A man would be priggish indeed who could not enjoy this queer region

where all the sober proprieties of ordinary logic are as much inverted

as in Alice's Wonderland; where the only serious occupation of a

good man's life is in playing an infantile game; where the passion of

love is only introduced as a passing distraction when the hobby-horse

has accidentally fallen out of gear; where the death of a son merely

supplies an affectionate father with a favourable opportunity for

airing his queer scraps of outworn moralities, and the misnaming of an

infant casts him into a fit of profound melancholy; where everything,

in short, is topsy-turvy, and we are invited to sit down, consuming a

perpetual pipe in an old-fashioned arbour, dreamily amusing ourselves

with the grotesque shapes that seem to be projected, in obedience to

no perceptible law, upon the shifting wreaths of smoke. It would be as

absurd to lecture the excellent brothers upon the absurdity of their

mode of life as to preach morality to the manager of a Punch show,

or to demand sentiment in the writer of a mathematical treatise. 'I

believe in my soul,' says Sterne, rather audaciously, 'that the hand

of the supreme Maker and Designer of all things never made or put a

family together, where the characters of it were cast and contrasted

with so dramatic a felicity as ours was, for this end; or in which

the capacities of affording such exquisite scenes, and the powers

of shifting them perpetually from morning to night, were lodged and

entrusted with so unlimited a confidence as in the Shandy family.' The

grammar of the sentence is rather queer, but we can hardly find fault

with the substance. The remark is made _à propos_ of Mr. Shandy's

attempt to indoctrinate his brother with the true theory of noses,

which is prefaced by the profoundly humorous sentence which expresses

the leading article of Mr. Shandy's creed: 'Learned men, brother

Toby, don't write dialogues upon long noses for nothing.' And, in

fact, one sees how admirably the simplicity of each brother plays

into the eccentricity of the other. The elder Shandy could not have

found in the universe a listener more admirably calculated to act as

whetstone for his strangely-constructed wit, to dissent in precisely

the right tone, not with a brutal intrusion of common-sense, but with

the gentle horror of innocent astonishment at the paradoxes, mixed

with veneration for the portentous learning of his senior. By looking

at each brother alternately through the eyes of his relative, we are

insensibly infected with the intense relish which each feels for the

cognate excellence of the other. When the characters are once familiar

to us, each new episode in the book is a delightful experiment upon

the fresh contrasts which can be struck out by skilfully shifting

their positions and exchanging the parts of clown and chief actor. The

light is made to flash from a new point, as the gem is turned round by

skilled hands. Sterne's wonderful dexterity appears in the admirable

setting which is thus obtained for his most telling remarks. Many of

the most famous sayings, such as Uncle Toby's remark about the fly,

or the recording angel, are more or less adapted from other authors,

but they come out so brilliantly that we feel that he has shown a

full right to property which he can turn to such excellent account.

Sayings quite as witty, or still wittier, may be found elsewhere. Some

of Voltaire's incomparable epigrams, for example, are keener than

Sterne's, but they owe nothing to the Zadig or Candide who supplies

the occasion for the remark. They are thrown out in passing, and shine

by their intrinsic brilliancy. But when Sterne has a telling remark,

he carefully prepares the dramatic situation in which it will have

the whole force due to the concentrated effect of all the attendant

circumstances. 'Our armies swore terribly in Flanders,' cried my

Uncle Toby, 'but nothing to this.' Voltaire could not have made a

happier hit at the excess of the _odium theologicum_, but the saying

comes to us armed with the authority of the whole Shandy conclave.

We have a vision of the whole party sitting round, each charged with

his own peculiar humour. There is Mr. Shandy, whose fancy has been

amazingly tickled by the portentous oath of Ernulfus, as regards

antiquarian curiosity, and has at once framed a quaint theory of the

advantages of profane swearing in order to justify his delight in

the tremendous formula. He regards his last odd discovery with the

satisfaction of a connoisseur; 'I defy a man to swear out of it!'

It includes all oaths from that of William the Conqueror to that

of the humblest scavenger, and is a perfect institute of swearing

collected from all the most learned authorities. And there is the

unlucky Dr. Slop, cleverly enticed into the pitfall by Mr. Shandy's

simple cunning, and induced to exhibit himself as a monster of

ecclesiastical ferocity by thundering forth the sounding anathema at

the ludicrously disproportioned case of Obadiah's clumsy knot-tying;

and to bring out the full flavour of the grotesque scene, we see it

as represented to the childlike intelligence of Uncle Toby, taking

it all in sublime seriousness, whistling lilliburlero to soothe his

nerves under this amazing performance, in sheer wonder at the sudden

revelation of the potentialities of human malediction, and compressing

his whole character in that admirable cry of wonder, so phrased as

to exhibit his innocent conviction that the habits of the armies in

Flanders supplied a sort of standard by which the results of all human

experience might be appropriately measured, and to even justify it in

some degree by the queer felicity of the particular application. A

formal lecturer upon the evils of intolerance might argue in a set

of treatises upon the light in which such an employment of sacred

language would strike the unsophisticated common-sense of a benevolent

mind. The imaginative humourist sets before us a delicious picture of

two or three concrete human beings, and is then able at one stroke to

deliver a blow more telling than the keenest flashes of the dry light

of the logical understanding. The more one looks into the scene and

tries to analyse the numerous elements of dramatic effect to which

his total impression is owing, the more one admires the astonishing

skill which has put so much significance into a few simple words. The

colouring is so brilliant and the touch so firm that one is afraid to

put any other work beside it. Nobody before or since has had so clear

an insight into the meaning which can be got out of a simple scene

by a judicious selection and skilful arrangement of the appropriate

surroundings. Sterne's comment upon the mode in which Trim dropped

his hat at the peroration of his speech upon Master Bobby's death,

affecting even the 'fat, foolish scullion,' is significant. 'Had he

flung it, or thrown it, or skimmed it, or squirted it, or let it

slip or fall in any possible direction under Heaven—or in the best

direction that could have been given to it—had he dropped it like a

goose, like a puppy, like an ass, or in doing it, or even after he had

done it, had he looked like a fool, like a ninny, like a nincompoop,

it had failed, and the effect upon the heart had been lost.' Those

who would play upon human passions and those who are played upon,

or, in Sterne's phrase, those who drive, and those who are driven,

like turkeys to market, with a stick and a red clout are invited to

meditate upon Trim's hat; and so may all who may wish to understand

the secret of Sterne's art.

It is true, unfortunately, that this singular skill—the felicity

with which Trim's cap, or his Montero cap, or Uncle Toby's pipe—is

made to radiate eloquence, sometimes leads to a decided bathos. The

climax so elaborately prepared too often turns out to be a faded bit

of sentimentalism. We rather resent the art which is thrown away

to prepare us for the assertion that 'When a few weeks will rescue

misery out of her distress, I hate the man who can be a churl of

them.' So we hate the man who can lift his hand upon a woman save

in the way of kindness, but we do not want a great writer to adorn

that unimpeachable sentiment with all the jewels of rhetoric. It

is just in these very critical passages that Sterne's taste is

defective, because his feeling is not sound. We are never sure that

we can distinguish between the true gems and the counterfeit. When

the moment comes at which he suddenly drops the tear of sensibility,

he is almost as likely to provoke sneers as sympathy. There is, for

example, the famous donkey, and it is curious to compare the donkey

fed with macaroons in the 'Tristram Shandy' with the dead donkey of

the 'Sentimental Journey,' whose weeping master lays a crust of bread

on the now vacant bit of his bridle. It is obviously the same donkey,

and Sterne has reflected that he can squeeze a little more pathos out

of the animal by actually killing him, and providing a sentimental

master. It seems to me that, in trying to heighten the effect, he

has just crossed the dangerous limit which divides sympathetic from

derisive laughter; and whereas the macaroon-fed animal is a possible,

straightforward beast, he becomes (as higher beings have done) a

humbug in his palpably hypocritical epitaph. Sterne tries his hand

in the same way at improving Maria, who is certainly an effective

embodiment of the mad young woman who has tried to move us in many

forms since the days of Ophelia. In her second appearance, she comes

in to utter the famous sentiment about the wind and the shorn lamb. It

has become proverbial, and been even credited in the popular mind with

a scriptural origin; and considering such a success, one has hardly

the right to say that it has gathered a certain sort of banality.

Yet it is surely on the extreme verge at which the pathetic melts

into the ludicrous. The reflection, however, occurs more irresistibly

in regard to that other famous passage about the recording angel.

Sterne's admirers held it to be sublime at the time, and he obviously

shared the opinion. And it is undeniable that the story of Le Fevre,

in which it is the most conspicuous gem, is a masterpiece in its

way. No one can read it, or better still, hear it from the lips of a

skilful reader, without admitting the marvellous felicity with which

the whole scene is presented. Uncle Toby's oath is a triumph fully

worthy of Shakespeare. But the recording angel, though he certainly

comes in effectively, is a little suspicious to me. It would have been

a sacrifice to which few writers could have been equal, to suppress or

soften that brilliant climax; and, yet, if the angel had been omitted,

the passage would, I fancy, have been really stronger. We might

have been left to make the implied comment for ourselves. For the

angel seems to introduce an unpleasant air as of eighteenth-century

politeness; we fancy that he would have welcomed a Lord Chesterfield

to the celestial mansions with a faultless bow and a dexterous

compliment; and somehow he appears, to my imagination at least,

apparelled in theatrical gauze and spangles rather than in the genuine

angelic costume. Some change passes over every famous passage; the

bloom of its first freshness is rubbed off as it is handed from one

quoter to another; but where the sentiment has no false ring at the

beginning, the colours may grow faint without losing their harmony.

In this angel, and some other of Sterne's best-known touches, we seem

to feel that the baser metal is beginning to show itself through the

superficial enamel.

And this suggests the criticism which must still be made in regard

even to the admirable Uncle Toby. Sterne has been called the English

Rabelais, and was apparently more ambitious himself of being

considered as an English Cervantes. To a modern English reader he is

certainly far more amusing than Rabelais, and he can be appreciated

with less effort than Cervantes. But it is impossible to mention

these great names without seeing the direction in which Sterne falls

short of the highest excellence. We know that, on clearing away the

vast masses of buffoonery and ribaldry under which Rabelais was

forced, or chose, to hide himself we come to the profound thinker and

powerful satirist. Sterne represents a comparatively shallow vein

of thought. He is the mouthpiece of a sentiment which had certainly

its importance in so far as it was significant of a vague discontent

with things in general, and a desire for more exciting intellectual

food. He was so far ready to fool the age to the top of its bent; and

in the course of his ramblings he strikes some hard blows at various

types of hide-bound pedantry. But he is too systematic a trifler

to be reckoned with any plausibility amongst the spiritual leaders

of any intellectual movement. In that sense, 'Tristram Shandy' is

a curious symptom of the existing currents of emotion, but cannot,

like the 'Emile' or the 'Nouvelle Héloïse,' be reckoned as one of the

efficient causes. This complete and characteristic want of purpose

may indeed be reckoned as a literary merit, so far as it prevented

'Tristram Shandy' from degenerating into a mere tract. But the want

of intellectual seriousness has another aspect, which comes out

when we compare Tristram Shandy, for example, with Don Quixote. The

resemblance, which has been often pointed out (as indeed Sterne is

fond of hinting at it himself) consists in this, that in both cases

we see lovable characters through a veil of the ludicrous. As Don

Quixote is a true hero, though he is under a constant hallucination,

so Uncle Toby is full of the milk of human kindness, though his

simplicity makes him ridiculous to the piercing eyes of common-sense.

In both cases, it is inferred, the humourist is discharging his true

function of showing the lovable qualities which may be associated with

a ludicrous outside.

The Don and the Captain both have their hobbies, which they ride with

equal zeal, and there is a close analogy between them. Uncle Toby

makes his own apology in the famous oration upon war. 'What is war,'

he asks, 'but the getting together of quiet and harmless people with

swords in their hands, to keep the turbulent and ambitious within

bounds? And heaven is my witness, brother Shandy, that the pleasure I

have taken in these things, and that infinite delight in particular

which has attended my sieges in the bowling-green, has arisen within

me, and I hope in the Corporal too, from the consciousness that in

carrying them on we were answering the great ends of our creation.'

Uncle Toby's military ardour undoubtedly makes a most piquant addition

to his simple-minded benevolence. The fusion of the gentle Christian

with the chivalrous devotee of honour is perfect; and the kindliest

of human beings, who would not hurt a hair of the fly's head, most

delicately blended with the gallant soldier who, as Trim avers, would

march up to the mouth of a cannon though he saw the match at the very

touchhole. Should anyone doubt the merits of the performance, he might

reassure himself by comparing the scene in which Uncle Toby makes the

speech, just quoted, with a parallel passage in 'The Caxtons,' and

realise the difference between extreme imitative dexterity and the

force of real genius.

It is only when we compare this exquisite picture with the highest art

that we are sensible of its comparative deficiency. The imaginative

force of Cervantes is proved by the fact that Don Quixote and his

followers have become the accepted symbols of the most profoundly

tragic element in human life—of the contrast between the lofty

idealism of the mere enthusiast and the sturdy common-sense of

ordinary human beings—between the utilitarian and the romantic types

of character; and as neither aspect of the truth can be said to be

exhaustive, we are rightly left with our sympathies equally balanced.

The book may be a sad one to those who prefer to be blind; but in

proportion as we can appreciate a penetrative insight into the genuine

facts of life, we are impressed by this most powerful presentation

of the never-ending problem. It is impossible to find in 'Tristram

Shandy' any central conception of this breadth and depth. If Trim

had been as shrewd as Sancho, Uncle Toby would appear like a mere

simpleton. Like a child, he requires a thoroughly sympathetic audience

who will not bring his playthings to the brutal test of actual facts.

The high and earnest enthusiasm of the Don can stand the contrast of

common-sense, though at the price of passing into insanity. But Trim

is forced to be Uncle Toby's accomplice, or his Commander would never

be able to play at soldiers. If Don Quixote had simply amused himself

at a mock tournament, and had never been in danger of mistaking a

puppet-show for a reality, he would certainly have been more credible,

but in the same proportion he would have been commonplace. The

whole tragic element which makes the humour impressive would have

disappeared. Sterne seldom ventures to the limit of the tragic. The

bowling-green of Mr. Shandy's parlance is too exclusively a sleepy

hollow. The air is never cleared by a strain of lofty sentiment. When

Yorick and Eugenius form part of the company, we feel that they are

rather too much at home with offensive suggestions. When Uncle Toby's

innocence fails to perceive their coarse insinuations, we are credited

with clearer perception, and expected to sympathise with the spurious

wit which derives its chief zest from the presence of the pure-minded

victim. And so Uncle Toby comes to represent that stingless virtue,

which never gets beyond the ken or hurts the feelings of the easy-going

epicurean. His perceptions are too slow and his temper too mild to

resent an indecency as his relative, Colonel Newcome, would have done.

He would have been too complacent, even to the outrageous Costigan.

He is admirably kind when a comrade falls ill at his door; but his

benevolence can exhale itself sufficiently in the intervals of

hobby-riding, and his chivalrous temper in fighting over old battles

with the Corporal. We feel that he must be growing fat; that his pulse

is flabby and his vegetative functions predominant. When he falls in

love with the repulsive (for she is repulsive) widow Wadman, we pity

him as we pity a poor soft zoophyte in the clutches of a rapacious

crab; but we have no sense of a wasted life. Even his military ardour

seems to present itself to our minds as due to the simple affection

which makes his regiment part of his family rather than to any

capacity for heroic sentiment. His brain might turn soft; it would

never spontaneously generate the noble madness of a Quixote, though he

might have followed that hero with a more canine fidelity than Sancho.

Mr. Matthew Arnold says of Heine, as we all remember, that:—

The spirit of the world,

Beholding the absurdity of men—

Their vanities, their feats—let a sardonic smile

For one short moment wander o'er his lips—

That smile was Heine.

There is a considerable analogy, as one may note in passing, between

the two men; and if Sterne was not a poet, his prose could perhaps

be even more vivid and picturesque than Heine's. But his humour is

generally wanting in the quality suggested by Mr. Arnold's phrase.

We cannot represent it by a sardonic smile, or indeed by any other

expression which we can very well associate with the world-spirit.

The imaginative humourist must in all cases be keenly alive to the

'absurdity of man;' he must have a sense of the irony of fate, of the

strange interlacing of good and evil in the world, and of the baser

and nobler elements in human nature. He will be affected differently

according to his temperament and his intellectual grasp. He may be

most impressed by the affinity between madness and heroism; by the

waste of noble qualities on trifling purposes; and, if he be more

amiable, by the goodness which may lurk under ugly forms. He may

be bitter and melancholy, or simply serious in contemplating the

fantastic tricks played by mortals before high heaven. But, in any

case, some real undercurrent of deeper feeling is essential to the

humourist who impresses us powerfully, and who is equally far from

mere buffoonery and sentimental foppery. His smile must be at least

edged with melancholy, and his pathos too deep for mere 'snivelling.'

Sterne is often close to this loftier region of the humorous;

sometimes he fairly crosses it; but his step is uncertain as of one

not feeling at home. The absurdity of man does not make him 'sardonic'

He takes things too easily. He shows us the farce of life, and feels

that there is a tragical background to it all; but somehow he is not

usually much disposed to cry over it, and he is obviously proud of

the tears which he manages to produce. The thought of human folly

and suffering does not usually torment and perplex him. The highest

humourist should be the laughing and weeping philosopher in one;

and in Sterne the weeping philosopher is always a bit of a humbug.

The pedantry of the elder Shandy is a simple whim, not a misguided

aspiration; and Sterne is so amused with his oddities that he even

allows him to be obtrusively heartless. Uncle Toby undoubtedly comes

much nearer to complete success; but he wants just that touch of

genuine pathos which he would have received from the hands of the

greatest writers. But the performance is so admirable in the best

passages, where Sterne can drop his buffoonery and his indecency, that

even a criticism which sets him below the highest place seems almost

unfair.

And this may bring us back for a moment to the man himself. Sterne

avowedly drew his own portrait in Yorick. That clerical jester, he

says, was a mere child, full of whim and gaiety, but without an

ounce of ballast. He had no more knowledge of the world at 26 than

a 'romping unsuspicious girl of 13.' His high spirits and frankness

were always getting him into trouble. When he heard of a spiteful

or ungenerous action he would blurt out that the man was a dirty

fellow. He would not stoop to set himself right, but let people think

of him what they would. Thus his faults were all due to his extreme

candour and impulsiveness. It wants little experience of the world to

recognise the familiar portrait of an impulsive and generous fellow.

It represents the judicious device by which a man reconciles himself

to some very ugly actions. It provides by anticipation a complete

excuse for thoughtlessness and meanness. If he is accused of being

inconstant, he points out the extreme goodness of his impulses; and

if the impulses were bad, he argues that at least they did not last

very long. He prides himself on his disregard to consequences, even

when the consequences may be injurious to his friends. His feelings

are so genuine for the moment that his conscience is satisfied

without his will translating them into action. He is perfectly candid

in expressing the passing phrase of sentiment, and therefore does

not trouble himself to ask whether what is true to-day will be true

to-morrow. He can call an adversary a dirty fellow, and is very proud

of his generous indiscretion. But he is also capable of gratifying

the dirty fellow's vanity by high-flown compliments if he happens to

be in the enthusiastic vein; and somehow the providence which watches

over the thoughtless is very apt to make his impulses fall in with

the dictates of calculated selfishness. He cannot be an accomplished

courtier, because he is apt to be found out; but he can crawl and

creep for the nonce with anyone. In real life such a man is often as

delightful for a short time as he becomes contemptible on a longer

acquaintance. When we think of Sterne as a man, and try to frame a

coherent picture of his character, we must give a due weight to the

baser elements of his composition. We cannot forget his shallowness

of feeling and the utter want of self-respect which prompted him to

condescend to be a mere mountebank, and to dabble in filth for the

amusement of graceless patrons. Nor is it really possible entirely to

throw aside this judgment even in reading his works; for even after

abstracting our attention from the rubbish and the indecency, we are

haunted in the really admirable parts by our misgivings as to their

sincerity. But the problem is often one to tax critical acumen. It

is one aspect of a difficulty which meets us sometimes in real life.

Every man flatters himself that he can detect the mere hypocrite. We

seem to have a sufficient instinct to warn us against the downright

pitfalls where an absolute void is covered by an artificial stratum of

mere verbiage. Perhaps even this is not so easy as we sometimes fancy;

but there is a more refined sort of hypocrisy which requires keener

dissection. How are men to draw the narrow and yet all-important line

which separates—not the genuine from the feigned emotion—but the

emotion which is due to some real cause, and that which is a cause in

itself? Some people we know fall in love with a woman, and others are

really in love with the passion. Grief may be the sign of lacerated

affection, or it may be a mere luxury indulged in for its own sake.

The sentimentalism which Sterne represented corresponded in the main

to this last variety. People had discovered the art of extracting

direct enjoyment from their own 'sensibility,' and Sterne expressly

gives thanks for his own as the great consolation of his life. He has

the heartiest possible relish for his tears and lamentations, and it

is precisely his skill in marking this vein of interest which gives

him his extraordinary popularity. So soon as we discover that a man

is enjoying his sorrow our sympathy is killed within us, and for that

reason Sterne is apt to be repulsive to humourists whose sense of

the human tragi-comedy is deeper than his own. They agree with him

that the vanity of human dreams may suggest a mingling of tears and

laughter; but they grieve because they must, not because they find it

a pleasant amusement. Yet it is perhaps unwise to poison our pleasure

by reflections of this kind. They come with critical reflection,

and may at least be temporarily suppressed when we are reading for

enjoyment. We need not sin ourselves by looking a gift horse in the

mouth. The sentiment is genuine at the time. Do not inquire how far it

has been deliberately concocted and stimulated. The man is not only a

wonderful artist, but he is right in asserting that his impulses are

clear and genuine. Why should not that satisfy us? Are we to set up

for so rigid a nature that we are never to consent to sit down with

Uncle Toby and take him as he is made? We may wish, if we please, that

Sterne had always been in his best, and that his tears flowed from

a deeper source. But so long as he really speaks from his heart—and

he does so in all the finer parts of the Toby drama—why should we

remember that the heart was rather flighty, and regarded with too much

conscious complacency by its proprietor? The Shandyism upon which he

prided himself was not a very exalted form of mind, nor one which

offered a very deep or lasting satisfaction. Happily we can dismiss an

author when we please; give him a cold shoulder in our more virtuous

moods, and have a quiet chat with him when we are graciously pleased

to relax. In those times we may admit Sterne as the best of jesters,

though it may remain an open question whether the jester is on the

whole an estimable institution.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] Sterne says in the letter that Hall was over forty; and he was

five years older than Hall.

_COUNTRY BOOKS_

A love of the country is taken, I know not why, to indicate the

presence of all the cardinal virtues. It is one of those outlying

qualities which are not exactly meritorious, but which, for that very

reason, are the more provocative of a pleasing self-complacency.

People pride themselves upon it as upon early rising, or upon

answering letters by return of post. We recognise the virtuous hero

of a novel as soon as we are told that the cat instinctively creeps

to his knee, and that the little child clutches his hand to stay

his tottering steps. To say that we love the country is to make

an indirect claim to a similar excellence. We assert a taste for

sweet and innocent pleasures, and an indifference to the feverish

excitements of artificial society. I, too, love the country—if such a

statement can be received after such an exordium; but I confess—to be

duly modest—that I love it best in books. In real life I have remarked

that it is frequently damp and rheumatic, and most hated by those

who know it best. Not long ago, I heard a worthy orator at a country

school-treat declare to his small audience that honesty, sobriety,

and industry, in their station in life, might possibly enable them

to become cabdrivers in London. The precise form of the reward was

suggested, I fancy, by some edifying history of an ideal cabman; but

the speaker clearly knew the road to his hearers' hearts. Perhaps the

realisation of this high destiny might dispel their illusions. Like

poor Susan at the corner of Wood Street, they would see

Bright volumes of vapour through Lothbury glide,

And a river flow on through the vale of Cheapside.

The Swiss, who at home regards a mountain as an unmitigated nuisance,

is (or once was) capable of developing sentimental yearnings for the

Alps at the sound of a _ranz des vaches_. We all agree with Horace

that Rome is most attractive at Tibur, and _vice versâ_. It is the man

who has been 'long in populous cities pent' who, according to Milton,

enjoys

The smell of grain or tedded grass or kine,

Or daisy, each rural sight, each rural sound;

and the phrase is employed to illustrate the sentiments of a being

whose enjoyment of paradise was certainly enhanced by a sufficiently

contrasted experience.

Hours in a Library, Volume 3 New Edition, with Additions · 第 12 / 28 段