<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><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </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>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">>
Where did the hunter come from? Night is still present in the second <BR>>
event, robbed of its stars. Morning is not yet present, or else the <BR>>
noose would be invisible: it is Night that makes the noose visible. What
<BR>> else may persist? Unless the sun is known as a noose-hunter, it is
<BR>> rather awkward to invoke a new metaphor or image not even fully
imagined <BR>> until the last line (though the third line tells us he not a
killer but <BR>> a catcher of things).<BR><BR>> What does the sun catch
but not kill? Perhaps the sun catches that which <BR>> it illuminates, but
that's hard to read from "the Hunter in the East has <BR>> caught" if you
don't react, "Oh, the Sun, that old Hunter in the East. <BR>> Of course." I
argue that the Hunter is already there---and is known by <BR>> the reader to
be there, because he's there all summer and fall---and has <BR>> snared his
prey at the moment he himself disappears.<BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-DECORATION: ">I agree
with most of your post, but I remain convinced that the Hunter is the rising
Sun, not Orion.</DIV>
<DIV style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ; TEXT-DECORATION: "></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Gerry Quinn</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>