John Middleton Murry (review of Ulysses, 1922), The cant phrase of judgment upon Mr. Joyces magnum opus has been launched by a French critic. With this book, says M. Valéry Larbaud, Ireland makes a sensational re-entrance into high European literature. Whether anyone, even M. Larbaud himself, knows what is meant by the last three words, we cannot tell. A phrase does not have to be intelligible in order to succeed, and we already hear echoes of this pronouncement. Ulysses somehow is European; everything else is not. Well, well. Ulysses is many things: it is very big, it is hard to read, difficult to procure, unlike any other book that has been written, extraordinarily interesting to those who have patience (and they need it), the work of an intensely serious man. But European? That, we should have thought, is the last epithet to apply to it. Indeed, in trying to define it, we return again and again, no matter by what road we set out, to the conception that it is non-European. [..; 195] Mr. Joyce [...] is an extreme individualists. He acknowledges no social morality, and he completely rejects the claim of social morality to determine what he shall, or shall not, write. He is the egocentric rebel in excelsis, the arch-esoteric. European! He is the man with the bomb who would blow what remains of Europe into the sky [...] just as Mr. Joyce is in rebellion against the social morality of civilisation, he is in rebellion against the lucidity and comprehensibility of civilised art [...] Still if we ask, Is Ulysses a reflection of life through an individual consciousness, there can be no doubt of the reply. It is. It is a reflection of life [196] through a singularly complex consciousness [...] One might almost say that all the thoughts and all the experiences of those beings [Bloom, Marion], real or imaginary, from their waking to their sleeping on a spring day in Dublin in 1904, are given by Mr. Joyce: and not only the conscious thoughts - they are very differently conscious - but the very fringes of sentience [...] This transcendental buffoonery, this sudden uprush of the vis comica into a world wherein the tragic incompatibility of the practical and the instinctive is embodied, is a very great achievement. It is the vital centre of Mr. Joyces book, and the intensity of life which it contains is sufficient to animate the whole of it. (In Nation & Athenæum [XXXI] ,22 April 1922, pp.124-45; rep. in Robert Deming, ed., James Joyce: The Critical Heritage, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970 [Vol. 1] pp.195-98; pp.195-96.) [ top ] Sir Shane Leslie [as Domini Canis], review of Ulysses (1922): [...] In this work the spiritually offensive and the physically unclean are united. We speak advisedly when we say that though no formal condemnation has been pronounced, the Inquisition can only require its destruction or, at least, its removal from Catholic houses. Without grave reason or indeed the knowledge of the Ordinary no Catholic publicist can even afford to be possessed of a copy of this book, for in its reading lies not only the description but the commission of sin against the Holy Ghost. Having tasted and rejected the devilish drench, we most earnestly hope that this book be not only placed on the Index Expurgatorius, but that its reading and communication be made a reserved case. [...; here notes that Joyce has portrayed the real-life figure of Fr. Conmee.] Nothing could be more ridiculous than the youthful dilettantes in Paris or London who profess knowledge and understanding of a work which is often mercifully obscure even to the Dublin-bred. [...] Reading a textbook and boiling it down into lists is no new device and depends for its success on the eliminating touch with which Mr. Joyce is most inartistically unendowed. In fact, the reader in struggling from oasis to oasis will find himself caught in a Sahara that is as dry as it is stinking. It is only when he varies his cataloguing with rare or new words that he is endurable, as of the Dublin vegetable market [...] Concludes that the general reader is unlikely to be effected by the corrupting influence of this abomination of desolation containing so much rotten caviare, and portrays the author as frustrated Titan [who] revolves and splutters hopelessly under the flood of his own vomit. Also speaks of the very horrible dissection of a very horrible womans thought [Molly]. (Dublin Review, Sept. 1922, pp.112-19; rep. in Robert Deming, ed., James Joyce: The Critical Heritage, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1970 [Vol. 1], pp.200-03; also quoted in Cairns & Richards, Writing Ireland: Colonialism, Nationalism and Culture,Manchester UP 1988, p.134; also more briefly in Stan Gébler Davies, James Joyce: A Portrait of the Artist, London: Poynter-Davis 1975, p.246, with the remark the Reviews opinion scarcely mattered.) [For further extracts, see under Shane Leslie, infra.]
[ top ] C. C. Martindale, S.J. (Ulysses, 1922), compares Joyce to the Futurist painters and accuses him of the same anti-formal atrocities, in words instead of paint. He goes down to that level where seething insticnt is not yet illuminated by intellect, or only just enough to be not quite visible [...] Mr. Joyce gets as far down down as he can to this level of animality which exists, of course, as an ultimate in every man, and then, consciously and by art, tries to reproduce it. And this requires the most strong mental effort. For he has to hold together what yet must somehow remain incoherent; never to [204] forget what the conscious memory has never been in possession of; to put into the impressions of the evening all that the morning held but was never known to hold [...] to show us what essentially was never consciously know, still less remembered. Hence an angry sense of contradiction in the reader. Mr. Joyce is trying to think as if he were insane. [/.../] Mr. Joyce would therefore seem not only to have tried to achieve a psychological impossibility but to have tried to do so in what would, anyhow, have been the wrong medium. He would most nearly have succeeded by using music, and counterpoint. / However, we did, in reading, collect one impression: that is, that in calling his book, and in a sense his hero, Ulysses, Mr. Joyce meant to portray in him that No Man who yet is Everyman, just because Mr. Joyce considers he has got down to the universal substratum in man which yet cannot be identified with any man in particular. We surmise, too, that there is a deal of Ulysses-symbolism running through the book; but we were not nearly interested enough to try to work it out. But what we object to is this: if that ultimate, that human Abyss, is to be seen at all, described at all, some light some intellectual energy, must have played upon it. But here it is most certainly not the Spirit of the Creator that has so played. What black fires may not the Ape of God light up? Into what insane caricatures of humanity may not the Unholy Ghost, plunging gustily upon animal instinct, fashion it? This book suggests an answer. At best the authors eyes are like the slit eyes of Ibsens Trolls. They see, but they omit what is best worth seeing; they see, but they see all things crooked. Take a concrete instance: Mr. Joyce has, in this book too, the offensive habit of introducing real people by name. We know some of them. One such person (now dead, it is true) we knew well enough to see that Mr. Joyce, who describes him in no unfriendly way, yet cannot see. We absolve him of wilful calumny. [205] But we realise that he is at least more likely than not to have mis-seen not only one person, but whole places, like Dublin, or Clongowes; whole categories, like students; whole literatures, like the Irish, or the Latin. / Alas, then, that a man who can write such exquisite prose-music [...] should be at his most convincing in his chosen line when murmuring through half a hundred pages the dream-memories of an uneducated woman. (In Dublin Review, CLXXI, 1922, pp.273-76; rep. in Robert Deming, ed., James Joyce: The Critical Heritage, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970 [Vol. 1], pp.204-06.)
Mary Colum (Confessions of James Joyce, 1922): [...] Such being the nature of the book, it is clear that the difficulty of [231] comprehending it will not be allowed to stand in the way by anybody who can get possession of it. Joyce has so many strange things to say that people would struggle to understand him, no matter in what form or tongue he wrote. Yet the difficulties in the way are very real; Ulysses is one of the most racial books ever written, and one of the most Catholic books ever written; this in spite of the fact that one would not be, surprised to hear that some official of the Irish Government or of the Church had ordered it to be publicly burned. It hardly seems possible that it can be really understood by anybody not brought up in the half-secret tradition of the heroism, tragedy, folly and anger of Irish nationalism, or unfamiliar with the philosophy, history and rubrics of the Roman Catholic Church; or by one who does not know Dublin and certain conspicuous Dubliners. The author himself takes no pains at all to make it easy of comprehension. Then, too, the book presupposes a knowledge of many literatures; a knowledge which for some reason, perhaps the cheapness of leisure, is not uncommon in Dublin, and, for whatever reason, perhaps the dearness of leisure, is rather uncommon in New York. In addition, it is almost an encyclopedia of odd bits and forms of knowledge; for the author has a mind of the most restless curiosity, and no sort of knowledge is alien to him. Ulysses is a kind of epic of Dublin. Never was a city so involved in the workings of any writers mind as Dublin is in Joyces; he can think only in terms of it. [...] There is little in the way of incident [...] The Walpurgis night scene (not called by that name) is too long and too incomprehensible; one feels that Joyce has here driven mind too far beyond the boundary-line that separates fantasy and grotesquerie from pure madness. [...] He has achieved what comes pretty near to being a satire on all literature. He has written down a page of his countrys history.
Mary Colum - interview: In Joyces study in his apartment at Square Robiac, he would have a bottle of white chianti on the table, a medley of books and notebooks, a gramaphone somewhere near: surrounded by such items, he and his helper set to work. The amount of reading done by his helpers was libarious, as he might have written himself, as were the notebooks filled with the results of their reading which generally boiled down to only a line or paragraph. (Quoted in Gordon Bowyer, James Joyce, p.351, citing Colum in E. H. Mikhail, ed., James Joyce: Interviews and Recollections, London: Wiedenfeld & Nicolson 1990, p.163.)
[ top ] Joseph M. Hone (A Letter from Ireland, 1923): We may have other literary exiles, but none of them provoke the same acute interest. [... T]here is nothing genial in Mr. Joyces comment. He may be detached from our local passions; but it is not a detachment born of English influences or of cosmopolitanism. His struggle for freedom had been fought before he left [297] Ireland; and the marks of the strugggle are in each of the books he has written [... /] Mr. Joyces books exhibit a type of young Irishman of the towns - mostly originating from the semi-anglicised farming or shopkeeping class of the cast and centre - a type which has been created largely by the modern legislation which provides Catholic democracy in Ireland with opportunities for an inexpensive university education. This young Irishman is now a dominating figure in the public life of Ireland; he was less important in Mr. Joyces day, but had already exhibited a certain amount of liveliness. Daniel OConnell described him, before he had come to the towns and got an education, as smug, saucy, and venturous; and the portrait is still recognisable, though he was then only in the embryo stage of self-consciousness. As social documents, therefore, Mr. Joyces novels and stories are much more important than Synges plays and stories; for the later writer describes, intimately and realistically, a growing Ireland, not, as Synge did, an Ireland that is passing away with the Gaelic communities of Aran and Connemara. He writes of a side of life in which - ugly though his picture may be - there is the greatest spiritual energy, a side of Irish life of which our Protestant novelists, like Mr. Ervine and Mr. Birmingham, scarcely wot of except in its political manifestations. This young Irishman has, however, entered literature in a few other recent books besides those of Mr. Joyce - in the books, for example, of Mr. Daniel Corkery, a talented writer from Cork, whose Hounds of Banba, a collection of stories about the Volunteers, has been much admired. [...]. When I first read Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man it seemed to me that the book announced the passing of that literary Ireland in which everyone was well bred except a few politicians. [...] (London Mercury, V, January 1923, pp.306-08; rep. in Robert Deming, ed., James Joyce: The Critical Heritage, London; Routledge & Kegan Paul 1970 [Vol. 1], pp.297-99.)
[ top ] Stephen Gwynn, Modern Irish Literature (1923): In considering modern Irish literature one has to face the fact that the first notable force to appear in it from the Catholic population has been Mr. Joyce. [...] if the current of feeling drives one author to present such a picture of priests without charity, women without [299] mercy, and drink-sodden, useless men, the same forces will surely push another into open defiance of the religion on which that life is presumed to rest. That is the revolt which you find in Mr. Joyce. I do not know that he detests the life of Dublin with the same intensity as Mr. [Brinsley] Macnamara [sic] loathes his valley [...] For Mr. Joyce, as I take it, Dublin is life, life is Dublin, and he, being alive, is bound to the body of this death. [...] I do not pretend to like Mr. Joyces work, and, admitting its power, it seems to me [...] that his preoccupation with images of nastiness borders on the insane. But the power of writing is astonishing. In Ulysses it comes to the full. [...] what gives value to Ulysses is passion: all through it runs the cry of a torutred soul. Mr. Joyces Stephen Dedalus is the Catholic by nature and tradition, who must revolt under the stress of an intellectual compulsion, to whom truth - the thing which he sees as true - speaks inexorably. Yet what he would shake off clings to his flesh like the poisoned shirt of Hercules. He wallows, it burns the more, but revolt persists. He can touch, taste and handle every abomination; only one thing is impossible, to profess a faith that he rejects. Ancient pieties hold him to it, ties of nearest life: his mother dying of cancer, dumbly prays of him to pray with her, and she dies without that solace; years pass, her thought, haunting him everywhere and always, only urges him to spit again on whatever she and her like thought holiest. It is revolt the more desperate because it sees no chance of deliverance; and against this fool, this Dedalus, with [300] the stored complex of his brain oversubtilised and overcharged by the very training of that scholastic philosophy from which he breaks away, Mr. Joyce sets his wise man Ulysses, the fortunate happy, whom life cannot injure, lacerate, or bruise, because he has no shame, who must enjoy, so full is his sensual development; who can enjoy, being without conscience [...] a renegade Jew, whose trading is touting advertisements, but whose subsistence comes through marrage: I need not be more precise [...]. (In Manchester Guardian, 15 March 1923, pp.36-40; rep. in Irish Literature and Drama in the English Language, London: Nelson 1936, pp.192-202; and rep. in Robert Deming, ed., James Joyce: The Critical Heritage, London; Routledge & Kegan Paul 1970 [Vol. 1], pp.299-301.)
[ top ] Ernest A. Boyd, Irelands Literary Renaissance [rev. edn.] (London: Grant Richards 1922): [A] French critic [Larbaud] has rashly declared that with them Ireland makes a sensational re-entry into European literature. Apart from its affecting and ingenuous belief in the myth of a European literature, this statement of M. Valéry Larbauds has the obvious defect of resting upon two false assumptions [...] In other words, to the Irish mind no lack of appreciation of James Joyce is involved by some slight consideration for the facts of Irelands literary and intellectual evolution, and the effort now being made to cut him off from the stream of which he is a tributary is singularly futile. The logical outcome of this doctrinaire zeal of the coterie is to leave this profoundly Irish genius in the possession of a prematurely cosmopolitan reputation, the unkind fate which has always overtaken writers isolated from the conditions of which they are a part, and presented to the world without any perspective. / Fortunately, the work of James Joyce stands to refute most of the theories for which it has furnished a pretext, notably the theory that it is an unanswerable challenge to the separate existence of Anglo-Irish literature. The fact is, no Irish writer is more Irish than Joyce; none shows more unmistakably the imprint of his race and traditions. The syllogism seems to be: J. M. Synge and James Stephens and W. B. Yeats are Irish, therefore James Joyce is not. Whereas the simple truth is that A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is to the Irish novel what The Wanderings of Oisin was to Irish poetry and The Playboy of the Western World to Irish drama, the unique and significant work which lifts the genre out of the commonplace into the national literature. [302] [...] Ulysses is simultaneously a masterpiece of realism, of documentation, and a most original dissection of the Irish mind in certain of its phases usually hitherto ignored, except for hints of George Moore. Dedalus and Bloom are two types of Dubliner such as were studies in Joyces first book of stories, remarkable pieces of national and human portraiture. At the same time they serve as the medium between the reader and the vie unanime of a whole community, whose existence is unrolled before their eyes, through which we see, and reaches our consciousness as it filters through their souls. [...; 304; cont.]
[ top ] Con Leventhal (as Laurence K. Emery [pseud.]), The Ulysses of Mr. James Joyce, in Klaxon (Winter 1923) [sole issue]: There is in all his work a cold objectivity. He has an uncanny keenness of perception which he does not let his ego influence. This perception he must have applied to himself, and he can synthesise a character from details observed in his own person. (p.14); the variegated fabric of Ulysses (p.15); one might argue [...] that Ulysses [like the Bible] is the work of many hands, where it not for the fact that in the seeming medley of chapters and styles there is a form as rigid as that of a sonnet [...] the Homeric hero [...] There is a scene in the national Library where Joyce, now clad in the garb of George Moore (I do not know whether it is intentional or not) makes the well-known librarians, whom he mentions by name, and AE discuss a curious theory of the influence of Shakespeare of his wife, Anne Hathaway. [...] [Cyclops] written in the manner of a lower-middle class Dubliner [...] Ulysses is essentially a book for the male. It is impossible for a woman to stomach the egregious grossness. Through the book one hears the coarse oaths and rude jests of the corner-boy and the subtle salaciousness of the cultured. There is a tradition of these things. And as the oriental shuts his women from contact with the world with a yashmak and a harem, so we have cut off our womenfolk from our smoking-room hinterlands. It is not woman but man who has a secret, and Mr. Joyce is guilty of a breach of the male freemasonry in publishing the signs by which one man recognises a healthy living brother. [...] Mr. Joyce doesnt trouble to invent one yarn. He uses those actually current in the Medical School of his day and quotes from the privately printed manuscripts of a brilliant surgeon, whom he disguises (for the nonce) with a fictitious name, stories and indecencies pickled in Gallic salt. We know the stories, and are tickled by the memories of male [?sprees] where we first heard them, horror-stricken the while lest our female friends see in callous print our eternal wild oats tendencies. I am conscious, however, that there are some women sufficiently masculine in temperament who can read Ulysses without any risk of disturbing their normal metabolism. [...] a human book, filled with pity as with the sexual instinct, and the latter in no greater proportion and of no greater importance in the book than any of the other fundamental human attributes. (p.20; End). [For full text of this article, see RICORSO Library, Criticism > Major Authors / Joyce, via index or direct.]
Wyndam Lewis (Analysis of the Mind of James Joyce, in Time and Western Man, [Sept.] 1927): [Ulysses] lands the reader inside] an Aladdins cave of incredible bric-à-brac in which a dense mass of dead stuff is collected [from 1901 toothpaste, a bar or two of sweet Rosie OGrady, to pre-nordic architecture. An immense nature-morte is the result. This ensues from the method of confining the reader in] a circumscribed psychological space into which several encyclopaedias have been emptied]. It is a suffocating, moetic expanse of objects, all of them lifeless, the sewage of a past twenty years old, all neatly arranged in a meticulous sequence [...] It is the voluminous curtain that fell, belated (with the alarming momentum of a ton or two of personally organised rubbish), upon the Victorian scene. So rich was it delivery, its pent-up out-pouring so vehement, that it will remain, eternally cathartic, the record of diarrhoea [Time, p.109; quoted at Antwerp JJ Centre - online; accessed 05.04.2015.]. No one who looks at it will every want to look behind it. It is the sardonic catafalaque of the Victorian world. (Quoted in Hugh Kenner, Dublins Joyce, Chatto & Windus 1955, p.363; Kenner calls this the most brilliant misreading in modern literature, p.392.)
Italo Svevo [Ettore Schmitz], James Joyce (Lecture, Milan 1927): [...] He is twice a rebel, against England and against Ireland. He hates England and would like to transform Ireland. Yet he belongs so much to England that like a great many of his Irish predecessors he will fill pages of English literary history and not the least splendid ones; and he is so Irish that the English have no love for him. They are out of sympathy with him, and there is no doubt that his success could never have been achieved in England if France and some literary Americans had not imposed it [...] Svevo concludes: Joyces works, therefore, cannot be considered a triumph of psycho-analysis, but I am convinced that they can be the subject of its study. They are nothing but a piece of life, of great importance because it has been brought to light not deformed by any pedantic science but vigorously hewn with quickening inspiration. [.... &c.] (Printed in Il Convegno, Jan. 1938, pp.135-38; enl. & trans. by Stanislaus Joyce as James Joyce, 1950 [rep. 1967], 90pp.; rep. in Robert Deming, ed., James Joyce: The Critical Heritage, London; Routledge & Kegan Paul 1970 [Vol. 1], pp.354-56.) [ top ] Sean OFaoláin, Style and the Limitations of Speech (Sept. 1928): Here lies the condemnation of such language as Joyces. It is not merely ahistoric - not merely the shadow of an animal that never was, the outline of a tree that never grew, for even then we might trace it to some basic reality distorted and confused - but it comes from nowhere, goes nowhere, is not part of life at all. It has one reality only - the reality of the round and round of childrens scrawls in their first copybooks, zany circles of nothing. It may be that Joyce wishes these meaningless scrawls to have a place in his design and if so nobody will grudge him his will of them. But we cannot be expected to understand them as language for they are as near nothing as anything can be on this earth. Yet who cannot sympathise with this rebellion? It would seem that Joyce does not realise, however, that in language we are countering one of those primal impositions that give to life its inexorable character: he must see that in language there is an individuality which we must counter at every step, much as an actor must counter his own character to express ideas at variance with it. But a man who has had the great courage to accept so many of lifes inexorable laws does unwisely to push a puppet in the actors place; that offers us no release. It is a puppet without as much as the shape of a human being, and suggests the idea of a human organism for but one reason, that it has usurped the place of one. [...] (Criterion, Sept. 1928, pp.67-87 [intermitt.]; prev. as The Cruelty and Beauty of Words, in Virginia Quarterly Review, IV, 2, April 1928, pp.208-25 [intermitt.]; rep. in Robert Deming, ed., James Joyce: The Critical Heritage, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1970 [Vol. 2], p.391.
Sean OFaoláin, Anna Livia Plurabelle (Jan. 1929): [...] Joyce has gambled on an intellectual theory and invented a technique where the controls are supposed to be more rigid, and, it follows, the power of the artist all the greater: but is it so? [...] The fact is that the more elusive his phrases are the more we find that our responses are liable to be a medley of sensuous images [...] the sensuous response[s] of the mind to his new language are sometimes very delicate and pleasing, sometimes obscene, sometimes merely dull - well, so is reality - but most frequently, because this is language, and language has a biologically inexorable thirst for assocations, they are empty of content. [.../] Joyces medium strikes at the inevitable basis of language, universal intelligibility, and though the sympathetic may burk at the word universal, or the word intelligible, it must be acknowledged that there is very little difference between issuing a tiny booklet of some nine thousand words in a limited edition at a prohibitive price and not issuing it at all. / Yet no genuine student of literature can dare to be unfamiliar with it: it is one of the most interesting and pathetic literary adventures I know, pathetic chiefly because of its partial success: for even the most sympathetic and imaginative will have smiled wanly several times as they read and laughed in despair long before the end. [...; 397.]
Sean OFaoláin revises his opinion of ALP, Letter to the Editor, in Criterion (Oct. 1930), p.147 - refers to prev. article in Criterion (Sept. 1928): [...] I did not do complete justice to Mr. Joyces new porse, and with your permission I should like to add a further word ... I do not think that there is anything in that essay which I do not still believe, bt it did not go far enough in its appreciation of the merits that do lie in Mr. Joyces language. It becomes clear to me that a kind of distinciton once properly made between prose nad poetry is passing away [...] This prose that conveys its meaning vaguely and unprecisely, by its style rather than its words, has its delights, as music has its own particular delights proper to itself, and I have wished to say that for these half-congey, or not even half-conveyed suggestions of meaning Mr. Joyces prose can be tantalizingly delightful, a prose written by a poet who missed the tide, and which can be entirely charming if approached as prose from which an explicit or intellectual communication was never intenede.d In my article and elsewhere, i suggested that such prose is, as it were, orally deficient - being almost wholly sensous - but that question I do not wish to re-open here. rep. in Deming, op. cit., Vol. 2, p.413.)
Seán OFaoláin, review of Joyces Politics by Dominic Magnanielli, in London Review of Books (Oct. 1980): [...] It is all a matter of definition. If the sort of politics I have been referring to did interest Joyce, then we at once understand their relevance to the mans bent, character, genius, spirit - call it what one wills - that is, we can have at least some idea of the magical process whereby this sort of politics enriched his Human Comedy in the hilarious Cyclops chapter of Ulysses, with its brawling but never boring comic character called The Citizen, and how they deepened the Human Tragedy of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man with that painful scene where the family battles passionately over Parnell. But if that possessive apostrophe in the books title means that Joyce was nourished in his work by knowing le dessous des cartes of politics as the science of governing a country or managing a community, then even his most devoted and admiring readers (among whom I ardently reckon myself) are going to find it hard to reconcile this sort of social-minded, institution-oriented writer with the impression most of us have gathered from his life and writings of a passionate, poetic loner, virtually an élitist, withdrawn, a sceptical, ironical exile who never joined anything larger than a dinner party in a first-class Parisian restaurant. / So then, it is not only a question of the definition of the word politics but a redefinition of the writer and the man. Perhaps Dominic Manganiello has demonstrated this kind of formative interplay in Joyces mind between the art of government and the art of literature? Perhaps he has shown us how irredeemably different A Portrait or Ulysses would have been without their authors study of, say, Irredentism, Nationalism, Socialism, Anarchism, Bakunin, Ferrero, Marx? The idea is so exciting that I decide to take a refresher look at A Portrait. [...]
[ top ] John Eglinton, Irish Letter, in Dial (May 1929): [...] Joyce is, I should think, the idol of a good many of the young men of the new Ireland. Is Joyce then what my ethnological friend would have called a key-personality? I am inclined to think that he may so one day be considered, and so to a certain extent even accounted for. He has, apparently, abjured Ireland; the subjects of all his ridicule are Irish; moreover, it is improbable that when the new censorship begins to operate, the mind of the youth will have any but furtive opportunities to form itself upon Joyces writings. Joyce is, none the less, in several respects a champion spirit in the new national situation. In him, for the first time, the mind of Catholic Ireland triumphs over the Anglic[an]ism of the English language, and expatiates freely in the element of a universal language: an important achievement, for what has driven Catholic Ireland back upon the Irish language is the ascendancy in the English language of English literature, which, as a Catholic clergyman once truly asserted, is saturated with Protestantism. In Joyce, perhaps for the first time in an Irish writer, there is no faintest trace of Protestantism: that is, of the English spirit. [...] we are obliged to admit that in Joyce literature has reached for the first time in Ireland a complete emancipation from Anglo-Saxon ideals. Remarks on the Irishness of Joyces almost pedantic preoccupation with language and calls this a feature of his mind that puts the foreign critic [...] at a disadvantage compared with one who is acquainted with Joyces race and upbringing. Further: Critics of Joyce appear to me to ignore too much his peculiar origins, and it would be advantageous for the critical comprehension of Joyce generally and for Joyce himself - as it is for every important writer - that a country should be found for him. [...] (pp.41-20; rep. in Robert Deming, ed., James Joyce: The Critical Heritage, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1970 [Vol. 2], pp.456, 459.) Note: see also his earlier Dublin Letter, in Dial (June 1922), in which he admits that he does not fully understand Ulysses, even the parts in which his character appears. (Quoted in Sam Slote, Catalogue Notes, Buffalo Univ. Library Bloomsday Centennial Exhibit, 2004 [online; 31.12.2008].)
[ top ] Frank OConnor (Irish Statesman, April 1930): Mr. Joyces reputation, such as it is, resets upon two books, the Portrait [... &c.] and Ulysses. In the two other books that preceded these he was obviously handing material which he could not work; he was neither a great romantic poet nor a great realistic story-teller, and his poems and stories were excellent only in their sensitiveness to form and style. / In the two biographical fantasies that followed, Ireland found its greatest artist. [...] In his latest work, reviled by friend and foe alike, Joyoce has carried those obsessions [viz., form and style] further, but the step is as big as that between [515] the Portrait and Ulysses; it is Joyce of the third period, and the greatest of Irish artists has sailed off into a world where the atmosphere - for most normal lungs - is so rare that it is scarce liveable-in. Nobody quite understands the form; nobody in Europe is quite qualified to say what any particular passage may mean, and Joyces critics ask in something like his own words, Are we speachin danglas landadge, or are you spraking sea Djoytsch? / That I think is not really Mr. Joyces fault. He is really not a lover of mystification, and he had done his best to make his meaning clear [...; here mentions Exagmination.] This associative language is the readers first great stumbling block [...] It anticipates in the first place the break-up of the English language into dialects, a phenomenon that is already taking place slowly under our eyes in American, Scots and Irish literature - one has only to think of negro poetry in America or McDiarmids experiments in synthetic Scots. It also anticipates the universalisation of language. [516] By this new work, Joyce has kept for himself a place in the mind of Europe. It would have been so easy for him, after Ulysses, to have been content with the position of an imitator of himself. [... &c.; 519] (Joyce: The Third Period, in Irish Statesman, 12 April 1930, pp.114-16; rep. in Robert Deming, ed., James Joyce: The Critical Heritage, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1970 [Vol. 2], p.515-18.)
[ top ] Harold Nicholson (BBC, Autumn 1931): [Joyce] seized the muse of Irish romance by her pallid neck, dragged her away from the mists and wailings of forgotten legend and set her in the sordid streets of Dublin of 1904. In so doing he did well. [...] You must abandon your receptivity, you must not expect a less or a story, you must expect only to absorb a new atmosphere, almost a new climate [...; Joyce has] added enormously to our capacity for observation: once you have absorbed the Joyce climate, you begin to notice things in your mind which have never occurred to you before. And to have given a new generation a whole new area of self-knowlede is surely an achievement of great importance. (BBC Broadcast, Autumn 1931; quoted in Patricia Hutchins, James Joyces World, Methuen 1957, p.176.) Hutchins further tells that Nicholson was forced to broadcast without mentioning the banned book Ulysses by name in a compromise reached with Sir John Reith, the Dir.-General, and that he (Nicholson) later wrote to her, I was indignant at the time but I now [175] think that Reith was quite right is saying one cannot mention on the wireless a book [...] prohibited by the Home Office. (Ibid., pp.175-76). Note, the text was printed as The Significance of James Joyce and The Modernist Point of View in The Listener, 16 Dec. & 23 Dec. 1931; and rep. in Robert Deming, ed., James Joyce: The Critical Heritage, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1970 [Vol. 2], p.560-63; only the first sentence in the version cited by Hutchins is given in Deming.
|