It may be that the number and variety of the 't:t>nden,ed boob'
oontained
in FilllllllaM Wah accounts for the growing popularity of what must by any estimate be a(<:<>onted an extremely difficult work w penetrate, for once .
Hart-Clive-1962-Structure-and-Motif-in-Finnegans-Wake
.
.
.
ti""ioIo
Ir- ,. "
Pu'"",
'-" w" ,- w"'
,
~
literary Itumol;" is surprisingly inadequate, 10 that I ha. ve found it neceuary to introduce my special discussion ofJOYce's motifs
(Chapter &ven) by a vcry briefoutline of the geMral tlu:ory of the devke. The bulk of the concbuions are baled on my Own reading of ~nn, Prou,t, Pound, ~nd other exponents of the /tiIRIDtil! , but I have gained a great deal ofinsight and stimula_ t i o n f r o m O s h r W a l z e 1 ' , D r u IV(If/kun. stweri, O r . R o b e r t
'9
? i'rtjafe
Pe. cock',0. . u~ HiT~M_andF. . K,Brown', nJlA- i. o tbN. n. AD initial difficulty wat the lack oru -s. eed . system 0{ terminology. Throughout this work I adb_ COR- ,iMently 10 "" td "'" terminological m llw:ntion which it would be . . wclI 10 ru! DIILal'ioe hero. The: . . . . . ro. 'kibnilti8' (or, man: simply, 'motif') is wed 10 designlle . . ,bon vcrhaJ conStrucl,
charactcrioed by certain easily recognisable pUtcrru uf rhyth"" IIOUnd, f<. >rm and, oomctimes, sense. TI,e IItmw are the m'\ior narrative and allegorical clementi of the book, such u 'Eating
the God', 'hom<Jllel<ua! ity', 'ritual murder'. A third category or rccum:nt material is m nn itllted by such bighly charged I)'mbob as tn, the U'tt, tbe mnben. . . These an: . . . . . a1ly quite d_Iy awri. . cd with the themca and motiD, and baw: themselves frequently hct;n called 'motifi'. O$b. r Walzel "'Xu. . teiy dc? scribed them u l#i~ti. uIiu:MS",. ,iI4k' bill, sin"" virtually every image . . . . d oymbol in Fi~",,1llU 1V. d. fUDerio. . . 'hil""'tWUlkaii)l', the qualification i, redundant ami I [lrd? ? W cal! tI'em limply Sftrllml.
During more than five ye. . 1"1 ofJoyce ItuWes I bave ma. de many valuable friendships antOO( . he do7. c. . . ofpcople actively engaged in work on the ~me fic,ld. A fat file of hundred. of letten <Cttivcd limn tbre. e 611t. . :l_ J OYCC:Ofl3-Mn. Adaline
GIash<<11 of Fumingtou, Connecticut, Mr. J. S. AthertQn of Wigan, and Mr. Frit>: Senn ofZQrich-1aa been a better IOUra: of cnlightalment to me than hu any publiohed work on Fi~""atU Iliah-. Mr. Serm in particular---a remarkably aCUle
reader of the book_ has been a patient any in the ,low work of analysing Joyce's patternl of motif and Iymbol; the Ind"" of MOlifl in Aj'l'endix A OwCl much of il\ bulk to the: many houn
thai Mr. Senn devoted 10 it.
My ,,? ;re', wide general knowledge, and he-. percipienl
~ading both of thu book and ofFUt-l"'" IV", ha~ allbled me 10 make mlny irnp. . . . . vetnClllI and 10 <Xn. a:t ocveralilupid blunders.
During. year 'pent in Paris I WaJ furtun. . tc in being able to
, O. W. ! ul. 'Lei"""". . . in Dich. u"<<n', D. u W. . . . _ , l. eipoir, '906,pp? '5. -. 8. ?
"
? Prifoce
mee' many friuds and acquaintanceo ofJOYC~. I am ~ally indebted to MUs Sylvia Beach, Mr. ;. Maria Jolas, l. ueie Nod (Mr. ;. Paul Uon), and Mr. Stuart Gilbert, for their hospitality ~nd stimulating convenation. In u. mdon I wa. privileged to meel and become intimate with I""only manJ oyce ever . . ,. ,ms to have treated aa a real friend-M r. Frank Budgen, who in h;" wise maturity has consnved all the enthusiaam and ehul- lienO' of youth. I have been greatly helped by Mr. Budgen'.
perceptive comrru:nt. and by u. . , large body offactual informa_ tkm whiclt he WaS able to give me.
Atn(lng nther Joyce critics who have given me valuable advice and encouragement I must mention particularly M=n. l 1>om. . . E. Connolly, David Daich. . , Nathan Halper, Fred H. Higginson, J. Mitchell Morse, Geo~ Paimer, Thornton
Wilder, and Lawrence A. Wiggin. Essential documentary am. tance wM given m e by MiM Anna RUMell of the Lockwood Memorial Library, Buffalo, Mr . M. Pollard, Assistant Librarian at Archbishop Manh's Library, Dublin, and Mr. D. . mond
Kennedy, Mistant Librarian of the National Library of Ireland. My brother_in_law, Mr. ]. A. L. Watson, gave :w;"tance which saved me hours ofworl< and anxiety.
r am grateful to the University of We. o;tern Awlralia for it, grant of a Hackett Studenuhip which made the writing of thi. work po""ible.
Finally, I mwl offer my warmest thank, to Mr. M. J. C. Hodgarl of Pembroke College, Cambridge, for hi. con"ant
friendship, for his unfailing willingness to put hi, wide know- ledge of all Joycun matten at my diopos. al, and above all for
the Itimnlu. of hi. ever_fem approach to the moat intractable pmb1cm~ ofJoyce scholar. ;hip.
C. H.
? CHAPTER ONE SOME ASPECTS OF
FINNEGANS WAKE
I : NEW IRISH STEW (190. 09)
'F our fa. cinating best-,eIlers brilliantly edited and oon_ domed fuc Y{JUc gceater enjoyment, and all bound together in one luxurio'lJ vOlume. ' So ruru a recent ad""IIuemeot for a collection <>f 'conden",d boob', but it also doc. ""ry wdl as a descriptioo ofFiltlltgaM Wake, unle. . fouc be
too Iowa figure, F. ven the word 'lxst-oeUers' is not "" wide of {he mack as it would have be<':n a few yean ago. The novd of which Mc. J. I. M. Stewart ha. written: 'it is in the main a dOled book even to m""t pe. . . . . m of sub,tantial literary c ulti_ vation" has recently be<':n is,ued in a low_priced paperbound edition of ~o,ooo oopies, and I am wld that a further prinling U already proje<:ted.
It may be that the number and variety of the 't:t>nden,ed boob' oontained in FilllllllaM Wah accounts for the growing popularity of what must by any estimate be a(<:<>onted an extremely difficult work w penetrate, for once . . hrcu-thT"()ugh h", bun achieved, the reader can find in it, according to taste, a hi'llory of Ireland, a survey of English literature, a universal mythology, a naturali,{ic novd, an autohiography of J ames Augustine . /oyu, a . ummary c"'<nO- logy. 'Whether this impr. . . as intriguing, pretentious, annnying, repellent, beautiful, dull or brilliant, aU must age<< that FinlltgaM Wakt is a quite ",,{raordinarily rich production. J oyce claimed to have diooovcred that he oould do anything with language,' but e""" more imprcoeive than hi, undoubted
'J. I. M. s,. ,. . ,. rt,J_fl1<',I~, '%7,p. ]). , Gi=. . p. I'.
'3
? Srmu ASPldS ofFiFllllgoIU Wah
lioguiltic nopuity was his re. . . . . . . hble 1""""'" 10 adapt and
integrate literally any raw material th. o. t came 10 h. o. nd. Nothing wa. reje<:r. ed. Deletions in tm ~{SS are minimal; additioru abound. Joyce', devdopment al . . writer;" characteri. . ed by a conlinuo\1l and rapid movement away from paradigmatic art - Ihe lelection and recreation of a typical and powerfully symbolic unit ofexperiellCe which illuminates thingl far beyond Ihe bounds <>fits own COnttJCt (Ihat i. . the technique which he
caLLed the 'epiph. o. ny')---40wards lhe all_ind~'? e art offill/lt,. . 1I'd:. whet<:, irutcad ofchoosing tm most lypi. . . . l and ilium;n. atins cx. ample of a theme, he attempted 10 pt'CStnt e'o"ffy con<<ivable trope. In hil later yean Joytt . . ,. ,~ to haV<) adopted ILl Jill mollO Voll. aire', ~radox thaI tk superfluous iJ a very necessary thing. Caution and lilrrary :lSCClicqm were abandoned and the utmost rkhneu was allowed to repla~ the mOil 'ICrupulow meann. . . '. If Fi/lJt"ml. l W. . . . . can be contained within anyone artistic modc, it mUll be the baroque; the great Ihema of dealh and resurrection, pn and redemption, are ft"OOtIlded into finn cytHc oudina, while rnasaa of omate particuLan-a closely WOVI":fI network of moti& and symbo'-
define, dewlop and embellish lhae lhem. at. ic abslnLctions.
The teruion inherent in Joyte'. UR of tile baroque mode, an interplay betw~n c1auicism and rontantici$m, between the limplicily Dr h;" themes and the ex~mc compbcily of ,heir development, i. reflected in the remarkable and ofien u""table
duality of an? for? art'. -sakc ,. nd penonal confeSlion in Hn. . . ,~1tS Wd-t. The critics have alWII. YS been a1o. . " to appreciate the U"U~ quality of the penonal conlenl in J oyce. work. . . . . . . . fact which
has led to a . . ,rious nWundenWlding of the fundamental
double? talk inherenl in his rymbolic language. Yel,
h<<n misunderstanding, Joyce " hinuelfvery largcly to blame. H. obscwm his own position- no doubt intentiooaily-- by his <:<>rutant championing ofallihat WOUI nol cbauvini. nic in litera. ture. by Jill interest in late nioetetnlh CtnlUry fiamhoyanl, decorative style, and by m. a. king Stephen propound a KIf? sufficient aesthelic in A I'liI"lI"ml. Joyet'S position has been obecured htcause tllt:oc U\lu. . nca Ita"" oftl":fl h << n thought the
'f
if
~ Iw
? Some Asp<<ts '? /Finntgans Wake
,(. . ndard. by which w. . m. . y bat judge. hU work. The great",( fallacy of all h. . . ~ en the asoumption that hU theories never changed, that he always thought in tcTTIU of 'lyric, epic, and dramatic', '~piphanies', 'th~ thing well made. It h. . . variously hc<:n , upp""'d that, in J oycean terms, A P",/Tail i. lyric, tflyms epic, andFinntg. vu Waktdramatic,or that all thre~ arc dramatic, that Fj""'gaIU Wak. mark! an unfortunate return to the lyric manner, and 50 on- the three booh pr"viding a plamihle houi_ for neat tripartite IIChcm. ,. . . . . . "nd y<:t therc i. ! no evi&nce that by the time he W aJ writing A Portrail Joyce held the vicw. ascribed 10 Stephen, that he held ,uch view; in later maturity or, more importAnt, that he oonsiderffi. hi. ! vario". book! aJ forming any ,ort of "esthetic progress at all. T he", is, on the contrary, mud, evidence to mggcst that Joyce wa> n"""r ",ri? oudy intere,ted in anything other than the book on which he wa. engaged at the moment and that once he bad completffi. a work he ceased thinling about it and even di. liked it. He alm"'t prevented the publication of Chamh", Musil,' and Mrs. Maria J ola! tell! me that while he WaJ busy with P;""'gans W~h Joyce grew v"ry umympa,hetic to what he had done in Ulyn. . and talkd about the book with considerable dist""tc: 'Ulyss. . ? Chef Who wrote ulysStsr
Joyce', works are all in the nam", of self. purgations. Mr. Ellmann', detailed biography h"" no! only emphasised that
e""rytbing in Joyce'. boob, down to the smallest matters of detail, is drawn di=tly from his pcrr. onal experience, but has also ",,,,,aIffi. to what a remarkable extent those boob a", the tJIpr""ion of a scmibility haunted by emotional conflicts ",. quiring the most powerful . ymbolic exorcism. This penonal- often uncomfortably pcrr. onal-art w"" the only kind Joyce could c",ate or un&rstand, and, "" hi. lel1ers and the panially serio", thcory of HamUt ",veal, he Wa. 'l never able to accept that the method of Olher artist! could be anytbing bUl aUlobio- graphical. As roon a> lhe pcrsonal tJIpcrience had hc<:n exter? naliud by commiuaI to papcr and by the open confession in the market. place wruch publication ",presented, the dri"". and
, EIlmann, 1'_ ' 70-
'5
? SonuAsjJ<<tstifFinnegaru Wake
conflicts temporarily evaporated and intereot tfusolved. Joyce, a little muocbistic, inclined to "" mal perversion, and in exile from a homeland he both loved and d. . pUed, could, ofcourse, never rid hi"""lffor long of his deep-seated emotional conflicts, but whenever the need for arrutic purgation arue again, fre,h techniqu. . were neceMarY; the ume magic could not ~ made to work twice. On each occasion a more potent exorcism was called for, involving greater complexity, more difficult Iahy- riot'" from whicb to =ape, and, above all, the objectification and rationalisation of more and more personal involvement.
Hi. imaginary, God-like arti:ol was placed 'within Or ~hind Or ~yond or above his handiwork, invisible, rdined out of exiSlence, indiflerent, paring hi. ! fingunaih' (AP 245), but Ihi. welt known Dcdalism by no means repr=ntsJoyce'. own pooition. Far from indifferent, he was possened by an alm. . . t paranoid need to anlwer bad; he mUIt altad and utirise in his highly . ublimated way not only the penonal slights of indi_ viduah hut abo Ihe personal and impersonal ilightsofthe world at large, fur Joyce was nevu content, as ",me have thought and as he liked to pretend, mudy to justifY the Arti,,'.
Ir- ,. "
Pu'"",
'-" w" ,- w"'
,
~
literary Itumol;" is surprisingly inadequate, 10 that I ha. ve found it neceuary to introduce my special discussion ofJOYce's motifs
(Chapter &ven) by a vcry briefoutline of the geMral tlu:ory of the devke. The bulk of the concbuions are baled on my Own reading of ~nn, Prou,t, Pound, ~nd other exponents of the /tiIRIDtil! , but I have gained a great deal ofinsight and stimula_ t i o n f r o m O s h r W a l z e 1 ' , D r u IV(If/kun. stweri, O r . R o b e r t
'9
? i'rtjafe
Pe. cock',0. . u~ HiT~M_andF. . K,Brown', nJlA- i. o tbN. n. AD initial difficulty wat the lack oru -s. eed . system 0{ terminology. Throughout this work I adb_ COR- ,iMently 10 "" td "'" terminological m llw:ntion which it would be . . wclI 10 ru! DIILal'ioe hero. The: . . . . . ro. 'kibnilti8' (or, man: simply, 'motif') is wed 10 designlle . . ,bon vcrhaJ conStrucl,
charactcrioed by certain easily recognisable pUtcrru uf rhyth"" IIOUnd, f<. >rm and, oomctimes, sense. TI,e IItmw are the m'\ior narrative and allegorical clementi of the book, such u 'Eating
the God', 'hom<Jllel<ua! ity', 'ritual murder'. A third category or rccum:nt material is m nn itllted by such bighly charged I)'mbob as tn, the U'tt, tbe mnben. . . These an: . . . . . a1ly quite d_Iy awri. . cd with the themca and motiD, and baw: themselves frequently hct;n called 'motifi'. O$b. r Walzel "'Xu. . teiy dc? scribed them u l#i~ti. uIiu:MS",. ,iI4k' bill, sin"" virtually every image . . . . d oymbol in Fi~",,1llU 1V. d. fUDerio. . . 'hil""'tWUlkaii)l', the qualification i, redundant ami I [lrd? ? W cal! tI'em limply Sftrllml.
During more than five ye. . 1"1 ofJoyce ItuWes I bave ma. de many valuable friendships antOO( . he do7. c. . . ofpcople actively engaged in work on the ~me fic,ld. A fat file of hundred. of letten <Cttivcd limn tbre. e 611t. . :l_ J OYCC:Ofl3-Mn. Adaline
GIash<<11 of Fumingtou, Connecticut, Mr. J. S. AthertQn of Wigan, and Mr. Frit>: Senn ofZQrich-1aa been a better IOUra: of cnlightalment to me than hu any publiohed work on Fi~""atU Iliah-. Mr. Serm in particular---a remarkably aCUle
reader of the book_ has been a patient any in the ,low work of analysing Joyce's patternl of motif and Iymbol; the Ind"" of MOlifl in Aj'l'endix A OwCl much of il\ bulk to the: many houn
thai Mr. Senn devoted 10 it.
My ,,? ;re', wide general knowledge, and he-. percipienl
~ading both of thu book and ofFUt-l"'" IV", ha~ allbled me 10 make mlny irnp. . . . . vetnClllI and 10 <Xn. a:t ocveralilupid blunders.
During. year 'pent in Paris I WaJ furtun. . tc in being able to
, O. W. ! ul. 'Lei"""". . . in Dich. u"<<n', D. u W. . . . _ , l. eipoir, '906,pp? '5. -. 8. ?
"
? Prifoce
mee' many friuds and acquaintanceo ofJOYC~. I am ~ally indebted to MUs Sylvia Beach, Mr. ;. Maria Jolas, l. ueie Nod (Mr. ;. Paul Uon), and Mr. Stuart Gilbert, for their hospitality ~nd stimulating convenation. In u. mdon I wa. privileged to meel and become intimate with I""only manJ oyce ever . . ,. ,ms to have treated aa a real friend-M r. Frank Budgen, who in h;" wise maturity has consnved all the enthusiaam and ehul- lienO' of youth. I have been greatly helped by Mr. Budgen'.
perceptive comrru:nt. and by u. . , large body offactual informa_ tkm whiclt he WaS able to give me.
Atn(lng nther Joyce critics who have given me valuable advice and encouragement I must mention particularly M=n. l 1>om. . . E. Connolly, David Daich. . , Nathan Halper, Fred H. Higginson, J. Mitchell Morse, Geo~ Paimer, Thornton
Wilder, and Lawrence A. Wiggin. Essential documentary am. tance wM given m e by MiM Anna RUMell of the Lockwood Memorial Library, Buffalo, Mr . M. Pollard, Assistant Librarian at Archbishop Manh's Library, Dublin, and Mr. D. . mond
Kennedy, Mistant Librarian of the National Library of Ireland. My brother_in_law, Mr. ]. A. L. Watson, gave :w;"tance which saved me hours ofworl< and anxiety.
r am grateful to the University of We. o;tern Awlralia for it, grant of a Hackett Studenuhip which made the writing of thi. work po""ible.
Finally, I mwl offer my warmest thank, to Mr. M. J. C. Hodgarl of Pembroke College, Cambridge, for hi. con"ant
friendship, for his unfailing willingness to put hi, wide know- ledge of all Joycun matten at my diopos. al, and above all for
the Itimnlu. of hi. ever_fem approach to the moat intractable pmb1cm~ ofJoyce scholar. ;hip.
C. H.
? CHAPTER ONE SOME ASPECTS OF
FINNEGANS WAKE
I : NEW IRISH STEW (190. 09)
'F our fa. cinating best-,eIlers brilliantly edited and oon_ domed fuc Y{JUc gceater enjoyment, and all bound together in one luxurio'lJ vOlume. ' So ruru a recent ad""IIuemeot for a collection <>f 'conden",d boob', but it also doc. ""ry wdl as a descriptioo ofFiltlltgaM Wake, unle. . fouc be
too Iowa figure, F. ven the word 'lxst-oeUers' is not "" wide of {he mack as it would have be<':n a few yean ago. The novd of which Mc. J. I. M. Stewart ha. written: 'it is in the main a dOled book even to m""t pe. . . . . m of sub,tantial literary c ulti_ vation" has recently be<':n is,ued in a low_priced paperbound edition of ~o,ooo oopies, and I am wld that a further prinling U already proje<:ted.
It may be that the number and variety of the 't:t>nden,ed boob' oontained in FilllllllaM Wah accounts for the growing popularity of what must by any estimate be a(<:<>onted an extremely difficult work w penetrate, for once . . hrcu-thT"()ugh h", bun achieved, the reader can find in it, according to taste, a hi'llory of Ireland, a survey of English literature, a universal mythology, a naturali,{ic novd, an autohiography of J ames Augustine . /oyu, a . ummary c"'<nO- logy. 'Whether this impr. . . as intriguing, pretentious, annnying, repellent, beautiful, dull or brilliant, aU must age<< that FinlltgaM Wakt is a quite ",,{raordinarily rich production. J oyce claimed to have diooovcred that he oould do anything with language,' but e""" more imprcoeive than hi, undoubted
'J. I. M. s,. ,. . ,. rt,J_fl1<',I~, '%7,p. ]). , Gi=. . p. I'.
'3
? Srmu ASPldS ofFiFllllgoIU Wah
lioguiltic nopuity was his re. . . . . . . hble 1""""'" 10 adapt and
integrate literally any raw material th. o. t came 10 h. o. nd. Nothing wa. reje<:r. ed. Deletions in tm ~{SS are minimal; additioru abound. Joyce', devdopment al . . writer;" characteri. . ed by a conlinuo\1l and rapid movement away from paradigmatic art - Ihe lelection and recreation of a typical and powerfully symbolic unit ofexperiellCe which illuminates thingl far beyond Ihe bounds <>fits own COnttJCt (Ihat i. . the technique which he
caLLed the 'epiph. o. ny')---40wards lhe all_ind~'? e art offill/lt,. . 1I'd:. whet<:, irutcad ofchoosing tm most lypi. . . . l and ilium;n. atins cx. ample of a theme, he attempted 10 pt'CStnt e'o"ffy con<<ivable trope. In hil later yean Joytt . . ,. ,~ to haV<) adopted ILl Jill mollO Voll. aire', ~radox thaI tk superfluous iJ a very necessary thing. Caution and lilrrary :lSCClicqm were abandoned and the utmost rkhneu was allowed to repla~ the mOil 'ICrupulow meann. . . '. If Fi/lJt"ml. l W. . . . . can be contained within anyone artistic modc, it mUll be the baroque; the great Ihema of dealh and resurrection, pn and redemption, are ft"OOtIlded into finn cytHc oudina, while rnasaa of omate particuLan-a closely WOVI":fI network of moti& and symbo'-
define, dewlop and embellish lhae lhem. at. ic abslnLctions.
The teruion inherent in Joyte'. UR of tile baroque mode, an interplay betw~n c1auicism and rontantici$m, between the limplicily Dr h;" themes and the ex~mc compbcily of ,heir development, i. reflected in the remarkable and ofien u""table
duality of an? for? art'. -sakc ,. nd penonal confeSlion in Hn. . . ,~1tS Wd-t. The critics have alWII. YS been a1o. . " to appreciate the U"U~ quality of the penonal conlenl in J oyce. work. . . . . . . . fact which
has led to a . . ,rious nWundenWlding of the fundamental
double? talk inherenl in his rymbolic language. Yel,
h<<n misunderstanding, Joyce " hinuelfvery largcly to blame. H. obscwm his own position- no doubt intentiooaily-- by his <:<>rutant championing ofallihat WOUI nol cbauvini. nic in litera. ture. by Jill interest in late nioetetnlh CtnlUry fiamhoyanl, decorative style, and by m. a. king Stephen propound a KIf? sufficient aesthelic in A I'liI"lI"ml. Joyet'S position has been obecured htcause tllt:oc U\lu. . nca Ita"" oftl":fl h << n thought the
'f
if
~ Iw
? Some Asp<<ts '? /Finntgans Wake
,(. . ndard. by which w. . m. . y bat judge. hU work. The great",( fallacy of all h. . . ~ en the asoumption that hU theories never changed, that he always thought in tcTTIU of 'lyric, epic, and dramatic', '~piphanies', 'th~ thing well made. It h. . . variously hc<:n , upp""'d that, in J oycean terms, A P",/Tail i. lyric, tflyms epic, andFinntg. vu Waktdramatic,or that all thre~ arc dramatic, that Fj""'gaIU Wak. mark! an unfortunate return to the lyric manner, and 50 on- the three booh pr"viding a plamihle houi_ for neat tripartite IIChcm. ,. . . . . . "nd y<:t therc i. ! no evi&nce that by the time he W aJ writing A Portrail Joyce held the vicw. ascribed 10 Stephen, that he held ,uch view; in later maturity or, more importAnt, that he oonsiderffi. hi. ! vario". book! aJ forming any ,ort of "esthetic progress at all. T he", is, on the contrary, mud, evidence to mggcst that Joyce wa> n"""r ",ri? oudy intere,ted in anything other than the book on which he wa. engaged at the moment and that once he bad completffi. a work he ceased thinling about it and even di. liked it. He alm"'t prevented the publication of Chamh", Musil,' and Mrs. Maria J ola! tell! me that while he WaJ busy with P;""'gans W~h Joyce grew v"ry umympa,hetic to what he had done in Ulyn. . and talkd about the book with considerable dist""tc: 'Ulyss. . ? Chef Who wrote ulysStsr
Joyce', works are all in the nam", of self. purgations. Mr. Ellmann', detailed biography h"" no! only emphasised that
e""rytbing in Joyce'. boob, down to the smallest matters of detail, is drawn di=tly from his pcrr. onal experience, but has also ",,,,,aIffi. to what a remarkable extent those boob a", the tJIpr""ion of a scmibility haunted by emotional conflicts ",. quiring the most powerful . ymbolic exorcism. This penonal- often uncomfortably pcrr. onal-art w"" the only kind Joyce could c",ate or un&rstand, and, "" hi. lel1ers and the panially serio", thcory of HamUt ",veal, he Wa. 'l never able to accept that the method of Olher artist! could be anytbing bUl aUlobio- graphical. As roon a> lhe pcrsonal tJIpcrience had hc<:n exter? naliud by commiuaI to papcr and by the open confession in the market. place wruch publication ",presented, the dri"". and
, EIlmann, 1'_ ' 70-
'5
? SonuAsjJ<<tstifFinnegaru Wake
conflicts temporarily evaporated and intereot tfusolved. Joyce, a little muocbistic, inclined to "" mal perversion, and in exile from a homeland he both loved and d. . pUed, could, ofcourse, never rid hi"""lffor long of his deep-seated emotional conflicts, but whenever the need for arrutic purgation arue again, fre,h techniqu. . were neceMarY; the ume magic could not ~ made to work twice. On each occasion a more potent exorcism was called for, involving greater complexity, more difficult Iahy- riot'" from whicb to =ape, and, above all, the objectification and rationalisation of more and more personal involvement.
Hi. imaginary, God-like arti:ol was placed 'within Or ~hind Or ~yond or above his handiwork, invisible, rdined out of exiSlence, indiflerent, paring hi. ! fingunaih' (AP 245), but Ihi. welt known Dcdalism by no means repr=ntsJoyce'. own pooition. Far from indifferent, he was possened by an alm. . . t paranoid need to anlwer bad; he mUIt altad and utirise in his highly . ublimated way not only the penonal slights of indi_ viduah hut abo Ihe personal and impersonal ilightsofthe world at large, fur Joyce was nevu content, as ",me have thought and as he liked to pretend, mudy to justifY the Arti,,'.
