To Be and (or?) Not to Be: Joyce's rewriting of Shakespeare

3 Pape s on Joyce 2 (1996): 3-17 To Be and (o ?) No o Be: Joyce's Rew i ing o Shakespea e M ANUEL A LMAGRO J IMÉNEZ Uni e sidad de Se illa The igu e and wo k o William Shakespea e a e oday one o he mos ele an aspec s in James Joyce's ex s, pa icula ly in Ulysses and Finnegans Wake. Al eady, classic s udies like hose by William M. Schu e on Ulysses and by Vincen Cheng on Finnegans Wake es ablish ha he p esence o he English playw igh is deepe and mo e pe asi e han i may seem a i s sigh . Likewise, Weldon Tho n on's classic s udy does no ail o poin ou he g ea numbe o allusions o many Shakespea ean wo ks ha a eade may ind in Ulysses. 1 This should no be su p ising since, a e all, Shakespea e was no only an in luence o Joyce bu almos an obsession. Joyce gi es Shakespea e one o he highes places in his pe sonal his o y o li e a u e. On a ce ain occasion Joyce men ions he ele ance and signi icance o his being as old as Shakespea e was when he la e w o e Hamle . 2 Bu beyond he acknowledgemen o in luence, he e is also he desi e o imi a e, o be e and pe haps e en o kill he pa e nal igu e, so ha i is no di icul o ag ee wi h James S. A he on when he s a es ha “Joyce saw himsel as Shakespea e's i al—possibly his g ea es i al.” 3 Shakespea e's in luence is especially e iden h ough Hamle . This play is alluded o al eady in he i s episode o Ulysses whe e we a e also gi en he abs ac o a heo y, he exposi ion o which will comp ise mos o “Scylla and Cha ybdis.” In e ms o ex uali y, Hamle seems o be a mo e pe asi e and a ied p esence han he Odyssey o any o he ex . I we did no ha e he i le, Ulysses, we could in e p e he no el in e ms o Hamle ( ha is, mo e han we do al eady). This is some hing ha can be con using e en o he cha ac e s: S ephen conside s himsel a e-inca na ion o P ince Hamle wi hou ealizing ha he only plays a seconda y ole in a no el based on he Odyssey. 4 On he o he hand, he numbe o allusions o Hamle ha one can ind in Finnegans Wake indica es ha his play is a s uc u al model which Joyce is using as sca olding (one o hem, a leas ) in he cons uc ion o his own ex , in a simila ashion o he use he made o he Odyssey and he my h o Dedalus and Ica us. 5 Wha is in e es ing abou he p esence o Hamle is no ha we ind S ephen beha ing as i he we e P ince Hamle , bu a he he equen ex ual allusions o o he agmen s in Shakespea e's ex . In Ulysses, o example, we ind “F ail y, hy name is woman” (H I.2.146) eappea ing as “F ail y, hy name is Scep e” (U 12.1227-8), o as “F ail y, hy name is ma iage” (U 15.3277); he wo ds o he ghos “I am hy a he 's spi i ” (H I.5.9) become “Hamle , I am hy a he 's spi i ” (U 8.67-68 and 9.170), o “Hamle , I am hy a he 's gimle ” (U 15.3655) and e en “Bloom, I am Paddy Dignam's spi i . Lis , lis , O lis ” in “Ci ce” (U 15.1218, as he ghos in H I.5.9, and 22). The mos emblema ic ex in Hamle , “To be o no o be” (H 4 III.1.56), can be ound in Ulysses as “To ha e o no o ha e” (U 15.3522), o as “To en e o no o en e ” (U 17.82). Toge he wi h ano he agmen in he amous monologue, i eappea s as “Consumma ion de ou ly o be o no o be wished o ” (U 16.1031). Finally, in his b ie summa y a men ion should be made o a ex in “Ci ce” which seems o be a so o b idge be ween Ulysses and Finnegans Wake: “weda seca whokilla a s ” is an echo o “wed he second” in “Scylla and Cha ybdis” and also an allusion o Hamle (III.2.180). Mo eo e , gi en he way he o iginal ex is ew i en, i becomes a clea an icipa ion o he (gene al) me hod in Finnegans Wake, whe e, as migh be expec ed, he p ocess o ew i ing and eelabo a ion p oduces an enhancemen o he simple a ia ions ha we ind in Ulysses. To ci e only he mos ep esen a i e case, he beginning o Hamle 's monologue, he e a e in Finnegans Wake he ollowing a ia ions, acco ding o Cheng: “wide he migh he same . . . o he he would, wi h osend and obe osend” (FW 70.089), “me ken o no me ken Zo is he Quiz une” (FW 110.14), “Hanno O'Nonhanno” (FW 123.31-32), “in he ac o eci ing old Nichiabelli's monolook in e yea Hanno o Nonhanno, acce'l b ubblemm'as” (FW 182.19-21), “a wea e o no a wea e” (FW 319.28). 6 The eason o he p esence o hose a ia ions is ha hey cons i u e one o Joyce's ypical quali ies: ins ead o w i ing he con inuously ew i es he li e a y adi ion and, speci ically, a ew selec au ho s. In his case, Joyce ew i es Shakespea e no only o anscend him, bu also o c ea e mo e ope a i e ames o w i ing. The e o e, i we see ha Joyce uses Shakespea e as as s uc u al model, we mus no o ge ha we pe cei e ha use, as in he examples abo e, h ough mino a ia ions. Which c ea es a ce ain pa adox. I we ake a pa adigma ic example, such as “To be o no o be,” ew i en in Ulysses and Finnegans Wake unde a ious guises, we may no ice ha we a e a he same ime be o e some hing ha is and is no , some hing which on he one hand sends us o Hamle , o “To be o no o be,” while on he o he hand i shows us ha i is no exac ly ha ph ase. To pu i di e en ly, a he same ime he allusion shows i sel o be and no o be “To be o no o be.” Playing in his way wi h he signi ie allows Joyce o ew i e Shakespea e, while keeping a he same ime (a leas aces o ) he o iginal ex . Thus, we ind somewha pa adoxically ha “To be o no o be” leads o “To be and no o be,” s a ing a p ocess which goes beyond simple wo d- play o pun. Al hough Joyce keeps he ph asing “To be o no o be,” his p ac ice shows ha , in o de o ex end his s ylis ic and he e o e aes he ic possibili ies, he al e s he p emises and o mal implica ions o ha sen ence. In o he wo ds, i Hamle con empla es a doub be o e wo ce ain ies—Lys e calls him “hesi a ing soul” in U 9.3—Joyce p esen s he possibili y o including bo h ce ain ies a he same on ological le el. Tha is o say, wi h he pa adoxical ea men o “To be o no o be,” i is as i Joyce had subs i u ed he es o ha i s line o Hamle 's monologue (“Tha is he ques ion”) o ano he kind o discou se (“Is ha he ques ion?” o e en mo e adically “Is ha a ques ion?”). In his way, doub ceases o be ela ed o a choice be ween wo ce ain ies o become inhe en o he p ocess i sel by means o which ce ain y is c ea ed (and also, indi ec ly, doub and choice). This emphasizes he idea ha a ce ain y is ac ually no mo e han he end esul o a pa ial and, he e o e, p o isional p ocess o cons uc ion due o a selec ion wi hin a a ie y o di e en choices. In o he wo ds, “To be o no o be” e okes an opposi ion ha we may desc ibe as bina y and exclusi e, while “To be and no o be” e e s o opposi ions ha can be desc ibed as mul iple, inclusi e and p obably chao ic. 5 Thus, we migh say ha he p ocess o ew i ing which Joyce ca ies ou is ma ked by a quali y o inclusi eness. Fo Joyce, o pu i y o o e ine his s yle implies an in e sion o he no mal p ocedu e so ha he ex can include mo e and mo e hings, becoming a so o black hole which is able o abso b all kinds o ene gy o in o ma ion. 7 Joyce b ings abou his quali a i e change as wo king model o open and c oss wha S ephen calls he “po als o disco e y” (U 9.229), and abo e all o p esen he ew i ing which Finnegans Wake in ol es in all senses, pa icula ly in i s concep ion o language. Indeed, o use a well-known compa ison, in con as wi h he no es we hea in Ulysses, he cho ds which o m each wo d in Finnegans Wake a e he epi ome o his inclusi e model wi h i s mul iplici y o meanings and i s chao ic excess o in o ma ion. This is p obably he sou ce o he di icul ies ha he eade has o con on , u ning Finnegans Wake, i a joke is allowed a his poin , in o “ he undisco e ed coun y, om whose bou n no a elle e u ns” (no a leas in he o iginal o m). 8 Along wi h he ew i ing men ioned abo e, Joyce may ha e ound ele an ea u es o his inclusi e o mula based on ambigui y in he igu e o Shakespea e himsel , no only wi h ega d o he o igin o he ex bu also as sou ce o inspi a ion. In “Scylla and Cha ybdis,” o example, “Ru landbaconsou hamp onshakespea e” (U 9.866) is a clea allusion o he heo ies ha deal wi h he ac ual au ho ship o ex s a ibu ed o Shakespea e: Roge Manne s, i h ea l o Ru land, F ancis Bacon, and Hen y W io hesley, hi d ea l o Sou hamp on. On he o he hand, Joyce also e lec s he idea ha Hamle migh be modelled upon he igu e o Shakespea e, o James I (o England, VI o Sco land), o o Robe De e eaux, second ea l o Essex. Also, in “Scylla and Cha ybdis,” he legend is men ioned ha Shakespea e himsel in e p e ed he ole o he ghos (U 9.166-67). In “Lo us-Ea e s” (U 5.195-97) a pos e ad e ises he pe o mance o a well-known ac ess playing he ole o Hamle , which is connec ed in Bloom's mind wi h he heo y ha Hamle was a woman (which in u n would explain Ophelia's suicide), a heo y which eappea s in “Scylla and Cha ybdis” in Eglin on's wo ds (U 9.518-19). Bu in he play i sel we may ind passages o suppo his gene al line o easoning: in “P o eus”, as migh be expec ed, in “God becomes man becomes ish becomes ba nacle goose becomes ea he bed moun ain” (U 3.477-79), we a e gi en he hough s o S ephen on he me amo phic cha ac e o ma e , which can be ela ed o he idea o me empsychosis o be in e p e ed in pa allel wi h Hamle 's hough s on he emains o he noble Alexande (H V.1.201 ). 9 The acknowledgemen o his inclusi e quali y which eaches i s peak in Finnegans Wake would allow us o look back and wi ness he beginning o ha p ocess al eady in Ulysses. In his no el nobody is (only) wha hey say hey a e: hey a e always some hing else, and in some ins ances hey a e e en mo e han hey hink. This quali y o mul iplici y o iden i ies o o mul iple iden i ica ions can be pe cei ed al eady in “Telemachus” unde he guise o he allusions o he he e ics A ius and Sabellius. The la e main ained ha e ms such as “Fa he ,” “Son,” and “Holy Ghos ” we e simply names o he same subs ance (o h ee di e en aspec s o modes o he same Being). The idea o consubs an iali y be ween Fa he and Son, which a ebel like S ephen— emembe his non se iam—main ains in his heo y abou Hamle , connec s him wi h Sabelius and is some hing we can ace back o A is o le, 10 ano he ecu ing p esence h oughou he no el. S ephen's “I am ano he now and ye he same” (U 1.311-12) s esses once again he idea o simul aneous mu abili y and iden i y. 11 6 A a mo e speci ic ex ual le el, we migh say ha he play wi h mul iple iden i ica ions p esen in Ulysses could be summa ised in a sen ence we ind in “P o eus”—“Lui, c'es moi” (U 3.182-83)—in a con ex which s esses he possibili y o mul iple pe sonali y: “O he ellow did i : o he me” (U 3.182). On he basis o he connec ions made h oughou he no el I will jus poin ou a ew o he mos ele an ex ual iden i ica ions. S ephen mus be clea ly iden i ied wi h Hamle : hey bo h wea black in mou ning o he dea h o he mo he in one case and he a he in he o he . On he o he hand, howe e , he should no be o ally iden i ied wi h Telemachus, bu a he wi h Achilles. 12 E en Hamle , wi h his igid code o honou and his obsession wi h he pas , seems mo e like Achilles, while he usu pe Claudius shows himsel o be mo e e sa ile in his me hods, and does no hesi a e o use decei o o a oid open con on a ion when i helps o secu e his u u e. This ac ually eminds us mo e o Odysseus himsel . The heme o usu pa ion is an ob ious link be ween S ephen, Hamle , and Telemachus, si ua ing Buck Mulligan in he ole o An inoos and Claudius. Bu S ephen can also be iden i ied wi h Claudius by me apho ically adop ing his me hods: “They lis . And in he po ches o hei ea s I pou ” (U 9.465). In a consubs an ial manne , Shakespea e's play also connec s a a he like Bloom wi h a son like S ephen by means o a misquo a ion: “I am hy a he 's spi i ” (Bloom in U 8.67-68 and S ephen in U 9.170) and in he allusions in “Eumaeus” (U 16.783, 16.785, and 16.1031). Bloom's quo a ion in “Les ygonians” oge he wi h “The ghos walks” in “Aeolus” (U 7.237) iden i y him wi h King Hamle who, being he ghos , c ea es also an iden i ica ion be ween Bloom and Shakespea e, some hing which is epea ed in “Ci ce” wi h a di e ence: when Bloom and S ephen gaze in a mi o a he same ime, wha hey see is a e lec ion o Shakespea e's ace (U 15.3821-4), ano he example, pe haps, o consubs a ia ion. La e , he playw igh becomes Ma in Cunningham, an iden i ica ion al eady p esen in “Hades” (U 6.345). In “Ci ce” Paddy Dignam becomes ex ually iden i ied wi h King Hamle also, in a dialogue which b ie ly u ns Bloom in o P ince Hamle (U 15.1218). 13 Mo eo e , Bloom is clea ly also a Ha oun al Raschid whose noble pe sonali y is unknown o his ellow ci izens; Pa nell is a so o Ulysses whose e u n is awai ed by he I ish people; and Buck Mulligan is no only a a ie y o Lo d Nelson bu also a s ipped Jesus Ch is . 14 F om he e y beginning, Buck Mulligan also poin s ou he polysemic quali y o e e y hing a ound him: he Ma ello Towe , o ins ance, is a Hellenic omphalos, while S ephen is a ba d o ancien G eek o igin, and he himsel is a signi ie wi h di e en signi ieds, om usu pe o he ole o he p ies o S . John Ch ysos omos, Claudius, An inoos, o Agamemnon. A a gene al le el one could say ha cha ac e s in Ulysses enjoy an ob iously p o eic quali y which mani es s i sel in di e en ways: no only can se e al cha ac e s be an inca na ion o Odysseus (Bloom, S ephen, Mu phy, Bloom's po a o) bu also any o hose cha ac e s can in u n s and o a wide ange o o he cha ac e s ( hus, Bloom can be Ulysses, Elijah, King Hamle , he Wande ing Jew, o Ch is ). Abo e all i should be poin ed ou ha , while a he beginning a ce ain o de and cohe ence in he sys em o ela ionships can be pe cei ed, la e on we pe cei e ha e e y hing becomes mo e di use and con using, and ha hose iden i ica ions a e no ixed pe manen ly. This is some hing we ind al eady in Ulysses, as an an icipa ion o wha in Finnegans Wake is p esen ed as “e e y pe son, place and hing in he chaosmos o Alle anyway” (FW 118.21-22). In addi ion o he mul iple iden i ica ions he e a e o he ways in which 7 hese inclusi e p ocesses become appa en in Ulysses. The no ion o “To be and no o be” is encapsula ed in wo wo ds which de ine he no el om he poin o iew o o m and con en (i such a dicho omy is eally enable): “me empsychosis” and “pa allax,” e ms which help o designa e he dual quali y o many aspec s and di e en le els in he no el. In connec ion wi h “pa allax,” Hugh Kenne poin s ou ha in Ulysses we ind “[ ]wo di e en e sions a leas , ha is Joyce's no mal way.” 15 These co espond o he e sions om he poin o iew o he subjec o subjec s' consciousness, and o ha o an au ho ial/au ho ized and eliable oice. Such duali y can also be seen a he le el o mac o-s uc u e in he no el's mode nis and pos mode nis bias; as wo k and as ex ; in i s wo hal es; in i s wo na a i e epi omes, “Oxen o he Sun” and “Ci ce.” A mo e adical a ie y o ha duali y akes place h ough he clus e o iden i ies as in “Siopold” (U 11.752), whe e h ee cha ac e s become elemen s o communica ion (singe —a ia—lis ene ; sende —message— ecei e ; au ho —wo k— eade ) in such a way ha a “ heo y” o aes he ic pe spec i e eme ges whe e hose elemen s can be in eg a ed and exchange hei unc ions, as a consequence o which meaning does no necessa ily come only om he sende /au ho . 16 This inclusi eness may cause some o ally opposing e ec s, such as he lack o dema ca ion o o sepa a ion be ween con en ionally and gene ically dis inc elemen s. Thus, some imes, i is di icul o d aw he line be ween he h ee basic s yles o he no el. The wo ld o he no el seems o ake place inside and ou side he cha ac e s (no on one side o he o he ). Ano he p oblema ic consequence o ha inclusi e quali y may lie in he idea ha e e y hing exis s a he same le el (and ha di e en in e p e a ions chosen by he eade would be equally alid), and ha i becomes impossible o ell ic ion om eali y, as o example in “Ci ce,” since all exis ence is, ul ima ely, ex ual. 17 Ano he a ie y o inclusi eness in he no el has o do wi h he play be ween appea ance and eali y, be ween wha is and/bu is no : in o he wo ds, empo a y iden i ies which a e la e e ealed as alse appea ances in he ace o eali y. Ulysses is and is no a he same ime a e sion o he Odyssey, in he same way ha Bloom is and is no Ulysses. In he opening pa ag aph we ind Buck Mulligan ac ing as a p ies al hough he eally is no a p ies . The ole o p ies is pe o med by someone who is no a p ies , an usu pa ion o which we e u n in a ypically Joycean ci cula ip by means o he las wo d in he episode, “usu pe .” 18 Mo eo e , “I haca” also begins wi h a misleading idea since he “pa allel cou ses” o Bloom and S ephen mee only alsely in he in ini e. In some episodes he use o a ce ain s yle implies a play wi h he idea o appea ance: in “Ci ce” he s yle is d ama ic only om he poin o iew o ypog aphy, and in “Penelope” he punc ua ion which is missing has o be p o ided by he eade . All his again akes us o he idea o he p o isional cha ac e o meanings, which can only be empo a ily accep ed un il hey a e subs i u ed by o he meanings equally alid in a gi en con ex . An example o his, a a di e en le el, can be seen in he sy lis ic a ia ion o “Oxen o he Sun.” Ambigui y and inde e minacy a e also aspec s o his inclusi eness and can ma e ialize in di e en ways. The open-ended quali y, o example, o Joyce's wo ks om A Po ai o he A is as a Young Man o Finnegans Wake is well-known. Bu i is indica i e in he case o Ulysses ha he no el also opens wi h a no e o ambigui y: “S a ely” can ei he be a (desc ip i e) adjec i e o a (modal) ad e b, desc ibing a mode o being o a mode o doing. The e is no solu ion in he ex o his ambigui y (al hough he e a e in e p e a ions o he con a y), and we ha e o assume ha he sense is no 8 in being o in doing bu in bo h a once o in he ela ionship be ween he wo. A he beginning o “Calypso” we ind some hing simila : “ elish” may bo h e e o he way Bloom ea s he kidney o o he way he cooks hem. Finally, al hough o di e en easons, ano he o m o ambigui y can be pe cei ed in he case o hi d-pe son singula pe sonal p onouns in “Penelope.” 19 The duali y men ioned abo e can be seen in connec ion wi h ano he aspec clea ly ela ed o he idea o inclusi eness. I e e he e o he equen allusions o his o y and he di e en concep ions o i p esen ed in he no el. While o S ephen his o y is a epe i i e nigh ma e om which he is ying o awake, 20 and o M . Deasy his o y mo es owa d one inal goal, 21 Bloom's concep ion o his o y implies a combina ion o he wo. Fo Bloom he e is ecu ence wi h a ia ion, iden i y and change: i is a “his o y epea ing i sel wi h a di e ence” (U 16.1525-26). This ma e ializa ion o “To be and no o be” in ela ion o he concep o his o y can be seen a a mo e p agma ic le el in he way he no el p esen s epe i ion wi h a di e ence. Fo example, many allusions a e made o he epe i i e cha ac e o his o y and o he p esen a ion o di e en e sions o some e en s. We become awa e ha “Calypso” epea s aspec s o “Telemachus” wi h a di e ence, and ha Molly-Penelope epea s Molly-Calypso di e en ly. Mo eo e , as he schema a show, na a i e echniques a e epea ed wi h a di e ence. The inclusi e o mula o “To be and no o be” summa ises, in his sense, he basic ea u es which allow Joyce o c ea e a sys em o iden i ica ions be ween his o ical and con empo a y cha ac e s, by combining he concep s o “pa allax” and “me empsychosis” oge he wi h he epe i ion o his o y wi h a di e ence. The esul is an aes he ic and ideological sys em which a he same ime is su icien ly igid o suppo he ex and align i wi hin a ce ain adi ion, and also lexible enough o unc ion as a mould ha can be adap ed and changed in o de o ake in and o de mul iple possibili ies. Me empsychosis (al eady men ioned in “Calypso”) and me amo phosis cons i u e ano he de ice we should poin ou in his con ex . The play o mul iple iden i ica ions is a a ie y o me empsychosis/me amo phosis. We can hink o an an eceden o his in Hamle i sel , in a piece o dialogue be ween he young p ince and Polonius ega ding he changing o m o he clouds (H III.2.373), and i is some hing ha om he poin o iew o plo o psychological analysis o cha ac e s eaches i s peak in “Ci ce.” Maybe he mos in e es ing a ie y o his is ha which is p oduced by means o he s ylis ic play gene a ed by he na a i e. Joyce himsel s a es in his le e s how he needs o change s yles and poin s o iew in he second hal o his no el and, hus, i is no su p ising ha al eady in “P o eus” we ind samples o ha p ocess o inclusi eness, a di e en le els, including language. In “she udges, schlepps, ains, d ags, ascines he load” (U 3.392-93) he e bs use he disguise o di e en languages o say he same hing, ha ing he same iden i y unde hei di e en linguis ic o igins. In his episode also, a dog unde goes a me amo phosis (U 3.332-63) which has i s echo in “Ci ce” whe e ano he dog changes i s o m du ing he episode (U 15.634-706), so ha a he end we do no know wha kind o dog i was, only ha i was a dog. On a b oade le el he s ylis ic change gene a es, o example, he pa odies in “Cyclops,” whe e Bloom is u ned momen a ily in o he p ophe Elijah, o whe e a i ial e en (such as h owing a biscui can) ends in a huge na u al ca as ophe, an ea hquake, which in u n is an echo o an ea lie eligious e en ( he dea h o Ch is ). This me amo phic p ocess eaches a culmina ing poin in “Oxen o he Sun” whe e he succession o di e en s yles u ns cha ac e s, in ex ual e ms, in o di e en 9 cha ac e s, an ea ly ins ance o which we can ind in A Po ai whe e S ephen's e olu ion is shown by means o he con inuous change o s yle. The inclusi e de ices desc ibed in Ulysses poin owa ds he ealm o me apho , an icipa ed al eady in S ephen's language. They o ce he eade o unde s and he plu ali y o he cha ac e s by means o symbolis p ocesses, in e ms o some hing else; p ocesses, by he way, wi hou which no language would be o any use. I we can say ha in he syn agma ic chain he con ex ies o impose he choice o ce ain meanings, we can also imagine a ex designed o a oid ha choice and o allow he pa adigma ic p esence o all possible meanings. Bu we migh go e en u he and say ha hose inclusi e de ices end up p oducing a ep esen a ion based no on he simple subs i u ion o one hing by ano he bu in he simul aneous p esence o bo h. I is no , hen, simply, a ques ion o using a me apho bu o adding p og essi ely di e en meanings o he signi ie s which he cha ac e s, o example, become. Cha ac e s begin as such—S ephen, o Bloom, o Molly—and s a om an ini ial posi ion o g adually accumula e o he new meanings which gene a e new s uc u es o in e p e a ion which in e u n o de , syn hesize and in o m hose meanings. Thus, in he mos ob ious case, meanings such as Odysseus, Telemachus o Penelope e oke he Home ic na a i e s uc u e which in u n suppo s he in e p e a ion o Ulysses in e ms o he Odyssey. Tha accumula ion o meanings is p oduced li le by li le, i is no he e om he beginning. As a ma e o ac , i is no he e om he beginning o all eade s. In Ulysses he inclusi e p ocess o “To be and no o be” comes in o e ec mainly h ough a con inuous play o allusions o all kinds, li e a y o no (al hough, wha would he di e ence be?). Meanwhile, in Finnegans Wake Joyce ies o condense ha kind o play e en mo e, o si ua e i in he mos essen ial ma e iali y o language, ha is, he signi ie and i s p e alence o e he signi ied. Such p e alence o ms he basis o HCE ( o ake Finnegans Wake's mos ep esen a i e cha ac e as an example), and i alludes o a ame o e e ence which may conside he mul iplici y o exis ence while showing Joyce's a emp , p ecisely by means o language, o escape he ixing quali y which language has. 22 I eali y is p o ean, le us build a language which enhances ha quali y and allows us o escape he uni ocal, he al eady ixed. “To be and no o be” is he c i ical e sion ha Joyce makes o Shakespea e o be ex ensi ely used in Finnegans Wake, jus as Joyce had ea lie p oduced a e sion o Home o Ulysses. Joyce's e sion o Shakespea e is no mo e han a ew i ing o he playw igh 's mos emblema ic ex in o de o c ea e g ea e possibili ies o in e p e a ion and e-elabo a ion. The epi ome o ha wo king-model is HCE, who can assimila e all he possibili ies ha migh be included in he ex o imagined by he eade . Bu again he e one can no ice he p oblems which such inclusi eness may c ea e (a leas om a mode nis pe spec i e), such as a si ua ion o e en ual collapse gi en he many possibili ies o in e p e a ion which HCE o e s. Once mo e, his is an icipa ed in Ulysses, in he p olix s yle o “Eumaeus,” o in he s ange ela ionship be ween Molly Bloom and Buck Mulligan, who a e ex ually connec ed h ough he adjec i es “plump” and “yellow” and he song “The Dea h o Nelson” which Mulligan al e s and Molly hea s in “Wande ing Rocks” (U 10.251-52 and 10.1063-65). This b ings abou a case o sa u a ion in he sys em o co espondences which becomes impossible o disce n and which ends up us a ing all a emp s a p oducing a cohe en global in e p e a ion. Bu maybe ha is p ecisely i s meaning, wha he ex is ying o communica e: he mys i ying cha ac e 10 o language in con as o he many-sidedness and e en chao ic quali y o he eal. The e m “chao ic” akes us o wha migh be a way o app oaching and assimila ing hese inclusi e p ocesses in he case o Finnegans Wake. Bu be o e ha we ha e o make a dis inc ion be ween chaos and unce ain y. The e a e in bo h Ulysses and Finnegans Wake allusions o he idea o unce ain y. S ephen, pa icula ly, poin s ou ha “[ ]he wo ld is ounded upon he oid. Upon ince i ude, upon unlikelihood” (U 9.842); in “I haca” he insis s in he exis ence o a “mic o and mac ocosm ineluc ably cons uc ed upon he ince i ude o he oid” (U 17.1014-15); and in Finnegans Wake we ead: “Thus, he un ac s, did we possess hem, a e oo imp ecisely ew o wa an ou ce i ude” (FW 57.16-17). The unce ain y p inciple has i s heo e ical o igin, as is well known, in he expe imen s o We ne Heisenbe g, and is applied o Joyce's wo k a la ge by Phillip He ing, who indica es ha his p inciple d aws a en ion “ o absence, hence unce ain y.” 23 Indeed, he iden i y o M'In osh, o he o igin o au ho sip o a gi en passage in “Aeolus” 24 —no o men ion he absolu ely i esol able ques ion o Molly Bloom's lis o lo e s—a e cases ha canno be conside ed as simply a p oblem o ambigui y. I is ob ious ha we lack enough in o ma ion o explain hose passages cohe en ly. Bu he e a e o he ins ances whe e i is no a ques ion o no ha ing enough in o ma ion bu a he he opposi e: we ha e oo much in o ma ion and ou a en ion is no d awn o he absen bu o he (excessi eness o he) p esen . In o he wo ds, M'In osh on he one hand, and Bloom and HCE, on he o he , embody wo di e en epis emological p oblems ( ha is, p oblems ela ed o he p ocess o acquisi ion o knowledge ha can be in eg a ed in ope a i e and, a leas p o isionally, alid pa e ns): one ha is ma ked by i s lack o de ini ion and ano he ha is ma ked by he excess o in o ma ion. Tha is, he e a e p oblems which in he ex can be explained wi h he help o Heisenbe g, o p oblems ha can be discussed in e ms o chaos heo y. As epi ome o an inclusi e model wi h mul iplici y o meanings and excess o in o ma ion, Finnegans Wake shows a chao ic quali y which p oduces a sepa a ion be ween in o ma ion and meaning. We could desc ibe Finnegans Wake and he ela ionship o he eade wi h his ex by using he basic ypology men ioned by N. Ka he ine Hayles in he s udy o chaos heo y. 25 The i s kind o app oach is de ined as “o de ou o chaos,” 26 which in ou case would mean ha i is he eade who c ea es meanings ou o he elemen s in he sys em. In Finnegans Wake a passage seems o encapsula e his possibili y in ou eading: “Ab chaos lex, nea weh ?” (FW 518.31). Hayles illus a es his kind o chaos by alluding o a sho s o y by S anislaw Lem in which a so-called Demon o he Second Kind spends his ime wa ching ai molecules in hei endless dance inside a box: “Whene e he molecules o m wo ds ha make sense, he w i es hem down wi h a iny diamond- ipped pen on a pape ape.” 27 I would like o sugges ha also he eade s o Finnegans Wake, and o ha ma e any o he kind o eade , s a om a hypo hesis and de elop a sea ch o da a which will suppo i . The da a make sense because o he hypo hesis, o he wise hey would be meaningless. Thus, again, he e lec ion indi ec ly conce ns he p ocesses o c ea ion and cons uc ion o meaning, which ine i ably aises p e ious ques ions/answe s such as “wha is a meaning?,” “wha does i mean o say ha some hing (X) means (Y)?” In o he wo ds, i is a e lec ion on he on ology o he epis emological. Bu , once mo e, his is some hing an icipa ed in Ulysses whe e, o example, S ephen—in “Signa u es o all hings I am he e o ead” (U 3.2)—summa ises he 11 quali ies o he pe ec Demon o he Second Kind. 28 Ano he wo d in Finnegans Wake emphasizes a ce ain concep ion o he wo ld: “Chaosmos” (FW 118.21). This is a clea echo o he “wo d/wo ld” dicho omy o iginina ing in Ma ha's yping mis ake in Ulysses, bu while in ha no el language seemed o c ea e he wo ld in using i wi h o de and meaning, in Finnegans Wake he e is an open ecogni ion o he ineluc ably chao ic quali y o he eal. The e o e, he “ ealis ic” ex can only wo k as an immense signi ie which d aws oge he all he possible meanings which exis simul aneously and which only become conc e e h ough he choice o he eade . Hayles de ines he second app oach as “hidden o de wi hin chao ic sys ems,” 29 which undoub edly summa ises he posi ion o he eade sea ching o meaning in he ex o Finnegans Wake: he eade becomes a so o de ec i e ying o deciphe a hidden code. Also in his case we ind a ex in Finnegans Wake which seems o poin in ha di ec ion: “a ul diso de ” (FW 126.09). This pa adoxical ph ase would be again in line wi h he idea o “To be and no o be,” e lec ing he dynamic inclusi e quali y, adical in con as wi h Ulysses, which we ind in Finnegans Wake. Now, by a “commodius icus o eci cula ion” we can e u n o Hamle guided by Cheng, 30 who in e p e s “a ul diso de ” as a ew i ing o he no ion o “me hod in his madness,” which om he pe spec i e o chaos heo y is ob iously an example, due o i s con adic o y na u e, o he me hod o composi ion which Joyce ollows and which he eade imagines and ies o un a el. This would mean ha i in Finnegans Wake Joyce canno accep he dilemma in “To be o no o be,” i seems, howe e , e iden ha he adop s “me hod in his madness” as o ganizing p inciple. I Hamle looks o he pas , Polonius, unwi ingly, is desc ibing he u u e. All his seems o suppo he idea ha we canno ead Finnegans Wake om a adi ional pe spec i e, bu a he by basing ou eading on p emises connec ed wi h chaos heo y (as he ph ase “a ul diso de ” seems o sugges ), al hough ne e wi h he hope o eaching o alizing o ixed explana ions. Any o de eme ging ou o ha chaos, o ha we migh disco e , would clea ly be p o isional and no e en ce ain. As Ma go No is poin s ou , “[ ]he g ea es c i ical mis ake in app oaching Finnegans Wake has been he assump ion ha we can be ce ain o who, whe e, and when e e y hing is in he Wake, i only we do enough esea ch.” 31 And Be na d Bens ock, in wha amoun s o an ob ious implici c i icism o he expec a ions gene a ed by he second app oach o chaos, adds a ce ain ( ealis ic) no e o us a ion: “The e emains, hen, only he cold, logical ealiza ion ha Finnegans Wake as an enigma may well go unsol ed. Time, which was expec ed o b ing all e idence e en ually o he su ace in an o de ed pa e n, so a has had he opposi e e ec .” 32 We migh e en eel o ced o e ise con en ional concep s such as “meaning,” since, as Kenne w i es, “i is . . . misleading o scan ea ly d a s o he au ho 's in en ions, on he assump ion ha a `meaning' go bu ied by elabo a ion. Joyce wo ked se en een yea s o push he wo k away om `meaning,' ad i in o language; no hing is o be gained by ying o push i back.” 33 All his could also ha e in e es ing consequences, o example, in ela ion o he ques ion o he possibili y o ansla ing Finnegans Wake, since any ansla ion o his wo k, a om elucida ing he meanings in he o iginal ex , would only p oduce an eno mous inc ease o he unce ain y and inde e minacy o he meanings (a leas in a adi ional sense o he e m) wi h espec o he o iginal ex . Thus, a ansla ion o Finnegans Wake can ne e be en isaged as a ans e ence o meaning om one sys em o