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.