Challenging the prevailing postcolonial readings of Joyce, which treat the Irish solely as the colonized, this article focuses on how Joyce represents Ireland’s partnership with and contribution to the British Empire. Based on historical records about the Irish involvement with the Empire, the author finds that Joyce realistically portrays the historical contributions to the British Empire of Ireland’s soldiers and settlers as two forces essential to the development and spread of the Empire. These Irish soldiers or settlers, whether Protestants or Catholics, both participated in the creation and maintenance of the Empire, but Catholics were treated somewhat differently from Protestants, reiterating the power relationship in their home state. At the turn of the century, however, when political and managerial power began to pass into Catholic hands, clear distinctions between sectarian lines started to dissolve. As illustrated in Joyce’s writings, even promising Catholic Irishmen wanted to join the British army or work as civil servants. Irish Catholic settlers in particular were able to overcome prejudice and stereotypes regarding their religion and ethnicity. However, the Irish views of the Empire were as diverse as those of Joyce’s characters. By presenting characters who have opposing political viewpoints and by refusing to identify himself with one of the characters, Joyce gives his readers the chance to contemplate the multifaceted views of the Irish toward the British Empire.

 

KEYWORDS: James Joyce, Postcolonialism, British Empire, Soldier, Settler

DOI: 10.30395/WSR.201906_12(2).0007

 

I. Joyce, Postcolonialism, and the British Empire

 

In the 1970s and 1980s, readers analyzed Joyce mainly as an apolitical modernist writer who had widely experimented with revolutionary literary techniques. These analyses did not seriously consider his Irish background. In the 1990s, however, starting with the introduction of postcolonial theory to reading literary works, scholars have widely understood Joyce as an Irish writer with a deep concern for Irish politics and history. This perspective treats Ireland as a British colony, and the Irish as victims of a “brutish empire” (U 15.4569-70), an interesting term Stephen Dedalus uses when confronting two English soldiers in Ulysses.{footnote}All references are to James Joyce’s Ulysses, cited parenthetically as U with chapter and line number.{/footnote} Considering what Joyce says in his essay, “Ireland, Island of Saints and Sages,” one can safely assume Ireland’s political identity and perhaps justify the dominant postcolonial readings of Joyce, who overtly defines the Englishman as a conqueror, just like the Belgian and “the Nipponese dwarf” (CW 166).{footnote}All references are to James Joyce’s The Critical Writings of James Joyce, cited parenthetically as CW with page number.{/footnote} Given these power dynamics on which studies of Joyce have been exclusively focused, it is reasonable to conclude that colonial power plays a pivotal role in Joyce’s portrayals of his characters. That is, postcolonial readings of Joyce have interpreted his works as if “the colonial power is always ‘there’ in the background” (Williams, “No Cheer” 94). One might regard this sort of reading as contrapuntal, which means “reading a text with an understanding of what is involved,” thereby giving “emphasis and voice to what is silent” (Said 78). The light of postcolonialism enables one to read back into the text the forgotten history of British colonialism in Ireland.

However, these prevailing postcolonial readings of Joyce, which treat the Irish solely as the colonized, might be called into question, considering the heated arguments regarding Ireland’s political identity. Studies on Ireland and the British Empire reveal that Ireland participated in the British Empire to various extents.{footnote}For extensive discussions of Ireland and the British Empire, see Hiram Morgan's “An Unwelcome Heritage: Ireland’s Role in British Empire-Building,” Michael Holmes's “The Irish and India: Imperialism, Nationalism and Internationalism.” and Keith Jeffery's ‘An Irish Empire’?: Aspects of Ireland and the British Empire.{/footnote} Some historians argue that Ireland could be “pictured either as a partner in Britain’s empire or as her colony” (Fitzpatrick, The Two Irelands 6) and that the interests of the English in the process of empire building shaped the dual identities of the Irish people. That is, the Irish, who themselves were [end of p. 140] colonized back at home, became part of the British community of colonizers in other British colonies because the English, whom the native people in these colonies heavily outnumbered, felt relative solidarity with the Irish.{footnote}For instance, in “The Irish Raj: Social Origins and Careers of Irishmen in the Indian Civil Service, 1855-1914,” Scott B. Cook asserts that “in India, distinctions among Englishmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen were obscured by the more visible and critical differences between the British community of colonizers and the vast Indian population below” (514).{/footnote}

Until the end of the twentieth century, research on the Irish involvement in the Empire had been scant. According to Piaras Mac Einri, “this may reflect a certain reluctance in Irish circles to address the role of the Irish, not as the colonized, but as participants in the colonizing process” (9).{footnote}For more on Ireland as a partner in Britain’s empire, see Liversey and Murray 454-55; Kennedy 111-16.{/footnote} The phrase “an unwelcome heritage,” chosen by Hiram Morgan as the title of his paper discussing the Irish people’s involvement in the British Empire (619), succinctly couches this reluctance. The theorization of postcolonialism also embroils Ireland’s political identity in controversy. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literature, a seminal study of postcolonialism, depicts Ireland’s political identity differently in the second edition (2002) than it did in the first edition (1989), in which Bill Ashcroft and others do not include the case of the Irish in the postcolonial paradigm simply because it is difficult for “colonized peoples outside Britain to accept [the Irish] identity as post-colonial” (33). However, in the second edition, the authors treat the Irish as the colonized, considering “their historical relationship with Elizabethan, Stuart and Cromwellian colonialism” (201). Interestingly, the authors limit the defined period of colonial Ireland to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, implying Ireland’s changed political identity in later periods. In Colonial & Postcolonial Literature: Migrant Metaphors (1995), Elleke Boehmer, though aware of the Irish “resistance struggle” that “was in certain other colonies taken as talismanic by nationalist movements,” excludes Ireland from her categorization of postcolonial states because “its history has been so closely and so long linked to that of Britain” (4).

Luke Gibbons succinctly claims that people generally know Ireland as “a first-world country, but with a third-world memory” (“Ireland” 27). Despite Ireland’s political status in the Union with Great Britain, the latter has not treated the Irish as equal members of the United Kingdom. However, it is noteworthy that the Irish did not feel solidarity with the marginalized people of [p. 141] the third world. As Keith Booker demonstrates in his analysis of Ulysses, the Irish did not “identify their position as a colonized people with that of the nonwhite inhabitants of British colonies” (98). Likewise, Declan Kiberd illustrates the case of Irish nationalists’ attitude towards their Indian counterparts: “within the tradition of Irish nationalism was a strain of white triumphalism” (259). Moreover, Joyce was aware of the Irish people’s attitude toward people of the third world. For example, in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, he writes, “[Dante’s] brother had got the money from the savages for the trinkets and the chainies” (35).{footnote}All references are to James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, cited parenthetically as P with page number.{/footnote} The fact that the character refers to nonwhite inhabitants as “savages” and that the Irishman profited off of them reflects how the Irish regarded them. In order to further the study of Joyce, one needs to pay closer attention to how the Irish dealt with the marginalized peoples of the third world and what roles the Irish played in building the Empire.

Since the 1990s, many Joyce scholars have kept busy researching postcolonial Joyce. Along with Joyce’s anti-colonial resistance, research has included discussions of the Irish complicity with the English in terms of how the privileged characters in Joyce’s works live just like the English. He depicts some of those characters, such as West Britons,{footnote}In “The Dead,” Miss Ivors, an Irish nationalist, accuses Gabriel Conroy of being a West Briton. Irish nationalists treated Irishmen who “sought models for personal and national identity outside what they perceived to be Irish cultural traditions” as West Britons (Rickard 86).{/footnote} Castle Catholics, {footnote}According to James Fairhall, at the turn of the century “the higher reaches of the civil service remained a mostly Protestant preserve, but increasing numbers of ‘Castle Catholics’ like Power and Cunningham enjoyed well-paid positions of influence” (72).{/footnote} or “shoneens,”{footnote}According to Vincent Cheng, “Jimmy Doyle’s father, Ignatius Gallaher, and Tricky Dicky Tierney” are some examples of shoneens who “collaborate with the ruling class for personal gain” (124).{/footnote} as pro-British or in collusion with the British government. Moreover, the influence of the English culture has at least somewhat Anglicized or interpellated the Irish in general. As Kiberd notes, in Ireland the Anglicization had “penetrated every layer of Irish life, a situation rather different from that to be encountered in Africa and Asia, whose emerging peoples were generally not so deeply permeated by the culture of the colonizer” (251). Furthermore, Enda Duffy contends the Irish people’s full interpellation by the English, such that the former have accepted their roles as the colonized.{footnote}For Bloom and Molly as interpellated subjects, see Duffy 182-85.{/footnote} Considering that historically, colonized countries have been in collusion with [p. 142] their colonizer to varying extents, the complicity of the Irish with the English is not something new or unique.

Reflecting on the validity of including Joyce in the category of postcolonial writers, a few Joyce scholars have touched on the ambivalence of Irish political identity. In their book Semicolonial Joyce, the editors, Derek Attridge and Marjorie Howes, justify the term “semicolonial” on the basis of, among other things, their general agreement with the notion that the Irish people contributed to the expansion of the Empire: “Ireland, particularly Protestant Ireland, helped build and maintain the British imperial system, and Catholic Ireland enthusiastically pursued the civilizing and christianizing missions that were an important part of the empire” (Introduction 8). Despite this awareness of the Irish contribution to the Empire, the editors consistently depict Ireland as a colonized country (3). Although some articles, for instance, those by Joseph Valente, Katherine Mullin, and Elizabeth Butler Cullingford, briefly touch on Irish complicity in a large variety of British imperial practices (Valente 102; Mullin 175; Cullingford 219-20), no articles have as yet systematically dealt with how the Irish collaborated with the British to maintain the Empire. In “The Return and Redefinition of the Repressed: The Construction of Female Identity in the Writings of James Joyce,” an article in Joyce, Imperialism, & Postcolonialism, Eugene O’Brien argues that any canonical Irish writer can be a writer of the Empire as well as an “imperial subject” (43). Such multiple identities of canonical Irish writers justify O’Brien’s couching of Joyce within the context of the dominant postcolonial paradigm. Thomas F. Halloran, author of James Joyce: Developing Irish Identity, also claims that “the Irish at times benefited as a result of their closer ties with England than those of other colonial states” (21). However, Halloran still does not place Joyce within that historical context; he does not illustrate how the Irish benefited by maintaining a close link to England.

Although these critics are aware of the Irish complicity, criticism pays relatively little attention to the issue. This omission is understandable, considering that Joyce concentrates exclusively on Ireland and Irish people in his writings. Therefore, he does not offer many clues or evidence enabling the analysis of his works within a wider context. Taking Ireland as just a British colony and failing to consider not only historians’ research on Ireland’s involvement in the Empire but also some Joyce critics’ awareness of it, assumes that “every feature of Irish cultural life is seen to emanate from the colonial [p. 143] moment” (Livesay and Murray 455). However, Ireland’s connection to the British Empire necessarily expands the paradigm of postcolonial readings of Joyce. Accordingly, whatever Joyce presents us in his writings duly emphasizes what must always be in the background of his works, that is, the Irish in the British Empire. As those Joyce scholars occasionally called “the London group” or the “London school” suggest, “as much historical information as is relevant and practicable” can provide an insightful lens through which to read Joyce’s work (Gibson and Platt 18). This article interprets Joyce in terms of the Irish people’s historical contribution to the British Empire as soldiers and settlers, which were the two significant forces essential to the development and expansion of the Empire.

 

II. Irishmen and the British Army

 

In light of Irish history, it makes sense that in the “Nestor” episode of Ulysses, Deasy, who is a descendant of Scottish immigrants, is also a Protestant Unionist claiming British identity. As James Loughlin observes, for Unionists and Ulster Unionists in particular, “the Act of Union was their cornerstone of the British constitution, one that guaranteed, not only freedom from oppression by Catholic Nationalists, but the means by which they could legitimately identify themselves as British” (26-27).{footnote}For a detailed discussion of Deasy as an Ulster Unionist, see Choi.{/footnote} The question then is whether any Irish Catholic character in Joyce’s works openly supports Unionism and claims his or her Britishness. That Irish Catholics are supposed nationalists suggests the dichotomy critics often use to understand Joyce’s characters. Joyce, who vividly depicts Irish society at the turn of the century, illustrates that some Irish Catholics are pro-British, and that they support the dominant political structure at that time, claiming that Ireland is a partner in the British Empire.

Murphy in “Eumaeus” is the most outspoken Catholic Unionist in Joyce’s writings. Joyce’s scrupulous description of Murphy’s background covertly suggests the latter’s pro-British identity by revealing his hometown is in Queenstown harbor (U 16.417), a place name evocative of the British domination of Ireland. Unwittingly, Murphy recites a phrase from S. J. Arnold’s English patriotic song, “The Death of Nelson”: “For England, home and beauty” (U 16.420). He likes reading articles about the English game of cricket, towards which Skin-the-goat, an Irish nationalist, openly shows his antagonism [p. 144] (U 16.1682-90). Although he identifies himself as an Irish Catholic, Murphy is not ashamed to mimic certain British ways of life. In the following passage, he argues that Ireland has fully played a leading role in the development of the Empire:

 

—Who’s the best troops in the army? the grizzled old veteran irately interrogated. And the best jumpers and racers? And the best admirals and generals we’ve got? Tell me that.
   —The Irish, for choice, retorted the cabby like Campbell, facial blemishes apart.
   —That’s right, the old tarpaulin corroborated. The Irish catholic peasant. He’s the backbone of our empire. You know Jem Mullins? (U 16.1016-22)

 

By claiming that Irish Catholics have produced the best soldiers and officers in the British army, Murphy boasts about Ireland’s full participation in the Empire. It is historically accurate that the Irish were well represented among the soldiers and officers of the British army. According to T. G. Fraser, “For much of the nineteenth century some 40 per cent of the British army was recruited in Ireland” (78). Additionally, “throughout the second half of the nineteenth century about 17.5% of all officers were Irish” (Jeffery, “The Irish Military” 105). Even during the First World War, “140,000 Irish men volunteered for the British forces, of whom about 65,000 were Catholics” (Bishop 174). These figures show how instrumental the Irish were in expanding and consolidating the Empire. Bloom is also aware that “Irish soldiers had as often fought for England as against her, more so, in fact” (U 16.1041-42). Moreover, in his essay, “Ireland, Island of Saints and Sages,” what Joyce writes about the bravery of Irishmen during the war is not far off from Murphy’s thoughts. Irishmen, according to Joyce, played a greater role in defending the Empire than did Englishmen:

 

The English debacle in South Africa in the war against the Boers had made the English army an object of scorn in the European press, and if it took the genius of the two commanders-in-chief, Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener (both of them Irishmen, born in Ireland) to redeem its threatened prestige (just as in 1815 it [p. 145] took the genius of another Irish soldier to overcome the renewed might of Napoleon at Waterloo), it also took Irish recruits and volunteers to demonstrate their renowned valour on the field of battle. (CW 164)

 

It would be unfair to blame Irish soldiers for engaging in the colonizing process because “the colonial empire conscripted native armies throughout its dominions for its business in other parts of the world” (Bahri 64). The primary grounds for such an argument are Irish victimhood and the conscription of Irishmen into the army, like the colonized peoples of Africa and Asia. However, the Irish case was completely different, as Joyce demonstrates in his works. As “the recruiting poster with soldiers of all arms on parade” (U 5.56-57) illustrates, Irishmen had the choice of whether or not to join the British army. In the passage above, they are referred to as “Irish recruits and volunteers” (CW 164). In “Eveline,” the heroine stands at the North Wall in the station “full of soldiers with brown baggages” (D 33).{footnote}All references are to James Joyce’s Dubliners, cited parenthetically as D with page number.{/footnote} In Reading Joyce Politically, Trevor Williams remarks that they are British soldiers who have come to Ireland to suppress the Irish rebellion, thus standing for “the British military invasion” (76). However, since “Eveline” is about Irish people who have left or are planning to leave Ireland, it makes sense to identify the soldiers as Irish rather than British. They have volunteered for military service and are about to go to Liverpool to join the British army.

According to a nationalist myth, many soldiers from Ireland had “joined up as an alternative to starvation” (Kiberd 258). It was true that the aftermath of the nineteenth-century famine socio-economically deprived the Irish, Catholics in particular. However, poverty was not a good enough reason to explain why many Irishmen willingly joined the army, especially at the turn of the century. Interestingly, Joyce illustrates that not only poverty-stricken men but also rich and promising men joined the army. In “Telemachus,” Seymour’s case is of great interest because he has “chucked medicine” for “going in for the army” (U 1.696). The fact that Irish Catholics could become medical students at the turn of the century implies that Catholics’ social status was improving when the lines between Catholics and Protestants were blurring as a result of a series of social and economic reforms. As Andrew Gibson points out, Catholic “medical students. . . represent a new, trained, and educated generation [p. 146] of young Catholics. . . rising to prominence in a sphere in which political and managerial power is passing into Catholic hands” (167). Seymour would have been able to live an economically satisfactory life as a doctor in Ireland, but he chose instead to be a soldier. Thus, it is necessary to offer a more suitable explanation for the Irishmen’s interest in joining the army.

The Empire was attractive enough to induce many Irish Catholics to forget their history of oppression and to experience the life of a colonizer. In the passage above from “Eumaeus,” Murphy mentions Jem Mullins (U 16.1022), but he is not an appropriate example of one of those Irish Catholic peasants who became “the backbone of our empire” by joining the military. Mullins has little connection to the army. He “became a legendary image of peasant strength in his own lifetime, having begun life in abject poverty and. . . managed to teach himself and finally became an M.D. in 1881” (Gifford and Seidman 548). Murphy should have mentioned an Irishman who lifted himself up from poverty after joining the Imperial Service Troops and becoming a soldier or administrator, especially in India. As Fraser notes, India was “an ‘Irish’ as well as a ‘British’ empire, offering advancement, and often fame, to young Irishmen of relatively humble background” (91).

Ulysses depicts the Anglo-Irish as being more enthusiastic about joining the army, as if to reflect the better treatment they received in the British army. In “Nestor,” the parents of Stephen’s students with Anglo-Irish backgrounds are “proud that their eldest son [is] in the navy” (U 2.24-25). In “Lestrygonians,” Joyce cynically describes those Trinity College students with Anglo-Irish backgrounds. They demonstrate against the Boer War, shouting their disapproval of some of the Imperial policies. However, Bloom is quite sure that they will not hesitate to join the army when the Empire is in danger: “War comes on: into the army helter-skelter” (U 8.439). The British army treated Anglo-Irish Protestants differently than Irish Catholics. As Jeffery observes, officers were “almost entirely drawn from the Anglo-Irish Protestant landowning class” (“The Irish Military” 105). Even the army sustained the unequal power relationship between Catholics and Protestants.

Joyce’s views on Irishmen serving in the army reveal that the Irish played a pivotal role in the British Empire at the turn of the century. In his essay, “Ireland, Island of Saints and Sages,” Joyce points to those Irishmen well-known for their outstanding achievement in the British army: [p. 147]

 

. . . Ireland has been able to give to the service of others men. . . like Lord Charles Beresford, virtual head of the English navy, just recently placed in command of the Channel Fleet, like the three most renowned generals of the English army—Lord Wolseley, the commander-in-chief, Lord Kitchener, victor of the Sudan campaign and at present commanding general of the army in India, and Lord Roberts, victor of the war in Afghanistan and South Africa. (CW 172)

 

Interestingly, all of the generals mentioned by Joyce in the above passage are Protestants, along with the generals (Lord Roberts, Lord Kitchener, the Duke of Wellington) referred to in another part of the essay (CW 164). However, this does not indicate that only Protestants could become generals in the British army; rather, it means that Joyce does not distinguish Catholics from Protestants in the category of “Ireland’s sons.”{footnote}A small number of Irish Catholics became generals in the British army. According to Jeffery, “Sir William Butler, a Tipperary-born Catholic,” was the most notable general (“The Irish Military” 108). He “enjoyed a distinguished and archetypically ‘imperial’ career in the British army” and was “a committed Home Ruler and a great admirer of Parnell.” Jeffery also points out that both General Edward Bulfin and General Eric Dorman-Smith had Irish Catholic backgrounds (108).{/footnote} Joyce does not question those Irishmen’s work for the Empire because to him their significance is that they were successful Irishmen who had made great contributions to the Empire. In his essay, Joyce’s attitude toward Irishmen and the Empire sounds indistinguishable from Murphy’s in “Eumaeus.”

Although the Irish soldiers had colonial backgrounds, while conquering and governing native peoples, the latter remembered or recorded them as cruel colonizers. Analyzing characteristics of the colonizer in his essay, “Ireland, Island of Saints and Sages,” Joyce points out that a “conqueror cannot be casual” (CW 166). As conquerors, Irish soldiers did what the army expected of them in their new roles in new territories. As Michael Holmes observes, “Irish soldiers were just as prepared as their English, Welsh and Scottish counterparts to maintain British rule through brutal means” (237). In Ulysses, Joyce implies the British knew well that the Irish soldiers worked bravely to expand and maintain the Empire. For example, Bloom tells two English soldiers, “We fought for you in South Africa, Irish missile troops. Isn’t that history? Royal Dublin Fusiliers. Honoured by our monarch” (U 15.4606-07). Although [p. 148] somewhat exaggerated and thus only partially true, Molly nevertheless mentions “the Dublins that won Tugela” (U 18.402-03). During the Boer War, the Royal Dublin Fusiliers fought so bravely and loyally for the British that Queen Victoria praised them and allowed them to wear a sprig of shamrock in their headdresses for St. Patrick’s Day. This privilege demonstrated that the Irish maintained their national identity while defending and fighting for the British Empire.

In Irish society of 1904, associating with British soldiers might not have been a source of shame but honor. In “Wandering Rocks,” a one-legged sailor begs for money on the streets, growling some phrases from S. J. Arnold’s English patriotic song, “The Death of Nelson,” which, echoing Murphy’s case, implies the sailor’s political identity. Though it is not certain whether he actually served and was injured in the British army, his presumed service for the Empire prompts people to console him with coins. In “Circe,” Bloom, openly expressing his veneration for a wounded soldier, “kisses the bedsores of a palsied veteran,” calling them “Honourable wounds!” (U 15.1607-08).

Among the British soldiers or officers in Ulysses, the most unexpected one is Molly’s father, Major Tweedy, whose case illustrates that a Catholic Irishman can become an officer and play a leading role in the Empire. Appearing in “Circe,” he represents the Orange faction, while the Citizen represents the Green faction (U 15.4717). Since Orangemen usually identify as Unionists, Tweedy is another example of a Unionist, even though nearly all Unionists are Protestants. Previous research often characterizes Molly as a colonized Irish woman and considers her monologue subversive. For instance, in The Subaltern ‘Ulysses,’ Duffy sees Molly as “an ideal colonial subject from the colonizer’s viewpoint” and “a signifier of colonial subalternity in general” (183-84). However, Molly illustrates ways in which “this subalternity might be overcome” (191). As Gibson persuasively illustrates, her monologue is subversive in that it “stands in stark contrast to English discourses on Gibraltar, particularly in the period 1880-1920” (261). Whereas the predominant concerns of English discourse at that time were “military and political,” Molly emphasizes the “aspects of Gibraltarian life that were marginal to it,” for example, its Catholic culture, its Spanishness, and “the Irish strain in Gibraltar culture” (261). On a discursive level, she seems to challenge the dominant paradigms of her time. Taking into account her remark that she is proud of being a “soldiers daughter” (U 18.881-82), one can no longer see her as a colonial [p. 149] subject but as a woman who supports the status quo of Ireland’s political structure at the turn of the century.

Molly cherishes her Catholic background, as one can see from the fact that Bloom converts to Catholicism “at the epoch of and with a view to his matrimony in 1888” (U 17.1640). On top of that, Molly’s religious faith is implicit in her sharing a birthday—“8 September” (17.2275-76)—with the Virgin Mary. Despite being a Catholic, however, she does not subscribe to a nationalist worldview.{footnote}On the other hand, Carol Shloss interprets Molly’s speech in “Penelope” as “the kind of ‘guerilla’ tactic that was, in 1904, common to any Irish resistance to unionism” (111).{/footnote} Considering her attitude towards soldiers, one can assume that she does not cast doubts upon the Irish participation in the Empire. For example, she shows her affection towards Lieutenant Gardner, who is “so English” (18.889-90), and she is against the Boers because they “killed him with their war and fever” (18.867-68). She is proud that she “got a chance of walking down the Alameda on an officers arm” (18.884-85). Moreover, not only does her “singing the absentminded beggar” (18.377)—from the propaganda poem by Rudyard Kipling—well imply her pro-imperialist identity but so does her “wearing a broach for Lord Roberts” (18.378), the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces during the Boer War in South Africa. She also shows that such an identity is possible even “when [she] had the map of it all” (18.377-78), that is, when “it’s obvious that she is Irish” (Gifford and Seidman 614). As with her father, in “Sirens” alleged nationalists challenge Molly’s Irish identity: “Irish? I don’t know, faith. Is she, Simon?” (U 11.510). Since Molly is one of the main characters in the novel, her pro-British identity deserves more attention in the context of the Irish involvement in the British Empire.

 

III. Overseas Irish and Their Political Identities

 

In many parts of the former British Empire, the Irish were a significant part of the settler population. Comparatively, more Irish people in the nineteenth century emigrated throughout the British Empire and the former British colonies in America, than any other Western people.{footnote}According to Greiner and Jordan-Bychkov: Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Irish emigration produced a profound diaspora of settler colonies and societies around the world. So massive was this Hibernian dispersal that an overseas Irish community 14 or 15 times as populous as that of the home island has developed . . . and at the turn of the twentieth century they made up over 27 percent of all natives of the British Isles in the southern continent (73).{/footnote} Many Irish [p. 150] people had no choice but to leave Ireland for new settlements overseas, especially during the Great Famine in the 1840s. In their homeland, the British government treated the Irish mainly as colonials and did not provide them with sufficient aid against starvation. In the British colonies, however, their social status was completely different. Hiram Morgan suggests the story of the Irish in the British Empire was written “in the passive terms of ‘settlers’ and ‘migrants’ but they were in the first instance ‘colonists’ at odds with the native population” (621). Although Irish Catholics were treated somewhat differently than Irish Protestants, even in a wide range of fields throughout the Empire, the Irish were in general not colonials any-more, but colonizers. Owing to their physical differences from the natives, the Irish were able to feel solidarity with other white people and lead lives as colonizers. They were instrumental in conquering and controlling the natives, who were the real victims of British imperialism. Considered from the historical perspective of the British Empire, immigration may be “[t]he most far-reaching contribution of the Irish to the development of the Empire” (Fitzpatrick, “Ireland and the Empire” 512). However, “Ireland derived little economic benefit from British imperialism overseas” (Morgan 621). Rather, “it was Irishmen and women as settlers who benefitted” (622) because the devastated economic conditions in Ireland caused by the Great Famine led to Irish mass emigration during the Victorian heyday of the British Empire. Therefore, further study should consider not only the Irish as net beneficiaries of the Empire but also Joyce’s description of the Irish as settlers throughout the Empire.

Joyce does not directly deal with overseas Irish settlers in his writings, largely because his main concern is with Ireland and the people living there. Nonetheless, in his essay, “Ireland, Island of Saints and Sages,” he mentions those Irish people who were playing key roles in governing the Empire. On Joyce’s list of respected Irishmen were influential men in the colonies, including “the Marquess of Dufferin, Governor of Canada and Viceroy of India . . . Charles Gavin Duffy, and Hennessey, colonial governors” (CW 172). Among these Irishmen, Charles Gavin Duffy is a very interesting case because he was an Irish nationalist with a Catholic background. After emigrating to Australia, he became Premier of Victoria in 1871. Joyce takes great pride in these overseas Irishmen, taking for granted the Irishmen’s settlement and governing roles throughout the Empire. It seems contradictory, however, that [p. 151] while condemning British rule in Ireland, Joyce does not think about how Irish governors and settlers oppressed natives throughout the Empire.

In A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Joyce does discuss how Irish students responded to becoming civil servants both within and outside the United Kingdom. Donovan, Stephen’s classmate, talks about the results of his civil service examinations:

 

Did you hear the results of the exams? . . . Griffin was plucked. Halpin and O’Flynn are through the home civil. Moonan got fifth place in the Indian. O’Shaughnessy got fourteenth. The Irish fellows in Clark’s gave them a feed last night. They all ate curry. (P 228)

 

Irish students have great interest in becoming civil servants. Indian administrators, in particular, pay attention to the rankings that they have earned. The preceding excerpt highlights that becoming a civil servant is very competitive, indicating that Irish people are highly willing to work for the Empire. It seems contradictory that “the Irish fellows,” who, according to Gifford and Seidman, are “super-patriots,” would entertain being “future British civil servants” (Gifford and Seidman 251). The Irish nationalists’ treatment of future Indian civil servants leads to an examination of the Irish nationalists’ views on imperialism. Some leading Irish nationalists during the nineteenth century were by no means against the British Empire and were even willing to benefit financially by collaborating with the English. For example, Parnell, whom Joyce greatly respected, “defended the Empire” and was “at ease with the idea of dominion status for Ireland” (Gibson 5). As an Irish nationalist Daniel O’Connell argues that the “concern was to gain for Ireland the kind of constitutional justice it deserved, but always within an imperial frame” (Ryder 178). Although the Irish hailed and venerated O’Connell as “the Liberator,” he did not view as problematic Irish participation in the imperial system. As a result, one might suspect that Irish nationalism does not necessarily equate to anti-imperialism. It is thus questionable whether “Irish nationalism arose from Ireland’s perceived exclusion from empire, not her inclusion within it” (Bayly 12).

Clues in Joyce’s writings suggest the meaning the Empire and the Irish diaspora had for the Irish people at the turn of the century. Interestingly, Bloom, [p. 152] who may represent Joyce in Ulysses, justifies colonial policy, itself, while Stephen, who also may represent Joyce, mocks the British Empire as “brutish” (U 15.4569). In “Ithaca,” Bloom’s conversion to Catholicism and his attitude toward emigration and British colonial policies exemplify his rectitude, as the following passage concretely illustrates:

 

Prove that he had loved rectitude from his earliest youth.
     To Master Percy Apjohn at High School in 1880 he had divulged his disbelief in the tenets of the Irish (protestant) church (to which his father Rudolf Virag (later Rudolph Bloom) had been converted from the Israelitic faith and communion in 1865 by the Society for promoting Christianity among the jews) subsequently abjured by him in favour of Roman catholicism at the epoch of and with a view to his matrimony in 1888. To Daniel Magrane and Francis Wade in 1882 during a juvenile friendship (terminated by the premature emigration of the former) he had advocated during nocturnal perambulations the political theory of colonial (e.g. Canadian) expansion and the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin, expounded in The Descent of Man and The Origin of Species. (U 17.1634-45)

 

Because of his allegedly giving “the ideas for Sinn Fein to Griffith” (U 12.1574) and his conversion to Catholicism, the religion of the oppressed in Ireland, one might identify Bloom as a nationalist. By paralleling his conversion to Catholicism and his endorsement of British imperialism in the above passage, Joyce implies that in the 1880s the two faiths could be compatible and that an Irish Catholic could be a supporter of both imperialism and Irish nationalism. Interestingly, such an endorsement is a testament to his “rectitude from his earliest youth” (U 17.1634), implying that honest men advocated such a policy in the latter half of the nineteenth century. At that time, both the English and the Irish widely supported colonial expansion. The English expected the colonies to “turn the tide of Irish emigration from England to her colonies” (Clayton 4) so that England would be less vulnerable to the crime, unemployment, and overpopulation that the Irish immigrants caused.{footnote}For Edward Gibbon Wakefield’s 1833 argument on the importance of overseas colonies, see Pamela Clayton 4.{/footnote} On the [p. 153] other hand, the privileged Irish could yield power in the colonies, where the English no longer treated them as colonials. Appropriately, the above passage implicitly links emigration to colonial expansion; as does mentioning the emigration of Bloom’s friend prior to the former’s support for colonial expansion. More surprisingly, Bloom advocates the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin, which the English appropriated in order to justify the West’s colonization of the East. In the case of Ireland, the theories were useful to the English, who had sometimes depicted the Irish as apes, thus “suggesting that the Irish might provide a proof of the theory that man was descended from the ape” (Bishop 169). To Bloom, a Jewish Irishman, the theories are doubly offensive since Europeans misused them to persecute the Jews especially during the first half of the twentieth century.{footnote}Richard Weikart points out “the late nineteenth century shift from traditional forms of Christian anti-Semitism to secular racial anti-Semitism” (95). The secular racial anti-Semitism retained “many of the long-standing Jewish stereotypes,” but “it closed the door to assimilation, since Jews could not discard their immoral character, which was grounded in their biological essence.” The “only solution was to get rid of the Jews.”{/footnote} However, Bloom’s endorsement of British imperialism is not the same as an endorsement by Joyce. On the contrary, Joyce keeps his distance from Bloom by pointing out that Bloom was a juvenile (U 17.1641) at that time, thus suggesting that Bloom might change his views with age.

Although Joyce does not illustrate an Irish settler’s life in the colonies, he indicates that emigration was a widespread social phenomenon at the turn of the century, representing “a culture of exile” that took it for granted “for the Irish to move abroad” (Mierlo 178). Particularly in “Eveline,” Joyce demonstrates that emigration was a fact of life surrounding the Irish in general in that time period. To point out the harsh reality of and urgent need for emigration, Joyce emphasizes that Dubliners had two choices: death or emigration. Along with people who have died, such as Tizzie Dunn, Ernest, and Eveline’s mother, here and there in the story Joyce alludes to people who have left Ireland. For example, “the Waters had gone back to England” (D 29), and a priest, Eveline’s father’s friend, is “in Melbourne” (30). On the other hand, Eveline, who decides not to follow Frank, is “a helpless animal” (34) who loses her last chance to be happy on a new continent. Like other characters in Dubliners, Eveline does not expect a bright future as long as she lives in Dublin, which Joyce himself regarded as “the centre of paralysis” (Joyce, Letters 134). [p. 154]

Joyce does not directly deal with the Irish settlers’ lives in the British colonies, but he illustrates in his writings how Dubliners often talked about Irish emigrants. First of all, Irish immigrants in the United States and Great Britain are measures for understanding how the British Empire in general accepted the Irish. According to Andy Bielenberg, those two countries were major emigration destinations at the turn of the century because of “the cheaper routes” (226). Generally speaking, “opportunities for Irish migrants in the British Empire were better than in the USA or Great Britain” (Einri 10). Taking this observation into account, it is highly likely that the lives of Irish immigrants in the British Empire were better in general than those in the USA or Great Britain.

In his essay, “Ireland, Island of Saints and Sages,” Joyce considers the United States, which was former British colonies, as “another native land,” identifying the Irish community there as “a rich, powerful, and industrious settlement” (CW 172). He only mentions the Irishman in America as an example of “a respected man,” a case that is very common when finding an Irishman “outside of Ireland in another environment” (171). In the essay, Joyce does not contemplate or question how American society marginalized and disadvantaged the Irish during the initial process of accepting them fully into their ranks. The Citizen in Ulysses repeats such a view: “We have our greater Ireland beyond the sea” (U 12.1364-65). In particular, his identification of America as “the land of the free” (12.1373), and Ireland as “the land of bondage” (12.1373) demonstrates how differently the people at home in Ireland and the Americans treated the Irish. At the turn of the century, the Irish who lived in “the land of bondage” had to struggle against the British in order to gain Home Rule. On the other hand, Irish Americans overcame prejudice and stereotypes based on religion and ethnicity and succeeded in gaining social mobility. As John Belchem points out, Irish Americans were “securely located in the mainstream of the working class enjoying the American Standard of living, the wages of whiteness” (26).

Despite the success and the prosperity of Irish Americans, it is ironic that Irish nationalists such as the Citizen implicitly compare the Irish to native Americans: “the TIMES rubbed its hands and told the whitelivered Saxons there would soon be as few Irish in Ireland as redskins in America” (U 12.1367-69). In actuality, the seventeenth century saw the “widespread equation of the ‘mere Irish’ with the native Americans” (Gibbons, Transformations 176). [p. 155] However, the Irish were partly responsible for the brutal ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans during the conquest of North America. The following description about the first Irishman in America demonstrates how the Irish were instrumental in the English colonization of the New World:

 

Some time in 1586 an Englishman, Captain Ralph Lane, travelling near what is now Edenton, North Carolina, recorded in his diary that “an Irishman, serving me, one Edward Nugent, volunteered to kill Pemisapan, King of the Indians. We met him returning out of the woods with Pemisapan’s head in his hands and the Indians ceased their raids against the British camp.” (Bishop 63)

 

The above passage shows an Irishman working for an Englishman in the colonizing process despite the unequal power relationship between them. Furthermore, the Irish defined themselves as white when they arrived in America after the Great Famine in order not to be “reduced to servitude once more” (Gibbons, Transformations 176). They found “in the anti-abolitionist Democratic party a vehicle for their social and political aspirations” (Gibbons, Transformations 176). At the turn of the twentieth century, Irish Americans collaborated with Anglo-Saxons in order to defend their common interests and privileges against new waves of immigrants from Europe and Asia. As Patrick Bishop observes, “The stigma of being Irish faded as new waves of immigrants took their place in the bottom stratum of society” (151).

Ever since Ireland became a legitimate part of the UK after the Act of Union (1800), the Irish have had the privilege to migrate to Britain, the imperial center, and work there. Unlike in the USA, however, they faced discrimination in Britain, even in the early 1900s. Still, many people settled in Britain because the passage was the cheapest route out of Ireland. Within Britain, Scotland was a unique place because it constituted “the most numerically significant element of the Irish community in Britain for a long period” (Einri 7). In Scotland, the Irish formed a distinct Irish community. As Richard B. Mccready points out, they could lead “an entirely separate social life, with their own churches, schools, public houses, political societies, football teams and other forms of entertainment” (46). Taking such ways of life into account offers a new perspective for understanding the Irish emigrants who moved to Scotland in Joyce’s writings. Freddy Malins’ mother, a visitor to Dublin from Glasgow, is [p. 156] one Irish person who settled down in Scotland and who praises the country, especially “all the nice friends they had there” (D 190-91). However, since the Irish did not usually socialize with the Scots, it’s questionable whether there are any Scots among her “nice friends.”

On the other hand, the Irish emigrants in England, where the Irish population was proportionately lower than in Scotland, led a totally different life. As an ethnic minority in English society, the Irish did not often choose to live in isolation from the rest of society.{footnote}For more on Liverpool as an exceptional city in England, see Belchem 31.{/footnote} It is likely that Joyce is aware of this social phenomenon. He depicts such an Irishman, Gallaher, in “A Little Cloud.” Gallaher visits Dublin after he has become “a brilliant figure on the London Press” (D 65). He is modeled on an Irish Catholic like T. P. O’Connor, occasionally known as “Tay Pay,” who moved to London, where he founded and edited several newspapers and journals. In the “Aelous” episode of Ulysses, “Tay Pay” is mentioned with one of his newspapers, “the Star” (U 7.687). Joyce’s description of Gallaher in “A Little Cloud” exposes how an Irishman could survive and succeed in England, where, as John Belchem points out, “not even the possibility of a hyphenated identity as Irish-British” was feasible (31). As Patrick Bishop observes, survival in England required an Irishman to adopt “self-consciously English middle-class behavior” (162). Interestingly, Gallaher exemplifies such an Irishman, who completely assimilated the English ways of life. Indeed, Joyce twice mentions his “orange tie” (D 70, 76), which Vincent Cheng points out, gives the impression that he has “taken the values of the oppressor” (119). Chandler feels distant from Gallaher, who has a “fearless accent” (D 65) and a “way of expressing himself” (71). Like Mulligan’s English friends with palefaces in Ulysses (U 1.166), Gallaher also looks pale (D 70). Moreover, he confesses he wants to “marry money” (76). Joyce describes him as a pursuer of materialism, which both the English and the Irish have often considered an English national trait.{footnote}See Matthew Arnold for a definition of the Celtic national character. In “Aeolus,” the characters describe spirituality as an essentially Irish characteristic and materialism as an essentially English characteristic.{/footnote}

 

IV. Conclusion

 

Joyce does not present many clues or evidence with which to analyze his works in terms of the British Empire. Nonetheless, he realistically portrays [p. 157] Ireland’s historical contributions to the Empire. As soldiers and settlers, the Irish people played pivotal roles in expanding, defending, and maintaining the Empire to such a degree that the British Empire would not have existed as it did without their active and persistent involvement. However, concerning the Irish Catholics, arguing that the British Empire treated the Irish as equal partners is going too far. Despite Ireland’s political status in the Union with Great Britain, the English treated the Irish differently and along sectarian lines. As Donald Harman Akenson points out, “to study Irish history either of the homeland or of any part of the diaspora without considering sectarian divergences is not to study the Irish at all” (6). When the Irish became soldiers or settlers, the English gave advantages to the Protestants that they denied to the Catholics; thus, they somewhat reiterated throughout the Empire the power relationship from back home. Irish Catholics had to overcome economic and social barriers in order to become officers; a majority of them had no choice but to remain content with minor positions in the army. While the Irish had the privilege of moving to the Empire as settlers, Catholics had to clear the sectarian hurdle before they could move from the margin to the mainstream.

However, at the turn of the twentieth century, political and managerial power began to pass into Catholic hands, dismantling the clear distinctions between sectarian lines. At that time, Catholic voices were more influential than ever in both the British Empire and Ireland. As illustrated in Joyce’s writings, the Catholic Irish could become officers or civil servants, while Irish settlers in general and Catholic settlers in particular overcame religious and ethnic prejudices and stereotypes and succeeded in gaining social mobility. However, Irish views regarding the empire were widely different. As a writer who condemned all kinds of oppression in Ireland, Joyce did not argue that one political view is absolute and immutable. In his 1907 essay, “Ireland, Island of Saints and Sages,” Joyce may seem like a writer of the Empire, proudly enunciating the Irish people’s active and noticeable roles in the Empire. However, in Ulysses, he presents three main characters, Stephen, Bloom, and Molly, who have different views on nationalism and imperialism. By presenting characters who have opposing political views and refusing to identify himself with any one of those characters, he challenges his previous views and gives his readers a chance to contemplate the multifaceted views of the Irish in regards to the British Empire. [p. 158]

This article has focused on Joyce’s representation of the Irish people’s involvement in the Empire as soldiers and settlers. Further studies can reveal how Irish missionaries and traders also participated in the Empire. [p. 159]

 

 

Works Cited

 

Akenson, Donald Harman. The Irish Diaspora, a Primer. P. D. Meany, 1993.

Arnold, Matthew. Lectures and Essays in Criticism. U of Michigan P, 1962.

Ashcroft, Bill, et al. The Empire Writes Back. 1st ed., Routledge, 1989.

——. The Empire Writes Back. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2002.

Attridge, Derek, and Marjorie Howes. Introduction. Attridge and Howes, Semicolonial Joyce, pp. 1-20.

——, editors. Semicolonial Joyce. Cambridge UP, 2000Bahri, Deepika. Native Intelligence: Aesthetics, Politics, and Postcolonial Literature. U of Minnesota P, 2003.

Bayly, C. A. Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World, 1780-1830. Longman Group, 1989.

Belchem, John. “Irish and Polish Migration: Some Preliminary Comparative Analysis.” Moving the Social: Journal of Social History and the History of Social Movements, vol. 24, 2000, pp. 18-31.

Bielenberg, Andy, editor. The Irish Diaspora. Pearson Education Limited, 2000.

——, “Irish Emigration to the British Empire, 1700-1914.” Bielenberg, pp. 215-34.

Bishop, Patrick. The Irish Empire. Macmillan Publishers, 1999.

Boehmer, Elleke. Colonial & Postcolonial Literature: Migrant Metaphors. Oxford UP, 1995.

Booker, Keith. Ulysses, Capitalism, and Colonialism: Reading Joyce after the Cold War. Greenwood P, 2000.

Cheng, Vincent. Joyce, Race, and Empire. Cambridge UP, 1995.

Choi, Seokmoo. “Unionism and Anglicization: A Postcolonial Study of Joyce’s Ulysses.” James Joyce Journal, vol. 3, 1997, pp. 145-68.

Clayton, Pamela. Enemies and Passing Friends: Settler Ideologies in Twentieth Century Ulster. Pluto Press, 1996.

Cook, Scott B. “The Irish Raj: Social Origins and Careers of Irishmen in the Indian Civil Service, 1855-1914,” Journal of Social History, vol. 20, no. 3, 1987, pp. 507-29.

Cullingford, Elizabeth Butler. “Phoenician genealogies and oriental geographies: Joyce, language, and race.” Attridge and Howes, Cambridge UP, 2000, pp. 219-39.

Duffy, Enda. The Subaltern ‘Ulysses.’ U of Minnesota P, 1994.

Einri, Piaras Mac. Introduction. Bielenberg, pp. 1-16.

Fairhall, James. James Joyce and the Question of History. Cambridge UP, 1993.

Fitzpatrick, David. “Ireland and the Empire.” The Nineteenth Century, edited by Andrew Porter, Oxford UP, 1999, pp. 495-521.

——. The Two Irelands: 1912-1939. Oxford UP, 1998.

Fraser, T. G. “Ireland and India.” Jeffery, pp. 77-93.

Gibbons, Luke. “Ireland and the colonization of theory.” Interventions, vol. 1, no. 1, 1998, p. 27.

——. Transformations in Irish Culture. Cork UP, 1996.

Gibson, Andrew. Joyce’s Revenge: History, Politics, and Aesthetics in Ulysses. Oxford UP, 2002.

Gibson, Andrew, and Len Platt, editors. Joyce, Ireland, Britain. UP of Florida, 2006.

——, and Len Platt. Introduction. Gibson and Platt, pp. 1-29.

Gifford, Don, and Robert J. Seidman. Ulysses Annotated: Notes for James Joyce’s Ulysses. U of California P, 1988.

Greiner, Alyson L., and Terry G. Jordan-Bychkov. Anglo-Celtic Australia: Colonial Immigration and Cultural Regionalism. The Center for American Places, 2002.

Halloran, Thomas F. James Joyce: Developing Irish Identity. Ibidem Press, 2009.

Holmes, Michael. “The Irish and India: Imperialism, Nationalism and Internationalism.” Bielenberg, pp. 235-50.

Jeffery, Keith, editor. ‘An Irish Empire’?: Aspects of Ireland and the British Empire. Manchester UP, 1996.

——. “The Irish Military Tradition and the British Empire.” Jeffery, pp. 94-122.

Joyce, James. The Critical Writings of James Joyce, edited by Ellsworth Mason and Richard Ellmann, Viking, 1964.

——. Dubliners. Penguin Books, 2000.

——. Letters of James Joyce. Edited by Richard Ellmann, vols 2 and 3, Viking Press, 1966.

——. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Penguin Books, 1992.

——. Ulysses. Edited by Hans Walter Gabler, Wolfhard Steppe and Claus Melchior, Penguin Books, 1986.

Kennedy, Liam. “Modern Ireland: Post-Colonial Society or Post-Colonial Pretensions?” Irish Review, vol. 13, 1992, pp. 107-21.

Kiberd, Declan. Inventing Ireland: The Literature of the Modern Nation. Jonathan Cape, 1995.

Liversey, James, and Stuart Murray. “Review Article: Post-colonial Theory and Modern Irish Culture.” Irish Historical Studies, vol. 30, no. 119, 1997, pp. 452-61.

Loughlin, James. Ulster Unionism and British National Identity since 1885. Pinter, 1995.

Mccready, Richard B. “Revising the Irish in Scotland: The Irish in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Scotland.” Bielenberg, pp. 37-50.

Mierlo, Wim Van. “The Greater Ireland Beyond the Sea: James Joyce, Exile, and Irish Emigration.” Gibson and Platt, pp. 178-97.

Morgan, Hiram. “An Unwelcome Heritage: Ireland’s Role in British Empire-Building.” History of European Ideas, vol. 19, 1994, pp. 619-25.

Mullin, Katherine. “Don’t Cry for me, Argentina: ‘Eveline’ and the Seductions of Emigration Propaganda.” Attridge and Howes, Cambridge UP, 2000, pp. 172-200.

O’Brien, Eugene. “The Return and Redefinition of the Repressed: The Construction of Female Identity in the Writings of James Joyce.” Joyce, Imperialism, & Postcolonialism, edited by Leonard Orr, Syracuse UP, 2008, pp. 41-57.

Rickard, John. “‘A quaking sod’: Hybridity, Identity and Wandering Irishness.” James Joyce and the Fabrication of an Irish Identity, edited by Michael Patrick Gillespie, Rodopi, 2001, pp. 83-110.

Ryder, Sean. “Defining Colony and Empire in Early Nineteenth-Century Irish Nationalism.” Was Ireland a Colony?: Economics, Politics and Culture in Nineteenth-century Ireland, edited by Terrence McDonough, Irish Academic Press, 2005, pp. 165-85.

Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. Vintage, 1994.

Shloss, Carol. “Molly’s Resistance to the Union: Marriage and Colonialism in Dublin, 1904.” Molly Blooms: A Polylogue on ‘Penelope’ and Cultural Studies, edited by Richard Pearce, The U of Wisconsin P, 1994, pp. 105-18.

Valente, Joseph. “‘Neither fish nor flesh’; or How ‘Cyclops’ Stages the Double-bind of Irish Manhood.” Attridge and Howes, Cambridge UP, 2000, pp. 96-127.

Weikart, Richard. “The Impact of Social Darwinism on Anti-Semitic Ideology in Germany and Austria, 1860-1945.” Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, edited by Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz, The U of Chicago P, 2006, pp. 93-115.

Williams, Trevor L. “No Cheer for ‘the Gratefully Oppressed’: Ideology in Joyce’s Dubliners.” Rejoycing New Readings of ‘Dubliners,’ edited by Rosa M. Bollettieri Bosinelli and Harold F. Mosher, Jr., UP of Kentucky, 1998, pp. 87-109.

——. Reading Joyce Politically. UP of Florida, 1997.