arc nor
Crltitled
to claim d~eriva_
tion from ?
tion from ?
McHugh-Roland-1976-The-Sigla-of-Finnegans-Wake
Hunp 1')01).
'29.
The Magrath Mystery 1)1
? 132 Th. Siila of f<imugalU Wak.
and Fin~, forbiddina: C to ell! the ""urce of wisdom, are in . . similar """ition to God forbiddina: Adam 10 eat of the fruit. In each version,COIIIumption ofthe prohihiIed object I. . . w. . to a com- p,. . ,hension of the reason for the prohibition. At this point tams such. s 'good' and 'evil' change their meaning. When Cleams to make distinctions he begina to recognize in him. elf the guilt and
glory which he s. aw in lhe d. funct rn, and 10 he proceed. il a:tows bigger and bilOi"r unlil it brings him to a . imila. fate. The mY"ery ",peau itstlf.
? Chapter IO
The SigJa Approach to Finnegans Wake Exegesis
Sigla H t to ~ found on the printed page of FW, for ; 0 0 = at 299. 1'. :
The Doodles family, m, A, -I, )(, [], A, r:. Hoodl. doodle, tam. ?
Elocwhore lheir form1 are alluded to, often grotesquely. The mOot prominent al1u. ions d<:tive from I list in VLB. 8:'
VUl8. I4S:
,0$6:
)( croos('()ad. ah. . . d m village?
. . . . . sback
bridge over stream
(119_28-9) (I [9. 27) (084. 03) (1I9. 28? )
141:
A
I:
T
. l.
Il
P
hiUQ<1r.
Cui de . . c
de><<1 wallend
of a graveyard
delli. , pyramid pIImycool<
carryh" on hi'
~ brain pan a mas. olloveidly
girllyingon causeway Iarift with one leg hu~enward,iacing h. rs~ workh<:>u$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.
The Magrath Mystery 1)1
? 132 Th. Siila of f<imugalU Wak.
and Fin~, forbiddina: C to ell! the ""urce of wisdom, are in . . similar """ition to God forbiddina: Adam 10 eat of the fruit. In each version,COIIIumption ofthe prohihiIed object I. . . w. . to a com- p,. . ,hension of the reason for the prohibition. At this point tams such. s 'good' and 'evil' change their meaning. When Cleams to make distinctions he begina to recognize in him. elf the guilt and
glory which he s. aw in lhe d. funct rn, and 10 he proceed. il a:tows bigger and bilOi"r unlil it brings him to a . imila. fate. The mY"ery ",peau itstlf.
? Chapter IO
The SigJa Approach to Finnegans Wake Exegesis
Sigla H t to ~ found on the printed page of FW, for ; 0 0 = at 299. 1'. :
The Doodles family, m, A, -I, )(, [], A, r:. Hoodl. doodle, tam. ?
Elocwhore lheir form1 are alluded to, often grotesquely. The mOot prominent al1u. ions d<:tive from I list in VLB. 8:'
VUl8. I4S:
,0$6:
)( croos('()ad. ah. . . d m village?
. . . . . sback
bridge over stream
(119_28-9) (I [9. 27) (084. 03) (1I9. 28? )
141:
A
I:
T
. l.
Il
P
hiUQ<1r.
Cui de . . c
de><<1 wallend
of a graveyard
delli. , pyramid pIImycool<
carryh" on hi'
~ brain pan a mas. olloveidly
girllyingon causeway Iarift with one leg hu~enward,iacing h. rs~ workh<:>u$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.
