Eighteenth-Century Fiction, Volume 14, Numbers 3-4, April-July 2002,pp. 289-310 (Article)
For additional information about this article
Access provided by University of Florida Libraries (30 Nov 2014 14:38 GMT)
Print Culture in Transition:
Tnstram Shandy, the Reviewers,and the Consumable Text
Among eighteenth-centuryworks of prose fiction, Tristram Shandyis arguably both the most concerned with, and the most de-
pendent upon, the material conditions of its production. From the"rash jerks, and hare-brain'd squirts" ofTristram's pen to the anxietyengendered by unsold volumes, Sterne's text is self-conscious aboutthe physical act ofwriting and the economic realities of authorship.1As readers have long recognized, moreover, some of Tristram's nicestjokes inhere in subtle manipulations of layout and form which arerealizable only through the conventions of print.2 In the main, crit-ical attempts to provide a broader context for this comic play of printhave proceeded diachronically, relating Sterne's text either to thegeneral historical movement from an oral/aural to a visual, print-based culture, or to Scriblerian satires upon literary hack-work andthe early-century explosion of printed matter. For all its insights, thiswork has had the unfortunate consequence of deflecting attention
1 Laurence Sterne, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman: The Text, ed. MelvynNew andJoan New, The Florida Edition of the Works of Laurence Sterne, vols 1-2 (Gaines-ville: University Presses of Florida, 1978), 3:28, 254; 8:6, 663. References are to the originalvolume and chapter numbers and to the page number in the Florida edition.
2 These jokes continue to be excavated in ever more detail; see especially PeterJ. De Voogd,"Tristram Shandy as Aesthetic Object," Word and Image 4 (1988), 383-92, and ChristopherFanning, "On Sterne's Page: Spatial Layout, Spatial Form, and Social Spaces in TristramShandy," Eighteenth-Century Fiction 10 (1998), 429-50.
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION, Volume 14, Numbers 3-4, April-July 2002
away from the specifically contemporary features of Sterne's printcomedy.3 In this essay, I argue for a more synchronic reading by con-sidering two discourses that characterized English print culture dur-ing the third quarter of the eighteenth century: satires upon reviewcriticism, and the debate over literary property. By reading Sterne'stext through these discourses, my aim will be to reposition Tristramboth textually and culturally: textually, by differentiating betweenlocal effects which have often been lumped together in previousreadings; and culturally, by locating the work more precisely withinthe print culture of its own day.The third quarter of the eighteenth century witnessed signific-
ant realignments in what can be termed the "cultural ideology" ofprint. AsJames Raven notes, while the actual technology of print hadremained "fundamentally unchanged" for two hundred years, theperiod 1750 to 1800 was marked by the heightened "scale and com-petitiveness of new production and selling strategies."4 This continu-ing growth in print culture was accompanied by changing attitudestowards commercial publishing. For the later-century successors ofPope and Swift, certainly, the commercialization of literature couldstill appear to involve processes of textual production which reducedthe work of art to the level of any other manufactured good. Theconservative sense that literature's descent into commerce had res-
ulted only in a regrettable dmystification is nicely restated, for in-stance, in the first volume ofJohn Brown's influential attack on lux-ury, An Estimate of the Manners and Principles of the Times (1757): "TheLaurel Wreath, once aspired after as the highest Object ofAmbition,
3 For the Scriblerian reading (though with contrasting emphases), see Melvyn New, LaurenceSterne as Satirist: A Reading of "Tristram Shandy" (Gainesville: University of Florida Press,1969), and J. Paul Hunter, "From Typology to Type: Agents of Change in Eighteenth-Century English Texts," Cultural Artifacts and the Production ofMeaning: The Page, the Image,and the Body, ed. Margaret J.M. Ezell and Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe (Ann Arbor: Uni-versity of Michigan Press, 1994), pp. 41-69. Both Hunter and Fanning draw upon distinc-tions between oral/aural and print culture, as does Roger B. Moss, "Sterne's Punctuation,"Eighteenth-Century Studies 15 (1981-82), 179-200. A useful complication of this overview isMichael Vande Berg's discussion of the later-century resurgence of a rhetorical traditionwhich "conceived of writing in oral terms." "'Pictures of Pronunciation': TypographicalTravels through Tristram Shandy and Jacques le Fataliste," Eighteenth-Century Studies 21 (1987-88), 24 and passim. An alternative perspective, bearing more upon narrative and structurethan upon the material features of Tristram, is provided by Tom Keymer's work on serializ-ation; see especially "Dying by Numbers: Tristram Shandy and Serial Fiction (2)," Shandean9 (1997), 34-69.
4 James Raven, Judging New Wealth: Popular Publishing and Responses to Commerce in England,1750-1800 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), p. 63.
TRISTRAM SHANDY ANT) THE REVIEWERS 291
would now be rated at the Market-price of its Materials, and deridedas a Three-penny Crown.""3 From the 1750s on, however, more con-ciliatory attitudes towards writing's relationship with commerce alsobegan to emerge. As Linda Zionkowski has shown, in a range ofwrit-ings on the subject Oliver Goldsmith would waver between "nostalgiafor a literature managed by the Great and a defense of authors' reli-ance on commercial publishing."6 More determinedly, in The Case ofAuthors by Profession (1758) James Ralph sought to counter Brown'sdenigration of literary commerce by dismantling the qualitative dis-tinction implied in the age-old "War" of "Wit and Money," betweenindependent, amateur writers and the "Pen-and-ink Laborer" who"writes to live." Highlighting the pitiable condition of the profes-sional author, Ralph compared such traders in the pen to slaves,forced to "consume themselves" through hard literary labour. Signi-ficantly, even Ralph's rallying cry to his fellow-writers did not involvea wholesale ratification of commercial literary culture. Rather, wherePope's Grub Street satire had reviled emerging professionalism atevery level of production, Ralph's defence of authorial labourers en-tailed a narrowing of critical focus to the trade's taskmasters. Feeling"the Pulse of the Times," as he put it, "not to cure, but flatter the Dis-ease," Ralph depicted contemporary booksellers submitting writersto a punishing regime and colluding with the debased tastes of thebook-buying public.7As such manuvres reveal, the period of Sterne's authorial ca-
reer witnessed not a revolution in print culture, but rather a re-thinking, or discursive repositioning, of the relationships betweenprofessional authorship, textual commodification, and the consum-ing public. Sterne's fictional contribution to these realignments inthe cultural ideology of print intersected with, but in importantrespects also departed from, Ralph's defence of authors "by pro-fession." As his early hawking of the "Dedication" to his text sug-gests, Tristram's self-styling as a "genius" and a "gentleman" coexists
5 [John Brown], An Estimate of the Manners and Principles of the Times, 2 vols (London, 1757-58), 1:59. On the Scriblerian critique of literary professionalism, see Brean S. Hammond,Professional Imaginative Writing in England, 16701740: "Hackney for Bread" (Oxford: Claren-don Press, 1997), esp. chaps 6-8.
6 Linda Zionkowski, "Territorial Disputes in the Republic of Letters: Canon Formation andthe Literary Profession," Eighteenth Century 31 (1990), 7.
7 [James Ralph], The Case ofAuthors by Profession or Trade, Staled (London, 1758), pp. 1, 13, 7,22,65,21.
with his participation in the literary marketplace. As a professionalwriter, however, Tristram is himself susceptible to the still-powerfulslur of hack-writing. Accordingly, during the course of his narrativeTristram emulates Ralph's reaction against the stigmatization of thehack both by painting a more sympathetic portrait of the writer'spredicament, and by displacing this stigma onto alternative agen-cies. Describing the progressive/digressive machinery of his text involume 1, for instance, Tristram evokes the "truely pitiable" distressof the author as he works for the "advantage" of both the readerand himself (1:22, 81). Likewise, in volume 4 the vulnerable mater-iality of Tristram's manuscriptthe ironically literal consumption ofhis source of incomeis presented as a function of the precariousoccupational situation in which it is produced: "It is not half an hourago, when (in the great hurry and precipitation of a poor devil's writ-ing for daily bread) I threw a fair sheet, which I hadjust finished, andcarefully wrote out, slap into the fire, instead of the foul one" (4:17,349-50). Tristram's self-fashioning as a paid scribbler contrasts withSterne's well-known assertion that, unlike Colley Cibber, he wrote"not [to] be fed, but to be famous."6 Although he represents his nar-rator as a poor devil writing precisely in order to be fed, Sterne'sportrayal of the professional author is also purged of much of thepejorative efficacy of Scriblerian satires upon the hack. Exhibitingan understandable urgency to provide for himself, Tristram is depic-ted here not as essentially venal, but as working as conscientiously aspossible in difficult professional circumstances.If, however, Sterne concurred with Ralph's representation of the
distresses ofmodern authorship, when it came to identifying the vil-lains of the piece the two men notably parted company. For, whereRalph had implicated the booksellers in a contemporary corruptionof taste, in Tristram Shandy traditional slurs against literary profes-sionalism are subtly displaced onto the newly established institu-tion of review criticism. With their focus upon critical responses tohis work, previous discussions in this area have failed to elucidateSterne's fictional representation of the reviewers' critical operationsand cultural legitimacy.9 In this essay, by contrast, I intend to ex-8 Letters ofLaurence Sterne, ed. Lewis Perry Curtis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935), p. 90 (30January 1760). Cf. Tristram Shandy, 5:16, 446.
9 Alan B. Howes, Yorick and the Critics: Sterne's Reputation in England, 1760-1868 (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1958); Frank Donoghue, The Fame Machine: Book Reviewing andEighteenth-Century Literary Careers (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996).
TRISTRAM SHANDY AND THE REVIEWERS 293
amine the local features of Tristram's treatment of the reviewers,as a way of reassessing Sterne's place within the transitional printculture of the third quarter of the eighteenth century. As Tim Par-nell has suggested, Sterne's "otherwise traditional attacks on thecant of the carping critics" gain a "particular edge" from changesin the relationships between writers, readers, and critics consequentupon the decline of patronage and the founding of the Reviews.10While my analysis will partly serve to substantiate Parnell's hint, Ialso aim to reveal a fictional engagement with contemporary de-velopments that was more precise, and more textually significant,than this unspecified "edge." In its pointed allusions to the review-ers, Tristram Shandy both drew upon, and redirected, charges thatwere current in other contemporary criticisms of their activities. Sim-ilarly, some of Tristram's best-known examples of print-based comedyplayed upon paradoxes that were being addressed in contempor-aneous discussions of the "incorporeal" right of literary property.Along with their significance for Sterne's representation of Tristramas a professional author, these discourses also possessed implicationsfor the construction of Tristram as a material product. Negotiatingbetween high-cultural and commercial constructions of writers andtexts, Tristram Shandy not only criticized literary commodification,but also registered an accommodation of traditional satiric topoi toa commercial print culture.
The establishment ofjournals devoted exclusively to criticism con-stituted a direct, if somewhat belated, response to the expansion inprint culture which had taken place in the previous half-century, fol-lowing the expiry of the Licensing Act in 1695. From 1756, whenSmollett's Critical Review began publication, the objectives of bothRalph Griffi ths's Monthly Review (founded in 1749) and the CriticalReview were to summarize the contents and provide an evaluativeanalysis of each new production to appear in print.11 As the Critical10Tim Parnell, "Tristram Shandy and 'the Gutter of Time,' " Shandean 1 1 (1999-2000), 54.11Prior to the appearance of the Critical Review, the focus of the Monthly Review had beenprincipally upon description, rather than evaluation. For general information about theReviews, I draw mainly upon James G. Basker, Tobias Smollett: Critic and Journalist (Ne-wark: University of Delaware Press; London: Associated University Presses, 1988); FrankDonoghue, "Colonizing Readers: Review Criticism and the Formation of a Reading Pub-lic," The Consumption of Culture, 16001800: Image, Object, Text, ed. Ann Bermingham andJohn Brewer (London: Routledge, 1995), pp. 54^74; and Donoghue, The Fame Machine.
Review's writers readily attested, this critical activity was founded in adesire to gain control over a proliferation of texts which appeared tothreaten established hierarchies ofwriting. The "Plan" printed uponthe back of the Critical Review's blue wrappers, for instance, declaredthat the journal had been established in an attempt to impose orderupon the contemporary "Chaos of Publication," with its promiscu-ous mingling of "Genius and Dullness; Wit and Impertinence; Learn-ing and Ignorance."12 As these references to "Chaos" and "Dullness"indicate, the Critical Review defined its mission partly by appropri-ating the terminology of Scriblerian satiremore specifically, thelanguage and imagery of The Dunciad. Given that their satires hadoften been directed at critics as well as authors and booksellers, theCritical Review's appeal to the anti-Grub Street rhetoric of Pope andSwift, as Frank Donoghue notes, might itself be regarded as "iron-ically self-reflexive."13 Moreover, while both the Critical Review andthe Monthly Review sought to install themselves as defenders of thehigh-cultural faith, the establishment of the reviews itself involvedan extension of professional writing into what, for the Scribleriansand their successors, constituted at best a secondary literary activity.During the 1750s and 1760s, a stream of writers would find them-selves questioning the basis of the upstart reviewers' authority. In aseries of antagonistic writings, Smollett's reviewers in particular werevariously maligned as the "self-erected Censors of the Republick ofLetters"; as "self-elected monarchs" and "Dictators"; and, with a typ-ical anti-Scottish twist, as "judging Caledonian Pedlars, / That to ascribbling world give law."14As they questioned the authority by which the Reviews had un-
dertaken to rule over the realm of letters, these attacks made satiriccapital of the reviewers' pose as gentlemanly defenders of polite liter-ature. Disassociating itself from the patchwork productions of "ob-scure HackneyWriters," the Critical Review's "Plan" had claimed that
12The full text of this "Plan"initially published as the "proposals" for the journalis re-produced in Basker, pp. 31-32.
13Donoghue, The Fame Machine, p. 37.
14George Canning, AnAppeal to the Publick, from the Malicious Misrepresentations, Impudent Falsi-fications, and Unjust Decisions, of the Anonymous Fabricators of the Critical Review (London,1767), p. 9; "The Apology. Addressed to the Critical Reviewers" (1761), The Poetical Works ofCharles Churchill, ed. Douglas Grant (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), p. 39 (lines 83, 93);"Queries to the Critical Reviewers" (1763), The Works ofJohn Hall-Stevenson, 3 vols (London,1795), 1:134.
TRISTRAM SHANDYAND THE REVIEWERS 295
thejournal would be "executed by a Set ofGentlemen"; and the title-page of each issue similarly declared that it was the performance of"A Society of gentlemen." The sense that the reviewers constituteda league of gentlemen would also come to inform the Monthly Re-view. Recallingjohn Langhorne's review of its third instalment in hisown review ofvolumes 7 and 8 of Tristram Shandy, for instance, RalphGriffiths reinforced his advice to Sterne by reminding him of its cul-tivated provenance: "One of our gentlemen once remarked ... thathe thought your excellence lay in the PATHETIC."15 Not surprisingly,these claims to gentility were seized upon by the reviewers' antag-onists. By repeatedly referring to Smollett's reviewers as "GentlemenCritics" in The Occasional Critic (1757), John Shebbeare transformedthis social self-aggrandizement into a source of comedy.16Within thiscontext of self-representation and counter-representation, the ironicreference to "all the gentlemen reviewers in Great-Britain," in thefirst volume of Tristram Shandy (1:13, 40), provided a good indica-tion of the position that Sterne would take in his own dealings withthe reviewers. This early hit at the reviewers' polite self-fashioning isdeveloped in a further reference to the critics in the first instalmentof Tristram. Declaring that there is "nothing so foolish, when you areat the expence of making an entertainment of this kind, as to or-der things so badly, as to let your criticks and gentry of refined tasterun it down," Tristram reveals that he has left "half a dozen placespurposely open" in his text in order to placate (and thereby fore-stall the criticism of) these readers. Lumping his critics together withother imperfectly "refined" readers, and facetiously addressing onesuch critic as "Sir," Tristram insinuates that the critics are not gentle-manly but, rather, unmannerly guests at the table of the text: "I begonly you will make no strangers of yourselves, but sit down withoutany ceremony, and fall on heartily." For all his apparently deferen-tial hospitality, in this scene Tristram actually depicts the critics asunceremonious devourers of the textual meal, lacking the urbane"complaisance" to which he himself appeals (2:2, 96-97). 1715Quoted in Alan B. Howes, ed., Sterne: The Critical Heritage (London: Routledge and KeganPaul, 1974), p. 167 (hereafter Critical Heritage). As Basker notes, by 1761 the MonthlyReviewthe immediate target of the Critical Review's "Plan"was also advertising itself as"By a Society of Gentlemen" (p. 171).
16[John Shebbeare], The Occasional Critic; or, The Decrees of the Scotch Tribunal in the CriticalReview Rejudged (London, 1757), passim.
17For the reviewers' uncivilized aggression, see also Tristram's complaint about their cuttingand slashing of his jerkin (3:4, 189-91).
Exposing their proximity to the "Hackney Writers" from whomthey had attempted to disassociate themselves, the reviewers werefrequently accused of the very professionalism that their official as-sumption of gentility was designed to obscure. The close materialconnection between the livings made by the reviewers and otherhack-writers is highlighted, for instance, in Charles Churchill's Apo-logy to the Critical reviewers: "Hence are a thousand Hackney-writersfed; / Hence Monthly Critics earn their Daily Bread."18 Writing, likeTristram, for their "Daily Bread," the reviewers (the "Monthly Crit-ics") are here condemned as second-order hacks, able to survive onlythrough their parasitic relationship with other Grub Street writers.In Tristram, similarly, Sterne transferred onto these new professionalcritics the accusations both of hack-writing and of the kind of un-natural participation in the marketplace which led to the overpro-duction of the presses and the vulgarization of writing. Appealingto Pope's distinction between those who write purely for money andthose naturally intended for a literary occupation, Tristram contraststhe "critick (by occupation)" with a critic "not by occupation, butby nature" (2:2, 97). By turning James Ralph's defence of "authorsby profession" into satire of the idea of a "critick (by occupation),"in the early volumes of Tristram Shandy Sterne thus joined a num-ber of his contemporaries in maligning the professionalization ofthis second-order literary activity.19Such satire of the reviewers' hack-writing itself comprised a num-
ber of related charges. As writers for money, the reviewers mightlegitimately be seen as available for hire. In Sterne's narrative, Tris-tram himself attempts to hire a critic. Struggling to get his father andUncle Toby off the stairs in volume 4, the narrator offers a crown fora "day-tall critick" to help him to see the brothers to bed (4:13, 340-41) . As the Florida editors indicate, Sterne's adjective is derived from
18Churchill, "The Apology," p. 42 (lines 190-91).
19Both Howes and Donoghue view Sterne as responding to the reviewers only in the secondinstalment of Tristram (Critical Heritage, p. 8; The Fame Machine, p. 74). As the passages fromvolumes 1 and 2 which I have been discussing indicate, however, Tristram's initial instalmentalso contained pre-emptive strikes at its prospective critics. In this regard, Sterne's practicediffered from that of writers who either responded to negative reviews of previous texts(such as George Canning and Philip Thicknesse), or sought to defend the Monthly Reviewagainst the Critical Review (as did Shebbeare). In his Apology to the Critical Review, Churchillwas responding to the journal's misattribution of The Rosciad (1761).
TRISTRAM SHANDY AND THE REVIEWERS 297
the term day-taler, "a worker engaged and paid by the day."20 Moregenerally, these new critics "by occupation" were satirized both forperforming to order pre-set tasks, and for adjusting their evaluationsof texts in accordance with the biases of the owners and editors ofthe Reviews. Mocking the CriticalReview's claims to disinterestedness,for instance, Shebbeare archly noted that one of the productions ofits "Chieftain"Smollett's Complete History of England (1757-58)was "a Subject of much Praise" in the journal.21 Elsewhere, the taintof editorial interference would attach particularly to Griffiths's roleat the Monthly Review.22 This more general sense of the proprietors'economic and interpretative control over the reviewers is invoked involumes 6 and 7 of Tristram Shandy, which see Sterne's narrator de-picting the reviewers as asses. At the beginning of volume 6, lookingback over the textual terrain that he has traversed so far, Tristramcasts a sardonic glance at the "Jack Asses" who have "view'd and re-view'd us" during thisjourney. As Sterne's annotators again indicate,this portrayal of the reviewers evokes the satire upon critics in A Taleof a Tub and The DunciadP More recently, however, the reviewersspecifically had been portrayed as asses in texts such as the anonym-ous The Battle of the Reviews and John Hall-Stevenson's "lyric epistle,"A Nosegay and a Simile for Reviewers (London, 1760). In his own allu-sion to the critical "Jack Asses," Sterne limited his earlier survey ofhispossible satiric casualties ("I'll not hurt the poorestjack-ass upon theroad," 4:20, 356) to the reviewers alone. The earlier invitation to crit-ics to fall heartily upon the textual meal is recalled here as Tristramreflects upon the good fortune of both author and reader in having
20Melvyn New, Richard A. Davies, and W.G. Day, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gen-tleman: The Notes, The Florida Edition of the Works of Laurence Sterne, vol. 3 (Gainesville:University Presses of Florida, 1984), p. 310 (hereafter Notes).
21[Shebbeare], p. 141.22See for instance The Battle of the Reviews (London, ), p. 43. Smollett and Goldsmith,who had both reviewed for the Monthly Review, also accused Griffiths of such interference(Basker, pp. 58-59). In the editor's defence, Wilbur T Albrechthas cited evidence of Grif-fiths going to "considerable lengths to maintain a high degree of honesty and impartialityin the Monthly's reviews"; see his entry on thejournal in British Literary Magazines: TheAugus-tan Age and the Age ofJohnson, 1698-1788, ed. Alvin Sullivan (Westport, Conn.: GreenwoodPress, 1983), p. 233. Editorial "interest" could, of course, take a variety of forms. A nicecase in point is William Kenrick's lengthy review of A Vindication of the Exclusive Right ofAu-thors to their own Works (London, 1762)a favourable appraisal, in Griffiths's own journal,of a work published by Griffiths himself, which promoted the commercial interests ofpublishers such as Griffiths; see Monthly Review Tl (Sept. 1762), 176-91.
23Notes, p. 396.
escaped being "devoured by wild beasts." At the same time, though,Tristram's question"who keeps all those Jack Asses?"indicates amovement away from the earlier satire of the reviewers themselves,towards a consideration of the periodicals' proprietors, the review-ers' keepers. Besides hinting at the new deluge of critics liable toappear following the establishment of institutions of criticism ("Didyou think the world itself, Sir, had contained such a number ofJackAsses?"), Sterne's narrator begins at this point to picture the review-ers as a set of bestial drudges, rather than the "wild" creaturesandaggressive consumersthat had initially been feared (6:1, 491-92).This depiction of the reviewers is developed in volume 7, where
Tristram tells the story of the poor, panniered ass which had preven-ted him from passing through a gateway on his departure from aninn, a partial allegory of the relationship between writer, reviewer,and journal proprietor. Concluding his pathetic description of theencounter with the ass, Tristram contemplates the best narrative po-sition for his equivocal interjection, "Out upon it!" This he ultimatelyleaves to be settled by
which I have brought over along with me for that purpose.
Having invited the reader's participation in realizing the conclusionof the tale (Tristram's breeches being rent in "the most disasterousdirection you can imagine") , Sterne puns upon the literal "breeches"worn by Tristram in the narrative, and the breaches of decorum com-mitted both by this incitement to the reader's immodest imaginingsand by the formal (typographical and verbal) impropriety of the pas-sage itself (7:32, 632). The spatial arrangement of the passage alsobrings to mind Tristram's statement two chapters earlier (7:30, 625)about the greatest vexations:what philosophyjustly calls
With this intra-textual allusion, Sterne nicely suggested the vexationsof the vexatious critics.
TRISTRAM SHANDY ANO THE REVIEWERS 299
Intriguingly, in their reviews of volumes 7 and 8 of Tristram boththe Critical Review and the Monthly Review responded directly toTristram's description of his encounter with the ass. Appropriat-ing the title "The reviewers of breeches," the Critical Review recalledTristram's earlier discussion of Uncle Toby's breeches, and warnedthat Sterne's long-running text, if continued, was liable to becomeequally threadbare.24 For Griffiths, writing in the Monthly Review, thechapter as a whole contained "so much benevolenceso much trueand delicate humour." Asking, therefore, "what is the world to un-derstand by the reviewers of your breeches?," Griffiths has "shandy"admit that he himself does not understand the term, with the sug-gestion that it constitutes merely another of the foolish utterances ofone who wears a "fool's cap." Attempting to defuse the impolite af-front embodied in the chapter's ending, Griffiths, like Thackeraylater, thus implied that this final hit at the reviewers bore little rela-tion to the rest of the episode, which he proceeded to champion asone of the exemplary, sentimental beauties of Sterne's work.25By contrast with such diversionary manoeuvres, Sterne provides a
number of indications that the chapter promotes the connectionof reviewers and asses which had been instigated in the previousvolume. At the opening of volume 6, for instance, Tristram had re-flected upon the hard and unceasing toil of the reviewing "JackAsses": "------Heaven be their comforter------What! are they nevercurried?------Are they never taken in in winter?" (6:1, 492). Recall-ing both the appellation and the sentiments contained in this pas-sage, Tristram addresses the poor ass in volume 7: "God help thee,Jack! said I, thou hast a bitter breakfast on'tand many a bitterday's labourand many a bitter blow, I fear, for its wages" (7:32,631). Significantly, in depicting the reviewers as workers acting notof their own volition these episodes imply a movement towards aposition of sympathy for the hacks, in the light of their treatmentat the hands of their taskmasters. It is necessary, therefore, to draw
24Critical Heritage, p. 160.
25CriticalHeritage, p. 164. Quoting a long extract from the encounter with the ass (though notTristram's consideration of the best narrative position for his "Out upon it!," or his refer-ence to the "reviewers"), William MakepeaceThackeraywould conclude thus: "Acritic whorefuses to see in this charming description wit, humour, pathos, a kind nature speaking,and a real sentiment, must be hard indeed to move and to please. "The English Humour-ists of the Eighteenth Century, ed. CB. Wheeler (1853; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), pp.222-23.
out more fully the implications of this "assy" representation.26 In hismovement from satiric opposition to comparative generosity, Sternemight initially appear to be acting here in the spirit of "good tem-per" with which Tristram had earlier promised to deal with the re-viewers (3:4, 191), by allowing to them the more pitiable and un-derstandable professional situation in which he had placed Tristramhimself. As he said of reviewers in a letter to John Hall-Stevensonthe following year: "These poor Devils, as well as thou and I, willhave their Sayor else they cannot have their supper."27 In his treat-ment of the reviewers Sterne could be said to re-enact, within themid-century discourse about the Reviews, the subtle but significantadjustment that had taken place between Pope's satires upon profes-sional print culture and Fielding's. In Pat Rogers's account, Fieldingportrays the hack as "sinned against as well as sinning"; revealing inThe Author's Farce (1730), for instance, "the baneful effects of Book-weight upon the hacks, not as with Pope the pollution by Curii ofcivilised standards."28 As the further reference in volume 9 of Tris-tram Shandy to "any damn'd critick in keeping" should also remindus, however, the relative tempering in Sterne's own representationof the reviewerswhich likewise portrays them as sinned against aswell as sinningdoes not imply any wholesale exoneration of, or re-conciliation to, these critical antagonists (9:26, 794). Whatever themore sentimental associations of the ass, it is important that the re-viewers are reduced in these episodes to a lower material stratum,that is, to a primarily bodily existence which implies an incapacityfor mental operations at any significant level ofjudgment or discrim-ination. The notion that they were "kept" men was itself, of course,hardly flattering to the reviewers. As Philip Thicknesse charged inan attack upon the Critical Review in 1768, the reviewers' biases re-vealed them as writers who were "to be had, like common prostitutes,for hire."29Within this satiric schema, the bodily labour of the review-ers is seen as both under the direction of the pimping proprietorsand beyond the purview of civilized manners.26My reading here necessarily opposes the broad, generic approach of Margaret AnneDoody, "Shandyism, Or, the Novel in Its Assy Shape: African Apuleius, The Golden Ass, andProse Fiction," Eighteenth-Century Fiction 12 (2000), 435-57.
27Letters, p. 281 (15JuIy 1766).28Pat Rogers, Grub Street: Studies in a Subculture (London: Methuen, 1972), pp. 336, 331.29Philip Thicknesse, Useful Hints to those who make the Tour ofFrance, in a Series ofLetters, Writtenfrom that Kingdom (London, 1768), p. 2.
TRISTRAM SHANDYANO THE REVIEWERS 301
By redirecting his focus towards the journals' keepers, Sterne fur-ther signalled the distinction between his representation of Tris-tram as professional author and his treatment of professional crit-ics. Whereas the proprietors are seen as punishing and exploitat-ive taskmasters, Tristram evinces a largely harmonious relationshipwith his own employerswith Dodsley, Becket, and any other "cred-itable bookseller" (7:37, 640). Like Ralph, Sterne painted a moresympathetic portrait of the professional author, but this treatmentdid not lead him into disparagement of contemporary booksellers.Where Ralph had sought to transfer the slur of lowering profes-sionalism from commercial writers to booksellers, Sterne transferredsuch slurs to the new culture of professional criticism. In this regard,it is especially significant that the phrase "critic by profession" shouldhave emerged, in the wake of the Reviews, at the same historical mo-ment that the phrase "author by profession" began to gain currencyas a verbal marker for the movement away from the traditional stig-matization of authorial professionalism.30 Satirizing the reviewers ascritics by profession (in Tristram's phrase, "by occupation"), Sterneeffected his own displacement of satiric charges between differentspheres of professional activity within the print culture of his owndayfrom professional authors (and their booksellers) in general,to the more specific institution of review criticism (incorporating theself-styled "gentlemen reviewers" and their keepers) .
Notwithstanding this discursive recuperation of the authorial hack,as the output of a professional writer Tristram's text might still ap-pear to possess merely commercialrather than properly artisticvalue. Sterne's negotiation of the cultural status of this textualproductas well as of his professional writercan be gauged by con-sidering the textual constructions advanced both in pamphlet satiresupon the Reviews, and in the literary property debate. Significantly,where the reviewers in the Critical Review in particular had represen-ted the establishment of theirjournal as a stand against the aestheticand moral relativity of the marketplace, satires upon the reviewers re-activated the imputation of a causal relationship between writing formoney and dull, inexpert, and lifeless productions. In his stinging at-tack upon the Critical Review, for instance, John Shebbeare mocked30 That the phrase "author by profession" gained "currency" in the 1750s is attested by IanWatt, "Publishers and Sinners: The Augustan View," Studies in Bibliography 12 (1959), 17.
the journal's lament (in its "Plan") that the "noble Art of Criticism"had been "reduced to a contemptible Manufacture." Attempting toreinforce the distinction between manufacture ("the Thing made")and art ("the Means by which it is made"), Shebbeare somewhat con-tradictorily hypothesized a grotesque body-text, an "alarming Ob-ject" composed of "the Skill of a Writer, a Brother-Scotch-Critical-Annalist pounded into Paper, dissolved into Ink, handled by thesooty Hands of a Printer's Devil, and then thumped in between twoPieces of Pasteboard, bound in Leather, made perhaps of the Au-thor's own Hide."31 Such depictions of a debased material productwere also central to The Battle of the Reviews, which combined a gen-eral structural debt to Swift's The Battle of the Books with the literalisticlogic of his "Meditation upon a Broom-Stick," in order to attack theCritical Review and the Monthly Review together.32 As its anonymousauthor recognized, once manifested in material form and releasedinto the marketplace even the cultivated work of verbal art mightbecome both indistinguishable from the mass of hack publicationsand vulnerable to the same fates as other material objects. In a dis-cussion of contemporary novels that amounts to a topos of culturalinstability, for instance, The Battle of the Reviews reveals that the text'sultimate degradation is to possess value solely in relation to its use asa factor in the economic process. Serving "ungloriously to wrap upCheese and Butter," the text is represented here as not only at themercy of faddish consumers ("deplorable Instability of Taste!"), butas possessing the sole function of impeding the perishability of othermanufactured goods (pp. 38-39) .Even as their authors set about re-establishing a clear distinc-
tion between the creative activity of "Art" and the material realmof "Manufacture," then, the debased representations employed inthese satires also incorporated an uneasy acknowledgment that prin-ted texts could be reduced to the purely physical level of a manufac-tured commodity. Significantly, a number of the assumptions which
31[Shebbeare], p. 6.32The Battle alludes jocularly to Swift's "Meditations upon a Broom-Staff' (p. 16). Otherexamples of the work's strong debt to Swift and the Scriblerians are its joke upon theLagadoan attempts of one of the Monthly Review's critics, "MynheerTanaquil Limmonad," toextract "solar Beams out of Lemmon-juice" (p. 84), and its discussion (which points backto the Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus, 1741) of the parental role in generating a child ofwit (pp. 8-9). Also relevant is Shebbeare 's assertion that the Critical Review reviewers hadexcelled in "the profound Art of reaching the very Bottom of the Bathos in Criticism" (p.7).
TRISTRAM SHANDYANO THE REVIEWERS 303
underpinned this satiric discourse were cognate with arguments setforth in the contemporary debate about literary property. Legal de-fences of perpetual copyright, for instance, involved a similar devalu-ation of the material, commercial processes by which texts might bedisseminated to a wider public. As Mark Rose has argued, duringthe course of the eighteenth century the concept of literary prop-erty became abstracted from the book as object.33 While commonlaw defences of authorial property were primarily promoted by theLondon booksellers in a bid to secure their valuable copyrights, thismovement from rights in physical objects to rights in abstract textsalso forced proponents of perpetual copyright to grapple with theparadoxical ontology of material artifacts that were not reducible totheir materiality. Discussing the "Nature of the work" in his Letteron lit-erary property of 1747, William Warburton had argued that, as a"Product of the Mind," the authorial property in a book was "notconfined to the Original MS. but extends to the Doctrine containedin it: Which is, indeed, the true and peculiar Property in a Book."For Warburton, the "necessary Consequence" of this model of ab-stract literary property was that "the owner hath an exclusive Rightof transcribing or printing it for Gain or Profit."34 At the same time,this definition of the work as a composition of the mind possessedsome incongruous implications for the status of the text itself (asopposed to the copyright) as a consumer good. As the anonymousauthor of a Vindication (1762) ofWarburton 's arguments indicated,only the "mechanical composition; that is, the printing, afe." of the lit-erary copy was truly an "object of trade."35 As a consumable object,the text might exist only in its materiality, devoid of both doctrinalor discursive content and the authorial invention which enabled its
creation. Ultimately, indeed, the arguments set forward by defend-
33Mark Rose, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1993), p. 7 and passim.
34[William Warburton], A Letterfrom an Author, lo a Member ofParliament, Concerning LiteraryProperly (London, 1747), p. 8.
35A Vindication of the Exclusive Right ofAuthors to their own Works: A Subject now Under Consider-ation Before the TwelveJudges ofEngland (London, 1762), p. 12. Warburton 's arguments hadbeen directly opposed in An Enquiry into the Nature and Origin ofLiterary Property (London,1762). The Enquiry has often been misattributed to Warburton himself; see Don Nichol,"Warburton (not!) on Copyright," British Journal Jor Eighteenth-Century Studies 19 (1996),171-82.
ers of perpetual copyright could be taken to suggest that the literarywork did not inhere in the printed text at all.36In his epistolary correspondence and elsewhere, Sterne himself
took a practical, if sometimes mischievous, interest in copyright is-sues. A letter to Robert Dodsley of 1759, for instance, sees the authortoying with the idea of an "arcanum" that might allow him to ascer-tain the true market value of his copyrightand thereby to undercuthimselfby twenty per cent.37 An equally equivocal letter appended toA Political Romance the same year raises the spectre of Curllean pir-acy in an attempt to dissuade the pamphlet's printer, Caesar Ward,from making alterations which might compromise the author's "in-contested Right' to his textual property.38 In the courts, the Londonbooksellers' common law claims to this right would be finally rejec-ted in 1774 in a case (Donaldson v. Becket) involving one of Sterne'sown booksellers, in favour of the more limited statutory rights out-lined in the Copyright Act of 1710. To the extent that he discrimin-ated between them at all, Sterne's allusion to his "incontested Right"suggests that, in 1759 at least, he may possibly have leant towards theconcept of an author's inherent, or metaphysical, right to property inhis texts. Crucially, however, the problematically material status of thetext, which defenders of this right were portraying as merely a con-venient commercial vehicle for the transmission of wit, originality,or creativity, was also the very condition which enabled some of Tris-tram's most notable set-pieces. Indeed, in ways which have not beenfully appreciated, a number of these print-basedjests played specific-ally upon the issues debated, and the difficulties confronted, withinthe contemporary debate about literary property. In order to unravelfurther the discursive intersections between Tristram, review satire,and the copyright debate, it will be necessary here to examine indetail a few key instances of this textual horseplay.To begin with, Tristram contains a number of narrative episodes
and verbal jests which traverse the text's complex existence as imma-terial copyright, individual manuscript, and printed reproduction.36For further discussion of these issues, see especially Martha Woodmansee, "The Geniusand the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the 'Author,'"Eighteenth-Century Studies 17 (1983-84), 425-48; Linda Zionkowski, "Aesthetics, Copyright,and 'The Goods of the Mind,' " BritishJournalforEighteenth-Century Studies 15 (1992), 163-74; and Trevor Ross, "Copyright and the Invention of Tradition," Eighteenth-Century Studies26 (1992-93), 1-27.
37Letters, pp. 80-81 [October 1759].38A Political Romance 1759, ed. Kenneth Monkman (Menston: Scolar Press, 1971), p. 50.
TRISTRAM SHANDY AND THE REVIEWERS 305
During the course of his travels through France in volume 7, for in-stance, Tristram discovers that he has lost his "remarks"the set ofnotes which is to become volume 7 itself. Believing them stolen, Tris-tram despairingly exclaims that they were "the best remarks ... thatever were madethe wisestthe wittiest," before recalling that hehad left this parcel ofwritten comments in the pocket of the chaisewhich he has just sold, so that he has sold both chaise and remarksto the chaise-vamper. As Tristram's declaration that the remarksare worth 400 guineas indicates, the comedy of cross-accidents andmisadventures in this episode depends upon a distinction betweenimmaterial copyright and material text. Rather than the physicalmanuscript itself, it is the property which it representsthe own-ership of the right to print and sell multiple copieswhich may beworth such a sum. Attempting to reconcile these two textual forms,the author of the Vindication of perpetual copyright had indicatedthat although the sentiment or doctrine "considered abstractedly,is incorporeal and ideal, yet, being impressed in visible characterson the paper, the manuscript copy is a corporeal subject."39 Thus,while the property of his text resides in an immaterial right, Tris-tram recognizes that the actual pre-print sale of his discourse re-quires some form of textual embodiment. Like the novels describedin The Battle of the Reviews, however, once embodied in material formthe text could also become mixed up with other objects of tradeand, consequently, be reduced to a merely material level. Havingpassed through the hands of the chaise-vamper, Tristram's remarks,like Fordyce's Sermons in Sheridan's The Rivals (1775), end up as curlpapersas "papilliotes" in the hair of the tradesman's wife (7:36-38,638-41).In the process of retrieving these papers, Tristram plays upon the
literal manipulation which they have endured at the hands of thechaise-vamper's wife, and the semantic twisting which the printedtext is liable to undergo upon entering the public sphere of com-mercial and critical consumption:Tenezsaid sheso without any idea of the nature of my suffering, she tookthem from her curls, and put them gravely one by one into my hat------one wastwisted this way------another twisted that------ay! by my faith; and when they arepublished, quoth I,------
39 Vindication, p. 17.
They will be worse twisted still. (7:38, 641)
The twisting of Tristram's text here recalls similar manipulations ofsense and substance elsewhere in Tristram. As the narrator notes, forexample, the manuscript of Yorick's funeral sermon upon mortal-ity is "rolled up and twisted round with a half sheet of dirty bluepaper, which seems to have been once the cast cover of a general re-view, which to this day smells horribly of horse-drugs" (6:1 1, 515-16) .In this allusion to the Critical Review's blue wrappers (and to Smol-lett's former medical training), Sterne simultaneously hinted at themain public perpetrators of textual twisting, besmirched the CriticalReview's editorial pronouncements (as printed upon its wrappers),and followed The Battle of the Reviews in describing a text whose solefunction is physically to protect another object. Equally frequent, inTristram, is the verbal play upon the physical and discursive "matter"of texts which had become endemic to such satire. The twenty-fifthchapter of volume 4, which immediately succeeds the twenty-thirdchapter, for instance, sees Tristram declaring that he has torn the in-tervening chapter from his book in order to make his encyclopedictext "more perfect and complete":NO doubt, Sirthere is a whole chapter wanting hereand a chasm of tenpages made in the book by itbut the bookbinder is neither a fool, or a knave,or a puppynor is the book a jot more imperfect, (at least upon that score)... So there's an end ofthat matter.
Tristram's final comment here plays upon the closure of the preced-ing discussion (concerning "experiments upon chapters") and theremoval of the pages of chapter 24. As Peter de Voogd notes, in thefirst edition of Tristram the page numbers leap at this point from146 to 156, suggesting that the chapter has been physically removedfrom the printed text.40 Claiming to have "torn out" the chapter,Tristram is careful to point out that, by contrast to Hafen Slawken-bergius's encyclopedic treatise upon noses, in which the bookbinderhas "most injudiciously placed [the prologomena] betwixt the an-alitical contents of the book, and the book itself (3:38, 273), itis he himself who, "upon reviewing it," has removed this chapterfrom Tristram Shandy (4:25, 372, 374). As though he were preven-ted from rewriting or renumbering by the later constraints of the
40 De Voogd, p. 385.
TRISTRAM SHANDY AND THE REVIEWERS 307
printed text, the removal of pages from the manuscript of Tristramis thus reproduced here in its published form. Eliding the distinc-tion between manuscript and printed discourse, Tristram is at thispoint literally caught between these two modes of textual existence,as Sterne stages an ironic clash between the text's status as mass-produced artifact and a pre-print transmission of individual copiesto individual readers.This discursive play of wit about textual materiality both repres-
ented contemporary anxieties concerning the literary marketplace,and undermined the notion that the author's property could exist inan idealized text which was not embodied in physical form or which,more precisely, was securely cosseted from material vulnerability.41As Sterne's mock-removal of a chapter also suggests, however, whilethe processes of textual commodification may have threatened to ex-orcise the aura from the authorial work, its status as a commercialobject also enabled a play of wit located in the material features ofthe printed text. As we have seen, within contemporary defences ofperpetual copyright the "mechanical composition" of the text was de-valued as an "object of trade," detached from the prior creation ofthe work within the author's mind and, even, from the embodiedform of an autograph manuscript. With his own investment in tricksof textual signification which could only be produced in the form ofthe printed text, a construction of authorial property in which theprinting and the commercial multiplication of copies was allowedonly to succeed the authorial "work"and in which such material ef-fects might provide a figure for the reductive agency of commerceupon this workwas clearly not to Sterne's advantage. For Sterne,we might say, the contemporary challenge presented to this modeof print comedy was to locate the "Product of the Mind" within the"object of trade"; and thus to produce a play ofwit that was embod-ied in, rather than merely reduced to, the materiality of print. It is inthe light of this challenge that I want to end by taking a fresh look atTristram's marbled page: a comic document which directly confron-ted this tension between the author's wit or creative principle, andthe mass-produced, materially replicated text.The original marbled pages in Tristram Shandy were coloured
leaves which differed from copy to copy. Within the context of the
41 For a more direct allusion to copyright issues in Tristram, see also Keymer, p. 38.
narrative, the page appears in the midst of a discussion concern-ing treatises written upon "noses," which itself incorporates a discus-sion of the nature and progress of property acquired in opinions.The page's reference to its own materiality is immediately suggestedby the figure of the saint"Paraleipomenon"to whom Tristram ap-peals in the run-up to its appearance (3:36, 268). Meaning "thingsomitted in the body of a work, and appended as a supplement,""Paraleipomena" accurately describes leaves which were separatelyproduced, individually hand-stamped with page numbers, and thentipped into the individual printed copies of the text.42 Once se-cured within Tristram, these leaves disrupt a key constituent of whatAlvin Kernan has termed "print logic"the concept of "fixity" (of"a single accurate text ... solidly fixed in permanent form on theprinted page, always exactly the same in copy after copy") .43 Import-antly, the individual uniqueness (or, essential dissimilarity) of themarbled pages inheres in their material form. By contrast to thetextual representation of personalitythe kind of originality that in-volves the text, or rather each copy of the text, presenting a "picture"of its unique creatorTristram's marbled original is not susceptibleof accurate replication.44 As I have suggested, Sterne faced the chal-lenge of transmitting the ideal or manuscript copyand, thus, theoriginality and individuality of the authorial workdirectly to hisreader by means of the commodified, mass-produced artifact. WhileTristram's later invitation to the reader to fill a blank page with apicture of Widow Wadman (6:38, 567) promotes an especially in-dividualized experience of his text, the productive multiplication ofcopies again ensures that the texts purchased by separate readerswill remain identical. By contrast, the marbled page produces a ma-terially embedded individuality in each separate copy of the text.With this literal play of "matter," therefore, Sterne comically rep-licated the uniqueness and witty, authorial immanence of ideal ormanuscript copy. Ironically, of course, each of the marbled pageswas produced not by the author himself, but by manual product-ive processes. Furthermore, the originality of these pages embodies
42OED definition, taken from Notes, p. 269. For technical information on the marbled pagessee Diana Patterson, "Tristram's Marblings and Marblers," Shandean 3 (1991), 70-97.
43Alvin Kernan, Printing Technology, Letters, and Samuel Johnson (Princeton: Princeton Uni-versity Press, 1987), p. 165.
44Letters, p. 87 (27January 1760).
TRISTRAM SHANDY AND THE REVIEWERS 309
not an original conception of the nature of (all of) the final prin-ted texts but, rather, an originary desire to create original or uniquetexts. Nevertheless, where defences of authorial copyright had op-posed a base, mechanical composition to the concept of texts asworks of the mind, under the sign of Saint Paraleipomenon Sternelocated the work's animating principle in precisely the mechanicallyproduced, material features which, in the discourses I have been dis-cussing, had threatened to undermine or vulgarize, or which hadbeen simply demarcated from, the wit of the writer.Both in his representations of texts as material objects and in the
manipulation of the physical form of his own text, I have been ar-guing, Sterne explored and exploited the vexed interrelationshipsbetween the immaterial creativity of the author, its appearance inmanuscript form, and the mechanical reproduction (and mass rep-lication) of the printed artifact. Through these representations andeffects, Tristram Shandy made comic capital out of processes of tex-tual commodification that had been embedded within the establish-ment of a professional print culturea culture which had tradition-ally been situated in opposition to the courtly milieu of the gen-tlemanly writer and which, from the perspective of the Scribleriansatiric tradition, had been viewed as posing a threat to establishedhierarchies of cultural value. Confronting the perceived threat to au-thorial integrity posed by commercial publishing, Sterne thus nego-tiated contemporary anxieties concerning the relationship betweenthe writer, the text, and the marketplace. In particular, the marbledpages comically reproduced the original creativity of the writer'smind within each printed text of Tristram. In the process, these mot-ley emblems of Sterne's work offered up for public consumption anembodied form of authorial wit. Where, in his engagement with thereviewers, Sterne had signalled a displacement of the stigmatizationof professional writing from authors to critics, with this materializedplay of wit Sterne also marked his text's embedment in the commer-cial world of contemporary print culture.45University College, Dublin
45 I would like to thank Brean Hammond, Angela Smallwood, and David Shuttleton for theirgenerosity in reading and discussing earlier versions of this article.