blake-d Digest Volume 1996 : Issue 86 Today's Topics: Re: Scaffolds of the mind RE: Blake and the Country versus City Re: A note on the "Escalator Dilema" Re: Percy's Reliques in Ackroyd's book Re: Voltaire and Rousseau; new biblical criticism Re: Quest Literature, Sci-Fi, etc. -Reply -Reply -Reply Re: Scaffolds of the mind -Reply RE: Scaffolds of the mind Re: Quest Literature, Sci-Fi, etc. Blake and Those He Needs To Correct Re: Scaffolds of the mind RE: Scaffolds of the mind Re: The case of the disappearing context RE: Scaffolds of the mind Jesus the Revolutionary Re: Scaffolds of the mind -Reply Emerson Reflections on Blake -Reply ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 10:12:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew J DubuqueTo: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Scaffolds of the mind Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII To all- I am in substantial agreement with this. On the whole, I have enjoyed his posts lately, and have learned from them. virtual@stanford.edu On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Izak Bouwer wrote: > > Just when Ralph Dumain begins a serious attempt > to formulate his thoughts (rather than vituperate), he > gets hit out of left field. Maybe he deserves as good > as he got, but I for one am interested in what he has to > say, so let us be patient and give him a chance. I have > started a file for him, and I am waiting for what he has > to say next. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 12:42:02 -0600 From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (jennifer michael) To: blake@albion.com Subject: RE: Blake and the Country versus City Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Don't confuse pastoral as a form with any real interest in the countryside. >Pastoral is about a lot of things, but it is *not* about tending sheep. >Blake'spastoral is, like most pastorals before his, about the fragility of >a certain >kind of mindset. More to the point, it is just absurd to think that everyone >that ever wrote a pastoral had some kind of hankering for the country. > >Paul Yoder Exactly: in fact, pastoral would not exist without an urban point of view to create it. Yet, once the pastoral is there, it's often used to criticize the city as though the two existed, or could exist, independent of one another. Jennifer Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 17:50:29 -0400 From: kitch@sentex.net (Tim Kitchen) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: A note on the "Escalator Dilema" Message-Id: <199607132150.RAA13766@granite.sentex.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On July 9 Randal wrote: >I see Blake clinging desperately to certain traditional ways... >Why does he forsake typesetting in favor of handwriting, for example? * * * Did Blake indeed forsake typesetting in favour of handwriting or was it technologically impossible to achieve the look and feel that Blake wanted through typesetting? Look at the way that art is intertwined with text in Blake's plates, where there is a gap between verses - vines grow; where there is space between a stanza and the edge of the page - a flock of birds take flight. These are visual manifestations of the energy and exuberance that Blake writes about.If his work was typeset all those spaces would have had to be filled with strips of lead...all the organic forms replaced with mechanical ones. Compare his work on Young's "Night Thoughts" (which was typeset) to just about any of his own books to see the difference in effect. Tim Kitchen kitch@sentex.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 21:28:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Gourlay To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Percy's Reliques in Ackroyd's book Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII According to Bentley's Blake Books, a copy of Percy's Reliques that Blake gave to Mrs. Linnell is at Wellesley. The inscription in it isn't by Blake, and neither are the "trifling" emendations. I haven't seen it, but I guess Ackroyd found that some pages were dirty and supposed this was evidence of study (which it probably is), and that the student was Blake. Like many an ink-stained wretch, Blake probably did get pages dirty when he read them, and many of his books are pretty dirty, but I am always leery of the assumption that a book Blake gave away was his own reading copy. The book has three volumes -- did Blake leave volumes two and three untouched? Why should he study it so throughly but make no notes? On the other hand, I guess it is more likely that Blake gave his own copy of Percy to Mrs. Linnell than that the copy of Gray's poems he chopped up to make the Gray illustrations was his reading copy -- it's more likely he just bought a cheap copy somewhere for the purpose. Sandy Gourlay ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 22:13:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Rachel Wagner To: blake@albion.com Cc: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Voltaire and Rousseau; new biblical criticism Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I know it is now two and a half months later, but believe it or not, I am just now sorting through mail from finals time. Anyway-- I'm currently working on a seminar paper on Paine, Blake, and Watson, attempting to posit each within the new biblical criticism emerging on the continent in the late eighteenth century. Jerome McGann believes Alexander Geddes to be the conduit by which Blake became aware of the new criticism. What do you think? Is it possible, as some propose, that it was simply "in the air," or did Blake have a specific conduit for this information? Geddes suggests that a reading of Urizen is enhanced by assuming Blake was aware of some form of the documentary hypothesis and was imitating it in the structure of and ordering of the plates. Of course, as always seems to be the case in deducing Blake's sources, this is sheer speculation. What are others' thoughts on this? It seems debate on the group tends more toward the existential, and I suppose this concern is more concrete, though it bears in no small way I believe on potential readings of Blake, especially the Prophecies. On Mon, 6 May 1996, Elisa E. Beshero 814 862-8914 wrote: > In response to Mr. Albright, > I've been pondering Blake's use of the bible and his relationship with > Paine and his thoughts on the revolutions too (just wrote a paper on it last > year) I think Blake (AND Paine) were responding to the millenialist > evangelical religious movements that were popular in both England and America > in the late 18th century, and whose ministers were instrumental in bringing > about mass support for the revolution by convincing them that the old, elite > order was corrupt. . . Check out Blake's address "To the Christians" in > _Jerusalem_, and you'll see he mentions a few of the evangelicals (don't have > my copy of Blake with me at this terminal. . . will look it up later). > --Elisa > > - - The original note follows - - > > Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 08:25:26 -0400 > To: blake@albion.com > From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright) > Subject: Voltaire and Rousseau Again > Resent-From: blake@albion.com > Reply-To: blake@albion.com > > Well, I'm going to boldly go where my first interpretation had not gone > before and say a few more things about the short poem from BLAKE'S NOTEBOOK > (circa 1802-04) that starts: > > "Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau! > Mock on, Mock on - 'tis all in vain!" > > This is Blake, the revolutionary turned cynic. Again, I think it's > important to note how closely related cynicism and romanticism are, at > times. You start with high hopes, they get blown back in your face, and you > either cry or you yell out like Blake is doing in this poem. > > But he's not only disillusioned with the promise of The Enlightenment > (although I would argue that Rousseau, in philosophy, is in fact a turning > point toward Romanticism. You would have never heard the term "bleeding > heart liberal" before him. Even Thomas Paine would say, "It just makes > common sense...!"). > > Blake is turning away from that revolutionary promise gone bad. His friend, > Thomas Paine, at one point confidently said in England in the 1780s that > monarchies would be a thing of the past virtually EVERYWHERE in Europe... > and instead we have Napoleon imposing military dictatorship in 1799, and > proclaiming "Empire" on May 18, 1804, while monarchs were either > capitulating or being replaced by his relatives on the thrones of the > Continent. The Age of Reason... NOT! > > Blake is seeking refuge in the Bible, probably, in its promise of > vindication for "God's Chosen People." But what's interesting to me is that > he's not looking to America, which probably seemed very far away, although > the thoughts of Voltaire and Rousseau (as well as Locke, Paine, Jefferson, > and others) were still very much alive there. > > Why retreat back into The Bible, after having written that "There is No > Natural Religion" and been a one-time follower of Swedenborg, whose views > pointed toward Unitarianism? This subject fascinates me. He's soothing > himself with scriptures in the face of massive disruption to his world. > Napoleon invading England? It wasn't out of the question. So reality is > bearing down on him, and he's saying that, at least: "Israel's tents do > shine so bright." Sure they do. In his mind. > > What do you think? > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 11:04:05 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Quest Literature, Sci-Fi, etc. -Reply -Reply -Reply Message-Id: Randall, In my Keynes edition of Milton, Plate 18, Orc tries to overcome the darkness of the Shadowy Female with his fires - as she darkens `tenfold', so he brightens `tenfold' in order to waken the `Dead' from their Sleep of Ages. This brings out Urizen from his freezing haunts to strive with Milton and try to douse the fires of his imagination with icy water. It seems to me that here the incessant battle between those who foster `Life' and those who foster ` Death' is played out and that this conflict is the central theme of the States which Blake evokes and through which the contracting soul of sleeping Albion is dramatised. Pam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 11:23:22 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: blake@albion.com, rdumain@igc.apc.org Cc: marxism2@jefferson.village.virgininia.edu, marxism2@jefferson.village.virigina.edu, tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu Subject: Re: Scaffolds of the mind -Reply Message-Id: What you say re needing to have as open a mind and deep as the writer one is studying is highly relevant and exactly corresponds with my own feelings as to why so many critics on BLake fall short. Everything else you say is equally invigorating but I think that one can't dismiss all that forgiveness stuff in Blake as `crap'. The need for forgiveness is central to his themes as it is only through enlarging again the capacities for love which became contracted in the Fall that one's full divine humanity can be recovered. In the Kabbalah, similarly, one has to restore the balance between Hesed and Din ( or God's abundant outpouring of Love and the rigour of Divine Judgement) which in Blake's cosmology is represented by Urizen's seizure of power and inflation of moral law and misinterpretation of good and evil. Pam van Schaik ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 13:40:51 -0400 From: Nathan Miserocchi To: blake@albion.com Subject: RE: Scaffolds of the mind Message-Id: <9607151740.AA23279@abacus.bates.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It's a bit late to be sticking my nose into this, but I'd rather stick than let my mind hang from these scaffolds. Let me see if I can stir up trouble by asking what this "forgiveness" is all about. Certainly, as Pam van Schaik proposes, the idea of forgiveness is key in Blake. But, like all such keys, it is a skeleton that unlocks many doors, few of them leading to the same place. What I'm wondering is where to place and what to make of this "forgiveness of sins," because I certainly don't think it's a load of crap, Ralph... atleast, not altogether. It exists in a holistic, "Christ-like" way when considering the progression of Blake's mythology towards apocalypse. The awakening of Albion via the reconciliation of the Zoas, can easily be regarded as atonement, and forgiveness, of mankind. If one wants close reading, look at how the Zoas reunite -- they kiss and make up, with a whole lot of forgiveness of "sin" inherant in Pride and Jealousy. On the other hand, who will forget that Apocalypse is preceeded, or induced, or made up of the _mashing_ of all the "human grapes." A very sordid way of forgiving one for their sins. At this point I'd say Blake was tyrannical and bitter, if it weren't that the product of these "human grapes" is a sweet, refined wine, if it weren't that this looks a heck of a lot like Revelation (forgiveness->redemption->salvation). Peculiar as it is, I think I can also see what Ralph Dumain was referring to when he wrote: Sure, the ancient Hebrews were a bunch of useless, smelly genocidal savages. The scientific and cultural achievements of the Greeks were far superior. However, in the war between Hellenism and Hebraism, there is more to be said. For Hellenism represents the ethos of the "natural man" and the ruling class, and Blake's form of Hebraism -- revolutionary Christianity -- is a radical negation of the world as it is, and hence is critical and revolutionary, however backward and insipid the Judaeo-Christian heritage is as a whole. That is, though reducing much from Ralph's thought, that Apocalypse, or Revolution, is completely possible without forgiveness -- heck, Bubba, we'll just blast away until we get it right. Also, that Blake considered many things, including "original sin," to indeed be a load of "crap," speaks in Ralph's favor (that Blake never practiced forgiveness of sins, etc.). But I still don't think Blake was turned on by this idea, even if he was embittered and unforgiving enough to attack his "friends" and enemies in his work, or scribble nasty, caustic things in the margins of the books he read. If nothing else, the redemption of Albion in _The Zoas_ calls for a forgiveness of Pride and Jealousy, among other things, before the Zoas can reunite and wipe away the "old" humanity and Albion can rise, the "new" humanity. This makes me ask a few questions appropos "forgiveness of sin" in Blake. One, how "Christ-like" is the forgiveness Blake practices. Two, is it indeed "sin" that needs forgiving? It seems I'm back where I started from. Any thoughts about the role, design and question of forgiveness in Blake? Perhaps Ralph could elaborate more on his position that Blake never practiced "forgiveness of sins". -- Nathan Miserocchi nmiseroc@abacus.bates.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 15:16:17 -0400 From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Quest Literature, Sci-Fi, etc. Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" That's an interesting post, Pam. -Randall Albright >Randall, In my Keynes edition of Milton, Plate 18, Orc tries to overcome >the darkness of the Shadowy Female with his fires - as she darkens >`tenfold', so he brightens `tenfold' in order to waken the `Dead' from their >Sleep of Ages. This brings out Urizen from his freezing haunts to strive >with Milton and try to douse the fires of his imagination with icy water. It >seems to me that here the incessant battle between those who foster >`Life' and those who foster ` Death' is played out and that this conflict is >the central theme of the States which Blake evokes and through which >the contracting soul of sleeping Albion is dramatised. Pam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 15:17:17 -0400 From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Blake and Those He Needs To Correct Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "It is easier to forgive an Enemy than to forgive a Friend." ---plate 91, line 1 Interesting, contrarian view to what I usually think. Despite his flaws, I'd take William Blake over Hitler any day. But it does explain why Bacon, Swedenborg, Voltaire, Rousseau, Newton and others get lambasted with him. Writing on Bacon's essays, according to S. Foster Damon, Blake says things I wish he had put into his official canon: "Man is not improved by the hurt of another." "States are not improved at the expense of foreigners." To me, these tie in with the best of what Karl Marx was critiquing in capitalism. There was and is this theory, that works disturbingly well, of empire and war as the way to keep capitalism's flamed stoked. By saying it both at the individual as well as societal "state" level, Blake has a legitimate and timeless point. If it's rephrased somewhere in the official canon, could someone please point me there? And, hey, since we're dealing in metaphor, it doesn't have to be a perfect connection. -Randall Albright ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 15:17:50 -0400 From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Scaffolds of the mind Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mr Dumain: >How can you learn anything by conversing only with angels and not >the devils who do all the work and suffering? How can one fully >understand Blake without understanding what enables him to appeal >to people who hate Christianity and religion in general? That is >precisely what most demands explanation. And that is part of my >project. I give you the end of a golden string ... The fusion here of Marx, Blake, and your own point of view works well. -Randall Albright ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 19:06:53 -0400 From: Scott A Leonard To: blake@albion.com Subject: RE: Scaffolds of the mind Message-Id: <199607152306.TAA38234@unix1.cc.ysu.edu> Nathan & co. I tuned in late to this conversation. Did Ralph really characterize the ancient Hebrews as useless, smelly savages inferior to the Greeks? Isn't this where Disraeli steps in from the shadows of the nether world to remind us that while the forebears of the Classical Greeks we so admire were casting rude pots and killing their children to encourage the return of fertility in the spring that the smelly Hebrews (there's that ancient libel about personal hygene again) had built Solomon's temple, and created a legal code of ethical and moral behavior so all-encompassing and nuanced that it has engendered nearly three millenia of scholarship not to mention emulation? Well, o.k. it's not quite what Disraeli said and clearly not the point of what is otherwise an interesting discussion about Blake and forgiveness. Scott A. Leonard, youngstown state u ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 21:00:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Izak and Gloudina Bouwer To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: The case of the disappearing context Message-Id: <199607160100.VAA19691@host.igs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Paul Yoder draws attention to " the most important and baffling and unexplored element of Blake's rhetoric... how does he create a situation in which the..ability to remember..or to imagine what will happen next..is short- circuited." Hubert Benoit in his analysis of the techniques of Zen masters says the following: "The Zen Masters..incessantly put their disciples on guard against the intellect..warned them against its partially convergent utilization... their 'meaningless' and disconcerting replies are a clear indication in favour of the divergent use of language. The koan is a non-convergent text..." Benoit then goes on to recommend as a mental exercise the writing down of nonconvergent sentences to break the strangle- hold of the convergent habit of thinking. Could it be that we go back and back to Blake's work also for this reason - to have a taste of divergent thinking. Does it bring relief, is it redemptive, even addictive? Gloudina Bouwer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 21:22:32 EST From: CHRISTOPHER HOTTEL To: blake@albion.com Subject: RE: Scaffolds of the mind Message-Id: <009A561C.32CFE740.8@mentor.unh.edu> It seems to me that Scott Leonard had better read the Book of Joshua again, and this time closely. If ever Ezra Pound was right, it was that "these books" are a prime example of a "gangster's handbook." Just imagine: "I gave you land you never worked, you live in towns you never built, and now you eat from vineyards and olive-yards you never planted." If there was ever a definition of a virus, this is it! And in their own handbook!! Can you believe it?? Christopher Hottel Tintagel Gilmanton NH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 00:00:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Izak and Gloudina Bouwer To: blake@albion.com Subject: Jesus the Revolutionary Message-Id: <199607160400.AAA29891@host.igs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ralph Dumain, way back on April 3 you said:"Jesus as the annihilator of the moral system of the silly Greek and Roman slaves of the sword and all like them is critical and revolutionary." Recently you urged us to take a closer look at the role of Jesus in Blake's system. I assume you will be doing that in the weeks and months to come. (Take your time, we will be patient.) I hope in the process that you will also be touching on the phenomenon of Golgonooza, another part of the Blake canon that has been scandalously neglected by most Blake critics.I do not mean that they do not talk about it. But so many of them will "explain" Golgonooza on one page (usually in a few sentences) and ten pages later will say something completely different about it, hoping that we won't notice. (Maybe they don't notice it themselves.) I believe that the subject of Jesus in Blake's system, and also the subject of Golgonooza, lie at the very heart of what Blake is all about. So good luck in your endeavour. The only question in my mind is this : how will your revolutionary Jesus play in Marxist Peoria? Gloudina Bouwer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 21:07:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Dumain To: blake@albion.com, rdumain@igc.apc.org Cc: marxism2@jefferson.village.virgininia.edu, marxism2@jefferson.village.virigina.edu, tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu Subject: Re: Scaffolds of the mind -Reply Message-Id: <199607160407.VAA27205@igc6.igc.apc.org> I thank Pam van Schaik and others for their thoughtful responses. This time let me reply to van Schaik. >What you say re needing to have as open a mind and deep as the >writer one is studying is highly relevant and exactly >corresponds with my own feelings as to why so many critics on >Blake fall short. There are many things one can be professionally trained to do, but I think the art of interpretation, because it involves the basic presuppositions with which one judges any phenomenon, goes beyond simple professional training. You can learn how to analyze the syntax and placement of this comma or that period in a sentence, or analyze the surface complexities of any text, but having a feel for underlying assumptions and judgements about human experience and institutions is another talent altogether. Much of literary interpretation, and this begins in the brainwashing about literature that goes on in elementary school, is designed expressly to piddle on about trivialities whilst perversely overlooking the essential philosophical outlook of the author. Yet interpretation in literature as in life is only as profound and perceptive as the person doing it. There is no effective difference: if you cannot understand what is going on in real life, you can't do it in literature and the arts, and vice versa. And if you think you have the right to compartmentalize life, and be a professional from 9 to 5 and an uncritical moron in your free time, say like a psychiatrist, you are deceiving yourself; you're just relying on the crutches your privileged professional position gives you, to insulate you from being subject to the same judgment which your institutionalized position allows you to apply to others. I find people's shallowness especially galling when applied to Blake, because Blake has given us the most profound critique of human motivations and institutions of all time and so demands more than most other authors. But it is impossible for a greater than oneself to know. >I think that one can't dismiss all that forgiveness stuff in >Blake as `crap'. I think one needs to differentiate the instances in which forgiveness can really apply according to Blake. Unconditional forgiveness strikes me as mere doctrinal propaganda without real conviction and a violation of Blake's own street smarts. My two theses are this: that forgiveness of sins is important to Blake to absolve the poor from the accusations of the rich and to overthrow the institutionalized morality and system of punishment of the ruling class. (Which was very deadly in Blake's time, much deadlier than now.) My other thesis is that Blake would never forgive anyone who ever slighted him, especially when that person has power over his destiny and poses a continuing threat to his existence. Somewhere Blake writes forgiveness is impossible unless the culprit performs a last judgement on himself and thus intends to do no more harm. Blake may not believe in vengeance, but he is no fool: he has no intention of allowing himself to submit to continual abuse. Nobody can conform to Christian morality and nobody even intends to. These ridiculous rules cannot be obeyed. "Obey your humanities and do not pretend holiness." Blake is very street-wise. The Songs of Experience exist among other things to show that pure goodness is an impossibility: if you want to survive in this world you can't be a goody-two-shoes; you have to know whom you are dealing with at all times. The "cynicism" of the Songs of Experience is to guide the reader through the contradictory world in which he lives. When one has to live in the jungle, the very first rule is to make sure at the end of the day that you don't get eaten. "Why do you of the sheep not learn peace / Because I don't want you to sheer my fleece." In this context, conventional Christian morality is utterly useless, and Blake knew it. I don't think Blake's doctrine of forgiveness of sins is all just crap, but we need to look at the context in which Blake expresses real conviction. Blake wants to open up the prisons and free the oppressed from the morality and the judgements of the ruling class, from Urizen on down to Newt Gingrich, who pounce upon every human weakness of the have-nots, which they are responsible for creating and exacerbating in the first place, and then pronounce the severest judgement on people who can't be perfect under the pressure that grinds them down and induces them to give in to various temptations. Forgiveness of sins annuls the self-righteous morality of the ruling class and frees the slave. That is where you have real conviction in Blake. But when Blake writes -- what is a little sin but a trifle that is soon forgotten? -- I don't believe that any of it is sincere. Maybe this says something about me rather than Blake, but I'm telling you, Blake was a very realistic cat most times, and he held champion grudges against people who wronged him and even against those who helped him but whose spiritual influence he deemed negative. I can't believe a person who says "What to others a trifle appears / fills me full of smiles or tears" would say something so offhand about the forgiveness of sins and really believe it, and that's why I called it crap. I can't believe Blake really felt what he wrote here, but rather he was trying to convince himself he believed in it. You can't forgive anybody for anything until that person is no longer a danger to you. I couldn't survive one day in Washington and neither could Blake based on namby-pamby Christian nonsense, and of course none of the hypocritical Bible-humpers here could do it either or even make an effort to. But what poor people do understand is that their own vices reflect the pressures which they are under, and they are not necessarily irredeemable because they slip up. This is the class dimension of morality, and I say Blake's real conviction regarding the forgiveness of sins is based on class consciousness. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 11:58:10 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: blake@albion.com, albright@world.std.com Subject: Emerson Reflections on Blake -Reply Message-Id: I think there is much in the passages you quote from Emerson which Blake would have liked very much. Pam -------------------------------- End of blake-d Digest V1996 Issue #86 *************************************