can hardly claim that they possess the power to
disprove
whcn, for in5l11nce, the chara<:ter of the serpe.
McHugh-Roland-1976-The-Sigla-of-Finnegans-Wake
.
d m village?
. . . . . sback
bridge over stream
(119_28-9) (I [9. 27) (084. 03) (1I9. 28? )
141:
A
I:
T
. l.
Il
P
hiUQ<1r.
Cui de . . c
de><<1 wallend
of a graveyard
delli. , pyramid pIImycool<
carryh" on hi'
~ brain pan a mas. olloveidly
girllyingon causeway Iarift with one leg hu~enward,iacing h. rs~ workh<:>u$t
-"'~
cro. . road
a bi. bop lI"ing forth on rogations
(340. 27-8)
,I'ortoftlH. Im. . ~;"my'DnctMUd =toSisJo',AWNVIl. 4(1970), ".
? 1). <1 The Sigla <If Finnegan! WaU
lanming <184-03 we find three pusagc. describing . iglo. The fi. . . t (1 19, 1? -32) il part of the e<>mpendium of extravagances in tbe manu. cript. Having reptodu"",d ,nd qualified m and . . . . the commentary definet C U 'their old fourwheedkr' which mighl ,tandf<lr 'the bucker'. field'. T i. 'a tea anyway fOT a try"' somrthy' and . . . . . 'hU <meoidemi. . ing', It is m her thai the image of a blind alky in a gnlvtyard U applied, n<>1 I: as in the lI(){ebooi<. I "'''peel I: he", i. the 'family gibbtt', oonfounded with A, the 'p<>thooJ<'. In 4&6. 12-34 A beh<>ld. Ihree ",,;on,. al the iru. tiptiQn of X, wbo ploce him in a deep trlnce and apply. magi",l 'au croll. He int~tprets T a. a fia;ure carrying a large plate on il' head. When the relk i. turned 'idew:ay. be. peab quite unequivocally <If -t.
The third visicm appears <In inverting the initial, which oughtt<l give J. . anda pictu'" identical with the se<:<Jnd. But the lurroundin& refet<tlCfl ('tripart;,e', 'adze', 'breastplate') make il clear that A perceives St Patricl<, wbo i. represented in early notebook. by the $iglum P . Possibly the C<ln. ,ructioo. <If the curved poJrri<>n of the
loner i, OU8/leste<! by 'sign it . ,emly, and adze m girdle'.
The mOSt arcane ,dercnct m ,igla is ). <10. 27-30, where Taff is uncertainastowhether'lit. . . . Bi,/wpRih~. p/m1tUfX! 1Iu: pri%. agoi"llfortll on lI"untano", ofmirT<lKe or Miu Horizon,jUfl>(J all ourfan~r dmnriea IItr, on tlu <urw of III. camMr, ImsNalhi/V a ,lwml4ud 1imhaU>f' to ,h. greal <onsternalionr. ' Thi. strikes me as being unintelligible wi,bout VI. B. 8. The equati<ln <If the bishop with P i$ understood only whnt ()11e eum. ines the n<ltebook page. Joyce has drawn tw<> ,hmt straight line, like arms alongside the
curved J><lrri<>n <If the letter, thul' ~
~'i"re S
Presumably thi. looks like a figu", Cllrrying the bibl. in both
hands, gQina- forth. W e may now gnlnt thaI Ihe COlnet imorp"'ta- li(ln <If(fitIin pam ofFW;. absOlutely dependent UpmI J<lYce'. rnanuscripfl' havin& lurvived. Having d<lne . <1we must "pin OUr perspective and inquire OS to bow mu~h of thi$ matorial i, likely 10 be . ignificanl,and how n = r y it i. for the reader to be fami_ liar with it.
A. WalmnLitz. t. a'"'TimeaftertimeinPi_am Wakeoon- 1ul11ti<>n of an carli. . . . draft will . uggesl a nuance or extension (If meaning whic:h, on"", recognized, i. <lbvi<>u,]y lh. . . in the fini. hed
w<lrk:' Th;, sound. good, but the OVertOlles drawn from the
"u. . . oldie Fi . . . _ W"",,, MulU><tip. . ? ,;" ~ 0>t4. flU)', cd. Jock 1'. ! ) a I _ ODd a . . . H a n , 1 0 ' .
? The Sigla Approach 10 Fiomqan. Wake Exegesis 13S
Britioh M UllCuIn m. onus<;. ipts are rarely a su'prillC 10 the experi- enced readcr_In ra<;t most of Joye. . ', scrap paper i, covered with words tramferred unaltered to the evolving 1<0<1. Mr Litz fW"ther indicat. . . that the drafIS enable uS to explain cermin inconsistencies in the final product by dc",'mnrating Ihe growth of misprinIS. But the most effective obtrusion <>CCI. lrs when the m. onU. cripIS in- valid. ,. readings ba~ on SOurces contemporary with FW'. com_ position. For example, if we can show that a certain word w. u added to the text in the t92'" w. arc nor Crltitled to claim d~eriva_
tion from ? book publi. hed in the '9}O$. The reader without
LO m. onuscripIS had best avoid tr""ting poot-Vly. . . . n li,erature
? ? SourCC material for Joye. . .
In reading the Buff. lo Notebook. one acquires a feeling for the
relative gravity of the principal themes of FW, because one observes the amount of notebook space they command. The con- viction that FW i. exclusively dominattd hy . . particular diacipline is very common amongSt exp licatOrs today. Some pe. -. on. experi- e"'"" ? series of mutually contradictory obsessions: perusal of the
"". . boob i. a good . ntidote.
Despite all this I would stress the urgency of p u forming several
basic exegetical task:l; currently ou{Standin&, whi~h I consider of greater importance than further ",udy of the manuscripto. The Italian and Spanish dements in FW arc in iT""t need of a"ention.
Ifth. tt:adcr i. then to ignou the noteboob, how i. he 10 uliliu their sigla in his own meareh?
I consider the adoplion ohigla concepts to be fundamental to the correct appreciation of FW. But beyond reinforcing the im- pression I have given I Iltt1. dubious ? ? to the utility of"""'t note- book entri". W.
can hardly claim that they possess the power to disprove whcn, for in5l11nce, the chara<:ter of the serpe. " i. in different places attributed to S, ~ I: and A . I think the mOOt hope_ ful direction in which to procoed is bad< to the p. inted lext. W e nuy . ubstan! iate and opand on. nouo"" of b<lil. nce and inter- action by referring new diacoveries 10 the sigla . ystem a. repre_ scn. . d in the foregoing.
It is likely to be objected that my technique ,ubsd"'t" ciphe. . for establi. hed lerminology willlout really telling us anything new. Why no! call m Earwickcr, I: Shcm, A Shaun and 110 on,. , Joyce d id in h i! original lettet defining his abbreviations? In many cases
this . . . . "'" reasonable: the nominal approach is however liable to e. . rtain ambiguio" avoidable only by u,ing terms unrelated to any
local point in FW. In? discussing structure there is a ,reat. r need for thi. kind of precision than there is in simply gloo,jog worda.
.
? ? We need 10 ~ especially conscious oflymparny be. . . . . . . ,n ,ilia. I haw for a&mplc lhown that x as nan,"on of boo! < I Ire: ;,,~ f1ue~d in f. vnur of 1\ and;" OJIpoIitiOtl to C, and that th;,
aligJUfleP' is ~. -. ffl in book III. "1k loJiaoI con<:lw;ioo i. that everylim<:Xlren:amcdIho:y_ $I'&llIlyd,ft"trm? ? andthai? level exi. . . wllere Ihi. may alII<> be said of all the other "'il? . MOIl' pcr? IORI. I",m. . . inFWonlyappeua. i1IgIctime:ifthatbercgarMd . . . ""pant,. individualilia t"" ast bc:. . . . . "a cnonnC>UI. .
T his vi"", reprtscnll one 8trtlTlc or a irad;enl. A. rhe other a t r c m e c v c r y p c n o N g e i s r e g a r d e d . . 1 f a c e t o f Iho: c o n s c i o u s n n s of m : t""boo! < then portrays Iho: rtpcrwirc of. soIitaory otcWt".
At a Ilia;h. tly more liberal plane the scheme i. Ihe nighl'l repose: of m and 4 : in dU, world IU nWt:S are aspccu of In, all ftmal"" ? ? pccu of . . Ik'iiccn ! he ",,"<n el one <<. :ogni= . . . riouJ numbert ohill. . . . ' real'. Perhap" tM 1DOIi\ importanl Icvcll<X:epU IDe twelvco questions of 1. 6 as the ablOlule valuct, bul W( thm omit tha. O>OIt u$d"ul liglwn L and arc obligtd 10 tAke ~ and 0 as quite dil1;nct. From I utilitarian viewpoint I ""'Illd lul! iC1' the followlni fourteen . iaJl a. conatilUtina a furtdamanll alphabet for future srudia :
m4CI\-tt-C.
oO ae ? ? K
Admittedly this i,lncomp lete: we lack coavmtions fOI Ihe four_ fold and xv<nfold coodilionl oC -I as . . . ,11 as for the unai,,;6ed nternben of512. 11-513. 31, luch at Magnolh and Father Michael. 'lit arc abo ianorina; other ,Igla bt<:ow;e their mtllnina;1 IttIn oupcrfI""nn, fot eumplc W, mcsnil1l m ISI. cp or dead. 1"her< exill yet O1Mrt whole mylU:ry . tnUlil\ll closed, for eumplc the lalerally in""rtcd pain of F, 10 be encountued at 018. 36, 121. 03, <TJ and :>66. :2. VI. 8,11. 39 has 'F:t (talki"l mgc1hcr)'. Th~rc is abo3,uw:lbym10~"I theCOld. 10)6. '7. Ifthecadis Magrath, ~ COlnlXtitOI and oomplcrnmt of In, tm. might be taket 10 ronIinn his di. lincrioa from In, but the noccbooh hardly IUppon lhe view:
VI. B. ' . IS3' VI. 8. 1'. 45:
rcsinicl" E ,"inim 3
3 Watahov~'1 Clock 3 no PllXr
VI,B. ljl. lh:
Unfortunately, dClpi. e my diffao:ntialion of the 'iata in thi,
? ? I
I
The Sigl. Approach to Finmgan. Wak. E"c~il 137
ao:ount, then: i. no abwlule determinant as 10 what is, or what is not, a ,iglum in lhe manuscript? . Joyce made num<<oua odd sij! :ns and doodle. which miltllI theoretically qualify for inclusion but which do not aosi" our unden;llInding of FW, as far as I am able to judge.
II ,,,,,,ms . . pity to rrail off in rbis ",ay bUI of cou"" (he bJu=d margin is a prediClllble asptt( of Joyce. My object in any <011'" ha, been to i~ua", the acce"ibility of FW to the reader . . . . ther than to dictate rules for ",,"Set. . . Exege. is is nece. . ary, but it presents a danger of distracting from it! ! subject: there is no . ubstitute for direct contact with the text. I muat . 1. 0 observe that to appreciate the book fully one n"",ds to live in Dublin. I earnestly recommend
Finnqan. Wak. ! , as a human e~perience unlike any other.
? Bibliography
Ad. m~, Rob<:rt M. , SurflU' imd I>ymho! : The Co~,i"mcy 0/Jam? ? J(! )Ice'. 'UIy. ",'. O:. ford Univcl'Oity P m . '96z.
Arbo;, de Jub. ain~ill<:, Marie Henri d', lri,}' My,h4loti<<;zi Cych, Ir. R L lkst. Dublin, Gill '903.
Alhcrt()l\, J. S. , Tht Books at ,h. Wak? . London, Fab<:rand Faber 1959?
'SponandGam. . inFinlltl{"mWale'inT_~and"Tilly, cd. Jack P. Dalton.
. . . . . sback
bridge over stream
(119_28-9) (I [9. 27) (084. 03) (1I9. 28? )
141:
A
I:
T
. l.
Il
P
hiUQ<1r.
Cui de . . c
de><<1 wallend
of a graveyard
delli. , pyramid pIImycool<
carryh" on hi'
~ brain pan a mas. olloveidly
girllyingon causeway Iarift with one leg hu~enward,iacing h. rs~ workh<:>u$t
-"'~
cro. . road
a bi. bop lI"ing forth on rogations
(340. 27-8)
,I'ortoftlH. Im. . ~;"my'DnctMUd =toSisJo',AWNVIl. 4(1970), ".
? 1). <1 The Sigla <If Finnegan! WaU
lanming <184-03 we find three pusagc. describing . iglo. The fi. . . t (1 19, 1? -32) il part of the e<>mpendium of extravagances in tbe manu. cript. Having reptodu"",d ,nd qualified m and . . . . the commentary definet C U 'their old fourwheedkr' which mighl ,tandf<lr 'the bucker'. field'. T i. 'a tea anyway fOT a try"' somrthy' and . . . . . 'hU <meoidemi. . ing', It is m her thai the image of a blind alky in a gnlvtyard U applied, n<>1 I: as in the lI(){ebooi<. I "'''peel I: he", i. the 'family gibbtt', oonfounded with A, the 'p<>thooJ<'. In 4&6. 12-34 A beh<>ld. Ihree ",,;on,. al the iru. tiptiQn of X, wbo ploce him in a deep trlnce and apply. magi",l 'au croll. He int~tprets T a. a fia;ure carrying a large plate on il' head. When the relk i. turned 'idew:ay. be. peab quite unequivocally <If -t.
The third visicm appears <In inverting the initial, which oughtt<l give J. . anda pictu'" identical with the se<:<Jnd. But the lurroundin& refet<tlCfl ('tripart;,e', 'adze', 'breastplate') make il clear that A perceives St Patricl<, wbo i. represented in early notebook. by the $iglum P . Possibly the C<ln. ,ructioo. <If the curved poJrri<>n of the
loner i, OU8/leste<! by 'sign it . ,emly, and adze m girdle'.
The mOSt arcane ,dercnct m ,igla is ). <10. 27-30, where Taff is uncertainastowhether'lit. . . . Bi,/wpRih~. p/m1tUfX! 1Iu: pri%. agoi"llfortll on lI"untano", ofmirT<lKe or Miu Horizon,jUfl>(J all ourfan~r dmnriea IItr, on tlu <urw of III. camMr, ImsNalhi/V a ,lwml4ud 1imhaU>f' to ,h. greal <onsternalionr. ' Thi. strikes me as being unintelligible wi,bout VI. B. 8. The equati<ln <If the bishop with P i$ understood only whnt ()11e eum. ines the n<ltebook page. Joyce has drawn tw<> ,hmt straight line, like arms alongside the
curved J><lrri<>n <If the letter, thul' ~
~'i"re S
Presumably thi. looks like a figu", Cllrrying the bibl. in both
hands, gQina- forth. W e may now gnlnt thaI Ihe COlnet imorp"'ta- li(ln <If(fitIin pam ofFW;. absOlutely dependent UpmI J<lYce'. rnanuscripfl' havin& lurvived. Having d<lne . <1we must "pin OUr perspective and inquire OS to bow mu~h of thi$ matorial i, likely 10 be . ignificanl,and how n = r y it i. for the reader to be fami_ liar with it.
A. WalmnLitz. t. a'"'TimeaftertimeinPi_am Wakeoon- 1ul11ti<>n of an carli. . . . draft will . uggesl a nuance or extension (If meaning whic:h, on"", recognized, i. <lbvi<>u,]y lh. . . in the fini. hed
w<lrk:' Th;, sound. good, but the OVertOlles drawn from the
"u. . . oldie Fi . . . _ W"",,, MulU><tip. . ? ,;" ~ 0>t4. flU)', cd. Jock 1'. ! ) a I _ ODd a . . . H a n , 1 0 ' .
? The Sigla Approach 10 Fiomqan. Wake Exegesis 13S
Britioh M UllCuIn m. onus<;. ipts are rarely a su'prillC 10 the experi- enced readcr_In ra<;t most of Joye. . ', scrap paper i, covered with words tramferred unaltered to the evolving 1<0<1. Mr Litz fW"ther indicat. . . that the drafIS enable uS to explain cermin inconsistencies in the final product by dc",'mnrating Ihe growth of misprinIS. But the most effective obtrusion <>CCI. lrs when the m. onU. cripIS in- valid. ,. readings ba~ on SOurces contemporary with FW'. com_ position. For example, if we can show that a certain word w. u added to the text in the t92'" w. arc nor Crltitled to claim d~eriva_
tion from ? book publi. hed in the '9}O$. The reader without
LO m. onuscripIS had best avoid tr""ting poot-Vly. . . . n li,erature
? ? SourCC material for Joye. . .
In reading the Buff. lo Notebook. one acquires a feeling for the
relative gravity of the principal themes of FW, because one observes the amount of notebook space they command. The con- viction that FW i. exclusively dominattd hy . . particular diacipline is very common amongSt exp licatOrs today. Some pe. -. on. experi- e"'"" ? series of mutually contradictory obsessions: perusal of the
"". . boob i. a good . ntidote.
Despite all this I would stress the urgency of p u forming several
basic exegetical task:l; currently ou{Standin&, whi~h I consider of greater importance than further ",udy of the manuscripto. The Italian and Spanish dements in FW arc in iT""t need of a"ention.
Ifth. tt:adcr i. then to ignou the noteboob, how i. he 10 uliliu their sigla in his own meareh?
I consider the adoplion ohigla concepts to be fundamental to the correct appreciation of FW. But beyond reinforcing the im- pression I have given I Iltt1. dubious ? ? to the utility of"""'t note- book entri". W.
can hardly claim that they possess the power to disprove whcn, for in5l11nce, the chara<:ter of the serpe. " i. in different places attributed to S, ~ I: and A . I think the mOOt hope_ ful direction in which to procoed is bad< to the p. inted lext. W e nuy . ubstan! iate and opand on. nouo"" of b<lil. nce and inter- action by referring new diacoveries 10 the sigla . ystem a. repre_ scn. . d in the foregoing.
It is likely to be objected that my technique ,ubsd"'t" ciphe. . for establi. hed lerminology willlout really telling us anything new. Why no! call m Earwickcr, I: Shcm, A Shaun and 110 on,. , Joyce d id in h i! original lettet defining his abbreviations? In many cases
this . . . . "'" reasonable: the nominal approach is however liable to e. . rtain ambiguio" avoidable only by u,ing terms unrelated to any
local point in FW. In? discussing structure there is a ,reat. r need for thi. kind of precision than there is in simply gloo,jog worda.
.
? ? We need 10 ~ especially conscious oflymparny be. . . . . . . ,n ,ilia. I haw for a&mplc lhown that x as nan,"on of boo! < I Ire: ;,,~ f1ue~d in f. vnur of 1\ and;" OJIpoIitiOtl to C, and that th;,
aligJUfleP' is ~. -. ffl in book III. "1k loJiaoI con<:lw;ioo i. that everylim<:Xlren:amcdIho:y_ $I'&llIlyd,ft"trm? ? andthai? level exi. . . wllere Ihi. may alII<> be said of all the other "'il? . MOIl' pcr? IORI. I",m. . . inFWonlyappeua. i1IgIctime:ifthatbercgarMd . . . ""pant,. individualilia t"" ast bc:. . . . . "a cnonnC>UI. .
T his vi"", reprtscnll one 8trtlTlc or a irad;enl. A. rhe other a t r c m e c v c r y p c n o N g e i s r e g a r d e d . . 1 f a c e t o f Iho: c o n s c i o u s n n s of m : t""boo! < then portrays Iho: rtpcrwirc of. soIitaory otcWt".
At a Ilia;h. tly more liberal plane the scheme i. Ihe nighl'l repose: of m and 4 : in dU, world IU nWt:S are aspccu of In, all ftmal"" ? ? pccu of . . Ik'iiccn ! he ",,"<n el one <<. :ogni= . . . riouJ numbert ohill. . . . ' real'. Perhap" tM 1DOIi\ importanl Icvcll<X:epU IDe twelvco questions of 1. 6 as the ablOlule valuct, bul W( thm omit tha. O>OIt u$d"ul liglwn L and arc obligtd 10 tAke ~ and 0 as quite dil1;nct. From I utilitarian viewpoint I ""'Illd lul! iC1' the followlni fourteen . iaJl a. conatilUtina a furtdamanll alphabet for future srudia :
m4CI\-tt-C.
oO ae ? ? K
Admittedly this i,lncomp lete: we lack coavmtions fOI Ihe four_ fold and xv<nfold coodilionl oC -I as . . . ,11 as for the unai,,;6ed nternben of512. 11-513. 31, luch at Magnolh and Father Michael. 'lit arc abo ianorina; other ,Igla bt<:ow;e their mtllnina;1 IttIn oupcrfI""nn, fot eumplc W, mcsnil1l m ISI. cp or dead. 1"her< exill yet O1Mrt whole mylU:ry . tnUlil\ll closed, for eumplc the lalerally in""rtcd pain of F, 10 be encountued at 018. 36, 121. 03, <TJ and :>66. :2. VI. 8,11. 39 has 'F:t (talki"l mgc1hcr)'. Th~rc is abo3,uw:lbym10~"I theCOld. 10)6. '7. Ifthecadis Magrath, ~ COlnlXtitOI and oomplcrnmt of In, tm. might be taket 10 ronIinn his di. lincrioa from In, but the noccbooh hardly IUppon lhe view:
VI. B. ' . IS3' VI. 8. 1'. 45:
rcsinicl" E ,"inim 3
3 Watahov~'1 Clock 3 no PllXr
VI,B. ljl. lh:
Unfortunately, dClpi. e my diffao:ntialion of the 'iata in thi,
? ? I
I
The Sigl. Approach to Finmgan. Wak. E"c~il 137
ao:ount, then: i. no abwlule determinant as 10 what is, or what is not, a ,iglum in lhe manuscript? . Joyce made num<<oua odd sij! :ns and doodle. which miltllI theoretically qualify for inclusion but which do not aosi" our unden;llInding of FW, as far as I am able to judge.
II ,,,,,,ms . . pity to rrail off in rbis ",ay bUI of cou"" (he bJu=d margin is a prediClllble asptt( of Joyce. My object in any <011'" ha, been to i~ua", the acce"ibility of FW to the reader . . . . ther than to dictate rules for ",,"Set. . . Exege. is is nece. . ary, but it presents a danger of distracting from it! ! subject: there is no . ubstitute for direct contact with the text. I muat . 1. 0 observe that to appreciate the book fully one n"",ds to live in Dublin. I earnestly recommend
Finnqan. Wak. ! , as a human e~perience unlike any other.
? Bibliography
Ad. m~, Rob<:rt M. , SurflU' imd I>ymho! : The Co~,i"mcy 0/Jam? ? J(! )Ice'. 'UIy. ",'. O:. ford Univcl'Oity P m . '96z.
Arbo;, de Jub. ain~ill<:, Marie Henri d', lri,}' My,h4loti<<;zi Cych, Ir. R L lkst. Dublin, Gill '903.
Alhcrt()l\, J. S. , Tht Books at ,h. Wak? . London, Fab<:rand Faber 1959?
'SponandGam. . inFinlltl{"mWale'inT_~and"Tilly, cd. Jack P. Dalton.
