A Russian Critic and "Tristram Shandy" Author(s): Kenneth E. Harper Reviewed work(s): Source: Modern Philology, Vol.

52, No. 2 (Nov., 1954), pp. 92-99 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

A RUSSIAN CRITIC AND TRISTRAM SHANDY

KENNETH E. HARPER

obvious reasons, is not well acquainted with the large body of Russian literary criticismand scholarship. This generalizationcan be made even with referenceto the Formalist school of criticism-a modern development which should have attracted the interestof students of literatureeverywhere.Those whoare acquaintedwiththe and provocative Formalist highlyoriginal studies recognize their value and urge that the language gap somehow be The most practical solution to bridged.1 wouldbe the extensive the problem translation of representative Formalistworks, since our present information, best, at comes second hand. In the absence of it such translations, would appear that reviews or summariesof specificcritical studies mightserve a usefulpurpose. It is likely, moreover,that the Formalist approachcouldbe mostaccurately judged in a piece of criticism dealingwithWestern literature. This, at least, is the premise ofthe present paper,whichis designed for American non-Slavic scholars unfamiliar with this Russian school of criticism. The workchosenforreviewis Victor Shklovsky's study,"Sterne's Tristram and the Theoryof the Novel."2 Shandy A fewintroductory wordsare in order, it shouldbe clear that what folalthough lows is in no way an analysis or descriptionoftheFormalist school.It is extremeto difficult generalizeabout this comly whichfunctioned, plex critical movement,
1 The most extensive treatment of the Russian Formalists in English is a recent Columbia University dissertation by Victor Erlich. A concise review is given by Manfred Kridl, "Russian Formalism," American Bookman, I (1944), 19-30; and referencesto individual Formalist critics are made by Wellek and Warren, Theory of Literature (New York, 1949).
[MODERN

HEWestern for of world, a number roughly,from 1916 to the close of the

1920's. The Formalists werenon-Marxian and scholars, linguists looselyunitedby a concern with problemsof artisticform. The avant-garde theirday, theyshared of withRussian Futurist authorsa profound distrust traditional of and critical literary methods. Specifically, they objected to the exclusiveconcernof criticswith "exelements(social,psychologitra-literary" and to the direction of cal, philosophical) Symbolist poetryand poetic theory.The Formalistssoughtto erecta "science" of or literary studyand to make literature, "literariness" itself,the object of study; theirgoal was "to createan independent scienceon the basis ofthe specific literary of peculiarities literary material."' They were concernedwith a study of special "devices"-with the qualitiesand literary which differentiated literature properties fromotherforms writing. opposing of To schools of criticism, this interest implied a disregard "content"in art. The Forfor malists,however,denied the distinction betweenformand content;the latter is seen merelyas one of the manifestations of form.Language, metaphor, structure, and "content"are all seen as "devices" in the hands of the artist;the utilizationof all these elementscontributes the speto cific quality of literature-that is, to "literariness."4

2 Victor Shklovsky, "Tristram Shendi" Sterna i teoriya romana (St. Petersburg, 1921). This rare first edition was made available to the writer through the kindness of Professor Roman Jakobson, of Harvard University. Shklovsky's study was reprinted under the title of "Parodiyny roman" ("A Novel of Parody") in the collection of his studies entitled 0 teorii prozy (2d ed.; Moscow, 1929). No English translation exists, to the knowledge of the present writer. a Boris Eikhenbaum, Literatura (Leningrad, 1927), p. 117. 4 Ibid., p. 125.

PmILOLOT, November,1954]

92

A RUSSIAN CRITIC AND "TRISTRAM SHANDY"

93

Since language is the basic materialof written about Sterne. Shklovsky's apalthe literature, Formalistsmade linguistic proachis clearly"antisentimentalist," is someanalysis their specialty. They produced thoughthe basis of his objection from that of antisentimenstudiesofpoetic"style," what different interesting highly criticism. Western to talistsin contemporary the rhythm, relationofrhythm rhyme, of poeticlanguage,and theshifting formal Scholarshipwhich seeks eitherto estabin fromperiod to pe- lish or to denysentimentalism Tristram patternsin literature valriod. A distinctionwas made between Shandyis dealingwithextra-literary The "literarito practical and poetic language. Thus ues, according Shklovsky. one Shklovsky, oftheleadersofthemove- ness" of the novel was not to be foundin to ment,studiedthe utilizationin poetryof the author'sadherenceor rebellion an cult of the emotions. words "outside of meaning,"and by the eighteenth-century devicewhichhe called ostraneniye ("mak- Sterne's relation to this cult may be on of ing strange"). Reality is "made strange" worthy investigation othergrounds, but it is not a legitimate in orderto preventits automaticpercepsubject of Formalist criticism.Shklovskyheld that a of tion,sincethefunction thepoeticimage but to work of art is merely the "sum of its is not to insure comprehension focused create a special, noncognitive perception stylisticdevices"; he therefore the purelyliteror "vision." The Formalistsearchforthe his wholeattention upon took manydi- arydevicesin Tristram of attributes "literariness" Shandy-i.e., upon it rections; shouldbe said, in passing,that the formal elements which had been these studies were by no means "inte- slightedin traditional scholarship. to It is interesting observeShklovsky's grated" or consistent in methodology. The tenets of Formalist criticismwere deliberatechoice of Tristram Shandy-a novel-as the sub"formless" termsby men notoriously in oftenexpressed extreme but whoseaim was not moderation a kind ject of "formal" analysis. This selection in the face of the was based, of course,upon his appreciaof salutarydogmatism dogmatismof the previousage. The bal- tion of the formalqualities of the novel could be suppliedby and of the elements of regularityand anced interpretation a later,more prosaic age; the immediate order in Sterne. This was an unconvennot science tional interpretation only in Russia task was the creationof a literary of the in the year 1921. As late as 1936, Profeswhichwould admit the importance to sor JamesA. Work referred the "gen"device." literary that Shklov- eral opinion" of modern critics in the to recognize It is essential by Shandyis con- West that the novel was distinguished sky's analysis of Tristram ducted in this spirit of inquiry.His ag- disorderand lack of logic.5In turn,Proof fessorWork offered certain reservations gressivelyunorthodoxinterpretation the novel followsquite naturally.Sterne to this generalopinion,and his approach had long been establishedin Russia as a is worthnotingby way of contrastwith he sentimentalist.A Sentimental Journey, Shklovsky's.Specifically, pointed to devicesused by Sterne: in translated 1793,had made him a lead- certainstructural to ing influencein Russian pre-Romantic references veritable chronology,the was translat- chronological literature Shandy sequence of the two main (Tristram in part,in 1804). It was undoubtedly actions of the story,the foresighted planed, which Shklovskyhad ning of incidentslater to be developed, this interpretation aJames Aiken Work (ed.), The Life and Opinions in mindwhenhe said, on the first page of of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (New York, 1940), his study,that only"banalities"had been p. xlvi.

94

E. KENNETH HARPER

and the principle of the association of discusses his problems and intentions. ideas, derived fromLocke. The latter is Sternealso reliedheavilyupon the prachis since this is a novel tice ofrevealing techniquedirectly, by especiallyimportant, of opinions,not of action, and since it concreteexample. In thus "laying bare" reflectsthe "unpredictable (but irrefu- the novelist's technique, he usually rethat from the fullexplanation, trusting table) logic of conversation"; interpo- frains lationof Sterne'sown associatedideas ad- the reader will correctlyinterprethis said but his di- meaningand intent.Unfortunately, mittedly complicatesmatters, been are always planned for further Shklovsky, intentions his have often gressions effect.' Professor Work argues that a misinterpreted, except in instances of semblance of normalcyis preservedand obvious parody of otherwriters.It was that wheredisorderreigns,it is Sterne's more commonto ascribe Sterne'stechniconcernwiththe irrationality the sub- cal experimentation caprice. of to consciouswhich is responsible. These reAs an example of Sterne's practiceof marks on structureare complemented "layingbare" his devices,Shklovsky cites with an acknowledgmentof Sterne's such obviouseccentricities the deliberas and of the ate misplacing the preface, dedicaplace as a sentimentalist humorist. was narrower tion, and certain individual chapters. Shklovsky's approach and also moreextreme. have said that Often critics have frownedupon these We he was not seekingrecognizable patterns "tricks"as irritating, ignoblebuffoonery. or offering balanced interpretation a of According Shklovsky, to Sterne'spurpose the whole. He was concernedonly with shouldbe evident:he is merely "retarding the formalelementsin Tristram of Shandy the transposition action."' The referand their illustration Formalisttheo- ence hereis to a universalconcernof the of ries. To him, this was pre-eminently novelistto avoid overlyabrupt changes a novel offormand aboutform, and Sterne whenhe wishesto further actionor to the is everywhere consciousinnovatorand transfer fromone set of charactersto a it The "abnormali- another.This problemis oftensolved by experimenter. structural of ties" are proof thenovelist's involvedin a wellpreoccupa- partingthe characters tion with formaldevices. The apparent placed "separationscene." Sterne'svariachaos is viewed not as the product of tion on this solutionwas simplyto insert but whimsyor eccentricity as the result a passage or chapterwhichhas no logical and rationalplan. Further, relation whathas gonebefore. ofa deliberate to The misthe appearance of disorderliness mis- placed passage has a definite"braking" is leading:actually,Shklovsky declared,the effect, fully as great as if a separation novel is as orderlyand meaningful a scenehad been devised.The factthat this as Picasso painting.7 in is done consciously, undisguiseddefiTo Shklovsky, Sterne'sabidinginterest ance of "normality,"does not point to in formalproblems is self-evident. The Sterne'swhimsicality; it rather, is an incritic was particularly delighted with stance of his habit of "laying bare" one Sterne's consistentpractice of revealing of the formal compositionaldevices to his formaldevices to the reader. These whichall novelists have recourse. revelationsare sometimesmade in the One mightadd that Sterne, upon occahis purely expositorymanner of Fielding-- sion,actuallydoes inform readerthat in chatswiththereader, whichtheauthor he is "laying bare" his compositional methods.A clear illustration contained is 6 Ibid., p. li.
7 Shklovsky, p. 4.
s Ibid., p. 5.

A RUSSIAN CRITIC AND "TRISTRAMSHANDY"

95

in the first two paragraphsof chapter4, Locke. The subtleway in whichapparentBook II. Having endedthepreviouschap- ly irrelevant digressionscontribute to ter with an impassioned apostrophe to character development,for example, is Uncle Toby, he continues: not considered. is in Shklovsky interested I Wouldnot give a groatforthat man's the mechanicaldetails of the digressions From this in who knowledge pencraft, does not under- ratherthan in the total effect. standthis,-Thatthebestplainnarrative point of view, his discussionis highlyinin theworld, tack'dvery closeto thelastspirited teresting and original. to have apostrophe my uncle Toby,-would The novelbeginswithone ofthesetemfeltboth cold and vapid upon the reader's After introductory the poralirregularities. I palate;-therefore forthwith an end to paragraphon the inabilityof Tristram's put the chapter,-though was in the middle I of parentsto "mindwhat theywereabout," mystory. with the brief -Writersof mystamphaveone principle the reader is confronted and father the on colloquyof the mother in common withpainters.-Where exact an makesour pictures striking, windingof clocks. The reader draws a less we copying about the subjectofdiscuschoose the less evil; deeming even more falseinference it to than sion, and only later is given the correct pardonable trespassagainsttruth, cum "causes beauty.-Thisis to be understood grano explanation. Here,said Shklovsky, is are given afterconsequences;the author salis; but be it as it will,-as the parallel made moreforthe sake of letting apos- makes it possibleforthe readerto make the trophecool, than any thingelse,-'tis not wrong pracguesses."'0In usual narrative whether score tice a verymaterial uponany other given event may be symbolized by thereader of approves it ornot.9 the geometrical of figure a cone: the cone point is that Sterne'sgeneral is inverted, Shklovsky's i.e., joined to the base line of of retardingthe transposition the novel at its tip; the further ramificapractice ("lettingthe apostrophecool") is normal- tions of the event spread out fromthis ly not advertised so openly. The critic initialpointto fillout the cone. In Sterne, hereattributes certainconsciousmotive however,the reverseis true: the cone is a to Sterne. Nowhere does he supporthis upright-joined to the main narrative at view by the novelist's own testimony. its base; the causal moment(the tip) is One may ormaynotagreewithShklovsky reachedonly afterthe whole seriesof acthat the formaleffect whichhe describes tionsmakingup the eventhave been unis actually attained; in any instance,one folded. Shklovskycites instancesof this need not agree that Sterne'sintent ex- techniquein otherauthors (AndreiBely, is formalistic. clusively Goncharov, Turgenev, Gogol), but says it The misplacing chapters ofcourse, is a permanent feature of Tristram of is, a relativelyminor matter. Much more Shandy.) common, said Shklovsky, is the "disShklovskysaw in Sterne's method of placementof time"-a device employed introducingnew charactersanother inthe throughout whole novel. Sterne's ex- stance of his disregard for logical seperimentationwith temporal sequence quence. Oftenthe new arrivalwill break and the concomitantdigressionswhich into the scene with a strangeor utterly characterize novelare the real subject inappropriate the remark.Sterne will subseof Shklovsky'sstudy. Here the Russian quently provide the necessary explanacriticseems to be unaware of the heavy tion,by way ofa flashback. This inverted reliance of Sterne upon the writingsof 10o Shklovsky, p. 6.
9 Work, p. 91.
11Ibid.

96

KENNETH HARPER E. cates that this is deliberatelydone by Sterne. Parody is deliberate, properly speaking. The writer,again, does not the specify objects of parody. Shklovskyselected several digressions in Tristram the conShandyto illustrate A scious parodyofconvention. typicalexample is the digressionon Uncle Toby from pointwherehe removesthe pipe the his from mouthto say, "I think. . . ," to the point where his sentenceis finished (Book I, chap. 21, to Book II, chap. 6). "is "This device,"says the critic, consistent in Sterne, and, as is clear fromhis jestingmentionof Uncle Toby along the way, he not onlyperceivesthe hyperbolism of hisdevelopment, amuses himbut selfwithit."'" Shklovsky's point is that Sterne, in supplyingbackgroundmaterialon Uncle the Toby, was not obliged to interrupt latter in the middle of a sentenceor to leave the sentencesuspendedin mid-air fora distanceof some thirty pages. Furit thermore, would not have been necesthe with refsary to interrupt digression erences to the suspended sentence. His reason for doing the unnecessaryis his conscious desire to parody established practices. Another instance is the long UncleToby's remark: digression following "I wish you had seen what prodigious armies we had in Flanders" (Book II, chap. 18). The phrase is repeated more than once in the courseof the succeeding Sterneis Here, as elsewhere, digressions. "consciously overdoing it"-i.e., he is intentionally burlesquing conventional methodsof introducing new material in his subplot.1" In thisconnection also cited Shklovsky the passage in whichthe authorleaves his motherstandingat the door,listeningto the conversationin the adjoining room (Book V, chaps. 5-13). Placinghis mother
15Ibid., p. 10. 16 Ibid., p. 11.

time sequence is common in literature, but it usually servesa narrative purpose. (Shklovskycites variationsof it in Gogol and in Pushkin'sfamousstory,The Shot, where the order of thingsis II, I, III.) Sterne,said the critic, usuallyhas no such narrativepurpose: his chronologicalinversionsare quite arbitrary and are introduced nakedly, for all the world to
see.12

Anotherexperiment with temporalsequence, openlyrevealed to the reader,is the process of "weaving together"separate storiesinto the main narrative. Here Shklovsky argues that Sterne is consciously parodying established models. his Normally, a novelist will interrupt main story to introduce a secondary theme,or subplot; if thereare two main scenesfrom one of thesealternate stories, with scenes from the other. (In Don the adventuresof the hero may Quixote, be alternated withthe adventures Sanof cho Panza.)I3 Sternerejectedthe "canonical methodsoffitting into separatestories the main novel." If he does employthese methods,he does so in such a way that their purely conventionalnature is revealed. His exaggerateddevelopmentof secondarythemesis a kind of burlesque or parody.'4Shklovsky'sstatementindi12 Ibid., p. 7. Ia Shklovsky cites a differentprinciple in Homer, where two events are never shown to be simultaneous. Even when logic demands that two events should be simultaneous, they are represented as consecutive actions; at best, a secondary action may "coexist" with a main action, remaining in an "inactive state" (pp. 7-8). These observations are credited to Zelinsky, unquestionably T. Zielinski, the eminent classical scholar, who had published a study entitled "The Law of Non-simultaneityand the Composition of the Iliad" (1896, in Russian); according to informationsupplied by Professor Ren6 Wellek, this piece is also available in a German version: "Die Behandlung gleichzeitiger Vorg5nge im antiken Epos," Philologus, Supplementband VIII (1899-1901), 405-991.

14Ibid., pp. 7-8. For the most part, Shklovsky's references to parody are cast in general terms. Cervantes is cited frequently: for example, Father Shandy's speech to Toby about the ass is called a parody of Don Quixote's speech to Sancho Panza on the art of government (p. 32).

A RUSSIAN

CRITIC AND "TRISTRAM SHANDY"

97

in this position,the author declares his of the novelrevealthisawarenessoftechintentionto let her stand there for five nique. The artificeof the "discovered of manuscript"(repeated in A Sentimental minutes,in orderto bringthe "affairs the kitchen"up to date. During the en- Journey), leadingto Yorick's sermonand the author more than related to the main storyby the intersuing digressions, abandoned ruptionsof Toby and Trim; the Lefevre once recalls his temporarily Tristram's mother ("I am a Turk if I had not as digression; journey(developed much forgot my mother.. ."). These step by step in A Sentimental Journey); to to recollections not intended interrupt the "knot" theme;thereferences Jenny are Trim -these and otherepisodes are described the secondarynarrative(Corporal in the kitchen)but simply"to refresh the in rather great detail by Shklovskyin " of mother.' terms of their compositionalvalue. On impression the 'forgotten illus- the one hand, Sterneemployscertaindethis detail to According Shklovsky, tratesSterne'sawarenessof a convention vices to preventthe completedisintegraof long standing-"literary time." It is tion of the novel; on the otherhand, he for normalin works of literature an au- deliberately emphasizesthe existenceof or at literary timeto be stopped, conventions violatingthemin thorto consider by whenhe such radical fashion,often without apleast not a subject ofcalculation, introducesa subordinatemotive. Shake- parentmotivation.Thus the "unfinished as thisconven- narrative"is described "canonical" for speare,forexample,followed tion in his "parentheticscenes," which Sterne:operating againstthe background distract the spectator from the normal of the adventure novel, with its fixed course of time in the drama. Even if the forms and set ending (marriage), the parentheticscene consumes only a few novelist devised alternate forms which it of the The minutes, authorconsiders necessary impliedthe verydestruction form. to lead the following action on further, stairwayof one of Sterne'sepisodesmay "as if hours,or even a whole night,had seem to lead to a landing,but the expectinsteada yawning to ant readerfinds passed." Sterne'sincidentalreferences chasm; mother"represent vari- this, said Shklovsky,is a constant and a the "forgotten ation on thishalloweddevice: he deliber- premeditated device withSterne. stylistic in The criticpaused briefly his discusately draws the reader's attentionto the it with"palpability."'8 sion to rejectcategorically conception the deviceand endows withtimeare thus of Sterne as a sentimentalist. stateHis Sterne'sexperiments of the background literary menthereis typicalof the early,extreme viewedagainst tradition."Literarytime" in such stand- Formalistposition:Sentimentalism (senard works as Don Quixote and Manon timental'nost') cannot be the contentof Lescaut is pure convention, said Shklov- art, "if onlyforthe reasonthatart has no The approach of day or nightis not content."Art,he said, has its own peculsky. of withtheunfolding thenarra- iar methods of depiction,and these are connected tive and has no compositional "outor, function; "nonemotional," moreproperly, is the factorof time-duration absent. "In side emotion."20 (Shklovskyhere coins a of in Sterne, the conventionality 'literary word,vneemotsial'no, which the prefix and is used as matter vnehas the forceofthe Englishprefix "a" time' is recognized, forjest."'9 Most ofthefamousdigressions in amoral.) In illustration this theory, of familiar enough in literary criticism, Ibid., p. 13. 18 Ibid., p. 14. Shklovskycited the example of the fairy
17

19 Ibid.

Ibid., o20

p. 22.

98

KENNETH E. HARPER

tale, replete with accounts of terrible deeds relatedin gruesome detail. Children insist that these details be retained,because the gruesomequality has been alteredthrough efficacy art. The tragthe of ic in art is not the same as the tragicin real life.It is truethat the artistmay use compassion,forexample,as the material for artisticdevelopment;"but even here one must considerit fromthe compositional point of view." A man wishingto understandthe operation of a machine must considerthe leatherdriving-belt as a mechanicaldetail; he must not observe the belt "from pointofview ofa vegethe tarian."''21 Instances of Sterne'snonemotional apof proach include the treatment Bobby's death.The newsofthedeath is introduced in such a way that misunderstanding resultsamongthe members the family(a of in typicalcomicsituation whichtwo charactersare talking about different things).22 The motherhears the news in the ridiculous ear-by-door sequence. Sterne's mischievous play on words is "noncompassionate," but even moreso are the words of Father Shandy. Here, said the critic, Sterne illustrates with unusual clarity "the difference between 'happiness' and in 'misfortune' real lifeand the same phenomenatakenas thematerial art."23 for can Only passingreference be made to
pp. 22-23. p. 23. Shklovsky cites examples of this situation in Russian literature and in folk drama, where it is canonical and where it often crowds the main theme offthe stage (pp. 23-25). The same passages are cited in greater detail by E. N. Dfilworth, The UnsentimentalJourney of Laurence Sterne (New York, 1948), pp. 17-19. The refutationof sentimentalism in Sterne is the chief theme of Dilworth's work; it is only incidental in Shklovsky's. 23 Ibid., p. 28. In this connection, Shklovsky quoted the passage which described Father Shandy's gift for eloquence: "A blessing which tied up my father's tongue, and a misfortune which set it loose with a good grace, were pretty equal: sometimes, indeed, the misfortune was the better of the two; for instance, where the pleasure of the harangue was as ten, and the pain of the misfortune but as five--my father gained half in half, and consequently was as well again off,as it never had befallen him" (Work, p. 352).
21 Ibid., 22 Ibid.,

two otheraspectsof Shklovsky's analysis. The questionof "poses" in Sterne'scharactersdrewbrief mention. The critic comof mentedon Sterne'sminutedescription unusualposes and gestures-FatherShanawkwarddy lyingon the bed or reaching ly into his pocket-and cited theirinterest fortheyoungLeo Tolstoy.24 Shklovsky also dealt brieflywith the question of whichhe regarded a as Sterne'seroticism, formof ostraneniye ("making strange"). The insinuating language and numerous sexual symbols were essentiallydevices forcreating novel or unusual effect; a the deviceinthisrespect euphemism. was chief Here,25as elsewhere, Sterne is viewed comic not as the erratic, irrepressible caregenius but as a master-craftsman, fully fashioninghis compositionalmaterial. In conclusion,Shklovskyrepeated his thesis: "The concept of the subject[syuwith zhet]of art is too oftenconfounded the description of events-with that which I propose to designate the fable is [fabula]."The fable,or story, one ofthe materialswhichmay constitute the subShandy,it is ject of the work;in Tristram notthe subject. Sterne'sconstantrevelation of the formallaws of art is so pronouncedthatthecontent thisnovelcan of be describedonly as the perception its of form. Those who deny that Tristram Shandyis a novel will also deny that the symphonyis music, said Shklovsky.In "Tristram truth, Shandyis the mosttypical novel in worldliterature."21 This apparentlydeliberateparadox is with the Formalistconquite consistent cern with "literariness." Shklovskycontendedthat the formal of problems novel wereplaced on exhibitby Sterne. writing These problems alwerestated explicitly, ludedto,and illustrated directexample by
Ibid., pp. 11-12. 25Ibid., p. 35. 28 Ibid., p. 39.
24

A RUSSIAN CRITIC AND "TRISTRAMSHANDY" or parody.They constitute essenceof the thenovel.It was in theauthor'sawareness and utilization technique of that the critic foundthe novel's enduring, universalsignificance. It is evidentthatShklovsky all times at a conscious formalistic on intent presumes Sterne's part. Other explanations or deviationsare meaningsof the structural not considered. example,in discussing For thedislocation time,Shklovsky of appears to have ignoredthe novelist'sbeliefthat the idea ofdurationoftime"is gotmerely from trainand succession ourideas.27 the of This notionand the free-association prinLocke are the basis for ciple derivedfrom Sterne'schronological deviations.Shklovwas certainly sky acquaintedwithmodern distortions this nature, of psychological best represented Russia by thenovelsof in AndreiBely, the "Russian JamesJoyce." In his discussionof the interlacing patterns and themes of TristramShandy, should not the critichave taken into account Sterne's very real interestin current psychologicaland philosophictheory? On what groundscan the influence of Locke be ignored? The apparent answer is that it is impossible to prove the value, or even the factorsin the relevance,of extra-literary of the novel. Sterne's intercomposition est in Locke, forexample,may be admitted; but how does one explain his conscious parody on the principle associaof If tionism? theauthorweremerely reflectthe theoriesof Locke, why should he ing in indulgein a burlesqueof thetheory action? The fact of parody suggestsa different interpretation: the primary factor in chronologicaldistortionwas not Sterne's interestin Locke, but a purely formalistic experimentation. Actually,the Formalistview is that one cannot determinethe primary cause at all: one cannot reconstruct psychological the processesin
27Work, p. 103.

99

Sterne'smind,or imputecertainmotives to him. If nothingof this sort can be proved,the novel should be taken at its face value and studied for properties in whichare inherent worksof art-form and technique. Conversely,as one becomes aware of the greattechnicalvirtuosity of Sterne,one is less impressedby the causal relationship Locke's theoof ries. Thus, from his different vantage point,theFormalist hopesto revealtruths hidden by generationsof conventional commentators. The validityofthe Formalistapproach is, of course,stilla matterof considerable dispute.Although Shklovsky's studyillustrates quite well the narrowness this of the intrinsic meritof his analapproach, ysis should be recognized.One is even of temptedto say that the potentialities have not yet been rethiskind of inquiry alized in morerecentcritical works.Modern scholarship has extendedour admittedly imperfect knowledgeof Laurence but in otherdirections. The sentiSterne, mentalist interpretation has been suband our awarenessof stantiallymodified, Sterne's interest in eighteenth-century thought is increasing.Such studies as KennethMacLean's comparison Sterne of and Adam Smithhave contributed our to of Sterne, "that writer understanding whose work exhibits and reflectsboth the deeplyand playfully best philosophic of his day."28It is still entirely thought thatno adequate study however, possible, has been made of Sterne,the writer, the structural composer. Shklovsky's analysis, inadequate as it is, seems to the present writer be quite as revealing morereto as cent studiesby Western specialistswhose critical approachis in some degreesimilar to that of the Russian Formalists.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES
28 Kenneth MacLean, "Imagination and Sympathy: Sterne and Adam Smith," JHI, X (1949), 409.