Karthik Nathan10/19/2011

ENGL 1102- LelandThe Lamb criticism essay

In Thomas McLaughlin’s Figurative Language, the critic goes very in depth into the

realm of figurative language as it has to do with the poem The Lamb, by William Blake.

McLaughlin begins by talking about the simplicity of the poem: “The poem’s speaker is a child

speaking to a lamb, giving it a lesson in theology” (McLaughlin 81). He goes on to explain that

the simple language of the poem allows the simple mindset of the child to be highlighted and that

the poem is “both a celebration and critique of the clear, naïve thinking of children”, as the child

and the lamb both are creations of Christ, who is the “prime symbol of innocence” (McLaughlin

81). Then McLaughlin gets into the real topic of his analysis, which is the figurative language in

the poem, explaining that in between all of this “simplicity” is actually a whole array of figures

of speech that bring up meanings that are suddenly not so simple. Before actually discussing

these figures, the critic first defines figurative language as words that “involve a contrast with the

proper meaning of a word; its supposed rightful meaning”, using an analogy with a football

player on defense and a tiger (McLaughlin 81).. He explains that “figures of speech twist the

meaning of a word, but they are so common that the process of interpreting them occurs almost

unconsciously” (McLaughlin 81). The first figure of speech interpreted by McLaughlin is the

lamb’s “clothing”. Clothing is figurative language for the wool of the lamb, according to

McLaughlin, as it “keeps him warm; it gives him beauty” (McLaughlin 82). But what it really

does is to personify the lamb, as the child does not see himself and the lamb as different, but

rather the same, as “god’s creatures” (McLaughlin 82). The critic goes on to explain that another

piece of figurative language from the first stanza comes from the fact that god “gives” the lamb

life and “bids” the lamb to eat. The significance of this is that “the speaker uses these figures to

construct an image of god which fits the poem’s benign natural world” (McLaughlin 82). The

next point made by McLaughlin is “these figures reveal a much more complicated and

sophisticated theology at work than the speaker has in mind” (McLaughlin 82). He explains that

the child thinks that his god is completely innocent, but that cannot be the case if that god is so

powerful and complex. He affirms: “The speaker’s own language seems to undo him, to suggest

an image of god more complicated than the innocent child can grasp” (McLaughlin 82).

McLaughlin then goes on to name more figures of speech - metaphor, personification, and

apostrophe - and relates them back to the poem. For a metaphor, he names “clothing of delight”,

saying that “clothing is to humans as wool is to lambs” and for personification, cites “the poem’s

description of the echo as the valley’s rejoicing” as “an obvious example” (McLaughlin 83). The

personification is especially noteworthy to McLaughlin, as “it produces for [the child] a

harmonious and peaceful natural world…so that his innocence will be maintained” (McLaughlin

83). The critic also labels the poem as being written on one large figure of speech, an apostrophe,

saying that “when the child speaks to the lamb, he implies that the lamb can understand him”

(McLaughlin 83). The essay proceeds to say that the second stanza “seems starkly literal – all the

words are used in their ‘proper’ sense” (McLaughlin 84). McLaughlin claims that this is because

the second stanza was written to represent the truth in the name of god, answering all of the

questions that were proposed in the more figurative first stanza. However, he goes on to show

that what seems like a relatively straightforward stanza is actually not so simple. The critic

names a few words (tell, call, become, bless, lamb, and child) as words that have deeper

meanings. The most remarkable of these, according to McLaughlin, is “bless”, which actually

apparently means “to cleanse by a ritual sprinkling of blood” (McLaughlin 84). This is incredibly

suitable to this poem, he says, “in that one of the chief links between the lamb and Christ is that

both are victims of blood sacrifice” (McLaughlin 84). McLaughlin also finds the fact that the

words “meek” and “mild” were used in conjunction with the idea of Christ very interesting,

asking the question: “Is Christ the maker of the figure or is he the ‘meek and mild’ material that

gets shaped? ” (McLaughlin 84). McLaughlin concludes his analysis by speaking of the meaning

of figurative language in everyday life, explaining that “meaning is up for grabs and the world

can be shaped in an endless variety of forms” (McLaughlin 90). To him, “two of the great

benefits of poetry are the pleasure of meditating on these challenging, rich figures and the insight

that they provide into the power of language itself” (McLaughlin 90).

McLaughlin’s commentary was by far the most useful and interesting source out of the

three sources. The depth with which he attacked this poem was astounding and unmatched in all

of the criticisms that were read. The reason that this essay was so useful is that analyzing

figurative language is definitely the most effective way to analyze any poem by William Blake,

especially this one. The most useful section in this commentary was the portion that astutely

discussed the fact that the naïve speaker’s language ironically was the most complicated part of

the poem. No other source made such a deep connection and this type of analysis fills the entire

commentary. This source would be incredibly useful when writing an essay about The Lamb.

The second source is by an online critic known as “Megan”. She begins by calling

forward Blake’s religious views and immediately classifying The Lamb as another one of

Blake’s poems that “relate around his Christian views” (Megan). The critic then analyzes the

repetition of the lines “Little Lamb who made thee? Dost thou know who made thee”, claiming

that this repetition “really implies the innocent curiosity of the young narrator” (Megan). Megan

also notes that each time the word “lamb” is written, it is capitalized, symbolizing God, as “God

is always capitalized” (Megan). She proceeds to interpret the first stanza, stating that the Lamb is

being asked about its origins and the answer comes in line 4 (“By the stream and o’er the

mead;”). The phrase “mead”, according to Megan, refers to meadows, “suggesting God’s

kindness in his creations which echoes a similar description in a story in the Old Testament,

Genesis” (Megan).. She continues, claiming that this is significant because, like this poem,

“Genesis is all about creation” (Megan). The interpretation of the second stanza by Megan is

very similar to one by McLaughlin; both critics agree that this stanza clarifies all of the questions

posed in the first stanza. Megan makes comparisons between the Lamb and the creator, and then

finally gives the conclusion: “If it isn’t clear by now, the creator is the Lamb of God, Jesus”

(Megan). She finishes by passing off the rest of the poem as self-explanatory and clear-cut: “We

are all called by his name; we are all called by God because we are all his children. He created

all of us” (Megan). She then comments on Blake’s position in all of this by saying “Blake

positions himself somewhere outside the perspectives of innocence and experience in this poem”

(Megan).

Megan’s commentary was an interesting follow-up to McLaughlin’s lengthy and

relatively dry commentary. The repetition idea was a fair point and the “mead” to meadows

connections was very well thought out, specifically because of the references to extratextual

information such as Genesis. Megan did an excellent job of not only using background

information about Blake and Christianity, but also of making solid connections between the

information and the poem (i.e. Genesis, lamb/God). Some of her statements seemed obvious and

boring, but that is most probably because they were read after McLaughlin’s lengthy essay, after

which it is difficult to discover new ideas. The language of this commentary was actually very

informal, which at times was distracting to someone adapted to reading very formal and proper

analyses. The only “wrong” aspect about this commentary is that it definitely could have been

longer and more in-depth, but it did well for its length

The third source is from the SparkNotes page about The Lamb. The commentary starts

off right away by contrasting the first and second stanzas, similar to the other two criticisms:

“The first stanza is rural and descriptive, while the second focuses on abstract spiritual matters

and contains explanation and analogy” (SparkNotes). The analysis also calls out the apparent

simplicity of the poem, but then goes on to suggest that there is much more than meets the eye:

“The question is a simple one, yet the child is also tapping into the deep and timeless questions

that all human beings have, about their own origins and the nature of creation” (SparkNotes). It

proceeds to discuss the answer given to the questions posed in the first stanza, citing again the

simplicity of the language, but also that this simplicity “contributes to an underlying sense of

ironic knowingness or artifice in the poem” (SparkNotes). SparkNotes also makes the easy

connection that the lamb symbolizes Jesus and that this image “underscores the Christian values

of gentleness, meekness, and peace” (SparkNotes). A short correlation between Jesus and

children is made through the Gospel and some extratextual information is brought in through a

reference to the rest of the Songs of Innocence, saying that “this poem, like many of the Songs of

Innocence, accepts what Blake saw as the more positive aspects of conventional Christian belief”

(SparkNotes). The commentary also mentions the complementary Blake poem The Tyger,

asserting that “taken together, the two poems give a perspective on religion that includes the

good and clear as well as the terrible and inscrutable” (SparkNotes). As a concluding statement,

this analysis makes a strikingly similar statement to one that Megan (in the previous source)

made, which is that “Blake himself stands somewhere outside the perspectives of innocence and

experience he projects” (SparkNotes).

This source was relatively useful, especially because it referred to the Bible and Christian

philosophy, as well as extratextual information through other similar William Blake poems. This

criticism again repeats many of the ideas stated in the previous sources (simple becoming

complicated, naivety, etc). There was honestly nothing spectacular about this source though, as it

did not go as in depth as McLaughlin and also failed to analyze or even mention the grammar,

form, or any other such literary elements that are essential in analyzing poetry. This might be a

little harsh, considering the relative length of McLaughlin’s commentary, and most (if not all) of

the ideas in this poem had already been thoroughly analyzed and discussed.

WORKS CITED

McLaughlin, Thomas. "Figurative Language." Critical Terms for Literary Study. Eds. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1995.

"Poetry Analysis." Megan's blog. N.p., 2010. Web. 20 Oct 2011. <http://hero006.edublogs.org/poetry-analysis/>.

"Songs of Innocence." SparkNotes. SparkNotes, 2009. Web. 20 Oct 2011. <http://www.sparknotes.com/poetry/blake/section1.html>.