William Blake was very concerned with the archetype (remember that word?) of the creator--whether it be God, the artist, the poet. . . whatever. This image depicts the demiurgic figure Urizen. (A demiurge is the creator or craftsman of the universe.)
The beginning of the Marriage of Heaven and Hell reads:
The Argument
Rintrah roars, and shakes his fires in the burden'd air;
Hungry clouds swag on the deep.
Once meek, and in a perilous path,
The just man kept his course along
The vale of death.Roses are planted where thorns grow,
And on the barren heathSing the honey bees.
Then the perilous path was planted,
And a river and a springOn every cliff and tomb,And on the bleachèd bonesRed clay brought forth;
Till the villain left the paths of ease,
To walk in perilous paths, and drive
The just man into barren climes.
Now the sneaking serpent walks
In mild humility,
And the just man rages in the wilds
Where lions roam.
Rintrah roars, and shakes his fires in the burden'd air;
Hungry clouds swag on the deep.
As a new heaven is begun, and it is now thirty-three years since its advent,
the Eternal Hell revives.
And lo! Swedenborg is the Angel sitting at the tomb: his writings are the linen clothes folded up. Now is the dominion of Edom, and the return of Adam into Paradise. See Isaiah xxxiv and xxxv chap.
Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.
From these contraries spring what the religious call Good and Evil. Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing from Energy.
Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell.
As you can see, Blake views Hell as a symbolic, not necessarily negative state. How does Blake's view of Hell differ from Dante's and which version is closer to your beliefs?
16 comments:
unless i am mistaken, blake's ideas seem to go along the same lines as yin and yang in that pure good cannot exist without pure evil.
i think blake sees hell as a necessary evil that balances out the idea of heaven, a purely sinless and beautiful place. without realizing something as sinister as hell, how could anyone fathom the goodness that comes from heaven? our minds need something to compare things to in order to grasp their depth.
i think dante sees hell as an unnecessary place where sinners are sent. i doubt he sees any reason for it's existence other than to house the morally corrupt. while hell could be considered a sort of "holding pen" for the condemned, blake sees it as a tolerable necessity to life and dante sees it as something to be loathed and feared.
Blake recognizes man's need for balance. Light and dark, hot and cold, good and evil, etc. Blake's view of hell reminds me of music. Sometimes, in order to emphasis a cresendo, you must get quieter in odrer to create a more dramatic cresendo. Likewise, in order to apprechiate the true beauty and purity of heaven, you must see the dirty, corrupted hell too.
I hope that makes sense. Perhaps I'm way off base here. I simply cannot beilieve that I would have the same sense of awe toward heaven without the equal but opposite amount of awe toward hell.
As far as Dante's theory, it almost seems like he sees heaven and hell as the ultimate Supreme Court. Hell allows him to continue his life among the morally corrupt knowing that eventually they will get precisely what they deserve and he will be rewarded with the joys of heaven. In my opinion, Dante is a bit presumptuous. He assumes that he knows who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. He seems to even find some sick delight in the unavoidable fate of those he deems corrupt.
Also, what makes him so sure that he's going to heaven? I don't think that anyone knows for sure where they will end up. The hope of going to heaven is balanced out by the fear of going to hell. Which I suppose is going back to Blake's theory. That's slightly ironic since my religion is closer to Dante's. What was Blake's religion, if he had one?
in response to dante's "presumptuous" manner, i agree completely. my only reasoning behind this mindset of his is that the inferno is his tale. the people in his hell are there by his opinion and of course he's not going to portray himself as being in hell.
while i do agree he paints a rather pompous picture of himself, i think anyone writing a tale about what they think is would seem the same way.
what they think hell is*
excuse the mistype.
In response to Constant Questions, Blake broke from organized religion early on. He believed that "innocence", a state of love and naive trust for humankind and belief in Christianity, was being used by the English Church to control citizens. According to your text book, recognition of this control results in "experience"--when one sees cruelty and hypocrisy.
From early childhood, Blake claimed to have visions of angels, which his parents validated and encouraged. Although he was dismissed as insane by many of his contemporaries, he is now recognized for his insight and wisdom.
A third state, "Organized innocence" is marked by one's awareness of "the divinity of humanity" that coexists with "opression and injustice."
In that case, I suppose that I side more with Blake as far as the view of heaven and hell. Not to say that I would go as far as breaking from organized religion as a whole. I do, however, believe that the way people view organized religion could use a reform.
Oh my gosh, this is awesome.
B-rad, your point on yin and yang was amazingly insightful. I am in awe of how you reached that point, because I was mostly baffled until I read your comment.
I think there is so much truth in what you said, that hell almost exists to offset Heaven. If we didn't have a fear of Hell, what exactly would inspire us to strive for Heaven?
I mean, would we still have the same motives? And what about the motives to encourage others to seek Christ. If there was no alternative to Heaven, if when people died they either went to Heaven for accepting/living a life of Christ, or just stopped existing, would we witness at all?
God's a crafty one, he knew what he was doing when he banished Lucifer like I would like to banish Uggs. Smart guy.
Despite the quote from Virgil, about hell not being Dante's personal fantasy, it really kind of is, isn't it? I mean, he places people and sins according to his ideas. And really, if he were being honest with himself, he should probably be in hell somewhere too right? Isn't that technically what we all deserve, without Christ's sacrafice?
I love Blakes point, and I think his hell could balance out Dante's biased one nicely.
Be careful, though. Blake is thinking about creation--and how the "destructive" force also plays a role. He sees hell as Energy. Think about Blake's etchings. He used acid to burn away the patterns, thus, he destroyed material in the process of creation. The idea of needing opposites in order to compare is o.k.--but Blake does not believe Hell is a place, like Dante.
Also, Dante would not put himself in hell as his whole journey is about repentance and finding his way back to God. And he is attempting to motivate others to repent as well.
I think that Blake's idea of destruction being necessary to creation is not necessarily his own. After all, according to the bible, didn't God flood the earth and basically start over with Noah? And I'm sure there have been similar stories even before that. However, Blake has taken the idea to a new level. I'm just not sure about how much positive connotation he gives "energy." I she merely justifying his idea of hell to the religious fanatics of his time? Or does he truly see hell as a force equal and opposite to hell? If the latter is true, I'm not sure I can fully agree with Blake because, like Dante, I always have and always will believe that God's power is superior to all.
Once again, I think Blake is turning accepted notions around to mean the opposite. He's talking about breaking the rules. In the "Memorable Fancy" part of Marriage of Heaven and Hell, "the devil answered: '. . .If Jesus Christ is the greates man, you ought to love him in the greatest degree. . .did he not mock the sabbath and so mock the sabbath's god? murder those who were murdered because of him. . .I tell you, no virtue can exist without breaking these ten commandments. Jesus was all virtue, and acted from impulse, not rules." Blake is talking about breaking the rules in order to find truth, to be creative, to perceive the infinite.
I like what Plato said about Blake stating that you have to break the rules in order to find the truth. In some ways I find what Blake says intriguing and sometimes i agree with his words. I think that in some situations, the best way to learn the reality of a situation is to live it. I think a person can learn a lot from experiencing something, even though they may have to commit a sin in order to "learn the truth." I think personal experience and sometimes making the wrong decisions teaches us the most valuable lessons.
i personally am fascinated by blake's writing. i feel like his ideas are more of what should be expected of human beings. to sin is human and he accepts this fact and makes it a part of who we are rather then portraying it as a vicious and evil thing. we all sin.
dante is a very important piece and i find it equally fascinating but after being exposed to blake, i feel like he's more real. rather than painting this huge religious tableau of these remarkable and terrible things, he just sort of tells it like it is. i feel more in touch and more understanding of his points of view. he's not necessarily condemning anyone. i guess i just find his "version" if you will, more logical.
As far as the whole "Throw the rules out the window" thing goes, I think it all depends on the situation. I admire those who act on impulse and desire, who go for what they truly want in life, but if you are aware that your impulsive actions could possibly lead to hurting yourself or those around you, I think it is selfish. Needless to say, I have made more than my share of mistakes, and probably broken too many rules, so I am not criticizing anyone for their mistakes. I am simply saying that you should try and think carefully, and take it from someone who knows, repeating a mistake does not lessen its intensity in any way. However, those who act on their desires, and who go for what they truly want in life, I admire with a passion. I have acted on my desires, on what I truly want in life, and it has not worked out at all the way I would wish.
But if you can work it to your advantage so that you achieve true happiness, more power to you. And sometimes, time is truly the key. Sometimes, rushing things is simply not an option.
In response to Plato's reference to A Memorable Fancy, I had a lot of trouble reading that particular portion. Maybe it was the religious part of me getting defensive, which is entirely possible, or maybe I just didn't understand. For example, I would like to know exactly what the reference to mock ing the sabbath was referring to, because isn't there always the possibility that Blake mistook teaching for mocking? Also, Who precisely did Jesus murder that was murdered because of him? And as far as the adulterer, Jesus turned away from the man made law, not God's law. God's law was not to commit adultery in the first place. Jesus merely took this act that was considered unforgivable at the time to demonstrate the extent of God's mercy. I don't really understand any of the rest of the references either. Maybe I just need specific examples from the bible, but it seems to me that Jesus did not in fact break any of the ten commandments, but rather the man made laws inspired by them. Which, since he was sent by God, he had every right to break man's laws. It just seems like Blake is taking the bible and twisting things to fit his will just like he accused the church officials of doing. I realize that these are a lot of questions, so if anyone has answers, help me out please.
Since the laws mentioned in a Memorable Fantasy were man made laws as Questions said than BLake could be taken as a commentary on the politiical and religious aspects of the goverment.
Post a Comment