After finishing reading "The context of Blakean contraries in 'The marriage of Heaven and Hell'", by David Stewart, a 5699 word article, I have so much of a better understanding of "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" than I did before! In this article, Stewart talks mainly of what the word "marriage" is supposed to mean in this poem, and how it should be interpreted when we read it. The first couple sentences of Stewart's article pretty much summarize what a majority of the article is about: "One of the most problematical aspects of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell is the term "marriage." How are we to interpret it? In the biblical context of two becoming one flesh, or in the more modern context of two joined in equal harmony?" Throughout the article, Stewart talks about how the entire meaning of sections of the text changes if you interpret marriage to mean the biblical definition or the modern definition. Also, Stewart points out that there are many points in the poem where it looks as if Blake is using it in the modern context ("Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence."), but there are also points in the poem where it looks as if he is using more of the biblical context (The Angel is dominated by the Devil and consumed and becomes a Devil). In order to read the poem effectively, you have to have the understanding of what marriage means, and this article prepares you to read the poem very well.
When I first read the poem, before I read the article, I was very confused. To be honest, I did not like it at all and I dreaded doing this project. Before I had even started it, I found myself shooting it down and making myself believe that it was horrible. Then, when I found this article in class, I said to myself, "10 pages! Heck no!" But then I showed it to my teacher, Mr. Turner, and he gave me a whole new view on the project and a whole new view on the article! I got into reading it and annotating it and found that a ton of different people have a ton of different views on what marriage means in the poem! When I read it before, I didn't even think twice about the meaning or think anything special of the poem at all. I just thought, "Oh boy, another poem." When I started reading the article, everything started falling into place. Sentences that before made no sense, were all of a sudden clicking in my head and I was beginning to get more and more intrigued by the article. A couple of sentences on the second page really stood out to me as they responded, "If one sees marriage in the biblical context of one partner dominating the other then Blake has not really retrieved evil from 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." This really seemed weird to me because of the way it takes down, what seems to be, the only two options for marriage. It tells how if Blake meant it in the biblical way, it wouldn't have quite worked, but if he meant it in the modern way, it would have been pretty much a failure as well. Throughout Stewart's article, he quotes scholars left and right and pretty much hits on every contradiction in "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell". Although the right interpretation of Blake's poem is not known, David Stewart's article helps you understand it a whole lot more in depth. It goes through the two different interpretations (biblical and modern) for most, if not all, of Blake's contradictions In "Heaven and Hell", gives the ideas of how many different scholars have interpreted it, and also references contraries to where it happens in the poem. David Stewart's "The context of Blakean contraries in 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell'" is a great article for anyone looking to get more out of William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell".
No comments:
Post a Comment