Talk:Nebuchadnezzar (Blake)

Explanation would be helpful...

"The image of Nebuchadnezzar is connected in Blake with the apocalypse in which the three people that the biblical Nebuchadnezzar burned to death were united with the Son of God,[11] and this image is also connected to Blake's belief in four states of existence in which those burned are able to transcend into the final stage of human existence.[12] Also, Nebuchadnezzar's desire to create a statue represents human history from the beginning until the Apocalypse,[13] and the image of Nebuchadnezzar's rule is connected to Blake's myth of Albion in The Four Zoas.[14]"

Could you expand upon this paragraph? I don't quite see what you're getting at as it is. How do Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego have anything to do with Blake's apocalypse? How does the statue represent human history? Lithoderm (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Expand how? These are quoted from sources. The "Son of God" is apocalyptic. The rest would be original research really. And statue? There is no statue, so I'm confused as to what you are talking about. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

They may be quoted from sources, but where in Blake's writings does he mention these three? It's still unclear. "Son of God" is not necessarily apocalyptic, but is simply another name for Jesus Christ. It says right before your eyes there-- "Also, Nebuchadnezzar's desire to create a statue represents human history..."

No Original Research doesn't mean that you can't clarify what the sources are saying. This all may be true, but it's very opaque. Are the four states the Four Zoas? Is the apocalypse referred to "night the ninth" of "Vala, or The Four Zoas?". What does the source say about specific connections to Blake's writings? The Four Zoas are in fallen states, but all of them are necessary together- In Blake the existence of contraries is necessary. So what is the final stage of Human existence? Albion? What do the sources say? I'm sure it's there.... sorry for ranting at you.... Lithoderm (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Where in Blake's writing are they mentioned? Throughout. This is from Northrop Frye, one of the greatest Blake critics. You can say it is "opaque" but in Blake's version of the apocalypse, they are there. Frye is talking about in particular the Marriage of Heaven and Hell but also includes all of Blake's writings, and says "Similar the three whom Nebuchadnezzar put into the fiery furnace were seen to be walking unhurt in the fire with the Son of God" (p. 196) and on The Four Zoas says "In order to understand the scheme of The Four zoas we must first turn to the Book of Daniel and read the stories about Nebuchadnezzar as legends of Albion which have become attached to that king... Another story in the Book of Daniel tells how Nebuchadnezzar flung three men into a fiery furnance, heated it 'seven times more than it was wont to be heated,' then looked in and said: 'Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.' In Blake's hierarchy of the four states of existence... The story is thus an allegory of the passing of the human body, for which the furnance is a symbol, from Beulah to the fiery city of Eden" (pp. 271-272). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That sort of specific textual reference needs to go in the article. I had forgotten these lines:

FZ9-138.39; E407| How is it we have walkd thro fires & yet are not consumd
FZ9-138.40; E407| How is it that all things are changd even as in ancient times Lithoderm (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, are you going to insert it, or shall I?
Re Johnbod, here's what the Blake Archive says:
Medium: Planographic color printing with water color and pen and ink additions to the impression

Not very helpful, but it would seem to indicate a watercolor monotype as there is no indication Blake ever used Lithography, the main planographic technique. See here: The Blake Archive and here and most pertinently here. The image in Marriage is given here: [1]. Lithoderm (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well some sort of gum/size monotype, as a watercolour one would not give a useful image, unless all still wet, or even then. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Blake experimented quite a bit with printmaking techniques... I'm out of town for the weekend or else I'd consult my sources. It's possible that its water-base tempera they're referring to. Also, here's what the Blake archive says, unless we've discredited it entirely:

As with quills, inks, and varnishes, Blake made his own watercolors. He ground many of the same pigments used to make ink in water and gum arabic instead of oil, and, to make the thicker, more opaque colors, in a thin carpenter’s glue, diluting the paste with water to vary the paint layer’s consistency. In the early days, when he printed in earth tones (yellow ochre and raw sienna mostly), he applied broad, delicate washes in only a few colors, and usually left texts unwashed. He printed late works in red and orange inks, bright colors that invited a more extensive palette and elaborate coloring. He applied colors in thin washes and translucent layers with detailed brushwork, adding blues, pinks, or yellows behind text and often outlining texts and illustrations in pen and ink. The result was a beautiful, strongly linear miniature, with legibility sometimes compromised.
[2] Lithoderm (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so - you need something sticky; I doubt you could paint in straight watercolour on millboard (which the Tate says he used) anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Impressions

I'm puzzled now. The Blake Archive seems to contradict itself. Does anyone have Butlin? There seem to be 4 versions: Tate (B 301), Minneapolis (B 303), Boston (B 302)[3] & missing (B 304)? Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

All sorted now. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blake Archive

To be honest, I don't trust the Blake Archive and I don't think it is that reliable of a source. The directors don't seem to be part of any major Blake resource library nor are highly marked scholars in the field. They also provide information that contradicts some of the most respected books in the field. It also claims copyrights on images in which it cannot truly do so. Stick with Bentley, he knows what he is talking about and is published under a scholarly press. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Robert Essick is a major Blake scholar. He is the author of William Blake, Printmaker, as well as many other respected sources Blake as an artist. See here for his complete catalog of Blake's works in the Huntington Library... Like you, I am dubious of, and frustrated with, their claim to hold copyright on the works, and have been meaning to ask about it for some time. I just want to upload some of their images of William Blake's Illustrations of the Book of Job, specifically the watercolors.... Lithoderm (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is now formally WP policy to ignore all assertions of copyright over images of 2-D works where the primary artist's copyright has expired - as in these cases. See here Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Expect some expansions to Job. Lithoderm (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just not the case. He may have written some, but he isn't respected. Plus, when it comes to Blake, respected scholars have a lot more behind them than Essick. And Lithoderm, others have produced better versions of Blake's works, such as Dover using the Public Domain version, because this is all in Public Domain, and Thames & Hudson publishing relying on the actual Blake Trust to publish their edition. The Blake website isn't a reliable source, and is factually wrong. The images are found else where if you need them. I can get any that you need on Wikisource, as we already have a large collection. Next time, please don't rely on a website hosted by second rate scholars without good resources or references. Otherwise Wikipedia will just be as pointless as Britannica. Ottava Rima (talk)

If you want an equally uncredible website (just to prove that many professors start them) then you can go to the Blake Digital Text Project. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Standardizing

In order to standardize this page with other Wikipedia entries, this should probably be turned into a page focusing on the general image of Nebuchadnezzar with a particular emphasis on the individual print. This would do very little to change the page, but will restructure it a little and add more linear development of the image. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is currently on the Nebuchadnezzar print from the Large Colour series, which is correct. But which impression(s) Gichrist is talking about should be clarified, and if there is a comparison of the different impressions, that would be good to add. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop going against MoS please

Leads are summaries, they cannot introduce items of information not in the body of the text. Please stop changing things and moving them to the lead. Furthermore, there is no "history" section. There is only a background section. Please stop renaming sections. There is standard format, why does this keep having to change? Sigh.

Furthermore, Kenneth Clark is biographically wrong, as Blake did not have access to any such image. This is what the biographers have stated, and including that is fringe at best. Strange's journal even states as much. Please stop with all of the radically changes to the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense - how is "John Clark Strange bought Butts's prints on 29 June 1853 and later acquired the rest of the collection that was sold to Henry George Bohn." etc "background"? There is an earlier image, and it is identified as by Cranach. It does not say that Blake had seen it. The basic information about the print should be set out in the lead. The "history" needs expanding in terms of the 1795 vs c1805 impressions and so on. but I don't have sources for this. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Background is a section that gives all of the information behind creation, publishing, and selling of art and literature. And if it does not say Blake has seen it, then it can't be put in. And John, your last statement goes against WP:LEAD. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Nonsense again - sez who? 2) There were already 2 references to the unidentified German print. I fail to see why it should remain unidentified. 3) The history section needs considerable expansion. Meanwhile the basic information should remain in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

John, just stop. There are standard principles to editing on Wikipedia. The first is to have standard section titles. The second is to use a lead to summarize content, not introduce unique content. The third is to put in information that is appropriate to the topic. Discussing how a work that was proven not to relate to Blake's is about werewolves definitely does not do this. Moving information from the body of the text to the lead without keeping it in its appropriate place does not do this. Constantly shifting around categories and leaving sections shortened does not do this. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you stop doing one of your numbers. Would anyone else care to comment on these matters? Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ye are doing a great job between ye, but don't make a disagreement over MoS (of all things) personal! I'll have a look and give an openion. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the info in the lead is out of place, although it could be trimmed once the history section is expanded. Its still a very short article, so we dont have to adhere to a strick standardiation yet. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Its only a short article because people keep changing everything on me every time I get prepared to add more stuff. If someone else wants to make this article, feel free, but it looks like I am the only one here right now that knows Blake and Blake criticism. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What areas are you thinking of expanding? I think its shaping up very well, its a pleasure to watch it grow. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar is part of Blake's mythology. As such, it should discuss what he was. The basic set up is to give a background on his creation. Then you talk about the versions. Then you talk what he means to the overall philosophy and how he is transformed into Blake's mythopoeic system. Then you put the reviews on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and looking forward as always to your additions. A the risk of pushing my luck, can you give The Ghost of a Flea a once over. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am most unlikely to want to add to or edit a section called say "N in Blake's mythology", which should come before "Critical Reception" (not the best name here, but anyway). In fact jusat where the current para beginning "The image of Nebuchadnezzar is connected ..." is found. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Its not about what you would want to add, but standard formatting for such pages. 2. Those are not the titles for the sections, as the sections have standard titles already that would be used. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Such "standard titles" for sections exist only in your head, as you will see from looking at the other articles on prints, VA FAs, or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think that there aren't standard section titles for pages, then I don't really think that you have spent much time on Wikipedia. Standardization is key, and very important to the encyclopedia, hence why there is an MoS. Furthermore, this page is not a page on a Print, but on Blake. There is a key difference. I really don't see what you are trying to do here, nor anything else except that you want to violate OWN. If you want the page, feel free. It is not complete, and all you are doing is chasing away contributors who are experts in the field. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And where, pray, do these standard sections live - certainly not in WP:SECTION or the MoS, other than for the apparatus at the end? This certainly is an article about a print. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let him/her add in the section about mythology, and elaborate upon it. I'm OK with that. I'm just waiting for something to be done. None of my concerns have been addressed, all I've gotten are accusations of "fringe scholarship".Lithoderm (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Nebuchadnezzar does not figure in a major way in any of Blake's prophetic books, such as Jerusalem, Milton, etc. except perhaps as an allusion or an inspiration. But I would be glad to see what you have to say, as I can't admit to having read every book of Blake criticism out there. If Frye draws parallels between the accounts or interprets allusions to that effect, then who can reproach it? Go ahead and add it.

I wish that you would also put in the quote that you produced for me above, I think it goes a long way towards clarifying what you say in that passage. There is no explicit reference to Nebuchadnezzar in Blake's books as such, in his complete works I find only this enigmatic passage in his correspondence:
[To William Hayley]

23 October 1804 ....

Our good and kind friend Hawkins is not yet in town—hope soon to have the pleasure of seeing him, with the courage of conscious industry, worthy of his former kindness to me. For now! O Glory! and O Delight! I have entirely reduced that spectrous Fiend to his station, whose annoyance has been the ruin of my labours for the last passed twenty years of my life. He is the enemy of conjugal love and is the Jupiter of the Greeks, an iron-hearted tyrant, the ruiner of ancient Greece. I speak with perfect confidence and certainty of the fact which has passed upon me. Nebuchadnezzar had seven times passed over him; I have had twenty; thank God I was not altogether a beast as he was; but I was a slave bound in a mill among beasts and devils; these beasts and these devils are now, together with myself, become children of light and liberty, and my feet and my wife's feet are free from fetters.

(end of excerpt)

I only want the best for coverage of Blake on Wikipedia, and so am somewhat hurt by your implication that I know nothing about Blake or Blake scholarship. I almost entirely wrote William Blake's Illustrations of the Book of Job, and have significantly contributed to William Blake. I also created Template:William Blake. All apologies to you if I have offended- I did not intend to. What did you intend with your remark? I will help in any way I can with this article, and wish you the best on its expansion.

Lithoderm (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it personally; everyone working on articles with OR gets this, or worse. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

John, you are revealing yourself now. You didn't have to come to this page. You chose to. You chose to start changing things around. I'm an actual expert in the field. My articles on the related topics are some of the best in Wikipedia. However, it seems like you are making it clear that you want to own the article. Just say the word. However, you have yet to contribute anything meaningful to this page, and are instead standing in the way of any real editing to continue. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are those who would dispute much of that; in any case, your expertise clearly does not extend to prints, which (puffs out chest enormously) are one of my areas. Having clarified that the print exists in a limited number of impressions, identified them, named the series they belong to, and generally tidied up, I think I have run out of sources, other than the Blake Archive (much of which is of course copied with permission from the Cambridge Companion etc). Since you are such an expert, you will have no difficulty expanding on the 1795 vs later printings, & finding some analysis of the different impressions, all of which needs adding. I doubt if I will be adding much more, though I will keep an eye on it. It would of course be good to add images of some other impressions. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The critic comment was about the political nature of scholarship. Normally, fringe critics tend to create websites like the one you listed above to try and legitimize their views, although mainstream presses tend to minimize them because their research doesn't hold up. I was disturbed by some of their factual inaccuracies, which comes from them being scant on their citation skills. That, combined with their claims about copyright and their lack of an connection to the Blake Trust was troubling. Now, to the mythpoeic aspects - The Marriage of Heaven and Hell is seen as one part of Blake's recreating the Bible. The connection between the images there, and with the comparative images of Albion, is part of the overall study of Blake's myth. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, to be fair nor did you have to come to this page. You also chose to change things around. And playing the expert card is not very nice. Whatever about the intention of your words above, the effect will be to drive Johnbod away from Blake pages, and that would be a great shame. Leyway and compromise and a little humility are needed here. Ceoil ^sláinte 05:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I came to the page because you marked it as a stub and it is a topic that is important to Blake. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Harper, George M. "Blake's "Nebuchadnezzar" in "The City of Dreadful Night". Studies in Philology, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Jan., 1953), pp. 68-80

pp. 71-72 "Moreover, the details of Thomson's picture corresponds so closely to Blake's color-print Nebuchadnezzar that one cannot avoid feeling that he either knew the picture very well or had a copy of it before him at the time of writing. That Thomas valued Blake's art we know.... And we know also that he was acquainted with the Nebuchadnezzar. A sketch of it appeared in Gilchrist Life (I, 89). This copy was taken from the Blake notebook, now called the Rossetti MS., which Thomson may also have known."

p. 73 "Blake's figure is that of a man, but it has long talon claws on both feet and hands, great shaggy hair and beard (almost lion-like in appearance), and unusually muscled (even for Blake's figures) shoulders and arms with pad-like hands.... Blake's beast-man leans its weight on its right arm; the head is raised and half turned to the right; the long shaggy locks trail int he dirt between its hands, somewhat hiding that vicious-looking claws and finger ends of the left one; the cheeks are gaunt; the lines around the nose and in the forehead are deep-graven.... "

pp. 73-74 Rosetti wrote "Crawling on all fours in his shaggy insanity. The tawny beard trails acros sthe left hand: the nails are literally "like birds' claws," and the flesh tints very red and "beefy." The glaring eyes, too, have almost lost their human character. The background represents a thick jungle. A fine wild conception."

p. 74 "Thomas should not be expected to understand fully Blake's Nebuchadnezzar. A comprehension of Blake's Prophetic Books is necessary to a thorough appreciation of the artist's message, and Thomas probably knew only those fragmets of the Prophetic Books which were included in the Gilchrist volumes"

Damon, S. Foster. William Blake: His Philosophy and Symbols. New York: Peter Smith, 1947

p. 328 "Man maddened and brutalized until he tries to live by the thngs of this 'vegetable world' only."

Frye, Northrop. "Poetry and Design in William Blake". The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Sep., 1951), pp. 35-42

p. 41 "The Marriage of Heaven and HEll concludes with a portrait of Nebuchadnezzar going on all fours. Nebuchadnezzar is not mentioned in the text, but the prophecy deals with the overthrow of senile tyranny, and Nebuchadnezzar, the tyrant of Babylon who becomes a monstrous animal, first cousin to behemoth and leviathan, is for Blake a central symbol of the kind of thing he is attacking. The great picture of Albion before the cross of Christ, which concludes the third part of Jerusalem, is more familiar example. It is more common, however, to have the designs focus and sharpen the verbal symbolism. "

Blunt, Anthony. "Blake's 'Brazen Serpent'". Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 6, (1943), pp. 225-227

p. 226 "If he depicts Nebuchadnezzar, his main purpose is to show the degradation of man through submission to the tyranny of the senses."

Collins Baker, C. H. "The Sources of Blake's Pictorial Expression". The Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Apr., 1941), pp. 359-367

p. 360 "As so often happened he used the same idea repeatedly. Blake's similar appropriation and adaptation from Durer's 'St. John Chrysostom' is well know: we can hardly doubt that the invention of his Nebuchadnezzar came about in this wise. The little crawling figure in the background of Durer's print caught his fancy, so that when he wanted an idea for Nebuchadnezzar he though, 'Why, that's the very thing; but I will show the face.' Incidentally, that alteration and an attempt to exhibit the outcast King's emanciation, deplorably overtaxed Blake's anatomical knowledge."

Lefcowitz, Barbara F. "Blake and the Natural World". PMLA, Vol. 89, No. 1 (Jan., 1974), pp. 121-131

p. 129 "In 'America,' the juxtaposition of fire and metal or jewels is utilized in a less direct but more suggestive manner when Blake draws upon the imagery of Nebuchadnezzar's dream from the Book of Daniel in order to complete his portrait of the redeemed man, the man who will rise in 'fiery joy' when the revolutionary spirit of Orc replaces the stony laws of Urizen"

Ironside, R. "The Tate Gallery: Wartime Acquisitions". The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 78, No. 455 (Feb., 1941), pp. 53-57

p. 53 "The intensity of the creative impulse behind these visions would, however, seem to have been paid for by the overstrain apparent in the somewhat ludicrous interpretations of the themes of Nebuchadnezzar and Lamech and his Two Wives, though the almost purely idiosyncratic quality of these examples is valuable for the insight it affords into the nature and limitations of Blake's great but erratic gift."

Just a few. I'm not working on the content of this page, as I stated above. So, Ceoil, if you want to use these quotes to add content, feel free. I can add plenty more sources later for you to work with. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Millboard

What is millboard, please? 81.159.90.178 (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Link added Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of the article

I would like to suggest that according to standard disambiguation practices, this article should be moved to Nebuchadnezzar (print), as that is the most direct descriptive of the subject matter. 128.151.71.16 (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

George III

Blake published Nebuchadnezzar, thought to suffer from Porphyria when George III of Hanover, another sufferer, was on the throne. This seems more than a coincidence. Blake was against Science (see his depiction of Newton) and George had a great interest in science. Just a thought.