(urth) Hunter of the East

[James Wynn]

> *From:* James Wynn <mailto:crushtv at gmail.com>
> >
> > And of course *Gerry's* argument is based on the text, not metaphor or
> >>conclusive leaps even though the sun is never named in the poem.
> >>So a fundamental lack of self-awareness is also a common thread here.
>
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> Answered in my previous post.
> The rising Sun *is* in a real sense visible in the poem.  Unlike Orion.

Just to clarify our terms. "In a real sense" means "not".

> When have I ever objected to metaphor?  What I look for, though, are 
> metaphors that are actually present, like the noose of light, which is 
> self-evidently thrown by the Sun.

In classical cosmology, the Sun is the god that *rules* the day. It's 
doesn't cause it. That is why we can have a separate god that 
personifies "the Dawn" and why Khayyam can speak of Morning throwing a 
stone. The Sun is as incidental (given the reference to Morning) as any 
other celestial object.

> >
> However, *Morning* is named. Morning throws the stone at the stars. Why
> >
> is not Morning the hunter? Why is the hunter not Eos?
>
> Eos is not such a terrible interpretation.  Unlike Orion, I think a 
> reasonable case could be made.  Nevertheless, the Sun imagery seems 
> much stronger.  If Fitzgerald had written, say, "bright fingers grasp 
> the turret", I'd go with Eos.  But he's making up his own metaphor, 
> and it's a better one IMO.

Are you saying that because the Iliad speaks of the Dawn's "rosy 
fingers"? Now you are using knowledge of classical literature to 
buttress your interpretation. But that is totally legitimate because YOU 
are doing it.
I don't recall anywhere that the sun is associate with nooses, ropes, or 
lariats. (Sun as cowboy?)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111113/717d1cfa/attachment-0004.htm>