"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture
and, if possible, speak a few reasonable words." ~Goethe

~ also, if possible, to dwell in "a house where all's accustomed, ceremonious." ~Yeats

Showing posts with label Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Thoroughly Modernism

A PLACE WHERE ALL'S ACCUSTOMED, CEREMONIOUS
A Bar at the Folies-Bergère by Édouard Manet

******************

Manet's Folies-Bergère was part of Fry's exhibit


as was Cezanne's Great Pine


(click to enlarge & see Item #20, bottom left)

Roger Fry's 1910 Exhibition of Manet and the Post - Impressionists marked a new direction for impressionism, so distinct in fact that Virginia Woolf hailed it as the onset of Modernism:
"And now I will hazard [an] . . . assertion, which is more disputable perhaps, to the effect that on or about December 1910 human character changed. I am not saying that one went out, as one might into a garden, and there saw that a rose had flowered, or that a hen had laid an egg. The change was not sudden and definite like that. But a change there was, nevertheless; and since one must be arbitrary, let us date it about the year 1910. The first signs of it are recorded in the books of Samuel Butler, in The Way of All Flesh in particular; the plays of Bernard Shaw continue to record it. In life one can see the change . . . All human relations have shifted . . . And when human relations change there is at the same time a change in religion, conduct, politics, and literature. Let us agree to place one of these changes about the year 1910." (4 - 5)
"Mr Bennett and Mrs Brown", 1924

In addition to the 1910 Exhibition, another good place to look for the essence of Modernism is James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. By way of Stephen's theorizing, this novel contains all the major characteristics of Modernism and becomes a kind of textbook dramatization of these tenets. Stephen makes a conscious decision to break away from previously upheld beliefs. Taking an essentially Modernist stance, Stephen follows a spiritual and aesthetic path of complete abandonment and reorientation rather than trying to salvage or maintain the status quo: "His soul was still disquieted and cast down by the dull phenomenon of Dublin" (78).

What makes Stephen Dedalus a Modernist? He resorts to his imagination in a crisis. He triumphs over his enemy through language. He conquers through irony. Portrait is ultimately ironic and irony, which becomes a distinction of the Modernist canon. Even as a child, Stephen employs imagination, language, and irony, envisioning his own death and the disgrace of Wells:
"Wells too would be there but no fellow would look at him. The rector would be there . . . and there would be tall yellow candles . . . And they would carry the coffin out of the chapel slowly and he would be buried in the little graveyard . . . And Wells would be sorry then for what he had done. And the bell would toll slowly.

". . . How beautiful the words were where they said Bury me in the old churchyard! . . . He wanted to cry but not for himself: for the words, so beautiful and sad, like music. The bell! The bell! Farewell! O farewell!"(24 - 25)
What makes Stephen an artist? Because he wants "to meet in the real world the unsubstantial image which his soul so constantly beheld" (65). He wants to resolve conflict. Take, for example, the discussion of religion, country, and family which arises at the dinner table. The self - evident truth that these three factors or even two of them cannot be reconciled leads to such an unreliable and undesirable state that Stephen is eventually motivated to create a realm of beauty in contrast to the unsavory chaos of reality. Unfortunately, recognition of the conflict is also admission that the problem is unsolvable, that despite moments of ostensible harmony, the world is a fragmented mess:
"How foolish his aim had been! He had tried to build a breakwater of order and elegance against the sordid tide of life without him and to dam up, by rules of conduct and active interests and new filial relations, the powerful recurrence of the tide within him. Useless. From without as from within the water had flowed over his barriers: their tides began once more to jostle fiercely above the crumbled mole . . .

" . . . it wounded him to think that he would never be but a shy guest at the feast of the world's culture and that the monkish learning, in terms of which he was striving to forge out an esthetic philosophy, was held no higher by the age he lived in than the subtle and curious jargons of heraldry and falconry." (98, 180)
In the face of fragmentation and uncertainty, the artist's role in Modernism is to try one solution after the next. In his artistic growth, Stephen experiments with (1) the desire to be his own father, to generate himself out of and into perfect autonomy, reflecting the goal of Modernism that the text creates itself; (2) his sense of order, perceived via integitas, consonantia, and claritas, thus arriving at quidditas; (3) the questions he has set himself, the answers to which explain his aesthetic ("Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical, epical or dramatic? If not, why not?"); (4) the need to separate himself from the world and even from his work, "like the God of creation . . . within or behind or beyond or above . . . indifferent"; (5) his reliance on "silence, exile, and cunning" and fearlessness (212, 214, 215, 247):
"You made me confess the fears I have. But I will tell you also what I do not fear. I do not fear to be alone or to be spurned for another or to leave whatever I have to leave. And I am not afraid to make a mistake, even a great mistake, lifelong mistake and perhaps as long as eternity too. . . . I will take the risk."
I have always admired Stephen's list and been intrigued by the possibility that his declamation alone is enough to increase his courage and confidence. Whereas T.S. Eliot and Evelyn Waugh show us "fear in a handful of dust," James Joyce portrays fear as a call to action. Although Stephen Dedalus says the opposite, he enumerates the very things he fears the most and, by denouncing, conquers them.

SEE YOU IN TWO WEEKS FOR MY
Next Fortnightly Post
Friday, August 14th

Between now and then, read
THE QUOTIDIAN KIT
my shorter, almost daily blog posts
www.dailykitticarriker.blogspot.com


Looking for a good book? Try
KITTI'S LIST
my running list of recent reading
www.kittislist.blogspot.com

Sunday, June 28, 2015

The Young Language
of Stephen Dedalus

WHERE ALL'S ACCUSTOMED, CEREMONIOUS
" . . . the white look of the lavatory made him feel cold and then hot. There were two cocks that you turned and water came out: cold and hot. He felt cold and then a little hot: and he could see the names printed on the cocks."
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
James Joyce

Today, I'm picking up where I left off last time with yet another look at the young Stephen Dedalus and these observations which appeared previously in
Notes on Modern Irish Literature:
Volume 7 Number 2
Fall 1995

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man opens with an exploration of how Stephen, from infancy to youth has learned to make sense of language and how this sense is made. He wonders about homonyms: "That was a belt round his pocket. And belt was also to give a fellow a belt." He wonders about syntax and dialogue: "What was the right answer to the question? He had given two and Wells laughed." Stephen's search for meaning is evident in his consternation over Wells' question about kissing and his deliberation over God's name: "God's real name was God." Names, nicknames, euphemisms, graffiti -- these are just a few of the many examples of the evolution of Stephen's thought and language.

French literary critic Michael Riffaterre (1924 - 2006) was well - known for insisting on a "theory of literariness rather than of literature," stressing that the role of the reader is crucial if the text is to be considered poetic or literary (Interview in Diacritics, Winter 1981, 13). He explains that "the reader's perception of what is poetic is based wholly upon reference to texts." These previous texts signify the literary or poetic value of the text at hand by providing the reader with poetic signs which Riffaterre calls hypograms. Hypogrammatic derivation is the process by which a word or phrase is poeticized when it refers to (and, if a phrase, patterns itself upon) a pre-existent word group" (Semiotics of Poetry, 22 - 23). Riffaterre focuses primarily on reading, on what conventions govern the reception of the text, and on exactly how readers comprehend the linguistic signs of the poetic text, including cultural or mythological codifications "ranging from lexical items through cliches, quotations, and sound combinations to syntactic structures" (Diacritics Interview 12).

Riffaterre observes various types of hypogrammatic derivation, one of which -- the neologism -- is particularly applicable to the opening chapter of Joyce's Portrait, which captures and delineates Stephen's early attempts to understand how language works. The young language of Stephen Dedalus is filled with neologisms, not so much because the words themselves are newly coined but because they are entirely new to Stephen -- or nearly so. In his description of Stephen's language, Joyce portrays a number of ways in which speakers or listeners make sense of and assign meaning to the neologisms they encounter. For the boy Stephen, all words are neologisms because they are all new to him, and he has as yet only a limited frame of reference in which to place them.. In fact, what the reader witnesses in the opening chapters of Portrait is the formation of such a frame in Stephen's mind.

Stephen derives semantic meaning from newly encountered words and phrases much the same way that Riffaterre's model of hypogammatic derivation yields poetic meaning -- placing them as signs in the context of his semiotic and literary practice and looking for their reference to pre - existent word groups. In fact Stephen does search for literariness in his spelling sentences, which seem like poetry to him: "Wolsey died in Leicester Abbey / Where the abbots buried him. / Canker is a disease of plants, / Cancer one of animals." He daydreams about how pleasurable it would be to lie before the fire at home and "think on those sentences" (10), even though they are simply exercises from a work book. Perhaps it is the repeated initial sounds of the first two sentences (Wolsey / Where) and the juxtaposition of the minimal pair (Canker / Cancer) in the next two lines that are signs to Stephen of poeticity. And, of course, the rhythm. Then there is the verse which Fleming has written in Stephen's geography book:

"Stephen Dedalus is my name,
Ireland is my nation,
Clongowes is my dwellingplace,
And heaven my expectation."

What signifies poetry in this case is the rhyme; for Stephen observes that the verse read backwards is no longer "poetry" (16). In these verses, the hypogram is not a single word but a combination of conventional associations. Stephen's perception of what is poetic, like that of Riffaterre's reader, is based "wholly upon reference to texts." Stephen has in his frame of reference such texts as "Pull out his eyes / Apologise" which predicate the identification of the spelling sentences and Flemings's jingle as poetic (8).

Before long, Stephen is outgrowing nursery rhymes and jingles. He yearns to move beyond the readily perceptible metrical and phonological patterns which govern the "poetry" of his early childhood. He is impatient to "be like the [big] fellows in Poetry and Rhetoric," whose knowledge seems to give them so much strength and power. "It pained him that he did not know well what politics meant and that he did not know where the universe ended. He felt small and weak" (17).

Stephen has already begun, however, to understand the complexities of the universe -- a word at a time. For example, when he stands on the playground with "his hands in the side pockets of his belted gray suit," he thinks, "That was a belt round his pocket And belt was also to give a fellow a belt." He places the two homonyms in context, first feeling the belt around his coat and then remembering an exchange between two of the other boys: "-- I'd give you a belt in a second. . . . -- Go and fight your match. Give Cecil thunder a belt. I'd like to see you. He'd give you a toe in the rump for yourself." It crosses Stephen's mind that rump is "not a nice expression," and he remembers his mother's admonition that he not "speak with the rough boys in the college" (9). Stephen calls up all the representations of the word that he knows, saturating himself momentarily with the idea of belt. In addition to identifying the two denotations of the word, he decodes a negative connotation as well, remember his mother's warning against rough speech.

Clongowes Wood College
Vintage Class Picture ~ No Names Given

Surrounded as he is by boys on the playground, he soon overhears another expression, similar in its negative connotation: "You are McGlade's suck." Stephen thinks upon hearing this that "Suck was a queer word. . . . the sound was ugly" (11). He appeals to the sensory impressions which survive from past experiences in his frame of reference. It is not that he has heard this word spoken before, but that the nature of the word itself -- its sound and its various connotations -- remind him of past events. First he describes the behavior which provokes the other boys to call Simon a suck, then he recalls the sucking sound made when his father pulled the lavatory plug:
"Once he had washed his hands in the lavatory of the Wicklow Hotel and his father pulled the stopper up by the chain after and the dirty water went down through the hole in the basin. And when it had all gone down slowly the hole in the basin had made a sound like that: suck. Only louder.

"To remember that and the white look of the lavatory made him feel cold and then hot. There were two cocks that you turned and water came out: cold and hot. He felt cold and then a little hot: and he could see the names printed on the cocks. That was a very queer thing."
(11 - 12)
The memory of the water in the sink reminds him further of the white enamel, and he feels first cold then hot as he pictures the two small words written on the water spouts. The damp feeling this memory evokes does not leave him, and when he sits at the table for tea, the damp white bread, the damp white table cloth, and the white apron of the kitchen-help make him wonder "whether all white things are cold and damp" ( 13). This entire chain of thought is initiated and governed by Stephen's attempt to confirm the meaning of the word suck.

Stephen lends an "avid ear" to the conversation of his elders, in hopes of mastering their vocabulary and assimilating as many new words as possible into his own:
"Words which he did not understand he said over and over to himself till he had learnt them by heart: and through them he had glimpses of the real world about him. The hour when he too would take part in the life of that world seemed drawing near and in secret he began to make ready for the great part which he felt awaited him the nature of which he only dimly apprehended." (62)
For Stephen, words such as belt and suck are neologisms, relationships between the familiar and the unfamiliar. With both of these words, and others such as heartburn, kiss, Athy, smugging, wine, and order, Stephen is indeed compelled to decode consciously and deliberately.

He does so with phrases as well as with single words, striving to understand the cultural context of the hypogram. For example, when Wells begs, "don't spy on us," fearful that Stephen will tell on him for the skirmish which has placed Stephen in the infirmary Stephen realizes the meaning of his father's parting advice "never to peach on a fellow (22). Later when he is home for the holidays he thinks of something white that is not cold and damp and negative in connotation -- he things of ivory and of the long, white, thin, cool, soft hand of his friend Eileen. Eileen is someone else with whom he is not supposed to play -- not because she is rough but because she is a Protestant. Stephen questions the judgment of his Catholic governess: "She did not like him to play with Eileen because she was a protestant and when she was young she knew children that used to make fun of the litany of the Blessed Virgin. Tower of Ivory, they used to say, House of Gold! How could a woman be a tower of ivory or a house of gold? Who was right then?" (36). But when Eileen touches his eyes and his hand with hers, he makes his own connections; he thinks that ivory is a "cold white thing" and that Eileen's hands are "like ivory, only soft. That was the meaning of Tower of Ivory but protestants could not understand it and made fun of it. . . . Her fair hair had streamed out behind her like gold in the sun. Tower of Ivory. House of Gold. By thinking of things you could understand them" (36, 43; emphasis added).

Stephen's conclusion here is strikingly similar to Riffaterre's certainty that one can understand even the puzzling signs and hypograms of a text or culture if one tries hard enough: "Finding the hypogram is a matter of perception: the reader simply cannot identify it unless it has already become part and parcel of his culture, unless he already knows the other text wherein it is contained. If it is part of his heritage, the reader will sooner or later catch the connection" (Interview in Diacritics 14, emphasis added). Stephen's thought pattern follows this model as he decodes the hypograms, Tower of Ivory and House of Gold. He is a perceptive person, and he knows that the pre - existent text to which these hypograms refer is the Litany of the Blessed Virgin. Even though the use of such phrases as metaphors is not, for him, an immediately accessible part of his culture, it is in a larger sense part of his heritage; thus he does -- as Riffaterre suggests one will -- "eventually catch the connection." For now, it is enough that he can interpret the phrases as descriptive of the beauty that he admires in his friend Eileen.

How a speaker or a reader derives meaning from words is a central concern of Portrait, the story of a child, who "frees himself with the words he makes his own" ("Out of Mere Words,"James Klein, 299). Stephen wants to somehow ground language, to find in it an absolute meaning to stand him in good stead in that future which he dimly apprehends. Joyce shows us how young Stephen Dedalus puzzles over words and phrases and bits of conversation and processes them as neologisms, gradually incorporating them into his own idiolect, and depositing them into his ever - growing frame of textual reference. We want to understand Stephen's continuous effort to control his universe through language -- because it is our own. And we, like Stephen, can understand things by thinking of them.

*******************

I searched and searched for an illustration of a young boy,
the age of little Stephen Dedalus, daydreaming before the fireside,
an Irish boy if possible, but I would have settled for any nationality.
Even so, the best I could find were some British pets . . .
from this favorite artist ~ another Stephen D.!

In Front of the Fire ~ by Stephen Darbishire

SEE YOU IN TWO WEEKS FOR MY
Next Fortnightly Post
Tuesday, July 14th

Between now and then, read
THE QUOTIDIAN KIT
my shorter, almost daily blog posts
www.dailykitticarriker.blogspot.com


Looking for a good book? Try
KITTI'S LIST
my running list of recent reading
www.kittislist.blogspot.com

Sunday, June 14, 2015

His Little Snuff Box

A GAME WHERE ALL'S ACCUSTOMED, CEREMONIOUS
Conkers ~ by Margaret Clarkson
Conkers, also called Hacking Chesnuts: "A formerly common boy's game. A chestnut was tied to a string, and a boy would compete to shatter another boy's chestnut by swinging / hacking his own chestnut at it. Wells's chestnut was a veteran - it had beaten 40 others."
With Bloomsday coming up on Tuesday ~ June 16th ~ I thought I'd take the opportunity to review some of my archived Joyce material from my semester as a student assistant on the James Joyce Quarterly. In Ulysses, Stephan Dedalus in 22 years old, but it is always good to take a look back at his childhood in A Portrait of the Artist as Young Man. When cataloging JJQ articles one afternoon back in the day, I came across a mis - reading of one of Stephen's schoolboy conflicts and wrote the following editorial correction of the discrepancy, which appeared previously in

The Explicator:
Volume 42, Number 4
(Summer 1984)

In her article "'Do You Kiss Your Mother?': Stephen Dedalus' Sovreignity of Ireland," Janet Grayson refers to "the cold, slimy ordeal he [Stephen] has endured for refusing to give up his hacking chestnut." In fact, this skirmish between Stephen and Wells derives from Stephen's refusal to accept the hacking chestnut which belongs not to Stephen but to Wells.

What Stephen won't part with is a little snuffbox. Wells is trying to persuade Stephen to trade the snuff box for Well's own hacking chestnut. Stephen recollects:
That was mean of Wells to shoulder him into the square ditch because he would not swop his little snuffbox for Well's seasoned hacking chestnut, conqueror of forty.
In his notes to A Portrait, Chester G. Anderson includes the significant biographical information that "when Joyce was at Clongowes he had a tiny snuff box in the form of a little black coffin" (p 488).

Because of the emphasis placed upon the hacking chestnut in Joyce criticism, it is important to establish that the chestnut belongs to Wells rather than to Stephen. The conflict caused by the chestnut clearly illuminates Stephen's personality, but owning a hacking chestnut would be incongruous with his character. Any material possession may reflect the character of it's owner, and it would be quite unlike Stephen, who stands on the side - lines of the football game, feeling himself small and weak and "thinking it would be better to be in studyhall" (10), to own a hacking chestnut, conqueror of forty. Stephen is not interested in physically competing with or conquering his school fellows. It is, however, quite in keeping with his artistic sensibility that he would possess a little snuffbox (perhaps coffin - shaped) and prize it enough to suffer the "slimy ordeal" for the sake of keeping it in his possession., Stephen, who is curious about such things as green roses,* is the kind of boy likely to be charmed by the quaintness of a tiny snuffbox and cherish it because of its cunning craftsmanship and the personal or sentimental value it may hold for him.

His Little Snuffbox:
Even more accustomed & ceremonious!
Five years or so ago, my friend Jill wrote: ". . . my grandpa always carried a buckeye in his pocket, one that was perfectly shaped for rubbing his thumb against. Somewhere I have his old buckeye, though I don't generally carry it my pocket. . ." [see comments]

READ MORE! PREVIOUS POSTS
ON BLOOMSDAY & JAMES JOYCE


The Fortnightly: Parallax & Snow Was General

Kitti's List: Book Haven

The Quotidian: 2010: Bloomsday

2011: Happy Bloomsday!

2012: Happy Bloomsday to All!

2013: Bloom's Day and Father's Day

2015: Stephen's Dilemma

**********

2009: Never Fear!

2012: Asked and Answered: What Do I Fear?

* "White roses and red roses: those were beautiful colours to think of. . . . Lavender and cream and pink roses were beautiful to think of. Perhaps a wild rose might be like those colours and he remembered the song about the wild rose blossoms on the little green place. But you could not have a green rose. But perhaps somewhere in the world you could."
~ Portrait
, 12 - 13

SEE YOU IN TWO WEEKS FOR MY
Next Fortnightly Post ~ "The Young Language of Stephen Dedalus"
Sunday, June 28th

Between now and then, read
THE QUOTIDIAN KIT
my shorter, almost daily blog posts
www.dailykitticarriker.blogspot.com


Looking for a good book? Try
KITTI'S LIST
my running list of recent reading
www.kittislist.blogspot.com