Printmaking is a mechanical technology that enables multiple reproductions or “copies” to be produced. But as is well known, William Blake’s relief prints were often hand colored or detailed with various media, which produce variations from print to print. The singularity of each illuminated print depends on its difference from other prints. However, this singularity cannot be thought of as original even though it may present itself as such, because each print presents the challenge of always opening up the possibility of reinterpretation and re-contextualization. Stephen Leo Carr’s essay “Illuminated Printing: Toward a Logic of Difference” confronts the impossibility of determining an authoritative Blakean structure by addressing the ways in which the illuminated prints enter into a play of differences. As evidence to support his claim of indeterminacy, Carr examines the artistic variations identified in “The Little Boy Found” in Songs of Innocence and Experience. Carr does not give an interpretative reading of the print variations and the effects upon its readers. Instead he suggests that more interpretative readings should be developed. In this essay, I will expand and build upon Carr’s argument by examining the degree to which visual variations of “The Little Boy Found,” as well as its companion poem “The Little Boy Lost” may alter its reception. In doing so, I will show that the singularity of each illuminated print is an event of discovery, which fortifies the unbridled creative imagination advanced by Blake.
Carr’s provocative essay calls into question the play of differences in Blake’s illuminated prints by virtue of a textual and visual relationship. The variation of details from print to print of Blake’s illuminated works has often been overlooked or deemed insignificant. Carr suggests that the dismissal of differences between prints is due to a “common assumption that an essentially homogeneous (noncontradictory) ‘system’ or ‘myth’ underlies Blake’s art, guaranteeing that each illuminated book is finally a performance of the same, a marginal deviation or derivation from some ur–text or ‘vision’”(Carr 180). Carr points out that this fixed system is prone to giving priority to a larger structure of meaning and only slightly acknowledges differences in details. This structured and structuralist method is inadequate since it puts limitations on meaning by valuing one set of principles over another.
Carr’s argument is based upon Jacques Derrida’s concept of différance. Derrida’s notion of différance relies upon the iterability of a sign, without which there would be no transmission available outside of an initial context. The sign must function in the absence of its author or creator; however, there is no guarantee that meaning will remain intact upon the reception because the signifier is always distanced from an origin. This network of differences is not determined by the initial mark and therefore we cannot simply say that it manifests a single intention. Carr explains that “the play of differences enters into Blake’s printmaking process in relatively accessible ways, leaving traces that do not so much simply subvert attempts at closure as make moments of structural indeterminacy available for artistic revision” (188). Carr explains that Blake’s publication practices of combining editions and revising the plate order highlights the play of differences in Blake’s work. This suggests that variations “supplement the network of signification in each individual ‘copy,’ re-marking each mark, not simply in an accidental, ad hoc manner that can be cleanly isolated from the initial inscription but through the requisite global re-vision or re-marking set into play be each act of making” (Carr 185). The mechanical reproduction that presupposes an exact copy from the etched plate markings is merely an idealized origin. Illuminated prints are thus always part of an unfastened production of meaning rather than a representation of a fixed originary meaning.
Because relief printing is a technology that is mechanically reproducible, it is perhaps difficult to think of the illuminated print as singular. The mechanical reproduction or “copy” of a work disrupts the logic of identity because it erases the trace of differences, which produces the illusion of originality. This stems from a philosophical tradition that believes that an origin is stable—that it comes completely of its own accord. However, relief printing’s ability to continually signify when mechanically reproduced into new contexts reflects the lack of an anchored origin. The singularity of an illuminated print depends on its differences from other images. As a result, the variation produced should be thought of in terms of meaning involving a transmission through a network of differences that depends upon a sender, transmission medium, and receiver. The author or rather creator is not bound to the production of the piece in its completion. Once transmission has taken place, meaning is no longer anchored to an authority of presence initially conceived by the producer. All forms of representational arts take up some form of this transcription. Furthermore, the singular cannot be thought of as unique or pure because it is always open to re-conceptualization and reinterpretation. In fact, as the singular repeats, it divides and effaces itself as a singular mark in order for it to be expressed as such. The singularity of a print is not only the general structure of eventfulness; it is also invention. However, this is not to say that since a print can be reproduced to infinity that it cannot be singular. Consequently, the copperplate with which Blake’s illuminated print production commences does not “constitute a privileged, canonical version” (Carr 185).
Blake scholar, Joseph Viscomi is exceedingly skeptical of Carr’s application of a theoretical logic of difference in Blake’s illuminated prints. In Blake and the Idea of the Book, Viscomi thoroughly explores Blake’s printmaking processes and techniques. Viscomi is skeptical of any assertion of difference among Blake’s prints due to the fact that works cannot be physically viewed in person all at once. This he contends makes scholars reliant on reproductions of reproductions or bibliographic information to support claims of differences. However, since then Viscomi has played an instrumental role in the digital archiving of Blake’s illuminated prints, which are made available for the viewing public on the Internet through the “William Blake Archive.” This new media archive allows viewers to access multiple editions of Blake’s illuminated books. Each plate can be enlarged as well as be compared side by side to plates from other editions with remarkable detail. This immediate global access to the Blake archives has rectified the problem of viewing the illuminated prints at once.
Viscomi approaches the printmaking process much like an art historian, and thereby strongly argues that the foundation of Blake’s print making process is solidly based upon an originary drawing—the line. Viscomi explains, “the line that discriminates and particularizes is the line that finds and fixes form in the initial chaos of lines, marks, and blurs. Such a line is necessarily made intentionally…”(167). In Viscomi’s view, any supplementary media applied to a print is merely for aesthetic enhancement rather than a “deliberate revision” of an originary idea (Viscomi 175). Viscomi concedes that while some designs are visibly different from plate to printed page, he denies that differences signify a “rejection of uniformity” and adds that the variations do not “determine the print’s meaning” (175). Viscomi further explains, “Such variations among copies of the same edition, then, do not represent a rethinking of the poem or page but a sensitivity to the generative powers of execution, to the logic of the tools, materials, and processes…” (175). Viscomi’s argument of a fixed line is largely based upon the records of Blake’s technical and artistic notebooks. As a result, Viscomi fails to consider the significant role visual variations play within the interpretative reception of each illuminated print.
The poem “The Little Boy Found” is often considered the companion poem to “The Little Boy Lost.” As such, visual interpretations of “The Little Boy Found” are often influenced by the textual interpretations of its counterpart. Critics often dismiss the visual variations of the adult figure in “The Little Boy Found.” In this plate, the design depicts an adult figure holding hands with a little boy. The adult figure has been indisputably identified as God and visual variations that produce an appearance of feminine traits are considered insignificant. As a consequence, this closing off of the visual variations places limitations on the inventiveness of the work. If the poems are read as companion poems, the titles imply a sense of resolution—the little boy was lost and later found. However, can we or should we read the poems jointly? Resolution, as such, is at odds with the Blakean sense of contrariness. Thus, what is at risk when reading the two poems jointly is the singularity of each illuminated print.
The text of “The Little Boy Lost” influences the identification of the adult figure in “The Little Boy Found.” The first stanza of “The Little Boy Lost” is written in first person singular. The poem centers on a little boy’s anguished plea to an unresponsive father. The little boy calls out to an unseen and unheard father figure who is allegedly fading from view. The boy asks: “Father, father, where are you going” (Blake 13.1). There is no reply. The little boy again solicits a response: “Speak father, speak to your little boy” (Blake 13.3). The repetition of the words “father” and “speak” adds emphasis to the desperation felt by the boy. Again, the plea goes unanswered. The father is not present to hear the dispirited voice of the little boy. At the end of the first stanza, the boy explains that he “shall be lost” without his father (Blake 13.4). The usage of “shall” expresses a future tense rather than present tense. This calls into question the verity of the little boy’s circumstance. Has the father figure really left the boy to his own defenses? Or is it merely speculative on the boy’s part to say that he will be lost without the Father? An omniscient narrator presents the second stanza:
The night was dark no father was there
The child was wet with dew
The mire was deep, & the child did weep
And away the vapour flew. (5-8)
This stanza moves the action away from the particular emotions of the little boy to the generality of one losing their way. This generality bolsters a reading of the father figure as God the Father. The boy is alone in the darkness. He “was wet with dew,” physically trying to find his way out of the engulfing darkness (Blake 13.6). He trudges through the watery mire in despair, weeping because the journey is too difficult to manage alone, without direction, without hope. The next line of the poem abruptly displaces the impression of the boy being unqualifiable lost without the Father: “And away the vapour flew”(Blake 13.8). The word “vapour” signifies a shapeless gaseous substance as well as the state of depression. The double meaning of the word “vapour” opens the poem’s potential interpretations. It could then perhaps be read as a poem about a little boy losing the external figure, God the Father; or rather the boy’s sadness (“vapour”) disappeared as the boy realized that God is inside of each and everyone.
Each plate presents a different impression of the text. In a visual interpretation of the poem; however, the little boy is running with arms outstretched towards the fleeting “vapour.” The visual representation of the “vapour” is a light. In versions SI copies B and U, and SIE copies R, A, F, C, and, B the light the child chases is not vibrant, like it is in versions SIE copies L, T, V, Y, A, and AA. In these versions, the light illuminates and at times overpowers the composition, like in copies Y, Z, and AA. In SIE versions L and R, the figure has a feminine appearance with flowing tresses, and less prominent leg musculature. In version L, the feminine figure’s waistline is wrapped with a sash and rosette. In SIE version B, V, and AA, the figure looks to be sending the light (“vapour”) away. In SIE versions T, V, Y, Z, and AA the figure is wearing a hat, some look to be in a trance-like state while following the light. In SI versions B and U, the figure does not have a hat; instead there is a darkened halo above the head. These design variations can no more authenticate the meaning of the poem than a text only reading, because every encounter with an illuminated print is an event of discovery. Every variation of tone and mood will influence the overall reading of the poem.
In “The Little Boy Found” there are even greater visual variations that potentially alter and rearrange the meaning of the poem. For instance, in versions SIE V, Y, and Z the adult figure has a noticeable beard. This supports a reading in which the figure is identified as God both visually and verbally. This type of visual and verbal interpretation assumes the signifier and signified are correctly received. In other versions, such as SI U, SIE B, A, F, L, R, T, and AA, the adult figure looks markedly feminine. If we regard Blake’s illuminated plates as unequivocally representative of the text how can we then explain the variations of appearance to the adult figure?
In a text only interpretation, a little boy finds himself lost in the woods while following a “wand’ring light” (Blake 14.2). The “wand’ring light” is often linked to the “vapour” in “The Little Boy Lost.” The boy cries out in sorrow because he has lost his way, when suddenly “God ever nigh / Appeard like his father in white” (Blake 14.3-4). Here, God’s presence becomes present; though his presence is not visible he has been “ever nigh.” The figure that appears to the boy is not his paternal father but rather “Appeard like his father” (Blake 14.4). God’s presence materializes in a physical form to comfort the little boy. He then leads the little boy by the hand to be reunited with his mother. This textual interpretation seems to be the area where the controversial textual and visual differences come into play. This is largely due to a privileged interpretation that gives priority to the text over a visual reading as well as reading the poem as a companion piece the “The Little Boy Lost.” However, this priority can be undermined by a visual interpretation when set in another context.
If we were to interpret “The Little Boy Found” first by identifying the adult figure in the image as in the case with SI U, SIE B, A, F, L, R, T, and AA we may be more likely to interpret the figure as the mother because of the feminine physical traits. It is reasonable enough to give authority to an interpretation that forwards the figure in the illuminated print to be God the father, as it is God in the poem that “kissed the child” and lead him by the hand (Blake 14.5). Nevertheless, it is just as reasonable to identify the figure as the mother and child being reunited. The second stanza:
He kissed the child, and by the hand led,
And to his mother brought,
Who in sorrow pale, through the lonely dale,
Her little boy weeping sought. (5-8)
The line: “Her little boy weeping sought” indicates that it was the boy who was crying as he was looking for his mother (Blake 14.6). If the boy was indeed searching for his mother, then a reading is possible with which the imagery depicts a reunion of a mother and child hand in hand and not God and child. Certainly, the text conveys that God appeared in material form to the child and lead him by the hand. Nevertheless, how can we so easily dismiss an interpretation of the image as being the reunion of the mother and child? Each plate presents variations of tone and mood through gestural brushstrokes and line markings. For example in version SIE B the adult figure’s eyes are soft while the little boy’s expression is responsive, as if the reunion is a joyous occasion. However in SIE A the tone is ominous with darker tones that envelope the scene. The adult figure’s features are sharp and the little boy looks a bit frightened. If we deny the influence that visual variations can have and suppress the heterogeneous meanings, do we not simply extend the hierarchy of an origin? This seems to be the larger question, a question that is not so easily answered. Therefore, if we read “The Little Boy Found” as the unquestionable companion poem to “The Little Boy Lost” then it is likely that the illuminated print would forward an interpretation of God and the little boy holding hands.
Stephen C. Behrendt suggests, “Blake characteristically invokes and manipulates our expectations about determinacy (of word, of image, of ‘meaning’) to force us to recognize and appreciate the multiplicity of potential signification that resides in seemingly every word, every line, every suggestion”(553). Despite this assertion of indeterminacy of the text, Behrendt opposes Carr’s argument of a play of differences. In the article “The ‘Third Text’ of Blake’s Illuminated Books” Behrendt uses Viscomi’s research of Blake’s printmaking process to support his argument that originary intention is based upon the carefully crafted line of the copperplate. Behrendt, like Viscomi, believes that any evidence of variation in Blake’s artwork is largely due to the mechanical process of printmaking rather than intentional manipulation. There is a visible etched line on the surface of every plate, a line that will produce variations upon multiple runs through the heavy printing press. Nonetheless, this does not account for the incontrovertible alterations placed on top of the original print with ink, watercolor, or other media. In the printmaking process, depending on the amount of ink applied to the copperplate, variations from the line of the final product will be produced. The print making process is an exceedingly technical process in which it is necessary to meticulously calculate and compose with a prescient plan to produce the final product. Blake did not leave the final printed product untouched. Blake and his wife often added watercolor, ink, or lines to the prints, dramatically altering the imagery. And yet Behrendt, like Viscomi, fails to address the fact that these additions were executed with artistic intention.
Earlier, I had stated that the singularity of a print is both the general structure of an event and invention. That a work can be reproduced to infinity does not annul its capacity of being singular. The singular event and inventiveness of a literary or visual artwork is an experience of discovery. Every encounter with Blake’s illuminated prints carries with it this potential. When responding to a work, the response is due to the inventiveness of the individual reader. This encounter, of course, depends upon cultural and contextual influences. A reader approaching Blake’s work today would not receive the work in the same way as the period of its creation, because its reception depends on context within a network of differences. The singularity of Blake’s illuminated prints is the reader’s reception of particular words and the arrangement of words on the page, as well as the imagery, color, and typeset. This arrangement influences the reception to the work as a whole. The identity of the work is not fixed; rather it is open to re-interpretation and re-conceptualization. The illuminated print when encountered once will not deliver the same affect when approached again because the imagination produces new meaning. The singularity of the work is this potential of receiving new meaning.
In the illuminated print of “The Little Boy Found,” design variations are too often overlooked or dismissed as insignificant. The illuminated print is a technology that mechanically reproduces copies, but its identity is not originary; it is part of a network of unfastened meaning. The fixed line on the etched plate that Viscomi and Behrendt suggest to be the true intention of the work does not account for the supplementary media that was applied after multiple runs through the press. There are more versions of “The Little Boy Found” depicting the adult figure with feminine attributes, while only three versions of the adult figure appear to have unquestionable male attributes. These details may seem minor and irresolvable because we do not have access to Blake’s intentions; however, these alterations were transmitted without a guarantee that its reception would be received as it was intended. To close off interpretations to a particular Blakean “vision” is to limit the expansive imagination promoted by Blake. Thus, the indeterminacy of meaning is expressly the result of the singularity of each illuminated print.
