Irish Divorce/Joyce's
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Irish Divorce/Joyce’s Ulysses Irish Divorce/ Joyce’s Ulysses Peter Kuch Peter Kuch University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand ISBN 978-1-349-95187-1 ISBN 978-1-137-57186-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-57186-1 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017939123 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu- tional affiliations. Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Nature America Inc. The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A. “Ignorantia juris non excusat.” “Every man is presumed to know the law.” For Declan PREFACE This book offers a revisionist reading of Joyce’s Ulysses by examining Irish attitudes to marriage and the wide-ranging English, Irish, American, and French debates about divorce that were conducted between 1904, when Joyce’s novel of adultery is set, and 1922, when it was published. It draws attention to an Irish practice that, even though it was known at the time, has since disappeared from the critical, historical, and legal literature about Ulysses and about Irish divorce. It is well known that Joyce was an avid reader of newspapers, the most common and popular source of information about divorce.1 1 Garry Leonard, Advertising and Commodity Culture in Joyce (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998); Barbara Leckie, Culture and Adultery: The Novel, the Newspaper and the Law 1857–1914 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999); Declan Kiberd, “Ulysses, Newspapers and Modernism,” in Irish Classics (London: Granta Books, 2000), 463–81; Barbara Leckie, “The Simple Case of Adultery,” James Joyce Quarterly 40, no. 4 (2003): 729–52; Katherine Mullin, James Joyce, Sexuality and Social Purity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); James A. Reppke, “Journalist Joyce: A Portrait,” James Joyce Quarterly 45, nos. 3–4 (2008): 459–68; R. Brandon Kershner, The Culture of Joyce’s “Ulysses” (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); Jennifer Wicke, “Modernity Must Advertise: Aura, Desire, and Decolonization in Joyce,” James Joyce Quarterly 50, nos. 1–2 (2012–2013): 203–21; Margot Backus, Scandal Work: James Joyce, the New Journalism, and the Home Rule Newspaper Wars (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013). ix x PREFACE It is also well known that Joyce was fascinated by accounts of divorce hearings that appeared almost daily in the Irish press from Dilke (1886) to Parnell (1890), to the establishment of the Free State in 1922,2 and with increasing frequency in the English press between the 1857 Act to Amend the Law Relating to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England and the 1926 Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act, which enforced a measure of restraint.3 What has not been realized is that the dual time-scheme of Ulysses, set in 1904 but written while Ireland was violently renegotiating its relationship to Empire, provided Joyce with a stance from which to interrogate ways in which sometimes rival and sometimes collusive Imperial and Ecclesiastical hegemonies forged the Edwardian Irish social imaginary. What unwit- tingly resulted from this complex, shifting contestation for control of the Irish mind was the provision of a space that gave Irish litigants, from 1858 to 1922, limited access to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the King’s Bench, which sat only in London. Consequently, no one has investigated the extent to which Bloom’s “Divorce, not now” and Molly’s “suppose I divorced him” are realistic possibilities rather than passing fantasies (17.2202; 18.846), and no one has investigated the extent to which Bloom’s and Molly’s thoughts about divorce, thoughts that find expression in the early hours of 17 June 1904, arise from and color all eighteen episodes of Ulysses. Irish Divorce / Joyce’s “Ulysses” demonstrates that divorce was a realis- tic option for the Blooms—whether whim, fantasy, wish, or conviction— following Molly’s affair with Hugh Boylan. It does so, in an attempt to avoid presentism,4 by cross-referencing the fifty-fourth edition of Every Man’s Own Lawyer (1919) Joyce is known to have possessed with contemporary Ecclesiastical and Parliamentary debates, public 2 Diarmaid Ferriter, Occasions of Sin: Sex and Society in Modern Ireland (London: Profile Books, 2009), 105–6; Peter Martin, Censorship in the Two Irelands, 1922– 1939 (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2006), 32. 3 See Gail Savage, “Erotic Stories and Public Decency: Newspaper Reporting of Divorce Proceedings in England,” The Historical Journal 41, no. 2 (1998): 511– 28. The Judicial Proceedings Act can be accessed at http://bailii.austlii.edu.au/ uk/legis/num_act/1926/ukpga_19260061_en.html. 4 Martin Jay, “Historical Explanation and the Event: Reflections on the Limits of Contextualization,” New Literary History 42 (2011): 557–71. PREFACE xi enquiries, relevant legal texts, and the 1912 Royal Commission on divorce. It also cross-references 1,500 divorce cases reported in various detail in the Irish and English newspapers that Joyce read whenever he could get access to copies with some 850 Divorce Court Minutes depos- ited in the National Archives in London, particularly those that relate to Irish pleas of the period. The book further engages with a rich vein of Joyce scholarship revealed by Richard Brown’s James Joyce and Sexuality (1985), Joseph Valente’s James Joyce and the Problem of Justice: Negotiating Sexual and Colonial Difference (1988), Vicki Mahaffey’s Reauthorizing Joyce (1988), Marian Eide’s Ethical Joyce (2002), Andrew Gibson’s Joyce’s Revenge (2002), Katherine Mullin’s James Joyce, Sexuality and Social Purity (2003), and Luca Crispi’s Joyce’s Creative Process and the Construction of Characters in “Ulysses”: Becoming the Blooms (2015). It concludes that the Blooms’ commitment to one another is more provisional than has previously been realized and that the engorged full stop at the end of “Ithaca” and Molly’s final “Yes.” represent temporary accommodations rather than forgiveness, qualified commitment, or separa- tion. And it maps several of the paths by which Bloom and Molly become interpellated by the heuristic and legal discourses associated with divorce. Irish Divorce / Joyce’s “Ulysses” is not a book about Joyce’s attitude or attitudes to divorce or about divorce in Joyce’s corpus, as relevant as some critics believe Exiles and Giacomo Joyce are to understanding Bloom’s situation. Nor is it a book about divorce in Finnegans Wake, or what might happen to the Blooms after 16 June 1904. Instead, it proposes that known Irish access to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the King’s Bench, the prominence given to divorce in Edwardian print culture, and the extent to which divorce was being expunged from the Irish social imaginary even while Ulysses was being written challenged Joyce to reconfigure his domestic odyssey as a novel of adultery by interrogating ways in which competing narratives, multiple voices, and self-reflexivity were played off against one another within a patriarchal legal discourse about divorce that had been and was being widely discussed in England, Ireland, and France (though not Italy5) throughout the first two decades of the twentieth century. 5 Mark Seymour, Debating Divorce in Italy: Marriage and the Making of Modern Italians (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). xii PREFACE As he was writing Ulysses, Joyce came to realize that Irish recourse to the English jurisdiction for decrees absolute provided him with a space to dramatize one way of subverting the power of “the imperial British state” (utilizing the state’sdefinition of “domicile” against itself) and the “holy Roman catholic and apostolic church” (obtaining a decree absolute) even while it drew attention to what was actually happening in Edwardian Ireland (the “Ireland” of “odd jobs”) (1.641–44). Finally, Irish Divorce / Joyce’s “Ulysses” raises the provocative and timely questions: why was Irish recourse to the English divorce court expunged from Joyce criticism, from Irish history, and from the Irish social imaginary between 1922 and 1986, and what does this tell us about the state and the nation? ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Much of this book has been written in what Edmund calls “Grandpa’s think-house,” and much of it has been read of an evening to Liz on the “think-house” porch. I am very grateful for her love and support and for the love and encouragement of my three children, Erin, Anna, and Declan, and my grandson, Edmund. The research, conducted in England, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, was facilitated by a sabba- tical leave granted by the University of Otago and made possible by the generosity of the Eamon Cleary Trust.