Meaning
The literary creator and the imagined character form an analogy for THE ALL and the universe. The character exists within an author's mind, while the author's thought and vitality are present in the character without making the character identical with the whole author.
Use in the book
VII begins from the reciprocal formula that everything is in THE ALL and THE ALL is in everything. It turns to familiar literary figures to make that relation imaginable. Shakespeare's people and Dickens' people have distinct traits, yet depend on a mind that encompasses them all.
The passage adds works of sculpture and painting, then asks how far the analogy can be carried. A character does not exhaust the author's powers. The comparison therefore explains immanence while resisting the claim that one particular person can declare himself THE ALL. The author immediately admits that the analogy is imperfect.
Places to read
- VII THE ALL in All · Block 4“The Hermetic Teachings are to the effect that THE ALL is Imminent in ("remaining within; inherent; abiding within") its Universe, and in every part, particle, unit, or combination, within the Universe.” …
- VII THE ALL in All · Block 5… “take a modern example, let us say that Othello, Iago, Hamlet, Lear, Richard III, existed merely in the mind of Shakespeare, at the time of their conception or creation. And yet,” …
- VII THE ALL in All · Block 6“The student will, of course, realize that the illustrations given above are necessarily imperfect and inadequate, for they represent the creation of mental images in finite minds, while the Universe is” …
- VII THE ALL in All · Block 7“And, in the degree that Man realizes the existence of the Indwelling Spirit immanent within his being, so will he rise in the spiritual scale of life. This is what spiritual” …
In this edition
The names are retained as allusions rather than treated as sources for the doctrine. The book's spellings, including its forms for the named artworks, are not silently corrected inside quotations.
Reading the argument
The example moves between a character's dependence during composition and the independent circulation of a completed work. Its point is the first relation. It is a model of dependence and presence, not a proof that readers and physical objects have the ontological status of fiction.
Shakespeare
“Shakespeare” — 4 occurrences in 1 text block: VII.5.
Dickens
“Dickens” — 5 occurrences in 1 text block: VII.5.
Othello
“Othello” — 1 occurrence in 1 text block: VII.5.
Iago
“Iago” — 1 occurrence in 1 text block: VII.5.
Hamlet
“Hamlet” — 1 occurrence in 1 text block: VII.5.
Lear
“Lear” — 1 occurrence in 1 text block: VII.5.
Micawber
“Micawber” — 7 occurrences in 1 text block: VII.5.
Oliver Twist
“Oliver Twist” — 1 occurrence in 1 text block: VII.5.
Uriah Heep
“Uriah Heep” — 2 occurrences in 1 text block: VII.5.
