<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/27/2013 12:22 AM, Jerry Friedman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1364358147.55376.YahooMailNeo@web124501.mail.ne1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">From: Marc Aramini <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:marcaramini@yahoo.com"><marcaramini@yahoo.com></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">T he opening quote, about the ivy tod being heavy with snow and the owlet
whooping to a wolf below that eats the she wolf's young, has always seemed a
bit ambiguous.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
It does bring Christianity in by means of the hermit, though.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The opening scene involves David making noises with the pan
pipes. Is this like the owl whooping to the wolfe, number five, who will one
day kill another wolfe as his own father has consumed his free life and taken
the life of his originator? The only other mention of an owl is when maitre in
VRT is called an owl. There are forty seven pan pipes and later the prisoner
forty seven taps on the pipes to communicate with VRT. He is a political
prisoner.
Does the wolf eat the young of its mother in the quote? (Number four and five
et al continually consuming each other- they are wolfes) the quote is certainly
not referring to the owl as the consumer of wolves, right?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think so. The OED says an "owlet" is "especially a young or small owl", though
Coleridge might have added the "let" just for the meter. Wolves had a reputation
as cannibalistic.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.archive.org/stream/poetsbeastsseque00robi/poetsbeastsseque00robi_djvu.txt">http://www.archive.org/stream/poetsbeastsseque00robi/poetsbeastsseque00robi_djvu.txt</a>
Also as I see it, David is more the "she-wolf's young" than the Wolfe clones, since
in some sense they aren't a woman's offspring.
On a tangent, in another poem Coleridge compared atheism to an owlet.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.online-literature.com/coleridge/637/">http://www.online-literature.com/coleridge/637/</a>
Jerry Friedman
_______________________________________________
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Jerry<br>
<br>
From your excellent link:<br>
<br>
<pre>. . . it is punctually associated with that delightful fiction
of the poets, the poetical owl. They are as thick as thieves,
these two creatures, and always " on the patter " together.
If you see Charley Bates coming up the street you may
be sure the Dodger is in the immediate neighbourhood.
The rascals converse in highwayman's slang. <b>"The owlet
whoops to the wolf below." </b>The chances are they are
decoys for each other, and divide the spoils of the victims
whom they assassinate in company. Was there ever such an
abominably comic partnership in crime — owls and wolves !</pre>
Everyone must read the entire section here on Bears vs Wolves.
Wasn't that a topic of speculation here some time ago? I forget the
text, but I recall general mystification as to why bears and wolves
would be in eternal opposition to one another.<br>
<br>
I note that there's no mention there of wolves eating their own
young, but rather of their eating human infants as well as
"laggards" among the pack. Close enough?<br>
</body>
</html>