A Russian Critic and

8/3/2019 A Russian Critic and

1/9

A Russian Critic and "Tristram Shandy"Author(s): Kenneth E. HarperReviewed work(s):Source: Modern Philology, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Nov., 1954), pp. 92-99Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/434717 .

Accessed: 05/02/2012 16:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Modern Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/434717?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/434717?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/9

A RUSSIAN CRITIC AND TRISTRAM SHANDYKENNETH E. HARPER

HEWesternorld,or numberfobvious reasons, is not well ac-quainted with the large body ofRussian literarycriticism nd scholar-ship. This generalization an be madeeven with reference o the Formalistschool of criticism-a moderndevelop-ment which should have attractedtheinterestof studentsof literature very-where.Those who areacquaintedwith hehighly riginal nd provocative ormaliststudies recognizetheir value and urgethat the language gap somehow bebridged.1 he mostpracticalsolution totheproblemwouldbe theextensive rans-lationofrepresentativeormalistworks,since our present nformation,t best,comes second hand. In the absence ofsuch translations,t would appear thatreviewsor summaries f specific riticalstudiesmightserve a usefulpurpose. tis likely, moreover, hat the Formalistapproachcouldbe most ccuratelyudgedin a pieceofcriticism ealingwithWest-ern iterature. his,at least, s theprem-ise ofthepresent aper,which s designedfor American non-Slavic scholarsunfa-miliarwiththis Russian school of criti-cism. The workchosenforreview s Vic-torShklovsky's tudy, Sterne's TristramShandy nd theTheoryoftheNovel."2A few ntroductoryords re in order,although t shouldbe clearthatwhatfol-lows is in no way an analysisor descrip-tionoftheFormalist chool. t is extreme-ly difficulto generalize bout this com-plexcriticalmovement, hich unctioned,

roughly, rom1916 to the close of the1920's. The Formalistswerenon-Marxianlinguistsnd scholars,ooselyunitedby aconcernwithproblemsof artisticform.The avant-gardeftheirday, they haredwithRussianFuturist uthors profounddistrust ftraditionaliterarynd criticalmethods.Specifically, hey objected tothe exclusive oncern f criticswith"ex-tra-literary"lements social, psychologi-cal, philosophical) nd to thedirection fSymbolist oetry nd poetictheory. heFormalists ought o erect "science"ofliterary tudyand to make literature,r"literariness"tself, he object of study;theirgoalwas "to create n independentliterarycienceonthe basis ofthespecificpeculiarities f literarymaterial."' Theywere concernedwith a studyof specialliterarydevices"-with thequalities ndpropertieswhichdifferentiatediteraturefrom ther orms fwriting. o opposingschools ofcriticism,hisinterestmplieda disregard or content" nart.The For-malists,however,denied the distinctionbetween form nd content;the latterisseenmerely s one ofthemanifestationsofform.Language,metaphor, tructure,and "content" re all seen as "devices"inthehands oftheartist;theutilization fall theseelements ontributes o thespe-cific quality of literature-that is, to"literariness."4

1The most extensive treatment of the RussianFormalists in English is a recent Columbia Universitydissertationby Victor Erlich. A concise review s givenby Manfred Kridl, "Russian Formalism," AmericanBookman, (1944), 19-30; and references o individualFormalist critics are made by Wellek and Warren,Theory of Literature New York, 1949).

2 Victor Shklovsky, "Tristram Shendi" Sterna iteoriyaromana (St. Petersburg, 1921). This rare firstedition was made available to the writerthroughthekindness of Professor Roman Jakobson, of HarvardUniversity. Shklovsky's study was reprinted underthe title of "Parodiyny roman" ("A Novel of Par-ody") in the collection of his studies entitled 0 teoriiprozy 2d ed.; Moscow, 1929). No English translationexists, to the knowledge of the presentwriter.aBoris Eikhenbaum, Literatura Leningrad, 1927),p. 117.4Ibid., p. 125.[MODERN PmILOLOT, November, 954] 92


3/9

A RUSSIANCRITIC AND"TRISTRAMSHANDY" 93Since language s thebasicmaterialofliterature,heFormalistsmade linguisticanalysis theirspecialty.They produced

highlynterestingtudies fpoetic style,"rhyme, hythm,herelation frhythmopoetic anguage, ndtheshiftingfformalpatterns n literature romperiodto pe-riod. A distinctionwas made betweenpractical and poetic language. ThusShklovsky,ne ofthe eadersofthemove-ment, tudied theutilizationn poetry fwords"outsideofmeaning," nd by thedevicewhichhe calledostraneniye"mak-ingstrange").Realityis "made strange"in order o preventts automaticpercep-tion, ince hefunctionf hepoetic mageis not to insure comprehension ut tocreatea special,noncognitive erceptionor"vision."The Formalist earchfor heattributes f "literariness" ookmanydi-rections;t shouldbe said, npassing, hatthese studies were by no means "inte-grated" or consistent n methodology.The tenets of Formalist criticismwereoften xpressedn extreme ermsby menwhoseaimwas notmoderation uta kindofsalutarydogmatismn theface of thedogmatism f theprevious ge. The bal-ancedinterpretationouldbe suppliedbya later,moreprosaicage; the immediatetaskwas thecreation f a literaryciencewhichwouldadmit the mportance ftheliterary device."It is essential o recognize hatShklov-sky'sanalysisofTristramhandy s con-ducted in this spiritof inquiry.His ag-gressivelyunorthodox nterpretation fthenovelfollows uite naturally. ternehad longbeen establishedn Russia as asentimentalist.A SentimentalJourney,translatedn 1793,had made him a lead-ing influence n Russian pre-RomanticliteratureTristram handywas translat-ed, in part, n 1804). It was undoubtedlythis interpretation hichShklovskyhadin mindwhenhe said,on the first age ofhisstudy, hatonly"banalities"had been

writtenabout Sterne. Shklovsky'sap-proach s clearly antisentimentalist,"l-though hebasis of his objection s some-what differentrom hatof antisentimen-talists ncontemporary estern riticism.Scholarshipwhich seeks eitherto estab-lish or todeny entimentalismnTristramShandy s dealingwithextra-literaryal-ues,accordingoShklovsky. he "literari-ness" ofthenovelwas notto be found nthe author'sadherence r rebellion o aneighteenth-centuryult of the emotions.Sterne's relation to this cult may beworthy f nvestigationn othergrounds,but it is not a legitimate ubjectof For-malist criticism. hklovskyheld that awork of art is merelythe "sum of itsstylisticdevices"; he therefore ocusedhis wholeattention ponthepurely iter-arydevices nTristramhandy-i.e.,uponthe formal elementswhich had beenslightedn traditional cholarship.It is interestingo observe hklovsky'sdeliberatechoiceof Tristram handy-anotoriouslyformless" ovel-as thesub-ject of "formal"analysis.This selectionwas based, of course,upon his apprecia-tion of the formal ualitiesof the noveland of the elementsof regularity ndorder n Sterne.This was an unconven-tional interpretationot only in Russiain theyear1921.As late as 1936,Profes-sor JamesA. Work referredo the "gen-eral opinion" of modern critics n theWestthat the novelwas distinguishedydisorder nd lack of ogic.5 n turn,Pro-fessorWork offered ertainreservationsto thisgeneral pinion, nd his approachis worthnotingby way of contrastwithShklovsky's. Specifically, e pointed tocertain tructural evicesusedbySterne:references o veritable chronology, hechronological equence of the two mainactionsofthestory, heforesightedlan-ning of incidents ater to be developed,aJames Aiken Work (ed.), The Life and Opinionsof Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (New York, 1940),p. xlvi.


4/9

94 KENNETH . HARPERand the principleof the association ofideas, derived fromLocke. The latter sespecially mportant,incethis s a novelof opinions,not of action, and since itreflects he "unpredictable but irrefu-table) logicofconversation"; he nterpo-lationofSterne's wnassociated deasad-mittedly omplicatesmatters, ut his di-gressions re always plannedforfurthereffect.'Professor Work argues that asemblance ofnormalcy s preserved ndthatwheredisorder eigns, t is Sterne'sconcernwith the irrationalityf the sub-consciouswhich s responsible. hese re-marks on structureare complementedwith an acknowledgmentof Sterne'splace as a sentimentalistnd humorist.Shklovsky's approach was narrowerand also more xtreme.Wehave said thathe was not seekingrecognizable atternsor offering balanced interpretationfthe whole. He was concerned nlywiththe formal lements n Tristram handyand their llustration f Formalisttheo-ries. To him, this was pre-eminentlynovelofform nd aboutform,nd Sterneis everywhere conscious nnovator ndexperimenter.he structuralabnormali-ties"areproof fthe novelist's reoccupa-tion withformaldevices. The apparentchaos is viewed not as the productofwhimsy r eccentricityut as the resultofa deliberate nd rational lan.Further,the appearance of disorderlinesss mis-leading: actually, hklovsky eclared, henovel is as orderly nd meaningfuls aPicasso painting.7To Shklovsky,terne's biding nterestin formalproblems s self-evident. hecritic was particularlydelighted withSterne's consistentpracticeof revealinghis formaldevices to the reader.Theserevelations are sometimesmade in thepurelyexpositorymannerof Fielding--chatswith hereader,nwhich heauthor

discusses his problemsand intentions.Sternealso reliedheavilyupon theprac-ticeofrevealing istechnique irectly,yconcrete xample. n thus "layingbare"the novelist'stechnique,he usually re-frains rom ull xplanation,rustinghatthe reader will correctly nterprethismeaning nd intent.Unfortunately,aidShklovsky, is ntentions ave often eenmisinterpreted,xcept in instances ofobviousparodyof other writers. t wasmorecommon o ascribe Sterne'stechni-cal experimentationo caprice.As an exampleof Sterne'spracticeof"layingbare"hisdevices, hklovsky itessuch obviouseccentricitiess the deliber-ate misplacing fthepreface, he dedica-tion, and certain individual chapters.Often criticshave frownedupon these"tricks" s irritating,gnoblebuffoonery.Accordingo Shklovsky,terne'spurposeshouldbe evident:heismerely retardingthe transpositionf action."' The refer-ence here s to a universal oncern fthenovelistto avoid overlyabrupt changeswhenhe wishes ofurtherhe actionortotransfert fromone set of characters oanother.This problem s often olvedbyparting hecharactersnvolved n a well-placed "separation cene."Sterne'svaria-tionon this solutionwas simply o inserta passageorchapterwhichhas no logicalrelation o whathasgonebefore. he mis-placed passage has a definite braking"effect, ullyas great as if a separationscenehadbeendevised.The factthatthisis done consciously,n undisguiseddefi-ance of "normality," oes not point toSterne'swhimsicality; ather,t is an in-stance ofhis habit of "layingbare" oneof the formalcompositionaldevices towhich ll novelists ave recourse.Onemight dd thatSterne, ponocca-sion,actuallydoes inform isreaderthathe is "laying bare" his compositionalmethods.A clear llustrations containedIbid., p. li.7Shklovsky,p. 4. s Ibid., p. 5.


5/9

A RUSSIAN RITIC AND"TRISTRAMSHANDY" 95in the first wo paragraphs fchapter4,Book II. Havingended theprevious hap-ter with an impassionedapostrophetoUncleToby, he continues:I Wouldnotgivea groatfor hatman'sknowledgen pencraft,ho doesnot under-stand his,-Thatthe bestplainnarrativentheworld,ack'dvery lose othe ast piritedapostropheo myuncleToby,-would avefeltbothcold and vapid uponthereader'spalate;-thereforeforthwithutan end tothechapter,-thoughwasin themiddle fmy tory.-Writers fmy tamphave oneprinciplein commonwithpainters.-Wheren exactcopyingmakesourpicturesessstriking,echoose the lessevil; deemingt even morepardonable o trespass gainsttruth, hanbeauty.-This s to be understoodumgranosalis;but be it as it will,-as theparallelsmade more or he sakeof ettingheapos-trophe ool,thanany thing lse,-'tis notverymaterialwhetherpon anyother corethe eaderpprovesf tornot.9Shklovsky's oint s thatSterne'sgeneralpractice of retardingthe transposition("letting heapostrophe ool") is normal-ly not advertised so openly. The critichere ttributes certain onsciousmotiveto Sterne.Nowhere does he supporthisview by the novelist's own testimony.Onemayormaynot greewith hklovskythatthe formal ffectwhichhe describesis actuallyattained; n any instance, neneed not agreethatSterne's ntents ex-clusively ormalistic.Themisplacing fchapterss,ofcourse,a relativelyminormatter.Much morecommon,said Shklovsky, s the "dis-placementof time"-a device employedthroughouthewholenovel.Sterne'sex-perimentationwith temporal sequenceand the concomitantdigressionswhichcharacterizehe novelare therealsubjectof Shklovsky's tudy.Here the Russiancritic eems to be unawareof the heavyrelianceof Sterneupon the writings f

Locke.The subtleway n which pparent-ly irrelevantdigressionscontributetocharacterdevelopment,for example, isnot considered. hklovskys interestednthe mechanicaldetails of the digressionsrather hanin the total effect. romthispointofview,his discussion s highlyn-terestingnd original.The novelbeginswithone of hese em-poral rregularities.fter he ntroductoryparagraphon the inability fTristram'sparents o "mindwhattheywere bout,"the reader is confrontedwith the briefcolloquyof the mother nd father n thewindingof clocks. The reader draws afalse nferencebout thesubjectofdiscus-sion, and onlylater is giventhe correctexplanation. ere, aidShklovsky,causesare givenafter onsequences; he authormakesit possibleforthereaderto makewrong uesses."'0 n usualnarrative rac-ticea giveneventmaybe symbolized ythegeometrical igure fa cone: theconeis inverted,.e., oinedto thebase lineofthe novel at its tip; thefurtheramifica-tions of the event spread out from hisinitialpoint ofill utthe cone. n Sterne,however, he reverse s true: the cone isupright-joinedto the mainnarrative tits base; the causal moment the tip) isreachedonlyafter hewholeseriesof ac-tionsmakingup theeventhave beenun-folded.Shklovsky ites instancesof thistechnique n other uthors AndreiBely,Goncharov, urgenev,Gogol),butsays tis a permanent feature of TristramShandy.)Shklovsky aw in Sterne's methodofintroducingnew characters notherin-stance of his disregardfor logical se-quence.Oftenthenewarrivalwillbreakinto the scenewith a strangeor utterlyinappropriate emark. terne will subse-quently provide the necessary explana-tion,bywayof flash ack. This inverted9Work, p. 91. 10ohklovsky, p. 6.11 bid.


6/9

96 KENNETH . HARPERtime sequence is common n literature,but it usuallyserves narrative urpose.(Shklovsky ites variations f t inGogoland in Pushkin'sfamous tory,TheShot,where the order of things s II, I, III.)Sterne, aid thecritic, suallyhas nosuchnarrativepurpose: his chronologicaln-versions re quite arbitrary nd are in-troducednakedly,for all the world tosee.12Another xperiment ithtemporal e-quence,openlyrevealed to thereader, sthe processof "weavingtogether" epa-ratestories nto the mainnarrative.HereShklovskyargues that Sterne is con-sciously parodyingestablished models.Normally,a novelistwill interrupthismain story to introduce a secondarytheme,or subplot; fthere re two mainstories, cenesfrom neofthese lternatewith scenes fromthe other. (In DonQuixote, he adventuresof theheromaybe alternatedwith headventures fSan-choPanza.)I3Sterne ejected he"canoni-cal methods ffittingeparate tories ntothe main novel." If he does employ hesemethods,he does so in such a way thattheirpurely conventionalnature is re-vealed. His exaggerateddevelopment fsecondary hemes s a kind ofburlesqueor parody.'4Shklovsky's tatement ndi-

cates that this is deliberatelydone bySterne. Parody is deliberate, properlyspeaking. The writer,again, does notspecify heobjectsofparody.Shklovsky electedseveraldigressionsin Tristramhandyto illustrate he con-sciousparodyofconvention. typical x-ample is the digression n Uncle Tobyfrom hepointwherehe removes hepipefrom is mouth o say, "I think. . . ," tothe pointwhere his sentence s finished(Book I, chap. 21, to Book II, chap. 6)."This device," ays thecritic, is consist-ent in Sterne,and, as is clear fromhisjestingmention f Uncle Toby alongtheway, he notonly perceives he hyperbo-lism of hisdevelopment, ut amuseshim-selfwith t."'"Shklovsky's point is that Sterne, insupplying ackgroundmaterial n UncleToby, was not obliged to interrupt helatter n the middleof a sentenceor toleave the sentence uspended n mid-airfora distanceof somethirty ages. Fur-thermore,t would not have been neces-saryto interrupthedigressionwithref-erences to the suspendedsentence.Hisreason fordoing the unnecessarys hisconscious desire to parody establishedpractices.Another nstanceis the longdigression ollowing ncleToby'sremark:"I wish you had seen what prodigiousarmieswe had in Flanders" (Book II,chap. 18). The phraseis repeatedmorethanoncein the courseof thesucceedingdigressions. ere, as elsewhere, terne s"consciously overdoing t"-i.e., he isintentionallyburlesquing conventionalmethodsof introducing ew material nhis subplot.1"In thisconnectionhklovskylso citedthepassage nwhich heauthor eaveshismother tanding t thedoor, istening othe conversationn the adjoiningroom(BookV, chaps.5-13). Placinghismother

12 Ibid., p. 7.Ia Shklovsky cites a different rinciple in Homer,where two events are nevershown to be simultaneous.Even when logic demands that two events should besimultaneous, they are represented as consecutiveactions; at best, a secondary action may "coexist"with a main action, remainingin an "inactive state"(pp. 7-8). These observations are credited toZelinsky,unquestionably T. Zielinski, the eminent classicalscholar, who had published a studyentitled "The LawofNon-simultaneityand the Compositionofthe Iliad"(1896, in Russian); according to information uppliedby Professor Ren6 Wellek, this piece is also availablein a German version: "Die Behandlung gleichzeitigerVorg5nge im antiken Epos," Philologus, Supplement-band VIII (1899-1901), 405-991.

14 bid., pp. 7-8. For the most part, Shklovsky'sreferences to parody are cast in general terms. Cer-vantes is cited frequently: for example, FatherShandy's speech to Toby about the ass is called aparody of Don Quixote's speech to Sancho Panzaon the art ofgovernment (p. 32).

15Ibid., p. 10.16 bid., p. 11.


7/9

A RUSSIAN CRITIC AND "TRISTRAM SHANDY" 97in this position,the authordeclareshisintention o let her stand there forfiveminutes,n order o bring he "affairs fthe kitchen"up to date. Duringthe en-suingdigressions,he authormore thanonce recalls his temporarilybandonedmother "I am a Turk if I had not asmuch forgotmy mother.. ."). Theserecollectionsrenot ntended o interruptthe secondarynarrative CorporalTrimin thekitchen) utsimply to refreshheimpression f the 'forgottenmother.'According o Shklovsky, his detail illus-tratesSterne's wareness f a conventionof long standing-"literarytime." It isnormal n worksof literature oran au-thor o consider imeto be stopped, ratleast not a subjectofcalculation,whenheintroduces subordinatemotive.Shake-speare,for xample, ollowed hisconven-tion in his "parenthetic cenes," whichdistractthe spectatorfrom the normalcourseof time n the drama. Even iftheparenthetic cene consumesonly a fewminutes,he author onsiderstnecessaryto lead the following ction on further,"as ifhours,or even a wholenight,hadpassed." Sterne's ncidental eferencesothe "forgottenmother"represent vari-ationon thishallowed device: he deliber-atelydrawsthe reader's attention o thedeviceand endows t with palpability."'8Sterne's xperiments ith ime rethusviewedagainstthebackground f iterarytradition. Literary ime"in such stand-ard works as Don Quixoteand ManonLescaut s pure convention,aid Shklov-sky.The approachofday ornight s notconnectedwith heunfoldingfthenarra-tive and has no compositional unction;thefactor ftime-durations absent. "InSterne, the conventionality f 'literarytime' s recognized,nd is used as matterfor est."'9Most ofthefamousdigressions

of thenovel revealthis wareness ftech-nique. The artificeof the "discoveredmanuscript" repeatedin A SentimentalJourney),eadingto Yorick's sermon ndrelatedto the main storyby the inter-ruptions fToby and Trim;the Lefevredigression; ristram'sourney developedstep by step in A Sentimental ourney);the"knot"theme; hereferencesoJenny-these and other pisodesare describedin rathergreat detail by Shklovsky ntermsof theircompositional alue. Ontheonehand,Sterne mploys ertainde-vicesto prevent hecompletedisintegra-tionofthenovel; on the otherhand,hedeliberately mphasizesthe existenceofliterary onventionsy violating hem nsuch radical fashion,often withoutap-parentmotivation. hus the "unfinishednarrative" s described s "canonical"forSterne:operating gainstthebackgroundof the adventurenovel, with its fixedformsand set ending (marriage), thenovelist devised alternate formswhichimplied heverydestructionfform. hestairway f one ofSterne'sepisodesmayseemto lead to a landing, ut theexpect-ant reader inds nstead yawning hasm;this,said Shklovsky, s a constant andpremeditatedtylistic evice withSterne.The criticpaused brieflyn his discus-sion to rejectcategoricallyheconceptionof Sterne as a sentimentalist. is state-menthere s typicaloftheearly, xtremeFormalistposition:Sentimentalismsen-timental'nost')annot be the content ofart,"ifonlyfor he reason hat arthas nocontent."Art,he said,has its ownpecul-iar methodsof depiction, nd these are"nonemotional,"r,moreproperly,out-side emotion."20 (Shklovskyherecoins aword,vneemotsial'no,n which the prefixvnehas theforce ftheEnglishprefixa"in amoral.)In illustration f thistheory,familiar enough in literary criticism,Shklovsky ited the exampleofthefairy17 Ibid., p. 13.18Ibid., p. 14.19 Ibid. o20bid., p. 22.


8/9

98 KENNETH E. HARPERtale, replete with accounts of terribledeeds related ngruesome etail.Childreninsistthat these details be retained,be-cause the gruesome ualityhas been al-tered hroughheefficacyf rt. The trag-ic in art is not the same as the tragic nreal life. t is true that the artistmayusecompassion, orexample, s the materialforartistic evelopment; but even hereone must consider t from he composi-tionalpointofview." A man wishing ounderstandthe operationof a machinemustconsider he leatherdriving-beltsa mechanicaldetail;he must notobservethe belt "from hepointofviewof vege-tarian."''21InstancesofSterne'snonemotionalp-proach nclude the treatment fBobby'sdeath.Thenewsof hedeath s ntroducedin such a way thatmisunderstandinge-sultsamongthemembers f thefamily atypical omic ituationnwhich wochar-acters retalking boutdifferenthings).22The motherhearsthenews n theridicu-lous ear-by-doorequence. Sterne's mis-chievousplay on wordsis "noncompas-sionate,"but even more o are the wordsof Father Shandy. Here, said the critic,Sterne illustrateswith unusual clarity"the difference etween happiness'and'misfortune'nreal ife nd the samephe-nomena aken s thematerial or rt."23Only passingreferencean be made to

two other spectsofShklovsky'snalysis.The questionof"poses" in Sterne'schar-actersdrewbriefmention. he critic om-mentedon Sterne'sminutedescriptionfunusualposesandgestures-FatherShan-dy lying n the bed orreachingwkward-ly intohis pocket-and citedtheir nter-estfor heyoungLeo Tolstoy.24hklovskyalso dealt brieflywith the question ofSterne's roticism, hichhe regarded s aformof ostraneniye"makingstrange").The insinuatinganguage and numeroussexual symbolswere essentiallydevicesfor reating novelorunusualeffect;hechief evice n this espectwaseuphemism.Here,25 s elsewhere,Sterne is viewednot as the erratic, irrepressible omicgeniusbut as a master-craftsman,are-fully fashioninghis compositionalma-terial.In conclusion, hklovsky epeatedhisthesis:"The conceptof the subject syu-zhet] f art is too often onfoundedwiththe descriptionof events-with thatwhich I propose to designatethe fable[fabula]."The fable, rstory,s one of thematerialswhichmay constitute he sub-ject ofthework; n Tristramhandy,tisnot the subject.Sterne's constant evela-tionof the formal aws of art is so pro-nounced hat thecontent fthisnovelcanbe described nlyas theperception f tsform.Those who deny that TristramShandy s a novelwillalso denythat thesymphonys music,said Shklovsky. ntruth, Tristramhandy s the mosttypi-cal novel nworld iterature."21This apparentlydeliberateparadox isquite consistentwith the Formalistcon-cernwith"literariness." hklovsky on-tendedthat the formal roblems fnovelwritingwereplaced on exhibit y Sterne.Theseproblemswere tatedexplicitly,l-ludedto,andillustratedydirect xample

21 Ibid., pp. 22-23.22 Ibid., p. 23. Shklovsky cites examples of thissituation in Russian literature and in folk drama,where it is canonical and where it often crowds themain theme offthe stage (pp. 23-25). The same pas-sages are cited in greater detail by E. N. Dfilworth,The UnsentimentalJourneyof Laurence Sterne (NewYork, 1948), pp. 17-19. The refutationofsentimental-ism in Sterne is the chief theme of Dilworth's work;it is only incidental in Shklovsky's.23 bid., p. 28. In thisconnection,Shklovskyquotedthe passage which described Father Shandy's giftfor eloquence: "A blessing which tied up my father'stongue, and a misfortunewhich set it loose with agood grace, were pretty equal: sometimes, indeed, themisfortune was the better of the two; for instance,where the pleasure of the harangue was as ten, andthe pain of the misfortune but as five--my fathergained half n half,and consequentlywas as well againoff, s it never had befallenhim" (Work, p. 352).

24 Ibid., pp. 11-12.25 bid., p. 35.28 Ibid., p. 39.


9/9

A RUSSIANCRITIC AND"TRISTRAMSHANDY" 99orparody.They constituteheessenceofthe novel. t was inthe uthor's warenessand utilization ftechnique hatthecriticfound henovel'senduring, niversal ig-nificance.It isevident hatShklovskyt all timespresumes conscious ormalisticntent nSterne's part. Other explanations ormeanings fthestructural eviations renotconsidered. or example,ndiscussingthedislocation f ime, hklovsky ppearsto have ignored he novelist'sbelief hatthe dea ofduration ftime is gotmerelyfrom hetrain ndsuccession four deas. 7Thisnotion nd thefree-associationrin-ciplederivedfrom ocke are thebasis forSterne'schronologicaleviations. hklov-skywas certainlycquaintedwithmodernpsychologicaldistortions f this nature,bestrepresentednRussiabythenovels fAndreiBely,the"Russian JamesJoyce."In his discussionof the interlacing at-terns and themes of Tristram handy,shouldnot the critichave takeninto ac-count Sterne'sveryreal interestn cur-rent psychological nd philosophicthe-ory?On what grounds an the influenceof Locke be ignored?The apparentanswer s that it is im-possibleto provethe value, or even therelevance, fextra-literaryactors n thecomposition f the novel. Sterne's nter-est in Locke,for xample,maybe admit-ted; but how does one explainhis con-sciousparodyon theprinciple fassocia-tionism?ftheauthorweremerely eflect-ingthe theories fLocke,whyshould heindulge na burlesque f thetheorynac-tion? The factofparodysuggests dif-ferent nterpretation: he primaryfac-tor in chronologicaldistortionwas notSterne's interest n Locke, but a purelyformalisticxperimentation.ctually, heFormalistview is that one cannot deter-minetheprimaryause at all: onecannotreconstructhepsychological rocesses n

Sterne'smind,or imputecertainmotivesto him. If nothingof this sort can beproved,the novel should be takenat itsface value and studied for propertieswhich re inherentnworks f art-formand technique.Conversely, s one be-comesaware ofthegreattechnical irtu-osityofSterne,one is less impressed ythe causal relationship f Locke's theo-ries. Thus, fromhis different antagepoint, heFormalist opesto reveal ruthshidden by generationsof conventionalcommentators.The validity fthe Formalist pproachis,ofcourse, till matter fconsiderabledispute.Although hklovsky's tudy llus-tratesquite well the narrowness f thisapproach,the intrinsicmeritof his anal-ysis should be recognized.One is eventempted o say that the potentialitiesfthiskindof nquiry ave notyetbeen re-alizedinmorerecent riticalworks.Mod-ern scholarship as extendedour admit-tedly imperfect nowledgeof LaurenceSterne, ut in otherdirections. he senti-mentalist nterpretation as been sub-stantiallymodified,nd ourawareness fSterne's interest in eighteenth-centurythought is increasing.Such studies asKennethMacLean's comparisonfSterneand AdamSmithhave contributedo ourunderstanding f Sterne, "that writerwhose work exhibitsand reflectsbothdeeplyand playfullyhe bestphilosophicthoughtof his day."28 t is stillentirelypossible, owever,hat noadequatestudyhas been made of Sterne,thewriter,hecomposer.hklovsky'structuralnalysis,inadequateas it is, seemsto thepresentwriter obe quiteas revealings morere-centstudiesbyWestern pecialistswhosecritical pproach s insomedegree imilarto that of theRussianFormalists.UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES27Work, p. 103. 28 Kenneth MacLean, "Imagination and Sym-pathy: Sterneand Adam Smith," JHI, X (1949), 409.

Documents

A Russian Critic and