Talk:William Blake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Blake article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article incorporates public domain text from: Cousin, John William (1910). A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature. London, J.M. Dent & sons; New York, E.P. Dutton.
Archive
Archives
  • Archive 1 - covering discussions from August 2006 - April 2007, including factual errors, expansion of the page, Blake's dual roles as artist and poet, and Blake's complex relationship to religion

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] References

For this sentence:

William Wordsworth wrote: "There was no doubt that this poor man was mad, but there is something in the madness of this man which interests me more than the sanity of Lord Byron and Walter Scott."

I suggest we reference Henry Crabb Robinson's Diary, Reminiscences and Correspondence, as that's the ultimate source of the quotation.

Jrovira 03:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)jrovira

Go ahead and add it. Paul B 10:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Page is locked for me for editing...Jrovira 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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#Dante's Inferno 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)

[edit] "[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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] '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 Wikipedia:Assume good faith initially, prompting this post Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#How_to_handle_-_users_essay_style_writing_.26_vague_cites 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)

[edit] 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'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. [2] Paul B (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)