------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blake-d Digest Volume 1996 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Re: Inspired Madman? Re: "divinely inspired" what? Re: Introduction Re: Youngquist Re: "divinely inspired" what? Blake and madness Re: "divinely inspired" what? Re: Re: Blake and madness Re: Re: Blake and madness Re: "divinely inspired" what? -Reply Re: "divinely inspired" what? Carlyle Quote - Help Please. Re: Intro and Feuerbach RE: "divinely inspired" what? RE: "divinely inspired" what? Re: "divinely inspired" what? Re: Carlyle Quote - Help Please. Re: Carlyle Quote - Help Please. Re: Carlyle Quote - Help Please. Re: Recent posting to Blake List ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 11:14 EST From: "Elisa E. Beshero 814 862-8914" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Inspired Madman? Message-Id: <9603141615.AA16415@uu6.psi.com> I took Paul Youngquist's graduate seminar on Blake a few years ago, and remember that Paul did interpret Blake just this way--as an "inspired madman" --I got the feeling though, that Paul wasn't so much interested in diagnosing particular mental illnesses (like so many Freudian psychoanalytic approaches tend to do). . . I think Paul kinda _liked_ the idea that Blake might have been mad-- Paul, I think, used the idea of madness in a Foucauldian sense (as in _Madness and Civilization_) Mad = whatever the dominant system of the times considers abnormal and dangerous-- whatever is being marginalized at a historical moment. . . Thus, if Blake _hadn't_ been mad, he wouldn't have been so solipsistically conscientious about painstakingly and meticulously engraving all of his wonderful creations, and he wouldn't have been so attentive to the values/beliefs/issues that "sane" and "normal" people of his day took for granted. . . --Elisa "You must be mad or you wouldn't have come here"! --Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 11:27:54 -0500 (EST) From: Nathan Miserocchi To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: "divinely inspired" what? Message-Id: <9603141627.AA13981@abacus.bates.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ralph Dumain writes: > > I forgot: isn;t there one Freudian book onBlake that dismissed him > as a psycho? > A "psycho"? I'm tempted to stop there, or maybe just a question mark (?) is enough to announce the absurdity that anyone worth a nickel will endeavor to write a scholarly book attempting to "dismiss" a great poet as a "?". To respond to your last post regarding "popular" perception of Blake as a "?", remember that when students read Blake their attention is caught by his eccentricities, yes. However, to label someone as, "Wow, crazy dude," today is more of a compliment to their originality. In regards to Blake, this is also a remark on the severity to which said someone lacks intimate knowledge and understanding of Blake. True, Wordsworth may have used the word "mad" to describe Blake, but then again he didn't read Blake either. This is perhaps the biggest pitfall that every Intro to Romanticism course has fallen into. Why do professors insist on giving students snippets of Blake, or the Marriage of Heaven and Hell, without introducing the core of Blake's mythology in Jerusalem, Milton, etc.? It's like reading only the "craziest" lines from Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground, such as, "Two and two equals four is fine, but two plus two means five is simply divine..." and then expecting to get something out of the book other than, "Wow, crazy dude." To conclude, if one thinks Blake is "?", then one should go back and read Blake. His mythology is complex, a universe exists within the texts, but since when did complex equal "?" ? -- Nathan P. Miserocchi nmiseroc@abacus.bates.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 11:32 EST From: "Elisa E. Beshero 814 862-8914" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Introduction Message-Id: <9603141634.AA19287@uu6.psi.com> SaddClown, --I love "Ah Sunflower" too! What are your favorite lines in the poem? There was a big discussion on the list a while back before you joined about what the word "aspire" means in the second to the last line. Some say it means that the pale virgin and the youth were _aspiring_ , or trying hard to go to the place the Sunflower wishes to go. Others say it means that they arise from their graves and _breathe_ --so "aspire" is more like inhaling and exhaling-- like the inspiration and expiration of breath. . .Come to think of it, the word "expire" for breathing out would also mean die, so maybe "aspire" could mean a little bit of both--so it sounds like they're breathing, and and aspiring to something, too. What do you think? --Elisa - - The original note follows - - Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:59:41 -0500 From: SaddClown@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Introduction Resent-From: blake@albion.com Reply-To: blake@albion.com hey ron, The poem ah sunflower is in songs of innocense and experience. here it goes: Ah sunflower! weary of time who countest the steps of the sun; Seeking after that sweet golden clime where the travellers journey is done, Where the youth pined away with desire, And the pale virgin shrouded away in snow; Arise from their graves and aspire where my sun flower wishes to go. u like? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:50:41 -0600 From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Youngquist Message-Id: <9603141655.AA22301@uu6.psi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >1On the question of Blake's "madness," the following book is possibly the sort >of example that you're looking for: > >Paul Youngquist, Madness and Blake's Myth. University Park: Pennsylvania >State University, 1989. Youngquist argues that Blake's myth dramatizes Blake's >own psychological conflicts. I don't see that in the myth myself. Vic >Paananen It's been a while since I looked at Youngquist's book, but as I recall, he presented the "madness" argument as an attempt to restore a line of thinking that had been dismissed or supressed by the leaders of mid-20th-century Blake scholarship, such as Frye, who were intent on arguing for the coherence and unity of Blake's work. The diagnosis of madness was, after all, what kept Blake in the shadows of obscurity throughout the 19th century, but also what led Swinburne and Yeats to rediscover him when madness came back into fashion. Jennifer Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:05:09 -0500 From: grayrobe@pilot.msu.edu (Robert M. Gray, Jr.) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: "divinely inspired" what? Message-Id: <199603141805.NAA10587@pilot06.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jennifer et al, In response to your very valid objections to the nature of the commentary that goes on here-- >Having been on this list for about a year and a half, I find it puzzling >that we spend more time trying to "fix Blake up with philosophers," or set >him up *as* a philosopher, than we do discussing the poetry *as* poetry. >If someone hadn't just uploaded the text of "Ah! Sunflower," you'd hardly >know this Blake guy wrote poetry. Again, I don't mean to "fetishize," >"valorize," or "privilege" poetry over other forms of expression, but we >can't get around the fact that Blake wrote all but two of his works >primarily in verse, and he clearly saw poetic forms as valuable in >themselves. Why the tendency to ignore that? I have only been on this list for about a week, and I've already recognized (and contributed to) that kind of discussion, and frankly, it's really about what I was expecting to find here. I find it especially interesting that a couple of days ago someone (I believe it was one of our younger colleagues) threw out a request for people's ideas on the different "versions" of "The Chimney Sweep" and "Holy Thursday," and no one has yet responded to that request. I am very quick to admit that my reaction to the request was along the lines of "Are you serious? I'm not gonna touch something like that." I am suspicious that many of you, especially those most versed in Blake professionally and academically, had similar reactions. The possible responses are just too many and possibly too dangerous. Why is this? It's much easier, and perhaps it seems more "scholarly" to talk about the philosphers and/or the philosophical, although most of that talk, including my own, tends to reduce and reify the concepts, both of Blake and of the philosophers, to mere abstraction. Would it be too much to ask for someone to shoot these comments down? Not so much by attacking this post as by answering that query of a couple of days ago (although if you feel compelled to attack me personally that's okay too, as long as you don't reify my ideas). Just a thought, Rob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:17:56 -0600 From: tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu To: blake@albion.com Subject: Blake and madness Message-Id: <96031413175673@womenscol.stephens.edu> Thanks to all who have responded patiently to my impatient comment about Blake and madness. I remember there was a long exchange on the subject about a year ago, so this is not an entirely new thread. I appreciate being reminded of those scholars who have continued to consider the issue of Blake's inspiration and its possible relationship to "madness"--but placing the word in quotation marks makes a necessary point--easy references to madness beg so many questions that it is either wasteful or irritating to make them without offering more specific definitions. Since my own primary research insterest has been Christopher Smart, I am very familiar with the allegation of madness based on eccentric behavior, ecstatic religious expression, even uncommon or unfamiliar prosodic forms; I also believe there are serious questions about whether Smart was "mad" in any sense of the term that would be recognized clinically today--no one doubts that some of his contemporaries found his behavior (especially his alcoholism) uncomfortably eccentric, but whether they connected that with his poetic inspiration (certainly he did not) is another question. One more thing--years ago, in her _Poetry of Vision_, Patricia Meyer Spacks offered a pretty convincing demonstration that the development of a coherent "system" is not good evidence of sanity; to the contrary, certain mental disorders include symptoms that lead to precise and obsessive system building, particularly the creation of complex language patterns of the kind that poets might consider their artistic product. I am decidedly not suggesting that Blake's system was a product o of madness (nor do I believe Smart's _Jubilate Agno_ was); in fact, I would endorse much of the alternative explanation of his system building in Ralph Dumain's message. But we need a context if we want to understand the process, though as Frye demonstrated, it can be useful to divorce the work from the context or the process if we want to understand the system itself. (Well, that remark may well create confusion, but let it go.) Tom Dillingham (tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:00:22 -0600 From: tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: "divinely inspired" what? Message-Id: <96031415002255@womenscol.stephens.edu> I certainly would not want to "shoot down" anything in Robert Gray's posting, but neither would I entirely endorse his interpretation of the discourse on the list. In fact there has been quite a range of subjects, attitudes, feelings discussed on this list over the past year and a half, as should be the case. Sometimes the focus is more on the kinds of philosophical or scholarly questions raised by Ralph Dumain, other times there have been quite focused discussions of particular poems or passages from poems. What is relatively lacking, I would say, is discussion of Blake as a visual artist, but there is nothing to prevent it. As to whether I reacted to the query about "Chimney Sweeper" as Gray suggests, the answer is equivocal--certainly to respond adequately to that post, which was so general as to be asking for a booklength discourse, would be a significant challenge. Someone may have attempted it offlist, as I often do when the question is like that one. But I don't think the hesitation is one of fear or derision so much as, possibly, weariness or hopelessness. Does one suggest good secondary reading? Probably that would not be helpful. Does one tailor a response to the occasion? The question is almost too vague to allow for that. But I would agree that a response is appropriate. One last comment--these questions are not unique to this list-- the Milton list, 18th century and romanticism lists, all seem to pass through these stages and varieties of focus. No harm done. Tom Dillingham ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 20:12:57 -0500 From: WaHu@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Re: Blake and madness Message-Id: <960314201256_446688739@emout08.mail.aol.com> Tom: the last intelligible scrawl in Nietzsche's note book was "J'ai oubliee mon parapluie". I think it certain that Kit Smart forgot his umbrella a couple times as well. And what of John Clare? At his best an equal of Wordsworth and Blake. Anyone who has not done so recently, re-read his poem "The Badger". In and out of Bedlam for fifty years. And what is Bedlam? Bethlehem. Christ is born in Bedlam. We are all born in Bedlam. What is the price of experience? Was Blake truly mad or mentally deranged? No. He was too courageous. His courage was exactly like military courage. Nietzsche lost his courage. So did V. Woolf. Bless 'em all! But that said, Blake is an impossible house guest. He's stayed with me a couple times, and he's a cranky old coot, impossible to cook for....AND, he's always drawing on the walls with crayons! But mad? Not in the least. Hugh Walthall wahu@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 22:43:19 -0600 From: tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Re: Blake and madness Message-Id: <96031422431906@womenscol.stephens.edu> Hugh--Smart did not "forget" his umbrella--he set it aside (if he ever had one) in order to act on his belief in the beneficence of rain-- viz. "For to worship naked in the Rain is the bravest thing for the refreshing and purifying the body." And later he repeats this assurance that "rain is exceedingly good for the human body" -- "For it is good therefore to have flat roofs to the houses, as of old" -- "For it is good to let the rain come upon the naked body unto purity and refreshment." Fine words for the coming of spring! But he also remembers the "rough winds" that do "shake the darling buds of May," for he tells us: "For there was no rain in Paradise because of the delicate construction of the spiritual herbs and flowers." Close reader of his Milton, that one! Tom Dillingham (tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:08:29 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: "divinely inspired" what? -Reply Message-Id: I read your letter with great delight as, it seems to me, that whatever lines in Blake one is reading, all revert back to his perception of the eternal realms of light where we all once were divinely human as "Members' of God's `Eternal Great Humanity Divine'. It seems to me that most Blake interpreters pay insufficient attention to Blake's evocation of Eden and Beulah - as they were prior to Urizen's mistaken perceptions darkened all of Albion's realms of Beauty - and that this accounts for so many skewed (in my opinion) interpretations of the text. How can one understand the parts without perceiving the whole? Or rewind the `golden string' into a `ball' that has real relevance to our spiritual quest without, at all moments in reading Blake, perceiving the entire spectrum of spiritual existence which he evokes - that is, ranging from complete expansion of the soul into the `light' of Jesus and Jerualem, to the torments of contraction into the Selfhood in the light-quenching body of flesh? These are the questions which continually arise for me in teaching Blake. Surely there are others out there who have had the same problems? Pam van Schaik, Unisa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:37:51 -0800 (PST) From: Ralph Dumain To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: "divinely inspired" what? Message-Id: <199603150237.SAA03704@igc4.igc.apc.org> The reason I used the word "psycho" was to trivialize a dismissive book on Blake from a Freudian perspective I saw listed in a mail order discount catalogue a few years ago. It was not Youngquist's book. I can't remember the title. I hate such dismissive attacks on Blake. I've heard Blake referred to as a schizophrenic, a paranoid psychotic, everything under the sun, sometimes by people who like him. Since I don't hold a romanticized view of madness, I have little patience for this foolishness. And the label is just an excuse for not coming to grips with Blake's thinking. Blake's work is not just mystical droppings from the beyond or New Age fluff: there is real structure and deep principles to his thought, and it is not conventional mysticism either. I have nothing to say against Blake scholars in this regard, so Tom can let his dander settle down. When I start to go after Blake scholars, my target will be Nelson Hilton. As far as I'm concerned, Blake was one of the few sane men of all time. I don't care if he saw angels on trees. I'm a militant atheist, and Blake makes perfect sense to me. When a person lives in a hostile environment and sees things more deeply than the people around him, there are certain pressures that can fuel a person's frustration, impatience, rage, suspicion, feelings of persecution and grandeur, etc. I don't view this as craziness at all, though people can begin to crack under the strain. I view this as the price of sanity. The last person I will tolerate is a Freudian jackanape out to demonstrate that nobody has any right to buck the system. Consider also the time span it has taken for Blake to get properly appreciated. The big spurts of Blake scholarship occurred when? In the 1920s, after World War II, and finally Blake came into his own in the 1960s. This is no accident. Imagine how frustrated he must have been to have his level of consciousness back in the 1790s. It takes a complacent jackass to miss out on this crucial point. Yes, Jennifer Michael, I am aware that poetry is not philosophy. My notion of systematicity is closer to Richard Blumberg's. Let me add also that I do not believe in an systematically airtight symbolic system. When I think of extracting a philosophy out of Blake, I proceed differently than Frye, for example. Maybe this is because I would rather choke first than read the Bible. I don't believe that all of Blake's symbolic structures are so tightly ordered that they can be turned into an axiomatic system. I suspect that if Blake could have presented his ideas in the discursive expository manner that philosophers do he would have done so. It does not seem likely to me that Blake worked out his ideas in the usual manner philosophers do, then encoded them into poetry, and left it for us to decode them back into the original frame of logically ordered abstract concepts. I don't think he thought this way, but I do think his thinking was remarkably systematic in ways that count. The symbolic form is a remarkable, even a unique way to conceptualize and communicate certain ideas. Could "Mock on, mock on" be communicated in any other way? "The Smile"? "The Mental Traveller"? The idea is not to equate Blake with the usual philosophical discourse but to set up a fruitful comparison and let the sparks fly. I don't think Blake could have written what Hegel wrote, but I think Blake was light years ahead of all the Germans put together in certain respects. I'll take Blake's revolutionary Los and universal divine humanity over Hegel's petty bourgeois Geist any day. Philosophers think that thinking is their private property, but they are sadly mistaken. They are the most conservative and bewildered of people. They don't laugh at my jokes. This is a sign of deep superficiality. Sometimes I write poems, but I usually do not think in that symbolic mode, so I need to systematize the ideas that I extract out of Blake's poems, which may yet leave an excess that escapes the systematic formulation; nonetheless my way of thinking has a validity and perhaps capture features that count the most. Frye is all over the place and sometimes gives me a headache. I hope to return to the Bard/Earth problem in a future post to explain why a range of different interpretations can coexist without contradiction within an overall determinate structure. I find Nelson Hilton's postmodern approach -- the barred signifier indeed! -- to be fraudulent. He's the sort of puppy dog I had in mind. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:11:52 GMT0BST From: J KENNEDY To: blake@albion.com Subject: Carlyle Quote - Help Please. Message-Id: <3EE4E0B1751@POLI2.SWAN.AC.UK> Sorry if this is off the remit of the group, but I'm getting pretty desperate, and as Carlyle was influenced by Coleridge, who's kind of the same genre as Blake - I thought I'd have a go: - In Andrew Seth's "Man's place in the Cosmos" Carlyle is quoted: "What, then, is man! What, then, is man! He endures but for an hour, and is crushed before the moth. Yet in the being and in the working of a faithful man is there already (as all faith, from the beginning, gives assurance) a something that pertains not to this will's death - element of time; but triuphs over Time, and is, and will be, when Time shall be no more". Unfortunately he does not give a reference. Could anybody help identify the source? Thanks in advance. Justin Kennedy. ------------------------------------------------------- PL6B2JKK@Swansea.ac.uk Dept Political Theory & Govt. University of Wales Swansea Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP. Tel: 01792 205678 ext. 4962. ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 09:47:00 EST From: "Fabian, Matthew" To: "'SMTP:blake@albion.com'" Subject: Re: Intro and Feuerbach Message-Id: <31498321@smtpgate1.moodys.com> Regarding a Blake and Swedenborg source: I picked up an interesting little book last weekend, titled BLAKE AND SWEDENBORG: OPPOSITION IS TRUE FRIENDSHIP. It's published by the Swedenborg Foundation and contains various essays which, most likely (I haven't read it yet), show a very close correlation between the two. Contributing authors range from some biggies--Raine, Gilchrist, and Paley-- to some ... not so biggies. There is a very silly section in the front of the book titled "Correspondences" which juxtaposes similar sounding aphorisms of Blake and Swedenborg. Hey, it was only $4. -Matt Fabian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:04:54 -0600 (CST) From: RPYODER@ualr.edu To: blake@albion.com Subject: RE: "divinely inspired" what? Message-Id: <960315100454.20265cb5@ualr.edu> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Given the amount of email, I guess everybody else is on spring break, too. "Systematic philosopher" vs "divinely inspired madman"? There's a difference here? About Los's cry for a system of his own creating: Let's not forget that Los utters that famous cry at the climax of his argument with his Spectre. Los's cry testifies at least as much to exasperation and frustration as it does to any grander statement about systems or slavery: "So Los, in fury & strength: in dignation & burning wrath" (10:22). Los goes on to make some pretty Urizenic threats: "Obey my voice & never deviate from my will / And I will be merciful to thee . . . If thou refuse, thy present torments will seem southern breezes / To what thou shalt endure if thou obey not my great will" (10:29-36). What Los's cry implies about systems or slavery may well be "true" or "correct"' or whatever, but in the terms laid out in the Bard's song in _Milton_, Los has like Satan started "flaming with Rintrah's fury" (9:19). Los is different from Satan in that his fury is not "hidden beneath his own mildness" (M 9:19), but I'm not sure that his threats are a much better alternative to seeming mildness. Like everyone else in Blake's universe, Los goes through his own personal Orc cycle, but what distinguishes the greats -- Los, Jesus, Blake -- isthat they take a chance to get out of it -- they dare to believe that defeat is really victory, and death is only sleep. I just had to say that. Thanks to my Blake seminar for such stimulating conversation. Paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:21:20 -0600 (CST) From: RPYODER@ualr.edu To: blake@albion.com Subject: RE: "divinely inspired" what? Message-Id: <960315102120.20265cb5@ualr.edu> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Read Blake but rather choke than read the Bible? This explains much. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:09:17 -0500 (EST) From: Nelson Hilton To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: "divinely inspired" what? Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, someone wrote: ... > They don't laugh at my jokes. This is a sign of deep superficiality. ROTFL ... > -- the barred signifier indeed! Alas that if a barred signified broke forth it could take no refuge in the bosom of such a joker. [ _MIL/TON: a Poem_ 2.24 and 14[15].9] ... > He's the sort of puppy dog I had in mind. Pleeeze! it's "dawg"--as in "Go You Hairy Dawgs!", "How 'Bout Them Dawgs!" woofwoofwoof Nelson Hilton -=- English -=- University of Georgia -=- Athens Was ist Los? "Net of Urizen" or "Jerusalem the Web"? http://virtual.park.uga.edu/~wblake ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 13:33:07 EST From: Kevin Lewis To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Carlyle Quote - Help Please. Message-Id: <9603151839.AA26854@uu6.psi.com> On Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:11:52 GMT0BST J KENNEDY said: >Sorry if this is off the remit of the group, but I'm getting pretty >desperate, and as Carlyle was influenced by Coleridge, who's kind of >the same genre as Blake - I thought I'd have a go: - > Justin, Coleridge is no more "the same genre as Blake" than rugby is the same genre as rounders. We are having a hard enough time on this Blake list focussing on Blake as it is without being diverted once again by a questionable comparison at best. >In Andrew Seth's "Man's place in the Cosmos" Carlyle is quoted: > >"What, then, is man! What, then, is man! He endures but for an hour, >and is crushed before the moth. Yet in the being and in the working >of a faithful man is there already (as all faith, from the beginning, >gives assurance) a something that pertains not to this will's death - >element of time; but triuphs over Time, and is, and will be, when >Time shall be no more". > >Unfortunately he does not give a reference. Could anybody help identify >the source? > >Thanks in advance. >Justin Kennedy. > > PL6B2JKK@Swansea.ac.uk > > Dept Political Theory & Govt. > University of Wales Swansea > Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP. > Tel: 01792 205678 ext. 4962. > > But I hope you find your answer. :-) Kevin Lewis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 15:08:56 -0600 From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Carlyle Quote - Help Please. Message-Id: <9603152113.AA14573@uu6.psi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Why don't you try NASSR-L or the Victorian list (whose name I don't know)? Carlyle: now there's a *real* nut-case. Jennifer Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 15:59:37 -0600 (CST) From: mseifert@texas.net (Michael S. Seiferth) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Carlyle Quote - Help Please. Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Could this be from SARTOR RESARTUS? NATURAL SUPERNATURALISM? **************************************************************************** "A book is a portion of the eternal mind caught in its progress through the world stamped in an instant, and preserved for eternity." -Lord Houghton(1809-85) "We do not need to burn books to kill our civilization; we need only to leave them unread for a generation." R.M. Hutchins "The walls of books around him, dense with the past, formed a kind of insulation against the present world and its disasters." -Ross Mac Donald Michael S. Seiferth (210) 824-4136 106 Hiler Road (210) 824-1564 [FAX] San Antonio, TX 78209 mseifert@accdvm.accd.edu (College) *************************************************************************** * ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 09:34:43 +0800 (SST) From: LIM WEE CHING To: Richard Blumberg Cc: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Recent posting to Blake List Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello Mr Blumberg, I did realise my folly upon posting the message. I had not read the Axiom message in its entirety and had assumed (stupidly, as you may now realise) that it was one of regular length. I do apologise to you and all on the list for the kind of unnecessary waste of bandwidth it has caused. Sincerely Lim Lee Ching Singapore On Sat, 16 Mar 1996, Richard Blumberg wrote: > Hello, friend... > > When you sent your message to the Blake mailing list, asking what the > posting from Axiom was all about, you quoted the entire Axiom posting in > your note. That is an enormous waste of bandwidth, especially coming from > Singapore. Your posting was 10 kilobytes, on a list where most postings are > less than 2 megabytes. Of the 10K, only a single line was new or relevant > -- that is, your question. -------------------------------- End of blake-d Digest V1996 Issue #18 *************************************