When we read William Blake's lengthy and dense work, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell," one takes immediate notice of his brutal sarcasm toward the organized church. However, the sarcasm is not the only aspect of the work that is most apparent--it also contains a well developed arguement for a spirituality that is non-religious, non-institutionalized, and non-organized. The piece, with its crafty combination of poetry and prose, seems to imply Blake's inherent yearning for a spirituality that answers his own hesitations. The passage that strikes me the most as directly philosophical, yet inherently spiritual, is spoken by the Devil in the fourth plate:
"1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul for that calld Body is a portion of the Soul discernd by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.
2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumfrence of Energy.
3. Energy is Eternal Delight. (97)"
These three statements introduce six key entities that underlie the remainder of the work. They are Body, Soul, Senses, Energy, Reason, and Ethernal Delight. These six components, according to Blake, recreate Man. The fact that Blake gives a particular capitalization to these words implies a sense of personification. Blake is no stranger to this literary tactic-- his poesm "The Divine Image" and "The Human Abstract" seem to work to a similar effect.
The first numbered statement intertwines Body, Soul, and the Senses. Most will argue that the Body and the Soul are two very separate entities, only conjoined in the physical context of Earth. Blake not only argues that they are spiritually conjoined, but also that the Body is actually Soul in itself. He claims that it is the five Senses that allow us to discern the Body as a portion of the Soul in disguise. What Blake does not specify in this portion is whether or not the Soul can exist without its Bodily component. Can it? He has already stated that the Body is the Soul when we interpret it with our senses--but what about the Soul by itself in singularity? From a philosophical perspective, his arguement is lacking. He leaves out a discussion of contraries within a list of contraries. Why doesn't Blake delve deeper? My experience with good philosophy is that it is very difficult to permeate--for the most part the philosopher makes it very difficult to find holes in his arguement. A more open-ended declaration such as Blake's speaks to the rhythm and form of a religious text--not a philosophical piece.
Blakes goes on the mention Energy and Reason in his list of three-fold truths. Energy, he decides, doesnot come from the Soul as a whole, but derives rather from the Bodily portion. He makes obvious pains to allow the reader to discern Energy as "sin" in a Biblical sense. Maybe like sin, Energy is a component of the Body, not of the Soul. Then, Blake explains that Energy itself is circumfrenced, or surrounded by Reason. When I read this passage, I immediately picture Man continually seeking to rationalize his Energies. I would imagine Blakes' modern illustrated component of this section ot be an image of a child eating pizza, arguing that the meal really does contain most of the essential food groups.
The final entity that Blakes discusses is that of Eternal Delight. He states that "Energy is Eternal Delight." And why wouldn't it be? If we have the ability to rationalize all of our Energies with Reason, we will never feel as if we have done something wrong--therefore, we are eternally delightful? However, what is this feeling of Eternal Delight? What does it look and fee like? Is it similar to contentment? Purposeful existence? Joy? Perhaps Blake expects us to interpret this on our own, once again straying from the philosophical claims in which the piece is grounded. Within the context of spirituality, do we not ask the same questions about Love, Eternity, and Wisdom?
Blake leave much to be decided after reading "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell." It rouses the quintessential curiosity of spirituality. In fact, it is almost as if Blake seeks to re-define the institutionalized character of religion. Perhaps it is not an institution--but rather, a movement, a collection of impulses that work toward the illustration of Truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Courtney,
Very good job discussing a quite complex and challenging text. I like the way you focus on particular sections of Blake's Marriage of Heaven and Hell, and analyze specific words from the sections you quote. I think your distinction between philosophy and theology, and the methods used in writing either, is helpful; keep in mind, though, that Blake was not trained in either, so it may not be fair to assume he would follow either tradition very closely. Also, don't assume his widespread use of capitalization entails personification. While that may be true today, in the late 1800s the rules of typography were still in flux, and authors used capitalization for emphasis, or sometimes just for the main nouns in a sentence!
Good work over all. I am a bit concerned about your pace, however--remember that you need 18 more entries by June 20.
I really like your metaphor about the child. When I was reading Blake's works, I felt as if he was trying to justify something that was clearly false. His inconsistencies stand out so clearly. He does not like organized religion because he feels that they force narrow-minded beliefs upon him, but yet he seems pretty decided and close-minded himself. This is probably obvious, but I am not the biggest supporter of Blake.
Post a Comment