I think a child should be allowed to take his father's or

“I think a child should be allowed to take his father’s or mother’s name at will on coming of age. Paternity is a legal fiction.” — James Joyce

Thus spoke James Joyce, the poet of consciousness, the voyager of the human soul. In this striking declaration, he casts his gaze upon the very roots of identity — the bond between the child and the parent, between name and being. His words, though brief, cut through centuries of custom and law to reveal a deeper truth: that identity is not a chain of blood, but a matter of will and self-creation. In saying that “paternity is a legal fiction,” Joyce unmasks the illusion that lineage alone defines a person’s worth or belonging. He dares to suggest that the child, upon coming of age, should be free to choose — to define themselves not by the past that birthed them, but by the consciousness that they have forged.

The origin of this idea lies within Joyce’s own life and art. Born in Dublin in 1882, he was the son of a proud but struggling Irish family, bound by Catholic tradition and colonial restraint. His father, John Stanislaus Joyce, was a man of charm and ruin — a drinker, a dreamer, a symbol of Ireland itself, great in promise yet burdened by decay. From this turbulent inheritance, young Joyce learned both rebellion and compassion. He loved his father, but he also recognized the limits of inheritance — the truth that the sins and virtues of one generation should not imprison the next. In Ulysses and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Joyce wrestles with this very theme: the individual’s struggle to escape the weight of family, church, and nation. His famous hero, Stephen Dedalus, seeks to “forge in the smithy of his soul the uncreated conscience of his race.” That is the essence of this quote — the right to name oneself, to claim authorship over one’s own being.

When Joyce says that “paternity is a legal fiction,” he is not denying the existence of fathers, but the authority that society attaches to the idea of fatherhood. In his time, a child’s name and identity were legally bound to the father’s line — a patriarchal convention that mirrored larger hierarchies of power: God as Father, the king as Father of the nation, the patriarch as ruler of the home. Joyce saw in this system not natural order, but constructed authority. To call paternity a fiction was to declare that such authority rests on paper, not on spirit — on law, not love. The true inheritance, he implies, is not in the bloodline, but in the shaping of the mind and soul.

History itself offers countless echoes of this truth. Consider Alexander the Great, who was born the son of King Philip II of Macedon, yet claimed as his true father Zeus-Ammon, the god of creation. In doing so, he transcended the limits of lineage and embraced a mythic selfhood that made him master of his destiny. So too did Leonardo da Vinci, born an illegitimate child, rise to immortality by the sheer power of his genius, unchained by his birth. Each of these lives proves Joyce’s point — that paternity, as the world defines it, is only a shadow beside the flame of self-determination.

Yet Joyce’s words are not only about rebellion — they are also about freedom balanced with responsibility. To choose one’s name, one’s heritage, one’s allegiance, is a sacred act — the act of coming of age. It is the moment when a person ceases to be defined by others and begins to define themselves. This choice, however, is not made in bitterness or denial, but in truth and clarity. For even as Joyce rejects the fiction of paternity, he honors the reality of influence. A person’s father or mother may not own their identity, but their presence — for good or ill — remains a part of the story that the child must rewrite. Thus, freedom is not the rejection of origins, but the reconciliation of them.

There is, too, a spiritual echo in Joyce’s vision. In ancient philosophy, especially among the Stoics and Gnostics, the idea of spiritual rebirth — of claiming one’s identity apart from the material world — was central to enlightenment. The wise man, they taught, is born twice: once of the flesh, once of the spirit. So too does Joyce call upon us to be born again, not in a religious sense, but in the moral and intellectual sense — to look upon our inherited names, beliefs, and loyalties, and to ask, “Are these truly mine?” Only through such questioning can we awaken from the illusions of law and tradition into the freedom of self-awareness.

Practical counsel for the seeker:

• Remember that identity is not given; it is forged. Question what you have inherited — name, belief, and duty — and keep only what rings true to your spirit.

• Do not mistake ancestry for destiny; your lineage may shape you, but it does not define you.

• Honor your parents not by blind loyalty, but by living fully, becoming what they could not.

• And when you reach the age of self-knowledge, choose your own name — not necessarily in words, but in the deeds and principles by which you live.

For as James Joyce teaches, to claim one’s own name is the highest act of freedom. The law may record who begot you, but only you can decide who you are. The blood that flows in your veins is not as powerful as the fire that burns in your soul. Paternity may be a fiction of paper, but identity is the art of creation — and each of us, upon coming of age, becomes both parent and child to the self we choose to become.