the 'family gibbtt',
oonfounded
with A, the 'p<>thooJ<'.
McHugh-Roland-1976-The-Sigla-of-Finnegans-Wake
.
.
.
ures are aI.
o prominent.
This il the insidiou.
serpentine sod Loki in Norse mYlb.
Saunder- son at 2~1.
09 possesses 'his lokistrol<i'.
? In the great conflict ofthe god. and the gianla Loki wa1! a hybrid, able It> convene with both parties. But he was ultilIll1tely evil. 'When the god. were reduced IO the rank of demons by the intro_
duction of Christianity, Loki wu confounded with Samm, who had allO been shorn of hi$ divine atttibutes, and both wert con? . ide",d 'he prolmypt of S,":"n. ''' If CLa. sical mytholngy il ",. quired of FW we mU! t make Sa,urn S, Jupitec m and Men:ury <
Loki is impOnant for FW in connection with Balder's death and aloo with the Sigurd legend. The murder of the , lorioU! and adu? lated Balder by hi. dark, blind bro<her Hother 1001<$ like a . imple
Ale conflict but for the fact that i, wu arranged by Loki. Vf. ll. ~8. 41 has:
'-0>; balder A
Howev<:r, it il impossible It> raise the i. . . . ue wid",u, invoking 1"1u Gold. ~ llowgh: tbe mistletoe murdec become! ! the patricide of 11. 3, Balderbecome. m and we ,,'" obliged to regard LoIti as
<
The Sigurd legend il m o tt compl"". S2S. f()-Sl6. 0l $ << m ' It> "'fleet the cap,ure by Loki of'he dwuf Andvar;, e;,bec aa a pike (lisox lucius) or a . . Imon (Sa/mo sp. ). Loki compel. Andvari to yield hi. t",asure, which he then p. . . . . 10 Hreidmarr, king of the dwarfs, in compenMtion for the murder of one of hi. three sons. The tr. . . sure, howev<:r, includes a ring which convey. a CUt"1e, thu leach '0 Hreidmarr'. murder by hi, $0<1 Region and the . ub? a<<jucnt ""pulsion of Reginn by the "'lIlI1ining 50n Fafnir, who cI. . allj"" himselfinto I dragon and broods over the tr. . . . u"'. Even- tua! lyReginn ",turn. with Sigurd, whom he has pe"",ded to kill the dragon. Having done so, Sigurd is roo. stillj the dragon's heart for Region to COI1$ume when he inadvertently burO$ hi, fingt;c. Sucking;t '0 eaSt: the pain he suddenly ""'luices wiod<>m, . . . . ali>. . . that Regin. . means to kill him, and ,hen kil ls Reg;nn and eats the
= t of the hean.
The taller porlion of Ihi. story paraBels the legend of Finn and
the Salmon ofWi,dont. Finn wu to kill and cook the Salmon for Finn~, but burned hi. thumb, . ucked it, and became wise, with . imi! ar CQn' equcnces. I'rom Ihe FW standpOint the acquisilion of w;"dom appelt"1 to convert C. into m: the dead fish will be the oldm andtheconsumerofit? ? ubslance the new one. Now ReiPnn
"R A. c_" """. . . of,,. . N"", '" (l. oDOOtI. 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_ $I'&llIlyd,ft"trm? ? andthai? level exi. . . wllere Ihi.
? In the great conflict ofthe god. and the gianla Loki wa1! a hybrid, able It> convene with both parties. But he was ultilIll1tely evil. 'When the god. were reduced IO the rank of demons by the intro_
duction of Christianity, Loki wu confounded with Samm, who had allO been shorn of hi$ divine atttibutes, and both wert con? . ide",d 'he prolmypt of S,":"n. ''' If CLa. sical mytholngy il ",. quired of FW we mU! t make Sa,urn S, Jupitec m and Men:ury <
Loki is impOnant for FW in connection with Balder's death and aloo with the Sigurd legend. The murder of the , lorioU! and adu? lated Balder by hi. dark, blind bro<her Hother 1001<$ like a . imple
Ale conflict but for the fact that i, wu arranged by Loki. Vf. ll. ~8. 41 has:
'-0>; balder A
Howev<:r, it il impossible It> raise the i. . . . ue wid",u, invoking 1"1u Gold. ~ llowgh: tbe mistletoe murdec become! ! the patricide of 11. 3, Balderbecome. m and we ,,'" obliged to regard LoIti as
<
The Sigurd legend il m o tt compl"". S2S. f()-Sl6. 0l $ << m ' It> "'fleet the cap,ure by Loki of'he dwuf Andvar;, e;,bec aa a pike (lisox lucius) or a . . Imon (Sa/mo sp. ). Loki compel. Andvari to yield hi. t",asure, which he then p. . . . . 10 Hreidmarr, king of the dwarfs, in compenMtion for the murder of one of hi. three sons. The tr. . . sure, howev<:r, includes a ring which convey. a CUt"1e, thu leach '0 Hreidmarr'. murder by hi, $0<1 Region and the . ub? a<<jucnt ""pulsion of Reginn by the "'lIlI1ining 50n Fafnir, who cI. . allj"" himselfinto I dragon and broods over the tr. . . . u"'. Even- tua! lyReginn ",turn. with Sigurd, whom he has pe"",ded to kill the dragon. Having done so, Sigurd is roo. stillj the dragon's heart for Region to COI1$ume when he inadvertently burO$ hi, fingt;c. Sucking;t '0 eaSt: the pain he suddenly ""'luices wiod<>m, . . . . ali>. . . that Regin. . means to kill him, and ,hen kil ls Reg;nn and eats the
= t of the hean.
The taller porlion of Ihi. story paraBels the legend of Finn and
the Salmon ofWi,dont. Finn wu to kill and cook the Salmon for Finn~, but burned hi. thumb, . ucked it, and became wise, with . imi! ar CQn' equcnces. I'rom Ihe FW standpOint the acquisilion of w;"dom appelt"1 to convert C. into m: the dead fish will be the oldm andtheconsumerofit? ? ubslance the new one. Now ReiPnn
"R A. c_" """. . . of,,. . N"", '" (l. oDOOtI. 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.
