Swift, Sterne, and the Skeptical Tradition

Swift,Sterne,andthe SkepticalTradition J.T.PARNELL InarecentessayDonaldWehrssuggeststhatthetraditionoffideistic skepticismoffersameaningfulcontextforLaurenceSterne'snarrative andthematicconcerns.1Insodoinghehighlightsthemostsignificant, andhithertooverlooked,legacyoftheRenaissancehumanistswith whomSterne'snameissofrequentlylinked.Ithaslongbeenacommon- placetoseeTristramShandyinthetraditionoflearnedwit,butthelate floweringofthetraditioninSterne'sfictionhasneverbeenadequately explained.Similarly,theepithet"skeptic"occursregularlyindiscussions ofSterne,fromJohnTraugott'sinfluentialTristramShandy'sWorldin the1950stoJonathanLamb'srecentSterne'sFictionandtheDouble Principle.UntilDonaldWehr'sarticle,however,skeptichadbeenusedin itsmodernsense,denotingatworstuniversaldoubt,oratbestthekind ofphilosophical—and,moreorless,secular—skepticismassociatedwith LockeandHume.Awarenessofthetraditionoffideisticskepticism allowsus,forthefirsttime,tounderstandmorefullySterne's"skepti- cism"andhisrelationshiptothosewriterstowhom,inhisfictionand correspondence,heconsistentlydrawshisreaders'attention. ItisnocoincidencethatErasmus,Rabelais,andCervanteswereas highlyprizedbySwiftasbySterneorthattheScribleriansandSterne wereequallyfamiliarwiththeskepticalwritingsofMontaigneandChar- ron.2TheRenaissancelegacywas,ofcourse,pervasiveintheeighteenth 221 222 / PARNELL century,butthefarreachinginfluenceoftheskepticalbranchofthe Christian-humanistliterarytraditiononSterneandSwiftinparticular hasyettobeexplored.ForSwiftandSterne,asministersoftheChurch ofEnglandduringperiodswhenAnglicanismwascomingunderincreas- ingthreat,Erasmus,RabelaisandBurtonofferedobviousrolemodels. Allfivewritersfoundaliteraryarenainwhichtheycoulddisplaytheir exuberantwitwhileattemptingtosustainthebeliefsystemtowhichthey adhered.Itistoorarelystressedthattheliterarytraditionrepresentedby thesewritersismassivelyinformedbytheirreligiousbeliefs.InThe PraiseofFolly,GargantuaandPantagruelandTheAnatomyofMelan- choly"belief"isapparentinmorethantheshadowypresenceofreligious normsbehindtheexuberanceofdiscreteartisticcreations.Intheseworks andthefictionofSwiftandSterne,formandcontentreflectandenacta skepticismwhichiscloselyalliedtoadefenceofhard-pressedChristian ideology.IntheirfavouritewritersSwiftandSternefoundformaltech- niqueswhichwereseizeduponasthebestmeansofaddressingepistemo- logicalissueswhichhadfarreachingimplicationsforAnglicanhegem- ony.TheissuesmayhavebeenbornintheReformationcrisis,butthey werefarfrommoribundintheeighteenthcentury.Aninvestigationof Sterne'sandSwift'srelationshiptoChristian-humanistfideismhelpsus tounderstandSterne'sprofessedadmirationfortheDeanofSt. Patrick's,andsuggeststhatareassessmentofcriticalcommonplaces abouttherelationshipmightbeinorder.3Inparticular,thenotion— whichhasbecomeacriticalfiatsinceTraugottfirstpronouncedit—that Sterne's"comicvision"divergesfromSwift'sin"anoddsynthesisofthe satiricmethodoftheScriblerianswithLocke'sphilosophicalskepti- cism,"4needstobere-examined. IfTristramShandyremainsananachronismformanycritics,itis becauseSterneistoooftenviewedasafreak,aprophetofmodernity,or evenpostmodernity.Tobesure,ifwelookforevidenceof"pre- Romanticism,"existentialistangstorpostmodernrelativity,Tristram Shandywilloffercomfortingglimmersofconfirmation,butthemore difficulttaskistofacealesscongenialanachronism.IfSterneremains hardtoplace,itispreciselybecauseofhisadherencetoamucholder world-view—aworld-viewwhichhefoundbestsuitedtohisplanof "takingin...theWeakpartoftheSciences...[and]everyThingelse, which[hefound]Laugh-at-able."5Blithelyunawareofthealleged declineofsatireandtheconditionswhichproduceit,Sternediscovered inErasmus,Rabelais,Montaigne,andtheScriblerians,notjustformal techniques,butacredofullyinkeepingwithhisroleasaclergyman.The potentialproblemsraisedbyexchangingoneanachronismforanother canbeforestalledbyafullerunderstandingofwhy,asDonaldWehrs Swift,Sterne,andtheSkepticalTradition/223 putsit,"Sternetransposesintonarrativetherhetoricaltechniquesof classicalskepticism."6Suchanunderstandingwillalsoenhanceour awarenessoftheaffinitiesbetweenSwiftandSterne—affinitieswhich recentscholarshiphasmistakenlyignoredinarathernarrowinsistence ontheperceivedgapbetweenthepoisonousAugustansatiristandthe amiablesentimentalist. Withoutwishingtorehearseafullsummaryofthetenetsoffideistic skepticism,itisnecessarytooutlinethehistoryofthetraditioninorder tounderstanditsimpactonSterneandSwift.Forourpurposesitis essentialtolookatthephilosophicalunderpinningsofclassicalskepti- cismandtheremarkableusestowhichsuchskepticismwasputbyChris- tianapologistsfromthesixteenthcenturyonwards.Themethodsofthe classicalskepticswereemployedinthesixteenthcentury,chieflybyCath- olicwriters,asadefenceagainstthecentralargumentsoftheProtestant reformers.AsRichardPopkinputsitinTheHistoryofScepticismfrom ErasmustoSpinoza,"thedisputeovertheproperstandardofreligious knowledge...raisedoneoftheclassicalproblemsoftheGreekPyrrhonists ,theproblemofthecriterionoftruth."Luther'sassertionthat consciencewasaninfallibleguidetocorrectbiblicalexegesisledtodoubt inthewholefieldofepistemologyandhermeneutics.Thiswasnota localiseddebatebutonewhich,accordingtoPopkin,"wastohavethe mostfarreachingconsequences,notjustintheologybutthroughout man'sentireintellectualrealm."7Indeed,forPierreBayle—whoseDic- tionarywasasourceforSterneandtheScriblerians—there-discoveryof SextusEmpiricus'OutlinesofPyrrhonismwasseenasthebeginningof modernphilosophy.Fromtherediscoveryofclassicalskepticisminthe sixteenthcentury,theskepticalstancebecameoneofthekeyweaponsof philosophicalandtheologicaldebate.Havingbeenemployedinthebat- tleagainstthereformers,skepticismwaslevellednextagainstScholastic andPlatonicmodesofthoughtbeforeevolvinginthelateseventeenth centuryasafoiltoCartesianrationalism.Infactskepticismwasaphilo- sophicalsystemcapableofcounteringanyandeverysystem,includingits own—itsendbeingsuspenseratherthancertainty.Itisworthremember- ingthatthelegacyoftheSchoolmenwassuchthatitsinfluenceonthe Englishuniversitieswasstillfeltlateintheeighteenthcentury.Thatthe satireofSterneandtheScribleriansisconsistentlyanti-Scholasticcon- firmsthepervasivenessofthelegacy.ThatbothshouldattackCartesian rationalismwiththeveryskepticalstrategiesthatDescarteshadsoughtto discreditconfirmsSwift'sandSterne'skeenawarenessoftheepistemo- logicaldebate.DescartesjoinstheSchoolmenasabuilderof"edificesin the air." ItwasErasmus,whoseinfluenceonATaleofaTubandTristram 224 / PARNELL Shandyhaslongbeenacknowledged,8whointhePraiseofFollyfirst exploitedthepossibilitiesofaunionofthecharacteristicstrategiesofthe discourseofphilosophicalskepticismwiththeliterarydiscourseofthe paradoxicalencomium.Indeed,Erasmusandhisheirsclearlydemon- stratewhatsuchtwentieth-centuryskepticsasNietzscheandDerridaare sokeentostress—theuntenablenatureofneatdistinctionsbetween literaryandphilosophicaldiscourse.Butinthefaceoftheburgeoning crisepyrrhonienne,Erasmussoughtasolutiontodogmaticwrangling andreligiousfaction—behindwhichthefaintesttonesofthedeathknell ofreligiouscertaintycouldbeheard.Intheuseofaformcapableof demonstratingthecomplexityofsublunarytruth,hesoughttoclearthe wayforanacceptanceofGod'sevenmorevexedtruths.WhileErasmus didnothaveaccesstoSextusEmpiricus'OutlinesofPyrrhonism,hewas familiarwithCicero'slessthoroughaccountsofAcademicskepticism andDiogenesLaertes'summaryofPyrrhonianskepticism.Inaddition, therecentexperienceoftranslatingLucian'sserio-comicdialogues offeredErasmusaliteraryformwhich,throughitsexploitationofthe comic,itsloveofparadox,itsextravagantforegroundingofintertextual- ity,andits"dialoguewithoutclosure,"9presentedaperfectvehiclefor satireonoppositionvoiceswhichcouldatthesametimeendorsethe wisdomofChristian"folly." JusthowcloseErasmusistoSterneandSwiftcanbeseenfromthe passagewhereFollyalignsherselfwithablendofstoicandskeptical thought:"Butit'ssad,peoplesay,tobedeceived.Notatall,it'sfar saddernottobedeceived.They'requitewrongiftheythinkman'shappi- nessdependsonactualfacts;itdependsonhisopinions.Forhuman affairsaresocomplexandobscurethatnothingcanbeknownofthem forcertain,ashasrightlybeenstatedbymyAcademicians,theleast assumingofthephilosophers."10 EchoesofthePraiseofFollyintheTalehavebeenwelldocumented.'' ButthepossibilitythatSwift'sdebtextendsbeyondageneralconcur- renceofworldviewsandsharedrhetoricalstrategiestoafideismwhich informsnarrativestructurehasneverbeenarticulated.Swift'smuch debatedskepticismcan,infact,bebetterunderstoodwhenthenatureof theskepticaltraditionisgrasped.ForreadersofTristramShandy,Folly canbeseenasanticipatingTristram'sendorsementofthebenefitsof philautiawhichfindsaparallelinATaleofaTubintheHack'sdelightin the"sublimeandrefinedpointoffelicity,calledthepossessionofbeing welldeceived."12Moresignificantly,thepassagecontainsthestoicmaxim whichSternechoseashisepigraphtothefirstinstallmentofTristram andwouldhavefoundintwotextswhicharecentraltohissatire's intertextualfabric—Montaigne'sEssaysandShakespeare'sHamlet." Swift,Sterne,andtheSkepticalTradition/225 Further,thefinalsentencenotonlyencapsulatestheskepticalstance,but parallelsoneofSterne'smostrepeatedborrowingsfromLocke: weliveamongstriddlesandmysteries—themostobviousthings,which comeinourway,havedarksides,whichthequickestsightcannot penetrateinto;andeventheclearestandmostexaltedunderstandings amongstusfindourselvespuzzledandatalossinalmosteverycranny ofnature'sworks;sothatthis,likeathousandotherthingsfallsoutfor usinaway,whichtho'wecannotreasonuponit—yetwefindthegood ofit...andthat'senoughforus.14 GivenSterne'sfamiliaritywithErasmus,itishardtoimaginethathewas unawareoftheallusiveresonanceofhisownuseofEpictetusandLocke. Inthislight,theliftingofthephrasingfromLockeseemslessaconfir- mationofSterne'smuchdiscusseddebttotheEssayConcerningHuman Understanding,andmoreaconfirmationofacommonplaceChristian sentiment.15Sternedelightedinawell-turnedphraseanditischaracteris- ticofhispracticetoalightonthemosteloquentexpressionofafideistic saw.ThestressontheinadequacyofreasoninthefaceofNature's complexityishardlynewtotheeighteenthcentury,butisrathertypical ofafideisticviewthatistraceabletoSt.Paulandwhichcameinto particularprominenceinthecrisepyrrhonienneprecipitatedbytheRef- ormation.Folly'swordsconfirmalso,ifconfirmationwerenecessary, thatSternedidnotneedLocke,stilllessHume,todirecthimtothe skepticalhighroad. TheinfluenceofErasmus'thoughtandhisuseoftherhetoricof fideismwasprofound.Theextentofthelegacyissuchthatinthefiction ofthosewhocomeafterhimitissometimesdifficulttoascertainwhether theinfluenceisdirectorwhetherithasbeenpickedupatsecondhand. RabelaisandCervantesabsorbmuchofErasmus,buttakehisformal strategiesmuchfurtherbyextendingthemintotherealmsofnarrative satire.16Butbehindthemarvellouscomplexitiesandskepticalnuancesof GargantuaandPantagruelandDonQuixoteliesafideismthatiscloser totheconservativeskepticismofSt.Paulthenthe"radical"skepticismof modernity.InthislightweshouldbewareofseizinguponSwift'sand Sterne'smuchdebatedskepticismasevidenceofthecrumblingofcon- servativeAnglicanideology.NorinSterne'scaseshouldwebetooquick tocelebrateamodernvoicethatbreaksoutfromthesupposedshackles ofanimaginedneoclassicism.ValerieGrosvenorMyer'sclaimthatwe shouldconsiderSterne"inrelationtothedissolutionofAugustanvalues intorelativismandsubjectivityinthewakeofLocke,"17whiletypicalof muchcriticismofTristramShandy,isquiteuntenable.Inthisaccount Locke's"wake"haswashedover(orunder?)Swift,PopeandAddison 226 / PARNELL andhitSternefullinthefaceseventyyearsaftertheEssay'spublication. Withoutquestion,Locke'sinfluenceoneighteenthcenturythoughtwas profound,buthecanhardlybeheldresponsibleforthedissolutionof Augustanvalues.LockepossiblyhadagreaterinfluenceontheScribler- iansthanonSterne,sincetheyrespondtohisideaswhiletheyarestill fresh.18Furthermore,wehavetobeextremelywaryofanysimplistic conceptionofAugustanvalues.Theformulationmaybecomforting,but ittooreadilyfalsifiesliteraryhistorybecauseofitstendencytoturnwhat isdisparateintoaforcedwhole.Sternefoundnumerousexamplesof subjectivityandrelativismofadifferentorderinatraditionthatlong predatesLocke. ToomuchofthecriticismthathasdealtwiththeLocke/Sternenexus hasprivilegedthephilosopher'sinfluencewithoutasufficientinvestiga- tionofthehistoryofskepticalthought.OneresultisthatLocke'sskepti- cismisseenasmoreradicallymodernthanitactuallyis.Thenatureof fideismisthatitisamitigatedformofskepticismsothatforallthesigns of"modern"preoccupationsinErasmus,Rabelais,Cervantes,Swiftand Sterne,theunderpinningcertaintyofbeliefintheChristiandeityquali- fiesanycelebration,suchasBakhtin's,ofthewriters'debttothekindof joyfulrelativityexemplifiedinthecarnivalesque. Thattheskepticismofthesewritersismitigatediscrucialtoourunder- standingoftheirtexts.FarfromembracingtheconclusionsofPyrrho- nianskepticism,theyadoptitsrhetoricforradicallydifferentends.As TerencePenelhumhasargued,Erasmususesskepticismindefence"of onedogmaticsolution—namelyamiddle-of-the-roadtheology."19Simi- larly,allofthewritersunderconsiderationuseabewilderingrangeof weaponsfromtheskepticarsenaltoservesatiric,andconsequentlydog- matic,ends.Erasmusisunrelentinginhissatireon"false"learning,but isfinallymoreinterestedindiscreditinghisreligiousopponents. FromErasmusonwards,theallianceoffideismandMenippeanform becamealmostexclusivelyassociatedwithaskepticalinterrogationof thehuman-basedsearchfortruthinthesciencesandtheartsandwith satireon"abuses"inreligion.20IntheseventeenthcenturyAnglicanapol- ogistsusurpedtheformtocounterboththeJesuitsandthePuritans. Burton'sAnatomy—belovedofSwiftandSterne—andMore'sEnthu- siasmusTriumphatusarethemostenduringexamplesofthecharacteristicblendofsatireonreligiousopponentsandskepticalrhetoricinthe serviceofAnglicanfideism.AgainSwift'sandSterne'sacknowledged debttoBurtonbecomesmoresignificantwithafullerhistoricaloverview oftheskepticaltradition.21 ScriblerianandSterneansatireshouldbeseeninthecontextofthis traditionofskeptical,anti-dogmaticargumentsofthesixteenthandsev- Swift,Sterne,andtheSkepticalTradition/227 enteenthcenturies.Thesatiricreductionofsystem-buildersinBurton, SwiftandSterneismorethanaconflictbetweenthecomicandthe scientific;itisaproductof,andaresponseto,anintellectualmovement thathaditsbirthinthecrisisoftheReformation.SwiftandSterne employtherhetoricoffideism—atsomeriskofunderminingthevery groundtheyseektopreserve—andseizeonnarrativestrategiescalculated todeflectreadersfromthesearchforrationalgroundsfortruthtowards acceptanceofAnglicanorthodoxy.Theskepticalmethodofperplexing theadversarywithanexuberantheapingupofprosandconsatthe extremepolesofdebateonvexedissuesgivestheirsatireaseldom rivallededge. DonaldWehrshasrightlynotedthe"interpretative'suspense'"that SternebringsaboutbybreakingoffthenarrativeoftheWidowWad- man'sandToby'samoursattheverymomentwhentheextentofToby's woundistoberevealed.Expectedresolutionisdeniedandthereaderis leftinsuspense.Thisstrategy—typicalofSterne'snarrativetechique throughoutTristramShandy—comesclosetogenuineskepticalsus- pense,butshouldnotblindustothefactofSterneancertainties.These certaintiesarecentraltoproperunderstandingoftheskepticaltradition inwhich,paradoxically,skepticalrhetoricismadetoservedogmatic ends.Forthereader,atleast,thenatureofToby'swounddoesnot "remainuncertain."22AttheendoftheprecedingchapterTristram resolvesthisparticularambiguityinhisdiscussionofToby's"fitnessfor themarriedstate."NaturehadnotonlymadeToby"gentle,generous, andhumane,"but:"shehadmoreoverconsideredtheothercausesfor whichmatrimonywasordained—Andaccordingly***************** TheDONATIONwasnotdefeatedbymyuncleToby'swound"(TS, 2:777). Inspiteoftheprecedinglacuna,thefinalsentenceisunequivocal.23 Withinsixshortchapters,justtomakecertainthatthefactsareknown, andinordertoextractthegreatesthumourfromhis"choicestmorsel," SternehasTrimappriseBridgetofthesameinformation.TheTrim/ Bridgetsceneofchapter28beautifullyparallelstheToby/WidowWad- mansceneinchapter26,insuchawayastorecallthedoublenessoftruth thatwemayseeascharacteristicofSterne'sskepticalstrategies.The contrastbetweenmasterandmanisstark.InresponsetotheWidow's "whereabouts?"thehopelesslydeludedTobycallsupondocumentary evidenceintheshapeofamapofNamur.Bycontrast,Trimfirst respondstoBridget'senquirybyindicating,onhisownbody,theexact placewhereTobyreceivedhiswound,"'here':Inpronouncingwhichhe slightlypress'dthebackofherhandtowardstheparthefeltfor____and letitfall"(TS,2:796).Bridget'sdoubtscauseTrimtodenouncevehe- 228 / PARNELL mentlytherumoursas"falseashell"beforethechapterendsinamassof equivocallacunaeinwhichtheonecertaintyisthatwhateverishappeningisthe "unfortunate"resultofBridget'shaving"beguntheattackwith hermanualexercise"(TS,2:797).Suspensehereisnotallthatitmight be.ThereisnodoubtthatSterneexploitstheskepticalformasameans ofdemonstratingthenon-linear...