On a Sky-Lark

The separation of skylark in the title is interesting—in the footnote it’s one word, so I wonder what was the normal way to write it at that time/is now. I looked it up on oed.com and found it both ways. Written as it is in “To a Sky-Lark,” the emphasis on “sky” as an adjective describing the noun—“lark”—is greater. It draws attention to the other meaning of "lark," too--and increases this consideration of the bird as simple/fun/amusing--not knowing pain. The emphasis of the word is  more split—in skylark it is more strongly on the first syllable while Sky-Lark gives both parts of the word equal weight. It also implies that there may be a lark that is not in the sky—perhaps the emphasis is made to make clear that the bird the speaker is referring to is flying, and therefore probably singing (at least according to the footnote). This is interesting—I don’t know that there is any place in the poem where the bird is on the ground or it is even acknowledged that the bird does come down—the speaker seems to only view it as going “higher and still higher” (6) and, in accordance with this, sees the bird as an idol above humanity, with “ignorance of pain” (75).

I wonder about the first footnote: “The European skylark is a small bird that sings only in flight, often when it is too high to be visible”

How important is this? Couldn’t we have figured out that this poem was about a bird on our own? I definitely think the ideas are interesting and beautiful—a bird that can only sing when it can fly, and when we cannot see it—and I wouldn’t necessarily have known it after reading the poem if I hadn’t read the footnote. I wonder if this kind of information about skylarks was common knowledge at the time (that seems like an odd idea)?

This fact does seem to align with the ideas of the poem, of course—the bird only sings when it is flying (not in pain but transcending it) while humans “sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought” (90). The idea of not being able to see the bird is also reflected in the poem—“Until we hardly see—we feel that it is there” (25).

While the speaker is says he is jealous of the skylark’s ability to sing most beautifully of happiness and have the world listen to its “harmonious madness” (103)—I wonder whether he is just simply jealous of the skylark’s inability to feel pain---or perhaps the only value he sees in pain is the beauty that results from it, and therefore he is jealous of the skylark's ability to have that beauty without the pain.

here are some random associations I made while reading this poem that may have no relevance but you may enjoy:

Marianne Moore's "The Fish"

It’s very different obviously but the rhyme scheme/stanza arrangement just made me think of it//along with the nature-focus

Elton John’s “Skyline Pigeon”

I know this is talking about a pigeon, which may be weird (maybe not as pretty as skylarks) but it is also in the sky

Also here’s what a skylark really sounds like:

There may be something to this “world should listen then—as I am listening now” thing///I listened to this a lot a lot after I found it. Now that we can separate the birdsong from the bird with youtube videos, though, I wonder if it really has the same meaning or can sound quite as good.