The following is the edition of my poem. Feel free to hover over the highlighted elements to see how my choice in what to present has been influenced by each of the three editions, as well as my analysis of which alterations add or detract from the poem in terms of clarifying its meaning.
The Clod & the PebbleThe Poem's TitleWithin the Blake edition of the poem, the title is formatted ''The CLOD & the PEBBLE'' whereas, in the Poetry Foundation edition, the title is put in a modern title case and spelt out: ''The Clod and the Pebble''. The Project Gutenberg edition is the same as the latter, but written in all capital letters. My edition is a simple hybrid of the first two, retaining the ampersand, because I think it looks nice visually.“The Use of Quotation MarksThe Blake edition doesn't use quotation marks and they are a novelty of the Poetry Foundation and Project Gutenberg editions, which use double and single quotes respectively. I have chosen to use them because they help clarify who is speaking and for which set of lines, and I'm using double quotes specifically because they are more visually distinct than single quotes.Love seeketh not ICapitalisation of Love's PronounsThe capitalisation of words 'Itself', 'Self' and 'Its' is removed in the Poetry Foundation and Project Gutenberg editions. However, I feel its use within the Blake edition hints towards Love being bigger than just a common noun. As removing the capitalisation would reduce the impact of this message, I have elected to keep the it.tself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care;PunctuationIn the Poetry Foundation and Project Gutenberg editions, Blake's semicolon has been replaced with a comma. However, I feel the semicolon helps better encapsulate the opposition of what love is and isn't according to the Clod of Clay. Therefore, I opted to keep it.
But for another gives its ease,PunctuationThis comma was originally a full-stop in the Blake edition, however I opted in going with the Poetry Foundation edition's and Project Gutenberg edition's choice in replacing it with a comma, as it avoids orphaning the next line into its own sentence within readers' heads.
And builds a HGeneral CapitalisationGiven that the only edition to not capitalise the words 'Heaven' and 'Hell' is the Project Gutenberg edition, I think it's probably better to capitalise them the way Blake originally did.eaven in Hell's despair.PunctuationThe Blake edition uses a comma instead of a full stop here, leading into the line implicating the words as belonging to the Clod of Clay. However, as we are using quotation marks for that same purpose, a full-stop works better, as is found in the Poetry Foundation edition and Project Gutenberg editions of the poem.”
IndentationThe original poem has the middle stanza indented in to help visually distinguish it from the Clod and the Pebble's statements. The Poetry foundation edition likely removes it due to its difficulty of use within web publishing, while I can't quite make heads or tails or what the Project Gutenberg edition is trying to accomplish with its choice of indentation. On the whole, I think retaining Blake's original indentation is probably the most sensible choice.So sung a little CCapitalisation of Character NamesBoth the Poetry Foundation and Blake Editions of the poem capitalise the 'Clod of Clay' and the 'Pebble of the brook' as written here, but the Project Gutenberg edition undoes the capitalisation for some reason. Since doing so removes emphasis on the characters as more than just common nouns, I have decided to retain Blake's original style here.lod of Clay,PunctuationContrasting the Blake edition which uses a comma, one that is retained in the Project Gutenberg edition, with the Poetry Foundation edition that doesn't, the former two feel more in keeping with flow of the other stanzas in the poem. The Poetry Foundation edition's 2nd stanza feels much lighter than its surrounding stanzas in terms of the punctuation. Thus, I chose to retain the comma.
Trodden with the cattle’PunctuationBlake doesn't use apostrophes to indicate possession, and I felt it would be in a little nice to readers to update the grammar in that regard, in keeping with the Poetry Foundation and Project Gutenberg edtions.s feet.PunctuationThe Poetry Foundation and Project Gutenberg editions have a comma here for the sake of modern punctuation, while Blake's edition has a colon, which he was likely using as a divider between two sentences. In considering the goals of the three editions, I felt a full-stop would be the best compromise of form and function.
But a Pebble of the brookPunctuationThe Blake edition has a comma here which was removed in the Poetry Foundation and Project Gutenberg editions, likely to better fit with the current standard of not separating verb from subject with punctuation. I couldn't find an analysis of the comma as serving a literary purpose, so I too felt it would be best removing it.
Warbled out these metres meet:PunctuationThe use of a colon before the quotation marks that follow is in keeping with the Poetry Foundation and Project Gutenberg's edition's modernisations.
“Love seeketh only Self to please,
To bind another to Its delight:PunctuationThis colon from the Blake edition is replaced with a comma in the Poetry Foundation and Project Gutenberg editions. However, it seems Blake is using it to indicate how the two lines after it are an indication of the statement of the two lines before it, and that meaning would be lost if the colon weren't kept.
Joys in another’s loss of ease,
And builds a Hell in Heaven's despite.
The Different Editions
When tracing back (mostly uncredited and unsourced) variants of the poem on the internet, it seems that they all really only represented two editions of the poem that were being copy-pasted around. There was the original 1794 edition of the poem that Blake printed (the facsimile of which I have provided below, copied from The Blake Archive), and a seemingly modernised one.
After much searching, it seemed the most credible authority to be using the ‘modernised’ edition to represent the poem in their analyses was the Poetry Foundation. While they citeThis is the citation they make specifically: Songs of Innocence (London: Printed by William Blake, 1789); revised and enlarged as Songs of Innocence and of Experience (London: Printed by William Blake, 1794; facsimile, London: William Blake Trust, 1955). Blake’s original edition or a facsimile thereof as their source for copying the poem, the variants of their edition are too numerous to simply be a copy. I feel there must have been an editorial hand involved in potentially ‘modernising’ Blake for a new audience, either at the level of the Poetry Foundation or an intervening source I cannot find.
Another source I found most interesting was the entry on Project Gutenberg, which parallelly lists a digitised copy of the poem and a facsimile of the original Blake edition. However, when juxtaposed like that, it is blatantly obvious that the Project Gutenberg edition introduces major changes to the presentation of the poem. There are also no paratexts indicating that these modifications are copied from another source, which leads me to once again suspect that it’s the work of the webpage’s creators — in this case the Project Gutenberg folk.
If you would be interested in combing through the three editions side-by-side for differences, I have reproduced them here:
Original Edition
Poetry Foundation Edition
Project Gutenberg Edition
⠀⠀⠀The CLOD & the PEBBLE
Love seeketh not Itself to please, Nor for itself hath any care; But for another gives its ease. And builds a Heaven in Hells despair,
⠀⠀⠀So sung a little Clod of Clay, ⠀⠀⠀Trodden with the cattles feet: ⠀⠀⠀But a Pebble of the brook, ⠀⠀⠀Warbled out these metres meet.
Love seeketh only Self to please, To bind another to Its delight: Joys in anothers loss of ease, And builds a Hell in Heavens despite.
The Clod and the Pebble BY WILLIAM BLAKE
“Love seeketh not itself to please, Nor for itself hath any care, But for another gives its ease, And builds a Heaven in Hell’s despair.”
So sung a little Clod of Clay Trodden with the cattle’s feet, But a Pebble of the brook Warbled out these metres meet:
“Love seeketh only self to please, To bind another to its delight, Joys in another’s loss of ease, And builds a Hell in Heaven’s despite.
THE CLOD AND THE PEBBLE
‘Love seeketh not itself to please, ⠀⠀Nor for itself hath any care, But for another gives its ease, ⠀⠀And builds a heaven in hell’s despair.’
So sung a little clod of clay, ⠀⠀Trodden with the cattle’s feet, But a pebble of the brook ⠀⠀Warbled out these metres meet:
‘Love seeketh only Self to please, ⠀⠀To bind another to its delight, Joys in another’s loss of ease, ⠀⠀And builds a hell in heaven’s despite.’