85

CHAPTER TWO
James Joyce and critical theory
orra+ rraot+
Comparative Critical Studies 1, 12, pp. 8596 BCLA 2004
In his contribution to this volume, Robert Weninger shows that there
are at least two major kinds of reception aesthetics or reader response
theory, associated with the two main figures of the Constance School,
Wolfgang Iser and Hans-Robert Jauss. The first school deals with the
microcosm of response, the second with the macrocosm; the first is
synchronic, the second diachronic. Weninger also places this predomin-
antly German phenomenon in literary criticism in the context of the
mostly French revolution in literary criticism and theory that went
under many different names but that is most commonly referred to as
post-structuralism. Both reader-reception theories and post-structuralism
can be considered as belonging to what Jauss called the fourth
paradigm in literary theory in that they give the central role in the
literary process to the reader of the text.
At the time when Jauss was writing there were many different ways
to interpret and even to describe the developments in literary theory
between the mid-sixties and the beginning of the eighties, none of
them without problems. Even the dates are not unproblematic. But
since that time the fierce debates have calmed down and the theory
wars have long since been followed by a series of other conflicts; of
these the scandal of Paul de Man, the science wars and the culture
wars may well be the most important. But even to a casual observer it
is clear that there are links between the theory wars and the other
scandals and wars, so that we have almost reached the point where it is
necessary to make post-structuralism itself into the object of a
Wirkungsgeschichte.
In fact, this is, in a very limited fashion, what I tried to do in my
doctoral dissertation for the University of Toronto, on the French
critical reception of Friedrich Hlderlin and James Joyce, which was
later turned into two separate books. Together, the two studies
sketch a history of the specifically French development of post-
structuralism. What I would like to do in this essay is sketch briefly
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 85
orra+ rraot+ 86
what the role of James Joyce and his work has been in this develop-
ment.
In a way, my choice of the German poet and the Irish novelist as the
twin focuses of the study was dictated more by my personal tastes than
by any knowledge of or insight into the dynamics of French intellectual
history. But what I discovered to my very welcome surprise was that
this arbitrary choice turned out to be extremely felicitous. Broadly
speaking one can observe two different things:
1. Hlderlins poetry is central in French criticism in the period
between the end of the Second World War until about 1968, when
references to the poet almost disappear. In the same year Hlne
Cixous almost single-handedly places Joyce in the position of
writers writer that had been left vacant by Hlderlin and this lasts
until the second half of the seventies. In the late seventies Joyces
impact slowly diminishes and Hlderlin re-appears.
2. Apart from this temporal alternation, a close study of the waxing
and waning of Hlderlins influence in France allows one to see the
full extent of the influence of Martin Heideggers thought on
French post-structuralism. The Marxist atmosphere of the sixties
obscured the German philosophers contribution to post-structuralist
thinking when in 1976 with the death of both Heidegger and of
Chairman Mao and with the debate about the Vietnamese boat
people, the hegemony of the intellectual Left was first seriously
challenged by so-called nouveaux philosophes Andr Glucksman and
Bernard-Henri Lvy.
Of course Joyces reputation in France did not really start with the
defence and publication of Hlne Cixous doctoral dissertation. It has
even been argued, mostly by French critics, that already in the
twenties France was responsible for Joyces international literary fame
and there are some arguments in support of such a case. But Joyces
introduction in France was due to two Americans. It was Ezra Pound
who convinced him to leave Trieste for Paris and it was Sylvia Beach
who on Christmas Eve 1920 introduced the Irish writer to Valery
Larbaud. In early February she sent the French writer and critic
copies of The Little Review in which Ulysses had been serialised.
Larbaud was more than enthusiastic. On 22 February he wrote Beach
(in English), I am raving mad over Ulysses It is wonderful! As great
as Rabelais.
1
Sylvia Beachs friend and colleague Adrienne Monnier
organised a lecture by Larbaud about Ulysses on 7 December 1921, two
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 86
James Joyce and Critical Theory 87
months before the book was published; 250 Parisians attended.
Nineteen years later Adrienne Monnier remarked about the lecture:
Cest bien la premire fois, croyons-nous, quun ouvrage de langue
anglaise ait t tudi en France, par un crivain franais, avant de
ltre en Angleterre ou en Amrique.
2
This lecture and especially its
later publication in the Nouvelle Revue Franaise not only made Joyces
name in France and in other European countries with an intellectual
lite that looked up to Paris, the shorter version of the lecture
published in the Criterion created a quarrel that amounted to very
welcome publicity for the book.
Central in the argument of Larbauds article is the claim that James
Joyce invented the interior monologue. This novelty was so important
that an author like Jean Giraudoux, one of the most popular French
writers of the time, could sarcastically comment in his novel Juliette au
pays des hommes, ce qui intriguait Paris en ce moment, ce ntait certes
pas la mort, ctait le monologue intrieur.
3
On the other hand, all this
discussion kept Joyce at the centre of literary attention and ten years
later he would cynically tell one of his associates that he needed another
of these well-named concepts to keep his name in the spotlights.
Larbaud not only compared Joyce to French writers like Flaubert
and Lautramont, but for him, the Irish writer was essentially a
European: Il est ce quon appelle un pur Milsien: Irlandais et
catholique de vieille souche; de cette Irlande qui se sent quelques
affinits avec lEspagne, la France et lItalie, mais pour qui lAngleterre
est un pays tranger dont rien, pas mme la communaut de langue, ne
la rapproche.
4
(Larbaud 1922a, 387).
This was a view that Joyce may have had some sympathy with (in
fact it may well be one of the parts of the article that he helped
Larbaud to write) and it is a view that helped Joyces acceptance in
France as a major writer in English, but it did not endear him to the
Irish writers. From the opening of his piece, Larbaud speaks as a pre-
eminent European writer himself, when he claims that the men of
letters of his own generation consider Joyce as the greatest currently
living writer of the English language, the equal of Swift, Sterne and of
Fielding.
5
According to Larbaud, Joyce did as much as did all the
heroes of Irish nationalism to attract the respect of intellectuals of
every other country toward Ireland. His work restored Ireland, or
rather gave to young Ireland an artistic countenance, an intellectual
identity (253). It is in this respect that he can be compared to Ibsen,
Strindberg, Nietzsche.
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 87
orra+ rraot+ 88
Joseph Kelly in Our Joyce: From Outcast to Icon, claimed that the
appearance of Joyce as a modernist writer was an invention of two
American writers, Eliot and Pound, yet all of the characteristics that
Kelly identifies figure prominently in Larbauds article too: Joyce is a
European genius who has written classic works of literature that have
finally put Ireland on the literary and intellectual map.
6
The influential critic Ernest Boyd took the bait and accused
Larbaud of refusing to see that Joyce was first and foremost an Irish
writer, more specifically the direct heir to the Irish Revival of the early
part of the century. Boyd was not Irish: he was an American born in
Dublin who had settled in New York in 1920 and who was, not
accidentally, a historian of the Irish Revival. Joyce had known of
Ernest Boyds existence at least since March 1917, when from Zrich
he thanked the critic for his review of A Portrait of the Artist as a
Young Man in New Ireland and he had been very disappointed when
his name failed to appear in Boyds Irelands Literary Renaissance,
which was in 1916 the first book-length history of the Irish Revival to
appear. Boyd published an essay in the 28 May 1922 issue of New
York Tribune that would become the basis of an addition to the revised
edition of his book.
Boyd begins the article by claiming that Joyces originality and claim
to fame do not rely on his poetry or drama, but on the three volumes
of fiction. Dubliners, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Ulysses
have rightly aroused the attention of the intelligent public in Europe
and America, even though a French critic has rashly declared that with
them Ireland makes a sensational re-entry into European literature
(302). Boyd claims that apart from its affecting and ingenuous belief in
the myth of a European literature, this statement rests on false
assumptions and he especially objects to Larbauds attempt to read Joyce
outside of the facts of Irelands literary and intellectual evolution.
Boyd claims that the effort to cut Joyce off from the stream of which
he is a tributary can only be 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.
Joyces work itself refutes such ideas: To claim for this book a
European significance simultaneously denied to J. M. Synge and James
Stephens is to confess complete ignorance of its genesis, and to invest
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 88
James Joyce and Critical Theory 89
its content with a mysterious import which the actuality of references
would seem to deny (305).
Boyd continued the polemic in January 1925 in the New York The
World with a rebuttal of the special relationship that Joyce, according
to Larbaud, had enjoyed with the New Ireland. Boyd assumes that
Larbauds expression refers to the newly independent Ireland of Sinn
Fein and in that case the French writer is sadly mistaken. He explains
that it was only with great difficulty and by using different pseudo-
nyms that he himself managed to publish reviews of A Portrait of the
Artist as a Young Man in the Dublin nationalist journals and that the
New Ireland not only condemned Joyce, but with him all the other
writers of the revival, including Boyd himself (Deming 3201). In any
case, Joyce himself decided to side with Larbaud, because there are
indications that he urged the French writer to reply, which the latter
did in another article in the Nouvelle revue franaise in 1925.
It should be clear by now that this is not a quarrel between a
cosmopolitan French writer and a provincial Irish hack. Ernest Boyd
was not a nationalist bigot. He had been introduced to French literature
when he was still a child and had studied in Switzerland and Germany.
After a brief stint as the drama critic of the Irish Times, he joined the
British foreign office and worked as a diplomat in the United States,
Barcelona and Copenhagen. In 1920 he resigned because of his
sympathies for the Irish nationalist cause and he moved to New York.
It was there that he collected and edited the stories of Balzac and de
Maupassant, publications that were followed in 1928 with a biography
of the latter. He also translated Anatole Frances Rabelais and published
introductions for Casanovas Memoires, Zolas Nana and Sherwood
Andersons Winesburg, Ohio. If anything, his many literary activities
show that in many ways he did for French literature in America what
Valery Larbaud had done for British literature in France.
In France Joyce became a well-known figure. By the end of 1922
several stories from Dubliners had been translated and published in
various journals; a translation of Ulysses by Larbaud himself was under
way. In 1924 the French Portrait came out as Dedalus and two years
later the complete Dubliners and in 1929, finally, the French Ulysses.
Yet apart from some early adherents of the interior monologue, Joyces
writing did not really have much of an impact and this would not
change when Work in Progress was being published in the thirties and
Finnegans Wake itself in 1939. Neither did the Second World War
change Joyces impact at first.
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 89
orra+ rraot+ 90
But in the fifties Joyce made a come-back and his name was even
turned into a French adjective, Joycien. But the theoreticians of the
nouveau roman who did so much to make Joyce a household name in
their writings about the theory of the novel, managed to divest the
word Joycien of all meaning. In the theoretical writings of Alain
Robbe-Grillet, Nathalie Sarraute and Michel Butor Joyce is always one
of a litany of famous precursors: this is an example from Robbe-Grillet:
Flaubert, Dostoevsky, Proust, Kafka, Joyce, Faulkner, Beckett. With
the exception of Raymond Queneau and Georges Perec, both of them
intimately influenced by the Joyce of Ulysses and Finnegans Wake,
Joyces influence on French literature and criticism was limited to the
formulaic repetition of his name in literary manifestos.
This was not different when a new group of nouveau roman writers
started the magazine Tel Quel. In the meantime most of Joyces works
(with the exception of Finnegans Wake) had been translated. In addition
several collections of essays, introductory books and recollections by
French admirers had been published and the stage was set for a new
moment in the reception of Joyce. Initially, the telqueliens followed in
the footsteps of the nouveaux romanciers. From the beginning, Joyces
name was among the tutelary gods of Tel Quel, but only in 1968 did
Joyce suddenly become, not just an important writer, but the Author
par excellence.
In that year Hlne Cixous, an angliciste and assistant of Jean-
Jacques Mayoux, who had written an introductory book on Joyces
work, defended and published her dissertation on LExil de James
Joyce, one of the biggest monographs on the author ever published.
Although it is a fairly traditional Sorbonne thesis of the homme et
oeuvre type, the book contains a number of additions that were certainly
added after the defence and that have everything to do with the
revolutionary venements of May 1968, which were not exclusively
fought in the streets of Paris. One of the founding texts of post-
structuralist philosophy is Jacques Derridas long essay La Pharmacie
de Platon and it is this text that had just been published in two
instalments in Tel Quel. Derrida had shown an interest in Joyce since
his first publication, a translation of Husserl, and there is an intriguing
footnote in La Pharmacie that reads: The paragraph that ends here
would have mentioned that this Platonic pharmacy also contains and
annotates all of the text by Bataille, inscribing into the history of the
egg the sun of the cursed part. The whole of this essay being itself
nothing else, as one will soon have understood, but a reading of
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 90
James Joyce and Critical Theory 91
Finnegans Wake. Most readers, and Hlne Cixous is one of them,
interpret this comment as meaning that La Pharmacie can be read as
an interpretation of Finnegans Wake, but I have tried to argue in The
French Joyce that this only makes sense on an extremely superficial
level as meaning that the Wake, like Platos pharmacy (and almost
every other text, by definition), problematizes writing.
Cixous was sufficiently impressed by Derridas point to add to her
rather old-fashioned Sartrean biographical reading of Joyce three extra
sections detailing the possible connections between Joyces later work
and Egyptian lore, which is totally dependent on Derridas text on the
one hand and on the chapter about the Egyptian Book of the Dead in
James Athertons The Books at the Wake on the other hand. Cixous
appendix does not, as far as I have been able to establish, contain any
new idea. The obvious haste with which the introduction of new
materials was effected has resulted in visible scars: the three added
sections are not integrated in the book, but just added to it.
In a way Cixouss textual strategy in LExil de James Joyce illustrates
the heady and hurried atmosphere of May 1968 and in these events Tel
Quel played a crucial role: Cixous had published chapters of her
dissertation in Tel Quel and the same magazine had also published
translations of the Joyce chapters of Umberto Ecos Opera Aperta,
three years before the book as a whole would be translated. She had
also organised the publication of the so-called dirty letters between
Joyce and his wife, which cost her the friendship of Maria Jolas.
May 1968 has been described as at least in part a conflict between
two different intellectual clans, on the one hand the traditional
professors of the Sorbonne and on the other an alliance of progressive
students and teachers at the Ecole normale suprieure, other schools
such as the Ecole Pratique des hautes tudes and a number of public
intellectuals. This is clear for example in the paradigmatic and very
well-documented 1965 conflict between Roland Barthes and the
Sorbonne scholar of Racine, Raymond Picard. In Homo academicus
Pierre Bourdieu has described May 1968 as a revolt against the central
power of the University on the part of these margins, and if he is right,
it is clear that by the seventies, it was the latter group who had won the
battle. Especially at the beginning, this conflict was one between the
humanist and historical traditions in French academic criticism on the
one hand and on the other a semiotic and structuralist science of
literature. It was only in the later writings of Barthes that criticism
became what he called the mathesis singularis, the impossible science of
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 91
orra+ rraot+ 92
the unique being. In the earlier form of post-structuralist thinking, the
dominant feeling was one in which linguistics would be the mother or
master science of all humanist disciplines. And it was a movement that
was non- or even anti-institutional: the central figures Barthes, Foucault,
Lacan, Derrida, were all critical of institutions such as the university,
and their own power (what Bourdieu calls their symbolic capital) did
not depend on an institution.
A similar movement can be seen at work in Tel Quel. The central
figure in that journal was Philippe Sollers, a writer without any
academic affiliation, who took over the board in the early sixties after a
coup dtat in which he got rid of Jean-Edern Hallier, the other French
enfant terrible. Under Sollers the journals existence resembled that of
the maoist groupuscule that it would become in the second half of 1968.
Just before the events of May 68, he had already ousted his main rival
Jean-Pierre Faye, who started the journal Change which would for a
while offer a less maoist but still radically leftist alternative to Tel Quel.
The remaining group around Philippe Sollers proclaimed La
rvolution ici maintenant and the establishment of a Groupe dtudes
thoriques consisting of the journals still active contributors and
dedicated to a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary ideal. This ideal is both
theoretical (i.e. philosophical and critical) and practical, which in this
context means literary. Central is a theory of criture that is adopted
from Derridas philosophy and Lacans psychoanalysis. This is followed
by several rounds of quarrels with other journals and groups, leading
to a break with the Communist Party in 1971 and the open adoption of
maoism. In the next six years Sollers would run Tel Quel, published by
a Catholic publisher, as a journal purely devoted to Marxist-Leninism.
The practical literary results are only visible in the following year: in
Tel Quel two long essays are published by Stephen Heath. Sollers
himself publishes the novel Lois, which he claims he had completely
rewritten after reading Finnegans Wake. From a theoretical point of
view: Finnegans Wake becomes the paradigm for a radically political
theory of criture. This was all too evident when in 1975 Sollers delivered
a paper and then took part in a panel at the Paris International James
Joyce Symposium. Sollers opens his talk, which was duly published in
Tel Quel under the title Joyce and Company, with the statement that
since Finnegans Wake was written, English no longer exists. The book
represents a political act, since to the virulent nationalism of pre-war
fascism, Joyce opposed what Sollers calls a transnationalism. It is
Joyces interest in religion that makes the Wake the most formidably
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 92
James Joyce and Critical Theory 93
antifascist book produced between the two wars. Politics pervades
everything, even psychoanalysis. Sollers sees contemporary history as a
fundamental struggle between Jung and Freud, and Joyce clearly takes
Freuds side against Jung who represents the set of spiritualist or
para-occultist resistance to psychoanalysis, a metaphysical counter-
investment. Finnegans Wake thus becomes the central text in a global
cultural revolution.
In the wake of the rise of the nouveaux philosophes in 1976 Tel Quel
explicitly repudiated its maoism and Sollers henceforth reserved his
adulation for Pope John Paul II, although his admiration for Jacques
Lacan remained intact up to the latters death and beyond. In his
creative writing, Sollers now takes the bible as his source and he writes
about that book, in terms that remind one of his statements about
Finnegans Wake, that it is the book that most frightens all moderns,
that scandalizes most and shocks most deeply their incredible decency.
Joyce remains central in Sollers experimental novels, especially in
Paradis, a book without capital letters and without punctuation, multi-
lingual and intertextual, which may well be the closest a French writer
has ever come to the kind of writing that Joyce had attempted in
Finnegans Wake.
In a very important sense, Sollers may well be one of the most
central figures in the French reception of Joyce and even in the
development of post-structuralism in general: not only were his
theoretical writings and discussions extremely influential, quite a few of
the post-structuralist thinkers treated him as an equal and most of them
read his creative prose works as representing the practical paradigm of
their theories. Roland Barthes devoted a whole book to Sollerss prose,
Julia Kristevas concept of intertexuality was at least in part based on
the technical innovations in her husbands Paradis, and Derrida and
Lacan showed great respect for his prose. Joyces influence on Sollers
theory and practice had reached its highest point in the late seventies.
Sollers still played a role at the 1982 Joyce centenary celebrations in
Paris, but in the next year he published the first of a series of straight
novels in which he paints a picture of Paris of the end of the twentieth
century from the perspective of an intellectual and a writer with the
kind of life only Philippe Sollers leads. As he moved away stylistically
from the experimental writing of his middle period, Sollers also
abandoned Joyce as an exemplary figure, although his work still
occasionally refers to the Irish writer. We can observe similar changes
in the interest in Joyces work in Cixous and Derrida. The former lost
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 93
orra+ rraot+ 94
interest in Joyce by the end of the seventies, Derrida wrote, delivered
and published two of his longer conference addresses in the mid-
eighties but since then he has ceased to comment on Joyce. With only
a few exceptions, most of the French Joyceans now active do not
consider themselves as post-structuralists any longer. The ex-students
of Hlne Cixous are engaged in what they themselves call critique
gntique, the close study of the genesis of Joyces texts, especially
Ulysses and Finnegans Wake.
There is no time to show this here (I refer you to my book and to
the much more comprehensive volume The Reception of James Joyce in
Europe (Continuum 2004) which I have edited), not just Sollers
interpretations but also Lacan and Derridas readings of Joyce tell us
much more about their own thinking than about the Irish writer. Most
probably the reason for this is simply that despite what they and what
their followers have claimed, Joyces work only seemed to confirm
their thinking, a linguistics-based Freudianism on the one hand and a
radically anti-referential linguistic philosophy on the other. Neither
Lacan nor Derrida comments on any specific Joyce text; they restrict
their readings to what Derek Attridge has called Joyce Effects and it
is only their many commentators who, from the late seventies to the
end of the eighties, have applied the psychoanalytical and philosophical
readings to concrete texts of Joyce.
This is the situation in France. It is remarkable then, if we look at
the reception of the French reception of Joyce, or, to be more precise,
the meta-reception of the French Joyce, to see that the spectre of
French Joyce still haunts Joyce criticism. Both Attridge and Christine
van Boheemen have recently published books in which they explore
the impact of Derrida and that of both Derrida and Lacan respectively.
Van Boheemen even claims that Joyces writing not just anticipates the
quarrel but that Derrida and Lacans different interpretations of Joyce
are prefigured in Joyces writing and that this writing is necessary to
fully understand the work of the philosopher and of the psychoanalyst.
The rhetoric of later feminist, postcolonial and cultural studies
approaches to Joyces work are also often marked by Lacan or
Derridas comments on Joyce and the same is true for the genetic work
of David Hayman and some of his students.
If we take seriously Foucaults and Robert Weningers suggestions
about transdiscursive writers and apply them to the field of post-
structuralist Joyce and to the theoretical approaches in general, it is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that, at least in the French context and
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 94
James Joyce and Critical Theory 95
probably for only a limited amount of time, both James Joyce and
Philippe Sollers are such writers, or better, such author-functions:
Ulysses, Finnegans Wake and Paradis were for a rather brief time
paradigms, reference-works.
This in itself is not interesting, although of course it remains strange
that the same political ideology, stalinist communism, could give rise
to a total condemnation of Ulysses by Radek on the one hand, and on
the other to an equally complete appropriation of Joyces last two
works by the French post-structuralists. Let us look again at the
interest in the reader that Jauss, more than a quarter of a century ago,
described as the basis for a fourth paradigm of literary studies. What
has happened to the reader in this process? Cynical observers may
claim that the shift, broadly, from the context in which the work was
written, to the author, to the work itself and finally to the reader of the
work, has resulted in a development that we can oberve in some recent
essays and books in the United States. Literature professors there have
begun to write their autobiographies, as if the reasoning of the
individual critic was: enough about these writers, enough about texts,
lets talk about me for a change. This American development too was
preceded by a similar movement in France where precisely the authors
who had first effected the death of the author started to write auto-
biographies or thinly disguised autobiographical novels. The major
figures of post-structuralism have all participated in what one could
call this autobiographical turn: Roland Barthes, Julia Kristeva, Philippe
Sollers, Jacques Derrida and a host of minor figures. But I am sure
that neither Hans-Robert Jauss nor Wolfgang Iser anticipated this
particular kind of reader aesthetics.
What this fairly recent phenomenon does illustrate, is that not all
readers are equal and this insight can help us offer an antidote to
Weningers Foucauldian pessimism about the possibility of reading
Ulysses without quotation marks. There are strong readers and weak
readers: the latter are what Thomas Kuhn would call the practitioners
of normal science, those critics who write glosses on Derrida or who
interpret Finnegans Wake through concepts found in the work of Lacan
or Deleuze. The former are strong readers like Radek and Sollers who
manage to construct interpretations that are not only radically different
but that in one way or another convince other readers. That their
readings are sometimes ludicrously idiosyncratic and even totally
irrelevant is not important: they are important because they come from
Lacan or Derrida. How you become such a strong reader is just as
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 95
orra+ rraot+ 96
much a mystery to me as to how, in the real world, one person
becomes a strong leader, but that there is a difference between the two
categories should be clear. Derrida and Kristeva can find a publisher
and readers for their autobiographical musings, whereas I cant.
Maybe literary criticism should become much more critical than it
has been in the last fifty years. Literary theory that focuses exclusively
on the reader seems to end in a kind of textual solipsism that does not
differ much from the exclusive focus on the text in New Criticism. A
truly critical criticism cannot simply on principle exclude the context
in which a literary work came into existence. This is not just true of
the genetic criticism that has in France replaced post-structuralism, it
is also true for the kind of reception studies that will be published in
the extensive volumes on the European reception of Joyces work that
Wim Van Mierlo and I have been editing in the series on the Reception
of British Authors in Europe (Series Editor: Elinor Shaffer) published by
Continuum. Surely it is only possible to give a meaningful description
of how authors and their works were read in a particular national or
cultural context, when we know first what they thought they were
doing? This is especially true for an author like James Joyce who
played such a central role in the way his work was presented to the
public and who had an immense impact on the criticism written during
his life-time. With some exaggeration, it might be claimed that in the
case of Finnegans Wake it would be possible to trace almost all the
major critical insights about that book to statements by the author
himself. If that is the case, we might do worse than invest more time
and energy in trying to establish exactly how James Joyce read Ulysses
and Finnegans Wake. After all, that too is a kind of reader reception.
o+rs
1 Valery Larbaud, Lettres Adrienne Monnier et Sylvia Beach 19191933 (Paris:
ditions Imec, 1991), 40.
2 Adrienne Monnier, LUlysse de Joyce et le public Franais, La Gazette des amis
des livres 10 (1940), 51.
3 Jean Giraudoux, Juliette au pays des hommes (Paris: mile-Paul, 1924), 149.
4 Valery Larbaud, James Joyce, La Nouvelle Revue Franaise, 103: 387.
5 Translation in Robert H. Deming, ed., James Joyce: The Critical Heritage: Volume
I (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970), 252.
6 Joseph Kelly, Our Joyce: From Outcast to Icon. Austin: University of Texas Press,
1998.
EUP_CCS_06Lernout 11/6/04, 7:16 pm 96