(urth) vanished people=Hieros

[David Stockhoff]

On 11/12/2011 12:07 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> *From:* David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
>
> > > 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?
>
> And Lo! the Hunter of the East has caught
> The Sultan's Turret in a Noose of Light.
>
> > No. If I had only the second couplet above and no knowledge of the
> > first, since I know Orion rises in the east, I'd first assume the noose
> > is an interpretation of Orion's weapon-constellation, which is 
> variously
> > a club or bow or a lion.
> You miss my point. Suppose you never heard of Orion, or there was no 
> association between Orion and hunting. Wouldn’t the sun metaphor leap 
> out at you?

I DIDN'T miss your point. If I had never heard of Orion the poem would 
make no sense. I would never have heard of constellations or the 
significance of stars or Night. It would be bad; it would not be a poem. 
I said so. I ask again in what sense is the sun EVER a hunter? Explain. 
You can't.
>
>
> > I accept that the hunter is in some way the sun, since he uses a noose
> > of sunlight; to reverse this, since I have already argued that the sun
> > finishes Orion's act of hunting, Orion becomes the sun and thus the sun
> > IS Orion, the hunter. But without Orion there can be no hunter.
> That seems bizarre to me. Orion does not have sole ownership of the 
> concept of hunting. Even you can see the hunter is really the Sun - 
> why do you struggle so to reject it by insisting that must throw the 
> noose?

You've abandoned all pretense of argument and are now begging.
> > I could
> > not remove Orion from the poem---if I did, I'd wonder why the dawn sun
> > is a hunter, why he hunts with a noose, and why the dawn has been
> > described in this awkward and pompous way. It would make no sense at
> > all. No poetry. DOA. Formula: X1=Y1, X2=Y2, X3=Y3. Yawn.
> To me it’s the exact opposite. To drag in Orion for no good reason 
> except he is supposed to be the constellation associated with hunting 
> seems totally pedestrian and lacking in poetry. A computer might 
> interpret so.

Yes, let's pretend 2000 years of literature never occurred and then ask 
who is the computer. Gerry, your programming is faulty.
> As for removing Orion: you don’t have to. He’s not anywhere in the 
> poem. He’s not referred to anywhere except in your (mis)interpretation 
> of ‘Hunter’. He’s not anywhere in the sky. the stars have fled.

These are your usual games. You pick and choose the evidence that suits 
you, and then claim you only see what is there and never what is not.

Are literary allusions real? If not, then fine---but you must renounce 
them forever.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Correct. As you said, the name brand is totally owned by Orion as 
> purely
> > literary allusion.
> I was interpreting what you were saying – I wasn’t stating that. 
> Hunter metaphors abound and may be freely used, even for the Sun.

I know that.
> There’s a known association, but Fitzgerald isn’t using it.

When do you begin showing that to be true? Next week some time? How does 
one avoid "a known association" anyway? How does FitzGerald turn it off?
> > Yes, this is limiting, if you consider a deep
> > Victorian steeping in classical literature that opens a whole new
> > universe of language to be poetically limiting!
> Clinging to a single permitted metaphorical association for hunting 
> doesn’t open anything.


No, but denying all classical allusions IN A VICTORIAN POEM does?
>
> > > 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.
>
> > You haven't said why Orion doesn't work other than denying that he
> > exists, which you cannot do. But the sun has no "special association"
> > with noose-hunting.
> I did say. First, Orion *doesn’t* exist! The sky is bright, and the 
> patterns of stars known as constellations are gone.

Fail. The Hunter is there to vanish, like the stars to which you refer. 
It is that vanishing the first couplet describes. The rest you're making up.
> The Sun’s association with noose-hunting is made in the poem, as the 
> light shining around a high turret is described as a “noose of light”. 
> You may not be able to see it, but Fitzgerald could, and I can too.

That's not an "association." That's a metaphor.
> > And where is the rising sun in the poem? It is not
> > mentioned anywhere---there is no "rising" depicted whatsoever. You have
> > inferred it without realizing it. Where is the sun itself? Nowhere in
> > the poem at all. If it is there, what does it look like? Does it have a
> > disk? A color? A mien? It might be like a stone in one way, but
> > otherwise there are no answers. It's not there.
> Come on – you are not seriously making such an argument? The Sun is 
> not yet visible, but its rays shining on the top of a tower are.

"The Sun is not yet visible." Thank you.
> By the way, I looked up “hunter of the east interpretation’ in Google. 
> I found two interpretations. Both agreed with me that the hunter is 
> the Sun.

No they don't. I told you the sun is the Hunter of the East. I told you 
HOW he is the Hunter of the East and how it derives from the 
just-vanished Orion, who is the original Hunter of the East. The night 
hunter becomes the day hunter. Do you read posts in their entirety? Do 
you have an explanation for how the sun is the hunter? No, it's "just so."
> http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/Guides3/rubaiyat.html
> http://oaks.nvg.org/rua.html
> Although the second refers a third commentary that says he is ‘Eastern 
> Wisdom’
> > > 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.
>
> > You are not kidding!
> No, and I am more convinced than ever that it’s the right way to go.

Picking and choosing evidence has always worked for you before, so you 
should certainly stick with it.