Talk:William Blake/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Good Article review

This article is currently being reviewed to see if it matches the criteria for a Good Article. Comments can be seen here. SilkTork *^YES! 23:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The review is on hold until 10 Jan 2009 to give time for initial concerns to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 18:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No attempts at addressing concerns have taken place. This article has not met the criteria for a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Progress

Progress seems to have died. I would like to take a crack at fixing up the biography section, expanding, and getting it to FAC in a while if no one minds too much. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I would think there should be a specific section on his artistic productions, and a specific section on his prophetic books as well.... when I have more time.. Lithoderm 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been planning to expand some of his works that were left to sit around (including the prophetic pages). However, I will only touch the biography on the bio page until everyone can get settled and figure out how we should tackle the rest. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusion with Dante & Milton

I'm not a Blake expert, so this is more of a question about a possible error than positive criticism -- hope this is the correct forum for it.

In the section on Blake's illustrations for The Divine Comedy, the article suddenly discusses the illustration's critical commentary on Milton's poetry. That can't be right, can it?

tbird (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What?

"He was born a woman and became a man later in life." Uh, citation? Explanation? I.e., what in the world are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.206.174 (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Continental prophecies merger.

I would disagree with the merger of Continental prophecies into here as the article has sufficient refs and is notable enough (in my opinion) to stay as its own article. Much of William Blakes other work has its own article to begin with [1] hence I would think this would be of an equal level. Anyway another potential merger could be here William Blake's prophetic books if a merger is desired. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually working on that article and a couple of others I recently started related to Blake:

• Blake: Prophet Against Empire
• David V. Erdman
• Fearful Symmetry
• The Book of Los

This week I'll be improving them, any contribution is welcomed.--Scandza (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose this merger, as it seems a bad idea. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the person proposing the merger to begin the discussion, giving the reasons he believes the merger should take place. Given the fact that this has not occurred, and it has been more than a week since the merge template was placed, we should consider the matter void. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article and topic are notable on their own. They are also on my list of major expansion, as I have about 20 books (physical) on Blake's poetry and many others online in order to improve these pages, so there will be plenty of sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose this merger proposal. Lithoderm 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge the Sons of Urizen

If you want something really worth merging, here is a separate proposal: merge Thiriel, Grodna (Blake), Fuzon (Blake), and Utha into Sons of Urizen. Of these, Grodna and Utha are only used once by Blake in The Book of Urizen. These are literally one-line references and there is absolutely nothing that could be done to expand those two articles from their current lengths. Thiriel is only slightly better, as he has one-line references in two of Blake's works. Fuzon is the only one of any note, as he is a main character in The Book of Ahania; although in his role as a fiery rebel against Urizen he is supplanted by Blake with Orc in later books. Lithoderm 15:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Development of Blake's Views

I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:

Because Blake's later poetry contains a private mythology with complex symbolism, his late work is less widely read or anthologized than his earlier more accessible work. The earlier work, particularly The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, is more rebellious in character - protesting against establishment religion. In the later works such as Milton and Jerusalem, Blake carves out his own distinctive vision of a redeemed humanity. Not all readers of Blake agree upon how much continuity exists between Blake's earlier and later works. John Middleton Murry sees a sharp discontinuity. He holds that in his maturity Blake softened much of his earlier views, choosing to emphasize self-sacrifice for others as a path to redemption. Other Blake scholars such as psychoanalyst June Singer see Blake's late work as a more developed version of his earlier sensibilities, focusing on achieving personal wholeness.

The references in this section are not adequate to justify its existence, and the refs present are incomplete. As it stands, the section makes claims that it does not support. As such, it should stay out until it is properly referenced. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I never really liked that section. It was out of place in the article, and neither of these people are important enough in Blake scholarship to have their views singled out in an individual section. What is says is also fairly obvious, and there is less opposition between the views presented than the section asserts. A softening of earlier views and a more developed version of earlier views are not mutually exclusive concepts. Blake himself asserted the continuity of his work: the productions of our youth and of our maturer age are equal in all essential points. (Descriptive Catalogue NUMBER XVI.) Lithoderm 02:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this is a bit rough and needs both more references and the two authors are perhaps less opposed than stated. (Good point that "A softening of earlier views and a more developed version of earlier views are not mutually exclusive concepts.")However, both Murry and Singer (even moreso) are fairly important in Blake scholarship, if not as major as Frye and Bloom. But they are the ones who seem to have the most contrasting views on the degree of continuity in Blake (Murry seeing a strong discontinuity and Singer seeing strong continuity. The paragraph might be more justifiable if slightly expanded and elaborated on and given more context with surrounding material. Disclosure: I am the paragraph's author and it is a bare-bones abstract of my recently filed Master's Thesis though I didn't read Middleton Murry till after writing the thesis.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I also wrote the "General Cultural Influence" section.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This might be an improvement.

Because Blake's later poetry contains a private mythology with complex symbolism, his late work is less widely read or anthologized than his earlier more accessible work. The recent Vintage anthology of Blake edited by Patti Smith is heavily focused on the earlier work, as are many critical studies such as William Blake by D. G. Gillham. The earlier work is primarily rebellious in character - protesting against establishment religion. This is especially notable in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell in which Satan is virtually the hero rebelling against an imposter authoritarian deity. In the later works such as Milton and Jerusalem, Blake carves a distinctive vision of a humanity redeemed by self-sacrifice and forgivness, while retaining a negative attitude towards the rigid and morbid authoritarianism of traditional religion. Not all readers of Blake agree upon how much continuity exists between Blake's earlier and later works. John Middleton Murry sees a sharp discontinuity. He holds that in his maturity Blake softened much of his earlier views, and that Blake's new emphasis on self-sacrifice is effectively a renunciation of the views of Marriage of Heaven and Hell. However, psychoanalyst June Singer sees Blake's late work as a more developed version of his views which one can find the seeds of in his earlier works, because of the continued focus in all of Blake on humanitarian goals of achieving personal wholeness of body and spirit.[2]

Any opinions?--WickerGuy (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the changes, but I'd like to see more references cited, such as what your source is for Middleton Murry's and Singer's views.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In the original, I gave the books, but this could become specific page numbers with elaborations easily. Will get back in a day or so.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on John Middleton Murry & June Singer

John Middleton Murry was both widely disliked by fellow literati for personal reasons and was eclipsed as a critic by T.S. Eliot. Nonetheless, he is now regarded as unfairly neglected, and his study of Blake is groundbreaking as really being the first major Blake study ever focusing entirely on Blake's philosophical, religious, and ethical views across time encompassing all of Blake's writing from early to late. As such, Middleton Murry really is an important figure in Blake scholarship, though his importance is only recently been recognized.
June Singer's work is marred by excessive speculation on Blake's biography and personal motivations that are not entirely verifiable. Nonetheless, it remains the only major study of Blake written by a practicing psychoanalysis, and even if JS overreaches, the parallels between Blake's ideas and Jungian psychology are definite, and explored more thoroughly by June Singer than any other writer.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that Murry's work is not as important as this note indicates. Mona Wilson's biography of 1927 (which was produced to accompany Geoffrey Keynes's Complete Writings) was much more thorough and exhaustive, particularly in the original (later reprints omitted many of her notes), and did not pursue as partisan an angle as Murry. Similarly, the first comprehensive view of Blake's philosophy was S. Foster Damon's William Blake, His Philosophy and Symbols, published in 1924. G. E. Bentley, Jr. in Blake Books (1977) describes this as "the first thoroughly scholarly book about Blake" (790). I would recommend that a comment be added with regard to Damon in terms of developing our understanding of Blake's views (he was also extremely influential on Northrop Frye's Fearful Symmetry). Singer's work is, I agree, "marred by excessive speculation" and she cannot be relied upon for dating etc. As an aside, Herbert Read, who edited C. G. Jung's books for Routledge, was also extremely influenced by Blake and also applied Jungian ideas to is own art criticism (although, unfortunately, he never combined both his interest in Blake and Jung to any significant degree). Jasonwhittaker (talk • contribs 06:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look into these. Although a year ago I completed a Master's thesis on William Blake, I was not familiar with the Foster book.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Place of Birth

Broad Street (now Broadwick Street) whilst close to Golden Sq is not on or attached to it, so I have removed it from the place of birth address. Peter Ackroyd's biography of Blake discusses the Square as being south of Blake's home, but not part of its address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coatgal (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why so much vandalism here?

I am puzzled as to why this page gets more vandalism then say the pages on the Bronte sisters or Jane Austen. The Wordsworth article gets a lot of vandalism as well. I suppose there is no way of really knowing.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hemingway gets a lot as well, but it's been protected. This page has too much vandalism today! Should be protected. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested protection. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

would like to add an external link

How do I add an external link if the article is semiprotected? Gzaldin (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding the tone of one comment on apprenticeship to Basire

In the section on Blake's apprenticeship, there is the comment that "However, Peter Ackroyd's biography notes that Blake was later to add Basire's name to a list of artistic adversaries—and then cross it out" with a footnote pointing to page 43. I've just checked through my copy of Ackroyd and cannot find that remark. In fact, Ackroyd's remarks are quite the opposite: "Basire has also been described as a 'kind master', and the evidence for this must lie in the remarkable fact that for the seven years they were in each other's company there is no record of any serious disagreement between Basire and his passionate, often impetuous, apprentice." (43) It may be that my edition is the first and this was amended in any reprints. However, I still think the tone indicates more potential antagonism between Blake and Basire than existed. The lines from David Erdman's edition of The Complete Poetry & Prose of William Blake is as follows:

Was I angry with Hayley who usd me so ill

Or can I be angry with Felphams old Mill

Or angry with Flaxman or Cromek or Stothard

Or poor Schiavonetti whom they to death botherd

Or angry with Macklin or Boydel or Bowyer

Because they did not say O what a Beau ye are

At a Friends Errors Anger shew

Mirth at the Errors of a Foe (E504)

Erdman's note indicates that the name Basire was crossed out after that of Bowyer, and Bentley and other biographers have drawn attention to Blake's frustration at this time: he may, indeed, in the early 1800s have considered Basire partially responsible for his lack of success in that he was taught an old fashioned engraving style, but there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate anything other than respect for Basire during his time as an apprentice. Jasonwhittaker (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Note on repoussage

The section on engraving includes the following comment: "A study in 2005 of Blake's surviving plates showed that he made frequent use of a technique known as "repoussage" which is a means of obliterating mistakes by hammering them out by hitting the back of the plate. This discovery puts strain on Blake's own assessment of his abilities as well of those of admirers and may also help to explain why some of Blake's work took so long to complete." The Guardian article from which this is taken somewhat simplifies Mei-Ying Sung's view which is extended in William Blake and the Art of Engraving (Pickering and Chatto: 2009). Her criticism is more specifically about how theories of Blake's working practice for relief etching, as put forward by Robert Essick and Joseph Viscomi in particular. I would suggest that the line "This discovery... long to complete" be changed to "This discovery contradicted some general theories about Blake's engraving techniques based on his relief etching, so that his ideas of the unity of design and execution could only be applied to etching rather than engraving, which was a much more labour-intensive process." Jasonwhittaker (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with the proposed changes- the tone of the original is much more negative than is warranted by the source article. Lithoderm 08:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Recently added Category of "Advocates of free love"

All of the following biographies of William Blake describe him as an advocate of free love

William Blake: a study of his life and art work‎ by Irene Langridge (1904)
William Blake: poet and mystic by Pierre Berger, Daniel Henry Conner (1915)
(See chapter on "His System of Morality")

William Blake: a new kind of man‎ by Michael Davis (1977)
Life of William Blake‎ by Thomas Wright (2003)

and especially the controversial
Why Mrs Blake cried: William Blake and the sexual basis of spiritual vision by Marsha Keith Schuchard (2006)

I think the category should stay.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. While there is still a lot about Blake I don't know, I would hope the fact that a wrote a Master's Thesis (which passed) on Blake would count for something.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So you say. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, that last cmt by me might have been harsh, but can you form your argument better than just listing sources. Without more context it sounds like new age projection. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus is against the category...Modernist (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A few points.
1) Blake is indeed popular with the New Age movement, but the "free love" movement using that exact phrase only sometimes advocating what today New Agers and others call "polyamory" goes back to the mid-19th century. For example, an early American advocate was Theodore Tilton (1835-1907). Many advocates of free love did not advocate promiscuity re short-term relationships or multiple partners (although Tilton was extremely promiscuous, sewing his oats in many fields.) The core of the 19th-century "free love" movement (once again that is the precise phrase that was used) was that sexuality should be utterly and wholly unregulated by the state in any form, and that the institution of marriage was a form of servitude or slavery. This of course implied no laws against homosexuality or prostitution, etc. Hopefully, this helps re your request for context. Blake himself hung out for a while with the most radical branch of the Moravian sect, whose ideas at that time certainly fit in with the 19th century "free love" movement, and his poem Visions of the Daughters of Albion is widely interpreted as fitting the mold of that movement's ideas. If you think calling Blake a "free love" advocate necessarily implies behavior like Tilton or sleeping all over the neighborhood, then I fear you are the one engaging in "new age projection". To be fair, Blake wrote several decades before the phrase "free love" was coined, but the movements he associated with are intellectual ancestors of the "free love" movement. The term "feminism" was coined in the 1880s, but no one denies that Mary Wollstonecraft was a "feminist" although the term did not exist in her day.
2) Lots of folks think there is something of what you call "new age projection" in Schuchard's book, but this could hardly be true of books published in 1904 and 1915.
3) Blake's ideas shifted over time and he may not have been a life-long consistent advocate of free love, but he certainly was drawn to the idea during a phase of his life.
4) I did not originally put the article in this category, but immediately decided it was fitting. It might be a good idea if the article itself contained more explicit discussion of Blake's exact views, and what the term meant in Victorian times.
Yes, I really did complete a Master's Thesis in April 2009 on William Blake and was awarded a Master's Degree in Religion and Ethics from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA after completing it.
See also William Blake and gender By Magnus Ankarsjö 2006
Respectfully reverting--WickerGuy (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To put in in very plain and simple terms, the "free love" movement of the 1820s (which coined the term later in 1850) and the "free love" movement of the 1960s are two very very different things. Readers of Wikipedia might confuse the two without further qualification, so the article should include some discussion of Blake's involvement in the former. If you think until this is clarified in the text of the article, the category should be suspended, I could concede to that.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of free love is a difficult one: personally, I do tend towards the argument that, for a brief period during the 1790s, Blake was tempted towards notions of "free love" (however loosely that is defined). However, there are a number of problems with citing it here authoritatively, regardless of those difficulties of it being perceived anachronistically. First of all, I'm afraid that Schuchard's book, in my opinion (and I emphasise the "opinion" bit of that remark) tends towards the speculative: she is extremely good when dealing with the Moravians, who did have a view of what we could call free love that was very different to the 1960s and actually quite appealing in many ways; however, when she discusses various Tantric aspects of Blake's art and possible practices, I'm afraid I cannot see the evidence for this. A second, and perhaps more substantial point, is that we should always be careful of taking the perspectives of any character in Blake's works as an example of his own viewpoint. Oothoon's remarks in Visions of the Daughters of Albion are highly problematic at times: "But silken nets and traps of adamant will Oothoon spread, / And catch for thee girls of mild silver, or of furious gold; / I'll lie beside thee on a bank & view their wanton play / In lovely copulation bliss on bliss with Theotormon:" (7:23-6, E50) Helen Bruder (William Blake and the Daughters of Albion, Macmillan, 1997) identifies this "harem fantasy" as the point of Oothoon's "most acute apostasy" where she moves from free love to being a procuress, and so "sliding into the final snare, set for any woman who tries to 'cry love' at this particular historical moment." (82-3) Furthermore, I would draw attention to David Worrall's more recent work on The Book of Thel and Swedenborgianism, "The Post-Colonial, Post-Swedenborgian Female Subject" in The Reception of Blake in the Orient (Continuum, 2006), which draws attention to Blake's very probable disgust with a Swedenborgian free-love commune to be set up by Carl Wadstrom in Sierra Leone - the type of commune where women had to share their sex regardless of whether they wanted to or not.

Apologies - a rather long-winded way of saying I don't think that Blake should be included as a "free love" advocate: my own opinion, to repeat, is that I think he probably was, but only according to a rather strict definition of the term and probably only for a very short period of time, and that to add it here could cause some confusion. Jasonwhittaker (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this argument. Certainly Schuchard's book is problematic, and Blake would not have countenanced any coercive group sexual activity. And interpretations of the poem you mention do vary. Perhaps instead a nuanced paragraph should be added to the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My own recommendation would be a category on gender and sexuality more generally. Bruder's book is an excellent one, and she recently edited Women Reading William Blake (Palgrave, 2007), as well as the forthcoming Queer Blake (Palgrave, 2010) with Tristanne Connolly (and also organising a conference on Blake and sexuality this Summer). I would recommend her work as some of the most sustained and engaged with this topic, and which should be consulted before jumping into this tricky topic. Would add something myself, but not been a member of WP long enough to have access to editing the main article. Jason Whittaker 17:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwhittaker (talk • contribs)

The Blake article was recently protected because of excessive vandalism. But you can propose text to be inserted here, and other editors would be glad to put it in the main section. I have just added a section to the main article, which I hope has enough nuance and qualification to satisfy folks. However, the "category" doesn't have to be lifelong advocates, and I think his (admittedly abortive) request for a second wife or mistress does kind of qualify him for the category. The category already includes Margaret Sanger and Emma Goldman. However, not reinstating category right now. Quite right, I should wait for consensus--WickerGuy (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the vandalism thing (and am rather glad of it) [my correction - I mean I am glad of the protection!]. By the way, regarding the section on free love, I agree with most of your comments (e.g. Blake's criticism of marriage), but still wonder if labelling it as "free love" could still be a cause of confusion. Why not try "Blake and sexuality", or something along those lines - then it could develop into a significant section that would probably not cause such controversy and also allow extension into other, important areas of Blake's thought. Jason Whittaker (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have very 50/50 feelings about that. On the negative, since the Victorians used that exact phrase "free love" although the word has morphed, I think avoiding it to avoid controversy amounts to a kind of "dumbing down" of Wikipedia, much like the misbegotten switch of the title of the first Harry Potter book from "philosopher's stone" to "sorcerer's stone" for USA publication only (just because a poll showed few American kids knew what it was.) The word "economics" means in England more or less a synthesis of what we call "political science" and "economics" in the USA. A European who says he is an "evangelical Christian" means something different than most Americans. Similarly, with the word "liberal". "Fornication" used to mean relations with a prostitute, but now means relations between any two (both) unmarried people. If the Victorians called their activist movement "free love" we should stick to that with caveats and explanations, but not dumb it down catering to modern ignorance of how the word has morphed over time. However, the advantage of changing the section name is that it allows a broadening of the scope of the discussion. Perhaps the best is to make "free love" a subsection of the other.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Victorian free love as a subsection, especially as Blake himself didn't use the term "free love" and so, even if applied very specifically to Victorian notions, it is still being used anachronistically with regard to Blake's period and needs to be clarified as reception. In relation to that, it is also perfectly legitimate to talk about post-60s concepts of free love as drawing upon Blake, for example in Allen Ginsberg's writings who regularly appeals to Blake. For the moment, however, I agree that it's absolutely right to distinguish those Victorian tenets from later ones. Jason Whittaker (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Technically, Blake did use the phrase "free love" but not in context with a larger political movement, though the latter may have taken (consciously or unconsciously) the phrase from Blake. I described Blake as a forerunner, but could perhaps add "subsequent" movement. The influence of Blake on Allen Ginsberg goes way way beyond issues of sexuality. Possibly Ginsberg appeals to Blake specifically in the context of issues of sexual ethics, but I just don't know if he does or not. Shall investigate--WickerGuy (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO - well done, I like your additions and Ginsberg's reverence for Blake is worth investigating and definitely had an impact during the 1960s and 70s...Modernist (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake: Blake did use the phrase "free love" in Earth's answer, and also in "Jerusalem". Regarding Ginsberg, his appeal to Blake is also in terms of sexual as well as social politics, and there has been a considerable amount of work since 2000 (beginning with Christopher Hobson's Blake and Homosexuality which has, indeed, drawn on Blake's notion of a "sexual commonwealth" appealing to homosexual as well as heterosexual practices. I would add to Modernist's comments - while I had reservations about a possible historical anachronism of the term, I think you have drawn attention to this very clearly and Blake's opinions on sexuality are definitely worth the explication. I have reservations about some of his opinions (there is some very dark, as well as some fantastically liberating, material in the later prophecies), but it is precisely worth drawing attention to for that reason. Jason Whittaker (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly no disciple of Blake, But he's very bracing. When talking about anachronism, we should be clear if we are talking about a) two slightly different senses of the words "free love" or b) Blake predating even the earlier "free love" movement. With regard to the latter (as I have pointed out), no one denies that Mary Wollstonecraft is a feminist although she predates the coining of that word by a century, and with regard to the former, Wikipedia doesn't avoid terms that have multiple meanings in different cultures like "liberal" or "evangelical" as that is really to just dumb down an encyclopedia. Ergo, I'm in favor of reinstating the category.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to the change the following sentence: "Some biographers have suggested that Blake tried to bring a concubine into the marriage bed in accordance with the beliefs of the Swedenborgian Society,[33]" to "Some biographers have suggested that Blake tried to bring a concubine into the marriage bed in accordance with his understanding of the beliefs of the Swedenborgian Society,[33] A simple search of "concubine" in the works of Swedenborg show him explaining why concubines were "permitted" to the ancient Israelites (and not to modern Christians) and how sex within marriage is the only way to a true spiritual union. At most Swedenborg states that a concubine may be tolerated in the same way divorce is tolerated (and for the same reasons). Stating as fact that Swedenborgians believe concubines should be brought to the marriage bed is at the least controversial and maybe slanderous 67.169.7.177 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Douglas Greg Stinson

There were already abroad multiple interpretations of the implications of Swedenborg and his doctrine of "conjugal love" by the time Blake came on the scene. He was unlikely to have been unique in his interpretation. The question is not so much what Swedenborg said, but what Blake's Swedenborgian contemporaries said. However, the question deserves further investigation.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrected to "more radical branches of the Swedenborgian society" per note of Mr. Stinson. Again note that whether Blake really did this is disputed by other scholars and is so noted already in the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Before re-adding the category - achieve consensus, and stop the edit war, a clear secondary source reference would help...Modernist (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to weigh in against the category. It seems like excess to have such a category when Blake is discussed in detail on the Free love article. Lithoderm 21:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That may be an argument against the existence of the category itself. Many categories have been created on Wikipedia, and then after a few weeks or months been abolished as a problematic category. But if the category exists (with all the problems of it being potentially misunderstood), I would think Blake belongs. Note that the category already includes Emma Goldman, M.E. Lazarus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russell, Havelock Ellis and Margaret Sanger all of whom are clearly free love advocates in the older Victorian sense. While there may be some valid arguments against having the category at all, Blake pretty much fits the same mold as these other figures (at least Blake as a young whippersnapper, possibly not the maturer Blake).--WickerGuy (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Solicitation of opinion

A broad sense at this point is that restoring Blake to the WP category of "Advocates of free love" could cause confusion and be misconstrued. With the copious clarification now embedded in the article itself, do folks still think this is a problematic addition?--WickerGuy (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You have done a lot to qualify earlier statements, and I am sure that the reception of Blake did include appeals to his opinions on sexuality regarding free love. Howevever, before this becomes embedded (I notice he has been added to the category of "free love advocates"), could it be possible to provide some firmer evidence? You mention that "Blake is sometimes considered a forerunner of the subsequent 19th century "free love" movement", with a footnote to "In particular in the 1915 work William Blake: poet and mystic by Pierre Berger, Daniel Henry Conner", but without full references this is hard to verify. I also wonder whether it is possible to do some additional work on possible advocates: I am sure there is something on Swinburne that would fit this category - and his links to Blake are incredibly strong; in addition, I have always been tempted to try and trace any connections between Blake and the strong exponent of free love, Edward Carpenter - c.f. Sheila Rowbotham's recent A Life of Liberty and Love - but haven't had time to follow it through. Carpenter in turn was extremely influential on D. H. Lawrence, who was inspired by Blake among others. Apologies, but as the section stands I still don't find it compelling: I think it could be, but I'm not convinced by the evidence just yet (and think it may be there with some extra digging around). Jason Whittaker (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

All excellent points. The section could be fleshed out. However, is it the role of WP to establish that Blake is a forerunner of the Victorian free love movement, or simply that other reasonably reliable scholars think he is? (No original research being a WP policy.) It would be a good idea to expand by noting more precisely why some such believe this. Also, it is a relatively uncontested position. I can't do more on this till Saturday tomorrow, but yes the section could use a bit more.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"I can't do more on this till Saturday tomorrow" - understand that! (Have done less on this than I intended.) If I find any references will add them also. Jason Whittaker (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Blake is mentioned on p. 135 of the Rowbotham book.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Query

If I parse you correctly, what you want in the section is subsequent members of the free love movement who were actually consciously influenced by William Blake, rather than an appeal to similar ideas in Blake's own work. Do I read you rightly?--WickerGuy (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Swinburne is the author of an entire book on Blake much of which talks about free love. If it is influnce you are seeking, seek no further.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - you did parse me correctly, and your amendments have strengthened the section for me. And, yes, Swinburne's "William Blake: An Essay" is precisely the text I was thinking of (and precisely the sort of interpretation of VDA that is taken to task by Helen Bruder, which is where I think I started off with this - I'm currently doing some work on Swinburne and Blake, and ACS's relationship to the Victorian "free love" movement is a tricky one, but it's there). Thanks also for the Carpenter note - I'm hoping there will be more because of the Lawrence link. Apologies if my remarks have sounded critical, but it is simply because the topic of "free love", once you move beyond some clearly defined exponents who actually saw themselves as members of a movement (such as Carpenter), is difficult to pin down and so I wanted clarity here. Jason Whittaker (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel you have no need to apologize for anything at all. WP is meant to be collaborative.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed standards for citations and referencing

(At last - done enough editing elsewhere to finally allow me access to this page!)

Citations and references are a little bit of a mess on this page and, if others would not object, I propose to start amending them and would also like to make some suggestions - I'm making the proposals before jumping in and then starting a mini riot.

For anyone writing an academic paper or book on Blake, the standard edition (MLA approved) is David Erdman's The Complete Poetry & Prose of William Blake (revised edition, Dover 1988), which is now supplemented by the Blake Archive. I've been browsing through various articles on Wikipedia and referencing seems to be mixed, so my proposal would be as follows:

• Inserting a reference at the end of each citation would create a mess of citations at the end of the article, so standard practice in books for the past twenty or so years has been to provide an initial statement along the following lines:

"All quotations from Blake's writings are from The Complete Poetry & Prose of William Blake, revised edition, edited by David V. Erdman (New York: Dover, 1988). These are identified in the text by plate and line numbers followed by "E" and a page number."*

• I shall then go through changing quotations in line with current best practice, e.g. "Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion. (8.21, E36).
• If anyone else wishes to modify quotations, then using Erdman is generally very easy as the text is available online at the Blake Archive. Some of the references to Complete Works of William Blake Online are to Nelson Hilton's version of Erdman at the University of Georgia, but I believe that the Blake Archive version has been more recently checked than Hilton's (which is not, I hasten to add, to cast any aspersions on Hilton's work).
• I am guessing that the reference to Complete Writings with Variant Readings in the footnotes is to Bentley's edition, though there is not sufficient material to verify this - it could be an edition of Keynes, but looking on my bookshelves there is no actual title that matches this precisely: in any case, all have been superseded by Erdman.

Okay, the reason for me not actually doing this just yet is that far more regular contributors by myself may consider it out of odds with how other Wikipedia articles are (not) referenced, but it is the convention in academic publishing. Unless there are major objections, I'll start tomorrow (it may take a bit of time to check up all the references). Jason Whittaker (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

*Although this is the standard text you would see in academic books on Blake, it might be a little verbose and heavy-handed for this page, so I will gladly welcome any suggestions (and really, I do welcome suggestions from more seasoned Wikipedia editors; I've been writing on Blake for nearly 20 years now, but usually in old media...). Jason Whittaker (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a tricky way to reference something multiple times on WP while referencing it just once. I don't understand it that well- someone recently redid all the references on the Stanley Kubrick article to work this way. It's worth looking into. Overall excellent suggestions. I used Erdman and the Blake archive myself extensively on my Master's Thesis.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start (section on religion) and will try to do more after work today. Couple of things to draw attention to: Erdman follows Blake's often unorthodox spelling without correction. I'm so used to this now I don't think about it (and it is the standard), but it will probably look weird to many readers; after inserting one sic I thought that would look ridiculous repeated too many times, so I propose simply to follow Erdman's version as the most accurate without remark. Secondly, while working through the quotations, I noticed that some people use the cquote tag, which puts fancy quotation marks around the citation. As these only occur a couple of times, I am tempted to remove them so that quotations appear to follow a more standard format. Any defenders (i.e., should I add them to the others, which does fill me with a little dread, as checking citations wasn't the instant task I thought it would be!). Jason Whittaker (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent idea overall. I would a;so avoid using "sic", and mention the non-conventional spellings in the same note that you would put at the top of the references section. Regarding the online versions of Erdman: the Blake Archive may have been updated more recently, but the advantage of the U Georgia version is that it is not written in Javascript, so that links to specific works or sections can be formed. As for multiple referencing, "refname" is already in use in the "Visions" section of the article, so by looking at how that section is formatted you should be able to get an idea of how to create such references. @Wickerguy- I'm glad you wrote your master's thesis on Blake; we are lucky to have relatively specialized people working on these articles. However, it annoys me slightly that you repeat it so often, although this is probably not your intention. I am reminded of a friend of my parents who was fond of beginning sentences with "Well, when I was at Harvard..." I do not mean to offend, only to point out that we have already been acquainted with this fact several times and that it really doesn't carry much persuasive weight on the internet. Thanks, Lithoderm 02:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"the advantage of the U Georgia version is that it is not written in Javascript" - thanks Lithoderm: very good point and I shall amend accordingly. Also just taken a look at the VDA section and see what you mean (and also that it is the Bentley edition, which is a sterling piece of work but simply not the standard MLA text anymore). Jason Whittaker (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jason, see you at the conference in Devon. Sorry the Blake issue of VCB went dead. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nay probs - check your messages and speak soon. Jason Whittaker (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

@Petropoxy, My second mention of it was a bit overdefensive since my veracity on the issue had been challenged (perhaps in a bit of tongue in cheek way). I was simply asserting that I was being truthful the first time. My third (and very last) mention of it (not counting this right here) was directly in conjunction with JW's citation queries, just to mention I also had used David V. Erdman & the Blake archive. I could have just mentioned that I used Erdman & the Archive without being so specific about context- when and where. My stung vanity may have carried me away. I'll avoid gratuitously mentioning it. Thank you.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

London?

The beginning of the article states that "Although he only once journeyed farther than a day's walk outside London during his lifetime" but the articles on Felpham and And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time both state he wrote Milton in Sussex. Even if this is the 'once' mentioned in the quote I think it best for it to be cleaned up as it seems to suggest that Blake spent almost his entire life in London and ignores the three years he spent away. 144.173.209.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

Victorian free love

This section is, simply put, terrible. First, the title is a problem since Blake was not a Victorian, having died 10 years before the era began. Second, and more importantly, it is not well referenced, with vague mention of an obscure early 20th century title with no further bibliographic information, and bare urls for websites of unknown veracity, notability, and relevance. The section is also poorly written, and too long, devoting a great deal of space to an idea that is hardly central to contemporary Blake scholarship---Is there a current scholar or biographer that deals with this issue?---Are Berger and Wright taken at all seriously or given any weight in contemporary scholarship on Blake, or are their views now considered passe? These are important questions to consider. As it stands, this is an embarrassment. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well other folks kept plugging me for more and more information to justify putting Blake in the the category of "advocates of free love" (which I did not initiate) and asking me to continue fleshing out the argument and explanation, so I kept expanding the section more or less by what seemed to be strong demand to forestall skepticism and provide greater clarity. I freely admit it is hastily and a bit clumsily written.

To answer one of your questions, Berger is pretty obscure, but Wright is taken quite seriously by Blake scholars including one of the great masters Northrup Frye. A well-known 1924 scholar who has written on this is S. Foster Damon in William Blake: His Philosophy and Symbols, also taken very seriously. There is also the 1960s book by John Gordon Davies The theology of William Blake, and the recent 2006 book William Blake and gender by Magnus Ankarsjö. So the issue is certainly both in respected books and in recent books!! I used Berger because he had such a detailed discussion.

When you say "an obscure early 20th century title with no further bibliographic information" do you mean you need more information about that particular book?? There are five books cited, one from 1977. Which book do you mean? Berger? I should note that one of the five books (by famed poet Algernon Charles Swinburne) is really being used as a primary source, as ACS was indeed a strong free love advocate, and considered Blake a personal inspiration.

The section explicitly names Blake as a "forerunner" of the movement, so his not being Victorian is irrelevant. No one denies that Mary Wollstonecraft was a feminist just because she lived 100 years before the term "feminism" was coined. (Correction, more like a few decades.)

On the URLs, reference http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~women/papers/freelove.html is hosted by Michigan State University (any website ending in .edu should be presumed fairly reliable), a 2nd website is reproducing something from an earlier printed copy of "The Libertarian Enterprise" which is a well-known libertarian publication (it certainly represents what libertarians believe, but as such is used as a primary source, not a secondary one) and the article is by Wendy McElroy, a well-known libertarian author. A 3rd URL is justifying popular impressions of the 1960s and is MSNBC, a reliable news organization. The fourth URL is "poetsgraves.uk". Of the four, it is really the only one of questionable provenance being a one-man operation, but it is only used to justify Blake's well-known popularity in the 60s counterculture, an insight easily found in other sources. The other 3 all seem to easily fit WP's criterion of reliability.

I'd be delighted to see the section trimmed (or just stylistically improved), but there seemed to be considerable demand (mostly from user Jason Whittaker) to present a lot of concrete evidence, citations, and qualifications of what the phrase does and does not mean.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Broadly speaking my work on this section does not seem well-shaped or structured, but more like a set of bullet-points. It needs to go beyond just proving the case and providing context (where I think my work succeeds) but also needs have a clearer arc. I also used Berger because he was more nuanced about what Blake does and does not say. The issue is dealt with in Blake scholarship today but on a much smaller scale, so for a detailed exposition earlier sources may be better as the issue was politically alive back then.

My point about the web-sites/cites still stands.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a footnote. This may be obvious. The section was written in two spurts separated by an interval between March 29 (the earlier shorter version) and April 3 (the newer longer version). The aim of the first was just to establish context (what is and is not meant by "free love" in the 19th century) and point to a few scholars who simply affirmed that Blake was a forerunner of the movement.
Because Blake predates the movement, other editors felt that a spelling out of the evidence and the case was necessary. Hence, the longer version which provides "case for" in addition to context. But as noted in my last post half an hour ago, the section just doesn't flow- it's bumpy, going in bursts and spurts and stops. It really does need some stylistic massaging.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten second half

I have now done minor revisions of the first half and a major rewrite of the second half which (as the edit-summary states) sprawled and meandered very badly. The second was put in because of the eagerness of Jason Whittaker to see the evidence fleshed out, and Whittaker was pleased, but it was not well organized. Republican Jacobite used rather strong language on this, but had some very legitimate stylistic concerns on this piece. The new version is shorter and maintains a more consistent focus. It is perhaps unwise to add stuff under pressure to the point of hasty additions of lengthy material.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten and rearranged again

The old version of this pretty much skipped from scholar to scholar in an effort to merely and simply establish Blake's pedigree. The new version is now much more organized by subject instead of scholar, and I think this makes a vast difference in terms of focus and clarity. Apologies for posting the first draft so hastily.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

To further answer Republican Jacobite's query on Pierre Berger & Tom Wright. PB was a professor of English lit at the University of Bordeaux. Like Wright he is not so well-known but is often cited by one who is. I earlier mentioned that Thomas Wright is cited by Northrup Frye who is a giant in Blake studies. Similarly, Pierre Berger is cited by S. Damon Knight whose book William Blake: His Philosophy And Symbols is a giant landmark in Blake studies. Neither Berger nor Wright is themselves a giant, but the giants use them.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Slightly loathe to wade into this one again, especially as my previous contributions appear to obscure as much as clarify. Keeping my response as simple as possible, I think it is valid to make a claim for Blake viewed as a precursor to Victorian free love, but as it stands (and partly in response to my demands for evidence) this section is far too long. I would cut it myself, but every time I look I think it will take a day or two and so leave it aside. In my opinion, it should be no more than a couple of paragraphs because I'm afraid I just can't think of any of the major Blake scholars working today who uphold this position with Blake: it is mainly of historical interest in terms of Blake's reception in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Jason Whittaker (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think my last two rewrites have made it much clearer, but it still could use quite a bit of trimming. It's not that today's scholars find the old position to be wrong, as it now not much of a 'live' issue though certainly that contemporary Swedish fellow (Magnus ???) has qualified it. I think the business on Algernon Swinburne is absolutely essential to the piece as is the qualification of what the phrase meant in the 19th century. Those bits I think just absolutely have to stay. The other bits sort of clarify what Blake himself did or did not mean, which is separate from what the 19th century did or did not mean by "free love". This perhaps could be summarized more neatly. There certainly may be more references to Daughters of Albion then necessary.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to edit this (more work still required) to provide some logic to the discussion - i.e. a movement from nineteenth to twentieth to twenty-first century responses. Any further edits should be careful of extending polemical debates (for example Wright) that were not accepted by mainstream Blake criticism; it is fine that they are noted, but they should not dominate an article the purpose of which should be to provide a clear and coherent account of the state of play in understanding Blake's life and work for the general reader. Also watch out for non-sequiturs (e.g. if Blake opposed marriage laws in his day, why did he marry and remain married?) I must emphasise there is a danger in using citations from Blake's work to prove that he held a point: much of the prophetic poetry in particular is dramatic, with different characters espousing different opinions, so there is always a danger of using any viewpoint in the poetry as a definite indication of Blake's own views. Jason Whittaker (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems a good edit so far. I had meant to work on it myself, but was chasing down a (computer) virus instead. Your point about citations is good, except that it is fine to note that other people read Blake in this way, especially the very frequent reading of Visions of Daughters of Albion in this fashion.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the citations of various scholars in the new version seem to repeat what other scholars have said while omitting what was distinctive about what they said. The final section on how Blake's views shifted has nothing left. However, I don't want to expand the section. It was quite wise to cut all the material on the differences between Victorian 'free love' and the 1960s. That was sort of a rebuttal to the Talk page comment about 'new age projection' but was really unnecessary to the main article.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

More important. The new version seems to remove earlier citations in which full book titles are given and retain later ones which only give an author and a page number. This really needs to be fixed.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Have revised Jason's mostly excellent edit.

This revision of Jason's trimming is about 1 paragraph longer than before. On a hard-copy it has gone from my original 2& 1/2 pages to JW's 1 page to a current 1 & 1/2 pages. I am not sure if the citations are fixed. I felt it especially important to restore material on the shift and modification of Blake's views late in life. JW's edit when going from one scholar to the next seemed to occasionally retread the same material (including citations of the pivotal Visions of the Daughters of Albion) letting them reinforce each other rather than note what was distinctive about each scholar's perspective. IMO, it should go in the other direction. I have also restored as (not nearly as essential) the material on Blake's understanding of human 'fallenness' (possibly even more tightly focused than before). Finally, since Visions is cited by so many of these scholars as evidence of Blake's free love views, I think is especially important that one of Magnus A's counter-arguments also comes from a line in Visions, and felt that that particular counter absolutely had to go back in. Hope this is reasonably satisfactory to all. Cheers--WickerGuy (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

PS It would great to expand other sections of the article as well.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Good job on updating Cultural Influence

I think JasonWhittaker did a fine job updating the Cultural Influence section.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - main article it leads to is a mess and requires much further work, but exam/marking period leaves me with less free time than I would like, hence hasty edits for the moment. Jason Whittaker (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I regret that I'd not noticed, but it is much improved! Well done. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Watch out for the love-in - very un-diabolical (but thank you again). Minor point, I am snatching time to make additions/amendments to the references at the end, very slowly but surely: will concentrate on this as something I can do between marking... Jason Whittaker (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I elected to notice, simply because in one case you shrunk/condensed my writing, and in another you put some meat on the my rather skeletal contribution, fleshing/stretching it out. In both cases, I think well done. I am now reading the book William Blake and Gender which you called my attention to on this Talk page, and am thoroughly enjoying it. OK, that's enough flattery for one post.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Patti Smith and Blake

First note. I am not at all the anonymous IP editor who added in Patti Smith (nor the one who initially added the painter Henry Fuseli to the list of influences though this also I restored after another editor zapped in and gave an explanation), but once it was in, it seemed reasonably evident to me it should stay.

Patti Smith has all of the following connections to William Blake of which the 1st listed is by far the most important for WP purposes.

1. An 2007 exhibit at the British library entitled "William Blake: Under the Influence" included manuscripts by authors influenced by Blake including novelists Phillip Pullman, Tracy Chevalier, and artist/singer Patti Smith.
Patti Smith was in there because of her song "My Blakean Year", and is described as "a lifelong Blake devotee". See exhibit page at http://www.bl.uk/news/2007/pressrelease20070110.html. See lyrics to "My Blakean Year" at Patti Smith's own website "http://www.pattismith.net/trampin/myblakeanyear_lyrics.html",. Patti Smith on her website writes "i have worked on this song for awhile. reading a lot of william blake as well as the wonderful blake biography by peter ackroyd. his life was a testament " at http://www.pattismith.net/trampin/myblakeanyear.html

2. In 2009, Patti Smith performed "Blake in Poetry and Song: An Evening with Patti Smith" at the Morgan Library & Museum in New York City. http://www.themorgan.org/public/program.asp?id=236 3. In November 2000, she participated in the launching of the William Blake exhibit at London’s Tate Gallery with a performance with Oliver Ray at St. James Cathedral, and also at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art in conjunction with its William Blake program in June 2001 http://www.myspace.com/pattismith

4 She edited an anthology of his poetry (Sorry it's mentioned in Smith article, not in this WP article as my prior edit-explanation erroneously stated.)
5. She has publicly lectured on Blake (actually on Blake and Rimbaud).
6. She has performed along with other pop artists (including Sinnead O'Connor) at a festival devoted to musical tributes to Blake. http://williamblake.tribe.net/thread/e02eb410-0e52-4383-aef9-84767af06949 --WickerGuy (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And plus she published a book of poetry called "Auguries of Innocence" some of the poems of which are in direct and explicit dialogue with Blake. Nightspore (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, just add a citation to the article somewhere. Yworo (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed WP has an article on Smith's "Auguries" right here Auguries of Innocence (poems) which has above it the caveat "For the poem of the same name by William Blake, see Auguries of Innocence." The opposite caveat appears in the article on Blake's Auguries simply titled Auguries of Innocence --WickerGuy (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention.....

The passage just restored by User:RepublicanJacobite didn't even claim Blake was orthodox to begin with. It simply asserted these were his views on orthodoxy, positive or negative.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently Deleted Material

The recently deleted material was in the wrong place regardless of whether or not it had been better referenced!! That section is about Blake's Claims to have seen visions, NOT about his general artistic legacy!! As such, the two paragraphs removed by User:RepublicanJacobite are irrelevant to that section to begin with.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first Cousins paragraph does mention the visions briefly near the end, but is still not focused enough on them. The Williams bit is still 100% irrelevant to the section.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. My concern is that it was unreferenced, but it is also irrelevant to that section. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pickering and Rossetti Manuscripts

I just came to Wikipedia to try and find out a bit more about Blake's 'Rossetti Manuscript', but didn't find very much. Might also be good to have a mention of the Pickering Manuscript at some point too (I mean apart from when you click 'show' on Literary works). Bibliography perhaps? Is that an appropriate place for these kinds of documents?--Rsm77 (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Influences

I wonder if this article could use more cited text backup for the list of folks influenced by Blake. Other articles maintain strict standards of article text with citations for any list of influences in the Infobox. I remain puzzled by the presence of Northrup Frye. He wrote a major study of Blake's poetry, but does that make hims someone that Blake influenced??--WickerGuy (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not somthing I have time or inclination to do, but Frye's absolutely central theory of genre, which is the heart of the Anatomy of Criticism is heavily influenced by his reading of Blake. And then he also influenced such poets as Jay MacPherson. I think Bloom should be there too: the more general point is that lines of influence go through the very major critics as well who affect what people think of as literature. If Frye and Bloom get their sense of literature from Blake, and if MacPherson and (say) James Merrill get some of their sense of what they can do in poetry from Frye and Bloom. Does that make sense? Nightspore (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good answer. Thanks--WickerGuy (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - I try to keep the influences / influenced sections empty. They're subjective unless they can be sourced. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Links to Fine Arts Presentations

This link: William Blake at Fine Arts Presentations features the artworks and short bio of William Blake. Does the community believe this additional link in the External Links section would enhance this document? The elibrarian (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like spam. It doesn't reference anything specific, it isn't a reliable source, it advertises the author's own work, and other things, see WP:EL...Modernist (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked carefully but it actually looks like it might be a mirror of this page and so redundant. The problem here is that are already too many external links which need serious trimming, and no reason to add more. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding marriage with Catherine Blake.

I have noticed that the article states that W. Blake died on August 12, 1827, however in the info under his pictorial, in the info regarding Spouse(s), it says that he was married with C. Blake between 1782 and 1831, I find this impossible but I didn't want to edit or make any change without posting this here, besides I don't have any reliable info to fix this, I just came to this article and found this. wDc (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

She lived until 1831, but of course the marriage only lasted until his death in 1827. I assume you are referring to the infobox which states "Spouse(s) Catherine Blake (1782–1831)". It doesn't actually say those are the marriage dates. Either it was added by someone who intended to put the life dates, or more likely it originally said (1782-1827) and was then "corrected" by someone who did not realise it was intended to give the marriage, not the lifespan (and who didn't know the "birth" date should have been 1762). Paul B (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it was the other way round. The life dates were altered to half-correct marriage dates [2]. Paul B (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography vs References

Is there a need for two sections which have the same purpose? The bibliography also starts to seem rather messy and doesn't have the links to the main sections like the Wikipedia citations / references section does.

What is happening here? Crazyskeggy (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Blake's views on the Enlightenment

I removed a paragraph devoted to the hypothesis that Blake was actually "an Enlightenment thinker". I did not do so because I disagree necessarily, but because it seemed to me, having read and studied Blake for ten years, to be a poorly worded statement of what is essentially a minority opinion among Blake scholars. That said, I do understand that neoclassical thought had an influence upon all of the English Romantics in some form or another-- Coleridge especially,-- and I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly better worded paragraph on Blake's views. In the end of Jerusalem, Newton, Bacon, and Locke, are all swept up by Christ's redemptive power,-- the complexities of Jerusalem, however, make it so that I have a hard time properly including that scene in such a paragraph myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.234.95 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. It was poorly written and even more poorly sourced. Thanks for noticing and taking action. Victoria (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Article related discussion

This should be noted here, since it won't show up on project alerts. There is a discussion at Talk:Songs of Innocence (album) including whether to move the new U2 album over the William Blake Songs of Innocence (1789) redirect to the later Songs of Innocence and Experience combined Blake collection. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)