How we cite our quotes: Citations follow this format: (Chapter.Paragraph), except for the "Circe" episode, which is (Chapter.Line) and the "Penelope" episode, which is (Chapter.Page). We used the Vintage International edition published in 1990.
Quote #1
"- You're not a believer, are you?" Haines asked. "I mean, a believer in the narrow sense of the word. Creation from nothing and miracles and a personal God."
"- There's only sense of the word, it seems to me," Stephen said. (1.289-290)
Is Stephen right that there is only one sense of the word "believe?" Obviously Stephen does not like Haines or his condescending attitude. Is his answer in some way a reflection of his dislike for Haines? Is the belief question an intellectual question for Stephen or is it something else?
Quote #2
From the playfield the boys raised a shout. A whirring whistle: goal…
"- The ways of the Creator are not our ways," Mr. Deasy said. "All history moves towards one great goal, the manifestation of God."
Stephen jerked his thumb towards the window, saying:
"- That is God…"
"- What?" Mr Deasy asked.
"- A shout in the street," Stephen answered, shrugging his shoulders." (2.159-165)
We note that Stephen's assertion that God is a shout in the street is actually an expression of belief (and not of atheism). What different views of God are Stephen and Mr. Deasy arguing? Does Mr. Deasy's theory now allow for God to be present in the moment? Does Stephen's theory contradict more traditional religious beliefs?
Quote #3
Cousin Stephen, you will never be a saint. Isle of saints. You were awfully holy, weren't you? You prayed to the Blessed Virgin that you might have a red nose. You prayed to the devil in Serpentine avenue from the fubsy widow in front might lift her clothes still more from the wet street. O si, certo! Sell your soul for that, do, dyed rags pinned round a squaw. More tell me, more still! On the top of the Howth tram alone crying to the rain: naked women! What about that, eh? (3.36)
In "Proteus," Stephen is remembering the Stephen that we knew in Portrait. That Stephen was deeply religious, striving to be good, but was also tempted by prostitutes and sexual desire. How does Stephen's memory of being such a religious young man shape the man that he is today? How do the values instilled him by religion make him so stubborn in his current beliefs against religion?
Quote #4
"But, ladies and gentlemen, had the youthful Moses listened to and accepted that view of life, had he bowed his head and bowed his will and bowed his spirit before that arrogant admonition he would never have brought the chosen people out of their house of bondage nor followed the pillar of the cloud by day. He would never have spoken with the Eternal amid lightnings on Sinai's mountaintop nor ever have come down with the light of inspiration shining in his countenance and bearing in his arms the tables of the law, graven in the language of the outlaw." (7.433)
Here Professor MacHugh is reciting a piece of oratory by John F. Taylor in the newspaper offices at the Freeman in "Aeolus." Why would he compare Ireland's political struggle to that of Moses and the Jews in Egypt? How is it that the men can draw such a blatant comparison between the struggle of the Jews and that of the Irish and yet still act anti-Semitic on a daily basis?
Quote #5
Blood of the Lamb.
His slow feet walked him riverward, reading. Are you saved? All are washed in the blood of the lamb. God wants blood victim. Birth, hymen, martyr, war, foundation of a building, sacrifice, kidney burntoffering, druid's altars. Elijah is coming. Dr John Alexander Dowie, restorer of the church in Zion, is coming. (8.5-6)
Here, near the start of "Lestrygonians," Bloom gets handed a throwaway paper with a religious sermon printed on it. This begins the association of Bloom with the prophet Elijah that will persist throughout the book. What is the view of religion offered by the clips from the throwaway paper? How does it compare to the more mature view of Stephen Dedalus? In what ways is Bloom prophetic? What does it mean to associate an ordinary man with a prophet?
Quote #6
"I believe, O Lord, help my unbelief. That is, help me to believe or help me to unbelieve? Who helps to believe? Egomen. Who to unbelieve? Other chap." (9.386)
In "Scylla and Charybdis," Stephen has just been asked by John Eglinton if he believes in the theory that he has presented to the men. He says no, and then this is his thought. Stephen is quoting a line from the Gospel of Mark (9:24), but what does Stephen want to believe in. What does Stephen already believe in and where does his faith fall short? Is his belief still religious or is it only related to his own art? How is Stephen using these lines in a different sense than Mark did in the gospel.
Quote #7
A bargeman with a hat of dirty straw seated amidships, smoking and staring at a branch of poplar above him. It was idyllic: and Father Conmee reflected on the providence of the Creator who had made turf to be in bogs where men might dig it out and bring it to town and hamlet to make fires in the houses of poor people. (10.32)
Here is a bit of Father Conmee's thoughts from "Wandering Rocks." His thoughts are always extremely pious and simple. Do you find these thoughts an accurate portrayal of the way a priest might think? Do they seem to be parodying religious thought? If parody, is it over-done or do you think that it still makes a point about the ways in which strictly orthodox thought is confined?
Quote #8
When, lo, there came about them all a great brightness and they beheld the chariot wherein He stood ascend to heaven. And they beheld Him in the chariot, clothed upon in the glory of the brightness, having raiment as of the sun, fair as the moon and terrible that for awe they durst not look upon Him. And there came a voice out of heaven, calling: Elijah! Elijah! And he answered with a main cry: Abba! Adonai! And they beheld Him even Him, ben Bloom Elijah, amid clouds of angels ascend to the glory of the brightness at an angle of fortyfive degrees over Donohoe's in Little Green Street like a shot off a shovel. (12.561)
This is the final image from "Cyclops." As Martin Cunningham's carriage pulls away with Bloom and the citizen yelling at one another, the episode takes on biblical language and portrays Bloom as the prophet Elijah ascending up to heaven. Does the religious language seem parodic or sincere or both? How is it possible for something to be a parody and to still communicate some sort of truth?
Quote #9
He said also how at the end of the second month a human soul was infused and how in all our holy mother foldeth ever souls for God's greater glory whereas that earthly mother which was but a dam to bring forth beastly should die by canon for so saith he that holdeth the fisherman's seal. (14.19)
Stephen is rambling drunkenly in "Oxen of the Sun." He's here spouting off about the Church's teachings on when exactly the soul enters the body. What we're particularly interested in here, though, is how the style alters the affect of the religious words. Try re-writing these lines in plain modern English. Does one seem more legitimate or profound than the other? Tie this into particular details of the style and see if you can figure out where the difference in effect originates.
Quote #10
"- Simple? I shouldn't think that is the proper word. Of course, I grant you, to concede a point, you do knock across a simple soul once in a blue moon. But what I am anxious to arrive at is it is one thing for instance to invent those rays Röntgen did, or the telescope like Edison, though I believe it was before his time, Galileo was the man I mean. The same applies to the laws, for example, of a farreaching natural phenomenon such as electricity but it's a horse of quite another colour to say you believe in the existence of a supernatural God."
"- O, that," Stephen expostulated, "has been proved conclusively by several of the best known passages in Holy Writ, apart from circumstantial evidence." (16.151-152)
Here, in "Eumaeus," Bloom presses the point on whether or not there is such a thing as the human soul. Stephen, still drunk and groggy from his absinthe, isn't too enthused about the discussion. Plus he doesn't like when people disagree with him. Does Bloom's intense scientism leave any room for religion or spirituality? Is Stephen's answer earnest? If it's ironic, why doesn't he answer Bloom straight? What might a straight answer from Stephen look like?