the elect and the preterite/: a footnote in melville's cetology

[lorentzen-nicklaus]

lorentzen-nicklaus schrieb:

>  ~~~ the first footnote in chapter 32 [!] of moby dick, "the cetology", takes 
>  its offspring from the word "alien" [!] and goes like this "i'm aware that
>  down to the present time, the fish styled lamatins and dugons (pig-fish [!] > 
> and sow-fish [!] of the coffins of nantucket) are included by many naturalists 
>  among the whales. but as these pig-fish are a noisy [!], contemptible set,  
>  mostly lurking [!] in the mouths of rivers, and feeding on wet hay, and  
>  especially as they do not spout, i [!] deny their credentials as whales: and
>  have presented them with their passports [!] to quit the kingdom of
>  cetology"  ~~~ in this old blue oxford university press edition, my wife once 
>  found in  a second-hand-bookstore in camden town, it is page 137 ~~~ blame it 
>  to my pynchon-poisoned brain, but here the author-god melville distinguishes
>  between the elect whales and the passed over pig- & sow-fish, does he not? 
>                                                                      [schnipp] 

   "look at that popular work 'goldsmith's animated nature.' in the abridged 
   london edition of 1807, there are plates of an alleged 'whale' and a 
   'narwhale.' i do not wish to seem inelegant, but this unsightly whale looks 
   much like an amputated sow; and, as for the narwhale, one glimpse at it is 
   enough to amaze one, that in this nineteenth century such a hippogriff could 
   be palmed for genuine upon any intelligent public of schoolboys." 

                           (chapter 55, on the monstrous pictures of whales)


   mr. melville, he's no friend of pigs ... and here, by the way, his cetology  
   seems to be way off, too. in the twentyfirst century we do believe in the    
   existence (and cetological relevance) of narwhales, don't we?  

kfl