Talk:William Blake/Archive 2

Music section
Am I the only one who feels that the music section is getting too large and unwieldy? Do we need a notation for every band that ever wrote a song inspired by Blake or which used some of his poetry in the lyrics? Some of these bands, and their works, simply do not seem very notable. Are there any other thoughts on this matter? Is a pruning in order? ---Charles 18:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Blake is unique among major poets in that his work appeals to popular musicians. No other writer comes close in terms of this role linking high and popular culture, especially as his most notable works are themselves like songs. I'm more concerned with the film section which contains ointless passages about someone quoting a bit of Blake once in some movie or tv show, as not doubt they do with any writer you can name. Paul B 19:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I share your concern about the film section---it is not necessary to list every single mention of Blake in a film. I think all of these cultural references sections need pruning. ---Charles 22:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, I think we should list everything -- be comprehensive. There's no telling what will be important or not at some future date, and that seems to me the point of an encyclopedia...to be encyclopedic.  I wouldn't  delete any accurate entry. Jrovira 19:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)jrovira

I've removed The Doors from the pop culture section. As far as I can tell they weren't directly influenced by Blake's work. Their inspiration is more directly related to the drug use that is the subject of Huxley's The Doors of Perception. The relationship is tertiary; they do not belong on this page. Lithoderm (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I'm not so certain. On the German wiki article one reads: "Die Verszeile „Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to the endless night“ aus Blakes Gedicht Auguries of Innocence wurde von den Doors in End Of The Night zitiert." So perhaps they were influenced directly by Blake. Of course, the mention is unreferenced. Lithoderm (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The text of the Door's song can be found here and here, the text of "Auguries of Innocence" here, thus it's clearly the same text. Thus, I've modified William Blake and William Blake in popular culture. It's already written in Auguries of Innocence. --Cyfal (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wollstonecraft
''Blake illustrated Original Stories from Real Life (1788) by Mary Wollstonecraft. They seem to have shared some views on sexual equality and the institution of marriage, but there is no evidence proving without doubt that they actually met.'' - I am curious why the editors are emphasizing that there is no evidence proving that Wollstonecraft and Blake met. There is rarely evidence from the eighteenth century proving anything "without a doubt." It seems oddly forceful to me. Why not simply say that they may have met or that it seems likely that they would have met since he illustrated her book but there is no written record of such an encounter if one has to mention personal meetings at all? On the other hand, it might be wise to leave the speculation out and simply focus on the illustrations. See Original Stories from Real Life for a mention of Blake's work and some references. Awadewit Talk 03:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Scholarly consensus seems to me to be that they did indeed meet, having moved in the same circles, and it is an oft told story that Blake wanted to invite Wollstonecraft into his home as a third member of the household. I'm not sure of the evidence for that last bit (there should be something in Bentley's bio -- will look it up when I can), but most scholars do seem to assume that they had met.  They certainly knew quite a few people in common. Jrovira 02:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)jrovira

I believe it is proven that they met, as a journal of Godwin or Wollstonecraft was quoted in a recent conference as having dined a few times with "Blake the Engraver". I'm afraid I don't have the source as I was simply attending the lecture. GnomeUrthona

William Blake in popular culture
Since Paul Barlow went to the trouble of creating an article to deal with references to Blake in popular culture, let's keep new additions to this main article to a minimum. Anything added here should be brief and only of great importance. There is no sense in replicating content. Thanks. ---Cathal 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hadn't read this comment before posting my one above on music. I agree. Jrovira 02:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)jrovira


 * Blake gets a mention in the winner of the Palme d'Or in 2006, The Wind That Shakes The Barley (film). Specifically, when the IRA volunteers are in the prison cell and Damien reads 'And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds, And binding with briars my joys and desires' from The Garden of Love engraved on the prison cell wall. 86.42.119.173 (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature
Does the article still do this? If not, this can be removed. Awadewit Talk 21:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
This article about a Briton should use Commonwealth English spelling (except in direct quotations, proper names, etc.). There are many American English spellings scattered through it, though. For example, this edit replaced "unrecognised" with "unrecognized" without explanation. Isn't "unrecognised" proper CE spelling? (As an American, I'm not completely sure.) Later in the first paragraph, I'm virtually certain that "organized" should be "organised". The quotation from Bindman in the William Blake section uses both "watercolors" and "watercolour", which seems quite improbable to me.

I don't have ready access to Bindman to fix the quotation, and I'm not enough of an expert on CE spelling to know exactly what to change, but somebody should tidy this up. JamesMLane t c 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be in British spelling. Many editors, especially anonymous ones, make changes because they think they are correcting mistakes, being unaware that there are differences between British and US spelling. Others just add passages using the spelling conventions they know for the same reason. Paul B 10:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made changes, but left some passages alone. The situation is complicated by the fact that 'ize' endings are also acceptable in the UK and are even preferred by some publishers. Also Blake's own writings adopt spelling conventions of the time (e.g 'Tyger') which often differ from both modern US and UK spellings. I need to check some of these. Paul B 10:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The complications you mention are why I decided not to be bold here. Thanks for jumping in! JamesMLane t c 02:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked on Blake's own spelling, and it seems he used 'ize' endings, so "to generalize is to be an idiot" should stay as it is, thus proving Blake's point about the importance of minute particulars! Paul B 00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually we should use Blake's spelling. And punctuation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fergus Mixolydian (talk • contribs)


 * Not for the article as a whole! Only for quotation from Blake himself. Paul B 09:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"[H]ired to depress art"
An anonymous user added the following line to the "royal academy" section, but I am uncertain as to its provenance:


 * He also famously commented on Reynolds: "This man was hired to depress art."

I recognize this statement, and I know that Blake said something very similar. However, I am not certain about whom it was said, what the exact quote is, and I can find no reference for it. Can anyone help? Before it is readded, it should be exact, the target should be known without any doubt, and it should be referenced. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Plenty here Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's from his marginal annotations to Reynolds's Discourses. Paul B (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

'London'
Does this section belong in this article? Surely, it should be moved to a separate article about the poem itself, or about Songs of Innocence and Experience? The section was riddled with overly emotive phrases, which contained no citations and were too repetitive. Citations were poor, including one to a Yahoo answers discussion - I might be being too picky, but this doesn't seem a good enough source to cite in an encyclopedia article. Were it up to me, I'd purge the section and move the content to the Songs article. Any thoughts or objections? Visual Error (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if no one objects, I'm going to move this section to the article about 'London'. Visual Error (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit here popping up on my watchlist has just reminded me to investigate User:Boykovladimir who made the addition. IIRC he also added what were considered spam external links to professional essay writing websites (Special:Contributions/Boykovladimir), so that might explain the style of writing - essay style rather than encyclopedia style. Feel free to give it a good copyedit. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 16:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reckon I will. I'll simply get rid of anything that isn't properly cited, unless it looks like a good citation could be found - I'll also see if I can find the links mentioned in the brackets, and then move it to the London article.91.125.12.124 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thought you might be interested, John, re: suspect submissions - the citation for "restrictions on the freedom of speech and the mobilisation of foreign mercenary soldiers" doesn't seem to be the BBC. A google search points towards here: [striak.de/Postcolonialism/THE%20TYGER.doc] - it's a Word document, and there's no reference to it on the BBC website that I can find, though maybe it's an old page that's been taken down.  Not in the google cache, though. Visual Error (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact the comment on the word 'chartered' is in error. The word has nothing to do with mapping. That's "charted" not "chartered". Also, in this period one of the most common meanings of 'chartered' was 'freighted' - that is laden. It appears in this meaning in Wordsworth, "And let the chartered wind that sweeps the heath/Beat his grey locks against his withered face", where chartered seems to mean "heavy". This differs from the meaning "controlled by a charter granting exclusive rights". Paul B (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted - I'll remove the reference. 91.125.12.124 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone, your experiences match mine elsewhere, when I investigated the references on the articles he created. I Assume good faith initially, prompting this post Village_pump_%28assistance%29 but I'm now persuaded that it is up to him to prove his case and that until then all his contributions should be removed/userfied. I believe that deliberately vague but plausible references have been given and that these are false. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

British Israelite beliefs
Did Blake have British Israelite beliefs?Wool Bridge (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. There is no evidence of that. He knew the writings of Jacob Bryant, which he expressed agreement with in his 1809 Descriptive Catalogue. Bryant believed that the British were among the descendents of Ham, not Shem (British Israelism) or Japheth (the standard genealogical model at the time). Paul B (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I've never seen any indication of that either. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This chap Joseph Mac Dermott would probably beg to differ. He gave a lecture on 'William Blake and the British Israelite Tradition'. I did not hear it but there is something about it here on this site: http://www.lecturelist.org/content/view_lecture/3424

Wool Bridge (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This chap is a building restorer, not an accredited scholar, and the "Research Into Lost Knowledge Organisation" is not a reliable source. Paul B (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I gathered that they are not scholars but that does not make them necessarily wrong. Blake was not an accredited scholar either! There are more examples of the foolishness of scholars throughout the ages than the reverse. Briitish israelite beliefs amongst the English and Anglo Saxon protestants from the time of Cromwell onwards are common. While there may not be a direct smoking gun evidence, if someone like Newton for example is poring over the books of Daniel or Ezekiel looking for the date that The Jews will return to their homeland in order to work out when the second coming will be, it can safely be assumed that he is under the influence of British Israelite ideas. If you are not convinced then please offer your evidence to the contrary.Wool Bridge (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "poring over the books of Daniel or Ezekiel looking for the date that The Jews will return to their homeland" has nothing to do with British Israelitism. It's orthodox Christian millenarianism to believe that the return of Jews to Israel is linked to the second coming. "Blake was not an accredited scholar either". No he wasn't, which is why we don't take seriously the belief that the Laocoon was copied from the temple in Jerusalem! "If you are not convinced then please offer your evidence to the contrary." It's impossible to provide evidence against something that is unfalsifiable. Provide evidence against the theory that Blake was a Martian in disguise. The evidence is simply the absence of evidence. Nothing in his writings expresses such ideas. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Was Blake an orthodox Christian millenarianist? What is orthodox Christian millenarianism, in what way is it different from the British Israelite tradition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wool Bridge (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to say whether he was or was not, just that "looking for the date that The Jews will return to their homeland" is entirely consistent with it. It was an increasingly common preoccupation of millenarians in the early 19th c, leading to the development of dispensationalist theology. By 'orthodox' I simply meant that it was a normal part of speculative theology. British Israelism holds that the Britsh people are literally descended from one or more of the lost tribes of Israel, which will be regathered at the end of days. Why are you so preoccupied by this? The only biblical genealogist Blake endorsed was Bryant, who was empatically not a British Israelist. You can read his book online. Paul B (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite
I'd like to pre-empt the direction this page seems to be going, and suggest a division of the article into three sections: Blake's biography; his work, both as artist and poet (the two, of course, are nigh-on inseparable in this case); and his primary concerns as an artist (such as 'Blake and Religion', a section that already exists, and 'Blake and sexual politics', which ought to). The problem to overcome is the fact that this article is getting confused, with arbitrary works of Blake's being inserted into his biography, such as Dante's Inferno, which appears chronologically in the right place, but which spoils the flow of the biography it intrudes upon.

The split I suggest would allow the article to function as it probably ought, as a detail of Blake's biographical details, his milieu, and a brief introduction to his major works, the latter concern operating as a direct hub to related articles. Of course, the biography section would touch upon Blake's works, but I think critical discussion of these is best left to the specific articles in question. Additions made would also have a clear place to go, rather than being plonked where they don't really cohere. In addition to all this, the article really needs a shake up, to reach A-grade status. Are there any objections or queries?

If not, I suggest that an alternative version of the article be set up (such as 'William Blake rewrite'), which could then be worked on at a reasonable pace by those who were interested.Visual Error (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Failure to produce children?

 * "There were early problems such as Catherine's illiteracy and the couple's failure to produce children."

I cannot find any references for "the couple's failure to produce children" (and yes, I looked in the closest citation, which was a book discussing his poetry), but it seems to fit in his poetical style. I just can't find a reference for this; can someone help me locate a viable source? Thanks. 70.181.168.148 (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is no reference for this claim, and I do not recall there being one either, a fact tag should be placed on it. Such a claim has to be sourced.  In fact, I will place the fact tag right now. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. Also, I find it interesting that that claim is in here, because it fits in perfectly with his poetical style hinting at marital tensions, and how his poems are always about children, though he never had any.  It would be interesting to see if a claim like this is true. 70.181.168.148 (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is most discussed in early literature on Blake. It derives from comments by Swinburne, which he got from Rossetti. These issues are discussed in Schuchard's book Why Mrs Blake Cried. They certainly did not have children, and Blake seemed to have been keen for a child. Gilchrist alluded to problems in the marriage caused by this. Swinburne explained that Blake had suggested that he should try to have a child with another woman (which was accepted in some Swedenborgian circles on the precedent of Hagar and Abraham). Catherine was supposed to be upset, and Blake dropped the idea. Schuchard connects this with her speculations about Blake's sexual practices - speculations that I think are rather silly, but which now form part of the canon of Blake scholarship. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that information. I've also heard that one of the women Blake wanted to have an affair with was Mary Wollstonecraft, a feminist activist of the time.70.181.168.148 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's rather unlikely, but we don't know. I know of no evidence that he knew Woolstoncraft - though there's no reason why he shouldn't. However, I can't see the two of them getting along all that well! It's more likely that he had some local girl in mind, who'd be the equivalent of a modern concept of a "surrogate mother". Paul B (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah well, it doesn't particularly matter. I did, however, read that on a viable source, a biography on Blake.  Anyways, thanks for the help once again! 70.181.168.148 (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Royal Academy section
This whole chunk is irrelevant:

"In June 1780, Blake was walking towards Basire's shop in Great Queen Street when he was swept up by a rampaging mob that stormed Newgate Prison in London. Many among the mob were wearing blue cockades on their caps, to symbolise solidarity with the insurrection in the American colonies. They attacked the prison gates with shovels and pickaxes, set the building ablaze, and released the prisoners inside. Blake was reportedly in the front rank of the mob during this attack; most biographers believe he accompanied the crowd impulsively.

These riots, in response to a parliamentary bill revoking sanctions against Roman Catholicism, later came to be known as the Gordon Riots; they provoked a flurry of legislation from the government of George III, as well as the creation of the first police force."

In addition, the idea that Blake was just "swept along" with the crowds is pure assertion and speculation. I'm removing this entire chunk for these reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.56 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "irrelevant". If you mean it's not about the Royal academy, that's true, but we can't create a new section for each paragraph. It is relevant to his life because it's his first experience of a radical and anarchic energy, which becomes central to his work. The event is described in Gilchrist, so is well attested. As for the "swept along" phrase - that's what Gilchrist says ("forced" by the "swirling mob" he says). Later writers have argued that Gilchrist was trying to deny Blake's active involvement, but of course we can't know the actual truth of the matter. "Swept along" seems like a reasonable compromise phrase. Maybe some reworking is desirable, but I can't see any justification for wholesale deletion. Paul B (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, fair enough. Since the sections are chronological however, I think that a seperate section for the riots might be justified since it happened between his joining the royal academy and his marriage, so it fits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.56 (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Concubine
It is my understanding that while the theory that Blake may have brought a concubine into the marriage bed is a popular one there is actually little solid evidence to change Ackroyd's assertion that 'there is no plausible excuse for the conjecture, made by some biographers, that he tried to bring a second wife into the home'. That being said, such theories are an established part of Blake scholarship, I just felt it should be balanced, and the two sentences I altered didn't quite scan grammatically anyway. Silent Badger 01 (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is very little evidence, thatstrue, but most material derives from written recollections of people who knew him. The evidence is in an oblique comment from Gilchrist and an explanation added by Swinburne. Paul B (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How many kids
Some say Blake was one of seven, one editor says Blake was one of six and the reference says Blake was one of five children. Anybody know for sure? The best reference so far says seven. Modernist (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From: Thomas Wright, The Life of William Blake, vol. 1 (Olney, England: Bucks, T. Wright, 1929) p.2:


 * "The other children of James Blake were James, born July 10th, 1753; John, May 12th, 1755 (died in childhood); John, March 30th, 1760; Richard, usually called Robert, June 19th, 1762; and Catherine Elizabeth, January 7th, 1764." Note the book is from 1929. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I count six above (with William) in Ceoil (talk)'s ref, However in this one: http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/116 it says Blake had 6 siblings with 2 dying in infancy, whereas in Thomas Wright's version only one dies young. I found two sites earlier this evening that said there were five children.,, who knows? Modernist (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe record of a second child dying in infancy was uncovered later than 1929? Would explain the contradictory sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats a good thought, makes sense. Every thing I find seems to be either vague or contradictory. A letter I read seemed to imply sisters plural rather than just sister Catherine...I had a good Blake book, but now I can't find it..Modernist (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * GE Bentley concurs with the figure of six, with one dying in childbirth. It would be interesting to see the sources for the American Academy of Poets site.  GnomeUrthona (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

More visions?
In the Apprenticeship to Basire section, the last sentence reads, 'Blake beheld more visions in the Abbey, of a great procession of monks and priests, while he heard "the chant of plain-song and chorale".'

This implies he had had visions before this, but there is no mention above but only below. Would someone more expert than I am like to clarify and perhaps give a source? DBlomgren (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He had visions from his childhood - or so he tells us. Paul B (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Template?
I've created a template for easy reference to all of the various pages associated with Blake. (it is still incomplete) Feel free to comment or add to the list of works in Songs of Innocence and Experience: Blake Template Lithoderm (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more direct: does anyone have an opinion as to whether or not this is appropriate/a good idea? Salvador Dali, Matisse, and Picasso all have templates associated with them, as does Francisco de Goya. Lithoderm (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, the Template is ready. If no one has any comments/objections I will insert it into all Blake-related articles tomorrow. Lithoderm (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm watching! The template looks pretty decent but I think the "songs of innocence/experience" section could be reduced somehow given that the links of all three red "sub-sections" redirect to the same page. I'm also a little confused by the lack of italics: shouldn't the articles in "prophetic books" be italicised, as well as Songs of Innocence and Experience? The article for the latter lacks them but I'm not exactly sure why. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have inserted Italics and and changed the grouping. The only reason I separated the Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience was that there are a considerable amount of poems in each that do not parallel poems in the other collection. A picture has been added, and the box now has collapsible groups so that it doesn't get too unwieldy. Lithoderm (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Newton Section
I agree that supporting Blake's views on Newton with a poem by Auden is a logical fallacy. Here is an alternative:

Mock on Mock on Voltaire Rousseau

Mock on Mock on! tis all in vain!

You throw the sand against the wind

And the wind blows it back again

And every sand becomes a Gem Reflected in the beams divine

Blown back they blind the mocking Eye t But still in Israels paths they shine

The Atoms of Democritus

And Newtons Particles of light Are sands upon the Red sea shore

Where Israels tents do shine so bright

--

Lithoderm (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a good reason why the Newton section should be included...Modernist (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For

Blake's opposition to enlightenment philosophy is critical to understanding his writings and art. Blake made little distinction between the physics of Newton and the preference for mezzotint and stipple engraving among English print connoisseurs; this was part of the reason he began engraving in bold outlines. Because to Blake the imagination was not a subset of intellectual activities but the real man whose fall from grace is a fall into the world of the senses, the mechanical systems of crosshatching and mezzotint engraving are a merely a means of depicting the natural world (which he referred to as Rahab). The point of all this is that in Blake's mind the dot-matrix effect of mezzotint, which was used to depict light, becomes analogous to Newton's particle theory of light.

In Blake's writings Newton is often used as a symbol of mental repression and what Blake called Natural Religion; particularly throughout Milton and Jerusalem. As a man who claimed to have seen angels dancing in a tree as a child, Blake also found the idea of Deism repulsive.
 * To bathe in the Waters of Life; to wash off the Not Human
 * I come in Self-annihilation & the grandeur of Inspiration
 * To cast off Rational Demonstration by Faith in the Saviour
 * To cast off the rotten rags of Memory by Inspiration
 * To cast off Bacon, Locke & Newton from Albions covering
 * To take off his filthy garments, & clothe him with Imagination
 * To cast aside from Poetry, all that is not Inspiration
 * That it no longer shall dare to mock with the aspersion of Madness
 * Cast on the Inspired, by the tame high finisher of paltry Blots,
 * Indefinite, or paltry Rhymes; or paltry Harmonies.
 * Who creeps into State Government like a catterpiller to destroy
 * To cast off the idiot Questioner who is always questioning,
 * But never capable of answering; who sits with a sly grin
 * Silent plotting when to question, like a thief in a cave;
 * Who publishes doubt & calls it knowledge; whose Science is Despair
 * Whose pretence to knowledge is Envy, whose whole Science is
 * To destroy the wisdom of ages to gratify ravenous Envy;
 * That rages round him like a Wolf day & night without rest
 * He smiles with condescension; he talks of Benevolence & Virtue
 * And those who act with Benevolence & Virtue, they murder time on time
 * These are the destroyers of Jerusalem

--Milton, (Blake's views on deists and enlightenment scientists)


 * Against

Feel free to add more reasons under either list... (and please excuse my tendency to ramble) Lithoderm (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The section contains such a small amount of vague information that it is not worth keeping.
 * The section would have to be moved to underneath Creative Mindset or Religious Views and renamed Blake and Enlightenment Philosophers (for example) because Newton, although he was Blake's prime target, is almost always mentioned in the same line as Bacon or Rousseau or Locke.
 * The material above could be incorporated into the article without creating a new section.


 * These are very impressive reasons why the issue should be properly expanded and explored..Milton's words express Blake's outrage with technology brilliantly. Blake, Shakespeare, Dylan, Allen Ginsberg, I'm not sure that enough intensity comes through in Auden. Modernist (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahem, if what is being proposed here by these self-appointed pedants & censors and 'owners' of this article, that everything going into the article has to be scrutinised and approved by them first, then I'm afraid that such a proposal stands totally against the open and free spirit of wikipedia. I have some good sourced material to add to the article under Newton so I intend to do just that. thank you Peter morrell 08:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahem, anything can be added, for sure. But anything can be removed too. It cuts both ways. To avoid "edit warring" the talk page is for building consensus about what should be included.The article has to read like a proper encylopedia entry, not just be a jumble of bits of fact, theory and quotations. Surely the best solution is to try to come up with wording that clarifies the nature of Blake's rejection of Enlightenment science in the appropriate cultural context. Paul B (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Paul and thank you for that BUT deleting good faith edits of well sourced highly pertinent stuff is not being bold it is being uncivil and hostile and deeply conservative. It is saying 'we own this article now you get lost.' It is deeply unfriendly. Wikipedia is unfortunately rife with this type of egotistical and precious ownership attitude/behaviour. When people offer new stuff it should not be deleted in seconds, but mulled over and discussed in a civil and polite manner and ways found to integrate it into the article if it is valuable. You do not get your best out of people by deleting their good faith edits on sight; you piss them off. I think my point is both clear and correct. One does not feel like sharing good stuff with editors like those here. One feels like never visting here again no matter what good stuff one has to offer. Maybe I will do exactly that, we shall have to see. An apology from the hostile culprits might not go amiss for starters. Peter morrell 09:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think a chunk of Auden is highly pertinent, rather a section on Blake and Enlightenment culture would be. That would concentrate on Blake's own words and the words of scholars who have explored his distinctive view of Newtonian/Englightenment science and its appropriation by Augustan poets and Whig culture. Paul B (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about Auden, which I think is actually a superb summary but I agree it needs more stuff about Newton, which I have from Ackroyd's biography, and from elsewhere. But in a discussion climate as unfriendly and hostile as this I will say no more for now. Pity you cannot make a reply to the other points I made, which I guess is predictable hey ho. Peter morrell 10:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Pity you cannot make a reply to the other points I made, which I guess is predictable hey ho." If you want the atmosphere to be "unfriendly and hostile" you are going about it the right way. Your other points appear mostly to be personal attacks and insults. I responded to the point about the article content. Paul B (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This looks like a discussion to me...why not just realize that the reality is your edits were not deleted; instead this thread was begun. Clearly other people have strong opinions about Blake as well as you..I don't see a problem. Modernist (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Insults and personal attacks? are you serious? Pointing out the rudeness of others hardly constitutes either of those. Getting back to improving the article...would it help to post here the stuff I have about blake and newton? Peter morrell 11:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, do your stuff...Modernist (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure, go ahead. Paul B (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK here it is:

Blake "was opposed to the demonstrative science of Newton, which worshipped the outward form of atoms and particles." (Ackroyd, 293) He rejected the "epistemology of Locke, which proposed a version of rational and generalised truth that denied intuition and inspiration." (293) He launched "a coordinated attack upon Locke and Newton as the true progenitors of Sir Joshua Reynolds' aesthetic and as gaolers of the prison in which Blake believed his epoch to be consigned." (285) He rejected "Newton's theory of particles," (219) his "impersonal physics," (198), "the vast machinery of the Newtonian universe," (193) and his "trust in system and uniformity." (194) He "denies the significance of Newton's theoretical enquiries...[and] derided Newtonianism as an aberration and a heresy." (194)He regarded Newton and Nebuchadnezzar as the same, both "grown mad with unbelief." (187) Blake preferred a world of "vision rather than the mathematical notations of Newton or the abstract calculations of Locke." (103) He was "a strident opponent of Newton...materialism or science." (88) His "attacks upon Newton and upon Locke," (211) reflected Blake's radical and uncompromisingly spiritual view of life and the world. His abiding sense of vision "had already afforded him access to a reality in which the Newtonian concepts of space and time, let alone the Lockean concepts of sensation, need not apply." (175) In his Urizen (widely seen as another attack on Newton), he "states his belief that the dimensions of material existence are a prison from which we must escape." (175). He never "had any faith in orthodox powers or authorities, whether in the shape of King George III or John Locke." (151)


 * Peter Ackroyd, "Blake," London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1995, ISBN 1-85619-278-4.

Is this useful or not? thanks Peter morrell 12:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on Peter, put it in the article...Modernist (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's too much just a summary of Ackroyd. It needs to be attributed to him, but other scholars should be added. Paul B (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok let's wait. I have more from other sources. I will post some more here first and then hopefully we can edit whatever we wish to use to go into the article in whatever 'shape' we want it to be -- does that sound a viable plan? Peter morrell 12:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

More:

"The romantic poet and naturalist, William Blake, depicted Newton as a misguided hero whose gaze was directed only at sterile geometrical diagrams drawn on the ground." Blake's Newton, Princeton University

"For Blake, the stars represent cold reason and objective science. (They are weaker than the Sun of inspiration or the moon of love. Their mechanical procession has reminded others, including the author of "Lucifer in Starlight", of "the army of unalterable law"; in this case the law of science.) Although Blake was hostile (as I am, and as most real scientists are) to attempts to reduce all phenomena to chemistry and physics, Blake greatly appreciated the explosion of scientific knowledge during his era." Ed Friedlander, MD, Understanding William Blake's "The Tyger"

"Isaac Newton was the scientist who first understood planetary motion. Blake was critical of such disciplined reasoning." W. Graham Robertson, William Blake's Newton, notes on the figure, Tate Gallery London, 1939

"Personification of Man Limited by Reason The eighteenth-century poet, Alexander Pope, wrote a satirical epitaph for Newton: 'Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night/God said Let Newton be! And all was light'. This shows just how much the eighteenth century revered the great philosopher. Newton had successfully explained the workings of the physical universe. To Blake, however, this was not enough: Newton had omitted God, as well as all those significant emotional and spiritual elements which cannot be quantified, from his theories. Blake boasted that he had 'fourfold vision' while Newton with his 'single vision' was as good as asleep. To Blake, Newton, Bacon and Locke with their emphasis on reason were nothing more than 'the three great teachers of atheism, or Satan's Doctrine'. In this print from 1795 Newton is portrayed drawing with a pair of compasses. Compasses were a traditional symbol of God, 'architect of the universe', but notice how the picture progresses from exuberance and colour on the left, to sterility and blackness on the right. In Blake's view Newton brings not light, but night." William Blake, Newton, display notes, Tate Gallery London

I suggest that some/much of this can be edited into the Newton section as we see fit. comments? Peter morrell 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how I have been "deeply uncivil and hostile". This article is neither mine nor yours, but it is about William Blake. If we are writing about Blake's views on Newton, it is best to give his Blake's own words on the subject-that is my main objection to your edits. I do appreciate that you have begun a section which needs coverage in this article- I have moved them into a sub-section of the section on religious views and added the source to the list of references, while not changing the Auden quote at all. Incidentally, I notice that you seem to put us in a logical dilemma- if discussing things on a talk page is regressive and reverting your edits summarily is regressive, how are we to proceed? By allowing you to add in everything that you found on a google search for "Blake and Newton" in the article, so that it says the same thing, essentially, several times? Enough. Add in the information you found, and we can proceed, collaboratively, from there. --A hostile culprit, aka Lithoderm (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The material I have offered did not come from "a google search" as you pejoratively put it. You have indeed behaved as if you own the article. The material has been offered to this forum in good faith -- do as you wish. Thanks to unfriendly nitpicking folks like you, I shall not be editing this article again. Your comments and actions and cynical refusal to offer a good faith apology inspire no polite response. Your actions spoke for themselves all along. Peter morrell 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lithoderm has acted in good faith..If you have changed your mind about editing this article any further then that is your decision. You don't own the article either....It seems to me that a valuable section is being produced here, hopefully you'll participate....Modernist (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)