WORK IS THE FATHER OF JOY.

Joseph, it is quite obvious that you have become even better in rhymes and rhythm!

Very dear Boyana,
Thank you very much, Boyana, for your very kind comment. You are a great friend. J.Z.

"What gives the cheerfulness of heart  
except you, work, that my strength dare,"  
   
Since "work" is singular,  shouldn't you have written "that my strength dares"  
   
"... I kept on working, now l find  
a sort of joy my feeling need [SIC needs or needed]""  
   
So your "feeling" needs a feeling?

Yes, my feeling needs JOY.

"Yes, my feeling needs JOY."

Leaving aside the question of what your "feeling" is, it is persons who have need of the experience of joy, not feelings."  

No, Baldwin, I am addressing WORK as YOU, not as IT.

But isn't the answer to the question you raise in your opening line about what it is that  "gives the cheerfulness of heart"  "work"?  And aren't you addressing work when you say that it is what gives "cheerfulness of heart and it is what your strength should be directed toward?

Moreover, should your line "What gives the cheerfulness of heart" be "What gives me cheerfulness of heart {that I desire]?" since it is unclear in your phrase just who it is to whom cheerfulness of heart is (or is to be) given?

But WORK is an apposition of YOU, and treated like it. What is the MATTER, Baldwin?

"But WORK is an apposition of YOU, and treated like it.  "  
   
I think you meant to write "but "work" is in apposition to [is the appositive of] "you""  
   
"What is the MATTER, Baldwin?"  
   
Nothing since  
   
"Apposition is a grammatical construction in which two elements, normally noun phrases, are placed side by side so one element identifies the other in a different way. The two elements are said to be in apposition, and one of the elements is called the appositive,"  
   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition  
   
"work" is the addressee of "you".  it is not the appositive of "you".

Baldwin, l don't want to damage the poem talking about nonsense.

"Baldwin, l don't want to damage the poem talking about nonsense."  
   
Then stop posting it.  
   
And you already damaged your submission not only by claiming (if only implicitly) that spending a lot of time toiling on composing a poem guarantees that it displays poetic art,  is what it is that brings joy to a writer,  and is alone what brings readers to see with their eyes shut, but in asserting that an unspecified feeling needs feelings.  
 
You might also consider that it is only certain types of work that when finished provide one with joy. A great deal of work is drudgery and the amount of toil it calls one to engage in is the father of frustration, depression, pain, poor health,   and feelings of alienation and inadequacy. and is viewed as not worth one's time or effort.

How interesting.

You originally wrote:

""I kept on working, now l find
a sort of joy my feeling need".

But I see that those lines from your submission now read:

"I kept on working, now l find
a sort of joy my feeling needs".

I take it from the fact that you've changed. the last word of these lines from "need" to "needs"  that you are admitting (however silently and without acknowledgment that I told you that the word" need" needed to be "needs"  for your lines to be grammatically sound) that I was correct in pointing out that you had once again made a grammar gaffe in violating the grammatical rule regarding noun-verb agreement.

The upshot of this is that you have yet again given readers reason to suspect that your claim that you are a master of grammar is not true.

No, Baldwin, you didn't tell me about, "needs" this is not true. You are not telling the truth. Look at the previous messages of this poem, and you will be certain. I am glad that they still exist.

"No, Baldwin, you didn't tell me about, "needs" this is not true. You are not telling the truth. Look at the previous messages of this poem, and you will be certain."  
   
See this (the third reply to your submission):  
   
"What gives the cheerfulness of heart    
except you, work, that my strength dare,"    
      
Since "work" is singular,  shouldn't you have written "that my strength dares"    
      
"... I kept on working, now l find    
a sort of joy my feeling need [SIC needs or needed]""    
   
If we needed more proof that you do not read my messages carefully, there it is.  
 
And even if I did not tell you about how your line needed "needs",  you still made a grammar gaffe in your original posting where (and when) you wrote, "a sort of joy my feeling need".  How typical of you not to openly own up to it.

Work is singular, but addressed as, YOU, Baldwin.

"Work is singular, but addressed as, YOU, Baldwin."

How does this claim address my point that I did indeed tell you that you made a grammar gaffe in writing "that my feeling need"?

And even if  "you" is the addressee" in your line, that doesn't change the fact that you made yet another grammar gaffe in writing  "that my strength dare" when the rules of grammar demand that you should have written "that my strength dares" for you statement to be grammatically correct."

Don't try to deny a grave mistake you made by saying verb DARE in my sentence "What gives the cheerfulness in heart
except you, work, that my strength dare,..." should be dares. Do you know grammar, Baldwin?

"Don't try to deny a grave mistake you made by saying verb DARE in my sentence "What gives the cheerfulness in heart    
except you, work, that my strength dare,..." should be dares. Do you know grammar, Baldwin"?    
     
I know enough grammar to see that "strength" is a singular noun and therefore requires that the form of the verb "dare" that should be used with it -- if , as seems clear,  you wanted to speak about what your strength is brave enough to do or be used upon (https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/dare ) --  is "dares".  Now if you had written "that my strengths", then it would be grammatically correct to use "dare".    
     
But I thought the issue was whether I did nor did not point out to you that you made a grammar gaffe in writing "that my feeling need"?    
     
Did you write what is above  -- which is, in it's changing the subject under discussion to something else entirely,  essentially a dodge of that question  ---  because you didn't want to admit that your claim that I was lying when I said  I had pointed out to you that  "that my feeling need" was grammatically incorrect had no truth to it?

Is it possible that you don't distinguish between the subject and the object, Baldwin? Work is the subject and MY STRENGTH is the object of verb DARE. However, you considered WORK as a subject and asked me , as you did above, to change DARE into DARES because WORK is uncountable. What do you call that, Baldwin?

"However, you considered WORK as a subject and asked me , as you did above, to change DARE into DARES because WORK is uncountable."  
   
I did not consider the addressee of "you" (i.e. work) ,  as the subject of "dare",.  It is the answer to the question of "What is it that produces cheerfulness of heart?". It is quite clear, given that you preface "my strength" with "that",  that the subject of "dare" is "my strength".  
   
And once again you have shied away from admitting that you weren't telling the truth when you claimed that I did not point out to you that you made a grammar gaffe when you wrote "that my feeling need".

J-Z

Am I correct to  think  that what  you meant to say (or think you have actually said)  when you wrote  

“What gives the cheerfulness of heart
except you, work, that my strength dare,
on that most thoughtful and dear verse
that could steal all my greatest care.”

is that what cheers your heart is seeing that the work you slavishly put over a long span of time into attempting to craft beautifully written and compelling verse has paid off wonderfully and was not a waste of your time and energy?

Is it not a fact, my boy
it’s all too often true
that what hard toil
is really wont to father in
a person’s body and
his mind,
his spirit  too  
is just the opposite
of joy.

It’s actually much misery and woe
fatigue of soul,
the diminution
of one’s strength,
vitality,
one’s loss of wit
and will to carry on with life

and so much so
that what one almost always seeks
when under travail’s lash
for long
is somehow being freed of it.

Dear Baldwin,
I like you when you write seriously. A lot of hard work and toil make a person lose interest in life. But for me it is the opposite, and l find that through a lot of thinking, we discover a lot about the reality of life. I know that you write this poem just to oppose the main idea of my poem, but there is some truth in it. Thank you for writing it.

" I like you when you write seriously."

I wonder if you meant to say that you like it when I write about serious subjects.  To say that you like it when I " write seriously"  implies that you think that I am generally not concerned about the way I write.  
 
"I know that you write  [SIC  wrote]} this poem just to oppose the main idea of my poem, but there is some truth in it.  
 
I have no idea what the "main idea" of your poem is.  And to say that there is "some truth in it" is to deny the claim you make in your title your submission  that work is **always** the father of Joy.