Really, it's not intended as a guessing game. I would tell you the source if it were an ekphrastic poem. I like to make that kind of thing explicit.
I don't mean to be coy, but I really can't explain this. I especially like Michael Cantor's description of how he reads it, however. While I didn't intend any of the specific details he describes--those are really for the reader to come up with--I sense he sees himself. As I said, the first person plural is what this is about. From there, I'll take any interpretation, and may come up with several of my own.
Thanks for the reply Fr Robert. I understand what you're saying and not contesting it. I just think it is an intriguing question, similar to, but not equal to, the meat of the Inness credo.
RM
|