Sandulescu Online - The Language of the Devil

1987. On Texture from The Language of the Devil

By C. George SANDULESCU, Monaco.

(This book was published by Colin Smythe of Gerrards Cross in 1987.)


Front Cover		Back Cover
Click on the images above to open larger version as pdf file

Epigraph:

- What static babel is this, tell us ? (FW 499.34)

- It's Dracula's nightout. (FW 145.321)

1. Texture has this in common with structure that they are both goal-oriented networks of semantic relationships. To put it differently, what texture and structure have in common is patterned organization of meaning. What the actual pattern is about is different in each case, but the common ground remains. The idea of what is the same and what is different in the texture/structure relation is one of the major issues of the whole discussion of texture. Starting with Ferdinand de Saussure (1909/1916), and continuing with Leonard Bloomfield (1933), Louis Hjelmslev (1943/1953), Kenneth Pike (1967) as well as with Roman Jakobson, Michael Halliday (article in Word), and Chomsky, modern mainstream linguistics places the idea of structure in the very centre of its preoccupations, but has no use whatever for the corresponding notion of texture, the term not even occurring once in the standard works.

There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon, but the most probable one is that whereas texture is an exclusive feature of discourse, structure is a central feature of language and the sentence. With the notable exception of Pike, and possibly of Jakobson, mainstream linguistics does not go beyond the sentence.

But structure is also a fundamental feature of reality, both natural and social: atoms and molecules evince a structure, and it is the job of atomic physics & physical chemistry to detect it; planets are patterned in similar ways, and it is the job of astronomy and astrophysics to provide outlines of such organization. Society too seems to evince similar correlations between the parts (i. e. individuals and groups) and the whole, with institutionalized Marxism propounding the absolute centrality of the correlated notions of Structure & SuperStructure for the only valid understanding ever as to how society works. But nobody in these disciplines bothers to speak about texture, as a correlated concept, the way only the New Critics do. For the average researcher the conclusion would be that texture does not seem to enjoy any existence at all outside the narrow and "flimsy" field of the poetics of poetry. It comes then as a surprise to see that the concept not only originates in but also is very central to crystallography, which is the scientific treatment and classification of crystals. This comes somewhat as a shock in a Finnegans Wake context of discussion, for it does bang heads against the hard reality of a Man-Made Mountain, and the prevailing vision of it as a universe simulacrum. For many years now, Finnegans Wake has been a crystallographer's paradise, with very regular research reports published at least in one specialized journal, and as a result of the development of modern FW crystallometry during the 1960s, vast repositories of classified of FW crystals were put on public display as circumstantial evidence of FW's extraordinary crystallographic richness. One thing is crystal-clear about all this research work conducted over a period of at least a quarter of a century: it does indeed deal with the texture of it, not (with few outstanding examples) with the structure of it.

2. What exactly should the layman know about this obscure science of crystallography that might be of use to the scholar of poetic discourse ? What might be profitable for the same scholar to carry over from mountain research in order to be able to reapply texture to an area in which the New Critics deliberately ignored its exustence?

Here first by way of preparation of an answer is a brief account of how things stand in the distinctly separate field of crystallography and mineralogy [FootNote 1].

Crystallographers do use texture as an important descriptive term for the small features of a rock. These features depend to a large extent upon the size, the shape, the arrangement, and the distribution of the component minerals of the rock that is being examined.

This means that the disciplines disposes of a host of textural terms: they include those indicating the degree of crystallinity, the grain size, or granularity, and, finally, the fabric or geometrical relationships between the rock constituents. These relationships lead the designer to the construction of quite outlandish geometrical shapes and forms, some of them very non-Euclidean, as it has been amply illustrated by Noel Kennon (1978 : passim). Over the years new relationships have been found, and the list of textural terms, some of them quite abstruse, has grown; the desire has also grown to apply adjectives, e. g. euhedral, anhedral, subhedral [FootNote 2] etc., in order to be able to describe features peculiar to certain rocks,or common to many.

Textural features are useful from the genetic point of view too, in indicating the conditions under which rocks form. There are, as is known, a wide variety of types of rocks. In igneous rocks, they largely depend upon the relative rates and the order of crystallization, and these, in turn, depend upon temperature, viscosity, pressure, gas content, and composition of the rock magma. Given such complex processes of formation, rock names have been derived from their texture.

As can be seen, crystallographers too alongside with linguists, distinguish between synchronic and diachronic approaches to the object of study. Returning to synchronic vision, it would be worthwhile having a closer look at sedimentary rocks, as described by F. J. Pettijohn (1957). Whereas mineral or chemical composition of sedimentary rock must be determined in order to classify these rocks and interpret their depositional arrangement correctly, texture relates to the physical parameters of size grades: sorting, skewness of the size distribution, and the degree of particle abrasion, among others. The study of many of these features can, with effort, be adducible to linguistics-specific distinctive-feature analysis. Here, for instance, is a typical Jakobsonian binarity: two main natural textural groupings exist for sedimentary rocks, namely clastic (or fragmental) and non-clastic (commonly crystalline). A few rare types of sedimentary rocks are said to have an amorphous texture, but with the advent of the electron microscope many of these so-called featureless rocks were found to have a detrital or crystalline texture or both. Having so far dealt with the issues of geometrical shape and crystallinity, which are strongly reminiscent of the Cartouching and Archetype discussions in Finnegans Wake (SEE elsewhere in this book), this brief lesson cannot come to an end without a discussion of 'item' size and binding. The best type of rock to provide us with that discussion is called, reminding one of a word in Leopold Bloom's early monologues, graywacke [Footnote 3 ]. This is the name applied to generally dark-coloured, very strongly bonded sandstones that consist of a heterogeneous mixture of rock fragments, feldspar, and quartz of sand size (1/6 to 2 mm), together with appreciable amounts of mud matrix (less than 1/16 mm). Almost all graywackes originated in the sea, and many were deposited in deep water by turbidity currents. The name graywacke, coming from the German Grauwacke, describes the colour and texture of the rock; wacke is a term which is being used for the heterogeneous weathering products derived from either igneous or metamorphic rocks.

3. Having thus briefly acquainted ourselves with crystallography and its relevance to texture studies, it would be profitable to return to the several adjectives available within that particular discipline, which would place the following statement made some time ago by a fairly known FW scholar, and reinforced by him a couple of years later, in its proper perspective:

(HART (1962/1971 : 32)) Too much has been written about the suggestive, connotative aspects of Finnegans Wake and too little about the power of Joyce's new polyhedral vocabulary to accumulate denotation. [ ... ] The manuscripts show Joyce in the process of adding to his text not music or colour or emotive overtones, but semantemes.

(HART (1963/1968 : 5)) As he got well into Finnegans Wake, Joyce started to write more spontaneously in his polyhedral style; many highly complicated sentences appear to have been written down in their final form without prior commitment to paper.

By using the term polyhedral in both quotations in conjunction with vocabulary and with style, Clive Hart seems to give implicit strong support to the crystallographic analogy that I am advancing here. Personally, I would go a step further, and deal with Joyce's FW discourse not only in polyhedral terms, but also view it in its euhedral, anhedral and even subhedral aspects. This complex inter-disciplinary approach is in itself supporting the fundamental idea of a physically existing universe simulacrum and, perhaps more importantly, the literal significance of the phrase 'a Man-Made Mountain'. It is my contention here that this universe-simulacrum still awaits its crystallographers, who are expected to do their work in conjunction with, but somewhat distinct from, the exegetes. Whereas the exegetes might be siad to correspond to talented archaeologists, the crystallographers could be taken to represent the cultural anthropologists of the phenomenon.

4. After having drawn on the idea of texture as it is to be found in crystallography, one might be very tempted to go on and look at other exact sciences and see how the issue is being treated. The issue at stake is the relation between the parts and the whole, for one thing is certain, and there is widespread consensus about it: whereas overall structure deals with global constraints, texture is supposed to deal with zonal constraints. In consequence, it is a fair oversimplfication to say that one deals with the part and the other deals with the whole. One discipline acutely concerned with this particular theoretical issue is, quite naturally, biology, as, for example, the reason for heart or kidney transplant rejection ultimately resides in part incompatibility. The symmetry of the parts in man has always polarized the attention not only of artists such as Leonardo da Vinci and William Blake, but also of anatomists, and more recently of biologists. There have been several scientific conferences [ FootNote 4 ] entirely devoted to an interdisciplinary approach to the part/whole correlation. For the specific purpose of the 1969 Symposium, biology had to be stretched to 'life sciences'.

The issue at stake at the symposium, and also as part of the present discussion of texture is the real or apparent clash between a Gestalt (or holistic) approach, and an atomistic one: any Gestalt approach exhibits excessive focus on the whole, to the detriment of the part; any atomistic approach -- exceedingly common among conscientious analysts in all branches of scholarship -- places such an emphasis on the part, or parts, that it manages to lose sight of the whole, sometimes for good, at other times only temporarily. The Symposium Beyond Reductionism in the life sciences was convened as a think-tank in order to try and reconcile the two conflicting views. It is Arthur Koestler who proposes a philosophical solution in biology, strongly reminiscent of ideas put forth by Roman Jakobson a few years before.

That is why I propose to continue with a joint discussion of the part/whole relation in biology and linguistics. It is a moot point whether linguistics is an exact science, tough areas of it are adducible to accurate quantification; stripped of all cultural information, it may be interpreted as a branch of theoretical psychology. But that brand of linguistic analysis has but little to contribute to modern poetics. The problem common to poetics, semantics and sociolinguistics is the constant quest for solutions enabling the incorporation of heterogeneous information into the final model. Consistent to his Fragestellung approach, Roman Jakobson (1963) formulates the questions which are for the most part characteristic of both linguistics and poetics. In his article entitled 'Beyond atomism and holism -- the concept of the holon', Arthur Koestler (1969) tries to give some correlated answers to many of the questions posited by Jakobson; their formulation is such that they cover areas as different as biology and sociology. The oversharp distinction between the exact sciences and the humanities still prevailing in the methodology of many researchers [FootNote 5 ] is not only considered out of date, but also, and more importantly, is taken to be a non-problem. This being my personal view too, I am going to continue the discussion from an angle of vision in which branches of scholarship as disparate as poetics, biology and linguistics are one.

5. It is Edmund Husserl, who, in his Logische Untersuchungen, starts the discussion of the correlation of the parts and the whole in connection with the Idea of a Pure Grammar [ FootNote 6 ]. Years later, Edward Sapir (1930) equally deplores his students' inability 'to proceed [to synthesis] after a count, formal or informal, has been made of a set or series of objects', and their 'inability or unwillingness to break up an object into smaller objects'.

The fact is that each unit can, at one and the same time, be a whole made up of parts and part of a larger whole: this is the notion of Teilganzes ('subwhole' or, more exactly, 'partial whole'). In other words, the fact that something is a whole does not preculde, on the one hand, its being made up of parts and, on the other hand, its being itself part of a larger whole. Larger wholes, especially above the word level, constitute the matrices which give the various syntactic patterns of a specific language. In such wholes, the parts are in a syntagmatic hierarchy set up by the matrix itself. In order to be able to cope with this multi-storied hierarchy of wholes and parts, Koestler introduces the idea of a holon, which is defined as follows:

(KOESTLER (1969 : 213)) A holon is a system of relata which is represented on the next higher level as a relation. In social hierarchies (military, administrative) the same principles apply.

A holon exhibits a Gestaltqualität. I find two things important in this way of defining the holon: one important thing is that it reduces texture to the ultimate set of relationships that it essentially is, and these relationships at any level of the hierarchy enjoy the same degree of immanence, which leads to the obvious statement that texture is as immanent as structure. The other very important thing is that Koestler devises a concept with the specific purpose of making it operational across wide interdisciplinary areas ranging from biology and language studies to military administration. The procedure transgresses all disciplinary boundaries and becomes part of systems theory. Ever since the end of 1973, when I started my attempts to cope in a consistent way with the texture of Finnegans Wake, I was personally quite conscious of the fact that I was badly in need of a unifying operational entity; it dawned upon me one early day in 1974, while I was aimlessly staring at the ever so famous Rosetta Stone, stored so conveniently at a stone's throw of my London flat, in the British Museum, that it was a cartouche I needed. So I adopted the concept at once, and it proved ever since to be a most useful Wittgensteinian instrument of investigation of and 'navigation' in the FW text. I am particularly thinking of such instances as --

((440.05 to .07) Through Hell with the Papes (mostly boys) by the divine comic Denti Alligator (exsponging your index))

((539.06:4.5.6.7) Daunty, Gouty and Shopkeeper)

((047.19:1.2.3.4) Suffoclose ! Shikespower ! Seudodanto ! Anonymoses ! )

The cartouche proved extremely useful particularly in the singling out of cultural information, which, within the model that I am trying to present here is handled by the archetypes [q. v.]. I only discovered years later, reading more or less by accident the Proceedings of the Alpbach Symposium that other disciplies too, such as biology, were frantically in search of precisely the same quark-like concepts, such as the cartouche that I had devised myself for the sole and express purpose of consistently and satisfactorily coping with FW texture.

A cartouche is a holon. As Koestler (1969 : 210) says: "Parts and wholes in an absolute sense do not exist. The concept of the holon is intended to reconcile the atomistic and holistic approaches". My idea of the cartouche had emerged from dissatisfaction too: I simply could not reconcile the critics freely improvising in their pseudo-poetic quest for a coherent FW story with the exegetes, who were going to extremes and spending no end of time and considerable amounts of energy over what to the other group seemed to be merely trivial and insignificant FW detail. I associated both hypothetical categories of hypothetical readers with the holists and the atomists that the Alpbach Symposium concerned itself with, and pondered over the dilemma of such long standing. Both categories seemed to me, and this should be taken as poetic exaggeration, like sailors stranded at sea at night without either oars, or rudder, or any other steering mechanism.

6. It is within this context that I wish to emphasize the necessity of concentrating on the idea of evolving a consistent model for coping with FW phenomena, whatever their nature. Expressed in simple terms, it seems that our problem is not one of finding the answers to a set of questions fallen from the sky, but rather in the formulation of the questions in such a way that they indeed potentially contain the answers. For once the model provides the right tools, which in their turn are instrumental in establishing the right manner of asking the relevant questions, and the rest follows as a matter of course. It is within this frame of thought that texture becomes a central concept. This is partly so because the idea of style over the years proved so futile. The very fuzziness of the notion of style, and even of context, implicitly eliminates the possibility of consistent-pattern detection and the formulation of a structuring strategy at the meta-level. Patterning can, with effort, be made very explicit; it can also be adducible to neatly formulated constraints. So does texture, which presupposes very strongly the notion of patterning. On account of the fact that the whole is more than the mere sum of the parts, it is necessary first to identify the parts very clearly, and then to pass on to the identification of the 'bundling' or the 'bonding' of the parts into the whole. It is only afterwards, on the basis of Arthur Koestler's (1969 : 211) 'dissectability of hierarchies', that one should perhaps begin to account for the fact that the whole as a whole looms larger than textural reality, i. e. than the accurate sum of its properly added relevant constituents. Linguists would say that the Sentence is a whole composed of smaller parts, and no understanding of the whole can be gained without a prior understanding of the parts, nor is the whole completely different from or separate from the parts. But then the linguists would also go on to say that the sentence is the highest linguistic unit, and superior wholes, which may embrace a higher integer of sentences, such as discourse, have remained and should remain outside the scope of linguistic scrutiny. This is one of the main reasons why current linguistic approaches fail utterly when it comes to coping with the FW text, where the FW sentence is a relatively unimportant Teilganzes. What really matters is the fundamental difference between design, on the one hand, and token, on the other hand. This is a basic whole/part relation which inevitably leads to the demarcation of the cartouche.

The basic question of cartouche-making is ultimately a paradox in that it asks how many of whatever should be bundled together in order to obtain the very definite entity of semantic brilliancy. The reader of Finnegans Wake is in the very pathetic situation of the little schoolboy who is being asked by (teacher Joyce) to count, but is not told by the rejoycing imp what to count. That is why we used to come across so many apples, and nuts, and bananas in very elementary textbooks of arithmetic. There are many nuts in FW studies too: as soon as the jolly teacher says to the bashful would-be intellectual of five "Count your toes !", he instantaneously takes off his shoes, and the situation ceases at once to be pathetic. This is all like proclaiming that ((395.23:9.10) Nema Knatut), ((512.34:4.5.6) Toot and Come-Inn) and ((026.18.1) Totumcalmum) form a trinity of one, called Tut-ankh-amen, but it is no good endlessly and dogmatically repeating it without telling the little schoolboy how he can work out such sums for himself quickly and easily. And as correctly. Learning arithmetic should not become a party political broadcast. for there are ever harder nuts to crack, like Athena being magically born from the stone of ((594.22:1.2) tablestoane ath) ... The mathematics of it all is very simple once one is told: if the first three letters of (594.22:2) are looked at afterwards, from right to left -- the Arabic fashion --, Athena emerges from the head of the little schoolboy, exactly the way the other goddess was born from the head of Father Zeus. For there is regularity in the madness. As the interdisciplinary scholar would put it --

(KOESTLER (1969 : 211)) Functional holons are governed by fixed sets of rules, and display more or less flexible strategies. The rules -- referred to as the system's canon -- determine its invariant properties, its structural configuration, and/or functional pattern.

This is quite a mouthful for a schoolboy who is trying, deprived as he is of his habitual pocket calculator, to put two toes and two tokens together in order to be able to totter forward to the place where Scientific Satan defines as the point at which desin and token coincide. This in fact switches the discussion from the part/whole correlation to the slightly more advanced problem of the structure of texture. Within the discussion so far, structure and texture have been viewed in opposition, as extreme points at the two ends of the continuum. By way of a digression, it should perhaps be emphasized that there is always point of view to be reckoned with. What from one angle of vision may look like a Woodhenge table of stones, from another angle may actually be a venerable, and respectable, Greek goddess: it is all Janus-like [ FootNote 7 ] , quite similar to all those shifting picture postcards that one can find in sex shops and at less elegant newsagents, showing naked/unnaked young ladies, depending on how the card is tilted. Texture does more than any of those picture postcards can do, in that by tilting, it can exhibit at least four binarities, displayed on three entirely different continua. It is more than any of the SOHO postcard strippers can boast of. (Incidentally, in Arthur Koestler's (1969 : 210ff) model, SOHO stands for Self-regulating Open Hierarchic Order and happens to be a very important theoretical construct both for him and for me.)

7. Thus, Texture can be viewed from the following angles of vision:

(a) abstract /concrete (On a scale of Abstraction)

(b) general / particular (On a scale of Generalization)

(d) global / local (On the TeilGanzes continuum)

A synonym for local is zonal, which brings with it the idea of zonal constraints in discourse. Returning to the idea of the structure of texture after this digression, it would, I think, be useful to examine what the situation first is in crystallography. The Encyclopaedia Britannica concedes that --

(Micropedia (1974 : IX : 916)) It is difficult to draw a clear distinction between the terms texture and structure as they are applied to the rocks. In general, structure refers to the large-scale features recognizable in the field --among them bonding, lineation, cracking, jointing, and vesicularity -- whereas texture in used to describe the smaller features that depend upon size, shape, arrangement, and distribution of the component minerals in the rock.

Crystallography happens to be one of those few disciplines which does not, by definition, go far beyond the texture. It only deals with the small pebbles, and leaves it to the geologist, the geographer and beekeeper Sir Edmund Hillary to deal with the mountains. Like the atomistic exegetes. In other words, there is seemingly to establish a close correlation between the structure of the structure on the one hand, and the structure of the texture, on the other. Not for the moment, anyway. But biology and FW studies are quite a different thing, and it is not a mere coincidence that both biologists and FW readers should resort to triggers & scanners in order to unravel the structure of the texture:

(KOESTLER (1969 : 213)) Output hierarchies generally operate on the trigger-release principle, where a relatively simple, implicit or coded signal releases complex, pre-set mechanisms. [ ... ] A holon on the n level of an output-hierarchy is represented on the (n+1) level as a unit, and triggered into action as a unit. A holon, in other words, is a system of relata which is represented on the next higher level as a relation.

'A system of relata' is therefore the definition proposed here for the structure of texture, and it operates as such at absolutely all the levels of the hierarchy except the lowest: in Roman Jakobson's (1979 : passim) terms, the distinctive features are the ultimate constituents of language, and are not further divisible, in exactly the way Joyce's quarks (FW 383.01) function in present-day nuclear physics. From among the multitude of hierarchies from quarks to quasars (there are quite a number of object-level and meta-level hierarchies in this study too), Arthur Koestler distinguishes between output hierarchies, as above, and input hierarchies. I think that the FW reader has to cope with complex sets of both output and input hierarchies of holons; I do not intend to push this discussion far beyond the limits of the quotation.

(KOESTLER (1969 : 213)) Input hierarchies operate on the reverse principle; instead of triggers, they are equipped with 'filter'-type devices (scanners, 'resonators', classifiers) which strip the input of noise, abstract and digest its relevant contents, according to that particular hierarchy's criteria of relevance. 'Filters' operate on every echelon through which the flow of information must pass on its ascent from periphery to the centre, in social hierarchies and in the nervous system.

Triggers convert coded signals into complex output patterns. Filters convert complex input patterns into coded signals. The former may be compared to digital-to-analogue converters.

In perceptual hierarchies, filtering devices range from habituation and the efferent control of receptors, through the constancy phenomena, to pattern-recognition in space or time, and to the decoding of linguistic and other forms of meaning.

The issue of "pattern recognition in space and time" has been comprehensively discussed by Clive Hart in his book devoted to structure and motif in Finnegans Wake.

It is a relief, but it is also a paradox, to find a model primarily devised for biology to be more satisfying and more fruitful in its application than the generation-oriented model, which is in itself the sterling product of modern mainstream linguistics. Could Chomsky/Homski prove, when all is said and done, so totally wrong ? I do not propose to discuss why I find generation unsuitable for application to poetic texture.

The very fact that Chomsky himself definitely abstains should in itself be sufficient proof that the model may not suitably adapt itself to it. Contemplating the panorama offered by present-day research, I tend to distinguish two fundamental attitudes in science and scholarship: there is, on the one hand, the attitude of boundary erection ("Item x, be it phenomenon or construct, does not belong here !"), and there is, on the other hand, the attitude of boundary erasion [ FootNote 8 ]. It is damaging to language studies that Roman Jakobson, both of clear Russian origin, are on different sides of the fence. It is equally surprising to see that biology, crystallography and FW studies happen to be on the same side of the fence.

It would be interesting to emphasize, by way of conclusion, what is the real difference between the two types of hierarchies as so far outlined:

(1) output hierarchies spell, concretize, particularize;

(2) input hierarchies digest, abstract, generalize.

8. (What Bernard Benstock (1965 : 282-296) does in his analysis of the Tale of Jarl van Hoother and Prankquean is precisely this: he 'strips the input of noise', and attempts to 'abstract and digest according to criteria of relevance'.)

999. Here is the partial FW sequence that has been chosen for scrutiny:

(FW 021.22) And Jarl van Hoother warlessed after her with soft dovesgall: Stop deef stop come back to my earin stop. But she swaradid to him: Unlikelihud. And there was a brannewail that same sabboath night of falling angles somewhere in Erio. And the prankquean went for her forty years' walk in Tourlemonde and she washed the blessings of the lovespots off the jiminy with soap sulliver suddles and she had her four owlers masters for to tauch him his tickles and she convorted him to the onesure allgood and he became a luderman. So then she startedto rain and to rain and, be redtom, she was back again at Jarl van Hooter's in a brace of samers and, the jiminy with her in her pinafrond, lace at night, at another time. And where did she come but to the bar of his bristolry. And Jarl von Hoother had his baretholobruised heels drowned in his cellarmalt, shaking warm hands with himself and the jimminy Hilary and the dummy in their first infancy were below on the tearsheet, wringing and coughing, like brodar and histher.

And here it is again, the very same sequence, with the 48 items marked for analysis singled out:

(FW 021.22) And Jarl van Hoother warlessed after her with soft dovesgall: Stop deef stop come back to my earin stop. But she swaradid to him: Unlikelihud. And there was a brannewail that same sabboath night of falling angles somewhere in Erio. And the prankquean went for her forty years' walk in Tourlemonde and she washed the blessings of the lovespots off the jiminy with soap sulliver suddles and she had her four owlers masters for to tauch him his tickles and she convorted him to the onesure allgood and he became a luderman. So then she startedto rain and to rain and, be redtom, she was back again at Jarl van Hooter's in a brace of samers and, the jiminy with her in her pinafrond, lace at night, at another time. And where did she come but to the bar of his bristolry. And Jarl von Hoother had his baretholobruised heels drowned in his cellarmalt, shaking warm hands with himself and the jimminy Hilary and the dummy in their first infancy were below on the tearsheet, wringing and coughing, like brodar and histher.

The proposed hypothetical glosses are there in the numbered square brackets:

(FW 021.22) And Jarl van Hoother warlessed after her with soft dovesgall:

1. warlessed [warred / watered / wailed / warbled / warison / wirelessed]

2. dovesgall [dove's call/Donegal gall(bitter dark stranger (Irish))/Swift/Saints Columcille& Gall]

Stop deef stop come back to my earin stop. But she swaradid to him:

3. deef [ deaf / thief ]

4. earin [Erin/erring/hearing/ "Come Back to Erin"/earstopper]

5. swaradid [ svara COMMON SCANDINAVIAN to answer ]

[svara SANSKRIT voice ] [war]

Unlikelihud. And there was a brannewail that same sabboath night

6. unlikelihud [unlikelihood/ unlikely head] [ hud COMMON SCAND. skin ]

7. brannewail [banshee wail/brand new wail/brain wave/brand ale / Brängene]

[brennen GERMAN burn] [Bran (Finn's dog)]

8. sabboath [sabbath/ sobbeth/Saboath/boat/Boat Night/oath/both]

of falling angles somewhere in Erio. And the prankquean went for

9. angles [angels/Angles/shooting stars]

10. Erio [Eire/air, aria/eerie] [ rio SPANISH river ][Eros/Erin/Erebus/Erinys ?]

[Erewhon, novel by Samuel Butler, 1872]

her forty years' walk in Tourlemonde and she washed the blessings of

11. forty years' walk [30-years' war / 40 days of rain (Numbers 14:33)]

12. Tourlemonde [tour the world/world tower/turley whale]

[lemon/leman/lover] [onde FRENCH wave]

[Mund GERMAN mouth][Mond German moon]

13. washed [cleansed/baptised/wished]

14. blessings [blushings] [wounds FRENCH ???]

the lovespots off the jiminy with soap sulliver suddles and she had her four

15. lovespots [ (Dermots)/pots/venereal disease ]

16. soap [soap suds/saddle soap/Sullivan/sully/soul/liver]

17. sulliver [Gulliver's Travels, novel by Swift, 1726] [Oliver (Cromwell)]

18. suddles [subtle] [sudlen GERMAN to dirty] [sud FRENCH south]

owlers masters for to tauch him his tickles and she convorted him to

19. owlers [old/wise/owler,smuggler]

[the 4 Master Annalists/ the 4 Evangelists/howlers/Aule]

20. tauch [teach/touch/torture] [ tauchen GERMAN to dip] [Tau GERMAN dew]

21. his [history]

22. tickles [tricks/merriments/catechism/canticles/testicles]

23. convorted [converted/distorted/cavorted/consorted/conveyed]

the onesure allgood and he became a luderman. So then she started

24. onesure [unsure/one-for-all]

25. allgood [Almighty God/all-in-one/omniscient// one-for-all]

26. luderman [Lutheran/lewder man/ladder man] [Leute, Mann GERMAN]

[lawndamaun IRISH SLANG lout] [lud SCANDINAVIAN bleach]

[ludere LATIN to play] [Luder GERMAN scoundrel]

to rain and to rain and, be redtom, she was back again at Jarl van Hooter's

27. rain [pour/run/terrain/Touraine]

28. redtom [Dermot/Atum/soldier] [beredt GERMAN talkative]

in a brace of samers and, the jiminy with her in her pinafrond, lace at night,

29. brace [pair/embrace]

30. samers [doubles/summers/Samhain (in W.B. Yeats)][Same GERMAN semen]

31. pinafrond [pinafore/frond pinned in front/ Eve's fig leaf]

32. lace [late]

at another time. And where did she come but to the bar of his bristolry.

33. bar [inn/sandbar]

34. his [hybris GREEK ___________]

35. bristolry [Bristol/bristle/history]

And Jarl von Hoother had his baretholobruised heels drowned

36. von [van]

37. baretholobruised [bare-thole-bruised/Achilles' heel/Bartholomew/

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre

38. drowned [down]

in his cellarmalt, shaking warm hands with himself and the jimminy Hilary

39. cellarmalt [cell/cellar vault/malt liquor] [Larm GERMAN noise]

[larme FRENCH tear] [c'est la mort FRENCH

40. jimminy [Sunny Jim]

41. Hilary [St. Hilary]

and the dummy in their first infancy were below on the tearsheet,

42. infancy [fancy]

43. below [bellow/blow/be low]

44. tearsheet [torn sheet/crying sheet/ Doll Tearsheet]

wringing and coughing, like brodar and histher.

45. wringing [ringing/wrangling]

46. coughing [coffin]

47. brodar [brother [Bruder GERMAN brother] brood/brooder]

[Brodhar (slew Brian Boru)]

48. histher [ sister/Hester/Esther/hiss/hysteria/history]

Further, things are only explained only for the benefit of the native speakers of English: e. g. prankquean is left out.

The major goal of my argument here is to point to the necessity for FW studies to go far beyond the orthodox limits of an established discipline into more productive realms such as, for instance, cristallography, biology, or nuclear physics.

For, after all, FW ultimately is both about the philosophy of language and the philosophy of knowledge in general, looked at closely -- both of them -- in consummate aesthetic terms, rather than in the dry, heartless terms of the respective scholarly disciplines.

The approach is relatively watertight, and it will prove profitable to the average scholar in the future, though only too few will have the courage to embark upon this arduous path.

It also seems to indicate that both Dr Leavis and Lord Snow were equally and simultaneously wrong, in providing answers to a largely ill-posited question on the issue of the two cultures in the 1960's [ FootNote 9 ].

After a discussion of the macro-holons of FW Part Four in section 4.2, and an illustratory analysis of the micro-holons of FW Page 594 in Section 4.3, I hope that, by the light of philosophy things will begin to clear up a bit [ FootNote 10 ]. At that stage, I shall return to texture as a theoretical concept. In the section devoted to "Texture Revisited", I shall try to assess in what way the macro-holon/micro-holon FW discussion reinforces or invalidates definitions and conclusions.

NOTES:

FootNote 1: Closely following James Joyce's own example on drawing from the 1910 Britannica, this account is largely based on information derived from the New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1974) as well as from Pettijohn (1957), Carozzi (1960), and Kennon (1978).

FootNote 2: Euhedral is a term applied to those crystals that are bounded by their own crystal faces, resulting in a relatively high degree of crystalline geometry. Those crystals whose faces are of a lower degree of perfection than euhedral forms are called subhedral. Those crystals that are not bounded by their own crystal faces and have their outlines impressed on them by adjacent crystals are termed anhedral. They have a degree of geometry lower than subhedral forms.

FootNote 3: "Strong pair of arms. Whacking a carpet on the clothesline. She does whack it, by George. The way her crooked skirt swings at each whack." (Ulysses, page 70) OF WHAT EDITION????????

FootNote 4: SEE (a) Parts and Wholes, The Hayden Colloquium on Scientific Method and Concept, Boston M.I.T., edited by Daniel Lerner, 1963, Macmillan: London, and (b) Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences, The Alpbach Symposium, edited by Arthur Koestler & J. R. Smythies, 1969, Hutchinson: London.

FootNote 5: In Main Trends in the Science of Language (1973), Roman Jakobson provides a comprehensive discussion about the place of linguistics among the sciences of man (Chapter 2), immediately followed by a whole chapter entirely devoted to the relationship between linguistics and natural sciences, with special emphasis on genetics. The underlying idea is that both language and heredity are fundamentally forms of communication (page 53).

FootNote 6: SEE vol. 2, Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3: Zusammengesetzheit der Bedeutungen und Zusammengesetzheit des konkreten Bedeutens. Implizierte Bedeutungen. SEE esp. page 298: " ... in der Form ein A, welches a, b, c ... ist, komponieren, etc.

FootNote 7: SEE Arthur Koestler, 1978, Janus. A Summing-Up, in which he again discusses the idea of the holon.

FootNote 8: My mono-type homogeneity constraint (q. v.) is a manifestation of the former tendency; and the ostentatious violation of that particular constraint which characterizes Finnegans Wake as a whole is a manifestation of the latter tendency.

FootNote 9: SEE F. R. Leavis, Two Cultures ? The Significance of C. P. Snow ... Being the 1962 Richmond Lecture. With an essay on Sir Charles Snow's Rede Lecture. Chatto & Windus: London 1962.

FootNote 10: FW 119.04-05.

ends