I think it is important to remember that Stephen is an angsty young person, just like everyone else. Even though he is a university student, he hasn't fully grown out of his immaturity. As the first born son he could plausibly be held accountable for taking care of his family. I think he should help provide for his family, but not because he's the oldest, just because it's a respectable thing to do to help compensate for the resources you took up. That being said, Stephen never asked to be the first son. He never wanted the responsibility of making it up to his family. It is true that his education made him into the man and artist he became, but him having a public school education all along wouldn't have kept him from his calling. We observe his use of language in the book, how he relates to words and sees their beauty; the way Stephen relates to words wasn't made by his education. The amount of respect he has for language is something he had to be born with. So, personally, I don't think Stephen strictly owes his family any certain amount. Would it be kind, respectable, and probably very well looked upon if he did help? Yes--there's a reason it's expected of him.
Many readers may think he owes his family something--some specific monetary amount or something to otherwise compensate. The only thing I think he owes his family is to not be a burden. He didn't ask for a Jesuit education; it was a perk, but he didn't have to have it.
As I mentioned in class, there is in Stephen a kind of blown-up, ultra-sophisticated version of the old teenage cliche, "I didn't ask to be born!" And he has a point--all these circumstances of his birth (the "nets" that are thrown over him) are beyond his control, and he views himself as an autonomous being. It's interesting to note that nowhere in the novel is it indicated that his family has any particular expectation for him to pitch in and help out. This doesn't mean there IS no such expectation, but maybe just that Stephen fails to acknowledge it. But many modern American readers (those I've encountered in the classroom, at least) do seem to have such an expectation of Stephen, and they're disappointed that he doesn't at least offer to help. I'm not sure if this is us imposing a contemporary American ideal onto a context it doesn't fit. But we also have to assume that Stephen's credo would cut both ways--if the family were still well-off, he would reject their offer to help *him* for the same reasons (it compromises his integrity). Oh, but then his mother does give him some money for the trip to Europe, so . . . maybe autonomy doesn't cut both ways!
ReplyDelete