The two Jameses: a Joycean politics of criticism as commemoration

Abstract

This article considers how, and to what extent, James Connolly is represented in the works of James Joyce and evaluates the place of Connolly in Joyce through an exposition of Andrew Gibson and Len Platt’s characterisation of a “London method” and “Irish method” of Joyce criticism. Examining the relative absence of Connolly from Joycean representation in comparison to overt commemorations such as those of Yeats et al., I claim that historical criticism on Joyce displays a will-to-connection between Connolly and Joyce that makes present the absence of the former. Where Connolly appears in Joyce, I suggest it is as a ghost called into presence through suggestive absence and a drive to commemoration in critical readings, inscribed not only in a Joycean politics but also in a politics of Joyce criticism. At a critical historical juncture for a reappraisal of Connolly and in the light of recent movements for self-determination such as in Scotland, this article examines how it is Joycean criticism that forges a narrative of connection to Connolly, outlining a genealogy of Joycean criticism centring on politics and nation and drawing on examples from across the Joycean canon to posit a politics of criticism that is illuminating of both the historical method and historical moment.