Can any one tell me the meaning of the poem Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau by William Blake? Here is the poem:
Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau:
Mock on, mock on: ‘tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.

And every sand becomes a Gem,
Reflected in the beam divine;
Blown back they blind the mocking Eye,
But still in Israel’s paths they shine.

The Atoms of Democritus
And the Newton’s Particles of Light
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
Where Israel’s tents do shine so bright.

In my opinion, the writer is defending religious faith against science.

pam

Makes sense. Also, don't spit into the wind. And, "I am rubber, you are glue. What you say bounces off of me and sticks on you." Nyah, nyah.

A somewhat enigmatic poem. Can be read different ways.

The opening lines bring to mind the words of St Paul in Galatians 6:7 'God is not mocked'. Which I understand mean that God is immune from human mockery (= scorn, abuse, pretence, whatever)

So the most plausible interpretation of Blake's meaning is that the glory of God, as manifest in 'Israel' (symbol for God's children, or God's chosen people, or perhaps people of faith generally) is immune from the mockery of unbelievers like Voltaire and Rousseau, and from mechanistic scientific explanations of His creation such as those Blake attributes to Democritus and Newton. He seems to be saying that such people's denials of God are all blown back into their eyes like sand by an almighty wind, and just converted to more evidence of God's glory. A stretched metaphor, and one that shows little understanding of either the philosophies or the scientific theories he was himself mocking.

A possible alternative interpretation is that it's a poem in praise and support of those individuals of independent thought who have the courage to proclaim their beliefs against the winds of ignorant popular opinion and prejudice. Their efforts may appear to be blown away and in vain, but will become shining sand, etc. A problem with this however is that it hardly squares with Blake's antipathy towards those who didn't share his mystical religious outlook, and it requires ' 'tis all in vain' to be read as a description of a temporary illusion, an ironic statement. I'm no expert on Blake, but haven't noticed much irony in his poetry.

Typo? Surely 'the' before 'Newton's' should be deleted.

Ian



Post Edited (12-18-04 14:45)

In my opinion, this is the most important part of the poem.

The Atoms of Democritus
And the Newton’s Particles of Light
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
Where Israel’s tents do shine so bright.

It is a poem about the clashes between science in religion that was prodominant in this era. The Atoms of Democritus we thought to be particles that followed specific rules and laws, and came to the conclusion - or pressumtion - that life is philosophically deterministic. Of course, standing against the "free will" belief that the Lord Almighty gave to us, another theory was thought of. Here, atoms did move in a lawful order, but sometimes moved off path ramdomly, indicating that we are free sons of God, right down to our every atoms.

Light, or, The Light of the Lord was also challanged in science by Newton's particles (or waves) of light. God was seen a Light, pure as light, the warmth of light, etc. It was seen as a spiritual and mystical entity filled with the love and purity of the Creator. But Newton's particles of light theory was another indication that yes, religious may be wrong or fake, and questioned the existence - or purpose - of a higher being.

The Tents of Israel are a reference to the chosen people of the Lord. The Bible talks of the Pillars of God that are laid in the ocean at the corners of the world to support the great tent of the sky. And from looking down at the earth from the sky, humanity only seems like grains of sand in a vast sea shore. This is where a more analystic approach may need to be used. Is William Blake indicating here that The Atoms of Democritus and Newton's Particles of Light, both that challange spirituality and religion, are only tiny grains of sand in the infinitly large amounts of sand on the sea shore?

Points taken. Note also where Blake wrote that,

"Art is the tree of life. Science is the tree of death."

very true. so could he be saying that maybe, the imagination or the spiritual outweighs the reason and the rational?

romanticism versus the enlightenment...
late 1700's to mid 1800's...
ring any bells?

Not to me, no. Can you expound at some length?

A word about the enlightenment:

[www.wsu.edu:8080] />
and Romanticism

[216.239.57.104] />
While I dread being a part of any discussion of Blake I think it's clear he IS making a point for the righteousness of religion over science and art.

I enjoyed Kevin's and Ian's insight into the poem and the Biblical references.


Les