辽宁刑事警察学院:The Man He KilledT YHTRY

The Man He KilledHad he and I but met
    By some old ancient inn,
We should have set us down to wet
    Right many a nipperkin!

    But ranged as infantry,
    And staring face to face,
I shot at him as he at me,
    And killed him in his place.

    I shot him dead because—
    Because he was my foe,
Just so: my foe of course he was;
    That's clear enough; although

    He thought he'd 'list, perhaps,
    Off-hand like—just as I—
Was out of work—had sold his traps—
    No other reason why.

    Yes; quaint and curious war is!
    You shoot a fellow down
You'd treat, if met where any bar is,
    Or help to half a crown.

Notes

This should be compared with War Poet Ivor Gurney's ideas on the same theme. http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/30783-Ivor-Gurney-The-Target

Line 3/4
We should have set us down to wet
Right many a nipperkin!

in modern English might be
We would have sat down for a drink and drunk many a glass.
nipperkin = 1/8 of a pint

Lines 13/14/15
He thought he'd 'list, perhaps,
Off-hand like -- just as I --
Was out of work -- had sold his traps --
In modern English might be
Perhaps he thought of enlisting in a casual manner, just like me, because we were both out of work and had had to sell our tools.
traps = the tools or trappings of a particular trade.

Last Stanza in modern English might be
How strange war is, you might meet someone and kill them on the battlefield but, if you had encountered them in peace, you might have bought him a drink or loaned him some money.
treat = to buy something for someone
hald-a-crown = old British currency. One eigth of a sovereign or £0.125 comments The poem itself was actually wrote to be read as a play as a soldier returning from war to give his events during war hence why the poem is in past tense. Although this poem seems to be jumping around in circles it is an anti-war poem and depicts war as pointless. It is trying to say that although these people are shooting each other to death that if they met elsewhere they may have become friends. The historical context of this poem is actually the Boer war.  The poem consists of five stanzas. It tells about the circumstance that the speaker once experienced when he came to a man-to-man combat with his enemy. Supposedly, the time of the event precedes the time of narrating. That is, the speaker speaks way long after the event has been completed. Notice that in the first two stanzas the speaker speaks fluently. The iedeas and sentences are complete. In the following two stanzas he stutters. The sentences are incomplete and thus the thought is incomplete, too. And in the final stanza he regains the fluency he shows in the first two stanzas. What does this mean? A psychoanalytic approach would say that there is a point in the speaker's life which he actually does not comprehend. When he has to tell about it he stutters. The event has affected him so much that he stutters. It may have been caused by his inability to understand war, the killing he committed, the futility of life, and so on. But he tries to forget it. This is shown in how fluent he speaks when he is not speaking about the event. However, his conscience is not fully neutralized. It's residual. It stays there. Forever. A page that he cannot just tear away from his life. So, there are two aspects of the speaker's personality. First, a person who seems to have forgotten the event. Second, the person who still stutters when he is telling about the event. The event has changed him. It HAS KILLED HIM. The title of the poem goes "The Man He Killed". The "man" in the title, I think, refers both to the person he shot in the battle, and to himself because that has changed him for ever. I hope this explains most of the questions.