<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=severiansola@hotmail.com
href="mailto:severiansola@hotmail.com">Lee Berman</A> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV><BR><BR>>Gerry Quinn: Erm... how about the one quoted by
Wolfe?<BR><BR> <BR><BR>> What quote by Wolfe determines that the Stone
is Venus? I haven't seen such a</DIV>
<DIV>> quote but perhaps you know of one Gerry? I'm interested to see
it.<BR><BR>Did you read my post – I explained my thinking.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I’m not committed to the stone being Venus, but I think Venus is a viable
interpretation. [Of the original, I think Wolfe means the White
Fountain.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Another interpretation I think is viable is that the stone is entirely
metaphorical and does not refer to any celestial body.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> The Omar Kayaam quote appears a few pages from the very end of a 5
book </DIV>
<DIV>> series about the New Sun. The original translator seems to think
it means the sun. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don’t think so. I think the original translator used ‘Hunter of the
East’ to mean the Sun. I don’t think it’s elegant if the stone is also the
Sun.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> The sun is round, like a stone and it does wash away the stars in the
morning.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Stones can be any shape, and don’t usually glow. A stone cast into a
pool makes the reflected stars vanish, but also vanishes itself. And the
Sun is NOT cast into the Bowl of Night, it is at best moving slowly into the
edge of the Bowl.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here’s my reading: dawn is breaking, and the stars flee the bowl of night
(the night sky) as if a stone had been cast into a dark reflective pool,
destroying the reflections. The Sun is not yet visible, but the tops of
the highest towers are limned in light. The poet or translator likens this
to a noose of light cast around them by a hunter – thus the Hunter of the East
is the rising Sun. [A later translator used a different metaphor, but
still referred to the Sun in the second couplet.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The stone cast into the bowl is difficult to see as the Sun, or at least I
find it so – it must either be the Morning Star (as James suggested) or entirely
metaphorical. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> I don't see the difficulty in understanding the sun reference.
After all this </DIV>
<DIV>> discussion, is the idea that it might be the sun and not be Venus be
so<BR>> impossible to consider? Or is this simply a battle where not an inch
may be openly ceded to the <BR>> enemy?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I understand the sun reference, I just don’t think it’s what was
intended. Now perhaps it was: you and David clearly think differently from
me and James. I’ve explained above why I don’t like the stone as a sun
reference, i.e, the sun has not been cast into the bowl, and there is already
another sun metaphor. But unless the translator left notes, I don’t think
it can be proven one way or the other.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>David thinks the Hunter must be Orion, basically because Orion has that
metaphor trademarked at least as regards the sky. And maybe the first
translator agrees with David. But then we need to explain why the first
translator substituted an Orion reference for a Sun reference, because the
second translation makes it clear that the Sun must have been referenced in the
second couplet of the original. I think the Sun as hunter works well with
the noose of light image, so well that the first translator decided to run with
it despite the strong association between huntsmen and Orion. And the
attempts to explain the noose of light in the context of Orion seem a bit
strained, not to mention the association with the East. The rising Sun
scores a bulls-eye on both.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Gerry Quinn</DIV>
<DIV><BR> <BR><BR> <BR><BR>In regard to the BotNS-irrelevant
Hunter:<BR><BR> <BR><BR>> Sure, Orion rises in the east. But not at
dawn, if it wants to be <BR>> visible.<BR><BR> <BR><BR>David Stockhoff:
Not at dawn. BEFORE dawn.<BR><BR><BR>Correct. The translator calls it the Hunter
"of" the East not the Hunter "in" the east. <BR><BR>You are where you came
from.
<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Urth Mailing List<BR>To
post, write urth@urth.net<BR>Subscription/information:
http://www.urth.net<BR><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>