Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Sterne, 'Tristram Shandy
>
Week 1: 'Tristram Shandy, Vol 1, Chapters 1 - 12
date
newest »
newest »
Listening to this read aloud is great fun, but I want to read in print not to miss anything . (I’ve got the audible version with Anton Lesser.).
Does anyone know the meaning of the Greek quotation at the beginning?
Susan wrote: "Does anyone know the meaning of the Greek quotation at the beginning?"I found this so far, but I am not sure how satisfied I am by it:
Not things, but opinions about things, trouble men.
Found this alternative: Ταρασσει τοὐϚ Ἀνϑρώπους οὐ τὰ Πράγματα, αλλα τὰ περι τῶν Πραγμάτων, Δογματα.It is not events [pragmata] themselves that trouble people, but their judgements [dogmata] about those circumstances.
Epictetus, Handbook 5
I tried reading this many years ago--I remember the clock story, but not Yorrick, so I doubt I got very far. I thought this was pretty droll:"be no more plagued and pestered with them the rest of the month."
I assume this was droll in 1759 as well.
Cphe wrote: "Does anyone know what age Tristram is at the beginning of the novel?"Parson Yorick might have said, "Ah ha! A trick question. Tristram was not yet born at the beginning of the novel." :)
Here is a more grave guess at his age. In Chapter 5, he claims he was born in November, 1718. Vols. 1 and 2 were published in December 1759. That would make him at least 41 years and one month by the time the first volumes were published.
The narrator is all over the map. He blurts out whatever is on his mind--in a sort of stream of consciousness that pre-dates Virginia Woolf and James Joyce. I love his dry sense of humor. Events are not told in a chronological sequence but jump about all over the place with digressions thrown here and interruptions thrown there. It’s pretty chaotic. I get the impression that this is not so much about a life as it is about giving us insight into the workings of his mind. I have no idea where he is going with all this, but so far, I’m enjoying this rambunctious romp through someone else’s mind.
It remains to be seen whether or not he can sustain it and, if he does, whether or not it gets pretty old, pretty quickly.
I had a hard time with the chaotic flow of consciousness narrative and the antiquated figure of speech at first, but I'm barely managing to keep up with the story. I agree that it's more of Tristram's opinion of other people's lives (I guess the midwife's story is up next) than of his own life, but I guess there wasn't much to tell of a fetal life. It reminds me of watching 'Look Who's Talking'.My kindle edition has two black pages and I at first thought there was a bug and then I'm like: 'Oh....' I had a similar double-take when reading Jonathan Safran Foer's novel in paperback. "Huh? Wait..Oh." It's surprising to see this kind of postmodern typographic innovation in such an old book.
Was the 'clock' Tristram's mother referred to was a euphemism for the biological clock of the ovulatory cycle? Without barrier contraception, periodic abstinence must have been the only family planning available. The 'wind up the clock' reminds me of a euphemism for sex appearing in old Scottish folk songs - 'wind up her little ball of yarn'.
Yorick looking at his bony horse and reflecting on vanitas seems to be a comical homage to Hamlet pondering over Yorick's skull. His life sure seemed to end too soon, even before Tristram was born!
Borum wrote: "Was the 'clock' Tristram's mother referred to was a euphemism for the biological clock of the ovulatory cycle?"I read the clock winding as an event associated in a "Lockean" manner with the family concernments that always followed, family concernments being the euphemism for sex.
. . .my poor mother could never hear the said clock wound up,—but the thoughts of some other things unavoidably popp’d into her head,—& vice versâ:—which strange combination of ideas, the sagacious Locke, who certainly understood the nature of these things better than most men,Tristram's father was a very regular man.
. . .he had made it a rule for many years of his life,—on the first Sunday night of every month throughout the whole year,—as certain as ever the Sunday night came,——to wind up a large house-clock which we had standing upon the back-stairs head, with his own hands:—And being somewhere between fifty and sixty years of age, at the time I have been speaking of,—he had likewise gradually brought some other little family concernments to the same period,Since his poor mother could never hear the clock being wound, she decided on this occasion to inquire about it at the critical moment.
Borum wrote: "Yorick . . .His life sure seemed to end too soon, even before Tristram was born!"The author skips around in time quite a bit. The story line is far from linear and I suspect we will be hearing much more from Yorick during the Tristram's lifetime.
It's taking a while for this story to get started.
Borum wrote: "... It's surprising to see this kind of postmodern typographic innovation in such an old book...."Or to realize whom Foer might have imitated?
David wrote: "Since his poor mother could never hear the clock being wound, she decided on this occasion to inquire about it at the critical moment. ..."I read that a little differently -- more along the lines of "whenever," and on this night she had missed hearing the wind-up, so asked about it at the wrong moment (or wasn't quite as anticipatory as usual) -- "but" seems key to the interpretation? But, whichever, .....[g]
". . .my poor mother could never hear the said clock wound up,—but..."
I just wonder if she could never hear the clock being wound up, how did she establish the association?I watched a movie based on TS which explained the association as a kind of Pavlovian response, which helps make sense of & vice versâ in the statement other things unavoidably popp’d into her head,—& vice versâ. It was explained on this occasion there was no initial stimulus of hearing the clock being wound up, thus her head was not in it, prompting the question.
David wrote: "It was explained on this occasion there was no initial stimulus of hearing the clock being wound up, thus her head was not in it, prompting the question. ..."Uh, huh!
I got the impression that his mother's question about winding up the clock upset his father because it came while they were in the process of "begetting" Tristram. It comes right after his wish that his parents had given some thought to "what they were about when they begot me."His father is upset at the interruption:
"Good G..! cried my father, making an exclamation, but taking care to moderate his voice at the same time,—Did ever woman, since the creation of the world, interrupt a man with such a silly question?"
I think he is showing us his mother's thoughts were elsewhere while the whole process of "begetting" him was underway. This is reinforced at the beginning of the next chapter:
Then, let me tell you, Sir, it was a very unseasonable question at least,—because it scattered and dispersed the animal spirits, whose business it was to have escorted and gone hand in hand with the Homunculus, and conducted him safe to the place destined for his reception.
His mother's question but a damper on the whole proceedings :)
Tamara wrote: "His mother's question but [put?] a damper on the whole proceedings :)..."Or at least reflected his mother's lack of anticipation? Sterne seems to give his narrator pretty firm control of time and time sequences, which is fascinating to engage, given the digressions.
One of the questions of timing that has been stalking me in reading this first chapter of Tristram, with its seeming focus on the (poor/unfortunate) homunculus, has been when did humankind come to understand the roles of both sperm and egg in the production of a human being. I haven't answered that for myself yet. The "best" article I have found so far has been this one:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/p...
I presume one or more critiques of Sterne's masterwork may provide more direct insights to the perceptions from which he was working in creating his narrator, Tristram.
Lily wrote: "Tamara wrote: "His mother's question but [put?] a damper on the whole proceedings :)..." Yes, I meant "put". Thank you, Lily.
Lily wrote: "One of the questions of timing that has been stalking me in reading this first chapter of Tristram, with its seeming focus on the (poor/unfortunate) homunculus..."A footnote in my edition says of the Homunculus:
The word ‘Homunculus’ (‘little man’) and the subsequent discussion reflect an ongoing eighteenth-century debate concerning procreation. The ‘animalculists’ believed male sperm contained the complete human being in miniature, the female egg merely providing nutriment for nine months; the ‘ovulists’ suspected the woman’s egg had a more central role in procreation.
Lily wrote: "Borum wrote: "... It's surprising to see this kind of postmodern typographic innovation in such an old book...."Or to realize whom Foer might have imitated?"
I supposed that Foer had a precedent but I assumed it was in the 19th or 20th century, not as far back as Sterne!
Tamara wrote: "The narrator is all over the map. He blurts out whatever is on his mind--in a sort of stream of consciousness that pre-dates Virginia Woolf and James Joyce. I love his dry sense of humor. Events ar..."I do not remember any other book but Ulysses, which has made me so often reread the last paragraph to understand what I have just read. I have to agree with all who called it 'the first (post)modern novel'. Amazing book.
Just one question: did anyone have leisure to get at Saxo-Grammaticus?
Borum wrote: "I supposed that Foer had a precedent but I assumed it was in the 19th or 20th century, not as far back as Sterne."Borum -- great to see you here in this discussion! I can't retrieve it, but somewhere, something led me to believe that Foer "knew" Sterne's writing. I.e., another open question re: Lockean connections of cause and effect?
Alexey wrote: "...Just one question: did anyone have leisure to get at Saxo-Grammaticus?"Okay, where are you coming from on that question, Alexey? The history of Yorick? Or something else? (And I'm not volunteering to go looking...)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1150/...
Lily, yes, it is the history of Yorick. Indeed it is Stern or narrator who offered this to the reader, I just wonder, if anybody any time has followed his advice... I think everybody is as enthusiastic about it as you.
I thought I'd read earlier where someone had asked about what had actually happened to Yorick, but I guess I imagined it. I was hoping someone else would answer, because I wasn't sure exactly myself. I went back and reread the section...what I think is that Yorick played the role of jester as well as his (supposed) ancestor, but the result was that he just ended up making people burn with anger. It seems to me that Sterne is purposely ambiguous here--in one sense it almost reads as if he were physically attacked, but I think it was all character assassination--what I'm still not clear on was whether it was specifically the affair with the midwife and the horse that was the source of the character assassination or if it was a multitude of other small things.Another thing I picked up on rereading was understanding exactly the point of the horse story--Yorick wore out all his horses loaning them out for just those kind of emergencies that having a local midwife would prevent...putting up the dough for the midwife license was going to allow him to ride in style again since the whole reason he rode the nag was so that no one would borrow it and ride it to ruin. Near the end of chapter 10, Sterne says the story got around, and it seems as though it didn't reflect very well on Yorick.
I don't think this is the thing that eventually brought him so low as to kill him--at the very end of chapter 10, Sterne says 'About ten years ago this gentleman had the good fortune to be made entirely easy upon that score', meaning he died, so I'm assuming Yorick lived well into Shandy's early life (I can't remember how old Shandy is supposed to be when he's writing this...30?)
Anyway--if I've got that wrong, I hope someone will point it out
The story of Amlethus is told in Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum. Yorick is an invention of Shakespeare.
Bryan wrote: "I thought I'd read earlier where someone had asked about what had actually happened to Yorick, but I guess I imagined it...."Bryan -- you may be thinking of Susanna @17? Borum and Alexey have also touched on what happened to poor Yorick.
Lily wrote: "Bryan wrote: "I thought I'd read earlier where someone had asked about what had actually happened to Yorick, but I guess I imagined it...."Bryan -- you may be thinking of Susanna @17? Borum and A..."
That's it--don't know how I missed it.
Lily wrote: "Alexey wrote: "...Just one question: did anyone have leisure to get at Saxo-Grammaticus?"Okay, where are you coming from on that question, Alexey? The history of Yorick? Or something else? (And I..."
Sterne seemed to want to hand over the research to the readers themselves. My Modern Library edition's notes says that:
"Had Tristram read it, he would not have found Yorick mentioned. See the previous note that suggests he was just drqwing on Theobald's edition."
The previous note goes: "Horwendillus: the father of Amlethus, who becomes Hamlet in Shakespeare. This reference and the following one come from Lewis Theobald's general note to Hamlet, which attacks Pope but agrees with him that the story is not invented and traces it to "Saxo-Grammaticus in hi Danish history." (7:226n). ... Theobald's appears to be the only edition that Sterne unquestionably read."
Alexey wrote: "Lily, yes, it is the history of Yorick. Indeed it is Sterne or narrator who offered this to the reader, I just wonder, if anybody any time has followed his advice... I think everybody is as enthusiastic about it as you.."{Grinning!} Alexey, I won't admit how many times I had to read what you wrote (and what others added) before I realized the sarcasm of your words may have extended across centuries and I need not take them personally!
Sorry, Lily, I've often been told to leave a hint at the real meaning of the phrase, but I am still far from master this skill. Besides, it was a surprise for me that this question is really an issue with Stern, not just a part of his jocular style. In short, I must be careful with sarcasm.
Alexey wrote: "Sorry, Lily, I've often been told to leave a hint at the real meaning of the phrase, but I am still far from master this skill. Besides, it was a surprise for me that this question is really an iss..."No apologies necessary, Alexey. I rather enjoyed it -- when I woke up! And I think Sterne calls us to this kind of use of language and observation. You may have noticed I have already been using cynicism a bit in this discussion, with a slight grin at the probable timing and cues of the give and take of achieving conjugal bliss -- and why Tristram views them with the opinions he does.
Alexey wrote: "Sorry, Lily, I've often been told to leave a hint at the real meaning of the phrase, but I am still far from master this skill...."Are these events sometimes examples of joking around too much and risking the ire of those who can't or won't take a joke, like our poor Mr. Yorick?
I do not know what it was like back then, but I imagine Yoricks in the world today would fare just as poorly or worse because they risk the internet scaling the local ad hominem attacks against them into global concerns.
@41Susanna wrote: "Yes, that was me. Thank you for your answer, Borum. ...."We're having great fun keeping track of each other in this conversation! My question to you, Susanna, do you mean Byran@32&35, or truly one from Borum that I'm not spotting now?
I took it in the spirit it was offered. : )
After bogging down with the start of this "shaggy dog" of a novel, I'm allowing myself to ramble and amuse myself -- in part by testing or at least playing with analogies with current situations, mostly ones arising out of present U.S. politics, as well as a few from ancient traditions.First, an ancient tradition: commentators have suggested Sterne mocks "In the beginning..." fairy tale openings. Does he perhaps even have the audacity to parallel sacred creation texts, with his opening allusions to time and to creation, albeit (humbled) to clocks and procreation? (The latter of which is not explicitly acknowledged in the Judeo-Christian text until after expulsion from paradise.)
Second, so very current, aren't opinions far more important than facts? After all, what are "facts" anyway?
Third, just for fun, in these days of METOO doodles. Does Dame Shanty resist her (mature) husband's advances because she has not heard the clock being set or does she respond willingly, only to recall her housewifely awareness with unfortunate timing? Does one scenario versus the other (or some still other) preference the opinions of Tristram?
Will we learn what Tristram (or his father) prefers among the perceived knowledge about conception two hundred years ago? Will such matter to their opinions, any more than "facts" seem oft to have little effect upon 2019 beliefs -- whether climate change or environmental impact or evolution or .... (It bemuses and perhaps saddens that dinosaurs are presented as comfortably at home at Kentucky's Creation Museum?)
In Barzun's From Dawn To Decadence, he notes "New ideas do not battle so much with ignorance as with solid knowledge," which of course begs the question as to what is "solid knowledge" at any particular period of time, let alone for all time. The period in which Sterne writes was one of galactic shifts from received knowledge to created knowledge. Does Sterne use Tristram's opinions to elucidate those shifts or to muddle them? We know he is aware of the writings of Locke.
Lily wrote: "The period in which Sterne writes was one of galactic shifts from received knowledge to created knowledge."'Created knowledge' is an ambiguous phrase it can be the opposite not only of 'received knowledge' but also of 'discovered knowledge'. I think both meanings are suitable for the galactic shift and Sterne's writing too.
Alexey wrote: "'Created knowledge' is an ambiguous phrase it can be the opposite not only of 'received knowledge' but also of 'discovered knowledge'. I think both meanings are suitable for the galactic shift and Sterne's writing too. ..."Fun terms to play with, Alexey. I am sure far more erudite ones exist than the distinction I'll try to articulate here, although, as you say, both can be applicable. "Discovered knowledge" brings to my mind knowledge obtained by careful observation via the human senses or extensions thereof (from telescopes to cyclotrons), including the recording of such observations over time -- and the subsequent analyses thereof. "Created knowledge" conjures the escalating human creativity that has been possible, often/usually? based on that ever broadening scope of "discovered knowledge." The easy examples are the technological gadgets, from cars to airplanes to antibiotics to .... But somehow doesn't "created knowledge" also apply to managerial techniques, (international) banking structures, psychotherapy, .... Created knowledge must also encompass that vast knowledge based on the human mind versus sheer observation of the material world, such as that brought by mathematics, algebra, calculus, numerical analysis, ....
Incidentally, I really do recommend Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present. I've had a copy for years and only recently started reading it. I agree with Peter Green's praise: "...arguably the best thinking man's bedside book ever written," although in this day and age, Peter's word choice.... Anyway, it is a delightful companion to Sterne.
Bits I have noted include: "The minds of the 16C philosophers, both the traditionalists and the radicals, were full of ideas inherited from antiquity." p196. Under the description of Descartes: "The next clear distinction is that between thought and what it thinks about -- things regarded as essentially matter."
Lily wrote: ""Created knowledge" conjures the escalating human creativity that has been possible..."Perhaps "created knowledge" is better understood as the applied sciences. I seem to remember Tocqueville observing that the Americans of his time were lacking in theoretical sciences but excelled at the applied sciences. Perhaps Sterne being English was better versed in the theoretical sciences than the majority of his American counterparts were and was poking fun at the applied sciences by absurd applications and metaphors.
When I called 'created knowledge' ambiguous, did not know how much it is ambiguous. Opposition of discovered and created (or invented) knowledge is old and basic methodological problem for mathematicians. It may be applied for any field of knowledge, though for scientists (at least in 'hard' science) idea, that scientific knowledge is invented and not discovered, would be a heretical and blasphemous.
Lily, thank you for recommendation!
Some use "created knowledge" to refer to that knowledge that depends entirely on the human mind for its existence. Despite its ability to describe (predict?) what happens in the material world, in that definition mathematics belongs to "created knowledge."Modern calculus was developed in 17th-century Europe by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (independently, each publishing around the same time). Wikipedia reports: "Many of Newton's critical insights occurred during the plague years of 1665–1666...." Also, "One of the first and most complete works on both infinitesimal and integral calculus was written in 1748 by Maria Gaetana Agnesi."
"Empirical knowledge" is one of the terms usually reserved/used for knowledge, often scientific, that is based on observation of material entities, i.e., entities treated as having a physical existence independent of the human mind.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present (other topics)From Dawn to Decadence (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jacques Barzun (other topics)Jacques Barzun (other topics)
9 Volume ed.: Vol 1: 1 - 12
This shaggy dog story* begins ab ovo. or very nearly in media res of his conception, and 4 chapters later our narrator is born.
We are introduced to his Walter Shandy, his father, Toby Shandy, his uncle, and his mother (no spoilers!) who will be named in Chapter 15, and Uncle Toby. We are also introduced to Parson Yorick, who's story we hear in digressive lieu of being told about the midwife. I understand there is a black page or two inserted at the end of chapter 12 to pay playful homage to Yorick's, a man who disliked excessive gravity. My Kindle edition did not have these pages, Alas, poor Yorick!
There are too many remarkable passages to go through them all in a single post, but Tristram's live and let live attitude towards others stuck out to me:Horses, hobby and otherwise seem to be a contemporary metaphor or euphemism for many things, in this case, ruling passions. Speaking of horses, I was also glad that we recently read Don Quixote to better understand the comparison of Rocinante to Yorick's horse and the many other references made to it.
What stuck out to you in these opening chapters? What can we take from the Parson's story?
*Yes, shaggy dog is a thing. Shaggy Dog Story: a long, rambling story or joke, typically one that is amusing only because it is absurdly inconsequential or pointless.