" THE SECOND JOURNAL TO ELIZA "
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Perhaps you will allow me to draw your 'attention to a passage in the criticism of my book published in the Spectator dated October 26th. The passage runs : " If we are to believe that he (Sterne) wrote the Supposed Letters we must admit an extraordinary degeneration in his fertility of phrase. The letters are full of cliches, composed of clichés ; of ' poverty's chilling hand,' of boisterous seas,' of ' bodies mouldering in the grave.' " Two serious errors of fact lie behind the implications of this passage. In the first place, Sterne, in common with Young, and many others of the century, had no scruple in using the cliché freely. In his prose, " tender blossoms moulder into dust," " rosebuds of delight " strew " smooth velvet paths," and the " malignant blast " lies in wait to smite the " blooming flower." In the light Of your reviewer's article, it is not safe to say that " every schoolboy knows " this chaiacteristic of Sterne's prose, but such knowledge might reasonably be assumed on the part of anyone venturing to pass an opinion on his work.
The inaccuracy of your reviewer's information about Sterne is also shown by his reference to Sterne's."fertility Of phrase." Sterne certainly used many happy expressions, but his work contains so many clichés, so many borrowed phrases, that, if we measure his achieVement by your critic's standard, we are more likely to put him down as artificial and unoriginal. Sterne's chief claim to distinction lies-iii the subtle science or art of his compositiOn, and all ciompaiisein Of with the prose Of the " Second Jcitirnal " is necessarily unless it takes as its basis this essential characteristic of his work.
I shall be grateful if you will kindly help me to correct any
misapprehensions that may have arisen in your• readers' minds through such inaccurate statements or implications- -I am, Sir, • &c.,
MARGARET R. B. SHAW. - University Women's Club, 2 Audley Square, South - Audley Street; W. 1. . •
Our reviewer writes : Miss Shaw has not understood my
complaint. By relying so much on " intuitive " criticism—by
• .. choosing three or four passages and saying, " Anyone with an ear must agree that they were all written by Sterne "—she has avOided the hard work of bringing evidence for her claims. I
pointed out that she might well have expounded in more detail . Sterne's " science or art of composition "—and even paid some attention to his use of words. She seems to think, how- ever, that this " science or art" is so subtle that it would not bear inspection. I remain convinced that Ste:ne's admitted works are not " composed of elfchis "—he was not above usIng them ; and that Sterne was surprisingly fertile in the invention of phiaseshe also used phrases which he had not in- vented. It would 'need a good deal of space to argue this point and bring satisfactory evidence ; and the place for such an argument was in Miss Shaw's book. Shc obviously con- siders, however, that once she has claimed the Supposed Letters as Sterile's work the onus of proof or disproof rests with anyone rather than herself. This attitude caused my original complaint.
[We cannot continue this correspondence.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
