No More Learning

The thi,d tableau of 111. 4 te. "m plotting the . . . . tCtllion of hi'
tJi/l. to DUn Uoghai. . . , (Dun Leary), rttWned KinlSlOWll. iJI. honour<JIGmrJe',~mrr. thmtt(5b-35~). Meanwhilein the 00. . . . . . . OOIltr:lccptivelo:tOCCUfl bet_ce" m and . . . . This paIS- a~, wilb its ext""";ve employmen. of ericketina 111",10111, hal
been diacutsed by Mr Athenon. " The rae. that it is conn. oepti~ . ,kll '0 the sterilif)' <JI book I ll : the: fruitful thunderword. hawe
ceased to appear . inee 424-10-n.
m in 1II. 4 j, slightly i uuet. (ve of JlOy~'. father u presented
b y S t a n i s l a u l . " J U l 1 a l i n 1 . 3 ( 0 , I . t 1- 1 5 ) w e f o u n d m t c l l i n l t h r . . little boyo Ihe 'lOry of. " ca,lier m, 00 at 587. 01\ '. hr. . joUy pott- boy,. who Ioave jU! ! tcotrlf: from the Theott<= Royal,emcmber m. eet- illi the d"Clining m in. pub. A praktr of his own polS! , he 1Ii11 drink:oo. he Kina'. bet. llt. , but hi. unbi. ionls arc b. ntered down by
~ of calamitin (589. >>-590. 03). n. e lasl tablc1iu IICCS AI day breab they past in. o the: c:i. . . ,1e of rWw! l6, boot: IV.
?
m and . . in u1tima. e itolarion from the: dream's encumbrances.
. . "" . ,~""*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.