William Blake's poem "London" focuses on the sufferings and hardships of the lowest class in London society. In contrast, Joseph Addison's essay "The Royal Exchange" explores the benefits of trade for merchants and other wealthy benefactors of English society. These two texts share a similarity: they both take place in London. However, that's where their similarities end. The two texts present distinct aspects of London culture: one highlights the lives of the poor and the other focuses on London's wealthy merchants. While Blake's poem focuses on universal suffering, Addison's essay proves that Addison has a limited view of London society: he only delights in things that benefit the rich. When Blake wrote his poem in 1794, he did not have the formal education that most of his contemporaries possessed, which is reflected in his writing. Blake often focused on spiritual matters; he had a sort of obsession with prophesying through poetry. In contrast, Addison's essay was published in 1711. This essay was published at a time when foreign trade was just beginning. It could be said that Addison's essay takes a more materialist stance than Blake's poem. The two share few similarities, so what's the point of putting them in conversation with each other? I would say that these texts are compared in order to better understand London. There is no one way to study the city itself. These texts are crucial because they show the lowest and highest people in London society. Here are some central propositions to illuminate my argument: Blake's poem and Addison's essay reveal different cultural and political viewpoints. To begin with, these cultural differences appear through a few chosen words in each ...... middle of paper ...... views reveal the multifaceted nature of the city. Although written in two different eras, these authors reveal that London cannot be viewed in a single, simplistic way. On the contrary, the city is home to all types of people and classes. Blake would argue that the universality of suffering is a defining trait of London society, and this is illustrated by his nameless, faceless, timeless narrator. However, Addison would recognize London as an opportunity for worldwide economic (and personal) growth, as evidenced by his obsession with foreign places and his first-person narrator in his essay. I would suggest that both of these aspects of London be addressed in order to better appreciate the city as a whole. Cultural and political differences aside, both authors argue that London is a unique city, hence the need to write about all aspects of urban life..