While Johnson endorsed Reynolds' thoughts and character, other contemporaries including the painter James Barry,[2] the onlyman Reynolds ever confessed to hating, found disparagement of Johnson's friend easier. But no one more emphatically denounces Reynolds than William Blake. In his circa 1808 annotations addressing the first eight of Reynolds' fifteen Discourses on Art, Blake not only questions the Augustan aesthetic but also, at times, stridently abuses the personal character of the first President of the Royal Academy.

Critical commentary often foregrounds Blake's abuse as it emphasizes, for example, the marginalia's "cursing,"[3]"violentscorn"[4] and "incoherent violence."[5] Blake himself promotes thislimited and misleading perspective with his recurring vitriolic statements of "Mock," "Knave" and "Damn The Fool." The frequency of these invectives, and our willingness to be drawn toward such anger, suggests that hatred against Reynolds dominates Blake's life. Such is not the case, though; in fact, during Blake's sixty years, he discusses Reynolds relatively few times. Aside from the annotations to the Discourses, David Erdman's A Concordance to the Writings of William Blakeidentifies only six other Blake documents which even mention Reynolds. Although at least twenty-three years pass between the first reference in the 1785 "Island Moon" and the last sometime between 1808 and 1811 in the "Notebook," only the marginalia display statements of any extraordinary frequency or intensity. Further qualifying Blake's anger, one document, the 1802 letter to Thomas Butts, actually presents Blake agreeing with Reynolds' viewpoints on color and lines: "So Says Sir Joshua," Blake writes, "and So say I."

The marginalia, then, might be more aptly viewed as a "spot of time," a Romantic "spontaneous overflow of powerful emotions." Blake's use of the terms "mock" and "knave" presumably reflects spontaneous responses rather than extended contemplation, and his description of Reynolds as being "Hired by the Satan's. for the Depression of Art" demonstrates his affinity with powerful emotions. Had Blake simply recorded his thoughts and closed his copy of the Discourses, the Wordsworthian labels would apply. But again, such is not the case.

Instead, Blake returns to the text and evaluates his own commentary. Analysis of Blake's copy of the 1798 Works of Sir Joshua Reynoldsedited by Edmund Malone reveals that Blake reconsiders and edits his initial thoughts. Erdman identifies in his Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blakethat Blake first writes in pencil and later emends the marginalia with erasures and additions in ink. In keeping with my analogy to Wordsworth, these new annotations, significantly different in content and tone, present an image of Blake seemingly "recollected in tranquility." Because the annotations are built through an extended process rather than emerging in a single spot of time, I propose a textual analysis of the revisions that will locate the "mocks" and "knaves" within the richer context of Blake's methodology.

I will view the annotations as two texts, essentially a manuscript and a revised first edition. Vertical collation a comparison of subsequent editions made possible with Erdman's reconstruction identifies variants between the two texts. As a vertical text, Blake's annotations are somewhat unusual: because no contemporary compositor or amanuensis handles the Discoursesduring the composition process, the only variants are those Blake creates. The absence of textual corruptions establishes Blake's revisions as representing his final authorial intention, what Peter L. Shillingsburg rightly defines as "intention to do" rather than "intention to mean."[6] Even with this focus on theauthor's actions, revisions invariably produce a change in meaning that must also be investigated. To avoid committing the intentional fallacy, I will limit my critical speculation to the affect Blake's revisions have on the marginalia's overall meaning.[7]Because Blake emends only one punctuation mark his deletion of a period in his address "To the King" the study that follows emphasizes the patterning of Blake's intentions "to do" displayed in his substantive emendations (changes in wording and meaning).

The first substantive pattern in Blake's marginalia occurs when he deletes with an immediate and corresponding addition. These variant readings, with one exception, are generally rhetorically altered rather than significantly different in content. At the grammatical level, Blake corrects errors in usage as demonstrated by his revision of a plural possessive pronoun from "your" to "their." A similar alteration of verb tense from "I was hid" to "I am hid" not only produces a grammatically correct sentence but also increases the immediacy of the "Oppression" which Blake cites earlier on the back title page. In DiscourseIII, Blake addresses syntax as he removes a conjunction, adds a preposition and forms a sentence with a more readable parallel construction: "to Degrade & to deny & Mock" becomes "to Degrade to Deny & to Mock."

The addition/deletion pattern most frequently occurs at the diction level where Blake replaces his initial word with a more specific alternative. The brief catalogue that follows will demonstrate: "fine" becomes "polite," "Pine tree" becomes "Pear tree," "an eye" becomes "a stigma," "Lecture" becomes "Discourse," and "said" becomes "dictated." Less frequently, though similarly enhancing meaning, Blake exchanges more than one word. When discussing James Barry's poverty, for example, Blake alters "Barry was poor and independent" to "Barry was poor and Unemployd except by his own Energy." The revision not only clarifies the meaning of "independent" but it also allows Blake to rail against the Royal Academy whose conservative aesthetic, in his opinion, leaves Barry impoverished. Blake's tightening of meaning demonstrated in his addition/deletion patterns neatly parallels the revision process that precedes a text's publication. I find this internal evidence intriguing but must acknowledge that no other evidence has yet been uncovered that suggests Blake intended his annotations for others.

The exception to Blake's addition/deletion patterns not significantly affecting content involves Blake's deleting rhetorical questions in favor of declarative statements. In Discourse I, for example, Blake initially questions Reynolds' reluctance to endorse artistic inspiration by asking "if the Inspiration is Great why Call it Madness." When Blake deletes the question and instead states "For if it is a Deceit the Whole Bible is Madness," he effectively reduces Reynolds' tenet to the absurd by juxtaposing it with values the high church Anglican would have despised. The patterning is slightly altered in Discourse IIIwhen Blake retains the question asking "What is General Nature is there Such a Thing" (he actually repeats the interrogative in successive lines). In this instance, Blake has no reason to produce a variant reading because he includes the declarative answer "All Knowledge is Particular" in his initial draft. So strongly does Blake apparently abhor the eighteenth century's disposition toward general knowledge (expressed in Samuel Johnson's Rasselas, for example) that he cannot refrain from answering the question immediately after writing it. Both examples, regardless of their differing methodology, demonstrate Blake's willingness to substantiate his marginal comments with declarative statements of content.

The second major category of substantive changes concerns Blake's deleting without any corresponding addition; these revisions predominately soften his harsh tone by removing invectives lacking substance. With two exceptions dropping "This is the Character of a Knave" in reference to Francis Bacon and "why then gratify Flemish Knaves & Fools" in reference to Dutch painters each of Blake's deletions involve invectives directed at Reynolds. Three of the most caustic examples are deleted in the closing pages to Malone's introduction: first, relating to Reynolds and the Literary Club, Blake deletes "Oliver Goldsmith never should have known such knaves;" second, regarding Reynolds' sincerity, Blake omits "O Shame False;" and finally, concerning Malone's description of Reynolds' lavish funeral, Blake removes "Funeral granted to Sir Joshua for having destroyd Art . . . ." Each of Blake's deleted passages are directed against Reynolds' character rather than his aesthetic theory. As Blake tends to expand the content of his annotations during revision, I suggest that the character invectives are removed because their lack of substance offers Blake no opportunity for expanding his own artistic beliefs. By quantitatively reducing the anger directed at Reynolds, Blake's method requires us, as critics, to reassess our emphasis on the abusive language found in the annotations.

The final and most frequently seen category of Blake's substantive emendations are independent additions not linked with deletions. Examination of the variant readings identifies a number of patterns, the majority of which continue to exemplify Blake's content emphasis during revision. The first addition- only pattern involves Blake's assertion that Reynolds' eclectic background promotes discrepancies in his artistic beliefs: "The Man," Blake writes, "Either Painter or Philosopher who Learns or Acquires all he Knows from Others Must be full of Contradictions." At no other point in the initial draft, though, does Blake address this issue. He does, however, renew the idea in his revisions as illustrated by the following examples. In Discourse I, after Reynolds first states that students can be taught artistic genius, he diminishes, at least in Blake's reading, the importance of teaching proper composing techniques. Blake identifies the opposing ideas and makes the addition "This is all False & Self-Contradictory" and one page later adds "This is All Self-Contradictory! Truth & Falsehood Jumbled Together." Similarly, after Reynolds states that art built upon general nature is eternal, Blake responds "All Equivocation & Self- Contradiction." The additions suggest two points. First, Blake apparently grows more familiar with Reynolds' text after perhaps several rereadings and is thus able to recognize discrepancies in content. More importantly, the pattern establishes genius and nature as two issues Blake will emphasize throughout his revisions.

The most visible addition-only pattern is seen in Discourse VIIwhere Blake initially makes only five comments but later adds twenty-five annotations, additions which create what G. Thomas Tanselle calls a new work.[8] Exemplifying his concern withcontent, Blake includes no invectives among his additions, and he deletes his only remotely antagonistic comment "[Reynolds] could not tell Ionick from the Corinthian or Dorick or one column from another." The additions themselves again appear motivated against the eighteenth-century emblematic points Reynolds addresses: the above cited genius and nature, as well as taste and reason.

Blake's summary on Discourse VII's back title page establishes his focus on these aesthetic issues rather than on character attack. "The purpose of the following Discourse," Blake writes, "is to Prove That Taste & Genius are not of Heavenly Origin & that all who have Supposed that they Are so. Are to be Considerd as Weak headed Fanatics." In the major additionsto Discourse VIIitself, Blake moves from a spontaneous overflow to a more logical, content-based argument. For instance, when Reynolds links natural taste with the human mind, rather than with inspiration as Blake would have it, Blake responds "Here is a Plain Confession that he Thinks Mind & Imagination not to be above the Mortal & Perishing Nature. Such is the End of Epicurean or Newtonian Philosophy it is Atheism." Blake might initially have dismissed Reynolds or Newton as a "knave" a subjective, hollow assessment of character. But in a more rhetorically persuasive manner, the revision engages the subject and links Blake's own disapprobation with the common contemporary argument that philosophical reasoning promotes atheism. With content additions of this sort, a new work does indeed appear. Rather than contributing to the vituperations already found in the Discourses, Blake produces in his revised text of Discourse VIIa significant indication of his own artistic beliefs.

Before it might be wrongly assumed that Blake completely removes all abusive commentary from his revised annotations, a final addition pattern must be acknowledged. Blake does insert invective into his final thoughts, as when he writes "Contemptible Mocks" and "I certainly do Thank God that I am not like Reynolds." These two examples, however, are the only two statements that overtly specify Reynolds by name. With increased severity, Blake twice addresses his anger at the Royal Academy, but absent from these additions are the accustomed attacks on Reynolds' character. For instance, after Reynolds announces the opening of the Academy in Discourse I's initial line, Blake responds "The Enquiry in England is not whether a Man has Talents. & Genius? But whether he is Passive & Polite & a Virtuous Ass: & obedient to Noblemens Opinions in Art & Science . . . If Not he must be Starved." Utilizing a similar tone at the beginning of DiscourseVI, Blake originally writes "When a Man talks of Acquiring Invention & of learning how to produce Original Conception he must expect to be calld a Fool" and adds "by Men of Understanding but such a Hired Knave cares not for the Few. His Eye is on the Many. or rather on the Money." Never admitted to the Academy, an outsider to the power structure of English arts, Blake considers himself one of "the few." Blake's emphasis on money is not hyperbolic in these two examples. Because the Academy denied full status to engravers, rarely showed engravings in its exhibitions, and regarded engraving as a reproductive rather than original form of art,[9] and because Blakerefused to utilize technological advances supported by the Academy steel plate engraving, for instance he was left financially impoverished. While the intensity of these invectives cannot be denied, the commentary says more about Blake's own personal situation than it does about Reynolds or his Discourses.

More commonly, Blake addresses his invective additions at others. Two painters, Titian and Rubens, are particularly condemned. Of Titian, who Reynolds admires, Blake writes "Titian as well as the other Venetians . . . appears to me to give always the Character of Vulgar Stupidity." And after Reynolds refers to Rubens' coloring as "eminently skilled," Blake responds in an even harsher tone than used with Titian. "To My Eye Rubens's Colouring," Blake writes, "is most Contemptible His Shadows are of a Filthy Brown somewhat of the Colour of Excrement these are filld with tints & messes of yellow & red . . . ." Those outside of art are also condemned in the additions. Blake writes of Francis Bacon, for example, that his "Philosophy has Destroyd all art & Science" and also attaches the unfriendly poetic lines "O Reader behold the Philosophers Grave. / He was born quite a Fool: but he died quite a Knave."

Qualitatively, the additional invectives are harsher in tone than Blake's initial "mocks" and "knaves." This would, I believe, account for G.E. Bentley's reference to the "virulence" and the "personal rancour" of the additions.[10]Regarding SirJoshua Reynolds, though, I argue in closing that the quantitative reduction in invectives as well as Blake's movement away from the artist's character toward his artistic theory produces annotations qualitatively kinder to Reynolds. This is not to say that Blake admires Reynolds or changes his overall opinions of his art. The "mocks" and "knaves" certainly exist, but locating them in the context of Blake's methodology allows us to see the annotations as occasionally informative statements of aesthetic theory, most notably expressing Blake's views on Genius, Nature, Taste, and Reason. The marginalia, then, are more than just an angry indictment against an artistic predecessor.