The Second Coming (p.1122)

In the poem, The Second Coming, Yeats presents a very graphic scene of the end of the world.  In the first stanza he describes the conditions of the world around him. Since Yeats wrote this poem shortly after World War I, he was describing how post war England looked and felt to him. Yeats writes “Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer;/ Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;/ Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,”.  The creation circles farther away from the creator.  The growing independence leads to an increasingly distant relationship and that lack of control over the bird allows it to stray.   

England after the war was in such bad shape that it felt as though the end of the world, for them at least, was near. Yeats must have felt as though the growing independence of the people allowed its relationship with God to weaken.  That weakening relationship was what Yeats identified as the “centre” that could not hold and would eventually collapse as anarchy broke the societal controls.  That weakening relationship between man and God and between citizens and the formerly controlling institutions in Britain allowed people to grow numb in their response to increasing sin.  The balance of independence and one’s ability to be self-conscious enough to be convicted by their sin is delicate.  The moral compass of the people malfunctioned as they circled away, ever higher, and more distant from their creator. The Bible presents events where similar conditions were present.  In Genesis, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed after the sin of the people became overwhelming.  Fire burned the unrighteous because they became blind to their own sin.  The Great Flood that was survived only by Noah and a few of his family was a second event that demonstrated the same response by God to the overwhelming and omnipresent sin of the people.  In the final days the Bible promises the righteous people will be raptured and will leave the unsaved to inhabit the Earth.  Evil will be the standard and the remaining people will not be convicted in their sin.  Finally, the sky will open and the people will see Jesus coming on the clouds with legions of angels to do battle with the forces of evil.  Armageddon will be the final destruction of evil.

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity.” (lines 7&8)  The Apostle Paul also described how man commits sin with passion and is not able to detect his own condition.  If he resists the saving grace offered freely to him and continues to revel in his sin, he will be given over to his sin and abandoned.

In the second stanza he describes the “revelation [that] is at hand” (line 9). As soon as Yeats begins to describe the Second Coming a sphinx-like creature appears. “ A shape with the lion body and the head of a man,/  A gaze as blank and pitiless as the sun.” (lines 14&15) Yeats believes that the sphinx is there to bring the end of the world.  Yeats’ reference to a beast is not unlike references to a beast in the Bible’s books of Daniel and Revelation.  Yeats believed the end was inevitable and that is also what the Bible describes.  Yeats’ belief that some revelation was at hand is indicative of how badly he thought society in post-war England had become. 

I think it is common today for people to comment on how bad our society has become.  Surely some revelation is at hand and the second coming of Christ could be due.  I don’t know when it will be and no one can claim to know but if the falcon could somehow return closer to the falconer, maybe the falconer’s words could be heard and his instructions heeded.

Glory of Women (p.1099)

The poem, Glory of Women, by Siegfried Sassoon was an interesting critique on how women interact with men.  I read the poem a few times and each time came away with something different.  The first time I read the writer’s take on how women “love us when we’re heroes, home on leave,/ Or wounded in a mentionable place.”(lines 1&2) I thought how the writer was actually being critical of women rather than praising them.  The fact that he refers to the reasons the women loved the men implied that the reasons were superficial or misguided.  If a man is loved when he is heroic or home on leave, it might mean that the women are not so loving or devoted when the men are less than heroic or away from home.  If a man is loved when he’s wounded in a mentionable place, it implies that a man suffering from an unseen injury, as Sassoon was when treated for “shell shock”, is less lovable and less heroic and therefore not worthy of a woman’s love.  Maybe it was that undercurrent of misogynistic sarcasm that struck me after several readings.

The writer also seems to be critical of women’s intelligence when he says, “You worship decorations; you believe/ That chivalry redeems the war’s disgrace.” (lines 3&4) The writer seems to imply that only men, especially the poet, are able to discern the ravages of war and the disgrace that is involved in modern warfare.  “You make us shells.  You listen with delight,/ By tales of dirt and danger fondly thrilled.” (lines 5&6) Again, I took it that the poet believes women only listen to men to be delighted by their tales of heroism and daring.  The cheap thrills they get from those tales betray the actual horror of the lives broken and ended prematurely by the fighting.

Sassoon ended his poem with a grim commentary on the true feelings he harbored inside.  “O German mother dreaming by the fire,/ While you are knitting socks to send your son/ His face is trodden deeper in the mud.” (lines12-14)  What attack on women could be more mean-spirited than to attack the relationship between a mother and her son?  The picture of a woman knitting socks to send her son while enemy troops defile his dead body by trampling his face into the mud gives the reader an advance preview on how devastated the mother will be when the death of her son is reported.  Moreover, that her son’s death was not mourned and that men trampled his lifeless corpse into the mud with complete disdain for his passing.  The poet makes it a point to mention the woman is German as if those women are worth even less than the English women.

After reading this poem a few times I was convinced that the writer was deeply bitter and held special resentment for women.  Why he felt this way isn’t clear in the poem but I found his prejudice and disdain for women to be shallow, insulting and thought provoking.  Why did he feel the horrors of war escaped the intellect of women?  Was it because women did not fight?  Certainly the horrors of war would become entirely real for the German woman knitting socks to send to her son when the news of his death reached her.  Unlike the dead soldier, however, the mother would be left to feel her loss and contemplate the horrors of war each day for the rest of her life.

The Soldier (p.1098)

In the poem The Soldier, by Rupert Brooke, patriotism and national pride are given a fitting requiem.  The poem written to be read at a memorial service, as it was in Brooke’s memorial, describes a soldier who was born and bred in England and shaped by its environment.  The pride with which the narrator describes his special background lets the reader know that only a select few could claim such citizenship and belong to this elite group.

In reading the poem I was smiling as I thought of a proud young man honored to be an Englishman and prouder still to have enjoyed the benefit of a life formed in a special way, “A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,/ Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,”. (lines 5&6) The verses have a romantic air that the reader feels as much as reads.  When I thought of a young man representing his country and proud to claim his heritage it was heartwarming.  I tire of reading critic after critic complain about how bad it is in our country at this time.  To be the “hated American” across the globe is tiresome to the point of making me sick of hearing the complaint instead of being ashamed to be an American.  To read a poem about a young man so proud of who he is, where he is from, and how special it was to be privileged in that way, I was refreshed. 

Although the poem is called The Soldier, I didn’t pick up on any military theme or any of the ugliness of war.  The poem almost seemed to be about a young man taken far from home and longing for home in a way that he suddenly appreciated what home was and what it meant to claim that place as his home.  The poem could have been plucked from the inside breast pocket of a man saving his final thoughts for someone close to read in the event of his passing.  It could have been an old man or a young man, someone traveling on business or someone forced to fight in a foreign war.  The fact that the title claims the latter as the narrator gives the feeling that it could have been written in a foxhole on a dark, damp night while the writer was frightened and thinking of a pleasant past as a pacifier for the long lonely night.  As I thought of the poem in that setting it gave the words an added poignancy.  That feeling found its mark with the final verses of the poem, “Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given,/ Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;/ And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,/ In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.” (lines 11-14) I wonder if Brooke dreamed of England while he was away and believed there was a special place in heaven for him after he was gone.

Thou Art Indeed Just, Lord (p.778)

In the poem Thou Art Indeed Just, Lord,  Hopkins is distressed because he has a sort of writers block, and he is asking God why he is allowing this to happen to him. He says “Why do sinners’ ways prosper? and why must/ Disappointment all I endeavor end?” (lines 3&4) He does not understand why God allows others to produce works but he “strain,/ Time’s eunuch, and not breed one work that wakes.” (lines 12&13)

Hopkins is frustrated because he thought God was his friend. He believes that if that were true, he would not have these troubles. Hopkins’ concern is a classic one demonstrated throughout the bible. In situations more dire than the one in which Hopkins finds himself figures like Job, David and Jeremiah asked the same question.   The complete destruction of Job’s family, possessions, and health while Job was an upright man; the plight of a would be ruler pursued by a unrighteous king; and a prophet of God preaching to a lost world and his imprisonment are all examples that escaped Hopkins’ notice.

Who hasn’t experienced the same sort of question when things go wrong?  Hopkins touches a common human emotion when he asked why sinners prosper.  Hopkins believes God is withholding blessings and in so doing, allowing Hopkins to strain while failing to produce that which he attempts to create.  It struck me that I’ve often wondered why sinners prosper while I work diligently to produce what is expected.  If that effort falls short of my expectations, or worse-others expectations, I often see obstacles that others might not see. 

Hopkins concluded his work with the request for help, “O thou lord of life, send my roots rain.” (line 14) Hopkins believed that the attention of God and the affections of God shown to his friend (Hopkins) would result in Hopkins being able to produce without strain.  I’d like to think I also have the sort of friendly relationship with God that I could ask for rain and be better able to achieve my goals.  In Hopkins’ mind I guess that sort of help would demonstrate God’s justice.  The same pleas for help were voiced by Job, David and Jeremiah.  All three prospered in the end and I’m certain Hopkins hoped and prayed for the same result.

God's Grandeur (p.774)

In the poem, God’s Grandeur, the title refers to part of the message that Hopkins is trying to convey in that he is obviously affected by his faith because he sees God’s presence in nature. Like in scripture it says, you do not see the wind but you can feel it. In the same way, you cannot see God but you see His effects. In the face of God’s creation man has inflicted damage through his very nature and yet, in spite of man’s impact, God’s grandeur remains evident.

            Hopkins then says, “Why do men then now reck his rod?/ Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;/ And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;/ Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.” (lines 4-8) He expresses concern that men now, through trade and daily living, have worn down the natural earth that God has provided.  Furthermore, with industrial advances and scientific knowledge man has set himself apart, ignoring his reliance on nature and God.

            Strip mining has blighted the landscape, oil spills have destroyed habitats, and massive developments have encroached upon ecosystems. Animals have been hunted to extinction and the food chain broken through man’s intervention. Global warming and other irreversible trends are due to man’s abuse of nature and his disrespect for his creator. Because of mans failure to head God’s power, a day of reckoning will come. And while waiting this day of reckoning, “Nature is never spent;” (line 9). More encouraging than that, Hopkins recognizes that “ There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;” (line 10) I understood those words to mean that regardless of how man ignores God and foolishly believes in his independence God continues to invite a reconciliation through a renewed natural state.  I worry about our future in the face of our exploitation of the earth and Hopkins appeared to share those same concerns.  Concern alone will not correct the problem and one day God’s invitation and the grandeur of nature will expire.

My Last Duchess (p.663)

In the poem, My Last Duchess, the Duke of Ferrara is giving a tour of his castle to the servant of a Count. While giving the tour, he stops in front of a painting of the late Duchess and begins to tell the servant about her.  As I read this poem I immediately realized certain characteristics of the Duke. He is wealthy, he is proud of his status and he is a product of his time. We see that he is wealthy because in the last line of the poem he shows the servant a bronze statue “cast in bronze for [him]!” (line 56) and he lives lavishly in a palace. When the Duke is telling his story of his last duchess you catch this sense of pride and arrogance. In a part of the poem he says, “as if she ranked/ My gift of nine-hundred-years old name/ With anybody’s gift. Who’d stoop to blame/ This sort of trifling. Even had you skill/ In speech-(which I have not)- to make your will/ Quite clear to such an one, and say, “Just this/ Or that in you disgusts me; here you miss,/ Or there you exceed the mark” (lines 33-39) He not only shows he is proud of his ranking and his “name”, but he feels he is too good the have to tell the Duchess what she is doing wrong that bothers him.  He doesn’t believe he should have to actually say the command out loud but the Duchess should just know.

            I believe the Duke tries to act proud and like he is so great, but realistically he has self esteem issues. He tells the servant that the Duchess was too friendly with other guys and even a little sexual towards them,  that she smiled too much.  He says “ Sir. t’was not/ Her husband’s presence only, called that spot/ Of joy into the Duchess cheek (lines 13-15) …. She had/ A heart- how should I say?- too soon made glad,/ Too easily impressed; she liked whate’er/ She looked on, and he looks went everywhere.” (lines 21-24)But as I read on I gathered that some of this may be just in the Dukes mind. The Duchess may have smiled at other people, but I feel that smiles can simply be a sign of kindness. The Duke did not take her smiling this way. He did not even tell her what she did wrong he just “gave the commands:/ Then all smiles stopped together.” (lines 45&46) When I first read this, I did not believe that the Duke could have possibly killed the Duchess, but in the next line when he says “There she stands/ As if alive.” (line 46) I came to the chilling realization that he did in fact kill her.

            The impact of the Duke’s arrogance, jealousy and suspicious nature when it came to the way the Duchess interacted with others possibly resulted in the Duke forbidding any contact between the Duchess and others.  That isolation and the Duke’s paranoia about his Duchess’s outward joy in living would have been enough to possibly kill her.  The Duke possibly learned first-hand that the love of a woman is not a possession that can be locked away and viewed when one wishes.  That possessive nature and his attempt at locking her away would have killed their happiness and possibly the Duchess along with it.  It was never clear whether the Duchess was promiscuous but the Duke’s fear that a blush or a smile was indicative of her infidelity dominated the theme of the poem.  To capture a smile in a painting that the Duke cherished so much was ironic in view of his behavior and the way he actively tried to prevent the Duchess from displaying the very smile captured for eternity in the painting.

            This poem shows that the Duke is just a product of his time. He was in an arranged marriage, which was very common in his time and he did not take much value in his wife.  During this time period women were not held to very high standards. They were to be as appealing as possible to the men, while still being “proper”.  This meant that although the women went through school for many years to learn to be suitable for a man, the men still fantasized about different kind of women and only took their wives as someone to do household duties. The Duke had no emotional or romantic tie to his wife. He killed her! Then he just found another Duchess. 

The Charge of the Light Brigade (p.615)

I really enjoyed reading this poem because it gave me a sense of encouragement. The Charge of the Light Brigade tells the story of 600 soldiers who rode on horseback into the “valley of death” (line 3) for half a league (which is about one and a half miles) to charge their enemy. Even though all the soldiers realized that their commander made a mistake: “Someone had blundered.” (line 12)  None of the soldiers complained or were discouraged; they were brave. They obeyed and were  “not to make reply/ Their’s not to reason why,/ Their’s but to do and die:” (lines 13&14) they followed orders.

            Gallantry and glory are often bestowed on heroes.  The difference between a hero and a fool is often in the eye of the beholder.  In this poem, the six hundred heroic soldiers who charged on in the face of death knew full well that their mission was a fatal one.  Their dedication to duty in the face of that brought them glory that was the inspiration for this poem.  Their death brought them immortality through the re-telling of their exploits.

            The Persian defeat of the Spartans at Thermopylae has been re-told many times and the fatal mission of the Spartan soldiers brought them similar glory.  The bravery of a cadre of men outnumbered by their enemy and overmatched in their might would have been a sufficient reason to retreat and flee.  That did not happen at Thermopylae and it did not happen in Tennyson’s story of his soldiers.  The intelligence of a retreat would not have been the proper backdrop for a story of bravery and heroism.

 This poem is based on actual events during the Crimean War when the British cavalry misunderstood orders and made a charge upon the batteries of Russian artillery. There are many times when it is hard to blindly trust someone, especially when you do not think they are right. It takes true courage to follow someone into battle and even more courage and bravery to go into a battle when you know you are outnumbered. In the last few lines of the poem Tennyson tells the reader to “Honour the charge they made!/ Honour the Light Brigade,/ Noble six hundred!” (lines 53-55)  We honor our heroes in many ways and it made me think that Tennyson wasn’t speaking about each of his readers entering a battle of life or death.  I think Tennyson was reminding his readers that each person has a role in life and often that role is contingent upon a hierarchy.  If the mission is daunting and the prospects are dim, we must remember our role and how our dedication to that mission will be viewed.  Honor and glory are lasting traits that can be sacrificed in an instant.  Many of the six hundred sacrificed their lives but lived on as an example that carried many people through difficult times.  The re-telling of Tennyson’s poem during the dark days of England’s struggle during World War II no doubt carried many a scared soldier to complete his mission.  In that way, Tennyson was instructing us that completing our mission with focused determination often has a benefit that will last longer than our lives and will have greater impact after our death than we could have had while living. 

Ulysses (p.593)

In the poem, Ulysses, Alfred Lord Tennyson tells the story of a once proud man who realizes his best days are behind him.  What made an impact on me was the way Ulysses chose to reminisce about his past and how he enthusiastically and realistically embraced his remaining days.  I’ve known people who have accomplished things in their lives and chose to rest on the past and grimly wait on death.  The deathwatch created a melancholy that began to overtake their identity and created a stench.  Ulysses is as far away from that as anyone could be.

Ulysses set the stage for his call to arms by noting, “By this still hearth, among these barren crags,/ Match’d with an aged wife, I mete and dole”. (lines 2&3)  We see a man who is ensconced in a den, sitting by a hearth, growing cold as he grows old.  His spouse cannot keep him warm and there must not be any warmth between them.  The fact that there is no fire in the hearth depicts the stale state of his situation.

Knowing his situation and knowing what drives him and puts a spark in his life, Ulysses professes, “I cannot rest from travel: I will drink/ Life to the lees”. (lines 6&7)  He clearly wants to live his life to the fullest and not sit and wait on his life to end.  His relationships with his comrades bring a richness to his life and although he has seen good times and bad the alternative by not having them by his side is worse.  “all times I have enjoy’d/ Greatly, have suffer’d greatly, both with those/ That loved me, and alone;”. (lines 8&9)  Despite his condition and through the high’s and low’s Ulysses has given it his all and reaped a benefit or been stung.

“I am a part of all that I have met;/ Yet all experience is an arch wherethro’/ Gleams that untravell’d world, whose margin fades/ for ever and for ever when I move.”( lines 18-21)  I thought that statement by Ulysses sums up what every young person feels as they move into adulthood.  The statement of an old Ulysses captured the enthusiasm of a young person who realizes that all they are is a function of every experience they’ve had through life.  Those experiences, however, are simply a passage into a new world with new experiences that have no boundary.  Each time a limit is approached, it disappears into new experience with new archways to traverse.

Although Ulysses has seen and done many things he is wise to know that sitting on the past is a sure way to expedite the end.  “How dull it is to pause, to make an end,/ To rust unburnish’d, not to shine in use!” (lines 23&24)  It was said a little more bluntly by Neil Young when he sang, “It’s better to burn out than it is to rust.”  The statement is clear in both versions.  Ulysses wants to shine and to be a useful person and not a rusty, useless anchor.

The desire to live life and to pursue knowledge while remaining vital is more difficult in old age than it was while Ulysses possessed the blessings of youth.  “And this gray spirit yearning in desire/ To follow knowledge like a sinking star,/ Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.” (lines 30-33) Ulysses wanted to learn through experience what others learned through books.  Ulysses wanted to learn for himself things that others might not know.  That thirst for knowledge and experience matches Ulysses’ earlier statement that all experience is an arch through which he wanted to travel.  The more he learns and experiences, the more there is to learn and experience.

“Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;/ Death closes all: but something ere the end,/ Some work of noble note, may yet be done,”. (lines 50-52) Despite Ulysses’ old age, he maintains his honor and dignity through his desire to keep moving forward.  He clearly says what his plan is and what his goals include by seeking the participation of his mates, “Come, my friends,/ ‘Tis not too late to seek a newer world.” (lines 56 &57)  “for my purpose holds/ To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths/ Of all the western stars, until I die./ It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:/ It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,”. (lines 59-63)  Ulysses makes no promise of what is to come from his new adventures.  He clearly says it could end in death or in bliss.  He knows from his past travels that love and loneliness are available but he chooses to seek love and happiness in spite of the unknown result.

In the end Ulysses makes what might be the most important statement of all.  If it’s not the most important statement, it was the one that made the biggest impact on me.  “We are not now that strength which in old days/ Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;/ One equal temper of heroic hearts,/ Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will/ To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.” (lines 56-70)  That proud commentary by a proud man doesn’t stink of arrogance or pride.  It speaks loudly of a vibrant, energetic soul.  The shell of the man might have been weakened by age but his heart continued to beat loudly.  His realization that the heart is what mattered and the will was the driving force was the very thing that made him human and immortal at the same time.

The Steam Loom Weaver

The Steam Loom Weaver (p.489) was an interesting exercise in symbolism.  The writer clearly used the symbols of a steam loom weaver and an engine driver in an encounter that was clearly sexual in nature.  The discourse between the woman and the man was clever and left little doubt about the intent and action of the participants.  What struck me most about the ballad was the conspicuous absence of any romance.  That absence of romance was what I believe the writer intended to convey. 

An interaction between the man and the woman in the ballad was initiated on a June morning.  There was a little description of the birds singing and flowers blooming but the ballad got right into the play on words involving their physical desires.  “All their discourse was about weaving.  And the getting up of steam.”   I think this ballad would have taken a much different approach if it were not written during the Industrial Revolution.  Had this ballad been written before that time I believe there would have been more time spent on romance.  There would have been some description of the woman and of the young man.  There would have been more feeling and words devoted to conjuring that feeling.  The writer clearly wanted to avoid that because, I believe, the writer was bemoaning the loss of romance in society at that time. 

In an industrial age where machines drive production and that push for production drives life itself, there is little time and energy left for romance.  The writer conveyed that without having to bluntly say it by getting right to the point.  The absence of romance and the symbolic use of machinery parts to convey the woman’s desire gave the cold impression of a couple having sex rather than making love.  The writer’s description of the woman’s invitation, “So work away without delay,/ And quickly muster up the steam.” (line 15&16) provided precious little in the way of foreplay.

When the invitation was given the man surely responded.  His response, however, was just as mechanical and without feeling.  “Dear lass these things I will provide,/ But when to labour will you begin/ As soon my lad as things are ready/ My loom shop you can enter in./ A shuttle true and pickers too, /This young man did provide amain./ And soon her loom was put in tune/ So well it was supplied with steam.”  (lines 25-32) After that stanza of the ballad there was little imagination about the action.  It was sadly without romance or joy. 

The stanza that followed used the mechanical symbols to describe the encounter between the man and woman and when it was over “The young man cried your loom works, light /And quickly then off shot the steam.” (lines 39&40) It was not surprising that given the absence of romance and the imagery provided by the writer that after the act there was no feeling.  I think the act was expected, it happened and when it was over there was no further obligation.  I think that would encapsulate the feeling of the average worker at the time who probably believed his employer expected the labor of the worker, the worker provided his labor and when it was over he was paid and there was no further obligation.  There was no love, no loyalty and no feeling.  It was all simply mechanical just like the encounter between these two young people.

After the act was complete the young woman wanted more.  The man, however, said, “This steam loom weaving well I like./  He said good lass I cannot stay.” (lines 44&45) There wasn’t much surprise because why would he stay?  He made the woman an offer, “If ready when I come this way,/ I’d strive for to get up the steam.” (lines 47&48) I think the writer was again making a reference to the relationship between labor and employer.  Why would an employer be obligated to keep a workforce that was rapidly being replaced by mechanical means?  The use of the labor was not unlike this young man’s use of the woman in that it filled a desire and a temporary arrangement was all that was needed.  Beyond that there was no lasting relationship and no need to remain. 

The ballad was interesting when viewed in a societal context and I think it was meant for that purpose.  If the writer believed relationships between men and women were being altered with the influx of women in the workplace and the increasing potential for promiscuity, it might explain why the woman in the ballad was so forward in her invitation to the engineer.  That point can be taken from the ballad but I think the main point was to point out how life after the Industrial Revolution had lost its romance and its appeal.

Captains of Industry

I really enjoyed Thomas Carlyle’s lecture, Captains of Industry.  In this day and age of socialism under the nametag of American Democracy Carlyle would be staunch critic.  “Government can do much, but it can in nowise do all.” (p.482) In my opinion, truer words can’t be spoken.  The problem, I fear, is greater than Carlyle realized and in today’s time period the complexity of life is overwhelming.  The response of the people today is to cry out for more government to solve its problems rather than getting busy solving their individual problems on their own.  The demand for a government “fix” has created an out-of-control government whose growth has made it a burden on its people.  Our government today has become less effective at solving problems and less efficient in handling its business.  Carlyle was right when he observed, “Like People like Government.”(p.482)

How did we come to this place?  If we were to look at our history we would see a parallel in Carlyle’s criticism of his own time.  The pursuit of money and the competition in the marketplace were supposed to benefit society.  Although we have certainly benefitted from the technological advances in every field we now have come to a point where “artificial intelligence” has begun to replace the need for actual intelligence.  Machines do our work and now machines do our thinking.  Carlyle would see this removal of soul from society as a damning characteristic.  When we abandoned our morals in pursuit of money and we became comfortable having machines work for us we simply gave up being human.

Carlyle feared that England traded its soul for the pursuit of money.   Carlyle wanted his people to change their ways so that, “Our diety no longer being Mammon.” (p.483) If the people abandoned the pursuit of money they could avoid hell and “By degrees, we shall again have a Society with something of Heroism in it, something of Heaven’s Blessing on it.” (p.483) Carlyle was crying out but his cries were directed not only toward the masses but to its industry leaders whom Carlyle saw as feudal lords.  The industry leaders were to take on the noble task of leading their subordinates toward a better existence.  Those industry leaders were not ordinary men, they were made of something better and therefore something better was expected of them.  Carlyle believed they were gifted by God to achieve greater things and implored them to “Arise, save thyself, be one of those that save thy country.” (p.484)

How would it play out on the evening news if prominent leaders of this country and prominent Fortune 500 executives asserted themselves and claimed a God-given leadership role?  I think it would be disturbing to most but if those same leaders in government and industry took it upon themselves to search their soles for a purpose other than making themselves rich, there would be a glimmer of hope and decency evident to everyone.  If politicians believed their roles were to serve rather than be served, to give rather than receive, and to guide the country as they would seek to be guided, there would be more respect for them.  If industry leaders ceased borrowing from the government and the taxpayers to bail out losses while granting themselves grotesque bonus packages, confidence in the economy would grow. 

Carlyle saw the problem.  Carlyle called out the leaders.  Carlyle noted “Love of men cannot be bought by cash-payment; and without love men cannot endure together.”  (p.484)Like many prophets, no one heeded his call.  Carlyle wanted benevolent leaders to endear themselves to the workers who would then work for them out of loyalty, love and a sense of God’s purpose.  “It is to you I call: ye know at least this, That the mandate of God to His creature man is: Work!” (p. 485) I think that Carlyle’s appreciation for leadership and teamwork were ahead of his time.  I think his call on us today is as clear as it was in his day. 

Our problem with listening to, and adhering to, such principles espoused by Carlyle is that they are easy to say but difficult to do.  Carlyle wasn’t shy about admitting that obstacle, “God knows, the task will be hard; but no noble task was ever easy.” He went further, “Difficult?  Yes, it will be difficult.” (p.486)  I remember hearing my parents say the same thing to me repeatedly during my adolescence.  Difficult, yes it was difficult, but I worked through it and feel that I’m better for it.  As I look ahead there will be much work to do but I’m happy to be in a position to be able to work and know that there is reward beyond money in work.

Labour (p.481)

Thomas Carlyle’s lecture, Labour, opens with a bold, universal truth, “For there is a perennial nobleness, and even sacredness, in Work.” (p.481) Carlyle’s Calvinist background and his appreciation for hard work could be seen by today’s psychologist as a personality flaw.  His focus on an association between sacredness and work could be seen as an overly simplistic outlook on life.  I, however, like to view it as a sign of character-not a character flaw.

Carlyle focuses on the association between business and Godliness in this lecture.  He contrasted the “old school” teachings he learned as a young boy with the standard held in the post-industrial society.   Industrial workers replaced agricultural workers and industrial machines did the work normally performed by people.  The displacement of workers, the unemployment in the face of growing prosperity and the resulting changes in government disturbed Carlyle.  He saw people being used to benefit business rather than business being used to benefit people.  The acceptance by many people that they would be poor and unemployed didn’t change the direction of the government.  The acceptance by the government that it would always have the poor and its failure to remedy what Carlyle saw as a growing polarization between the classes caused Carlyle to fear a new version of the French Revolution.

Carlyle wanted the government to guide the people and especially wanted the rich people of his day to guide the poor people into noble pursuits.  One such noble pursuit was work.  Carlyle had no use for idleness and said, “in Idleness alone is there perpetual despair.” (p.481) It was work that gave a man hope and Carlyle said, “there is always hope in a man that actually and earnestly works.” (p. 481) People needed to occupy themselves in getting to know their place through knowing what they had to do.  “The latest Gospel in this world is, Know thy work and do it.” (p.481) Carlyle had no use for people looking inward to discover who they were, he wanted them to know what they could do and get busy doing it.  Carlyle said, “a man perfects himself by working.” (p.481)

Carlyle’s ideas on the relationship of man and his labor went beyond some theoretical obligation.  Carlyle clearly associated man and labor as part of God’s design.  Carlyle opined that chaos would envelop the world if man did not work and that chaos would take place if the world ceased to revolve.  A lump of clay on a potter’s wheel is worthless if the potter does not work at his craft.  Until the potter works the clay into shape it does not have meaning but after it is molded into a bowl or cup it serves a greater function and becomes useful.  Man is like a lump of clay and if he does not work he is useless and serves no greater function. 

Carlyle wanted the idle people of his day to meditate on his words.  “Blessed is he who has found his work; let him ask no other blessedness.  He has a work, a life-purpose; he has found it, and will follow it!” (p.482) Like Carlyle, I believe each person has been born with certain talents and potential but without work that talent is wasted and the potential never realized.  I’ve heard it said that the word “potential” is a euphemism for saying someone hasn’t done anything yet.  I don’t know if I believe that “Labour is Life: from the inmost heart of the Worker rises his god-given Force, the sacred celestial Life-essence breathed into him by Almighty God” (p. 482), but I do believe God designed each of us for a purpose and without work we can never know what that purpose is and therefore can never fulfill that purpose.  If Carlyle is right when he said, “The knowledge that will hold good in working, cleave thou to that; for Nature herself accredits that, says Yea to that.” (p.482), then I would have to agree.  I’ve never seen any creature of nature that wasn’t busy and I’ve never seen a lazy species survive.  If that is true in nature then it must surely be true in man.

I guess the idea of working diligently at something is better than meditating on everything and accomplishing nothing.  If that is blessed then I’m satisfied with that.

Gospel of Mammonism (p.480)

In Thomas Carlyle’s lecture, Gospel of Mammonism, he told the grim tale of an Irish Widow and her three children who were forced to “solicit help from the Charitable Establishments of that City.” (p.480) Carlyle told how the woman was refused each time she attempted to get help for herself and her children.  Eventually, broken and sick, the woman contracted typhus-fever and died.  When she died she “infected her Lane with fever, so that “seventeen other persons” died of fever there in consequence.” (p.480) The tragic story served as an example of how heartless Carlyle believed the post-industrial society had become.  The societal focus on wealth; the polarization of the rich and poor; made stories like this one too commonplace for Carlyle to bear. 

I thought this lecture by Carlyle was a bit of a change, albeit a subtle one, from his work in Past and Present.  Carlyle asked, “Would it not have been economy to help this poor Widow?” (p.480) Carlyle’s question was attributed to a character he called the “humane physician.”  I thought Carlyle purposely identified the speaker who asked the question any compassionate reader would ask as the humane physician to call attention to a mass of people in his day who were deemed inhumane.  Similarly, I thought Carlyle went an extra step to point out that the seventeen other persons who died after being infected by the widow did so as a consequence of their failure to help her rather than as a consequence of her illness.

By pointing out the consequence of their failure to help a needy widow, Carlyle brought in principles learned in his Calvinist upbringing.  The notion of a God who punishes sin was clearly brought home when Carlyle pointed out the widow’s cry for help, “Behold I am sinking, bare of help: ye must help me!  I am your sister, bone of your bone; one God made us; ye must help me!” (p.480-481) The failure to help the widow was not caused by an inability to help but was caused by a refusal to help.  That refusal in the face of obvious need was viewed by Carlyle as an affront to God, since it was God who made all people.  The brotherhood of man and their denial of that sisterhood they shared with the widow was clearly identified when her illness spread and killed seventeen people.  Those seventeen, we must assume, were not other poor widows but were healthy, and possibly wealthy individuals.  The sickness affected them regardless of their standing in society and proved their guilt for denying a sister in need.

Carlyle was not advocating a welfare state but believed it was a natural occurrence, and a duty for the “government of the Poor by the Rich”. (p.481) Carlyle disagreed with the post-industrial standard of “Supply-and-demand, Laissez-faire”(p.481) direction as a substitution for a government run by the rich who could mentor the poor and direct them into positive action.  The government of the poor by the rich carried forth Carlyle’s belief that the rich possessed an intellect, a heart and a desire to lead.  A supply and demand business model for leadership presented society with no heart and no soul.  The laissez-faire leadership model simply created a competition for profit and not a benevolent leader.  In the absence of such leadership Carlyle said the population was aimless.  His comment on behalf of the people who denied the Irish Widow some assistance, “Nay, what wouldst thou thyself have us do?”(p.481) begged the answer Carlyle was advocating from the government, “Nothing, my friends,--till you have got a soul for yourselves again.  Till then all things are “impossible”.”(p.481)

I subscribe to Carlyle’s idea that there are often segments of the population that need assistance to get beyond a setback.  I disagree that the rich are somehow more capable of leading because it is not the size of one’s bank account that identifies fitness to lead.  If the idea is that the rich are better educated, more motivated and better equipped to lead, then I could see his point.  I believe the will of the people often needs some adjustment, a reminder to be gracious, and some direction to a common goal.  There are always costs to be paid when we fail to act properly and certainly a price to be paid when we refuse to be humane.  We pay those costs every day and whether it is on an individual or societal level, the price is high.  When the price reaches a point where it is painful to pay, action ensues.  In Carlyle’s story, the price was seventeen infected people dying from typhus-fever.  I don’t know if that cost changed the minds of those who refused to aid the Irish Widow, but I would hope the seventeen did not die in vain.

The Conditions of England (p.477)

In the lecture, Past and Present (p.477-486), Thomas Carlyle offers his commentary on the conditions in England.  Those conditions were particularly dire and Carlyle’s criticism stemmed from his observations that “England is full of wealth, of multifarious produce, supply for human want in every kind; yet England is dying of inanition.” (p. 477)  In reading his comments and the passionate call for change I was transported, in a sense, to a time when England was experiencing the full societal effects of the Industrial Revolution but simultaneously believed the commentary was aimed at society in America today.

Our society today, more than any other culture in the world, and more than any other period in history, has a material wealth that contrasts starkly with our moral bankruptcy.  This moral bankruptcy has become an invisible force through a combination of factors that include Madison Avenue marketing techniques, an increase in disposable income and a lack of accountability where people can have what they want, have what they think they deserve and not have to give an accounting for the impact it creates.  Carlyle’s comments seem to be right on point if he were standing at a podium addressing a graduating class in one of today’s modern universities.

The factors that existed in Carlyle’s time, and which exist today in an accelerated and degenerated state, involved the abundance of supply with the lack of means to possess.  When Carlyle said, “the workhouse Bastille being filled to bursting, and the strong Poor-law broken asunder” (p.477)he could easily have been speaking on today’s wave of foreclosures, bankruptcies and the imminent insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs.  The “enchantment” Carlyle frequently referenced is evident today in the delusion that just because you want something it means you deserve something and finally that you can afford something.  Carlyle called it enchantment but I think I would prefer to call it something else.  The words “irresponsibility”, “selfishness”, “laziness”, and “ignorance” could easily describe the pattern of the poor who are content to reside in subsidized housing demanding a subsidy to fill their accounts and allow them the financial means to afford a better cable TV package, cell phone with data plan, or a nicer automobile.  Carlyle might describe that segment of the population the same way he described what he saw, “They sit there, pent up, as in a kind of horrid enchantment; glad to be imprisoned and enchanted, that they may not perish starved.”(p.478)

Carlyle placed great emphasis on work ethic and he was raised to value work as more than a means to put food on the table.  Carlyle viewed work as a calling, a vocation, a means of identification.  I think that work ethic is present in today’s society but it is being drowned by a growing mass of people who claim an entitlement.  The group that feels they deserve a champion’s trophy because they simply participated are replacing the group that feels participation is a given and a trophy is a potential reward.  I agree with Carlyle when he said that the enchantment present in his day took place gradually, “Not in sharp fever-fits, but in chronic gangrene of this kind”. (p.478) We have forgotten through the same deadly rotting process that work and accountability are the rule and temporary subsidies are temporary fixes. 

Where are the workers now?  Carlyle warned that the “working body of this rich English Nation has sunk or is fast sinking into a state, to which, all sides of it considered, there was literally never any parallel.” (p.478-479) Carlyle would be mortified if he saw the meltdown on Wall Street or the battle that rages over socialized medicine.  Obama-care would be enough to send Carlyle spinning into a fit.  Foreclosure rates and unemployment rates in the face of the greatest per capita wealth in the world seem to be contradicting statements.  I agree with Carlyle’s position when he fretted over the growing class of poor in the face of industrial growth and increasing wealth.  I would say that Carlyle was right on the money (pun intended) when he said the problems identified during his time were “like the highest mountain apex emerged into view; under which lies a whole mountain region and land, not yet emerged.”(p.479)

Our pursuit of wealth, while our families and society crumble is a strange dynamic for sure.  We see it happening and we complain, but we fail to act.  Some even adopt criticisms like Carlyle’s, “what increase of blessedness is there?  Are they better, beautifuler, stronger, braver?  Are they even what they call “happier”?” (p.479) The answer during Carlyle’s time was the same as it is today…no.  As Carlyle complained, “We have more riches than any Nation ever had before; we have less good of them than any Nation ever had before.”(p.480)  We have the means to use wealth to benefit us as a people but the exclusive pursuit of “more” blinds us to those benefits.  Carlyle used the story of King Midas as an example of that pursuit and the drastic impact it had.  The question Carlyle asks and the same question that should be asked today is the same.  “In the midst of plethoric plenty, the people perish; with gold walls, and full barns, no man feels himself safe or satisfied.” (p.480) I don’t advocate a redistribution of wealth any more than Carlyle would but, like Carlyle, I would advocate fiscal responsibility and hard work.

Ode to Melancholy (p.442)

In this poem the narrator uses three stanzas to warn the reader that he should be mindful of how Beauty and Joy will one day be overcome by Melancholy.  The first stanza contains a number of warnings by the narrator that the reader should not forget.  The reader is cautioned not to use a number of different ways to prematurely end his life through Wolf’s-bane, poisonous wine, nightshade, Proserpine, and yew-berries.  Considering how John Keats’ earlier poems detailed his fascination with death brought on prematurely through the use of poison, I was confused at how he cautioned the reader not to take that path in this poem.  Instead, the narrator almost encourages the reader to await the inevitable onset of sadness when youthful hallmarks of beauty and joy are overwhelmed even in the symbolic “temple of Delight.” (line 25)  In stark contrast to the connection of beauty and joy in the temple of Delight “Veil’d Melancholy has her Sovran shrine,”(line 26) and it is there that the youth possessing beauty and joy “shall taste the sadness of her might,/And be among her cloudy trophies hung.” (lines 29 & 30)

            I think the first stanza’s invitation to avoid the “easy out” through suicide is the narrator’s way of beckoning the reader to the same sad fate the narrator has experienced.  The narrator assumes everyone would consider that remedy and wants them to wait to be overwhelmed by melancholy.  The narrator has probably had a life filled with domestic conflict (“thy mistress some rich anger shows” (line 18)) and has seen his sorrows overwhelm him like “the rainbow of the salt and sand-wave.” (line 16)  I don’t know why his happiness has been destroyed by a melancholy that was stronger than beauty and joy but the narrator attributes the upper hand to melancholy above all other feelings.

            Keats clearly had more than his share of heartaches growing up and losing his parents at a young age and that is reflected in his work.  His best work stemmed from anguish and hopefully writing about it gave him an outlet for that depression.  Like many other great writers and artists, the very deep sadness they felt gave rise to poetry that many can read, identify with and appreciate.  I worry that maybe the experience of growing old can lead us to strengthen the melancholic tendencies inside while starving the joyful longings in our hearts.  If that is a natural progression then I would like to think that these poems are signposts giving us instruction to enjoy what we have, while we have it.  It will be gone soon enough and if we accept things we can’t change and change those things we can, maybe Melancholy will have one fewer cloudy trophy to claim.

Ode to a Nightingale (p.438)

John Keats must have really been a sad man.  This poem again illustrates how he feels alone and depressed to the point that he longs for death.  I don’t know how to feel when I read this poem because I read it the first time and thought how sad it must be to hear a birdsong and long for death.  I thought that the narrator’s comment that, “My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains/ My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk,/ Or emptied some dull opiate to the drains” (lines1-3) clearly showed he had been thinking of, even hoping for, the opportunity to partake of a poison so he could end his sad life.  The sadness the narrator felt was not caused by envy of a bird and its seemingly happy life but was because he was “too happy in thine happiness” (line 6) and the bird was blessed with the ability to sing a happy song of summer “in full-throated ease.” (line 10)

            The narrator continued in his depression by wishing he could “drink and leave the world unseen,/ And with thee fade away into the forest dim: /Fade far away, dissolve, and quite forget/ What thou among the leaves hast never known,/ The weariness, the fever, and the fret/ Here, where men sit and hear each other groan; /Where palsy shakes a few, sad, last gray hairs, /Where youth grows pale, and spectre-thin, and dies;” (lines 19-26) It is that third stanza that really summed it up for me because the narrator identifies the difference he sees in what he believes to be an immortal, happy bird who continually sings a beautiful song with ease and his own existence which is fraught with weariness, fever, a collection of similarly depressed people suffering from disease and old age.  I don’t know how old the narrator is when he wrote this poem but he is clearly old in spirit regardless of his age.  I can easily see how a person immersed in a life surrounded by sadness could look at a beautiful creature singing a beautiful song and convince himself that the bird suffers no sadness, endures no hardship and lives forever in a state of happiness.  The contrast is enough to depress anyone and the narrator’s depression reached the state of longing for an end to his life.  The end of the third stanza closes with, “Where but to think is to be full of sorrow/ And leaden-eyed despairs, /Where Beauty cannot keep her lustrous eyes, /Or new Love pine at them beyond to-morrow.” (lines 27 -31)  The narrator cannot help but think during his waking hours and to simply think is to be full of sorrow.  Even beauty and a new love can’t save the narrator from his overwhelming sadness.  Beauty and new love symbolize youth and all that is good but the narrator knows that not only are these sources of happiness fleeting, but they are barely enough to temporarily hold off the creeping malaise the narrator feels.

            After reading the poem the first time I re-read it and began to notice some recognition on the narrator’s part that he saw that, “Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird!” (line 61) and that it was possible that the narrator’s longing for death was in itself the cause of his distinctions between himself and the bird.  The narrator admitted that “I have been half in love with easeful Death, /Call’d him soft names in many a mused rhyme,/ To take into the air my quiet breath;/ Now more than ever seems it rich to die,”. (lines 52-55) When I re-read that part of the poem I believed that someone so intent on dying, someone who romanticizes the way in which they could end their life, is not just comparing themselves to someone or something else, they are convinced they want to die and then project some of the reasons for that conviction.  The narrator might have had good reason to be sad and maybe even enough reason to be depressed but I thought it sad that he described his mortality and condition in comparison to what he believed to be a perfectly happy immortal creature.

            I would like to believe the narrator found some solace in the bird and saw that his song helped the likes of Ruth in her depression and soothed sailors on “perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.” (line 70)  That bird and his song hopefully was enough to bring the same peace to the narrator and strengthen him to persevere.

La Belle Dame sans Mercy (p.435)

In this poem John Keats tells a tale of a conversation with a “wretched wight” (line1) about a love affair with a beautiful woman.  It was a sad story of a brief but passionate relationship that ended with the passing of the woman and the narrator waking from a dream on “the cold hill side.”(line 44)  I thought Keats was telling a story through the use of symbolism.  The narrator bemoaned the end of a relationship and his waking on the cold hillside where “no birds sing.”  (line 48) I think the woman symbolized all the beauty and passion of youth.  The narrator was clearly enjoying the recollection of his youth in a sad way as though it was a dream.  Like so many sweet dreams, the narrator awoke to find himself an older, and sadder, man.  His place on the cold hill side is a direct contrast to his youthful place in his lover’s “elfin grot” (line 29) and where he “slumber’d on the moss.” (line 33)

            The narrator goes further in his description of his youth by describing his all-consuming pursuit of pleasure.  The passage, “I set on her my pacing steed/ And nothing else saw all day long;” (lines 17&18) convinced me that the narrator was so enthralled with the pleasures of youth that he was completely consumed in his hedonism.  That point was made even clearer to me when the narrator used additional symbolism of the physical intimacies he enjoyed with his lady, “I made a garland for her head, /And bracelets too, and fragrant zone;/ She look’d at me as she did love, /And made sweet moan.” (lines21-24)  Clearly, the pleasure filled days of the narrator’s youth were but a fleeting dream that closed with symbols of death and doom.  When the narrator dreamed of “pale kings, and princes too, Pale warriors, death-pale were they all; Who cry’d-“La belle Dame sans mercy/ Hath thee in thrall!” (lines 39&40) it spoke of how old age and the winter of his life had pursued him and killed the love affair of his youth.  The enslavement to that youthful time was pointed out by the death riders and the “La belle Dame sans mercy” (line 39), or the beautiful lady without mercy, was gone like the premature ending to a sweet dream. 

            The poem closes with a stanza that spoke to me as though the narrator was giving a warning at the same time that he was enthusiastically recalling the best time of his life.  “And this is why I sojourn here/ Alone and palely loitering, /Though the sedge is wither’d from the lake,/ And no birds sing.”  (lines 45-48)I took that final stanza together with the first two stanzas of the poem meaning the narrator was happy that he was able to enjoy a blissful youth but now was destined to await death alone and without pleasure or happiness.  It spoke to me that the narrator might even believe that he misspent his youth in the exclusive pursuit of pleasure since that pleasure offered no mercy.  The narrator believed others who had worked to stock their granaries and brought in a harvest borne of hard work and upright living, while possibly missing out on some of the youthful follies the narrator enjoyed, were happier and not out to wander the world awaiting death in a lonely state. 

            I’ve thought a lot about this poem.  While youth and romance are truly intoxicating, we grow older, and that is a sobering thought especially if we look over our shoulder when we arrive as adults wondering what we have left to live for.

London 1802 (p.236)

William Wordsworth wrote this poem immediately after he returned to London from France. I interpret this poem as a cry for help from Wordsworth to John Milton. By Wordsworth saying “ Oh! raise us up, return to us again.”(line 7) Leads me to believe that Milton is dead at the time that Wordsworth is writing this poem. He is wishing Milton was back in London because London is so corrupt and sad, it needs Milton to come back to bring them manners, virtue, freedom and power. He says, “England hath need of thee: she is a fen/ Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen,/ Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,/ Hath forfeited their ancient English dower/ Of inward happiness.”(lines 2-5)  I believe that he is saying the church (altar), state (sword), writers (pen), families and workmen (fireside) are corrupt and selfish. While Milton was alive, he was uncorruptable although he traveled “life’s common way”(line 10) and mingled with the common man while maintaining his “chearful godliness.”(line 13)

I think this poem is just as vital today as it was when it was first written.  Our current society, by so many accounts, is in rapid decline.  Our institutions like church and government are rocked by scandal almost daily.  The media pumps out so much filth that our standards of propriety are blurred, if we still have any standard at all.  I thought that Wordsworth was crying out for a return to a simpler, purer day when we knew who we were.  I think the same is true for all of us today.  How many people have referred to “the way things used to be” in glowing terms?  I don’t know of many who say it in an appreciation for the way things are today.  We have many “Wordsworths” around today.  The song lyric from Simon and Garfunkel that asked, “Where have you gone, Joe Dimaggio?  A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.” touched on the same sentiment Wordsworth did when he cried out, “Oh! Raise us up, return to us again.”

In reading this poem it was clear to me that people for many years have noticed the decline of institutions and the people that form them.  I don’t know if we’re worse off today but the sentiment remains the same.  We all look for some noble savior to come back from a simpler time and return us to a time of manners, virtue, freedom and power.  That savior for Wordsworth was Milton.  I’m not sure I can name such a person for me although I agree that we need something and someone to point the way.  I agree that the church, state and many of the institutions of our society are corrupt and lack a “cheerful godliness” as Wordsworth called it.    

            This poem not only shows that Wordsworth sees Milton as a great person (so great that Milton compares him to nature, one of Wordsworth’s most admired things), but it also shows his feelings about England’s society at this time.  He once thought London was a happy place with virtue, but now he believes that all of that is lost and that Milton’s leadership is much needed to bring back the morale of London.  I guess I could say the same thing about America today.  It isn’t lacking good, moral people.  I would say that it is, however, lacking good moral leadership from its church and state.  I think a current reading of Wordsworth’s poem is not only a reminder that we have continued our corrupt, moral slide but that we have also ignored a call to change and apparently lack the desire to make that change.

We Are Seven (p.200)

The poem, We are Seven (p.200), the narrator is telling a story of an encounter with an eight- year old little girl who has lost members of her family. At the start of their conversation the narrator asks the little girl, “How many may you be?” She replies, “…Seven in all.”(p.200, line 14-15)  Eventually the narrator learns that two of the seven are deceased. It is clear to the reader that the little girl does not really make a distinction between life and death. Her inclusion of these deceased siblings in her daily routine is no different than had they been alive.

As I contemplated the mindset of a young girl who clearly missed her siblings to the point that her daily routine continued to revolve around them, I felt some sense of admiration for her.  We all like to think that we will be remembered after we’re gone but this child took that literally.  Although I admired her dedication and loyalty to those who were gone, I also wondered if their absence in her life had overtaken her life.  A young child who would normally play with siblings and friends occupied herself speaking to gravesites and living a routine tethered to memories of lost family members.  Viewing her actions between the perspectives of admiration and pity I began to assess my own feelings about loved ones I’ve lost.  When looking at it in that framework I began to pity the girl more than admire her.

            I viewed the choice of an eight- year old girl as the heroine in this poem as a projection of Wordsworth’s own feelings about his mother who passed away when he was eight. The gentle exchange between the narrator and the little girl displays a knowing compassion for the loss of loved ones at so early an age. This compassion stems from Wordsworth’s own experience and is likely a window into how Wordsworth continued to keep deceased loved ones present in his life. The narrator does not apply harsh logic or cynicism and simply repeats his questions to the little girl as a way of gently letting her know that those who are dead can’t continue to be counted among the living.

            The narrator’s exchange with the little girl may be an indication of how Wordsworth admired the faith of a young girl in the face of adversity. It could be possible that Wordworth’s poem about the girl was a commentary on the childlike faith of a Christian. As a Christian myself I applaud the effort but think the portrayal might make readers think Christians are immature, naïve, or silly in the way they honor their dead.  The final stanza of the poem shows the narrator offering a concession to the little girl that the spirits of her deceased siblings were in heaven. The narrator realized that despite that concession and his attempts to convince the little girl that her siblings were gone, the child held firm in her belief and concluded the poem with the statement “Nay, we are seven!” (p.200, line 69)

            I felt better with the way Wordsworth finished the poem because the child remained strong and upbeat and it was a lighter way to conclude what otherwise is a sad scenario of a discussion with a young child about a heavy and unhappy adult situation.

The Lamb & The Tyger

Some critics may see the two poems of “The Lamb” and “The Tyger” as poems signifying opposite meanings and opposite views of God’s creations, but I see the two poems as representations of equally awesome divine creations. Blake views the lamb as an innocent, soft, tender being and speaks of it almost as a parent would speak of their own child. He points out all of the goodness in the creature and notes that God’s own son was called the lamb and came to the world as a baby.  I was raised in church and as a born again Christian the image of the lamb is a comforting and familiar figure.  Jesus was repeatedly referred to as the Lamb of God and I equate that with innocence, purity and a gentle nature.  When Blake wrote “Little Lamb who made thee Dost thou know who made thee” I was reminded that I also entered the world as an innocent, pure and gentle child.  Since I wasn’t able to inherit a faith that I received when I was “Born Again,” I also had to rely on someone to tell me who made me.  Once I declared my faith, I knew that God made me and knew my name before I was born.  Knowing that, I was able to read Blake’s writing, “He became a little child: I a child & thou a lamb, We are called by his name.”  That sequence struck a chord with me because that is what my faith tells me.  Jesus became a little child just as I was once a child.  Jesus was called the Lamb of God and I have been called to faith by His name.

The tyger represents experience and is symbolic of a teenager. It still retains some innocence but the tyger has been shaped by society and can be dangerous. The tyger is more active and agile than the lamb. Blake is in awe of the tyger and speaks of the tyger in a similar way to the glowing remarks about the lamb.  If Blake believed the tyger was evil or something that represented a loss of purity, I think his remarks about the tyger would have been critical and wouldn’t have taken on the respectful tones present in the poem. I believe that by speaking of the “fire of thine eyes”, the “sinews of thy heart”, and the furnace in which the tyger’s brain was forged, he is complimenting the creation of the tyger and believes that the same God that created the lamb created the tyger. The fact that Blake uses a capitalized “He” in both poems shows that he is speaking of the same divine being, God.

The parts of this poem that spoke to me the loudest was the “fearful symmetry” description of the tyger.  I know that each person, no matter how good had some bad and no matter how bad has some good characteristics.  The way those forces are balanced and exhibited in our nature are often symmetrical and more often out of balance.  That struggle between the opposing light and dark often demonstrates itself in complex ways just as the tyger’s stripes of alternating light and dark can be displayed in complex designs.  Just as the tyger’s stripes are unique-although similar within the species-my own personal symmetry, or asymmetry, is unique to me.  It might not be as complex and might change from time to time but it can sometimes be “fearful” also.  The same question that Blake asked by writing, What the hammer? What the chain, In what furnace was thy brain?”, I have asked of myself.  Why am I this way?  What forces, what pressures and what impacts have I had in my life’s experiences that have made me the way I am?  Finally, Blake’s question, “And what shoulder & what art, Could twist the sinews of thy heart?”  I think the very things that move me emotionally are often a riddle to those who see me just as the emotional heartstrings of the tyger are moved by some force invisible to Blake.  That so powerful an animal like the tyger could present such complexity is no different that how we as individuals are also complex and often without simple explanation.  

Blake’s representation of the lamb and the tyger are both done in a way that is complimentary of the maker.  I do not believe that by these two poems Blake is contrasting innocence and experience but merely speaking of different forms of God’s creativity and of human life.  A progression from soft, cuddly and dependent to more aggressive, complex and agile is but one difference between the two.  Although the tyger (teenager/young adult) is aggressive, strong, energetic and potentially dangerous while the lamb (baby/young child) is bright, tender and mild, Blake’s rhetorical question about “Did He who made the lamb make thee?” is clearly answered.  Blake’s “fearful symmetry” seems to extend beyond his description of the tyger and could be said to describe the contrast between the lamb and the tyger.  Finally, Blake finishes “The Tyger” with a final rhetorical question in asking, “What immortal hand or eye Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?”  I think Blake saw that the same immortal hand (God) that created the lamb created the tyger and the same immortal hand that created and blessed the child knew it would grow into a strong adolescent.  It is symmetry and a plan that was divinely planned and worthy of Blake’s awe.