I don’t know anything about the sucesses or popularity of the poem I am studying. It may have lay dead resting unturned in the folds of white creamy velum or it may have moved through many mouths and performances.
I can state as a general rule that poetry was a spoken and public act rather than a private corrispondance between writer and reader.
Its held on the breath and not the breath of the poet. Poetry is performed by the reciter. The poet is familiar with seeing and hearing the words take on a differing life.
Its what it was intended for, its where it lives and the poet has a highly familiar with the setting and what unfolds within them.
The poem is always going to become something else. That opens up a range of possibilty, the poet may see it inflected perfectly, something new may be found that may be pleasing and open up or new space, or it may be displeasing and wither what has been planted.
The poem I think suggests that the writer had a familiarity with this space. The poem seems to be structured round a simple observation.
Their is an absence in the poem, one that the audience is expected to fill.
I did not have an audince so I had too experiment on myself at first and measure my own first responses to the text.
I seemed to be filling in notable abscences with what I thought may fit.
Its an observation I need to be able to speak it. I suspect a similar observation was made some time ago when the poem was constructed.
It’s a move that can be repeatedly noted, it allows the poem to replicate and hold its form.
The other important aspect for me in working out the inflection, was distance in time. Getting stuck, not understanding the words at the start.
Thinking in performance terms here is helpfull. I dont have to understand I can not know cheat and delivery the line as simple statement of fact.
These two very simple observations and responses to the text give me everything I need to speak and deliver something.
Seems a case so far of both accident and design.