Once, in the throes of vanity (and wanting to see if I could do it) I wrote an additional verse for "Nyctalops". I sent it to a fanzine editor in the US as a "later version" of the work by CAS. Don't know whether I fooled him, but I owned up to my trickery fairly fast after he wanted to know WHERE the heck I'd found it. <grin>

Now, I wouldn't do anything like that to *you*. <GRIN>

I stuck this verse in after the verse about the crystal of dead Medusa's tears.

We have seen the phantoms
Of suzerains who muse
In minarets aglitter
With rich, metallic hues
That glow like lambent rainbows
Or luminescent dews.

******************

So what do people think? Sacrilege, doggerel, or plausible?

A friend of mine pointed out that my verse differs from the others in that there is only a single image, not a paired combination as in most others, but I think the verse about satyrs is the same.

Best,

lwm

I like it! I'm not sure that it would have fooled me, but it is plausible, to be sure.

One thing has always puzzled me about this, one of my favorites of CAS's poems. It seems to be a rare instance of CAS misusing vocabulary. The word nyctalops means "night-blind", yet CAS appears to use it in the opposite sense--that is, as reflecting an ability to see in darkness, rather than the reverse. Perhaps I'm the one who's mistaken, but, if not, then such an instance gives literal meaning to the phrase that these sorts of errors can happen to the best of us!

Hi -
well done - but I don't think Clark would use "aglitter" -
fun!
Dr.F

Hi Kevin,

It seems most believable that Smith, one of the outstandingly erudite vocabularists, knowing the plasticity of words and meanings, was lobbying for an alternative meaning for the word, nyctalops, parsing it meaning-wise as night-eye. Poets often use words in new senses (I am reminded of an anecdote from the biography of Wallace Stevens, by Peter Brazeau, about the way Stevens searched for a new, plausible meaning for the word "elliptical"). And, knowing the word "cyclops", I immediately understood what Smith *meant* by his use of "nyctalops". If the dictionary defines it differently, well doggone it, they just haven't caught up with him! <grin>

Mistake? By Klarkash-Ton? **NEVER!** <grin>

Regards,

Leon Malinofsky

The Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. says it can mean either Night or Day Blindness.

Quote:

nyctalopia

\Nyc`ta*lo"pi*a\, n. [L. nyctalopia, fr. nyctalops a nyctalops, Gr. ?. Gr. ? meant, a person affected either with day blindness or with night blindness, and in the former case was derived fr. ?, ?, night + ?, ?, the eye; in the latter, fr. ? + ? blind + ?.] (Med.) (a) A disease of the eye, in consequence of which the patient can see well in a faint light or at twilight, but is unable to see during the day or in a strong light; day blindness. (b) See Moonblink.

Do we know the actual dictionary and version CAS used?

The actual dictionary and version that CAS used would be very interesting to know, indeed. I based my comment on what I read in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1993): Nyctalopia: "a defect of vision characterized by reduced visual capacity in faint light or at night--called also night blindness".

Smith is said to have read the entire Oxford English Dictionary. I'm guessing he had (and used) a copy.

Actually, Smith used an edition of Webster's International--can't remember which version, except that it was a massive three-volume set that first appeared around 1908 or thereabouts. It discusses the etymology of its entries, and basically defines words in much the same way CAS does. Best, Scott

I may have written about this elsewhere, however - Clark did read
the Oxford, but much later and only in bits and pieces as needed.
The Auburn library only had the pedestal edition current at the
turn of the century of what we kids called "the hernia edition".
The actual edition Clark used was still in use (and very worn
indeed) when I began going to the library in the mid-'40's. I believe
they got a condensed version of the Oxford somewhat later when the
library moved, but do not know. It is probable that the old Webster
is still in the basement of the old Carnegie or in storage somewhere.

In any event - it was Webster's most recent edition that corresponded
with the opening of the Carnegie library that Clark would have had
regular access to - There were no collegiate editions, paper-backs,
etc. available. Of as great significance was the appearance of the
1911 Brittanica, the finest edition ever done for the historian
and an edition in which the contributors were the finest minds and
scholars of the 19th century - editions since world war I have
shifted focus to the scientific arena, and consequently have commonly
hired cheaper scholars for articles on History, Literature, and the
arts. I have found it to be an invaluable resource in my own
academic life -- many of the authors are themselves original sources.
I bought a copy in 1961 in Berkeley for $70.00 and am the second owner
of a leather bound onion skin edition -- original price $300.00 -
the equivalent today of many thousands. Almost all the authors
use an elevated and elegant english which presumes a highly sophisticated vocabulary.

Dr. Farmer