Triumvirate Ulysses, Heather Gordon

Triumvirate Ulysses

Heather Gordon
LTEN 190 FA03

First things first.

Threes
There is an inherent three-ness of this text, from plot twist to structure to clever trick to nuance to overarching theme to word choice, word order, word work. The text is divided into three parts. There are three main characters. There is a binding element of threes in the determination of my argument.

Literary/Algebraic Dichotomy
As there is a consistent balance between literary and mathematic thoughtproof in the novel, I too am providing a concrete structure as a foundation for the literary proposals I am making. (However, what we will do once the structure is built is no less than a rampant and random romp of its perimeters. But that’s for later.) Just as Stephen “proves by algebra that Hamlet’s grandson is Shakespeare’s grandfather and that he himself is the ghost of his own father” (p18), I will essentially algebraicize (put into mathematical terms) this literary work in order to it unalgebraicize (take out of mathematical terms). (For arguably similar motives: nearly facetious though entirely academic, while necessarily and ironically existential.)

The nature of opposites
At this point, it is important to bring to light an idea that dichotomy itself represents a kind of a threesome/triangle inherent in its own nature. There is always the ONE(x) and the OTHER(y) that is the foundation, the elements of the dichotomy. However, this is not the end. There is necessarily a third presence, which is the actual dichotomy, or the CONSUBSTANCE(z) of the one and the other.
This is of the utmost importance as it brings this entire approach (the algebraicizing) into one in being with the thematic issues (the unalgebraicizing) that will ultimately be the destination of this journey.
I base my entire argument on the primary assumption that two entities/ideas can only be opposite for the same reason that they are the same. Take, for example, the color red. It can be argued that the opposite of red is green (strictly by orientation on the color wheel), or white (as they are symbolically opposing references to blood/ sex/ war and purity/ cleanliness/ peace), likewise blue, rust, periwinkle, and tan, for one reason or another. Red, however, cannot be considered the opposite of a table, a headache, or a theory of relativity. (This, of course, could likewise be argued [I would] but I am only attempting for now to determine a working relative definition of the concepts.) In which case, the question is, Why? Because red, green, and white share an element of sameness, in that they are all colors. Without a uniting element, two things cannot be opposites. (And even better, just think about the concepts themselves—of same and opposite—in these terms…)
It is along these lines that I base my literary argument. And through this, attempt to show that Joyce does a similar uniting of opposites to accomplish his precise thematic endeavor of undermining and undefining traditional conceptions of what is holy, only to redefine and reuplift them. The Body and the Bible themselves being at opposing ends of the traditional spectrum of what is considered holy.

In lieu of the themes of Threes and the literary/mathematical Dichotomy (dichotomy itself representing a kind of threesome/triangle), which themselves embody all the symbolism of holiness (in the trinity) and of worldly esteem (as in the scholarly/ upward-minded), I will use (drumroll please…) Triangles! to algebraicize the whole affair. Enough of the mission statement, and more of the Mission itself.

Shall we?

The prototype triangle*
Here, a brief clarification of the orientation of these triangles is in order. They each have, of course, 3 elements (located at each of the three angles of the triangle), that either comprise or are united by the triangle itself (labeled accordingly). All are oriented in a specific direction. There are two complimentary base elements (the x and the y of the dichotomy), which give rise to what I am calling the crux of the triangle, or the utmost point (z).
As far as prototype goes, the triangles themselves will serve the function of “Reference”. On the bottom left is placed the “Literal” element(x), and the bottom right is the “Figurative” element(y), which give rise to (in fact, literally and figuratively) the crux, which is labeled the “Referent”(z). Algebraically, we can assign the symbol, @, to mean “united with” or “in conjunction with”, since this is in fact the upward motion of the triangles themselves. To be thorough, the symbol, =, while remaining the symbol for “equals”, the word I will use to describe these triangles will be “articulates” or “manifests” or perhaps even “gives rise to” as is appropriate.

For any given reference(n), the literal(x_n) element in conjunction with(@) the figurative(yn) element articulates/manifests/gives rise to(=) the referent(z_n).

So, the equation we are thus working with is: x_n @ y_n = z_n (all things created equal, it holds true as well that y_n @ x_n = z_n)
Why not.*

It can actually be further articulated that as further triangles are formed, it holds true that each element (x,y,z) of the triangles correspond similarly with the elements (x,y,z) of the other triangles. Resulting in the subsequent equations: For 3 related ideas, n_x, n_y, n_z, it holds true that:
For n_z, x_z @ y_z = z_z (and the same, of course goes for n_x and n_y)

Specifically: Ulysses (the logic)

The primary triangle (of which there is 1)
The first level triangle is the most basic terms to be laid out for the book. It includes the literal and figurative elements and the support that I will be using to delineate the resulting secondary and tertiary triangles: the Book (Ulysses), The Body(science), and The Bible(The Bible).*

In which case I argue that according to: x_n @ y_n = z_n, that in the person, or at least the writing of James Joyce, a running knowledge both of the Body(science) in conjunction with the Bible gave rise to Ulysees.

I will use these three elements as the support triangles to map out the next level of triangles:

The secondary triangles (of which there are 3)
The crux being the book itself, so the articulation is the characters. The literal and figurative elements of which are the particular topic of discussion. The “characters”, then, of the body would be the body parts; and of the Bible, the Trinity. I have outlined the literal and figurative elements of both of these as well more for integrity’s sake than for the sake of this argument, using both science and the Bible as the foundational references. While these could easily carry similar (and certainly more) weight and measure as a study of the book, that is of other for now. Our focus is the crux of this triangle.
The tertiary triangles (of which there must be 9)
Yes, there are in fact nine. However, in lieu of focusing on the crux, I will focus on the crux: The Book.

More Specifically: Ulysees (the idea)

Ulysses in bodily terms
Before venturing into the suggested nuances or thematic implications of these triangles, it is important to understand clearly the reasons for each of the designated parallels.
First, body. Joyce has clearly laid out his intended parallels for each chapter as they apply to the body. Each of the organs assigned to the chapters play significant roles in the function of the work as a whole, as the organs do the same for the body.
It is crucial to bring to light the trend in Joyce’s layout of body parts that parallels the layout of the body itself, and subsequently the thematic functions of the text.
All organs assigned to the chapters regarding Bloom are functioning, intestinal, maintaining, responsive organs (i.e. the kidney, the genitals, the ear, and the womb). This is in fact not a far reach from the personality of Bloom. When compared to the characterization, the organs designated are strikingly appropriate. (to be discoursed shortly).
Steven, however, for his first three chapters, is not designated an organ at all. And later, when he appears in chapter II.6 (at the Library), the organ thus assigned is the brain. The implications here are great. The brain as we know it is in fact the dictating entity in the function of the body. It is the root of motion, the source of activity, the center of designation. To further support these parallels, chapter III.1, which centered around the interaction between Bloom and Stephen, is labeled the nerves. And it is certainly appropriate that nervous system is the precise interaction of the brain with the rest of the organs of the body.
Finally, Marion flesh. The flesh is certainly a singular organ, as Marion’s debut is but one single chapter. The flesh in fact literally envelopes the rest of the body with sense. Likewise, Marion’s character is certainly all surface, sensual, and exposed.

Ulysses in Biblical terms
In terms of the overarching congruencies between the Bible and Ulysses, it is useful to look to the structural movement of each. The structure of the novel is incessantly precise, outlined, delineated, and abundantly purposeful. This is evident in the distinct contrasts between chapters (the constant shifts in mood, symbol, style, and technique) and the extensive focus Joyce himself puts on uniting them in such a purposeful manner as he does. So the resulting structural parallels are of a vast importance.

Ulysses in…
The motion of Ulysees consists for the most part of 3 distinct sections, I, II, and III, but the subtleties are much more fluid. The initial focus is on Stephen. It then shifts to Bloom at the beginning of the second section and gradually into a concentration on the two of them interacting with the same town, but not yet with each other—a sort of foreshadowing of their acquaintance. Then there is the chapter (II.12) in which they meet and engage with one another. The following chapters are the aftermath of this meeting; the affect of the collision between the two. Finally, the sprawling, scribbling shift is turned to Marion (in lieu at times of each, but in terms entirely new and challenging).

…Biblical terms

the bachelor days
The structural motion of the Bible can similarly be traced. Corresponding to Stephen’s chapters, which lay down conceptual foundations in a more traditionally narrative nature (as Joyce himself notes), is the beginning of the Old Testament, in which the Bible is focused entirely on the Father and the laying down of tradition. (Specifically Exodus, where the tabernacle construction is described and the commandments given, Leviticus, where the laws of offerings and ritual are laid down, Numbers, where the individuals of the tribes are specifically enumerated).
Not only can these foundational elements be paralleled, but likewise the general, less tangible qualities of the narratives. Take for instance, the character and conviction of Stephen. He treats his history students in ch.II with a stern impatience, referring to one as a “laggard”, “ugly and futile”, and likens him to a “squashed boneless snail” with “weak and watery blood” that the world would have “trampled under foot”(p27). But he furthers that “like him was I, these sloping shoulders, this gracelessness…secrets, silent, stony sit in the dark palaces of both our hearts: secrets weary of their tyranny: tyrants willing to be dethroned”(28). There is hugely evident here an acceptance of an imperfect nature that is coupled with a complete compassion. Stephen’s care is not necessarily an executed one (though his struggle is arguably how to make it such). His concern is internal and focused; directed at the reconciliation of the overarching struggles and paradoxes of humanity instead of on the doting and coddling of the individual.
He is demanding of the mind—particularly his own—concerning himself incessantly with a transcendent monologue of “ineluctability”, the “form of forms (the soul)”, and “thought (the thought of thought)”(p26). However, he recognizes the futility of these thoughts, as in their midst, he refers to himself as “weaver of the wind”, “idle”, and “Basta!” (“enough!”), returning in fits and starts to acknowledgements of the “crush, crack, crick, crick” of “sounds solid:”, and “See now.”(p37). (Already there is evidence of Joyce’s challenge, as he shifts esteem from what is traditionally upheld—the echo of history—to its absolute and actual opposite: the moment, the immediate, here, now, sound solid.) “His seacold eyes looked on the empty bay: history is to blame: on me and my words, unhating.”(p30).
The acutely scathing intellect coupled with a scornful, wretched love that is this distinct characteristic of Stephen is shared with the “jealous” and “wrathful” love of the Old Testament Father (exodus 20:5, 34:14, among countless others). In the case of the Father, too, the laying down of the letter (the sacrifices/offerings of the people) is done with the ultimate end of sacrificing his own self (in the manifestation of Christ) for their sake, as a whole. (John 3:16 should do the trick: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”) Again, there is the broad love of humanity that is the source of the assumed coldness toward the individual. Both Stephen and the Old Testament Father are wrought with self-conviction that is all-consuming, at all times to the point of obsession.
The meticulously detailed style of the Old Testament as it moves into the history of David (thus, the lineage of Christ) is a strong comparison with the character of Bloom that is introduced. Bloom is at all times in a certain state of calculation, quite often literally in terms of numbers, (“Couldn’t sink of you tried: so thick with salt. Because the weight of the water, no, the weight of the body in the water is equal to the weight of the. Or is it the volume is equal of the weight?…What is weight really when you say the weight? Thirty two feet per second, per second. Law of falling bodies: per second, per second…It’s the force of gravity of the earth is the weight.”(p72)) or figuratively in terms of his own calculated action and subsequent reactions (“Per second, per second. Per second for every second it means. From the curbstone he darted a keen glance through the door of the postoffice. Too late box. Post here. No-one. In.”(p72)).
And as the stylistics of the Bible moves into the story of David (representing the heart of the Father: “the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people” ISa 13:14) and later in his Psalms, which are songs of the heart of David, it softens up a bit. As does the narrative focused on Bloom (likewise, the designated “heart”(chII.3) and circulation, or “blood”(II.7) of Joyce’s narrative). It turns here subtly and endearingly human, especially when compared to that of Stephen. Bloom has convictions, as Stephen, but it is a much sweeter, duller, heart-centered-ache that wreaks its slight turmoil on him; less of mind and more of heart. In chII.3, the sentimentalities of Bloom are scattered throughout. (His son/family, and dappled thoughts on life: “If little Rudy had lived. See him grow up. Hear his voice in the house. Walking beside Molly in an Eton suit. My son. Me in his eyes. Strange feeling it would be… Molly. Milly. Same thing watered down…Life. Life.”(p89). His father, and simple meditations of death: “Verdict: overdose. Death by misadventure. The letter. For my son Leopold. No more pain. Wake no more. Nobody owns.”(p97).)
The prudence of Bloom (specifically in the lunch chapter, chII.5), can be also likened to Solomon, the son of David, and his choosing wisdom over the gluttonies of drink, sex, food, and riches (I Kings ch2).
The foreshadowed interaction between Bloom and Stephen can be likened to the prophecies of the Old Testament, referencing (at times almost foreboding) an interaction, a change that is as crucial as it is inevitable: the coming of Christ.
Then certainly the coming comes. The New Testament begins with the Gospels, the impact, the immediate concrete action and tangible presence of Christ; touchable, tasteable, hearable to an awaiting people. So chapter II.12 is an impact, the power of which is shown not only in content but in the extremity of narrative style. This chapter perhaps contains the most literal comparisons between the figures of Ulysees and those of the Trinity, as it outlines the life of Christ as played out by Bloom, himself (specifically the crucifixion, from Palm Sunday procession to the aftershocks of his death).*
The coming having come, the aftermath is likewise inevitable. As the following chapters of Ulysses are the aftermath of chapter II.12, so the epistles are the aftereffect of Christ’s coming on the entire theology of the Bible. The return to more coherent narrative and traditional language use in III.1 and III.2 can be likened to the redefinition of dogma (be it and undefinition) and the return to instructive tone assumed by Paul in these latter chapters of the Bible.
To what end are we confronted with a character such as Bloom, likened as such to Jesus Christ? In Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy (at least), the laws of holiness and sanctity are laid down. There is among these laws and rules the precise dimensions and execution of a curtain that Moses “set between the tent of the congregation and the altar” (Exodus 40:30), thus separating the people from direct communion with God. When Christ was crucified, it is said in the Gospels that “behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent”. So, at the culmination of the life of Christ the symbol separating what is holy from what is human was put asunder. So Bloom fulfills a challenge to similar structures: in this case, the Bible and the Body.

holy? holy. holy!
Stephen: the question, the quest, the struggle: the thought of holiness.
Bloom: the pinpoint, the statement, the simplicity: the heart of holiness.
Molly: the exclamation, exclaimed exclamatorially: the sense of holiness.

Thematically, the correspondence of Blooms behavior in II.12, Joyce’s apparent endeavor (either way, accomplishment), and the ultimate effect of Christ’s life (and subsequently, necessarily his death) is striking. The challenge of undermining preconceptions of holiness only to redefine them and reunite the new with the old: proving them of the same essence.

While Christ took bread—the humblest of food, the meanest form of sustenance—to symbolize his own existence and purpose, he thus made holy the humble and overlooked stuff of existence.
Similarly, in response, Bloom takes the now exonerated words of Christ, having been enthroned by piety and tradition, and likens them to his own humble body—sedate, and warmly simple.

married life
And just when you thought it was safe; that all was requited, united, tidied, and tame: Revelations. The bride enters with a rush of bare and difficult rantings. Marion, the wife of Bloom and the Holy Spirit, the bride of Christ. Tidings of disquietude and recollections of future are blatheringly spread over the pages of these climactic jungles of fleshy discourse only to leap and bound with a finale of strikingly agape, painfully consuming affirmation. In all seriousness, they do take on such roles with intense usage of sensual imagery and challenging ideology, achieving momentous climax both in terms of stylistics and of content.
As far as content goes, the figures of Marion and the Holy Spirit (or the Church, where it is manifest) as bride are exceedingly evident in both texts. The lamb being always the symbol of Christ, Revelations tells the story that “the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready” (19:7), and that the “holy city, new Jerusalem” (the Church) is this “bride adorned for her husband”.
And for stylistics and thematic endeavors, the quality of sense that is so densely written in Marion’s chapter is a further likening of her to the nature of the Holy Spirit. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8). The Spirit is all in the sense, the sound, the experience. There is no thought or judgment of the wind, there is no concrete summation, source, or destination; there is only the immediate motion and it’s effect.
Likewise, Marion is not judgment, ponderance, or conclusion about the fact that “he never did a thing like that before as ask to get his breakfast in bed with a couple of eggs…” she is only the momentum of the thought that carries her immediately to “…since the City Arms hotel when he used to be pretending to be laid up… to make himself interesting to…” and no judgment there, only the motion to “Mrs. Riordan … and she never gave us a farthing…” and then ramblings on about her, and then on to what next and wherever the sense and motion take her, little besides surface plot, action action action, similar to the observability and awareness of the flesh (p738 and on until the end). Similarly, the abandon of punctuation meets the same end; that the only punctuation, the only logic of word order, stress, accent, and focus is the dictation of whim at the mercy of sense, because there is no other way to “explain a thing simply the way a body can understand” (p754). So is that which is born of the Spirit. And it is here that the apparent opposition of the body and the Spirit are united as one: in an exclamation of sense.

the eternal nod
II Cor 1:17-20, “But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not ‘yes’ and ‘no’. For the Son of God… was not ‘yes’ and ‘no’, but in him it has always been ‘yes’”

This union provides the thematic element of the Yes and Amen. Both cases serve as an affirmation that is as consuming as it is unconditional; appealing to a final “Yes” outside of time and circumstance.
In Revelation, there is the tumult of “falling down before him that sat on the throne”(4:10), then “weeping much because no man was found worthy”(5:4), followed by the consolation to “weep not: behold, the Root of David hath prevailed”(5:5), and later a “new song”, but then “killing with the sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth”(6:8), and “after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet… and the same hour was there a great earthquake and the tenth part of the city fell,” then they “worshipped the dragon”, and “blasphemed against God”(13:4-6). Until finally, “he said unto me, It is done. I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.”(21:6). The momentum in each takes on the traversals of tumultuous beginnings, in and out of love and contempt, disobedience, disloyalty, and impurity, only to move into the wedding, marriage, the eternal, to the immensely promising and awaited union.
For Marion, the “smell of those painted women” and “long hair on his coat” lead her to the contemptuous acknowledgement that “one woman is not enough for them it was all his fault”(p 739). But she remains faithful to a regard for him in acknowledging that “Poldy (nickname for Bloom) has more spunk in him yes” and that “still he knows a lot of mixed up things especially about the body and the insides”(p742-3). In bursts of whim, she is “always like that in the spring [she’d] like a new fellow every year”(p760) and “loved rousing that dog in the hotel rrrsssst awokwokawok his eyes shut”, and tumultuously gives that “with his eyes on me cocked sideways I wouldn’t trust him too far to give me chloroform or God knows what else still I like him”(p771). Raucously rampant at all times, it culminates in the steadfast and sentiment that “after that long kiss I near lost my breath yes he said I was a flower of the mountain yes so we are flowers all a womans body yes that was one true thing he said in his life…yes that was why I liked him because I saw he understood or felt what a woman is… leading him on till he asked me to say yes and I wouldn’t answer first only looked…and then I asked with my eyes to ask again yes and the he asked me would I yes to say yes…and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.”(p783).

And thus, the final words of Revelation: “And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely…He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”(22:17-21).

Alpha, omega, and beginning, end yes, and past and future now yes.

Outline of Triangles

I. Prototype triangle
Referent(z)-literal(x)-figurative(y) orientation

II. Triangles
Primary triangle (1): Book-Body-Bible

Secondary (3):

Tertiary (9):

III. Sum total/End result/The point:
Theme resulting triangles:
A) Stephen-Brain-God(father)?thought
B) Bloom-Organs-Christ(son)?heart
C) Marion-Flesh-Holy Spirit?sense

Outline of Triangles:
prototype triangle

Outline of Triangles:
primary, secondary, tertiary

Outline of triangles:
crux of third stage triangles

BLOOM: chII.12		LIFE of CHRIST: the gospels

“RUDOLPH (father of Leopold): are you not my son Leopold, the grandson of Leopold? Are you not my dear son Leopold who left the house of his father and left the god of his fathers Abraham and Jacob?”(437)		Mt 1:1+ “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham…”

“The bearers approach with imperial eagles hoiseted, trainling banners and waving oriental palms…The van of the city marshal appears headed by John Howard Parnell city marshal, in a chessboard tabard, the…they are followed by…their worships the mayors of…After them march the guilds and trades and trainbands with glying colours…winding clarions of welcome. Under an arch of triumph Bloom appears bareheaded in a crimson velvet mantle trimmed with ermine…Wild excitement…The men cheer. Blooms boys run amid the bystanders with branches of hawthorn and wrenbushes.”(480)		John 12:12 “On the next day much people that were come to the fest, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh…For this cause the people also met him…And there were certain Greeks among them that came to worship at the feast: The same therefore came to Philip…cometh and telleth Andrew…”

“PADDY LEONARD: What am I to do about my rates and taxes? BLOOM: Pay them, my friend. PADDY LEONARD: Thank you. NOSEY FLYNN: Can I raise a mortgage on my fire insurance?… NOSEY FLYNN: Where do I draw the five pounds? PISSER BURKE: For bladder trouble?… CHRIS CALLINAN: What is the parallax of the subsolar ecliptic of Aldebaran?…”(488)		Mt 4:23-5 “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel… and his fame went thoughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick… and those possessed with devils… and there followed him great multitudes…”

“BLOOM: I stand for the reform of municipal morals and the plain ten commandments. New worlds for old. Union of all, jew, Moslem and gentile…Bloom explains to those near him his schemes for social regeneration. All agree with him...”(490).		Mt 5:17+ “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil…Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill…But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement… Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you…Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself… but I say unto you, Swear not at all…”

“FATHER FARLEY: He is an Episcopalian, and agnostic, and anythingarian seeking to overthrow our holy faith.		Mk 7:1+ “Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes…and when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with unwashen hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jew, except they wash their hands, holding the tradition of elders…asked him, why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?”

MRS. RIORDAN: (Tears up her will) I’m disappointed in you! You bad man! MOTHER GROGAN: (Removes her boot to throw it at Bloom) You beast! You abominable person!… LENEHAN: Plagiarist! Down with Bloom!” (491).		Mt 26:65+ “Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said he is guilty of death…Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands.”

“THE MOB: Lynch him! Roast him! He’s as bad as Parnell was!” (492)		Mk 15:13 “And they cried out again, Crucify him. Then Pilate said unto them, Why what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.”

The presence of ZOE at all, the “bleeding whore”. (499).		Mary Magdalene figure.

“BLOOM: I can make a true black knot. Learned when I served my time and worked the mail order line for Kellet’s Experienced hand. Every know says a lot. Let me. In courtesy. I knelt once before today. Ah! (Bella raises her gown slightly and, steadying her pose, lifts to the edge of a chair a plump buskined hoof and a full pastern, silksocked. Bloom, stifflegged, ageing, bends over her hoof and with gentle fingers draws out and in her laces.)…” (531).		John 13:4 “He riseth from supper…After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded…”

And after the tying of the laces, the abuse: “(Bello grabs [Blooms] hair violently and drags [him] forward)… BLOOM: (Fainting) Don’t tear my… BELLO: (Savagely) The nosering, the pliers, the bastinado, the hanging hook, the knout I’ll make you kiss while the flutes play like Nubian slave of old… very possibly I shall have you slaughtered and skewered in my stables and enjoy a slice of you with crisp crackling… It will hurt you… (he slaps [his] face)…Hold him down girls, till I squat on him.” (533).		After washing their feet, the betrayal: John 13:10 “Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit; and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean…” (then to previously mentioned Mt 26:65, etc)

“BELLO: You will shed your male garments, you understand… and don the shot silk luxuriously rustling over head and shoulders and quickly too.” (535). “(Bloom, broken, closely veiled for the sacrifice, sobs, his face to the earth…” (544).		Mt 27:27+ “Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head…and after that they had mocked him… they crucified him and parted his garments, casting lots.”

“VOICES: (sighing) So he’s gone. Ah, yes. Yes, indeed. Bloom? Never heard of him. No? Queer kind of chap…” (544).		Mt 26:69+ “Now Peter sat without in the palace: a damsel came to him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest…And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man…Then he began to curse and swear, saying, I know not the man.”

Bibliography

Joyce, James. Ulysses. FIRST VINTAGE INTERNATIONAL EDITION, june 1990. (as well as his own SCHEMA)

The Holy Bible (old and new testaments in the King James Version). THOMAS NELSON PUBLISHERS 1976.

Gordon, Heather. Body: general working knowledge. 1982-present.

-- Heather Gordon '04

*And if “why not” doesn’t work, then here is “why”:
For integrity’s sake, as far as the thematic elements I am working with, this equation also holds true. Briefly, take both mathematics and literature (the triangle itself is the actual symbol of the exercise, so it is unnecessary to pinpoint its relevance in this case).

Take simply (n) as the Equation given that x_n @ y_n = z_n
For numbers (x), logic(y), and mathematics (z):
In which case numbers in conjunction with logic give rise to mathematics

Now take Language(n)(which is itself a series of equations), given that x_n @ y_n = z_n
For words(x), ideas(y), and literature(z):
In which case words in conjunction with ideas give rise to literature

And just for kicks:
In terms of Articulation(n)(which is human), mathematics(x) in conjunction with literature(y) manifests God(z)(which is holy). Ahh.
(to be true, the same can be said for science and art, and music can even be added although it is arguable whether music is a literal(scientific) or figurative(artistic) discipline. A completely other discussion, which is why, I suppose, it is here in the footnote. Moving on for the time being…