Thoughts on "The Tyger" and its "Illumination"

Hello, I was wondering if anyone has looked into the illumination that Blake painted to accompany "The Tyger" I have to write a paper on the poem and the illustration, and specifically what the "grin" on the face of the Tyger signifies.
I am stumped as to why,
one the tiger is drawn peaceful and dissymmetrical - compared to the "fearful symmetry" he is described as posessing,
and two, why the heck is he grinning?!!
Any imput or theories anyone could share with me would be greatly appreciated! I feel like I am against a wall with nothing to write about!
Thank You :confused:

Well it sounds like you've got a start there. Are there any other dissimilarities between the illustration and the text of the poem? Maybe that's your direction?

Ultimately, your views are what are being saught. There is no right answer, even if there is an 'accepted' one. Show that you've thought about the question and formed your own ideas, that is the most important lesson.

thanx for your inspiration. I know you are right, what ever I interpret from the poem, as long as I present it in a convincing way is what ulmitatley matters for an essay in English class. The problem I am having is that I have about 5 different interpretations, all related, yet different. Just as the light comes on and I think I've formed enough of an interpretation, I think about the illumination of the tiger and that darn grin. Any thoughts and interpretations go right out the window because I cannot for the life of me figure out why the heck the tiger is grinning!!!
I have tried a thelogical stance, sociological, economical, psychological, and some combination of the above, but no matter what perspective I take, I cannot figure out why Blake chose to paint the tiger with a smile!! Unfortunatley, the interpretation of the "grin" is imperitive in the essay and it is that which is holding me back from writting it! If anyone can think of any reason why the tyger would be shown with a grin, it will help GREATLY, you have no idea!!! :brickwall

Why not present all of your ideas? Including your confusion. Especially your confusion! Personally, I'm not even sure the tyger is smiling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiauna91

The problem I am having is that I have about 5 different interpretations, all related, yet different. Just as the light comes on and I think I've formed enough of an interpretation, I think about the illumination of the tiger and that darn grin.

---

Well, if you're ambitious, you might write an essay that compares all five interpretations. This depends on how long you want the essay to be and whether you think you have the skill to execute it. You might even end it with your best guess. If you have the skill, this could be a spectacular essay; if you don't, you could flop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

Why not present all of your ideas? Including your confusion. Especially your confusion! Personally, I'm not even sure the tyger is smiling.

---

Good point. The poem invites confusion. I can remember first seeing that painted Tyger and thinking it was some kind of joke. While I don’t think it’s smiling, I can’t see it as the same tyger as the one in the poem. It looks more like a child’s cuddly toy than a ferocious beast.

Tiauna91, as Xamonas suggests, why not focus on your confusion? Perhaps the simplest way to approach the poem is to see it as Blake’s exploration of the idea that life is a mixture of good and evil.

"Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and
Repulsion, reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are
necessary to Human existence.
From these contraries spring what the religious call
Good & Evil. Good is the passive that obeys Reason.
Evil is the active springing from Energy.
Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell."
The Marriage of Heaven and Hell


"The tygers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction,"
Proverbs of Hell

For those who wish to use Blake to support their belief in the wonder of God’s creation, his poetry must prove problematic. He sees Good as passive and Evil as active. Good is associated with Reason but Evil with energy. (Does anyone know that Dennis Potter play, Brimstone and Treacle?)

A good way in might be to explore the fact that the final verse is an echo of the first verse except that the word, ‘could’ is changed to ‘dare’. Lines 3-4 pose the question, ‘How?’. The last two lines imply a question which is much more difficult to answer, the question of ‘Why?’.

Note how the poem’s feelings of fear, awe and wonder are conveyed by his repetitive use of questions. Another effect of doing this is to make the reader start asking questions too, about the apparent contradiction between good and evil in the world, and in ourselves.

ummmmm, perhaps the tiger is smiling because Blakes trying to mock the reader by saying that actually, evil is energy and energy is good which is why the tiger is smiling. It is actually human nature to conform and be 'good' which is bad. Or maybe the tiger just has an evil grin/twin ;) :lol:

The poem has a deeper meaning than any of you have come to mention. Blake's intention was to ask God if he who made the Lamb also made the Lion, refer also to Blake's poem "The Lamb." (Now, I don't believe in God but this is what Blake was trying to do with this poem).

The tiger is not smiling. There was nothing mentioned in the poem that should make someone think the tiger is smiling and the image of the tiger itself, shows the tiger, it seems to be, frowning. The line, "Did he smile his work to see?" is not referring to the lion smiling but asking if God smiled as he looked upon his work of making the lion.

Perhaps if you read the above posts carefully, you will notice that the smiling tiger is a reference to the illumination that Blake painted and not to any lines from the poem. The clue is in the title of the thread.

I happen to read everything that I read very carefully. I am an English major that pays a particular lot of attention to everything I read. Maybe you should try taking your own advice because I did mention that neither the poem NOR the tiger in the picture gave any inclination that the tiger is smiling. I was looking right at the image in my English Literature book when I posted the above post. I can post the image if you would like. The tiger seems to be frowning, not smiling.

It seems to be, from a recent online search for the image, that Blake drew the tiger differently in some ways at least 3 times. One in color shows the tiger smiling with a larger eye and the tail is up higher, another in color shows the tiger doing nothing but standing with the mouth shown to be in a straight line with a smaller eye (picture is only of the portion where the tiger's head is), and another in black and white (the one from my literature book) is shown frowning with the eye smaller and tail down lower, the head also seems to have been drawn with more detail.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6.../TIGER-3x1.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...rgrl/tyger.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...l/thetyger.jpg

I said above that I didn’t think the tyger was smiling but I stand by my comment that the creature represented in the illumination is not the same as the one we expect to see, given the description in the poem. It’s hardly an awe-inspiringly powerful beast. You might be an English major but I studied Blake at university and can remember discussing this issue of the illumination with my tutor, who has published on Blake. He thought that the painted tyger was almost farcical. Unfortunately, his insights were those of a lecturer rather than an English major.

Thanks for posting the pictures. My edition of Songs of Innocence and Experience includes the largest picture and this is the one I think looks like a cuddly toy.

You say above, “The poem has a deeper meaning than any of you have come to mention.” Would you care to enlighten us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

You say above, “The poem has a deeper meaning than any of you have come to mention.” Would you care to enlighten us?

---

Yeah, I had mentioned that it has a spiritual/biblical reference. As in, Blake is wondering/questioning whether the same "thing" (namely God) that made the Lamb also made something so ferocious as the lion. Through this poem he is questioning whether it is actually possible that God made something so fragile as the lamb AND made something so rough as the lion.

I think one of the keys to understanding Tyger is in the Biblical book of Job. After 30-some chapters of Job complaining and his friends accusing and philosophizing, finally God speaks and knocks them all off their high horses. (Chapters 38 - 42) God asks questions much like Blake's. (This is majestic poetry and ought to be read, IMHO, no matter what your religious inclinations.)

The writer of Job asks, "Who shut out the sea with doors/ when it burst out from the womb/ when I made clouds its garment/ and thick darkness its swaddling band/ and prescribed limits for it/ and set bars and doors,/ and said, 'Thus far shall you come,/ and no further,/ and here shall your proud waves be stayed?"

After a chapter on God's rule of the physical creation (light, stars, water), the book moves to his rule of the living creation and man's smallness in comparison to God's might.

[Behemoth refers to a huge, powerful land creature. Leviathan is a sea creature of great size and might. They are both mentioned in other ancient literature and are feared by men and considered impossible to subdue.]

"Behold Behomoth,/ which I made as I made you;/ he eats grass like an ox./Behold his strength is in his loins,/ and his power in the muscles of his belly./ He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;/ the sinews of his thighs are knit together./ His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron./ He is the first of the works of God;/ let him who made him bring near his sword!"

and

"Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook/ or press down his tongue with a cord?/ Can you put a rope in his nose/ or pierce his jaw with a hook?/ Will he make many pleas to you?/Will he speak to you soft words?/ Will he make a covenant with you/ to take him for your servant forever?/ Will you play with him as with a bird,/ or will you put him on a leash for your girls?..." [I love that last line.]

It seems to me that Blake is echoing this language and framing the same kinds of humbling questions using the tiger as his object. Who is it that could fashion such a mighty beast? He must be more powerful, more mighty than the thing he made. "When the stars threw down their spears..." refers to the days of creation when the stars first cast their light upon the creation. It refers to God looking upon the creation and declaring it was good. (Genesis)

The reference to the lamb shows the infinite depth of this Creator, who is not only more mighty than the tiger, but more gentle than the lamb. Of course the lamb is also a Christ symbol, the Christ who although mighty, laid down his life like a lamb. I think bringing up the lamb at this point is brilliant on Blake's part. All this talk of the might of the tiger, and by implication its maker, is suddenly and abruptly--jarringly--contrasted by the reference to the gentle lamb.

I think the key to the illustration being not a fearsome tiger, but more like a friendly talking tiger that one would expect to find as a character in a children's book, is found in the last two lines: "What immortal hand or eye/ Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?" The real tiger was God's handiwork and only God would dare to make him. The rendering was Blake's. As creator is greater than his creation, Blake could only fashion a tiger less fierce and mighty as himself. I see Blake's illumination as a bit of humble, self-depricating humor. I see that humility in the presence of God as the main point of the poem.

[edit] He makes a similar contrast in the poem when he asks about the tiger being fashioned by human creative tools: hammer, furnace, and fire, etc. Though these are the best of human industry (in Blake's day) the best they could hope to produce was a lifeless, powerless iron tiger.[end edit]

But I'm just a frumpy housewife, so what do I know?

Dory

One other thing, which I don't think anyone else has pointed out, is that Blake was a very idiosynchratic and unique artist. I really love his drawings and paintings, but like his poetry, they are not executed with the technical skill and precision of most of his equally well-known contemporaries. Both his poetry and his art are moving because of the overwhelming, gushing conviction and innocence that shines from the page. This is so powerful that we can forgive his slightly dodgy style.

Who else but Blake could have gotten away with,

"What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"

That last line breaks all the rules; it doesn't rhyme (and I have it on good authority that it wouldn't have in Blake's day either) and the stress on the final syllable of 'symmetry' sounds terribly forced; but Blake didn't care. This poem is one of the best known and best loved in the world; is this in spite of the less-than-perfect scansion? Or because of it?

Similarly, the perspective and proportions in his drawings are often poorly executed by the standards of the time. But I don't like his art for its draughtmanship; rather for the indefinable, other-worldly quality that he seems to add to both his words and illustrations. There was an exhibition of his work at the Tate Britain in London a few years ago which was really amazing.

My point is, is the tyger in his illustration actually meant to be smiling? Or was it just not very well drawn? It was certainly reworked at some time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...61px-Tyger.jpg

Here is a blow up of the version shown on wikipedia, which I originally looked at before I commented that it didn't look like a smile to me. Compare this with the one in Destini's post.

It is interesting that the expression of tiger changes so much, from version to version, isn't it?

Perhaps the imperfection of the "symmetry" lines is another contrast between the lower skills of the creator of the poem and the higher creative skills of the maker of the (real) tiger. Both picture and poem are hardly fierce.

Also, did you notice that in all versions of the illumination posted here the first "y" in the word "symmetry" has a peaked tail? Is it the fierce teeth of the tiger or yet another representation of the imperfection of the scribe/poet/artist? Whatever it is, it seems quite purposeful.

Some thoughts which might help ... but I expect the assignment is now well behind you! ...

Place the Tyger poem in the context of Blake's other poems and his philosophy.

Consider the many dualities in his work ...
Heaven and Hell (marriage of)
Innocence and experience
lamb and tyger
...

Blake accepted the terminology of standard Christian morality but reversed its values ...

Of note his philosophy was based on the founding image of "the human form devine" finding God in Universal man rather than starting with the traditional external and "threatening" view.

Blake like Christ turned the tables on the conventional view.

How can the image of the Lamb and the Tyger be married so to speak ... the same creator ... maybe the traditional view of the Tyger should be moderated with a little smile ... if he had an illustation of the Lamb would that be shown a little threatening?

It would not surprise if "The Tyger" illustration was not just poor work but a deliberate attempt to show something different to the conventional ... and at deeper level in relation to his philosophy.

Perhaps a little poetic touch for the the more discerning.

Great intepretations of the poem but I tend to think that neither he or his wife (who also drew some of these) were very good at drawing and people are overanalyzing the importance of this picture.

I tend to think that neither he or his wife (who also drew some of these) were very good at drawing...

As an artist and Blake fanatic I'm afraid I'll need to reserve the right to disagree with this assertion. Blake, as an artist, has long been underrated... or grouped under the perjoratives "Naive Artist", "Outsider Artist", or some such nonsense, just as his poetry was long dismissed as "naive", "untutored", "eccentric", etc... William Blake was very much a trained professional artist at a time when this meant that the ability to draw the figure well was a given neccessity. Blake's family was too poor to have him apprenticed to a painter, and so he was apprenticed to a printmaker. In an interesting anecdote, Blake was originally apprenticed to one of the most fashionable printmakers of the time, but he requested his father to send him elsewhere as the man "had the hanging look about him". Years later, this man would indeed be hung for the crime of forging money.

Blake's apprentice years were spent with an engraver of the traditional linear engraving manner rooted in the works of Dürer, Raimondi, etc... His master was employed primarily in illustrating documentations of historical buildings, and Blake spent a good deal of time studying the works of the medieval sculptors. Just as his poetry was influenced by many unusual predecessors (for the time), so were his concepts of visual art impacted by sources uncommon for the era. His taste was for strongly linear work: Raphael and Michelangelo and Durer... and these known only through engraved reproductions... as well as the engravings of Flaxman and the paintings of Fuseli... at a time when the English painters were primarilly interested in the far more painterly works of Rubens, Rembrandt and Titian. His work was also impacted by the expressive distortions of the medieval artists and possibly even some known works by Asian artists. While few would question whether the expressive distortions of Picasso, El Greco, etc... were intentional, the notion of Blake as a "naive eccentric" often leads to a misinterpretation of his work. One need merely look at certain early drawings such as the quick sketch of the artist's wife, Catherine (in the collection of the Tate, but unfortunately not shown on-line, although it can be found in "The Drawings of William Blake" published by Dover books).

Blake's finished works are powerfully expressive; his concern is not for anatomical accuracy, but rather he freely distorts and contorts the bodies in a manner allowing them to create strong, simple organic abstract designs.

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Mod.../view/d238?b=1

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Mod.../view/d238?b=2

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Mod.../view/d238?b=3

http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Mod.../view/d238?b=4

Blake's figures have a marvelously sensuous and organic quality that reminds me of nothing so much as the Romanesque sculpture at Vezalay. They make similar use of the organic repetitive line and the manner in which the figures undulate and twist in all sorts of manner in order to fit into the space alotted. This analogy is not surprising, considering the similar spiritual concerns of Blake and the medieval artists as well as Blake's own familiarity with medieval sculpture.

Having said this much, I do agree that one might be making far too much of such a small detail in Blake's illumination of "The Tyger". One needs to consider that the scale of this illustration (surely not much larger than the images posted here), as well as his method, a self invented relief engraving that allowed him to print with a limited color range (later "colorized" even further with watercolor washes applied by the artist and/or his wife), did not allow for a great control of fine details. On the other hand... a smiling tiger may simply convey Blake's refusal to follow the common dichotomies of "good/bad". After all, the same God who made the Lamb made this Tyger, and Blake embraces the need for both.

ps... How on earth do I post images and have them show here... and not as hyper-links?

Thanks Stlukesguild for this very interesting biographical background. I didn't know anything about Blake's life before. As an art historian the first thing I noticed when I saw the illustrated version of the Songs years ago was that the entire format is not naive at all but is a format "invented" by artists in the late 19th and early 20th century (art noveau, compare as a famous English example Oscar Wilde/Aubrey Beardsley). The "new" format was to bring the arts together in a complementary way and there suddenly appeared many journals where literary work and "illustrations" stood side by side. The "illustration" however was not perceived as merely illustrating the written piece but was supposed to stand on its own. As I said, painting/drawing did not serve writing and vice versa, but they were thought to complement each other, depicting the same subject in their particular ways as an attempt at something we call now the holistic approach. Blake as an artist is so amazing because he brilliantly (and not primitively) pre-dates a much later development.
The tiger in the plate doesn't seem asymetrical at all but is shown in a solid and heavy pose. His entire stance speeks of strength and fearsome confidence. In my version of the plate the mouth is slightly open, as if panting or lip curling (something cats do to take up smells better, I think). If there is on other plates a smiling expression I may point out that the mouth-nose part of a cat, even of a big one, has anyway a line that moves up. This is very difficult to depict, especially if you do hand-coloured etchings. It may therefore, seen in profile, easily been mistaken for a smile. A well-liked German writer (Franz Fühmann) once said when visiting an educational institution: "I didn't realise how much you can interpret into me." ("Ich wußte gar nicht, wie viel man in mich hinein interpretieren kann.")

Responses #13,14 & 15 are excellent, thoughtful and highly responsive to the question(s) presented. Bravo...each gave me much to think about. As a painter, I offer in addition: artists generally do not work and/or present pictures rendered alta prima. Drafts, sketches and studies precede the finished creation. Who can know...but the black & white suggests initial drafting....the changing expressions of Tyger demonstrate an artist's changes of mind while searching and stretching towards crystallization of an initial idea into a final blended result of skill and thought.

Pls My Question Is This "how Would You Describe The Poets's Attitude Towards The Tyger? Is He Fearfully,admiring And Respectful.pls I Need The Reply Urgently.

Thanks

thanks because you help me tooooooooooooooo much

awesome. This is helping me alot. Though I was wondering if ya could maybe talk about how this poem, "the Tyger" and the poem "the Lamb" tied together. As ya mentioned earlier, blake seemed to be asking God if he did in fact make the lamb and tyger. Something so simple but confusing at the same time.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

There's something childish and primitive about the illustration. Perhaps Blake just wasn't very good at drawing exotic wild animals. Where would he have seen one after all?