The Meaning of "Marriage" In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"

In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" the word "marriage" is a very important, yet very controversial word. If one takes it to mean one thing, and another takes it to mean another, a whole different story is told. I think of it like that old game everyone used to play called telephone. One person thinks of a saying and whispers it to the person next to him. That person whispers it to the person next to him, and so on, until the saying reaches the last person. When the first person stands up and says the saying how he heard it, it is usually messed up or distorted in some way. Everyone gets frustrated with the other people because everyone thinks they whispered it exactly right. This relates to the meaning of marriage quite a bit. The only reason the word is so controversial is because there are so many different definitions people think it to mean, and everyone thinks that they are right. Really, there are only two main types of marriage: the biblical meaning and the modern meaning. The biblical meaning is two becoming one flesh. The more modern meaning is two joined in equal harmony.

Most of my information on this subject comes from the article I just read by David Stewart. He talks long and hard about all the different views on marriage and how certain parts of the text seem more inclined towards the modern meaning and some more inclined towards the biblical meaning. One point that Stewart brings up is the in "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell", we are told that the angel is consumed and becomes a devil. This consumption of the angel seems to give me the feeling that Blake was thinking of marriage in more biblical terms (two becoming one flesh).

The article also quotes David Erdman saying "Blake was half in jest when he spoke of the 'marriage' of Heaven and Hell." This quote is very strange. In order to believe this, you would have to completely take the biblical context of marriage out of the picture. Erdman is taking marriage in the modern context, but what is even more baffling is that he is calling the transformation of the angel a huge flaw in the poem!

As Stewart says in his article, "If one sees marriage in the biblical context of on partner dominating the other then Blake has not really retrieved evil form the exclusionary position to which orthodoxy has condemned it. On the other hand, if marriage is seen as a joining of equality then we have to agree with Wittreich and argue that the work is, artistically, unsuccessful as we do not witness a marriage of equality.

Most of my information on this subjects comes from the article I just read by David Stewart. He talks long and hard about all the different views on marriage and how certain parts of the text seem more inclined towards the modern meaning and some more inclined towards the biblical meaning. on point that Stewart brings up is the in "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell", we are told that the angel is consumed and becomes a devil. This consumption of the angel seems to give me the feeling that Blake was thinking of marriage in more biblical terms (two becoming one flesh).

The article also quotes David Erdman saying "Blake was half in jest when he spoke of the 'marriage' of Heaven and Hell." This quote is very strange. in order to believe this, you would have to completely take the biblical context of marriage out of the picture. Erdman is taking marriage in the modern context, but what is even more baffling is that he is calling the transformation of the angel a huge flaw in the poem!

As Stewart says in his article, "If one sees marriage in the biblical context of on partner dominating the other then Blake has not really retrieved evil form the exclusionary position to which orthodoxy has condemned it. On the other hand, if marriage is seen as a joining of equality then we have to agree with Wittreich and argue that the work is, artistically, unsuccessful as we do not witness a marriage of equality.

"The Argument" - First Impressions

I just read "The Argument", part of William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Now, I know a little bit of background on this, but this is my thoughts, views, and how I personally interpret this poem. When I read it for the first time, I seriously had no clue what was going on, but now that I have read it multiple times, I see that the entire piece is full of contradiction after contradiction. In the first stanza alone, there are quite a few illogicalities. "Once meek, and in a perilous path, The just man kept his course along The vale of death" (line 3-5). In this, meek (humble) contradicts the "perilous path" and "The vale of death." Why in the world would a meek man be in a perilous path in the first place, let alone keep the path on his way to death?!

There are actually two different contradictions in the next three lines. "Roses are planted where thorns grow, And on the barren heath Sing honey bees" (lines 6-8). The first is when Blake says "Roses are planted where thorns grow..." Roses and thorns contradict each other because normally, roses are thought of a nice, lovely plant, and thorns a dark, ugly plant. Hardly ever would they mix or be grown in the same place. The second is when Blake states "And on barren heath Sing the honey bees." Any bee in its right mind would NEVER go to a "barren heath" (a bare bush or plant), because they need the nectar that good, healthy plants give them.

Throughout the rest of the poem there are more contradictions such as: "And a river and a spring On every cliff and tomb", "on bleached bones red clay brought forth", and many more at that. Overall, I thought that the poem was very good and very well written. It kept me wondering the whole time and thinking about the words and context. All the contradictions seemed kind of funny to me, but after reading the poem, I can see that Blake was making a point. From the background that i already have, I know that the contradictions in this poem were to show that in order to have good, good must first turn into evil, and influence it to become good. If any of you have not read this poem yet, I would strongly recommend it to anyone!

Awesome Video on William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"

I was looking around on youtube for videos that would help me and others understand William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" a little better, when I came across this video. I really like it because it stays away from the deep, deep context, while still presenting the main point in a way that is easy to understand. It is proven that seeing images helps a large amount of people to understand writing better, and this video shows why. Blake was the first Romantic to be well known for both his poetry and his paintings. The main reason for this was because he created them to go together with each other, almost as if they were one piece of work. Throughout the entire video, the screen switches from parts of the poem or Blake's quotes, to pictures/paintings that Blake created to go with the certain part of the text. The creator of this video did a great job deciding which quotes and which lines to put in this video, in order for the viewer to get the greatest, simple understanding of the poem.

When I was first looking for videos that explained this poem well enough to post, I saw this one, watched 20 seconds, and skipped over it like it was just another stupid one. After searching for a few minutes I thought to myself, "Oh boy. This is going to be impossible to find a good, informative video."  I'm not quite sure what provoked me to click on this video again, maybe it was just by chance, but I did. But this time I watched the whole thing and saw that it was much more informative than I originally thought. Before, I thought that it wasn't as in depth as I wanted, and that I didn't want a slideshow type video. But after watching it, I realized that it was a good option to post on this blog, and that it would be good for others to see before going more in depth with the poem, and analyzing the deeper aspects and meanings of it as well.

Video By: Blakeanators