Today's Topics:
Re: "Hi, in your Utopia would you have parties?"
Re: "Hi, in Utopia you have big parties?"
Faith, belief, and understanding?
Re: "Hi, in Utopia you have big parties?"
REPRESSION
Re: Faith, belief, and understanding?
Re: REPRESSION
Re: REPRESSION
Re: los and women--a dusting
RE: los and women--a dusting
RE: los and women
Milton and God
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:19:36 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: "Hi, in your Utopia would you have parties?"
Message-Id: <98091821193598@wc.stephens.edu>
In relation to the reference to the story that Blake "sung himself
to death," I would suggest a reading of the article in _Blake:
An Illustrated Quarterly_ (30.2, Fall 1996) by Lane Robson and
Joseph Viscomi, called "Blake's Death." Whether or not is it
accurate in every detail, it surely raises serious questions about
that particular (rather sentimental) story.
What I find more curious is the suggestion that expressing disagreement
or dissent from the beliefs of a poet somehow raises a question about
the reader's understanding of, or devotion to, that poet's works.
In what sense is agreement with, or consistency with, a poet's
beliefs or conformity with the poet's character a necessary (or even
a contingent) prerequisite to appreciating, understanding, or even
passionately loving that poet. I am every bit as "secular" and
"anti-religious" in my personal beliefs as Ralph can possibly be,
but I am also passionately devoted to the study of the works of
John Milton (whom I teach as often as I can), Christopher Smart
(about whom I wrote my dissertation and a number of essays and
papers that maby become a book), and William Blake (obviously),
and I would suggest that only a complete idiot could "agree"
with each of them--they have very disparate theologies and
political views and personalities. I also, for what it is
worth, deeply admire and study Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound,
and T.S. Eliot, but I most certainly cannot "agree" with
their vicious racism, anti-semitism, or in the latter wtwo
cases, fascism. Should I therefore conclude that I can neither
read nor admire them?
I don't mean to dismiss or trivialize the question in itself; the
issue of "belief" in relation to art and especially to poetry is
complex and vexing, but the fact that Ralph and Tim and possibly
others of us might find ourselves contrary to or in disagreement
with Blake should not be surprising. Nor can I understand the
suggestion that failure to accept all aspects of the poet's work
somehow undercuts the reader's commitment to him. (On the other
hand, I agree with Ralph's view that Blake might well have been
impatient with someone prating about a dead son being "in a
better place." It's such a deadly cliche, for one thing, and
reveals a studied retreat from experience--take a look, sometime
at the pious upturned faces of some mourners in Blake's images--
I doubt that he is portraying a state he endorses. Consider
the role of "pity," after all.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 98 12:56:46 +0100 ( + )
From: Paul Tarry
To: Blake Group
Subject: Re: "Hi, in Utopia you have big parties?"
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>What I find more curious is the suggestion that expressing
>disagreement or dissent from the beliefs of a poet somehow raises a
>question about the reader's understanding of, or devotion to, that
>poet's works.
To me it raises very central and interesting questions. If somebody is
not a christian they don't believe in the resurrection. A christian will
disagree with them. It helps to know your ground in what is a matter
of faith and not proof. This is in no way to suggest that either of the
two positions is correct. Bear with me;
>In what sense is agreement with, or consistency with, a poet's
>beliefs or conformity with the poet's character a necessary (or even
>a contingent) prerequisite to appreciating, understanding, or even
>passionately loving that poet.
In the sense that agreement or otherwise with the poet will shape the
way we understand him. If you don't believe that Jesus is the son of
Joseph then you will appreciate him differently from somebody who
does.
>Nor can I understand the suggestion that failure to accept all
>aspects of the poet's work somehow undercuts the reader's
>commitment to him.
Commitment to "him" means little (unless we are going back to
christians), commitment to those aspects of the work are the issue. It
is helpful to know which aspects we are committed to. That is all.
All the best,
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:37:44 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Faith, belief, and understanding?
Message-Id: <98091911374474@wc.stephens.edu>
Apparently Paul wants us to accept an equation of faith and understanding,
a fairly common point of view that might be satisfactory to those who
insist (for example) that unless one has experienced an lsd trip, one
can't possibly know what it is like (false) or unless one has actually
been abducted by an alien spaceship, one has no business questioning
the truth of the experience or suggesting explanations for it.
In fact, it is entirely possible not to believe in resurrection (or
the rapture or the imminence of the apocalypse) and still understand
with some depth and complexity what it "means" to those who do
have faith in and/or believe in it. To deny this is to suggest that
the vast bulk of scholarly and intellectual activity is ipso facto
impossible. The suggestion that personal faith or belief implies
a superior understanding is also indefensible, though common. These
are not arcane or undiscussed issues. I would recommend, as a very
thoughtful and informative study of these problems, Wendy Doniger's
_Other People's Myths_ (and she has a more recent volume, the
title of which escapes me at the moment, that explores the same
issues even further).
In fact, there are important ways in which I do "believe" much of
Blake's view of the world, including his assertions about his
"visions," but I do not believe, as Tim does, that these are
satisfactorily or usefully explained by references to brain
chemistry (except in the obvious sense that *all* so-called
"mental" operations are in fact traceable to biochemical
processes involving the brain and sometimes other organs of
the body as well--thinking is a physical process, after all--
having said that, we probably recognize that we have not said
very much at all); neither do I believe that Blake was speaking
literally when he described his "visions," but that is a whole
different discussion, a matter of interpretation, not fact.
It may be useful for Paul to know that someone does not believe
(or does believe) in the Virgin Birth or chooses to believe
either in Joseph's actual paternity as opposed to his divine
cuckoldry, but the suggestion of superior understanding is
hubristic, at least.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: "Hi, in Utopia you have big parties?"
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980919144702.3ce79798@pop.igc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In the prolonged discussions on genres, literalism, metaphor, Blakes for our
time, etc., a year ago on the list, I was quite scrupulous in respecting the
differences and points of contact between Blake and his interpreters. One
need not (and cannot) try to place oneself in Blake's shoes; it is better to
understand the implications of being or not being in them and the
relationship between those two conditions. Secondly, one cannot fully
appreciate the source until one begins asking questions about what motivates
him. This implies certain background assumptions about human motivation,
causality, social context, the relationship between thought and reality,
etc. I am not unconscious of my own assumptions. However, the spiritual
pride of space cadets whose left hand knows not what the right one does, and
think they have an inside track because their eye is on the sparrow, galls
the hell out of me, because such people invariably show how much they are
unconscious of, how complacent and shallow and uninspired is their inquiry
into phenomena beneath surface appearances. The superficiality is not
accidental; it is the effect of alienation and psychological repression. The
perception of same and the need to fight ruthlessly against those conditions
is one trait that Blake and I indubitably share, a commonality more
important than any differences.
Whether one chooses to ride the horses of instruction or unleash the tygers
of wrath becomes an irrelevant issue beyond a certain point. This also
Blake understood better than most.
"I fear'd the fury of my wind ...."
At 12:56 PM 9/19/98 +0100, Paul Tarry wrote:
>>What I find more curious is the suggestion that expressing
>>disagreement or dissent from the beliefs of a poet somehow raises a
>>question about the reader's understanding of, or devotion to, that
>>poet's works.
>
>To me it raises very central and interesting questions. If somebody is
>not a christian they don't believe in the resurrection. A christian will
>disagree with them. It helps to know your ground in what is a matter
>of faith and not proof. This is in no way to suggest that either of the
>two positions is correct. Bear with me;
>
>>In what sense is agreement with, or consistency with, a poet's
>>beliefs or conformity with the poet's character a necessary (or even
>>a contingent) prerequisite to appreciating, understanding, or even
>>passionately loving that poet.
>
>In the sense that agreement or otherwise with the poet will shape the
>way we understand him. If you don't believe that Jesus is the son of
>Joseph then you will appreciate him differently from somebody who
>does.
>
>>Nor can I understand the suggestion that failure to accept all
>>aspects of the poet's work somehow undercuts the reader's
>>commitment to him.
>
>Commitment to "him" means little (unless we are going back to
>christians), commitment to those aspects of the work are the issue. It
>is helpful to know which aspects we are committed to. That is all.
>
>All the best,
>
>Paul
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 16:00:55
From: Izak Bouwer
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: REPRESSION
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980919160055.45af17fe@igs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This is Gloudina Bouwer writing: cover your fans.
Ralph Dumain wrote on Thursday, 17th September:
> That a particular person on>this list denied the obvious
>indicates a state of psychological repression
>and outright mental illness that makes my blood run cold,
>but not surprising >for a person who is a product of an
>oppressive and backward society.
I hesitated long before drafting this response, but to
remain quiet in the face of such a direct and racist attack
on a "particular person" on this list, would be tantamount
to permitting nazi tactics to be used unchallenged on this
list. If it remains unchallenged, we would all be guilty
of being enablers for this sort of thing.
I also think it underhanded to attack people anonymously.
Now, I assume that Ralph was referring to a South African
when he indicated that "this particular person" is from a
"dark and backward society." There are two likely candidates
for his attack - myself and Pam van Schaik. I have not lived
in South Africa for close on thirty years, but I was there
for long enough during the onset of apartheid to recognize
in Ralph Dumain's tactics some of the same techniques used
in South Africa to terrorize and label the population. And
I want to make it quite clear here that I believe apartheid
was not born from the "dark and backward society" of the
Afrikaners. Too many Afrikaners gave their lives in the freedom-
struggle. The people who started and kept in place that
repressive regime for so long were a motley crowd of stooges
eventually fighting a surrogate cold war for American imperialism
in Angola and in the streets of Soweto. They had double-barreled
names like Derby-Lewis (with his Australian wife) and Walusz,
recent Polish immigrant now in prison for the murder on Chris
Hani. There were retired C.I.A. agents among them. Of course,
unfortunately, there were also a lot of Afrikaner names among
them.
But somehow, I don't think Ralph Dumain had me in mind when he
hinted darkly at this "particular person" from a "dark and backward
society." No, I think he meant Pam Van Schaik. Now, the funny
thing is, unless I am grossly mistaken, Pam is an English-
speaking South African of Jewish background (or married to a
Jew. For most of this century the name Van Schaik was synonymous
with book publishing in SA, and a very respected family.) The
Jewish population in South Africa could hardly be accused of being
"a backward and repressive society." While it is true that
a lot of them could be labelled capitalists (60 per cent of the
stocks of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange are from the numerous
companies like Anglo-American, De Beers etc. in the hands of
the Oppenheimer family), several Jews were among the freedon-
fighters of Umkhonto We Sizwe. Joe Slovo, a top ranking ANC
member (now deceased because of cancer) is considered the prime
architect of the negotiated settlement that led to the dawning
of the socalled New South Africa. The present secretary of the
Communist Party in South Africa, an ally of the ANC, is Jeremy
Cronin, a Jew and also quite a good poet.
I apologize to the other members of this list for writing
something not narrowly connected with Blake. But I believe that
Blake would not have disapproved of my stance in defence of
freedom of expression. While I do not always agree with Pam
Van Schaik's opinions, I defend her right to voice these opinions.
In the same posting, Ralph Dumain continues:
>If the self-proclaimed feminists and more traditional women on this list
>cannot see this, they should be ashamed of themselves. As for me, my
>sympathy for the victims has its limits, because patriarchy could not last
>24 hours without the active, enthusiastic collusion of women, and if they
>can't clean up their act, they get no sympathy from me, because people who
>don't respect themselves won't respect you either and they'll drag you down
>with them, being as reckless with your life as they are with their own.
As for Dumain's disrespectful, patronising and polarizing remarks
above, I can only say: "Buster, stop your ranting about this
"midwestern housewife." The women on this list recognize your
agenda: another petit patriarch out to denigrate women by telling
us "what to think." Wake up, Dumain, all this is out of style
and out of order.
Gloudina Bouwer
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 98 21:19:55 +0100 ( + )
From: Paul Tarry
To: Blake Group
Subject: Re: Faith, belief, and understanding?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> The suggestion that personal faith or belief implies a superior
>understanding is also indefensible, though common.
Very common.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:47:34 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: REPRESSION
Message-Id: <98091915473428@wc.stephens.edu>
Watch the language. There is a big difference between "dark and
backward society" (the phrase Gloudina Bouwer repeats in her
post) and "oppressive and backward society" (the phrase Ralph
used in his). It is odd that Gloudina makes that switch, but
I would leave it to others to explore the reason why. I don't
think many would deny that South Africa has been, in recent
history, an "oppressive and backward" society, but I am not
sure what it would even mean to call it "dark and backward."
In any case, referring to South Africa in Ralph's terms would
hardly be an unusual or, I think, unfair characterization.
I don't intend to defend or rationalize either Ralph's comments
(obviously directed at Ms. Van Schaik, as Gloudina Bouwer suggests)
or his attack on feminists, but I do think the use of special
knowledge (how many people outside South Africa would have any
reason to know any of the details or associations Gloudina offers
as evidence that Ralph's comments were somehow more outrageous,
even fascist, than usual?) in that kind of counterattack is
unreasonable. If she would say "you should have known x or y,"
the obvious reply is that it could not have been known before
to many of us unless Ms. Van Schaik or Ms. Bouwer had supplied
that information. Now that we may know it, we may take in into
account. In my view, nothing that Ms. Bouwer tells us (however
interesting it may indeed be) alters the reality of Ms.Van Schaik's
performance on this list, which is entirely irrelevant to any
possible or imputed historical or social context from which her
views may or may not emerge. If she claims such associations and
wants to connect them to her view, fine--we can explore the meaning
of such connections. But they have not been made, and to bash
Ralph for lack of clairvoyant understanding of Ms. Van Schaik's
possible background and relationships is leaping several steps
ahead of the game.
I do think the substitution of "dark" for "oppressive" may well
be a meaningful slip of the keyboard.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: REPRESSION
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980919181446.0f6f63d6@pop.igc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I should have kept silent as I had promised. Since my intentions are being
second-guessed, here are just two remarks for the record:
(1) There are many backward and repressive societies in the world, South
Africa being just one of them. My remarks, no matter what applications they
may have to South Africa, have nothing to do with race: there are no veiled
allusions or insinuations to race; nothing of the sort was implied or should
be construed. I have met Afrikaners who had not a racist bone in their
bodies, so I'm not interested in tarnishing a whole nationality on the basis
of race, esp. not from the standpoint of a luxurious distance from the
frontlines. If Gloudina is sophisticated enough to talk about American
imperialism, for which she'll get no argument from me, she should be
sophisticated in other areas as well. A repressive society can adversely
affect the development of people in other ways beside turning them into
racists, and this was evident in one elderly Afrikaner couple I met some
years ago. They were very kindly people, they interacted as well with Black
Americans as with whites, and race was never an issue. But they were
religious fanatics with an almost feudalistic perspective on the world,
irrespective of any racial issues. Their solution to the cruelties of the
world was to withdraw into a fantasy world of religious abstraction, which
is what repression does to people who find the outer world's evils to be too
overwhelming and have never breathed freer air. So if you are going to
obsess about South Africa, I suggest you think about that. Now I come from
a provincial background myself, and I know what provincialism does to the
human mind. Thank goodness for the cultural-social revolution of the 1960s,
or who knows what would have become of me. Whatever veiled references I may
have made to people from South Africa or any other country, let's not get
sidetracked by needless paranoia.
(2) As for denigrating women and telling them what to think: one can
dominate people, one can brainwash and exploit them, but oddly enough, one
can never force them to think for themselves. He who tries to respect the
slave as a free person shall be despised by the slave, because telling the
slave that they suffer from a slave mentality is the ultimate indignity; it
pulls the rug out from under their last psychological defense. And there is
a performative contradiction for anyone who would tell them what they need
to know: such a person is by definition in a domineering position himself.
(BTW, this explains a lot of Blake's discomfort over women, and he could
never resolve the contradictions.) Hence it's usually best to keep one's
mouth shut and let people (never) learn the hard way. I'm sure we'll never
need to worry about Glowering Gloudina being dominated by any man in her
vortex, and my heartfelt sympathies go out to Izak.
I really must stick to my promise to call a halt to my participation in this
line of discussion, because it can only get uglier. My apologies for going
back on my word, but none for giving fools the treatment they deserve. We
have reached the point of no return where intelligence and foolishness have
spoken for themselves many times over and can only re-enact their dramas
over and over. When one reaches a blockage that cannot be broken, it's time
to take another route. So long, and thanks for all the fish.
At 04:00 PM 9/19/98, Izak Bouwer wrote:
>This is Glowering Gloudina Bouwer writing: cover your fans.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 20:24:15 EDT
From: Chatham1@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: los and women--a dusting
Message-Id: <9456af3f.36044b2f@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I must protest--
It is thru his characters that Blake finds his voice---and he uses them as a
megaphone. His heros are his villians and he manifests thru them all. He
imbues them with a robust sensuality and thus, they transform him. He is their
author, they are his muse.
As an aside:
You must note that when Milton speaks as Satan, he finds his true heroic
voice.
Or as The Parliments might have said: "I just want to justify..."
I think that Ken Star and Milton have a lot in common.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 13:51:11 -0500
From: RPYODER@ualr.edu
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: los and women--a dusting
Message-Id: <980920135111.20c41c7b@ualr.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Let's deal with Milton first. You write as an aside, "You must note that when
Milton speaks as Satan, he finds his true heroic voice." Wellllll, spoken
as a Blakean or Shelleyan rather than as a Miltonist. What do you mean
by "heroic"? Do you simply disregard the authorial gloss of Satan's speeches,
which flatly contradict the "heroic" bluster of Satan? You must also
disregard Milton's redefinition of heroism in the invocation to Book IX of *PL*
and in the whole of *PR*.
Moreover, Blake himself I think came to redefine his position on Milton's
devil, especially in *Milton* (obviously) and *Jerusalem*. In Blake's early
work, Satan rarely appears by name, but by the time we get to *J* he's pretty
explicit that Albion's Spectre is that Great Selfhood Satan.
Which brings me to your point about Blake and his characters and his heroes
being villains. I frankly don't understand most of what you say about Blake:
"His heros are his villians and he manifests thru them all. He
imbues them with
form him. He is their
author, they are his muse."
[Geez, I hate telnet]
"
"His heros are his villains and he manifests thru them all. He imbues them witha robust sensuality and thus they transform him. He is their author and they
are his muse."
Blake may well imbue his characters with a "robust sensuality," or at least
some of them -- I just don't see frozen Urizen or the fallen, self-hating
Albion as particularly sensual, however robust their self-repression may be.
But I have no idea what you mean by their transforming Blake. I do think
that Blake learns from his characters -- they often, especially in the early
works -- say things that he does not understand. I think that is why he keeps
rewriting so many of his own myths. Over the years he comes to see things in
his own work that he did not see when he wrote them. (I don't think that
Blake is the only writer this happens to. I think it must happen to anyone
who reads something he or she wrote 20 years ago.) Is that the same as
transforming him?
As far as his heroes being his villains, do you mean to suggest that Los is
actually the villain in *J* and that the Spectre is the hero? I'll be the
first to admit that Los is more problematic than most readers seem to think,
but the forces of repression and oppression tend finally to remain the
villains.
As for Blake using his characters as a megaphone, I would try something like
sounding board. He is trying out ideas through his characters, trying to
figure how things that he deeply believes are wrong can be presented so
persuasively. This is a long way from simply using his characters to speak
for him -- however loudly.
Paul Yoder
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:46:16 -0400
From: Robert Anderson
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: los and women
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980921074616.009f9964@pop.oakland.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I am relieved to hear this about Milton. If you have any references at
hand for the scholarship which points to areas of difference between Milton
and God--the irony etc. I would be glad to hear it, and relate it to
students in the long survey courses I teach. I have always suggested the
possibility, but have suspected that Blake (and Shelley) led me to read
wishfully there. Thanks.
Rob Anderson
Oakland University
Thanks
At 03:14 PM 9/17/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>About whether Milton agrees with what God says: I knew this point was if-y
>when I wrote it, but if you look at Milton scholarship, especially concerning
>the issue of predestination in Milton, you'll see that there is quite a bit
>of question about how closely Milton may or may not agree with the Father's
>position on the implications of foreknowledge and free will. Moreover,
Milton
>'s God does have a sense of humor -- he has the Son in stitches (so to speak)
>at times with the irony of his statements. Unfortunately God's irony is
often
>overlooked, in which case, he apparently says some pretty outrageous things.
>
>About why we so often hear negative comments about women in Blake: the
problem
>is that Blake recognizes that the world is in the hands of the Spectre.
"I am
>God" the Spectre tells Albion in Chapter 3 of *J*, and unfortunately that is
>what most people seem to believe, so they spout the Spectre's doctrine and
>think that is religion. As Ralph and the Devil in *MHH* point out, it is a
>waste of time to try to talk them out of that. The question is, can we do
>anything to change the situation besides preserve the divine vision in
time of
>trouble? Deep dissimulation may be the only refuge a good person has left,
>but what does that mean? Do we live our lives in disguise while we chip away
>at Albion's "foundation and certainty and demonstrative truth" (J 28:11)?
>We seem to have reached a point in the US of A where "every Act [is] a crime"
>and ***** (fill in your own blank here) is the "punisher and judge" (J 28:4).
>
>So-called "family values" is the biggest Spectral scam yet.
>
>Blake knew that 200 years ago.
>
>Paul Yoder
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:18:42 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Milton and God
Message-Id: <98092112184256@wc.stephens.edu>
It's interesting that just as this thread has developed on the Blake
list, the Milton list has had an ongoing discussion of the portrayal
of God and its connection with questions of the Divine Right of Kings
and Milton's attitude toward the removal of Charles I (and subsequently
his head). In fact, of course, the question of Milton's God has been
a lively one for generations of Milton scholars, including the
very controversial book of that name by William Empson (not much
respected among Milton scholars). There are many studies of Milton's
attitudes toward and characterization of God--the "classic" discussions
include C.S. Lewis's _Preface to Paradise Lost_ and Anne Ferry's
_Milton's Epic Voice_. Even though it is many years out of date,
A.J.A. Waldock's _Paradise Lost and Its Critics_ still presents
a concise and helpful summary of the major issues. Stanley Fish's
_Surpris'd by Sin_ is always useful.
As for Blake, the idea that any of his "characters" serves as a
mouthpiece for himself is more than usually offbase, in my view.
Given the complexity of his exploration of human experience, one
must conclude that he is outside of and separate from the actions
of his "characters," observing them from an ironic (if not godlike0
distance. The great fallacy of pinning him to one side or the other
of the innocence/experience divide is only a lesser version of the
notion that he might appear in Oothoon drag or wearing the sandals
of Los (to choose only two of the most likely and appealing candidates).
Of course, both Milton and Blake do speak more or less "directly" in
their invocations of the (various) muses and sometimes as narrative
bridges; there is room for disagreement about exactly when these
"direct" statements occur, as there is about just how exactly direct
or unmediated such statments are. (Invocations of the muse, for an
obvious example, are such well-established tropes of classical and
prophetic poetry that it is hard to suggest they are in any sense
direct, offering as they do variations on familiar conventions.)
Tom Dillingham
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1998 Issue #70
*************************************