Blake List — Volume 1997 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:
	 Re: Blake and history
	 Re: Blake and history
	 King Chuckie 
	 Re: Remove from list
	 Re: Blake's designs...
	 Young Ned of the North
	 Blake sighting
	 Eternity, Urizen & FZ
	 Re: Eternity
	 good timing
	 Re: Young Ned of the North
	 Eternity, Urizen & FZ
	 RE: Altizer introduction
	 RE: Altizer introduction
	 RE: Altizer introduction
	 RE: Altizer introduction
	 RE: Altizer introduction
	 Eternity, Urizen & FZ -Reply/cognition eternal or temporal
	 Re: Eternity -Reply


Date: Mon, 3 Mar 97 18:58:54 +0000
From: (Bob Davis)
Subject: Re: Blake and history
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The Term 'English Revolution' is widely used to describe the Civil War and the
Commonwealth Interregnum.  It was first used by Bolingbroke in 1702, though is
anticipated in the language of Clarendon's 'History of the Great Rebellion'
(1669), and has been regularly adopted by scholars down to Christopher Hill
and Mark Chance. (See Raymond Williams' 'Keywords' on Revolution)

The events of 1688-89/90 in England (and Wales and Scotland and Ireland) are
customarliy referred to as the 'Glorious Revolution', but this is a term
invented by 18th century Whig historians to describe the triumph of the
Protestant elite in overthrowing the Catholic King James, brother of Charles
II and son of Charles I, and replacing him with his (Protestant) sister Mary
and her Dutch husband William of Orange.

For Blake, and indeed for all radical opnion, the events of 1688-90 would
never have been regarded as revolutionary because they were widely perceived
to have ushered in the settlement of the Protestant ascendancy upon which the
British Empire and the corrupt 18th-century British political order were
founded.  The  'Glorious Revolution' was neither glorious nor a revolution,
but merely a rearrangement of the furniture of power in the interests of the
great magnates who controlled Britain.  For the Irish, for Catholics, and for
many Scots it was a disaster of almost genocidal proportions which continues
to reverberate in the sectarian conflicts in Northern Ireland today.

In considering 'Revolution', radical opinion in Blake's time looked
unflinchingly to Cromwell, Milton and the creation of the Puritan Republic as
the founding moments of English freedom.  See EP Thomson and also the
important work of John Mee.

Bob Davis     


    Saint Andrew's College, Glasgow, Scotland.


Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:03:02 +0000 (GMT)
From: AS Rounce 
Subject: Re: Blake and history
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>  I don't think 
> that an history lesson on the causes of the English CIVIL WAR, (the English 
> Revolution was actually in 1688, with the arrival of William of Orange on 
> English soil) is necessary for a complete understanding of Blake's
poetry but  it 
> would be in the best interest of everyone concerned if historical
comments were 
> at least a little accurate.  

Calling for historical veracity is all very well, but why isn't it a
REVOLUTION rather than a CIVIL WAR? When you kill a king and overthrow his
entire power structure, that seems to constitute a revolution to me (and
to Christopher Hill as well, for that matter). Being a socialist in
England isn't easy these days, so for all the evils of Ollie Cromwell,
it's inspiring to think of the period in these terms, whatever supposedly
"objective" historians think. Besides, do you think Blake would've viewed
1688 as a glorious revolution, as compared to the civil war?


Adam Rounce
University of Bristol.


Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 19:18:21 -0800
From: Hugh Walthall 
Subject: King Chuckie 
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

King Chuckie the First was too corrupt.  England was economically a 
basket case by the 1640's.  True, a lot of this can be blamed on Jimbo, 
Chuckie's father (a syphallitic [sic] ne'er do well).  And to think 
Blake was not familiar with the who struck Chuck of the period is a 
mistake.  Blake was profoundly well read in Milton, including Milton's 
wildly amazing pro-Government invective (i.e. his smarmy lying 
pamphlets).  Chuck earned his trip to the chopping block.  Milton always 
believed this, and never regretted his participation.  Lucky for the 
world Milton went blind AND did not actually sign the death warrant (he 
was not a member of parliament, he wouldn't have had any legal basis to 
have signed it).  Without Paradise Lost, there would never have been a 
William Blake--at least not a Blake we would recognize.

And yes, Mr. Linnell, that is the answer to the riddle.  As well, attend 
a few quirky theatrical productions, and, against all odds, peruse new 
volumes of verse on the bookstore shelves.

And yes, Mr. Dillingham, Blake of course was not an Ulster bigot, but I 
still wonder about the Gord[i]on riots in the same sense that Tolstoy, 
as late as 1903 found himself following newspaper accounts of Russia's 
war with Japan, hoping that the Ruskies kicked some butt.  But then, 
Tolstoy was an old soldier and an aristocrat. 

Also, if this world ever does change, urban riots will occur as prelude 
to that change.  Government Panels, commissions, Agencies, studies, 
computer simulations, legislation, what-have-you cannot precepitate 

Change is not always "good", but it is always different.

Hugh Walthall


Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 18:35:28 -0600
From: Howard Caskey 
Subject: Re: Remove from list
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Please remove me from your mailing list. It has been an interesting
experience, but all good things must come to an end.
Thank you,

Howard Caskey


Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 20:49:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Blake's designs...
Message-Id: <>

Sharon, I would love to see your your detailed comments on the designs in To

Dana Harden


Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 00:13:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Introduction
Message-Id: <>

Studied with a true Blake scholar (totally an eccentric) in 1975 at U.C.
Santa Barbara.  Had to take "tests" on Blake and write papers.  Have been
influenced emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, spatially, poetically.
 Write poems and use art as catharsis.  "Create your own system or be
enslaved by others." Do not look for Fairies in my fireplace, but do
understand synthetic value of painting, music, and poetry.  Have old
wonderful hardbound of Blake's illuminations of Dante's "Divine Comedy".
 Would rather poeticize and imaginate than schmooze, diatribe, or polemicize.
 Would like to share spontaneously.

O, Rose, thou art sick, but what the hell, it makes life an experience.


Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 03:00:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Young Ned of the North
Message-Id: <>

Hi folks;

I'm currently writing a term paper on error in Milton (the poem; can't do
italics), and was wondering if Blake actually made any reference to Cromwell
besides the quick one in Milton 5:39.  The previous messages on the subject
have been helpful and much appreciated; just trying to find something


John Egan


Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 07:03:17 -0600
From: Bryan Scott 
Subject: Blake sighting
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Blake is mentioned in a review of Robert Hass's Sun Under Wood in the
March 1997 Atlantic Monthly, on page 100.
The reviewer, Peter Davison, says that Blake in his strangeness stands
above time and place. This is what I thought when the discussion came up
last month about classifying Blake with the Romantics. The only thing he
shared with the Romantics was the sooty air of Britain at the start of
the 1800's. Yet we have to put him in a group to avoid leaving him out.


Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:30:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: cancellation
Message-Id: <>

Please remove me from your mailing list.  Thank you.


Date: 04 Mar 97 12:28:23 EST
From: Philip Benz <100575.2061@CompuServe.COM>
To: "" 
Subject: Eternity, Urizen & FZ
Message-Id: <970304172822_100575.2061_GHW108-1@CompuServe.COM>

Eternity, Urizen & four zoas

Jeffrey said: <<  the problem of talking about eternity is central to 
blake (could even be a way of describing the central problem blake sets 
himself: how to talk about eternity, when talking is a temporal-- i.e. 
not eternal-- mode of being).  and i quoted randall's remark about 
nobody existing in urizen's world until los appeared >>

    Eternity -- Blake's characters spend a lot of time moaning about it, 
but Blake is lucid enough not to try too hard describing it. As Jeffrey 
points out, discourse is inevitably temporal and hence incapable of 
adequately describing the non-temporal, a-temporal nature of Eternity. 
Human vision is by its nature vegetative and thus constricted, incapable 
at least at present of the four-fold essence of Eternity. Eternity is 
before, after and *within* time, but it is always *beyond* our ability 
to grasp it. Until the day when we all stand at the gate of death and 
gaze on Jerusalem.
    If we look at _The Book of Urizen_, the very first word alerts us to 
the germ of temporality: "Lo, a shadow of horror [...] Self-closed, 
all-repelling". The primal act of temporalization, the creation of the 
closed and separate being who will be named Urizen, has already 
occurred. The genesis of Time is the genesis of separateness, of 
individuation and identity.
Jeffrey said: <>

    Our time-bound notions of sequence and causality make it impossible 
for us to truly understand and make coherent arguments about the nature 
of Eternity and the nature of consciousness and thought in Eternity. As 
Jeffrey does in reference to Urizen, any logical deductions we try to 
base upon the premise of a set of conscious acts set within the 
framework of a-temporal Eternity lead ineluctably to paradox and 
    "What are the Natures of those Living Creatures the Heavenly Father 
only / Knoweth no Individual Knoweth nor Can know in all Eternity" (FZ, 
    All tales of Genesis are tainted with temporality, because they are 
tales. Blake at least has the lucidity to begin his tales with the fall 
from a-temporality. _The Four Zoas_ begins with Tharmas' realization of 
individuation, just as _The Book of Urizen_ begins with the "Eternals" 
realization of the precession of Urizen's separation. Could it be that 
the very notion of cognition is predicated on the genesis of 
temporality? These two texts, at the very least, support this 
    Swedenborg made the mistake of trying to rationally describe the 
Eternal. In Blake the Eternal is always just beyond the text, separated 
from the narrative by the obstacles to true four-fold vision that the 
individuation of the four zoas defines. Blake writes about the 
self-assertive fall from Eternity, and the self-denying, visionary rise 
towards it. But he refrains from telling us precisely what we've lost or 
just what we'll find there. Therein lies a portion of his genius -- in 
realizing the limits of sublime vision.
    Ahem, well, that was fun. Who said we were only using our 
intellects? Oh yeah, it was Michael:
    << Like so much of the discourse on the list (using only the 
intellect to discern Blake), to me, this is a paradoxical (but not 
unamusing) discussion  (and I am not sure Blake would have hoped to 
stimulate our intellects to this degree.)>>
    My bet is that any discussion of Blake that is *not* paradoxical 
would be hopelessly reductive. I've just advanced a number of shaky and 
doubtless paradoxical premises, not all of which may hold up to 
    Intuitively, I feel that a discussion of Eternity and temporality 
might shed some light on Blake. Is it inevitably Urizenic light?
    Lastly: Jeffrey was right to suggest that Urizen is a necessary 
evil. Personally, I'm rather attached to the material universe, with all 
its faults. But lets do tag along with Blake and try to open our eyes to 
the vasty unplumbed dimensions of the multiverse.

Cheers,   --- Phil


Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 19:25:48 -0600
From: "Jeffrey Skoblow" 
Subject: Re: Eternity
Message-Id: <>

thank you again, gloudina, for your generous response.  i'm wondering 
why i haven't heard from more of you out there-- perhaps it's my rambling 
style?  or my questions seem irrelevant?  i don't know. 
 but let me try to be more pithy:
it's commonplace enough to speak of urizen as representing some kind 
of fall, and this is perhaps the perspective of the other eternals 
who look on aghast as he spins his webs and so on... but "fall" 
implies all kinds of things, like regret, and error, and a pre-fallen 
state.  is it appropriate, in blake's world, to speak of urizen as 
representing a fall?  if his action is eternal, then there is nothing 
that comes before it-- no pre-fallen state.  and there doesn't seem 
to me to be a sense of regret in blake for urizen's labors: urizen is 
problematic, to be sure, but blake loves him, i think, dotes on him.  
he embraces and opposes him in a single act-- just as los does, no?  
he doesn't seem to want to get rid of urizen-- urizen is the hero of 
his bible of hell, which he promises the smug world in the marriage 
of heaven and hell.  
this question is related to the question of innocence and experience. 
 in the dogmatic (?) christian view, experience is a fall from 
innocence-- but i don't find that to be blake's view.  he wouldn't 
wish experience away.

-- i drafted the above and then received philip benz's post.  i agree 
with you, phil, that we can't talk about eternity (and that blake 
recognized the paradox of trying to do so), but it's also true, i 
think, that we can't *not* talk about eternity either.  your post 
halfway seems to suggest that because blake leaves eternity 
off-screen (so to speak), beyond the margin or whatever, then we 
should leave the question alone.  (and hey, i'm quite attached to the 
material universe too!)  the eternal *is* unspeakable, and we have to 
speak it-- blake, meet beckett.
but my main point isn't really that eternity is beyond language-- 
that's just one of the conditions of the problem.  the problem of 
eternity, as i've been trying to describe it, is that-- well, it 
sounds stupid to say it-- eternity is all of a piece.  all eternal 
events are eternal.  in the standard christian story-- or in paradise 
lost, let's say-- this is not quite taken into account in the way 
that blake takes it into account.   in milton's poem, for instance, 
it seems that the "eternals" (god, for instance) live like you or me: 
one day lucifer rises up, the next day (or whenever) he gets blasted 
to hell, the next day he marshals his troops, and so on.  eternity is 
just a word here-- an address for these happenings.  in blake, on the 
other hand, as i read him, eternity has a further seriousness: it is 
not simply an address, but rather a condition utterly without 
temporality.  part of what i'm saying, i suppose, is that blake, who 
i take to be a profoundly christian visionary, makes hash of the 
standard christian vision.
the eternal i'm trying to describe is like the one kafka describes: 
"the expulsion from paradise is final, and life in this world 
irrevocable, but the eternal nature of the occurrence (or, temporally 
expressed, the eternal recapitulation of the occurrence) makes it 
nevertheless possible that not only could we live continuously in 
paradise, but that we are continuously there in actual fact, no 
matter whether we know it here or not."
nothing before, nothing after, nothing to get back to.
well, so much for pithy.  i fear i'm only making myself less clear.


Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 07:21:14 -0800
From: Hugh Walthall 
Subject: good timing
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yes, Mr. Benz, Blake is just as subtle as you surmise.  The impulse to 
describe Eternity is one of Urizen's most amusing Meliorist Tiger Traps. 
He checks them everyday, and always has a good chuckle.

Descriptions of Eternity face the same problem that 1950's set designers 
had when designing a space ship set for a sci=fi movie-- let's see, we 
need a dashboard and a lot of blinking lights...

Eternity winds up looking like the interior of a 56 DeSoto.  Or the 
surface of one of those planets where everyone wears white robes and 
uses nice perfume.

Urizen catches a lot of Blakeans in this trap, but he doesn't catch 

Some of the creatures he pulls out of the trap he sells to Religious 
Zoos.  On others he performs medical experiments, using an elite team of 
Nazi Doctors.

I repeat what I said last summer during similar Eternal Discussions:  
Who said "Time is the only thing that keeps everything from happening at 

Saved by the bell.

Hugh Walthall


Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:09:09 -0600
From: (J. Michael)
Subject: Re: Young Ned of the North
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>Hi folks;
>I'm currently writing a term paper on error in Milton (the poem; can't do
>italics), and was wondering if Blake actually made any reference to Cromwell
>besides the quick one in Milton 5:39.

John, there's a Blake concordance edited by David Erdman that will help
with this and similar questions.  (Most university libraries would have it
in the reference section.)  Alternatively, if your computer has sufficient
memory, you can download Erdman's entire edition of Blake from Nelson
Hilton's "e-E" site at

Good luck,

Jennifer Michael


Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 15:23:10 -0500 (EST)
From: bouwer 
Subject: Eternity, Urizen & FZ
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

  Good going, Philip Benz. Good  post in answer to
Jeffrey Skoblow. Also liked your answer, Pam. (Glad you
have surfaced again.) 
   (1) Philip asks: " ...a discussion of Eternity and
temporality might shed some light on Blake. Is it inevi-
tably Urizenic light?" Good question. But is it necessary
that all light from Urizen be termed "Urizenic", a word
that has pejorative connotations. Urizen is  one of 
the four energies - there must be some thinking that is
not Urizenic, just Urizen-like? Of course we then must
deal with the idea that there is thinking  not inspired
by Urizen, but for instance by Luvah - conclusions drawn
of desire, predilection - not cogitation. (Vala, your
"material universe" that you like so much, is according
to Blake shaped by our desire, is the emanation of the
affective energy of Man.) And why call Urizen a necessary
evil? Why is he evil at all? Was Lucifer before he fell
  (2) I have difficulty with your sentence "until the day 
we all stand at the gate of death and gaze on Jerusalem."
For me, and I think for Jeffrey, Jerusalem is an eternal
state. To bring death into the equation, makes me feel
that  you believe that man is "a worm of sixty winters."
I think Blake sees that as a fallen perception. Blake,
that anthropologist of the spirit, only recognizes the
existence of the Divine Humanity with its four energies.
The question of the death of the individual does not 
enter into such a concept of reality. ("Death, where is
thy sting?")
  (3) Your sentence "Could it be that the very notion of
cognition is predicated on the genesis of temporality"
is a very crucial question. Could you go on enlarging on
that? And I would like to hear Pam van Schaik's opinion
on that too.

Gloudina Bouwer


Date: Wed, 5 Mar 97 22:37:29 UT
Subject: RE: Altizer introduction

Dear Father Georgiev,

I enjoy encountering you on e-mail.  My own e-mail address is: my postal address is: P.O. Box 331, Buck Hill 
Falls, Pa. 18323, USA.  While I, too, am interested in modern Gnosticism, my 
interest is probably quite different from yours.  But I am even more 
interested in encountering a modern Orthodox theology which thus far I have 
encountered only in its pre-Communist Russian form.  I believe that the world 
is now desperately in need of a contemporary but genuine Orthodox theology

Tom Altizer.

From: 	Vladimir Georgiev
Sent: 	Tuesday, February 11, 1997 2:46 PM
Subject: 	Re: Altizer introduction

Prof. Altizer,

Please send me privately your E-mail and postal address. I am 
interested in modern Gnosticism and I have been looking for you for 
ages. Thanks in advance.

Yours truly,

vladimir Georgiev


Date: Wed, 5 Mar 97 22:45:48 UT
Subject: RE: Altizer introduction

Albion Rose,

I am confused by your address.  Is it a mailing one?

Tom Altizer

From: 	Albion Rose
Sent: 	Friday, January 31, 1997 8:53 AM
Subject: 	Re: Altizer introduction

That book has long since been out of print but I have many extra copies
if anyone is interested.

I am deeply interested. How do I go about getting a copy.

               ____   ______
              /    \~/      \
             /      ^        \   ____________________________
            |   /   \        |
             \(( === ))))))))/   R. Joshua Murry
              |(  @ )=( @  )|    PSC 80, Box 15929
             {|  ~~  |  ~~  |}   APO AP 96367-5929
     __     __\      <      /    
    /  \   /  \\   \___/   /
    \   \ /   / \__\\_//__/      ____________________________
     \ _ V   /     ||||| 
    /\/ \  _ |      \|/  
   / |   )/ _ \            
   \_/\_/(_/(  )          
    \_       _/           
      \_    /                                



Date: Wed, 5 Mar 97 22:48:30 UT
Subject: RE: Altizer introduction

Ralph Dumain,

My Blake book, The New Apocalypse, should still be in print with the Michigan 
State University Press and at the very modest original price.

Tom Altizer

From: 	Ralph Dumain
Sent: 	Thursday, January 30, 1997 10:14 PM
Subject: 	Re:  Altizer introduction

Prof. Altizer, I have been searching for your book on Blake THE
NEW APOCALYPSE ib used books stores for the past year or tow to no
avail.  If you have any extra copies, I wish to purchase one from
you.  Yours is one of the very few works conatingin comparisons of
Blake and Hegel, and though I have read a library copy, I need one
for my own collection.  I think I have one of your death-of-god
books, but I can;t recall which.


Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:39:29 -0800
From: "Kempa, Robert" 
To: "''" 
Subject: intro
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Since I first found my older brother's Dell ed. of blake from high
school I've been held captive by the "mad blake". At university, I
studied under a wordswoth freak (not that there's anything wrong with
that). But I continued to collect criticisms and peruse my battered ed
of keynes. And though I've been lax over the last couple of decades,
I've peered occasionally into the song of eternity. Now that i've
discovered a forum I'm looking forward to the discussion and I might
even be inspired to blow the dust off of the tomes i've collected Anyway
I look down the "...crooked roads ... of Genius" and antcipate. Hope to
hear from you soon.


Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 22:58:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Ralph Dumain 
Subject: RE: Altizer introduction
Message-Id: <>

I shall have to double-check, but I get conflicting reports from
differnt dataabses.  Some book dealers databases's list the book
in print, the last Books in Print database I consulted listed the
book as out of print.  I guess I shall have to contact the press
directly, but I am skeptical as to whether the book is still


Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:00:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Ralph Dumain 
Subject: RE: Altizer introduction
Message-Id: <>

BTW, the only Altizer book I have in my collection is the volume
of essays edited by Altizer titled TOWARD A NEW CHRISITIANITY.


Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 09:08:29 +0200
From: P Van Schaik 
Subject: Eternity, Urizen & FZ -Reply/cognition eternal or temporal

Gloudina, since you specifically invite me to answer on this, I'm happy to
oblige. Re whether cognition is founded on the notion of temporality ...
no, in Blake it can't be because he perceives our true realities as divine
and immortal and us as participating in the divine humanity in Eden and
Beulah. Those fully expanded into God's light in Eternity are all
themselves god-like and can create infinitely varied and unique paradises
within their realms of light. (Not  the type of Eternity depicted in Mormon
films in Salt Lake City... unless, of course, the individual wants exactly
that kind of white-robed, harp-playing paradise). In this, each Herb, Lily
of the Valley, Rose, and even Clod of Clay appear as having a divine
human form ... as depicted in Blake's illustrations to `The Book of Thel'  ...
there is not a particle of existence that is not fully divinely human. 
However, to mistake the Selfhood (the core of uniqueness at the centre
of everything) for the true self is to fall into delusion - or a mistaken
cognition of one's real identity. This is what happens to Urizen who then,
like an atomic implosion, creates a downward vortex into which all of
Albion's children are swept,  but from which they can still emerge by
recovering faith in the divine vision. So, our cognition here on earth is
seen by Blake as limited and contracted by the finite senses, but not so
extinguished that we can not recover our pristine state of being. 
Perhaps this is only partially possible on earth, but, fully realizable when
we die.  Pam van Schaik, Unisa, RSA  


Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 09:30:14 +0200
From: P Van Schaik 
Subject: Re: Eternity -Reply

Jeffrey,  You are right that , in a sense, we all live in Eternity and don't
know it because the centre within us remains expansive according to
Blake  - as in `Every Bird that cuts the aery way' who encloses a
paradise of infinite beauty.   The outer husk confines and limits our
responses to the eternal, but Albion and all those who fell will rise again
to rejoin their divine companions in Eternity and mingle their essences
there, assimilating with Jesus and Jerusalem and participating in the
divine `marriage' of the Lord and His Emanation..Because Urizen
disrupted this `marriage'  of all beings in Eternity, he is seen as satanic,
but also as a victim of his own false visions of good and evil and of
identity.   Blake does `hate' him only in a literary sense since he parodies
him and makes him look ridiculously like Tin-Tin (especially in the `Night
Thought' illustrations.  But, he , as you say, must also `like' him in the way
that artists cherish even their ugliest, quirkiest of creations because
there is delight in pouring forth one's inspired visions , vituperations (or
whatever). (Chaucer must have really loved the Wife of Bath though
exposing her mendacity and vulgarity, too.)   But, forgiveness also
comes into the Blakean equation ... he would forgive Urizen, as he
portrays Jesus as doing    because he believes in God's abundant mercy
and spiritual beauty (as in `The Little  Black Boy').  Moreover, he knows
that all the things of this universe are merely illusory in the long cosmic
run of things.... which does not mean that he scorns or despises making
full use of all one's creative and bodily energies while on earth.  Pam van

End of blake-d Digest V1997 Issue #29