Boris Eichenbaum 1886-1959 With Roman Jakobson, who later founded the Prague schoo! of structuralistlinguis- tics, Eichenbaum was a main figure of the Russian Formalist movement, which flour- ished until its forced demise under political pressure in the 1920s. The attack that de- stroyed the movement began in 1924 with Leon Trotsky’s Literature and Revolution and was carried on more vehemently by lesser figures. Members of the movement were charged with lack of interest in the social causes and effects of literature and advocating a form of art for art’s sake. Eichenbaum’s essay is an attempt to summarize the movement's achievements and to defend it against Marxist attacks. There is an element of conciliation in the essay that somewhat distorts the picture. The movement was never as communal and orderly in its development and aims as Eichenbaum would have his readers believe. Also. there is considerably more emphasis on scientific, positivistic procedures in his essay than was evident in the work of the Formalist critics themselves. The standard history of the ‘movement, Victor Erlich’s Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine (rev. ed. 1964), offers a more detached summary. Eichenbaum’s reader cannot help being struck by the similarities of the movement to the American New Criticism. Almost all of the general principles he enunciates are shared by that movement: the attack on irresponsible mixing of various disciplines and their problems. the distinction between “practical language” and language with “inde- pendent value.” the insistence that form is not simply an “envelope” for content, the as- sertion that explanation of the genesis of a phenomenon does not clarify our view of the phenomenon as a literary fact, the idea of a literary Work as a "self-determined use of ‘material,’ and the sense of the expansive meaning of a literary work. The Formalists began, according to Eichenbaum, by rejecting old assumptions about beauty as an external ideal, worked through the idea of the literary object as a unified technical accomplishment. and came to the idea of a truly literary history. In this last phase, they spoke much as T. S, Eliot did in Tradition and the Individual Tal- ent (above, page OPQ). In their view. a work of artis defined by its relation to other works. Literary hiStory points out these relationships and thus is not using literature as a document but actually giving to aesthetic theory and to literary meaning a histor- ical dimension When the Formalist movement died. many of its principles were carried, mainly by Jakobson. into structuralist linguistics. Combined with the ideas of Ferdinand de Saus- sure’s Course in General Linguistics (1915). they contributed to structuralism in a vari- ety of fields, including anthropology and. again, literary theory. Essays by Eichenbaum can be found in Michigan Slavic Materials II (1963), in Russian Formalist Criicism: Four Essays, edited and sranslated by L. T. Lemon and M. J.Reis 1965), and in C. Pike. ed.. The Futurists, the Formalists, and the Marxist Cri- 867868 © Boris EICHENSAUM tique (1979). Eichenbaum’s O. Henry: The Theory of the “Formal Method” and the Theory of the Short Story was translated in 1968, and his Lermontov in 1981. See A. N. ‘Vognesenski, “Problems of Method in the Study of Literature in Russia,” Slavonic Re- view VI(1927), 168-77; Manfred “Russian Formalism.” The American Bookman 1 (1944), 19-30; W. E. Harkins, “Slavonic Formalist Theories in Literary Scholarship.” Word VII (1951), 177-85; Mark Slonim, Modern Russian Literature (1953); Vietor Er- lich, Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine (rev. ed. 1964); Harold K. Schefski, Boris M. Eichenbaum: The Evaluation of His Critical Method (unpub. diss., 1976). The Theory of the “Formal Method” The worst, in my opinion, are those who describe science as ifit were setled.! A. be CaNDoLLe: ‘The so-called formal method grew out of a struggle for a science of literature that would be both independent and fac- tual; it isnot the outgrowth of a particular methodology. The notion of a method has been so exaggerated that it now sug- {gests too much. In principle the question for the Formalist® {snot how to study literature, but what the subject matter of literary study actually is. We neither discuss methodology nor quarrel about it, We speak and may speak only about theoretical principles suggested to us not by this or that ready-made methodology. but by the examination of spe- cific material ints specific context. The Formalists’ works in literary theory and literary history show this clearly enough, but during the past ten years so many new questions and old misunderstandings have accumulated that I fee! it advisable to try to summarize some of our work—not as & dogmatic system but as a historical summation. I wish to show how the sork of the Formalists began, how it evolved, and what it evolved into. “Echenboart Tye Theory ofthe “Formal Method” ws ist publabed in Ukranian i 1926. The tot i om Rurton Formalst Crncism: Four Es ayn edited and waslated by Lee T Lemon and Marion bets (Linola. Univerty of Nebraska Press, 1968) "pre 3 mon ais Sel qureprsenelsciene omni Alphonse Cando 1806-1893) S[elchenbacn} By Formalist I mean in his essay ony that group of Treorticans who made op the Society forthe Stay of Porte Language {he OPOYAZ) ard who began to posh ter oes in 1916 [Lemon and Ress] Acwally Eichenbaum also snclaes as Formalist; embers of We Morcow Linguiste Cele ‘The evolutionary character of the development of the formal method is important to an understanding of its his- tory; our opponents and many of our followers overlook it. ‘We are surrounded by eclectics and latecomers who would, ‘um the formal method into some kind of inflexible formtal- istic system in order to provide themselves with a working. vocabulary, a program, and a name. A program is a very hhandy thing for critics, but not at all characteristic of our ‘method. Our scientific approach has had no such prefabri- cated program or doctrine, and has none. In our studies we value a theory only as a working bypothesis to help us dis- cover and interpret facts; that is, we determine the validity of the facts and use them as the material of our research. We are not concerned with definitions, for which the latecomers. thirst; nor do we build general theories, which so delight eclectics. We posit specific principles and adhere to them in- sofar as the material justifies them. Ifthe material demands their refinements or change, we change or refine them. In this sense we are quite free from our own theories—as sci- ence must be free to the extent that theory and conviction are distinct. There is no ready-made science; science lives not by settling on truth, but by overcoming error. This essay is not intended to argue ous position. The initial period of scientific strugele and journalistic polemics is past. Such attacks as that in The Press and the Revolution? ‘ovith which I was honored) can be answered only by new scientific works. My chief purpose here is to show how the formal method, by gradually evolving and broadening its field of research, spread beyond the usual “methodological” limits and became a special science of literature. a specific ‘ordering of facts. Within the limits of this science, the most diverse methods may develop. if only because we focus on the empirical study of the material. Such study was, essen- tially, the aim of the Formaliss from the very beginning, am essay by Anatoly Lunacharsky (1875-1933), Soviet Comisar for ‘Ebvo, ch ached Ferm on the round ofits decadence —h—and precisely that was the significance of our quarrel with the old traditions. The name formal method, bestowed upon the movement and now firmly atached to it, may be tenta- tively understood as ahistorical term: it should not be taken as an accurate description of our work. Neither Formalism as an aesthetic theory nor methodology as a finished scien- tific system characterizes us; we ate characterized only by the attempt to create an independent science of literature ‘which studies specifically literary material. We ask only for recognition ofthe theoretical facts of literary art as such, Representatives ofthe formal method were frequenthy reproached by various groups for their lack of casty or for the inadequacy of thei principles —for indifference to gen- eral questions of aesthetics, sociology, psychology, and so on These reproofs, despite their varying merit re alike in that they correctly grasp that the chief characteristic of the For- malas is indeed their deliberate isolation both from “aesthet- {es from above" and from all ready-made or self-styled gen- eral theories. This isolation (particularly from aesthetics) is ‘more or less typical ofall contemporary studies of art. Dis- nissing a whole group of general problems (problems of beauty, the aims of at, et), the contemporary study of ant concentrates onthe concrete problems of aesthetics (Kunst- -wissenschai}. Without reference to socio-aestetic premises. itraises questions about the idea of antstic form and its eve lution. It thereby raises a series of more specific theoretical and historical questions. Such familiar slogans as WeIfin's “history of art without names” [Kunstgeschichte ohne Nah ‘men} characterized experiments inthe empirical analysis of style and technique like Vol's? “experiment inthe eompara- tive study of paintings"). In Germany especially the stdy of the theory and history ofthe visual ans, which had had there an extremely rich history of tradition and experiment. occu- pied a cental position in art studies and began to influence the general theory of art and is separate disiplnes—in par ticular, the study of literature. In Russia, apparently for local torical reasons, literary studies occupied a place analozous to that ofthe visual arts in Germany. “The formal method has attracted general attention and become controversial not. of course, because of is dstinc- tive methodology. but rather because of its characteristic a- titude towards the understanding and te study of technique “The Formalists advocated principles which violated solidly entrenched traditional notions. notions which had appeared tobe axiomatic not only in the study of literature, but in the study of art generally. Because they adhered to their princt “Lemon a Res] See Heavch Wolff's Kunweeschchtiche Grandoe rife Monich 1913), Walfin was one of the oremaors oe stl Stays ofan Kae Vell 1867-1917), German at histori. The Theory of the “Formal Method” © 869 ples so strictly, they narrowed the distance between particu- lar problems of literary theory and general problems of aes- thetis. The ideas and principies of the Formalists, for all their concreteness, were pointedly directed towards a gen- eral theory of aesthetics. Our creation ofa radieally uncon- ventional poetics, therefore, implied more than a simple re- assessment of particular problems: it had an impact on the study of art generally. Ithad its impact because of a series of historical developments. the most important of which ‘were the crisis in philosophical aesthetics and the stating innovations in art (in Russia most abrupt and most clearly defined in poetry). Aesthetics seemed barten and art delib- erately Jesuded—in an entirely primitive condition. Hence, Formalism and Futurism seemed bound together by history But the general historical significance of the appear- ance of Formalism comprises a special theme; I must speak of something else here because | intend to show how the principles and problems of the formal method evolved and how the Formalists came to ther present position. Before the appearance of the Formaliss, academic re- search, quite ignorant of theoretical problems, made use of antiquated aesthetic, psychological, and historical axioms and had so lost sight ofits proper subject that its very exis- tence asa science had become illusory. There was almost no struggle between the Formalists and the Academicians, not because the Formalists had broken inthe door (there were ‘no doors), but because we found an open passageway in stead ofa fortress. The thearetial heritage which Potebnya. and Veselovsky* left to their disciples seemed 10 lie like dead capital—a tzeasure which they were afraid to touch, the brilliance of which they had allowed to fade. fact, au- thority and influence had gradually passed from academic scholarship tothe “scholarship” of the journals, tothe work ‘of the Symbolist ities and theoreticians. Actually, between 1907 and 1912 the books and essays of Vyacheslav Ivanov, Bryusov Merezhkovsky. Chukovsky,” and others, were much more influential han the scholarly studies and disser {ations ofthe university professors. This joumalisic schol- arship, with all its subjectivity and tendentiousness, was supported by the theoretical principles and slogans of the new anistic movements and their propagandists. Such books as Bely's Sinwolizm (1910}* naturally meant much more to the younger generation than the monographs on the history of literature which sprang up from no set of prineiples and Alevander Potbaya (IR36-1891), Alexander Veselovsky (1838-1906, Rossan terry scolar ‘Vyaachley Ivano (1866-1989), Valery Bryov (1873-1924), Dimitry Merzhkovsk (1863-1941), Koraey Cnukovsky (1882-1969), Russian poe ‘Andrey Bel (1880-1934), Russian Symbols poet 6870 © Boris EicHensaum which showed tha the authors completely lacked both a sci- entific temperament and a scientific point of view: The historical battle between the two generations [the ‘Symbolists and the Formalists}—a battle which was fought cover principles and was extraordinarily intense—was there- fore resolved in the jourmals, and the battle line was drawn cover Symbolist theory and Impressionstic criticism rather than over any work being done by the Academicians. We en- tered the fight against the Symbolist in order to wrest poet- ics from their hands—to free it from its tes with their sub- jective philosophical and aesthetic theories and to direct it toward the scientific investigation of facts. We were raised on their works, and we saw their errors with the greatest clarity. At ths time, the struggle became even more urgent because the Futurists (Khlebnikov, Kruchenykh, and Mayakovsky)? who were on the rise, opposed the Symiol- ist poetics and supported the Fortnaiss The original group of Formalists was united by the idea of liberating poeti dition from the fetters ofthe inellectu- alism and moralism which more and more obsessed the symbolists. The dissension among the Symbolist theoreti cians (1910-11) and the appearance ofthe Acmeists! pre- pared the way for our decisive rebellion. We knew that all ‘compromises would have to be avoided, that history de- manded of usa really evolutionary attitude—a categorical thesis, merciless irony, and bold rejections of whatever could not be reconciled with our position. We had to oppose the subjective aesthetic principles espoused by the Symnbol- ists with an objective consideration ofthe facts. Hence our Formalist movernent was characterized by anew passion for scientific positivism—a rejection of philosophical assump- tions of psychological and aesthetic interpretations. ete. Ar, considered apart from philosophical aesthetis and ideolog: ical theories, dictated its own position on things. We had to tum to fac’ and. abandoning general systems and problems. to begin “in the middle" with the facts which art forced upon us. Art demanded that we approach i losly: science, that we deal with the specific ‘The establishment of a specific and factual literary sc ‘ence was basic tothe organization ofthe formal method. All of our efforts were directed toward disposing ofthe earlier position which, according to Alexander Veselovsky, made of Iiterature an abandoned thing (a res nulls)" This is why *Vetemir Knleboibov (1885-1922), Alekses Kruchensah (1886-1968 lair Mayabowsky (1893-1930) Rusu Fans pct "Lemon and Reis] The Acrevts, ike the Futur reelid ant the Fincipes and practices of the Symbolist. Bur unlike the Futures. thes tempted a highly controled ous sve of pacts The hes hoo ‘Acmetsts were Anes ANhmatons [IM84-I9661 snd Onp Sunelsan: 11992-19420], The movement did not surice Weed MI "Literally a noneistet ting the postion ofthe Formalists could not be reconciled with other approaches and was so unacceptable to the eclectics. In rejecting these other approaches, the Formalists actually rejected and still reject not the methods, bu rather the ire- sponsible mixing of various disciplines and their problems. The basis of our position was and is thatthe object of liter- ary science, as such, must be the study of those specifics which distinguish it from any other material. (The sec- ‘ondary, incidental features of such material, however, may reasonably and rightly be used in a subordinate way by other scientific disciplines.) Roman Jakobson formulated this view with perfect clarity The object of the science of literature is not itera- ture, but literariness—that is, that which makes a given work a work of literature. Until now literary historians have preferred to act like the policeman who, intending to atest a certain person, would, at any opportunity, seize any and all persons who chanced imo the apartment, as well as those who passed along the street. The literary historians used everything —anthropology. psychology, pli- tics, philosophy. Instead ofa science of literature, they created @ conglomeration of homespun disei- plines. They seemed to have forgotten that their essays strayed into related disciplines—the his tory of philosophy, the history of culture, of psy: chology, ete—and that these could righty use lit rary masterpieces, only as defective, secondary documents? ‘To apply and strengthen this principle of specificity and to avoid speculative aesthetics, we had to compare liter- ary facts with other kinds of facts, extracting from a limi less number of important orders of fact that order which ‘would pertain to literature and would distinguish it from the ‘others by its function. This was the method Leo Jakubinsky followed in his essays in the first Opoyaz collection, in which he worked out the contrast between poetic and practi cal language that served as the basic principle of the For- rmalists’ work on key problems of poetics.” As a result, the Formalists did not look, as literary students usually had, to- "TEichenbaum| Roman Jaobon | 1896-1982], Noveshaa shay poesya IMternRasian Poetry Prague 1921). pH. [Lemon and Res} Roman Stn. shoud be Suesed i at pune that erate unelate Instr pstchogy. and so forth Hei rather snsisting thatthe sty of erator. sto bea sine discipline, must have sown partial sje "fo Takubinshy earlytwentethcentary RessanHieaty theorist of he OMOY AZ roewards history, culture, sociology, psychology, or aesthetics. etc., but toward linguistics, a science bordering on poetics and sharing material withit, but approaching it from a dif- ferent perspective and with different problems. Linguistics, for its part, was also interested in the formal method in that what was discovered by comparing poetic and practical lan- ‘guage could be studied as a purely linguistic problem. as par of the general phenomena of language. The relationship between linguistics and the formal method was somewhat analogous to that relation of mutual use and delimitation that exists, for example, between physics and chemistry. ‘Against this background, the problems posed earlier by Potebnya and taken for granted by his followers were re- ‘viewed and reinterpreted. ‘Leo Jakubinsky’s first essay, On the Sounds of Poetic Language, compared practical and poetic language and for- ‘mulated the difference between them: The phenomena of language must be classified from the point of view of the speaker's particular purpose as he forms his own linguistic pattem. the pattem is formed forthe purely practical pur pose of communication. then we are dealing with 2 system of practical language (Ihe language of thought) in which the linguist pattem (sounds, morphological features, etc) have no independent value and are merely a means of communication But other linguistic systems, sysems in which the practical purpose is in the background (although Pethaps no entirely hidden) are conceivable they exist, and ther linguistic pattems acquire inde pendent value ‘The establishment ofthis distinction was important both forthe construction ofa poetics and for understanding the Fu- turst's preference for nonsense language as revealing the fur- thest extension of the sheer independent value of words. the kind of value partially observed in the language of children. in the glossolalia of religious sects, and so on. The Futurist ‘experiments in nonsense language were of prime significance as a demonstration against Symbolism which, in its theories, ‘went no further than to use the ideaof instrumentation to in- dicate the accompaniment of meaning by sound and so to de- ‘emphasize the role of sound in poetic language. The problem ‘of sound in verse was especially crucial because it was on this point that the Formalists and Futurists united to confront the theorists of Symbolism. Naturally. the Formalists gave battle at first on just that issue: the question of sound had to be dis posed of first if we were to oppose the aesthetic and philo- sophical tendencies of the Symbolists with a system of pre- The Theory of the “Formal Method” © 871 cise observations and to teach the underlying scientific eon- clusions. This accounts forthe content ofthe Grst volume of| Opoyaz. a content devoted entirely to the problem of sound and nonsense language. Victor Shklovsky, along with Jakubinsky, in On Poetry and Nonsense Language, cited a variety of examples which showed that “even words without meaning are necessary.” He showed such meaninglessness to be both a widespread lin- fuistic fact and a phenomenon characteristic of poetry. “The poet does not decide 10 use the meaningless word: usually “nonsense” is disuised as some kind of frequently delusive. deceptive content. Poets are forced to acknowledge that they themselves de not understand the contest of their own verses.” Shklovsky’s essay, moreover, transfers the question from the area of pure sound, from the acoustical evel (which provided the bass for impressionistic interpretations of the relation between sound and the description of objects ot the ‘motion represented) tothe level of pronunciation and atcu lation. “inthe enjoyment of a meaningless ‘nonsense word,” the arculatory aspect of speech is undoubtedly important Perhaps generally a great part of the delight of poetry consists an pronunciation, in the independent dance of the organs of speech." The question f meaningless language thas became 2 Serious scientific concern, the solution af which would help to clarify many problems of poetic language in general Shklovsky also formulated the general question: If we add to our demand of the word as such that it serve to clarify understanding, that it be gener: ally meaningful, then of course “meaningles: language, asa relatively superficial language, falls by the wayside. But it does not fall alone; a con- sideration of the facts forces one to wonder whether words always have a meaning, not only in meaningless speech, but also in simple poetic speech—or whether this notion is only a fiction resulting from our inattention, ‘The natural conclusion of these observations and prin- ciples was that poetic language is not only a language of im- ‘ages, that sounds in verse are not at all merely elements of superficial euphony. and that they do not play a mere “ac- companiment” to meaning. but rather that they have an Sependent significance. The purpose of this work was to force a revision of Potebnya’s general theory, which had been built on the conviction that poetry is “thought in im ages.” Potebnya's analysis of poetry, the analysis which the ‘Symbolists had adopted, treated the sound of verse as expressive of something behind it, Sound was merely ‘onomatopoetic, merely “aural description.” The works of872 © Boris EICHENBAUM ‘Andrey Bely (who discovered the complete sound picture that champagne makes when poured from a bottle into a glass in svo lines from Pushkin," and who also discovered the “noisomeness of a hangover” in Blok’s repetition of the cconsonantal cluster ray were quite typical."5 Such attempts to explain alliteration, bordering on parody, required a re- buff and an attempt to produce concrete evidence showing that sounds in verse exist apart from any connection with imagery, that they have an independent oral function. ‘Leo Jakubinsky, in his essays, provided linguistic sup- port for (our arguments in favor of] the independent value of sound in verse. Osip Brik's essay on Sound Repetitions il- lustrated the same point with quotations from Pushkin and Lermontov"? arranged to present a variety of models. Brik doubted the correctness of the common opinion that poetic language is a language of images: No matter how one looks atthe interelationship of ‘mage and sound, there is undoubtedly only one conclusion possible—the sounds, the harmonies, are not only euphonious accessories to meaning; they are also the result of an independent poetic purpose, The superficial devices of euphony do not ‘completely account for the instrumentation of po- tic speech. Such instrumentation represents on the ‘whole an intricate product ofthe interaction of the {general laws of harmony. Rhyme. alliteration. etc. are only obvious manifestations. particular cases. ‘of the basic laws of euphony. In opposing the work of Bely, Brik. in the same essay. made ‘no comment at all on the meaning of this or that use of allit- eration, but merely affirmed that repetition in verse is analo gous to tautology in folklore—that is. that repetition itself plays something of an aesthetic role: “Obviously we have here diverse forms of one general principle, the principle of simple combination, by which either the sounds of the words of their meanings, oF now one and now the other. serve as the material of the combination.” Such an extension of one device to cover the various forms of poetic material is quite characteristic of the work of the Formalists during their initial period. After the presentation of Brik’s essay the 1 AlewanderSergeyevch Pushkin 709-1837). Ras poet "Aletander Alexandrovich Blok (180-1921) Rossin Sembost pest {Eichenbaum| Se he exay "A ely.” Shp YSorhioms (1917) an ee [Bronch} (1917), sesso my sty “0 svaakh vse On be Sound ff Verse"I reprinted in So erature [Thre Leterme enna ony SOsip Buk (1888-1965), Resin pox. Mall Yorevi Lermonto 1813-18), Rus poet 4uestion of sound in verse loxt something ofits urgency, and the Formalists turned 10 questions of poetics in general ‘The Formalists began their work with the question ofthe sounds of verse—at that time the most controversial and most basic question. Behind this particular question of poetics stood more general theses which had to be formulated. The distinction between systems of poetic and practical language, which defined the work of the Formalists from the very be- ginning, was bound to result in the formulation of a whole group of basic questions. The idea of poetry as “thought by ‘means of images” and the resulting formula, poetry agery, clearly did not coincide with our observations and con- tradicted our tentative general principles. Rhythm, sound, syhtax—all of these seemed secondary from such a point of view; they seemed uncharacteristic of poetry and necessarily extraneous to it. The Symbolists accepted Potebnya’s general theory because it justified the supremacy of the image- symbol; yet they could not rid themselves of the notorious, theory of the “harmony of form and content” even though it clearly contradicted their bent for formal experimentation and discredited it by making it seem mere aestheticism. The For- ‘malists, when they abandoned Potebnya’s point of view, also freed themselves from the traditional correlation of form and content and from the traditional dea of form as an envelope, vessel into which one pours a liquid (the content), The facts Of art demonstrate that art's uniqueness consists not in the [parts which enter nto it but in thei original use, Thus the no- tion of form was changed; the new notion of form required no ‘companion idea, no correlative. Even before the formation of the Opoyar it: 1914, at the time of the public performances of the Futurists, Shklovsky had published a monograph, The Resurrection of the Word, in which he took exception partly to the concepts set forth by Potebnya and partly to those of Veselovsky (the ‘question of imagery was not then of major significance) to advance the principle of verceptible form as the specific sigo of artistic awareness We do not experience the commonplace, we do not see it; rather. we tecognize it. We do not see the walls of our room: and iis very difficult for us to see errors in proofreading. especially if the ma- terial is written in a language we know well, be- cause we cannot force ourselves to see. to read, and not to “recognize” the familiar word, If we have to define specifically “poetic” perception and ntstic perception in general, then we suggest this Uotinition: “Artistic” perception is that perception in which we experience form—perhaps not form alone. but certainly form,44 Perception here is clearly not to be understood as a simple psychological concept (the perception peculiar to this or that person), bt, since ast does not exist outside of percep tion, as an element in at itself. The notion of form here ac- ‘quires new meaning; itis no longer an envelope, but a com= plete thing, something concrete, dynamic, self-contained, ‘and without a correlative of any kind. Here we made a deci- sive break with the Symbolist principle that some sot of content i to shine through the form. And we broke with aes- theticism—the preference for certain elements of form con- sciously isolated from “content.” But these gencral acknowledgments that there are dif- ferences between poetic and practical language and that the specific quality of artis shown in its particular use of the ‘material were not adequate when we tried to deal with spe- cific works. We had to find more specific formulations of the principle of perceptible form so that they could make possi- ble the analysis of form itself—the analysis of form under- stood as content. We had to show that the perception of form results from special artistic techniques which force the reader to experience the form. Shklovsky’s Art as Tech- nique, presenting its own manifesto of the Formalist ‘method, offered a perspective for the concrete analysis of form. Here sas a really clear departure from Potebnya and. Potebnyaism and, ai the same time, from the theoretical principles of Symbolism. The essay began with objections to Potebnya’s basic view of imagery and its relation to con: tent, Shklovsky indicates, among other things, that images are almost always static: ‘The more you understand an age, the more con- vinced you become that the images a given poet used and which you thought his own were taken almost unchanged from another poet. The works of poets are classified or grouped according to the new techniques they discover and share, and ac: ‘cording to their arrangement 2nd development of the resources of language; poets are much more concerned with arranging images than creating them. Images are given to poets; the ability to re- ‘member them is far more important than the at ity to create them, Imagistic thought does not, in any case, include all aspects of art or even all as- ‘pects of verbal art. A change in imagery is not es- sential to the development of poetry."* 1X He further pointed out the difference between poetic and ‘nonpoetic images. The poetic image is defined as one of the Ss aos eo The Theory of the “Formal Method” © 873 devices of poetic ianguage—as a device which, depending ‘upon the problem, is as important as such other devices of poetic language as simple and negative parallelism, compar- Ison, repetition, symmetry, hyperbole, etc., bot no more im- portant. Thus imagery becomes a part of a system of poetic devices and loses its theoretical dominance. Shklovsky likewise repudiated the principle of artistic, ‘economy, a principle which had been strongly asserted in, ‘esthetic theory, and opposed it with the device of defamil- iarization and the notion of roughened form. That is, he saw art as increasing the difficulty and span of perception "be- cause the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged”; he saw art as a means of destroy- ing the automatism of perception; the purpose of the image is not to present the approximate meaning of its object to ‘our understanding, but to create a special perception of the ‘bject—the creation of its vision, and not the recognition of its meaning. Hence the image is ysually connected with the process of defamiliarization, “The break with Potebnya was formulated definitely in Shklovsky’s essay Potebnya. He repeats once mote that im- -agery—symbolization—does not constitute the specific dif- ference between poetic and prosaic (practical) language: Poetic language is distinguished from practical lan- guage by the perception of its structure, The acoustical, aniculatory, oF semante aspects of po- etic language may be fl. Sometimes one feels the vetbal structure, the arrangement of the words, rather than ther texture. The poetic image is one of the ways, but only one of the ways, of creating a perceptible sructte designed to be experienced ‘within ts very ow fabric... The creation of a sci- entific poetics must begin indicively witha hy- pothesis built on an accumulation of evidence, That hypothesis is that poetic and prosaic languages ex- ist that the laws which distinguish them exist, and finally, hat these differences are to be analyzed ‘These essays are to be read asthe summation of the first, phase of the Formalists' work, The main achievement of this period consisted in our establishment ofa series of theoretical principles which provided working hypotheses for a further Investigation of the data for the defeat of the current theories based on Potebnyaism. The chief strength of the Formaliss, as these essays show, was neither the direction of thei study ‘of so-called forms nor the construction of a special method: their sirength was founded securely on the fact that the spe- cific features of the verbal arts had to be studied and that to do so it was first necessary to sort out the differing uses of 6874 © Boris EIcHENBAUM poetic and practical language. Concerning form, the Formal- ists thought it important to change the meaning of this mud- dled term, It was important to destroy these traditional corre!- tives and so to enrich the idea of form with new significance. The notion of technique, because has to do directly with the distinguishing features of poetic and practical speech. is much more significant in the long-range evolution of Formalism than isthe notion of form. ‘The preliminary stage of our theoretical work had passed, We had proposed general principles bearing directly ‘upon factual material. We now had to move closer to the ma- terial and to make the problems themselves specific. At the ceenter stood those questions of theoretical poetics that had previously been outlined only in general form. We had to ‘move from questions about the sound of verse to a general theory of verse. The questions about the sound of verse, when originally posed, were meant only as illustrations of the dif- ference between poetic and practical language. We had to move from questions about technique-in-general tothe study of the specific devices of composition, © inquiry about plot, and so on, Our interest in opposing Veselovsky’s general view and, specifically, in opposing his theory of plot, developed side by side with our interest in opposing Potebnya’s. Atthis time, the Formalists quite naturally used liter- ary works only as material for supporting and testing their theoretical hypotheses; we had put aside questions of con- vention, literary evolution, ete. Now we felt it important to widen the scope of our study, to make a preliminary survey of the data, and to allow it to establish its own kind of laws. In this way we freed ourselves from the necessity of resort- ‘ng to abstract premises and at the same time mastered the ‘materials Without losing ourselves in details Shklovsky, with his theory of plot and fiction, was es- pecially important during this period. He demonstrated the presence of special devices of “plot construction” and their relation 10 general stylistic devices in such diverse materials as the skaz, Oriental tales, Cervantes’ Don Quixote, Tol- stoy’s works, Sterne’s Tristram Shandy. and so on."* 1 do not wish to go into details—those should be treated in special ized works and not in a general essay such as this on the Formalist method—but ! do wish 10 cover those ideas in ‘Shiklovsky’s treatment of plot which have a theoretical sig- nificance beyond any relationship they might have to partic. ular problems of plots as such. Traces of those ideas can be found in the most advanced pieces of Formalist criticism ‘The first of Shklovsky's works On plot, The Relation of Devices of Plot Construction to General Devices of Sivle. raised a whole series of such ideas. In the first place, the we of provincial alc and potesquenes proof that special devices of plot arrangement exist, a proof supported by the citation of great number of devices, changed the traditional notion of plot as a combination of a group of motifs and made plot a compositional rather than a thematic concept. Thus the very concept of plot was changed: plot was no longer synonymous with story Plot construction became the natural subject of Formalist study, since plot constitutes the specific peculiarity of narrative dart, The idea of form had been enriched, and as it lost its former abstraciness, it also lost its controversial meaning. (Our idea of form had begun to coincide with our idea of lit- ‘erature as such, with the idea ofthe literary fact. Furthermore, the analogies which we established be- tween the devices of plot construction and the devices of style had theoretical significance, for the step-by-step struc- ‘ure usually found in the epic was found to be analogous to sound repetition, tautology, tautological parallelism, and so on. All illustrated a general principle of verbal art based on parceling out and impeding the action, For instance, Roland's three blows on the stone in the. ‘Song of Roland?" and the similar triple repetition common, in tales may be compared, as a single type of phenomenon, ‘with Gogol’s use of synonyms and with such linguistic, structures as hoity-toty, a diller a dollar etc. “These vari- ations of step-by-step construction usually do not all occur together, and altempts have been made to give each case a special explanation.” Shklovsky shows how we attempt to ‘demonstrate that the same device may reappear in diverse materials. Here we clashed with Veselovsky, wha in such ccases usually avoided theory and resorted to historical- ‘genetic hypotheses. For instance, he explained epic repet tion as a mechanism for the original performance (as em- bryonic song). But an explanation of the genetics of such a phenomenon, even if true, does not clarify the phenomenon aa fact of literature. Veselovsky and other members of the ‘ethnographic school used to explain the peculiar motifs and plots of the skaz by relating Iterature and custont; Shklovsky did not object to making the relationship but challenged it only as an explanation of the peculiariies of the skaz—he challenged it as an explanation of a specifi- cally literary fact. The study of literary genetics can clarify only the origin of a device, nothing mote; poetics must ex- plain its literary function. The genetic point of view fails to consider the device as a self-determined use of material; it = pe abo pn ft wer seat sme ein mt encanta raga engeto ech gpa seemn oon Loe ean she seeded Soe cyan pe toe cidoes not consider how conventional materials are selected by an author, how conventional devices are transformed, of how they are made to play a structural role. The genetic point of view does not explain how a convention may disap pear and its literary function remain. The literary function remains not asa simple [customary or social] experience but asa literary device retaining a significance over and beyond its connection with the convention. Characteristically. ‘Veselovsky had contradicted himself by considering the ad- ventures of the Greek romance as purely stylistic devices. ‘The Formalists naturally opposed Veselovsky's ethno- ‘graphism because it ignored the special characteristic of the literary device and because it replaced the theoretical and evolutionary point of view with a genetic point of view: Veselovsky saw syncretism as a phenomenon of primi tive poetry. a result of custom, and he later was censured for this in B. Kazansky's The Concept of Historical Poetics. Kazansky repudiated the ethwographic point of view by af- firming the presence of syneretic tendencies inthe very na- ture of each art, a presence especially obvious in some peri- ‘ods. The Formalists naturally could not agree with Veselovsky when he touched upon general questions of lit- rary evolution. Ifthe clash with the Potebnyaists clarified basic principles of poetics, the clash with Veselovsky's gen- eral View and with that of his followers clarified the Formal ist’s views on literary evelution and, theseby.on the struc- ture of literary history ‘Shklovsky began to deal with the subject of literary evolution inthe essay I cited previously, The Relation of De- vices of Plot Construction 10 General Devices of Style. He had encountered Veselovsky's formula, a formula broadly ‘based on the ethnographic principle that “the purpose of new form is to express new content.” and he decided to ad. vance a completely different point of view: ‘The work of art arises from a background of other works and through association with them. The form of a work of artis defined by its relation 10 ther works of art to forms existing prior to it. Not only parody. but also any kind of att is cre. ated parallel and opposed to some kind of farm. The purpose of the new form is not 10 express new content, but change an old form which has lost its aesthetic quality Shklovsky supported this thesis with Blroder] Chris: tiansen's® demonstration of “differentiated perceptions” or Kuss The Theory of the “Formal Method” © 875 “perceptions of difference.” He sees that the dynamism characteristic of artis based on this and is manifested in re- peated violations of established rules. At the close of his es say, he quotes Ferdinand] Brunetiére’s" statements that “of all the influences active in the history of literature, the chief is the influence of work on work,” a6 that “one should not, ‘without good cause, increase the number of influences upon. literature, under the assumption that literature is the expres- sion of society, nor should one confuse the history of ltera- ture with the history of morals and manners. These are en- tirely different things.” ‘Shklovsky's essay marked the changeover from our study of theoretical poetics ta aur study of the history of lit- erature. OuF original assumptions about form had been com- plicated by our observation of new features of evolutionary ‘dynamics and their continuous variability. Our moving into the area of the history of literature was no simple expansion of our study; it resulted from the evolution of our concept of form. We found that we could not see the literary work in isolation, that we had to see iss form against a background of other works rather than by itself. Thus the Formalists def- initely went beyond “Formalism,” if by Formalism one ‘means (as some poorly informed critics usually did) some fabricated system which permitted us to be classified, some system which zealously adapted itself to logic-chopping, or some system which joyously welcomed any dogma. Such scholastic Formalism was neither historical nor essentially ‘connected with the work of the Opayaz. We were not re- sponsible for it; on the contrary, we were irreconcilably its ‘enemies on principle Later I shall return tothe historical-literary work of the Formalists, but now I wish to conclude the survey of those theoretical principles and problems contained in the early ‘work of the Opoyaz. The Shklovsky essay I referred to above contains still another idea which figured prominently in the subsequent study of the novel—the idea of motivation? The discovery of various techniques of plot construction (step-by- step structure, parallelism, framing, the weaving of motifs, etc.) clarified the difference between the elements used in the ‘construction of a work and the elements comprising its mate- rial (its tory, the choice of motifs, the character. the themes, cic.) Shklovsky stressed this difference at that time because the basic problem was to show the identity of individual structural devices in the most diverse materials imaginable. The old scholarship worked exclusively with the material, ‘aking it asthe content and treating the remainder as an exter- nal form either totally without interest or of interest only to "Ferdinand Brune (1849-1906), French cre Not necessanly the characters mtivsin, Ware A4thors or the work's876 © Boris EICHENBAUM the diletante, Hence the naive and pathetic aesthetics of our older literary critics and historians, who found “neglect of form” in Tyutchev’s poetry and simply “bad form” in [Nekrasov and Dostoevsky. The literary reputations of these authors were saved because their intensity of thought and ‘mood excused their formlessness. Naturally, during the years of struggle and polemics against such a postion, the Formal- ists directed all their forces to showing the significance of such compositional devices as motivation and ignored all ‘other considerations. n speaking of the formal method and its evolution, we must constantly remember that many of the principles advanced by the Formalists in the years of tense struggle were significant not only as scientific principles. but also as slogans, as paradoxes sharpened for propaganda and controversy. To ignore this fact and to treat the work of the Opoyaz (between 1916 and 1921) in the same way as one ‘would treat the academic scholarship isto ignore history. The concept of motivation permitted the Formalists to approach literary works (in panicular. novels and short sto- ries) more closely and to observe the details oftheir structure, Which Shklovsky did in wo later works, Plot Development and Sterne’s Tristram Shandy and the Theory ofthe Novel In these works, he studied the relationship between technique ‘and motivation in Cervantes’ Don Quixote and Sterne’s Tris- tram Shandy as material for the study of the structure of the shor story and the novel apart from literary history, and he studied Don Quixote as an instanceof the transition from col- lections of tales (like the Decameron) to the novel with a single hero whose travels justify or motivate its episodic structure. Don Quixote was chosen because the devices it contains and their motivation are not fully integrated into the entire context ofthe novel, Material is often simply inserted. not welded in; devices of plot construction and methods of using material to further the pot structure stand out sharply ‘whereas later structures tend "more and more to integrate the material tightly into the very body of the novel.” While ana- Iyzing “how Don Quixote was made.” Shklovsky also showed the instability of the hero and concluded that his type ap- eared “as the result of the business af constructing the novel” Thus the dominance of structure, of plot over mater- ial, was emphasized. Neither # work fully motivated nor an art which delib- crately does away with motivation and exposes the structure provides the most suitable material for the illumination of such theoretical problems, But the very existence of a work " Feador Ivanovich Tystehev (1803-1873) Niko Alesevevich Nekrsox (UHDI-1878).Rushian poets: Fodor” MibhaovchDostoyesshy (1821-1881, Russian nove. Lugrence Stee (1713-1768). Miguel de Cervantes Saaveae (1547-1616), The Devameron by Chonan Bosco tose: pope 15? such as Don Quitote, with a deliberately exposed structure, confirms the relevance of these problems, confirms the fact, that the problems need to be stated as problems, and con- firms the fact that they are significant literary problems. Moreover, we were able to explain works of literature en- ‘icely in the light of these theoretical problems and princi- ples, as Shikiovsky did with Tristram Shandy. Shklovsky not only used the book to illestrate our theoretical position, he gave it new significance and once more attracted attention to it. Studied against the background of an interest in the structure of the novel, Steme became a contemporary; peo- ple spoke about him, people who previously had found in his novel only boring chatter or eccentricities, or who had, prejudged it from the point of view of its notorious senti- ‘mentalism, a characteristic for which Sterne is as little 10 bblame as Gogol? for realism. Shklovsky pointed out Sterne’s deliberate laying bare of his methods of constructing Tristram Shandy and as- serted that Sterne had exaggerated the structure of the novel He had shown his awareness of form by his manner of vio- Tating it and by his manner of assembling the novel's con- tents. In his conclusion to the essay, Shklovsky formulated the difference between plot and story. ‘The idea of plot is too often confused with the de- scription of events—with what I propose provi- sionally to call the story: The story is, in fact, only ‘material for plot formulation. The plot of Eugeny Onegin is. therefore, not the romance of the hero with Tatyana, but the fashioning of the subject of this story as produced by the introduction of inter- rupting digressions. ‘The forms of art are explainable by the laws of art; they are not justified by their realism. ‘Slowing the action of a novel is not accomplished by introducing rivals, for example, but by simply transposing parts, In so doing the artist makes us aware of the aesthetic laws which underlie both the transposition and the slowing down of the My essay How Gogol’s Greatcoat Was Made also con- siders the structure of the novel, comparing the problem of plot with the problem of the ska2—the prablem of structure based upon the narrator's manner of telling what had hap- pened. I tried to show that Gogol’s text “was made up of liv- ing speech pattems and vocalized emotions,” that words and sentences are selected and joined by Gogol as they are in the ™ Nikola Vaslyevich Gogel (1809-1852, Russ wie,04-016 ch 81 pp2 5/24/04 8:25 AM Page 877 oral skaz, in which antiulaton, mimicry sound gestures, and 0 0n, play a special role, From this point of view I showed how the structure of The Greatcoat imparts a grotesque tone to the tale by replacing the usual humor ofthe skaz (with its aneedotes, puns, et.) with sentimental-melodramatic decla- ration, I discussed, inthis connection, the end of The Great oat asthe apotheosis of the grotesque—not unlike the mute scene in The Inspector General.® The traditional line of ar- ‘gument about Gogol’s romanticism and realism proved un- necessary and unilluminatng ‘Thus we began to make some progress with the prob- lem of the study of prose. The line between the idea of plot as structure and the idea of the story as material was drawn this explanation ofthe typical techniques of plot construc- tion opened the door for work onthe history and theory of the novel and furthermore, the ska: was treated asthe struc- tural basis ofthe plotless short story. These works have in- fluenced a whole series of recent studies by persons not di- reelly connected with the Opoyas. [AS our theoretical work broadened and deepened it naturally became specialized—the more so because persons who were only beginning their work oF who had been work: ing independents joined the Opoyaz group. Some of them specialized inthe prolems of poetry, others in the problems ‘of prose. The Formalists insisted upon keeping clear the de mascation between poetry and prose in order to counterbal ance the Symboliss, who were then attempting o erase the boundary line both in theory and ir. practice by painstak ingly attempting to discover meter in prose ® The eatier sections ofthis essay show the intensity of cour work on prose. We were pioneers in the area. Several ‘Wester works resembled ours (in particular. such ebserva tions on story material as Wilhelm Dibelius’ “Enelische Ro. ‘mankunst, 1910), bat they had litle relevance to our theore: ical problems and principles. In our work on prose we felt almost tre from tradition, but in dealing with verse the sit uation was different. The great number of works by Westen and Russian literary theorists the numerous practical and theoretical experiments of the Symbolists. and the special literature of the controversies over the concepts of hythm and meter (produced between 1910 and 1917) complicated our study of poetry. The Futurists, in that same period, were cteating new verse forms, and this complicated things still more. Given such conditions. i was dificult for us t pose the right problems. Many persons. instead of returning to basic questions, were concemed with special problems of By Gogol. {Lemon and Reis] The hn cen, bic [Lemon and Res] See especially Anatey Bel» Simi 1910). ord an —e- The Theory of the “Formal Method” © $77 metrics or with trying (0 put the accumulation of systems and opinions in good order. Meanwhile, we had no general theory of poetry: no theoretical clucidations of verse rhythm, of the connection of rhythm and syntax, of the sounds of verse (the Formalists had indicated only afew lin- uistic premises), of poetic diction and semantics, and 50 ‘on. In other words, the nature of verse as such remained es- sentially obscure. We had to draw away from particular problems of metrics and to approach verse from some more disciplined perspective. We had, first of all, to pose the problem of rhythm so that it did not rest on metrics and ‘would include a more substantial part of poetic speech. Here, as in the previous section, I shall dwell upon the problem of verse only insofar as its exploration led to a new theoretical view of verbal ar or a new view of the nature of poetic speech. Our position was stated first in Osip Brik's (On Rhythmic-Syntactic Figures, an unpublished lecture de- livered before the Opoyaz group and, apparently. not even written out3! Brik demonstrated that verse contained stable syntactical figures indissolubly connected with rhythm, ‘Thus rhythm was no longer thought of as an abstraction; it ‘was made relevant to the very linguistic fabric of verse—the phrase. Metrics became a kind of background, significant, like the alphabet, for the reading and writing of verse. Brik’s step was as important for the study of verse as the discovery of the relation of plot to structure was for the study of prose. ‘The discovery that rhythmic patterns are related to the ‘erammatical patterns of sentences destroyed the notion that shythm is a superficial appendage, something floating on the surface of speech. Our theory of verse was founded on the analysis of rhythm as the structural basis of verse, a basis which of itself determined all of its parts—both acoustical and unacoustical. A superior theory of verse, which would make metrics but a kindergarten preparation, was in sight. ‘The Symbolists and the group led by Bely. despite their at tempts, could not travel our road because they still saw the central problem as metrics isolation. But Brik’s work merely hinted at the possibility of a new way: lke his first essay. Sound Repettions, it was lim- ited to showing examples and arranging them into groups. From Brik’s lecture one could move either into new prob- lems or into the simple classification and cataloging, of 5y5- tematizing. of the material. The lecture was not necessarily an expression of the formal method. V{ictorl Zhirmunsky®? continued the work of classification in The Composition off Lyric Verse. Zhirmunsky. who did not share the theoretical principles of the Opoyaz, was interested in the formal “ [Lemon and Reis] 1920. Bik lecture ws pubished in 1927 in Nee Left. hon hammunshy 1840-1971), Rasian Merry const —o—04-016 ch 81 pp2 5/24/04 8:25 AM Page 878 878 © Boris EICHENBAUM method as only one of the possible scientific approaches to the division of materials into various groups and headings. Given his understanding of the formal method, he could do nothing else; he accepted any superficial feature as a basis for the grouping of materials. Hence the unvarying cata- loging and the pedantic tone of all of Zhirmunsky’s theoret- ieal work. Such works were not a major influence in the ‘general evolution of the formal method: in themselves they merely emphasized the tendency (evidently historically in- evitablgto give the formal method an academic quality. lis not surprising, therefore, that Zhirmunsky later completely withdrew from the Opoyaz over a difference of opinion about the principles he stated repeatedly in his last works (especially in his introduction to the translation of Ofskar] Walzel's The Problem of Form in Prose (1923)). My book, Verse Melody, which was prepared as a study of the phonetics of verse and so was related to a whole group of Wester works (by Sievers, Saran. etc.), was rele- vant to Brik’s work on rhythmic-syntactic figures. I main- tained that stylistic differences were usually chiefly lexical: With that we drop the idea of versification as such, and take up poetic language in general. ‘We have to find something related to the poetic ‘phrase that does not also lead us away from the Poetry itself, something bordering on both pho- netics and semantics. This “something” is syntax. 1 did not examine the ehythmic-syntactic phenomena in isola- tion, but as part of an examination of the structural signifi- ‘cance of metrical and vocal intonation. I felt it especially im- portant both to assert the idea of a dominant, upon which a given poetic style is organized, and to isolate the idea of "melody as a system of intonations from the idea ofthe general ‘musicality of verse. On this basis, | proposed to distinguish twee fundamental styles of lyric poetry: declamatory (oratori- cal), melodic. and conversational. My entire book is devoted to the peculiarities of the melodic siyle—to peculiarities in the material of the lyrics of Zhukovsky, Tyutchey, Lermontov. and Fet Avoiding ready-made schematizations. | ended the book with the conviction that “in scientific work. I consider the ability to see facts far more important than the construc- tion ofa system. Theories are necessary to clarify facts: in re- ality. theories are made of facts. Theories perish and change, but the facts they help discover and support remain.” ‘The tradition of specialized metrical studies still con Uunued among the Symbolist theoreticians (Bely. Bryusov, Vasily Zhakovsky (1783-1952), Afanaiv AfeesevichFet (1820-1892), —$- Bobrov, Chukovsky. and others), but it gradually turned into precise statistical enumeration and lost what had been its dominant characteristic. Here the metrical studies of Boris Tomasheysky.*8 concluded in his text Russian Versfi- cation, played the most significant role. Thus, asthe study of metrics became secondary. a subsidiary discipline with a very limited range of problems, the general theory of verse entered its first stage ‘Tomashevsky's Pushkin’s lambic Pentameter outlined the entire previous course of developments within the for- mal method, including its attempt to broaden and enrich the notion of poetic rhythm and to relate it to the structure of poetic language. The essay also attempted to go beyond the idea of meter in language. Hence the basic charge against Bely and his school: “The problem of rhythm is ‘not conformity to imaginary meters; itis rather the distrib- ution of expiratory energy within a single wave—the line itself.” In The Problems of Poetic Rhythm Tomashevsky expressed this with perfect clarity of principle. Here the carlier conflict between meter and rhythm is resolved by applying the idea of rhythm in verse to all of the elements ‘of speech that play a part in the structure of verse. The rhythms of phrasal intonation and euphony (alliterations, etc.) are placed side by side with the rhythm of word ac- cent. Thus we came t0 see the line as a special form of speech which functions as a single unit in the creation of| poetry. We ne longer saw the line as something which could create a rhythmic variation by resisting or adjusting to the metrical form (z view which Zhirmunsky continued to defend in bis new work, Introduction to Metrics). Toma- shevsky wrote that: Poetic speech is organized in terms of its sounds Taken singly, any phonetic element is subject to rules and regulations, but sound is a complex phenomenon, Thus classical metrics singles out accent and normalizes it by its rules. ... But it takes little effort to shake the authority of tradi- tional forms, because the notion persisted that the nature of verse is not fully explained by a single distinguishing feature, that poetry exists in “secondary” features, that a recognizable rhythm exists alongside meter, that poetry can be created by imposing a pattern on only these sec~ ondary features, and that speech without meter ‘may sound like poetry Vier Yakovlev Bryusow (1872-1924, Ressan pot Serge Beteor (188001971), Russian poet and crite "Bons Tomashevy (1990-1959), Ressisn Ferma tess —b—04-016 ch 62 ppz 5/24/04 8:25 AM page 879 ‘The important idea of a rhythmic impulse (which had fig- ured earlier in Brik’s work) with a general chythmic func- tion is maintained here: Rhythmic devices may participate in various de- ‘grees in the creation of an antistic-rhythmic effect; this or that device may dominate various works— this or that means may be the dominant, The use of a given thythmic device determines the charac- ter of the particular rhythm of the Work. On this. basis poetry may be classified as accented metrical poetry (e.g. the description of the Battle of Poltava*). intoned-melodic poetry (the verses ‘of Zhukovsky). or harmonic poetry (common dur- ing the recent years of Russian Symbolism) Poetic form, so understood. is not contrasted with anything ‘outside itself—with a content which has been laboriously set inside this form—but is understood as the genuine con- tent of poetic speech. Thus the very idea of form, as it had been understood in earlier works, emerged with a new and ‘more adequate meaning In his essay On Czech Versification Roman Jakobson pointed out new problems in the general theory of poetic rhythm, He opposed the (earlier) theory that “verse adaprs itself completely tothe spirit ofthe language,” that is, that “form does not resist the material [it shapes]” with the the- ‘ory that “poetic form is the organized coercion of lan- ‘guage.” He applied this refinement of the more orthodox ‘view—a refinement in keeping with the Formalist method— to the question of the difference between the phonetic quali ties of practical language and those of poetic language. Al. though Jakubinsky had {for example] noted that the dissimilation of liquid consonants {/ and r] is relatively in frequent in poetry. Jakobson showed that it existed in both poetical and practical language but that in practical lan guage it is “accidental”; in poetic language it is, “0 to speak, contrived; these are two distinct phenomena” In the same essay Jakobson alse clarified the principal distinction between emotional and poetic language (a dis- tinetion he had previously considered in his fist book, Mod- erm Russian Poetry) Although poetry may use the methods of emotive language, it uses them only for its own purposes. in Posies Potown Dv[Bihenbautm)Jakubisky had lleady_poited oul the excessive omplenty of ie idea of pracical speech und the snpostbity of Srutyeinet in erms of fonction convertion ortonca see ad Sony see he esta) "O dulopihestoy rch’ I"On Dialogic Speech. Fasuna veh Ruston Specs 1928) > The Theory of the “Formal Method” © 879 ‘The similarities between the two kinds of lan- ‘guage and the use of poetic language in the way that emotive language is used frequently lead to the assumption that the two are identical. The as- sumption is mistaken because it fails 10 consider the radical difference of function between the two kinds of language. In this connection Jakobson refuted the attempts of [Mau rice} Grammont* aad other prosodists to explain the pho- netic structure of poetry in terms either of onomatopoeia or of the emotional connection between sounds and images. “Phonetic structure,” he wrote, “is not always a structure of audible images, not isa structure of audible images always a method of emotional language.” Jakobson’s book was typ- ical because it constantly went beyond the limits of its par- ticular, special theme (the prosody of Czech verse) and shed light on general questions about the theory of poetic lan- guage and verse. Thus his book ends with a whole essay on Mayakovsky, an essay complemented by his earlier piece on Khlebnikov. In my own work on Anna Akhmatova I also atempted to raise basic theoretical questions about the theory of verse—aquestions of the relation of shythm to syntax and in- tonation, the relation ofthe sound af verse to its aniculation, and, lastly, the elation of poetic detion to semantics. Refer- Ting to a book which Yury Tynyanov’ was then preparing, 1 pointed out that “as words get ito vers they are as it were. taken out of ordinary speech. They ae surrounded by a new aura of meaning and perceived not against the background Of speech in general but against the background of poetic speech” § also indicated thatthe formation of collateral meanings. which disrupts ordinary verbal associations,‘ the chief peculiarity ofthe semantics of poetry. Until then, the original connection between the forrnal method and linguistics had been growing considerably weaker. The difference that had developed between our problems was so great that we no longer needed the special support of the linguists, especialy the support of those who were psychologically oriented. tn fact, sare of the work of the linguists was objectionable in principle. Tynyanov's The Problem of Poetic Language, which had appeared just then, emphasized the diference between the study of psycholog cal linguistics and the study of poetic language and style. This book showed the intimate relation that exists between the meaning of words and the poctic structure itself: stadded ew meaning tothe idea of poetic shythm and inti ounce Gramont (1866-1946), Fret agus Yur Typvanov (1884-1945), Rossin leary eons and novelist. >06-016 ch 81 pp2 5/24/04 8:25 AN Page 880 880 © Bonts EICHENSAUM. ated the Formalists’ investigation not only of acoustics and ‘syntax, but also of the shades of meaning peculiar to poetic speech, In the introduction Tynyanov says: “The study of poetry has of late been quite reward ing. Undoubtedly the prospect in the near future is for development in the whole field, although we all remember the systematic beginning of the study. But the study of poetry has been kept iso- lated from questions of poetic language and style; the study of the latter is kept isolated from the study of the former. The impression is given that neither the poetic language itself nor the poetic style itself has any connection with poetry, that the one does not depend upon the other. The idea of poetic language, which was advanced not so long ago and is now changing, undoubtedly in- ‘ited a certain looseness by its breadth and by the ‘vagueness of its content, a content based on psy- chological linguistics. ‘Among the general questions of poetics revived and illumi- nated by this book, that of the idea of the material is most fundamental. The generally accepted view saw an opposi- tion between form and content; when the distinction was ‘made purely verbal, it lost its meaning. In fact as | have al- ready mentioned, our view gave form the significance of a thing complete in itself and strengthened it by considering the work of art in relation to its purpose. Our concept of form required no complement—ercept that other. artisti- cally insignificant, kind of form. Tynyanov showed that the ‘materials of verbal art were neither all alike nor all equally important, that “one feature may be prominent at the ex- pense of the rest, so that the remainder is deformed and sometimes degraded to the level of a neutral prop.” Hence the conclusion that “the idea of material does not lie beyond the limits of form: the material itself is a formal element, To ‘confuse it with extemal structural features is a mistake.” Af ter this. Tynyanoy could make the notion of form more com: plex by showing that form is dynamic: “The unity of the work is not a closed, symmetrical whole, but an unfolding dynamic whole. Its elements are not static indications of equality and complexity, but always dynamic indications of correlation and integration. The form of literary works muist be thought of as dynamic."* Rhythm is here presented as the fundamental specific factor which permeates all the elements of poetry. The rare writes especialy Coetzee gage sage ames splnh Ro > objective sign of poctic shythm is the establishment of a ‘rhythmic group whose unity and richness exist side by side with each other. And again, Tynyanov affirms the principal distinction becween prose and poetry: Poetry, 38 opposed to prose, tends toward unity and richness ranged around an uncommon object, This very “uncommonness” prevents the main point of the poem from being smoothed over. Indeed, it as- serts the object with a new force. . .. Any element ‘of prose brought into the poetic pattem is trans- formed into verse by that feature of it which asserts its function and which thus has (wo aspects: the emphasis of the structure—the vetsification—and. the deformation of the uncommon object. ‘Tynyanov also raises the question of semantics: “In verse are not the ordinary semantic meanings of the words so distorted (a fact which makes complete paraphrase impos- sible) that the usual principles governing their arrange- ment no longer apply?” The entite second part of Tynyanov’s book answers this question by defining the precise relation between shythm and semantics. The facts show clearly that oral presentations are unified in part by rhythm. “This is shown in a more forceful and more com- pact integration of connectives than occurs in ordinary speech; words are made correlative by their positions”; pose lacks this feature Thus the Formalists abandoned Potebnya's theory and accepted the conclusions connected with it on a new basis, and a new perspective opened on to the theory of verse. ‘Tynyanov's work permitted us to grasp even the remotest implications ofthese new sroblems. It became clear evento those only casually acquainted with he Opoyaz that the essence of our work consisted not in some kind of static “formal method,” but ina study ofthe specific peculiarities of verbal art—we were not advocates of a method, but stu dents of an object. Again, Tynyanov stated tis ‘The object ofa study claiming to be a study of art ‘ought to be so specific that itis distinguished from ‘other areas of intellectual activity and uses them for its own materials and tools. Each work of art represents a complex interaction of any factors: consequently. the job of the student is the defini tion of the specific character of this interaction, Farlier I noted that the problem of the diffusion and change of form—the problem of literary evolution—is raised naturally along with theoretical problems. The prob: -o06-016 ch 81 pp2 4/24/04 8:25 aM Page 881 lem of literary evolution arises in connection with a recon- sideration of Veselovsky’s view of skaz motifs and de- vices; the answer (“new form is not to express new con- tent, Dut to replace old form”) led to a new understanding of form. If form is understood as the very content, con- stantly changing according to its dependence upon previ- ‘ous images, then we naturally had to approach it without abstract, ready-made, unalterable, classical schemes; and wwe had to consider specifically its historical sense and sig- nificance. The approach developed its own kind of dual perspective: the perspective of theoretical study (like Shklovsky’s Development of Plot and my Verse Melody), ‘which centereé on a given theoretical problem and its ap- plicability to the most diverse materials, and the perspec- tive of historical studies—studies of literary evolution as, such, The combination of these two perspectives, both o- ganic to the subsequent development of the formal school, raised a series of new and very complex problems, many of which are still unsolved and even undefined. ‘Actually, the original attempt of the Formalists to take 2 particular structural device and to establish its identity in diverse materials became an altempt to differentiate, to un- derstand, the function of a device in each given case. This notion of functional significance was gradually pushed to- ward the foreground and the original idea of the device pushed into the background. This kind of sorting out of its ‘own general ideas and principies has been characteristic of ‘our work throughout the evolution ofthe formal method. We hhave no dogmatic position to bind us and shut us off from facts. We do not answer for our schematizations: they may require change, refinement, or correction when we try to ap- ply them to previously unknown facts. Work on specific ma- terials compelled us to speak of functions and thus to revise our idea of the device. The theory itself demanded that we tum to history Here again we were confronted with the traditional ‘academic sciences and the preferences of critics. In our stu- dent days the academic history of literature was limited chiefly to biographical and psychological studies of various writers—only the “greats.” of course. Critics no longer ‘made attempts to construct history of Russian hierature as, a whole, attempts which evidenced the intention of bringing the great historical materials into a system: nevertheless, the traditions established by eatlier histories (like A. N. Pypin’s History of Russian Literalure) retained their scholatly au thority, the more so because the following generation had decided not to pursue such broad themes. Meanwhile. the chief role was played by such general and somewhat vague notions as realism and romanticism (realism was said to be ‘better than romanticism): evolution was understood as grad: —p- The Theory of the “Formal Method” © 881 ual perfection, as progress (from Romanticism to realism); ‘succession [of literary schools} as the peaceful transfer of the inheritance from father to son, But generally, there Was ‘30 notion of literature a such; material taken from the bis tory of social movements, from biography, etc. had replaced itemtrely ‘This primitive historicism, which ie away from litera- ture, naturally provoked the Symbolist theoreticians and criti into a denial of any kind of historicism. Their own discussions of literature, consequently, developed into im- pressionisic “études” and “silhouettes.” and they indulged ina widespread “modernization” of old writers, transform- ing them into “eternal companions." The history of litera- tre was silently (and sometimes aloud) declared unneces- sary ‘We had to demolish the academic tradition and to elim inate the bias of the journalists [the Symbolist theoreti- cians), We had to advance against the first a new under- standing of literary evolution and of literature itself—without the idea of progress and peaceful sueces- sion, without the ideas of realism and romanticism, withost materials foreign to literature—as a specific order of phe nomena, a specific order of material. We had (0 act against the second by pointing out concrete historical facts, fluctu- ating and changing forms, by pointing to the necessity of taking ito account the specific functions ofthis or that de- vice—in a word, we had to draw the line between the liter= aay work asa definite historical fact and a fre interpretation of it from the standpoint of contemporary literary needs, tastes interests, Thus the basic passion for our historical literary work had to ve a passion for destruction and nega- tion, and such was the original tone of out theoretical at- tacks: our work later assumed a calmer note when we went ‘on to solutions of particular problems That is why the first of our historical-iterary pro- rnouncements came inthe form of theses expressed almost ageinst our will in connection with some specific material. ‘A particular question would unexpectedly lead tothe formu- lation of a general problem, a problem that inextricably ‘mixed theoretical and historical considerations. In this sense ‘Tynyanov's Dostoevsky and Gogol and Shklovsky's Rozanov were typical ‘Tynyancv’s basic problem was 10 show that Dosto- evsky’s The Village of Siepanchikovo is a parody, that be- hind its first level is hidden a seconé—it is a parody of Gogot's Correspondence with Friends. But his treatment of this particular question was overshadowed by a whole the- ory of parody [which he developed to solve the particular problem}. theory of parody as a stylistic device (stylized parody) and as one of the manifestations (having. great _04-016 ch 81 pp2 5/24/04 8:25 AM Page 882 882 © Boris EicHensaum historical-literary significance) of the dialectical develop- ment of literary groups. With this arose the problem of suc- cession and tradition and, hence, the basic problems of liter- ary evolution were posed fas part of the study of style} When one speaks of literary tradition or succession .. usually one implies a certain kind of direct line uniting the younger and older repre- sentatives of a known literary branch. Yet the mat- teris much more complicated. There is no contin- ving direct line; there is rather a departure, 3 pushing away from the known point—a struggle ‘Any literary succession is first of all a struggle. a destruction of old values and a reconstruction of old elements. Literary evolution was complicated by the notion of strug~ le, of periodic uprisings. and so lost its oid suggestion or peaceful and gradual development. Against this. back: ground. the literary relationship between Dostoevsky and Gogol was shown to be that of a complicated struggle In his Rozanow, Shklovsky showed, almost in the ab- sence of basic themes, a whole theory of literary evolution which even then reflected the current discussion of such problems in Opoyaz. Shklovsky showed that literature ‘moves forward ina broken line. In each literary epoch there is not one literary school, but several. They exist simultaneously. with one of them representing the high point of the current orthodoxy. The others exist uncanon ized, mutely: in Pushkin’s time, for example, the courtly tradition of {WilheIm] Kuchelbecker and [Alexander] Greboyedov existed simultancously with the tradition of Russian vaudeville verse and with such other traditions as that of the pure ad venture novel of Bulgari. ‘The moment the old artis canonized, new forms are created on a lower level. A “young line” s created which grows up to replace the old, asthe vaudevillist Be lopyatkin is transformed into a Nekrasoy (see Brik’s discussion of the relationship: a direct de scendant af the eighteenth century. Tolstoy. cre ales a new novel (see the work of Boris Eichen- baum); Blok makes the themes and times of the ‘gypsy ballad acceptable. and Chekhov introduces the “alarm clock” into Russian literature. Dost evsky introduced the devices of the dime nove! —$- {nto the mainstream of literature, Each new liter- ary school heralds a revolution, something like the appearance of a new class. But, of course, this is only an analogy. The vanquished line is not oblit- erated, it does not cease to exist. It is only knocked from the crest; it lies dormant and may again arise as a perennial pretender to the throne. Moreover, in reality the matter is complicated by the fact that the new hegemony is usually not a pure revival af previous forms but is made more complex by the presence of features of the younger schools and with features, now sec- ‘ondary, inherited from its predecessors on the throne. Shklovsky is discussing the dynamism of genres, and he in- terprets Rosanov's books as embodiments of a new genre, asa new type of novel in which the parts are unconnected bby motivation. “Thematically, Rozanov’s books are charac- terized by the elevation of new themes; compositionally, by the revealed device.” As part of this general theory, we in- troduced the notion of the dialectical self-creation of new forms, that is, hidden in the new form we saw both analo- ies with other kinds of cultural development and proof of the independence of the phenomena of literary evolution. In simplified form, this theory quickly changed hands and, as, always happens, decame a simple and fixed scheme—very handy for critics, Actually, we have here only a general out- line of evolution surrounded by a whole series of compli- cated conditions. From this general outline the Formalists moved on to a more consistent solution of historical-Iterary problems and facts, specifying and refining their original theoretical premises Given our understanding of literary evolution as the dialectical change of forms. we did not go back to the study of those materials which had held the central posi- tion in the old-fashioned historical-literary work. We stud- ved (werary evolution insofar as it bore a distinctive char- acter and only t0 the extent that it stood alone, quite independent of other aspects of culture. In other words. we stuck exclusively to facts in order not to pass into an end: less number of indefinite connections and correspondences which would do nothing at all o explain literary evolution, We did not take up questions of the biography and psy- chology of the artist because we assumed that these ques. tuons, in themselves serious and complex, must take their places in other sciences. We felt it important to find indi- cations of hstetical regularity in evolution—that is why we ignored all that seemed. rom this point of view. ci ‘cumstantial, not concerned with (literary) history. We wese06-016 ch 81 pp2 5/24/06 8:25 AM Page 883 Q interested in the very process of evolution, in the very dy: namics of literary form, insofar as it was possible to ob- serve them in the facts of the past. For us, the central prob- lem of the history of literature is the problem of evolution without personality—the study of literature as a seif- ‘formed social phenomenon. AS a result, we found ex- tremely significant both the question of the formation and changes of gentes and the question of how second rate and popullar literature contributed to the formation of genres. Here we had only to distinguish that popular literature which prepared the way for the formation of new genres from that which arose out of their decay and which offered material for the study of historical inertia. ‘On the other hand, we were not interested in the past. in isolated historical facts, as such; we did not busy our- selves with the restoration of this or that epoch because we happened to like it. History gave us what the present could nol—a stable body of material. But, precisely for this rea- son, we approached it with a stock of theoretical problems and principles suggested in part by the facts of contempo- rary literature. The Formalists then, characteristically had a close interest in contemporary literature and also reconciled criticism and scholarship, The earlier literary historians had, to a great extent, kept themselves aloof from contemporary literature; the Symbolists had subordinated scholarship to criticism, We saw in the history of literature not so much a special theoretical subject as a special approach, a special ‘cross section of literature, The character of our historical literary work involved our being drawn not only to histori- cea} conclusions, but also to theoretical conclusions—to the posing of new theoretical problems and tothe testing of old. From 1922 to 1924 a whole series of Formalist studies of literary history was written, many of which, because of ‘contemporary market conditions. remain unpublished and are known only as reports... *! There is, of course, not space enough here to speak of such works in detail. They usually took up secondary writers (those who form the background of literature) and carefully explained the tradi- tions of their work, noting changes in genres, styles, and so fon. As a result, many forgotten names and facts came 10 ‘Lemon and Rei) The dled mate coma tsting of sme Forma: {st works, neuting: Vary Tynyou'e Verse Form) of Metron The Que thon of Tyaches, Tutchev and Pushin. Tycho ond Heine. The Oe a Deriamator: Gesture” Bor Tomarbevsty' Gnvniadn. Pusbhin A Render of French Peas. Pushkin, Pushin and Bile, Pushin and Ln Fommnine Bors Escenas Lermontov Problem of the Posts of Pushkin: Palin's Patho Prine Nekreson: ctor Vinoead' Plo Structure of Gonol's The Nor. Plo nd Archtectonrs stn Novel Poor People, Gopal and The Realistic Schon. Studer he See Gopal and Vir Zuma. Brom Pushy > The Theory of the “Formal Method" © 883 light, current estimates were shown to be inaccurate, tradi- tional ideas changed, and, chiefly, the very process of liter- ‘ary evolution became clearer. The working out ofthis mate- rial has only begun. A new series of problems is before us: further differentiation of thesretical and historical literary ideas, introduction of new material, posing new questions, and so on. 1 shall conclude with a general summary. The evolu- tion of the formal method, which I have tried to present. has the look of a sequential development of theoretical principles—apart from the individual roles cach of us played. Actually, the work of the Opoyaz group was gen- uinely collective. It was this way, obviously, because from the very beginning we understood the historical nature of ‘our task: we did not see it as the personal affair of this or that individual. This was our chief connection with the times, Science itself is still evolving, and we are evolving. with it [shall indicate briefly the evolution of the formal ‘method during these ten years: 1. From the original outline of the conflict of poetic language with practical we proceeded to differentiate the idea of practical language by its various functions (Jakubin- sky) and to delimit the methods of poetic and emotional lan- ‘guages (Jakobson). Along with this we became interested in studying oratorical speech because it was close to practical speech but distinguished from it by function, and we spoke about the necessity of a revival of the poetic of rhetoric. 2. From the generat idea of form, in its new sense, we proceeded to the idea of technique, and from here, to the idea of function. 3. From the idea of poetic rhythm as opposed to meter we proceeded to the idea of rhythm as a constructive ele- ‘ment in the total poem and thus to an understanding of verse as a special form of speech having special linguistic (syn- tactical, lexical, and semantic) features. 4. From the idea of plot as structure we proceeded to an understanding of material in terms of its motivation, and from here to an understanding of material as an element par- ticipating in the canstruction but subordinate to the charac- ter of the dominant formal ides. 5, From the ascertainment ofa single device applicable 'o various materials we proceeded to differentiate techniques according to function and from here 10 the question of the evolution of form—that is, to the problem of historical literary study. ‘A whole new series of problems faces us, as Tynyanov’s latest essay. Literary Fact, shows. Here the ‘question of the elation between life and literature is posed, 4 question which many persons answer on the basis of a simple minded diletiamism. Examples of how life becomes —04-016 ch 81 pp2 5/24/04 8:25 AM Page 84 884 © Boris E/cHENBAUM literature are shown and, conversely, of how literature passes into life “During the period of its deterioration a given genre is shoved from the center toward the periphery, ‘but in its place, from the trivia of literature, from literature's ‘backyard, and from life itself, new phenomena flow into the center” ‘Although I deliberately called this essay The Theory of the “Formal Method.” I gave, obviously, a sketch of its evo- lution. We have no theory that can be laid out as a fixed, —-— ready-made system. For us theory and history merge not ‘ory in words, but in fact. We are too well trained by history itself to think that it can be avoided. When we feel that we have a theory that explains everything, a ready-made theory ‘explaining all past and future events and therefore needing, ‘either evolution nor anything like it—then we must recog- nize that the formal method has come to an end, that the spirit of scientific investigation has departed from it. As yet that has not happened.