------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blake-d Digest Volume 1996 : Issue 58 Today's Topics: Re: self-annihilation Re: Words to Ponder... Robert Gray,Tygers and Tigers Re: discipleship of Blakeans: US vs. UK Re: Blake's Muddles and Callings Re: Words to Ponder... Re: Words to Ponder... Re: Words to Ponder... Re: The Music of Blake--Looking for Musicians Re: Northrop Frye Muddles? A Challenge... Re: Northrop Frye Re: Northrop Frye/Muddles Re: Words to Ponder... Re: Words to Ponder... Was He or Wasn't He? Muddled communications--my own Call for writers for Blake & Milton Opera -Reply Re: Who made the Lamb? Tyger? -Reply To Ralph Dumain ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 13:55:21 +1000 From: jon.mee@anu.edu.au (Jon Mee) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: self-annihilation Message-Id: <199605250355.NAA14688@anugpo.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear All, Detlef was right about notes, of course. I think OUP felt with 250 notes that the book had a generous allowance. Given the nature of the book they wanted to foreground the 'primary' sources, but Detlef's point about historicizing transmission is an important one. After all it's certain kinds of reading that are usually canonized rather than authors. And in a way I was trying to contest "Romantic' ideas of what prophecy meant. A later correspondent mentioned similarities and differences Paine/Blake. My feeling was that the differences have become central to a certain reception of Blake which assumes a kind of logical difference between Blake's enthusiasm (let's call it) and Paine's rationalism. What this overlooks is the fact that in the 1790s these two "cultures" were continually in dialogue. As Dangerous Enthusiasm mentions WH Reid calimed that Paine got the idea that every man's mind is his own church from a 17th cent. ranting text. For a discussion of Reid, see Iain McCalman's article in the Historicizing Blake volume mentioned by Detlef. As for describing Iain's book, I couldn't really do it justice. It is a study of London's radical underworld, especially after 1800, which is important in part because it complicates the picture of the emergent popular radicalism as Painite in the limited sense of simply espousing a democratised version of enlightenment rationalism (whatever that might be). So often i read things which use "Painite radicalism" as a cover term for the popular movement or the LCS (Thompson even does this in Witness Against the Beast) assuming that it has little in common with the enthusiasm of Blake. There's a interesting essay from Iain on Lord George Gordon as a hero-martyr in this culture who took up the role of prophet in the most recent issue of Journal of British Studies which is worth looking at for Blakeans. Jon PS Forgive the spelling, my typing doesn't match my enthusiasm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 08:35:29 -0400 From: "Gordon Barentsen" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... Message-Id: <9605250835.ZM20486@sunray.ccs.yorku.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 24, 2:26pm, Ralph Dumain wrote: > Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... > If I had time, I would launch a campaign against Albright's > adolescent drivel. I have been in a great mood lately, but this > flap over Skopal's article in SOCIAL TEXT has me so inscenced > against the charlatanism of Stanley Fish, Andrew Ross, Smelly > Aronowitz, and the entire pomo ilk, I am once again on the warpath > against all gibberish-spouters. Albright, I'm sick of you playing > with your feces online. Am I the only one here that thinks that messages like this are a waste of valuable space, not to mention completely idiotic? - Gord ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 13:58:13 -0400 (EDT) From: izak@igs.net (Izak Bouwer) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Robert Gray,Tygers and Tigers Message-Id: <199605251758.NAA09163@host.igs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I would like to see Robert Gray continue to lead the discussion on "The Tyger" for a while longer, now that we are on the subject. His ponderings on "The Tyger" I find extremely appropriate. For me, this poem is a bit like a koan: we are supposed to try and find an answer,but it is in the process of searching for the answer that enlightenment could come. (1)Very few lines in the poem deal directly with the tiger and its attributes.Probably more than 80% of the poem deals with the maker of the tiger: indicating "immortal hand or eye", a hand that "dare seize the fire," "dread hand, dread feet." I find therefore the line "Did he smile his work to see?" of extreme philosophical importance in the contemplation of the poem. Any thoughts? (2)In recent discussions about the poem, the Tyger was indicated as a representative of evil. I fail to see that in the attributes of the tiger as described in the poem. Would any- body care to convince me? And can we talk about framing fearful symmetry? This poem is probably known all over the world: it is recited with Scottish accents, Southern drawls and Yankee accents, African lilts and South Sea rhythms wherever English is spoken or taught. It gives me the greatest joy to think of it being said all over India, on that great conti- nent where they learn English like a second mother tongue, and where real tigers can still be found. I was required to memorize this poem in a small village in South Africa by a teacher who did not speak English himself as a first language. South Africans have a problem with the word "tiger." There are no real tigers in Southern Africa, only leopards. Yet they were called tigers by the first white settlers and continued to be called that in folklore.(In Afrikaans - "tier.") By the way, in the Netherlands, Dutch children will have no problem with the spelling of "tyger." That is how they spell tiger in Dutch. Gloudina Bouwer ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 12:55:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: discipleship of Blakeans: US vs. UK Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Ralph- Funny, of all people, that you should be curious enough to ask... In jest,,,, matthew Dubuque virtual@leland.stanford.edu On Wed, 22 May 1996, Ralph Dumain wrote: > Very good, but as for knee-jerk marxists, I wonder whom you have in mind. > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 14:40:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Blake's Muddles and Callings Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Tom- Clearly, you disagree with R.H. on many points. But you are so much more interesting in your rebuttals than others who only seem to use the word "drivel" to express varying levels of disagreement. I do enjoy a fair, indeed substantial, amount of what R.H. says, but I also enjoy creative disagreement such as yours. Clearly you are not confined only to two-syllable grunts of disapproval.. Cheers, Matthew Dubuque virtual@leland.stanford.edu p.s. r.h. really enjoys dolphins. it may sound like a cheap heuristic to others, but i think that at least shows a commitment to novelty, creativity and originality.... On Fri, 24 May 1996 tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu wrote: > I had vowed not to engage in controversy or even to contradict anyone > when I came back on this list, but I am going to break my vow and take > vigorous exception to the posting that had the above subject heading. > It opines that "Blake's writing is a muddle, because. . ..I believe > Blake was a "special" person . . . he was reaching for enigmas that > simply couldn't be explained . . ."etc. Horsefeathers and > poppycock. There was and is nothing "muddled" about Blake's writing. > Whether we assume with one school of interpretation (Frye-ish) that > his whole works can be seen as a single edifice, all interpretable > from the same set of theoretical assumptions, or acknowledge with > more biographically/historically oriented readers that Blake > s views evolve and cohere gradually over a period of years, in > neither case can we conclude there is a muddle. Blake's thinking > is clear and his symbolic or mythic narratives, while complex and > sometimes obscure, yield themselves to careful and intelligent > (not to mention visionary) reading; once they do, they are > models of clarity even with the internal contradictions and > cruxes. > The fact that a reader finds a "muddle" is not Blake's fault nor > is it a feature of Blake's work. I will paraphrase an old proverb-- > A book is like a mirror, if an ass looks in, no disciple will look > out. > I find it particularly interesting that a person who seems to be > engaged in a months' long single-minded competition with himself > for top honors in posting masses of misinformation, confusion, > cliches, solipsistic speculation and, yes, muddleheaded thinking, > would have the gall to suggest that William Blake is a "muddle." > If you want "clarity," go read Robert James Waller--that's about > the right speed. As I have observed before, Blake had the last > word on this subject: "That which can be made explicit to the > idiot is not worth my care." > Tom Dillingham > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 14:44:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Ralph- In all candor, I think you may overuse the word "drivel" just a bit.... Clearly Tom from Women's college disagrees with R.H. quite strongly as well, but his commentary was quite original and well thought out. I appreciate that you also used the word "gibberish" but isn't there a way in which you could lighten up just a little bit. Surely, you have no mortal enemies within the group... please ralph, our sins our venial..... Matthew Dubuque virtual@leland.stanford.edu On Fri, 24 May 1996, Ralph Dumain wrote: > If I had time, I would launch a campaign against Albright's > adolescent drivel. I have been in a great mood lately, but this > flap over Skopal's article in SOCIAL TEXT has me so inscenced > against the charlatanism of Stanley Fish, Andrew Ross, Smelly > Aronowitz, and the entire pomo ilk, I am once again on the warpath > against all gibberish-spouters. Albright, I'm sick of you playing > with your feces online. > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 14:48:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Gordon- No you aren't. Numerous other members have complained about his flames but I don't even think he knows what the word means. His favorite vituperatives are "drivel" and "asshole" and he recently progressed to the three-syllable grunt "gibberish". When he gets upset he tends to use language as a very blunt instrument indeed. His ad hominem arguments undermine his credibility. "Just the facts ma'am".... Matthew Dubuque virtual@leland.stanford.edu On Sat, 25 May 1996, Gordon Barentsen wrote: > On May 24, 2:26pm, Ralph Dumain wrote: > > Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... > > If I had time, I would launch a campaign against Albright's > > adolescent drivel. I have been in a great mood lately, but this > > flap over Skopal's article in SOCIAL TEXT has me so inscenced > > against the charlatanism of Stanley Fish, Andrew Ross, Smelly > > Aronowitz, and the entire pomo ilk, I am once again on the warpath > > against all gibberish-spouters. Albright, I'm sick of you playing > > with your feces online. > > Am I the only one here that thinks that messages like this are a > waste of valuable space, not to mention completely idiotic? > > - Gord > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 18:27:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Dumain To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... Message-Id: <199605260127.SAA09161@igc2.igc.apc.org> It's bad enough I'm wasting time on this Social Text scandal, because I have real work to do. I hope I can find the time to come back and take you out. THe same kind of childish nonsene these pomo types engage remins me of your crap. However, you have performed one service as an irritant. I hope to show one day that BLakee would have had no interest whatever in falsifying science in order to create a new obscurantist ideology. BLake was on an alotgether differnt plane than he likes of Fritjof Capra or Douglas HOfstadter. When ime permits, I will come back to flush little turds like you and Albright. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 12:25:38 -0400 From: RobertsonG@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: The Music of Blake--Looking for Musicians Message-Id: <960526122538_542888534@emout15.mail.aol.com> Think the troubel with Britten is he is way to "high-brow" for Blake's songs. Brown of Redhouse Records in Minneapolis, MN has done a fantastic job of bringing the Songs to music, and he uses pop tunes which smack of traditional folk format. Blake was Cockney and loved his ale and the ale house. Likely the songs were put to the music of the time, popular drinking and love ballads. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 12:28:34 -0400 From: RobertsonG@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Northrop Frye Message-Id: <960526122833_542889522@emout12.mail.aol.com> Fyre silly? Fyre is perhaps the onyl critic of this era who wil be remebered and revered with the same degree of respect afforded to those he is a critic of. He is similar to Baudelaire's criticism of the Impressionists. I find Fyre one of the great men fo this century. The great Code is a stupendous book, and in fact after a serious read will likely induce you to get all of his major writings. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 16:22:17 -0400 From: TomD3456@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Muddles? A Challenge... Message-Id: <960526162215_401228747@emout13.mail.aol.com> OK, Pardners, I've heard enough opinions about whether Our Bard is a muddler or not. Time to put yer minute particulars where yer modems are. Here's a challenge for you: Find a particular passage that you consider a muddle and post it to the list. Then let's have at it with EXPLICATION. And to prime the pump, here's an example from my own experience. I found this passage a muddle until I looked at it long and hard and figured out WHY it seemed muddled -- and why Blake seems to have written it as he did: And the mills of Satan were separated into a moony space Among the rocks of Albions Temples, and Satans Druid sons Offer the Human Victims throughout all the Earth, and Albions Dread Tomb immortal on his Rock, overshadowed the whole Earth: Where Satan making to himself Laws from his own identity. Compell'd others to serve him in moral gratitude & submission Being call'd God: setting himself above all that is called God. And all the Spectres of the Dead calling themselves Sons of God In his Synagogues worship Satan under the Unutterable Name. ( Milton, 11:6-14) "Satans Druid Sons" are priests; "the Spectres of the Dead" are unenlightened orthodox worshippers of the tyrant-god, Satan, who in Blake's view is the true object of worship in most churches. I can't explicate everything in this passage, but I found method in what seemed to me a grammatical muddle: the mixture of past and present tenses. What I realized was that Blake uses the tenses to distinguish between the events of his mythic story and the continuing results of that story on earth: "Satan's Druid Sons" act continually on earth -- they are offering up human sacrifices today, figuratively (and sometimes literally) -- and Spectres are worshipping Satan (under many Divine names) in churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples all over the world, even as we speak. But Satan's Mills were separated and Albion's Tomb overshadowed the Earth at a certain time in Blake's myth. There's plenty more to be explicated here, but I think I can at least say that the use of tenses is not "a muddle." Rather, this passage suggests that Blake is quite careful to mark off, by verb tense among other means, the archetypal or mythic levels of narrative from his comments on the eternal human situation in the mortal world. So my challenge is: Submit a passage that you find "muddled;" if you can, identify what's muddled about it -- here I thought the tenses were muddled -- and see if anyone on the list can clarify it for you. (By the time you go through the exercise of identifying what's muddled, you may already have your answer. That in itself would make an interesting post, IMHO.) Who knows, we might create a collaborative exegesis of the prophecies.... --Tom Devine ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 22:35:36 -0500 From: tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Northrop Frye Message-Id: <96052622353633@womenscol.stephens.edu> Have I missed some messages on this list? Who called Frye (not Fyre, I hope) "silly"? Whether or not he had the alleged greatness, he certainly was not in any sense I understand "silly," but who said he was, and in what context? While I am on here, could I ask Tom please to explain what he means by "muddled"--or is it just what his challenge is supposed to transform this discussion list into? (If you want to see "muddled" in a sense I understand, take a look at Athena-L, the list devoted to discussion of Bernal's _Black Athena_ and Mary Lefkowitz's rebuttal of it. There is muddle rat's nest style.) Tom Dillingham ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 03:32:58 -0400 From: TomD3456@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Northrop Frye/Muddles Message-Id: <960527033257_121595357@emout09.mail.aol.com> Sorry if I wasn't clear about my "challenge": I was simply inviting anyone who thinks Blake's prophecies "muddled" (inexplicable, ramblings of a madman, etc.) to cite a passage that exemplifies this quality. Then those who understand the passage can offer explications. Without that, the accusation of muddledness, obscurity, madness, etc., is unanswerable because unclear. Essentially, I'm just suggesting that we exchange examples of our readings of passages in the prophecies, as we have done for the Songs, Mental Traveller, etc. The cowboy tone of my first sentences came from watching "Dead Man" last night and was just a temporary excess of exuberance. No offense was intended. --Tom Devine ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 May 96 11:44 EDT From: "Elisa E. Beshero 814 862-8914" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... Message-Id: <9605271547.AA14213@uu6.psi.com> No, Gordon, you are NOT the only one to find the language of Ralph Dumain's postings re R H Albright inappropriate to this list. Why does Ralph feel so strongly motivated to damage his own reputation? I don't agree with the substance of many of Mr. Albright's posts myself, but it doesn't bother me enough to make me behave like an elementary school bully. . . Is Ralph having a difficult time using the discard key? Besides, many of Albright's posts are of sufficient interest to me and I'm sure many others that I certainly don't think they deserve to be described in the flamboyant, unsupported terminology Ralph uses. --Elisa - - The original note follows - - Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 08:35:29 -0400 From: "Gordon Barentsen" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... Resent-From: blake@albion.com Reply-To: blake@albion.com On May 24, 2:26pm, Ralph Dumain wrote: > Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... > If I had time, I would launch a campaign against Albright's > adolescent drivel. I have been in a great mood lately, but this > flap over Skopal's article in SOCIAL TEXT has me so inscenced > against the charlatanism of Stanley Fish, Andrew Ross, Smelly > Aronowitz, and the entire pomo ilk, I am once again on the warpath > against all gibberish-spouters. Albright, I'm sick of you playing > with your feces online. Am I the only one here that thinks that messages like this are a waste of valuable space, not to mention completely idiotic? - Gord ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 May 96 11:58 EDT From: "Elisa E. Beshero 814 862-8914" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... Message-Id: <9605271600.AA14584@uu6.psi.com> Oh how easy it is to discard the following message--and any others written by the same source. Why bother with Mr. Dumain's more substantive posts, his booklists and reviews? Can we place any value at all on the readings such a childish mentality produces? At any rate, Mr. Dumain is certainly skilled in using words related to solid waste material. . .--Elisa - - The original note follows - - Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 18:27:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Dumain To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Words to Ponder... Resent-From: blake@albion.com Reply-To: blake@albion.com It's bad enough I'm wasting time on this Social Text scandal, because I have real work to do. I hope I can find the time to come back and take you out. THe same kind of childish nonsene these pomo types engage remins me of your crap. However, you have performed one service as an irritant. I hope to show one day that BLakee would have had no interest whatever in falsifying science in order to create a new obscurantist ideology. BLake was on an alotgether differnt plane than he likes of Fritjof Capra or Douglas HOfstadter. When ime permits, I will come back to flush little turds like you and Albright. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 17:36:03 -0400 From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Was He or Wasn't He? Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "O why was I born with a different face? Why was I not born like the rest of my race? When I look, each one starts! When I speak, I offend; Them I'm silent and passive and lose every Friend. "Then my verse I dishonour, My pictures despise, My person degrade and my temper chastise; And the pen is my terror, the pencil my shame; All my Talents I bury, and dead is my Fame. "I am either too low or too highly prized, When Elate I an Envy'd, when Meek I'm despis'd." ---William Blake; IV, from a letter to Dr Trusler, dated 23 August 1799 -------------------------------------------------------- This is one of Blake's greatest poems. It's hidden in a letter, not in his official repertoire. The Bard has taken off his mask for a brief moment and is telling someone how badly he feels at this point in time. So the question begins: Was he or wasn't he... insane, or at least wildly eccentric? Paine and Wollstonecraft didn't seem to think so. Coleridge and Wordsworth did. The Ancients group didn't think so. Some in this place and time do. Others don't. The Divided Self. It's a way to approach the Blake prophetic books. It's also a name of a book on psychology by R.D. Laing. Would it make you think twice about dismissing someone solely on the grounds that they're "mentally ill" if he was? Would it make you wonder what's WRONG with the term "mentally ill"? And what about the Divided Macro-Self? A world, in Blake's time, of slavery, empires, and revolutions replacing kings with nascent bourgeoisie and proletariat... Or in our time, what is STILL insane about this world, viewed from a heart and mind of true enlightenment and compassion? Was he or wasn't he... bisexual, or at least sexually exploratory? The New Yorker's illustration for the Ackroyd _Blake_ book review (May 27, 1996) could at least be construed as homoerotic. It could explain some of his complicated feelings toward women. Food for post-Freudian thought. Kennedy Fraser notes in this Ackroyd review that: "The scandalized Victorians refused to believe... that Blake made erotic drawings involving hermaphoditism, homosexuality, and children engaged in voyeurism." On the other hand, he had a devoted wife for 45 years. Isn't devotion the core beat of love? Which leads me to this question: Why do I like William Blake's art? Is it the one-of-a-kind fusion of both truth and enigma that allows me to see it from a number of different angles? And with each new coloring, or view to the words and pictures, the greater the shimmer. Maybe it's his rejection of "rules" for a more child-like, but not childish, vision based on impulse. Maybe it's his rejection of Taboos. ------------------------------------------------------------ "Children of the future Age Reading this indignant page, Know that in a former time Love! sweet Love! was thought a crime." ---William Blake, from ""A Little Girl Lost", _Songs of Experience_ ------------------------------------------------- -R.H. Albright ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 22:58:47 -0500 From: tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu To: blake@albion.com Subject: Muddled communications--my own Message-Id: <96052722584699@womenscol.stephens.edu> I should clarify an earlier message--I did not mean to question the value of Tom's suggestion that we discuss ways of interpreting difficult passages in Blake, nor do I mean to deny that many passages of Blake's prophetic writings are difficult, even opaque. But it is my notion that projecting one's own incomprehension onto a writer's work, and blaming the writer for the muddle in one's own mind, is both too common and hardly worth the attention of the list. It is an entirely different kind of thing to say "I am confused by this section of _Jerusalem_" as opposed to "Look at what a muddle Blake made in _Jerusalem_." It is clear that Tom and I agree on this, and I apologize for having seemed hostile to his earlier suggestion. Tom Dillingham ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:52:28 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: blake@albion.com Subject: Call for writers for Blake & Milton Opera -Reply Message-Id: Hi again, I meant biographical - not autobiographical - a slip made in haste. How did you like the first 20 pages of the masque? Do I qualify as a dramatist on your team? Please refresh my memory: did I send you the material as an ascii converted file - or ultimately as a fax attachment? Having gone to Cape Town my mind has been full of other things. Pam van Schaik. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 13:16:42 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Who made the Lamb? Tyger? -Reply Message-Id: Re Blake and Gnosticism, Andrew Welburn wrote a doctoral thesis on this subject which was supervised by John Beer of Peterhouse, Cambridge. Welburn later pubished a book using some of this material through Macmillan. I don't have the reference handy, sorry. Pam van Schaik,, Dept English, Univ of South Africa ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:59:03 -0400 From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright) To: blake@albion.com Subject: To Ralph Dumain Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I haven't known exactly how to respond or not to respond to your latest insults, which most recently degenerated into, at least in my reading, a threat to my person. And yet I think it's important, because this kind of bullying should not be tolerated. I at least talk in this group. What do your messages send, as a signal, to those who may wish to talk but don't have quite the self-confidence? They say SHUT UP. They say "I'm smart, and you're not." In short, they are the antithesis to the kind of critical and creative engagement as well as to the diversity of opinion or approaches that a discussion group such as this is designed to allow. For the sake of myself as well as others whom you may have intimidated, I request an apology. And yes, it is very easy to press DELETE when you see anything that has my name as author of it, if they cause you so much distress. -R.H. Albright -------------------------------- End of blake-d Digest V1996 Issue #58 *************************************