(urth) vanished people=Hieros

[Gerry Quinn]

From: David Stockhoff 
> Where did the hunter come from? Night is still present in the second 
> event, robbed of its stars. Morning is not yet present, or else the 
> noose would be invisible: it is Night that makes the noose visible. What 
> else may persist? Unless the sun is known as a noose-hunter, it is 
> rather awkward to invoke a new metaphor or image not even fully imagined 
> until the last line (though the third line tells us he not a killer but 
> a catcher of things).

> What does the sun catch but not kill? Perhaps the sun catches that which 
> it illuminates, but that's hard to read from "the Hunter in the East has 
> caught" if you don't react, "Oh, the Sun, that old Hunter in the East. 
> Of course." I argue that the Hunter is already there---and is known by 
> the reader to be there, because he's there all summer and fall---and has 
> snared his prey at the moment he himself disappears.

I agree with most of your post, but I remain convinced that the Hunter is the rising Sun, not Orion.

Suppose we forget about the traditional association of Orion and hunting for a moment, and consider the metaphor entirely in its own light (no pun intended).  It’s not even a metaphor, it’s a really nice description!  Imagine a desert city at dawn.  The sky is light and the stars – or most of them - are gone.  The Sun has not yet risen as far as someone on the ground is concerned, but its light strikes the topmost part of the highest tower (‘the Sultan’s Turret’).  Imagine such a turret seen from any direction other than the west – isn’t a ‘noose of light’ not just a metaphor but a great descriptive image?

And who cast the noose?  Obviously the Sun.  Hunters cast nooses, and the Sun rises in the east – hence, obviously, the Hunter of the East.  Everything fits perfectly.  I think you’d agree that were it not for the known association of Orion and hunting, you would happily accept this interpretation?

If so, the question is whether this known association so constrains Fitzgerald that he cannot mean the Sun – anytime Fitzgerald speaks of a Hunter in connection with the dawn (not night) sky he must be speaking of Orion.  First, I don’t know much about Fitzgerald but I don’t see why he would be so limited in his imagination.  Second, I don’t think Orion works.  Orion clearly didn’t cast the noose.  Orion has no special association with the east (he rises there, but then again he sets in the west).  By contrast we are speaking specifically of the rising Sun so the ‘East’ needs no explanation.

And besides all that, Orion is gone!  It’s no longer Night, and the stars including Orion have already been put to flight by the time we can see sunlight circling the top of a tower.  Hunters don’t disappear after snaring their prey, they come up and capture them fully.  That’s exactly what the Sun will do with the Sultan’s tower.

I guess it’s interesting that the argument is tending in a similar direction to some of those regarding Wolfe, that is to say I am as usual on the side of pooh-poohing interpretations based on classical associations and concentrate instead on images and metaphors inherent in the text.

- Gerry Quinn




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111112/eeb62865/attachment-0004.htm>