Tag Archive: sexuality


Milton wants to celebrate self-love through the journey of sexual liberation, breaking away from the Urizen state of mind that “dares to mock with the aspersion of Madness/Cast on the Inspired, by the tame high finisher of paltry Blots” (202). The madness of course being the image offered through plate 47: two men–one enjoys the pleasure of another’s giving.

As we’ve discussed in class, the act of Self-Annihilation is no annihilation at all; it is meant to liberate the person in action–in this case through masturbation and/or sex with the member of the same sex. Therefore, in order for there to be a contrary state of mind, there ought to be the destruction of negations. In other words, you can’t know your true sexuality until you’ve experimented with it i.e., with yourself, others of same sex, and others.

So when Milton “come[s] in Self-annihilation & the grandeur of Inspiration”, he is reaching the orgasmic transcendence that is offered through the imagination of Los, by throwing away his filthy garments from Albion’s covering through reason (202). Then, and only then, can one stand at the entrance of the void outside of existence–and through the practice of imagination–see it as a womb: the birth of the Eternal Death of Albion.

–Daniel Lizaola Lopez

Advertisements

By examining the engraved images of what is clearly a depiction of a man performing oral sex towards another man is actually an engraving that is supposed to portray Blake’s encounter with Los (further explained in the footnotes).

By taking a closer look at the detail of both images, both of the men are presented almost as identical replicas of themselves. Looking at the engravings at first kind of creeped me out because my mind instantly tried to envision myself having sex with an embodiment of myself (literally)! However, after trying to make sense of Book Two of Milton (again a bunch of mumble jumble), I came to the idea that the engravings is actually a representation of self-annihilation through sexual liberation, aka masterbation. As we have previously discussed with other works of Blake such as The Visions of the Daughter’s of Albion, as well as his implications to Moravian theology, we already know that the idea of sexual liberation is suppressed and viewed as “sinful” primarily from religious institutions. However, our sexual liberation is that which aids us to break away from the limitations in which religion bounds us in.

At the beginning, Blake states that “Contraries are Positives A Negation is not a Contrary” in other words the idea of contraries is actually something that is crucial for human existence; i.e we must have up as well as down (Blake, 187). A negation on the other hand is what limits us from accepting the duality of everything that exisits in our natural world. He further claims that we must get rid of all negations in order for us to understand the existence and purpose of contraries.

“The Negation must be destroyed to redeem the Contraries. The Negation is the Spectre; the Reasoning Power in Man; This is a false Body: an Incrustation over my Immortal Spirit; a Selfhood, which must be put off & annihilated alway. To cleanse the Face of my Spirit by Self-examniation…” (Blake, 201).

Could Blake potentially be trying to tell us that we must be like Jesus the “rebel”, in which  we break all form of rule in order to merge with the imaginative that we ourselves suppress within us?  This “negation” or surprising of sexual desires must be destroyed; we must be comfortable with the notion of “taboo” in order to redeem the contraries that for the most part lies within us, (hence the idea of the engraving of being Blake giving himself oral sex). And we all know, that sexual liberation is ultimately the gateway to eternal delight.

p.s, this is my attempt to try to make sense of this mumble jumble, I don’t know what I just wrote but this is probably how Blake felt after writing both books.

-Kimberly Martinez-Melchor

Woman’s Power: Chastity, Seduction, & Flirtation

Enitharmon’s eighteen-hundred-year-old slumber is described as the “female dream” because it epitomizes all that Enitharmon wanted. As described in S. Foster Damon’s A Blake Dictionary, Enitharmon is a free woman, and hopes to use her freedom and indoctrinate man with the belief that woman have more power (Damon 132a). To exert her dominance and power over man, she proclaims sex a sin so that women may exert their power over men through chastity (denying men sex), flirtation and seduction (tempting man with sex). Enitharmon says that to “Forbid all Joy, & from her childhood shall the little female / Spread nets in every secret path” (Blake 101), referring to the fact that women now have the upper hand over men, since men are pious and fearful of sin. This is evidenced by the fact that Enitharmon even laughs in her sleep when the men place “Over their doors Thou shalt not” (Blake 105), since the men are foolish enough to be fearful of the Joys of women. Therefore, Enitharmon’s dream is called a “female dream” because those eighteen hundred years mark the dominance of women over men (only in this sexual aspect). What makes this interesting is that at the end of the female dream, Enitharmon’s children (all allegorical symbols for some sort of sex act, sexual feeling, etc.) awake sex deprived after Enitharmon calls upon them and realizes that they are experiencing issues: Ethinthus with excessive waters, Leutha with many pestilent daughters, Oothoon in tears, etc. It begs the question that if it was a female dream, why were her children awaken repressed and with issues. Perhaps Enitharmon’s female dream, meant to be a dominance of woman over man, only stifled passions on both sides.

-Sara Nuila-Chae

 

 

Although Enitharmon is this embodiment of “spiritual beauty”, Blake uses her character in Europe a Prophecy to represent the idea of female domination, as well as the limitation of women exploring their sexuality, preventing them from reaching the imaginative. Enitharmon’s character is a representation of humanity’s ability to flourish, but does not through the mode of self-limitation.  In addition, her mere existence seems very contradicting because of her representation of one idea, but preaching its contrary. In line 3 of plate 8/5, Enitharmon says “That Woman, lovely Woman! may have dominion”, however, in lines 8-9 of the same plate she also says “Forbid all Joy, & from her childhood shall the little female Spread nets in every secret path” (Blake, 101). If Enitharmon is the idea of female domination and empowerment, why is it that she herself limits women by forbidding them joy (sexual desires) and encouraging them to “spread nets” in slumber, which ultimately bound these desires? Through this we can further see Enitharmon’s slumber as the age of religious rule, which gives women a “sense of power” by their crucial role as birth givers, but restrain them from their sexual desires and enjoyment as it was viewed as “sinful”.

Thus, the reason why Issac Newton’s seizing of the “Trump” awakened Enitharmon from her eighteen hundred year-old slumber was because of Newton’s initial and important contribution to the Enlightenment, which went against the rule and teachings of the church. His radical scientific discoveries contradicted everything that religious authority had instilled within the homes of Europe. This created havoc, and gave birth to a revolution of new ideas and ways of thinking, which awakened Enitharmon by the disruption of her traditional implements on England.

-Kimberly Martinez-Melchor

Why so many “Moravian” animals?

This post is a response to the previous post’s fourth question,  “Does the line ‘The Tigers couch upon the prey & suck the ruddy tide’ (Europe 18/15:7; page 106) allude to a Moravian view of Christianity or, literally, to images of fearful tigers in other Blake poems (such as ‘The Tyger’ for instance)?”

Firstly, why do we have to choose between two possible interpretations? Surely the line can allude to both Blake’s other images of fearful tigers and a Moravian view of Christianity. To suggest that interpretation is a matter of either/or is especially “Urizenic” (it has just struck me that metalworkers call compasses “dividers”). Indeed, I think that its allusion to a Moravian view of Christianity makes Europe’s image of a tiger more fearful and therefore more likely to evoke the fearful description (but not depiction) of the tiger in “The Tyger.”

I have argued before that Blake used seemingly Moravian imagery in connection with animals; Europe‘s image of a tiger seems to be an extension of that (my argument is in the third comment down). We don’t have to be aware of the image’s Moravian undertones to find it fearful, but it is easy to read as Moravian. “Couch” gives the image a sexual interpretation that it would not otherwise have had. Although “couch” functions in this sentence as a verb with a similar meaning to “crouch,” it also evokes the idea of beds and lovemaking. The tiger’s sucking of blood then can allude that specific Moravian practice in The Shifting Times. The main cause of the fearfulness of the tiger in “The Tyger” is its predatory nature, the fear it inspires in humans and other animals alike. The image of the tiger in Europe takes this further by suggesting the tiger is also a sexual predator like the primates in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.

So, why does Blake make images of animals fearful by having them engage in predatory/destructive sex or sexual acts? The sexual images of the tiger and the primates contrast with the visual images of couples having apparently very enjoyable sex throughout Europe and The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. One possible interpretation is that Blake is commenting on ideas of prelapsarian and postlapsarian sex, given the figures in the clouds are angelic and therefore presumably not fallen. However, the excessive and hedonistic depiction of floating couples having intercourse would probably not have matched traditional understandings of prelapsarian or ideal sex1. The naked couples’ obviousness to what is going on around them suggests they aren’t entirely earthly or fallen beings. In contrast, the animals’ sexual behavior is predatory, fatal and therefore very morally compromised. However, in the case of the primates, it is very highly exaggerated and the same is somewhat true with the tiger. It is also incongruous, even ridiculous,  to have happy couples mating amid textual and visual images of destruction. Maybe Blake is lampooning the idea of an unsurpassable distinction between ideal prelapsarian sex and less ideal postlapsarian sex. I wouldn’t be surprised if he saw the distinction as “Urizenic.”

1 I’m drawing on the distinction between prelapsarian and postlapsarian sex from Milton’s Paradise Lost, in which sex before the Fall is depicted as purely loving, whereas afterwards it is more lustful. Perhaps someone could enlighten me further on ideas of prelapsarian sexuality? Given Blake’s obsession with Milton, it does seem highly credible he could be playing with his distinction, but I wonder if it was a manifestation of a wider theological distinction.

We discussed in class today Blake’s controversial representation of female rape in the “Argument” to Visions of the Daughters of Albion.  Just because we read Blake retrospectively as a “genius” does not mean we should let him off the hook for his sexist representation of female rape:  Oothoon plucks “Leutha’s flower,” asserted her feminine sexual identity by raising “up from the vale,” and, in doing so, occasioned the “terrible thunders” that “tore” her hymen (“virgin mantle”).  Read in isolation from the rest of the poem and from the political and historical context of the 1790s, the “argument” seems to blame the female victim of this poem, Ooothoon, for her rape.  Clearly, this presents a problem for Blake critics who redeem Blake as a radical and proto-feminist thinker ahead of his time.  However, as responsible readers of poetry (and not just Blake’s works), we MUST read this “argument” in its socio-historical context; otherwise we miss the deep layers of meaning implicit in this transgressive act of sexual violence.

Here are the three important contexts to note:

1. Leutha symbolizes sex under the law; sin or guilt, as described in Damon’s A Blake Dictionary.  In a moment strongly reminiscent of Sin’s birth in Milton’s Paradise Lost, Leutha in Blake’s Milton springs from the breast of Satan, and has declared him her “parent power.” Leutha’s separation from Satan, then, is fallen and illusory.  For Milton, Sin sprang from Satan’s head and then becomes–to the shock of the heavenly onlookers–Satan’s adulterous, incestuous lover, copulates with him, and gives birth to Death.  (see the Blake’s engraving of Paradise Lost below, which depicts the moment when Satan, who forgot his transgressive act, encounters Death at the gates of hell and Sin intervenes).

2.  The Blake scholar Angela Esterhammer in “Blake and Language” in William Blake Studies (2006; edited by Nicholas M. Williams) notes that Blake plays with the phonetic resemblance of his invented names.  She argues that the poet creates “pictures of speech,” clusters of loose associations that point to specific socio-historical contexts through sound-patterns.  She therefore concludes that

Blake’s Leutha represents ‘Protestant speech’ — an association achieved partly through the pun on ‘Luther’, but mainly through her own verbal behaviour in Blake’s prophetic poems, where she manifests ‘Protestant’ modes of speech such as public self-scrutiny, self-exaggeration, confession, and plain-spokenness (73).

3. Leutha’s flower symbolically resonates with Mary Wollstonecraft’s elaborate conceit about the overfertilized, beautiful, yet barren flower: women who are reduced to becoming men’s sex toys thanks to religious and educational conduct books that assign them a subservient role as good domestic helpmates, i.e. “abject slaves.”  See The Vindication of the Rights of Women.

"Satan, Sin, and Death: Satan Comes to the Gates of Hell", Illustrations to Milton's "Paradise Lost", The Butts Set, 1808, Blake Archive, Huntington Library
“Satan, Sin, and Death: Satan Comes to the Gates of Hell”, Illustrations to Milton’s “Paradise Lost”, The Butts Set, 1808, Blake Archive, Huntington Library

These three contexts help flesh out the allegorical structure underpinning Blake’s “argument”:  rape (tearing the mantle in twain) symbolizes a theological (“Protestant”) and patriarchal sexual violation of the holy female body (Christ as a female).  In uncovering these dense allegory, I am arguing that Blake is providing a Moravian-antinomian critique of corrupt and oppressive Protestant gender norms in England.  To clinch this argument, I treat the torn mantle as another associative “pictures of speech,” a vivid biblical allusion to Jesus’s redemptive moment during his crucifixion:

“And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split” (Matthew 27: 50-51).

This moment of vaginal penetration as rape ironically recalls the holy place of the tabernacle: an inner room called the holy of holies, or the most holy place according to biblical tradition.

As described in the Old Testament, this inner room of the temple was a most sacred room, because it was God’s special dwelling place in the midst of His people during the Israelites’ wanderings in the wilderness. The Holy of Holies was a perfect cube separated by a thick curtain, known as the “veil” (in Hebrew means a screen, divider or separator that hides). What was this curtain hiding? It was shielding a holy God from sinful man. Whoever entered into the holy of holies was entering the very presence of God and anyone other than the high priest who entered the holy of holies would die. Even the high priest, God’s chosen mediator with His people, could only pass through the veil and enter this sacred dwelling once a year, on a prescribed day called the Day of Atonement. “But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.” (Hebrews 9:7). So the presence of God remained shielded from man behind a thick curtain during the history of Israel. However, Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross made direct access to God available to all people–not just the priests. When Jesus died the curtain in the Jerusalem temple was torn in half, performing the sacrificial atonement that could finally unveil the holy of holies.

But what exact does the holy of holies look like? To answer this question, we need to know about the figure of cherubim (plural term for hybrid lion/human angels) that were embroidered onto this curtain. They were spirits who serve God, and God was thought to be present in between these two spirits. The cherubim serves as a reminder of what use to be housed in this inner room: the Ark of the Covenant. This transportable ark was said to contain the testimony of the people of Israel, or the Law of the original Ten Commandandments written on stone tablets. A special lid or “mercy seat” covered the top of the ark and was ornamented with two cherubs whose outspread wings overarched the cover and touched one another (see image below).

illustration from the 1728 Figures de la Bible; illustrated by Gerard Hoet (1648–1733) and others, and published by P. de Hondt in The Hague; image courtesy Bizzell Bible Collection, University of Oklahoma Libraries

According to Kabbalists, Moravians, and Swedenborgians, the golden sculpture of male and female cherubs that guarded the Ark were entwined in the act of marital intercourse, thus forming an emblem of God’s joyful marriage with his female counterpart, Jerusalem. When the Temple was sacked by pagans, the erotic statuary was paraded through the streets in order to embarress the Israelites. In other words, God manifests through sexual union and guides those who work with this holy mystery.

So to return to Blake’s image of virginal penetration as rape. Oothoon, in picking the ideal feminine flower of beauty from Leutha’s vale, or sex regulated under the law, has freely chosen the joys of sexuality but also, ironically, the very patriarchal law that prohibits  women’s full enjoyment of sexuality: Protestant-Lutheran theological notions of female chastity and original sin.  For Blake, these notions are associated with the triumph of Satan.  In other words, the holy of holies–sexual union of the cherubim–is violated by a violent, satanic theological-patriarchal penetration of sacred sexuality; hence, the trope of rape.  The holy of holies cannot be made universal until humanity is free from sex under the law, especially for women, as revealed in Christ’s bodily crucifixion (for Moravians, Christ’s death wound/womb). This allegorical argument, I believe, aligns Blake’s sexual (Moravian) theology with his feminist politics, which is clearly very different from Mary Wollstonecraft’s more secular feminism.

But I’m afraid that I’ve de-emphasizing Blake’s sexist views on the female sex victim by offering this elaborate allegorical reading, yet another redemptive interpretation of Blake that reads rape metaphorically rather than literally!!!  This reading raises a central question for class discussion: as critics of English literature, what is our ethical responsibility toward the literature we interpret?

For next Wednesday (2/21), students will write use the scholarly article linked below to support a specific interpretation of Blake’s The Marriage of Heaven and Hell:

http://bq.blakearchive.org/40.3.schuchard

Provide a close reading of ONE specific passage from Blake’s The Marriage of Heaven and Hell that, in your view, displays Moravian images, themes, and ideas.  Please cite the article using the MLA citation guide (you can access the guide electronically under the “Children of Los” tab in the course blog).  Please categorize your post under “Christ and the Body” and don’t forget to create specific and relevant tags.

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split (Matthew 27: 50-51).

As we discussed in class last Friday, I think these lines from Matthew are central to the allegorical “Argument” that prefaces “Visions of the Daughter of Albion,” particularly the last two lines “But the terrible thunders tore / My virgin mantle in twain.” In order understand the significance of this biblical allusion for Blake’s sexual politics, we need to discover how and why this moment of vaginal penetration as rape (why rape?) is ironically related to the holy place of the tabernacle: an inner room called the holy of holies, or the most holy place.

As decribed in the Old Testament, this inner room of the temple was a most sacred room, because it was God’s special dwelling place in the midst of His people during the Israelites’ wanderings in the wilderness. The Holy of Holies was a perfect cube separated by a thick curtain, known as the “veil” (in Hebrew means a screen, divider or separator that hides). What was this curtain hiding? It was shielding a holy God from sinful man. Whoever entered into the holy of holies was entering the very presence of God and anyone other than the high priest who entered the holy of holies would die. Even the high priest, God’s chosen mediator with His people, could only pass through the veil and enter this sacred dwelling once a year, on a prescribed day called the Day of Atonement. “But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.” (Hebrews 9:7). So the presence of God remained shielded from man behind a thick curtain during the history of Israel. However, Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross made direct access to God available to all people–not just the priests. When Jesus died the curtain in the Jerusalem temple was torn in half, performing the sacrificial atonement that could finally unveil the holy of holies.

But what exact does the holy of holies look like? To answer this question, we need to know about the figure of cherubim (plural term for hybrid lion/human angels) that were embroidered onto this curtain. They were spirits who serve God, and God was thought to be present in between these two spirits. The cherubim serves as a reminder of what use to be housed in this inner room: the Ark of the Covenant. This transportable ark was said to contain the testimony of the people of Israel, or the Law of the original Ten Commandandments written on stone tablets. A special lid or “mercy seat” covered the top of the ark and was ornamented with two cherubs whose outspread wings overarched the cover and touched one another (see image below).

illustration from the 1728 Figures de la Bible; illustrated by Gerard Hoet (1648–1733) and others, and published by P. de Hondt in The Hague; image courtesy Bizzell Bible Collection, University of Oklahoma Libraries

According to Kabbalists, Moravians, and Swedenborgians, the golden sculpture of male and female cherubs that guarded the Ark were entwined in the act of marital intercourse, thus forming an emblem of God’s joyful marriage with his female counterpart, Jerusalem. When the Temple was sacked by pagans, the erotic statuary was paraded through the streets in order to embarress the Israelites. In other words, God manifests through sexual union and guides those who work with this holy mystery.

This indicates a profound relationship with Hindu and Buddhist Tantra, as displayed in the santuaries of their temples:

So to return to Blake’s image of virginal penetration as rape. Oothoon, in picking the ideal feminine flower of beauty from Leutha’s vale, or sex regulated under the law, has freely choosen the joys of sexuality but also, ironically, the very patriarchal law that probits womem’s full enjoyment of sexuality: Bromion’s “terrible thunders” of reason, acting on behalf of Urizen (“your reason”). In other words, the holy of holies–sexual union of the cherubim–is violated by reason’s violent penetration (rape). Hence, the holy of holies cannot be made universal until humanity is free from sex under the law, especially for women, as revealed in Christ’s bodily crucifixtion (for Moravians, Christ’s death wound/womb). This allegorical argument, I believe, aligns Blake’s sexual (Moravian) theology with his feminist politics, which is clearly very different from Mary Wollstonecraft’s more secular feminism.

I’m offerring a provisional reading here…any other thoughts?