Today's Topics:
Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Is William Blake A Political Writer? -Reply
Re: [Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?]
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer? -Reply
Re:
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer? -Reply
2 questions
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:52:51 -0500
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
Although there is an element of the political to Blake,
chronicled in biographies such as
_Prophet Against Empire_ by David Erdman,
_Blake's Altering Aesthetic_ by William Richey,
and others...
I would not restrict his vision
to either the times in which he lived,
the text or visual sources upon which he drew,
or merely to "the political", myself.
He was at one time, of course,
a friend of Thomas Paine.
And Milton was perhaps his favorite poet,
who also meant a great deal
to many of the American Revolutionists.
But he later handed back a biography
of George Washington
with a kind of sigh of resignation.
How did it go?
Something like:
"I suppose the Americans must have their leader(s),
just as the French have their Napoleon."
"A Song of Liberty"
on plates 25-27 of "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
is quite evocative.
--- Randall Albright
Artist and Software Technical Writer
~~~~~~~
"He who desires but acts not breeds pestilence."
---William Blake
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:16:16 -0500 (EST)
From: "James Watt"
To: blake@albion.com
To add to Randall's remarks on Blake's take on politics (that is as
practised in Ulro) see the Notes on a Public Address in the Notebook, p.
18: "I am really sorry to see my Countrymen trouble themselves about
Politics. If Men were Wise the Most arbitrary Princes could not hurt them
If they are not Wise the Freest Government is compelld to be a Tyranny."
In Erdman's edition, p. 580.
Jim Watt
Butler University, Indianapolis, IN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:13:07
From: Jennifer Dawn Watson
To: blake@albion.com
PLEASE TAKE ME OFF THE LIST
At 09:16 AM 2/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>To add to Randall's remarks on Blake's take on politics (that is as
>practised in Ulro) see the Notes on a Public Address in the Notebook, p.
>18: "I am really sorry to see my Countrymen trouble themselves about
>Politics. If Men were Wise the Most arbitrary Princes could not hurt them
>If they are not Wise the Freest Government is compelld to be a Tyranny."
>In Erdman's edition, p. 580.
>
>Jim Watt
>Butler University, Indianapolis, IN
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Is William Blake A Political Writer? -Reply
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:45:21 +0000
From: Martin Price
To: blake@albion.com
Thank you very much for you're reply
In my opinion
The fact that the Blake Discussion group itself and Blake Multimedia sites
exist is supportive of the claim that William Blake's politics are upheld
today.
The reference is also appreciated, yet more to read
Martin Price
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?]
Date: 22 Feb 99 10:08:52 PST
From: mark peterson
To: blake@albion.com
>blake-request@albion.com wrote:
>To add to Randall's remarks on Blake's take on politics (that is as
>practised in Ulro) see the Notes on a Public Address in the Notebook, p.
>18: "I am really sorry to see my Countrymen trouble themselves about
>Politics. If Men were Wise the Most arbitrary Princes could not hurt >them
If they are not Wise the Freest Government is compelld to be a >Tyranny."In
Erdman's edition, p. 580.
>Jim Watt
>Butler University, Indianapolis, IN
What also seems clear about Blake, especially after his experience with
Scofield and the related experiences on the misuse of political power, is that
he returned later in life to the passionate vision of the Peaceable Kingdom--
visualized especially in Second-Isaiah-- as outside of a purely 'political
science' (in other words, as Blake's tutor, the Scriptures depicted the 'good
king' as one who listened to the true [vs. false] prophet of Yahweh... The
evil king, pharoah, etc. was one who sought to sit on the throne of the
people's souls collectively without direction from the Master of the divine
Suzerian/vassal treaty: Yahweh). Blake was a sever critic of political
systems, and an intuitive follower of the Hebrew Prophets view that all human
powers fail until they are brought under the "Divine Humanity"-- and when I
see in Isaiah the recognition that his vision would not truly transform
history in his own lifetime ('...bind up my testimony for a future
generation...') but possibly in a later age, likewise there seems to be the
same resignation in Blake (who only late in life found an affirming following
in the young "Ancients"). I think this is why the figure of the "Gray Monk"
was such a powerful one for him (as he used it a second time in __Jerusalem__.
A long-winded way of saying that Blake was a 'political writer' only in the
sense that the Hebrew Prophets were-- when politics is seen under a larger
vision which includes history's Creator in an unambiguous way: God, for Blake,
uses the political state (as Iasiah saw Cyrus used by Yahweh) as Jesus 'used
the Pharisees as dogs': 'Who God has afflicted for secret ends//He heals and
he comforts and calls them friends...'
--Mark Peterson
____________________________________________________________________
More than just email--Get your FREE Netscape WebMail account today at http://home.netscape.com/netcenter/mail
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:38:26 PST
From: j_w@eudoramail.com
To: blake@albion.com
I also think that labeling Blake a "political writer" would be
taking too narrow a view of his work. But Blake's first prophetic
book is _America_, a work that is subversive enough for him to
have to excise out literal references to George III. And his
later work, _The Four Zoas_, begins with a passage from Isaiah
mentioning corruption in high places (sorry for the sloppy paraphrase--
I don't have my copy of Erdman or a Bible concordance handy at
the moment). Just to briefly touch back on Merton-- Merton in
his correspondences with Czeslaw Milosz refers to Blake's work
as a "response to Caesar", as in the New Testament parable. If
you're "responding to Caesar" it seems to me that you're dealing
with political ideology at least at some point...
--Jon Winsor
On 22 Feb 99 10:08:52 PST mark peterson wrote:
>>blake-request@albion.com wrote:
>>To add to Randall's remarks on Blake's take on politics (that
is as
>>practised in Ulro) see the Notes on a Public Address in the
Notebook, p.
>>18: "I am really sorry to see my Countrymen trouble themselves
about
>>Politics. If Men were Wise the Most arbitrary Princes could
not hurt them
>>If they are not Wise the Freest Government is compelld to be
a Tyranny."
>In Erdman's edition, p. 580.
>>Jim Watt
>>Butler University, Indianapolis, IN
>
>What also seems clear about Blake, especially after his experience
with
>Scofield and the related experiences on the misuse of political
power, is that
>he returned later in life to the passionate vision of the Peaceable
Kingdom--
>visualized especially in Second-Isaiah-- as outside of a purely
'political
>science' (in other words, as Blake's tutor, the Scriptures depicted
the 'good
>king' as one who listened to the true [vs. false] prophet of
Yahweh... The
>evil king, pharoah, etc. was one who sought to sit on the throne
of the
>people's souls collectively without direction from the Master
of the divine
>Suzerian/vassal treaty: Yahweh). Blake was a sever critic of
political
>systems, and an intuitive follower of the Hebrew Prophets view
that all human
>powers fail until they are brought under the "Divine Humanity"--
and when I
>see in Isaiah the recognition that his vision would not truly
transform
>history in his own lifetime ('...bind up my testimony for a
future
>generation...') but possibly in a later age, likewise there
seems to be the
>same resignation in Blake (who only late in life found an affirming
following
>in the young "Ancients"). I think this is why the figure of
the "Gray Monk"
>was such a powerful one for him (as he used it a second time
in __Jerusalem__.
>A long-winded way of saying that Blake was a 'political writer'
only in the
>sense that the Hebrew Prophets were-- when politics is seen
under a larger
>vision which includes history's Creator in an unambiguous way:
God, for Blake,
>uses the political state (as Iasiah saw Cyrus used by Yahweh)
as Jesus 'used
>the Pharisees as dogs': 'Who God has afflicted for secret ends//He
heals and
>he comforts and calls them friends...'
>
>--Mark Peterson
-----
Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html )
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:22:44 +0000
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
>
>I also think that labeling Blake a "political writer" would be
>taking too narrow a view of his work. But Blake's first prophetic
>book is _America_, a work that is subversive enough for him to
>have to excise out literal references to George III.
One should remember that Blake's background was in religious, rather than
political dissent. Religious dissent, which was common amongst the 'trades'
in London, consisted essentially of rejection of the hierarchy of the
established Church and it's appropriation of the Scriptures as instruments
of the state. The freedom Blake craves is from priestly rather than
political oppression, although it should also be said that the two are
somewhat linked because of the establishment of the Church.
Blake certainly moved in radical circles - it was hard not to during this
period - but one could certainly not claim him as a political writer in the
sense Thomas Paine was, for example. There are countless writers more
political than he, and I suspect his redecoration in political colours has
more to do with his having been erroneously adopted as a sort of proto-hippy
in the latter half of this century than any actual contribution to radical
politics. Blake lacked the courage to overtly promote any subversive views
he may have had - the excising of the literal references mentioned above is
just one example of this - claiming 'nervous fear' or advice from angels as
justification. Then, as Ralph Dumain pointed out a while ago, Blake
resolutely refused to deal with the real world on anything approaching its
own terms, so that any political intent is submerged behind streams of
visionary obscurity (which in any case rather rejects the fallen world in
favour of the divine).
Interestingly, far from being politically ahead of his time as is often
claimed, Blake was very much OF his time, and in fact a slightly archaic
figure in many senses. Religious dissent was a strong tradition in working
class London at this time, and a few decades before his birth even his
visions would have been widely accepted. A great part of what Blake reacted
against was the tide of rationalism which led to the rejection of his own
beliefs, but which also, in rejecting notions such as the divine right of
kings to rule, also contributed to the rise of radical and revolutionary
politics.
Tim Linnell
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:53:02 -0500
From: "J. Michael"
To: blake@albion.com
Briefly: I agree with Jon Winsor and would simply add that in my opinion,
to label Blake *only* a "political writer" is too narrow, but it is also
too narrow to disregard his political concerns. Some people seem to hold
their noses when they say the word "politics," and I can see why, but Blake
sees jewels in the filth and mire running through the gutters of London,
and I think he challenges us to do the same.
Jennifer Michael
jmichael@sewanee.edu
The mind of man is fashioned and made up
Even as a strain of music. . . . --Wordsworth
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:10:43 -0500
From: Robert Anderson
To: blake@albion.com
I think we are a being a bit hasty in distinguishing between categories
like religious and political. I am not sure Blake--or his
contemporaries--would have recognized this kind of a distinction. When in
"The Chimney Sweeper" from Experience the sweep says his parents are gone
to praise God and his Priest and his King, I suspect the distinctions
between religious and political dissent are meaningless.
Rob Anderson
At 08:22 AM 2/24/1999 +0000, you wrote:
>>
>>I also think that labeling Blake a "political writer" would be
>>taking too narrow a view of his work. But Blake's first prophetic
>>book is _America_, a work that is subversive enough for him to
>>have to excise out literal references to George III.
>
>One should remember that Blake's background was in religious, rather than
>political dissent. Religious dissent, which was common amongst the 'trades'
>in London, consisted essentially of rejection of the hierarchy of the
>established Church and it's appropriation of the Scriptures as instruments
>of the state. The freedom Blake craves is from priestly rather than
>political oppression, although it should also be said that the two are
>somewhat linked because of the establishment of the Church.
>
>Blake certainly moved in radical circles - it was hard not to during this
>period - but one could certainly not claim him as a political writer in the
>sense Thomas Paine was, for example. There are countless writers more
>political than he, and I suspect his redecoration in political colours has
>more to do with his having been erroneously adopted as a sort of proto-hippy
>in the latter half of this century than any actual contribution to radical
>politics. Blake lacked the courage to overtly promote any subversive views
>he may have had - the excising of the literal references mentioned above is
>just one example of this - claiming 'nervous fear' or advice from angels as
>justification. Then, as Ralph Dumain pointed out a while ago, Blake
>resolutely refused to deal with the real world on anything approaching its
>own terms, so that any political intent is submerged behind streams of
>visionary obscurity (which in any case rather rejects the fallen world in
>favour of the divine).
>
>Interestingly, far from being politically ahead of his time as is often
>claimed, Blake was very much OF his time, and in fact a slightly archaic
>figure in many senses. Religious dissent was a strong tradition in working
>class London at this time, and a few decades before his birth even his
>visions would have been widely accepted. A great part of what Blake reacted
>against was the tide of rationalism which led to the rejection of his own
>beliefs, but which also, in rejecting notions such as the divine right of
>kings to rule, also contributed to the rise of radical and revolutionary
>politics.
>
>Tim Linnell
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:26:00 GMT
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
>I think we are a being a bit hasty in distinguishing between categories
>like religious and political. I am not sure Blake--or his
>contemporaries--would have recognized this kind of a distinction. When in
>"The Chimney Sweeper" from Experience the sweep says his parents are gone
>to praise God and his Priest and his King, I suspect the distinctions
>between religious and political dissent are meaningless.
No, the ironic linking of 'God and his Priest and his King' is about as
clear a statement of religious dissent and an attack on the established
Church as it is possible to get, and religious dissenters were quite clear
who they were, and what they were about. There is a clear distinction.
The goal of political dissent is essentially to improve the human condition
in the material world, whereas religious dissent seeks to destroy the man
made trappings of religious hierarchy to achieve spiritual salvation through
knowledge of the true word of God. Where the revolutionary believes that the
solution to Blake's chimney sweeps' woes lies in the overthrow of
established power structures and construction of an egalitarian state, Blake
explains in the Songs of Innocence that it is the Angel with a bright key
who is to release the sweeps from their coffins into the divine light.
>From our perspective, the complaints of the two forms of dissenters seem
identical: the material world is corrupt and injust. But the suggested
solution is radically different. I would contend that we view Blake's
constructions as political statements because we admire his concern for
fellow man, without truly believing that salvation can be left to the
hereafter, so that the mere naming of an injust situation is interpreted as
a call to revolutionary arms. Whereas Blake himself, in the event, was happy
enough to bide his time and await his reward.
It is instructive to step back from Blake for a moment, and consider him in
the context of his contemporaries. One has to say that nothing he did or
wrote had anything like the political impact of those luminaries in his
circle who can justly be claimed political writers. So if we are to name him
thus we have to conclude that he was not a particularly good one.
It is oversimplistic to try and polarize the situation and claim Blake as
wholly one thing or the other. But his concerns, rightly or wrongly, were
mostly spiritual in nature, at least in my opinion.
Tim Linnell
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:56:28 -0700
From: dmtz
To: blake@albion.com
i would say that this is true of Blake in general... we must avoid placing
his work in a "container." if anything, i would call Blake a cultural
critic, and his work the vehicle of a narrative thinker.
dan r. mtz.
At 08:53 AM 2/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Briefly: I agree with Jon Winsor and would simply add that in my opinion,
>to label Blake *only* a "political writer" is too narrow, but it is also
>too narrow to disregard his political concerns. Some people seem to hold
>their noses when they say the word "politics," and I can see why, but Blake
>sees jewels in the filth and mire running through the gutters of London,
>and I think he challenges us to do the same.
>
>Jennifer Michael
>
>jmichael@sewanee.edu
>
>The mind of man is fashioned and made up
>Even as a strain of music. . . . --Wordsworth
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:57:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
When this discussion started off on such an imbecilic note and proceeded to
go downhill from there, I could barely contain myself, but I decided to keep
out of it unless I could add something productive to the discussion. For
some time I've thought about addressing certain aspects of the political
question that were never dealt with, but not along the lines that were
discussed here. I think it is obscene to eviscerate Blake by depoliticizing
him: those who accuse others of being reductive are the worst reductionists
when it comes to watering down the political content of Blake's vision to
turn him into just another two-bit mystic. For Blake's vision is political
down to its metaphysical toenails.
However, Tim Linnell presents a position that invites serious consideration.
I think that he uses the same implicit definition of politics that the
preceding discussants employed, i.e. politics = overt, instrumental
political activity involving state apparatuses and the struggle within and
against them. While I don't think the distinctions should be obliterated
(as some people in American Cultural Studies now do), I don't think the
political should be limited to this sort of narrow instrumentalism, esp.
when you're trying to define the political vision of a thinker/creative
artist, and not just the willingness to engage in overt action. I don't
think overt political engagement is the last word or even the most profound
approach with which to judge the political content of someone's work. Blake
challenged the premises of social arrangements at a more profound level than
almost anyone in human history, so much so that what he discovered about
people and their institutions scared the crap out of him, and overt politics
(parliamentary or extra-parliamentary) was not only dangerous to life and
limb but had also not reached a level, not even in the French Revolution,
such that it was capable of incorporating Blake's premises for a total
cultural revolution and a post-capitalist society. The reason Blake did not
become all the rage until the 1960s is not because Blake is arbitrarily seen
as proto-flower-child, but because the depth of the cultural revolution
initiated in the 60s finally achieved the level at which the depth of Blake
could finally be appreciated. Linnell is being rather too shallow about
this. I also don't agree with his interpretation of my statements.
This as I said is not to obliterate all distinctions as to the nature of the
political, and Tim raises some important points, but he has not yet got to
the heart of the matter. I've got some more things to say, but only if
someone wants to hear.
At 08:22 AM 2/24/99 +0000, Tim Linnell wrote:
>One should remember that Blake's background was in religious, rather than
>political dissent. Religious dissent, which was common amongst the 'trades'
>in London, consisted essentially of rejection of the hierarchy of the
>established Church and it's appropriation of the Scriptures as instruments
>of the state. The freedom Blake craves is from priestly rather than
>political oppression, although it should also be said that the two are
>somewhat linked because of the establishment of the Church.
>
>Blake certainly moved in radical circles - it was hard not to during this
>period - but one could certainly not claim him as a political writer in the
>sense Thomas Paine was, for example. There are countless writers more
>political than he, and I suspect his redecoration in political colours has
>more to do with his having been erroneously adopted as a sort of proto-hippy
>in the latter half of this century than any actual contribution to radical
>politics. Blake lacked the courage to overtly promote any subversive views
>he may have had - the excising of the literal references mentioned above is
>just one example of this - claiming 'nervous fear' or advice from angels as
>justification. Then, as Ralph Dumain pointed out a while ago, Blake
>resolutely refused to deal with the real world on anything approaching its
>own terms, so that any political intent is submerged behind streams of
>visionary obscurity (which in any case rather rejects the fallen world in
>favour of the divine).
>
>Interestingly, far from being politically ahead of his time as is often
>claimed, Blake was very much OF his time, and in fact a slightly archaic
>figure in many senses. Religious dissent was a strong tradition in working
>class London at this time, and a few decades before his birth even his
>visions would have been widely accepted. A great part of what Blake reacted
>against was the tide of rationalism which led to the rejection of his own
>beliefs, but which also, in rejecting notions such as the divine right of
>kings to rule, also contributed to the rise of radical and revolutionary
>politics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer? -Reply
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:53:31 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com
>. Some people seem to hold
their noses when they say the word "politics," and I can see why, but
Blake
sees jewels in the filth and mire running through the gutters of London,
and I think he challenges us to do the same.
This reminds me of Eliot's `garlic and sapphires in the mud' where the
axle-tree lies buried.. I think Eliot, like Blake, was aware that London
was like Babylon being built on the groans and sighs of multitudes
betrayed , not only by commerce, but by the sordidness of their own
souls. The only answer to human sorrow and degradation for both lay in
a spiritual transformation which would build the new Jerusalem , as far
as possible, on earth. This is what, I think, Los is trying to do throughout
Blake's longer works, but, in the fallen world, Golgonooza is about as
close as can be managed.
Pam
The mind of man is fashioned and made up
Even as a strain of music. . . . --Wordsworth
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:52:37 +0000
From: Martin Price
To: blake@albion.com
There's only one Suzie Stokes
Only one Suuuzzziieee
There's Only One Suzie Stokes
An she's brilliant
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer? -Reply
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:53:48 +0000
From: Martin Price
To: blake@albion.com
Sorry personal mail gone wrong
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 2 questions
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:16:02 +0400
From: Nigel Davies
To: William Blake mailing list
Hello everyone.
I've just subscribed to the list but have an immediate need for the answers to 2
pressing questions. Could any of the members be so kind as to furnish me with
the details please, although I'm sure these have been discussed well before my
time:
1. Were Blake's parents literate? We know his wife was and we know his father's
occupation was hosier but I am lacking references regarding the literacy of his
parents.
2. Did Blake attend formal school? My sources are conflicting on this. Some say
he never attended school, others say he received only sufficient "schooling"
(not necessarily from a proper school) for him to read and write.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Rgds.
______________________________________________________________________
ndavies@emirates.net.ae
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 99 12:07:34 GMT
From: Paul Tarry
To: blake@albion.com
>It is oversimplistic to try and polarize the situation and claim Blake as
>wholly one thing or the other. But his concerns, rightly or wrongly,
>were mostly spiritual in nature, at least in my opinion.
I agree Tim is is oversimplistic. For Blake the Spiritual is Political.
By the way I was walking past that big tower block (on Poland Str ?)
last night, "William Blake House" and the plaque, "William Blake was
born in a house on this site..." I'd had a few beers and I thought
"God bless you William Blake and thankyou, you make me very
happy."
Take flair,
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is William Blake A Political Writer?
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:23:18 -0500
From: watsonj@papa.uncp.edu
To: blake@albion.com
take me off your list