07) of
transition
from one world to the next, a .
Hart-Clive-1962-Structure-and-Motif-in-Finnegans-Wake
ge1 5.
~5-590, in which
Earwicker partially wak<:5 up--thatthe flights of erotic fant. . "y and the horron of guilt of hi. dr<:am have been impired by his
feding> fOT his childun'.
Thi, r<:adinl{ can be quickly dismiw:d by an appeal to the
litl:ral narrative, for there is nothing whatever in the text to 1U~,tthat Books I and II are aUTeam of the protagonist whose oleep begi"" at 403. ' ]; my analym of the drum_levels (below) will . how in greatl:r detail how inconsistent is this interpretation with the available evidence.
M r. J oseph Camphell, one of the authors of the Shltlen Kg, holds a somewhat modified view. Although he believ. . F,ar- wicker to be the DTeamer, he doe. not think of Finlltgmu Wakt ". a 'stream of unconsciousness', to me Harry Levin's phr. . "e, hut rather as a kind of ><;holarly running commentary by an anonymous pedant on a dream in progress, interrupted now and then hy personal digressiom, qnerulouo a,id. . , ,nippets from other dream. 'l, and even by an ohjrctive description of the Dreamer momentarily awake in lll+ '
Mrs. Ruth von Phnl, who h,. . treated the dream-situation at greatt:itlength, was the lint to orrer a reasoned argument in favour of the Dreamer', being IQmebody other than Earwicker. She attempt. to,how thatJerry i. the Dreamer, but ha. <. . much of her argument on an inaccurate analrY' of 11l. 4 and on a number of ","umptioJU, all of which _ m \() me to be demon-
. trably wrong. ' T bere is not ,ufficient ' pace here for a detailed 'J. C. mpbell,? Finn. :g. "'hel'ial~', inGiv=,pp. ~t4-5.
, R. von PhoJ, 'Who Sleep<" F<-,,,,,, Woh? ? 110. J. . . . , J"J<' /U",w, vol. I, ,,". '. '95J, pp. 0J""38.
79
? The Drtam-$trvcllde
refutation of MOl. von Phu\'. ICn_page article, but her caac di,appean ifa few ofher most important prtm;"', aTe <li1proved.
Fin! , she holds tha. t:
'Jerry i. the only cbaracl<< in ! he hook 1" minI both ti,e arwt'. i'llight and Ihe almoot eneydopedic learni! ! ! ! , n<:<:dcd to evolve a dream of . \leh fanta&tie richntll"
whereaa botD Mn: and in U/1uu (where Joy<< makes Bloom h. allucinalC a . . . . ,a1th ofmalCrial o? "'hieh he can have no . ,. ,. . _ ociousknowl~) Joyce",dearlyallowingh",Dreamen,whe>- ewrthey may he, todraw on lhe wbole quaoi-Jungiln coHeelive
\lnconociouI for Ihe lullllan"" o? their fantasies. Secood, she, in common with th" aull>on of the SktinIM Kg, makes the odd error of auuming that Jelry ICes hi. ralhee'. erecl;on, whereas
Ihe leI:llpCci&ally ltate/i that neither Iwin optnl his eyes at aU during the Kene in quation:
'The two prine<< of th" {()we:r royal, daulphin and d""'lin, to lie how lhey are without to 0 << . The dame dowager'. duffgerenl
to p"""'nl wappon, blade drawn {() Ihe full and about wh<< 1 without to be IC"Jl ofthe,,,'. (,~66-'9)
The frightened child;. in fact the daughter, oobel (566. ~8 ff), who, when the notie<:l tlte father'. member, becomes aware of 'pc";""'nvy', fearing that her body is intomplete or thai . 1Ie "' an cm;UC\llued boy:
'What have you Iherefore? . . 1 feu lel1 we have lost oun (nOli grant itl) rapc:cting these wildly para'. (566. 30; hobel is convening with her 'looking-glass girl'. )
Th"
i"ltargeac of lifesiglll over early lived offi' (230-26)
wherell in fact nearly every character in Fi. OIlIIUU Wab is depicted u druming al ""me time or othe:r.
, 'WhoSIn". . tF__ w. . r,,,,. a ? s. . " ,06; ,". u. App<ndilI A.
is, of cou""" one of the moot common of inCantile experi- ences. Third, Mn. . von Phul identifies the Donkey thfO\tgh th" motif'Ab bot' which is, bow<:vcr, the chanctcistic sigb not of the Donkey but of the oecond Old Man, Mark. ' Lastly, Mrs. ""n Phul finds it significant that Shern is described as : 'reminiKcnlil""', at bandstand finale O4l"aOO carriero, d! 'Q. m-
? 1k Dream-Strocturt
In a Letter \0 Mr. J . S. Atherton Mist Weaver Wf'Ol<:':
'In partieular their (the aUlhon of tbe SklMtI "'9] ucription ofthe whole thing \0 a dream ofHCE _IRS10 me nonsclUic:al . . . ~l y v i e w i . t h a t M r . J o y c e d i d n o ! i n t e n d t h o : b o o k t o b e looked upon as the dn:am of any one character, but that be . . . ,garded the drc~m (onn with i" Ihiftingo and chang. . and chane. . as a com"cnio:nt device:, allowing the frttSt se<>pe to introduce any material he wiohed- I n d suited to a night? pie<:t. ' T hiJ it a healthy oorre<:uvc but it dotI seem, nevertheleu, Ihat
Joyce thought ofFinMgus W""'" as a lifl,f/. inl<:graU:d d. . . ,am rather than as the series of drcam-cpiY"kl that M ia W. ". . . . :r'. letter might imply. Usually the lint 10 gi~ hio" \0 his acquain_ lAne. . about abolnlK difficulti. . in IUs works,Joyce: _ _ \0 ha~ paid little alUntion \0 thlt mailer of the Orca""",. J( be had said noching al all about it we might bc:j11Jlified in leaving the question wher. :: Mia Wea1/tf ehOle to \ea"e iI, but OIl at least one occasion he made a pronouncement of relevance. Mn. Adaline Glasheen repom that Dr. O'Brien, a friend of
J oyce, told her in oonvers&. tion that J oyce had told him 'that Fi. NgIUU Wu. was "about" Finn ! yingdying by the river Utrey wilh tbe history of lrebnd and the world cycling through hi.
miBd'. " 'l1Iue is no ~
which would teem to establish tbe imJlO'Ullt point thaI Joyce thought ofF"""lmll WIlL . . . a unified dream? whole centrW on a :tingle mind. Though Or. O'Brien'. claim can represent no more than a part of the 1I'\Ilh, there seem. 10 be a little internal evidence 10 lupport it. . If my ruding of Ihe ninth qUCltiQn of
n \0 doubt the accuracy of the repOl't,
1. 6 it correct, it ooruiou. Qf a diSCwRon of the n"tu. . . , Qf the dream~ituation in FilrMgmu W. ,q and repraenu the Dreamer'. mQlt honea( and dir<<tiy intmWile<! consideration ofhit prescnt dre:aming state. There an:: thm: consecutive four-pan eyel. . in 1. 6,formingamictoo:>JmofJ\oob I-III. Themaleprotagonu" in tbe 6nt question ofeach ofthese cyclCl (quCltiont I, 3. and 9) are aU drcam? rcpracnllloo. lJ of Finn- F. arwickcr at different . taget of his career: fiC$t, the youthful vigour of Finn'. aUotted
, Ad",rtQn, p. '7.
? A. Oto. . llern, '0. , of My Ceoouo', no "~'" DO. XVII, '9~, p. '3.
?
8,
? 1M Dr(am? SlrUClure
( w o hund",d yean of full pow~r (equivalent to the Earwicker of Book I) ; second, }'inn in the decline and decrepitude of his l""t thirty yean (the wiudy but dTete Earwicker of Book 11); finally, the moment of death, the 'auctual fumle pretmting OO$laut' (143.
07) of transition from one world to the next, a . tate 'of su'pen,ive exanimation' (the rimaUy murdore<! Ear. wicker falling aileep ill Book III). In this lau . tltge, Finn, depicted as a 'mall from the city' (Dublin), ;. repr=nted as d",aming of M sc. ~pegoat",urrogate, HeE, and of h;' family and alfai. . . . Joyce's identification ofFinn as the Dream~t would
,,,,,m to corroborate th" ,"ading.
Whatever our oondmioru about the identity of the Dr~amer,
and no matter how many varied caricatures nf him we may find projected into the dream, it is clear that he mu. t alwaY' be ronside",d . . . . """"ntially external to the book, and . hould be left there. Speculation about the 'real penon' behind th~ guises of the dream_surrogate> or about the fnnction of the dream in rela,ion to the un""",lved streoses of thio hypntheti<:al mind . . fruidess, fur the teruiollll and psychological problems inFi""'glmS
Wok concern the dream-figures living within the book itself. The d",am explo,. . ,. all th= penonalities atlei,ure and moves freely among them, considering them from within and without; the characterisation i, thorough and makes no appeal to the p,ychc]ogical peg on which the whole ;" hung. It must be: emphasised that Joyce w. . . . not writing anything remotely like a p"ychoanalytical (a<< -Mtory. Indeed, h~ despised psycho- analysis and uS<<! only So much of its techniques and 1IIt1/all- scMuung M he f"und user,,! . ' In( dream-framework;' employed
because it is a r. onvenient device f"r the ~xplo"'tion ofpenon_ ality and hecau<< it offen a nexibl~ r. . . . nge of mean. < by which t<> 'order and . . . present a given material'. ' I. ike the anony_ mou. narmt<>t of m<>re ronventional 'third_penon' novels, the Dreamer . . <>Inniscient; we a", involved in h" dream aJ we are inV<llv~d in any narrative; in each caSe the narrator'. identity
, F. Budg<-n, 'l"umer RreoIk. o,ioo> ofJ"""" Joy<<', p",,;,. ,. , iU<i<w, Fall, '956, p. 536.
, F. B~n, 'Furtb<r RocoUOCIions of. l>m<iJoy<<', p " " , - Rm-1A1, fall, ,956, P. ~33?
8,
? The Duam-Shl4ture
is . 1DV? ' eotitdy irrekvant. Lib Stepheo'. Artist-God,Joya'. Dreamer has been ? refio. . . . o" t (J{ aistenu'.
One of tM principal difficultiQ in the way of an adequate undUitatldJng of tho: dream-'tnI~rnn: has beer! a curiouJ, and penistent error of inu. rpretation of the evenlS in nI+ It is reasonably clear from the doscription On p~ 559-60 that the protagonist of We film or nagc aequenoeo which make up the ~hapter, the old man called POTter, iI yet another incamation of HCE, and probably an iDQlmation from . . patt century: 'You can ken tIw. they come or a rarely old family by their costn- maDOC' (560. 32). Since Poru:r is awake during lbe arty boun of the morning, and since he and his bedroom are described wilh considerable n:alistic detail. IUpportcn of the tbCOl')' that E. arwi. tker is the Drumer have usually made the unruxessa. ry aDumption that the dn:am iI broken at this point. However, if Euwieker (or Porter) is the Dreamer, and if he h", been dreaming about his waking self in Boo"- I and II, were is clurly no reason to IUPpose that hi. further appearance in the waking llate in 111. 4 brings us . . . ,y closer to real COnsciOlWlest than do the Kales in the pn:ading Book' The: assumption that the Dreamer wu . ,,"aUentail~ Ihe conclusion Wt the con- tinued usc of dre. . . . . . . . language and d""am_tccbnique through_ out the chapter wat in",nded to ""prescnt We fuddled state of the mind at ,ucil an early hour in the morning. This is the CXpl"CSll position of the SJ:. dtl. ~ KU' and, however "e"'hetically dilpleasing, it i. at le. . . t <;on,inent with Mr. Campbdl'. tn:at-
menl of the whole book u a rympuhetic commentary on the drum. There are, however, . pecifit ir><licatioru in FitrN'~1II W. r. k that the drum ~ CQIltinuous from. lIut to finish. In the
tludy-du. p"'r, for eumple, the children td1 us that . . . . " dn. . n", our dreams k ll Bappy retlll1l$. And Sein anncws' (~77. t8), whicb seema to mean that wo: continue clruming until An. . . (the riV(! " Seine) ;1 rcnewed al her ""'! "te, when we ! hall have
? . . ,arrived' It 'Happy', or HCE, on ~c 3.
Mr. M. J. C. Ilodgart leenu 10 haVl) been the fInt to refu",
the Skdtlc~ li"dl uscrtion that we O. . ,. mer Wikel fur,. while in , S K ' K ~-? S-
'3
? ~ Drttml-Stru&ture
ilL! , but, not being primarily concerned with this question in the context in wbich he mentioned it, be offered no alternative intup~tation of tM way in wbich thiI hijbly individual and importllOt chapter fits into tbe ,true! ure of the book. ' Along with mOlt other entia, Mr. Kenner, fore:umplc, adhcresto th" by nOW almost tnditional view. - Among Ilter commentators, only ~I. . . . von Phul and t. ln. GI:uheen seem to have any ICTious doubu that in III. 1 we a~ nearcr the wallng consc;ou. .
n(:Oll. ' I believ", indt<:d, thai, far from rcpracntiog the waking l! :lte, this d13. ptcr takes place al the deepest level ofd~aming. J oyce p. . . . . bably w" rked out ICveral qu. w-geometrical sdtemes
ofdream<oH~sponden<:el in writingFUwl4JOf Wdt, although no . . :hematie di~m has lurvived among the iucomplete manuscripts at the British Museum or Yale. It is well known that Joy. :. : used ,uch schema! :l in developing the itruetur" of hi. boob. An int. ,. atillg di. gram fur the 'lliro of the Sun' episode of Ulyms i. extant and h~ been . . . ,produced photo- graphica. l. ly in ? disserutiOIl by A. W. UIZ' and of nou. . . : the . 1u:lcton pl. n ror Ihe O/lllnisation of all cigh""''' cbapten is commouly printed iII exege5ts of Ulyms. ' The following analyses of the dream-structure of PU. flillUU W. . u, together with my
conjectural ICCOIIStrucUon ofa d~am-diagnom (ICC below), a~ offered not. . . , a final ""lution to the problem, but me~ly"" One
interpretation which seems to accord with mo. . . , of the facts than any other thaI h.
Earwicker partially wak<:5 up--thatthe flights of erotic fant. . "y and the horron of guilt of hi. dr<:am have been impired by his
feding> fOT his childun'.
Thi, r<:adinl{ can be quickly dismiw:d by an appeal to the
litl:ral narrative, for there is nothing whatever in the text to 1U~,tthat Books I and II are aUTeam of the protagonist whose oleep begi"" at 403. ' ]; my analym of the drum_levels (below) will . how in greatl:r detail how inconsistent is this interpretation with the available evidence.
M r. J oseph Camphell, one of the authors of the Shltlen Kg, holds a somewhat modified view. Although he believ. . F,ar- wicker to be the DTeamer, he doe. not think of Finlltgmu Wakt ". a 'stream of unconsciousness', to me Harry Levin's phr. . "e, hut rather as a kind of ><;holarly running commentary by an anonymous pedant on a dream in progress, interrupted now and then hy personal digressiom, qnerulouo a,id. . , ,nippets from other dream. 'l, and even by an ohjrctive description of the Dreamer momentarily awake in lll+ '
Mrs. Ruth von Phnl, who h,. . treated the dream-situation at greatt:itlength, was the lint to orrer a reasoned argument in favour of the Dreamer', being IQmebody other than Earwicker. She attempt. to,how thatJerry i. the Dreamer, but ha. <. . much of her argument on an inaccurate analrY' of 11l. 4 and on a number of ","umptioJU, all of which _ m \() me to be demon-
. trably wrong. ' T bere is not ,ufficient ' pace here for a detailed 'J. C. mpbell,? Finn. :g. "'hel'ial~', inGiv=,pp. ~t4-5.
, R. von PhoJ, 'Who Sleep<" F<-,,,,,, Woh? ? 110. J. . . . , J"J<' /U",w, vol. I, ,,". '. '95J, pp. 0J""38.
79
? The Drtam-$trvcllde
refutation of MOl. von Phu\'. ICn_page article, but her caac di,appean ifa few ofher most important prtm;"', aTe <li1proved.
Fin! , she holds tha. t:
'Jerry i. the only cbaracl<< in ! he hook 1" minI both ti,e arwt'. i'llight and Ihe almoot eneydopedic learni! ! ! ! , n<:<:dcd to evolve a dream of . \leh fanta&tie richntll"
whereaa botD Mn: and in U/1uu (where Joy<< makes Bloom h. allucinalC a . . . . ,a1th ofmalCrial o? "'hieh he can have no . ,. ,. . _ ociousknowl~) Joyce",dearlyallowingh",Dreamen,whe>- ewrthey may he, todraw on lhe wbole quaoi-Jungiln coHeelive
\lnconociouI for Ihe lullllan"" o? their fantasies. Secood, she, in common with th" aull>on of the SktinIM Kg, makes the odd error of auuming that Jelry ICes hi. ralhee'. erecl;on, whereas
Ihe leI:llpCci&ally ltate/i that neither Iwin optnl his eyes at aU during the Kene in quation:
'The two prine<< of th" {()we:r royal, daulphin and d""'lin, to lie how lhey are without to 0 << . The dame dowager'. duffgerenl
to p"""'nl wappon, blade drawn {() Ihe full and about wh<< 1 without to be IC"Jl ofthe,,,'. (,~66-'9)
The frightened child;. in fact the daughter, oobel (566. ~8 ff), who, when the notie<:l tlte father'. member, becomes aware of 'pc";""'nvy', fearing that her body is intomplete or thai . 1Ie "' an cm;UC\llued boy:
'What have you Iherefore? . . 1 feu lel1 we have lost oun (nOli grant itl) rapc:cting these wildly para'. (566. 30; hobel is convening with her 'looking-glass girl'. )
Th"
i"ltargeac of lifesiglll over early lived offi' (230-26)
wherell in fact nearly every character in Fi. OIlIIUU Wab is depicted u druming al ""me time or othe:r.
, 'WhoSIn". . tF__ w. . r,,,,. a ? s. . " ,06; ,". u. App<ndilI A.
is, of cou""" one of the moot common of inCantile experi- ences. Third, Mn. . von Phul identifies the Donkey thfO\tgh th" motif'Ab bot' which is, bow<:vcr, the chanctcistic sigb not of the Donkey but of the oecond Old Man, Mark. ' Lastly, Mrs. ""n Phul finds it significant that Shern is described as : 'reminiKcnlil""', at bandstand finale O4l"aOO carriero, d! 'Q. m-
? 1k Dream-Strocturt
In a Letter \0 Mr. J . S. Atherton Mist Weaver Wf'Ol<:':
'In partieular their (the aUlhon of tbe SklMtI "'9] ucription ofthe whole thing \0 a dream ofHCE _IRS10 me nonsclUic:al . . . ~l y v i e w i . t h a t M r . J o y c e d i d n o ! i n t e n d t h o : b o o k t o b e looked upon as the dn:am of any one character, but that be . . . ,garded the drc~m (onn with i" Ihiftingo and chang. . and chane. . as a com"cnio:nt device:, allowing the frttSt se<>pe to introduce any material he wiohed- I n d suited to a night? pie<:t. ' T hiJ it a healthy oorre<:uvc but it dotI seem, nevertheleu, Ihat
Joyce thought ofFinMgus W""'" as a lifl,f/. inl<:graU:d d. . . ,am rather than as the series of drcam-cpiY"kl that M ia W. ". . . . :r'. letter might imply. Usually the lint 10 gi~ hio" \0 his acquain_ lAne. . about abolnlK difficulti. . in IUs works,Joyce: _ _ \0 ha~ paid little alUntion \0 thlt mailer of the Orca""",. J( be had said noching al all about it we might bc:j11Jlified in leaving the question wher. :: Mia Wea1/tf ehOle to \ea"e iI, but OIl at least one occasion he made a pronouncement of relevance. Mn. Adaline Glasheen repom that Dr. O'Brien, a friend of
J oyce, told her in oonvers&. tion that J oyce had told him 'that Fi. NgIUU Wu. was "about" Finn ! yingdying by the river Utrey wilh tbe history of lrebnd and the world cycling through hi.
miBd'. " 'l1Iue is no ~
which would teem to establish tbe imJlO'Ullt point thaI Joyce thought ofF"""lmll WIlL . . . a unified dream? whole centrW on a :tingle mind. Though Or. O'Brien'. claim can represent no more than a part of the 1I'\Ilh, there seem. 10 be a little internal evidence 10 lupport it. . If my ruding of Ihe ninth qUCltiQn of
n \0 doubt the accuracy of the repOl't,
1. 6 it correct, it ooruiou. Qf a diSCwRon of the n"tu. . . , Qf the dream~ituation in FilrMgmu W. ,q and repraenu the Dreamer'. mQlt honea( and dir<<tiy intmWile<! consideration ofhit prescnt dre:aming state. There an:: thm: consecutive four-pan eyel. . in 1. 6,formingamictoo:>JmofJ\oob I-III. Themaleprotagonu" in tbe 6nt question ofeach ofthese cyclCl (quCltiont I, 3. and 9) are aU drcam? rcpracnllloo. lJ of Finn- F. arwickcr at different . taget of his career: fiC$t, the youthful vigour of Finn'. aUotted
, Ad",rtQn, p. '7.
? A. Oto. . llern, '0. , of My Ceoouo', no "~'" DO. XVII, '9~, p. '3.
?
8,
? 1M Dr(am? SlrUClure
( w o hund",d yean of full pow~r (equivalent to the Earwicker of Book I) ; second, }'inn in the decline and decrepitude of his l""t thirty yean (the wiudy but dTete Earwicker of Book 11); finally, the moment of death, the 'auctual fumle pretmting OO$laut' (143.
07) of transition from one world to the next, a . tate 'of su'pen,ive exanimation' (the rimaUy murdore<! Ear. wicker falling aileep ill Book III). In this lau . tltge, Finn, depicted as a 'mall from the city' (Dublin), ;. repr=nted as d",aming of M sc. ~pegoat",urrogate, HeE, and of h;' family and alfai. . . . Joyce's identification ofFinn as the Dream~t would
,,,,,m to corroborate th" ,"ading.
Whatever our oondmioru about the identity of the Dr~amer,
and no matter how many varied caricatures nf him we may find projected into the dream, it is clear that he mu. t alwaY' be ronside",d . . . . """"ntially external to the book, and . hould be left there. Speculation about the 'real penon' behind th~ guises of the dream_surrogate> or about the fnnction of the dream in rela,ion to the un""",lved streoses of thio hypntheti<:al mind . . fruidess, fur the teruiollll and psychological problems inFi""'glmS
Wok concern the dream-figures living within the book itself. The d",am explo,. . ,. all th= penonalities atlei,ure and moves freely among them, considering them from within and without; the characterisation i, thorough and makes no appeal to the p,ychc]ogical peg on which the whole ;" hung. It must be: emphasised that Joyce w. . . . not writing anything remotely like a p"ychoanalytical (a<< -Mtory. Indeed, h~ despised psycho- analysis and uS<<! only So much of its techniques and 1IIt1/all- scMuung M he f"und user,,! . ' In( dream-framework;' employed
because it is a r. onvenient device f"r the ~xplo"'tion ofpenon_ ality and hecau<< it offen a nexibl~ r. . . . nge of mean. < by which t<> 'order and . . . present a given material'. ' I. ike the anony_ mou. narmt<>t of m<>re ronventional 'third_penon' novels, the Dreamer . . <>Inniscient; we a", involved in h" dream aJ we are inV<llv~d in any narrative; in each caSe the narrator'. identity
, F. Budg<-n, 'l"umer RreoIk. o,ioo> ofJ"""" Joy<<', p",,;,. ,. , iU<i<w, Fall, '956, p. 536.
, F. B~n, 'Furtb<r RocoUOCIions of. l>m<iJoy<<', p " " , - Rm-1A1, fall, ,956, P. ~33?
8,
? The Duam-Shl4ture
is . 1DV? ' eotitdy irrekvant. Lib Stepheo'. Artist-God,Joya'. Dreamer has been ? refio. . . . o" t (J{ aistenu'.
One of tM principal difficultiQ in the way of an adequate undUitatldJng of tho: dream-'tnI~rnn: has beer! a curiouJ, and penistent error of inu. rpretation of the evenlS in nI+ It is reasonably clear from the doscription On p~ 559-60 that the protagonist of We film or nagc aequenoeo which make up the ~hapter, the old man called POTter, iI yet another incamation of HCE, and probably an iDQlmation from . . patt century: 'You can ken tIw. they come or a rarely old family by their costn- maDOC' (560. 32). Since Poru:r is awake during lbe arty boun of the morning, and since he and his bedroom are described wilh considerable n:alistic detail. IUpportcn of the tbCOl')' that E. arwi. tker is the Drumer have usually made the unruxessa. ry aDumption that the dn:am iI broken at this point. However, if Euwieker (or Porter) is the Dreamer, and if he h", been dreaming about his waking self in Boo"- I and II, were is clurly no reason to IUPpose that hi. further appearance in the waking llate in 111. 4 brings us . . . ,y closer to real COnsciOlWlest than do the Kales in the pn:ading Book' The: assumption that the Dreamer wu . ,,"aUentail~ Ihe conclusion Wt the con- tinued usc of dre. . . . . . . . language and d""am_tccbnique through_ out the chapter wat in",nded to ""prescnt We fuddled state of the mind at ,ucil an early hour in the morning. This is the CXpl"CSll position of the SJ:. dtl. ~ KU' and, however "e"'hetically dilpleasing, it i. at le. . . t <;on,inent with Mr. Campbdl'. tn:at-
menl of the whole book u a rympuhetic commentary on the drum. There are, however, . pecifit ir><licatioru in FitrN'~1II W. r. k that the drum ~ CQIltinuous from. lIut to finish. In the
tludy-du. p"'r, for eumple, the children td1 us that . . . . " dn. . n", our dreams k ll Bappy retlll1l$. And Sein anncws' (~77. t8), whicb seema to mean that wo: continue clruming until An. . . (the riV(! " Seine) ;1 rcnewed al her ""'! "te, when we ! hall have
? . . ,arrived' It 'Happy', or HCE, on ~c 3.
Mr. M. J. C. Ilodgart leenu 10 haVl) been the fInt to refu",
the Skdtlc~ li"dl uscrtion that we O. . ,. mer Wikel fur,. while in , S K ' K ~-? S-
'3
? ~ Drttml-Stru&ture
ilL! , but, not being primarily concerned with this question in the context in wbich he mentioned it, be offered no alternative intup~tation of tM way in wbich thiI hijbly individual and importllOt chapter fits into tbe ,true! ure of the book. ' Along with mOlt other entia, Mr. Kenner, fore:umplc, adhcresto th" by nOW almost tnditional view. - Among Ilter commentators, only ~I. . . . von Phul and t. ln. GI:uheen seem to have any ICTious doubu that in III. 1 we a~ nearcr the wallng consc;ou. .
n(:Oll. ' I believ", indt<:d, thai, far from rcpracntiog the waking l! :lte, this d13. ptcr takes place al the deepest level ofd~aming. J oyce p. . . . . bably w" rked out ICveral qu. w-geometrical sdtemes
ofdream<oH~sponden<:el in writingFUwl4JOf Wdt, although no . . :hematie di~m has lurvived among the iucomplete manuscripts at the British Museum or Yale. It is well known that Joy. :. : used ,uch schema! :l in developing the itruetur" of hi. boob. An int. ,. atillg di. gram fur the 'lliro of the Sun' episode of Ulyms i. extant and h~ been . . . ,produced photo- graphica. l. ly in ? disserutiOIl by A. W. UIZ' and of nou. . . : the . 1u:lcton pl. n ror Ihe O/lllnisation of all cigh""''' cbapten is commouly printed iII exege5ts of Ulyms. ' The following analyses of the dream-structure of PU. flillUU W. . u, together with my
conjectural ICCOIIStrucUon ofa d~am-diagnom (ICC below), a~ offered not. . . , a final ""lution to the problem, but me~ly"" One
interpretation which seems to accord with mo. . . , of the facts than any other thaI h.
