Lot Essay
The subject come from a passage in John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress which describes the Interpreter and Christian entering a Parlour full of Dust. At the Interpreter's command a Man sweeps the Parlour sneding up clouds of choking Dust whereupon a Damsel is summoned to sprinkle the Parlour with water after which the cleansing is completed with ease. The Interpreter explains that the Parlour represents the heart of Man unsanctified by the Grace of the Gospel, Dust is the Original Sin, with the Man sweeping and the Damsel being respectively personification of the Law and the Gospel. Blake's illustration captures the essence of Bunyan's parable in portraying the very moment that the Damsel at the left inititates her sprinkling of water over the eddying clouds of dust that billow round the bearded and curiously winged personification of Law to the right. The small menacing figures of Sin that can be discerned at the periphery of the clouds of Dust are as yet undampened and uncontrolled.
The precise technique for this striking image is uncertain and has been variously described as 'woodcut on copper', 'woodcut on pewter' and 'relief etching and white-line engraving'. Robert N. Essick (op. cit., pp. 102, 110) describes the medium as 'white-line metal cut' and leaves open the question as to whether this plate 'is copper or pewter, and whether it was incised with acid, graver, drypoint needle, or all three, it is unboubtedly a relief work of sorts and the printed result with its dramatic interplay of light and dark is ideally suited to the spiritual subject portrayed. In many ways the effect, especially in this richly inked and atmospheric impression of the first state, is reminiscent of the 'dark-field' monotypes of G. B. Castliglione (1616-1670) although it is unlikley that Blake had any knowledge of the Italian master's few impressions in this medium.
The E & P (Edmeads and Pine) watermark on this impression, similar to that invariably encountered on the illuminated books of the mid-1790s suggests a date of ca. 1794 for this first state impression and a later date for second state impressions some of which have a watermark date of 1821. Robert N. Essick (op. cit., pp. 108-9) discusses fully the physical, technical and iconographical evidence and believes on a balance of probabilities that both states should be dated to ca. 1822. The rare opportunity to compare the two states provided by this sale shows a profound difference in colour, inking, printing and effect which is considerably greater than the internal and more incidental differences of quality that can be discerned between one second state impression and another. Such comparisons make it difficult to view the first state merely as a differently inked but contemporary woorking proof for the second state and perhaps more credence should be given to the view that this impression of the first state, an object 'of original richness and beauty' should in reference to the second state be as much separated in date as it differs in effect
The precise technique for this striking image is uncertain and has been variously described as 'woodcut on copper', 'woodcut on pewter' and 'relief etching and white-line engraving'. Robert N. Essick (op. cit., pp. 102, 110) describes the medium as 'white-line metal cut' and leaves open the question as to whether this plate 'is copper or pewter, and whether it was incised with acid, graver, drypoint needle, or all three, it is unboubtedly a relief work of sorts and the printed result with its dramatic interplay of light and dark is ideally suited to the spiritual subject portrayed. In many ways the effect, especially in this richly inked and atmospheric impression of the first state, is reminiscent of the 'dark-field' monotypes of G. B. Castliglione (1616-1670) although it is unlikley that Blake had any knowledge of the Italian master's few impressions in this medium.
The E & P (Edmeads and Pine) watermark on this impression, similar to that invariably encountered on the illuminated books of the mid-1790s suggests a date of ca. 1794 for this first state impression and a later date for second state impressions some of which have a watermark date of 1821. Robert N. Essick (op. cit., pp. 108-9) discusses fully the physical, technical and iconographical evidence and believes on a balance of probabilities that both states should be dated to ca. 1822. The rare opportunity to compare the two states provided by this sale shows a profound difference in colour, inking, printing and effect which is considerably greater than the internal and more incidental differences of quality that can be discerned between one second state impression and another. Such comparisons make it difficult to view the first state merely as a differently inked but contemporary woorking proof for the second state and perhaps more credence should be given to the view that this impression of the first state, an object 'of original richness and beauty' should in reference to the second state be as much separated in date as it differs in effect