This is a transcription of the first of two pages of holograph notes on Frye’s reading of Jung’s Psychology of the Unconscious. They precede the notebook entries themselves of Notebook 42, published in Northrop Frye’s Notebooks on Romance. The references in square brackets to Jung B are to Psychology of the Unconscious: A Study of the Transformations and Symbolisms of the Libido, trans. Beatrice M. Hinkle (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1991). Frye was using the 1916 edition, published by Moffat, Yard. The notebook is in the 1993 accession, box 3, file 10 of the Frye Fonds. Reprinted by permission of Victoria University.
[1] Jung: human libidinous source of mythopoeic power. Libido & Eros. [Above “Eros”: “147”] Blake’s insistent human source of all gods: libido & Luvah. Orc expands from “Generation” Eros into energy (organic). [Written above last two words: “Rising into heart & head 177”] Phallic symbols central (arrow, ray of sun, hair[)]
[2] Orc begins with desire to possess virgin mother & hatred of father. Pr. to A [“Preludium” to America: A Prophecy]; MT [Mental Traveller]. Jung’s Oedipus complex. In Jung all allegorists of the differentiating libido are lumped in with the mother in a rather confusing way: e.g. Rahab, Tirzah & Vala are all the same thing & as the mother is androgynous, it includes both Satan & Urizen.
[3] Libido in emergence of power projects itself as God, hence mystic identification 97–8. Thus variety of external objects syncretized and eventually become human 107. Hence a correspondence of libidinous & solar heat 99 ff. Blake’s globe of blood: cf. 128.
[4] Jung himself indicates the importance of the teacher of the libido in his remarks about Wagner’s [Mime?] & the Classical Cabiri, the teaching smiths [on Cabiri see Jung, B, 119–20] who form Blake’s Los complex 132
[5] Libido is Schopenhauer’s will 136, 146. Sch. [Schopenhauer] & Hauptmann 198 [Jung, B, 173]
[6] Roots of the wood 137 (libido) materia (174); Vala 276
[7] {I think my point about nature’s contraceptive apparatus goes at the end, discussing the integration of the self as individual ego}.
[8] sexual nature of origin of fire & Prometheus cult 162, 186–7.
[9] serpent with tail in mouth & Jung’s “opening up the autoerotic ring” 177 [Jung, B, 156]. Cf. Silberer
[10] furnace is incubating mother 184 [Jung, B, 162].
[11] identity of fire & soma (Dionysius)
[A brace is to the right of pars. 10 and 11 pointing to: “perhaps a note on the Jung-Marx link; cf. plough [soil?] 514 (23) {Phallic significance of weapons including firearms}.”]
[12] materia; hence wood, the thing burned, as female (II, iii, 17; 513); hence trees as female.
[13] hermaphroditic nature of the inert principle (male within female) 515 (30). Tirzah: for Rahab [cf. 1.10?]
[14] {libido & mother really expand, as Jung hints once or twice, into a Yang-Yin dialectic.} [above “Yang-Yin”: “MMSS 28”]
[15] (the life-giving mother we move away from in Enion). Water of life in Jung 244–5 & death.
[16] passion of inertia 195 vs. Blake’s death-wish.
[17] Jung’s Discouri point is another Los anticipation, stated to be such 553 (131). 218–225 [Jung, B, 191 ff.].
[18] City as mother or harlot 234-5 [Jung, B, 202-3]. Babylon as terrible mother 243 [Jung, B, 210].
[19] Orc cycle derived by Jung from Frobenius 238 (fall into mother, fight with dragon, etc.)
[20] Tree as mother 246 (life) hermaphroditic (248)
[21] Distinction between pure inertia & withdrawal to return reborn 251 f. Dodges Silberer issue, regarding symbol as bridge for sublimation into empirical reality.
[22] Tree of death, coffin, corse (womb & tomb) 264 [Jung, B, 235]. Dismemberment as reverse of birth, hence death 268.
[23] Mother-wife-mother sequence 272. Rebirth in son 272. Embracing and entwining (tree & serpent) 272.
[24] Devouring at close of cycle 275 (referred to Blake elsewhere).
These entries are from Notebook 30m, which is in the 1991 accession, box 25 of the Frye Fonds.
[1] Blake & Jung
[2] Medieval mandalas cfd. w. [compared with] Blake’s Jesus surrounded by 4 Zoas (in MA [Middle Ages] evangelists).
[3] Mandala in Blake as symbol of one form or body of Jesus. Cf. Dante.
[4] Jung leaves it vaguely as individuation. Residue of humanism in mysticism, potential magic in occultism (Tao). Cf. Huxley’s “same or like.”1 Perhaps I can use my super-Lockian argument to show that Jung’s idea of a collective unconscious the Self is in touch with & the ego split off from reconciles him with Blake’s body of Jesus. Ambiguity in Dante.
[5] Dilemma of cyclic & anagogic vision in Blake expressed in Jung by the transition from neurosis therapy, or freeing of the will to a “normal” level (Freudian bondage of law) to a mental training & testing with normality (yoga & Tao, also Jesuitism).
[6] Original sin & total depravity are psy/ly [psychologically] ways of dethroning the complacency of the ego.
[7] 3 & 4 in Jung also in Blake: the dark fourth, or Los proceeding from Urthona, is the redeemed Ulro, the alchemic stone or prima materia, the roots of the mountains in Morris. It’s the shadow of man in Dante, or rather man as the shadow of Christ. So in Blake.
[8] I don’t know if Jung understands the dangerous old wise man. Archimago, the first appearance of Satan in P.R. [Paradise Regained], Urizen. Cf. the two animas.
[9] Function of art in both: in Jung art is a technique of extending the understanding: in Blake this is more explicitly a technique of criticism. In both the key question about truth is: how do you visualize (or concretize) it? Concretize is a barbarous locution, but gives some idea of it.
[10] SGF [The Secret of the Golden Flower]: consciousness torn from archetypes is Urizen fallen from Eternals. Father-figure of Cartesian man developed by brothers Freud & Jung.
[11] I start here, really, Blake’s attack on reason as the superficies (outward bound) of consciousness being carried on by the rc. [romantic] “unconscious” which Jung finally identifies as the total Self.
[12] Wonder if Freud is the pattern up to nel mezzo del camin,2 then Jung? Blake’s break is about 40 (1796 on).
[13] Wind bloweth where it listeth: we do not do things, but try to let them happen & remove obstacles {mainly parental ones, as in Milton}. Wu wei is Keats’ negative capability: I can’t find it yet in Blake. We must imitate Milton’s God in withdrawing from causation & watching. This faithful watching is the literal apprehension of the work of art. For this taking out of conscious obstructions, cf. Bergson.
[14] Progress from Beulah to Eden: the green world breaking into a fiery rose. Jung compares it to the fiery Christmas Tree. Cf. a flower: ovary in depths of unconscious, style as chain of being, stigma as the Church, the female body of receptive souls, above them the male principles of Paradise, the sperm of the others scattering down, & out of all this a new birth. The ovary must be a furnace if the whole plant is to be a burning tree.
[15] Goal of vision the union (yoga) of life consciousness: Tao means “head-going.”
[16] Establishing of temenos the same thing as opening the center.3
[17] Polytheism is projected schizophrenia. That which is projected dissolves into abstractions, thence into an indefinite cycle. Nothing to do but go back home, & collect all the gods again into one personal form. War, the struggle of the brothers, is also projection.
Notes for the introduction to Northrop Frye on Shakespeare. The typescript is in the 1991 accession, box 25, file 4 of the Frye Fonds.
[1] World more relevant to human needs then than now: knowledge of herbs, e.g., based on assumption that everything in nature must have a human use. Nature does nothing in vain.
[2] Melancholy as a physical disease, as well as an emotional state, is what the original audience would recognize at once in Hamlet. Courtly Love and its conventions would be recognized in the first appearance of Romeo and in Polonius’ theories about Hamlet’s madness.
[3] Magic and science very close together then: Prospero. Astrology. Disasters in the sun.
[4] Don’t take pop references to groundlings as though they were the main audience seriously: they weren’t. The people whose attendance paid for the theatre were reasonably well educated. Not many women, though: macho jokes probably funnier then (O happy horse).4
[5] Wooden theatre illuminated by open candles or torches would give a modern fire inspector ulcers in a couple of days. The Globe did burn during a performance of H8.
[6] Puritan establishment in City of London kept theatres out of there until 1950, except for areas like Blackfriars out of their jurisdiction. Long plague intervals: in one of them Shakespeare seems to have given up the idea of a theatrical career altogether and took to narrative poems with a patron.
[7] One would have thought he’d know how good he was, but he seems never to have read a Quarto proof, and left two of his associates to go through a long, tedious, complex process of clearing copyrights and the like for all his plays (except Pericles and TNK).5 Nor does he seem to have complained when plays like A Yorkshire Tragedy6 were ascribed to him.
[8] Popular and well liked as dramatist and person: Falstaff a smash hit; King Lear only “kind Lear”7 (Rowse). Comedies more popular than tragedies, perhaps (Gabriel Harvey).
[9] Theatrical tradition broke in 1642.8 Restoration brought in “improved” versions.
[10] Kept to public theatre, vs. Jonson. Jonson unique too in wanting his plays printed (1616): had an unusual sense of media.
[11] Operatic effect of a very elaborate musical background.
[12] Documentary material dug up about Shakespeare still doesn’t give us much about his personality. Carlyle view of poet as great man won’t wash; poet isn’t a particular kind of person.
[13] Shakespeare’s proved output extends from about mid-twenties to mid-forties: no real youth or old age. Drama not a genre for infant prodigies.
[14] Conflict with social anxieties: pulpit apt to squall; the law curbing swearing (2H4: Before God vs. Trust me).9 Vigilant and not stupid censorship. Sir Thomas More. Richard II.
[15] Knew French, Latin, perhaps Italian, but used English when he could.
[16] Quartos good and bad like people; like people, that can get oversimplified. RJ [Romeo and Juliet]
[17] Ad libbing of clowns, vs. silly productions today.
[18] Juliet under 14: part taken by boy perhaps not much older. Vs. Cleopatra.
[19] Words: a film version of RJ could give us a shot of the apothecary’s shop that Romeo remembers, showing us everything he mentions and a lot more much more simply. But what we’d miss would be the “woodspurge has a cup of three” [Dante Gabriel Rossetti, The Woodspurge, l. 12] feeling about it: the sense of hallucinated clarity that’s so dramatically right just there.
[20] Highbrow humanists in Shakespeare’s day: prejudice against mixing social classes in plays (quote Hall) and not observing unities. Also the dislike of the contrapuntal contrasts in mood, class, rhythm and tone: the grave-diggers in Hamlet, the oscillation of blank verse stuffed shirts and Falstaff, etc.
This notebook contains a brief series of notes for Frye’s Shakespeare lectures, as they were taped and edited in Northrop Frye on Shakespeare. The editorial notes signalled at the end of the paragraphs point to the expanded or parallel passages in that book, where such expansions and parallels exist.
[1] H [Hamlet]: We’re imprisoned by what we’ve done, but unless we’ve committed a major crime like Claudius we’re not too crippled by it: we adjust to the gradual narrowing of our abilities and interests. But there’s a deeper imprisonment in what we are (“characterological armor”10 or whatever), and Hamlet is the most impressive example we have in literature of a titanic spirit thrashing around in the prison of what he is.
[2] H [Hamlet]: there are a lot of pointless puzzles in the play of the L.C. Knights variety,11 though so many even of those that they seem to make some point. But why does Hamlet say “I loved you ever” to Laertes [5.1.314] forgetting that he’s exterminated his family? He apologizes to Laertes for this, blaming his act on his madness [5.2.237–43]: but the killing of Polonius took place in precisely the scene where he adjures his mother not to think he is mad [3.4.] Besides, if he can be “not guilty by reason of insanity,” Ophelia is not guilty of (watch what you’re doing, you fool)12 suicide, and both the grave-diggers and that crappy priest say she is [5.1.1–28, 249–54]. [See Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, 85; CW 28: 533.]
[3] H: is there any reason for Hamlet’s resenting Laertes’ very moderate expression of grief for his sister [5.1.], except that in himself he’s come to associate big talk with doing nothing? (“Show me what thou’lt do”) [5.1.297]. Ophelia has had nothing but hectoring from her father, priggish harangues from her Laertes, and brutality from Hamlet, so all this love comes rather late in the day. [See Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, 85; CW 28: 532.]
[4] IL [Introductory Lecture]: Shakespeare has no precedents for tragedy except Seneca, who may not have written for the stage. TA [Titus Andronicus] is a very Senecan tragedy: even those who would detest it for its brutality and crude melodrama would have to admit that it was superb theatre. That tells us something important about Shakespeare: that for him the actable and theatrical element comes first, not the qualities we think of as more typical of a major poet. [See Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, 5; CW 28: 460.]
[5] The same is true of the H6 plays [Henry Sixth, pts. 1-3], even though they do need editing for a modern audience less fascinated with the civil war period. (Some notice of the H6–R3 [Richard the Third] sequence, and why it had such an appeal, should go here in IL).13
[6] AC [Antony and Cleopatra]: When we see Cleopatra & Antony maltreating messengers the irony goes deeper than with Lear or Hamlet: the latter belong to legend and A and C are puppets of history. Hence it marks the first steps toward the puppet techniques of the romances. But the five-fold division of divine, romantic, social, ordinary & ironic is much clearer in AC, so the expanding of the stage to include divine and romantic perspectives is also clearer, as sovereigns of Egypt were divine beings. That too is a feature of romance, except for T [The Tempest], and except that A & C both have of course fake gods. [See Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, 132–3, 155; CW 28: 574, 580.]
[7] AC: The serpent of the Nile, with the serpent-baby at her breast (the only thing she’s ever expressed any maternal feeling about), whose bite is like a lover’s pinch that hurts and is desired—the points of birth, death & sexual union are all the same point. The old dispensation figure: a Herodias holding Herod’s head in contrast to Salome holding John’s. Check to see what Plutarch says about Herod: the white goddess has forgotten him. [See Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, 139; CW 28: 580.]
[8] KL [King Lear]: By “nothing” Shakespeare means the loss of identity, not of existence. Lear and R2 are kings & A = B, the king’s two bodies. And if A = B, then A – B = 0, an O without a figure, as the Fool says. [See Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, 64; CW 28: 513. The Fool’s line is in 1.4.212.]
[9] WT [The Winter’s Tale]: the F-P [Florizel-Perdita] recognition opens up the future; the L-H [Leontes-Hermione] one closes up the past. Time is the Demeter renewal-of-nature myth; the other is the Pygmalion triumph-of-art one. (Romano link with P’s plea in Ovid to have a girl “just like” his statue.[)] [See Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, 164, 167; CW 28: 602–3, 605.]
[10] Maria is the vice of TN [Twelfth Night], & disguised her handwriting. Perhaps Toby’s marrying her is an admission that she’s better at manipulating people than he is. He’s such a slug: he only challenges Sebastian because he thinks he’s “Cesario” & will be easy pickings. Marriage to Maria again: he hangs on as a parasite in Olivia’s ménage by marrying a servant, & calls it condescension. [Frye’s lecture on Twelfth Night was not included in Northrop Frye on Shakespeare.]
[11] MND [A Midsummer Night’s Dream] gives the impression of being commissioned for a festival, probably a marriage: in short, of being the kind of thing Theseus is looking for from the very opening of the play. One gets the impression that the offerings are pretty sparse that Philostrate comes up with. [See Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, 38; CW 28: 490.]
[12] Each world has its own music: one the mermaid, the other the cry of hounds. (We don’t think of the latter as a kind of symphony orchestra, but that’s because we don’t know a Renaissance prince’s feeling about the hunt.) [See Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, 46–7; CW 28: 498.]
[13] R2 [Richard the Second] is as much a madcap prince as H5 [Henry the Fifth], and the parallel is emphasized by H4 to his son. But we see R2 only in the last few months of his reign; we get only a token scene of his loafing buddies & his extravagance, & he programs himself as a loser. Cf. Marlowe’s E2 [Edward the Second], where the brutality of E’s treatment swings our sympathies. [See Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, 66; CW: 515.]
[14] H5 [Henry the Fifth], when a prince, is flanked by Hotspur & Falstaff. The rashness & cowardice of that are extremes of courage. The first part is the tragedy of Hotspur, & his dying speech shows he’s been running away from something. The second is the “tragedy” of Falstaff, & his behavior on the eve of the coronation shows the corresponding rashness. [Frye’s lecture on Henry the Fifth was not included in Northrop Frye on Shakespeare.]
[15] WT: glimpse of myth of mother hiding a returned child from a jealous father. [See Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, 164; CW 28: 602.]
[16] (These colored pens don’t work very well.)14 2H4 [Henry IV, pt. 2]: Falstaff has promised marriage both to Mrs. Q. [Quickly] & a certain Ursula. So he’s in the MW [Merry Wives of Windsor] situation, only more successful. One of Falstaff’s less attractive characteristics is the lack of any sense of women as human beings: he regards them as supply depots for food & drink, sex, and (if they’ve got any) money. The MW legend is probably wrong because F can’t love women, & Queen E [Elizabeth] would have been quite sharp enough to see that F. [Falstaff] in MW is only on the prowl for money.
These notes, written in ink on a small (ca. 4 x 5) card, are in the 1991 accession, box 28, file 3 of the Frye Fonds.
I have not spoken of the providence of God, because it seems to me that the p. [providence] of God operates only in its own sphere, not in the sphere of the folly & frivolity of man. I think the world could be redeemed by a Xy [Christianity] that was no longer aghast with the chains of history clanking behind it, that was no longer crippled by notions of heresy, infallibility, exclusiveness of the “I’m right & you’re wrong” type, & all the fixations on a [?foul] historical record that should not be the Christ [?that reported] in sack cloth & ashes. Such a Xy might represent the age of the spirit that the 13th c. Fr. J of F [Joachim of Floris] saw as superseding the O.T. age of the F[ather] & the N.T. age of the Logos. Such a Xy would be neither an inglorious rear-guard action nor a revy. [revolutionary] movement creating suffering & death instead of life more abundantly, but a Xy of a Father who is not a metaphor of male supremacy but the intelligible source of our being; of a Son who is not a teacher of platitudes but a Word who has overcome the World; & of a Spirit who speaks with all the tongues of men & angels and still speaks with charity. The Spirit of creation who brought life out of chaos brought death out of it too, for death is all that makes sense of life in time. The Spirit that broods on the chaos of our psyches brings to birth a body that is in time & history but not enclosed by them, & is in death only because it is in the mind of life as well.
The material here is from Frye’s Notebook 16. Frye wrote “Notes” at the top of two of the verso pages and “Text” at the top of three recto pages. The transcription represents notes Frye jotted down as he was reading through one of the many versions of the manuscript for The Great Code. The third entry under “Notes,” for example, is a summary of material found in a note on page 241 of that book. The jottings Frye has made under “Text” apparently refer to additions to and questions about the text of the manuscript itself. Compare, for example, paragraph 15 with this sentence from page 178 of The Great Code: “The visit of the wise men to Christ is the antitype of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon, the connecting link being Isaiah 60:6.” Frye is apparently using the planets (Mars, Saturn, Uranus) as a mnemonic device for referring to chapters of The Great Code.
[1] Bercovitz or whoever on Psm & B typology, law Uranus.
[2] Bed trick story in Josephus for the Ezra-Nehemiah point in Uranus 2.
[3] Deal with Hebraic-Hellenic as a contrast because of later influence. Doesn’t follow their origin is separate: see Cyrus Gordon.15
[4] Oo-la-la stuff in Gaster’s Thespis.
[5] “Unhandy people.” Josephus, c. Apion, ii, 15, quoting Apollonius of Rhodes.16
[6] Ta Biblia: 1 Macc. 1:56; [Greek for “little books”] in 2 Macc. 8:23.17
[7] Baruch’s law among & wisdom within is 2B: 48:24.18
[8] Japan: Samson, VI.19
[9] Revolution in Uranus: polytheistic religions have to have statues & pictures to distinguish one god from another.
[10] Mars urban: engineering imgn. [imagination] in Isaiah & the highway.20
[11] Wisdom individualizes law; gospel internalizes it.
[12] Where does recreating go? Can I do without a conclusion?
[13] Saturn: Isaiah & Micah uttered the same oracle.21
[14] Uranus 2: St. Ignatius ct. [contemporary] N.T.
[15] Mars: the link between Q[ueen of] Sheba & Matthew’s magi is Isa. 60:6.22
[16] Uranus intro: stressing enlightenment rather than morals.
[17] D.H.L. [D.H. Lawrence]: in details I’m sure I’m wrong. Earth.
[18] All metaphors, except the royal metaphor, are in the subsidiary or “just metaphor” class.
[19] The 144000 “chaste” army in Revelation is the antitype of the saving remnant & Gideon’s army & the law in Deut. about continence during a holy war. Put in where it belongs, & don’t shoehorn it into Uranus.23
[20] Similarly with the loss of fire of life at creation: in your present arrangement it doesn’t go where you’ve got it.
[21] End of Mars: Oxyrhynchus papyri S: Christ is Blake’s grain of sand who is also the world.24
[22] Uranus-wisdom: add a sentence about the power of consistency as a primitive force: doing the honest thing because dishonesty would spoil the pattern.
[23] Hebrews 11:1 on faith: where does it go?25
[24] The whole question of recreation has got squeezed out.
[25] Scandal of the cross in Galatians 5:11, not “theologians.”26
[26] Early Xn writers took a more liberal view of the O.T. canon than we do (opening of SUN [Saturn Uranus Neptune?])
[27] Did you get apocryphon in?
[28] Jacob’s ladder.
[28] Three-day rhythm is lunar.
Because of the reference to the paper on Thomas More “being written,” this brief holograph notebook dates from 1986 or 1987. The “chapter” referred to in paragraph 1 is what became Words with Power, and several of the sketchy entries have parallels to material in The Late Notebooks. Paragraph 7 is an outline of a collection of essays Frye intends to put together.
[1] 3rd chapter:
Symbol as indication of context.
[2] The work of lit. as the symbol of lit.
[3] (Glacken).27
Plutarch has the male sky (with the sperm) & female earth (De plaintis philosophorum, I vi, 11).
Diogenes of Apollonia says air is intelligence (Fr. 4) {Prana & Spirit}.
[4] Irenaeus: Recapitulation.28
[5] Augustine: Epist. LV, 10: Jericho means moon, & Ps.72:7.
[6] Hauptmann (diary cited by Jung (ST [Symbols of Transformation] 303.) from Stekel: Poetry is the art of letting the primordial word sound through the common word.
[7] More’s Utopia (being written)29
Castiglione30
Vico (?)
Vico, Bruno & the Wake31
William Morris32
Wagner’s Parsifal33
Wiegand lecture34
Royal Society paper35
Samuel Butler (?) (to be written?)36
Ghosts, Fairies & Elementals (?) to be written (?) [not written]
Maybe expanded lyric paper37
[8] Thought HJ’s occult stories (SP [The Spoils of Poynton] & TS [The Turn of the Screw] especially).38
[9] Spenser: Faerie is the apparatus of romance made a Utopian analogy of England.
From Notebook 30m, which is in the 1991 accession, box 25 of the Frye Fonds.
1. Milton was a revy. [revolutionary] & experimental genius, who grew metamorphically. Cf. Beethoven & Michelangelo.
2. He inherited the old Humanist theory of ed. [education] based on Prince & Courtier, which was encyclopedic.
3. Xn [Christian] humanism sees the eter. [eternal]. M. [Milton] was neither Prince nor courtier, but saw Christ as the king. Christ reveals himself in the Bible. The Bible as a definitive encyclopedia. Extending from it is all other learning.
4. Polarized by two great principles, liberty & bondage. God wills liberty for man & man naturally resists it.
5. Spiritual authority: the bishop & the autonomous church.
6. The bastard sacrament: the question of divorce.39
7. The censor of the Word: the sin against the H.S. [Holy Spirit]
8. The divine king or Head of the Church.
9. The dictator: Cromwell. Milton vs. Carlyle.
10. The return to the people & preservation of Parliament as a Senate.
11. Rationalization of each move, yet constantly an attempt to define its revy. [revolutionary] logic. This was the logic of the Ref. [Reformation]: liberty which comes from God & not from man. Impossible for a M. [Milton] to survive in our day.
12. The doctrine of liberty placed inside the great cycle of P.L. [Paradise Lost]. The Arthurian or heroic theme made Satanic.
13. S.A. [Samson Agonistes] Samson knocking down three idols (the father figure, the female will & the secular giant) & thereupon goes through a peripeteia & destroys the entire temple of Philistinism. Capturing of M.’s [Milton’s] own experience through blindness to an inner light. Also of the terrible strain of waiting until the time for the exertion of great strength led to “easy” dictation.
From Notebook 30m, which is in the 1991 accession, box 25 of the Frye Fonds.
For the next book (the so-called “Second Essay”)40 I want to examine the relation of literature to conceptual thought, which implies that for the third the relation to history is involved. The book should, I think, begin with a development of the study of prose fiction I’ve already made, & then go on through Plato & others. So I start by reading or re-reading all the novels & related works of fiction in English, enlarging the scope to France & Germany, & of course America. Meanwhile I can be picking up hints for my own creative magnum opus.
From Notebook 30m, which is in the 1991 accession, box 25 of the Frye Fonds.
[1] Morris. Incompetent criticism of Morris: little boy in suit of armour stuff.
[2] Morris’ early treatment of romance concentrates on ironic aspect of chivalry: 15th c., capture & torture
(opposite of chivalry)
pleasing dreaminess. The nomadic (imperialistic) as evil.
[3] What romance is: dream vs. wish-fulfillment. The one a debased or proletarian form.
liberation of romance in revolution.
[4] The “hollow land” myth in Morris: its antecedents in Spenser & Shakespeare. its symbolism of recurrent life & final alchemic marriage.