Cranly's arm
Cranly's arm
In Brief
In Telemachus, as Mulligan holds Stephen's arm and
says, "I'm the only one that knows what you are. Why don't you
trust me more?" Stephen recalls a similar touching of his arm
in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man:
"Cranly's arm. His arm." Cranly was Joyce's fictive name
(coined in 1898, long before any fictional works) for his
close friend John Francis Byrne. In part 5 of A Portrait
Stephen breaks off his friendship with Cranly. A rupture did
occur between Joyce and Byrne, but it was repaired less than a
year later. In the novel the rift is made to seem more
consequential: Stephen rejects Cranly because Cranly likes
women and will never devote himself wholly to his friend. This
fictional history sets the stage for Stephen's quest for
meaningful relationships in Ulysses: longing for some
woman to "Touch me" while
assessing the intentions behind the actual touches of men.
Read More
Byrne was born in February 1880, two years before Joyce. He
knew him first at Belvedere College and then at University
College, Dublin. At the university, Ellmann writes, he was
"handsome, athletic, and clever; he excelled at chess and
handball, and disregarded his studies even more cavalierly
than Joyce.... it was his manner that attracted: he moved
about with the air of a man who knows all the secrets but
disinclines to exercise the power he thereby possesses.... His
power over Joyce came from his habit of refraining from
comment: Joyce's admissions about his feelings towards family,
friends, and church, about his overweening ambitions, struck
like waves against Byrne's cryptic taciturnity. Byrne listened
to Joyce's confidences without offering any of his own, and,
as Joyce noted, without conferring absolution. Joyce needed no
friend as he did Byrne.... The friendship was of such
importance to Joyce that when it dwindled, as it did later, he
felt less at home in Ireland" (64).
In December 1903, near the end of his abortive exile in
Paris, Joyce had a photograph taken of himself and made into
postcards. He sent one to Byrne, on the back of which he wrote
a moody poem about the winds and waters heard by the soul.
Another went to Vincent Cosgrave, with joking doggerel about
the prostitutes of Paris. When Joyce returned to Dublin on
December 23, Ellmann writes, "he discovered he had lost a
friend. The photo-postcard which he had sent to Byrne, with
the poem written in the space for a message, had pleased Byrne
very much. He showed it to Cosgrave and said proudly that no
man in Dublin knew more about Joyce than he did. Cosgrave,
making the retort irresistible [Ellmann may be alluding here
to As You Like It 5.4.72], slyly took a similar
photograph from his pocket and showed it to Byrne saying,
'Perhaps that's something you didn't know'" (116). Byrne was
apparently hurt by being put on an equal footing with
Cosgrave, whom he distrusted, and jealous of the confidences
offered to another, and offended by the scabrous content. He
gave his own card to Cosgrave, saying, "You can have this one
too."
The offense taken by Byrne, and the disdain with which Joyce
responded, suggest a relationship that exceeded the usual
bounds of male friendship. Ellmann remarks that "Joyce had no
relationships with women that were not coarse or distant. In
his writing more is at stake in the friendship of Stephen and
Cranly (Byrne) than in the relationship of Stephen and Emma
Clery. Friendship becomes, in fact, a focal point, for if
friendship exists, it impugns the quality of exile and of
lonely heroism" (116). Joyce searched for reasons to regard
Byrne's newfound coolness as some kind of deep betrayal. In A
Portrait, Ellmann infers, he "goes further to evolve the
fiction that Cranly's motivation is homosexual" (117).
This is roughly true, but too simple: the novel does suggest
that Cranly feels some romantic attraction to Stephen, but it
also presents Stephen as receptive to the adoration. The two
men engage in an odd dance of protective self-positioning.
Part of the confrontation is intellectual: Cranly has listened
to many of Stephen’s beliefs and theories, and now he roughly
interrogates him, challenging his renunciation of the Catholic
faith urged on him by his mother. Also at stake, however, is
the nature and future of the friendship. Stephen is struck by
the way Cranly talks about women:
Yes. His face was handsome: and his body was strong and hard. He had spoken of a mother’s love. He felt then the sufferings of women, the weaknesses of their bodies and souls: and would shield them with a strong and resolute arm and bow his mind to them.
Away then: it is time to go. A voice spoke softly to Stephen’s lonely heart, bidding him go and telling him that his friendship was coming to an end. Yes; he would go. He could not strive against another. He knew his part.
— Probably I shall go away, he said.
A little after this, the reader is told that “Cranly
seized his arm and steered him round so as to head back
towards Leeson Park,” pressing the arm “with an elder’s
affection.” Stephen is “thrilled by his touch,”
but affirms his determination to pursue his solitary vision,
even if it means being utterly alone. This strikes “some deep
chord” in Cranly, who wonders whether Stephen would choose
loneliness over having someone “who would be more than a
friend, more even than the noblest and truest friend a man
ever had.” Stephen asks him, “Of whom are you speaking?” and
Cranly does not answer.
It is hard not to hear homoerotic attraction in Cranly's wish
to "be more than a friend," and "thrilled by his touch"
suggests some reciprocal feeling on Stephen's part.
Homoeroticism and homosexuality are not quite the same thing,
however. Many men have felt ardent affection for other men
without desiring sexual union. Both Stephen and Cranly are
clearly interested in something more than mere companionship,
but today's doctrinaire understandings of the
attraction—homophobic condemnation on the one hand, and
celebration of gay love on the other—are probably both
inadequate tools for defining it. The relationship makes
better sense viewed through the lens that Joyce's fiction
provides: Stephen's determination to be a great artist and
Cranly's wish to ally himself to, and support, this greatness.
In real life, shortly after his break with Byrne Joyce met
Oliver Gogarty and found another such relationship, similarly
intense and unsatisfactory. Gogarty was determined to help
Joyce write, but from a position of assumed equality or even
superiority. The Mulligan of Ulysses supports Stephen
financially but treats him with sardonic, mocking
condescension, and rather than feeling thrilled by Mulligan's
touch in Telemachus Stephen seems to scorn it. Far
more than A Portrait, this novel does insinuate that
the "motivation is homosexual." In Scylla and Charybdis Stephen
thinks "Catamite," apparently as a refutation of Mulligan's
designs on him. In Proteus he thinks more
sympathetically, "Staunch friend, a brother soul: Wilde’s love that dare not speak its
name. His arm: Cranly’s arm. He now will leave
me. And the blame? As I am. As I am. All or not at all." These
sentences recreate the stalemate from the end of A
Portrait: Stephen's uncompromising demands for artistic
integrity imply the imminent loss of a close friendship. But
now committing himself to that friend would mean taking up
Oscar Wilde's gay lifestyle. (The boldfaced sentence here,
which slightly alters the sentence of Telemachus, is
found only in Gabler's edition of the novel.)
There is no evidence that either Oliver St. John Gogarty or
John Francis Byrne was homosexual, in deed or in desire. Both
men married and had children while cultivating close male
friendships. Nor does the homoerotic intrigue that Joyce
attached to the fictive Cranly seem to have troubled his
relationship with Byrne, which after being resumed lasted
throughout his life. He visited Byrne when he returned to
Dublin in 1909, and Byrne visited him in Paris in 1927. Far
from being torn by jealousy, Byrne encouraged him to elope
with Nora in 1904, he encouraged him to marry her in 1931, and
in a crucial episode during that 1909 visit to Dublin he
convinced him to trust in her sexual fidelity. Vincent
Cosgrave had told Joyce that after he started seeing Nora in
1904, she "had gone for walks in the darkness along the river
bank with another escort—himself" (Ellmann, 279). Although he
should have known better of his partner, Joyce was devastated.
He discussed the matter with Byrne, who "wrote later that he
had never 'seen a human being more shattered'" (281). He
pronounced Cosgrave's report "a blasted lie," and Joyce was
persuaded.
This conversation took place in a significant location: 7 Eccles Street, where
Byrne lived with two female
cousins from 1908 to 1910. Not only did Joyce make that
house the Blooms' in Ulysses, but his understanding of
Bloom was clearly colored by his friendly interactions with
Byrne in that year. Ellmann recounts a visit which Joyce paid
to the house to thank his friend for helping him through the
Cosgrove crisis. The two men had supper and then walked about
Dublin until 3 AM. When they returned, Byrne discovered that
he had forgotten his house key. "Undismayed, he agilely let
himself down to the front area and entered the house by the
unlocked side door; then he went round to the front and
admitted his companion" (290). The events are scarcely changed
at all in Joyce's account of the homeward journey that Stephen
and Bloom take in Ithaca.