In the first two chapters of James Joyce's Ulysses, the English Hibernophile Haines and the Irish skeptic Stephen Dedalus articulate successive conceptions of history that underscore its ambivalent impact upon the social context of the novel.

* I can quite understand that, [Haines] said calmly. An Irishman must think like that. We feel in England that we have treated you rather unfairly. It seems history is to blame.

* History, Stephen said, is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.

As the narrative unfolds, one sees that these views grow out of the complementary influences of intra-textual dynamics and extra-textual cultural perceptions. This recognition in turn reshapes assumptions about reading Ulysses and about how the relation between history and fiction shapes the interpretive process.

Specifically, such multiplicity suggests that no matter how directive the narrative's subsequent depiction of specific historical events, personal conceptions of history exert profound influence upon the interpretation of Ulysses. Both Stephen and Haines characterize history as an invasive force, and anyone connected with the novel must confront the implications of its intrusion. Stephen, Haines, the reader - all use history to contextualize the narrative's fictional events - but each does so in a fashion that calls into question the objective integrity of the concept of history.

Haines, the English tourist determined to embrace Irish culture, finds himself at a loss when reminded that Ireland remains under the control of "[t]he imperial British state." Unwilling to take responsibility for his country's colonial exploitation and yet unable to deny its consequences, Haines falls back upon the defense of inevitability and disassociation. He views history as an irresistible force to which everyone - beneficiaries and sufferers - must succumb, and therefore all remain equally non-culpable for the events which transpire.

Stephen characterizes history as a more personal and more menacing force. It does not function as a static presence like the artist described in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man who "remains within or behind or beyond or above his handiwork, invisible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails." Rather, history follows a more encroaching pattern. It invades Stephen's perception and distorts his concept of the world, creating hallucinations of such severity that escape presents itself as the only viable alternative.

The implicit conflict arising from Haines's and Stephen's differing views of the same term calls into question the application of any general concept of history to the novel. At the same time, one cannot simply ignore the way history functions in Ulysses, for certain collective concepts seem to obtain: despite their ostensively different views, Haines and Stephen characterize the past as an animating/animated force, and both also articulate a separation from and disaffection toward history. As a result, these characters experience a shared sense of a prominent force neither completely integrated into their fictional lives nor fully representative of their imagined feelings, assuming at best a neutral role and at worst fostering a profound alienation. How then can individual readings accommodate this term?

Such...