William Blake, Defender of the "Little People"

Blake features children in several poems.  In “The Lamb”, a speaker tells a child of the God who made him, all the while referring to the child as, “little lamb”.  The imagery of the lamb has religious significance.  John the Baptist heralded Christ as the, “Lamb of God” (John 1:29)  A name is a marker of identity, so a shared name implies that there is something divine in the child.  It is precious, and should be protected.  Sheep are not particularly intelligent animals.  They tend to follow their herd, sheep dog, or shepherd without much resistance.  So there is a good bit of trust between them and their shepherd.  It seems to be Blake’s opinion that civil authority has been misusing power and abusing this trust, particularly in the case of the chimney sweeper.

Blake ideally portrays children as joyful beings in poems like, “Nurse’s Song” and, “The Echoing Green”.  The description of children who, “leaped & shouted & laugh’d” (p. 83), sat, “round the laps of their mothers,” (p. 79) contrasts heavily with the children in “The Chimney Sweeper” poems.  These children are, “crying, weep weep, in notes of woe!” because society has, “clothed [them] in the clothes of death” (p. 89).  They are forced to serve society while sacrificing their childhood, and their health.  Yet, their cries fall on deaf ears.  In Paul’s letter to the Romans, he speaks of obeying authority because power has been given to it by God, for, “the one in authority is God’s servant for your good.” (Romans 1:4)  Therefore, to be good children, they must submit to the demands of society.  “So if all do their duty they need not fear harm.” (p. 81)  Blake portrays this as a great injustice.  Children have a divine connection to Christ.  They don’t deserve to be sold like property, to be treated like tools.  It adds insult to injury to even try to justify such a policy.  Blake has nothing but disdain for a government that cannot even protect the smallest, most innocent members of society.    

Similarly, in the “The Fly”, Blake continues to show compassion for the small ones.  Society, science, and human pride would have him believe that a fly was unimportant.  Yet, the speaker likens himself to it.  “If thought is life/ And strength and breath:/ And the want/ Of thought is death;/ Am not I/ A fly like thee?/ Or art not thou/ A man like me?” (p. 87)  In all honesty, it seems easy to put the speaker above the fly on the food chain.  With very little effort, the speaker killed it.  The speaker, however, puts this in perspective, saying that his own life could be just as easily ended if, “some blind hand/ Shall brush my wing”. (p. 87)  The role of the fly could be analogous to the chimney sweeper.  Both are portrayed as playing and dancing until someone bigger and stronger comes along and kills that joy.  Similarly, both are compared to superior beings, who by association, dignify the status of the chimney sweep and the fly.  To quote Dr. Suess, “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” (Horton Hears a Who).  Socioeconomic status and/or age does not change that.  In glorifying the “little people”, Blake clarifies why he believes that certain social norms are wrong.  

The Ideals of the French Revolution

Burke’s argument against the revolution relied heavily on creating sympathy for the royal family.    However, Williams, Wollstonecraft, and Paine, supporters of the revolution were clear that the royal family was not the target.  “The Monarch and the Monarchy were distinct and separate things; and it was against the established despotism of the latter, and not against the person or the principles of the former, that the revolution commenced, and the Revolution has been carried,” (p. 66) wrote Thomas Paine.  The revolution is not just a power shift, it is a philosophical and spiritual revolution as well.  English support stemmed from a love of principles like equality, liberty, and human rights.  So strong was this love, that even when Williams was disillusioned and saddened by the bloody turn taken by the revolution she still supported the principles, writing that, "the foundation [for the revolution] was laid in wisdom." (p. 46)  

The tone of Helen Maria Williams’s first letter is filled with joy and hope in response to the French revolution.  She refers to it as, “the most sublime spectacle” (p. 37) The Bastille becomes a symbol of the tyranny of the old system that had no respect for humanity.  The shackles represent restricted freedom.  The ceilings are too low in some rooms.  Humans literally do not fit there.  Additionally, the Bastille is described as being so dark, that in the middle of the day Williams and her companions needed a candle, and that they had difficulty maintaining the flame.  This is contrasted heavily with her hope that, “the beams of liberty, like the beams of day, shed their benign influence on the cottage of the peasant, as well as on the palace of the monarch.”  Thus, the Revolution is portrayed as an enlightened movement that celebrates humanity.  This is echoed in Mary Wollstonecraft’s arguments concerning human rights.  She states rights are inherited at birth, by virtue of the fact that humans are, “rational creatures, who were raised above the brute creation by their improvable faculties.”  (p. 58)  Furthermore, these rights are given by God, and God alone.  Paine echoes this when critiquing the ranks of the aristocracy.  He references Genesis, pointing out that other than distinguishing the sexes, no other distinction is made between human beings.  

It was easy for me to align myself with the supporters of the revolution.  Maybe that's due to the fact that  taught to be proud of the Red, White and Blue, to marvel at the Statue of liberty, and love Democracy.  All men are created equal with certain unalienable rights.  It's something they teach in grade school.  The principles so loved by Williams, Wollstonecraft, and Paine are very much the same principles that our own revolution was fought for.  Sidenote, it is ironic to note that Louis the 16th, the king deposed during the French Revolution, helped fund us during the American Revolution.  This said, I think that underneath all the melodrama and frilly language,  Burke raises a valid point.  He insists that men, "have a right to the fruits of their industry." (p. 52)  You reap what you sow.  Wealth is earned.  So why then shouldn't the upper class be able to invest, bequeath, etc. as they like?  To put it in a more modern light, why shouldn't CEOs raise prices and fire employees to keep their nice fat salaries?  I would venture to bring out another quote from Burke.  "Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing on others, he has a right to do for himself."  Does the aristocracy (or a CEO, for that matter) have the right to keep so much money to the detriment of the economy and the working class?  

I know that there was a pretty big tone shift there.  I'm kind of just trying a few things out.  Feedback on both style and content are appreciated!  

Introduction

Hi!  I'm Heather Ziemba.  I just finished up my second year at Mercer.  I'm currently a Biology major pursuing Chemistry and Secondary Education minors.  Right now the plan is to teach, but that's subject to change.  I am taking this course to fulfill my General Education Requirement, but I also chose it because I liked the Romantics back in high school.  I've never blogged before, so please be patient with me.  I look forward to your feedback!