1t of a lUi" number of othen- Zola, Djuna Barnes, Proult, for example -Ihil retilurprising
and it i l l<) be hoped thaI the gap will be: filled before long.
Hart-Clive-1962-Structure-and-Motif-in-Finnegans-Wake
' (349.
00)
The 'mtts' which hunlc down the tube and- 'Shloom! '--fall
into place as a stable picture, a", blur",d and unintelligible in themsel~-'a double focu,'-but when combined on the
delicate scrttn the gh""tly and ghosdy truth becomes dear. ' The pictu. . . . of Butt and Taff a", made to con""rge lih a paiT of fla t phol<lgrapm in a . terCO! COpe to produce a fully rounded and oomprehelUible figure. (In thi, episode Joyce;" evidently prWicting 3-D tdevision along with the atom bomh (353. 22) and the destruction ofthe world. ) T he 'bitts' a", of OOUl"$e Shern and Shaun who a", able to 'adumb. . . ~cc a pattern of . . ,mebody cIs. : or other' ("o,'5) only when they work together for the common good, hut the passage u . . . ",levant to the Uyle of
, Cf. '. . . ""';1<:only,;nt<<p''''not_ ,<<<<,llhd,"'"andwhen fittalthq will ~ the . . hol<', ? 'pi,;t-m<:SOall<qUOled ;n 'On the Au,,,,,,,,,;< Writi"i:
ofMr>. lIotb. nd? . _~ '9"11, p. jl~.
,
ojINs. au,f'"p~&""w"vol. XXII, '59
? C(WTtspont! mctJ
Fitl1lt! gmlJ Wah- . . . . to its ~harac'ers. J oyce'. language units m. . y make little seruc in isolation, Or even b. m;'leading, but when all the other bits are taken into comideracion and projct:tcd on to the r=llving OCn:"n of the interpreting mind, their true lignificance ;. revealed. Lik a national language, thaI of Fj""'ga1U W? " a recogniJable and co. . . istent who! e, varied by its own dialects, dang, and . pecial usagcs-w. . meant to b.
. . ,If_explanatory on its own ground.
The tdev;';on-tel ;. a . \Qrt of Jailer-day Platonic Cave. Mr.
J. S. Atherton has shown how Joyce conceived of FimltgallJ Wak, as a CO:'lmic pantomime,' bul the shadow-show- whether as cinema entertainment, Browne's univc. . . al adumbration (531. 06). ' or the shadows in Plato', Cavc-sccms to be: no I. ,. .
important a frame ofreference. All the chanct. . . . arc 'film fu! k" a n d a l l a r e O O I a t e d f r o m t h e r C S l (~~! . 2" 2 1 i t . ' 9 , ~98 . 15, 3 9 8 . 0 5 ,
565. 14) None can truly 'idendifine the individuone' be:cause all are in the 'Cave of Ki<b' with respect to the others. Fu,ion of th= londy shades in n>omentaT)' u"ion ;. the only mean. whereby the spiritual fneus may be shifted to . omething greater. 'n", archetypal example of this Platonic application of CI"I>M_corr<'9pondenl;<;O. i$ o n Ce a g a i n t h a t g r e a t p " " " i o n a t e moment in 1I1. 4 C~83"4), when the silhouette offwing reality ;. fla. hed on the window. blind. Here Joyce i. at hi$ mOilt
universal and yet at hi. mon human.
, J. S. Athutoo, 'F. . . . ,. ". , w. . . . :. It"",. 0( u. . :1"""00\1"",', A<a#t, vol. XV, Win"",, [955. 1'1'- I~"""_
? Su, 6x c:<ampi<, TM G41dm 0/C,. -. . , C. s. . yLc (<:d. ). n. . W. ,ts ~ s;. 1 - ' 0 _ , 3 " " " _, I ' . d i n b u r g h , '9'~, v o l . I I I . I > - [ 9 9 .
,00
? CHAPTER SEVEN LEITMOTIV
Th~ practical applica. tion ofJoyce's theory ofror~pon_ dCllea i. achievt<! by the skilfully valit<! organisation of more than a thousand little UiIMQ. /;"s,' Neither btfmc nor"nu,. -_,-W. . . uhatthelitcral'y~ beenUsnllO consistenLly or 10 . uo:h brilliant effect, I! dOre J oyce'. ""0')' characteristic devdopmcnl of lhe techniqut: can profitably be diocuatd, JKr,,''''''U, I mUlt defi~ jllit what l#ilmori~ ii, u I IIndcntand the term, and how in general it may cootribute 10 a work oflitcruuu, It is nOt my purpote to compa", the uses to which Joy<< put the IeitmM~ with the methods employtd by
his predeceaon, but SOme incidcnlal mention of Ma. nn, Proust and othen i. inevitabk in any attempt 10 clarify Joyce's pro. . cnIure, A compu:ative study of Ihe ItiItnry of the ~ in Iitcrlltul'C would bt an ""tremdy valuabk conttibution to Iechnical triticUm, but the great expontnll of the d. . vicc have beco unlucky in this r. :spect, No ""tendtd sludy of the kilmIIli, appean to exill and although the", a", . . . number of ex""llent l{>ttlal diKllSIIionl, such as Dr, Peacock'. [)as UitntDli. M
'1lonuu Mallll,' the greater ]>llrt of whu has been publithed is scattered hen and there as sublidiary maUer in studies of wid. . . KOpC, Til(, g<'ocral chapter on lti~ in Oskar Wa12d', Das W",tb. . ". ,. ,,t> iI SOlInd and provocative but too short 10 come 10 griP' with all that his . . . bjecll impllcl. In vio:w of the considerable importance of the Uil-m in the work ofat Ie;>&(
, I". . """,, Ilw. ,ry_","" _ _ """,t. ;. . . AIbc>1Gn, PI'- ',s ff. ODd M. J. c. Hodc''''ODdM. 1'. w~s. . . . ,. . 1NWML<lJ_,Jo"t-,/<"'"
Y~~~:":iZ,~,,~~\t, '9H- ? l. tiptl(, . g06, pp, . ~~,.
"
",
? ujbnl)lj~
Ihr"" nC 1M gt"atcJl writers of thla <<ntury_ POUDd, ~1ann, JOy<:<:-l'nd its appe:uance in many pla(:ts in lI>. e W<l.
1t of a lUi" number of othen- Zola, Djuna Barnes, Proult, for example -Ihil retilurprising
and it i l l<) be hoped thaI the gap will be: filled before long.
II i.
, of course, lmpoMible for me 10 C(lver the whole fieLd here, even luperficially, l nd I mUlt r<:$Lric( myself 10 matten
IWlly relevant IOJO)'<<.
A comparative study might abo be malk of the relatiomJUp
of Joycc'. ltillllotioJ l<) lhoot of Wagner and OIher oompoll'n. The",,. ,,, many obvious . imilarities: in Wagnerian opera the n,w. ica1 motif, often a fleeting phrue, iI v. o. luablc not SO much . or iu intrinsic: COnlan a. for its Ilroco;ur;ol and annoopheric function. ; and in F;~"'laru Wdt the "crhal motif, no 1. . often a halUn enough phrase Or trite rhylhm, iI of importance principally for the overtollCl and Iymbolic &ignificance wilh which il can be chrged a. o il moves from COlllal 10 contal. Beyond one or two comparisonJ wilh lp<<iflC Wagnerillfl
"". mplts, hov;ever, I Illall not venture ht:rc to ",late Joree further 10 his musical counterparts.
It has become a commonplace ofcriticism to point . . . . t that J oyce'l work developed in a period that wal conscioua ol a powerful tension between, on the OIlC hand, the force! of fragmentalion and, on the other, I"'*' arUi. ng from l\lempU 10 reimpo. e order on the fragmenu by arnnging them into lrlificial patttrnl. When literature bttomts IIIUI fragmented, leitmotiv iI an a1mo1t inevitable lOurce of I"<<Irganisation, a.
lwentieth century writing fC"ms to demorulralc. Joyce Will cer- tainly CONcioo. very eany in his o;arcer of the poteBti. o. Iities of the ItitmMQ&I arp<<t. . li. scd ttdmkal d. . . . . ice. Allhough he ism>- wh~re reported 10 hav~ ua<<llht <<:rm 'hilmoti. ' hiTll$tlf, there art unmlstakcahle . igns at least as early as 'Thc Dud' ofth. . deliber- ale. . . . , of verbal rno:>ti& for . ttruclural and tonal e/ftttJ. ,' while in A. i'orl1llil and UI. 1IJ1J, of rourx, they are employed with brilliant MlUranec and, tome will lay, perhapl 'I liltle facilely
,1'. ,. . . . . . mpJe,om,moo'lo't. . nina;. . . . . . . . the~',oto. ,D'390'-H, 's. . . 64, and ' I)iotap, J,. l";"', D,lit, '57.
,. ,
? Uittnl)tiv
and pretentiously at tim. . . Although, '" 1 havc . aid, the d~tail of joyce'. boob is almo,t always derived from recognisable ( xternal IOUrcts, he iI, in major technical matters, alwaY'lless
derivative than one at fi. . . t imagin. . . . He did not, at did many of his contemporaries, combine the activities (If aUlhor and critic and, though a great innovator, he was much less sophi. <ticaled in literary matt. en than such adulators at EugeneJolat liked 10 believe. He wat fully co! l! cious of his own grt;atness- hi. < wife, Nora, told Frank Budgen': 'Ah, there'. (lnly (In<: man he', got to getthebetterofnnw,andthat',thatShake,peare! '-buttlu: imprasion (lne gains fr(lm biographi. . , ktten and conw:nation with his associates is (If a man not wholly in touch with the main . ! ream of Engli. ,h literature, past or present, and not wholly aware of bi. , ( l w n <<:lation to it. Indeed, he paid little attention
10 any but a few great names in litcratur<: and w<lrked in an isolation that was not so much aJTOglnt and . . ,If-willed as unconscious and naive. ~ we learn with Klme surprise, he had not r<:ad Ca! T(lU until he was well into F;nMKatt1 Wake, and then only h<<au. . somebody had comrru::nted (In the oimilarity. ' It S","IDS likely that he had n<:vt:r <<:ad ""me of lilt: apparmtly obviou! literary and phil,osophical mode! . for hi. , wtltk,' and
circumspection i. therefore nI:C=ry in a""",,,ing to what extent joyce was comciou, of hi> predtceMOl"3' Ullt: ofleitmotiv. }'ortun_ atdy a little cu-. :unutantial evi<k:ncc is available. He was devoted to the "pcra and, alth<:>ugh he did n<:>1 like Wagner, he knew hi. , work and ,,? at r. . ,nvrnant with hi. , technique'; he w,,", at leal! t consciou. (If tlu: <xis"'n", of Tlwm,,", Mann, since he names D" Zau/lerbtrK in Fi1IIItK"tt1 Wdk. (608. 19); he had read some Prou. t and q=tes ""vcra! titles. ' 'fhis evid<:nce docs nm,
it;" true, am(lun! to very much, but it;" probably mffici<:m (" U]()w th:>. ! at le""'t j<>y<< did not think he had invented the
, Inform. atioo recdV<<! rcom F. . . . "k lI\odg<:n.
? U l l n . , p . '5~.
? :l. lr. h. nk 1lu<1. g<n 'db ,n< iliat whool ho knew him b<ot Joy<<'. au"",,_ cdg< of H<fcl, for ;"'t:mce, W\U q"ite ol;gIo. t.
? s. . ,fura1mpl<,Ellma,m,p. tl3. . nd S. 0;1I)O>"t. J""",J_',vV'"'' L < ? . J o n , ' 9 5 ' , p p . 039"~o.
? Ath",ton,p. '75.
,63
? l . l! itmotiD
ltibMtiu, as he once thought he h>. d invented j ahberwocky. ' In any case, Joy~r. " debt to (arlier model! in this matter is probably no greater than his . upposed debt to F. . . douard Dujardin with regard to the stram of COn><;;11umWi, and that debt mu. t be very . mall indeed. For better <>r filI wone,
joy<;e worked <>ul almost all hi, malu. . . , stylistic habiu for hiJruClf and . uffered only the m m ! indirc<;! inlluencr. from other writers,
The word UifmIJtW itself is of comparatively . . . ,r,cnt origin, having been coiued by nans ",n Wolzogen for specific applka_ tion to the music of'"agner. ? In tlu: m>ci<:al world Waguer is,
of cou'""', the chief exponent of Ihe rru:thod, although il h. . . sometimes ~n ,ugge'ted that lu: hiIlW'lf derived Ihe idea in his tum from eadier literary modd. ,. D<:spite the faCI that it .
The 'mtts' which hunlc down the tube and- 'Shloom! '--fall
into place as a stable picture, a", blur",d and unintelligible in themsel~-'a double focu,'-but when combined on the
delicate scrttn the gh""tly and ghosdy truth becomes dear. ' The pictu. . . . of Butt and Taff a", made to con""rge lih a paiT of fla t phol<lgrapm in a . terCO! COpe to produce a fully rounded and oomprehelUible figure. (In thi, episode Joyce;" evidently prWicting 3-D tdevision along with the atom bomh (353. 22) and the destruction ofthe world. ) T he 'bitts' a", of OOUl"$e Shern and Shaun who a", able to 'adumb. . . ~cc a pattern of . . ,mebody cIs. : or other' ("o,'5) only when they work together for the common good, hut the passage u . . . ",levant to the Uyle of
, Cf. '. . . ""';1<:only,;nt<<p''''not_ ,<<<<,llhd,"'"andwhen fittalthq will ~ the . . hol<', ? 'pi,;t-m<:SOall<qUOled ;n 'On the Au,,,,,,,,,;< Writi"i:
ofMr>. lIotb. nd? . _~ '9"11, p. jl~.
,
ojINs. au,f'"p~&""w"vol. XXII, '59
? C(WTtspont! mctJ
Fitl1lt! gmlJ Wah- . . . . to its ~harac'ers. J oyce'. language units m. . y make little seruc in isolation, Or even b. m;'leading, but when all the other bits are taken into comideracion and projct:tcd on to the r=llving OCn:"n of the interpreting mind, their true lignificance ;. revealed. Lik a national language, thaI of Fj""'ga1U W? " a recogniJable and co. . . istent who! e, varied by its own dialects, dang, and . pecial usagcs-w. . meant to b.
. . ,If_explanatory on its own ground.
The tdev;';on-tel ;. a . \Qrt of Jailer-day Platonic Cave. Mr.
J. S. Atherton has shown how Joyce conceived of FimltgallJ Wak, as a CO:'lmic pantomime,' bul the shadow-show- whether as cinema entertainment, Browne's univc. . . al adumbration (531. 06). ' or the shadows in Plato', Cavc-sccms to be: no I. ,. .
important a frame ofreference. All the chanct. . . . arc 'film fu! k" a n d a l l a r e O O I a t e d f r o m t h e r C S l (~~! . 2" 2 1 i t . ' 9 , ~98 . 15, 3 9 8 . 0 5 ,
565. 14) None can truly 'idendifine the individuone' be:cause all are in the 'Cave of Ki<b' with respect to the others. Fu,ion of th= londy shades in n>omentaT)' u"ion ;. the only mean. whereby the spiritual fneus may be shifted to . omething greater. 'n", archetypal example of this Platonic application of CI"I>M_corr<'9pondenl;<;O. i$ o n Ce a g a i n t h a t g r e a t p " " " i o n a t e moment in 1I1. 4 C~83"4), when the silhouette offwing reality ;. fla. hed on the window. blind. Here Joyce i. at hi$ mOilt
universal and yet at hi. mon human.
, J. S. Athutoo, 'F. . . . ,. ". , w. . . . :. It"",. 0( u. . :1"""00\1"",', A<a#t, vol. XV, Win"",, [955. 1'1'- I~"""_
? Su, 6x c:<ampi<, TM G41dm 0/C,. -. . , C. s. . yLc (<:d. ). n. . W. ,ts ~ s;. 1 - ' 0 _ , 3 " " " _, I ' . d i n b u r g h , '9'~, v o l . I I I . I > - [ 9 9 .
,00
? CHAPTER SEVEN LEITMOTIV
Th~ practical applica. tion ofJoyce's theory ofror~pon_ dCllea i. achievt<! by the skilfully valit<! organisation of more than a thousand little UiIMQ. /;"s,' Neither btfmc nor"nu,. -_,-W. . . uhatthelitcral'y~ beenUsnllO consistenLly or 10 . uo:h brilliant effect, I! dOre J oyce'. ""0')' characteristic devdopmcnl of lhe techniqut: can profitably be diocuatd, JKr,,''''''U, I mUlt defi~ jllit what l#ilmori~ ii, u I IIndcntand the term, and how in general it may cootribute 10 a work oflitcruuu, It is nOt my purpote to compa", the uses to which Joy<< put the IeitmM~ with the methods employtd by
his predeceaon, but SOme incidcnlal mention of Ma. nn, Proust and othen i. inevitabk in any attempt 10 clarify Joyce's pro. . cnIure, A compu:ative study of Ihe ItiItnry of the ~ in Iitcrlltul'C would bt an ""tremdy valuabk conttibution to Iechnical triticUm, but the great expontnll of the d. . vicc have beco unlucky in this r. :spect, No ""tendtd sludy of the kilmIIli, appean to exill and although the", a", . . . number of ex""llent l{>ttlal diKllSIIionl, such as Dr, Peacock'. [)as UitntDli. M
'1lonuu Mallll,' the greater ]>llrt of whu has been publithed is scattered hen and there as sublidiary maUer in studies of wid. . . KOpC, Til(, g<'ocral chapter on lti~ in Oskar Wa12d', Das W",tb. . ". ,. ,,t> iI SOlInd and provocative but too short 10 come 10 griP' with all that his . . . bjecll impllcl. In vio:w of the considerable importance of the Uil-m in the work ofat Ie;>&(
, I". . """,, Ilw. ,ry_","" _ _ """,t. ;. . . AIbc>1Gn, PI'- ',s ff. ODd M. J. c. Hodc''''ODdM. 1'. w~s. . . . ,. . 1NWML<lJ_,Jo"t-,/<"'"
Y~~~:":iZ,~,,~~\t, '9H- ? l. tiptl(, . g06, pp, . ~~,.
"
",
? ujbnl)lj~
Ihr"" nC 1M gt"atcJl writers of thla <<ntury_ POUDd, ~1ann, JOy<:<:-l'nd its appe:uance in many pla(:ts in lI>. e W<l.
1t of a lUi" number of othen- Zola, Djuna Barnes, Proult, for example -Ihil reti
IWlly relevant IOJO)'<<.
A comparative study might abo be malk of the relatiomJUp
of Joycc'. ltillllotioJ l<) lhoot of Wagner and OIher oompoll'n. The",,. ,,, many obvious . imilarities: in Wagnerian opera the n,w. ica1 motif, often a fleeting phrue, iI v. o. luablc not SO much . or iu intrinsic: COnlan a. for its Ilroco;ur;ol and annoopheric function. ; and in F;~"'laru Wdt the "crhal motif, no 1. . often a halUn enough phrase Or trite rhylhm, iI of importance principally for the overtollCl and Iymbolic &ignificance wilh which il can be chrged a. o il moves from COlllal 10 contal. Beyond one or two comparisonJ wilh lp<<iflC Wagnerillfl
"". mplts, hov;ever, I Illall not venture ht:rc to ",late Joree further 10 his musical counterparts.
It has become a commonplace ofcriticism to point . . . . t that J oyce'l work developed in a period that wal conscioua ol a powerful tension between, on the OIlC hand, the force! of fragmentalion and, on the other, I"'*' arUi. ng from l\lempU 10 reimpo. e order on the fragmenu by arnnging them into lrlificial patttrnl. When literature bttomts IIIUI fragmented, leitmotiv iI an a1mo1t inevitable lOurce of I"<<Irganisation, a.
lwentieth century writing fC"ms to demorulralc. Joyce Will cer- tainly CONcioo. very eany in his o;arcer of the poteBti. o. Iities of the ItitmMQ&I arp<<t. . li. scd ttdmkal d. . . . . ice. Allhough he ism>- wh~re reported 10 hav~ ua<<llht <<:rm 'hilmoti. ' hiTll$tlf, there art unmlstakcahle . igns at least as early as 'Thc Dud' ofth. . deliber- ale. . . . , of verbal rno:>ti& for . ttruclural and tonal e/ftttJ. ,' while in A. i'orl1llil and UI. 1IJ1J, of rourx, they are employed with brilliant MlUranec and, tome will lay, perhapl 'I liltle facilely
,1'. ,. . . . . . mpJe,om,moo'lo't. . nina;. . . . . . . . the~',oto. ,D'390'-H, 's. . . 64, and ' I)iotap, J,. l";"', D,lit, '57.
,. ,
? Uittnl)tiv
and pretentiously at tim. . . Although, '" 1 havc . aid, the d~tail of joyce'. boob is almo,t always derived from recognisable ( xternal IOUrcts, he iI, in major technical matters, alwaY'lless
derivative than one at fi. . . t imagin. . . . He did not, at did many of his contemporaries, combine the activities (If aUlhor and critic and, though a great innovator, he was much less sophi. <ticaled in literary matt. en than such adulators at EugeneJolat liked 10 believe. He wat fully co! l! cious of his own grt;atness- hi. < wife, Nora, told Frank Budgen': 'Ah, there'. (lnly (In<: man he', got to getthebetterofnnw,andthat',thatShake,peare! '-buttlu: imprasion (lne gains fr(lm biographi. . , ktten and conw:nation with his associates is (If a man not wholly in touch with the main . ! ream of Engli. ,h literature, past or present, and not wholly aware of bi. , ( l w n <<:lation to it. Indeed, he paid little attention
10 any but a few great names in litcratur<: and w<lrked in an isolation that was not so much aJTOglnt and . . ,If-willed as unconscious and naive. ~ we learn with Klme surprise, he had not r<:ad Ca! T(lU until he was well into F;nMKatt1 Wake, and then only h<<au. . somebody had comrru::nted (In the oimilarity. ' It S","IDS likely that he had n<:vt:r <<:ad ""me of lilt: apparmtly obviou! literary and phil,osophical mode! . for hi. , wtltk,' and
circumspection i. therefore nI:C=ry in a""",,,ing to what extent joyce was comciou, of hi> predtceMOl"3' Ullt: ofleitmotiv. }'ortun_ atdy a little cu-. :unutantial evi<k:ncc is available. He was devoted to the "pcra and, alth<:>ugh he did n<:>1 like Wagner, he knew hi. , work and ,,? at r. . ,nvrnant with hi. , technique'; he w,,", at leal! t consciou. (If tlu: <xis"'n", of Tlwm,,", Mann, since he names D" Zau/lerbtrK in Fi1IIItK"tt1 Wdk. (608. 19); he had read some Prou. t and q=tes ""vcra! titles. ' 'fhis evid<:nce docs nm,
it;" true, am(lun! to very much, but it;" probably mffici<:m (" U]()w th:>. ! at le""'t j<>y<< did not think he had invented the
, Inform. atioo recdV<<! rcom F. . . . "k lI\odg<:n.
? U l l n . , p . '5~.
? :l. lr. h. nk 1lu<1. g<n 'db ,n< iliat whool ho knew him b<ot Joy<<'. au"",,_ cdg< of H<fcl, for ;"'t:mce, W\U q"ite ol;gIo. t.
? s. . ,fura1mpl<,Ellma,m,p. tl3. . nd S. 0;1I)O>"t. J""",J_',vV'"'' L < ? . J o n , ' 9 5 ' , p p . 039"~o.
? Ath",ton,p. '75.
,63
? l . l! itmotiD
ltibMtiu, as he once thought he h>. d invented j ahberwocky. ' In any case, Joy~r. " debt to (arlier model! in this matter is probably no greater than his . upposed debt to F. . . douard Dujardin with regard to the stram of COn><;;11umWi, and that debt mu. t be very . mall indeed. For better <>r filI wone,
joy<;e worked <>ul almost all hi, malu. . . , stylistic habiu for hiJruClf and . uffered only the m m ! indirc<;! inlluencr. from other writers,
The word UifmIJtW itself is of comparatively . . . ,r,cnt origin, having been coiued by nans ",n Wolzogen for specific applka_ tion to the music of'"agner. ? In tlu: m>ci<:al world Waguer is,
of cou'""', the chief exponent of Ihe rru:thod, although il h. . . sometimes ~n ,ugge'ted that lu: hiIlW'lf derived Ihe idea in his tum from eadier literary modd. ,. D<:spite the faCI that it .
