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" To: MLGrant@president-po.president.uiowa.edu, blake@albion.com Subject: Re: J25, art training, female figures Message-Id: 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 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 To: Ralph Dumain 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 To: blake@albion.com, izak@igs.net Subject: Re = Tharmas and Enion -Reply Message-Id: 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 To: blake@albion.com, agourlay@risd.edu Subject: Blake Archive and e-texts -Reply Message-Id: 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 To: blake@albion.com, suzaraa@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu Subject: Re:Re: feminist bores and antivisionary elections -Reply Message-Id: 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 To: blake@albion.com, LMM777S@vma.smsu.edu Subject: Unspecified Plate -Reply Message-Id: 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 **************************************