Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00191)

--------------676D7C32A858E8FEECCB71EC

Of course once we begin to embark upon the interpretation of poetry, we venture
into opinions.  However, in the case of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, I
believe that the consensus of opinion among Blakean scholars is that the poem
was addressing the founders of the newly formed Swedenborgian Church, and the
dogmas they were making from Swedenborg's writings.  This opinion is based upon
various historical evidences including Blake's own letters.  So, my reading of
the quote you give below is that Blake may be criticizing Swedenborg, but he is
also criticizing the church founder's understanding of  their new patriarch.
Also, Blake is at the same time revealing the philosophy of his own visions.  I
don't know if Swedenborg imagined himself as the only "one on earth that ever
broke a net."  Perhaps he did, but more to the point, the church founders grew
to believe that he did.  Here, Blake is telling the church founders that it is
not true.  Rather, he is one of generations of  theosophers who have conversed
with angels.  Swedenborg, in his desire to be accepted among the scientific
community, wrote in Latin and used scholarly methods by drawing from many other
writers (such as Paracelsus and Boehme) in order to gain more acceptance of
his own visions.  Thus, Blake is implying that by evidence of Swedenborg's own
writings, his visions are not unique, so why elevate him to the status of
founding a new religion.  When Blake says that Swedenborg talked with the
"Angels" and not with "Devils who all hate religion"  Blake is speaking of
organized dogmatic religions.  Blake is also intimating that he has spoken with
the devils and sides with them on this matter.  Keep in mind here that by
"devils," Blake does not mean this in the Christian sense.  Rather, the devils
are wiser than the angels because they have freedom of choice.   Enough for
now.
jhe

Pam Giese wrote:

> Blake may have been a member of the same group, but he wasn't completely
> enamored with Swedenborg.  Here's an excerpt from Blake's The Marriage of
> Heaven and Hell:
>
>    I have always found that Angels have the vanity to speak of themselves
> as the only wise; this they do with a confident insolence sprouting from
> systematic reasoning.
>   Thus Swedenborg boasts that what he writes is new: tho' it is only the
> Contents or Index of already publish'd books.
>   A man carried a monkey about for a shew, & because he was a little wiser
> than the monkey, grew vain, and conciev'd himself as much wiser than seven
> men.  It is so with Swedenborg: he shews the folly of churches, & exposes
> hypocrites, till he imagines that all are religious & himself the single
> one on earth that ever broke a net.
>   Now hear a plain fact:  Swedenborg has not written one new truth.  Now
> hear another:  he has written all the old falsehoods.
>   And now hear the reason.  He conversed with Angles who are all religious,
> & conversed not with Devils who all hate religion, for he was incapable
> thro' his conceited notions.
>   Thus Swedenborg's writings are a recapitulation of all superficial
> opinions, and an analysis of the more sublime --but not further.
>   Have now another plain fact.  Any man of mechanical talents may, from the
> writings of Paracelsus or Jacob Behem, produce ten thousand volumes of
> equal value with Swedenborg's and from those of Dante or Shakespear an
> infinite number.
>   But when he has done this, let him not say that he knows better than his
> master, for he only holds a candle in sunshine.
>
> ********
> The above is presented for discussion --I've never taken the time to digest
> enough of Swedenborg to say I agree or disagree.
>
> But the last two paragraphs are among my favorites of Blake's writing.  It
> speaks to the role of intellect versus intuition in spiritual awareness.
> We can expend large amounts of time on intellectual analysis or this
> person's work or that person's work, without allowing our intuition to be
> aware of the sunshine, the light of Truth that surrounds us.
>
> Pam
> pgiese@snd.softfarm.com
>
> "Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light..."
>
> ----------
> > From: "Jeff Needle" <jeff.needle@general.com>
> > Subject: Re:Swedenbor
> > Date: Friday, March 20, 1998 9:48 PM
> >
> > >
> > Again, thanks for the insight!
> >
> > Blake certainly had contempt for the impulse toward organization,
> > didn't he?
> >
> > Take care.
> >
> > > The group was in London, and poet William Blake was a member.
> > > jhe
> > >
> > > Jeff Needle wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Dear Jeff,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Swedenborg is considered a "theosophist" in the 18th century
> > > > > meaning of that word. After Swedenborg's death, his followers
> formed an
> > > > > organization dedicated to the study of his writings.  The
> organization
> > > > > was called "The Theosophical Society."  sometime before 1825, it
> was
> > > > > re-organized into today's Swedenborgian Church.  Of course, there
> is no
> > > > > organizational connection between this and the Theosophical Society
> that
> > > > > was founded by Blavatsky, Olcott, Judge and others in 1875.
> > > > >
> > > > > jhe
> > > > >
> > > > Very interesting!  Another bit of information that I'm glad to
> > > > have.
> > > >
> > > > Do you happen to know where "The Theosophical Society" was
> > > > organized?  Was it here in the US, was it in the UK?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks so much.
> > > >