What do you think?
Rate this book
William Blake
William Blake has long been regarded as something of an enigma, and his poetry, although much loved by young and old, seen as esoteric and mysterious. His 'natural supernaturalism', personal mythology and vision can leave readers dazzled by the intensity and passion of his verse. In this outstanding work, Chesterton goes right to the heart of the matter and addresses the question of whether Blake's genius was tainted by madness or whether his peculiar outlook on the world was the key to his success. With a detailed exposition of Blake's life, and by weaving lucid explanations of his philosophy and religion into a discourse on his poetry, Chesterton has produced a remarkable and sensitive biography.This book published in 1910 has been reformatted for the Kindle and may contain an occasional defect from the original publication or from the reformatting.
101 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 30, 1909
27 people are currently reading
247 people want to read
About the author
G.K. Chesterton
4,643 books5,746 followersGilbert Keith Chesterton was an English writer, philosopher, lay theologian, and literary and art critic.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
January 1, 2022
A book about an impressionist writer through impressionism by an impressionist writer.
“We all feel the riddle of the earth without anyone to point it out. The mystery of life is the plainest part of it. The clouds and curtains of darkness, the confounding vapours, these are the daily weather of this world. Whatever else we have grown accustomed to, we have grown accustomed to the unaccountable. Every stone or flower is a hieroglyphic of which we have lost the key; With every step of our lives we enter into the middle of some story which we are certain to misunderstand…”
– G.K. Chesterton in William Blake, 1910
“We all feel the riddle of the earth without anyone to point it out. The mystery of life is the plainest part of it. The clouds and curtains of darkness, the confounding vapours, these are the daily weather of this world. Whatever else we have grown accustomed to, we have grown accustomed to the unaccountable. Every stone or flower is a hieroglyphic of which we have lost the key; With every step of our lives we enter into the middle of some story which we are certain to misunderstand…”
– G.K. Chesterton in William Blake, 1910
October 26, 2025
“The wise man will follow a star, low and large and fierce in the heavens; but the nearer he comes to it the smaller and smaller it will grow, till he finds it a humble lantern over some little inn or stable.”
December 27, 2021
I am smooth-reading this book and Project Gutenberg will publish it pretty soon.
This book is part biography (less than 30% of the whole book) and part art criticism.
This book is part of the series entitled "The Popular Library of Art":
ALBRECHT DÜRER (37 Illustrations).
By Lina Eckenstein.
ROSSETTI (53 Illustrations).
By Ford Madox Hueffer.
REMBRANDT (61 Illustrations).
By Auguste Bréal.
FRED. WALKER (32 Illustrations and Photogravure).
By Clementina Black.
MILLET (32 Illustrations).
By Romain Rolland.
LEONARDO DA VINCI (44 Illustrations).
By Dr Georg Gronau.
GAINSBOROUGH (55 Illustrations).
By Arthur B. Chamberlain.
THE FRENCH IMPRESSIONISTS (50 Illustrations).
By Camille Mauclair.
BOTTICELLI (37 Illustrations).
By Julia Cartwright (Mrs Ady).
VELAZQUEZ (51 Illustrations).
By Auguste Bréal.
WATTS (33 Illustrations).
By G. K. Chesterton.
RAPHAEL (50 Illustrations).
By Julia Cartwright (Mrs Ady).
HOLBEIN (50 Illustrations).
By Ford Madox Hueffer.
ENGLISH WATER COLOUR PAINTERS (42 Illustrations).
By A. J. Finberg.
WATTEAU (35 Illustrations).
By Camille Mauclair.
PERUGINO (50 Illustrations).
By Edward Hutton.
THE PRE-RAPHAELITE BROTHERHOOD (38 Illustrations).
By Ford Madox Hueffer.
CRUIKSHANK (55 Illustrations).
By W. H. Chesson.
WHISTLER (26 Illustrations).
By Bernhard Sickert.
HOGARTH (48 Illustrations).
By Edward Garnett.
WILLIAM BLAKE (33 Illustrations).
By G. K. Chesterton.
This book is part biography (less than 30% of the whole book) and part art criticism.
This book is part of the series entitled "The Popular Library of Art":
ALBRECHT DÜRER (37 Illustrations).
By Lina Eckenstein.
ROSSETTI (53 Illustrations).
By Ford Madox Hueffer.
REMBRANDT (61 Illustrations).
By Auguste Bréal.
FRED. WALKER (32 Illustrations and Photogravure).
By Clementina Black.
MILLET (32 Illustrations).
By Romain Rolland.
LEONARDO DA VINCI (44 Illustrations).
By Dr Georg Gronau.
GAINSBOROUGH (55 Illustrations).
By Arthur B. Chamberlain.
THE FRENCH IMPRESSIONISTS (50 Illustrations).
By Camille Mauclair.
BOTTICELLI (37 Illustrations).
By Julia Cartwright (Mrs Ady).
VELAZQUEZ (51 Illustrations).
By Auguste Bréal.
WATTS (33 Illustrations).
By G. K. Chesterton.
RAPHAEL (50 Illustrations).
By Julia Cartwright (Mrs Ady).
HOLBEIN (50 Illustrations).
By Ford Madox Hueffer.
ENGLISH WATER COLOUR PAINTERS (42 Illustrations).
By A. J. Finberg.
WATTEAU (35 Illustrations).
By Camille Mauclair.
PERUGINO (50 Illustrations).
By Edward Hutton.
THE PRE-RAPHAELITE BROTHERHOOD (38 Illustrations).
By Ford Madox Hueffer.
CRUIKSHANK (55 Illustrations).
By W. H. Chesson.
WHISTLER (26 Illustrations).
By Bernhard Sickert.
HOGARTH (48 Illustrations).
By Edward Garnett.
WILLIAM BLAKE (33 Illustrations).
By G. K. Chesterton.
June 15, 2025
In questa biografia Chesterton si dedica ad analizzare l'artista William Blake, poeta, pittore e incisore. Accenna alle origini umili di Blake e ne delinea un carattere "solido", diretto; un uomo dalle idee chiare, definite, anche quando possono apparire bizzarre. Per esempio, non percepisce nulla di misterioso nelle sue visioni, esse sono tangibili quanto la realtà.
Il saggio sottolinea la vicinanza stilistica fra le due espressioni artistiche di Blake, cioè la poesia e la pittura, dove predilige frasi e linee nette, definite.
Molte pagine sono dedicate alla personalità di Blake, che era molto particolare. Aveva dei sentimenti forti e li esprimeva in modo altrettanto marcato, ma sempre vivendoli sull'emotività del momento. Una personalità che, soprattutto all'epoca, era sconcertante.
In particolare, il fatto di essere una persona visionaria portava la società a considerarlo quasi un folle. In realtà era soprattutto fuori dai canoni, quasi un anarchico per certi versi.
Nel saggio Chesterton tende un po' a divagare, anche se spesso lo fa con criterio. Per analizzare il fatto che il Blake visionario poteva essere considerato un folle, comincia una disamina di cos'era il '700 cioè l'epoca in cui Blake è nato. In quest'epoca illuminista, in cui c'è il dominio della ragione, tutto ciò che tende al fantastico e quindi la visionarietà di Blake è quasi sinonimo di follia perché distante dalla razionalità di un mondo ordinato da leggi naturali e scientifiche.
Chesterton parla inoltre di Blake come un uomo che non guardava alla forma delle cose ma alla loro essenza, e dunque alla loro immagine eterna. E' anche questo che rende i suoi versi, e in generale le sue opere, un po' enigmatici. Insomma per capire Blake, bisogna conoscerlo.
Al netto delle divagazioni, che aumentano con lo scorrere della lettura, è stato un testo interessante.
Il saggio sottolinea la vicinanza stilistica fra le due espressioni artistiche di Blake, cioè la poesia e la pittura, dove predilige frasi e linee nette, definite.
Molte pagine sono dedicate alla personalità di Blake, che era molto particolare. Aveva dei sentimenti forti e li esprimeva in modo altrettanto marcato, ma sempre vivendoli sull'emotività del momento. Una personalità che, soprattutto all'epoca, era sconcertante.
In particolare, il fatto di essere una persona visionaria portava la società a considerarlo quasi un folle. In realtà era soprattutto fuori dai canoni, quasi un anarchico per certi versi.
Nel saggio Chesterton tende un po' a divagare, anche se spesso lo fa con criterio. Per analizzare il fatto che il Blake visionario poteva essere considerato un folle, comincia una disamina di cos'era il '700 cioè l'epoca in cui Blake è nato. In quest'epoca illuminista, in cui c'è il dominio della ragione, tutto ciò che tende al fantastico e quindi la visionarietà di Blake è quasi sinonimo di follia perché distante dalla razionalità di un mondo ordinato da leggi naturali e scientifiche.
Chesterton parla inoltre di Blake come un uomo che non guardava alla forma delle cose ma alla loro essenza, e dunque alla loro immagine eterna. E' anche questo che rende i suoi versi, e in generale le sue opere, un po' enigmatici. Insomma per capire Blake, bisogna conoscerlo.
Al netto delle divagazioni, che aumentano con lo scorrere della lettura, è stato un testo interessante.
February 1, 2021
A deep Insight into the person and the mind of William Blake. But he does not analyze him as a great poet. Muggeridge describes his poetry much deeper and better
July 29, 2018
I believe I encountered William Blake for the first time in a high school honor's English class. But the name really meant nothing to me, other than that he was one of the Greats next to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, John Keats, and Lord Tennyson. They were all just poets who had achieved greatness sometime in the past between the 17th and 20th centuries. And here I was in a high school English class presuming I could "analyze" their poetical works. Sounds pretty presumptuous. It reminds me of the time my English teacher pulled out one memorable student analysis of a poem which asserted "the seagulls are a symbol for Japanese kamikaze airplanes."
Ever since then, I have wanted to do these poets justice, and really attempt to get at what they meant. In high school, I aspired to be a poet, but ended giving up to pursue what I deemed a more "rational" career in chemical engineer where a spade is a spade and nothing else. But I kept my poetical side alive, eventually purchasing every "The Collected Work of __________" I could when I worked as a bookseller at Barnes and Noble. William Blake was one of those. I rarely even opened Blake though, because he seemed so, well, unintelligible. Can you make head nor tail of this?
Enslav'd, the Daughter of Albion weep: a trembling lamentation
Upon their mountains; in their valleys. sighs toward America.
For the soft soul of America, Oothoon, wanderd in woe,
Along the vales of Leutha seeking flowers to comfort her;
And thus she spoke to the bright Marygold of Leuth's vale
Art thou a flower! art thou a nymph! I see thee now a flower;
Now a nymph! I dare not pluck thee from thy dewy bed!
The Golden nymph replied; pluck thou my flower Oothoon the mild
Another flower shall spring, because the soul of sweet delight
Can never pass away. she ceas'd & closd her golden shrine
Perhaps if I had an introduction, to understand what Blake was getting at, then I could understand what some of his poems meant? Other than that, it just seemed like alphabet soup (I have actually read a biography of William Blake previously here, but it did little to alleviate the confusion).
My second encounter with Blake was, curiously, on my mission to Frankfurt, Germany. I was serving in the beautiful city of Bonn. We would meet a man in the Hofgarten in front of the Poppelsdorf Palace to teach him the discussions. As a student, he happened to be doing his thesis on William Blake. He was quite the literary fellow. When we read the Book of Mormon, he would insist on reading it out loud to us a chapter at a time, as he was a trained Vorleser (read-a-louder). And we would have philosophical discussions regarding the implications of doctrines in the Book of Mormon. I felt a little bit in over my head, but I tried to stick to the missionary goal of teaching the gospel in its simplicity.
Now, moving on to G. K. Chesterton's biographical take on Blake. Chesterton would likely horrify a historian in his approach to biographies, but that's partly what makes them so profound. Rather than sticking to the details of where he was born, what his parents were like, and all that other David Copperfield kind of crap, he seeks to find the significance of Blake-- more of an interpretation of his life. He did the same with George Bernard Shaw, St. Francis of Assisi, and Thomas Aquinas, all of which I have also read. Chesterton does the audience a favor by explaining his approach:
Blake was born in 1757, in Carnaby Market—but Blake's life of Blake would not have begun like that. It would have begun with a great deal about the giant Albion, about the many disagreements between the spirit and the spectre of that gentleman, about the golden pillars that covered the earth at its beginning and the lions that walked in their golden innocence before God. It would have been full of symbolic wild beasts and naked women, of monstrous clouds and colossal temples; and it would all have been highly incomprehensible, but none of it would have been irrelevant. All the biggest events of Blake's life would have happened before he was born. But, on consideration, I think it will be better to tell the tale of Blake's life first and go back to his century afterwards. It is not, indeed, easy to resist temptation here, for there was much to be said about Blake before he existed. But I will resist the temptation and begin with the facts.
By the time you get to the end of the biography, you aren't so sure he stuck to the facts of Blake's life! Instead you get fascinating insights into the weaknesses of specialists and experts:
People say that specialists are inhuman; but that is unjust. People say an expert is not a man; but that is unkind and untrue. The real difficulty about the specialist or expert is much more singular and fascinating. The trouble with the expert is never that he is not a man; it is always that wherever he is not an expert he is too much of an ordinary man. Wherever he is not exceptionally learned he is quite casually ignorant. This is the great fallacy in the case of what is called the impartiality of men of science. If scientific men had no idea beyond their scientific work it might be all very well—that is to say, all very well for everybody except them. But the truth is that, beyond their scientific ideas, they have not the absence of ideas but the presence of the most vulgar and sentimental ideas that happen to be common to their social clique. If a biologist had no views on art and morals it might be all very well. The truth is that a biologist has all the wrong views of art and morals that happen to be going about in the smart set in his time. If Professor Tyndall had held no views about politics, he could have done no harm with his views about evolution. Unfortunately, however, he held a very low order of political ideas from his sectarian and Orange ancestry; and those ideas have poisoned evolution to this day. In short, the danger of the mere technical artist or expert is that of becoming a snob or average silly man in all things not affecting his peculiar topic of study; wherever he is not an extraordinary man he is a particularly stupid ordinary man.
The difference between real religion and spiritualism using an alcoholic metaphor:
The difference between having a real religion and having a mere curiosity about psychic marvels is really very like the difference between drinking beer and drinking brandy, between drinking wine and drinking gin. Beer is a food as well as a stimulant; so a positive religion is a comfort as well as an adventure. A man drinks his wine because it is his favourite wine, the pleasure of his palate or the vintage of his valley. A man drinks alcohol merely because it is alcoholic.
And a critique of impressionism:
Impressionism is scepticism. It means believing one's immediate impressions at the expense of one's more permanent and positive generalisations. It puts what one notices above what one knows. It means the monstrous heresy that seeing is believing. A white cow at one particular instant of the evening light may be gold on one side and violet on the other. The whole point of Impressionism is to say that she really is a gold and violet cow. The whole point of Impressionism is to say that there is no white cow at all. What can we tell, it cries, beyond what we can see? But the essence of Mysticism is to insist that there is a white cow, however veiled with shadow or painted with sunset gold. Blessed are they who have seen the violet cow and who yet believe in the white one. To the mystic a white cow has a sort of solid whiteness, as if the cow were made out of frozen milk. To him a white horse has a solid whiteness as if he were cut out of the firm English chalk, like the White Horse in the valley of King Alfred. The cow's whiteness is more important than anything except her cowishness.
You get enough of Blake in between to get a general sweep of his life, but I am glad that I had read a biography previously that was more biographical in nature. But you enjoy Chesterton for his asides, his paradoxes, his analogies, and most of all his wit. In the end, you find that while Chesterton disagreed with Blake on many accounts, he found that he stood for something: the solidity of ideas.
Ever since then, I have wanted to do these poets justice, and really attempt to get at what they meant. In high school, I aspired to be a poet, but ended giving up to pursue what I deemed a more "rational" career in chemical engineer where a spade is a spade and nothing else. But I kept my poetical side alive, eventually purchasing every "The Collected Work of __________" I could when I worked as a bookseller at Barnes and Noble. William Blake was one of those. I rarely even opened Blake though, because he seemed so, well, unintelligible. Can you make head nor tail of this?
Enslav'd, the Daughter of Albion weep: a trembling lamentation
Upon their mountains; in their valleys. sighs toward America.
For the soft soul of America, Oothoon, wanderd in woe,
Along the vales of Leutha seeking flowers to comfort her;
And thus she spoke to the bright Marygold of Leuth's vale
Art thou a flower! art thou a nymph! I see thee now a flower;
Now a nymph! I dare not pluck thee from thy dewy bed!
The Golden nymph replied; pluck thou my flower Oothoon the mild
Another flower shall spring, because the soul of sweet delight
Can never pass away. she ceas'd & closd her golden shrine
Perhaps if I had an introduction, to understand what Blake was getting at, then I could understand what some of his poems meant? Other than that, it just seemed like alphabet soup (I have actually read a biography of William Blake previously here, but it did little to alleviate the confusion).
My second encounter with Blake was, curiously, on my mission to Frankfurt, Germany. I was serving in the beautiful city of Bonn. We would meet a man in the Hofgarten in front of the Poppelsdorf Palace to teach him the discussions. As a student, he happened to be doing his thesis on William Blake. He was quite the literary fellow. When we read the Book of Mormon, he would insist on reading it out loud to us a chapter at a time, as he was a trained Vorleser (read-a-louder). And we would have philosophical discussions regarding the implications of doctrines in the Book of Mormon. I felt a little bit in over my head, but I tried to stick to the missionary goal of teaching the gospel in its simplicity.
Now, moving on to G. K. Chesterton's biographical take on Blake. Chesterton would likely horrify a historian in his approach to biographies, but that's partly what makes them so profound. Rather than sticking to the details of where he was born, what his parents were like, and all that other David Copperfield kind of crap, he seeks to find the significance of Blake-- more of an interpretation of his life. He did the same with George Bernard Shaw, St. Francis of Assisi, and Thomas Aquinas, all of which I have also read. Chesterton does the audience a favor by explaining his approach:
Blake was born in 1757, in Carnaby Market—but Blake's life of Blake would not have begun like that. It would have begun with a great deal about the giant Albion, about the many disagreements between the spirit and the spectre of that gentleman, about the golden pillars that covered the earth at its beginning and the lions that walked in their golden innocence before God. It would have been full of symbolic wild beasts and naked women, of monstrous clouds and colossal temples; and it would all have been highly incomprehensible, but none of it would have been irrelevant. All the biggest events of Blake's life would have happened before he was born. But, on consideration, I think it will be better to tell the tale of Blake's life first and go back to his century afterwards. It is not, indeed, easy to resist temptation here, for there was much to be said about Blake before he existed. But I will resist the temptation and begin with the facts.
By the time you get to the end of the biography, you aren't so sure he stuck to the facts of Blake's life! Instead you get fascinating insights into the weaknesses of specialists and experts:
People say that specialists are inhuman; but that is unjust. People say an expert is not a man; but that is unkind and untrue. The real difficulty about the specialist or expert is much more singular and fascinating. The trouble with the expert is never that he is not a man; it is always that wherever he is not an expert he is too much of an ordinary man. Wherever he is not exceptionally learned he is quite casually ignorant. This is the great fallacy in the case of what is called the impartiality of men of science. If scientific men had no idea beyond their scientific work it might be all very well—that is to say, all very well for everybody except them. But the truth is that, beyond their scientific ideas, they have not the absence of ideas but the presence of the most vulgar and sentimental ideas that happen to be common to their social clique. If a biologist had no views on art and morals it might be all very well. The truth is that a biologist has all the wrong views of art and morals that happen to be going about in the smart set in his time. If Professor Tyndall had held no views about politics, he could have done no harm with his views about evolution. Unfortunately, however, he held a very low order of political ideas from his sectarian and Orange ancestry; and those ideas have poisoned evolution to this day. In short, the danger of the mere technical artist or expert is that of becoming a snob or average silly man in all things not affecting his peculiar topic of study; wherever he is not an extraordinary man he is a particularly stupid ordinary man.
The difference between real religion and spiritualism using an alcoholic metaphor:
The difference between having a real religion and having a mere curiosity about psychic marvels is really very like the difference between drinking beer and drinking brandy, between drinking wine and drinking gin. Beer is a food as well as a stimulant; so a positive religion is a comfort as well as an adventure. A man drinks his wine because it is his favourite wine, the pleasure of his palate or the vintage of his valley. A man drinks alcohol merely because it is alcoholic.
And a critique of impressionism:
Impressionism is scepticism. It means believing one's immediate impressions at the expense of one's more permanent and positive generalisations. It puts what one notices above what one knows. It means the monstrous heresy that seeing is believing. A white cow at one particular instant of the evening light may be gold on one side and violet on the other. The whole point of Impressionism is to say that she really is a gold and violet cow. The whole point of Impressionism is to say that there is no white cow at all. What can we tell, it cries, beyond what we can see? But the essence of Mysticism is to insist that there is a white cow, however veiled with shadow or painted with sunset gold. Blessed are they who have seen the violet cow and who yet believe in the white one. To the mystic a white cow has a sort of solid whiteness, as if the cow were made out of frozen milk. To him a white horse has a solid whiteness as if he were cut out of the firm English chalk, like the White Horse in the valley of King Alfred. The cow's whiteness is more important than anything except her cowishness.
You get enough of Blake in between to get a general sweep of his life, but I am glad that I had read a biography previously that was more biographical in nature. But you enjoy Chesterton for his asides, his paradoxes, his analogies, and most of all his wit. In the end, you find that while Chesterton disagreed with Blake on many accounts, he found that he stood for something: the solidity of ideas.
May 26, 2022
Sólido e influyente
March 16, 2025
First Chesterton read. Delightful. Witty, pithy, and a great angle through which to view Blake’s life through the context of the century in which he lived.
November 26, 2013
(review in english/ Crítica en español ^.^)
I have mixed feelings towards this book. First of all, i should say that calling this text "biography" would be mistake. Being loyal to his journalistic style, GK Chesterton is making here more a periodistic review than an accurate description of Blake's life. the book is constantly jumping into discussion about Blake's ideas, if they were right or mistaken, and here Chesterton obviously fails to be objective. what i liked this book, however, is that Chesterton's style is ruthless,passionate,intricated and super incisive when it comes to describe and discuss the ideas of this temperamental and -very- misunderstood man; and despite the numerous criticism he provides towards Blake's ideas, he also seemed to admire and feel very fascinated by his complex poems and enigmatic paintings, which style were truly unique among his era. If you are a fan of Chesterton, you should not miss this book. But i kindly suggest you to choose something else if you want to achieve a more complete visión of who was William Blake.
ps.- Thanks to this book i found out there's another one called "magic" also by him. Can't wait to read it *-*
Tengo sentimientos encontrados con respecto a este libro. realmente hubo cosas que odié, y cosas que me gustaron muchísimo en este pequeño volumen. Primero que nada, debo aclarar que biografía no es una definición precisa para este libro; bio es la ultima categoría que debiera dársele. GK Chesterton lo que hace aquí básicamente es una critica del pensamiento de este hombre, mas que una biografia adecuada de su vida. A Chesterton le cuesta mucho trabajo manetenerse objetivo y este libro fue creado para poder discutir sus ideas, que hace de manera apasionada, implacable y a consciencia, y que de hecho, es algo que no dejo de admirar, incluso si esto hace que se pierda el objetivo principal del libro. desafortunadamente, aquí resulta complicado poder mirar la esencia de este complicado artista debido a que su autor imprime -en exceso, en mi humilde opinión- su sello personal. aun así, no dejo de reconocer lo brillantes que fueron estos hombres, uno como místico temperamental y eterno buscador de lo desconocido e insondable, y otro - también temperamental- escritor y eterno buscador, pero siempre queriendo hacer terrenal eso insondable.
Pd.- Este autor también escribió un libro llamado "magia" que no puedo esperar a leer *-*.
I have mixed feelings towards this book. First of all, i should say that calling this text "biography" would be mistake. Being loyal to his journalistic style, GK Chesterton is making here more a periodistic review than an accurate description of Blake's life. the book is constantly jumping into discussion about Blake's ideas, if they were right or mistaken, and here Chesterton obviously fails to be objective. what i liked this book, however, is that Chesterton's style is ruthless,passionate,intricated and super incisive when it comes to describe and discuss the ideas of this temperamental and -very- misunderstood man; and despite the numerous criticism he provides towards Blake's ideas, he also seemed to admire and feel very fascinated by his complex poems and enigmatic paintings, which style were truly unique among his era. If you are a fan of Chesterton, you should not miss this book. But i kindly suggest you to choose something else if you want to achieve a more complete visión of who was William Blake.
ps.- Thanks to this book i found out there's another one called "magic" also by him. Can't wait to read it *-*
Tengo sentimientos encontrados con respecto a este libro. realmente hubo cosas que odié, y cosas que me gustaron muchísimo en este pequeño volumen. Primero que nada, debo aclarar que biografía no es una definición precisa para este libro; bio es la ultima categoría que debiera dársele. GK Chesterton lo que hace aquí básicamente es una critica del pensamiento de este hombre, mas que una biografia adecuada de su vida. A Chesterton le cuesta mucho trabajo manetenerse objetivo y este libro fue creado para poder discutir sus ideas, que hace de manera apasionada, implacable y a consciencia, y que de hecho, es algo que no dejo de admirar, incluso si esto hace que se pierda el objetivo principal del libro. desafortunadamente, aquí resulta complicado poder mirar la esencia de este complicado artista debido a que su autor imprime -en exceso, en mi humilde opinión- su sello personal. aun así, no dejo de reconocer lo brillantes que fueron estos hombres, uno como místico temperamental y eterno buscador de lo desconocido e insondable, y otro - también temperamental- escritor y eterno buscador, pero siempre queriendo hacer terrenal eso insondable.
Pd.- Este autor también escribió un libro llamado "magia" que no puedo esperar a leer *-*.
April 18, 2022
It was my initial impression that this book would be a biography of Blake, and there is some biographical information. However, it is not really a biography. I also thought it might be a commentary on Blake's work; and while there is some commentary on it, the book is not really a commentary either.
As mentioned above, Chesterton goes over Blake's life and career, but then asks the question that everyone who is familiar with Blake eventually askes, was he a madman? To answer that question one needs a better understanding of what Christian mysticism is really, and it is that topic that this book is really about.
Like all works by Chesterton, this examination of mysticism is well-ordered and well-thought out. As might be suspected, Chesterton is is sympathetic to the notion of Christian mysticism, and does not dismiss the question of Blake's sanity out of hand. While not what I originally thought the book was about, it ended up being an excellent read.
As mentioned above, Chesterton goes over Blake's life and career, but then asks the question that everyone who is familiar with Blake eventually askes, was he a madman? To answer that question one needs a better understanding of what Christian mysticism is really, and it is that topic that this book is really about.
Like all works by Chesterton, this examination of mysticism is well-ordered and well-thought out. As might be suspected, Chesterton is is sympathetic to the notion of Christian mysticism, and does not dismiss the question of Blake's sanity out of hand. While not what I originally thought the book was about, it ended up being an excellent read.
February 3, 2023
Vaig començar el llibre esperant una biografia de'n William Blake i m'he trobat amb la visió filosòfica i religiosa de'n G. K. Chesterton.
A la primera part del llibre, la "biografia" de William Blake, exposa la lluita del racionalisme i l'idealisme dels segle XVIII així com una petit assaig sobre les diferents heretgies cristianes i altres religions ocultes. Mostra el personatge principal encarant raó i ideologia per sobre de la seva suposada bogeria.
Dos apèndixs aporten algun apunt més sobre en William Blake. I un epíleg fer per André Maurois el 1935 que aprofundeix i aclareix el punt de vista de'n G.K. Chesterton amb les divergències de diferents mirades per escriptors contemporanis.
Petit llibret molt ben editat per Ediciones Espuela de Plata, colección Literatura Universal, amb una traducció còmode, agradosa i brillant feta per la Victória León.
Llibre que rellegiré més endavant.
A la primera part del llibre, la "biografia" de William Blake, exposa la lluita del racionalisme i l'idealisme dels segle XVIII així com una petit assaig sobre les diferents heretgies cristianes i altres religions ocultes. Mostra el personatge principal encarant raó i ideologia per sobre de la seva suposada bogeria.
Dos apèndixs aporten algun apunt més sobre en William Blake. I un epíleg fer per André Maurois el 1935 que aprofundeix i aclareix el punt de vista de'n G.K. Chesterton amb les divergències de diferents mirades per escriptors contemporanis.
Petit llibret molt ben editat per Ediciones Espuela de Plata, colección Literatura Universal, amb una traducció còmode, agradosa i brillant feta per la Victória León.
Llibre que rellegiré més endavant.
April 28, 2025
The best you can say of this book is that it has wonderful Blake illustrations (or my edition does). Chesterton is frequently factually wrong let alone seeming to be incapable of understanding him. The long disquisitions on whether Blake was mad is worthless mouthing off. He regularly says he doesn't understand Blake. To top it all the book is replete with Chesterton's paradoxical verbal pyrotechnics which add nothing to knowledge (indeed deepen ignorance) but serve to display Chesterton's high opinion of his own 'deep thought'.
July 24, 2023
Frustrating. In parts utterly brilliant and illuminating, but also equally dismissive and unserious. Waving away so many of Blake's most strongly held positions and ideas as 'fads' is just deeply uncharitable criticism. I love Chesterton to bits, but his approach can so often be unhelpful in talking about the subject at hand.
March 13, 2020
Biographie analytique tant de la métaphysique de l’artiste que de son histoire. Le mystère de l’artiste et décortiqué au travers du prisme de William Blake donnant un pamphlet philosophique et mystique dans cette leçon de G K Chesterton
February 5, 2024
Leer sobre un hombre de genio, guiado de la mano por otro hombre de genio, ha de ser de las experiencias literarias más hermosas que puede haber. Además que Chesterton es tan lúcido como panzón: lanza rayos de luz ahí donde nadie parece mirar o incluso donde no se atreven.
October 8, 2021
It's amazing book
May 10, 2024
Nice read. Heavy on subjectivity. Didn't explore Blake's poetry much.
June 14, 2024
Chesterton sólo me resulta fascinante cuando no escribe enfadado. Aquí, gozoso como un niño, nos habla de Blake como si cantase una canción.
October 9, 2024
I'm really over people saying Blake saw demons because his art is ugly lol
November 14, 2013
somewhat stunned that chesterton was no more positive towards blake, someone whom i admire greatly. i've read that chesterton could simply not see the virtues in a man's work, or write of him fairly if he disagreed with his views of the world, but that he wrote fair and good criticism when he agreed with ones view of the world and when it made sense to him. i think its an unfair criticism of chesterton, although i see what he means when chesterton tends to be dismissive of a person like tolstoy. nevertheless, chesterton really has to work hard to show that he appreciates blake for all the criticism that he is leveling his way. i suppose he sees himself as loyal to blake and therefore can tee off on him as much as he likes. i don't know.
also a very interesting theory at the end about the occult, spirits, and mental health. i mean very interesting.
also a very interesting theory at the end about the occult, spirits, and mental health. i mean very interesting.
December 30, 2011
quirky, sympathetic, unpredictable - in fact rather like its extraordinary subject
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews