<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=dstockhoff@verizon.net
href="mailto:dstockhoff@verizon.net">David Stockhoff</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>> > And who cast the noose? Obviously the Sun. Hunters cast
nooses, and <BR>> > the Sun rises in the east – hence, obviously, the
Hunter of the East. <BR>> > Everything fits perfectly. I think you’d agree
that were it not for <BR>> > the known association of Orion and hunting,
you would happily accept <BR>> > this interpretation?<BR><BR>And Lo! the
Hunter of the East has caught<BR>The Sultan's Turret in a Noose of
Light.<BR><BR>> No. If I had only the second couplet above and no knowledge
of the <BR>> first, since I know Orion rises in the east, I'd first assume
the noose <BR>> is an interpretation of Orion's weapon-constellation, which
is variously <BR>> a club or bow or a lion. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>> I accept that the hunter is in some way the sun, since he uses
a noose <BR>> of sunlight; to reverse this, since I have already argued that
the sun <BR>> finishes Orion's act of hunting, Orion becomes the sun and thus
the sun <BR>> IS Orion, the hunter. But without Orion there can be no
hunter.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> I could <BR>> not remove Orion from the poem---if I did, I'd
wonder why the dawn sun <BR>> is a hunter, why he hunts with a noose, and why
the dawn has been <BR>> described in this awkward and pompous way. It would
make no sense at <BR>> all. No poetry. DOA. Formula: X1=Y1, X2=Y2, X3=Y3.
Yawn.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>> > If so, the question is whether this known association so
constrains <BR>> > Fitzgerald that he cannot mean the Sun – anytime
Fitzgerald speaks of <BR>> > a Hunter in connection with the dawn (not
night) sky he must be <BR>> > speaking of Orion. First, I don’t know much
about Fitzgerald but I <BR>> > don’t see why he would be so limited in his
imagination.<BR><BR>> Correct. As you said, the name brand is totally owned
by Orion as purely <BR>> literary allusion. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I was interpreting what you were saying – I wasn’t stating that.
Hunter metaphors abound and may be freely used, even for the Sun. There’s
a known association, but Fitzgerald isn’t using it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> Yes, this is limiting, if you consider a deep <BR>> Victorian
steeping in classical literature that opens a whole new <BR>> universe of
language to be poetically limiting!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Clinging to a single permitted metaphorical association for hunting doesn’t
open anything.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>> > Second, I don’t think Orion works. Orion clearly didn’t cast
the <BR>> > noose. Orion has no special association with the east (he
rises there, <BR>> > but then again he sets in the west). By contrast we
are speaking <BR>> > specifically of the rising Sun so the ‘East’ needs no
explanation.<BR><BR>> You haven't said why Orion doesn't work other than
denying that he <BR>> exists, which you cannot do. But the sun has no
"special association" <BR>> with noose-hunting. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I did say. First, Orion *doesn’t* exist! The sky is bright, and
the patterns of stars known as constellations are gone. 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> And where is the rising sun in the poem? It is not <BR>> mentioned
anywhere---there is no "rising" depicted whatsoever. You have <BR>> inferred
it without realizing it. Where is the sun itself? Nowhere in <BR>> the poem
at all. If it is there, what does it look like? Does it have a <BR>> disk? A
color? A mien? It might be like a stone in one way, but <BR>> otherwise there
are no answers. It's not there.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A title=http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/Guides3/rubaiyat.html
href="http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/Guides3/rubaiyat.html">http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/Guides3/rubaiyat.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A title=http://oaks.nvg.org/rua.html
href="http://oaks.nvg.org/rua.html">http://oaks.nvg.org/rua.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Although the second refers a third commentary that says he is ‘Eastern
Wisdom’</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> > I guess it’s interesting that the argument is tending in a
similar <BR>> > direction to some of those regarding Wolfe, that is to say
I am as <BR>> > usual on the side of pooh-poohing interpretations based on
classical <BR>> > associations and concentrate instead on images and
metaphors inherent <BR>> > in the text.<BR><BR>> You are not
kidding!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>No, and I am more convinced than ever that it’s the right way to go.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Gerry Quinn</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>