The Chimney Sweeper | Songs of experience | Summary and Analysis

This poem titled 'The Chimney Sweeper' appears in the collection Songs of Experience by William Blake and is often read as a counterpart of 'The Chimney Sweeper' in Songs of Innocence. Through this poem Blake criticizes the institutions of the society which exploit small children. The tone of the poem is sarcastic. The poem presents the picture of a ‘little black thing’ standing in the midst of snow. This immediately brings to mind the contrast presented by a dirty black thing in the pristine snow. But this ‘little black thing’ is in fact a child, a chimney sweeper who is covered in snow. Blake refers to the child as a ‘thing’ to show the society’s indifference towards these little children. The child is crying ‘weep’ ‘weep’. This is a reference to the cry of chimney sweepers who are often so young that they pronounce ‘weep’ instead of ‘sweep’. Blake days that the child is crying ‘weep’ ‘weep’ in ‘notes of woe’ which means that the child is actually in pain and therefore weeping. Then the voice of a concerned adult asks the child where his parents were. The child replies that they had gone to the church to pray.

The child then speaks about the miseries of his life. He says that since he was happy and played on the heath and ‘smiled amongst the winter’s snow’, his parents sold him as a chimney sweeper. Winter in England is very harsh and is often referred to as a symbol of suffering and death. Blake says that the child smiled even in the winter’s snow which shows the capacity of children to remain happy irrespective of the circumstances. But it does not mean that they cannot feel pain and this is what adults fail to see. So the child says that his parents clothed him in the ‘clothes of death’. This refers to his dress which is black with soot and also to the hazardous occupation of the chimney sweepers which leads to the death of many children. The child says that they taught him to sing the ‘notes of woe’ again referring to the cry of the chimney sweepers which for the child is equivalent to weeping.

Now the child says that since he is happy and sings and dances his parents the adults think that they have done no injury to him. This again goes back to the child’s capacity to remain happy at all circumstances. Although he is now a chimney sweeper and is suffering he does not express it outwardly and all the adults see is a happy child singing and dancing. Blake here points out the unfeeling attitude of the adults towards children and their inability to understand the psychology of a small child. Finally the child says that his parents have gone to the church to ‘praise God and His Priest and King’ who make a heaven out of the misery of the children. In the last two lines Blake attacks the institutions of the Church and the Monarchy. These institutions of society exploit innocent children and enjoy the benefits of their toil. But in turn the children are left uncared for and they live a life of misery.  

The Chimney Sweeper | Songs of Innocence | Summary and Analysis

The poem “The Chimney Sweeper” by William Blake appears in his collection of poems titled Songs of Innocence. It is written in the form of a story which is narrated by a small child who works as a chimney sweeper. During Blake’s time the English society employed little, almost infant children as chimney sweepers. Their small size made them the perfect tools to go down the narrow chimneys and clean them while the children themselves remained covered in black soot. Many of these children also faced premature death owing to injuries and constant inhalation of the chimney fumes. They were not cared for and lived in hunger and poverty. The poem depicts the innocence of a small child who can still dream about angels in spite of a cruel society which imposes a life of misery upon him.

The narrator begins by telling the story of his own life. His mother died when he was very young and his father sold him as a chimney sweeper when he could barely utter the word ‘sweep’ and cried ‘weep’ ‘weep’ instead. This refers to the cry of chimney sweepers who go down the street crying ‘sweep’ ‘sweep’, offering their services. But they are often so young that they can only pronounce the word as ‘weep’ ‘weep’. Ironically, the word ‘weep’ here also indicates that the child is actually crying out of pain and hunger. The child says that he sweeps chimneys and goes to bed covered in soot.

The child goes on and narrates the story of Tom Dacre, a young boy who is new to the world of chimney sweepers. His curly white hair is compared to the fleece of a lamb reinforcing the idea of innocence as the motifs of a lamb and a child often represent. He cried when his head was shaved. But the narrator, who already has some experience, comforts his new comrade saying that if he does not have any hair on his head the soot cannot spoil his white hair. This again indicates a child’s innocent logic that he uses to look at misery with a positive attitude.

Then the narrator says that on that very night Tom Dacre had a nightmare. He saw thousands of chimney sweepers along with his fellows- Dick, Joe, Ned and Jack, locked in black coffins. This nightmare may be interpreted as a result of a claustrophobic experience that Tom Dacre may have faced the very first time he went down a chimney. A black coffin also symbolizes death. This again shows the near death experience that the children undergo while they sweep the chimneys.

However, a child’s imaginative capacity is powerful enough to surpass a nightmare and thus Tom Dacre dreams that an angel comes with a key and liberates them from their coffins. They find themselves upon a green plain and run through it down to the river where they wash off their soot and emerge clean and naked, leaving behind their bags and tools. Nakedness is again a symbol of an innocent and pure state of being. Then the children rise upon the clouds and play with the wind, suggesting an image where the children themselves can be viewed as angels. Then the angel tells Tom that if he is a good boy God will always remain by his side.

Thus Tom Dacre and the other children wake up to a dark and cold morning and collect their bags and brushes to go to work. This brings back the image of the harsh reality that the children live in. But Tom feels happy and warm as he now believes that if he does his duty he need not fear harm. The last line brings the tale to a conclusion by providing a moral as is common in children’s stories. But Blake also uses this line to criticize the hypocrisy if the society. It teaches poor and miserable children to do their duty while it reaps the benefit of their labour and then ignores their plight.  

A Study of Poetry | Matthew Arnold | Summary and Analysis

'A Study of Poetry' is a critical essay by Matthew Arnold. In this essay Arnold criticizes the art of poetry as well as the art of criticism. Arnold believes that the art of poetry is capable of high destinies. It is the art in which the idea itself is the fact. He says that we should understand the worth of poetry as it is poetry that shows us a mirror of life. Science, according to Arnold, is incomplete without poetry, and, religion and philosophy will give way to poetry. Arnold terms poetry as a criticism of life thereby refuting the accusation of Plato and says that as time goes on man will continue to find comfort and solace in poetry.

Arnold says that when one reads poetry he tends to estimate whether it is of the best form or not. It happens in three ways- the real estimate, the historic estimate, and the personal estimate. The real estimate is an unbiased viewpoint that takes into account both the historical context and the creative faculty to judge the worth of poetry. But the real estimate is often surpassed by the historic and personal estimate. The historic estimate places the historical context above the value of the art itself. The personal estimate on the other hand depends on the personal taste, the likes and dislikes of the reader which affects his judgment of poetry. Arnold says that both these estimates tend to be fallacious.

The historic and personal estimate often overshadows the real estimate. But Arnold also says that it is natural. The study of the historical background of poetry and its development often leads to the critic skipping over the shortcomings because of its historical significance. Historic estimate raises poetry to a high pedestal and thus hinders one from noticing its weaknesses. It is the historic estimate that leads to the creation of classics and raises the poet to a nearly God like standard. Arnold says that if a poet is truly a classic his poetry will give the reader real pleasure and enable him to compare and contrast other poetry which are not of the same high standard. This according to Arnold is the real estimate of poetry. Thus Arnold appeals to his readers to read classics with an open eye and not be blind to its faults. This will enable one to rate poetry with its proper value.

Arnold here speaks about the idea of imitation. He says that whatever one reads or knows keeps on coming back to him. Thus if a poet wants to reach the high standards of the classics he might consciously or unconsciously imitate them. This is also true for critics who tend to revert to the historic and personal estimate instead of an unbiased real estimate. The historic estimate affects the study of ancient poets while the personal estimate affects the study of modern or contemporary poets.

Arnold proposes the ‘touchstone’ method of analyzing poetry in order to determine whether it is of a high standard or not. He borrows this method from Longinus who said in his idea of the sublime that if a certain example of sublimity can please anyone regardless of habits, tastes or age and can please at all times then it can be considered as a true example of the sublime. This method was first suggested in England by Addison who said that he would have a man read classical works which have stood the test of time and place and also those modern works which find high praise among contemporaries. If the man fails to find any delight in them then he would conclude that it is not the author who lacks quality but the reader who is incapable of discovering them. Arnold applies the touchstone method by taking examples from the time tested classics and comparing them with other poetry to determine whether they possess the high poetic standard of the classics. He says that the poems need not resemble or possess any similarity to the touchstones. Once the critic has lodged the touchstones in his mind in order to detect the possession of high poetic quality he will have the tact of finding it in other poetry that he compares to the touchstones. Arnold quotes Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton in an attempt to exemplify touchstone poetry. He says that the examples he has quoted are very dissimilar to one another but they all possess a high poetic quality. He says that a critic need not labour in vain trying to explain the greatness of poetry. He can do so by merely pointing at some specimens of the highest poetic quality. Arnold says that the high quality of poetry lies in its matter and its manner. He then goes by Aristotle’s observation and says that the best form of poetry possesses high truth and seriousness that makes up its subject matter along with superior diction that marks its manner. However, Arnold mentions that the true force of this method lies in its application. He therefore urges critics to apply the touchstone method to analyse and rate poetry.

Arnold then speaks about French poetry which had a tremendous influence on the poetry of England. He differentiates between the poetry of northern France and the poetry of southern France. The poetry of southern France influenced Italian literature. But it is the poetry of northern France that was dominant in Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth century. This poetry came to England with the Anglo- Normans and had a tremendous impact on English poetry. It was the romance- poems of France that was popular during that time. But Arnold says that it did not have any special characteristics and lacked the high truth, seriousness and diction of classic poetry and remain significant only from the historical point of view.

Next Arnold speaks about Chaucer who was much influenced by French and Italian poetry. Arnold says that Chaucer’s poetic importance is a result of the real estimate and not the historic estimate. The superiority of Chaucer’s verse lies both in his subject matter and his style. He writes about human life and nature as he sees it. Arnold speaks highly of Chaucer’s diction and calls it ‘liquid diction’ to emphasise the fluidity in the manner of Chaucer’s writing which he considers to be an irresistible virtue. Arnold however says that Chaucer is not a classic. He compares Chaucer to Dante and points out that Chaucer lacks the high seriousness of the classics thereby depriving him of the high honour.

Next Arnold mentions Milton and Shakespeare and credits them as classics and moves on to speak about Dryden and Pope. According to the historic estimate Dryden and Pope are no doubt great poets of the eighteenth century. Arnold observes that Dryden and Pope were better prose writers than poets. The restoration period faced the necessity of a fit prose with proper imaginative quality and this is what Dryden and Pope provided. Arnold therefore concludes that they are classics not of poetry but of prose.

After Dryden and Pope Arnold speaks about Gray. Gray did not write much but what he wrote has high poetic value. Arnold therefore considers Gray to be a classic.

Arnold now speaks about Robert Burns in the late eighteenth century and says that this is the period from which the personal estimate begins to affect the real estimate. Burns, according to Arnold, is a better poet in Scottish than in English. Like Chaucer Arnold does not consider Burns to be a classic. He says that Burns too lacks the high seriousness desired of poetry. He compares Burns to Chaucer and finds that Burns’ manner of presentation is deeper than that of Chaucer. According to the real estimate Burns lacks the high seriousness of the classics but his poetry nevertheless has truthful substance and style.

Then Arnold moves on to speak about Byron, Shelley and Wordsworth but does not pass any judgement on their poetry. Arnold believes that his estimate of these poets will be influenced by his personal passion as they are closer to his age than the classics and also because their writings are of a more personal nature. Finally Arnold speaks about the self-preservation of the classics. Any amount of good literature will not be able to surpass the supremacy of the classics as they have already stood the test of time and people will continue to enjoy them for the ages to come. Arnold says that this is the result of the self preserving nature of humanity. Human nature will remain the same throughout the ages and those parts of the classics dealing with the subject will remain relevant at all times thus preserving themselves from being lost in time.