l paltcnu in Fi""'lIanr Wah ~annot,
ne~erthe!
Hart-Clive-1962-Structure-and-Motif-in-Finnegans-Wake
H.
Yeats' A VisWI; I!
.
dmund Wilton for a paaagc: frotn TIw W?
?
,.
,{ lUI" IN & .
; and The Columbia University Press for quotations from W.
Y.
Tindall'.
TM liurQry SyttHl.
Fimltt. w W. . tt (copyright '939 by JameoJoyce) i. pub! iJhcd ;0 England by Faber and Faber Ltd, and in America. by T he Viking Ptm, Inc. , 10 . . . -I>om 1 am grateful fOr pennissiou to
make el<lensive use of the book.
C. H.
? PREFACE
xtravagant claim' have bc:en made fur FiJuuga>u lVakt, and Eit ha, heen jn,t aa extravagantly denigrated. What the pioll$ anth"rl of the Sktltlon Key call 'a mighty allegory of the fall and resurre. :tion of mankind" i, di. miMe<\ by the
nnconvinced John uhmann . . . a 'wanton "",. ,. . ,ruler t() th~ (1"()$<word puzzle part of the mind'. ' The cnnttovcny continues, and so docs the ",cady flow of C"l<plicatory and critical articlt:$. Palient r. . . ,arch 0VCl" the J""t two decade. hM made it clear that, rag. bag or tr",,,uf1O-(hest, FilUilg= lVakt i. densely pacl:ed with matlet". There are 63,9~4 different worn. in the book, all of which are both strongly denotative and enriched with many la~ of delicate ov~rone. >! . Such CJ<treme deruity of vocabulary offer< wide scope for ""mantic and ,tyli. tic ! ludies, but it i. not w i l h o u I i l l ! disadvanta~. T h e r e a d e r w h o a t t e m p ' " t o f O l l o w t h e
mercurial argument. . ofFinntE"n; Wake Ihrough more dun on~ or two cnnscculive paragraphs finds the great"'t difficulty in keeping, from one moment to the nexl, a . table fOothold on his c h o o e n in~rp retative v a n t a g e p o i n l . T h i . i . a n e v e n m o r t : ",,";ou. problem than the many teaMng obocurities of langnage, for, a8 hi. underslanding of individual words increaa<<, the v,,"1 accumulation of functional detail lends to overwhelm the rcadet",clogru. . mentalp~andcau,ehim10lnschis hearings. I I:now of no olher book thaI demands . uch div. :nity ofrcsponsc or put. so colllltanl a . train on it! reader', powe. . . of r. onccntralion. Since the early and very brave a! tempt of the Skltrcn Kq to reveal Ihe general archilcctural design of Finntgmu
lVakt, most Joyce critics have devoted them. . ,lves to $01ll"C<;- ""dics and the delailed elucidation of external refereoCe<,
, SIC '3.
, J. Lolutunn, '1'<><Ir'" ofIi", Artiot . . :m F. . . :a"",', I'~}{"" W,;/iq
no>. 33, I. . 00<I00, '943, p. '43.
'3
? Prifau
apparcndy in the bop: tMt further meaningful pa. UCf1>1 would emerge ofilleit own ac:coro. So many advan= have now been made in this dirtttion tMl a thorough ~mill3tion of the book', intemal organisation ;. called for. SouT<<-otudie. of FU-Ia>U 1V<Ih hive, of eoune, by no mUns come to In end.
Dap;te the $lHb. . ined efforts ofwhat h. . . , come to be known as 'theJoyce industry' much rem. . ms to be done, and I have. had f~uenl <vxasion to diJc. . . . soon:c-rnllterial throughout thi' book but my principal aim ha! always been 10 show how Joyce
inf~ . ignificancc intO his divcrK raw material. by hi. IUe of dOlely conlrolled formal . truelur",. Joyce gave ~! f Ihe
broadeslf'O'I'ibicWUelUnJscopeinF~II'tW,whichall criti. :. now recogn;'" 10 he in tome senle COI! rnological. More lhan a working mockl of the 00&m0I, however, Fiutl4M 11',," is Ihe . . . . . . . t ambitious attempt in ou' literature al a thoroughgoing appl. icatiol1 of 'inlilative form'. Fallac:y or nol, imitative. funn was 1M one " " a t literary theory which Joyce applied through_
oul hil are<T wilh varying degrees of con';"t<:ncy and . rtistic: lue<:eIf, hUI never more conmtenlly nor perhaps more brillianliy than in FinlUlllJU 1I'"u, in which the verl>>l simulation of all kinds off. . . . . . . . . , aCII, and ev<:n abstractions iI nrried to e:<lJ"1I_
ordinary Iengtlu.
In lhe: analysis of the broad arehit<<toni(: principle. of
Finn'tallS W. . . bwith which I am concerned in the early chapten of dli. study I have gival con9derable att""don 1<1 Joyce'. JYIIlbolic " ot of such archelypal forms "-' the circle, Ihe crou, and tho: "I. u,. ,. . ,. I 11. '1'""lIIultnlcd my di! cUS$lonofuu. . . pctt of the book with I\. number of geometric di. gram, in th~ hope
thai linear rep. -esl! nu,tiOfls of Ihc. c spatial conflgu. . . . tion. which J oytt obYiou. dy h. ad in mind ,,"~ll help the reader 10 visualise u",m in hil turn. fonnal pattei'll> ofIhiuimpk, geometric type, and othen, l uhller and roo. . . , complex, an:: to be found COUnter- pointed again. t one another in every chapter ofFinM,dll. f W,,", where they ? ? :1 up highly iUuminating . tructural IcruiQN.
J oyce'. simuh. aneom use ofluch a profusion ofIIruttura! plant! pc,,' an important aeslht;ti(: problem, ho. . -eVCf", for many of theoe ingenious patterns, though they render up their secrell
'.
? Prifac(
readily enough when scrutinised with critical detachment, ha~e little eff<<;ti~e impe! during the reading pTOCOSS, The difIkulty i, pralleled in much (If the twelve. tone music wrilten by con_ temporari. . . of Joyce, In each ca. K the internal ,tructural relatioruhips to which tbe art;'t gi~", $0 much weight-the qu. . . i-g<<>mctrical configurations in FinNg= Wah <>n the One hand, and the compo. er's mathematically defined tone-cow' On the other-may not themoel. . . ", be apprd1cndable hy any but the critic and the anist, Th e structllr. .
l paltcnu in Fi""'lIanr Wah ~annot, ne~erthe! =, be d;. m~ . . . . aesthetic scaffolding, of u>c to the writer bot irrelevant to the reader, for th. . . , pt_
terns carry much of the book', burden ohignificancc, as I hope to show, And in any (. a$C , though the complex relatiom ofpart to part in Fi1i1! LgtHIS Wakt may never ha~ the same immediate impet aJ dot:S the formal beauty of a well corutructed lyric poem, they do increasingly impres, them,elves On the reader'. conscioU$ness a, his familiarity with the werk grows, A good deaL of the excitement in reading Fill1llga", Wakt dcri~es from the gradual mental resyntbcs;' of a cemplctc and highly organised world-an experience which;' already very familiar to rt:aders of Ulyms and which is something much mere crea- tive, pmiti~e, and satisfying than :. ok Lehmann would ha~e m bcli<:~,
tn . pite of all the excellent exegetical work that has appeared in '<'Cent yean, the bulk of the long lext of Fi. mga", Wah remain, almost entirely unexplicated, Until . ueh time as a complete excgcsi. < is available, every commentator On Fi. . . go",
Walt who attemp~ to punue a reasoned critical argument will coultautly be troubled by the necessity 10 pau>c and offer explication, <>fth"'" ~ge> wbich he quote:! in . ubstantiation "fhis poin~. In commenting on tbe quotations induded in this dissertation I ha~e alwa)l'l confined my attention 10 tbooc aspect#. of their content which are strictly relevant to myargu_ menlJ but, lin~e analysis ofdetaiL. in FillltlgaIU Wah tends to be extraordinarily Jpe<:-CO"'lunllng, I have n. ""rthel= hccn forced 10 dev<. >te a somewhat di'proponionate amount of . pae<:
to uplication. Single senten,,", can provide material for several '5
? Prifa. c~
pagt:f ofdiscwhon. and. in lO m e 0{ the richer p. . . g. . . . ont can continue beating out the gold 0{ iU(\jvidu. ol words Illmoft cndlcaly.
A~ fromtheunfortunatelacko{publiM>cd""plication. the nature of FiwN' QIU WM. ibelf raises an impona. nt question of practical criticism. The diffu:uhy of pying anything of valut about the book while at the lame time remaining coherent. or even intelligible, comtltnte! a major. and perhaps unique, problem for the expositor, sine<: it iI literally true of FilllV1QIU
d
Ww thai a sound knowledge of the wbole of the book is CSICI'? tiaI to an adequate unde. . . . tandirog of any gi. . . . ", p;w. lgC. lro
~ evero the smallest poiro" of ioterpr<:tatioro in this dit- KJUtion I have thcTcfore ofu:tl found il rocc' 'ry ro appeal to ,upp<'lnirog evidence. rcatt<:red throughout more than six
hundrtd page. of ta t. A full analysis of this materia! would inwlve a lars<' o,? erali maJI of quotation and a vast mosaic of further references, and hencc in order to rwuce the number of fOOtnOIe! and digr=ion. I have ",herneT pouible included ;0 p"rentl>rsco in the text the briefell page/line refcre"""" to thate pointl in Fiuqll1tJ Wd< where IUpport for my argumentl may be li. >und. 10 order further to minimise the ottd for repeated ero. . . . d'c"""cing. l ha,. . , included in T able JI a plan ofFi_plU
Wall. howingsomeofthemain al\ribuleoofeachchapterohbe book. Thi, plan i, based in Jnrt on tloc familiar Kheme of Ulyssu' and is wholly dependent on internal evidence. within
F;nlllg~1U Wak. itself. Su~tantiation for readings which are peculiarly my own (e. g. , the time-scheme) will be found in the nu. in body of lhe lexl.
In oommon with all otlu:rJo,,<c criticl I am greatly indebted 10 the pioneer work of M C$SrI. ~ mpbellllDd Robiruon, whoee A SUU. . . I{~ 14 Fu-r/IIU Wah waa the 6. . . . 1 brave attempt to evaluateandcs. plainthewbolebook,pag<:byp~. Remark-
able though it is, howe,. . ". , the $t'/'141l Ki f ' strong influence on Jo~c lIudieo h. . . not been altogether . . . . nlary. Tentative, exploratory, and often ill-informed. as itl 3Ulho. . . . were the fint
,s. . below, p. '1.
? l>I. ). bg>. ian<r (ed. l, AJ-. JIIJ'UMi;uI~,
. . - i stri<I, (:a,bo<>d&t"
In. , '9~ p. +II.
"
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . , ;~
?
-~
1. ! II ,
0?
~
I
;1
?
I
,
I I
ij 1
j! l
<
~, ~
I
<
?
I
1
?
'7
II
. . ,!
I
?
?
,
PrifOCl
? Prifact
10 adrnil, its an. al)"Q and judgmenll have neverthelest been accepted virtually wilhout quescion by moot Iato:r entia, wilh the ruul' that a oumberofuntenable interp<etations hav. : been poerpoetUlltd year afto:r Y"&r. Sw;h points arc: de. ail with in thil
diaenation only when Ihey impinge on my line ofenquirr. ~fy mool radical departure from lhe: into:'J>l"'tation of the S! dtlu KfJ lieo in my view of the horizontal llructurc, whieh 1 bd;"ve to be oonoid~rahly mOre subtle than the neal Vioonian outline on whieh Mess,. ,. Campbell and Robinson bale their study. In Chapter Thre<:, in particular, I have mad. u. . , fi"t attempt at an extended analrW of the regressive panerD of clreama within dreams 3n aspect of FiNw,. . 1Vd:t which . alonolt wholly
ignored by u. . , SUInn "9.
The bm ""to:n<iM pito! : of enlicilm or F",. . "IUU Wd:t is
. . ndoubtedly M r, ]. S, Atherton', fine lOUr<:<:rltudy, 1M BMU dl Ilrt Wd:t, which ahaws great inrigbt into j oyce's habitl of thought and composition, Thi. crudiu. and alnuling work hal helped me 10 darifY my general gr. . . p of Ihe IIrncture of FiNu"", W"b and hao, indeed, greatly deepened my under. lIanding of the hook in aJonoIt cv. :ry direction. I have been ~nit"larly ~tim"lalcd by Mr. Alherton's Pan I, 'The Struc- tu ral Boob', whieh contairIJ a brilliant account of J O)'<<'I cosmologkal aims. The influence of Mr. Atherton'. work on this disserution will be tlIOIII apparent in my . ecolld Chapto:r, b", Chapto:n Four and Five, which, . . .
Fimltt. w W. . tt (copyright '939 by JameoJoyce) i. pub! iJhcd ;0 England by Faber and Faber Ltd, and in America. by T he Viking Ptm, Inc. , 10 . . . -I>om 1 am grateful fOr pennissiou to
make el<lensive use of the book.
C. H.
? PREFACE
xtravagant claim' have bc:en made fur FiJuuga>u lVakt, and Eit ha, heen jn,t aa extravagantly denigrated. What the pioll$ anth"rl of the Sktltlon Key call 'a mighty allegory of the fall and resurre. :tion of mankind" i, di. miMe<\ by the
nnconvinced John uhmann . . . a 'wanton "",. ,. . ,ruler t() th~ (1"()$<word puzzle part of the mind'. ' The cnnttovcny continues, and so docs the ",cady flow of C"l<plicatory and critical articlt:$. Palient r. . . ,arch 0VCl" the J""t two decade. hM made it clear that, rag. bag or tr",,,uf1O-(hest, FilUilg= lVakt i. densely pacl:ed with matlet". There are 63,9~4 different worn. in the book, all of which are both strongly denotative and enriched with many la~ of delicate ov~rone. >! . Such CJ<treme deruity of vocabulary offer< wide scope for ""mantic and ,tyli. tic ! ludies, but it i. not w i l h o u I i l l ! disadvanta~. T h e r e a d e r w h o a t t e m p ' " t o f O l l o w t h e
mercurial argument. . ofFinntE"n; Wake Ihrough more dun on~ or two cnnscculive paragraphs finds the great"'t difficulty in keeping, from one moment to the nexl, a . table fOothold on his c h o o e n in~rp retative v a n t a g e p o i n l . T h i . i . a n e v e n m o r t : ",,";ou. problem than the many teaMng obocurities of langnage, for, a8 hi. underslanding of individual words increaa<<, the v,,"1 accumulation of functional detail lends to overwhelm the rcadet",clogru. . mentalp~andcau,ehim10lnschis hearings. I I:now of no olher book thaI demands . uch div. :nity ofrcsponsc or put. so colllltanl a . train on it! reader', powe. . . of r. onccntralion. Since the early and very brave a! tempt of the Skltrcn Kq to reveal Ihe general archilcctural design of Finntgmu
lVakt, most Joyce critics have devoted them. . ,lves to $01ll"C<;- ""dics and the delailed elucidation of external refereoCe<,
, SIC '3.
, J. Lolutunn, '1'<><Ir'" ofIi", Artiot . . :m F. . . :a"",', I'~}{"" W,;/iq
no>. 33, I. . 00<I00, '943, p. '43.
'3
? Prifau
apparcndy in the bop: tMt further meaningful pa. UCf1>1 would emerge ofilleit own ac:coro. So many advan= have now been made in this dirtttion tMl a thorough ~mill3tion of the book', intemal organisation ;. called for. SouT<<-otudie. of FU-Ia>U 1V<Ih hive, of eoune, by no mUns come to In end.
Dap;te the $lHb. . ined efforts ofwhat h. . . , come to be known as 'theJoyce industry' much rem. . ms to be done, and I have. had f~uenl <vxasion to diJc. . . . soon:c-rnllterial throughout thi' book but my principal aim ha! always been 10 show how Joyce
inf~ . ignificancc intO his divcrK raw material. by hi. IUe of dOlely conlrolled formal . truelur",. Joyce gave ~! f Ihe
broadeslf'O'I'ibicWUelUnJscopeinF~II'tW,whichall criti. :. now recogn;'" 10 he in tome senle COI! rnological. More lhan a working mockl of the 00&m0I, however, Fiutl4M 11',," is Ihe . . . . . . . t ambitious attempt in ou' literature al a thoroughgoing appl. icatiol1 of 'inlilative form'. Fallac:y or nol, imitative. funn was 1M one " " a t literary theory which Joyce applied through_
oul hil are<T wilh varying degrees of con';"t<:ncy and . rtistic: lue<:eIf, hUI never more conmtenlly nor perhaps more brillianliy than in FinlUlllJU 1I'"u, in which the verl>>l simulation of all kinds off. . . . . . . . . , aCII, and ev<:n abstractions iI nrried to e:<lJ"1I_
ordinary Iengtlu.
In lhe: analysis of the broad arehit<<toni(: principle. of
Finn'tallS W. . . bwith which I am concerned in the early chapten of dli. study I have gival con9derable att""don 1<1 Joyce'. JYIIlbolic " ot of such archelypal forms "-' the circle, Ihe crou, and tho: "I. u,. ,. . ,. I 11. '1'""lIIultnlcd my di! cUS$lonofuu. . . pctt of the book with I\. number of geometric di. gram, in th~ hope
thai linear rep. -esl! nu,tiOfls of Ihc. c spatial conflgu. . . . tion. which J oytt obYiou. dy h. ad in mind ,,"~ll help the reader 10 visualise u",m in hil turn. fonnal pattei'll> ofIhiuimpk, geometric type, and othen, l uhller and roo. . . , complex, an:: to be found COUnter- pointed again. t one another in every chapter ofFinM,dll. f W,,", where they ? ? :1 up highly iUuminating . tructural IcruiQN.
J oyce'. simuh. aneom use ofluch a profusion ofIIruttura! plant! pc,,' an important aeslht;ti(: problem, ho. . -eVCf", for many of theoe ingenious patterns, though they render up their secrell
'.
? Prifac(
readily enough when scrutinised with critical detachment, ha~e little eff<<;ti~e impe! during the reading pTOCOSS, The difIkulty i, pralleled in much (If the twelve. tone music wrilten by con_ temporari. . . of Joyce, In each ca. K the internal ,tructural relatioruhips to which tbe art;'t gi~", $0 much weight-the qu. . . i-g<<>mctrical configurations in FinNg= Wah <>n the One hand, and the compo. er's mathematically defined tone-cow' On the other-may not themoel. . . ", be apprd1cndable hy any but the critic and the anist, Th e structllr. .
l paltcnu in Fi""'lIanr Wah ~annot, ne~erthe! =, be d;. m~ . . . . aesthetic scaffolding, of u>c to the writer bot irrelevant to the reader, for th. . . , pt_
terns carry much of the book', burden ohignificancc, as I hope to show, And in any (. a$C , though the complex relatiom ofpart to part in Fi1i1! LgtHIS Wakt may never ha~ the same immediate impet aJ dot:S the formal beauty of a well corutructed lyric poem, they do increasingly impres, them,elves On the reader'. conscioU$ness a, his familiarity with the werk grows, A good deaL of the excitement in reading Fill1llga", Wakt dcri~es from the gradual mental resyntbcs;' of a cemplctc and highly organised world-an experience which;' already very familiar to rt:aders of Ulyms and which is something much mere crea- tive, pmiti~e, and satisfying than :. ok Lehmann would ha~e m bcli<:~,
tn . pite of all the excellent exegetical work that has appeared in '<'Cent yean, the bulk of the long lext of Fi. mga", Wah remain, almost entirely unexplicated, Until . ueh time as a complete excgcsi. < is available, every commentator On Fi. . . go",
Walt who attemp~ to punue a reasoned critical argument will coultautly be troubled by the necessity 10 pau>c and offer explication, <>fth"'" ~ge> wbich he quote:! in . ubstantiation "fhis poin~. In commenting on tbe quotations induded in this dissertation I ha~e alwa)l'l confined my attention 10 tbooc aspect#. of their content which are strictly relevant to myargu_ menlJ but, lin~e analysis ofdetaiL. in FillltlgaIU Wah tends to be extraordinarily Jpe<:-CO"'lunllng, I have n. ""rthel= hccn forced 10 dev<. >te a somewhat di'proponionate amount of . pae<:
to uplication. Single senten,,", can provide material for several '5
? Prifa. c~
pagt:f ofdiscwhon. and. in lO m e 0{ the richer p. . . g. . . . ont can continue beating out the gold 0{ iU(\jvidu. ol words Illmoft cndlcaly.
A~ fromtheunfortunatelacko{publiM>cd""plication. the nature of FiwN' QIU WM. ibelf raises an impona. nt question of practical criticism. The diffu:uhy of pying anything of valut about the book while at the lame time remaining coherent. or even intelligible, comtltnte! a major. and perhaps unique, problem for the expositor, sine<: it iI literally true of FilllV1QIU
d
Ww thai a sound knowledge of the wbole of the book is CSICI'? tiaI to an adequate unde. . . . tandirog of any gi. . . . ", p;w. lgC. lro
~ evero the smallest poiro" of ioterpr<:tatioro in this dit- KJUtion I have thcTcfore ofu:tl found il rocc' 'ry ro appeal to ,upp<'lnirog evidence. rcatt<:red throughout more than six
hundrtd page. of ta t. A full analysis of this materia! would inwlve a lars<' o,? erali maJI of quotation and a vast mosaic of further references, and hencc in order to rwuce the number of fOOtnOIe! and digr=ion. I have ",herneT pouible included ;0 p"rentl>rsco in the text the briefell page/line refcre"""" to thate pointl in Fiuqll1tJ Wd< where IUpport for my argumentl may be li. >und. 10 order further to minimise the ottd for repeated ero. . . . d'c"""cing. l ha,. . , included in T able JI a plan ofFi_plU
Wall. howingsomeofthemain al\ribuleoofeachchapterohbe book. Thi, plan i, based in Jnrt on tloc familiar Kheme of Ulyssu' and is wholly dependent on internal evidence. within
F;nlllg~1U Wak. itself. Su~tantiation for readings which are peculiarly my own (e. g. , the time-scheme) will be found in the nu. in body of lhe lexl.
In oommon with all otlu:rJo,,<c criticl I am greatly indebted 10 the pioneer work of M C$SrI. ~ mpbellllDd Robiruon, whoee A SUU. . . I{~ 14 Fu-r/IIU Wah waa the 6. . . . 1 brave attempt to evaluateandcs. plainthewbolebook,pag<:byp~. Remark-
able though it is, howe,. . ". , the $t'/'141l Ki f ' strong influence on Jo~c lIudieo h. . . not been altogether . . . . nlary. Tentative, exploratory, and often ill-informed. as itl 3Ulho. . . . were the fint
,s. . below, p. '1.
? l>I. ). bg>. ian<r (ed. l, AJ-. JIIJ'UMi;uI~,
. . - i stri<I, (:a,bo<>d&t"
In. , '9~ p. +II.
"
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . , ;~
?
-~
1. ! II ,
0?
~
I
;1
?
I
,
I I
ij 1
j! l
<
~, ~
I
<
?
I
1
?
'7
II
. . ,!
I
?
?
,
PrifOCl
? Prifact
10 adrnil, its an. al)"Q and judgmenll have neverthelest been accepted virtually wilhout quescion by moot Iato:r entia, wilh the ruul' that a oumberofuntenable interp<etations hav. : been poerpoetUlltd year afto:r Y"&r. Sw;h points arc: de. ail with in thil
diaenation only when Ihey impinge on my line ofenquirr. ~fy mool radical departure from lhe: into:'J>l"'tation of the S! dtlu KfJ lieo in my view of the horizontal llructurc, whieh 1 bd;"ve to be oonoid~rahly mOre subtle than the neal Vioonian outline on whieh Mess,. ,. Campbell and Robinson bale their study. In Chapter Thre<:, in particular, I have mad. u. . , fi"t attempt at an extended analrW of the regressive panerD of clreama within dreams 3n aspect of FiNw,. . 1Vd:t which . alonolt wholly
ignored by u. . , SUInn "9.
The bm ""to:n<iM pito! : of enlicilm or F",. . "IUU Wd:t is
. . ndoubtedly M r, ]. S, Atherton', fine lOUr<:<:rltudy, 1M BMU dl Ilrt Wd:t, which ahaws great inrigbt into j oyce's habitl of thought and composition, Thi. crudiu. and alnuling work hal helped me 10 darifY my general gr. . . p of Ihe IIrncture of FiNu"", W"b and hao, indeed, greatly deepened my under. lIanding of the hook in aJonoIt cv. :ry direction. I have been ~nit"larly ~tim"lalcd by Mr. Alherton's Pan I, 'The Struc- tu ral Boob', whieh contairIJ a brilliant account of J O)'<<'I cosmologkal aims. The influence of Mr. Atherton'. work on this disserution will be tlIOIII apparent in my . ecolld Chapto:r, b", Chapto:n Four and Five, which, . . .
