"The Clod & the Pebble"

“The Clod & the Pebble” in a way embodies the essence of Songs of Innocence and Experience by representing two opposing sides of love. The poem begins with a stanza detailing love that “seeketh not Itself to please” and continues this representation of love as selfless until the seventh line—exactly halfway through—when the word “But” signals a turn in the poem (1, 7). The second half of the second stanza then serves to introduce the final stanza, which illustrates a love that “seeketh only Self to please”—and thus the last stanza becomes the opposite of the first (9). The idealistic view of love in the first stanza aligns more with the ideas in the Songs of Innocence while the final stanza is certainly one of experience. It is interesting, then, that “The Clod & the Pebble” is among the Songs of Experience, especially since the poem itself is so symmetrical; while it does end on the more cynical view, it also gives both sides equal weight.

While the experience of the second half of the poem would not fit in with the innocence of the earlier poems, the mirroring of the first and final stanzas puts the innocent and experienced views on equal footing, in a way. The rhymes “please” and “ease” appear in both the first and last stanzas, and in both stanzas the second and fourth lines also rhyme (1, 3 & 9, 11). Though they do not rhyme with each other, there is even a mirroring in the final words of each stanza—“despair” and “despite” (12) The idea that both understandings of love deserve equal time in the poem is perhaps less pessimistic than some of the other songs of experience. The love still “Joys” in the final stanza—it is just at the cost of someone else’s “ease” (11). Thus experience in this poem reveals that it is not that there is no joy, only that it comes at the expense of something else. A certain interdependence between the two types of love is evident in this mirroring—the love “gives its ease” in the first stanza, and another “joys” at that same loss (11). In a sense, this feels natural—one party gives love, the other is rewarded. It appears as though both need to exist to complete this transfer.

The clod appears naïve and innocent—it has such a hopeful view of love in spite of living in “despair” and being “Trodden with the cattle’s feet” (4, 6). Ending on the pebble’s view perhaps reveals the clod’s song as ridiculous. However, I’m not sure if there is a clear reason for the pebble to be so cynical about love, either—the image of water in the brook is certainly more peaceful than mud. In a sense this makes the pebble seem somewhat ridiculous as well—despite the water it lives in it is hardened in a way the clay is not. While the clod “sang,” the pebble “warbled” and there is melody and song in both these words (5, 8). Both the Songs of Innocence and those of experience are songs, poems. While the song is associated with the innocence of the clod in this poem, the same form is used to represent the cynicism of the pebble. In a sense, “The Clod & the Pebble” represents a kind of paradox in the opposition of innocence and experience. Experience, like the poem, includes innocence—it represents an understanding of innocence as well as its absence—while innocence cannot include experience by virtue of it being innocence. In this sense, they almost cannot be opposites, but they are. 

 

 Also, this is cool: http://www.blakearchive.org/exist/blake/archive/copy.xq?copyid=songsie.b

The Opposing Concerns of Holy Thursday

In both sections of Songs of Innocence and of Experience there are poems titled "Holy Thursday," which continue the disharmonious dialogue between the two sections. Each poem depicts the scene of Holy Thursday in London when thousands of orphan children parade to church. The first poem, appearing in Songs of Innocence, hereafter referred to as “Holy Thursday I,” takes an uplifting stance on the parade, remarking how the children resemble flowers and behave superbly in church. The second, which comes in Songs of Experience and shall be referred to as “Holy Thursday II,” approaches the subject with an eye for truth and justice, one that does not hesitate to see beyond the spectacle, but more sees the scene as it actually is, as a showcase of Great Britain’s poverty.

Regarding the forms of the poems, each seems to work seamlessly with its content. “Holy Thursday I” employs long lines of fourteen syllables, which enrapture the reader in its narrative. The lines seem to mirror the “multitude they seemd” or the “Thames’ waters flow” which the children are compared to in the first stanza (5, 4). Through these long lines, the reader has very little time to contemplate each successive image, but instead must meander through the poem like they are part of the throng it depicts, not being able to see the whole picture or its harsh reality. In contrast to this, “Holy Thursday II” utilizes lines that average seven syllables in length and create space for the reader to contemplate the poem and reflect. The poem also directly asks questions of the reader such as “Is that trembling cry a song?/ Can it be a song of joy,” which forces the reader to be a participant in the poem and not just a passive observer as in “Holy Thursday I” (5-6). These two opposing forms then ask very different things of the reader, the first simply requiring the reader to enjoy the scene and the second asking the reader to question it.
The depiction of the orphan children of London varies greatly between each poem as well. In “Holy Thursday I” the speaker describes the children as “innocent faces,” “flowers of London,” and “lambs” (1, 5, 7), which seems to obscure the children and describe them comparatively rather than give a clear picture of their reality. Yet in “Holy Thursday II” they are only talked of as “Babes” or “children poor” (3, 7). The differing terms denotes the heart of the contrast between the two poems; “Holy Thursday I” is focussed on the myth of the tradition whereas “Holy Thursday II” is concerned with its reality. There differing viewpoints seem to be entangled in the doctrine of the Christian faith at the time, which demonized the questioning nature of the latter poem and sought the blind obedience of the former. And so it seems Blake’s narrators form both sides of the Christian coin that prevailed during his time, either questioning or ensnared by the myth. And through his poems, Blake gives credence to both, the end of each giving valuable moral advice no matter which side your coin falls on.

Infant Cry

Infant Cry

I know no word,

I am but two days old.

How can I tell thee?

I angry am,

Cry is my word.

Why am I outside thee?

 

Angry Cry!

Angry cry but two days old,

Angry cry I charge thee;

Thou dost smile,

I cry the while—

Why am I outside thee?

The Lamb and The Tyger

The poems “The Lamb” from Songs of Innocence and “The Tyger” from Songs of Experience form a diptych that demonstrates the contrast between Blake’s two collections of poems.   Both poems evoke the enigma of God.  However, ‘The Tyger” emphasizes the existential dread of being unable to identify our maker or his intent while the speaker in “The Lamb” recognizes God as defined by religious teachings.  Therefore, “The Lamb” is marked by conclusive statements whereas the speaker in “The Tyger” continues to question the nature and logic of God until the poem’s end.

            “The Lamb” begins with a query – “Little Lamb, who made thee?” (1)  The question is delicately phrased, as if the speaker is addressing a child.  The speaker’s gentle phrasing, as well as the repetition of the question for emphasis, serves to stress that the lamb is dependent on the speaker for knowledge and explicit delivery.  The opening question of “The Lamb” stands in stark contrast to the opening of “The Tyger.”  The speaker calls out to the tiger with an exclamation, as if he is addressing the animal from a distance.  Moreover, the speaker specifies that he is viewing the tiger afar, for the animal is “burning bright in the forests of the night” like a beacon.  This is because in “The Tyger,” Blake uses its central animal as an analogy for God and his mystery – God’s intentions are as obscured and potentially dangerous as the tiger’s. For example, the eyes of the tiger are said to be connected to “distant deeps or skies,” (5) a reference to the unknown of the universe.  Blake asks who “dare seize” the “fire” of the Tiger’s eyes (8).  The inability of the speaker to “seize” the “fire” reflects the incapacity of humans to understand the universe in which we live.  We cannot approach the “fire” in the tiger’s eyes because it is against our logic to approach a tiger, just as it is not in our nature to understand the work of God. Whereas in “The Lamb,” the speaker is the one with the great knowledge, the tiger in “The Tyger” is the God-like superior.

            The speaker in “The Tyger” expresses genuine curiosity toward God’s logic.  The opening stanza of “The Tyger” ends with the speaker asking “What immortal hand or eye, / Could frame thy fearful symmetry?” (4)  The speaker is questioning what trait of God’s nature enables him to control the tiger (to effectively “domesticate” the animal) on Earth. The speaker also asks the tiger, “Did he who made the Lamb make thee?” (20) This phrase expresses the speaker’s surprise that God could produce such wholly different animals.  It is seemingly illogical to imagine that the tiger and lamb sprung from the same mind.  The speaker in “The Tyger” also tries to use human logic to define the tiger, despite the fact that like God the tiger cannot be judged by the same standards as humans.  For example, the speaker asks what the tiger dreads and what art could potentially affect him (9-12).  However, the tiger is impenetrable, unknowable – like the mysterious Creator of all things.  The speaker in “The Lamb” does not have the same inquisitive streak, for the speaker is able to answer the question of God’s nature using religious teachings.  The confidence of the speaker is seen in the exclamation, “Little Lamb I’ll tell thee!” (11)  The speaker characterizes God as “meek” and “mild" (15).  Moreover, the speaker specifies how the lamb may identify with God, for he “calls himself a Lamb" (14).  The Lamb offers a comforting alternative to the God of unknowable nature that is presented in “The Tyger.”  “The Lamb” emphasizes that God is just like his creations (specifically, humans), and therefore does not have the potentially dangerous mysteriousness of the tiger. 

            Both poems focus on different aspects of God’s creations that are conducive to the overall arcs of the poems.  “The Tyger” evokes the “hammer” and the “chain,” the causes of the tiger’s bondage by humans (13).  Meanwhile, “The Lamb” stresses God’s gift to the subject of the lamb – for instance, the “clothing” and “tender voice” that has been bestowed upon the lamb (5).  Implicit in the focus of “The Tyger” on the negative aspects of a tiger’s existence is the question of why God would allow for such terrible pain and domination by humans to take place.  Meanwhile, “The Lamb” would have its subject and its readers simply appreciate and accept the great gifts of God.  “The Lamb” views God as a wholly compassionate force, while “The Tyger” views the cosmic entity as more of a complex figure.

            Finally, the tone of the two pieces can also be derived from the different uses of symmetry.  The repetition of lines in “The Lamb” has a singsong quality that evokes a church call-and-response.  Meanwhile, “The Tyger” does not resolve any of its inquiries.  Blake reiterates the first stanza at the end of the poem, articulating that nothing has changed.

            “The Lamb” belongs in Songs of Innocence because the goal of the speaker is to satisfy the subject of “the lamb” (and the reader) with a simplistic outlook on the world that is conveyed through straightforward aphorisms.  Meanwhile, “The Tyger” is written from the perspective of a more knowledgeable individual who has noted the falseness in oversimplified interpretations of God.  “The Lamb” is meant to shield children from the complexity of the world, while “The Tyger” makes no such concessions.  “The Tyger” is able to revel in its darkness, and the pain of not knowing our place in the universe whereas “The Lamb” offers an easy balm in the form of religious teachings.

Calvin and Hobbes picture from staphanpastis.wordpress.com