Comparing London by William Blake and Composed Upon Westminster Bridge, by William Wordsworth
Comparing London by William Blake and Composed Upon Westminster Bridge, by William Wordsworth
As a part of my coursework for GCSE English, I will be comparing two
poems written about London in nineteenth century. The two poems I have
chosen to write about are: 'London' by William Blake and 'Composed
upon Westminster Bridge, September 3rd 1802' by William Wordsworth.
Both poems give their own, different accounts of London at around the
same period. One is written with a happy and joyous mood and the other
a completely opposite one - a dull and grim mood, which is given by
Blake.
Starting with William Blake's background as a poet, I researched that
he had a very eventful lifetime, which perhaps influenced his poems.
For example, Blake was very religious. He lived by the bible and based
some of his paintings (as Blake was also an artist) of the book of
Revelation, such as his work "The Red Dragon and the Woman of the
Sun". It is also said that he had been visited by angels at a point in
his life. Is this to prove that he was somewhat deranged or is it his
imagination? Blake's poem 'London' describes a London where everything
has rules or boundaries. We can see this where Blake tells us of the 'charter'd
street' and the 'chartered Thames'. We can see the connection of this
stanza and the fact that rules were pinning every body down, with the
word chartered. Chartered means something is on the map, almost as if
it is owned, owned by the king, perhaps. Blake is communicating the
fact that there is a stamp of ownership on everything from a small
street to the constricted Thames, which being natural, makes the point
more forcefully. It affects the way people live, work and play -
people are not free. They are trapped in the prison of society, which
is described by the line.
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear
===============================
What this simple phrase tells us is that people were not free to
think. People were not free to think beyond the rules of society or
beyond the rules of convention. The people of London had been
brainwashed by society and they could not think for themselves because
of that. Imaginary
(mind forg'd) chains (manacles) were holding the minds of people down
and they were struggling to break free (the sound that Blake hears).
This did not only affect men, women, or infants, it affected all, as a
city.
In the next stanza, Blake goes on to describe the corruption of the
Church of England (in one sense) or the dirtiness of all the buildings
including the church, which is blackening (in another sense), with the
line.
Every black'ning Church apalls
------------------------------
He sets the scene in this stanza by mentioning the chimneysweeper boys
who cleaned the sooty chimneys of the houses of London at the time. It
gives us a sense of filthiness in the everyday street of London and
the fact that the job of the chimneysweepers was disgusting and
dangerous. The air of London was not clean - the smoke of fireplaces
filled the air and the pollution transformed the white stone of
churches to jet-black. By talking particularly of the blackening
church, the church can also be thought of as dirty or 'bad', or even
corrupt. So is Blake telling us the church is corrupt and 'dark'? Or
is it just physically dirty? There is no right answer, as both of
these ways of thinking fit in to the context of the stanza.
Further on, Blake writes about the 'hapless' or luckless soldier.
And the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
filled the air and the pollution transformed the white stone of
churches to jet-black. By talking particularly of the blackening
church, the church can also be thought of as dirty or 'bad', or even
corrupt. So is Blake telling us the church is corrupt and 'dark'? Or
is it just physically dirty? There is no right answer, as both of
these ways of thinking fit in to the context of the stanza.
Further on, Blake writes about the 'hapless' or luckless soldier.
And the hapless soldier's sigh
Runs in blood down Palace walls.
His sigh runs in blood, signifying death, down palace walls, meaning
the palace, or whoever lives in it, is to blame for his death. Which
again, gives a thought of corruption.
In the final stanza, Blake writes about the young prostitutes
(harlots), who roam the streets of London, and how they are cursed
with the consequences of their job. In the line of :
How the youthful Harlot's curse
Once again, Blake is playing a meaning game with the reader. This
line,
like the one about the blackening church could have two meanings. One
meaning could be the curse on the Harlot of catching a deadly sexually
transmitted infection. However the line could mean the curse of
insufficient
contraception measures, ending in the birth of a child, which itself
would be quite painful and dangerous (as in those times childbirth
could be so dangerous that the mother could die). Blake also makes a
more 'shocking' comment in his remark about the marriage hearse and
death. The way they have been written simply intertwines their
meanings and become one shocking connotation of the start of a new
life (marriage) and the end of a life (death).
From the content alone, we can see what Blake is trying to depict
here. London is a city where everything is owned, from the streets and
buildings to the river and the inhabitants' minds. This prevents them
to break beyond the social rules and convention to make their own
minds up. The people of London are brainwashed by society. Their minds
are chained and controlled (quite like Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New
World' where the people's futures, careers and social class are
determined by how much oxygen is given to them during their IVF, and
the drug soma is given out in church, rather than bread). At the same
time, prostitutes 'infest' the streets of London and are cursed by
S.T.I.s and the pains of childbirth. Swept over like a blanket, hangs
the dank black cloud of pollution and corruption of the church and of
the palace. Blake is describing a London where no one would want to
live. The people of London were having their lives lived for them,
where rules decided what people did everyday and they could not feel
alive. Everything was stamped with ownership, and London was a dull
and grim city.
After looking at the content of the poem, we can see clear definitions
of Blake's description. However, looking more deeply into the poem,
into the structure, we can see further ways Blake emphasises his
ideas.
Firstly, the lines of the poem are short. This makes the poem more
compact and gets to the point quickly. The short lines also make the
rhymes more noticeable - they are just a line apart. This makes up a
beat, which drives the message home. The compression makes the poem
more complex and crowded, with a sense of anger and shock. The name of
this line-type in poems is called an Iambic Tetrameter.
Secondly, The repetition of the words in the first and second stanzas
gives us the notion that everything is the same, has an order and a
rule, (which is also derived form the content).
Chartered, chartered, mark, marks à STANZA 1
Every, every, every à STANZA 2
There is also a build up of emotion throughout the poem, slowly
growing in intensity, stronger and stronger, to finally thrust the
message home. It develops into a more dense and furious form, to give
the reader a shock element.
In the end, this poem gives us a view of controlled actions and
motions via the content and the construction.
As for the second poem, 'Composed upon Westminster Bridge, September 3rd
802' by William Wordsworth, we see an instantaneous difference of
opinion to the City of London from Wordsworth. He has composed a poem
with an awareness of the beauty of the conurbation. Wordsworth praises
all the architecture, air and surroundings of the capital wonderfully.
However, what is really interesting is that he is actually
contradicting what Blake is saying in the previous poem (or vice
versa). For example, the phrase 'smokeless air' does not support the
account Blake gives the reader.
Every black'ning Church apalls
------------------------------
Blake's line, here, tells us that the air of London was so polluted
with the smoke from the coal fires of the homes of the Londoners that
it blackened the walls of the buildings. Why is it that two different
poets, seeing and describing the city at roughly the same period have
two different views?
The river glideth at its own sweet will
Furthermore, we see that Wordsworth says the opposite to Blake by
saying the Thames is free and flows at its own accord, not owned as
Blake is saying. Blake portrays the Thames as branded with a stamp of
ownership, 'chartered'.
Additionally, the mood of the poem is more 'bright' which helps
picture the glittering ships, towers and domes - a complete opposite
to
Blake's mood. The dank and dirtiness of the buildings and the air
creates a mysterious and eerie picture - like a dark alleyway, where a
prostitute may loiter at night, whose mind was brainwashed by society.
One final quality, as by the content, comes from the line
Open unto the fields and to the sky
Wordsworth illustrates the City of London as connected to the natural
surroundings - the fields and the sky, and other elements of nature.
After looking at the content of the poem, we can see clear definitions
of Wordsworth's description. However, looking deeper into the poem,
into the structure, we can see further ways Wordsworth accentuates his
ideas.
[IMAGE] Firstly we can obviously see that the poem 'Composed upon
Westminster Bridge, September 3rd 1802' is a sonnet consisting of 14
lines, but is also a special kind of sonnet, a Petrarchan Sonnet,
where the rhyming couplets are closer in places than in others…
Secondly, by being a sonnet, the poem has a controlled but free form,
showing emancipation and freedom. I think Wordsworth's writing style
has a relaxed form. In contrast to Blake, Wordsworth uses longer
lines, making the rhymes less closer together and so less obvious.
This makes the sonnet sound continuous and relaxed. The poem itself is
also an Iambic Pentameter, unlike Blake's Iambic Tetrameter.
Blake's style was more rhythmic and culminated in an ending with a
shock element after an accumulation of emotion. We can see this too,
in Wordsworth's poem. First there is the change in punctuation. There
are more exclamation marks towards the end than in the start, which
vociferates the implication of the poem, taking pride in the City of
London, its great architecture, skyline, and, its free and open
connection to nature. There is also another way Wordsworth makes a
build up of emotion in the rhythm of the rhymes. I think that the
message here is that London is a magnificent and glimmering city, in
balance with human, natural and urban elements. To communicate this
balance, Wordsworth personifies various objects to do with nature,
making them more human. This includes: the river Thames, which does as
it pleases, and the houses, which seem 'asleep'. Wordsworth does not
usually write about cities, or about people, so he personifies them to
talk about what nature teaches us.
In the end, we can see that this poem has given us a contrasting view
of London in the nineteenth century to that of Blake's. Blake reveals
that London is a rule-based society, teeming with uncleanliness,
corruption, and prostitutes, whereas Wordsworth communicates the idea
of a superior metropolis coupled with nature, pure, and bathed in
sunlight, just as if a piece of heaven had slipped off a cloud and
landed on the earth.
By comparing these two poems, I have gained and understanding of how
the writing styles of two different poets help describe a view of
London. Blake used a short line and rhyming technique to create a
beat, which was repetitive, controlled and inexorable, much like the
portrayal of
[IMAGE]the capital being a place where everything was controlled and
owned. Wordsworth used a long line and long word style to create a
free yet controlled tune, much like the representation of the city
open to the elements. However, there is still a throbbing question
unanswered. Why are they so different? Why is one saying everyone and
everything is ensnared in a dirty and dark urbanisation, while the
other is saying everyone and everything is free in a sun-bathed
metropolis on the edge of fusing with nature? One of my ideas as to
why they are so reverse is that the poets may be seeing London at
different points of time in the day. And this is why Blake's London is
'dull' and Wordsworth's, 'bright'. To support my idea, I have chosen a
line from each.
'London' By William Blake
[IMAGE]But most thro' the midnight streets I hear
'Composed upon Westminster Bridge, September 3rd 1802' By William
Wordsworth
The beauty of the morning; silent, bare
Here, we have clear proof that Blake's poem is narrating a view of
London at night, from the excerpt above, including the word midnight.
We also have clear proof that Wordsworth's poem is expressing a view
of London in the morning, from the excerpt above, including the word
morning.
Midnight is a time when everyone is sleeping, all is dark, and the air
is saturated with the smoke from people's fireplaces that have been
turned on for warmth during the night. In the dark, there wonder
mysterious figures, prostitutes, and the sound of the city. This is
why Blake's London has a 'dark' side to it - it is written to describe
London at night.
Looking at Wordsworth's poem, morning is a time when again everyone is
asleep (very early morning) and the sun is rising over the skyline,
saturating the metropolis in illuminating sunlight, reflecting off the
dew to create a shimmering effect. The air is clean as all the smoke
has been lifted over night and is fresh, clean and gleaming in the
sun.
This gives me a sense of pride for the city at its best - organic yet
urbanised. Wordsworth is describing a 'London morning'.
In question of which version is most like our London as we know it
today, I would say a bit of both poems, but mostly Blake's. The reason
being that the City of London in 2004 is a retro, beautiful city with
towering skyscrapers, touching the sky (Wordsworth), however, the
Thames is still controlled (Blake) by the Thames Barrier, St Paul's is
a blackening church (physically - Blake) and the air of London is
polluted (Blake). Not forgetting, finally the fact that there are
still prostitutes (Blake) in the city. Furthermore, London is
expanding out to the natural part of England, the rural area, where
all the fields that Wordsworth is talking about are being consumed by
the wave of concrete and tarmac of the modern city of London as we
know it today. Additionally, the smog that Blake describes in his poem
is not present anymore - of course there is the pollution from the
cars of today, so we could assume that to be a connection to Blake's
description. That is why I feel the London as we know it today fits in
with Blake's portrayal as well as Wordsworth's, but in the end, the
reason that London is such a beautiful city (in my point of view) is
because there is an effort to save some greenery in the city, to
balance the conurbation in aspects of both human and natural elements.
