Wikipedia says that
“Although Blake was considered mad by contemporaries for his idiosyncratic views, he is held in high regard by later critics for his expressiveness and creativity, and for the philosophical and mystical undercurrents within his work.”
I wonder whether this is anything like a useful opposition, in the sense that I doubt most “later critics” would make a case for Blake’s sanity as a necessary condition for his “expressiveness and creativity, and for the philosophical and mystical undercurrents within his work.” It seems to me more like we just don’t care if Blake was mad or not because of his “expressiveness and creativity,” etc. etc.. It is certainly not an either-or scenario. However, the fact that my colleagues and I spend our time digitally archiving the works of a madman certainly cheers me on the days (more and more frequently, as the end of the semester approaches) when I feel like this guy:
—
Margaret, you’re back! Trenchant as ever. In historical fact, beginning with Gilchrist, there have been many energetic attempts to defend Blake’s fundamental sanity (creative yes, insane no). But Bob Essick, in his essay on Jerusalem in my Cambridge Companion to WB, reopens the question in an interesting (though not to me convincing) way. See you tomorrow if I can drag my chemo’d ass in to the meeting. New infusion today, so who knows. Morris