No More Learning

. . "" . ,~""*IfNO. 0-r. . . . (I'71--,G>Itw. . . . "l>> III. ,I.
"'s. ,. . . ,PC! a. m. . . F" '4'"W. . . . . Itt T_-. l. Ti/1J>,<4JadP. 001. . . . oneI0;. . Hart(~_. . . o! '>bot '966). ~1i-4.
. . n. c-w"[)"bI;" lMry? ? d. O. II. fk'l7 (" ! loa, "'? . ? 'DC. Uu. . . . ,. ! <)' rr. . . '91t}, I". . . .
? Chapter 2 C
Coincid"",t,'o OPj>fnI'loru",
The OOIle<:ptof. ",bivalenoe, ofthe cooxis! ence ofir~\ablefl, is utterly fascinating. By brooding upon iI, one comes 10 appre- hend irs psycboiogical ubiquity _ ~udo-Diony';u. considered Ihll' God transcends conl",";e,,' and this diCtum was taken by Nichola. of Cusa a. the besl definilion of divinity : 'yQu mm' regard ,he ttntre and ,he poles as coincident, using the help "f your irnaginatinn a. much u pos. ible. " The idea expanded in the brain ofGiordano Bru"n, who wrote: 'Almo. t all things aro IDJ. de up of opp<l. ites. , . . we shall ever find that one opposite is the "",son t M ! the other opposite plea. es and i. desired. " T h . plX>-
nouncemcnCS of N;';hol. , and Bruno g", used in 163. 15-28: 'Theophil' is Theophiluo, HnIno'. mouthpiece in Illch works as n, Itl <<Iusa, p. ;",;pio ? uno and Cnw tU Ia UHeT;.
FW endeavours 10 encomp? ? ? all ambival= by the wn- struet;"n"faunity,m,whichcanalway' be construed a? ? duality, I: and A. VU1. 16. "'4 h. u '2 in I man /'or:'. The duali'tic appl'Ollch
become,; more frequent in book I and re. ::edes as boo! < III i. tfll- ""roed. The critical point. , the nodes of 1. 4 and 111. 3, are
oepar,ued hy ? region of perpetual enfo. . . :cd arnhivakncc. An app",i. . . ! of th;' <><:= t ubsequently, in hook IV :
So thot when we shall have acquired unification we . holl pass on ,,, divc<1ilYand when we shall have pa. . ed on to diversity we shall have aequired the instinct of combat and when we . haI1 haveacquired the instinCt of c"mba' we dull p. o? ? back Ln me <piriI of appeasement? (6 10. 23-7)
S"" abo 7. . . . ' ,. . f", ? . . ,. . ,. 1 ~ of. ambj"l<n<<.
'Mir<n Eli1dt. n. . Ttro ood ,'" 0 . . . If. J. M. &;. ben (I. ond<>o, H. . . . . m
'96~),
'~.
'OfI? ,uJJr-o_. . . . ",. G. H""",(lAndon,~ "'"K<pnPo",
'9~') IT, Ii. '7. . H~Ii. ,. ". . . ",. ".
I. . w;m. ,,,,(1 _ , Rtdwo. lil1) I, II.
? 28 The Sigla of Fi. . . . qans Walt
The generaliZAtion usually made m upbin 'Shon and S. . . . \IIl' is that Shent, C, i. the artist, Joyce himself, Stephen Dedalus, in- trove~d sensibility, where. . S. . . .
un, A, combine1 the t~itsofhi, ~mi<"1, as tepresented in Uty. . . . , with those of his brother Stanislaus_ This i. a naive ""planation: numerous idiosyncrasies of Joyce may be found, oay, in the A of 111. 2. Moot of the appal"<:nt laws in . . . . W include ! "<:Versals; but w. . . . t we . -. :quil"<: hel"<: al"<: better criteria of distinction.
The origin ofthe nHnes Sbent and Shaun is of limited . . sist- ance. Ric. . . . rd EHmann' Ioays thaI {hey 'were based in pan upon twQ feeble-minded hant! ers-on, Jam. . and John Ford, who lived
in DubHn on the North Strand. They weI"<: known as "Shem and Shaun" and weI"<: famous for their incompl"<:hensible speech and toor . huffling pit. ' Dr Garvin confirms this statement. 0 Hebir connccts the frequent victimization of C with an Irish bias, and the name Shaun, via tbe deriv:ativc s. m. , which mean. English soldier, with an Engli. h one. ' But 'Shaun the ""'t' of liLt is the dassical stage Irishman in Dion Boucicault'. Arrah-",,-Pogue, while Sir Olarles Young'. jim th. P''''''''''' whicb concerns an
F~8lish forger, is, as Mr Atherton shows, . ,ource for 'Shent the Penman' ofI. ,. FW is not an Anglo-Irish allcgmy. The di. . incrion of its protagonists has linle foundation in national alignment, de- . pite the frequent equation of m with Protestant emblem. of usurpation.
Several paired altemativ<"1 become r! XUrrent labels for I: and A. The parable of the sbeep and the JOIIts (Matthew 25 :31-46) is typical: 'And before him shall be pthel"<:d all nations: and he shall sq>llnl. te them one from another, as a . hepherd dividetb his sheep from the goats: And he . hall set the sheep on hi$ right hand, but the goots on the left. ' lbi. becomes more appooite when we know that Syrian sbeep were white and the goata black. Tht: r. \'(Jured shec:p then malch A ('the haves') and the accuned goat! ! I:('the havcnot$'). The dedicationof Blake'. j. . . . . ""/"'" to the . heep and8~U i. probably comprehended herein, for it was Blake who said that wilbout cont~r'" there w:U no Pro&res. sion. We can also visualize the partition of Ireland between the mythical Tuatha IX
Danann and Fomorian. , who embodied the respective powers of light and d. arkneso: TIu Book of rile Dun eo. . credits the Fonwrianowith goat wonhip. In his letter of 30 July t929' Joyce told Valery Larbaud that he was now hopc:l=ly with ~ iO"tS
'JJ, ? >.
? Gt. . . ! o. '1. . "", I, 11? .
? and could only think and write 'capriciOusly'. The traditional por- trayal of the Prince of Darkness as a goat is appropriate to C a- i. sheepishness to "-
Observing the occasional refel"<:flttS to Kierkegaatd and bi. En/tn-Ell" ('EiIM'IO,')a very W<lrkable p",miae arisel. C seems always to be aeolhctically mmivated whereas A is ethically TT1Qli- vated. However, this i. likely to be a consequence of ""rallel thoui tll rather than of influence by K iorlu:a::aard. The earliest all\Ul;':'n to d>< philosopher (kieri<eyaard', ZOI. 3r) waS added in
1928.
Altoough c an(! A are in esoence a! >wlutelY <<lual and opposed,
C is accorded ,,,,ater prominence in book: I and A in book III. In faet m in book I shares SOme of 1:'. trait. and in boot III he shares"""" of A'S. The mosl conspicuous traill a"" in the tint "'IS" m. ol. ,(nism. , in the second. sadism, but these 0'" me", symp_ tom? . 'lbe hook I con. ciousness strives with "". . . ionate intensity for unanainable ideal1 until in 1. 7 it anain. madnes. , whilst that of boot III descends into the Stultifying sanity of urNn mediocrity. Joyce's way of saying thi, i. that I: i, life and A i. death. In physicol terms he repteSCnlS C a. an elm trce, moaning pathetically in the wind, and A . . a srone, pitiless and immobile
as the throne of SI Peter.
I: and A are often briefly OO(iced in pain . 0 poorly delineated
that we. '" unable to decide which brother i, which. T""",\e T om and Fri,i<y Shorty appear in 039. 14- 27 but we are able ro id<ntify
Tom as A only when we read his evidence in the refleetion of S23. z1-5Z$. oS, where he say1 that Shorty i. 'uncommon ,truck
on poplar poetry', and the",f""e 1:, the artist and tree.
1:'0 finl extensive appearance i. . . the "ial of FeSIY Kina: fer outrages apitUI m Fosty King is called 'Crowbar' and 'Meleky' (086. 08). Two m:ojor ingredients in m a", the Irish high kings
Roderick O'Connor and. Brian Boru. Their ",spective SUCCC$O<In Catha] Crobhdhcarg 6 Conooobhair' and Malachy II appear to be the . 0Ur<:el efthese ""mel. Th<: def<ndant is then p",sumably rrr. 1uecc. . or, . . Earwicl<er wal the su<ccuor of Finnegan. But twO p<:~' testify: which is Fosty King? The fir"St witness i. an ear, nose and thr"'"t 1~alist. . . wao Dr Gogarty, the modd for
Mulligan, and theT1:fnre A. He aectI1es Hyacinth O'Donnell, B. A. , a wmdpainter (C), of violent behaviour; but it transpire:! that at th~ l i m e o f tb~ a s a a u l t t h e n i g h t M I l t O O d a r k f o r t h e d o c t o r t o r e -
cognize anyone (087. 33-088. "'! -). He . ubmits evid"",,~ derogating 'ac. , J6.
Cojlridtnrja Oppo';lmum 29
? JO The Sigla of I'innqlDU Wake
. ~. m ,and therefo! "<; implicoteS himsdf. Pegger Festy, evidently 1:, then takes the . tand and emir. 'a loudbur-st of poesy' through an intCTPrettr (CI9I. OI-33). He declare! ! tilat despite the CUt- throat's depositions 'he did not fil"ll' stone either before or after he was born down and up 1() tluit time'. and Ihu he would never ask to sec the light of this or any other world if he (vcr raittd a luind to throw. Slid: or lIODe al anyone. n. ere ore twenty-eight advocatcsscs, 'maidies of the bar' (barmaids, <:>> who after thi. acclaim Aand deride I:on 092 and 093 resptttively, bUI the judges
fail to convict anyone and lapse in{() inane mminatinn. over the intricacies of 'he c. . e. The actual r. . . ponsibility for the uuul' is
discussed below, p. 92. The rest of {,4 oon. . . . ins a . . . . i. . .