From: blake-d-request@albion.com
Sent: Monday, November 25, 1996 9:47 AM
To: blake-d@albion.com
Subject: blake-d Digest V1996 #136
------------------------------
Content-Type: text/plain
blake-d Digest Volume 1996 : Issue 136
Today's Topics:
Re: J25, art training, female figures
Priddy
Re: Priddy
Priddy
birthday thoughts
anti-patriarch
Re = Tharmas and Enion -Reply
Blake Archive and e-texts -Reply
Re:Re: feminist bores and antivisionary elections -Reply
Unspecified Plate -Reply
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 21:32:16 MET
From: "D.W. DOERRBECKER" <DOERRBEC@uni-trier.de>
To: MLGrant@president-po.president.uiowa.edu, blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: J25, art training, female figures
Message-Id: <FD873E5853@netwareserver.uni-trier.de>
November 22nd, 1996
Dear Mary Lynn [et al.]:
Now that Lance Massey has told us a little bit more about the
conversation with that unknown professor (to whom I offer my sincere
apologies) and its "dramatization", subscribers to the list may well
feel that the subject does not warrant any further discussion. (A
good friend of mine told me just recently that "The more you run
over a dead cat, the flatter it gets.") However, Mary Lynn has
raised a number of interesting points in her reply, and I'd like to
comment on them, mostly because I sense that I didn't quite manage to
state my own thoughts as clearly as she and others may have wished
for. In doing so, I am well aware that there is nothing new in these
comments, and that in her own posting Mary Lynn Johnson could have
easily supplied the same information.
> [...] about the need to take into account Blake's art training
> and the unavailability of female nude models (Detlef: do you
> mean both in Blake's time and in Michelangelo's?).
Yes. Though Vasari attributed the origins of academic training for
artists to the Medici and wanted us to consider Michelangelo as the
first (and supreme) product of such training, the earliest evidence
for an academy of artists that is known to me would have to credit
the late Michelangelo's competitor, Bandinelli, with the "invention"
of such an institution. As is well-known, Vasari himself followed in
style, and this is why he wanted to identify Michelangelo as sort of
a founding figure for the Florentine artists' academy. The scientific
study of anatomy was still much restricted in the first half of the
Cinquecento, and there are numerous anecdotes which tell us about the
difficulties encountered by artists who wished to gain access even to
medical anatomy lessons. The female model was an entirely private
affair in the sixteenth and, generally speaking, the seventeenth
century, too.
> But how far does this explanation take us? Who else in Blake's
> time, besides Fuseli, was doing muscular female nudes, or
> nonmuscular ones -- did other artists' nude females have
> androgynous characteristics?
Well, a few "muscular" names may come to mind (e.g., that of the so-
called Master of the Giants who has been identified as James
Jefferys by Nancy Pressly, I believe, or that of Mortimer). What I
think is more important, though, is the following question: Who else
among British painters in Blake's time, besides Fuseli and some of
his imitators (including, for the moment, Richard Westall), was doing
*any* nude females at all, "muscular" or else? (I am thinking of
finished paintings here, that is "public" works as opposed to
academic drawings). What I remember of (the published abstract of)
Bignamini's doctoral dissertation and her catalogue for the Kenwood
House exhibition on drawing from life in eighteenth-century British
art suggests that the female nude model was anything but common,
both in life classes and as an autonomous subject for painters) until
the generation of Etty, that now mostly forgotten early-Victorian
painter who specialized in painting female nudes and whose biography
established the reputation of no one else but Alexander Gilchrist
... . (As always, there *are* exceptions to the rule, but female
R.A.s in Blake's times were not, I think, excluded from the life
class because of the presence of nude *female* models.)
One of the many attractions of Rome for British and, in general,
Northern artists during the late eighteenth century may well have
been the chance to work from the nude (and often female) model much
more regularly than was possible in their home-countries. Banks,
Sergel, Fuseli and other artist-members of their entourage made ample
use of the relative freedom they enjoyed at Rome. Nevertheless, and
as Mary Lynn has pointed out herself, the nude female figures in
Fuseli's later paintings, etchings, and drawings do look "larger than
life" in the manner of the figural type or ideal established by
Michelangelo and his followers in the sixteenth century. Just as
Blake, Fuseli seems to belong to an idealist tradition in art which
draws first on models from earlier artists, and only then (if at all)
from life studies.
> Blake didn't have ONLY Michelangelo prints to draw on:
> certainly Raphael, who is supposed to have used used his
> mistress(es) as model(s), did not create muscular Madonnas
> (nor did Botticelli).
Again, I can only agree, and I believe I've mentioned both Raphael
and Duerer in my response to Lance Massey, too. But, and I'm sure
you will agree to that, we're talking about the *nude* when talking
about J25, and a *nude Madonna*, unlike a nude figure of Christ, is
a *contradictio in adjecto*. Now, can you point out a single
painting by Raphael which was reproduced in an engraving and which
depicts a naked female figure? Can't think of one myself at the
moment.
> While I'm asking you art-history questions: I realize that
> scholars say Botticelli was unknown/unappreciated in England
> in B's time (but was rediscovered about 1820??) -- but to my
> untrained eye his Venus ooks like a precursor of Jersualem, as
> she is depicted in J28. I'm talking more about the pose and the
> voluptuousness than anything else.
Another emphatic yes: to the best of my knowledge (and I may well be
wrong!) Botticelli was indeed still considered one of the
"primitives" in Blake's time and was not particularly well-known
outside a *very small* circle of artists and connoisseurs in Britain
who had travelled in Italy. Personally, I think that the engravings
after the erotic designs which have traditionally been attributed to
Giulio Romano and the engravings of Bonasone (which formed the focus
of George Cumberland's collection and the subject of a monograph of
this friend of Blake's) may warrant further consideration here when
we're trying to identify some of the visual raw materials which
helped to shape Blake's approach to the female nude.
> And Detlef, what do you say to the theory that Michelangelo's
> females look that way not only because he just drew breasts on
> young male figures but because he was not attracted to women?
I am interested in Michelangelo's art which continues to "speak" (and
to frighten) me; I'm not interested in the artist's erotic
preferences as such. As regards Michelangelo's own training as an
artist in the workshop of Ghirlandaio, there is good reason to
assume (judging from the work of his fellow apprentices) that this
apprenticeship represented (Florentine or even mid-Italian) standards
of the late Quattrocento and had very little to do with young
Michelangelo's hypothetical sexual leanings. Furthermore, I thought
I had made it clear that I do *not* believe in any sort of
"influence" without (productive) misunderstandings, and I cannot see
how and why our modern understanding of Michelangelo's *biography*
(as opposed to the engravings after his paintings which were
available to Blake) might be relevant for an understanding of Blake's
approach to the female nude.
> Also, what about Blake's choices AFTER art school -- perhaps
> using Catherine as a model?
Perhaps. But where's the evidence? It is in the very "nature" of
academic drawings from the nude figure that they lack (1) stylistic
evidence which allows for waterproof attributions (you're trained to
imitate and follow the style of a master, not to invent a style of
your own at an eighteenth-century academy) and (2) a signature. Not
one of the *few* studies of the nude figure (males included!) which
have been attributed to Blake and were accepted by Martin Butlin in
his catalogue raisonne is beyond all doubt, and except for a *very
slight (bedside) sketch* which I wouldn't want to classify as a study
after the female nude model at all, I am not aware of any drawings by
Bill which would indicate Catherine's regular modelling for her
husband. Of course, Catherine herself or Tatham may have destroyed
any such drawings if, indeed, they ever existed. But do we really
need to assume that Blake reproduced the situation of an academic
life class at home, or would it be sufficient to assume that his
collection of prints (oh, how I'd love to learn more about the
contents of that collection!) contained a fair selection from the
works of Italian Mannerist printmakers such as Bonasone or the
Romano workshop, plus the Italianate productions of Goltzius et al.?
(The late Jean Hagstrum pointed out a number of parallels between
Blake's falling figures and those of Goltzius -- but what about
Goltzius's series of the loves of the gods?) Would this help us to
identify some of Blake's sources which fuelled the creation of that
figural *type* of the female nude in the *VDA* illustrations (or in
the drawings in the *Vala* manuscript) Mary Lynn has mentioned?
Being art historically blind-folded, I'd prefer to follow this strand
to speculations which might "argue" that Michelangelo depicted
"muscular" women because, really, he cared for boys only, and that
Blake depicted "muscular" women, identifying them with Vala's veil of
nature and the dominance of the "Female Will", because his wife was
strongly built and he always felt threatened she might beat him up
when he returned from a little cyder feast at the local pub.
> I suppose what I want you to discuss is the relationship
> between Blake's taste/temperament/training to his
> literary/artistic themes. It seems too easy to say he drew
> muscular women because he was trained that way (I don't think
> you meant to suggest that).
Absolutely! Too easy. There were, after all, choices to make. One
only needs to think of Stothard's alternative invention of the
prettified childlike woman as a topos which recurs in virtually
hundreds of his designs. And, indeed, I didn't mean to suggest
that. I intended to suggest that the professor's argument against an
over-interpretation of what looks "masculine" to the eyes of a late
twentieth-century beholder might have been (and, as Lance Massey told
us in that second communication, actually was) based on some
historical contextualization.
> Although Blake admired both Michelangelo and Raphael (or
> Giulio Romano's prints), as examples of Roman or Florentine
> style as opposed to Venetian, he preferred the "sublime" of
> Michelangelo (and Mannerism) to the "beautiful" of Raphael,
> nicht wahr? But is that just a visual thing?
No, I guess not. But what exactly do you mean when speaking of "just
a visual thing"? Just as any of the "textual things" of a poem,
the "visual things" of a pictorial design *combine* the aspects of
form and content, sign and signified, &c.&c. -- I took that much for
granted (no, no Mary Lynn, and *entre nous*, there's no pun on Jack's
second name intended here!). In which sense, then, can one speak of
"*just* a visual thing"?
> Or, in adopting a Michelangelesque style of representing the
> female body, did he WISH to have some (not all) of his female
> figures perceived as having masculine characteristics, in
> keeping with his interest, on the poetic side, in gender
> conflict, unresolved gender identity, etc.?
Yes, I think this is probably right. The same, however, seems to be
true of his male figures. (And Mary Lynn, being one of the few
scholars who have taken a serious interest in Blake's Bible
watercolours and temperas of 1799 et seq., would be qualified to
answer that question better than almost anyone I can think of at the
moment.) The physique (and nudity) of Orc or Los or even "Newton"
differs markedly, I should think, from that of Christ in Blake's
colourprints and paintings of 1795 et seq. Whereas the figure of
the latter, Blake's representations of the Virgin (and the wise
virgins, too), and that of, say, Thel, are all "Raphaelesque" and thus
apparently belong with the aesthetic classification of the
"beautiful", most of the male mythic personages from the illuminated
books and, not to forget, the women in J25, are of the
"Michelangelesque" and "sublime" type of figure. And if we think of
the actions, the pictorial "narrative" they are shown to be engaged
in, this seems a most appropriate choice.
> About Lance Massey's professor: if he's a literary scholar, I
> don't see anything wrong with his giving his candid subjective
> impression as a lay person untrained in art history; why can't
> he just react to the pictures as he sees them, so long as he
> doesn't suppress Lance's further questions and speculations?
Well, I do (or, rather, I did) see wrong here. In the original and
"dramatized" posting I read that Lance Massey had been "cut (or
stopped?) short" by the professor, and this, I thought, indicated the
suppression of further questions and speculations. I have since
learnt that this was not so and therefore wish to repeat my
apologies to Lance's professor. From the original message it
*appeared* that he had offered *no other argument* than his "candid
subjective impression as a lay person untrained in art history".
Even if Mary Lynn would be ready to allow the same license to me, as
an art historian and "a lay person (more or less) untrained in
literary criticism", when I offer my own "candid subjective
impression" on Blake's poetry, I'd still disagree with her on this
point.
Such "candid subjective impressions of lay persons" are all very
fine, and occasionally I do profit from their unexpected and fresh
observations a lot. However, in the context of an academic
education, I'd insist that we do have to ask for a little more than
the opinions of lay persons -- at the very least, when speaking as a
teacher to a student about a subject I am not acquainted with, I
would always *want* to identify myself as a lay person. To me this
seems to be a "categorical imperative" of responsible academic
teaching.
Blake, I'd argue, knew very well about the complexities of his
poetry and art, about the challenge he offered to his reader/viewers;
he wants us to work with his texts and images, and it is only while
engaged in this process that we create their meaning and may glimpse
at his intentions. Spontaneous reactions toward art or poetry are
not, of course, forbidden; on the contrary, they mark the beginning
of any serious scholarly interest. And yet, those (literary
scholars) who were to refuse to then think as hard about the meaning
and the (art) historical contexts of "a hand or foot" in Blake's
designs as they have thought about Blake's words, don't seem to be
qualified to comment on the visual creations of the poet-artist in a
university lecture or a seminar.
As the compiler of an extremely useful and critically annotated Blake
bibliography Mary Lynn will easily understand why this point seems so
terribly important to me. Even today, 98% of the students of Blake
are literary critics whereas few art historians ever dared to invade
the field. This meant that the study of Blake's *visual art* was and
is mostly left to non-professionals -- with mixed results. To cite
just one (in my opinion) "bad" example: Albert Roe's "reading" of the
Dante designs -- and its "good" contrary, also written by a literary
critic(!): David Fuller's commentary on the same series of
watercolours which demonstrates why (to quote my favourite title
among the essays published in the journal *Blake Studies*) "You Can't
Write about Blake's Pictures Like That". Therefore, what I think is
needed in the academic study of Blake's *composite art* is more
cross-overs between the disciplines, and many more art historians
taking a serious interest in Blake, but definitely not more lay
persons.
A few months ago, at the end of one of her mailings (on *Thel*?),
Mary Lynn apologized for going on for what she thought was too long;
this prompted me to protest since I thought that hers was a most
interesting contribution to the list's discussion of the poem.
Today, I find that there are much better reasons for me to repeat
Mary Lynn's apology than there were for her original *captatio
benevolentiae*.
--DW Doerrbecker
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 10:45:13 GMT
From: wessex@manor.demon.co.uk (Paul)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Priddy
Message-Id: <7077@manor.demon.co.uk>
Hello,
I'm new here, so excuse me if this has been discussed before but I am
researching the antiquities and folklore surrounding a small English
village that may or may not have been referred to in one of Blakes works.
Priddy village, Priddy Circles and Priddy Nine Barrows, 3 miles SW of
East Harptree, Somerset, England. Ordnance Survey map ref. ST 540 530,
Landranger Series Sheet 182.
I'm not absolutely certain about this but there may be a reference to
Priddy in one of Blakes poems. It's part of the British Israelite
thing. Jesus Christ is supposed to have gone to Priddy for some reason
or other around about the time he supposedly went to Glastonbury,
apparently Blake believed in such things. I would appreciate hearing
from anyone who could could confirm or deny this.
FYI
Priddy Circles are Bronze Age (c.2200-800 BC) earthworks comprising of
four circular banks with ditches about 1.2 metres deep and 4 metres wide
and 180 metres in diameter. They are thought to be ceremonial henge
monuments. Close by are the Priddy Nine Barrows, a group of Bronze age
burial mounds; there are many other interesting prehistoric ritual
sites in this area.
The circles are centered on a ley line that runs from south of
Glastonbury to the north of Bristol, the line goes from:
Dundon Church;
a five way cross roads at Collard Hill;
the junction at the bottom end of the main street of Glastonbury;
a bridge over the River Sheppey near Fenny Castle Hill;
the summit of Ben Knowle Hill;
Wookey Church;
a road junction at Ebbor Farm;
the cliff edge at Ebbor Gorge;
a cairn nearby;
an inner tangent of each of the three Priddy circles S of the B3134;
both ends of the semi-circle N of the B3134;
a road junction near Spring Farm;
a cross roads near Beaconfield Farm;
a road junction N of White Cross Farm;
the junction of the B3114 and the B3130;
a cross roads E of East Dundry;
a roundabout in Hengrove Park;
the transmitter at Pur Down;
a Long Barrow at Lockleaze;
remains of a chapel at Gaunt's Earthcott;
a road junction near Vilner Farm;
a road junction at Crossways;
a fort SW of Rockhampton; and
a road junction and kink in the County boundary near Newpark Farm.
[thanks to Michael Parry for this list]
Paul.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:43:45 -0800
From: mthorn@ix.netcom.com (MT)
From: wessex@manor.demon.co.uk (Paul)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Priddy
Subject: Priddy
Message-Id: <199611241843.KAA08418@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com>
>...I am researching the antiquities and folklore surrounding a small English
>village that may or may not have been referred to in one of Blakes works.
>
>Priddy village, Priddy Circles and Priddy Nine Barrows, 3 miles SW of
>East Harptree, Somerset, England. Ordnance Survey map ref. ST 540 530,
>Landranger Series Sheet 182.
>
>I'm not absolutely certain about this but there may be a reference to
>Priddy in one of Blakes poems.
Blake and Quaternaries:
Los - Sun - Imagination - Ear - Poetry - Eagle - North
Luvah - Moon - Emotion - Nostrils - Music - Dove - East
Urizen - Stars - Reason - Eyes - Architecture - Fly - South
Tharmas - Earth - Body - Tongue - Painting - Worm - West
The list goes on...
The Four Chief Cities of Blake's "Cathedral Cities" -
Edinburgh - North - "Urthona" (Los)
London - East - "Luvah"
Canterbury (Verulam) - South - "Urizen"
York - West - "Tharmas
Blake lists 28 (divisible by 4) "Cathedral Cities" -
North: "Urthona" (Los)= Edinburgh
Bath
Hereford
Lincoln
Durham
Carlisle
Ely
East: "Luvah" = London
Oxford
Norwich
Peterboro
Rochester
Chester
Worcester
South: "Urizen" = Canterbury (Verulam)
Chichester (Selsey)
Winchester
Gloucester
Exeter
Salisbury
Bristol
West: "Tharmas" = York
Lichfield
St. David's
Llandaff
Asaph
Bangor
Sodor
Draw a line from Bristol to Exeter. Does the line cut through Priddy?
Does Blake ever mention "Priddy?"
>It's part of the British Israelite
>thing. Jesus Christ is supposed to have gone to Priddy for some reason
>or other around about the time he supposedly went to Glastonbury,
>apparently Blake believed in such things. I would appreciate hearing
>from anyone who could could confirm or deny this.
Blake pretty much thought of Jesus as the result of an "affair" by
Mary. The cuckold Joseph forgave Mary's "sin" (the forgiveness
of sins) because Mary's "act" was inspired. Jesus went on to become
a spiritual revolutionary, with bad advance PR, who ultimately failed.
His resonant symbolic power derived from his virtue, thought Blake.
Blake was more interested in the "idea" of Jerusalem, and probably
could have cared less about "Holy Blood Holy Grail" type itineraries.
I don't know that for certain, nor do I know if he was 'spiritually'
aware of "ley lines." Someone wiser than I will have to expound
further...
(Something tells me, though, that you had better not hold your breath too
long on this one.)
Good luck with your Priddy project.
mt
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 09:38:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain@igc.apc.org>
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: birthday thoughts
Message-Id: <199611241738.JAA19732@igc6.igc.org>
I have remained silent for some time, due to a combination of
circumstances -- personal tragedy, professional obligations, and other
intellectual work. How many times I bit my tongue, reading Giles'
insufferable religious doggerel or enduring Pam van Shaik's reduction
of Blake's work to religious propaganda. Hugh Walthall always cracks me
up, and he is right that Blake is a knower not a believer, and he knew
human beings couldn't be trusted. And that line about Blake being
admired both by atheists and religious idiots is priceless.
Fortunately, I have him to take on the religious numbskulls to leave me
free to do my own work. Gloudina Bower is just a gem; what else can I
say?
I could write volumes on this debate over Blake's attitude toward women.
Some time I shall comment in detail on Suzanne V.'s revelations about
Anne Mellor and the academic politics re inspiration. I shall also have
something to say about the males who indulge in these politics as well,
e.g. David Punter and Jerome McGann. For now, I'll just keep on holding
my nose.
There is one aspect of the debate I must pursue immediately, however.
Has it occurred to anyone that Blake might have had misogynistic
impulses AND have been perfectly justified in having them? I don't
subscribe to the sacred victim status ascribed to any group by the
middle class ideologues of identity politics. What makes women any less
disgusting than men in class society? Any less devoted to predatory,
patriarchal values? Blake attacks not only the oppressors, but also the
slave mentality that supports their system. Blake is the most deeply
anti-patriarchal author that ever lived, much more profound given the
time in which he lived than any two-bit academic feminist today. Blake
is so anti-patriarchal, he despises women too. Times have changed, but
the philistine slave mentality has not changed as much as some would
have us believe. It takes an academic to be shallow enough not to
understand this.
Finally, I note that Blake's birthday is upon us. This year it
coincides with U.S. Thanksgiving. What a perfect time to celebrate.
Any thoughts on how to commemorate Blake this year? I haven't had time
to work out any. So I will just begin with a Blake poem which Tom
Dillingham brought to my attention a couple of months ago.
I dedicate this poem, in loving memory, to Lisa (25 August 1961 - 15
September 1996):
THE BIRDS
by William Blake
He. Where thou dwellest, in what Grove
Tell me, Fair one, tell me, love;
Where thou thy charming nest dost build,
O thou pride of every field!
She. Yonder stands a lonely tree,
There I live & mourn for thee.
Morning drinks my silent tear,
And evening winds my sorrows bear.
He. O thou Summer's harmony,
I have liv'd & mourn'd for thee.
Each day I mourn along the wood,
And night hath heard my sorrows loud.
She. Dost thou truly long for me?
And am I thus sweet to thee?
Sorrow now is at an End,
O my Lover & my Friend!
He. Come, on wings of joy we'll fly
To where my Bower hangs on high!
Come, & make thy calm retreat
Among green leaves & blossoms sweet!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 96 01:08:23 CST
From: Lance Massey <LMM777S@vma.smsu.edu>
To: Ralph Dumain <blake@albion.com>
Subject: anti-patriarch
Message-Id: <9611250729.AA08632@uu6.psi.com>
Blake may not be as anti-patriarchal as has you suggest. The feminist theory o
f Julia Kristeva makes a rather convincing arguement linking patriarchal values
to language or "the symbolic." Likewise, the pre-verbal, instinctual/drive-or
iented part of communication belongs to the maternal. Kristeva articulates a p
oetic discourse which subverts the symbolic and ruptures it, at the same time r
ealizing (if only briefly) the maternal (semiotic) in its subversion. In Blake
's *Songs of Innocence and of Experience* I find a striking anticipation of suc
h ideas: almost any time a father-figure or heirarchy is invoked, a reference
to language of some sort is nearby. Blake seems to see a connection between th
e linguistic and the restrictive, the patricarchal, the heirarchical. But Blak
e also realizes his own reliance on language and its potential not just to rip
us from innocence but to lead us back to it again. In this sense, Blake seems
indeed to embrace the terms of the patriarchy--not abandoning it but articulati
ng its limits as well as its restrictions. As for your *ad hominems*, Ralph, y
ou're nothing but a poopy-breeches. That's an academic concept to live by.
Lance.
P.S.--Perhaps this Kristevan semiotic (the emergence of the maternal in poetic
language) can help to explain the moments of "resistance"--to clarity, to synta
x, to linearity--in many of Blake's poems.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:46:57 +0200
From: P Van Schaik <VSCHAP@ALPHA.UNISA.AC.ZA>
To: blake@albion.com, izak@igs.net
Subject: Re = Tharmas and Enion -Reply
Message-Id: <s299794f.034@ALPHA.UNISA.AC.ZA>
When Tharmas and Enion re-enter the Gardens of Innocence, they do, I
suppose, have a childlike Innocence of voice (comparable with the
`child-within' of pop psychology) but it is their regaining of their lost
divine humanity which is essentially being dramatised here... an
important stage in the reversal of the processes of the Fall Pam van
Schaik, Unisa, RSA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 11:06:38 +0200
From: P Van Schaik <VSCHAP@ALPHA.UNISA.AC.ZA>
To: blake@albion.com, agourlay@risd.edu
Subject: Blake Archive and e-texts -Reply
Message-Id: <s2997de7.068@ALPHA.UNISA.AC.ZA>
Sandy, I hope your idea of collective work on a new text gets support. I
myself could not help re comparing Blake's originals and texts, but have
felt the inadequacies of both the Keynes and Erdman editions in so far as
neither (rightly so, being scholarly rather than simply editorial) reflects
modern editorial policy re punctuation. As a reader, this never really
bothered me, but one could do a version which would make Blake's
meaning more clear than versions which closely adhere to the original,
Whether this would be worthwhile, I don't know ... students would find it
easier, by a trifling degree, perhaps, to gather the logic of some of his
extended conceits.
I'd like to annotate, as an explicator-cum-guide to the delights of reading
Blake, each of his poems - and edit them at the same time, so as to
make their meaning as clear as possible. Perhaps this would make a
good joint-venture, as then, the notes could reflect a variety of
approached, opinions, debate. What do you think of this as a slow
-moving (because of the need to fit it in among other commitments)
project for next year on-line? Pam v Scahik, Unisa
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 11:14:30 +0200
From: P Van Schaik <VSCHAP@ALPHA.UNISA.AC.ZA>
To: blake@albion.com, suzaraa@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Subject: Re:Re: feminist bores and antivisionary elections -Reply
Message-Id: <s2997fb3.076@ALPHA.UNISA.AC.ZA>
Just to say that where you see `gender saturated female archetypes', I
see that Blake's central themes revolve around the cosmic tragedy of the
disruption of the unity of masculine and feminine principles in the
godhead. Thus, the illustration in which a female ardently embraces a
male (under recent discussion) could be seen as the joyful regaining of
unity. In Kabbalah, this has an equivalent in the `Grand Jubiliee' in which
the Shekhinah is reunited to her `masculine' couterpart and the rift in the
divine substance healed. Pam van Schaik, Unisa, RSA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 11:32:52 +0200
From: P Van Schaik <VSCHAP@ALPHA.UNISA.AC.ZA>
To: blake@albion.com, LMM777S@vma.smsu.edu
Subject: Unspecified Plate -Reply
Message-Id: <s2998416.001@ALPHA.UNISA.AC.ZA>
Lance, I think the Plate you refer to is the one in which females are
pulling at the entrails of fallen Albion. I interpret this picture as
representing how, the females of Albion, in terror of Urizen's mistaken
moral laws which forbid the `unnatural consanguinities' of free love,
(formulated after his cruel rejection of Jerusalem as a `harlot') no longer
lovingly weave the soft fibres of their own bodies together with those
of Albion, but instead draw out his spiritual fibres from within his `bosom'
and weave them into the `veils ' of the fallen world of nature - into
`moth-eaten' fallen visions. Here, Classical mythology as well as the
stories of Valkyries may also be being alluded to, but the change from
soft to hard fibres is central to the symbolism of the Fall. Pam van
Schaik, Unisa, RSA
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1996 Issue #136
**************************************