![]() |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
![]() | 5. |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. | Plate 7 |
6. |
7. |
8. |
9. |
10. |
11. |
12. |
13. |
14. |
15. |
16. |
17. |
18. |
19. |
20. |
21. |
22. |
23. |
24. |
25. |
26. |
27. |
28. |
29. |
30. |
31. |
32. |
33. |
34. |
35. |
36. |
37. |
38. |
39. |
40. |
41. |
42. |
43. |
44. |
45. |
46. |
6. |
7. |
8. |
9. |
10. |
11. |
12. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1. |
2. |
3. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
![]() |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
![]() |
1. |
2. |
3. |
4. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1.0. |
![]() | 2.0. |
![]() | 2.1. |
2.1a. |
2.1b. |
![]() | 2.2. |
2.2a. |
2.2b. |
![]() |
![]() | | ![]() |
Plate 7
. . . .
O holy Generation <Image> of regeneration! [65]
. . . .
The word "Image" was scratched through for deletion, but not replaced; it is illegible or nearly so in every copy except the Cunliffe and the Harvard, in both of which it has been retouched into legibility. Can this deletion have signified some temporary doctrinal change — or does Blake's failure to repair it in other copies represent negligence?
![]() | | ![]() |