blake's body without organs: the autogenesis of … · blake’s body without organs: the...

Blake’s Body Without Organs: The Autogenesis of the Systemin the Lambeth Books

Tilottama Rajan∗

Centre for the Study of Theory and Criticism, University of Western Ontario, London,Canada.

In his later prophecies, Blake laid out his system as a geography mapped onto thehuman body. But in the Lambeth books, Urizen is ejected out of order as a body inbits and pieces that is neither plant nor human. This paper explores Urizen’s bodyas a figure for Blake’s own corpus and the disfiguration of its idealistic ambitions.Blake’s later mapping of his system in a striated space with clear coordinates can becompared with Kant’s equation of system with “architectonic,” which he compareswith a body whose parts form a whole. But what if the body is not the anatomicalbody Kant imagines but is composed of systems irreducible to phenomenalcognition: circulatory, digestive, nervous? The contemporaneous work of JohnHunter marks the first disclosure in Romanticism of a body without organs thatis “flesh and nerve” and that Deleuze finds in Bacon and Artaud. Played out inBlake’s theatre of cruelty Hunter’s physiology lets us think of systems in a new,if traumatic, way: as enabled precisely by obstructions and blockages, asproceeding through involutions and convolutions that are in effect feedbackloops, in short as functionally autoimmune.

Blake famously wrote that he must either be enslaved by another man’s system or createhis own (Jerusalem 10: 20; E 153).1 In his last poem, Jerusalem, Blake elaborates thissystem whose fearful symmetry has been glossed by Frye and Damon, and lays it out asa human body mapped onto the four points of the compass: a global and world-historical system confirmed by an organicist projection. Associating the four pointsof the compass with the “fourfold . . . divisions” of the Sons of Los, Blake thuswrites that the “Eyes are the South, and the nostrils are the East. / And the Tongue isthe West, and the Ear is the North”; “These are the Four Faces towards the Fourworlds of Humanity” (12: 45–60; E 156). But in the early Lambeth books, Urizen’sbody without organs is ejected and dejected on the border between ancestral andhuman time, as something that is neither quite plant nor human: spine first, thenbrain and nerves, then arms. This paper takes up the grotesque body of Urizen as anautoreferential figure for Blake’s own corpus and the dis-figuration of its idealisticambitions. Blake’s later mapping of his system in a “striated space” that claims clearcoordinates (Deleuze and Guattari 361–62) can be compared with Kant’s equationof system with “architectonic,” which Kant naturalizes through the figure of aunified human body in which the parts are subordinated to a whole (691). But what

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

∗Email: trajan@uwo.ca

European Romantic Review, 2015Vol. 26, No. 3, 357–366, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509585.2015.1028139

if the body is not an anatomical body but a body composed of multiple systems irredu-cible to phenomenal cognition: circulatory, digestive, nervous, etc.? In the work of thelate eighteenth-century medical and surgical theorist John Hunter, we see the first dis-closure in Romanticism of a body without organs that is “flesh and nerve,” and thatDeleuze finds in Bacon and Artaud (44–48). Hunter’s physiology, with its tangle ofnerves, fibres, and globules, exposes Blake’s “human form divine” to less “organized”forms of the body that the human itself may harbor, such as the polypus. Played out inBlake’s theatre of cruelty, it allows us to think of systems or organizations in a new, iftraumatic, way: as enabled precisely by obstructions and blockages, as proceedingthrough involutions and convolutions that are in effect feedback loops, in short as auto-immune. Autoimmunity is Derrida’s word for the way an organic system turns backupon itself, destroying its own “immunitary protections” (55, 123–24). As a versionof autonomy or self-reflexivity, autoimmunity has a kind of life and a role to play ina system, but one whose dark potential remains traumatic for Blake.

The wound from which this autoimmunity is born in the early work is the characterUrizen. In readings still inflected by Frye and Damon, Urizen continues to be schema-tized in a binary that opposes reason to imagination or energy. Urizen is thus demonizedas a tyrannical and restrictive power, whose disruptive metaphysical and ontologicaleffects can conveniently be set aside. Yet as Blake writes in The (First) Book ofUrizen, “unknown, abstracted / . . . the dark power hid” which “some” call Urizen (3:5–7; E 70). Thus if Urizen is a force of restriction, he is so in the elusive mode ofwhat Blake’s contemporary Friedrich Schelling calls Hemmung: “something inhibiting,something conflicting” that “imposes itself everywhere,” “this Other . . . this darkeningthat resists the light” and cannot easily be “verbalize[d]” except “in images” (Ages 6).Like the Eternals in Urizen, Blake’s “system” wants allegorically to restrict this force toa “place in the north” (Urizen 2: 3; E 70). But the early Lambeth books are the torturedautogenesis of the system as an “Idea” that can only always be malformed. Not only arethey full of grotesque dis-figurations of prophecy, like the Bard breaking his harp inAmerica and the hysterical figure of Enitharmon, but they are traversed by images ofwarped creativity: the globe that may be a womb, embryo, orb of vision, or globuleof blood; or the nameless shadowy Female in Europe who is herself born acephalicallyas she gives birth to Orc, her “roots . . . brandish’d in the heavens,” her “fruits in earthbeneath” (1: 8–15; E 60–61).

The Lambeth books, from Europe and Urizen to The Book of Los are, I suggest, theprimal scene, the corps morcele, of the imaginary system that Blake elaborates in Jer-usalem. That is to say, the grotesque body that dis-figures these books is an autorefer-ential figure for Blake’s projection of his own corpus as a systematic body of work. InJerusalem Blake, as we have said, laid out this system architectonically, in a mannergeometrically schematized in Plate 36 of Milton (Copy D; Plate 32 in other copies).Yet a giant body distended across the globe is nothing if not grotesque; it is thefigure whose failed synchronization of metaphysics, myth, and world history Blaketraumatically endures in the Lambeth books. In the later prophecies Blake submitsthe trauma of Urizen to a wilful Aufhebung, by reducing the materiality of this bodyto the phenomenality of numerology and Euclidean geometry. But if, as I suggest,the early Lambeth books can be approached through Deleuze’s body without organs,Blake’s later analogy between system and body is better read through Kant’s definitionof system as architectonic. For Kant, system is “the unity of various cognitions underone idea,” which is necessary for knowledge to be “Science” and not “rhapsody.”Architectonic is the “art of systems” (691; italics mine), which is to say that the very

358 T. Rajan

notion of system is figural, since it requires art. Kant’s further supplementary figure forthis more scientific system is the body as a whole that fully accounts for its parts: anorganism, not an “aggregate”; it may “grow internally” but not through externaladditions that alter its “proportion[s]” (691). For Kant, human Reason is “by naturearchitectonic” (502), which entails that “the position of the parts with respect to eachother” and the “boundaries” of each part are “determined a priori” (691). HenceUrizen, as the part that does not fit, must be digested into a system. And hence in asystem that proves autophagic in The (First) Book of Urizen, the Eternals spurn him,by bounding him off and giving him “a place in the north.”

Interestingly Blake later puts Urizen in the south and Los’s father, Urthona, in thenorth (Milton 19: 15–18; E 112), whereas in the Book of Urizen, Urizen occupies thenorth. Blake in other words does not know where to put Urizen,2 which indicates thatwhat is instituted in Urizen is really the will to a system that has not achieved represen-tation, becoming instead an object of tortured reflection. For it is not clear in theLambeth books who Urizen is, if indeed Urizen can even be personified as a subjectand bounded off from other traumatic potencies in the text that also exceed thenames they are given. Kant’s notion of the self-containing body assumes a bodysuch as we often find in anatomy textbooks, where anatomy, as in the literary genreappropriated by Frye in Anatomy of Criticism, correlates to organization and sectioning.But perhaps we should not think of the body in the anatomico-skeletal terms assumedby Kant’s tacit appeal to architecture as a discipline of containment, but of a body com-posed of multiple systems and planes. Even in figure 2, the necessity of including partsfrom the body’s interior as well as the skeleton, and making the invisible visible on amappable surface, result in an immensely complicated structure, whose flatness elides

Figure 1: From William Blake, Milton, a poem (ca. 1804–1811), Plate 36 (Copy D). LessingJ. Rosenwald Collection, Library of Congress. Copyright # 2014. Used with permission.

European Romantic Review 359

the imposition of Euclidean space on a space of volumes and secrets. Indeed the schemaof the Zoas in Milton is itself on the border between surface and volume. Blake’ssystem, to adapt Bertalanffy (39–46) and Latour (20–25), can be placed in thelarger context of a move from smooth or closed to tangled systems, which resultsfrom the life sciences replacing physics and mathematics as models for knowledge.While that is another paper, let me say only that smooth systems like Kant’s architec-tonic have defined external and internal boundaries. In Deleuze’s slightly differentterms, smooth systems occupy a striated space that is divisible and segmented, suchthat the parts, as in Blake’s diagram of the Zoas, do not interfere with each other.But in a tangled system the parts do not remain separate; they reciprocally affecteach other, producing risks and possibilities for knowledge. Despite the simple useof the body metaphor in encyclopedias such as that of Chambers (i–ii), Estienne’s ana-tomical diagram already predicts the increasingly tangled nature of systems such asHegel’s Encyclopedia that hold onto structure and division as an organizing principle.Going in a different direction, Schelling in his early lectures On University Studies

Figure 2: Charles Estienne, De dissectione partium corporis humani libris tres (Paris, 1545),page 154. Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine. Image in the public domain.

360 T. Rajan

salvages a smooth system through the analogue of physiology rather than anatomy,postulating “an organic body of knowledge” in which “life flows” from “the centralorgan” to “the outermost parts” (42). He smoothes out physiology by making physi-ology and anatomy “correlative disciplines” (141). But later it will be precisely thisphysiology that becomes problematic, as Schelling writes in 1823 that doctors dis-tinguish “different systems” in the body, “digestive,” nervous, etc. (“On the Nature”213). And while wanting to synchronize these systems, he also criticizes Kant’s privi-leging of mathematics as a sign that Kant prefers the regularity of a “crystal” to thehuman body because the former cannot fall ill (213). It is here that we can situateBlake, at the site of a nervous body whose increasingly tangled internal organizationreflects a system exposed to its autoimmunity in the very process of its genesis.

For Urizen’s body emerges neuropathically in bits and pieces, in the transition frometernity to time. This eternity is what Schelling calls the unconditioned (First Outline13), an existence without existents where there are only flows without resistances:

Figure 3: William Cowper, The anatomie of humane bodies (Oxford, 1698), Appendix Table3. Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine. Image in the public domain.

European Romantic Review 361

“Earth was not: nor globes of attraction / The will of the Immortal expanded / Or con-tracted his all flexible senses” (Urizen 3: 37–40; E 71). Since there is no finitude –“Death was not, but eternal life sprung” (3: 41; E 71) – there are also no entities.Appearing on the threshold of history, Urizen takes form over seven ages in aparody of Buffon’s anthropo-geology. First his spine comes into being, freezing overhis nerves (10: 37–41; E 75); then his brain, not a mind but a “nervous brain” thatshoots “branches / Round the branches of his heart” (11: 10–12; E 76). Disturbinglyvegetable and vegetative as well as animal, this brain is entangled with the heart, con-fusing different systems of response in the reader, as cognition is wrenched apart byaffect. This hysterical internal growth of the text’s nervous system then produces theeffect of eyes that do not reside in a face, “two little orbs” that hide terrified in their“caves” (11: 13–14; E 76), as the body watches its own activity inside itself. Thenthe ears and nostrils appear, and then in “ghastly torment sick” the throat andtongue, followed by the arms and feet, but with no mention of other organs or parts(11: 21–13: 18; E 76).

Moreover, the text’s philosophical and narrative grammar is also out of sequence.For the Eternals put Urizen in his place before they themselves can logically exist, sinceeternity is non-entity (2: 1–4; E 70). Similarly in Chapter III “dark desarts,” “self-begotten armies,” and a “vast world” are attributed to Urizen (5: 14–16, 37; E 73),though it is only at the end of Chapter IV that the part-subject called Urizen is con-structed. Thus it is not clear whether the subject precedes the predicate or comes intobeing after it, as a result of the need for a subject as antagonist that is wrenchedapart in its very production. Nor is it clear whether Urizen is a substance with attributes,or whether attributes precede and compensatorily produce the substantive Urizen, inBlake’s unsettling of his own attempt at the metaphysical self-founding of hissystem. It is also so with Los, the protagonist. In the genealogy of the Zoas, whereLos is the vehicular form of Urthona, Urizen and Los are on different levels: Urizenas a Zoa should precede Los who, like the Son, descends into time to redeem him.But Los seems to pre-exist Urizen, since in Chapter III he “keeps watch for Eternals,”“to confine the obscure separation” that is Urizen (5: 39–40; E 73), with which the Eter-nals cannot cope. Los then produces Urizen as a material body, though he has beendescribed only by negatives and passive forms, hypostatizing a catachresis, a namefor what has no name.

Rather than see the Lambeth books as providing components that will later be orga-nized into an architectonic, I suggest that we see the body of work that Blake unworkshere as a body without organs. For Urizen and the body of the text are “disorganiz’d”(10: 27; E 75), even as “Incessant the falling Mind labour’[s] / Organizing itself” (Bookof Los 4: 49–50; E 92). This term “organization,” that is throughout Blake’s corpus, isnot just structural but preoccupies Romantic physiology in its attempt to understandhow bodies are organized, and thus what a body or a system is when we think it onthe analogy of an organic being. As Deleuze writes, “the body without organs doesnot lack organs, it simply lacks the organism,” as a “particular organization oforgans” that we see in the anatomical body, which the eye takes in by moving fromhead to foot (47). I take Deleuze’s distinction from his book on Francis Bacon ratherthan A Thousand Plateaus because the affective context of Bacon’s work preventsany abstraction of the body into an assemblage, such that the faddishness ofTheory’s late twentieth-century technological enlightenment can sublimate the suffer-ing body. For the body without organs in Bacon is not a machine; it is not the brave newworld of post-humanism that had already been imagined before the advent of Theory,

362 T. Rajan

by Bertalanffy’s syncresis of mechanism and organism after the second IndustrialRevolution of cybernetics. It is “flesh and nerve.” Bacon’s body without organs isnot the euthanasia of the body. But where the organism has “determinate organs,”the body without organs is “defined by an indeterminate organ”: an organ is determinedby the encounter between a “wave” and “external forces,” but “it is a provisional organ. . . which will be displaced” and “posited elsewhere” (44–47).

In this way the Urizen books organ-ize themselves through narrative organs bearingnames such as the Eternals, Los, Orc, Fuzon, and Urizen himself as uncertainly agentand object, cause and effect. These characters displace each other, and are proposed anddiscarded in a text that is more a nervous system than a structure that produces a poemwith a graspable architecture. Struggling to assume authority over the text, Los tries tohammer the body of Urizen into a system, even as this body forms from inside. For it isnot clear that Urizen is outside Los, that object and subject can be separated. As Loslabors to shape Urizen in his furnace in The Book of Los, Los himself falls into thevoid, flailing around “like the babe / New born into our world,” and producingUrizen as a human body that emerges in “Branchy forms,” its organs “like roots /Shooting out from the seed” (4: 38–39, 43–44, 64–65; E 92–93). Moreover, thefurnace, which is also an ocean and amniotic fluid, seems to be Los’s own body inwhich Urizen is produced as “The lungs heave incessant” (4: 60, 54; E 93). Thus,even as Urizen is produced in Los through a process of gestation that sucks the mascu-line labour of the blacksmith back into female labour (see Rajan 204–7), Los is himselfproduced as a new-born babe in this process. Likewise in Urizen, “the vast world ofUrizen” is not produced by Urizen from above like God, but from within. ForUrizen, if indeed it is he and not rather “an activity unknown and horrible” (3: 20; E71), frames a “roof, vast petrific, . . . like a womb” to enclose “thousands of rivers inveins / Of blood,” and from this process emerge both Urizen and his world (5: 28–30; E 73).

This auto-gestation of texts and characters mirrors Friedrich Schlegel’s characteriz-ation of the Romantic work of art as containing at once its genesis, its criticism, anditself (31). But if Jena Romanticism recontains this self-reflection in a “literary abso-lute,” a transcendental rather than real genesis, Blake’s disfigured corpus is the sitefor taking the work of art beyond Baumgarten’s definition of aesthetics as the art ofthinking beautifully (#533). For Hegel, Classical art conforms to ideals of beautyand unity that ally art with architectonic. Classical art is “the adequate embodimentof the Idea.” But the Lambeth books are more like Hegel’s Symbolic art, in whichthe Idea fails to find identity with itself because it is still “indeterminate” (AestheticsI: 77). Symbolic art is contorted and grotesque, the grotesque being a “random connec-tion of form and matter,” as Schlegel says (79). Its inchoate quality reflects the way theartist “enters into the process of its generation and parturition” (Hegel, Aesthetics I:439). Its distortion is a way of not naturalizing any system of ideas through a unityof form and matter that accords with “aesthetics.” And though Hegel, craving asmooth or striated system, dismisses such art as crude, he is fascinated by its “restlessfermentation” in which consciousness is still “producing its content and making it clearto itself,” rather than resting in ideas “already determined for imagination as settled”(438–39). Hence the images of labor that traverse Blake’s system, which exposewriting as abortion, a process of constantly unworking its symbolic positions, eventhose thought to be revolutionary.

So what if we approach the body not in anatomico-skeletal terms but as a disas-trously nervous body? In fact anatomy was never so simply bounded off from

European Romantic Review 363

physiology, and Blake would have known a more tangled, involuted body from thework of the Hunters in the Johnson Circle. I can only briefly note some points ofcontact. William Hunter’s images for his work on the gravid uterus inform Blake’sinvoluted, ectopic forms of gestation and are archeologically imprinted on the shapesand structures in his plates. While involution is a normal process in plant and animallife (the position of the foetus in the womb being an example), for Blake, as for Schel-ling (Ages 83), it becomes linked to a force of inhibition that is all the more powerful ifit is natural. John Hunter’s descriptions of nerves, fibers, and globules are throughoutBlake’s texts. His account of red globules as crucial to the blood, which is not purelyliquid but must contain solids (III: 16–22), casts in a new light Urizen’s search for a“solid without fluctuation” (Urizen 4: 11; E 71), which critics who side with the Eter-nals see as an “obstruction” (4: 23; E 72) but without which the blood could not circu-late. Obstructions and interruptions of smooth flows are throughout Hunter’s account ofthe body’s systems, for instance in anastomosis, where a vessel opens into another, andwhere it is unclear whether these lateral ramifications of a system retard or help theblood’s circulation (III: 207–10). Or introsusception: a kind of invagination bywhich the intestines fold onto themselves (III: 587–88), such that the upper passesinto the lower or vice versa, as Los passes into Urizen or the reverse. True, suchblockages are a “perversion of the natural actions of the animal oeconomy” thatHunter explores to clarify normal physiology by contrast (I: 211). But is there not adangerous similarity between involution and introsusception? We see this intimacy

Figure 5: From William Blake, The FirstBook of Urizen, Plate 17 (Copy G).Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection, Libraryof Congress. Copyright # 2014. Usedwith permission.

Figure 4: William Hunter, Anatomia uterihumani gravidi tabulis illustrata (Birmingham,1774), Table 1. Courtesy of the NationalLibrary of Medicine. Image in the publicdomain.

364 T. Rajan

of the normal and pathological in the discussion of how the stomach digests itself afterdeath, which takes Hunter back to normal digestion itself as a process of “generation,”similar, he says, “in its action to that exerted by morbid poisons” (IV: 106–7).

The Hunters’ work is part of a broader shift traced by Foucault from a medicine ofclassifications to one of pathological anatomy focused on the “tissue” as an “internalsurface” that represses and discloses the “mass of the organ” (xviii). Through itsimpact on Blake it enters a feedback loop in which the transference between scienceand art insists that we not just dismiss the traumatic body of Urizen as a body oferror. For the Hunters’ opening up of the inner recesses of organic systems generatesfor Blake the lurid figures whose scientific basis glimpses a profound autoimmunityin systems. Unable to deal with this autoimmunity, the Eternals abscond and build atent around it that they call “Science” (Urizen 19: 9; E 78). They are followed byFuzon, who leaves “the pendulous earth” and calls it “Egypt” (28: 21–22; E 83).Los is left behind to work separately in his own Book, a split-off part struggling toimpose the Eternals’ vision, so that Blake too can leave Lambeth for Jerusalem. Losbinds body and affect to landscape, trying to forge Blake’s fourfold vision in “Fur-naces” that are traumatically effeminized as “wombs” (5: 39–40; E 94). Finally he suc-ceeds, as Urizen’s “Brain in a rock, & his Heart / In a fleshy slough form[s] four rivers”(5: 52–3; E 94). The four rivers recall the four points of the compass, as the fetish ofnumerology tries to bind, to bandage, what has come unbound in the flows of a bodythat cannot be organized into a corpus. Los’s work makes visible what Blake can onlyexperience in a slough of despond, a failed repression that becomes depression. ForUrizen then becomes Los’s projection and abjection of the “glowing illusion” he hascreated (Book of Los 5: 53–56; E 94). But this Urizen, a “Form” that has been “com-pleted,” covers over a void of avoidance where an earlier “Urizen” lies in “fierce tor-ments,” an “immense Orb of fire / Flowing down into the night” (5: 49–56; E 94).

AcknowledgementThe author acknowledges the support of the Canada Research Chairs Program in the preparationof this article.

Notes1. I follow the usual system of reference in which the Plate and line number of a text by Blake

is followed by the “E” and the page number in the Erdman edition.2. Blake rationalizes this inconsistency in Milton by also describing a “Chaotic” world in

which the Zoas have all fallen towards the Centre, leaving a vacancy in the north that is“solid, / Unfathomable!” (19: 15–24; E 112) – words earlier used to describe Urizen.But the problem is that the later schematization of the Zoas is, then, purely Imaginary (inLacan’s terms): in the Real of Urizen, the creation and the fall coincide.

ReferencesBaumgarten, Alexander. Metaphysica. Halle: 1779. Print.Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications.

Revised ed. New York: George Braziller, 1968. Print.Blake, William. The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake. Ed. David V. Erdman.

Revised ed. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1982. Print.Chambers, Ephraim. Cyclopædia, or, An universal dictionary of arts and sciences, containing a

definition of the terms and accounts of the things signify’d thereby, in the several arts, both

European Romantic Review 365

liberal and mechanical, and the several sciences, both human and divine; . . . London:1728. Print.

Damon, S. Foster. A Blake Dictionary: The Ideas and Symbols of William Blake. 1965. Boulder:Shambhala, 1979. Print.

Deleuze, Gilles. Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation. Trans. Daniel Smith. New York:Continuum, 2002. Print.

Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans.Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1987. Print.

Derrida, Jacques. Rogues: Two Essays on Reason. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and MichaelNaas. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2005. Print.

Foucault, Michel. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. Trans. A. M.Sheridan. 1973. London: Routledge, 1986. Print.

Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1957. Print.——. Fearful Symmetry: A Study of William Blake. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1947. Print.Hegel, G. W. F. Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art. Trans. T. M. Knox. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon,

1975. Print.——. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline. 1816. Trans. Stephen

A. Taubeneck. Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline and CriticalWritings. Ed. Ernst Behler. New York: Continuum, 1990. 45–263. Print.

Hunter, John. The Surgical Works of John Hunter, F.R.S. Ed. James Palmer. 4 vols. London:Longman, Rees, Orme, 1835. Print.

Hunter, William. Anatomia uteri humani gravidi tabulis illustrata. Birmingham: JohnBaskerville, 1774. Print.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. and ed. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood.Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.

Latour, Bruno. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Trans. CatherinePorter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2004. Print.

Rajan, Tilottama. “The Gender of Los(s).” Women Reading William Blake. Ed. Helen P. Bruder.Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007. 200–8. Print.

Schelling, F. W. J. Ages of the World. 1815. Trans. Jason M. Wirth. Albany: SUNY P, 2000.Print.

——. First Outline for a System of the Philosophy of Nature. 1799. Trans. Keith R. Peterson.Albany: SUNY P, 2004. Print.

——. “On the Nature of Philosophy as Science.” 1823. Trans. Marcus Bullock. German IdealistPhilosophy. Ed. Rudiger Bubner. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1997. 210–43. Print.

——. On University Studies. 1803. Trans. E. S. Morgan. Athens, OH: U of Ohio P, 1966. Print.Schlegel, Friedrich. Philosophical Fragments. Trans. Peter Firchow. Minneapolis: U of

Minnesota P, 1991. Print.

366 T. Rajan

Copyright of European Romantic Review is the property of Routledge and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.