritual traditionalism" implies, I assume deliberately, a dismissal of the Everlasting Gospel. But I don't read either of the following of Blake's texts ironically: "He never can be a Friend to the Human Race who is a Preacher of Natural Morality or Natural Religion. he is a flatterer who means to betray, to perpetuate Tyrant Pride & the Laws of that Babylon which he foresees shall shortly be destroy'd" (Jerusalem 52 "To the Deists") "I am really sorry to see my Countrymen trouble themselves about Politics. If Men wer Wise the Most arbitrary Princes could not hurt them If they are not Wise the Freest Government is compelld to be a Tyranny." "Public Address" (Erdman,580) Let's try, at least, to be wise. Jim Watt ----- Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:33:37 +0800 From: renechar@tpts1.seed.net.tw (PC_USER) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Message-Id: <199609070733.PAA21781@tpts1.seed.net.tw> Content-Type: text __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ | .................. | | .................. | | : : | | : : | | : 17" + 17" : | __ __ __ __ __ | : = 23 " : | | : --------- : | | ............ | | : ------ : | | : : | | :..........: | | : : | | :................: | | :........: | | :................: | |__ __ __ __ __ __ __| | o o o O | |__ __ __ __ __ __ __| XXXXXXXXXXXX | | XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | %%%%%%%%%%%% | | %%%%%%%%%%%% | | %%%%%%%%%%%% | | %%%%%%%%%%%% | | %%%%%%%%%%%% | | %%%%%%%%%%%% | | %%%%%%%%%%%% | |__ __ __ __ __| DUAL-PORT VGA CARD -- 23" Screen Area System ============================================= As today you can find a modem with almost any computer, the vision of the virtual, paperless office is coming nearer and nearer. This immediately raises the most important question in every office: How big is my desk? The relevant meassure is no longer the number of square feet of the deskplate, but the square inches of the monitorscreen on which we are working today. Normally these are 95 square-inches for a 14" monitor. But does this really fit your position and your needs? The more the number of your tasks grows, the more you wish your Desk, i.e. your monitor would grow with it. So you first buy a 17" monitor (138 square-inch). But your workload keeps growing and you wish your workspace could double, so you decide to buy a 23" monitor (254 square-inch). So you visit your nearest computer store - but no 23" monitors there. The salesman recommends the nearest TV-shop. There are many 23" monitors, but none with a VGA interface. Now you go home open your e-mail box and find this advertisement : The Dual Port VGA-Card ====================== which in combination with two 17" monitors provides you 260 square-inch screen area and your dreams have come true. Every computer can be converted: Simply replace the old VGA card with the new dual-port VGA card and install the windows driver. Technical Data: * Up to 16 cards per PC * Virtual screen drivers for Windows 3.1 * Supports "Green PC" compliant sleep mechanism for power saving * Uses CL-542x True Color SVGA controller * Video overlay and color key supported * System requirements: 2 MB of free hard disk space, 2 MB RAM * Optional: Up to 4 MB RAM per card, Supports 16 million colors at 640 * 480 Price: US$ 370.- ----- Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 06:27:14 -0400 From: Sjnevil@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Unidentified subject! Message-Id: <960907062713_196253933@emout07.mail.aol.com> please do not send me adverts