Ulysses - Episode 1 - Telemachus

[Traveller]

Regarding Arius: (from Wikipedia) The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father. This belief is grounded in John 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

[Traveller]

Regarding 'the subtle African heresiarch Sabellius who held that the Father was Himself His own Son':

In Christianity, Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.

[Traveller]

So a lot of "Father-son" allusions, it seems to be a theme or motif that has its root in the absence of/search for Telemachus's father.

[Charles]

Something to consider is that the usurper is the English (in the person of Haines) who are occupying the house and chasing after Penelope, not forgetting that Stephen is living in a martello tower, originally built for defense of the seacoast. I suppose someone might ask who's the Penelope here? Looking forward to Molly and Blazes Boylan, maybe, but I counsel myself this isn't an allegory with one-to-one correspondences but just a story with many, many associations built into it managed by frameworks such as the Oddysey, the which providing me no help for the passages Traveller refers to.

[Jan C]

I just re-read Telemachus (having found much in Circe that referred back to Telemachus) and I can't even find the paragraphs she is talking about. Admittedly I did not read it as thoroughly as previously.

On the second reading (and probably each succeeding reading) I was able to read it much more as a story than previously. Also I see the things that relate to some of the later episodes and find myself going, "Oh, that's what he was talking about" or "that's what means".

[Traveller]

Hmm, since this is a typical modernist novel in structure as well as narration, it seems, I suppose we will get more clarity as to exactly who Penelope is later on. (I hope)..or perhaps not exactly, eh?

JanC, the part about Arius and Sabellius gets mentioned just after Mulligan does that nasty little "Joking Jesus" song in which he pretends to flap away like a bird, and Haines and Stephen is walking behind him, and start a conversation. Haines then asks Stephen about his faith and so on.

"—I am a servant of two masters, Stephen said, an English and an Italian. —Italian? Haines said.
A crazy queen, old and jealous. Kneel down before me. —And a third, Stephen said, there is who wants me for odd jobs. —Italian? Haines said again. What do you mean? —The imperial British state, Stephen answered, his colour rising, and the holy Roman catholic and apostolic church. Haines detached from his underlip some fibres of tobacco before he spoke. —I can quite understand that, he said calmly. An Irishman must think like that, I daresay. We feel in England that we have treated you rather unfairly. It seems history is to blame."

The part I mentioned comes just after that, starting with:
" The proud potent titles clanged over Stephen's memory the triumph of their brazen bells: et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam: the slow growth and change of rite and dogma like his own rare thoughts, a chemistry of stars. Symbol of the apostles in the mass for pope Marcellus,..."

[Jan C]

Per Ulysses Annotated, it is referring to the Nicene or Apostles' Creed because each clause is attributed to one of the apostles.

And the "et unam sanctum..." is part of the Nicene credd - "an in one holy and catholic apostolic church".

And the portions following are his contemplations of the Nicene Creed.

Does that help any?

When I read it the first time, although I had the Annotated book - I was too proud to use it, or just couldn't be bothered. When I got to some of the harder episodes to read (Oxen of the Sun) I finnaly had to get out the Annotated book.

Also, I understand Cliff's Notes is real good on Ulysses and it is online. I don't know where, though a Google search would probably find it.

[Traveller]

Thanks for those clarifications, Bill and Jan. :)

Yes, history does seem to be another strong motif in the novel, doesn't it? I'm seeing it now more clearly in episode 2.

Thanks, Jan - I've now managed to find the Cliffnotes site, and it does seem helpful.

[Traveller]

Yes, well spotted with the toothless, Bill - toothless = harmless, impotent.

[Ally]

I thought I'd give this section a bump due to interest shown in the Welcome thread...please join us if you're interested. It's been here a while but it's a dense book and although I haven't yet finished I am determined to keep going, however slowly, even if it takes me years!!!

[Nigeyb]

^ Thanks Ally.


On the James Joyce thread here at BYT, Greg linked to this article in The Economist...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospe...

It contains this bit of advice/insight...

I had the luxury of a "Ulysses" seminar with ten other undergrads, a professor with a Joyce tattoo on his back, and a pub with Beamish on tap. That's the ideal, but you really don't need all that. The beer is important, but all you really need is a clean, well-lit room of one's own, a copy of "Ulysses", Don Gifford's "Ulysses Annotated", Harry Blamires's "The New Bloomsday Book" for chapter summaries, Joseph Campbell for some colour commentary, and some spare time.

There you go - how to read Ulysses in one paragraph.

[Charles]

Just discovered that this discussion had started up again -- but I can't get oriented. Only the last few comments on the first episode are recent. There are old comments scattered all through the episodes. Are we now taking the book as a whole? Or are we starting over? Or what? I was disappointed when the original discussion foundered, as Ulysses is one of my formative books, so I'm delighted to be back. I think I'm back...

[Nigeyb]

Maybe a new thread for the whole book is the way to go?

[Charles]

Or perhaps the four large groupings: The Telemachiad (Telemachus, Nestor, Proteus), Bloom's wanderings during the day (Calypso to Nausicaa), father and son, night, Bloom and Stephen encounter each other at last, they go home with each other to Eccles Street (Oxen of the Sun to Ithaca) and the final apotheosis, Molly's (Penelope's) monologue. That is: 1-3, 4-13, 14-17, 18.

In either case I would like to have a new set of discussion points, wider in scope and generality. Or perhaps a supplemental set...

I fear I'm complicating matters.

Actually, I would be delighted to develop a supplemental set, but personal matters have me under water at least until next month.

[Jan C]

Charles, you seem like the knowledgeable one and the logical person to set up supplemental questions. I don't think another month would make much difference.

I think your suggestion of the groupings would work fine. One large thread for the whole book might be too daunting for this book. It's daunting enough on its own.

[Charles]

OK, if there is general assent here I will give some thought to it and maybe dribble out some questions, if you-all will bear with me for a while.

[Ally]

I agree with Jan...it's a big old book and quite intimidating...I think we should stick with a breakdown of some kind. Supplementary questions sound good. I'd like to keep the conversations going in these original threads if possible as experience has meant that when the group re-reads books we end up with several different threads about the same subject. I can't speak for others but I like to revisit old thoughts as I re-read or indeed pick up a book from scratch that others have discussed before. I think it would get very confusing if we had new threads for Ulysses! My opinion is that we should encourage newer members to get involved from the beginning and pick up the conversations where they left off. This is one if those books one can have on the go for years and it's nice to have a solid place to come and reflect don't you think?

[Jan C]

I'm amenable, either way.

[Ally]

Definitely go with extra questions...that would be great.

[Charles]

Ally wrote: "I've been pondering again what I've been finding so difficult about this novel and I think that Jennifer has hit the nail on the head in saying she had difficulty regarding who was speaking."

I personally think this question of who is speaking is a red herring. When you get to the full-blown "stream-of-consciousness" -- the term was coined by William James some 30 years earlier -- in the Proteus episode, there is only one person -- Stephen -- and he is not speaking. Whatever he encounters or thinks is dropped on the page, and what gets dropped is only what he experiences. Other characters' speech is just another thing he encounters and has the same status as a thought or a beach pebble. The dashes which mark what purports to be reported speech don't -- there is no reported speech, which is why Joyce uses dashes and not quotes -- and frequently there is no closure to these fragments, which segue directly into some other thought or association. Everything is filtered through Stephen. Stephen doesn't mark who is speaking any more than we do -- there are no he saids and she saids in ordinary conversation. They are a narrative convention and what we have here is not a narrative. There is no story-teller to stick in the narrative markers. (Not true in an important sense irrelevant here.)

Also not true in another way -- it is possible to go back and work out the origins of the speech-like noises Stephen hears (;-> but at least on first reading I think it should just flow through you, like Stephen's experiences flor through him.

Yeah, right. There's a watermelon in the room. Don't think about the watermelon. We know what good advice of that sort is.