Russian Peter Steiner Formalism Russian Formalism

Russian For1nalis1nFormalism

A Metapoetics

by PETER STEINER

Cornell University Press I/ Ithaca I/ London Copyright © 19841984 by Peter Steiner

All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review,review. this book, or parts thereof,thereof. must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press,Press. Sage House,House. 512 East State Street, Ithaca,Ithaca, New York 1485014850,, or visitVisit our website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu.WWW,cornellpress,cornelledu.

First published 1984198+ by Cornell University Press.

“Too"Too Much Monkey Business,”Business.” by Chuck Berry, copyright © 19561956., Arc Music Corp.,Corp, 1101 10 East 5959thth Street, New York,York. N.Y.NY. 1002210022.. International copyright secured. Used by permission.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-PublicationCataloging/in/Publication Data Steiner, P. (Peter), 194619467– Russian formalism. Based on the author’s thesis.thesis, IncludesIncludes index. 11.. Formalism (Literary(Literary analysis)—Sovietanalysis)iSo\'iet Union. I.I. Title. PNPN98.FOS7398.F6S73 1984198.1 801801’.95'.95 84847708-7708 ISBN 978978/0/8014/1710/8-0-8014-1710-8 (pbk.(pbk. :: alk. paper)

The text of this book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivativesAttributiomNonCommercial/NoDeriVatiyes 4.040 International License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/https://creatiyeconimonsorg/licenses/by/nc/nd/e’l.O/ Blond hair, good look'n',look’n’, wants me to marry, get a home, settle down, write a book-book— ahhhhhhhhhhhh! Too much monkey business, too much monkey business.

-CHUCK—CHUCK BERRY

Contents

Preface 9

1 Who Is Formalism, What Is She? 1155

� The Three Metaphors 44

The Machine 44 The Organism 68 The System 99

3 A Synecdoche 1]8

Zaum'Zaum’ 114o40 Verse 172I 72 ExpExpressionression 119999

4 The Developmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism 22424 2

Index 227171

7

Preface

This book grew out of my earlier comcomparativeparative study of Rus­Rus- sian Formalism and Prague StructuraStructuralism.lism. The jujuxtapositionxtaposition of these schoolsschools,, I was susurprisedrprised to fifind,nd, pointed up their funda­funda- mental diffdifferenceerence much more than their simisimilarity.larity. The Prague SchooSchool,l, with its singsinglele organizational centcenter,er, shsharedared frame of referenreference,ce, and unifiedunified epistepistemologicalemological stancestance,, could easily be conceived as a coherent movement. But its Russian counterpart was farmore resistant to synthesissynthesis.. I began to see FormalisFormalism,m, in fact, not as a school in the ordinary sense of the wordword,, but as a peculiar developmentdevelopmentalal stage in the histhistoryory of Slavic literary theorytheory.. This fact is reflectedreflected in the relative agreeagreementment among students of Prague Structuralism about the coherence of their subsubjectject matter and the corrcorrespondingesponding lack of a consensus among schol­schol- ars of FormalisFormalism.m. It is this fefeelingeling of didiscordscord that I wish to convey in my firstchapter. BeBecausecause of the great variety of mean­mean- ings that the label "F“Formalism”ormalism" has attracted in the course of timetime,, it seems legitimate to question its ututilityility and to offer my own underunderstandingstanding of the term as a histhistoricalorical conceconcept.pt. The middle two chachapterspters treat the Formalists from what I

9 Preface

term a metapoetmetapoeticic stance. That is, their discourse ababoutout poetics is analyzed in terms of poetics itselfitself,, or more preciselyprecisely,, in terms of the poetic tropes that structure their theortheorizing.izing. Chapter 2 focuseson the mamajorjor metaphors of Formalist thougthought:ht: the three tropologtropologicalical models that dedescribescribe the literary work as a mecha­mecha- nism, an organisorganism,m, and a systsystem.em. The third chapter addresses the synecdochic reduction of the work to its material stratum­stratum— langulanguage—andage-and the consequent substitution of linguistlinguisticsics forpo­po- eticsetics.. In partiparticular,cular, I deal here with the two mumutuallytu'ally incomincompati-pati­ ble concepts of poetic langlanguageuage advanced by the Formalists and the basic tenets of their metrimetrics.cs. I return to the questquestionion "what“what is FormalisFormalism?”m?" in the last chap­chap- ter, where I take up the issue of the movement'smovement’s unity. As I see it, the intintellectualellectual coherence of Formalism lies in its develop­develop- mementalntal significancesignificance within the overall histhistoryory of Slavic literary theorytheory.. This signsigniificanceficance consists in the conconjunctionjunction of two fac­fac- torstors:: the movement'smovement’s effeffectivelyectively dividing pre-Formalistic from ppost-Formalisticost-Formalistic scholarscholarship,ship, and its positing of a ununiquelyiquely liter­liter- ary subsubjectject matter to be apprapproachedoached "scient“scientiificalfically,”ly," without pre­pre- suppsuppositions.ositions. From this perspective, the bafflingbaffling heterogeneitheterogeneityy of Formalist theorizing can be seen as an "interparadigmatic"“interparadigmatic” ststageage in the hihistorystory of literary scholarsscholarship.hip. In writing this book I have relied on the advice and help of a great many people. These were, firstfirst of all, ReneRene’ WellWellek,ek, Victor ErlicErlich,h, and Vadim Liapunov at YaleYale.. At later ststages,ages, MiMiroslavroslav CCervenka,ervenka, SeSergejrgej Davydov, J.j. MiMichaelchael Holquist, Josephjoseph Mar­Mar- gogolis,lis, and Stephen Rudy provided valuable criticicriticism,sm, insightful sugsuggestions,gestions, and much-much-neededneeded encouragencouragement.ement. My spspecialecial thanks go to BerBernhardnhard Kendler of Cornell University Press for the manner in which he guided my book through its numerous rites of passagepassage.. I am grategratefulful forthe suppsupportort of the American Council of Learned SocietSocieties,ies, whose grant-in-aid in the summsummerer of 19197777 presented a palpalpablepable incentive forcontinuing my work, and to the Research FoundaFoundationtion of the UnUniversityiversity of Pennsylva­Pennsylva- nia, which furnished funds for the finalfinal typingtyping of the manu­manu- scrscript.ipt. But most of all, I am indeindebtedbted to that "good“good lolook’n’ok'n' girl"girl”

IO Preface who wanted me to writwritee a boobook,k, and consequentconsequentlyly had to put up with all the ununpleasantnesspleasantness and dedeprivationprivation that this process entailedentailed..

PETER STEINER

Phi/,adelphia,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

II

Russian Formalism

1

Who Is Formalism, What Is She?

History as a scholarly discipline recognizes only a single source of its knowledge-theknowledge—the word. -—GUSTAVGUSTAV SPET, "“HistoryHistory as an ObObjectject of Logic"Logic”

These words of SSpet’spet's encapsulate the historian'shistorian’s dilemma. Writing about a school of litliteraryerary theory fromthe past, I indeed have nothing but words at my disdisposalposal and no PolPoloniusonius as a whipping boyboy.. "Words“Words are chamelechameleons,”ons," declardeclareded the Formalist Jujurijrij TynTynjanov,janov, whose own words I shall soon have occasion to reclreclotheothe in my own langlanguage;uage; his phrase in turn is borrowed from a famous Symbolist Symbolist poet, with whose gegenerationneration the For­For- malists had locked horns in an animanimatedated dialoguedialogue.. Words changchangee meaning as they pass from one contcontextext to another, and yet they preserve the semantic accretions acquired in the procprocess.ess. "Russian“Russian FormaFormalism”lism" is just such a locus communisout of which the history of ideas is mamade.de. Such terms are used over and over again untuntilil their repetition lends them the air of solidsolid,, univeruniver-­ sally accepted concepts whose referential identity is beyond doubt. A closer scrutiny, however, reveals a diffdifferenterent pictpicture.ure. On sifsiftingting through the myriad texts in which "R“Russianussian For-

I515 Russian Formalism

malism"malism” occursoccurs,, I discdiscoveredovered a wide didiversityversity of functions the term was meant to serveserve:: forexexample, ample, as a stigma with ununpleas-pleas­ ant consequences for anybody branded with it, a straw man erected only to be immeimmediatelydiately knocked over, and aa historical concept that on diffdifferenterent occasions refersto ververyy difdifferentferent liter­liter- ary scholarsscholars.. Given the wide didivergencevergence of these speech acts (the precprecedingeding list can be easily augmentedaugmented),), "R“Russianussian FormaliFormalism,”sm," farfrom serving as a ststableable basis forscholarscholarly ly discussidiscussion,on, resem­resem- bles more an ememptypty sign that might be filled with any contcontent.ent. Let me illuillustratestrate this contention with some concrete exexamples.amples. Those we customcustomarilyarily call Formalists always rerejectedjected the label as a grossly misleading chcharacterizationaracterization of their enterprises. In his tongue-in-cheek essay, "The“The Formal MeMethod:thod: In Lieu of a Nec­Nec- rologrologue,”ue," Boris Tomasevskij desdescribedcribed the baptism of this movmovement:ement:

Formalism screascreamed,med, seethed, and made a noise. It also foundits own naname—“OPOjAZ.”me-"OPOJAZ." In Moscow it was called the Linguistic CirCirclecle (by the wayway,, the Moscow linguistlinguistss never called themsthemselveselves FoFormalists;rmalists; this is a PetePetersburgrsburg phenomenon).phenomenon). It is worthwhile to say a few words about the namename.. Only its futurebiogrbiographer apher will have to decide who christened it the "For­“For- mal methodmethod."." PePerhapsrhaps in those noisy days it itself courted this ill­ill- suitsuiteded designatidesignation.on. [B[But]ut] Formalists who rerejectedjected the very notion of form as something oppopposedosed to content do not seem to sqsquareuare too well with this formulformula.1a.'

Boris Echenbaumjchenbaum voiced similar obobjectionsjections to the label "F“For-or­ mal method"method” in his gloves-offpolemics with contemcontemporaryporary anti­anti- FormalistsFormalists::

First of all, there is obviously no "Formal“Formal method."method.” It is diffificultcult to recall who coined this namename,, but it was not a very felicitousfelicitous coin­coin- ageage.. It might have been convenient as a sisimplifiedmplifiedbattle cry but it failed as an obobjectivejective term that delimits the actactivitiesivities of the "S“Soci-oci-

1. "F“Formal’nyjormal'nyj metodmetod:: VmVmestoesto nekrologanekrologa,"," SovremennaSovremennajaja literatura: SbornikSbomik statextatejj (L(Leningrad,eningrad, 191925),25), pp. 14146—47.6-47. UnUnlessless indindicatedicated otherwise, all translations are my own.

16 Who Is Formalism, What Is She?

ety for thethe Study of Poetic Language"Language” ("(“OPOJAZ”)OPOJAZ") and the Sec­Sec- tion for Verbal Arts at the InInstitutestitute for the HiHistorystory of the ArtsArts...... What is at stake are not the methods of literary study but the principles upon which literaryscience should be constructed-itsconstructed—its contecontent,nt, the basic obobjectject of study, and the problems that organize it as a spspecificecific sciencescience...... The word "for“form"m" has many meaninmeaningsgs which, as alwalways,ays, cause a lot of confusion. It should be clear that we use this word in a particular sensense—notse-not as some correlative to the notion of "con­“con- tent" (such a correlation is, by the wayway,, false, for the notion of "co“content”ntent" is, in fact, the correlative of the notion "v“volume”olume" and not at all of "fo“form”)rm") but as something essentessentialial for the artistic phenomenonphenomenon,, as its orgorganizinganizing principrinciple.ple. We do not care aboaboutut the word "fo“form"rm" but only about its one particular nuancnuance.e. We are not "Fo“Formalists”rmalists" but, if you will, specifierspecifiers.2s. 2

Ejchenbaumchenbaum was not the only member of the Formal school to suggest a more fitting namename.. "Morph“Morphologicalological schoolschool,”," "ex­“ex- pressionist"pressionist” apprapproach,oach, and "systemo-fun“systemo-functional”ctional" apprapproachoach are only some of the labels conconcocted.cocted. This wealth of desdesignations,ignations, however, indindicatesicates not merely dissatisfaction with the existing nomenclature, but a fundamentfundamentalal disudisunitynity in the movement it­it- selfself.. In part this disunidisunityty was a funfunctionction of geogrageography.phy. From its very begbeginnings,innings, Russian Formalism was split intintoo two diffdifferenterent grougroups:ps: the Moscow Linguistic CirCirclecle with such young scholars as Petr BogBogatyrév,atyrev, Roman Jakjakobson,obson, and GrigoriGrigorijj VinokVinokur,ur, and the Petersburg OPOOPOJAZ,JAZ, which included BoBorisris Echenbaum,jchenbaum, Viktor SSklovskij,klovskij, and Jurjurijij TynTynjanov,janov, among others. Even though their relations were cordial, the two grgroupsoups apapproachedproached literature from diffdifferenterent perspectperspectives.ives. According to the Mus­Mus- covites BogBogatyrévatyrev and Jajakobson,kobson, "while“while the Moscow Linguistic Circle proceeds from the assumassumptionption that poetry is languaglanguagee in its aesthetic funfunction,ction, the Petersburgers claim that the poetic motif is not always merely the unfoldingof linglinguisticuistic materialmaterial.. Further, while the formerargue that the histhistoricalorical development

2. "Vokrug“Vokrug voprosa o 'fo‘formalistach,rmalistach,"'1" Petat'Pec'at' iirevoljucija, revoljucija, no. 5 (1(1924),924), 2-3.2—3.

1’77 Russian FormalismFormaliSm

of artistic formshas a socisociologicalological basisbasis,, the latter insist upon the full autonomy of these formsforms.”3."3 The reorganization of scholarly life under the Soviet regime further encourencouragedaged these divergdivergences.ences. OPOOPOJAZJAZ was dissdissolvedolved in the early twetwenties,nties, to be incorporincorporatedated into the StStateate InInstitutestitute forthe HiHistorystory of the Arts in Petersburg. The Moscow CiCircle—rcle­ trtransformedansformed by the dedeparturespartures of Jakjakobsonobson and BogBogatyrévatyrev in 19192020 forCzCzechoslovakia—became echoslovakia-became part of the StStateate AcadAcademyemy for the Study of the Arts in MoscowMoscow.. In these two research centerscenters,, the original Formalists began to collaborate with other students ofofliterature literature and ententeredered into an exchange of ideas with signifsignifii­- cance forboth sidessides.. Many Formalist notions were accepted by non-non-Formalists,Formalists, and in turn, the Formalists modifiedmodified their views in response to the intellectual trends around themthem.. This di­di- alogue produced a wide spectrum of literary-theoretical ideas labeled "F“Formalist.”ormalist." Though this dilution of "pure"“pure” Formalism occurred in both brancbranches,hes, it was the MuMuscovitesscovites who were most deeply influ­influ- enced by the philosophilosophicalphical ideas propounded at the StStateate Acad­Acad- emy by Edmund HuHusserl’ssserl's pupil, GustGustavav SSpet.pet. This intintellectualellectual cross-pollination gave rise to what some commentcommentatorsators have termed the "for“formal-philosophicalmal-philosophical school"school” of the late twentitwenties,es, within whose orbit belonged such literary scholars as MiMichailchail PetrovskijPetrovskij,, Grigorij Vinokur, and MiMichailchail StolStoljarov.4jarov.4 ReRejectingjecting the iconoclastic tenor of early FormalisFormalism,m, the members of this group rehabilirehabilitatedtated many concepts and methods of traditional philolphilology.ogy. The introduction to their 19192727 anthologyanthology,, ArArtistictistic Form, announannouncedced what the followers of SSpetpet perceived as their special charactcharacter:er: "In“In contrast to the Formalists of the 'OP‘OPOjAZ’OJAZ' type who usuausuallylly confine theirtheirresearch to the spspherehere of outouterer form,we underunderstandstand artistartisticic formhere as 'inner‘inner forform.’m.' Thus we pose the quesquestiontion [of artistartisticic form] moremore broadly and seek its

3. "Slav“Slavjanskajajanskaja filologijafilologija v Rossii za gg. 19141914—1921,"-1921," Slavia 1 (19(1922),22), 458. 4. See N. I. Efimov,Efimov, "F“Formallzmormalizm v russkom literaturliteraturovedenii,"ovedenii," Smolenskij gosudargosudarstvennyjstvennyj universitet: NaucnyeNauc'nye izvestija, vol. 5, pt. 3 (Smolensk, 191929),29), p. 56. r818 Who Is Formalism, What Is She? solution in the intinterrelationserrelations of various forms-lforms—logical,ogical, syntactic, melodicmelodic,, poetic per se, rhetoricalrhetorical,, etetc.”5c."5 Given the vicissitudes of geography,geography and history, the idenidentitytity of Russian Formalism might be sought more profitably outside its ororganizationalganizational structurstructures.es. One possipossibilitybility advocated by TomasevskiTomasevskijj in his infoinformativermative survsurvey,ey, "The“The NeNeww School of Lit­Lit- erary HiHistorystory in RussiaRussia,”," was to focuson the protagoprotagonistsnists of this movement in order to distinguish the core of gegenuinenuine Formalists from the peripheral fellow travetravelers:lers:

It is people that one should consider now, rather than a school constituting an intintellectualellectual unity. ContemContemporaryporary historians of lit­lit- erature can be clasclassified,sified, accaccordingording to their relatiorelationsns with the new schoolschool,, intintoo three grougroups:ps: the orthodorthodox,ox, the indepindependents,endents, and the influeninfluenced.ced. The orthodox are those faithffaithfulul to OPOJOPOJAZ.AZ. They reprrepresentesent the extreme left of FormaFormalism.lism. The best known among them are SSklovskij,klovskij, Echenbaum,jchenbaum, and TynTynjanov.janov. The independents took part in the creation of the Formalist school and contrcontributedibuted to its worksworks,, but did not accept its discipline and went their seseparateparate waysways:: thus, ZZirmunskijirmunskijand ViVinogradov.nogradov. As for the influeninfluenced,ced, it would be futile to pretend to specify their number.number.66

The classclassificationification of the Formalists drawn by Tomasevskij has all the authorauthorityity of an eye-witness accaccount.ount. Yet one wonders what the common dedenominatornominator between SSklovskijklovskij and TynTynjanovjanov actually is. This question cannot be dismissed easily, for there are historians of the Formalist movement who see these key figures as ququiteite dissimilar. Ewa Thompson, forexamexample, ple, divides the Russian Formal school into "idealist“idealistic”ic" and "positivistic"“positivistic” trendtrends,s, with SSklovskijklovskijgravitating toward idealistic aesthetics and TynTynjanovjanov a clear-cut represerepresentativentative of the positivistic orienta-

5. "P“Predislovie,”redislovie," in ChudoiestvenChudoiestvenmjanaja foforma:rrna: SbornikSbomik statestate],j, eded.. A. G. CiCiresres (Mo(Moscow,scow, 191927),27), p. 5. 6. "La“La nouvelle ecoleécole d'histd’histoireoire litterairelittéraire en Russie,"Russie,” Revue des etudese’tudes slaves 8 (1(1928),928), 239239—40.-40.

19 Russian Formalism

tition.7on. 7 For quite difdifferentferent reasoreasons,ns, Jjurij urij Striedter also maintains that the two leading Formalists are conceptually distant. SSklovskij’sklovskij's notion of the artistic work "as“as a 'sum‘sum of devices'devices’ with the funfunctionction of 'de-fami‘de-familiarization’liarization' to makmakee 'perception‘perception more diffificult'cult’ "” was, in Striedter'sStriedter’s opiniopinion,on, renderrendereded obsolete by Tyn­Tyn- jajanov’snov's more comprehensive defindefinitionition of the artwork "as“as a 'sys­‘sys- tem'tem’ composed of devices whosewhose'functions functions are specifiedspecified syn­syn- chrchronicallyonically and diachronicadiachronically.”8lly."8 And although to their contem­contem- poraries the difdifferenceference between the two men might have ap­ap- peared unimpunimportant,ortant, within Striedter'sStriedter’s develdevelopmentalopmental scheme it is of great signifsignificance.icance. According to StriedteStriedter,r, SSklovskijklovskij stands as the orthodox Formalist, whereas TynTynjanovjanov turns out to be the Johnjohn the BaBaptistptist of StructuStructuralism.ralism. There is yet another reason TomasevsTomasevskij’skij's categorization should be taken cum granogram salis. His "st“stateate of the movement"movement” is presented from a particular standpostandpoint:int: that of the insider. This perspective might, of course, be insinstructivetructive in some respectsrespects,, for he was privy to ininformationformationun unavailableavailable to ststrangers.rangers. But, at the same time, his point of view is t�atthat of the movement he belongbelongeded toto,, and this collective ideolideologyogy inevitinevitablyably slanted his presentpresenta-a­ tition.on. TomaseTomasevskij’svskij's contemporcontemporary,ary, the psycholpsychologicallyogically inclined critic Arkadij GornfGornfel’d,el' d, for exexample,ample, wrwroteote in i9192222 that "the“the Formalists areare,, of course, very diverdiverse:se: thertheree are among them simsimple-mindedple-minded ones like Kusner and SSengeliengeli clumsiclumsilyly parodying the method, taletalentednted thieves likelikeViktor Viktor SSklovskij,klovskij, and cautious eclectics like ZZirmunskij.”9irmunskij ."9 BorBorisis ArvatArvatov,ov, the fatherof the "for“for-­ malist-smalist-sociological”ociological" apapproach,proach, cut the pie in the following wayway:: "The“The researchers of OPOJAZOPOjAZ do not represent anything homo­homo- genegeneous.ous. On the contrary, by now thrthreeee diffdifferenterent grgroupsoups can be discerned in it: the extreme right which insists on the total sepa­sepa- ration of poetry and praxis ((chenbaum,Ejchenbaum, ZZirmunskij),irmunskij), the cen-

7. Russian FormalismFormalism and AnAnglo-Americanglo-American New Criticism: A Comparative StudStudyy (The HaHague,gue, 191971),71 ), pp. 5555—110.-110. 8. "E“Einleitung,”inleitung," inin Felix VodiVodicka,cka, Die Struktur der literarischen Entwicklung .(Munich,(Munich, 191976),76), p. xvii. 9. "F“Formalistyormalisty i ichich protivnikiprotivniki,"," Literaturnye zapiski, no. 3 (19(1922),22), 5.

20 Who Is Formalism, What Is She? ter adhering to a so-called linguo-linguo-poeticpoetic theory UakobsoGakobson,n, SSklovskij),klovskij), and the extreme lefleft—sociologicalt-sociological and technologtechnologicalical (Br(Brik,ik, Kufoer)Kuéner).”10."10 Wary of other critics'critics’ triadtriads,s, the Marxist Pavel Medvedev identifiedidentified four trends in FormaliFormalism:sm: "The“The firstfirst ten­ten- dency is an academic Formalism charcharacterizedacterized by its desirdesiree to gloss over contradictions and to avoid a formulformulationation of problems accordaccordinging to a single principle"principle” ((Zirmunskij);Zirmunskij); "the“the second tenten-­ dency amountamountss to a partial return to the psychological and philo­philo- sophical treatment of literliteraryary probproblems”lems" ((chenbaum);Ejchenbaum); "a“a shifshiftt toward the sociological method characterizes the third tenden­tenden- cy"cy” (Tomasevs(Tomasevskij,kij, Jajakubinskij);kubinskij); and "fi“finallynally the foufourthrth tendency is SSklovskij’sklovskij's frozen FormalisFormalism.”llm."11 This sampling of contradictorycontradictory,, incomincompatiblepatible classificationsclassifications appappliedlied to the Formalists illusillustratestrates the futfutilityility of any attempt to pin down the identity of this movement by sorting out its central and marginal protagprotagonists.onists. UltUltimately,imately, it seemsseems,, one must come to the same conclusion as Medvedev, that "there“there are as many Formalisms as there are FormalistsFormalists.”l2."1 2 This conclusiconclusion,on, howev­howev- er, should not be intinterpretederpreted as a sign of hostility toward the Formalist enterprise or of delideliberateberate perversitperversityy on the commen­commen- tatotator’sr's part. It corresponds to the methodmethodologicalological pluralism of the Formalist apprapproachoach openly disdisplayedplayed by its practitiopractitioners.ners. In his stock-taking artiarticle,cle, "The“The Question of the 'F‘Formalormal MethoMethod,’d,' "” Viktor ZZirmunskijirmunskij charcharacterizedacterized the Formal school in this wayway::

The general and vague name "Formal“Formal method"method” usuusuallyally brings together the most divediverserse works dealing with poetic lanlanguageguage and style in the broad sense of these teterms,rms, histhistoricalorical and theoretical poetipoetics,cs, studies of meter, sound orchorchestration,estration, and melodimelodies,cs, sty­sty- listics, compositicomposition,on, and plot structure, the histhistoryory of litliteraryerary genres and stylstyles,es, etc. From my enumenumeration,eration, which does not pretend to be exhauexhaustivestive or sysystematic,stematic, it is obvious that in princi-

10. "J“jazykazyk poeticeskij iijazyk jazyk prakticeskijprakticeskij:: K metodologii iskiskusstvoznanija,"usstvoznanija," Pelat'Pet'at’ iirevoljucija, revoljucija, no. 7 (1(1923),923), 59·59. l1 1. Formal'Formal'nyj nyj metod v literaturovedenii: KKritic'eskoeritileskoe vvedenie v sociosociologiiexkujulogileskuju poet­paét» iku (Lening(Leningrad,rad, 191928),28), pp. 97-98.97—98. 1212.. IbiIbid.,d., p. 97.

21 Russian Formalism

pieple it would be more correct to spspeakeak not of a new method but rather of the new tasksof scholarship, ofofa a new spherspheree of scholarly problems.”problems.13

ZZirmunskijirmunskij was not the only Formalist who insiinsistedsted that this apprapproachoach should not be idenidentifiedtified with any singsinglele methodmethod.. Other more militant proponents such as Echenbaum,jchenbaum, who blasted ZZirmunskijirmunskij forhis "eclectici“eclecticism,”sm,'' concurred with him on this point.point.1414 In Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's assessment, "the“the Formal methodmethod,, by gradually evolving and extending its fieldfield of inquinquiry,iry, has comcompletelypletely exceeded what was traditionally called methodology and is turning into a special science that treats literature as a specificspecific series of facts. Within the limits of this science the most hetheterogeneouserogeneous methods can be developeddeveloped...... The desigdesignationnation of this movement as the 'F‘Formalormal methodmethod,’,' which by now has become establisestablished,hed, thus requires a qualifqualification:ication: it is a histhistor-or­ ical, not a definitdefinitionalional termterm.. What characterizes us is neither 'Formalism'‘Formalism’ as an aesthetaestheticic theorytheory,, nor 'methodology'‘methodology’ as a closed scientificscientific system, but only the striving to estestablish,ablish, on the basis of specificspecific properties of the litliteraryerary material, an independent liter­liter- ary sciencescience.”l5."1 5 DespitDespitee their agragreementeement on the necessity of methodmethodologicalological plurapluralism,lism, however, there is an important difdifferenceference between ZZirmunskij’sirmunskij's "eclectic“eclecticism”ism" and Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's "p“principledrincipled stancestance.”." While ZZirmunskijirmunskij characterizes Formalism somewhat nebulously as a "new“new sphere of scholarly problproblems,”ems," Echen-jchen­ baum identifiesidentifies it as something much more concconcrete—arete-a new "independent“independent litliteraryerary sciencescience.”." Perhaps by taking advantadvantageage of Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's insiginsight,ht, one could look for a more deep-deep-seatedseated identidentityity for Russian FormalFormalism.ism. BenBeneatheath all the diversity of method there may have existed a set of shared epepistemologicalistemological principles that generated the Formalist science of literatuliterature.re.

13. "K“K voprosu o 'formal‘formal’nom'nom metometode,de,"'in VoprosyVopmsy teorii literatury:literatmy: StatStat’i'i 19161916—- 1926 (Leni(Leningrad,ngrad, 191928),28), p. 15154.4· 14. See, forexexample, ample, "“ 'M‘Metodyetody i podchodpodchody,‘y,"'" KniKniz'nyji.nyj ugol, no. 8 (19(1922),22), 21-21—3.3. 15. "Teorij“Teorijaa 'form‘formal’nogoal'nogo metometoda,’"da,"' Literatura: TeoriTeorija,ja, kritika, polemika (Leni(Leningrad,ngrad, 191927),27), p. 11117.7.

22 Who Is Formalism, What Is She?

UnUnfortunately,fortunately, the Formalists'Formalists’ methodologmethodologicalical plurapluralismlism is more than matched by its epistepistemologicalemological pluralispluralism.m. The princi­princi- ple that literature should be treated as a specificseries of factsis too general to distdistinguishinguish either the Formalists from non-non-For-For­ malists, or genuine Formalists from fefellowllow travelerstravelers.. A similar concern was voiced by earlier Russian liliteraryterary scholars, and the autonomy of literliteraryary facts vis-a-vis other phenomena was never solved by the Formalists themselvesthemselves.. NeitNeitherher did they agree on what the spspecificecific properties of the literary material are or how the new science should prproceedoceed from ththem.em. The epistepistemologicalemological didiversityversity of this new literliteraryary science be­be- comes obvious when we compare those who were methodologi­methodologi- cally similar, forexampleexample, , the two leading Formalist students of verseverse,, Tomasevskij and Jakjakobson.obson. The former, rebutting the charge that the Formalists shirk the basic ontontologicalological issues of litliteraryerary studies (that is, what liliteratureterature is)is),, wrotewrote:: "I“I shall answer by comcomparison.parison. It is possible to study electricity and yet not know what it is. And what does the quesquestion,tion, 'what‘what is electricityelectricity,’,' mean anywayanyway?? I would answeranswer:: 'it‘it is that whiwhich,ch, if one screws in an electric bulbbulb,, will light itit.’.' In studying phenomena one does not need an a priori defindefinitionition of essencesessences.. It is imimportantportant only to discern their manifmanifestationsestations and be aware of their connecticonnections.ons. This is how the Formalists study literature. They conceive of poetics precisely as a discipline that studies the phenomena of literature and not its essenceessence.”16."16 Jajakobson,kobson, in contrascontrast,t, argues that such an ad hoc procprocedureedure was the modus opoperandierandi of old-fasold-fashionedhioned litliteraryerary scholarsscholarship.hip. "Unt“Untilil now, the literliteraryary histhistorianorian has looked like a policeman who, in trying to arrest a perperson,son, wouldwould,, just in cacase,se, grab every­every- one and everything from his apartmeapartment,nt, as well as accidental passers-by on the strestreet.”et." To pursue accidentaccidentalal phenomena in­in- ststeadead of the liliteraryterary essence is not the correct way to proceproceed,ed, Jajakobsonkobson insiinsisted.sted. "The“The obobjectject ofliterary science is not literature but literariliterariness,ness, i.e., what makes a given work a literary workwork.”17."1 7 1616.. "F“Formal’nyjormal'nyj metodmetod,"," p. 14148.8. 1717.. NoveNovejs'ajaj5aja russkaja poezija:poézija: Nabrosok pepervyjroyj (P(Prague,rague, 1921921),1), p. 111 1..

2233 Russian Formalism

SeemingSeemingly,ly, the epepistemologicalistemological underpinnings of Formalist liter­liter- ary science were fluid enough to accoaccommodatemmodate both Tomasev­Tomasev- skiskij’sj's blatant phenomenalism and Jakjakobson’sobson's implied phenome­phenome- nologynology.. Perhaps such a conclusion should not susurpriserprise us. After allall,, Boris Echenbaumjchenbaum declared that epistemolepistemologicalogical monismmonism—the-the reduction of the hetheterogeneityerogeneity of art to a singsinglele explanatexplanatoryory principleprinciple—was-was the cardinal sin of traditional Russian literliteraryary scholarsscholarship:hip:

OPOJOPOjAZAZ is known today undunderer the alias of the "Formal“Formal methodmethod."." This is misleadmisleading.ing. What matters is not the method but the princi­princi- ple. Both the RuRussianssian intintelligentsiaelligentsia and RuRussianssian scholscholarshiparship have been poisoned by the idea of monism. Marx, like a good GermGerman,an, reduced all of life to "ec“economics."onomics." And the RuRussiansssians who did not have their own scholarly Weltanschauung, but only a propensity toward it, did like to learn from German scholarscholarship.ship. Thus, the "m“monisticonistic ououtlook”tlook" became king in our countcountryry and the rest fol­fol- lowedlowed.. A basic principle was disdiscoveredcovered and schemes were con­con- structstructed.ed. Since art did not fit into them it was ththrownrown out. Let it exiexistst as a "“rereflectionflection”—sometimes"-sometimes it can be usefuusefull for education after all. But nono!! EnEnoughough of monimonism!sm! We are plurpluralists.alists. LifLifee is diverse and cannot be reduced to a singsinglele principle. Blind men may do so, but even they are begbeginninginning to see. Life moves liklikee a river in a continuous flow, but with an infinfiniteinite nunumbermber of strestreams,ams, each of which is particular. And art is not even a strstreameam of this floflow,w, but a bridge over it.it.181 8

This brief foray intintoo Formalist methodology and epistepistemolo-emolo­ gy illusillustratestrates the difficuldifficultyty of discerning a common denomidenominatornator in this new literary sciescience.nce. ItItss idenidentitytity appappearsears to be that of a WittWittgensteiniangensteinian family resemblanceresemblance:: a set of overlaoverlappingpping ideas about literliterature,ature, none of which is sharshareded by every FormalisFormalist.t. With all hope lost of estestablishingablishing an intrinsic defindefinitionition of FormalisFormalism,m, we might at least discover extrinsic criteria of identi­identi- ty forthe movmovement.ement. For instanceinstance,, there seems to be a distdistinctinct

1818.. "5“5=100,"=100," KniKm'z'nyjinyj ugol, no.n0. 8 (19“922%22), 39-40.39—40. 24 Who Is Formalism, What Is She? pattern in the way the Formalists charcharacterizeacterize their collective enterprienterprise.se. Again and again they speak of the novelty of their apapproach,proach, or their delideliberateberate dedepartureparture from previous modes of literary studies. ThisThis,, forexamexample, ple, is how Echenbaumjchenbaum describes the field of Russian letters in 191922:2 2:

Something charcharacteristicacteristic and signifisignificantcant has happhappened.ened. TherTheree used to be "sub“subjective”jective" criticismcriticism—impressionistic,-impressionistic, philosophphilosophical,ical, etetc.,c., presenting its "m“meditations"editations" about this and that. TherTheree also useusedd to be "ob“objective”jective" schscholarship—academic,olarship-academic, intinternallyernally hostile toward criticcriticism,ism, a lecturing from the cathedra full of certitucertitudes.des. And suddenly all of this became a laulaughableghable anachranachronism.onism. The scholarly certitudes preached from cathedcathedrasras turned out to be nanaiveive babble and the critics'critics’ meditations a mere empemptyty set of worwords,ds, mormoree or less clever chatter. What was demanded was a busibusiness-likeness-like criticismcriticism—precise-precise and concrete-thatconcrete—that would encom­encom- pass both gegenuinenuine theoretical ideas and genuine keekeennessnness of per­per- ceptiception.on. BotBothh pedantic [intelligentskij] criticism and scholarsscholarshiphip began to be viewed as dilettdilettantism;antism; both were sentsentencedenced to deathdeath.19.19

Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's vivid dedepictionpiction of the shifshiftt in Russian intellec-intellec­ tual life created by the Formalist revolution susuggestsggests a possible soursourcece of unity for this schoschool.ol. Whereas a positive idenidentity—tity­ some form of methodologmethodologicalical or epistepistemologicalemological consensusconsensus—­ seems out of reareach,ch, a negative identiidentity—thety-the Formalists'Formalists’ dissent from previous literary scholarscholarship—appearsship--appears much less prob­prob- lematic. Of coursecourse,, this path has its difdifficulties.ficulties. Even if we man­man- age to establish what Russian Formalism is not vis-a-vis its prede­prede- cessorscessors,, our knowledge of what it actually is will be ququiteite vagvague.ue. And without some understanding of Formalism itselfitself,, the line we draw between it and pre-Formalism will be accordaccordinglyingly im­im- precisprecise.e. BeBeforefore the advent of FormaFormalism,lism, a great many ideasideas,, conceconcepts,pts, and methods were floatingabout in Russian criticism that later turned out to be crucial to the movemovement.ment. The Formalists'Formalists’ detrdetractorsactors pointed to these very notions in disputing the movement'smovement’s novelty. They tried to denigdenigraterate For-

YH 19.19. '"Metody“‘Metody i podchpodchody,ody,"' 13-14.13—14.

25 Russian Formalism

malist literary theory by portraying it as ununoriginaloriginal and deriva­deriva- tivetive,, since in Russian letters the concern with literary form had preceded the birth of this group by decaddecades.es. According to A. Maskin, "as“as early as 181884,84, even the famous 'sociologis‘sociologist’t' idealist N. Kareev urged his pupupilspils at Warsaw UnUniversityiversity to study the formal elements of the litliteraryerary tradititradition.”20on."20 The MaMarxistrxist P. S. Kogan, president of the MoMoscowscow AcadAcademyemy forthe Study of the Arts, found the spspiritualiritual father of Formalism in the "im“impres-pres­ sionistic"sionistic” literary critic KorneKornejj CCukovskij:ukovskij: "“CukovskijCukovskij is older than our learned 'F‘Formalists.’ormalists.' His critical acumen and artistic taste helped to anticanticipateipate many conclusions which the varivariousous linguistlinguisticic circles and 'OPO‘OPOjAZ’JAZ' are reacreachinghing onlonlyy now. In his critical practice he was applapplyingying to poets methods which V. ZZir-ir­ munskij and his confconfederatesederates are now trying to put on a schol­schol- arly footifooting.”21ng."2 1 And forthose who knew better than to equequateate Kareev or CCukovskijukovskij with Formalism there were alwayalwayss other "early"“early” FormalistsFormalists,, for examexample,ple, the poet-theoreticians of the Symbolist genergeneration.ation. ZZirmunskijirmunskij acknowledgacknowledgeded their impimpor-or­ tance after his enthusiasm for OPOOPOJAZJAZ had cooledcooled::

The actual imimpulsepulse for our own methodologmethodologicalical inqinquiresuires into the problems of litliteraryerary form in fact came from the theoreticians of SymbolisSymbolism,m, who compelled us to revise tradtraditionalitional acaacademicdemic poet­poet- icsics.. I should mention in the first place AndAndrejrej BelyBelyj.j. He not only propelled the theory of verse from a dead issue to a vital topic,topic. but was also the first to criticize the traditional eclectieclecticismcism of the pedantic "history“history of literature" and posed the questionquestion of a sci­sci- ence devoted to the specispecificallyfically artistic fefeaturesatures of poetic worksworks...... Next to him ValerijBrBrjusov jusov discussdiscusseded the probleproblemsms of form in a nunumbermber of essays and notes devoted'to the technology of the poetic craft and VjVjaceslavaleslav Ivanov offered both a concrete tretreatmentatment of these problems in his analyses of poetry and a gener­gener- al, theoretical one in the meetingmeetingss of the "Poetic“Poetic AcadeAcademy.”my." The interinterestest in formal probproblemslems corrcorrespondedesponded to the general litliteraryerary posture of the Sym_Symbolists:bolists: the defense of the self-self-containedcontained meaning of art and its "au“autonomy”tonomy" from extra-artistic gogoals.22als. 22

20. '"Formalizm'“‘Formalizm‘ i ego puti," Krasnoe slovo,xlovo, nos. 2-32—3 (19(1927),27), 16164.4. 21. "Nekrasov;“Nekraiov; kak chudoinik.chudoz'nik. Peterburg. Izdatel'Izdatel’stvostvo '‘Epocha.’Epocha.' 191922,"22," Peeat'Petal i revoy·ucija,revoljucija, no. 2 ((1922), 1922), 35351.1. 22. "P“Predislovie,”redislovie," Voprosy teorii literatury,literalury, pp. 8-9.8—9.

26 Who Is Formalism, What Is She?

One need not take these hostile assertions at face valuevalue.. One should be aware, however, that not all the Formalists sharshareded Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's radical attitude toward histhistory.ory. To be suresure,, they viewed their common ententerpriseerprise as a new and original chapter in Russian literliteraryary studiesstudies,, but not nenecessarilycessarily one totally outside of its traditiotradition.n. As TomasevskiTomasevskijj ststressedressed in his 19192828 lecture at the Prague LinLinguisticguistic Circle, the Formalist negnegationation of the past was selectselective.ive. They rebelled above all agaiagainstnst the main apprapproachesoaches to literature practiced in Russia at that timetime:: (1) the biobiographical,graphical, which interprinterpretedeted a text in terms of its author'sauthor’s lifelife;; (2) the sociosociohistorical,historical, which reduced the work to a mermeree mirror of ideas current at the time of its origorigin;in; (3) the philosophical, which used litliteratureerature as an illusillustrationtration of the interpreter'sinterpreter’s philo­philo- sophical systsystem.em. "But“But one should not assumassume,”e," TomasevsTomasevskijkij con­con- tinutinued,ed, "that“that the new school rerejectedjected the ententireire heritheritageage of Rus­Rus- sian scholarscholarship.ship. If it sometimes opposed VeselovsVeselovskij’skij's and PotebnPotebnja’sja's ideasideas,, it did so mermerelyely to ememphasizephasize its own indepen­indepen- dent stance. It must be ststated,ated, however, that the new school is obligated to these two predecessors and that it borrowed many of its basic concepts from ththem.em. The FormalistsFormalists—as-as the propo­propo- nents of this new systsystemem of liliteraryterary studies were called-recalled—rejectedjected more than anything else the excessive tendency toward ineriner-­ tiatia.”23."23 BogBogatyrévatyrev andjakobson'sand Jakobson’s 19192222 survey of current Russian phi­phi- lology also underunderlinedlined the intintellectualellectual affinityaffinity between the For­For- malists and some of the older criticscritics.. The Formalist call foran independent literary science emerges from their accoaccountunt as the crystallization of a theorettheoreticalical tendency that was in the air. "In“In recerecentnt yearsyears,”," the two MuMuscovitesscovites wrotewrote,,

diffdifferenterent phiphilologistslologists in a variety of ways arrived at the conclconclusionusion that current litliteraryerary histhistoryory is antiscientantiscientiificfic...... The acacademicademic Peretc in his Lessons on the Methodology of Russian Literary History published in Kiev in 1914, sharply attacks the views of literliteraryary

23.23. "N“Novaova ruska skola v badani literarne-historickliterarne-historickém,”em," tr. ].J. MukMukarovsky,afovsky, CCmopisasopispro modernimodernifilologii fi lologii 15 ((1929), 1929), 1212—13.-13.

2277 Russian Formalism

hihistorystory that were prevalentprevalent not so long ago and demands the systemasystematictic impimplementationlementation of the formal method method as a first step in the study of the evolution of litliteraryerary forms. A. S. Orlov, in his 19211921 lecture ...... "Thoughts“Thoughts aboaboutut the Study of Literature as an ArArt,"t," has ininsistedsisted on the same. N. N. Konov in the papamphletmphlet Introduction to the History of Russian Literature (Moscow(Moscow,, 1920)1920) and to some dedegreegree GersGersenzonenzon in the booklet A Poet'sPoet’s Vision (M(Moscow,oscow, 1920)1920) spspeakeak about this as well, though not without reservation and with a compcompromiseromise in view. It is the works of the phphilologistsilologists grgroupedouped around the PetePetersburgrsburg Society for the Study of Poetic Language [OPO[OPOjAZ]JAZ] and the Moscow LinguisLinguistictic CirCirclecle that man­man- ifest the most radical demand for a fundamentfundamentalal switch in the hihistorystory of literature and strict formal analyanalysis.24sis. 24

As the foregoingdiscussion suggsuggests,ests, a clear-cut seseparationparation of Formalist critical prpracticeactice fromthat of the previous era is imimpos-pos­ sible without some overall ununderstandingderstanding of the new schoolschool.. A theoretical movement is obviously more than the sum total of ideas that it propounpropounds;ds; without the whole picture we cannot fitfit together its individual elementselements.. Demarcating Formalism from its its predecpredecessors,essors, however, is only half the problproblem.em. The movement'smovement’s negative identidentityity con­con- sistsistss as well in its distinctness from the theories that followed in its footstfootsteps.eps. InIndeed,deed, here the confusion seems even greategreater.r. Not only did Formalist principles and methods become the com­com- mon propropertyperty of literary scholarsscholars,, but some of the original mem­mem- bers of this school managmanageded to continue the Formalist tradition outside its native landland.. Thus, the label of Formalism is com­com- monly extended to movements whose members considered their own theorizing clearly non-non-FormalistFormalist and referredto themselves by quite diffdifferenterent names. Let me illuillustratestrate this point with two examexamples.ples. The firstfirst is the Prague Linguistic CiCirclercle established in 191926,26, which labeled its apprapproachoach "St“Structuralism.”ructuralism." The close link between the Prague School and Russian Formalism is indisputindisputable.able. The two not only had common members (B(Bogatyrévogatyrev and Jajakobson)kobson) but the

24. "Slav“Slavjanskajajanskaja filologija v RossRossii,”ii," 457.

28 Who Is Formalism, What Is She?

Prague group consciously named themselves after the Moscow branch of the Formal schoolschool—the-the Moscow LinguistLinguisticic CiCircle.rcle. Sev­Sev- eral leading Formalists (Tomas(Tomasevskij,evskij, TynTynjanov,janov, and Vinokur) delivered lectures at the Prague CircleCircle,, and thus familiarized Czech scholars with the results of their researresearch.ch. A number of Formalist worksworks,, including SSklovskij’sklovskij's On0n the Theoryof Prose, were translated into Czech in the late twenties and early thirtithirties.es. Given this close relatrelationship,ionship, it is not sursurprisingprising that Victor ErErlich’slich's pioneering work, RusRussiansian Formalism, contains a chapter dealing with the Prague schoschool.ol. To account for the reperrepercus-cus­ sions of Russian Formalism in the neighboring countricountries,es, Erlich introduces the umbrella concept of "S“Slaviclavic FormaFormalism”lism" whose Prague mutmutationation is called "S“Structuralism.”tructuralism." Although he points out the diffdifferenceerence between what he terms "pur“puree ForFormalism”malism" and "P“Praguerague StructuraliStructuralism/’25sm,"25 for Erlich the litliteraryerary theory of the Prague school is ultultimatelyimately a restatement of the "basic“basic tenets of Russian Formalism in more jujudiciousdicious and rigorrigorousous termsterms.”26."26 Because of the wide acclaim of ErErlich’slich's book in the WesWest,t, the conflationconflation of Prague Structuralism with Russian Formalism has become commonplcommonplaceace in many subsequent histhistoriesories of literary theortheory.y. FredricFredricjameson, Jameson, forforinstance,instance , who regards ErlichErlich’s's work as the "defin“definitiveitive EngEnglish-languagelish-language susurveyrvey of FormaFormalism,”27lism,"27 mentions the Prague school in his comcomparativeparative study of Russian Formalism and StrStructuralismucturalism only in conconnectionnection with the Rus­Rus- sian movement, and refers to its members as "C“Czechzech For­For- malistsmalists.”28."28 In Czech criticiscriticism,m, a similar view of the Prague school was often advocated by those hostile to StStructuralism.ructuralism. Earlier we saw that the Russian foesof Formalism attacked its theories as deriv­deriv- ativeative.. Czech anti-Santi-Structuraliststructuralists ememployedployed the same ststrategy.rategy.

25. Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine,History—Doctrine, 3d ed. (The HaHague,gue, 191969),69), pp. 15154—4- 63. 26. "Russian“Russian FormaFormalism,”lism," Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics: EnEnlargedlarged Edition, ed. A.A Preminger (Princeton, N.J.,N.]., 191974),74), p. 727. 27. The Prison-HousePrison~House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism (Princet(Princeton,on, N.J.,N.]., 191972),72), p. 85. 28. IbiIbid.,d., p. 51. 29 Russian Formalism

They declared the Prague sschoolchool apprapproachoach to be a mere intellec­intellec- tual imimportport from RussiaRussia,, a continuation of Formalism by emi­emi- gresgrés who could no longer practice it in their own landland.. Conclud­Conclud- ing his 19193434 sursurveyvey of the Formalist movement, Karel Svoboda wrotewrote:: "R“Russianussian Formalism tries to make up in our councountrytry forthe losses it has suffsufferedered in its homelandhomeland.. It was brought here by R. Jajakobson;kobson; on his ininitiativeitiative in 19192626 the Prague LinguisLinguistictic CiCirclercle was establestablished,ished, modeled on the Moscow Linguistic CiCirclercle and incorporating Formalist principlprinciples.”29es."29 Some thirty years later, LadisLadislavlav SStoll,toll, the Czech CoCommunistmmunist PartParty’sy's authority on liter­liter- ary mattmatters,ers, faced with the idideologicallyeologically subversive resurrection of Structuralism in his territterritory,ory, proclaimedproclaimed:: "At“At a time when Prague literary Structuralists ...... accepted all the basic conceptsconcepts,, procprocedures,edures, and terminologterminologyy of the Russian Formal school, the followers of this school in the U.S.S.R.,USSR, under the infinfluenceluence of Marxist literary theorytheory,, were rethinking their previous positions and gradually dedepartingparting on new patpaths.hs. In its essenceessence,, Prague literary Structuralism is a belated echo of the Russian schoschool.”?’0ol."30 Needless to say, the villain of SStoll’stall's acaccountcount was the "agent“agent of the worldwide boubourgeoisie,”rgeoisie," Roman Jajakobson,kobson, whwhoseose insidious influenceinfluence set back the development of Czech literary studies many yearsyears,, returning it to the cul-de-sac of FormalisFormalism.m. PredictaPredictably,bly, the Prague Structuralists disagreed with these portrayals of their movmovement.ement. The CiCircle’srcle's leadleadinging aesthetiaesthetician,cian, ' Janjan MuMukafovsky,kafovsky, retorted by poking funat Svoboda'sSvoboda’s accaccount:ount: "The“The matter is often prpresentedesented as if Czech scholarship one day discovered Russian Formalism and copied it, almost like a villagvillagee carpenter who was 'doing‘doing Art Nouveau'Nouveau’ until he suddensuddenlyly dis­dis- covered a pattern book with the plan of a constructiviconstructivistst househouse.”." Russian FormalFormalism,ism, in MukMukafovsky’safovskfs opinion, was welcomed in Bohemia only because it meshed with a domesdomestictic tradition of empiempiricalrical aesthetics whose foundatfoundationsions were laid in the nine­nine- teenth century by the HerHerbartianbartian Formalists QosefGosef DurdikDurdik,,

v” 29. "O“O tak zvanezvané formalnimetodemetodé v literarni vede,"véde, NafeNas'evéda veda 15, no. 2 (1(1934),934), 45·45 30. 0 tvar a struktururtrukluru v slovesnemsloveme’m umeniuménz’ (P(Prague,rague, 191966),66), p. 86.

3300 Who Is Formalism, What Is She?

Otakar HostinskHostinsky).y). "Un“Underder these conditionconditions,s, it would be wrong to believe that Formalism penetpenetratedrated Czech scholarship like an alien bodbody.y. ProceedProceedinging from the inevitinevitablyably international nature of the scholarly enterpriseenterprise,, CzeCzechch scholarship consciously and actively absoabsorbedrbed a theory that suitsuiteded its own developmentdevelopmentalal tendencies and facilitfacilitatedated its furfurtherther develodevelopment.pment...... [It[It]] dididd not collapse under the influence [of Russian FormaliFormalism],sm], but overovercamecame in Structuralism the one-sidedness of FormaliFormalism.”lsm."31 The conflationflation of Formalism with StStructuralism,ructuralism, whether jus­jus- tifiedtified or not, adds yet another twist to the problem of dedemarcat-marcat­ ing the Russian movement. ItItss most obvious effectis to extend the label across temtemporalporal and geogrageographicalphical boundariboundaries.es. Yet at times the conflationflation has had just the opoppositeposite result. In the sixtiesixties,s, when Structuralism was becobecomingming an intinternationalernational movement, histhistoriansorians often divided the Russian precursors into early "pure“pure Formalists"Formalists” and mormoree advanced "S“Structuralists.”tructuralists." This reshufflingreshuffling of Formalism was facilitfacilitatedated by the vagueness of0f the histhistoricalorical label of StructurStructuralism.alism. Coined by Roman Jajakob-kob­ son in his brief accaccountount of the First IntInternationalernational CoCongressngress of Slavicists in 1929, "S“Structuralism”tructuralism" was used to desdesignateignate the "leading“leading idea of present-day science in its most various manman-­ ififestations.”32estations."32 As a new holistholisticic and teleological paradigm of scholarscholarship,ship, StStructuralismructuralism attemattemptedpted to displdisplaceace the atomistic and genetic-causal paradigm of positivipositivism,sm, the work of the Prague Linguistic CirCirclecle being its clearest exemplexemplificationification in the fieldsfields ofof- linglinguisticsuistics and poetipoetics.cs. By definingdefining StructuraStructuralismlism so broadbroadly,ly, however, Jakjakobsonobson created an overlap between For­For- malism and StructuraStructuralism.lism. For in its heterogeneityheterogeneity,, Russian For­For- malism certainly contained some of the ideas informing the new paradigmparadigm,, and some of the Formalists had treated their data in a holisholistictic manner and/or eschewed a genetic-causal mode of explanatiexplanation.on. In this way, what previously was regarded as a singsinglele the-

3131.. "V“Vztahztah mezi sovetskousovétskou a ceskoslovenskou literarni vedouvédou,”," ZemeZemé Sovetu501/611"; 4 (19(1935—1936),35-1936), 14.14- . 32. "Romant“Romantickéicke vseslovansvseslovanstvi—novatvi-nova slavistikaslavistika,"," GGirlin I1 (19(1929—1930),29-1930), 1111..

3311 Russian Formalism

oretical movement suddenly split in twotwo.. P. N. Smirnov points out in his encyclopedia entryentry,, "S“Structuralismtructuralism in Literary Stud­Stud- iesies,”," that some of the Russian Formalists should correctly be called StructuralStructuralists.ists.

In the U.S.S.RUSSR.. StStructuralismructuralism began to emerge in the twentietwenties,s, seseparatingparating itseitselflf from the Formal school (se(seee OPOJOPOjAZ).AZ). While the Formalists ideidentifiedntified the artistic text with the obobjectject (artifact) and put forwardas thetheirir primprimaryary thetheoreticaloretical terms the notions "mate­“mate- rial" and "d“device,”evice," the structuralists jujuxtaposedxtaposed to this the difdif-­ ferferenceence between the text and structure impimplicitlicit already in V. ja.Ja. PrPropp’sopp's Morphology of the Folktale ((1928). i928) ...... ju.Ju . TynTynjanov,janov, one of the first to intintroduceroduce the term "structu“structure”re" into literaryliterary-theoretical-theoretical discoursediscourse,, proposeproposedd to study the constructive elements of the poetic work in relation to the artistic whole, i.ei.e.,., froma fufunctionalnctional point of vievieww (inste(insteadad of a tetechnologicalchnological one0ne).33).33

..The The limitation of the desdesignationignation "F“Formalism”ormalism" to only the early stagstagee of the Russian movement is not the practice of Soviet historians alone. As I mentmentionedioned beforebefore,, StriedterStriedter‘draws draws the line between SSklovskij’sklovskij's and TynTynjanov’sjanov's theories in roughly the same wayway.. Another advocate of this view is the Dutch comparatist, Douwe Fokkema. SuSurveyingrveying modern Slavic criticriticism,cism, he wrwrites,ites, "Within“Within the context of this paper my main point is that the Russian Formalists gradually came to acacceptcept the view that the variovariousus factors in ververbalbal art are interrelatinterrelated.ed. The dominant function of one factor subordinatsubordinateses the imimportanceportance of other factors and deforms ththem,em, but seldom complcompletelyetely annihannihilatesilates their functifunctions.ons. If the Formalists viewed literature as a system charcharacterizedacterized by the intinterdependenceerdependence of its elementselements,, this posi­posi- tion must be called structuralist although they rarely used that label beforbeforee 191927.”3427."34 The problematic boundboundariesaries between Formalism and Struc-

33. "Stru“Strukturalizmkturalizm v literaturovedeliteraturovedenii,”nii," KratkaKratkajaja literatumaliteratumajaja enciklopedija,eneiklopedija, vol. 7 (Mo(Moscow,scow, 191972),72), p. 23231.1. 34. "Continui“Continuityty and ChangChangee in Russian FormalFormalism,ism, Czech StructurStructuralism,alism, So­So- viet SemiotiSemiotics,"cs," PTL: A Journaljournal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1(1976),976), 16163.3. This journal hereafter cited as PTL.

3322 Who Is Formalism, What Is She? turalism are not the only hindhindrancerance to an understanding of the Russian movement. With the rise of a new critical star on the current intintellectualellectual horizonhorizon—post-Structuralism—another-post-Structuralism-another Rus­Rus- sian literary-theoretical grgroupoup with ties to Formalism has caught the atteattentionntion of historianhistorians.s. I speak here of the BaBachtinchtin circlecircle,, whoswhosee most prominent membmembers,ers, aside from Michail BaBachtinchtin himselfhimself,, were the literary scholar MedMedvedevvedev and the linguist V. N. VolosVolosinov.inov. Since this grgroupoup produced some of the most pen­pen- etrating critiques of Formalism from a selfself-proclaimed-proclaimed Marxist positiposition,35on, 35 the Bachtinians were lefleftt out of the picture in older accoaccountsunts of the Formal schoschool.ol. Erlich'sErlich’s classic work does not mentmentionion BaBachtin,chtin, although it notes MeMedvedev’sdvedev's book on FormalisFormalism,m, calling it "the“the most ex­ex- tended and scholarly critique of OpoOpojazjaz ever underundertakentaken by a MarxiMarxist.”36st."36 Striedter'sStriedter’s ig19696g introduction to a German anthology of Formalist texts fails to mention the BaBachtinchtin circirclecle altogaltogether.ether. Well aware of the conceptual heterogeneity and developmentdevelopmentalal fluidityfluidity of the Formal schoolschool,, StStriedterriedter conceives of its unitunityy in a dialectic fashifashion,on, as a "d“dialogicialogic form of of theorizintheorizing.”g." From this perspectiperspective,ve, "the“the histhistoryory and theory of Russian Formalism are an unintuninterruptederrupted dialogue between the Formalists and their op­0p- ponents, but even more so among the Formalists themselvthemselves,es, who opposed and criticized one another...... they were all at one and the same time partners and adveadversariesrsaries in the fascinating didialoguealogue which produced and representrepresenteded the formal meth- meth­ od0d.”37."37 Yet Striedter is unwilling to include in this "u“uninter-ninter­ ruptrupteded dialogue"dialogue” the very scholars who made the notion of di­di- alogue the center of their theotheory—thery-the MaMarxistrxist critics of Formal­Formal— ism who gathered around BaBachtin.chtin. BeBecausecause of the alleged

35. See, for example V. N. Volosinov, Marksizm iifilorofija fi losofija jazyka: Osnovnye problemy socioxociologiEeskogologileskogo metoda v nauke oojazyke(Leningrad,jazyke (Leningrad, i1929); 929); and MedvedevMedvedev’s's book menmentionedtioned in note 111. 1. 3636.. Russian Formalism:Formalirm: History-Doctrine,History—Doctrine, p. i1 14. 37. "Zur“Zur formalistischenTheorie der Prosa und der literarischen Evolution," in Texte der russischenrusrischen Formalisten, vol. 1, ed. J. Striedter (Mun(Munich,ich, i91969);69); quoted from English tr. by M. NiNicolson,colson, "The“The Russian Formalist Theory of ProProse,”se," PTL 2 (19(1977),77), 435·435-

33 Russian Formalism

rigidity among the Russian Marxists of the late twentitwenties,es, StStried-ried­ ter claims that "any“any combination of Formalist and MaMarxistrxist meth­meth- ods remained, of necessity, a one-sione-sidedded comprcompromise.omise. InIndividualdividual Marxist liteliteraryrary scholars did in fact in the course of time take over individual elements of Formalist theory, or at least parts of their analyanalyticaltical techniquetechnique...... But such 'appen‘appendages’dages' have no more in common with actual Formalism and its decisive insiginsightshts than does the Formalists'Formalists’ own contribution to 'li‘literaryterary life'life’ with MarxiMarxism.”38sm."38 ErliErlich’sch's and StStriedter’sriedter's views of RuRussianssian Formalism are now being challengchallengeded by the youngyoungestest generation of SlaviSlavicists.cists. In the most comcomprehensiveprehensive and meticulous book written on the sub­sub- ject, the Viennese scholar Aage Hansen-LHansen-Loveove divides the histhistoryory of the Formal school into thrthreeee successive stagstages.es. The last stage in his accaccountount includes not only the sociological and histhistoricalorical apprapproachesoaches propoupropoundednded by such "clear-cut"“clear-cut” Formalists as Echenbaumjchenbaum and TynTynjanov,janov, but also semisemioticsotics and communicommunica-ca­ tion-theotion-theoreticalretical accaccounts.ounts. This is the model adadvanced,vanced, accoaccordingrding to HaHansen-L6ve,nsen-Love, by the BaBachtinianschtinians and the psychologist Lev VygotskiVygotskijF“9j.39 From a similar positiposition,on, Gary Saul Morson re­re- proaches the histhistoriansorians of Formalism for ignoriignoringng the BaBachti-chti­ niannians:s: "The“The work of the BaBachtinchtin grgroupoup is, in fact,a logical devel­devel- opment of Formalist thinking. It follows thatthat to leave BaBachtinchtin out of an accoaccountunt of Russian Formalism is profoundlyto misun­misun- derstand the natnatureure and obobjectivesjectives of the movmovement:ement: and this is what has largely been donedone.”40."40 One may question Morson'sMorson’s arguargumentment for the necessitnecessityy of including the BaBachtinianschtinians in the Formal schoschool.ol. As long as he failsto clarifclarifyy what the nature and obobjectivesjectives of this movement areare,, his charge of misundermisunderstandingstanding remains a rhetrhetoricalorical device.

38. "Zur“Zur formalistischenTheorie der Prosa und der literarischen EvolutiEvolution,”on," quoted from EngEnglishlish tr. by M. NiNicolson,colson, "The“The Russian Formalist Theory of Literary EvolutiEvolution,”on," PTL 3 (1(1978),978), 1818.. 39. Der russischerussixche Formalismus:Formalismus: MethodoMethodologischelogische Rekonstruktion seiner Entwicklung aus dem Prinzip der VerfreVeefremdungmdung (Vienna, 191978),78), pp. 426426—62.-62. 40. "The“The HerHeresiarchesiarch of MetMela,"a," PTL 3 (19(1978),78), 408.408,

3344 Who Is Formalism, What Is She?

NeNevertheless,vertheless, the point raised by the young scholars has been recognized by their seniseniorsors as at least deserving attentioattention.n. "Were“Were I writing this book todaytoday,”," says Erlich in the inintroductiontroduction to the American edition of Russian Formalism, "I“I would undoundoubtedlyubtedly pause before the acachievementshievements of MikMikhailhail BakhtinBakhtin...... the es­es- sentsentiallyially structural and metametalinguisticlinguistic thrust of his Problems of DostoevDostoevsky’ssky's Poetics attests to a strong affinityaffinity for the mature phase of Formalist theorizintheorizing.”41g."4 1 LikewiLikewise,se, StStriedterriedter mentions BaBachtinchtin in a comparative study of Russian Formalism and Prague Structuralism when he searches within the Russian crit­crit- ical tradition for the precuprecursorsrsors of the sesemioticmiotic apprapproachoach that subsequesubsequentlyntly flourished in PragPrague.ue. In this connecticOnnection,on, he also speaks of the "Lening“Leningradrad grgroupoup centcenteredered around M. BaBachtinchtin at the end of the twentietwenties,s, whiwhich,ch, in part as a continuation of For­For- malist theses and in part as a critical oppoppositionosition to them, pro­pro- posed to develop a theory of art that can be characterized as·as- communicommunicationalcational and semisemiotic.”42otic."42 It must be stressedstressed,, however, that while aware of the problem the BaBachtinianschtinians present for the history of FormalFormalism,ism, neither Erlich nor Striedter accepts them as true FormalFormalists.ists. Erlich is particularly strict on this issue. He mermerelyely includes Bachtin in what he calls "n“neo-Formalisteo-Formalist developments,developments,”" and declares cate­cate- gorically that "B“Bakhtin,akhtin, who made his debut in the late twenties only to lapse into enenforcedforced obscurity until the sixtsixties,ies, could not be labeled a FormaliFormalist.”43st."43 Striedter is somewhat more flexibleflexible here, willing to consider the semisemioticotic tretrendsnds within the Russian literliteraryary studies of the twenties under the heading of FormalisFormalism.m. But he is also quick to point out that these are merely the fringes of genuine FormalisFormalism.m. "To“To be sure, it is no accidaccidentent that [my] examples came mostly from the 'p‘periphery,’eriphery,' whether in the sense of a grgroupoup affilaffiliation,iation, i.e.i.e.,, the 'margins'‘margins’ rather than from the very 'core'‘core’ of FormalFormalism,ism, or in the sense of a particular subsubjectject mattmatter.er...... In terms of time it is also striking that the

41. Russian Formalism (New Haven, 191981),81), p. 1010.. 42. "Ei“Einleitung,”nleitung," p. xlvi. 43. Russian Formalism (1(1981),981), p. 1010..

3355 Russian FFonnalism onnalism

works quotquoteded appearappeareded mostly toward the end of the twenties just beforbeforee the end of Formalism as an independindependentent school (and imimmediatelymediately after the founding of the Prague Linguistic Cir­Cir- clecle).”44 )."44 The two comcompetingpeting opinions about the status of the BaBachtin-chtin­ ians, which I have presentpresenteded as a dialogue between genergenerations,ations, pose an obvious challengchallengee for anyone writing on Russian For­For- malimalism.sm. However, it is not my intention to argue ononee way or the other here. The arguargumentment over the BaBachtinianschtinians is merely an­an- other example of the imimprecisionprecision in the critical usagusagee of the label "Russian“Russian FormaliFormalism,”sm," even as a negnegativeative concept. HaHavingving failed to ascertain either a positive or a negnegativeative iden­iden- tity for the movement, we might legitimalegitimatelytely ask whether it is worthwhile to retain the label at all. Perhaps what we need is a new, more suitsuitableable and precise conceptconcept—to-to start over with a clean slateslate.. But as the title of my book revereveals,als, I have refrained from this attractive propositionproposition.. The reason for this conser­conser- vatism lies in my ununderstandingderstanding of the role that historical con­con- cepts playplay.. To explain this, I shall take a short detour into the fifieldeld of semiotics. As I have been showing throughout this chapter, histhistoricalorical labelabels,ls, such as "R“Russianussian FormalFormalism,”ism," are vaguevague.. To create more precise replacreplacements,ements, it seems logical to turn to less equivocal types of verbal sigsigns.ns. Let us take, for exampleexample,, proper namesnames.. They denote indiviindividuals,duals, placesplaces,, and so forth on ona a one-to-one basis. If histhistoricalorical concepts could successfullyemuemulate late the exact referereferentialityntiality of proper names, histhistoricalorical discourse might be­be- come less imimpressionistic.pressionistic. But how do proper names signifsignify?y? Traditional logic drew a strict line between the proper name of an obobjectject and its definidefinitete descriptidescription.on. Description is always partial, for itit provides knowl­knowl- edgedgee about only some of an obobject’sject's propertproperties.ies. The name, on the other handhand,, does not imimpartpart any knowledgknowledgee about the obobjectject but rather points to the idenidentitytity of the obobjectject in its entirentirety.ety. The

44. "Einleit“Einleitung,”ung," p. xlviii.

3366 Who Is Formalism, What Is She? proper name thus conceived is a senseless mark, an index whose meaning is merely the obobjectject to which it pointspoints,, or, in Johnjohn Stuart MiMill’sll's termiterminology,nology, a sign with dedenotationnotation but without connotaticonnotation.on. From the standpoint of this theortheoryy it is immedimmediatelyiately obvious why concepts like "F“Formalism”ormalism" are so ambigambiguous.uous. They do not simply name stages or trtrendsends in liliteraryterary theory but de­de- scribe them by referring to them through some of their ran­ran- domly selected fefeatures.atures. Because formal concerns are far from limited to Russian FormalFormalism,ism, these concepts are easily trans­trans- feferablerable to other literary theortheoreticaletical schooschools.ls. The theory of proper names thus provides me with a criterion forreplacing ambiguous histhistoricalorical concepts with less ambiguous substitutessubstitutes.. The names selected should be devoid of connota­connota- tions which could motivamotivatete their homonymic extextension.ension. To sepa­sepa- rate the metalangmetalanguageuage of histhistoricalorical discourse completely from the obobject-languageject-language of literliterary-theoreticalary-theoretical discoudiscourse,rse, I might designate Russian Formalism as "“79.”79." It is doubtdoubtful,ful, howevehowever,r, whether such a radical change of nomennomenclatureclature would produce any actual gaingain.. The problem is not that the procedure would not work, but that it would work only too well. A number-name is such a senseless mark that no one would underunderstandstand what it desigdesignated.nated. And yetyet,, in the very moment that the name is ex­ex- plained through a synonsynonym,ym, in this cacase,se, "“7979 is Russian For­For- malismmalism,”," it is autautomaticallyomatically subsubjectject to the same slippaslippagege and ambiguity as the previous concepconcepts.ts. According to some logicialogicians,ns, this attempt at replareplacingcing tradi­tradi- tional historhistoricalical concepts with new ones is doomed from the startstart,, forit proceeds from a mistaken assumassumptionption about proper names. The theory propounded by Gottlob FregeFrege,, forinstanceinstance, , holds that proper names are not at all senseless marks, but rather shorthand descriptidescriptions.ons. Their sense stems from the fact that the naming always presents an obobjectject in a particular momode,de, as a part of a particular context. "The“The morning star"star” and "the“the evening ststar,”ar," for exexample,ample, are two names for the same obobjectject captured in diffdifferenterent phasesphases.. This accoaccountunt of proper names fitsfits quite well the conceptual muddle of histhistoricalorical discdiscourse.ourse. Terms

337 7 Russian Formalism

such as "the“the morphologmorphologicalical schoolschool,”," "OPO“OPOJAZ,”JAZ," or "St“Struc-ruc­ turalism"turalism” can indeed be seen as partial descriptions of "R“Russianussian FormaliFormalism,”sm," since they present this movement from diffdifferenterent perspeperspectives.ctives. Although Frege'sFrege’s theory legitimizes this intinter-er­ changing of histhistoricalorical conceptconcepts,s, it provides no criteria forselect­select- ing among ththem.em. There is no reason that I could not call the Russian Formalists "n“neo-Aristotelians”eo-Aristotelians" (ref(referringerring in this way to some principles of Aristotle'sAristotle’s poetics incorporated into For­For- malist poetics) or any other name, provided that it grasps at least one feature of the movement.movement.45 45 Given the extreme hetero­hetero- geneity of Russian FormalisFormalism,m, the acceptance of FregeFrege’s's theory would lead to the direct opposioppositete of what I intended to achieveachieve:: a prolifproliferationeration of histhistoricalorical concepts rather than their limitlimitationation and clarificatioclarification.n. These two theories of proper names lead nowhere because they represent two extreme views of the act of naming: in the traditional theorytheory,, naming is prior to descriptidescription,on, wherwhereaseas in Frege'sFrege’s countertheorycountertheory,, description precedes naming. The tradi­tradi- tional view conceives of names as ststaticatic tags attached on a one-to­one-to- one basis to equally stastatictic obobjects;jects; Frege conceives of names as an unlimunlimitedited set of signs whose signifisignificationscations are a fufunctionnction of the contcontextsexts of the enentitytity desdesignated.ignated. The proper name in fact falls somewhere between these two polespoles.. The traditiotraditionalistsnalists cor­cor- rectly point out that its signifisignificationcation is much more specifispecificc than that of other nouns, but FregeFrege’s's arguargumentment also has weight; as long as the proper name is a linglinguisticuistic sign it remains inadequate in some way to the obobjectject namednamed.. The two theories appear mu­mu- tually exclusive because of their either/oreither/0r presentatpresentation.ion. For those who believe that the name is a senseless mark, only a word that identifiesa sisinglengle obobjectject in its entirety is a name prproper;oper; for

45. For analogies between Aristotle and the Formalists, see, for eexample,xample, K. Svoboda, "O“O tak zvanezvané formalnimetodi'metodé," ," 39, or A. A. Hansen-LHansen-Love,ove, Der russischerursische Formalismus,Formalismur, pp. 24-30.24—30. HoHowever,wever, the Formalists themsthemselveselves resenresentedted any paral­paral- lelism drawn between their poetics and AristotleAristotle’s,'s, and they certainly would have rerejectedjected the label "n“neo-Aristotelian.”eo-Aristotelian." See, forexample, B. Tomasevskij'sTomasevskij’s letter to SkSklovskijlovskij of April 12, 19192525 (Slavica HierosolHierosolymilana,ymitana, no. 3 [19[1978],78], 385-86)385—86)..

38 Who Is Formalism, What Is She?

their oppopponents,onents, no name can achieve this absolute goal and therefore there are no proper names but merely definitedefinite descriptidescriptions.ons. One can, however, assume a more modermoderateate position allowing the name some degree of imimprecision.precision. Taking for granted the essentessentialial inadeinadequacyquacy of the relatirelationshiponship between a name and its obobject,ject, one can argue that this inadequacy is not strstrongong enough to prevent the proper name from referring to a particular ob­ob- ject. This positiposition,on, adopted by some modern logilogicians,cians, is well illusillustratedtrated in Johnjohn SearleSearle’s's discussion of the use of the name "Arist“Aristotle.”otle."

To ask forthe criteria forapplying the name "Aristotle"“Aristotle" is to ask in the formal mode what AristAristotleotle isis:: it is to ask for a set of identidentityity criteria for the obobjectject AristotleAristotle.. "What“What is AristAristotle?"otle?" and "What“What are the criteria forapplying the name 'Arist‘Aristotle’?"otle'?" ask the same question,question, the formerin the material modemode,, and the latter in the formal mode of speespeech.ch. So if, prior to using the name, we came to an agragreementeement on the precise characteristics which con­con- situted the identidentityity of AristAristotle,otle, our rules for using using the name would be preprecise.cise. But this precision would be achieved only at the cost of entailing some specificspecific descriptions by any use of the namename.. InIndeed,deed, the name itself would become logically eqequivalentuivalent to this set of desdescriptions.criptions. But if this were the case we would be in the position of being able to refer to an obobjectject solely by, in effeffect,ect, describing it. Whereas in factthis isisjust just whwhatat distinguishes proper names from definite descriptions ...... the uniquniquenessueness and immense pragmatic convenieconveniencence of proper names in our lan­lan- guage lies precisely in the fact that they enaenableble us to refer pupubliclyblicly to obobjectsjects without being forced to raise issues and come to an agreeagreementment as to which descriptive characteristics exactly con­con- stitute the idenidentitytity of the obobject.ject. They funfunctionction not as descrip­descrip- titions,ons, but as pegs on which to hang descriptidescriptions.46ons.46

SearleSearle’s's "pr“pragmatic”agmatic" viewView of proper names opens up a new perspective on the function of histhistoricalorical concconcepts.epts. These con­con- cepts do not simsimplyply denote segmesegmentsnts of the hihistoricalstorical continuum

46. Speech Acts: An Essay in the PhilosoPhilosophyphy of Language (Camb(Cambridge,ridge, 191969),69), p. 17172.2.

3399 Russian Formalism

but refer to them in such a way that thetheissue issue of the ididentityentity of these segments is avoidavoided.ed. This view of hihistoricalstorical concepts pro­pro- vides the most convincing argument agaiagainstnst the wholesale rerejec-jec­ tion of vague terms like "R“Russianussian FormaliFormalism.”sm." It is concepts like these rather than their more precise replareplacementscements that rereferfer in the manner outoutlinedlined by SearleSearle.. "No“Nonconnotative”nconnotative" conceconcepts,pts, as long as they remain truly senselessenseless,s, cannot refreferer at all, while shorshorthandthand descriptions identifidentifyy obobjectsjects through some of their charcharacteristicsacteristics and become too easily embrembroiledoiled in disputes over the identity of their referereferents.nts. StStrangerange as it might seseem,em, what makes established labels best susuitedited to the act of refreferringerring is their vaguevagueness.ness. They become establisestablishedhed not because they are mormoree adeadequatequate to their obobjectsjects than other signs but because of their semantsemanticic "elas“elasticity”—theirticity"-their capacity to accommodaccommodateate diffdifferent,erent, often concontradictorytradictory usagusages.es. In this respect, estestablishedablished conceptconceptss are multmultiperspectival,iperspectival, trans­trans- temtemporalporal representrepresentationsations of their respective histhistoricalorical segmesegments.nts. They contain many points of view and many layers of semasemanticntic accretioaccretion,n, thus presenting their obobjectsjects synsyntheticallythetically in their manifold heterogeneityheterogeneity.. It is precisely this insinstitutionalizedtitutionalized slip­slip- page of established concepts that makes them indispensable for histhistoricalorical discdiscourse.ourse. Only through them is it possible for histo­histo- rians to refer to roughly the same temportemporalal segmentssegments,, intellec­intellec- tual schooschools,ls, and tretrends,nds, while at the same time prprovidingoviding diffdifferenterent accoaccountsunts of them. In other words, though histhistoriansorians of literary thetheoryory didisagreesagree widely in their descriptions of Russian FormalisFormalism,m, their didisagreementsagreement is meaningfulonly if an intuitintuitiveive agragreementeement that they are speaking of the "same"“same” thing ununderliesderlies their discussidiscussion.on. What remains to be explained is my own method of dealing with Russian FormalisFormalism.m. From the very begbeginninginning I have faceda dilemma. On the one handhand,, I am only too aware of the pitfallsof a piecemeal apprapproachoach toward Formalist critical practicepractice.. As long as we focus merely on the individual ideideas,as, conceconcepts,pts, or princi­princi- ples that consconstitutetitute it, the ununityity of the movement (if it exists) will always elude us. On the other hand, I have at my disposal no 40 Who Is Formalism, What Is She? methodologmethodologicalical or epepistemologicalistemological denominator common to all of Formalist theorizitheorizing.ng. Pondering plausible hholisticolistic apprapproachesoaches to the Formal schoolschool,, I began to wonder whether the theoretical program the For­For- malists advanced for the study of litliteratureerature might not, mutatis mutandis, be appappliedlied to their own writingswritings.just. Just as theythey,, in search­search- ing forthe diffdifferentialerential quality ofliteratuliterature,re, had shied away from what the writer said to focus on how he said it, I began to study not what the Formalists had to say ababoutout literature but how they conceptualized it. But even after turning the Formal metmethodhod upon itselfitself,, I learned that there is no singsinglele "how"“how” to Russian FormaFormalism.lism. The propounderpropounderss of this "p“pureure science of literatuliterature”re" indiscriminaindiscriminatelytely borrowed frames of reference from other realrealmsms of knowledge. As I realized that the unity of the move­move- ment must be sought elsewhereelsewhere,, I began to have some inkinklingslings about where it might be foundfound.. At the same time, I found this transftransferenceerence of conceptual frameworks from one realm of knowledgknowledgee to another quite in­in- trigutriguing.ing. It reminded me of the poetic tropes I often discussed as a teacher of literatureliterature.. I soon discoverdiscovereded that some modern philosophers of science also call attention to the figurativefigurative nature of scientific knowledgknowledge.e. Max Black, perhaps the best­best- known proponent of this view, observed that "a“a memormemorableable met­met- aphor has the power to bring two sepseparatearate domains into cog­cog- nitive and emotional relation by using lanlanguageguage directly apappro-pro­ priate to the one as a lens forseeing the otherother;; the imimplications,plications, susuggestions,ggestions, and suppsupportingorting values entwined with the literal use of the metaphmetaphoricalorical expression enable us to see a new subsubjectject matter in a new lighlight.”47t."47 Because of its simsimplicityplicity and ad hoc character, howevehowever,r, the exexplanatoryplanatory power of a metaphor is lowlow.. ThereforeBlack introduced a second notinotion,on, the comcomplexplex meta­meta- phor, which he terms a modmodel.el. "You“You need only prproverbialoverbial knowledge, as it were, to have your metaphor undeunderstood;rstood; but the maker of a scientificmodel must have prior control of a well-

47. Models and Metaphors (I(Ithaca,thaca, N.Y., 191962),62), pp. 23236—37.6-37.

4411 Russian Formalism

knit scientificscientific theory if he is to do more than hang an attractive picture on an algebraic formula. SystSystematicematic comcomplexityplexity of the sousourcerce of the model and capacity foranaloanalogical gical develodevelopmentpment are the essenceessence.”48."48 With this in mind, I have happily apappliedplied BlBlack’sack's insinsightsights to my own matermaterial.ial. But in dodoinging so I have founfoundd that the limlimita-ita­ tion of his theory to transftransferenceserences based on similarsimilarityity or analo­analo- gy-tgy—thathat is, metaphometaphors—isrs-is too narrow for my purposespurposes.. Ob­Ob- viouslyviously,, not only metaphmetaphorsors but other complex trotropespes can provide conceptual frameworksframeworks.. The biographical approaapproach,ch, common in literary studistudies,es, is metonymic in that it is based on an association of contiguitycontiguity:: the life of the author is ststudiedudied not necessarily because it is analogous to his or her work but because it supsupposedlyposedly proviprovidesdes the cause for the organization of mean­mean- ing in it. I decided thereforthereforee to ememployploy the term "m“model”odel" some­some- what more broadly than BlBlack,ack, as an umbrella term for any complcomplexex language transtransferenceference used as an explanatexplanatoryory tootool,l, re­re- gardlgardlessess of the type of associations that undeunderlierlie it-it—metaphoricmetaphoric or metonymicmetonymic.. This way of dealing with Russian FormalisFormalism,m, of course, is not enentirelytirely new. A similar ststrategyrategy was emplemployedoyed by Fredric Jam­jam- eson in his Prison-House of Language. Explicitly stating in his prefacethat "the“the histhistoryory of thought is the history of its modelsmodels,”," Jamesonjameson proceproceedededed to discuss the model which in his opinion molded the literary theory of the Formal schoschool.49ol.49 HeHerere we part company, forobviously I do not believe that any one model is capable of accoaccountingunting forRussian Formalism in all its diversitydiversity.. Jamesonjameson identifiesidentifies the "absolut“absolutee presuppositions"presuppositions” of this school with the "linguist“linguisticic modmodel.”el." The soursourcece of this reductivreductivismism may very well lie in Jameson'sjameson’s MaMarxistrxist stance, since such a treatmetreatmentnt of Formalism fitsrather well what VikViktortor SSklovskijklovskij hahadd to say of Maksim GorGor’kij’s'kij's "ironic“ironic bolshevibolshevism.”sm." According to SSklovskij,klovskij, "The“The Bolsheviks believed that what counts is not material but its

48. IbiIbid.,d., p. 239239. . ..49. 49. The Prison-HousePrison—House of LanLanguage,guage, p. 3.

42 Who Is Formalism, What Is She? formationformation...... They coulcouldd not ununderstandderstand the anarchy of liflife,e, its subconscisubconscious,ous, tthehe fact that the tree knows best how to growgrow.”50."50 Though one need not be a neneo-Hegeliano-Hegelian to agree with Jameson'sjameson’s claim that the linguistic model is more progressive than the organic one he consigns to the dustbin of the nine­nine- teenth centurycentury,, this jujudgmentdgment did not stop some of the For­For- malists fromregr regressingessing intintoo organiorganicism.cism. HaHadd they read The Pris­Pris- on-Houseon-Housé of Languageperhaps things woulwouldd have been diffdifferent.erent. But they were such an ununrulyruly bunbunch!ch! My tastask,k, then, is to seseparateparate the tangled threads in the confus­confus- ing and often concontradictorytradictory frameworks utilizutilizeded by the For­For- malistsmalists,, and to outline a typologtypologyy forthe theotheoreticalretical models that they apappliedplied to the ststudyudy of literliterature.ature. I call my work a "met“meta-a­ poetics"poetics” because it attattemptsempts to examine a poetics in terms of poetics itselfitself,, or mormoree precisely, in terms of the poetic tropes that molded the Formalist discourse on poeticspoetics.. This exercise might appappearear frivolousto those who preferother ways of writing intel­intel- lectual histhistory.ory. But I have taken this path neverthenevertheless,less, con­con- vivincednced that it not only might sheshedd new light on a movement whose significancesignificance formodern litliteraryerary study is undeniabundeniable,le, but also might enable me, finally, to formulformulateate what the distinctive quality of Formalist theorizing isis..

50. SentimentalSentimental’noe'noe putputer'estvie:esestvie: VosVospominanijapominanija I9I71917—1922-I922 (Berlin, 191923),23), p. 266.

4433 2 The Three MeMetaphorstaphors

The Machine

To make two bald statementsstatements:: There'sThere’s nothing sen­sen— timenttimentalal ababoutout a machimachine,ne, andand:: A poem is a small (or large) machine made of worwords.ds. When I say there'sthere’s nothing sentimentsentimentalal about a poem I mean that thertheree can be no part, as in any other machine,

that is redredundant.undant. [[...... ]] There is no poetry of distdistinctioninction without formal inventinvention,ion, for it is in the intimate form that works of art achieve their exact meaning, in which they most resemble the machinemachine,, to give language its highest dignity, its illumilluminationination in the environment to which it is natnative.ive. -W—WILLIAMILLIAM CACARLOSRLOS WILWILLIAMS,LIAMS, Collected Later Poems

Probably the best known Formalist model was advanced by ViktViktoror SSklovskij,klovskij, the selfself-proclaimed-proclaimed "fou“foundernder of the Russian school of Formal metmethod.”lhod."1 His answer to the questquestionion "what“what is FormaliFormalism?”sm?" was very cleclear:ar: "In“In its essence the Formal method is

1. SentimentSentimental’noeal'noe putepules'estvie:sestvie: VosVoxpominanijapominanija 19171917—1922-1922 (B(Berlin,erlin, 191923),23), p. 317317..

44 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors simsimple—aple-a return to crafcraftsmanship.”2tsmanship."2 TechnolTechnology,ogy, that branch of knowledgknowledgee pertaining to the art of human productioproduction,n, was the predominant metaphor appappliedlied by this model to the descrip­descrip- tion and elucidation of artistic phenomena.phenomena.3 3 SSklovskij’sklovskij's obsession with the machine analoganalogyy was well known to his contemcontemporaries.poraries. In a commemorcommemorativeative article aboaboutut Jujurijrij TynTynjanov,janov, LidiLidijaja Ginzburg recalls a random chat of 1925 in which TyajanovTynjanov had tried to diffdifferentiateerentiate his own apprapproachoach to literature from SSklovskij’s.klovskij's. "V“Viktoriktor is a fitter, a mechanic-Andmechanic.—And a chauffchauffeur,eur, someone promptedprompted—Yes.-Yes and a chauffchauffeureur tootoo.. He believes in constructiconstruction.on. He thinks that he knows how the car is mademade...... 3’4 "4 TynTynjanovjanov dididd not have to explain his phrase be­be- cause the hint was transparent to everyeveryone.one. He was alluding to SSklovskij’sklovskij's bon mot in a 19219222 letter to Roman Jakobsjakobson:on: "We“We know how liflifee is made and how Don Quixote and the car are made tootoo.”5."5 SSklovskijklovskij did not reserve his car/lcar/literatureiterature analoganalogyy for the inner Formalist circlecircle.. Quite the concontrary:trary: it recurs again and again as the cencentraltral image in his scholarly, pedpedagogical,agogical, and creative texts as wellwell.. For exampleexample,, in his booklet The Technique of the Writer'sWriter’s Trade ((1928), 1928), SSklovskijklovskij advises aspiring prose writers ababoutout how to read literliterature:ature:

If you wish to become a writer you must examine a book as attentively as a watwatchmakerchmaker a clock or a chauffchauffeureur a car.

2. Ibid.Ibid.,, p. 327. See also Osip BrBrik’sik's succinct account of the program of OPOOPOJAZ:JAZ: ''O“OPOJAZPOJAZ studies the laws of poetic production"production” ("(“T.T. n. 'formal‘formal'nyj'nyj metodmetod,‘","' Lef, no. 1 [19[1923],23], 214214).). 3. The Formalist S. BaluchaBaluchatyjtyj characterized his method as a "technological“technological literary discipline"discipline” (Problemy dramaturdramaturgic'eskogogiceskogo analiza CCechovaechova [Lening[Leningrad,rad, 191927],27], p. 7). G. Vinokur described stylisticsStylistics as "a“a kind of 'ling‘linguisticuistic ‘technology’technology' "” (Kul'(Kul’turajazyka,tura jazyka, 2d ed. [M[Moscow,oscow, 191929],29], p. g).9). B. Echenbaumjchenbaum summed up the early phase of Formalism as followsfollows:: "In“In recerecentnt years, students of literature and critics have paid attention above all to questions of literary 'technolog‘technology’y' "” ("(“Liter—Liter­ aturnyaturnyjj bytbyt,”," MoMojj vremennik: SlovesnostSlovemoxt’,', nauka, kritika,krilika, smes'smes’ [Lening[Leningrad,rad, 191929],29], p. 50)50).. .. 4. Jurijurijj TyTynjanov:njanov: Pisatel'Pisatel’ iue'e‘nnyj,iuciin nyj , ed. V. Kaverin et al. (M(Moscow,oscow, 191966),66), p. go.90. 5. KniinKniz'nyjyj ugol, no. 8 (19(1922),22), 24. For another reference to this quip of0f SSklovskij’s,klovskij's, see Boris LarLarin,in, "O“O raznovidnostraznovidnostjachjach chudozestvennochudoiestvennojj recireci,”," RusskaRumkajaja rel'rec":: SbornikiSbomiki stateslatej,j, vol. 1, ed. L.L Scerbascerba (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 191923),23), p. 89.

4455 Russian Formalism

Cars are examined in the followingwaysways: : The most idiotic peo­peo- ple come to the automobile and press the balloon of its hornhorn.. This is the firstfirst degree of stupiditstupidity..y .. People who know a litlittletle more about cars but overestimaoverestimatete their knowledgknowledgee come to the car and fiddlefiddle with its stick-shifstick—shift.t. This is also stupid and even badbad,, because one should not touch a thing for which another worker is responsible. The undunderstandingerstanding man scrutinizes the car serenely and com­com- prehends "what“what is for whawhat”:t": why it has so many cylinders and why it has big wheels, whwhereere its trtransmissionansmission is situsituated,ated, and why its rear is cut in an acute angle and its radiator unpunpolished.olished. This is the way one should readread.6.6

What this technoltechnologicalogical metaphor meant for thethe study of liter­liter- ature is apparent in the introduction to On the Theoryof Prose­Prose— the most scholarly of0f SSklovskij’sklovskij's booksbooks:: "In“In the theory of liter­liter- ature I am concerned with the study of the internal laws of literatuliterature.re. To drdrawaw a parallel with industindustry,ry, I am intinterestederested neither in the situation in the world cotton market, nor in the policy of truststrusts,, but only in the kinds of yarn and the methods of weaviweaving.”7ng."7 Because of the repeatrepeateded use of the machine analogyanalogy,, I shall term this trend in Formalism "m“mechanistic.”echanistic." The soursourcece of SSklovskij’sklovskij's technological metaphor is rather complex. It betrays firstfirst the influenceinfluence of ItItalianalian FuturiFuturism,sm, with its cult of the machine as the most crucial factorin the birth of the modernist artistic sensensibility.sibility. But in Russia it also indiindicatedcated a certain political stance. It was related to the lefleftisttist intelligentsia'sintelligentsia’s yearning for a radical transformattransformationion of Russian societsociety.y. The mastery of technologtechnologyy was often seen as the ultultimateimate means to

this end. Lenin'sLenin’s famousequationequation—“socialism -"socialism = the Soviet gov­gov- ernment + electrificatioelectrification”—wasn"-was an expression of this beliefbelief,, as were the unrunrealizableealizable ConsConstructivisttructivist proprojectsjects of scientifiscientifically de­de- signed socialist citicities,es, or Vladimir MaMajakovskij’sjakovskij's statstatementement that a sisinglengle Ford tractor is better than a collection of popoems.ems. SSklovskij’sklovskij's intinteresterest in literliteraryary know-how was conditioned by

6. Technika pisatel'spisatel’skogokogo remeslaremetla (M(Moscow,oscow, 191928),28), pp. 7-8.7—8. 7. "P“Predislovie,”redislovie," 0 teorii prozy (Mo(Moscow,scow, 191925),25), p. 5.

46 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors pragmatic concerns tootoo.. The Formalist leader did not enter the field of Russian letters as an acadeacademicmic observer or an armchair theorettheoretician,ician, but as an active participantparticipant—a-a creative writwriter.er. From this persperspective,pective, the problems of litliteraryerary production were of parparamountamount sigsigninificanficance.ce. Yet it was precisely in this area that previous Russian criticism exhibiexhibitedted a curious lalacuna.cuna. Whereas forall the other arts technical knowleknowledgedge was consiconsidereddered vitvitalal to both histhistoricalorical and practical ststudy,udy, in literature tectechniquehnique was relegrelegatedated to schoolbooks on poetics that were mermeree catalogues of trtropes,opes, figures,and meters derived from Greek and Latin mod­mod- els. It was this gap that mechanistic FormaFormalism,lism, concerneconcernedd with the literary techne,techne’, set out to cloclose.se. The selection of the machine as the controlling metaphor of his theoretical model seservedrved SSklovskijklovskij in yet another wayway.. It furfurnishednished a frame ofofreference that enaenabledbled him to treat liter­liter- ature in a manner radically differentfrom that of pre-Formalist criticritics.cs. At the risk of oversimplifioversimplification,cation, one might claim that traditraditionaltional liliteraryterary scholars were conceconcernedrned above all with what the work conveyed. To ununderstandderstand this "what“what,”," students of Rus­Rus- sian literature looked beyond the workwork:: into its author'sauthor’s liflife,e, the philosophilosophyphy supsupposedlyposedly emembodiedbodied in it, or the sociopolsociopoliticalitical events that gave rise to it. This "what,“what,”" custcustomarilyomarily callecalledd the content ooff the literary creaticreation,on, was opopposedposed to its how, its form. AnAndd even though the meaning of these two notions varied from critic to criticcritic,, the "what“what,”," the messagmessagee of the liliteraryterary workwork,, always seemed the decisive member of the pair. Form was rele­rele- gated to a mere auxiliary mechanism necessary for expressing content, but comcompletelypletely dependdependentent upon it. By focusingon the nuts and bolts of poetic textstexts,, the internal laws of literary productioproduction,n, mechanistmechanisticic Formalism radicradicallyally re­re- versed the value of content. Mocking tratraditionalditional criticritics,cs, SSklovskijklovskij wrotewrote:: "The“The presepresent-daynt-day theoretictheoretician,ian, in studying a literary work and consiconsideringdering its so-called formas a shrshroudoud that must be penetpenetrated,rated, is mounting a horse while jujumpingmping over it."it.”88 The

8. "Li“Literaturateratura vne 's‘sjuieta,jufeta,'in" 0 teorii prozy, p. 16162.2.

4477 Russian Formalism

"h“how”ow" of literature gained decisive prominence in the mecha­mecha- nistnisticic model, and the machine analogy furnishedthe conceptual viewpoint that enabled SSklovskijklovskij to redirect attention from the external conditions of the literary process to the internal organi­organi- zation of the work. DisDisjunctionjunction was the key logical principle by which mechanimechanisticstic Formalism organized its basic conceconcepts.pts. This principle split art decisively from nonart, and expressed their mutmutualual excluexclusivitysivity in the following set of polar oppoppositions:ositions:

art byt (everyday liflife)9e)9

de-fde-familiarizationamiliarization autoautomatizationmatization telteleologyeology causality devicdevicee material plot (s(rjuz‘et)juiet) story if(fabula)abula)

The firstfirst concept in the tabletable,, de-famide-familiarizationliarization (ostran(ostranenie),enie), has today gained wide cucurrency.rrency. The word was coined by Viktor SSklovskijklovskij to accoaccountunt forthe spspecialecial nature of artistic perceptiperception.on. In his i1914 914 manifmanifesto,esto, The Resurrection of the Word, SSklovskijklovskij presented the dialectics of de-famde-familiarizationiliarization and automatization in this wayway:: "By“By now the old art has already dieddied,, but the new has not yet been born. Things have died tootoo:: we have lost the

g.9. My translation of bytby! as "everyday“everyday life"life” is a rather inainadequatedequate rendition of a highly evocative Russian term. AccordAccordinging to RoRomanman Jajakobson,kobson, bytby! is "the“the ten­ten- dency toward stabilizing the immutimmutableable presepresentnt and the gradual accretion of the stagnant slime to it, the stifstiflingling ofoflife life by tight and petrifiedpetrified molmolds," ds," the antithesis of "the“the creative imimpulsepulse toward the transformedfuturefuture...... It is curiouscurious,”jakob-," Jakob­ son continues, "that“that while in the Russian langlanguageuage and literature this word and its dederivativesrivatives play quite a significantsignificant role ...... EurEuropeanopean languages lack any corrcorrespondingesponding nomenclature"nomenclature” ("(“O0 pokolenii rastrativsem svoich poetovpoetov,”," Smert'Smert’ Vladimira MajaMajakovxkogokovskogo [Berlin, 191931],31 ], p. 1313).). For this reasoreason,n, I have retained the Russian byt in all quotations from Formalist texts. In my own prose I alternate bytby! with "lif“life.”e." IfIf,, however, the word "life"“life" appears in quotation marks it is a transla­transla- tion of the Russian iizniizn’.'. The adadjectivejective bytovobytovojj is rendered as "extra-artis“extra-artistic"tic" or "extraliterary"“extraliterary” depending on the context.

48 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors sensation of the worldworld.. We are like a violinist who has stopped fefeelingelin-g his bow and ststrings.rings. We have ceased to be artists in our quotidian lifelife;; we do not like our houses and clothes and easily part with a lifethat we do not perceiveperceive.. Only the creation of new formsof art canCan bring back to man his experience of the worldworld,, resurrect things and kill pessimismpessimism.”10."10 In this early formulformulation,ation, the principlprinciplee of de-familiarizationis closely linlinkedked to the poetics of Russian FuturFuturism,ism, a movement that sentenced past art to death and set out to create artistic formsmore attuned to the iconoclastic tastes of radical youthyouth.. As his mechanistmechanisticic model develodeveloped,ped, SSklovskijklovskij bebegangan to replace the existential frame of reference with terminolterminologyogy that would bet­bet- ter fit his machine metmetaphor.aphor. It was economy, or more preciprecisely,sely, energy-efenergy-efficiency,ficiency, that eventually becabecameme the criterion for difdif-­ feferentiatingrentiating between autautomatizedomatized and de-familiarizingmodes of perceptiperception.on. SSklovskij’sklovskij's concept of artistic perception has its roots in the positivistic belief in art'sart’s economizing of mentmentalal energy, in par­par- ticular the principle of least effortthat HerHerbertbert Spencer ((1820— 1820- 1903) had declared the ununiversaliversal law of stylestyle.. In the Russian context, SpSpencer’sencer's theory had found an echo in the writings of Aleksandr VeselovskiVeselovskijj (1(1838—838-1906)1906),, one of the few critics of the past whom the Formalists did not comcompletelypletely disregdisregard.ard. In the thrrdthird chapter of his unfifinishednished Historical Poetics, Veselovskij had used SpSpencer’sencer's principle of the economizateconomizationion of mentmentalal energy to suppsupportort his diffdifferentiationerentiation of poetic from prose stylestyle.. Poetry achievesachievesits.its results with a paucity of means imimpossiblepossible in proseprose,, as witnessed in its ununfinishedfinished periodperiods,s, elisielisions,ons, and omissionomissions.s. Veselovskijesespecially pecially stressed the role of rhythm and rhyme, the predictability of which purppurportedlyortedly saves us from wasting ener­ener- gy in frusfrustratedtrated exexpectations.11pectations.11 It was this assertion that SSklovskijklovskijchallengchallenged. ed. "The“The idea of the economy of enerenergygy as the

10. VoskreienieVoskres'enie slova,Slova, repr. in Texte der russischenrusxischen Formalisten, vol. 2, ed. W.-D.W.—D. StemStempelpel (M(Munich,unich, 191972),i2), p. 12. 111 1.. "Tri“Tri glavy iz istorieesistoriceskojkoj poetpoétiki,”iki," /storicIstoric'eskajaeskaja poetika,poétika, eded.. V. ZirmunskiZirmunskij,j, (Leni(Leningrad,ngrad, 191940),40), p. 356.

4499 Russian Formalism

law and goal of creativity might be correct when apappliedplied to a particular case of languaglanguage,e, 'pr‘practical’actical' languaglanguage”;e"; but "the“the lan­lan- guage of poetry is a difficultdifficult language, language,language languagewhich is made diffificultcult and hamphampered.”l2ered."1 2 AccordiAccordingng to SSklovskij,klovskij, the percep­percep- tion of art manifmanifestsests not the law of least efeffortfort but the law of maximal effeffort.ort. The explanation of this claim offered by the mechanistmechanisticic For­For- malists is elegant in its simplisimplicity:city: artistic formis diffificultcult because it is made so. The teleologteleologyy used in this argument is in perfect harmony with the techtechnologicalnological metmetaphor.aphor. The work of art as a prproductoduct of an intentional human activitactivityy is a funfunctionalctional obobjectject whose purpose is to changchangee the mode of our perception from practical to artisticartistic.. This changchangee can be effected in several ways, most simply by displacing an obobjectject from its customary context. "In“In order to render an obobjectject an artistic factit must be extracted from among the facts of life...... it must be torn out of its usual associatioassociations.”13ns."1 3 The Formalists were not so much interesinterestedted in readready-madey-made obobjectsjects or foundart as in the artistic work as a complex artifact. For this reason the concept of "di“displacement”splacement" was always sec­sec- onondarydary to that of the "devi“device,”ce," which pertains specifispecifically to the production of the work. "Every“Every arart,”t," argued SSklovskij,klovskij, "has“has its own organizationorganization—that-that which transformsits material intintoo some­some- tthinghing artistically experienced. This organization is expresseexpressedd in various compocompositionalsitional devicdevices,es, in rhytrhythm,hm, phoneticsphonetics,, syntax, the plot of the work. It is the device that trtransformsansformsextra-aesthetic material intintoo the work of art by providing it with forform.”14m."14 The device changchangeses extra-artistic material into art, forming it anew and in this way de-familiarizing it. The cardinal position of the concept of the device is apparent in Jakjakobson’sobson's programmatic statstatement:ement: "If“If literary histhistoryory wishes to become a scholarly disci­disci- pline it must recorecognizegnize the artistic device as its sole hehero.”15ro."1 5

12. "Isk“Iskusstvo,usstvo, kak priempriém,"," 0 teorii prozy, pp. 10 and 18. 13. SSklovskij,klovskij, "Zakon“Zakon nerave11eravenstva,"nstva," Chad konkonjaja (M(Moscow,oscow, 191923),23), p. 11115.5. 14. "Is“Iskusstvokusstvo cirkcirka,"a," ibiibid.,d., p. 13138.8. 15. NoveNovej§ajajfaja russkarusskajaja poezija:poézija: Nabrosok pepen/yjrvyj (P(Prague,rague, 191922 1), p. 1 i.1.

50 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

It must be stressed, howehowever,ver, that dedespitespite their obvious sim­sim- ilarity there is an imimportantportant difference between Jajakobson’skobson's and SSklovskij’sklovskij's notions of the devdevice.ice. For Jajakobson,kobson, the material of ververbalbal art was language and hence he conceconceivedived of poetic de­de- vices as linguislinguistictic by their very naturenature.. SSklovskijklovskij did not deny that in poetry langlanguageuage itself is de-familiarized. "But,"“But,” he hastened to addadd,, "ther“theree are works of art in which the aesthetic perception of divergence rests outsioutsidede the word, wherwheree the word is disregarded, is not fefelt,lt, or has ceased to be fefelt.”16lt."16 These are, obviobviously,ously, works of literary proprose—these-the main fieldfield of SSklovskij’sklovskij's expertiexpertise.se. In this liteliteraryrary form, the soursourcece of dede-familiarization-familiarization is the deformation not of language but of events and happen­happen- ings in the process of their verbal representrepresentation.ation. AccorAccordingly,dingly, the devices that SSklovskijklovskij ststudiedudied most closely were those per­per- taitainingning to prose composition and narrativenarrative.. The diffdifferenceerence between litliteraryerary narrative and the events it narrates in SSklovskij’sklovskij's ununderstandingderstanding is that between the device and the material. A prose work is an intintentionalentional constconstruction,ruction, whereas the events represerepresentednted in it are merely the material for this constructiconstruction.on. The corresponcorrespondingding terms in the spherspheree of narratology are "p“plot”lot" and "stor“story,”y," the two modes in which events "occur"“occur” in literature. StStoryory was ununderstoodderstood as the series of eventeventss ordered according to their temportemporalal succession (as they would have occuoccurredrred in reality) and, as Tomasevskij stressed, accordiaccordingng to causality. 17‘7 Plot, on the other hand, was the liberation of events from temporal contiguity and causal dependency and their teleological rediredistributionstribution in the literary tetext.xt. The storystory,, equated with materialmaterial,, seservedrved the artist as a mere pre-text forplot constructconstruction,ion, a process governed not by exter­exter- nal causes but by internalinternal,, formallawslaws. . HerHeree form,conceived "as“as the law of construction of the obobject,”18ject,"18 was opopposedposed to "moti­“moti- vatiovation”n" definedby SSklovskijklovskij as the "ext“extraliteraryraliterary [bytovoe] expla-

1616.. !ch[ch nastonastojaic'eejaicee (M(Moscow,oscow, 191927),27), p. 8. 1717.. TeoriTeorijaja literaturyliteratmy (L(Leningrad,eningrad, 191925),25), p. 13136.6. 18. SklovsSklovskij,kij, "Sv“Svjaz'jaz' priemovpriémov sjsjuietosloienijauzetoslozenija s obsCimiobscimi priemamipriémami stilstilja,”ja," O0 teoriileoriiprozy, prozy, 2d ed. (M(Moscow,oscow, 191929),29), p. 60.

551 1 Russian FFormalism onnalism

nation of plot constructiconstruction.”19on."19 MotMotivationivation was seen as playing only a secondarsecondaryy role in the literary constructiconstruction,on, for"the“the forms of art are explained by their artistic regularregularityity and not by extra­extra- literary motivatimotivation.”20on."20 By relegating material to a mere ancillary positiposition,on, the mecha­mecha- nistnisticic Formalists ascribed value to it only insofaras it contributed to the technique of the work itselfitself.. MaMaterialterial was deprdeprivedived of any emotionalemotional,, cognitivecognitive,, or social significansignificance.ce. Thus, a literary con­con- struction was nothing more than "pure“pure form-aform—a relation of ma­ma- terialterials.”21s." 2 1 Or, even more radicaradically,lly, "values“values became artistic mate­mate- rial, good and evil became the numernumeratorator and the denomindenominatorator of a fraction and the value of this fraction equaled zerzero.”22o."22 The position of the mechanistmechanisticic model in the overall picture of Russian Formalism is rather peculiar. Perhaps the term "teaser"“teaser” (probni(probnik),k), which SSklovskijklovskij used to descrdescribeibe his own existential predicampredicament,ent, best characterizes the role this model played in the histhistoryory of the movement.movement.23 23 From the vanvantagetage point of hindsight, the mechanmechanisticistic metaphor represents a transittransitoryory stage in For­For- malismalism.m. SSklovskij’sklovskij's The ReResurrectionsurrection of the Word waswas,, without any doubt, the firstfirst attattempt empt at formulformulatingating some of the basic princi­princi- ples of litliteraryerary study that later acquiracquireded the name of the Formal methmethod.od. But in marking the begbeginningsinnings of the Formalist ententer-er­ priseprise,, over the course of time this text inevitinevitablyably became margin­margin- al in viewView of fufurtherrther developmentsdevelopments.. A histhistoricalorical marker, it seems, plays a double rolerole.. It is not only the boundboundaryary that seseparatesparates two successive developmedevelopmentalntal stagstages,es, but also the point of theitheirr contact. Thus, while SSklovskij’sklovskij's 1914 manifmanifestoesto revolutionized

i919.. LiteraturaLiteralura i kinematkinematogmfograf (Be(Berlin,rlin, 191923),23), p. 50. 20.2o. SSklovskij,klovskij, "P“Parodijnyjarodijnyj romanroman,”," 0 teoriiteariiprozy prozy (19(1925),25), p. i61.161. 21. SklovskiSklovskij,j, "L“Literaturaiteratura vne 's‘sjuieta,”’jukta,"' p. i62.162. 22. Ibid. p. 16169.9. SklovsSklovskijkij was farfrom consistent in his argarguments,uments, and though his position in general was that formdetermines material, sometimes he was willing to argue precisely the opposite. It is interesting forthis study that his concessions to material werweree also couched in a simile from the realm of tech­tech— nologynology:: "If“If a mechanic wished to substitute a steel part ofofa a machine fora bronze or an aluminum one, this new part cannot be a copy of the old one. A new material requires a new form" (Literatura(Literatum i kinematkinematograf,ograf, p. 1818).). 23. Zoo,Z00, iiiili pipis’mas'ma ne o0 ljubvi, 2d eded.. (Lenin(Leningrad,grad, 191924),24), pp. 66-66—67.67.

52 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors literary studies by ininjectingjecting into them principles of the avant­avant- garde artistic prpracticeactice of Russian FuturiFuturism,sm, at the same titimeme it carried over a large remnant of the older critical traditiotradition.n. As I shall illusillustratetrate latlater,er, mechanistic Formalism was in some respects a mirmirrorror imaimagege ofVeselVeselovskij’sovskij'spoeticspoetics. . We have already seen how its key termterm,, "de-fami“dc-familiarization,”liarization," was derderivedived from its predecessor by reversing VeselovsVeselovskij’skij's criterion of poetic ststyle.yle. But SSklovskijklovskij was able to do so because he was brought up on VeselovsVeselovskij’skij's system and shared some of its postulatpostulates.es. While subverting some of VeselovskiVeselovskij’sj's principlesprinciples,, SSklovskijklovskij covertly borrowed others from the nineteenth-centurnineteenth-centuryy philologphilologist.ist. He was certainly aware of the perils that this inverse parallelism posed to his own theortheorizing.izing. "I“I am afraidof the negnegativeative lack of freefreedom,”dom," he complcomplained.ained. "The“The negation of what others are doing ties me to them.them.”24 "24 And it was this link to nineteenth­nineteenth- century phphilologyilology that at least in part was responsible for the the quick aging of the mechanistic modelmodel.. In fact, most of the subse­subse- quent developments of Russian Formalism might be seen as a series of corrections of and dedeparturespartures from the original SSklov-klov­ skian metaphor. In his perceptive study of VeselovsVeselovskij’skij's poetipoetics,cs, Boris EEn-n­ gelgel’'gardgardtt descrdescribedibed it as consisting of two intintegralegral comcomponents:ponents: the histhistoryory of literature in the strict sense of the wordword,, and the theortheoryy of the genesis of poetry from extra-aesthetic phenome­phenome- na.na.25 25 The great Russian phphilologistilologist conceived of literatuliterature,_re, first of allall,, as part of the larger cultculturalural context. AccordAccordinging to his famous formulaof i818993,3, the histhistoryory of liliteratureterature is the "hist“historyory of social thought in imagistic-poetic experience and the forms that express it.it.”26"26 The role of the liteliteraryrary historhistorian,ian, thenthen,, is to recover the causal relations among successive elements of social thought. "When“When

24. "Boduen-de-Kur“Boduen-de-Kurtene,tene, Blok, Jakubinsjakubinskij,”kij," Tret'jaTret’ja fafabrika brika (M(Moscow,oscow, i91926),26), p. 52. 25. Aleksandr NikolaevicNikolaevic" VeselovskijVexelovskij (P(Petersburg,etersburg, i91924),24), pp. 90-990—91.1. 26. VeselovsVeselovskij,kij, "Iz“Iz vvedenivvedenijaja v istoricesistoriceskujukuju poetikupoetiku:: Voprosy i otvetyotvety,”," Isto­Ista- riceskaric'exkajaja poetika,poélika, p. 53.

53 Russian Formalism

studying a series of factsfacts,”," VeselovskiVeselovskijj arguedargued,, "we“we observe their successivity, the relation of what follows to what precedes it. If this relation recurs we begin to suspect a certain regularregularity.ity. If it recurs often enough we cease to speak of preceprecedingding and follow­follow- ing and substsubstituteitute the terms cause and effeeffect.”ct." To establish the true regularity of the phenomena studiedstudied,, however, historians must extend their research to the series contiguous to the one under investinvestigation,igation, to discern whether the cause of changchangee does not lie outside it. They must also test knowledgknowledgee gained from one series on other similar series to discover whether a causal relation obtains there as wellwell.. "The“The more such tested recur­recur- rencesrences,”," VeselovskiVeselovskijj concludesconcludes,, "the“the more probable it is that the resulting generalization will apprapproximateoximate the precision of a lalaw.”27w."27 The histhistoryory of literature for VeselovsVeselovskijkij is an incessant in­in- teraction between two factorsfactors:: the passive artistic form and the active social content. What diffdifferentiateserentiates literature from other intintellectualellectual prpracticesactices (phi(philosophy,losophy, religireligion,on, and so fortforth),h), and hence what makes it possible to spspeakeak about the histhistoryory of liter­liter- ature, is the reperepertoirertoire of elementelementaryary poetic forms that express thought. These formsforms—various-various types of imageryimagery,, parallelisparallelisms,ms, or plot consconstructions—whichtructions-which Veselovskij outlined in his genetic studies of poetrypoetry,, are passed from generation to generation in the same way as every national language and are recombined in every litliteraryerary work. From this perspeperspectivective it might appappearear that literary history is simsimplyply the permutpermutationation of the same forms without any actual change, but VeselovskiVeselovskijj claims that literature does evolveevolve,, that the constant poepoetictic forms are continuously imbued with new contcontent.ent. This content does not come from literature itself but fromdevelopments in social liflifee and corrcorrespondingesponding trantransforma-sforma­ tiotionsns in the human spirit. Thus, the engengineine of literary histhistoryory accoaccordingrding to VVeselovskij eselovskij lies outside literature and the task of the historian "is“is to study how new liflifee content, this element of freedom that rushes in with every new generatiogeneration,n, fillsfills the old

27. "O“O metode i zadai'.achzadaéach istorii literatury, kak nauki,"nauki,” ibidibid.,., p. 47.

54 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors moldmolds,s, those forms of necessity in which the entire previous development has been castcast.”28."28 This short presentpresentationation of VeselovsVeselovskij’skij'sviews on literary histhisto-o­ ry should suffificece to explain SSklovskij’sklovskij's attitudes toward him. SSklovskij’sklovskij's radical separation of literature fromother spheres of social liflife,e, his rerejectionjection of the causal explanation in literary stud­stud- ies-allies—all of this can be seen as resulting from his negative relation to VeseloVeselovskij.vskij. Yet it must be stressed that despitdespitee thisthis,, SSklovskijklovskij did not banish diachrony from literary studiesstudies,, and in fact af­af- firmedfirmed the histhistoricalorical dimension of verbal art. As Jurjurijij Striedter has observobserved,ed, de-familide-familiarization,arization, the key concept of mechanismechanistictic FormaliFormalism,sm, as the jujuxtapositionxtaposition of old and new, definitdefinitionallyionally presupposes some form of temtemporality.29porality.29 NeNevertheless,vertheless, SSklov-klov­ skij'sskij’s notion of litliteraryerary histhistoryory devideviatedated radically from VeselovskijVeselovskij’s.'s. At the outset it must be said that SSklovskij’sklovskij's treatment of liter­liter- ary diachrony is not altogethealtogetherr consistent. The charismatic For­For- malist leader did not study this topic systsystematically,ematically, and in the course of time changed his mind about some important issues. The concept of de-famide-familiarizationliarization is a case in point. In his ReResur-sur­ rection of the Word, SSklovskijklovskij argued that what art modifiesmodifies above all is our habitual perception of the worldworld.. Art develops in order for us to regain a fefeelingeling for obobjectsjects (and langlanguage)uage) that have become automatized in our perceptioperception.n. This notion of de-famil­de-famil- iarization is the direct reverse of VeselovsVeselovskij’skij's idea of literliteraryary changechange.. For him it was the evolution oflife that revitalized petri­petri- fiedfied artistic forms, whereas for SSklovskijklovskij the evolution of art revitalized the autautomatizedomatized forms of liflife.e. NeNevertheless,vertheless, this re­re- versal still proceeds from an inevitinevitableable relatiorelationshipnship between lit­lit- erature and everyday life, which SSklovskij’sklovskij's mechanistic model denieddenied.. The value of art is a function of its ututilityility for byt, and hence cannot be separated from it. For this reason SSklovskijklovskij subsequentsubsequentlyly modifiedmodified his notion of

28. IbiIbid.,d., p. 52. 29. "Zur“Zur formalistischenTheorie der Prosa und der literarischen EvolutionEvolution,"," quoted from EngEnglishlish tr. by M. NiNicolson,colson, "The“The Russian Formalist Theory of Literary EvolutiEvolution,”on," PTL 3 (1(1978),978), I.1.

5555 Russian Formalism

de-famide-familiarization.liarization. As early as 19191919,, in the OPOPOjAZOJAZ collective volume Poetics, he declared that the development of art is totally immanent. New works come about to changchangee our perception not of bybytt but of the artistartisticic form itself, itself, which has become auto­auto- matized thrthroughough our acquaintacquaintanceance with older worksworks.. "The“The work of art is perceived agaiagainstnst the backgrbackgroundound of and through asso­asso- ciation with other works of art. ItItss form is determined by its relation to other forms that existed prior to it...... A new foformrm appappearsears not to express a new content but to rereplaceplace an oldoldform fo rm that has lost its artistic quality.quality.”30 "30 The admission that the work of art is peculiar because it difdif-­ fefersrs not only from everyday reality but from earlier works as well introduces an element of chaos into the two-term system of mechanistmechanisticic FormalisFormalism.m. Though SSklovskijklovskijstill upupheldheld the origi­origi- nal oppoppositionosition of art and byt, he was forced to compcomplicatelicate the category of art with a secondary dyaddyad,, canonizedcanonized/noncanonized/noncanonized art. He took this step in his short booklet on VasilijRoz Rozanov.anov. "In“In every literary periodperiod,”," SSklovskijklovskij wrwrote,ote, "not“not one but several liter­liter- ary schools may be found. They coecoexist;xist; one of them is the canonized apex and the others are a noncanonized [lower stra­stra- tum]tum]...... While the forms of the older art become as little per­per- ceptceptibleible as grammatgrammaticalical forms in languaglanguage—frome-from elements of artistic intention [ustanovka] turning into ancillaryancillary,, nonnonpercepti-percepti­ ble phenomenaphenomena—the-the new form�forms of art that susubstitutebstitute for the the older ones are produced in the lower stratustratum.m. A younger school bursts intintoo the place of an older oneone...... However, the defdefeatedeated school is not desdestroyed,troyed, does not cease to exist. It is only dis­dis- placed from the top to the bottombottom...... and can rise agaagain.”31in."31 This model of immanent literary historyhistory,, however, begs cer­cer- tain questiquestions.ons. First of all, what is the ontontologicalological status of non­non- canonized literatureliterature?? Within the frameworkof mechanimechanisticstic ForFor-­ malism this category is a conceptual bastardbastard,, in that it is composed of artworks whose form, paradoxiparadoxically,cally, is not percep-

30. SklovskiSklovskij,j, "Sv“Svjaz’jaz' priemovpriémov sjsjuietosloienija,”uzetoslo:Zenija," Poetika:Poétika: Sbornikipop0 teorii poet­poet— iceskogo jazyka (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 19191919),), p. 12120.0. 31. Rozanov: lz knigi "S“Sjuzet,juiet, kak javlenie stilj"a"stilja" (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 1921921),1 ), pp. 5-7.5—7. 56 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors tibletible.. One might also inquirinquiree whether this modelmodel,, which treats literary histhistoryory as an "et“eternalernal return"return” of the same artisartistictic formsforms,, does not preclude the possibility of any actual develodevelopmentalpmental noveltynovelty.. Earlier I argued that a similar problem had existed for Veselovskij when he insisted that every literary work is a recom­recom- bination of the same elementelementaryary poetic formsforms.. But because he did not conceive of litliteraryerary histhistoryory as an immanent procprocess,ess, formal repetition nevertheless impimpliedlied for him him novelty in con­con- tentent.t. This avenue was closed for SSklovskij,klovskij, however, who pro­pro- grammatically refused to deal with the issue of literary content. Locked in his mechanistmechanisticic metaphor, SSklovskijklovskij could provide no viable answer to the ontontologicalological status of noncanonical art. It was only in another Formalist modelmodel,, the one advanced by Jujurijrij TynTynjanov,janov, that this issue was addressedaddressed.. TynTynjanov’sjanov's studies of the change that Russian literature underwent in the eighteenth and nineteenth centucenturiesries refuted the basic premise of mechanistic FormaFormalism,lism, the strict separation of art fromby byt.t. As he illustrillustratedated convincingly, the line separating literature from nonlitnonliteratureerature is flexibleflexible.. What buburstsrsts into the place of canonized art may not be noncanonized art at all, but extra-artistic phenomenaphenomena;; moreovmoreover,er, the depdeposedosed canonized art may not only descend to lower ststratarata in the artistic hierarchy but leave the spherspheree of art entirely and become extra-arextra-artistic.tistic. ThougThoughh SSklovskijklovskij admiadmittedtted in a letter to TynTynjanovjanov that he was imprimpressedessed by this argument, his overall reaction was ambivaambivalent.lent. On the one hand, SSklovskijklovskij seemed to rerejectject the concept of immanent literliteraryary development to which he earlier subscsubscribed:ribed: "We“We claclaim,im, it seems, that the liliteraryterary work can be analyzed and evaluated without leaving the literary seriesseries...... However, the notion of literature changes all the timetime.. Literature exteextendsnds and absorbs extra-aesthetic materialmaterial.. This material and those changchangeses which it undundergoesergoes while in contact with the material already aesthetaestheticallyically transfotransformedrmed must be taken into accaccount.”ount." On the other handhand,, SSklovskijklovskij insisted that once this material becomes a part of art it loses its original ties with liflifee and becomes a compo­compo- nent of artistic form. “Literature"Literature lives while extending over non-

57 Russian Formalism

litliterature.erature. But the artistic form acaccomplishescomplishes a peculiar rape of the SabinSabines.es. The material ceases to recognize its master. It is deformedby the law of art and is perceived outside ofofits its originaoriginall contextcontext.”32."32 BeBecausecause of the rule of exclusion ununderlyingderlying the binarbinaryy model of mechamechanisticnistic FormalisFormalism,m, the apapproachproach was unaunableble to provide a description of literary changchangee that would adequately accoaccountunt for the interplay of the literary and nonlitnonliteraryerary spherspheres.es. SSklovskij’sklovskij's position was inevinevitablyitably contradictory. He was aware of the histor­histor- ical relativity of the concept of literatuliterature,re, but could not take full advantadvantageage of his knowledgknowledgee without desdestroyingtroying his conceptual frame. Caught in this paradoxparadox,, he was ununableable to offerany solu­solu- tition.on. The conclusion of his letter is an example of what Richard Sheldon termed "t“thehe devdeviceice of ostensible surrendersurrender,”," that is, an overt surrender hiding covert intransintransigence.33igence. 33 "Answer“Answer my letter but do not drdragag me into the history of literatliterature,”ure," pleaded SSklovskij.klovskij. "I“I will study art, realirealizingzing that all its dimensions [[velic'iny] veliCiny] are histhistorical.”34orical. "34 While evading the problem of the ininteractionteraction between liter­liter- ature and byt, SSklovskij’sklovskij's immanent literary histhistoryory did offer a solution to the second problproblem:em: artistic noveltnovelty.y. In a succinct hihistorystory of the novelnovel,, SSklovskijklovskijdepidepicted cted artisartistictic changchangee as followsfollows.. Like all narrativenarratives,s, the novel'snovel’s artfulness lies in the transforma­transforma- tion of a liflifelikeelike story ifa(fabula)bula) into a literary plot (s(sjuz’et).juf.et). This task is complcomplicatedicated by the comcompositeposite naturnaturee of the novelnovel,, by the fact that it is a concatenation of several short storistories.es. The histhistoryory of the novel fromthis perspective is a succession of diffdifferenterent moti­moti- vations forthe device of fusingshort stories into larger wholwholes.es. In the most elementary novels (forexexample, ample, Don QuixotQuixote),e}, it was the protagprotagonistonist who strung the pieces togetogether.ther. After this method became automatizautomatized,ed, the psychology of the herheroo was used as the connecting threadthread.. The works of StendStendhal,hal, TolsTolstoj,toj, and Dos-

32. "P“Pis'mois'mo TynTynjanovu,"janovu," Tret'jaTret’jafabrika,fa brika, p. 99. 33. "Vik“Viktortor ShShklovskijklovskij and the Device of Ostensible SurrSurrender,”ender," Slavic Review 34, no. l1 (19(1975),75), 86-86—108.108. 34. "Pis'“Pis'mo mo TynTynjanovu,”janovu," p. lo100.o. 58 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors toevskitoevskijj provide ample vanauovariationsns on this psychologpsychologicalical motivi­motivi- rovka (m(motivation).otivation). EventEventuallyually even this mode of fusion wore out. The audience'saudience’s interestinterest in connecting individual pieces waned andand' the segments themselves began to attract attentioattention.n. At this moment, motivation itself turned into a device. The individual sesegmentsgments were brought together in a negnegativeative way to show the readreaderer that they had nothing in common, that their connective tissue was simpsimplyly a technical device enabling the writer to make them intintoo a novelnovel.. This is the method of modern novenovels,ls, SSklovskijklovskij claimclaims,s, most notably of his own epistepistolaryolary novel Zoo.200.35 35 It is insinstructivetructive to comcomparepare this histhistoryory of the novel with the earlier accaccountount ofliterary development foundin SSklovskij’sklovskij'sbook­book- let on Rozanov mentmentionedioned beforebefore.. Both proceed froman imma­imma- nent notion of literliteraryary histhistoryory drdriveniven by the opopposition,position, de­de- famfamiliarization/automatization.iliarization/automat ization. But whereas the Rozanov booklet presents literary changchangee as an infinfiniteinite permpermutationutation of the same poetic forms,SSklovskij’s klovskij's histhistoryory of the novel adds something new to this scheme. The master devidevicece of this genre-thegenre—the fusionof the constituent stories into a larger whole-rewhole—remainsmains the samesame,, but diffdifferenterent liliteraryterary periods introduce diffdifferenterent motivirovki. What the soursourcece of these new motivations is, SSklovskijklovskij does not say, and one might intuitively surmise that it is bybyt.t. This assumptassumptionion does not contradict his two-term model, foras I shshowedowed earlier, the motivation of a device forhim is merely an auxiliarauxiliaryy component of the liliteraryterary consconstruction.truction. SSklovskij’sklovskij'sforay into the histhistoryory of the novel is noteworthy for yet another reasreason:on: its conception of histhistoricalorical proprocess.cess. Accord­Accord- ing to this conceptionconception,, the development of a literary genre is not an unintuninterruptederrupted contcontinuum,inuum, a chain of works successively de­de- familiarfamiliarizingizing each othother,er, but instinsteadead a qualitative lealeap,p, an abrupt ascent to a higher level of literary consciouconsciousness.sness. There seems to be a qualitative diffdifferenceerence between the way elementary or psy­psy- chologchologicalical novels are produced and the way their modern coun­coun- terparts areare.. The earlier works prespresupposeuppose a "na“naive”ive" attitudattitudee

35. Zoo,Z00, ili pispis'ma'ma ne o0 ljubvi (Berlin, 191923),23), pp. 83-85.83—85.

5599 Russian Formalism

toward writwriting.ing. The author portrays chacharactersracters and their psychic lives without being aware that all of this is nothing but an excuse forfusing short pieces into a novelnovel.. The modern novel is based on a selfself-conscious-conscious attitude toward writing on the author'sauthor’s partpart,, a deliberate debunking of "deceptive"“deceptive” artistartisticic practipractices.ces. The mod­mod- ern novelist says that the ememperorperor is naknaked,ed, and by eliminating "fi“fictitious”ctitious" momotivationstivations lays the devices of his trade barebare.. This ironic attitude toward literary production stems in turn from the writer'swriter’s histhistoricalorical selfself-awareness,-awareness, his or her reflex­reflex- iveness about the logic of literary histhistory.ory. For examexample,ple, the "na­“na- ive"ive” novelist creates chcharactersaracters and events without realrealizingizing that in fact he is comcomplyingplying with the histhistoricalorical demand forde-famil­de-famil- iarizing artistic form.The "cunning"“cunning” modernimodernist,st, conscious of his histhistoricalorical rolerole,, proceeds diffdifferently.erently. He analyzes the present ststateate of literature and designs his writings in such a way as to achieve the maximal artistic effeffect.ect. He does not merely deviate from previous conventiconventions,ons, but shows that they are mere conventiconventions.ons. By strstrippingipping bare the very prprocessocess of literarliteraryy creaticreation,on, the mod­mod- ernist de-famide—familiarizesliarizes arartistictistic form anew, thus reafreaffirmingfirming the logic of literary historyhistory.. By merging litliteraryerary theory and practipractice,ce, its istoria and poeisis, SSklovskijklovskij also effeffectivelyectively subverted VesVeselovskij’selovskij's obobjectivistjectivist liter­liter- ary histhistory.ory. For VeselovsVeselovskij,kij, the literary histhistorians’sorians's task was to reconstruct the causal chain of the literary seriesseries.. From SSklovskij’sklovskij's point of view such an apprapproachoach to histhistoryory writing was a mirmirrorror image of the "n“naive”aive" novelist'snovelist’s attitude toward literary produc­produc- tition.on. Not only were novelists ununawareaware of their actual role in the historical procprocess,ess, but obobjectivistjectivist historians seemed equally igno­igno- rant of the aesthetaestheticic presupppresuppositionsositions involved in their practipractice.ce. BeBecausecause the literary series is virtually an infinfiniteinite conticontinuum,nuum, obobjectivistjectivist historians had to focuson only certain works, authorsauthors,, or periodperiods.s. And because they were dealing with literary phe­phe- nomena, the ultultimateimate criterion for thisthis selectionselection was their own literary sensensibility.sibility. ThusThus,, desdespitepite its claiclaims,ms, obobjectivistjectivist hhisto-isto­ riogriographyraphy never actually recaptured the literary past "as“as it was"was” but always provided varvarying,ying, distdistortedorted pictures of it. The remedy

60 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

SSklovskijklovskij proposed was the same one he put intintoo practice in his creative writing. Literary histhistoryory should turn in upon itself and lay bare the devices of its tradtrade.e. InstInsteadead of the pretepretendednded recon­recon- struction of the liliteraryterary past, litliteraryerary histhistoryory should become "the“the gay business of [its] destructidestruction,”on," a selfself-conscious-conscious "misreading"“misreading” of histhistoryory accordaccordinging to modern artistic principleprinciples.36s.36 Hence, thethejob job of0f the literary histhistorianorian in SSklovskij’sklovskij'sview was comcomplementaryplementary to that of the artartist.ist. The artist revitalizes liter­liter- ature by creating new poetic formsthat replace oldold,, autautomatizedomatized onesones;; the literary hihistorianstorian does so by recyrecyclingcling these old forms through a de-famde-familiarizingiliarizing recreation of themthem.. "We“We are losing the living perception of PuskPuskin,”in," SSklovskijklovskij arguargued,ed, "not“not because our byt and language are farremoved from his, but because we did not changchangee the standarstandardd (the criterion) to which we compare himhim.”." Aiming at his own camcamp,p, SSklovskijklovskijcontinuedcontinued, , "the“the study of literary tradititraditions,ons, the Formal study of art in genegeneral,ral, would be utter nonsense if it did not provide us with a new perception of the workwork.”." TherTherefore,efore, he concludconcludes,es, "the“the task of the Formal method or at least one of its tasks is not to 'explain'‘explain’ the work but to impede its perceptiperception,on, to renew the 'set‘set toward the form'form’ that is characteristic of the work of0fart.”37 art."37 He put this call into practice in the same ararticleticle by prespresentingenting a new PuskinPuskin—a-a master parparodist,odist, a Russian followerof Laurence SterneSterne—whose-whose EvgenijEvgem'j Onegi,n Onegin lays bare the devices that created its literary formform.. This program for a new literary histhistory,ory, however, did not receive much of a welcome from the FormaFormalists.lists. The MuMuscovitescovite Grigorij VinokuVinokur,r, forexexample, ample, in his review of the antanthologyhology on Puskin in which SSklovskij’sklovskij's essay had appappeared,eared, declared that its author "lacks“lacks any-eany—evenven the most elementelementary—senseary-sense of0f histhisto-o­ ryry.”38."38 This negative reaction was in part conditioned by the fact that most of the other members of this movement did not sharsharee SSklovskij’sklovskij's passion for miminglingngling scholascholarshiprship with art. Even those

36. "Evgenij“Evgenij Onegin: Puskin i SternStern,"," Oi'erkiOc'erkipopo poetikepoétike Pu5kinaPus'kina (Berlin(Berlin,, 191923),23), p. 22220.0. 37. IbiIbid.,d., p. 205. 38. "Ocerki“05erki pop0 poetikepoétike Pu5kinPus'kina,"a," RusskijRumkij sovremennikiovremennik 3 (1(1924),924), 264.

61 Russian Formalism

who, like TynTynjanov,janov, applapplaudedauded the artistartisticic boboldnessldness of Zoo and its highly unusuaunusuall blend of literary theory and creative writinwriting,39g,39 refusedto go the fullroutroute e witwithh SSklovskijklovskijand radically relativize their notion ofliterary hihistory.story. They viewed SSklovskij’sklovskij'sapapproach proach as a manifmanifestationes ta ti on of aestaesthetichetic egocentrisegocentrism,m, an ahistahistoricalorical "im­“im- position upuponon the past of current modes of poetic productiproduction,”on," forwhich they had already blasted the older generation of liter­liter- ary scholarsscholars.40. 40 The rerejectionjection of SSklovskij’sklovskij'sapapproach proach to literary history by his comrades-in-arms had a certain jujustistifification.cation. His reareadingding ofE vge­vge- nijm'j OneginOnegin was arbitrary, insofaras it was motivated by his idiosyn­idiosyn- cratic literary sensensibilitysibility rooted in the iconoclastic poetics of Rus­Rus- sian FuturFuturism.ism. Such an orientation was clearly unacceptunacceptableable to the young theoreticians striving to establish an "ob“objective”jective" science of literaliterature.ture. Yet, at the same titime,me, one might ask whether the Formalists in their camcampaignpaign against histhistoricalorical relativrelativismism were not blind to the histhistoricalorical relativity of their own enterprise. As Jjurij urijStriedter argues, most of the later Formalist reconstructions of the literary past "did“did not reflect on what was principally the hihistoricalstorical charcharacteracter of their own school and its systsystem,em, nor did they incorporincorporateate it in any way into their theory and analysisanalysis.”41."4 1 Of the FormalistsFormalists,, only Echenbaumjchenbaum was willing to take SSklovskij’sklovskij's challengchallengee seriously and transtranslatelate it into a more cogent scholarly program fora selfself—re-reflexiveflexive histhistoriography.oriography. "In“In its essencessence,”e," he wrotewrote,, "history“history is a discipline of comcomplexplex analogianalogies,es, a discipline with a dual visivision:on: the factsof the past are discerned as significant and enter the system invinvariablyariably and inevinevitablyitably under the aegis of contecontemporarymporary probleproblems.ms...... HiHistory, story, in this sense, is a particular method forstudying the present through the factsof the pastpast.”42."42 Ultimately, one maymay‘speculate speculate that such a stance could have developed into what modern critical theorytheory'calls calls the history of

39. TynTynjanov,janov, "L“Literaturnoeiteraturnoe segodnsegodnja,"ja," Poetika,Poétika, istoriislorijaja literatury,literatmy, kino (M(Moscow,oscow, 191977),77), p. 16166.6. 40. Roman Jakjakobson,obson, NoveNovej§ajajfaja russkarusskajaja poezya,poézija, p. 5. 4i.41. "The“The Russian Formalist Theory of Literary EvolutiEvolution,”on," 111 1.. 42. "L“Literaturnyjiteraturnyj byt," p. 49.

62 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors literary recereception.ption. But beforethis haphappened,pened, Russian Formalism itself was transformedinto a histhistoricalorical phenomenphenomenon.on. SSklovskij’sklovskij's concept of literary histhistoryory constitutes a program­program- matic rerejectionjection of VeselovsVeselovskij’skij'spoetipoetics. cs. It either reversed or sub­sub- verted all the crucial notions of its ninetnineteenth—centuryeenth-century predeces­predeces- sor concerning the development of literliterature.ature. This is not to say that SSklovskij’sklovskij's relatrelationshipionship to VeselovskiVeselovskijj was purpurelyely negatinegative.ve. AccAccordingording to EEngel’gardt,ngel'gardt, whose accoaccountunt was quoted earlier, VVeselovskij’s eselovskij's system involved not only literary histhistoryory but also a theory of the genesis of poetry fromextra-aesthetextra-aesthetic ic phenomena. To this latter domain, in my opinion, mechanistmechanisticic Formalism is ververyy closely linked indeedindeed.. Let me brieflycharacterize this aspect of VeselovskiVeselovskij’sj's theorytheory.. In his genetic studiesstudies’Veselovskij V eselovskij strove to establish which phe­phe- nomena of primitprimitiveive culturculturee evolve into the simplest poetic formsforms.. In order to do so, he disdissectedsected the litliteraryerary work into its smallest elemenelements—motifs,ts-motifs, epithets and formulaformulas—whichs-which he then pursued across the entire range of literatures of diffdifferenterent nations and periperiods.ods. Thus, aside from its histhistoricity,oricity, VeseloVeselovskij’svskij's poetics can be desdescribedcribed as geneticgenetic,, inductiveinductive,, and comcomparative.parative. The main thrust of mechanistic Formalism is also decidedly geneticgenetic.. It tries to esestablishtablish how a literary work arises from extra­extra- literary phenomenaphenomena.. SSklovskijklovskij rerevealedvealed his bias toward a genetic explanation when he wrwrote,ote, "Phenomena“Phenomena can be grasped best when we can undeunderstandrstand the process of their origorigin.”43in."43 Because the most basic premise of mechanistmechanisticic Formalism was never to seek an explanation forthe factsof art among the factsof byt, its adherents disdisregardedregarded all general cultuculturalral precpreconditions.onditions. Works of art were seen as intentintentionalional artifaartifacts,cts, and to grasgraspp them meant to explain how they were mamade.de. The titles of some essaysessays,, for examexample,ple, SSklovskij’sklovskij's "Ho“Howw Don Quixote Is MadeMade,”," or Echen-jchen­ baum'sbaum’s "Ho“Howw GogolGogol’s's 'Overcoat'‘Overcoat’ Is MadMade,”e," bear witness to this genetic apapproach.proach. The titles of these essays might, however, be misleading. They

43. "V“V svosvojuju zasCituzascitu,”," Chod konkonja,ja, p. 74. 63 RassianRussian Formalism seem to sugsuggestgest that by focusing attention on the genesis of partiparticularcular literary textexts,ts, the mechanismechanistictic Formalists were studying their actual origins as individual and unique creative actsacts.. NotNoth-h­ ing would have been more alien to the Formalists and the tradi­tradi- tion that they contcontinued.inued. The sober positivist Veselovskij had already wagwageded a war against the Romantic myth of the liteliteraryrary work as a totally subsubjectivejective expression of a strong individualindividual.. Assessing the ststateate of his discipline in i81870,70, he wrotewrote,, "cont“contempo-empo­ rary scholarship has taken the liberty of looking at the massmasses,es, which untuntilil now have stood behind [the herheroes],oes], dedeprivedprived of any voicevoice.. It has discerned a liflifee and movement in them whiwhich,ch, like everything else that takes place on a grand spspatiotemporalatiotemporal scalescale,, is imperceptimperceptibleible to the naknakeded eyeeye.. It is here that the hidden spspringsrings of the histhistoricalorical process ought to be sought...... The great individuals now appappearear as reflectionsreflections of this or that movement prepared foramong the massesmasses.”44."44 The author, in VeselovVeselovskij’sskij's view, is merely a crystallization of poetic tradtraditionsitions and social curcurrentsrents existing independently of the author, and it is precisely these general preconditions of literary creation rather than any unique creative act that formthe true obobjectject of scholarsscholarship.hip. The Formalists followed in VeseloVeselovskij’svskij'sfootstefootsteps, ps, though in­in- stead of attacking Carlyle and Emerson they attacked more re­re- cent psychologpsychologicalical criticritics.cs. Pointing a finger atat thetheFreudian meth­meth- od, SSklovskijklovskij wrotewrote:: "Least“Least of all should one become involved with psychoanalpsychoanalysis.ysis. It analyzes the mementalntal trauma of only a single man. But the single man does not writewrite;; it is the time, the school­school- collective that writeswrites.”45."45 As Osip BrBrikik put it: "O“OPOjAZPOJAZ thinks that there are no poets and literati but poetry and literature. Every­Every- thing written by a poet is significantonly as a part of his work in the common ententerpriseerprise and is absolutely worthless as an ex­ex- prpressionession of his 'I.'‘I.’ ...... The devices of the poetic cracraftft must be studied on a grand scale, along with their diffdifferenceserences from contiguous spspheresheres of human work and the laws of their developmedevelopment._nt. Puskin did not

44. "O“O metode i zadaeachzadacach istorii literatury, kak nauki,"nauki,” p. 41. 45. "Orname“Ornamental’najantal'naja prozaproza:: AndreAndrejj BelyBelyj,"j," 0O teorii prozy, 2d ed., p. 211211.. 64 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors create a schoolschool;; he was merely its headhead.”." And to make his point stistick,ck, BrBrikik dedeclared:clared: "If“If there were no Puskin, Evgenij Onegin would have been written anyway. America would have been discovered even without ColumbColumbus.”46us."46 Given such a strong Formalist aversion to the individual asaspectpect of the literary procprocess,ess, it is obvious that SSklovskijklovskij and Echen-jchen­ baum were aiming at something other than a simple description of two dispardisparateate creative actsacts.. Replying to a selfself-imposed-imposed ques­ques- tition,on, "what“what is significantsignificant about the Formal methodmethod?”?" SSklovskijklovskij wrote in his charcharacteristicacteristic ststaccatoaccato ststyle:yle: "What“What is significantsignificant is that we apprapproachedoached art as a productiproduction.on. SpokSpokee of it alalone.one. Viewed it not as a reflectreflection.ion. Found the specific fefeaturesatures of the gegenus.nus. BeBegangan to establish the basic tendencies of form.GrasGrasped ped that on a larglargee scale there is a real homogeneity in the laws informing worworks.ks. HeHence,nce, the science [of literature] is possible.possible.”47 "4 7 What the FormalistFormalistss subscribing to the mechanistmechanisticic model set out to invesinvesti-ti­ gategate,, thertherefore,efore,was the general technologtechnologyy ofliterliteraryary production and the laws that govern it, rather than the genesis of some randrandomlyomly chosen textstexts.. Both SSklovskijklovskij and Echenbaumjchenbaum utilized CerCervantes’svantes's and GogGogol’sol's works as case studies to outline the broader principles that genegeneraterate prosaic works in two diffdifferenterent genresgenres:: the novelnovel,, and the short ststoryory orientorienteded toward oral delivery. The genetic apprapproachoach was not merely a heuristheuristicic device forthe mechanismechanistictic FormalisFormalists;ts; they believed that the process of making art is intimintimatelyately conneconnectedcted to the process of its perceperception.ption. As SSklovskijklovskijwrotewrote, , "“artart isisthe the way to exexperienceperience the making of a thing while what was made isnot reallreallyy important in art. "48”48 The perception of the work is thus nothnothinging but the re-prre-presentationesentation of the intentional creative process which gave birth to the perceived work. And bebecausecause the devidevicece is the "main“main hero"hero” of this proprocess,cess, it should be the focusof attention forthe student of literatliterature.ure. It is herheree that the inductive and comcomparativeparative methods enter the scenescene.. The

46. "T.“T. n. 'fo‘formal’nyjrmal'nyj metodmetod,”’,"' 21213.3. 47. "V“Veéeraecera u BrBrikov,”ikov," Tret'ja fafabrika,brika, pp. 64-65.64—65. 48. "Is“Iskusstvo,kusstvo, kak pripriem,”em," p. 12. 65 Russian Formalism

literary work is dissedissectedcted into such elementelementaryary devices as repeti­repeti- tition,on, parallelisparallelism,m, gradatiogradation,n, and retardatioretardation,n, and the existence of these devices is ascertainedasc’ertained through a comcomparisonparison of the most heterogeneous matematerials—folksongs,rials-folksongs, tatales,les, high literaliterature,ture, even filmfilm storistories. es. The resultresultss then serve as a verificationverification of the original premise of mechanistmechanisticic Formalism aboaboutut the heterheteromorphismomorphism of art and byt. Earlier I noted the unenthuunenthusiasticsiastic response that SSklovskij’sklovskij's theory ofliterary histhistoryory elicited among the FormaFormalists.lists. The same apappliedplied to his poeticspoetics.. The firstfirst disagreement with the mecha­mecha- nistic model concerned the ontontologicalological status of the device.device. Ac­Ac- cording to SSklovskij,klovskij, the 'ddeviceevice was the smsmallestallest ununiversaliversal and virtually independent element of artistartisticic form migrating from work to work. VikViktortor ZZirmunskijirmunskij obobjectedjected that it does not exist indeindependentlypendently but only as a part of the work and its actual value is always determined by the immediimmediateate whole in which it belongsbelongs:: "The“The poetic devdeviceice is not an independent, selfself-valuable,-valuable, quasi­quasi- natural-natural-historicalhistorical fact. The device as suchsuch—the-the device for the sake of the devdevice—isice-is not an artistic element but a conconjuringjuring tricktrick...... The same device, from the formal point of viewview,, very often acquires a diffdifferenterent artistic meaning depending on its fufunc-nc­ tion, i.i.e.,e., on the ununityity of the entire artistic work and on the gegeneralneral thrust of all the other devidevices.”49ces."49 ZZirmunskij’sirmunskij's comment implies a second obobjectionjection to indinductiveuctive poetipoetics,cs, namely, its disdisregardregard forthe holisholistictic nature of the literary work. The mechanistmechanisticic model conceives of the work as a mechan­mechan- ical aggregation of its partsparts.. This seems to be the gist of SSklovskij’sklovskij's slogan that the "content“content (soul) of the liliteraryterary work equals the sum total of its ststylisticylistic devicesdevices.”50."50 The critics of this notion pointed out that the litliteraryerary work is not a mere aggreaggregate,gate, but that it possesses a certain inward quality which belongs to it only as a whole and which is lost when it is mechanically didissectedssected into its parts. "The“The search for the minimal atom of the text betrays a

49. "Z“Zadaciadaci poetipoetiki,"ki," Voprosy teorii literatury: StatStat'i'i 19161916—1926-1926 (Leni(Leningrad,ngrad, 191928),28), p. 5252.. 50.5o. Rozanov, p. 8.

66 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors materialistic quasi sciencescience,”," wrote Boris Larin condescecondescendingly.ndingly. "Ev“Everyery adolescent can dissect a frog believing that he is HaHarvey.rvey. In the same way it is easy foreveryone to followa little matrix and list on filefile cards the words in a pre-pre-PetrianPetrian tatale,le, the epithets of Puskin, or 'sound‘sound repetirepetitions’tions' in verse, or to separseparateate the spspeecheseeches fromconversations in Don Quixote. The results of such an analysis can, of courcourse,se, be utilized in many waysways,, but what I am aiming at is the inadmissiinadmissibilitybility of these oversimplifiedmethods in obtaobtainingining the material of study itselfitself.. In stStylisticsylistics we must not fora moment lose sight of the intinterrelationerrelation of elemenelements,ts, the wholeness of the artistartisticic text.text.”51 "51 InIndeed,deed, though at times SSklovskijklovskij apappearspears to be aware of the Gestaltqualitiit in the work of art, he has diffificultyculty in finding itsits loculocus.s. As Victor Erlich has pointed out, SSklovskij’sklovskij'sconfconfusion usion over the word "form"“form” has its roots in this probproblem.lem. "The“The Russian Formalist leader seemed to fluctuatefluctuate betweenbetween twotwo difdifferingfering in­in- terpterpretationsretations of the termterm:: he could not make up his fi"/.indmind as to whether he meant by 'form'‘form’ a quality inherent in an esthetic whole or an esthetic whole endowed with a certain qualityquality.”52."52 It is thus not surprsurprisingising that SSklovskij’sklovskij'swork is riddled with contradic­contradic- tory statements concerning the holistholisticic naturnaturee of the literary work. He insiinsistssts upon its integral nature, stating that "“nothingnothing can be subtrsubtractedacted froma literary worwork,”53k,"53 but then declares that "the“the unity of the literliteraryary work [is] ...... a mytmyth.”54h."54 Though most of the Formalists probably would have subssubscribedcribed to the firstfirst ststate- ate­ ment, only a very few would have agagreedreed to the secsecond.ond. To see the literary work not as a congconglomeratelomerate of dedevicesvices but as an intintrin-rin­ sically unifiunifieded whole requirrequireded another perspeperspective—active-a metaphor quite ununlikelike that offered by the mechanistmechanisticic FormalisFormalists.ts.

51. "O“O raznovidnostjach chudozestvennochudoiestvennojj reCireci,"," p. 62. 52. V. Erlich, Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine,History—Doctrine, 3d ed. (The Hague, 191969),69), p. 18187.7. 53. SSklovskij,klovskij, Literatura i kinematogrkinematogmf,af, p. 16. 54.5.4. "Ornament“Ornamental'najaal' naja prozaproza,”," p. 21215.5.

67 The Organism

The spirit of poepoetry,try, like all other living powers [[...... ]] must embody in order to reveal itselfitself;; but a living body is of necessity an organized oneone,——and,-and what is organizatiorganization,on, but the conneconnectionction of parts to a whwhole,ole, so that each part is at once end and meansmeans!! -COL—COLERIDGE,ERIDGE, Shakespearean Criticism

Zweck sein selbst ististjeglichesjegliches Tier, vollkvollkommenommen ententspringtspringt es Aus dem Schoss der NaNaturtur und zeugt vollkomvollkommenemene Kinder. AileAlle Glieder bilden sich aus nach ewgen GesetGesetzen,zen, Und die seltenste Form bewahrt im geheimen das UrUrbild.bild. -GOET—GOETHE,HE, "Met“Metamorphoseamorphose der Tiere"Tiere”

A belief in the holistholisticic nature of the literary work comcompelledpelled other Formalists to seek a diffdifferenterent conceptual frame for their study of literliterature.ature. As the mechanistmechanisticic FormaliFormalists,sts, drdrawingawing their insinspirationpiration from thetherealm of technologtechnology,y, probed into the clock­clock- work of devices in the literary work, another grgroupoup of Formalists turned to biology and its subsubjectject matter-thematter—the organismorganism—as-as their

EpigraEpigraph:ph: Every animal is a pupurposerpose in its own right, perfect it rises I/ From Nature'sNature’s womb and deliveres perfect children. I/ All the limbs are developed accoaccordingrding to eternal laws, I/ And the rarest formguards in secret its protproto-image.o-image.

68 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors modmodel.el. In a methodologmethodologicalical articlarticle,e, "The“The BoundaBoundariesries of Literary Theory as a ScienceScience,”," BoBorisris Jarjarcho,cho, a member of the Moscow StStateate Ac.Academyademy for the Study of ArtsArts,, noted three similarsimilaritiesities between the literliteraryary work and the biologbiologicalical organiorganism:sm: (1) both are complecomplexx wholes comcomposedposed of heterheterogeneousogeneous elementselements;; (2) both are unifiunifieded wholwholes;es; (3) in both the constitutive elements are hierarchically diffdifferentiated,erentiated, in that some are esseessentialntial to the unity of the whole and others are not.not.11 The litliteraryerary work may be compared to the biological organism in other respects as wellwell.. Justjust as each indindividualividual organism sharshareses certain fefeaturesatures with other orgorganismsanisms of its own typetype,, and types that resemble each other belong to the same specispecies,es, the indi­indi- vidual work is similar to other works of its form(for examexample, ple, the sonnet)sonnet),, and homologous literary formsbelong to the same genre (forexamexample, ple, the lyrilyric).c). As a result of this organizatioorganization,n, the work and the organism can be conceived genergeneratively.atively. New configurconfigura-a­ tiotionsns both similar and dissimilar to previous ones are constantly arising, so that individual ststructuresructures appappearear not as disdiscretecrete en­en- tities but as the momemomentaryntary stages of an ongoing morpmorphogenetichogenetic process of transfotransformation.rmation. This generative character of the orgorga-a­ nism, along with the holistic one mentioned earlier, was exploited by these literliteraryary scholars in what I shall call the morphmorphologicalological trend in Russian FormalFormalism.ism. The name for this trtrend,end, morpholmorphologicalogical FormaFormalism,lism, is drdrawnawn fromthe writiwritingsngs of the Formalists themselvesthemselves.. For this reason we must scrutinize the name closely. The Formalists used the term in a variety of waways.ys. Even the arch-mechanist SSklovskijklovskij sometimes referred to the Formalist movement as a "morph“morphologicalological school"school” to avoid the pepejorativejorative connotations of the label "F“Formalism.”2ormalism."2 However, this ususageage did not imply that SSklovskijklovskij had consciously explored the parallel between art and the orgorganism.anism. Of the Formalists who did use "mor“morphology”phology" in its biological sense, some

1. "Granicy“Granicy nauenognaucnogoo literliteraturovedenija,”aturovedenija,"lskusstvolikusxlvo 2 (19(1925),25), 59. 2. Cf.Cf.,, for example, LiteraturaLileratura i kinematkinematograf,ograf, p. 40, or "Vikt“Viktoror ChovChovin:in: Na odnu tetemu,”mu," KniKniz'nyji.nyj ugol, no. 8 (19(1922),22), 59. 69 Russian Formalism

did so in order to emphemphasizeasize the holism of the literary work and others its generative naturenature.. The firstfirst grgroupoup cannot be defineddefined with any precisiprecision.on. It in­in- cludes some Formalists who susubscribedbscribed fullyto the organic model ((ZirmunskijZirmunskij and A. SkafSkaftymov),tymov), others who resorted to this meta­meta- phor only occasionally ((chenbaum),Ejchenbaum), and still others for whomwhom the holisholistictic study of the liliteraryterary work was jujustst a step to the generative model (M. PetrovsPetrovskij).kij). ConseConsequently,quently, the term "mor­“mor- phology"phology” subsumed a wide range of meaningmeanings.s. For ZZirmunskijirmunskij it was equivalent to taxtaxonomy,onomy, which "des“describescribes and systematizes poetic devices"devices” prior to the study of their "stylist“stylisticic functionsin the typologically most essentessentialial poetic worksworks.”3."3 For Echenbaum,jchenbaum, morpmorphologyhology meant something akin to formalanatanatomy,4 omy,4 whwhereasereas for PetrovPetrovskijskij it included both the anatomy of the work (st(staticatic description) and its physphysiologyiology (dynamic funfunctioning).5ctioning).5 In gener­gener- al, the term "m“morphology”orphology" was not as crucial forthese Formalists as other terterms,ms, such as "organis“organism.”m." But forthe Formalists em­em- phasizing the genegenerativerative nature of the workwork—above-above all Vladimir PrProppopp and MiMichailchail PetrovskiPetrovskijj in his later writinwritings—“mor-gs-"mor­ phology"phology” was a key term and they used it in a very restricted sense. To ununderstandderstand this as well as the concept of "organi“organism”sm" we must examine the biological theories ununderlyingderlying morpmorphologicalhological FormaFormalism.lism. Emanuel RadlRad] has stated that "in“in biologybiology,, from the eighteenth centcenturyury onwards it has been believed that the quintessence of an organism is revealed by its form andandstructurestructure.”6 ."6 There were two opposing theoretical views explaining the actual formsof organic bodibodies.es. Georges Cuvier ((1769—1832), 1769- 1832 ), the fatherof paleopaleontologyntology and comcomparativeparative anatanatomy,omy, described the organism by proceed­proceed- ing frofromm the parts to the wholewhole,, the latter conceived as the

3. "Za“ZadacidaCi poetipoetiki,”ki," Voprosy teorii literatury:literatmy: StatStat’i'i I9I61916—1926-I926 (Leningrad, 191928),28), p. 5555.· 4. MolodoMolodojj TolstoTolstojj (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 191922),22), p. 8. 5. "M“Morfologijaorfologija puskinskpuskinskogoogo 'Vy‘Vystrela,’”strela,' " ProbProblemylemy poetiki,poétiki, ed. V. Ja.13. BrBrjusovjusov (Mo(Moscow,scow, 191925),25), p. 18182.2. 6. The History ofofBiological Biological Theories, tr. E. ]. HaHattfieldfield (L(London,ondon, 191930),30), p. 12129.9.

7700 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

"correlation“correlation of partsparts.”." An organism was a funfunctionalctional system in which each element acqacquiresuires a specificspecific position accordaccordinging to its funfunction.ction. The holistholisticic nature of the organism and the func­func- tionality of its parts were accepted as premises by Johannjohann WolfWolf-­ gang Goethe (1(1749—1832),749-1832), the pioneer of morphologmorphology.y. GoetGoethe,he, howevhowever,er, did not proceed from thethe indiindividualvidual organism but instead from the thegeneral general whole-thewhole—the a priori "ult“ultimateimate phe­phe- nomennomenon”—toon"-to the individualindividualorganism, organism, an actual transformation of this phenomenphenomenon.on. He envisioned morphmorphologyology as a science concerned "with“with organic shapes ...... their formation and trans­trans- formationformation.”7."7 .BecauseBecause of their diffdifferenterent points of departure, CuviCuvierer and Goethe emphaemphasizedsized two aspects of the concept of the typetype.. For Cuvier, organisms belonging to a spspeciecificfic type could vary from one another only in their peripherperipheralal partsparts.. He believedbelieved,, as William Coleman has observedobserved,, that "the“the funfunctionallyctionally inintegratedtegrated animal, a spspecificecific typtype,e, could not signifisignificantly vary in any of its parts or operoperationsations without abruptly perishingperishing.”8."8 GoeGoethe’sthe's no­no- tion of nature as a continual transformation produced an op­op- posite view of the typetype.. He saw biolobiologicalgical wholes as Dauer im Wechsel (continuity in changchange),e), as creative forms or processes rather than static correlatiocorrelations.ns. Ernst CassCassirerirer succinctly sumsumma-ma­ rized the diffdifferenceerence between these two great biologbiologists,ists, whom he called "morph“morphologicalological idealistsidealists.”." According to Cassirer, "Cuv“Cuvierier advocated a ststaticatic viewView of organic naturenature;; Goethe a genetic or dynamic viewview.. The former laidlaidits stress upon the constconstancy,ancy, the latter on the modifiabilityfiability of organic typestypes.”9."9 With these two notions of organism in mind we may return to the FormalistsFormalists.. Let us begin with those who sharshareded Cuvier'sCuvier’s static notion of the organisorganism.m. Some of their isolated criticisms of the mechanismechanistictic model have already been mentmentioned.ioned. The general disagreement between the mechanistmechanisticic and morphologmorphologicalical ap-

.7_7. "V“Vorarbeitenorarbeiten zu einer PhysiologiePhysiologic der PflanzPflanzen,"en," Goethes Werke (Weimar, 181887—1912),87-1912), sec. 2, vol. 6, p. 293. 8. GeorGeorgesges Cuvier: ZooloZoologislgist (Cambridge, MasMass,s., 191964),64), p. 3. 9. "Structuralism“Structuralism in Modern LinguistLinguistics,"ics," Word I1 (19(1945),45), 10106.6.

771I Russian Formalism

proaproaches,ches, however, is determined by their oppopposingosing notions ooff teleologteleology,y, which must be examined more fully. In his introduc­introduc- tion to the Russian translation of Oskar Walzel'sWalzel’s boobook,k, The Prob­Prob- lem of FormForm in Poetry, VikViktor tor ZZirmunskijirmunskijpointed out the ambiguitambiguityy inherent in SSklovskij’sklovskij's programmatic slogan "art“art as devicedevice.”." On the one hand, the device provides a pupurposiverposive explanation of art-asart—as a means of affaffectingecting the perceiver'sperceiver’s rereceptionception (the princi­princi- ple of de-famide-familiarization).liarization). On the other, it provides a funfunctionalctional explanation of art-asart—as a means of affectingthe teleological orga­orga- nization of the work (the manipulmanipulationation of extra-artistic materiamaterial).l). ZZirmunskijirmunskij unequiunequivocallyvocally rerejectedjected the purposive explanation of art. He argued that the aesthetic effectof the work is a bundle of mulmultifarioustifarious consequences which cannot be reduced to de­de- familiarfamiliarizationization aloalone.ne. The perception of the work is not limited to the purpuree enenjoymentjoyment of selfself-centered-centered devidevicesces but "im“implicitlyplicitly it includes cognitivecognitive,, ethicalethical,, or religioreligiousus elementelements.”10s."10 This is es­es- pecially valid for liteliterature,rature, ZZirmunskijirmunskij contincontinues,ues, bebecausecause its matematerial—language—isrial-language-is not purely formal as is the material of music, but always carries meaning. In additadditionion to this linglinguisticuistic meaning, literature as a thematthematicic art ememploysploys trtranslinguisticanslinguistic meanings which it shsharesares with other thematthematicic arts such as paint­paint- ing. Thus, ZZirmunskijirmunskij concludesconcludes,, the ststrictlyrictly formalisformalistictic apprapproachoach to art practiced by the theoreticians of OPOOPOjAZJAZ is incapable of dealing with literature in its totality and must be augmentaugmenteded by thethematicmatic studistudies.es. "The“The study of poetry as art requires attention to be paid to its themthematicatic aspect, to the very selection of the theme as well as to its construction, comcompositionalpositional elaboratielaboration,on, and combina­combina- tion with other themesthemes.”11." 11 The inclusion of thematthematicsics into liliteraryterary studies provided ZZir-ir­ munskimunskijj with furfurtherther ammuammunitionnition agaiagainstnst the definitiondefinition of art as an effeffectect upon the perceiver. Thematics links literature not only to other thematic arts but to the extra-artisextra-artistictic spspherehere as well, and hence to general culture. Because the culturculturalal configurationfiguration and

1010.. "K“K voprosu o 'formal‘formal’nom'nom metometode,'”de,"' reprinted in VoprosVoprosyy teoriitearii literatury,literatmy, p. 161. 1111.. IbiIbid.,d., p. 16169.9.

7722 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors the place of literature within it are in constant flux, to seek the essence of literature in the reaction of readers would be futile. Their reactions change as the culture changchanges,es, and each new readreadinging in a shifshiftingting culturculturalal milieu will bring aboaboutut a new per­per- ception of the work. Therefore, to study literature from the readereader’sr's point of view would lead the student of liliteratureterature to a relatirelativismvism that would threaten the ververyy idenidentitytity of the workwork.. CurCuriously,iously, ZZirmunskijirmunskij ststatedated his distaste for ReRezepzionsdsthetikzepzionsiisthetik most clearly in his refutrefutationation not of SSklovskijklovskij but of TynTynjanov.janov. "F“Furtherurther research in this dirdirectionection leads to a theortheoryy accordaccordinging to which in diffdifferenterent periods diffdifferenterent elements can become the dominant of the same work, i.e., can acquire 'constructive'‘constructive’ rele­rele- vancevance...... In other worwords:ds: the work of art is not 'formed'‘formed’ by the author but by the reader and the hihistorystory of criticism and readreaders’ers' taste rereplacesplaces histhistoricalorical poetics as the study of the change in literary formsand stylesstyles.”12." 1 2 This statement, howevehowever,r, should not lead us to conclude that ZZirmunskijirmunskijidentified the teleologteleologyy of the artistic device with the intention of the artisartist.t. DesDespitepite his didisagreementsagreement with the mecha­mecha- nistic FormaliFormalists,sts, ZZirmunskijirmunskij shsharedared their rerejectionjection of psychol­psychol- ogiogism.sm. "E“Everyvery work of arart,”t," he wrote in the introduction to his Byron and Pu§kin,Puskin, "has“has a spspecialecial kind of ideal existenexistence—fullyce-fully autonomous and independent of the subsubjectivejective processes in the creator'screator’s and perceiver'sperceiver’s consciousneconsciousness.”ss." Following this preceprecept,pt, ZZirmunskijirmunskij concenconcentratedtrated "a“abovebove all on the study of works them­them- selves. The writer'swriter’s '‘personality’personality' and in particular his empiempirical,rical, biographical personality, his humanhuman—all-all too huhuman—psychol-man-psychol­ ogy araree thus exclexcluded,uded, as well as the study of the milieu that educated and formed himhim.”13."1 3 NevNevertheless,ertheless, ZZirmunskijirmunskij did not subscsubscriberibe to the extreme social determinism advoadvocatedcated by Brik. EvgenijEvgenzj Onegin, in ZZir-ir­ munskij'smunskij’s opinion, demonsdemonstratestrates a certain degdegreeree of poetic indi-

121 2.. "V“Vokrugokrug PoetikiPoétiki OpoOpojaza:jaza: Poetika:Poétika: SbornikiSbomiki pop0 teoriitearii poepoétic'eskogojazyka.ticeskogo jazyka. PgrdPgrd.. 19191919,"," ibidibid.,., p. 356. 13. Bajron iiPus'kin: Puikin:Iz istoriiislorii romantitromantic'eskoj eskoj poemypoémy (Leni(Leningrad,ngrad, 191924),24), p. 8 and pp. 19197—98.7-98.

73 Russian Formalism

viduavidualitylity in relation to the works of other authorsauthors,, which is undoubtundoubtedlyedly related to the idiosyncrasies of Puskin'sPuskin’s personalitpersonality.y. Yet this diffdifferentialerential qualityquality,, he insistedinsisted,, is the property of the literary text, and the critic must inferit from thethework itself and not from circucircumstancesmstances that are external to it. Thus, without denying the impimportanceortance of the author forthe work, ZZirmunskijirmunskij was not intinterestederested in the artist as a concrconcreteete psychophysipsychophysicalcal ententity.ity. RatheRather,r, he conceived of the artist as a specificspecific finalfinal cause who gave rise to the work as a unifiedunified whole. InInsteadstead of speaking of the writer'swriter’s intentiintentions,ons, ZZirmunskijirmunskij spspokeoke of the "un“unityity of the artistic task"task” or the "general“general form-giving principprinciple,”le," which he even called "ent“entelechy”'4—theelechy"14-the Aristotelian term used by the neo­neo- vitalists at the beginning of this centurycentury.. Though he rerejectedjected the purposive imimplicationsplications of the formula "art“art as devidevice,”ce," ZZirmunskijirmunskij did endorse its funfunctionalctional meaning. The teleology of the device rests in the funfunctionction it performs within the work. "P“Poeticsoetics studies the literary work as an aestheaesthetictic system determined by the ununityity of the artistic goal, i.e.i.e.,, as a system of devidevicesces [my italicitalics].s]. Thus, in the study of the artistic work we consider memetricaltrical constconstruction,ruction, verbal style, plot comcomposition,position, and the selection of a particular theme as devicdevices,es, i.e.i.e.,, as aesthetaesthet-­ ically relevant factsdetermined by their artistic teleologyteleology.”15."1 5 Although ZZirmunskijirmunskij believed that this interpretation of the device was inherent in SSklovskij’sklovskij's slogan, there is a substsubstantialantial diffdifferenceerence between the two theorists'theorists’ views of the role of the device within the work. For SSklovskijklovskij the device simplsimplyy trans­trans- formed the nonnonartisticartistic material into an artistic formform;; for ZZir-ir­ munskij the devidevicece helped to meet certain reqrequirementsuirements within the work in which it occurroccurred.ed. SSklovskijklovskij spspokeoke of the work as a "sum“sum of devicesdevices”;"; ZZirmunskijirmunskij called it a "system“system of devicesdevices.”." Within an additive whole, ititis is the presence or absence ofofa a device that mattersmatters;; within a systsystem,em, the presence of the device is taken

14. ValeriValerij} BrjBrjusovusov i nasledienarledie Pu5kina:Pus'kina: OpytOpyl sravnitel'nosmvnitel’no—stilistic’eskogo-stilisticeskogo issledovanijaissledovamja (Petersburg, 191923),23), p.p._6.,6. 1515.. "K“K voprosu o 'formal‘formal'nom'nom metometode,”de,"' p. 15158.8.

7744 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors for granted and it is its interrelatedness to other devices that counts. The concept of the literary work as a system necessnecessitateditated a redefinitionredefinition of the concept of the device. It could no longer be seen as a pupurposiverposive manipumanipulationlation of materimaterial,al, but instinsteadead must be viewed as a funfunctionalctional exploitation of this manipulatimanipulation.on. A poetic device, forexample rhyme, was not to be desdescribedcribed as a particular sound repetition but as a funfunctionalctional element within the literliteraryary wholewhole.. To definerhyme as "a“a sound identity occurring at the end of a line from thethe last stressed vowel on"on” would be to treat it nonfunonfunctionally.nctionally. This definidefinitiontion is inadequate, accordaccordinging to ZZir-ir­ munskijmunskij,, because it concerns the sound aspaspectect of rhyme and virtually ignores its comcompositionalpositional role as a marker of the rhyth­rhyth- mic series and the strophic organizatioorganization.n. Rhyme, said ZZirmunskij,irmunskij, is "every“every sound repetition which carries an organizing functionin the metrical comcompositionposition of a poempoem.”16."16 The redefinitionof the device introduces a furthercomcomplica- plica­ tion into the binary model of mechanistmechanisticic FormaFormalism.lism. SSklovskij’sklovskij's opposioppositiontion of material to device does not allow for the funfunc-c­ tionality of the devicedevice,, because it does not posit any soursourcece of unity for the fufunctionalnctional elements of the work. Therefore, ZZir-ir­ munskimunskijj decided to augment this oppoppositionosition with a third termterm,, "the“the teleological concept of style as the unity of devicesdevices.”17."1 7 This notion would accoaccountunt forthe interconnectedness of the devices of a text as well as the essentessentialial wholeness of every work of art. · "Only“Only if the concept of 'style'‘style’ is introducedintroduced into poetipoetics,”cs," ZZir-ir­ munskimunskijj arguargued,ed, "can“can we consider the basic conceptual frame­frame- work of this discidisciplinepline (material, device, ststyle)yle) complecomplete.”18te." 18 ZZirmunskij’sirmunskij's critique of the mechanistic model and his empha­empha- sis on the funfunctionalctional ininterrelatednessterrelatedness of elements within the work insinspiredpired severseveralal contemcontemporaryporary literary scholarsscholars.. Among them, the one closest to his position was Aleksandr SkSkaftymov—aaftymov-a pro-

i6.16. RifRifma,ma, eiieé' istoistorljarija i teoteon'jarija (P(Petersburg,etersburg, i91923),23), p. g.9. i17. 7. "Za“ZadacidaCi poetpoetiki,”iki," p. 23. i8.18. IbiIbid.,d., p. 5i.51.

7755 Russian FFormalism onnalism

fessor of Russian literature at the Saratov UniUniversity.versity. Though actually quitquitee remote from the the mainstream of FormalisFormalism,m, SkSkaftymov’saftymov's writings during the early twenties bear the clear stamp of what I term the morpmorphologicalhological metmetaphor.aphor. His embrembrac-ac­ ing of this model was most likely the result of personal contact with ZZirmunskij,irmunskij, who was conducting a course in theoretheoreticaltical poetics at the Saratov UniUniversityversity at this timetime.. Yet, despite their sharing of the organicist view, ZZirmunskijirmunskij and SkafSkaftymovtymov reacted against two diffdifferenterent theoretical positipositions.ons. ZZirmunskijirmunskij argued agagainstainst the relativrelativismism of ReRezepzionsdsthetik,zepzionsiisthetik, whereas SkafSkaftymov’stymov's target was the genetic method which attattemptedempted to explain the literary work through the extraliterary phenomena surrsurroundingounding its originorigin.. As I shshowedowed earlier, this method had already been criticized by the mecmechanistichanistic FormalisFormalists,ts, who argued that the comcompositionposition of a work is not determined by the factors of byt present during its creation but instinsteadead by the general laws of literary productiproduction.on. For the organicist SkafSkaftymov,tymov, however, the key to understanding the literary comcompositionposition lay in its inner teleologyteleology.. SkafSkaftymovtymov treated the work as a totalittotalityy ununifiedified from without by an artistic intention which within the work becomes a form­form- giving dominant. "A“A study whose aim is to reveal the naturnaturee of a teleologically formed obobjectject must inevinevitablyitably conceive of this ob­ob- ject as a unity. This concept is then expressed in the description of the relations between the constconstitutiveitutive elements and the general system of coordinations and subordinations which exist within the [artistic] wholewhole.”."19 All the components of the work are drawn into this system of relatrelations,ions, including those thematic compo­compo- nents that in some respectrespectss may exceed the limits of the work. "El“Elementsements of psychologypsychology,, histhistory,ory, sociologsociology,y, and so forth, frag­frag- menmentarilytarily contained in the work, are not interesting in themselves but only in the teleological thrust they obtain in the general ununityity of the wholewhole.”20."20

ig.19. "Temat“Tematiceskajaii"eskaja kompozkompozicijaicija romana Idiot," TvorceskijTvorc'eskij put'put’ Dostoeveskogo, ed. N. L. BrodskiBrodskijj (Lening(Leningrad,rad, i91924),24), p. i3135.5. 20. IbidIbid.. 76 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

SkafSkaftymovtymov applied his teleological apprapproachoach most successfully to the study of bybyliny—Russianliny--Russian oral heroic epics. In his mono­mono- gragraph,ph, The Poetics and Genesis of Byliny, he presentpresenteded a theoretical alternative to the genetic study of folk poetry elaborated by Veselovskij and his followersfollowers.2|.2 1 This so-called ethnogrethnographicaphic school had aimed at establishing a link between the elements of the bylina and the histhistoricalorical events that susupposedlypposedly gave rise to individual compositicompositions.ons. The "original"“original” bylina was presumably dilutdiluteded and transformedin latlaterer renditirenditions,ons, so that it was difdifficultficult to discover. NevNevertheless,ertheless, VeselovsVeselovskij’skij's school believed that a thorough study of the variants would ultimately lead to the kernel of the bybylinalina which would didirectlyrectly reflectreflect an actual histhistoricalorical situatisituation.on. Against this concepticonception,on, SkafSkaftymovtymov posed his oppoppositeosite view that byliny are litliteraryerary comcompositionspositions unifiunifieded from witwithin,hin, their elements determined by their fufunctionsnctions within these wholes and only secondarily by their extraliterary signsignificance.ificance. In oppopposingosing the "ethnographic"“ethnographic” schoolschool,, SkafSkaftymovtymov offered anan all-encall-encompassingompassing critique of the inducinductivetive apprapproachoach in literary studiesstudies.. He rerejectedjected it on two groundgrounds.s. EpistEpistemologically,emologically, he claimclaimed,ed, a purpuree inductinductionion is a fictiofiction:n: "It“It is no secret that every observation and classificlassificationcation of a multmultiplicityiplicity of varied facts is always performed accoraccordingding to some a priori principleprinciple.”." From a practical standpoint, he argued that the inductive method is incapable of dealing with the organic wholeness of bybyliny.liny. Poking fun at the inducinductivists,tivists, he quippedquipped,, "we“we walked araroundound it, we discerned some of its fefeatures,atures, and without grasgraspingping their inter­inter- nal signifisignificancecance or their essence, we began to explain their growth and develodevelopment.pment. ComComparingparing random bits and pieces of the bybylina,lina, we fragmented it, and then we combined those piecpieces,es, believing that we had recreated the extinct formsofofthe the past. Out of a living organism we made mechanicsmechanics.”22."22 AccordAccordinging to SkafSkaftymov,tymov, any analysis of byliny as functionally intintegratedegrated organisms would reveal a singsingle,le, dominant, composi-

221. i. Poi!tikaPoetika i genezis bylin (M(Moscow,oscow, 191924).24). 22. IbiIbid.,d., p. 4949;; p. 43.

77 Russian Formalism

tional goalgoal:: the effect of surprise, which all the elements of the bybylinalina help to establestablish.ish. The basic binary structure of the bylinais conditioned by this gogoal,al, consisting of two parts and portraying two main protagprotagonists.onists. It begins with an introduction in which the hero and his adversaradversaryy are contrastcontrasted,ed, the hero as a rather inept figurefigure (t(toooo young, in fragile health, and so on) and the villain as the possessor of a superhuman power. The second part of the bybylinalina dedepictspicts the fightbetween the herheroo andand his enemyenemy.. From the introductintroductoryory description of the two it appears that the hero does not stand a chance. InIndeed,deed, the actual fightfight is very short and the vanquished party gives up with only a token re­re- sistancesistance.. The appeappealal of the bybylina,lina, howevehowever,r, rests in the factthat the loser is not the underunderdogdog of the introducintroduction—thetion-the hehero—butro-but the villaivillain,n, whose success seemed to be guaranteedguaranteed.. The hero'shero’s victory ends the bybylina,lina, for "immed“immediatelyiately after the decisive mo­mo- ment, the progression of the plot endsends;; the singer has nothing more to speak ababout.”23out."23 Only a brief formulformulaicaic conclusion ex­ex- pressing the gratitude of those saved by the hero or the general joy over his victory is attached to the finished ststory.ory. All the elements of the bylina, whether formalor thethematic,matic, are subsubordinatedordinated to the goal of creating an ununexpectedexpected solutisolution.on. For exexample,ample, narration and description alternate in order to rein­rein- forcethe bylinabylina’s's binarbinaryy articulatioarticulation.n. In the introduction descrip­descrip- tion prevailsprevails;; in the fightfight narration doesdoes.. MorMoreover,eover, the descrip­descrip- tion focuses solely on the two main protprotagonists.agonists. All the secondarsecondaryy characters remain undunderdevelopederdeveloped since they serve merely as the backgrbackgroundound against which the two main chcharactersaracters opoperate.erate. The total subordisubordinationnation of elements to a singsinglele structuring principle provides SkafSkaftymovtymov with a base from which to attack the genetic methodmethod,, which had concenconcentratedtrated on themthematicatic de­de- tails-thetails—the names of chcharactersaracters and localitlocalities,ies, the social organiza­organiza- tions depictdepicted,ed, and so on-inon—in order to reconstruct the origins of the bybylina.lina. However, as SkafSkaftymovtymov convincingconvincinglyly arguedargued,, these

23. IbiIbid.,d., p. 6i.61. 78 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors details are ututterlyterly secondary in the teleological structure of Rus­Rus- sian heroic epics. For this reasoreason,n, names are freely altered from one performanceto another even by the same narratnarrator,or, and the social intinteractionseractions among the charcharactersacters do not reflectreflect the ide­ide- ology of their time but the requirements of the plot structure. SkSkaftymov’saftymov's conclusion that "every“every genetic study of the bybylinalina requires a preliminary description of the inner constitutive meaning of its parts"parts” epitepitomizesomizes not only this study but the works of "morph“morphological”ological" Formalism in genergeneral.24aJ.24 Although both ZZirmunskijirmunskij and SkSkaftymovaftymov understunderstoodood the lit­lit- erary work as a fufunctionallynctionally integintegratedrated organorganism,ism, there was a slight diffdifferenceerence in the way they conceived of this orgaorganism.nism. ZZirmunskijirmunskij saw it above all as a harmony of functional partsparts,, whereas SkSkaftymovaftymov saw it as a hiehierarchicallyrarchically organized whole in which the funfunctionction of some parts was determined by other, dom­dom- inant ones. This didivergencevergence results from the diffdifferenterent aspects of Cuvier'sCuvier’s zoological theories ememphasizedphasized by each FormalisFormalist.t. To ZZirmunskij,irmunskij, paleontologpaleontologyy seemed the more valid metapmetaphor.hor. If the work was a system of parts whose fufunctionalnctional correlations constituted a harmonious and unchangunchangeableeable whole, it resembled more a dead fossil animal animal than a living, changing orgorganism.anism. InIndeed,deed, ZZirmunskijirmunskij comcomparedpared the task of the student of style (the crucial concept of his art theory) to that of the paleon­paleon- tologtologist.ist. "J“justust as a paleontologist can reconstruct from a few little bones of an unearunearthedthed animanimal—providedal-provided he knows their functfunction—theion-the entire ststructureructure of the animal, the student of ar­ar- tististictic style ...... can recoreconstructnstruct in general terms anan‘organically organically inintegratedtegrated structurestructure,, 'pr‘predict’edict' its prepresupposedsupposed formsforms.”25."25 On the other handhand,, SkafSkaftymov’stymov's treatment of literatuliterature,re, es­es- pecially the bybylina,lina, was more like CuCuvier’svier's comparative anatomy and theory of the biological type. SkafSkaftymovtymov was keenly aware that there was consconsiderableiderable variability among the individual by­by- liny, but he saw this variability as limited to secondary elements

24. IbiIbid.,d., p. 12127.7. 25. "ZadaCi“Zadaci poetipoetiki,"ki," p. 51.

7799 Russian FFonnalism onnalisrn

which were functfunctionallyionally insignificant.insignificant. CuCuvier’svier's notion of the variability of the individuaindividualsls of a given species was ququiteite similar. As William Coleman has observobserved,ed, "C“Cuvieruvier did not deny the existence of variatiovariation.n. His plan was to reduce variation to its proper limits, and the anatomical rules provided the initinitialial key to the probproblem.lem. From the primary factof the intintegralegral harmony of the organism it was recognized that certain organs were more imimportantportant to the animal than othersothers:: heart, lungs, nervous sys­sys- tem were more imimportantportant than hair, skin, color, or size. These circumstances demanded a certain ststabilityability or invariability of the cencentraltral organs and permitted the almost unlimunlimitedited variation of peripherperipheralal fefeatures.”26atures."26 In like manner, the essential elements of the bybylina—itslina-its two main protagprotagonistsonists and two narrative se­se- quequences—wouldnces-would correspond to the indispensindispensableable parts of the organism and its secondarsecondaryy features-thefeatures—the names, social status of the heroheroes,es, societsocietalal mores present in it-wouldit—would correspond to the hair, skin, coloring, and so on. It is interesting to notnotee that SkafSkaftymov’stymov's concern with the variability of the individual compositions belobelongingnging to a genre helped to prepare the way foranotheranother‘brand brand of morpmorphologicalhological FormalisFormalism,m, which I shall discuss presentpresently.ly. This apapproachproach was insinspiredpired by GoeGoethe’sthe's trantransformationalsformational concept of organic form. SkSkaftymov’saftymov's characterization of the bybylina,lina, for example, has a distinctly Goethean rinring:g: "E“Everythingverything in the bylina is in flux. ItItss existence always was and will be in an ununinterruptedinterrupted creative process begun no one knows whwhere,ere, when, or by whom. The bylina is not something readready-made,y-made, but is always in a state of becbecoming.”27oming."27 DesDespitepite this assertiassertion,on, however, SkafSkaftymov’stymov's study pursues not the process of becoming per se, but rather what was stable and unchangunchangeableeable in it. As a search forfor the functional invariant in a genregenre,, it is ququiteite diffdifferenterent from those Formalist genre studies searching fortransfo transformationalrmational rulrules.es. Vladimir Propp and MiMichailchail PetrPetrovskijovskij were the two most

26. GeorGeorgesges Cuvier, p. 143. 27. PoetikaPoétika i genezis bybylin,lin, p. 36.

80 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors prominent Formalists to transftransferer Goethe'sGoethe’s morphology fromthe organic to the literliteraryary form. Although the relatirelationshiponship between the "st“staticatic morphmorphologists”ologists" and Cuvier was only imimplicitplicit (his name is absent from their writings) the "transformational“transformational mor­mor- phologphologists”ists" proclaimed their spspiritualiritual indeindebtednessbtedness to Goethe openly through the epigraphs in both PrPropp’sopp's Morphology of the FolktaleFolktale and PetrPetrovskij’sovskij's "Mor“Morphologyphology of the Short StStory.”ory." The imimportanceportance of these epigraphs for a proper understandunderstandinging of their conceptual framework cannot be oversoverstated.tated. ProPropppp him­him- self made this clear in his answer to Levi-SLévi-Strauss’strauss's review of the 19195858 EngEnglishlish edition of his bookbook,, claiming that the omission of GoeGoethe’sthe's epigraphs in the EngEnglishlish version had caused Levi­Levi- Strauss to misundermisunderstandstand his methodmethod.28. 28 The historical context sursurroundingrounding the publication of the two "morphologies"“morphologies” is also notewnoteworthy,orthy, forthey followed very closely on the publication of Goethes morphologischemorphologisohe SchriSohriftenften by Wilhelm TroTroll.ll. AccordAccordinging to Horst OppOppel—theel-the historian of the morphmorphologicalological method in German liliteraryterary studiesstudies—this-this publication "p“pavedaved the way forthe acceptance of morpmorphologyhology as method.method.”29 "29 TrollTroll’s's edition of Goethe apappearedpeared in 191926,26, PetrovsPetrovskij’skij's "Mo“Morphologyrphology of the Short Story"Story” in 1927, and PrPropp’sopp's book in 191928.3028.30 Besides the external signs of kinshikinshipp between GoeGoethe’sthe's meth­meth- od and those of PrProppopp and PetrPetrovskij,ovskij, there is an essentessentialial sim­sim- ilarity in their epistepistemologicalemological prepresuppositions.suppositions. Goethe con­con- ststructedructed morphologmorphologyy as a science on the assumassumptionption that despidespitete

28. Propp wrote, "Professor“Professor Levi-Strauss knows my book only in the EngEnglishlish translatiotranslation.n. But its translator allowed himself an ununpermissiblepermissible liberty. Not un­un- derstderstandinganding the funfunctionction of the epigraphs which at firstfirst glance do not seem to be explicitly connconnectedected with the text, he considerconsidereded them useless ornaments and barbarously omitted them ...... all these epigraphs ...... had the purpose of ex­ex- pressing what was left unsaid in the text of my book ...... "" ("(“StrukturnoeStrukturnoe i isto­isto- riceskoe izucenie vo!Sebnovolsebnojj skazki,skazki,"" Fol'klorFol’klor i dejdejstvitel'nost'stvitel'nost' [Mo[Moscow,scow, i91976],76]. p. i3135).5). Levi-StrLévi-Strauss‘sauss's "L'An“L’Analysealyse morphologique des contes russesrusses,”," International journalof Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 3 ((1960) i 960) reviews the first English edition of PrPropp‘sopp's Morphology of the Folktale, ed. S. Pirkova-Pirkova-jakobson,Jakobson, tr. L. Scott (Bl(Bloom-oom­ ingtington,on, Ind.,1nd,, i91958).58). 29. Horst Oppel, MorphologischeMorphologisohe LiteraturwissenschaLileraturwissensehaftft (M(Mainz,ainz, i91947),47), p. i3.13. 30. PetrovskijPetrovskij,, "M“Morfologijaorfologija novelnovelly,”ly," ArArss Poetira,Poetica, vol. 1, ed. M. Petrovskij (M(Moscow,oscow, 191927),27), pp. 69-69—100;100; Propp, MorfMmfologijaologija skazkiskazhi (L(Leningrad,eningrad, i91928).28).

Br81 Russian Formalism

all the heterogeneitheterogeneityy of organic phenomena a singsinglele ununderlyingderlying principle ununitesites ththem.em. This idea occurred to him during a trip to ItItalyaly in i1786, 786, where he encountencounteredered new and exciting plantsplants.. "In“In this new manifold I encountencounteredered here the following idea became more and more vivid to meme:: namely that all the formsof plants perhaps developed from a singsinglele formform.. This in itself

would enable us to definedefine spspeciesecies and genera correctlycorrectly...... 3’31 "31 HiHiss search for the the archetypal plant or animal ((Urp Urpjlanzeflanze or Ur­Ur- tier) of which all the actual forms of a given species were metmeta-a­ morphoses is paralleled by PrPropp’sopp's and PetrPetrovskij’sovskij's search for the archetarchetypesypes undunderlyingerlying all the actual formsof the two genres that they dealt wiwith—theth-the fairy tale and the short storystory,, respec­respec— tivelytively.. And jujustst as Goethe conceconceivedived of organic forms as pro­pro- cesses rather than products, the two Formalists defineddefined their genres in terms of trtransformations,ansformations, not as sets of fixedfixed features. SignificantSignificantly,ly, each quoted Goethe'sGoethe’s statstatement,ement, "Gest“Gestaltenlehrealtenlehre ist VerVerwandlungslehre”wandlungslehre" (the theory of forms is the theory of trtransformations),ansformations), Propp choosing it as the epigraph for his eighth chapter and PetrPetrovskijovskijas the momottotto forhis entire ststudy.32udy. 32 This Goethean principle was the basis for their literary inquinquiries.iries. PrPropp’sopp's book is well known so I shall deal with it only brieflfly.y. It is noteworthy that his motives for studying fairy tales were similar to SkafSkaftymov’stymov's fororal heroic epicsepics:: dissatisdissatisfactionfaction with the genetic apprapproachoach previously usedused.. We can even catch an

3i.31. ltalienische[taliem'sche Reise:Raise: I, in GoethesGoethex Werke, sec. 1, vol. 30, p. 89. 32. "P“Paralipomenaaralipomena II," ibidibid.,., sec. 2, vol. 6, p. 446. The epigraphs of other chapters of PrPropp’sopp's book are from the followingwritings of GoetheGoethe:: "lnt“Introduc—roduc­ tion"tion”——“Vorarbeiten-"Vorarbeiten zu einer PhyPhysiologiesiologie der PflanzPflanzen,”en," ibiibid.,d., pp. 29298—99;8-99; "1s“lstt chapter"chapter"——“Versuch-"Versuch einer allgallgemeinenemeinen KnochenlehreKnochenlehre,"," ibiibid.,d., vol. 8, pp. 2221—22; 21-2 2; "2nd“2nd chapter"chapter"—Tag--Tag- undjahresheundjahresheftefte 171780,80, ibidibid.,., sec. 1, vol. 35, p. 16; "9th“9th chap­chap— ter"ter”——“Brief-"Brief an Frau Stein, 9.9, Junijuni 171787,"87," ibidibid.,., sec. 4, volvol.. 8, pp. 232-33.232—33. It is noteworthy that Skaftymov too uses a quotation from Goethe as the epigepigraphraph for his essay on Dostoevskij'sDostoevskij’s Idiot (see note 1919).). However, in contrast to PetrovsPetrovskijkij and Propp he does not quote fromGoethe'sGoethe’s scientificscientific works or diaries but from FaustFaustand and the two lines used, "Willst“Willst du dich am Ganzen erquickerquicken,en, I/ So musst du das Ganze im Kleinsten erblickerblicken”en" ("If(“If you want to enjoy the whole I/ You must learnlearn to see the whwholeole in the smallest part"part"),), do not pertain to transformationbut to the relatrelationshipionship of the parts and wholes.

82 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors echo of SkafSkaftymov’stymov's stress on descriptive over genetic invesinvestiga-tiga­ tion in PrPropp’sopp's claim that the discussion of the morpmorphologyhology of the fairy taletale must precede the question of its histhistoricalorical rooroots.ts. "Hist“Historicalorical studies may appear more interesting than mor­mor- phological invesinvestigationstigations ...... but the general question of where a tale comes from remaremains,ins, on the wholewhole,, ununsolved,solved, though even here laws of genesis and development undouundoubtedlybtedly exist that are still awaiting elaborationelaboration...... HoHowever, wever, we maintain that as long as there is no correct morphologmorphologicalical study there can be no cor­cor- rect histhistoricalorical study. If we do not know how to dissolve the tale into its constituent parts we cannot carry out a comcomparativeparative studystudy...... [And] if we cannot comcomparepare one tale with another how can we study the relation of the tale to religion or mythmyth?”33?"33 This quotation is indiindicativecative of the uniuniqueque didirectionrection PrProppopp took in his morphologmorphologicalical study of the fairy taletale.. Unlike all the other Formalists emplemployingoying the biological modelmodel,, he accepacceptedted the challenge of induinductivective poetipoetics,cs, attattemptingempting to isolate the smallest constituent of the gegenrenre he studiedstudied.. In fact, he accused VeselovskiVeselovskij—thej-the main representrepresentativeative of inductive poetics--ofpoetics—of not being analytic enougenough,h, pointing out that the motifmotifss he ad­ad- vanced as the minimal elements of narrative were readily divisi­divisi- ble into smaller units. PrProppopp was not merely mormoree analytic than VeselovskijVeselovskij;; the real diffdifferenceerence between them was the manner in which they tackled the problem of the minimal unit. This differenceresembles the contrast between the "mechanistic"“mechanistic” and "m“morphological”orphological" con­con- cepts of literatuliterature.re. VVeselovskij, eselovskij, a true indinductivist, uctivist, believed that the part is prior to the wholewhole,, not only for the sake of the de­de- scriptive procedure but in the genesis of the work as wellwell.. For this reasoreason,n, in describing individual motifmotifss he paid no attention to their relatiorelationshipnship to the wholes they comcomposed,posed, since the lat­lat- ter were posterior combinaticombinations.ons. PrPropp’sopp's organicism prevented him from being an induinductivistctivist of this typetype.. He agreed with Ves­Ves- elovskielovskijj that the "p“partart is prior to the whole for descriptivedescriptive pur-

33. MorfMmfologologijafia skazki,xkazki, p. 26. 83 Russian Formalism

posesposes,”," but he would not claim that it was prior in an absolute sense. His defidefinition of the minimal unit of the fairy tale treated it teleologically in terms of its role within the wholewhole.. On the most abstract levellevel,, he conceived of the fairy taletale as a narrative about actions performed by certain characharacters.cters. And it is the actioactions,ns, and not the interchanginterchangeableeable charcharacters,acters, that count. ChCharacters,aracters, as carriers of these actioactions,ns, are funfunctionallyctionally indisindispensable,pensable, but what is imimportantportant is not their individindividualityuality but their fufunction,nction, that is, their "action“action defineddefined from the point of view of its rele­rele- vance for the course of actiaction.”on." Thus, PrPropp’sopp's definidefinitiontion of the minimal unit of the fairy tale as the "fun“functionction of acting charac­charac- ters"ters” difdiffersfers from VeselovsVeselovskij’skij's notion of the motif as minimal unit, not so much in that the former is smaller than the lattelatter,r, but that it is a part of a funfunctionallyctionally inintegratedtegrated wholewhole,, whereas the motif is a part of a mechanical aggregateaggregate.34.34 From what waswasjust just saidsaid,, it might seem that PrPropp’sopp's notion of the fufunctionalitynctionality of organic parts matches CuvierCuvier’s,'s, but in factit is quite close to GoethGoethe’s.e's. Goethe insisted upon the fufunctionalnctional definidefinitiontion of parts over the static descriptidescription.on. "“FunctionFunction cor­cor- rectly grasped is the being conceived in activityactivity.”." Thus, when "we“we are concerned with the human armarm,, [we are in factdealing] with the front legs of an animaanimal.”35l."35 The variety of forms these limbs can attain is almost unliunlimited,mited, but by acknowledging their functfunctionalional simisimilaritylarity a morphologist can study and comcomparepare ththem.em. It was through jujustst such a funfunctionalctional reduction that PrProppopp succeeded in estestablishingablishing thirty-one elements as the basic units of every fairy taletale.. These elements do not exist in isolation but are interlocked in a configuconfiguration—theration-the compositional scheme of the fairy tatale.le. The final test of PrPropp’sopp's method is not only to prove that all fairytales are composed of the same elements but of the same elements in an idenidenticaltical sequencesequence.. By comparing the schemes of various tales ProPropppp arrives at the invariantinvariant—the-the ulti­ulti- mate Ur-TUr-Typyp of which all fairy tales are transformatitransformations.ons.

34. IbiIbid.,d., p. 22; pp. 30-330—31;1 ; p. 29. 35. "P“Principesrincipes de philosophiephilosophic zoologiqzoologique:ue: II AbsAbschnitt,"chnitt," Goethes Werke, sec. 2, vol. 7, p. 200. 84 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

After discovering the generic invariant of the fairy tale tale (what PrProppopp called the comcomposition),position), he might have been expexpectedected to outline the laws gogoverningverning its transfotransformations.rmations. This aspect of morphologmorphologyy is consconspicuouslypicuously missing from his boobook,k, howevehowever.r. InInstead,stead, he discussed transformation in an article in the fourth volume of PoetikaPoétika published by the StStateate InstInstituteitute forthe HiHistorystory of the ArtsArts.. "Transformations“Transformations of the Fairy Tale"Tale” apappearedpeared sepa­sepa- rately from The MMorphology orpholog;y of the Folktale,Folktale, forreasons that I shall soon discudiscuss.ss. First let us consider the morphologmorphologicalical theories of Michail PetrovsPetrovskij.kij. PetrovsPetrovskij’skij's attattemptempt at a morphmorphologyology of the short ststoryory diffdiffersers from PrPropp’s,opp's, desdespitepite their common model. PetrPetrovskijovskij shows not the slightest interest in proceeding indinductivelyuctively fromthe min­min- imal units of the short story. The elementelementss of narrative with which he operoperatesates are defineddefined funfunctionally, ctionally, but are certainly not the simplest possibpossible.le. MoreoveMoreover,r, the material the two mor­mor- phologists consider didiffers.ffers. PrProppopp analyzed a genre that was no longer a vital art formform.. PetrPetrovskij’sovskij'sob objectject of study, on the other handhand,, was very much alive at the moment he attattemptedempted to de­de- scribe it. Consequently, his defidefinitions are much less formalized than PrPropp’s.opp's. The two genres also diffdifferer in their structurstructures.es. In the short ststoryory there are two tempotemporalral sequesequences—thatnces-that of the narrated event itself and that of its presentpresentation.ation. In the fairytale both the number of elements and their sequence are fixedfixed.. The only thing that can vary is the apappearancepearance of the performers of the funfunctions.ctions. ThereforTherefore,e, while PrProppopp could present a singsinglele sequesequentialntial formula forall fairy tatales,les, Petrovskij had to accoaccountunt fortwo levelslevels—the-the "dis“disposition”position" or temportemporalal sequence of eventsevents,, and the "composition"“composition” or narrative sequence of these eventsevents.. The pair, disdisposition—composition,position-composition, does not coincide pre­pre- I cisely with SSklovskij’sklovskij's oppositionopposition of story and plot. PetroPetrovskij,vskij, l unlike SSklovskij,klovskij, did not believe that the material of a prose work was !iflifee as suchsuch.. InInsteadstead he ememphasizedphasized that life as the material I of literature "is“is always restructurrestructureded liflifee ...... it is always a selec- 85 Russian Formalism

tition.”36on."36 Literary material is a semantsemanticallyically unifiedunified con figuratifiguration,on, a lifeendowed with spspeciecificfic meaning. For this reason Petrovskij ofoftenten used the term "plot"“plot” to desidesignategnate what SSklovskijklovskij meant by "s“story.”tory." In generalgeneral,, the terms "plot"“plot” and "dis“disposition”position" are inter­inter- changchangeableeable in PetrovPetrovskij’sskij's systsystem.em. The place of the short ststoryory as a genre, acaccordingcording to Pe­Pe- trotrovskij,vskij, exists between the anecdote and the novnovel.el. What dis­dis- tinguishes it fromthe novel is that it contains only a singsinglele event. It diffdiffersers from thethe anecdote in treating this singsinglele event not in isolation but as part of a larger context. Conceived in this wayway,, the minimal scheme of a short story'sstory’s disdispositionposition contains three partsparts:: the "k“kernelernel of the plot"plot” (that is, the event itselfitself),), and the two connconnectorsectors that link it to its larger contextcontext—the-the VorgesVergeschichtechichte or as PetrPetrovskijovskij hesitanhesitantlytly translated it in a footnote, "the“the plot prologprologue,”ue," and the NachgeNachgeschichte,schichte, "the“the plot epilogepilogue.”ue." The com­com- position of the short ststory,ory, or the presentpresentationation of its plot, has a corrcorrespondingesponding three-partthree—part scheme. First is an intintroductoryroductory "ex­“ex- position"position” which leads toward the "climax"“climax” of the ststoryory (napr­(napr- jaienie)jaiem'e) and culminculminatesates in what PetrovsPetrovskijkij calls the pointe, the mormoralal of the ststory.ory. The middle term of both the disposition and the comcompositionposition of the short storystory,, the "k“kernelernel of the plot"plot” and the "clima“climax,”x," can be furfurtherther subdivided into the "complicat“complication”ion" (wv(zavjazka),jazka), the "climax“climax proper"proper” or "knot“knot of the plot"plot” (the mo­mo- ment of highest tensitension),on), and the "resolution"“resolution” (razv(razvjazka).jazka). This scheme can be visualized as shown in the diagrdiagram.am.

Kernel of the Plot

DISPODISPOSITIONSITION VorgeVorgeschichteschichte . KnKnotot of the Plot NNachgeschichteachgeschichte . ------i·+II· -----iComomphcationplication———------ReResolutionsolution ----- COMPOCOMPOSITIONSITION ExpExpositionosition Climax Proper Pointe

Climax

In the second part of his study PetrPetrovskijovskijillus illustratestrates the trans-

36. "Morfo“Morfologijalogija novelnovelly,”ly," p. 72.

86 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors formationsof the basic scheme of the short story through spspecif-ecif­ ic examexamples.ples. The fourth tale of the firstfirst day of the Decameron is the simplest story analyzedanalyzed.. ItItss content is renderrendereded succinctsuccinctlyly in the short synopsis that introduces the tatale.le. "A“A monk, having fallen intointo a sin deserving a very grievous punishment adroitly reproareproachingching the same fault to his abboabbot,t, quiquittethtteth himself of the penaltpenalty.”37y."37 The compcomplicationlication of this ststoryory arises when the abbot susurprisesrprises a young monk with a girl in his cell in jlagraflagrante.nte. To escape the punishment the monk pretends to leave his cell and go to the forest to collect some wowood,od, hoping that the abbot himself will fallinto sin with the girlgirl.. This indeed happens and is secretly witnessed by the youyoungng monk. The moment of the high­high- est tension follows when the abbot calls the young monk and threatethreatensns him with prison for his deeddeed.. The crisis ends in a happy resolution for the monk, who reveals to the abbot that he knows as much about the abbot as the abbot knows ababoutout him and thus "quit“quittethteth himself of the penaltypenalty.”." BeBecausecause this tale is a short story and not a simple anecdote, the event does not appappearear in isolatioisolation,n, but is intintroducedroduced by the VorgesVorgeschichtechichte in which the situatsituationion of the event and its two main protagonists are describeddescribed.. In the comcompositionposition of the tatale,le, this description fufunctionsnctions as the exposition of the event, preparing the way forthe climax. SymmeSymmetrically,trically, at the end of the tale the event is concluded by the NachgeNachgeschichteschichte consisting of a sisinglengle sentence which describes the new relatiorelationshipnship among the mem­mem- bers of the triangtrianglele after the eventevent:: "Accord“Accordingly,ingly, [the abbot] pardoning him and charging him to keep silensilencece of that which he had seen, they privily put the girl out of doors and it is believed that they caused her return thither more than once thereafthereafterward.”38terward."38 This sentence, PetrPetrovskijovskij argargues,ues, is not only the NachgeNachgeschichteschichte of the plot but also the pointe of the composi­composi- tition.on. The phrphrasease "and“and it was believed ...... ”" goes beyond merely connecting the event with a larger context but involves the pre-

37. The Decameron of Giovanni BBoccaccio,occaccio, tr. J.]. Payne (Ne(Neww York, n.d.), p. 30. 38. IbiIbid.,d., p. 32. Russian Formalism

sentsentationation of this event by the narratnarrator.or. In general the mor­mor- phology of this tale followsclosely the basic scheme of the short story without any trtransformations.ansformations. All the parts of the scheme are present and there is no discrediscrepancypancy between the disdispositionposition and compositicomposition.on. For this reasoreason,n, PetrPetrovskijovskij calls this taletale,, using GoeGoethe’sthe's terminology, the UrUrphenomenonphenomenon of the short storystory?"9.39 In contcontrastrast to the simplisimplicitycity of BoBoccaccio’sccaccio's tale, de Maupas­Maupas- sant'ssant’s short ststoryory "Le“Le Retour"Retour” represents a radical trtransforma-ansforma­ tion of this basic genre schemescheme.. SSklovskijklovskijonce observed that this story is a variation of the famous plot, "a“a man at the wedding of his wifwife,”e," which diffdiffersers from the others of its type by presenting this surprising plot in a rather low-key mannermanner.40.40 PetrovsPetrovskij’skij's analysis amplifiesthis imimpromptupromptu observatobservation.ion. He characterizes the kernel of the plot as the "return“return of the husband who disap­disap— pears without a trace after his grass widow marries someone else and starts a new familyfamily.”‘“."4 1 The striking feature of this story is that its composition difdiffersfers from its its disdisposition.position. The narration begins with an exposition describing the seasiseaside,de, the cotcottagetage of the family Martin-Leves­Martin-Leves- quesques,, and its ininhabitants.habitants. The complicomplicationcation starts when one of the girls notices the reapreappearancepearance of a stranger three times in one day. After the expositiexposition,on, comes the firstfirst part of the Vorge­Vorge- schichte telling why the family has a hyphehyphenatednated namename.. But im­im- medmediatelyiately afteafterwards,rwards, the narration returns to the present and describes a hostile dialogue between tthehe stranger and Mrs. MaMar-r­ tin-tin-Levesques.Levesques. In the evening when Mr. Levesques retureturns,rns, the stranger disapdisappears.pears. The event recurs the second day but now the comcomplicationplication changes intintoo the knot of the plot. Mr. Leves­Leves- ques, who that day remained home, speaks to the strangstrangerer and findsfinds out that he is no other than Mr. MartMartin.in. The second part of the VorgeVorgeschichteschichte which followsexplains that he did not die in a shipwrshipwreckeck as was believedbelieved,, but was capturcaptureded instead by savages

39. "Mor“Morfologijafologija novellynovelly,"," p. 76. 40.4o. "Sv“Svjaz'jaz' priemovpriémov sjsjuietosloienijau:letoslozenija s obsCimiobscimi priemamipriémami stilstilja,”ja," Poetika:Poélika: Sbor­Sbor— niki pop0 teoriitearii poepoétiéeskogoticeskogo jazyka (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 19191919),), p. 12120.0. 41. "M“Morfologijaorfologija novelnovelly,"ly," p. 81.

88 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors who held him fortwelve yearsyears.. The two husbands decide to solve their problem by gogoinging to the priest. On the way they stop at a cafe for for wine and the ststoryory ends with the following dialodialogue:gue: "And“And the taverntavern-keeper,-keeper, ththreeree glasses in one hand and a carafcarafee in the other, apprapproached,oached, large of paunchpaunch,, rudruddy,dy, fat, andand asked with a quiet airair:: 'What,‘What, you here, MartinMartin?’?' Martin repliedreplied:: 'I‘I am herhere.’e.' "42”42 This abrupt ending seems to leave out some basic parts of the short story schemescheme—the-the resoluresolution,tion, pointe, and NachgeNachgeschichte.schichte. PetrPetrovskijovskij argues that MauMaupassant’spassant's story represents a radical transformation of this scheme rather than a truncation of it, howevehowever.r. He comcomparespares the resolresolutionution of "Le“Le RetRetour”our" to a draw in a game of chess. "A“A game of chess can end with the victory of the whitwhitee or of the black siside,de, but can also end in a draw. The meaning of the draw arises from the ententireire preceprecedingding game but it in turn provides the game with meaning. After a great dynam­dynam- ic tension everything results in zerzero.”43o."43 The pointe of the story rests precisely in this "in“incompletecomplete reso­reso- lulution.”tion." It forforcesces the reader to "shif“shiftt retrretrospectivelyospectively the semantsemanticic center of the story from the fafactscts to the attitude toward themthem...... The irony of the story consists in the fact that in this ordinary fishermen'sfishermen’s milieu an ununusualusual conflictloses its unusualneunusualness,ss, be­be- coming colored by the graygray,, indiffindifferenterent light of its heroeheroes’s' psychepsyche.”44."44 But in additadditionion to this "incom“incompleteplete resolution"resolution” Pe­Pe- trovskij argues that the ststoryory does contain the equivalent of a resolution which susuggestsggests the outcome of the event. This is the conversatconversationion of the two male protagoprotagonistsnists beforbeforee they go to the priest. There Martin proposes to keep the house and in return not to press any demands forhis wifwife’se's rereturn.turn. Although readers are left in suspsuspenseense as to whether this proposal is the actual resolresolution,ution, it presents them at least with a plausible possibilitypossibility.. This "equivalent“equivalent of the resoluresolution”tion" then serves as a funfunctionalctional

42. "Le“Le Retour"Retour” is published under the title "A“A French Enoch Arden"Arden” in Works of Guy de Maupassant, vol. i17 7 (Akr(Akron,on, Ohio, 191903),03), p. 13137.7. 43. "M“Morfologijaorfologija novenovelly,"lly," p. 85. 44. IbIbid.id. 89 Russian Formalism

equivalent of the Nachgeschichte linking this singsinglele event to the larger concontexttext of liflife.e. Though PetrPetrovskijovskij goes on to analyze two other short storistories,es, the two examples discussed so far are sufficientficient for a general understanding of his methodmethod.. As I pointed out earlierearlier,, the main diffdifferenceerence between the ststaticatic and trantransformationalsformational morpholo­morpholo- gists was the latter'slatter’s intention to go beyond a didiscoveryscovery of the invariant of a genre to outline the rules governing the transfor­transfor- mations of the invariant in individual literary works. It is impor­impor- tant to ask whether they were succsuccessful.essful. Goethe had outlined a basic "double“double law"law” govegoverningrning the formation and transformation of all organic wholeswholes:: "(“(1)I) the law of intinternalernal nature accoaccordingrding to which plants are constitutconstituted,ed, and (2) the law of external circum­circum- stances accordaccordinging to which plants are modifiedmodified.”45."45 PetrovskiPetrovskijj comcompletelypletely ignores the relation of the literary work to external circumstanccircumstances.es. He is even more radical than SSklovskijklovskij in purging extraliterary phenomena fromliterary studies. ThougThoughh the rela­rela- tion of literature to bytin SSklovskij’sklovskij'ssystem was secondarysecondary,, it was at least imimplicitlyplicitly present, since liflifee was considered the material of literatuliterature.re. But PetrPetrovskijovskij cut even this link to extraliterary phenomena by declaring litliteraryerary material pre-poepre-poetic,tic, that is, structustructuredred accordaccordinging to the requirements of literatuliterature.re. The spir­spir- itus movensmavens of trantransformationssformations must therefore lie in the internal nature of the genre itselfitself.. What it is, howevehowever,r, we may only guessguess.. It is not the tension between what SSklovskijklovskij termed can­can- onized and new forms, a notion that would explain a particular trantransformationsformation at a particular time, nor can it be an inner neces­neces- sity ststemmingemming from the basic scheme of the short story that PetrPetrovskijovskij hadhad outlined. InInsteadstead of a theory of transformations we are presented with ad hoc rules whichwh1ch pertain to individual trantransformationssformations within the stories analyzed but are far from constituting the Verwandlungslehre of the genregenre.. ProPropp’sp p's attitude toward the transformtransformationalational rules of the fairy tale is more comcomplexplex than PetroPetrovskij’s.vskij's. As we have seseen,en, he does

45. "Vorarbeiten“Vorarbeiten zu einer PhysiPhysiologicologie der PflanzPflanzcn,”en," p. 286.

90 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors not discuss it in The Morphology of the Folktale, though he men­men- tions in the introduction that the original manuscript had con­con- tained a section on this issue that was drdroppedopped (t(togetherogether with some other parts of the manuscript) forststylistic ylistic reasreasons.46ons. 46 In the same year that the book apappeared,peared, ProPropppp published the article mentmentionedioned earlier dealing with the topic he had omitomittedted in the bobook.ok. Yet after readreadinging this "spin-off'“spin-off” article one begins to doubt that mere stylistic reasons had led Propp to omit it from the larger text. More likely it was his failureto elaborelaborateate any genegeneralral transftransformationalormational theory that prompted his decisidecision.on. For a Goethean morphologist, the elaboration of transformational rules is as imimportantportant as the isolation of the generic invarianinvariant.t. To elimineliminateate this issue "for“for the sake of brevity and a more vivid presentation"presentation” seems a rather high price to pay, esespeciallypecially by someone who otherwise demonsdemonstratestrates little considerconsiderationation forhis reareader.der. The omissiomissionon casts considerconsiderableable doubt on the legitimacy of the term "mo“morphology”rphology" used in the title of the bobook.ok. And from his remarks addraddressedessed to Levi-Strauss (quoted earlier) it is obvious that the author himself was not ununawareaware of this fact. "To“To be absolutely preciprecise,”se," he wrotewrote,, "I“I should not have spoken of 'mor‘morphology’phology' but used the much more restricted concept of 'composition'‘composition’ and called the book The Composition of the FolkloricFolkloric FairyFairy Tale.Tale.”47"47 PrPropp’sopp's article "The“The Transformations of the Fairy Tale"Tale” in coajunctionconjunction with his book shows that, ununlikelike PetrovsPetrovskij,kij, he takes into accoaccountunt both aspects of Goethe'sGoethe’s "double“double lalaw.”w." The book discusses the consconstitutiontitution of the genre as a particular configconfigura-ura­ tion of funfunctionalctional elementselements,, wherwhereaseas the article deals with the external circucircumstancesmstances that modifmodifyy this generic invarianinvariant.t. As

46. Propp explainedexplained,, "F“Foror the sake of brevity and a lively presentation we were forced to omit many things that a specialist would like to keep. In addition to those parts appearing below, the original draft of the work contained a study of the rich spherspheree of the actiactingng characters'characters‘ attributesattributes...... it dealt in detail with the questions of metamorphosis, i.e., of the transformations of the tale" (Mor­(Mor— fologijafologi'ja skazki, pp. 6-7).6—7). 47. "Struktu“Strukturnoernoe i istoriceskoeistoriéeskoe izucenie volSebnovolsebnojj skazkiskazki,”," p. 14140.0.

9911 Russian Formalism

PrProppopp argues in the lattlatter,er, "the“the causes of transformationsoften lie outside the tatale,le, and without taking intintoo accoaccountunt comcomparativeparative material from the environment of the tale, we shall not grasgraspp its evolutievolution.”on." Propp hastens to add that the external causes do not modifmodifyy the whole fairy taletalebut only some of its partsparts:: "There“There is a great difdifferenceference between organic formations and the fairy tatale.le. Whereas in the first,the change in one part or feature causes a change in another, in the fairy tale every part can changchangee inde­inde- pendently of the other partsparts.”48."48 InInsteadstead of offofferingering general rules explaining the particular modifificationscations of the basic scheme in diffdifferenterent milimilieus,eus, PrProppopp provides four criteriacriteria fordistinguishing the variants of a part of a fairy tale from the the original one (a fantastictreattreatment ment is prior to a rational one, a herheroicoic to a huhumor-mor­ ous oneone,, and so on) and twenty modmodificationsifications which a singsinglele element might undundergoergo (reducti(reduction,on, amplifiamplification,cation, corrucorruption,ption, and so on)on).. PrPropp’sopp's search for thethe transfortransformationalmational rules of the genre led him intintoo problems with the biological metaphor, because unlike other morpholmorphologicalogical FormalistsFormalists,, he overextended it. DespiDespitete many simsimilarities,ilarities, there is obviously an essentessentialial diffdifferenceerence be­be- tween a literary and a genuine organic wholewhole:: liteliteraryrary works are intentional obobjectsjects endendowedowed with an imimmaterialmaterial meaning but ororganismsganisms are emempiricalpirical obobjectsjects whose properexistence is in the realm of material realityreality.. The other morpmorphologistshologists were keenly aware of this diffdifference.erence. In fact one of their main arguments against the mechanists was that they reduced the liteliteraryrary work to a mere formal consconstructiontruction and paid little if any attention to litliteraryerary semantisemantics.cs. InInsteadstead of such a monistmonisticic notion of the liter­liter- .aryary work, the morphmorphologicalological FoFormalistsrmalists conceived of it in a du- alistic mannermanner—as-as a unitunityy of the formal construction (we might say, of the material vehicle) and theme (sema(semanticsntics in the broad­broad- est sense of the worword).d). Propp did not acacceptcept this duadualisticlistic visivision.on. In pursuing the organic metaphor, he conceived of the fairytale

48. "Transformacii“Transformacii volSebnychvolsebnych skazskazok,”ok," Poetika:Poétika: Vremennik Otde/aOtdela slovesnych iskusstvMann; 4 (1(1928),928), 72-73.72—73.

9922 The Thr�Three MetaMetaphorsphors as an empempiricalirical obobjectject and analyzed it not as a semantsemanticic but a formal constconstruction.ruction. Whether tthishis division of a work into formaland thematic com­com- ponents is jujustistifiedfied is another mattmatter.er. NonethelesNonetheless,s, this didistinc-stinc­ tion is a handy way of discussing the category of the "fun“functionction of an acting charcharacter,”acter," which PrProppopp foundso crucialcrucial.. The monist SSklovskijklovskij had treated charcharactersacters as primarily a part of the formal constructiconstruction.on. For examexample,ple, he claimed that Don Quixote was a devdeviceice for stringing disdisparateparate motifmotifss together into a narrative wholewhole.. Don QuixoQuixote’ste's charcharacteristicsacteristics per se56 were irrelirrelevant;evant; SSklovskijklovskij shows that they actually change as the narrative un­un- folds.What remains constant is Cervantes'sCervantes’s use of that character in his manipumanipulationlation of the materialmaterial.. On the other hand, the dualist SkafSkaftymovtymov argued that the formal aspects of the prose work are subordinate to its thematthematics.ics. ThereforeTherefore,, he analyzed the way in which the charcharactersacters of DostoevsDostoevskij’skij's Idiot function within the overoverallall unity of its themetheme.. He was esespeciallypecially intinterestederested in the traits of literary figurfigures,es, examining their actions and in­in- teractioteractionsns as contributions to their charcharacterization.acterization. He consid­consid- ered the deep inner conflictswithin DostoevsDostoevskij’skij'scharcharacters acters and the discord among them as suppsupportingorting the general theme of the novelnovel,, the didialecticalectic resolution of contradictions thrthroughough for­for- givegiveness.ness. It is obvious that PrPropp’sopp's conception of the funfunctionction of a character is closer to SSklovskij’sklovskij'sthan to SkafSkaftymov’s.tymov's. SSklovskijklovskij and PrProppopp do diffdiffer,er, of courcourse:se: in SSklovskij’sklovskij's opiniopinion,on, the char­char- acter of Don Quixote links disdisparateparate motifmotifs;s; in PrPropp’sopp's view it is the fairytale characterscharacters’' actioactionsns that create lilinkagenkage by necessitat­necessitat- ing the actions of other charactcharacters.ers. But both theorists treat the charcharacteracter as merely a part of the formal constructiconstruction.on. I began this discussion by accusing PrProppopp of overextoverextendingending the biologbiologicalical metaphor, for in treating the liliteraryterary work as a formal constconstruction,ruction, he was redreducingucing it to an emempiricalpirical obobject.ject. This assertion requires some clarificaclarification,tion, because PrProppopp se­se- lected only certain emempiricalpirical charcharacteristicsacteristics of the fairy taletale as crucial for his morphologmorphologicalical analyses of the gegenre.nre. The most imimportantportant of these was its temportemporalal extextension.ension. PrProppopp conceived

9933 Russian Formalism

of the fairy tale as a narratnarrativeive unfolding in time as a string of events. All the constconstitutiveitutive parts of the fairy tale that he consid­consid- ered relevant are related to the temporal flowflow of the narrnarrative,ative, whereas all ststaticatic or atematemporalporal fefeaturesatures are dismissed as secon­secon- darydary.. In his morphmorphologicalological analyses ProPropppp operates with two types of formal uniunits—thets-the simsimpleple and the complcomplex—whichex-which he terms "fu“functions”nctions" and "compositi“composition,”on," respectivrespectively.ely. The fufunctions,nctions, that is, the fufunctionsnctions of an acting charactcharacter,er, participate in the tem­tem- poralitporalityy of the narnarrativerative because when one appearsappears,, the other necessarily follofollows,ws, until their entire sequence (the comcomposition,position, the basic genegenericric scheme) is comcomplete.plete. The other type of simple unit in the fairy tale does not contribute to the narrative fluxflux;; this is what Propp calls the static element. "A“A motif like 'Ba‘Baba-ba­ Jajagaga gives Ivan a horse'horse’ consists of fourelements of which only one represents a funfunctionction [the verb]verb];; the others are staticstatic.”49."49 The static elements are the attributes of the acting charcharactersacters which makmakee up what we might call the themthematicatic aspect of the taletale.. BeBecausecause they do not inflfluenceuence the narrative flux,flux, however,however, ProPropppp treats them as accideaccidentalntal embodiments of the funfunctions,ctions, irrelevant to the morpmorphologyhology of the tatale.le. The static elements combine in actual fairy tales with funfunctions,ctions, or bettbetter,er, provide the latter with fleshflesh and bloodblood,, and in the predetermined se­se- quence they create the "unique"“unique” plot or the variants of the fairy tatale.le. PrProppopp does not pay any attention to what might be called the overall theme of the taletale.. Whether it is BaBaba-jagaba-Jaga who gives the horse to Ivan or IvIvanan whwhoo gives it to BaBaba-jaga,ba-Jaga, the tem­tem- porality remains the same. For PrPropp,opp, the plot of the fairytale is nothing but an actualization of the fairy tale'stale’s composcomposition—theition-the narrative fluxflux itself itself.. As a result, ProPropppp was indignant when Levi­Levi- Strauss in the review referred to "p“plot”lot" (asas "them“theme”:e": "F“Foror a folklorist and a literary scholar, the 'p‘plot’lot' is the center of atten­atten- tition.on. In Russian the word 'p‘plot’lot' as a litliterary-theoreticalerary-theoretical term has acquired a ververyy spspeciecificfic meanmeaning:ing: the totalittotalityy of the actioactionsns and

49. Ibid.Ibid.,, p. 71.

9944 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors events which are unfolded in the course of narrationnarration...... HoHow-w­ ever, for Professor Levi-Strauss the plot is unintuninteresting.eresting. He translates it into French as 'theme‘theme.’.' He most likely prefers it because 'p‘plot’lot' is a category pertaining to time whereas 'theme'‘theme’ lacks this feature. There is, however, no student of literature who would acceacceptpt such a substsubstitution.itution. We can underunderstandstand these two tetermsrms in many ways but never can we identifidentifyy them or substitute one of them forthe other.other.”50 "50 Needless to saysay,, the term "theme"“theme” does not appappearear in PrPropp’sopp's morpmorphologicalhological invesinvestiga-tiga­ tions of the fairy tatale.le. PrPropp’sopp's conception of the fairy tale tale as an emempirical,pirical, tem­tem- porally extended obobjectject led him to stress the formal units that constconstituteitute narrative fluxand to disrdisregardegard the fairytale's tale’s seman­seman- titics.cs. AdmAdmittedly,ittedly, this radical reduction paid offin his search for a generic invariant, for the wealth of semantsemanticic nuances had blinded earlier studentstudentss of folklore to the formalregularity of the fairytatale. le. As soon as transformationis the issue, however, all those fefeatures,atures, all the semantsemanticic nuances that diffdifferentiateerentiate one tale from another, become crucialcrucial.. InIndeed,deed, PrPropp’sopp's genre defi­defl- nition disdisregardedregarded these very featurfeatures.es. As Levi-Strauss jokingjokinglyly observobserved,ed, "Be“Beforeforeformalism we were certainly unawarunawaree of what these tales had in common. SiSincence formaliformalism,sm, we have been de­de- prived of any means of underunderstandingstanding how they diffdiffer.”51er."51 Propp cannot have his cake and eat it tootoo.. One cannot have trans­trans- formationalrules without treating semantsemanticic featuresas elements of a systsystem.em. BeBecausecause a fairytale is not ananaempirical empirical but an inten­inten- tional obobject,ject, the ststaticatic elements and their relations must be taken into accaccountount if we are to grasgraspp the unitunityy of the fairy taletalein its process of transformattransformation.ion. Levi-Strauss convincingly shshowedowed that the semantsemanticsics of the fairfairyy tale is crucial. The specific acting characters that fulfillfulfill a funfunctionction are not altered arbitrariarbitrarily.ly. For examexample,ple, three birds may fulfillfulfill a funfunctionction in a certain taletale:: an eagle, an owlowl,, and a

50. "Strukturnoe“Strukturnoe i istoriceskoe izucenie vo!Sebnovolsebnojj skazkiskazki,”," pp. 14145—46.5-46. 51. "Structur“Structuree and FormForm:: ReflectionsReflections on a Work by Vladimir PrPropp,"opp," Struc­Struc— turaltuml AntAnthropology, hropology, vol. 2, tr. M. Layton (New York, 191976),76), p. 13133.3.

95 Russian FFonnalism onnalism

crowcrow.. Though on the formal levellevel it makmakeses no difdifferenceference which bird fulffulfillsills the fufunction,nction, fromthe semantsemanticic point of view these birds are oppopposedosed to each other in significantsignificant waways. ys. The eagle is diurnaldiurnal,, wherwhereaseas the owl is nocturnalnocturnal;; as predators both are oppopposedosed to the scavenger crow.crow.52 52 From this example it follows that the acting chcharactersaracters are not accidental embodiments of minimal fufunctionsnctions but partial meaningmeaningss whwhoseose dynamic in­in- terplay encompasses the overall structure of the meaning of a given fairy tatale.le. They are interconnectinterconnected,ed, and a changchangee in one leads to a changchangee in all the othersothers.. The Formalists who were insinspiredpired by Goethe'sGoethe’s concept of morpmorphologyhology actually failed to realize their goal-togoal—to isolate the trantransformationalsformational rules of a literary genregenre.. DespitDespitee their claclaims,ims, they were ultimately quite close to the "st“staticatic morpmorphologists.”hologists." ·E'Evenven though they attempattemptedted to grasp literature as a processprocess,, they succeeded only in pinning down the invariants of the gen­gen- res they studiedstudied.. By conceiving of these invariants as a func­func- tional correlation of parts they arrived at the same organic meta­meta- phor as the morphologmorphologicalical Formalists who were proceeding from Cuvier. The apapplicationplication of the biological metaphor to literature dem­dem- onsonstratedtrated that the litliteraryerary work is not a congconglomeratelomerate of devices but a funfunctionallyctionally intintegratedegrated whole whose elements aarere deter­deter- mined by the role they fulfillfulfill in the litliteraryerary organorganism.ism. When they attattemptedempted to cross the boundaries between literature and extraliterary phenomena, howevhowever,er, the morphologists did not fare well. Though they criticized the mechanistmechanisticic FoFormalistsrmalists for their radical seseparationparation of art and byt,they themselves were un­un- able to bridge this gagap.p. InInsteadstead they replareplacedced the mechanistmechanisticic oppoppositionosition of art and bytby! with the regular versus the acaccidental.cidental. In other worwords,ds, they admadmitteditted that the intinternalernal organization of a literary work is subsubjectject to influencesinfluences from the nonlitnonliteraryerary worldworld,, but they saw these influeninfluencesces as random and secondary to an underunderstandingstanding of the inheinherentrent regularitiesregularities. of literatureliterature..

52. IbiIbid.,d., p. i3135.5.

96 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

The inability to bring liliteratureterature and life togetogetherther quite ststrong-rong­ ly affected the morpmorphologicalhological Formalists'Formalists’ attitude toward liter­liter- ary histhistory.ory. They rerejectedjected the mechanists'mechanists’ immanent apprapproach,oach, \ but as long as they saw the extraliterary sphere as incidental to but as long as they saw the extraliterary sphere as incidental to the internal constitution of literature they could not develop a t systematic _exexplanationplanation of literary change. Concerned with the idenidentitytity of litliteratureerature in its intinternalernal regularregularity,ity, they had no place \ in their theories for the vicissitudes of history. Thus they willingwillinglyly traded the insecurinsecurityity of change for the the certitude of identidentity,ity, diachrony forsynchrsynchrony. ony. For them the theory of liter­liter- l ature was indeindependentpendent of and prior to its histhistory.ory. In his 191 92222 inauginauguralural lecture at Saratov UnUniversity,iversity, SkafSkaftymovtymov separseparatedated the theoretical and histhistoricalorical asaspectspects of litliteraryerary stud­stud- ies, giving precedence to theortheory.y. "I“I contrast the theoretical to the histhistoricalorical view on the following pointspoints:: (1) A theoretical knowledgknowledgee grasgraspsps the obobjectject in its inner constituticonstitution;on; a histhistoricalorical study views the obobjectject in the prprocessocess of its becobecoming.ming. (2) A the­the- oretical study takes into accaccountount the holistholisticic correlation of the l constitutive elementelementss of the obobject;ject; a histhistoricalorical knowledgknowledgee is con­con- cerned with cause and effect relations (causality)(causality).”53."53 The the­the- oretical apapproachproach alone, SkafSkaftymovtymov believedbelieved,, is adequate forthe treatreatmenttment of a literliteraryary work as an aesthetaestheticic obobjectject and all histhistor-or­ ical facts play a merely auxiliarauxiliaryy role in it. Moreover, a histhistoryory of any phenomenon can be studied fully only after its identity is established theoreticaltheoretically.ly. QuotQuotinging ZZirmunskij—anotherirmunskij-another For­For- malist relrelyingying on the morpmorphologicalhological metaphmetaphor—Skaftymovor-Skaftymov de­de- claredclared,, "Only“Only a 'theor‘theoreticaletical poetipoetics’cs' can construct the system of scholarscholarlyly concepts which the histhistorianorian of litliteratureerature needs for solving his concrete hishistoricaltorical probleproblems.”54ms."54 This notion susurfacesrfaces six years later in PrPropp’sopp's book on the fairy tale in a passagpassagee quoted earliearlier:er: "H“Historicalistorical studies may appappearear more interesting than morpmorphologicalhological invesinvestigations.tigations ...... However, we maintain

53. "K“K voprosu o sootnosootnoseniisenii teoreticeskogo i istorieeskogoistoriceskogo rassmotrerassmotrenijanija v istorii literaliteratury,"tury," UliinyeUiénye z.apiskizapixki GosudarstvennogoGosudarstvermogo saratovskogosaratovxkogo universiteta, vol. 11, , pt. 3 (Saratov, 191923),23), Ppp.P· 55-6.55—6. 54. IbidIbid.,., p. 67; see ZirmunZirmunskij,skij, "Zadati“Zadaéi poetpoetiki,"iki," NalalaNac'ala 1 (19(1921),21), 51.

997 7 Russian Formalism

that as long as there is no correct morpmorphologicalhological study there can be no correct histhistoricalorical studystudy.”55."55 The rift between theory and history and the privilegprivilegeded posi­posi- tion the morphologists accorded synchronic studies were not, however, shasharedred by all FormalFormalists.ists. It was in response to these issues that a thirthirdd Formalist model arose which sought to treat literature as a ststrictlyrictly histhistoricalorical phenomenphenomenon.on.

55. See note 33.

98 The System

No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance,significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artistsartists.. You cannot value hihimm alalone;one; you must set hihim,m, for contrast and comparicomparison,son, among tthehe deaddead.. I mean this as a principle of aesthetic, not merely historical criticiscriticism.m. -T.—T. s.S. ELIOT, "Tradition“Tradition and tthehe InIndividualdividual TalentTalent”"

I call the third Formalist model "systemic"“systemic” because it uses the metaphor of the system as its primarprimaryy frame of referreference.ence. The role of systemic Formalism was to fillfill the gaps left by the other two metaphorsmetaphors:: to describe the relatirelationshiponship between art and byt and provide an accouaccountnt of literary histhistoryory cacapablepable of explaining the dynadynamicmic interplay between these two domainsdomains.. The name "systemo-f“systemo-functional”unctional" was chosen by Jurjurijij Tyn­Tyn- janov, the main proponent of the model, to designate his ap­ap- proach to literary studistudies.1es.1 It pointpointss apaptlytly to the holistic and

1. "O“O paroparodii,"dii," Poetika,Poétika, istoriirtorijaja literatury,literalmy, kino (M(Moscow,oscow, 191977),77), p. 295. UnUnfor-for­ tunately, the adadjectivejective "systemic"“systemic” that I use for this this Formalist model carries certcertainain biological connotations (relating to the body as a system) that I do not intend. Its only possible replareplacement,cement, "sy“systematic,”stematic," is even less fefelicitous,licitous, howev­howev— er, because ofofits its primarprimaryy meaning of "met“methodical”hodical" or "thor“thorough.”ough." I have chosen "systemic"“systemic” thereforetherefore,, in its sense of "r“relatingelating to a systemsystem,"," and hope that the reader will not be disdistractedtracted by the specificallyspecifically medical or biological usage of the termterm..

99 Russian Formalism

relational naturnaturee of the appapproach.roach. These feafeatures,tures, tootoo,, indindicateicate the link between the systesystemicmic metaphor and new developdevelopmentsments in such other disciplines as psychology, logic, and linguistilinguistics.cs. I would like to outline brieflybriefly . the way advances in these areas helped to shape the systsystemicemic metaphor of Russian FormalFormalism.ism. One of the leading Gestalt psychologispsychologists,ts, Kurt Koffka, de­de- voted part of his Zur AnAnalysealyse der Vorstellungen und iihrerhrer Gesetze ((1912) 1912) to the distinction between "descriptive"“descriptive” and "fu“functional”nctional" concepts in psychology.psychology.22 DescriptDescriptiveive concepts like "color"“color” or "image"“image” are those which involve direct experience and "derive“derive from simple perception and the descriptions of experiencexperiences.”3es."3 Functional conceptsconcepts,, such as "di“distortionstortion of memory"memory” go beyond simple perceptiperception.on. They are used "to“to put experience into rela­rela- tion with other obobjects,jects, either with other experiences or with stimulistimuli.”4."4 KofKoffkafka concludes that "all“all funfunctionalctional concepts have as their basis experiences that have somehow been made obobjective.jective. This kind of concept formatformationion is of the same type as the foforma-rma­ tion of concepts [in physicphysics].”5s]."5 The litliteraryerary scholar must also distinguish between concepts relating to the direct experience of literary texts and concepts that bring these into categorical relatirelation.on. TynTynjanovjanov expressed this didistinctionstinction as the opoppositionposition between "literary“literary fact"fact” and "lit­“lit- eratureerature.”." He noted that "wher“whereaseas a hard deffiinitionnition of literature is more and more difdifficultficultto makemake,, every contemporcontemporaryary can point his fingerat what is a literaryfafact. ct. He will tell you that this or that as a fact of byt or of the poet'spoet’s privatprivatee liflife”e" is not a liliteraryterary factfact,, "while“while something else certainly isis.”6."6 "Lit“Literature”erature" is a notion of

2. Koffka'sKoffka’s work seems to have been well known in the teens in RussiaRussia;; the Formalists certainly were aware of it. It was the topic of Professor Georgij CCel-el­ panov'spanov’s seminar held at the Moscow UnUniversityiversity in 19151915/1916./ 1916. Roman Jajakobsonkobson participated in this seminar (see Elmar Holenstein, "J“jakobsonakobson und HuHusserl:sserl: Ein BeBeitragitrag zur Genealogie des StrukturStrukturalismus,”alismus," TijdschTijdschriftrift voor FilosoFilosofiefie 35 (19[1973],73], 562).562) 3. Koffka, "The“The Distinction between Descriptive and Functional ConceptsConcepts,”," Thinking: From Association to Gestalt, ed. J.]. M. Mandler and G. Mandler (New York, 191964),64), p. 238. 4. Ibid. 5. IbiIbid.,d., p. 242. 6. "Literaturny“Literaturnyjj fakt,"ArchaistyAre/misty i novatory (L(Leningrad,eningrad, 191929),29), p. 9.

101000 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors an order distinct from thethe literary fact. It It is a functfunctionalional concept relatirelatingng notions of direct litliteraryerary experience, Koffka'sKoffka’s descrip­descrip- tive concept. This disdistinction,tinction, which at firstfirst glance might appear obvioobvious,us, was quite imimportantportant to the systsystemicemic FormalisFormalists.ts. UnUntiltil it had been elaboratedelaborated,, liliteraryterary critics frequently identifiedidentifiedliterliterary ary facts with literature in gegeneral,neral, coconfusingnfusing a particular literary sensibility, forinstance, with the theory of literature itselfitself.. The rise of the relatiorelationalistnalist outlook at the turn of the centurcenturyy was obviously fostered by new advances in the sciencesciences.s. But it would have been unimaunimaginableginable without the suppsupportort of the phi­phi- losophers and logicians who provided its epistepistemologicalemological jusjustitifi­fi- catcation.ion. In his influeinfluentialntial book SubstanzbegrSubstzmzbeg‘riiffflr und FunktionsbegrFunktionsbegriffiff ((1910) 191 o) Ernst Cassirer declared that the "two“two chief formsof logic which are esespeciallypecially oppopposedosed to each other in the modern scien­scien- tific development, are distinguished ...... by the diffdifferenterent value which is placed upon thing-thing-conceptsconcepts and relation-concepts.relation-concepts."7"7 The "thi“thing-concept,”ng-concept," whose origin Cassirer traces back to Aristotle, is charcharacteristicacteristic of traditional concept-forconcept-formationmation based on the pro­pro- cess of abstrabstraction.action. A gegeneralneral concept, it was believedbelieved,, was de­de- rived from particulars by abstracting their similar feature. The fallacy of this apprapproach,oach, accoaccordingrding to Cassirer, rests in the pre­pre- supsuppositionposition that similarsimilaritiesities are not merely a principle of logical ordering but real properties of obobjects.jects. ThusThus,, in the process of abstrabstractionaction what is nonessentnonessentialial to obobjectsjects is eliminated in order to discover their unchangunchangeableeable substance. With this substan­substan- tialist view Cassirer contcontrastsrasts the relatiorelationalistnalist oneone,, in which sim­sim- ilarity is not considered a properpropertyty of obobjectsjects but a categorical tool that enables us to unite disdisparateparate obobjectsjects in a single concept. Thus, simisimilaritylarity is one of many possible principles of logical

7. Substance and Function and Einstein'sEinstein’s Theory of Relativity, tr. W. C. Swabey and M. C. Swabey (Chi(Chicago,cago, 191923),23), p. 9. The Formalists made a few referencesreferencesto Cassirer'sCassirer’s book. Echenbaumjchenbaum cites it in his diary in Januarjanuaryy 1919 as one of the books to be consuconsultedlted on issues of methodology (see M. 0.O. Cudakova'sCudakova’s commen­commen— tary in the collection of TynTynjanov’sjanov's articles, Poetika,Poetika,ist01ija istorija literatury,literatmy, kino, p. 455). A passage fromCassirer'sCassirer’s work is quoted by SergeSergejj Karcevskij in Systeme du verbe russe (Prague, 191927),27), pp. 1313—14.-14. This passage is subsequently quoted by V. Vinogradov in his critique of TynTynjanov’sjanov's methodmethod,, 0 chudoiestvennochudoz’extvennojj proze (M(Moscow,oscow, 191930),30), p. 59.

IOI101 Russian Formalism

ordering that give rise to "relation-conce“relation-concepts.”pts." As CassCassirerirer ex­ex- plains the proprocess,cess, "all“all consconstructiontruction of concepts is connconnectedected with some definidefinitete form of construction of seriseries.es. We say that a sensuous manifold is conceptually apprehended and orderordered,ed, when its members do not stand next to one another without relation but proceed from a definitedefinite beginning, accoaccordingrding to a fundamefundamentalntal generating relatiorelation,n, in necessanecessaryry sequencesequence.. It is the identidentityity of this generating relatiorelation,n, maintained through changchangeses in the particular contentscontents,, which constitutes the spspeciecificfic formof the concconcept.”8ept."8 TherTheree are several clear points of contcontactact between Cassirer'sCassirer’s and TynTynjanov’sjanov's theorietheories.s. Most imporimportanttant is their common use of the mathemmathematicalatical function as a model forconcept-formation in generalgeneral.. Quoting the German logician Moritz DrobisDrobisch,ch, CassCassirerirer asserts, "E“Everyvery mathemmathematicalatical funfunctionction represents a ununiversaliversal lawlaw,, whichwhich,, by virtue of the successive values which the variable can assume, contains within itself all the particular cases for which it holholds.”ds." Moreover, this concept of function "is“is not con­con- finedfined to mathemmathematicsatics alone,alone,”" but "extends“extends over intintoo the fieldfield of the knowknowledgeledge of naturnature.”9e."9 TynTynjanov,janov, taking Cassirer'sCassirer’s lead, crossed even this boundarboundaryy and appappliedlied the notion of fufunctionnction to the study of cultuculturalral phenomena as wellwell.. Concept-Concept-formationformation in literary studies is more complex than in psychpsychologyology or the natural sciencsciences.es. The task of a psychologist or a phphysicistysicist is to match two sets of givgivens:ens: Cassirer'sCassirer’s "ob“objectsjects of the firstfirst order"order” (or Koffka'sKoffka’s descriptive concepts) and "ob“objectsjects of the second order"order”—those-those concepts "determined“determined by the formof the generating relation from which they proceproceed”ed" (K(Koffka’soffka's fufunc-nc­ tional conceptsconcepts).).1'00 Besides these two givgivens,ens, however, the student of literature must also deal with "ob“objectsjects of a third order"order”—­ sociasociallylly shasharedred sets of conventions which determine the existence and identidentityity of the obobjectsjects of the firstfirst order. An awareness of this prproblemoblem most likely came to TynTynjanovjanov

8. Substance and Function, p. i5.15, g.9. IbiIbid.,d., p. 221. i. 10. Substance and Function, p. 23.

I02102 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors through his acquaintance with the theories of Ferdinand de SaussureSaussure.. The Swiss linguist had pointed out that speech phe­phe- nomena are implementimplementationsations of the ununderlyingderlying linguistic system shared by spspeakerseakers of each particular langlanguage,uage, a system he termed la langue. HiHiss example of the knight in chess illustrillustratesates this notion wellwell.. The identidentityity of this piece is purely relatiorelational.nal. If the physphysicalical piece is lost during the game the knight can be replaced by any obobject,ject, even something as diffdifferenterent as a match­match- boxbox.. The equation of two such obobjectsjects is not the same as bringing them togtogetherether in the concept-forming mode I have just de­de- scribscribed.ed. There the knight and the matchbox would be subsumed under a singsinglele concept through a logical relation introduced fromoutside the gamegame.. In the gagame,me, howevehowever,r, their relatrelationshipionship is generated fromwithin because the matchbox, like the knight, becobecomesmes liable to the same set of rules-therules—the game itselfitself.. The substitution of one obobjectject for another dependsdepends on "an“an un­un- changeable conventiconvention,on, the set of rules that exists beforea game begins and persists after each movmove.”11e."11 In the same way that a piece in a game of chess derives its identidentityity from an underlying system of rulrules,es, the identity of a linguistlinguisticic factis a funfunctionction of the underlying linguistlinguisticic systesystem—lam-la langue. As SaussurSaussuree argargues,ues, the socially sharshareded linglinguisticuistic code "is“is necessary if speaking is to be intelligible and produce all its effectseffects.”12."1 2 The analoganalogyy between langlanguageuage and literatureis obviouobvious.s. The identidentityity of every litliteraryerary factis determined by sets of norms we call genrgenres,es, schoolsschools,, or histhistoricalorical stylstyles.es. Significantly,Significantly, even the fact thatthat ananutterance is considerconsidereded litliteraryerary is determined by the existence of a social habit we call "lit“literature.”erature." Thus TynTynjanovjanov asks, "Is“Is the so-called immanent study of a literary work ...... out­out- side of its intinterrelationerrelation with the litliteraryerary system possibpossible?”le?" The answer is negativenegative:: "Such“Such an isolatisolateded study of a work is a mere abstraction similar to the abstracting of an individual element

111 1.. F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, tr. and ed. W. Baskin (New York, 191959),59), p. 88. 1212.. IbiIbid.,d., p. 118.8.

101033 Russian Formalism

from the the work.work.”13" 1 3 A literary work is inseinseparablyparably linked to the literary systsystem,em, and outside this context loses its identity. TynTynjanov’sjanov's didistinctionstinction between "lite“literaryrary fact"fact” and "literatu“literature”re" and between both these concepts and "lit“literaryerary systsystem,”em," and his relational apprapproachoach to concept-concept-formationformationall show his affinitfinityy to the theories of KofKoffka,fka, Cassirer, and SaussurSaussure.e. TynTynjanov,janov, how­how- ever, dedepartedparted from all these thinkers in two significantsignificant re- re­ spectsspects:: he apprapproachedoached his material didialecticallyalectically and histhistorically.orically. PePerhapsrhaps it was the tradition of HeHegelianismgelianism in Russian intintellec-ellec­ tual liflifee that led him to conceive of literature as a dynamic hier­hier- ararchy,chy, an ongoing ststruggleruggle for domindominationation among parts and wholwholes.es. It is this intrinsiintrinsicc dynamism of literliteraryary structures that TynTynjanovjanov identified as the didistinctivestinctive fefeatureature of literatuliterature.re. "Lit­“Lit- erature is a speech consconstructiontruction perceived precisely qua con­con- structistruction,on, i.e., literature is a dydynamicnamic speech constructionc0nstructi0n.”14."14 Here the concept of the "dominant"“dominant” enters TynTynjanov’sjanov's systsystem,em, which accoaccordingrding to Jjakobson’s akobson's later assessment "was“was one of the most crucialcrucial,, elaboratedelaborated,, and productive concepts of Russian Formalist theorytheory.”15." 15 But because of its wide cucurrencyrrency among the Formalists, we must diffdifferentiateerentiate among its various usagusages.es. The term itself was borrowed from BrBroderoder ChrChristiansen’sistiansen's Philosophie der Kunst. In discussing the perception of a work of art he wrotewrote,, "It“It happens only rarely that the emotive factors of an aesthetic obobjectject participate equally in the effect of the wholewhole.. On the contrary, normally a singsinglele factor or a configuration of them comes to the fore and assumes a lealeadingding rorole.le. All the others accoaccompanympany the dominant, intensifintensifyy it through their harmoharmony,ny, heighten it through contrast, and surround it with a play of variatiovariations.ns. The dominant is the same as the structure of bones in an organic bobody:dy: it contains the theme of the whole, suppsupportsorts this whole, ententersers intintoo relation with it.it.”16" 16

13. "O“O literaturnoliteraturnojj evoljuciiévoljucii,”," ArchaistArchaistyy i novatory, p. 34. 14. "L“Literaturnyjiteraturnyj fakt,"p. 14. 15. Jajakobson,kobson, "The“The DominaDominant,"nt," Readings in RussianPoetics: FormalistFormalist and Struc­Struc- turalist Views, ed. L. Matejka and K. Pomorska (Ann ArbArbor,or, MichMich.,., 191978),78), p. 82. 16. Philosophie der Kunst (B(Berlin,erlin, 1911912),2), pp. 24241—42.1-42. 104 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

The notion of the dominant as a skskeletal,eletal, form-givingelement in the static hierhierarchyarchy of holistholisticic correlations caught the fancyof some of the FormalisFormalists.ts. Boris Echenbaum,jchenbaum, who was responsible forthis borrowing fromChChristiansen, ristiansen, occasionally used the term in this sensesense.. In his analysis of Anna Achmatova'sAchmatova’s early poetry he tried to isolisolateate the "essential“essential dominant deterdeterminingmining the ma­ma- jor facts of a stylestyle,”," in this case, her "striving“striving forlaconicism and energy of expressionexpression.”17."1 7 This meaning of the dominant fitfit very well the conceptual frame of those morpmorphologicalhological Formalists who discussed literature as an organorganism.ism. Thus, accoraccordingding to SkafSkaftymov,tymov, the role of the litliteraryerary scholar was to "r“revealeveal the ' interrelations of the work'swork’s compositional partsparts,, to point out the emerging dominants and among them the finalfinal conclu concludingding and all-embracing point which in turn was the basic form-creating intention of the authorauthor.”18."18 On a more empirical levellevel,, ZZir-ir­ munskimunskijj spoke of metaphor as the "capit“capitalal devicedevice,, the stylistic 'dominant"'‘dominant’ ” of Aleksandr Blok'sBlok’s poetrypoetry.19. 19 For the systsystemicemic FormalisFormalists,ts, however, it was Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's reinterpretation of Christiansen'sChristiansen’s term that was accepacceptedted in­in- ststead.ead. Elijchenbaumjchenbaum used "dominant"“dominant” to refer to a specificspecific ele­ele- ment within a literary work which is brought intintoo the fore­fore- grgroundound and "deforms"“deforms” to its needs all the other elementselements.. He saw the work not as a harmonious correlation of parts and wholes but as a didialecticalectic tension aamongmong ththem.em. "The“The work of art,"art,” Echenbaumjchenbaum argargued,ued, "is“is always the result of a complex strustruggleggle among various form-crform-creatingeating elementselements;; it is always a kind of compromisecompromise.. These elements do not simply coexist and 'corre­‘corre- latelate.’.' Depending on the general chcharacteraracter of the stylestyle,, this or that element acquires the role of the orgorganizinganizing dominant gov­gov- erning all the others and subordinating them to its needsneeds.”20."20 In

1717.. Echenbaum,jchenbaum, AnAnnana Achmatova:Achmatova.‘ Opyt analiza (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 191923),23), p. 63. 1818.. "Tematices“Tematiceskajakaja kompozicija romana Idiot,Idiot,”" TvorleskijTvorEeskij putput' ' Dostoevskogo, ed. L. N. BrBrodskijodskij (L(Leningrad,eningrad, 191924),24), p. 24. 1919.. "P“Poezijaoezija Aleksandra Aleksandra Bloka,"Bloka,” Voprosy teoriileorii literatury:lileratmy: StatStat’i'i I9I61916—1926-I926 (Leni(Leningrad,ngrad, 191928),28), p. 221. 20. Melodika russkogo lirileskogoliriieskogo sticha (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 191922),22), p. 9.

101055 Russian Formalism

the type of lyric poetry Echenbaumjchenbaum analyzedanalyzed,, the dominant was intonatiintonation,on, because it deformed the other aspects of the poemspoems—syntax,-syntax, word order, and so on. Keeping in mind this notion of the dominant we may consider TynTynjanov’sjanov's defidefinition of literatureliterature.. The perception of a speech consconstructiontruction qua consconstructiontruction is basedbased,, accoaccordingrding to TynTynjanov,janov, on our awareness of the hierhierarchicalarchical organization of such a con­con- struction caused by the tension between the dominant and the subordisubordinatednated elementselements.. "Art“Art lives through this interplayinterplay,, this struggstruggle.le. Without the senssensationation of subordinatisubordination,on, the deforma­deforma- tion of all the factorsby the factorfulfillingful filling the constructive role, there would be no factof art...... If the sensasensationtion of the interplay of factors (n(necessarilyecessarily prepresupposingsupposing the presence of two ele­ele- menments—thets-the dominating and the subordinated) vanishes, the fact of art is obliteratedobliterated;; it becomes automatizedautomatized.”2|."2 1 This is TynTynjanov’sjanov's most basic defindefinitionition of literatuliterature,re, but it omitomitss one impimportantortant point. For TynTynjanov,janov, the ververyy identitidentityy of a literary fact rests in its relation to the ununderlyingderlying litliteraryerary systsystem:em: "Whether“Whether a fact is is literary or not is a function of its difdifferentialferential quality (i.e., whether it is related either to the literary or the extraliterary serieseries).”22s)."22 This means that not every strikingstrikinglyly or­or- ganized spspeecheech construction will be perceived by us as literary. It is rather the other way aroundaround:: the special perceptibility of a speech consconstructiontruction comes aboaboutut only through its comparison to other speech constructions considered by us literaryliterary.. Thus, a consconstructiontruction that appappearsears merely "usual"“usual” cancan,, at one moment, become a liteliteraryrary factbecause of the unusuunusualal nature of the im­im- medmediatelyiately prprecedingeceding liteliteraryrary tradition agagainstainst whose back­back- grgroundound it is perceiveperceived,d, and vice versa. "Transrational“Transrational lanlanguageguage [zaum[zaum’]'] always existed in the langulanguageage of children and mystmystics,ics, but only in our time did it become a literary fact. And, on the other hand ...... chcharades, arades, logogrilogogriphsphs are childrchildren’sen's games forus, but in KarKaramzin’samzin's period [the 1717905]90s] in which verbal triflestrifles and

21. Problema stichotvomogoxtichotvornogo jazyka (L(Leningrad,eningrad, i1924), 924), p. 110. o. 22. "O“O literaturnoliteraturnojj evévoljucii,"oljucii," p. 35.

106 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors the play of devidevicesces were foregrouforegrounded,nded, they werweree a litliteraryerary genrgenre.”23e."23 Thus, not perceptibility per se but perceptibility vis-a-vis the literary system is, for TynTynjanov,janov, the oppoppositeosite pole of automatizatioautomatization.n. By appapplyinglying the oppopposingosing valuvalues,es, perceptibleperceptible/automatized,/automatized, to the literary systemsystem,, TynTynjanovjanov exposed the relativitrelativityy of the notion of the literliteraryary factfact; That the litliteraryerary system is a social insinstitutiontitution and as such liable to changchangee means the literary factsof diffdifferenterent periods might be quite dissimilar. How then is it possible to construct a literary seriseries,es, to discover a relation that would en­en- compass under the single category of literature all the disdisparateparate literary factsfacts?? Because the relativitrelativityy of literary facts is histhistorical,orical, TynTynjanovjanov found the answer to this question in literary histhistory.ory. "Only“Only in evolutievolution,”on," he claimedclaimed,, "can“can we analyze the 'definition'‘definition’ of literatureliterature.”24."24 Literary facts of various perioperiods,ds, disdisparateparate in themselvesthemselves,, become related if they are placed within a concrete histhistoricalorical process and viewed accordaccordinging to the logic of this processprocess.. TynTynjanovjanov conceived of the logic of literary histhistoryory dialec­dialec- ticatically.lly. To be meaningmeaningful,ful, the perceptibility of a speech con­con- struction needed an oppositopposite—thee-the autautomatizationomatization of this per­per- ceptiception.on. Literary change is triggered by the tension between these twotwo.. "E“Evolutionvolution is caused by the need for a ceaseless dy­dy- naminamics.cs. Every dynamidynamicc system inevinevitablyitably becomes automatized and an oppoppositeosite constrconstructiveuctive principle didialecticallyalectically arisarises.”25es."25 The lifeof a literliteraryary fact is the vacillation of a linguistic construc­construc- tion between these two polespoles.. ftIt is lifted from the sphsphereere of automatization to replace some older constructiconstructions,ons, which in the course of time have become automatizedautomatized;; fora longer or shorter period of time it is perceptible, only to become automatized again and replaced by some newer constructiconstructions.ons. Thus, the literary series conceived histhistoricallyorically is an ongoing

23. "Lit“Literaturnyjeraturnyj fakt," p.P. g.9‘ 24. IbIbid.,id., p. 14. 25. IbiIbid.,d., p. 15.15-

101077 Russian Formalism

strustruggleggle of dialectically oppopposedosed speech constconstructions.ructions. It is a succession of literary factswhich exhibit contrastive principles of constconstruction.ruction. From this persperspectivepective only a negative defidefinition of literature is possiblepossible.. The identidentityity of the literary series rests in a constant negation of its identidentityity by its membersmembers.. Literature as a concept did not, however, occupy a cencentraltral position in the theories of the systemic FormalistsFormalists.. The true crux of their thought was the notion of the literary systemsystem—the-the ulti­ulti- mate arbiter of what is and what is not a literliteraryary fact. AsAsI pointed out ababove,ove, TynTynjanovjanov derderivedived this concept from Saussure'sSaussure’s lan­lan- guegue—the-the linguislinguistictic system ununderlyingderlying the factsof spspeech.eech. CertCertainain critics of TynTynjanov,janov, such as Viktor ViVinogradov,nogradov, claimed that his theory was nothing but a "re-telling“re-telling of Saussure in literary-literary-histor-histor­ ical termsterms.”26."26 In my opinion this jujudgmentdgment is a polemical exag­exag- geratiogeration.n. It takes only a brief glance at Saussure'sSaussure’s concept of langue to see how diffdifferenterent it is fromTynTynjanov’s janov's literary systsystem.em. First of all, Saussure'sSaussure’s langue is statstatic,ic, devoid of any evolution­evolution- ary dynamics. In fact, he declared it incomincompatiblepatible with historyhistory,, as his famous didivisionvision of linglinguisticsuistics into synchrsynchroniconic and di­di— achronic studies attattests.ests. Further, Saussure saw changchangeses in langue as catastrocatastrophic.phic. They are brought about at random from the outside, and once they penetrpenetrateate the system they destroy it and establish a new system difdifferentferent from the previous one. For this reason the system of langue is absolutely autonomautonomous.ous. As the concluding words of Saussure'sSaussure’s Course ststate:ate: "the“the true and unique obobjectject of linguistics is language studied in and foforr itseitself.”27lf"27 TynTynjanov’sjanov's "l“literaryiterary system"system” differs fromlangue in evereveryy one of these respectsrespects.. The seseparationparation of synchrsynchronyony fromdiachrony was ututterlyterly alien to his histhistoricalorical orienorientation.tation. "The“The juxtjuxtapositionaposition of synchrony and diachronydiachrony,”," TynTynjanovjanov and Jakobsonjakobson wrote in

26. 0 chudoiestvennochudoz'estvennojj proze, p. 24. More recrecently,ently, FredricFredricjameson Jameson has asserted that "Tynjanov“Tynjanov retains Saussure'sSaussure’s basic model of change, in which the essenessentialtial mechanisms at work are the ultimate abstractions of IdentIdentityity and DiffDifference,"erence," The Prison-HousePrison—House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian For­For« malism (P(Princeton,rinceton, N.N.j.,J., 191972),72), p. 96. 27. Course in General LinLinguistics,guistics, p. 232.

101088 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

191928,28, "was“was the jujuxtapositionx'taposition of the notion of system to that of evoevolution;lution; it becomes meaningless as soon as we recognize that every system exists in evolution and on the other hand that evolution is necessarily systemicsystemic.”28."28 TynTynjanovjanov took to heart SSklovskij’sklovskij's notion that opposing literary schoolsschools—the-the canonized and noncanonizednoncanonized—coexist---coexist in every literary period. The literary system is not a balancbalanced,ed, harmonious ststructureructure like langue but is intrinsically unbalancunbalanced,ed, torn by confliconflictingcting tendencies to pre­pre- serve the status quo and to changchangee it. Such a system simul­simul- taneotaneouslyusly contains its past and points to the futurefuture.. ItItss past is contained in constructions that have been litliteraryerary factsfacts;; its fu­fu- ture rests with the constconstructionsructions negating this automatized past which are ababoutout to become literary factsfacts.. It is imimpossiblepossible to ex­ex- tract from this ongoing process an atatemporalemporal slice of the syn­syn- chronic "p“present,”resent," TynTynjanovjanov declardeclared.ed. "The“The litliteraryerary epoepoch,ch, the literary present, is not at all a ststaticatic system oppopposedosed to the dy­dy- namicnamic,, evolving histhistoricalorical seriseries.es. The same histhistoricalorical strustruggleggle of diffdifferenterent layers and formations which exists in the diachronic histhistoricalorical series goes on in the present.present.”29 "29 If the literary system at every moment contains develodevelopmentalpmental tendencitendencies,es, Saussure'sSaussure’s belief in the asystemic and catastrocatastrophicphic nature of changchangeses in lanlanguegue does not apply to it. The develop­develop- mentmentalal charcharacteracter of the system also makes ununtenabletenable Saussure'sSaussure’s claim that the external impulses forchange are totally randorandom.m. They appappearear random only if viewed in seseparationparation from the liter­liter- ary systsystem.em. From the persperspectivepective of the developmentdevelopmentalal reg­reg- ularity of the literary system thertheree is no randomnrandomness.ess. To underunder-­ line this diffdifference,erence, the systemic Formalists divided Saussure'sSaussure’s diachrony into two categcategories:ories: "the“the genesis of a literary phe­phe- nomenon"nomenon” on the one hand, and "its“its evolutionary significansignificance,ce, its place in the evolutionary series"series” on the othother.30er.30 The specificspecific origin of a literliteraryary phenomenon is a cross-section of many im-

28. TynTynjanovjanov and Jakjakobson,obson, "P“Problemyroblemy izucenija literatury iijazyka,” jazyka," NoNovyjvy} Lej;Lef, no. 12 (1(1928),928), 3636—37.-37. 29. "L“Literaturnyjiteraturnyj fakt,"fakt,” p. 1111.. 30. IbiIbid.,d., pp. 1212—13;-13; see also TynTynjanov,janov, "O“O literaturnojliteraturnojevoljucii," evoljucii," p. 31. 109 Russian Formalism

pulsespulses—biological,-biological, psychologicpsychological,al, socialsocial—and-and so in its full com­com- plexity might be randorandom.m. But the factthat this confconfiigurationguration of extraliterary factors was incorporated into the literary seriesseries,, that it crystallized intintoo a literary fact-anfact—an element of liteliteraryrary hihistory—canstory--canalways be explained in refreferenceerence to the evolution of the literary systsystem.em. Thus, while "it“it is imimpossiblepossible to construct a genetic histhistoryory ofliteratuliterature,”re," it is quite possible to write a history of the literary systsystem.31em. 31 An esespeciallypecially clear illustillustrationration of TynTynjanov’sjanov's claim is Echen-jchen­ baum'sbaum’s disputdisputee with Lev TrockijTrockij.. To discredit the MaMarxistrxist ap­ap- proach to literary histhistoryory Echenbaumjchenbaum shrshrewdlyewdly ememployedployed an example that Trockij himself had used agaiagainstnst the psycho­psycho- biological interprinterpretationetation of artart:: cancan].]. M. W. Turner'sTurner’s role in the evolution of EuEurpoeanrpoean painting be deduced from thethefact that he sufsufferedfered from astigmatisastigmatism?m? For the young TrockijTrockij,, this was an inadmissiinadmissibleble reduction of a social to a biological phenomenonphenomenon—a-a stance subsequentsubsequentlyly applauded by Echenbaum.jchenbaum. But when Trockij laterlaterattacked the Formalist concept ofliterary historyhistory,, he denied art its spspeciecificityficity by conceiving of its evolution as an extension of class struggstruggle.le. There is, of coursecourse,, a diffdifferenceerence between treating art through a biologbiologicalical and a sociological frame of reference, and one could argue that sociology is the more relevant concernconcern.. But this answer would not satisfsatisfyy the For­For- malistsmalists,, for whom both biology and sociologsociologyy were capable of explaining only the genesis of the work and not its evoluevolutionarytionary significasignificance.nce. "Art“Art has its spspeciecificfic 's‘sociology’ociology' and its laws of evolu­evolu- tiontion,”," Echenbaumjchenbaum argued in the tones ofofa a literary historihistorian.an. "If“If they tell us that a writer was psycholopsychologicallygically a representrepresentativeative of a certain classclass,, it is jujustst as true as that Turner was an astigmaticastigmatic,, but 'it‘it does not concern me'me’ because these are facts of a difdifferentferent order [than artistic factfacts].”32s]."32 In other worwords,ds, not every RuRussianssian noblenoblemanman born in the 182182050s turned out to be a TolstoTolstoj,j, nor did every astigmatic painter born

3i.31. Tyn:Fynjanov,janov, "T“Tjutéevjutcev i GeGejne,”jne," ArchaistyArchaixty i novatory, p. 386. 32. Echenbaum,jchenbaum, "V“V ozidaniioiidanii literliteratury,”atury," Literatura: TeoTeorija,rija, kritikakritika,, polemika (Lening(Leningrad,rad, i91927),27), p. 28286.6.

I110IO The Three MetaMetaphorsphors in the late eighteenth century produce work of Turner'sTurner’s qualityquality.. The reason for the the systemic Formalists'Formalists’ rerejectionjection of the pos­pos- sibility of a genetic histhistoryory of literature is that the number of extraliterary impimpulsesulses instrumentinstrumentalal in a literary change is lim­lim- itlesitless.s. Only those impulimpulsesses that mesh with the develodevelopmentalpmental tendencies of the litliteraryerary system have a chance of influencinginfluencing the systsystem.em. In TynTynjanov’sjanov's worwords,ds, "An“An 'influence'‘influence’ can be suc­suc- cessfcessfulul at a time when there are literary conditions forit and in the direction indiindicatedcated by those conditionsconditions.”33."33 The belief in the immanent development of the litliteraryerary sys­sys- tem might seem to bring the systemic Formalists close to Saus­Saus- sure'ssure’s view of the absolute autonomy of langue. If everything literary is determined solely by the preconditions of the literary systsystem,em, this system would indeed be "in“in and of itself the uniuniqueque obobjectject of literary studistudies.”es." This simisimilaritylarity to SaussurSaussuree is hard to deny and has a histhistoricalorical jujustistificatification.on. SaussurSaussuree and TynTynjanov’sjanov's emphasis on the autonomous charcharacteracter of their systems was meant to establish their respective fields of study as independent disciplindisciplines.es. It would be wrong, however, to see TynTynjanov’sjanov's posi­posi- tion on this issue as absolutely set and inflflexibexible.le. He effected a gradgradualual relativization of the original Formalist position on the autonomy of the literary systsystem.em. Only at the very end of the movement, thoughthough,, did the sys­sys- temic Formalists succeed in advancing a coherent theory of the relative autonomy of the liliteraryterary systsystem.em. I refer here to Tyn­Tyn- janov'sjanov’s and Jajakobson’skobson's nine-point thesis written in i91928.28. In this scheme, TynTynjanovjanov rerejectedjected his ststrictlyrictly determinideterministicstic conception of the literliteraryary system accordaccordinging to which the domination of one principle of construction necessarily and ununequivocallyequivocally causes the rise of a singsinglele contrastive principle, which in time becobecomesmes the new dominant. InstInsteadead he proposed a more plurpluralisticalistic view accordaccordinging to which severseveralal new principles of construction diffdiffer-er­ ent from the dominant emerge and strustruggleggle forcontrol. More­More- over, TynTynjanovjanov recast his entire concept of the relation between

33. "O“O literatumoliteraturnojj evoljévoljucii,”ucii," p. 46.

III Russian Formalism

literature and extraliteextraliteraryrary phenomena. He conceived of the ententireire culture as a complex "system“system of systems"systems” comcomposedposed of various subsubsystemssystems such as literature, science, and technologtechnology.34y.34 Within this general systsystem,em, extraliterary phenomena relate to literature not in a piecemeal fashion but as an interplay among systems determined by the logic of the culture to which they belong. Thus, among all the pretenders to domdominanceinance in the literary systsystem,em, the one that converges with the develodevelopmentalpmental tendencies of the overoverallall culturculturalal system becomes the victorvictor.. This, of course, is a highly abstract scheme whichwhich—because-because time ran out for the FormalisFormalists—theyts-they never put into actiaction.on. NoNonetheless,netheless, it indiindicatescates the road the systemic metaphor was taking to release literature from the social vacuum into which it had been forcedby the FoFormalists’rmalists' belief in the autonomy of the literary systsystem.em. By the same token the theses demonsdemonstratetrate the deedeep-seatedp-seated difdifferenceference between Saussure'sSaussure’s and TynTynjanov’sjanov's thought, making a simple equation of their theories impimpossible.ossible. So farI have discussed systemic Formalism only in relation to other fieldsof knowledgknowledge,e, but it is also usefulto comcomparepare it with the other two Formalist metaphorsmetaphors.. SystSystemicemic Formalism is the most advanced stagstagee of the movement. That it was qualqualitativelyitatively diffdifferenterent from the other models was obvious to its contempo­contempo- rariraries.es. In ig192727 VikViktortor ZZirmunskij,irmunskij, for exexample,ample, felt compelled to add a footnote to his i9191919 review article of the OPOJAZOPOjAZ ananthologythology Poetics, in which he termed TynTynjanovjanov a "neo-“neo-For-For­ malist"malist” in order to distinguish his apapproachproach from thethe "original"“original” FormalismFormalism.35.35 It is worth spspecifyingecifying precisely what that diffdifferenceerence is. For exexample,ample, at firstglance it might appear that systemisystemicc Formalism aapproachedpproached the morphologmorphologicalical model with its notions of system and fufunction.nction. In fact, the coincidence of vocabulary is a matter of homonyhomonymitymity and not a sign of any conceptual affinitfinityy be­be— tween the two FormalisFormalisms.ms. The morpmorphologicalhological apapproachproach used

34. "P“Problemyroblemy izucenija literatury iijazyka,” jazyka," p. 37. 35.35. "Vokrug“Vokrug PoetikiPoétiki OpoOpojaza:jaza: Poetika:Poétika: Sborniki pop0 teoriitearii poetileskogopoétic'eskogojazyka. jazyka. PgrdPgrd.. 19191919,”," VoprosyVopmxy teorii literatury,literatmy, p. 356.

II1122 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors these terms in a biologbiologicalical sense, whereas the systemic one used them in a mathematmathematical-logicalical-logical sense. For the former, "fun“function”ction" denotes the role an element performswithin a wholewhole;; this whole is a system because it is an interplay of functfunctionalional elements held together by what ZZirmunskijirmunskij once called the "unit“unityy of artistic goalgoal.”." For the systemic FormaFormalists,lists, funfunctionction was the relation of the interdependent variabvariables,les, and system a hierhierarchicalarchical set of intinterdependenterdependent variabvariables.les. . In generalgeneral,, these two Formalisms were mumutuallytually antipathetic. The systemic Formalists perceived the morphologists as mere fefellowllow traveletravelers,rs, wherwhereaseas forthe morpmorphologistshologists those who con­con- sidersidereded literature a system were extremists and radradicals.icals. ZZir-ir­ munskijmunskij,, after hishis. split with OPOJAZ in 1922, was the most hostile of the morphologistsmorphologists,, and the systemic Formalists never tired of accuaccusingsing him of academic ecclectiecclecticism.cism. ZZirmunskijirmunskijquite properly obobjectedjected to some of the extreme postulatpostulateses of the sys­sys- temic metaphor, such as the immanent development of the liter­liter- ary system and its strict determinideterminism,sm, which as I notnoteded earlier was later abandoned by the systemic Formalists themselvthemselves.es. ZZir-ir­ munskijmunskij’s's critique lacked effectbecause he was unaunableble to offera viable alternative hypothesis as to how literature is conconnectednected with the overoverallall development of culture or what brings togetogetherther all the disdisparateparate human activities of a particular histhistoricalorical mo­mo- ment. InInsteadstead of elaborating these prproblemsoblems ZZirmunskijirmunskij hid be­be- hind a smoke screen of vague terms such as "the“the uniform per­per- ception of lifelife,”," "the“the psypsychologicalchological background of an erera,”a," or the "uniform“uniform liflifee tendencytendency,”," which he had borrowed fromcontem­ contem- porary German aesthetiaesthetics.36cs. 36 The relation ooff systemic to mechanistic Formalism was quite diffdifferenterent from its relation to morphologmorphologicalical FormaFormalism.lism. Mem­Mem- bebersrs. of the two grgroupsoups were personal friends and their theories tended to overoverlap.lap. TynTynjanovjanov acceacceptedpted many of SSklovskij’sklovskij's key concepts and freely acknacknowledgedowledged his debt. Such susurfacerface sim­sim- ilarity should not obscure the imimportantportant diffdifferenceserences between the

36. CfCf.,., for example, "ZadaCi“Zadaci poetipoetiki,"ki," ibidibid.,., pp. 55-58.55—58.

ll113J Russian Formalism

two FormalisFormalisms,ms, which transcend the metaphormetaphoricic didivergencevergence to involve the mode of concept-foconcept-formationrmation underunderlyinglying each modelmodel.. TynTynjanovjanov did not passively borrow SSklovskij’sklovskij's terms but always reformreformulatedulated what he borrborrowed,owed, fittingfitting it into a diffdifferenterent con­con- ceptual frameframe.. In Cassirer'sCassirer’s terterms,ms, one might say that the "thing-concept"“thing-concept” dominatdominateded SSklovskij’sklovskij'sthinking and the "fun“functionalctional concept"concept” was crucial to TynTynjanov’s.janov's. SSklovskijklovskij proceeded from the assumassumptionption that an unchaunchangeablengeable liteliteraryrary essence-"literarinessence—“literariness”—wasess"-was in­in- trinsic to every literary phenomenphenomenon.on. On the ininfraliteraryfraliterary levlevel,el, that is, the level of elements composing the work, he isolated the device as a monad of literary form endowed with "literar“literariness”iness" regardless of its context. On the highest extraliterary levellevel,, the level of all human activitactivities,ies, SSklovskijklovskij drewdrewa sharp line between phenomena with a literary essence and those without it. For him, the facts of literature were incomincompatiblepatible with the facts of bybyt.t. The middle intintraliteraryraliterary levellevel,, the level composed of literary works thethemselves,mselves, played havoc with the mechanistmechanisticic metmetaphor.aphor. If SSklovskij’sklovskij's theory had been ahistahistorical,orical, this level would have posed no problem to him, forhe considered all literary works to be esseessentiallyntially the same, diffdifferingering only in the way they were mamade.de. Because, as I argued earlier, such was not the case, he encountencounteredered diffificulticulties.es. To maintain the seseparationparation of liter­liter- ature and liflifee he had to locate the soursourcece of this change within literature itselfitself.. For this reasreason,on, he introduced the new oppopposi-osi­ tion of "canonized"“canonized” and "non“noncanonized”canonized" litliterature.erature. BuButt this op­0p- position was incomincompatiblepatible with the substantivist naturnaturee of mech­mech- anistanisticic FormalisFormalism.m. If all liteliteraryrary works were literaryliterary,, but some at a given moment were more liliteraryterary than othersothers,, it is not an unchangunchangeableeable essence but a changchangeableeable relationshirelationshipp among works that constitutes literariliterariness.ness. This was the point of dedepartureparture forsystemic FormalisFormalism.m. Un­Un- like SSklovskij,klovskij, TynTynjanovjanov did not locate the diffdifferentialerential quality of literary phenomena in the phenomena themselvthemselves.es. InInsteadstead he found them literary by virtue of the relation in which they par­par- ticipated at the level of a singsinglele work, literature in its totatotality,lity, and

111144 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors the whole national culturculturee of a given timetime.37. 37 Each of these was a system for TynTynjanov,janov, a set of interinterdependentdependent variables, no ele­ele- ment enenjoyingjoying a privileged status prior to its incorporation into the apappropriatepropriate systemsystem.. Moreover, TynTynjanovjanov considered sys­sys- temic not only thethe. organization of each level but the interre­interre- latiolationsns among the levels as wellwell.. Thus, the minimal systemsystem—the-the literary work-waswork—was a variable in the higher litliteraryerary systsystem,em, and in turn this system was a variable in the ultiultimatemate culturculturalal systemsystem.. At the infrinfraliteraryaliterary level, TynTynjanovjanov warns against the futfutilityility of any inquiry into the constitutive parts of a literary work that separseparatesates them from theitheirr context. "Analyses“Analyses of the isolated elements of a work-plotwork—plot and stystyle,le, rhythm and synsyntaxtax in prose, rhythm and semantsemanticsics in verse-wereverse—were enough to convince us that the abstraction of these elements is permissible to some extent as a working hyphypothesis,othesis, but that all these elements are correlated and intinteracting.eracting. The study of rhythm in verse and in prose revealed that the ververyy same element performsa diffdifferenterent role in a diffdifferenterent systsystem.”38em."38 ThThus,us, the liliteraryterary purport of a device is derderivedived solely from the context intintoo which it is incorpo­incorpo- rated and the material of a literliteraryary work is not determined by its extraliterary substsubstanceance but only by its place in the literary con­con- structistruction.on. Clearly aiming at SSklovskij,klovskij, TynTynjanovjanov wrotewrote:: "It“It is selfself-­ evident that 'm‘material’aterial' is not at all the opoppositeposite of 'for‘form’;m'; it is also 'formal'‘formal’ because there is no material which would be external to a constructionconstruction...... Material is that element of the form thatthat is subordinatsubordinateded forthe benefitbenefit of the foregrounded consconstructivetructive elementselements.”39."39 TynTynjanovjanov followsthe same pattern with the narrative aspaspectect of the literary workwork,, which SSklovskijklovskij had split into the liteliteraryrary "p“plot”lot" and the lifelike "stor“story.”y." I have pointpointeded out that some

37. The three-level scheme that I outline here simplifiessimplifies TynTynjanov’sjanov's actual thought somewhat. The middle, inintraliterarytraliterary level in particular comprises sever­sever- al subsystemssubsystems—genres,-genres, literary schoschools,ols, and styles. TyajanovTynjanov did not provide any clear-cut picture of this level of system, however. 38. "O“O literaturnoliteraturnojj evoljevoljucii,”ucii," p. 33. 39. "Literaturny“Literaturnyjj fakt,"fakt,” p. 15.

111155 Russian Formalism

Formalists expressed misgmisglvmgs1vmgs aboaboutut ththee manner in which SSklovskijklovskij difdifferentiatedferentiated betbetweenween these two notionotions.ns. They argued that the storstoryy is not merely a sequence of events but a semantsemanticic structustructure—are-a sequence extracted from its context and endowed with meaning. TynTynjanovjanov agreed with this qualqualiificatification.on. As he wrotewrote,, "st“storyory is the entire semansemantictic scheme of the actioaction”n" repre­repre- sented in the literary workwork.40.40 But his conceptconceptionion of plot and how it is related to "story"“story” was difdifferentferent from the other FormalistFormalists’.s'. He did not see plot merely as a liteliteraryrary redistribution (composi­(composi- tiotion)n) of the sequence of events but as something more intimintimatelyately related to the overall structure of the work. "The“The plot of a work is defineddefined as its dynamism comprised of the interplainterplayy among all the correlations of matmaterialerial ...... ststylistic, ylistic, story-relatstory-related,ed, and so on."4on.”411 StoStory—thery-the configconfigurationuration of events depidepictedcted in the workwork—is-is only one among many variables in this proceprocess.ss. StStoryory is thus related to plot as a partial conconfigurationfiguration to the comcomplexplex configconfigurationuration encompassing the work as an overall sys­sys- temtem.. However, this part/whole relation must not be viewed as stastatic.tic. As TynTynjanovjanov ststressedressed several times, "the“the ununityity of a work is not a closed symsymmetricalmetrical whole but an unfoldingdynamic integinteg-­ rityrity;; among its elements stands not the static sign of equation and additiaddition,on, but always the dynamic sign of correlation and inintegration.”42tegration. "42 The relation of the story and plot was no excep­excep- tion to this rulerule.. In every literary work (lyrical poetry included) a strustruggleggle goes on between the twotwo.. In some worksworks,, for example the traditional novel, the semantsemanticsics of events clearly dominadominatestes the overall structurstructuree of the work, whereas in others the plot unfolds outside the ststory.ory. In both cases it is the relatiorelationshipnship between them that exerts a decisive influeninfluencece on the overall meaning of the work. It is imimportantportant to notice that as the systsystemicemic metaphor devel­devel- opedoped,, its treatment of the ininfraliteraryfraliterarylevel underwent a gradu­gradu- al expansiexpansion.on. In the beginning TynTynjanovjanov was primarily m-in-

40. "Ob“Ob osnovach kinokino,"," Poetika,Poélika, istorija literatury,literatmy, kino, p. 34341.1. 441.1. Ibid. 42. Problema stichotvorxtichotvornogonogo jazyka, p. 110. o.

II6116 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors terested in the relatiorelationsns among the textual elements themselvthemselves,es, but in the course of time he began to focusmormore e and more on the veverticalrtical connections between this and higher levels and their imimpactpact upon the relations among the infralitinfraliteraryerary elementselements.. In the earliest stage of his careecareer,r, "defor“deformation”mation" was the term he used to describe the makeumakeupp of a liteliteraryrary workwork.43.43 It was a set of hierhierarchicallyarchically related elementelementss in which the dominant (or as TynTynjanovjanov often calls it, the "constructive“constructive factor")factor”) deforms to its needs the "m“material,”aterial," that is, all the other susubordinatebordinate elementselements.. While the constructive factor and matmaterialerial are variables in the sense that any linglinguisticuistic element can become the dominant of a work, the subordinatisubordination/superordinationon/superordination relation is constconstant;ant; it is precisely this hierhierarchicalarchical tension among the elements of a speech consconstructiontruction that renders it a literliteraryary fact. It became obvious to TynTynjanovjanov that there was a constancy in the constructive factorand matmaterialerial of diffdifferenterent literary worksworks.. GenrGenree and any other systems larger than the work determine the hierarchical arrangement of elements within it. ThusThus,, the simple notion of defordeformationmation was subsequentsubsequentlyly replaced by a mormoree comprcomprehensiveehensive concept, the "p“principlerinciple of constructiconstruction,”on," which dendenotesotes the dedeformationformationof a spspeciecificfic material by a specifspecif-­ ic constructive factor. TynTynjanov’sjanov's prprobesobes into the diffdifferenceerence be­be- tween prose and poetry, for instance, revealed that the "pr“princi-inci­ ple of construction in prose is the defordeformationmation of sound by meanmeaning,”ing," whereas the "p“principlerinciple of consconstructiontruction in poetr¥poetry is the dedeformationformation of meaning by soundsound.”44."44 As long as poetry is perceived as diffdifferenterent from prose,prose, the internal organization of every poetic work will be based upon the defordeformationmation of mean­mean- ing by sound regarregardlessdless of the spspecificecific form this defordeformationmation taketakes.s. In this way the principle of consconstructiontruction vertically inte­inte- grates the system of a singsinglele work into the overall literary system

43. ApApparentlyparently TynTynjanovjanov was.was not very happy about this term. He complained to Grigorij Vinokur in a letter of November 7, 191924:24: "My“My term 'deformation'‘deformation’ is infinfelicitous;elicitous; it should have been 'transformation'‘transformation’——then-then everything would be in its plaplace,”ce," Poetika,Poétika, istoistorijarija literatury, kino, p. 517517.. 44. "O“O kompozicii EvgenijaEvgem'ja OneginOnegina,"a," ibiibid.,d., p. 55.

IIJ117 Russian Formalism

and renders the relations of the ininfraliteraryfraliteraryelements a functfunctionion of the next higher levellevel.. In the last ststageage of his theoretical carecareer,er, TynTynjanovjanov attattemptedempted to link the ininfraliteraryfraliterarytextual elements to the extraliterary level as wellwell.. He intintroducedroduced the notion of the "cons“constructivetructive funfunction”ction" of an element that consists of two simusimultaneousltaneous relatirelations:ons: in­in- frarelations proper, which he called the "syn-fun“syn-function”ction" or the relations of an element "to“to the other elements of a given [[work-]system”; work-]system"; and inintraliterarytraliterary and extraliterary relatiorelations,ns, which he termed the "a“auto-function”uto-function" or the relatiorelationsns of an ele­ele- ment "to“to the simisimilarlar elements of other work-systems and even of other seriseries.”45es."45 This distdistinctioninction resembles to some extent the Saussurean opposioppositiontion between syntsyntagmaticagmatic and associative rela­rela- tions in langlanguage,uage, the firstfirst being in praesentiapmesentia vis-a-vis the other elements of the syntsyntagmagm in which they occur, and the second in absentia, "present"“present” only in the linguislinguistictic systsystem.em. The diffdifferenterent ' modalities of these relations are reflectedreflected in the fashionin which TynTynjanovjanov links the syn- and auto-fuauto-functions.nctions. The auto-auto-functionfunction is potentially the precondition of the constructive funfunctionction of an element within the work, but the syn-funsyn-functionction determines its aactualctual constructconstructiveive funfunction.ction. TynTynjanovjanov offers the following il­il- lustlustration.ration. An arcarchaismhaism appappearsears in a litliteraryerary work. ItItss existence there is determined by its auto-fauto-function,unction, the relation of this word to the lexical systsystemem of a given language. But its syn-func­syn-func- tion-itstion—its incorporation intintoo the workwork—determines-determines whether the archaism serves as a lexical signal of high ststyleyle (Mi(Michailchail Lomono­Lomono- sovsov’s's usausage)ge) or of an ironic standpoint (some of Fedor TjTjutcev’sutcev's ararchaisms).chaisms). TynTynjanov’sjanov's treatmetreatmentnt of the intrintraliteraryaliterary level was equally re­re- latilational.onal. SSklovskijklovskijhad set aside his substantivism in treating it, so it is no susurpriserprise to findfind here a confluenceconfluence of the mechanismechanistictic and systemic metaphorsmetaphors.. In particparticular,ular, the concept of parody used in SSklovskij’sklovskij's studies of Sterne and Puskin is echoed in some of the earliest of TynTynjanov’sjanov's work.

45. "O“O literatumoliteraturnojj evoljuciiévoljucii,”," p. 33.

II8118 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

For SSklovskij,klovskij, parody was above all a means of de-famide-familiariz-liariz­ ing automatized literary formsthrough the laying bare of auto­auto- matized devices and the disdisplacementplacement and violation of custom­custom- ary litliteraryerary norms, and its aim was to provide us with a new perception of literary forform.m. "The“The apappearancepearance of Tristram Shan­Shan- dy,dy,”" SSklovskijklovskij arguedargued,, "was“was motivated by the petrificationpetrification of the devices of the traditional roman d'aventure.d’aventure. All of its tetechniqueschniques had become totally automatautomatized.ized. Parody was the only way to rerejuvenatejuvenate ththem.em. EvgenijEvgem'j Onegin was writtenwritten...... on the eve of the rise of a new proseprose.. The molds of poetry were cooling off. Puskin drdreamteamt of writing a prosaic novelnovel;; rhyme bored him.him.”46"46 In his earliest studiesstudies,, TynTynjanovjanov exhibited a keen interest in works oriented toward other worworks,ks, esespeciallypecially parodies and styl­styl- izatiizations.ons. The simisimilaritylarity between the two lies in the factthat "both“both are leading a double lifelife:: behind the plane of the work stanstandsds. the second plane, the stylized or parodied one."47one.”47 ApApartart from this kinship thertheree is an imimportantportant dissimdissimilarityilarity between ththem.em. In a ststylizationylization the plane of the work is congruent with the back­back- grouground;nd; in a parody there is an incongruity between the two planesplanes.. This notion of parody apapproachesproaches SSklovskij’s.klovskij's. It is this incongruity of the new and the old, the parodying and parodiparodied,ed, that shakes our perception and renders the literary form de­de- familiarizfamiliarized.ed. TynTynjanovjanov diffdiffersers from SSklovskijklovskij in his use of the concept of parodparody,y, howevhowever.er. As Jurjurijij Striedter obserobserves,ves, "while“while forSSklovskij klovskij parody serves firstfirst and foremostas the testing and verificationverification of his previously formuformulatedlated thesis of art as es­es- trangtrangement,ement, forTynTynjanov janov the literary-hiliterary—historicalstorical analysis of par­par- odistic texts and the subsequent 'theory‘theory of parody'parody’ are the start­start- ing point fora ...... theory of literliteraryary evolutievolution.”48on."48 For literliteraryary evolutievolution,on, conceived as a strugstrugglegle fordomination

46. "Evgenij“Evgenij Onegi,n:Onegin: Puskin i SternStern,”," OcerkiOéerkipo po poetikepoétike PU.ShinaPm'kina (B(Berlin,erlin, 191923),23), p. 219219.. 47. TynTynjanov,janov, "Dostoevskij“Dostoevskij i GogolGogol’:': K teorii paroparodii,”dii," Archaistyi inovatory, p. 416416.. 48. "Zur“Zur formalistischenTheorie der Prosa und der literarischen EvolutiEvolution,”on," quoted from EngEnglishlish tr. by M. NicolsNicolson,on, "The“The Russian Formalist Theory of ProProse,"se," PTL 2 (1(1977),977), 459459.·

II1199 Russian Formalism

of diffdifferenterent elements, the "d“dialecticalialectical play of devices"devices” in parody becobecomesmes an imimportantportant vehivehiclecle of changchange.49e.49 NikNikolajolaj NeNekrasov’skrasov's parodies of LermontLermontov’sov's poems are a case in point. NekNekrasovrasov arrived on the Russian literary scene in the 181840540s after thethe longlong domidominationnation of Romantic poetry which, in the works of Puskin ((1799—1837) 1799- 1837) and LermontLermontovov ((1814—1841), 1814-1841), established the can­can- on of Russian ververse.se. The clumsiness and prosaic quaqualitylity of NeNekrasov’skrasov's poems contrasted sharply with this smooth and ele­ele- gant tradtradition,ition, althougalthoughh his role in the develodevelopmentpment of Russian poetry proved considerconsiderable.able. As TynTynjanovjanov put it, "The“The 'imp‘impossi-ossi­ bleble,’,' ununacceptableacceptable formof NekNekrasov,rasov, his 'bad‘bad’' versverses,es, were good because they disdisplacedplaced automatized verseverse,, because they were newnew.”50."50 Thus, NekNekrasov’srasov's early parodies of LermontovLermontov’s's poems were an impimportantortant element in the process of litliteraryerary changchangee toward post-Romantipost-Romanticism.cism. "The“The essence of his parodies does not rerest,”st," accoaccordingrding to TynTynjanov,janov, "in“in the mocking of the parodied but in the very sensation of the disdisplacementplacement of the old form through the introduction of a prosaic theme and vocabulary"vocabulary” into poetrypoetry.51.51 And although ththee mechanism of NekNekrasov’srasov's par­par- odies was quiquitete simple,'simple,’ "the“the combination of elevated rhythmirhythmical-cal­ syntsyntacticactic figures withwith'low' ‘low’ themes and vocabularyvocabulary,”," they marked a dedepartureparture from thethe RomanticRomantic canon.52canon. 52 . As TynTynjanovjanov furfurtherther elaborated the systemic metaphor, his view of the inintraliterarytraliterary level broadened and he eventually tran­tran- scended the mechanistmechanisticic modelmodel.. He realized that not only par­par- odies and stylizations but all literary texts are dirdirectedected toward other worksworks.. The identidentityity of a work in respect to genre, stylestyle,, or school, indeed its very identidentityity as literature, is based on its rela­rela- tions to other literary works through the underlying literary systsystem.em. The principle of constructconstruction—aion-a special relation be­be- · tween the domindominantant constrconstructiveuctive factorand the subordisubordinatenate ma-

49.4g. TynTynjanov,janov, "Dost“Dostoevskijoevskij i GogolGogol',"'," p. 45455.!?· 50. "L“Literaturnyjiteraturnyj fakt,"fakt,” pp. 111 1—12.-12. See also Ejchenbaum’schenbaum's article "Ne“Nekrasov,”krasov," Literatura,Literatum, pp. 7777—115.-115. 51. "St“Stichovyeichovye formy NekNekrasova,"rasova," Archaisty i novatory,novatmy, p. 40401.1. 52. Ibid.

120 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors terial-wasterial—was the means TynTynjanovjanov used to link the internal organi­organi- zation of a work to the appurappurtenanttenant literary systemsystem.. TynTynjanovjanov even went so faras to identifidentifyy the principle of construction with the literary system itselfitself.. EverEveryy speech constconstructionruction exhibiting a particular hierarhierarchicalchical organization of linguistic elements per­per- ceptible to us becomes by virtue of this a literary fact. The connection between the principle of construction and the literary system is esespeciallypecially appapparentarent from a develodevelopmentalpmental perper-­ spspective.ective. As soon as an autautomatizedomatized "p“principle”rinciple" is negated by a new principrinciple,ple, its systemic existence becomes clear. For only if we conceive of the new principle as a didialecticalectic negation of the old literary system can we perceive its implementimplementationation as a liter­liter- ary factand not merely a mistake.mistake.” 53 On the other handhand,, the new principle must be system-creating, must be implementimplementeded in more than a singsinglele "ac“accidental”cidental" spspeecheech constructconstruction.ion. TynTynjanov’sjanov's model of literary changchangee thus contains fourststages: ages: "(“(1)I) the con­con- trastive principle of construction dialectically rises in respect to the automatized principle of constructiconstruction;on; (2) it is appliapplied—theed-the constructive principle seeks the easiest apapplication;plication; (3) it sprspreadseads over the maximal nunumbermber of phenomephenomena;na; (4) it is autautomatizedomatized and gives rise to a contrastive principle of constructionconstruction.”54."54 In 19192828 TynTynjanovjanov replaced the principle of construction with the "lit“literaryerary function"function” in a wholesale revision of his terminologterminology.y. He conceptualized the three literary levels I have disdiscussedcussed as three sets of funfunctions:ctions: the consconstructivetructive function corrcorrespondingesponding to the infrinfraliteraryaliterary levellevel,, the literary funfunctionction to the intrintraliteraryaliterary level, and the social funcfunctiontion to the extralitextraliteraryerary level. This shifshiftt was not a question of mere nomennomenclature;clature; thertheree were imimportantportant conceconceptualptual diffdifferenceserences betwbetween,een, for example, the principle of construction and the new "fu“function.”nction." TyajanovTynjanov characterized

53. That is, it is a mistake from the point of view of the system, not from that of the creating subsubjectuAsject. As I argue later in this chapter, the systemic Formalists considconsideredered the author'sauthor‘s intentions irrelevant to literary change and claimed that it is an author'sauthor’s unconscious slips rather than conscious efforts that give birth to a new principle of constructiconstruction.on. 54. "Literaturny“Literaturnyjj fakt," p. 1717..

121 Russian Formalism

the principle of construction as a "concept“concept which changes and evolves constantlyconstantly,”55,"55 whwhereasereas the literary funfunctionction undundergoesergoes a much more gradual change, evolving "from“from epoch to epepoch.”56och."56 It is probably wrong to findfind in this terminolterminologicalogical shifshiftt the hint of a more ststaticatic and restrained view of litliteraryerary change. In fact, if we scrutinize the meaning of "s“system”ystem" in regard to each pair of termterms,s, we discover that they are neither contradictory nor incomincompatible.patible. TynTynjanovjanov uses "system"“system” for entitiesentities as diffdiffer-er­ ent as the works of one author, literary styles and schoolsschools,, gen­gen- res, and even prose and poetry in generalgeneral.. NaNaturally,turally, each of these subsystems evolves at a diffdifferenterent speedspeed.. To draw a parallel from social histhistory—aory-a favoritfavoritee ploy of the FormalisFormalists—wets-we must distinguish between recurring coups d'etat,d’état, which simply recycle the ruling eliteelite,, and genuine social revolutions which establish new economic-economic-politicalpolitical formatiformations.ons. Literary evolution has both frequentcoups and rare genuine revolutiorevolutions.ns. Though TynTynjanovjanov fails to provide us with any clear picture of the hierarchy of literary subsystems or a timettimetableable of their evolutionevolution,, the princi­princi- ple of constconstructionruction does seem to apply to more limited sub­sub- systems which chachangenge rapidly, whereas the literary funfunctionction ap­ap- plies to more general and hence more ststableable subsystsubsystems.ems. The funfunctionalctional concept formationof systemic Formalism was also apparent on the extraliterary levellevel.. This level was inaccessi­inaccessi- ble to the mechanists because they programmatically sepseparatedarated art from bybyt,t, literature from liflife.e. From very early in his the­the- oretical career, TynTynjanovjanov questquestionedioned the ratiorationalenale behind this artificialdidistinction. stinction. "I“I do not obobject,”ject," he wrote polemicalpolemically,ly, "to“to the 'relation‘relation of literature and liflife.’e.' I only doubt whether this question is properly posedposed.. Can we say 'lif‘lifee and art'art’ when art is 'lif‘life’e' as well? Do we have to seek some additional utility of 'art'‘art’ if we do not seek the utilitutilityy of 'lif‘life’?”57e'?"57 This assertion was not meant to deny literature an identidentityity of its own. In fact, it it was jujustst the other way araround.ound. Byt is an

55. IbiIbid.,d., p. 16. 56. "O“O literaturnoliteraturnojj evoljévoljucii,"ucii," p. 41. 57. Problema stichotvomogostichotvornogo jazyka, p. 12123.3.

I22122 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors amorphous congconglomeratelomerate of the most disdisparateparate phenomena. Against the background of this nebulous domain the various spespecializedcialized human activities stand out-theout—the arts, sciencescience,, tech­tech- nolognology—whichy-which in themselves are systemssystems.. These systems intro­intro- duce spspeciecificfic funfunctionsctions among the heterogeneous phenomena by either incorporating their formsinto a systsystemem in the course of its development or by rerejectingjecting ththem.em. ThusThus,, when the factof byt is rendered a functfunctionion of a partiparticularcular series it becobecomesmes a factof that series (forexexample, ample, a literliteraryary fact)fact),, or, on the other hand, after losing its affiliatfiliationion with that series it turns into a factof byt. As TyrtjanovTynjanov wrote, "“bytbyt is teeteemingming with the rudiments of various intellectual activitactivities.ies. It is made up of a rudimentrudimentaryary sciencescience,, rudimentrudimentaryary art and technologtechnology;y; it diffdiffersers from a full-full-fledgedfledged science, art, and technology in the way that it deals with [ph[phe-e­ nomena]nomena].. The 'ar‘artistictistic bybyt’t' is thus diffdifferenterent from art in the role art plays within it, but they touch upuponon each other in the formof the phenomena [they both deal with]with].”58."58 DefiningDefining -lliterature iterature as a "dynamic“dynamic speech consconstruction,”truction," Tyn­Tyn- jajanovnov saw "“bytbyt [as] correlated with literature primarilprimarilyy through its speech asaspect,”pect," since spspeecheech phenomena exist in both bybytt and liter­liter- aturature.e. For this reason he termed the "most“most immediate social fufunction”nction" of literature its spspeecheech functifunction.59on.59 Our language be­be- havior is a complex structure of various formsforms,, patterpatterns,ns, and modes of discoudiscourse—somerse-some of them well defineddefined,, others more flufluid—whichid-which evolve alongside the entire structure of human commucommunication.nication. In every historhistoricalical period these forms of dis­dis- course are difdifferentiatedferentiated accoaccordingrding to which series they belong toto:: some are considered literliterary;ary; others belong to byt. But from the developmentdevelopmentalal perspectiperspective,ve, the boundboundariesaries between these two domains are far fromfrombeing fixedfixed and the formsof discourse vacillate between ththem.em. AccoAccordingrding to TynTynjanov,janov, "E“Everyvery lin-

58. "LiteraturnY.i“Literaturnyj fakfakt,”t," p. 1919.. 59. "O“O literaturnoliteraturnojj evoljuciievoljucii,”," p. 42. The concept of the "auto-f“auto-function”unction" dis­dis- cussed earlier, as a langlanguageuage link between literaturliteraturee and extraliterary phe­phe- nomena, thus can be seen as one aspect of the overall "speech“speech function" of literature.

123 Russian Formalism

guistguisticic fact of lrytbyt has multifmultifariousarious and comcomplexplex functions which are interlocked in a struggstruggle.le. Under certain conditions one of these functionsfunctions—the-the literaliterary—becomesry-becomes foregroundedforegrounded”;"; at this moment a linglinguisticuistic factturns into a litliteraryerary fact.fact.606 0 The process works the other way round as wellwell:: a liliteraryterary factbecobecomes mes auto­auto- matizedmatized,, its literary funfunctionction recedrecedes,es, and it turns into a neuneutraltral linguislinguistictic fact-afact—a fact of b-yt.byt. TynTynjanovjanov called this intintricatericate interinterplayplay of literary and extra­extra- litliteraryerary didiscoursescourse ustanovka.The term is very resistant to transla­transla- tion or explanatiexplanation.on. It has two common meanings in RuRussian,ssian, as Jujurijrij Striedter has pointed out: "intent“intention”ion" on the one handhand,, and "orientati“orientation,”on," on the otherother,, "the“the idea of positioning oneself in relation to some given datdata.”61a."61 From TynTynjanov’sjanov's point of view, these meanings have a serious drawbackdrawback—they-they are teleologically foundedfounded.. In both cases what is imimpliedplied is a psychologpsychologicalical subsubjectject of action who either proprojectsjects his intentions into the obobjectject he creates or whose orientation (me(mentalntal attitude) is instinstrumentalrumental in the act of perceptiperception.on. NeNeitherither the "intent“intentional”ional" nor the "aff“affec-ec­ tive"tive” fallacystemming from these meanings of ustanovkawtanovka accords with the obobjectivistjectivist thrust of systsystemicemic FormalFormalism.ism. This model strove to replareplacece the psycpsychologicalhological subsubjectject of the literary process with transpersotranspersonal,nal, selfself-regulating-regulating systsystems.ems. TynTynjanovjanov emempha-pha­ sized several times that in his ususageage ustanovka is devoidevoidd of all its teleologicteleological,al, intentional connotconnotations.62ations. 62 Through this usagusagee of the term TynTynjanovjanov tried to express an imimportantportant fefeatureature of the litliteraryerary systsystem.em. In adadjustingjusting itself to extraliterary modes of didiscourse,scourse, the litliteraryerary system exhibits a selfself-regulating-regulating qualitqualityy chcharacteristicaracteristic of all teleological procprocesses.esses. This qualitqualityy is not introduced from without through a psycho­psycho- logical subsubject;ject; it is an intrinsiintrinsicc property of the literary systsystem.em.

60. "P“Predislovie,”redislovie," RusskaRusskajaja prow,proza, ed. B. Echenbaumjchenbaum and Ju.ju. Tynjanov (Leningrad, 191926),26), p. 10. 6i.61. "Zur“Zur formalistischenTheorie der Prosa und der literarischen EvolutionEvolution,"," quoted from English tr. by M. NiNicolson,colson, "The“The Russian Formalist Theory of Literary EvolutiEvolution,”on," PTL 3 (19(1978),78), 2. 62. CfCf.,., forexample, "O“0 literaturnoliteraturnojj evoljevoljucii,”ucii," p. 43, or "Oda“Oda kak oratorskij fanr,"ianr,” ibidibid.,., p. 49.

121244 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

The point TynTynjanovjanov intended to make in this rather clumsy way is grasped today in the disdistinctiontinction between "goal“goal-intended”-intended" and "goal-direct“goal-directed”ed" behavior, or between teleology and "t“tele-ele­ nomynomy.”." In discussing Jakjakobson’sobson's concept of linguistic changchange,e, Elmar HolenstHolensteinein has provided a succinct sumsummarymary of this dis­dis- tinctitinction.on. "Goal-intended“Goal-intended behavior is based on conscious ideasideas,, convictioconvictions,ns, wisheswishes,, and intentiintentions.ons. These act as the cause of a particular behavibehavior.”or." In contrast, "a“a process is desigdesignatednated as goalgoal-directed-directed when it evokes the apappearancepearance of gogoal-intendedal-intended behavior but no consciously actiactingng subsubjectject is didiscernible.”scernible." The essential feature of a gogoal-directed'oral-directed or "t“telenomic”elenomic" procesprocess,s, ac­ac- cording to HoHolenstein,lenstein, is its "dir“directiveective correlaticorrelation”:on": "a“a process is regarded as telenomic when it is bound to another process in such a way that it not only causes itit,, but is in turn steered in its own course by the other proceprocess.”63ss."63 In deciding whether TynTynjanov’sjanov's ustanovkais a directive correla­correla- tition,on, let us look firstfirst at an apapplicationplication of this concept to some literary matermaterial.ial. Perhaps the best illustillustrationration is TynTynjanov’sjanov's dis­dis- cussion of the transition from Classicism to Sentimentalism in Russian literliterature.ature. There, the ustanovkaof the dominant genre of Russian ClassiciClassicism,sm, the ode, was toward the rhetorrhetoricalical speeches dedeliveredlivered beforbeforee lalargerge audiencesaudiences.. The ttechniquesechniques of this type of discourse are clearly echoed in the "or“oratorical”atorical" odes of MiMichailchail Lomonosov ((1711—1765), i 711-1 765), the best-known poet of the periodperiod.. Lomonosov'sLomonosov’s odes were persuasive in thrust, trying to sway the listener'slistener’s opinion. His rhetorical stratagem was not to apappealpeal to the listener'slistener’s reareason,son, but to his or her emotiemotions.ons. To achieve this goalgoal,, he ststructuredructured his odes by combining distant and hetero­hetero- gegeneousneous elementselements:: the unusuaunusuall nature of such combinations was calculated to have a maximal emotive imimpact.pact. Moreover, the ustanovka toward an oral delivdeliveryery highlighted several other fefeaturesatures of the ode. The intonintonationalational line aimed at the richest possible changes in vocal height, and the stanzaic

63.63'. RoRomanman Jakobson'sjakobxon’s Approach to Language: PhenomenoPhenomenologicallogical Structuralism (B(Bloomington,loomington, Ind., 191976),76), pp. 11119—20.9-20.

1125 25 Russian Formalism

structurstructuree was subsubordinatedordinated to this aim. Copious sound repeti­repeti- tions in eupheuphoniconic and onomonomatopoeticatopoetic constructions also forced the phonic aspect into prominence. And the "oratorical"“oratorical” ode achieved a semantsemanticizationicization of sousound.nd. Not only phonemes but meters were linked to particular meanings. In addition to accen­accen- tuating the sound levlevel,el, the ustanovka toward an oral delivery made possible the use of gestures as rhetrhetoricalorical means. These became semantsemanticizedicized through a secondary code of what Tyn­Tyn- jajanovnov called the "gestu“gesturalral illustillustrations”rations" of odes.odes.6464 Sometimes these "illust“illustrations”rations" actually became the main vehicle of mean­mean- ing: words turned into stimuli for specific gesturesgestures.. FinallyFinally,, the imagery of Lomonosov'sLomonosov’s odes was also geared toward emotive persuasipersuasion.on. HeHerere combinations of semantsemanticallyically distant words (m(motivatedotivated often by sound) resulted in a change in the habitual meaning of these worwords,ds, in a semantsemanticic shifshiftt capable of affaffectingecting the listener'slistener’s emotiemotions.ons. By the end of the eighteenth century the ode had become automatizedautomatized.. It began to be used in nonlitnonliteraryerary waways,ys, as a saluta­saluto- ry speespeechch or suppsupplicatorylicatory verseverse,, forexexample, ample, so that it gradually became a factof bybyt.t. This transformatitransformation,on, TynTynjanovjanov points out, did not affaffectect the genre of the ode alonealone:: the enentiretire canon of high ClClassicismassicism was becoming automatizeautomatized.d. A new principle of consconstructiontruction arosearose,, and a "sm“smallall emotiemotion,on, small form came to the forfore.”65e."65 In fact, the entire system of social intercourse changchanged.ed. The new environment of salons cultivated the art of conversaticonversation,on, a discourse light and personal, playful and socia­socia- ble. The ustanovkawtanovka of the literary system rendered many of the formsof social intercourse liteliterary.rary. EsEspeciallypecially impimportantortant among ththem,em, TynTynjanovjanov claclaims,ims, was the epistepistolaryolary formin which the new Sentimentalist principle of construction foundits opoptimaltimal imple­imple- mentmentation.ation. "Imp“Implicitlicit meaning, fragmentarinefragmentariness,ss, the small 'household'‘household’ form ofofthe letter, all of this motivated the introduc­introduc- tion of triflingtrifling subsubjectject matter and devices in contcontrastrast to the

64. "Oda“Oda kak oratorskij fanr,"ianr,” p. 61. 65. "L“Literaturnyjiteraturnyj fakt,"fakt,” p. 21.

126 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

'g‘grandiose’randiose' devices of the eighteenth centurycentury.”." From a fact ofofbybyt, t, the letter became an imimportantportant literary genregenre.. KaramKaramzin’szin's LeLetterstters of a RuRussianssian TrTraveleraveler (I(1791) 791) markmarkeded a new stagstagee in the history of Russian prose and even the subsequent generation of Roman­Roman- ticists paid close attention to the epistepistolaryolary formform.. OnOnlyly in the course of further development did the letter revert to what it is today-atoday—a fact of byby.“t. 66 This examexample,ple, I believe, provides some basis forterming liter­liter- ary ustanovka a didirectiverective correlaticorrelation.on. It locates the cause of liter­liter- ary change not in a teleological subsubjectject but in the dynamic in­in- teraction among systsystems.ems. "It“It is clearclear,”," TynTynjanovjanov wrote of the vicissitudes of literliteraryary histhistory,ory, "that“that what matters here are not individual psychic conditiconditions,ons, but obobjectivejective onesones,, the evolution of the funfunctionsctions of the litliteraryerary series in relation to the most immedimmediateiate social seriesseries.”67."67 It is also possible to argue that in some of its asaspectspects ustanovka is not, properly spspeaking,eaking, a direc­direc- tive correlaticorrelation.on. The interaction between literature and the "most“most immediimmediateate social series"series” that it dedescribesscribes is somewhat one­one- sidedsided.. TynTynjanovjanov was spirspirituallyitually still too close to Formalism to be able to abandon a belief in the autonomy of litliterature.erature. He saw literary development as determined mainly by the internal con­con- ditions of the literary system and regarded the extraliterary con­con- text as secondary, merely complementing the internal develop­develop- mentmentalal causes by providing literature with speech constructions fittingfitting the needs of the de-automatizing principle of construc­construc- tition.on. The concept of ustanovka appappearsears to be perched somewhere between the theoretheoreticaltical frame of Formalist poetics and post­post- Formalist tenets. By rescrescuinguing literature from thethe social vacuum into which it was placed by FormaliFormalism,sm, ustanovka clearly points beyond this literary-theorliterary-theoreticaletical school of thought. By not pro­pro- viding any avenue forthe active involvement of social systems in literary develodevelopment,pment, however, ustanovka remains rooted in the Formalist postulate of autonomous litliterature.erature. 66. IbidIbid,, pp. 21-21—23.23. 67. "O“O literaturnoliteraturnojj evoljucevoljucii,"ii," p. 45.

1127 2 7 Russian Formalism

That the concept of ustanovkawtanovka was pointing toward the fufutureture is obvious from the nine-point thesis that TynTynjanovjanov wrwroteote with Jajakobsonkobson in 1928, quoted earliearlier.er. Only here was the litliteraryerary system fulfullyly incorpincorporatedorated intintoo the overall cultural system of sys­sys- tems and literary evolution conceived in terms of a directive correlation between these two systsystems.ems. As the penultimate point of this interesting document statstates:es:

The disdiscoverycovery of the immimmanentanent laws of literature (language) per­per- mits us to charcharacterizeacterize every concrete changchangee in litliteraryerary (lin­(lin- guistic) systsystemsems but does not permit us either to explain the tem­tem- pop0 of evolution or to determine the actual selection among several theoretically possipossibleble evoluevolutionarytionary pathpaths.s. This is because the im­im- manent laws of literary (linguist(linguistic)ic) evolution are indefinindefiniteite equa­equa- tions which, while limiting the nunumbermber of solutisolutions,ons, do not neces­neces- sarily leave only a single one. Which pathwapathwayy or at least which dominant is chosen can be determined only thrthroughough an analysis of the correlation among the literary and other histhistoricalorical seriseries.es. This correlation (the system of systems) has its own structustructuralral laws which should be studiedstudied.68.68

The TynTynjanov-jakobsonjanov-Jakobson theses occupy a crucial posposition1t1on in the hihistorystory of Slavic poetipoetics.cs. The fruitof a collaboration between a leleadingading Formalist, who had earlier lectured before the Prague Linguistic CircleCircle,, and the CirCircle’scle's vice-chairman, it represents a definitedefinite point of contact between Formalism and what later be­be- came known as StructuraStructuralism.lism. The theses'theses’ boldly charted design transcends the Formalist mode of inquinquiry,iry, yet there was no op­op- portunitportunityy for the Formalists to apply them to concrete litliteraryerary materialmaterial.. They served as a sprispringboardngboard for the earliest Struc­Struc- turalist literarliterary-historicaly-historical studistudies,es, which aimed at demonstdemonstratingrating that literary development cannot be studied in isolation from the overall development of societysociety.69.69 TynTynjanov’sjanov's effort to elimieliminatenate the psychological subsubjectject from literary studistudies,es, to describe litliteraryerary process in terms of obobjective,jective,

68. "P“Problemyroblemy izucenija literatury ijijazyka,”azyka," p. 37. 69.6g. Cf. forexample, MuMukarovsky‘skafovskfs study "P“Polakovaolakova VznesenostVznes'eriostpfz’rody: prirody: Pokus o rozbor a vyvojovevyvojové zafadzaradénieni basnickbasnickée strustruktury,"ktury,'" SborniSbomz’kfilologicky’k fi lologicky 10 ((1934), i 934), i1— - 68.

128 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

intersystemic mutmutations,ations, is to a large extent a child of its time. As I indindicatedicated earlier, all the FormFormalists,alists, regardregardlessless of the the­the- oretical model to which they subsubscribed,scribed, argarguedued vehemently agagainstainst psychologism and subsubjectivismjectivism in litliteraryerary study. The sys­sys- temic model in genegeneralral followedthis pattpattern.ern. It is true that Tyn­Tyn- janov included the subsubjectject (es(especiallypecially the author) amamongong his the­the- oretical topics, but by "de-“de-psychologizing”psychologizing" and "de-sub“dc-subjectivi-jectivi­ zing"Zing” him, TynTynjanovjanov ended by fusingthe subsubjectject with the liter­liter- ary systsystem.em. The subsubjectject served the system in two capacitiescapacities:: first, as an unconscious generator of the varied principles of construc­construc- tion needed by the system for its constant rerejuvenation;juvenation; and secondsecond,, as the sysystem’sstem's vehicle of liliteraryterary sensisensibilitybility signaling the automatization of the dominant principle of construction and thus triggering its replacement by a contrasting principleprinciple.. In each case the subsubjectject is complecompletelytely suborsubordinatedinate to the systsystem.em. What matters in literliteraryary process are not a subsubject’sject's volivolitions,tions, feefeelings,lings, or actions but the internal conditions of the impimpersonal,ersonal, selfself-regulating-regulating systsystem.em. TynTynjanov’sjanov's concept of the author was influinfluencedenced by Tomasev­Tomasev- skijskij,, probably the firstfirst among the Formalists to succeed in sepa­sepa- rating the authorauthorialial subsubject—forject-forTomasevskij a legitimate obobjectject of literary studystudy—from-from the author as a concrete psychophysical being, whose locus is outside ofliteratuliterature.re. TomasevskiTomasevskijj treats the concept of the authoauthorr from a dual persperspective:pective: the production and the reception of the litliteraryerary textext.t. The readreader’ser's "s“struggletruggle to comprehend the creative unity in a poet'spoet’s works naturally entails an intinteresterest in the writer as a kind of concrconcreteete unity. ThusThus,, the reader is not satisfiedsatisfied with comprehending the abstract unity of poetic worksworks.. This ununityity must be embodiedembodied,, namednamed,, recogrecognized.nized. The liflifee of the poet is the frame which conveniently and simply fitsfits his creationcreation.”." Such a conflationconflation of Wahrheit and Dichtung, of an individual and a stylestyle,, is, in TomasevskiTomasevskij’sj's opinion, one soursourcece of the conceptual confusion in which "poet“poeticic indiindi-­ viduality is comcomprehendedprehended as personal individuality"individuality” and the "key“key to artistic unitunityy is sought in the unitunityy of a personalitpersonality.”70y."70 70.7o. TomasevskijTomasevskij,, Pu.SPus'kin:kin: Sovremennye problemy istoriko-literatumogoisloriko~literaturnogo izucenijaizuc’em'ja (Lening(Leningrad,rad, i91925),25), pp. 56-556—57.7.

129 Russian Formalism

This confusion, however, can be inintroducedtroduced into the percep­percep- tion of the text deliberately by its author, who in one way or another establishes a link between his or her work and life.From the standstandpointpoint of liliteraryterary productiproduction,on, Tomasevskij distin­distin- guished between two types of authorsauthors:: those with a biography and those without one. It is the former who contribute to the confconfusion,usion, fortheir texts acquire spspecificecific meanings and signifi­signifi- cance in connection with their author'sauthor’s biograbiography.phy. Tomasevskij sees Voltaire as the firstfirst author with a biograbiographyphy in the history of modern literaliterature.ture. "V“Voltaire’soltaire's works were inseinseparablyparably linklinkeded to his liflife.e. He was not only readread;; he was sought by pilgrimpilgrims.s. The admirers of his oeuvre were also worshipers of his personalpersonality;ity; the opopponentsponents of his worksworks,, his personal enemies. Voltaire'sVoltaire’s per­per- sonality unifiedhis oeuvreoeuvre.. HiHiss works are not the firstfirst thing that comes to mind when his name is mentionedmentioned.. Even today when most of his tragedtragediesies and poems are complcompletelyetely forgottforgotten,en, the image of Voltaire is still alive and these forgotten works still shine by the reflectedreflected light of his unforunforgettablegettable biogrbiography.”7laphy."71 This distdistinctioninction between the two types of authors does not mean that the literary critic should study an author as a concrete psychoppsychophysicalhysical individual. On the contrary, TomaseTomasevskij’svskij's arti­arti- cle specificallyfically argues against this appapproach.roach. For him the term "biog“biography”raphy" has two senses. In one sense, it is a documentdocumentaryary narrative produced by tradtraditionalitional liliteraryterary criticiscriticism,m, a collection of facts from the the poet'spoet’s private and public liflife.e. Tomasevskij claims that this kind of biography has very little to do with liter­liter- ary studies. "As“As faras 'document‘documentary’ary' biogrbiographiesaphies are concernedconcerned,, they all fall into the sphere of the history of culturculturee on a par with the biograbiographiesphies of generals and inventinventors.ors. For literature and its hihistorystory they are mermeree externalexternal,, though necnecessary,essary, sources of refreferenceerence and auxiliary materialmaterial.”72."72 What is intintegralegral to literary studies is what Tomasevskij calls the artisticartistic,, "legendary"“legendary” biograbiography.phy. It diffdiffersers frofromm the "docu-“docu-

71. "L“Literaturaiteratura i biografbiografitja,"ja,” Kniga i revoljucija, no. 4 (28) (1(1923),923), 6. 72. Ibid.Ibid.,, p. g.9.

130 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors mentary"mentary” biography in that it is not genegeneratedrated by literary critics but by writers themselves conscious of the fact thatthat. "their“their lives will be the .ppermanentermanent screen agaagainstinst which their works will be proprojected.”jected." Such reflexiveness affects authors in two waways.ys. It "for“forcesces ththem,em, on the one hand, to stage the epic motifmotifss in their liveslives,, and on the other handhand,, to create forthemselves an artisartistictic biograbiography—aphy-a legend with a well-calculwell-calculatedated selection of real and fabricated eventevents.”73s."73 DespitDespitee the fact that in this type of biogra­biogra- phy it is imimpossiblepossible to demardemarcatecate with any precision where Di­Di- chtung ends and Wahrheit begbegins,ins, or perhaps because of it, TomasevskiTomasevskijj findsthe artistic biography proper to the spspherehere of litliteraryerary studstudies.ies. "This“This is because these biographic legends are literary interinterpretationspretations of the poet'spoet’s lifelife,, interpretations whiwhichch are essentessentialial as the perceptible background of a literary work, as a premise taken into accoaccountunt by the author when he created his worksworks.”74."74 In other worwords,ds, the artistic biography presents us not with the author as a concrete psychophypsychophysicalsical subsubjectject but with the authorial subsubject,ject, that is, the author'sauthor’s image refracted through the literary memedium.dium. FurthermorFurthermore,e, the artistic biograbiographyphy is a literary matter be­be- cause both the existence of "authors“authors with biogrbiographies”aphies" and the contents of these biographies are conditioned by the literary conventions of a periodperiod.. In Russian literature of the mid-nine­mid-nine- teenth century, forinstinstance, ance, after a prolifproliferationeration of authors with biogrbiographiesaphies in the Romantic periperiod,od, "authors“authors without biogra­biogra- phies"phies” became the normnorm.. As TomasevskiTomasevskijj put it, "t“thehe poet-hero was replaced by the poet-profpoet-professional,essional, the entrepreneuentrepreneur.r. The writer wrote, sent his manuscripts to the printer, and did not permit any views into his private liflife.”e." By the same logiclogic,, if there is a period of ''authors“authors with biogrbiographies”aphies" these biograbiographiesphies ex­ex- hibit the chcharacteristicsaracteristics demanded by the periodperiod’s's literary con­con- ventventions.ions. DesDescribingcribing a collection of biographies of fashionable belletrists of the turn of the centurycentury,, TomasevskiTomasevskijj wrotewrote:: "They“They

73. IbiIbid.,d., pp. 6-76—7.. 74·74. IbiIbid.,d., p. 8.

IJ131I Russian Formalism

all scream over one another that they have not studied anything because they were kicked out of high schools and technical schooschools,ls, that they have nothing but a pair of torn pants and a couple of buttbuttons,ons, and that all this is because they do not give a bloody damndamn.”75."75 Such examples illusillustratetrate how tenuously the artistic biography is linlinkedked with the "real"“real” author. What emerges from it instinsteadead is the authorial subsubject—aject-a figure whose birth­birth- place and domidomicilecile are purely litliterary.erary. TynTynjanovjanov found TomaseTomasevskij’svskij's concept of biography con­con- genial for a simsimpleple reasoreason.n. It sofsoftenedtened the rigid Formalist op­op- position of literature to author, while at the same time, by sepa­sepa- rating the literary from the nonlitnonliteraryerary side of the author, it preserved the Formalist belief in the autonomyautOnomy of literatureliterature.. Despite the fact that several of TomasevskiTomasevskij’sj's points turn up in TynTynjanov,janov, the latter apapproachedproached the prproblemoblem of the literary au­au- thor from a difdifferentferent persperspective,pective, through the categcategoryory of the proper namename.. It is the author'sauthor’s proper name, TynTynjanovjanov beliebelieved,ved, that is primarily responresponsiblesible forthe confusionbetween literature and bybyt.t. The name simulsimultaneouslytaneously denotes an individual tangen­tangen- tial to the literary system and entities as essentially conconnectednected to this system as textstexts,, literary schoschools,ols, genres, or periodperiods.s. TynTynjanov’sjanov's intinteresterest in the proper name was probably moti­moti- vated by its imimportanceportance in philosophiphilosophicalcal discussions of the late ninetnineteentheenth and early twentieth centuries, discussed in the firstfirst chapter. In the argument between those who maintmaintainedained that the proper name is a senseless mark and those who insinsistedisted that it a shorthand descriptidescription,on, TynTynjanovjanov sided with the descriptivist camcamp.p. This position fitfit well with his overall relational outlooutlook,ok, in which the identidentityity of phenomena is a functfunctionion of their context. The descriptivist view also conformed to the peculiar status of proper names in literature, which of course was TynTynjanov’sjanov's cen­cen- tral concernconcern.. As soon as we desdesignateignate someone a literary author, we place that individual in a spspecialecial context. He or she becobecomesmes a component of a literary process and the persperson’son's identidentityity be-

7575.. IbIbid.id.

11323 2 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors comes circumcircumscribedscribed through the textstexts,, gegenres,nres, or periods with which he or she is assoassociated.ciated. For example, the names of PuskPuskin,in, DostoevsDostoevskij,kij, or TolsTolstojtoj denote only indindirectlyirectly the individuals Messrs. Puskin, TolstoTolstoj,j, or DostoevsDostoevskij.kij. InInsteadstead they refer to purely litliteraryerary entitiesentities,, particular stylistic fefeatures,atures, sets of textstexts,, and so on. The peculiar status of the author'sauthor’s name is especially palpable in the recereceptionption of literliteraryary worworks.ks. HeHerere the name serves as a kind of bridbridgege wherwheree impulses coming from the text meet with extratextual ininformation.formation. On the one handhand,, the name might arise from the text itself as the label of its styliststylisticic individualityindividuality:: "There“There are ststylisticylistic phenomena which lead to the person of the author ...... the particular vocabularyvocabulary,, syntax, and espeespeciallycially the intonational outline of the phraphrase;se; all of this mormoree or less alludes to the unungraspablegraspable and yet at the same time concrete featuresof the narratnarrator.or...... the name is the last limit of this stylistic persoperson’sn's literary concretenessconcreteness.”76."76 The name, on the other hand, is also attached to the text from the outside, and thrthroughough its connotations it introduces spspeciecificfic inforinformationmation and expectations intintoo the readreadinging of the tetext.xt. The case of the pseudonym is esespeciallypecially teltelling.ling. "Taken“Taken in its extra­extra- literliteraryary aspectaspect,”," argued TynTynjanov,janov, "a“a pseudonym is a phe­phe- nomenon of the same order as an anonymanonym.”77."77 ItItss purppurportort in literatliterature,ure, however, is comcompletelypletely difdifferent.ferent. "When“When a nine­nine- teenth-century writer signed an article 'An‘An InhInhabitantabitant of New Village'Village’ insinsteadtead of using his namename,, he obviously did not wish to convey to the reader that he lived in New VillageVillage,, because the reader does not have to know this at allall.. But precisely as a result of this 'pu‘purposelessness’rposelessness' the name acquires diffdifferenterent fefeatures—atures­ the reader selects from the concepts [in the pseudonym] only what is characteristic, only what in some way susuggestsggests a character forthe author, and applies these to the fefeaturesatures that arise from the stylestyle,, the peculiarities of the narrative [ska[skaz],z], or the preexist-

76. "Lit“Literaturnyjeraturnyj fakt,"fakt,” pp. 2626—27.-27. 77-77. IbiIbid.,d., p. 28.

I133JJ Russian Formalism

ing stock of similar names. ThusThus,, New Village is for him the 'fr‘frontier,’ontier,' and the author of the article a 'recl‘recluse.’use.' "78”78 According to TynTynjanov,janov, real proper names affect our readreadinging of a literary text in the same manner as pseudopseudonyms.nyms. The only diffdifferenceerence is that the connotconnotationsations of proper names are not de­de- rived dirdirectlyectly from the words that make up the name but from the literary reputreputationation of their bearebearers.rs. TynTynjanovjanov uses Tomasev­Tomasev- skiskij’sj's concept of biography to clarifclarifyy the notion of literary repu­repu- tation in terms of TomasevskiTomasevskij’sj's "author's“author’s artistic biograbiography”—phy"­ the blend of real events, hearsahearsay,y, and outright fabrication that constitutes the image of an author. This image carries the same proper name as the psychophysipsychophysicalcal individual existing behind itit,, but this is merely a case ofhomonymityhomonymity and should not suggest that the two ententitiesities are identidentical.ical. TynTynjanovjanov difdifferentiatesferentiates be­be- tween the "author's“author’s individuality"individuality”—a-a set of personal charcharac-ac­ teristics irrelevant from a purely literary viewpointviewpoint—and-and "liter­“liter- ary individualindividuality”—aity"-a set of fefeaturesatures representing the author in the reader'sreader’s mindmind.. Though there is always some partial overlap between the twotwo,, students of litliteratureerature should keep them dis­dis- tinct in their minminds.ds. The structure of "lit“literaryerary indiindividuality”viduality" is ultultimatelyimately a funfunctionction of the litliteraryerary system, whereas the author'sauthor’s individindividualityuality is acaccidentalcidental from the the standpoint of this systsystem.em. A careful difdifferentiationferentiation between the author'sauthor’s indiviindividualityduality and litliteraryerary individuaindividualitylity is necessary in the study not only of the recereceptionption but of the production of literary worksworks.. As TynTynjanovjanov wrotewrote,, "it“it is very common today to substsubstituteitute the problem of the 'author's‘author’s individuaindividuality’lity' forthe problem of 'l‘literaryiterary individuaindividuality.’lity.' The problem of the psychpsychologicalological genesis of every phenomenon is thus substsubstitutedituted for the problem of evolution and literary changchange,e, with the susuggestionggestion that instead of literature we should study the 'creator's‘creator’s personalitpersonality.”’y.' " TynTynjanovjanov points out the fal­fal- lacy in this view using a parallel fromsocial histhistory.ory. "To“To speak of the creatcreator’sor's personal psychopsychologylogy and to see in it the soursourcece of the originality of a phenomenon and its signsignificanceificance forliterary

78. IbiIbid.,d., p. 27.

I134J4 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors

evolution is like claiming in an interprinterpretationetation of the origin and signifificancecance of the Russian Revolution that it happened because of the personal idiosyncrasies of the leaders of the fightingfighting par­par- tities.”79es. "79 The regularregularityity ofliliteraryterary production can be studied only with­with- in its actual context, which is proviprovided,ded, TynTynjanovjanov believbelieved,ed, by the state of the literary systsystem.em. Within this context, an author'sauthor’s individuality figuresfigures only as an accidaccident.ent. It is a conglomerconglomerateate of haphhaphazardazard activities in which some might become relevant for litliteratureerature but only if required by the developmentdevelopmentalal needs of the systsystem.em. All the author'sauthor’s intentiintentions,ons, originalityoriginality,, and so on play no role in litliteraryerary change. The new "pr“principleinciple of construction"construction” al­al- ways "arises“arises on the basis of 'for‘fortuitous’tuitous' results and 'fortuit‘fortuitous’ous' deviatiodeviations,ns, mistakesmistakes,”," not because it was plannedplanned.80. 8° From the systsystemicemic point of view the auauthorialthorial subsubject’sject's role in literary pro­pro- ducductiontion can be studstudiedied only within the framework of "lit“literaryerary individuaindividuality.”lity." This individindividuality,uality, however, is a transformation of the "author's“author’s individualitindividuality.”y." It is a configurconfiguration,ation, a selection of certain of the subsubject’sject's actions which became enmeshed in the hihistorystory of the literary systsystem.em. HerHeree too the same name stands for both "ind“individualities”ividualities" but again this is not a suffisufficient reason to confconfilateate ththem.em. In addition to the author, of courcourse,se, another subsubjectject partici­partici- pates in the literary prprocess—theocess-the reareader.der. Although the systemic Formalists at least paid lip service to the authorial subsubject,ject, the perceiving subsubjectject was virtually ignoredignored.. TynTynjanovjanov discussed the reader in two contextscontexts.. In his discussion of verse language he ememployedployed severseveralal basic categories pertaining to the reareader’sder's con­con- scisciousness,ousness, such as retention aandnd protentiprotention,on, successivity and simultsimultaneity,aneity, or mental attituattitude.81de.81 TynTynjanov’sjanov's goal was not the "ph“phenomenologyenomenology of readreading”ing" but the nature of poetic rhytrhythm.hm. ThereforTherefore,e, he did not treat these categories in a systemic fash­fash- ioion;n; they serservedved him rather as heuheuristicristic devices to dedemarcatemarcate I 79. IbiIbid.,d., pp. 1212—13.-13. 80. IbiIbid.,d., p. 18. I 81. Problema stichotvornogoxticholvomogo jazyka, esp. pp. 2828—45.-45.

I 13 I 1355 I Russian Formalism

verse language frompro prose.se. TynTynjanovjanov also includes the reader in his studies of literarliteraryy change, as an acceaccessoryssory to the literary systsystem,em, or more precisely, as the very selfself-consciousness-consciousness of this system that prompts it to seek a new principle of constructiconstruction.on. In harmony with the overall thrust of systemic FFormalismormalism in both of these instances, the reader is purged of all possible sub­sub- jectjectivityivity and accidentaccidentality.ality. Readers are firstfirst redreduced uced to the inter­inter- subsubjectivejective basis of human consciconsciousness.ousness. In the service of the systsystem,em, moreovemoreover,r, they are as much present at the birth of a litliteraryerary work as are the authors, and the readers'readers’ acceptance or rerejectionjection of the work as literliteraryary is an externalization of the cur­cur- rent ststateate of the literary systsystem.em. At the time the work is pro­pro- duced there seems to be no doubt as to its literarinessliterariness—“every-"every contcontemporaryemporary can point his fingerfinger at what is a literaryfafact.”82 ct. "82 Yet at the moment the readers cease to be a part of the context from which the work arose, TynTynjanovjanov loses interest in ththem.em. Now chance prevails and the reading turns into a "mi“misreading.”sreading." "It“It is not trtrue,”ue," TynTynjanovjanov arguedargued,, "that“that works cannot live 'through‘through the centurcenturies.’ies.' AuAutomatizedtomatized obobjectsjects can be usedused.. Each epoch focuses on certain phenomena of the past which are akin to it and forgetsthe othersothers.. But these cases areare,, of course, secondsecondaryary phenomena, new work on old materialmaterial.. The histhistoricalorical Puskin diffdiffersers fromthe PuskPuskinin of the Symbolists, but the latter is incom­incom- patible with the evolutevolutionaryionary significancesignificance of Puskin in Russian literatuliterature.”83re. "83 How incomincompatiblepatible the study of literary recereceptionption was with systemic Formalism can best be illusillustratedtrated by TynTynjanov’sjanov's i9192929 article "On“On ParoParody.”dy." There he atteattemptsmpts to rebut ZZirmunskij’sirmunskij's charchargege that TynTynjanov’sjanov's neo-neo-FormalismFormalism aims at replacing "hist“histor-or­ ical poetics with the histhistoryory of criticism and readreaders’ers' tasttastes.”84es.''84 "It“It is utterly imposimpossiblesible to sepaseparaterate the author of literature fromthe reader because they are esseessentiallyntially the same. The writer is a reader tootoo,, and the reader carries on the wrwriter’siter's jojobb of con-

82. "L“Literaturnyjiteraturnyj fakt,"fakt,” p. g. 83. Ibilbid.,d., p. i2.12. 84. ZZirmunskij,irmunskij, "Vokrug“Vokrug PoetikiPoétiki OpoOpojaza,”jaza," p. 356. 136 The Three MetaMetaphorsphors structing the literary work. This contrasting of reader and writer is furthermorfurthermoree incorrect because there are diffdifferenterent readers and writerswriters.. The writer of one cultural and social system is closer to the reader of the same system than to the writer of a diffdifferenterent systsystem.em. The issue of 'reader‘reader reception'reception’ arises only if it is ap­ap- proached from a subsubjectivist-psychologisticjectivist-psychologistic standstandpoint,point, and not if it is studied systemo-functsystemo-functionally.”85ionally."85 In other worwords,ds, for a systemisystemicc FormaFormalist,list, the only legitimate obobjectject of literary studies is the selfself-regulating-regulating literary systsystem.em. The perceiving subsubjectject is ei­ei- ther treated as an appendix of this imimpersonalpersonal system or ig­ig- norednored.. 85. TynTynjanov,janov, "O“O parodparodii,"ii," pp. 29294—95.4-95.

113737 3 A SySynecdochenecdoche

The three metaphors of Russian Formalist theorytheory,, decisive as they were in their proponents'proponents’ thinking, still do not acaccountcount for perhaps the most fundamentfundamentalal Formalist concepticonception:on: the notion oflanguaglanguagee as the material of poetpoetry.ry. "I“Insofarnsofaras the material of poetry is the worword,”d," ZZirmunskijirmunskijwrote wrote,, "the“the classificationclassification of ver­ver- bal phenomena provided by linguislinguisticstics should be the basis fora systematsystematicallyically constructed poetipoetics.cs. Because the artistic , goal transformseach of these phenomena into a poetic devicedevice,, every chaptchapterer of theortheoreticaletical poetics should corrcorrespondespond to a chapter from the science of languagelanguage.”1."1 Language thus generated a fourfourthth Formalist model. But the trope underlying it was not a metmetaphor,aphor, as in the cases of the mechanistmechanistic,ic, morpmorphological,hological, and systemic models. These posited a simisimilaritylarity between the literary work and a machinemachine,, organisorganism,m, and hiehierarchicalrarchical systsystem,em, respec­respec- tively, but the model described by ZZirmunskijirmunskij is a synecdosynecdoche,che, a parspan pro toto relatiorelationship.nship. It substsubstitutesitutes langulanguage—theage-the material of ververbalbal art-forart—for art itselfitself,, and linguislinguistics—thetics-the science of lan­Ian- guguage—forage-for literliteraryary studies. The linguilinguisticstic modelmodel,, as this theoretical synecdoche might be termedtermed,, has its roots in the early Formalist preocpreoccupationcupation with

1. "ZadaCi“Zadaci poetpoétiki,"iki," VoprosVoprosyy teoriitearii literliteratmy:atury: StatStal’i'i z9z61916—1926-z926 (Leni(Leningrad,ngrad, i91928),28), p. 3939.·

I138J 8 A Synecdoche

"p“poeticoetic languaglanguage.”e." The imimportanceportance of this notion forthe entire Formalist enterprise cannot be overstatedoverstated.. Pavel MedvedevMedvedev,, a Marxist critic of the movement, quite correctly claimed that the "h“hypothesisypothesis of the disdistinctnesstinctness of poetic langlanguageuage is the basis upon which the entire Russian Formalist method is builtbuilt.”2."2 The Formalists themselves were aware of the privilegprivilegeded status of this concept. InIndignantdignant at the label of "F“Formalism”ormalism" foisted upon them, these young literary scholars proudly presented them­them- selves as students of poetic langlanguageuage and even as linguistslinguists.. The names of their two original grgroups,oups, the SocietSocietyy forthe Study of Poetic LanguagLanguagee and the MoMoscowscow Linguistic Circle, and the title of their firstfirst two collective publicatiopublications,ns, Studies in the Theory of Poetic Language, clearly indindicateicate the image they strove to proprojectject at the inceptinceptionion of the movement.movement.3 3 The acceptance of any concept among the whole Formalist membership was never a simsimpleple matter and "p“poeticoetic language"language” was no exceexception.ption. BeBecausecause of the inheinherentrent heterogeneity of the movement and the fluidityfluidity of its concepts over time, the For­For- malists never reached a general defindefinitionition of either poetic lan­lan- guage or the linguilinguisticstic frame of reference for its descriptidescription.on. Moreover, as Formalist theorizing ununfolded,folded, the fortunesof the linguistlinguisticic model in general and the notion of poetic languaglanguagee in particular fluctuatedfluctuated widely. OPOOPOJAZ’sJAZ's initial infatuation with the two gave way to a sharp backlash in the early twentitwenties.es. But just as the stock of the linglinguisticuistic model was dipping in Pe­Pe- tersburg, it was rising in Moscow. Obviously, the idea of a single theoretical synecdoche in Russian Formalism is an oversimplifi­oversimplifi- catcation.ion. In fact, this fourth model encompasses several distinct theoritheories,es, each of which treated literature as the art of language and used methods borrowed from linguistics. In the discussion that follofollows,ws, I shall attattemptempt to descdescriberibe some of the most imimpor-por­ tant currents among ththem.em.

2. Formal'Formal’nyjnyj metod v literaturovedenii: KriticeskoeKritie'eskoe vvedenie v sociosociologie'eskujulogiceskuju poet­poet— iku (L(Leningrad,eningrad, 191928),28), p. 111111.. 3. SbornikiSbomikipopo teoriiteariipoétie’eskogojazyka poeticeskogojazyka 1 (1916(1916);); 2 (1917(1917)) (both published in St. PeterPetersburg).sburg).

11393 9 Zaum '

The meaningless pursuit of meaning by our writ­writ- ers is quite astonastonishing.ishing. Wishing to portray the incomprehensincomprehensibility,ibility, the illogicality of life and its terror or mystmystery,ery, they resort (as ever, as alwaysalways!)!) to "clear,“clear, precise"precise” com­com— mon langulanguage.age. [[...... ]] We were the firstfirst to say that for portraying the new and the futfutureure completelcompletelyy new words and new combinations are necessary. This striking newness will come through the com­com- bination of words according to their own immanent laws revealed to the poet and not according to the rules of logic or grammar, as has been the case before us. -ALE——ALEKSE]KSEJ KRUCKRUCENYCH,ENYCH, "The“The New Paths of the Word"Word”

"Poetic“Poetic language"language” was already a loaded term by the time it ententeredered Formalist discoursediscourse.. Aleksandr PotebnPotebnjaja (18(1835—1891),35-1891), the heir to the tradition of HuHumboldtianmboldtian linguistlinguistics,ics, was the firstfirst to introduce the didistinctionstinction between poetic and prosaic lanlanguageguage intintoo Russian philphilology.4ology.4 The Formalists'Formalists’ attitude toward their

4. CfCf.,., forexample, L. Jakakubinskij,ubinskij, "O“O dialogicesdialogiceskojkoj recireci,"," RusskaRumkajaja ree'rec":: Sbor­Sbor— niki stateitalej,j, vol. 1, ed. L. V. Scerbacerba (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 191923),23), pp. 111 13—14;3-14; Victor ErliErlich,ch, Russian Formalism:Formalixm: History-Doctrine,History—Doctrine, 3d ed. (The Hague, 191965),65), pp. 23-26;23—26; or W.-D.W.—D. Stempel, "Zur“Zur formalistischenTheorie der poetischen SprSprache,”ache," Texte der russischenrussiichen Formali1ten,Formalislen, vol. 2, ed. W.-D. Stempel (M(Munich,unich, 191972),72), p. xiv. I40 A Synecdoche

"p“precursor”recursor" was rather ambivaleambivalent,nt, however. Their willingness to borrow from him implied a respect extended to no other nineteenth-century Russian philologist but VeselovskiVeselovskij.j. StStillill they criticized PotebnPotebnja’sja's work violently in order to diffdifferentiateerentiate them­them- selves from him, and especially from his numerous epigepigones.ones. The Symbolist literary critic D. FiloFilosofov,sofov, the firstfirst reviewer of OPOOPOJAZ’SJAZ's 1916 collective publicatipublication,on, descrdescribedibed this didialecticalectic relatirelationship:onship: "All“All the contributors to this new collection are in a sense PotebnPotebnja’sja's pupils. They know him by heartheart;; they live off the late scholar'scholar’ss ideasideas.. But they are not arrested in themthem.. They reexamine the mysterious correlations of sound and represerepresenta-nta­ tion and in doing so they focus theirtheir ententireire attention on soundsound.. But in the end they make clear that sound, even 'nonarticulated'‘nonarticulated’ soundsound,, generates represerepresentation.ntation. They speak of the magic of sound, the magic of worwords.”5ds."5 The Formalist dedepartureparture fromPotebnPotebnja ja should not be viewed merely as a ststruggleruggle for recognitirecognition.on. ThougThoughh a powerful and prolific thinker, PotebnPotebnjaja was often mormoree sugsuggestivegestive than clear, and in his elaborate handling of topics he often multiplied the definitdefinitionsions of even his most cherished conceconcepts.pts. The oppoppositionosition between prosaic and poetic lanlanguageguage is a case in point. Some­Some- times it is presented as a simpsimplele formaldichotomy between prose and poetrypoetry,, and at othersothers,, as a psychological antinomy between prosaic and poetic thought. In the latter cacase,se, the presence of a mentmentalal image is the essenessentialtial feature of the poetpoetic,ic, and "p“poeticoetic thinking"thinking” is defineddefined as "t“thinkinghinking in which the image is impor­impor- tant.tant.”6 "6 When the distinction is made on formal grgrounds,ounds, the diffdifferentialerential feature is a matter of functifunction;on; prose is thus "lan­“lan- guagguagee oriented solelysolely'toward toward practical aims or serving as an expression of scholarscholarship.”7ship."7 DesDespitepite these inconsistinconsistencies,encies, PotebnPotebnja’sja'� poetics did rest on certain basic assumassumptions.ptions. The word andand/or/or poeticpoetic'work work consists of ththreeree partsparts:: the outer form (the perceptible aspect)aspect),, the

5. "M“Magijaagija slovslov,"," Rel'Rec",, no. 265 (September 26, 19161916),), 3. 6. Iz12 zapisokzapixokpo po teoriitearii slovesnostixlovemosti (Char'(Char’kov,kov, 191905),05), p. 98. 7. IbiIbid.,d., p. 102. I41 Russian Formalism

meaning (the intelligible aspeaspect),ct), and the inner form or repre­repre- sentsentationation (the tropologtropologicalical link between the twtwo).o). The crucial member of this triad is inner formform,, a notion heavily dependent upon certain ideas from psychology. In agreeagreementment with the atomistic theory of association so popular in his timetime,, PotebnPotebnjaja treated mentmentalal life as an aggregate of simple sensorsensoryy elementselements.. For him, the perceptual identidentityity of an obobjectject (what he termed its "image")“image”) was guaranteed by the persistence of a simple chcharac-arac­ teristic through whwhateveratever contcontextualextual modifimodificationcation the obobjectject un­un- dergodergoes.es. Language follows thisthis modelmodelwhen a distdistinctiveinctive chcharac-arac­ teristic motivates an obobject’sject's designatidesignation,on, that is, when the obobjectject is named accordaccordinging to this fefeature.ature. But though thought and langulanguageage coincide herehere,, this is not a case of inner form proper. Only a singsinglele sensorsensoryy imagimagee has provided the link between the outer formand meaning, whereas the inner form isisan umumbrellabrella fora mumultitudeltitude of such imagesimages;; in PotebnPotebnja’sja's wordwords,s, "it“it is not an image of an obobjectject but an imaimagege of an imaimage,ge, that is, a represen­represen- tatitation.”8on."8 As a metmetaconcept,aconcept, inner formis endowed with the power that a singsinglele image lackslacks:: it links outer formsand meanings that were originally connected to diverse sensensorysory imagimages.es. In this respect, the inner form of language is the crossroads of the old and the new. As the "n“nearestearest etymologetymologicalical meaning of a wordword,”," it stands forthe linglinguisticuistic past, but as the tertium comparationis that gener­gener- ates the figurativefigurative trantransformationssformations of a wordword,, it is the agagentent of the futfuture.9ure.9 BeBecausecause of this creative potentialpotential,, the inner lin­lin- guistguisticic form became the central categcategoryory of PotebnPotebnja’sja's poetipoetics.cs. Without denying salience to the other two components of the wordword,, PotebnPotebnjaja found the eidos of poetic languaglanguagee in its poly­poly- semy, the capacity of its inner formto evoke multmultipleiple meaningmeanings.s. Stated in quasi-matquasi-mathematicalhematical termsterms,, "the“the general formulaof po­po- etry (or art) isis:: 'A‘A (i(image)mage) < X (me(meaning)’;aning)'; that is, there is always an inequainequalitylity between image and meaning because A is smasmallerller

8. MysMysl’l' ijijazyk,azyk, 3d ed. (Char'(Char’kov,kov, 19131913),), p. 111 17.7. g.9. IbiIbid.,d., p. 14146.6.

142 ASA Synecdocheynecdoche than X. To establish an equality between A and X would desdestroytroy poeticitypoeticity;; i.e., it would either turn the imagimagee into a prosaic sig­sig- nificationnification of a particular phenomenon devoid of relation to any­any- thing else or it would turn the imagimagee into a scientificscientific fact and the meaning into a lalaw.”'0w."10 The Formalist redefinitredefinitionion of poetic language represents a considconsiderableerable dedepartureparture from PotebnPotebnja’sja's basic positiposition.on. This de­de- partuparture,re, however, was not solely momotivatedtivated by theoretical con­con- cerns but also by the current poetic practicepractice.. Some of the early Formalists ententeredered the Russian intellectual scene not as disin­disin- terested observers or commentcommentators,ators, but as proponents and in­in- terprterpreterseters of FuturiFuturism,sm, the most flamboyant artistic movement of their generatiogeneration.n. The rise of Futurism in the early teens was didirectlyrectly linlinkedked to the decline of another movement that had dominated Russian letters for nearly two decaddecades—Symbolism.es-Symbolism. The great poet-theorpoet-theoreticianseticians of this movement had exploited PotebnPotebnja’sja's phphilologyilology as the theoretical springspringboardboard fortheir own poetipoetics.cs. In Roman JaJakobson’skobson's worwords,ds, "the“the Symbolists canonizedcanoniZed PotebnPotebnja.”lja."111 Thus, the Futurist onslaught against Symbolism in­in- volved at the same time a "de-canoni“de-canonization”zation" of PotePotebnja,bnja, a search for new new theortheoreticaletical foundafoundationstions upon which to construct their poetipoetics.cs. Of the varivariousous grgroupsoups in Russia calling themselves FurturistsFurturists,, the most iconoclastic was known as HHylaea, ylaea, and it was with this group that the Formalists were most closely alliallied,ed, both person­person- ally and in terms of a sharshareded artistic sensisensibility.bility. HyHylaea’slaea's mem­mem- berbershipship included the Burljuk brothbrothers,ers, ChlChlebnikov,ebnikov, KrucenyKrucénych,ch, and MaMajakovskij.jakovskij. In the unceasing stream of public appappearances,earances, manifestos, and joint publicpublications,ations, all orchesorchestratedtrated to epépaterater les bourbourgeois,geois, the HyHylaeanslaeans declardeclareded the art of the past dead and presented themsethemselveslves as the only true champions of the artistartisticic future. Their incomincompatibilitypatibility with PotebnPotebnja’sja's system is obvious at firstfirst glanceglance.. Disdaining the cognitive funcfunctiontion of art ("(“thinkingthinking

1010.. Iz[z zapisok, p. 10100.0. 1111.. "Br“Brjusovskajajusovskaja stichologija i nauka o stichestiche,”," in AkademiceskiAkademiéeskijj centrcéntr‘ NarkomNarkomprosa,prosa, NaulnyeNauc'nye izvestija 2 (19(1922),22), 223.

1I4343 Russian Formalism

in imagimages”),es"), the Futurists insiinsistedsted on the shock effeffect.ect. ArtworArtworks,ks, accordaccordinging to Chlebnikov and KruceKrucénych,nych, ought to be "as“as if wrwrit-it­ ten with didiffficultyficulty and read with diffidifficulty,culty, less comfocomfortablertable than blacked boots or a truck in a sitting roomroom,”," their language "re­“re- sembling if anything a saw or a savage'ssavage’s poisoned arrowarrow.”l2."12 Against the historicism of PotebnPotebnja’sja's poetic word (t(thathat is, its etymoletymologicalogical meaning)meaning),, the HyHylaeans’laeans' manifmanifesto,esto, "A“A Slap in the Face of Public TasteTaste,”," proclaimed the poet'spoet’s right to an "in­“in- supesuperablerable hatred for the language that existed beforbeforee himhim.”13."1 3 They ridiculed the enentiretire psychologistic bias of the previous poeticspoetics.. Poetry, they insinsisted,isted, is not a mirror of the soul but "the“the unfoldingof the word as suchsuch.”." Or in more epigramepigrammaticmatic form, "The“The work of art is the art of the wordword.”14."14 This conceptconceptionion of verbal art was obviously reflectedreflected in the earliest, mechanimechanisticstic model. Key notions such as de-famde-familiariza-iliariza­ tion or the absolutabsolutee split between art and byt are direct proprojec-jec­ tions of Futurist poetics ontontoo Formalist literary theory. The no­no- tion of poetic language was most proprofoundlyfoundlyin flfluenceduenced by the Futurist concept of zaumzaum’.'. Coined by KrucenyKrucénych,ch, the term desig­desig- nated a spspecialecial tongue that defied the rules of common sensesense:: transrational langlanguage.uage. ZaumZaum'' attacked the very heart of Poteb­Poteb- njnja’sa's aesthetic systsystem—theem-the idenidentitificationfication of poeticity with the in­in- ner form of language, since this "ult“ultimate”imate" language of ververbalbal art was without inner formform.. ItItss two main exponents among the HyHylaeans,laeans, Krucenych and ChlChlebnikov,ebnikov, disagdisagreedreed about which of the remaining parts of the veverbalrbal parcelparcel—outer--outer form oror mean­mean- inging—was-was instrumentinstrumentalal in zaumzaum’.'. As Vladimir MarkMarkovov has ob­ob- servedserved,, "for“for KrucenychKruéenych [zaum[zaum']'] was a freefree,, but often emotemotionallyionally expressiveexpressive,, combination of soundsound,, devoid of full meameaning;ning; for ChChlebnikov,lebnikov, it was basic meaning expressed in the ppuresturest and most didirectrect waway.”15y."1 5

1212.. SlovoSlow kak takovoe, repr. in ManifManifestyesty i programmy russkichfu fulurixtov,turistov, ed. V. MaMarkovrkov (Mun(Munich,ich, 191967),67), pp. 53 and 56. 13. "P“Poscecinaosceiina ob§cestveobséestvennomunnornu vkusuvkusu,"," repr. in ibidibid.,., p. 51. 14. A. KmcenychKrucenych and V. Chlebnikov, a draft of SlovoSlow kak takovoe, repr. in ibidibid.,., p. 59. 15. Russian Futurism: A History (B(Berkeley,erkeley, Calif.Calif,, 191968),68), p. 303. 144 A Synecdoche

IfIf,, as in traditional aestheaesthetictic discourse, the term Formalism applies to theories asserting the primacy of artistic form over contcontent,ent, KrucenycKrucenych’sh's zaumzaum’' would seem to be disdistinctlytinctly For�For- malist. "A“A new contentcontent,”," he proclaimedproclaimed,, "“isis born onlonlyy when new expressive devicesdevices,, new formsforms,, are achievedachieved.. Once there is a new formform,, the new content follofollows.ws. ThThus,us, the form determines the contentcontent.”'6."16 Consequently, it was not the ideas or things present­present- ed by the literliteraryary work that were imimportant,portant, but the mechanism of this presentation itselfitself.. Because this mechanism is above all linguistic, Krucenych spspokeoke of two types of languaglanguage:e: rational common language governed by extrextralinguisticalinguistic requirrequirements,ements, a ve­ve- hicle of meaning; and selfself-suf-suffificient transrational language gov­gov- erned by its own rulesrules,, "whose“whose words do not have a definitdefinitee meaningmeaning.”l7."17 This indefinindefinitenessiteness of meaning in zaumzaum’' is quite diffdifferenterent from PotebnPotebnja’sja's poetic polypolysemy.semy. The quanquantitativetitative imbalance occurs not between the inner formof the word and its meaning, but between the meaning and the word as such, that is, its outer form. MorMoreover,eover, transtransrationalrational lanlanguageguage reverses the ratio of PotebnPotebnja’sja's formulaformula:: in zaumzaum'' sound always is greater than mean­mean- ing. Krucenych wrotewrote,, "We“We declardeclareded in artart:: THE WORD IS BRBROADEROADER THAN ITS MEANMEANING.ING. The word (and the sounds composing it) is not merely curcurtailedtailed thought, not merely logiclogic,, but above all the transtransrationalrational (i(itsts mystmysticalical and aestheaesthetictic compo­compo- ; nentnents).”18s)." 18 Hence, transtransrationalrational language is literally languaglanguagee I that goes beyond reasoreason,n, that addresses the nonrational human I facultiesfaculties.. To achieve this obobjective,jective, the poet is free to dissolve l language intintoo elements that lack any logical meaning, or to com­com- t bine these elements into nonsennonsensicalsical neologneologisms.isms. The poet can i also emulate the types of zaumzaum'' existing outside verbal art. One I esespeciallypecialiy favofavoredred by KrucenychKrucénych was the glossolalia of relreligiousigious l sectarians spspeakingeaking the "lang“languageuage of the holy spiritspirit.”." There was }

1616.. "No“Novyevye puti slovaslova,”," repr. in ManifManifestyesty iiprogrammy, programmy, p. 72. 1717.. Pomada,Formula, repr. in A. E. Krui'enyKrucénych,ch, Izbrannoe (Mun(Munich,ich, 191973),73), p. 55. 1818.. "N“Novyeovye puti slovaslova,”," p. 66. I I45 Russian Formalism

also children'schildren’s languagelanguage1919 or the sound patterns of foreign lan­lan- guages ununknownknown to the poet.poet.20 20 ' If KrucenycKrucénych’sh's zaumzaum’ privileged the outer form of the wordword,, ChlChlebnikov’sebnikov's privileged the meaning. To those familiarwith the impenetimpenetrablerable hermeticism of ChChlebnikov’slebnikov's texts, this might come as a susurprise.rprise. But ununderstandingderstanding was never an issue for him. "Vers“Verses,”es," he wrotewrote,, "m“mayay be comprehensicomprehensibleble or incomincompre-pre­ hensiblehensible,, but they ought to be goodgood,, ought to be truthtruthfulful[istoven­[istoven- nynyj].”21j]."2 1 To be transrational forChChlebnikov lebnikov meant to go beyond ordinary reasoreason,n, but only to express the higher reason that he believed language inevitinevitablyably embodiedembodied.. PotebnPotebnja’sja's notion of in­in- ner formwas thus suspsuspect,ect, for ititposited merely a figurativefigurative linklink ' between sound and meaning. Chlebnikov'sChlebnikov’s zaumzaum’,, in contrast, was a quest forthe didirect,rect, unmunmediatedediated meaning of sousound.nd. ' In his study of ChChlebnikovianlebnikovian zaumzaum’,, Ronald Vroon has identi­identi- fiedfour such linguistic structurstructures:es: the langlanguagesuages of the "star“stars,”s," "Go“Gods,”ds," and "bir“birds,”ds," and "sound-paint“sound-painting.”ing." He maintains that each of these tackles the issue of pure meaning in a difdifferentferent wayway.22.22 For instance, the "lang“languageuage of the ststars”—Chlebnikov’sars"-Chlebnikov's favoritfavorite—ise-is based on the same kind of argument for thethe naturalnatural origin of names that Plato credits to CrCratylus.atylus. It assigns a distinct spspatiogeometricatiogeometric meaning to virtually all RuRussianssian consonants. ' This zaumzaum’,, ChChlebnikovlebnikov believbelieved,ed, was not an arbitrary construc­construc- tion but a faithful reconstruction of the original language of mankind, of which our present-day tongues are mere shadowsshadows.. In rough teterms,rms, the rifriftt between KrucenychKruéénych and ChChlebnikovlebnikov ' over zaumzaum’ corresponds to the conflictingconflicting theories of poetic lan­lan- guage in the Formalist movmovement.ement. OPOOPOJAZ’sJAZ's early concern for poetic sound and its emotive qualities betrays KrucKruéénych’senych's influ-influ-

i919.. AccordAccordinging to the title page and a note inside, KruceKrucenych’snych's i9131913 collection Piglets (Poros(Porosjata)jata) was coauthorcoauthoreded by an eleven-year-oeleven—year-old,ld, Zina V. 20. Another i9131913 collection of Krucenych'sKrucenych’s works, Explodity (Vzoroal(Vzorval'),'), con­con- taitainsns three poems written in "J“japanese,”apanese," "Spani“Spanish,”sh," and "He“Hebrew.”brew." 21. "O“O stichastichach,”ch," Sobranie proizvedenij, vol. 5 (L(Leningrad,eningrad, i1933), 933), p. 2226. 26. 22. Velimir Xlebnikov'Xlelmikov’ss Shorter Poems: A KeyKey totothe CoinaCoinagesges (p(photocopy,hotocopy, Ann Arbor, MichMich.,., UniUniversityversity MiMicrofilmscrofilms IntInternational,ernational, i91978),78), esp. pp. 30-3430—34 and 266-99.266—99. 146 A Synecdoche ence, wherwhereaseas the Moscow Linguistic CiCircle’srcle's insistinsistenceence on the meaningfulness of linglinguisticuistic sound reflectsreflects the logocentrism of ChlChlebnikov’sebnikov's zaumzaum’.'. We shall now look more closely at the earlier of these two tentendencies,dencies, those of OPOOPOJAZ.JAZ. In 191916,16, Viktor SSklovskijklovskij underundertooktook the firstdirect critique of PotPotebnja’sebaja's poetipoetics.cs. "I“Imagery,magery, or symbolsymbolism,”ism," he insistinsisted,ed, "is“is not what didifferentiatesfferentiates poetic from prosaic languagelanguage.. Poetic lan­lan- guage diffdiffersers from prosaic langulanguageage in the perceptibility of its structurestructure.”23."23 SSklovskij’sklovskij's ststrategyrategy here is quite obviouobvious:s: he is re­re- vising PotebnPotebnja’sja's dichotomy between poetic and prosaic lan­lan- guagguagee accordaccordinging to the spspecificationsecifications of his mechanistic model. The spspecialecial perceptibility of poetic lanlanguageguage drains our mentmentalal enerenergygy and de-famde-familiarizesiliarizes our perception of language in gener­gener- al. This essentessentialial feature of poetic lanlanguageguage is explained by its artistic telos. "If“If we study poetic speechspeech...... we encounter the same symptom of the artisartistictic everyeverywhere:where: that it was created intentintentionallyionally to de-autde-automatizeomatize perception and that the author'sauthor’s goal was to call attention to thisthis;; that it was made 'ar‘artitificiaficially’lly' in such a way that perception linglingersers over it, thus reareachingching its greatest possible intensity and durduration.”ation." The direct oppoppositeosite of this "hamp“hamperedered and torttortuous”uous" spspeecheech is automatized prosaic lan­lan- guageguage.. "P“Proserose is normal speespeech:ch: economicaleconomical,, eaeasy,sy, regular (the dea prorsa is the gogoddessddess of regular, uncomuncomplicatedplicated deliverdelivery).”24y)."24 It is signsigniiffiicantcant that while SSklovskij’sklovskij's treatment of poetic lan­lan- guage rerejectsjects PotebnPotebnja’s,ja's, it retains his fundamentfundamentalal dichotomy of poetic and prosaic languagelanguage.. Here we witness yet another exam­exam- ple of the peculiar contradiction in the mechanistmechanisticic model men­men- tioned earlierearlier;; namelynamely,, its propenspropensityity formerging the most radi­radi- cal stance with a traditional conceptual framewframework.ork. This mar­mar- riage of the old and the new tends to generate problproblems.ems. The opoppositionposition between poetry and prose would appear to coincide with SSklovskij’sklovskij'sdisdistinction tinction between art and bybyt.t. But if this were the case, poetic spspeech,eech, with its patent goal of de-famde-familiarization,iliarization,

23. "P“Potebnja,”otebnja," Poetika:Poétika: SbornikiSborm'ki pop0 teorii poepoétic'eskogotileskogo jazyka (Petersburg, 19191919),), Pp,· 4·4. 24. "Isk“Iskusstvo,usstvo, kak priempriém,”," ibiibid.,d., pp. 111 12—13.2-13.

114747 Russian Formalism

would be the only discourse to use langlanguageuage purppurposively,osively, and prosaic speespeech,ch, as a phenomenon of bybyt,t, would be governed purpurelyely by causality. As SSklovskijklovskij himself showedshowed,, "economical“economical,, easy, and regular"regular” speech might also be used for thethe sake of de­de- familifamiliarization.arization. This is the case of artistic prose that renders extraliterary reality strange in the process of its verbal represen­represen- tattation.ion. In this wayway,, one is forced to speak of not two but ththreeree types of languaglanguage:e: the poeticpoetic,, which makes strange our percep­percep- tion of langlanguageuage itselfitself,, the prosaic-artisticprosaic-artistic,, which does the same to the perception of realityreality,, and the prosaic proper, that is, normal everydaeverydayy language. Yet accoraccordingding to the logic of SSklov-klov­ skiskij’sj's model, the first two tytypespes are clearly difdifferentferent from the thirdthird.. Whereas the two diffdifferer in what they de-fade-familiarize,miliarize, they are unituniteded through their common artistic gogoal.al. Normal everyday langulanguage,age, in concontrast,trast, belongs to byt. This fact, howevhowever,er, is com­com- pletely lost in the simple oppoppositionosition of prose and poetry that SSklovskijklovskij inhinheritederited from PotebnPotebnja.ja. Thus, it was necessary to readreadjustjust PotebnPotebnja’sja's original oppoppositionosition in such a way that the line between literaturliteraturee and nonlitnonliteratureerature would be drawn more clearlyclearly.. This task was performed by another OPOPOJAZOJAZ member, the linguist Lev Jakubinskijjakubinskij,, who was responsiresponsibleble for introdintroducingucing the distinction between poetic and practical language into liter­liter- ary theortheory.y. In linglinguistics,uistics, Jajakubinskijkubinskij arguedargued,, the oppoppositionosition be­be- tween the teleological and the causal can be suspendedsuspended,, because every utterance, whether poetic or not, pursues some obobjective.jective. From this perperspective,spective, language can be conceptualized as a means-endmeans—end ststructureructure serving particular goalgoals.s. This view of lan­lan- guage is similar to the functional classclassiificationfication of linguistlinguisticic sounds advanced by the KazanKazan’' School to which Jakubinsjakubinskij’skij's teacteacher,her, BaBaudoinudoin de CourCourtenaytenay (18(1845—1929),45-1 929), belongbelonged.25ed.25 It is also parallel to the thesis propounded by Franz BrBrentano’sentano's fol-

25. Cf.Cf.,, for example, R. Jajakobson,kobson, "The“The KazKazan’an' School of Polish LinguisLinguisticstics and Its Place in the InInternationalternational DevelDevelopmentopment of PhonologyPhonology,”," Selected Writings, vol.vol, 2 (The Hague, 191971),71), p. 399; and "Ef“Effortsforts toward a Means-EndsMeans—Ends Model of Language in IntInterwarerwar ContineContinentalntal LinguiLinguistics,"stics," ibidibid.,., p. 524. 148 A Synecdoche

lower, the philosopher Anton MarMartyty (18(1847—1914),47-1914), concerning the teleological origin of lanlanguageguage as a means of human commu­commu- nicationication.n. Jajakubinskij,kubinskij, however, avoided the psychologism of Marty'sMarty’s teleologteleology,y, which treated intention in terms of a con­con- scious subsubject.ject. For Jakubjakubinskij,inskij, it was not the subsubjectivejective inten­inten- tions of the speaker but the obobjectivejective correlation of linguistic means and ends that distinguished poetic from practical lan­lan- guage. "Ling“Linguisticuistic phenomephenomena,”na," Jakubinskijjakubinskij arguargued, ed, "should“should be clas­clas- sifiedsified,, among other ways, from the standpoint of the goal for which the spspeakereaker exploits the ververbalbal material in a given cacase.se. If he uses it forthe purpurelyely practical goal of commucommunication,nication, we are dealing with the systsystemem of practical language, in which linglinguisticuistic representations (soun(sounds,ds, morphemes, etetc.)c.) have no value in themselves but serve mermerelyely as a means of commucommunication.nication. Other linguislinguistictic systems are conceivable (and exist) in which the prac­prac- tical goal retreats into the background and linguistlinguisticic combina­combina- tions acquire a value in themselves. . . . I conditionally call this system verse [stichotvorn[stichotvornyj]yj ] languagelanguage.”26."26 Jakubinjakubinskij’sskij'sdistdistinction inction between language as a means of com­com- mumunicationnication and lanlanguageguage as a selfself-valuable-valuable end should remind us of KrucenychKrucénych’s's disdistinctiontinction between common languaglanguagee and zaumzaum’.'. This parallel becomes even more pronounced when jak­jak- ubinskij goes on to discuss the diffdifferenceerence between practical and poetic language in terms of the opoppositionposition between sound and meaning. "In“In practicallanguage the semantsemanticic aspect of the word (its meaningmeaning)) is more prominent than its sound aspectaspect...... de­de- tails of pronupronunciationnciation reach our consciousness only if they serve to diffdifferentiateerentiate the meaning of wordswords...... Thus, various consid­consid- erations compel us to recognize that in practical language sounds

26. "O“O zvuzvukachkach stichotvornogo jazykjazyka,"P0étika,a," Poetika, p. 37. It is imimportantportant to stress that Jakjakubinskijubinskij himself conceived of "verse“verse langlanguage"uage" simply as a "s“specialpecial case of poetic lanlanguage”guage" ("(“SkoplenieSkoplenie odinakodinakovychovych plavnych v prakticeskompraktiéeskom i poet­poet- iceskom jazykjazykach,”ach," ibidibid.,., p. 54). As I shall show later,later,_this this seemingly subtle difference develodevelopedped intintoo an imimportantportant argument against the enentiretire linglinguisticuistic model.

rI4949 l t Russian Formalism

do not attract our attention. It is the other way around in verse language. There, one can claim that sounds enenterter the bright field of consciousness and do attract our atteattention.”27ntion."27 This foregrforegroundingounding of sound profoundlyaffects the structure of poetic langulanguage.age. KrucenyKrucénych’sch's ststatementatement that zazaum’um' combines words "according“according to their immanent laws ...... and not accaccordingording to the rules of logic and grammar"grammar” is relrelevant.evant. Jajakubinskijkubinskij too claims that poetic and practical language are demdemarcatedarcated by an­an- tithetical combincombinatoryatory lalaws.ws. He ststatesates that the liquid consonants (r, l) tend to cluster in poetic language, whereas in practical language they are almost always randomly disdispersed.persed. If in prac­prac- tical langulanguageage adadjacentjacent syllables contain the same liquid, this consonant will either be dropdroppedped altogaltogetherether in one of them or replaced by another liquidliquid.. For the "clustering“clustering of the same liqui­liqui- ds impedes pronuncipronunciationation (even causing stammering) and vioviolateslates the usual tempotempo of speech, thus willy-nilly directing the attention of the speakspeakerer toward the phonic aspect of the ututterance.terance ...... [It[It]] violates the automatism which is so essentessentialial to practical lan­lan- guageguage.”28."28 Poetic lanlanguage,guage, on the other hand, which aims at focusingattention on sounds themselvthemselves,es, not only tolerates the clustering of the same liquids but delideliberatelyberately produces such clusters. Jajakubinskij’skubinskij's equation of poeticpoeticlanguage language with zaumzaum’' goes even further.In his 191922 1 essay, "Where“Where Does Verse Come FrFrom?”om?" he argues that the concern for thethe sound of an ututteranceterance to the neglect of its content links poetic language to other types of didiscoursescourse that defdefyy normal reareason.son. For examexample,ple, "fi“firstrst of allall,, [in] the dream ...... the association of words accordaccordinging to their sound may determine the dream content. SecoSecond,nd, in mental illness some patients utter ententireire tirades that are relatively unconunconnectednected in their content (as they ought to be) yet obviously linked in their soundsound,, and ofoftenten in meter. ThirdThird,, in states of ecstasy, forininstance stance among religreligiousious sectariasectarians,”ns," utterances often contain "sound“sound

27. "O“O zvuzvukachkach stichotstichotvornogojazyka,"vornogo jazyka," p. 38. 28. "Skoplenie“Skoplenie odinodinakovychakovych plaplavnych,”vnych," p. 52.

150 A Synecdoche repetition and metermeter.”29."29 In a rather ststartlingartling movemove,, Jakubinskijjakubinskij invoked FreuFreud’sd's authority to claim that verse as well as the other three kinds of abnormal langlanguageuage are in fact thethe first ststageage of infantilelanguage emerging from thethesubconscious in moments of weakened rational control. Thus, he answers the question raised in the title of his article by claiming that "verse“verse comes from infantinfantileile babblebabble,”," providprovidinging a psychoanalytic explanation for KruceKrucénych’snych's trtransrationalansrational languaglanguage.e. Jajakubinskijkubinskij was not the only Formalist to conceive of poetic langlanguageuage as a particular manifmanifestationestation of zaumzaum",', though the oth­oth- ers usually did not invoke a psychoanalpsychoanalyticytic frame of referereference.nce. Not surprsurprisingly,isingly, Viktor SSklovskijklovskij was one of the most powerful voices advocating the exclusion of semantics from verbal art. "We“We must asask,”k," he wrotewrote,, "whether“whether words have meaning even in language that is not overtly transrational but simsimplyply poetic, or whether this belief is a mere fiction-thefiction—the result of our inatten­inatten- tivenestiveness.”30s."30 In a speech to the Futurists at the Stray Dog, a Petersburg cabarcabaret,et, SSklovskijklovskijspoke of transrational experexperimentsiments in terms boborrowedrrowed from PotebnPotebnjaja and the SymbolSymbolists.ists. He com­com- pared zaumzaum',', forexamexample, ple, to the foreign languageslanguages used in liturlitur-­ gical serviceservices.s. "The“The religious poetry of almost all nations was written in such a semiundersemiunderstandablestandable langlanguage:uage: ChurChurchch SSlav-lav­ onic, LatinLatin,, SumSumerianerian (wh(whichich didieded out in the twentieth centurcenturyy B.c.B.C. but was used asas, a religious languaglanguagee untuntilil the third century)century),, and the German of the Russian Pietists [stundist[fiundisty].”31y]."31 Later SSklovskijklovskij drdroppedopped such "met“metaphysical”aphysical" explanations and pre­pre- ferferredred to spspeakeak instinsteadead of the "sw“sweetnesseetness of verse on our lipslips,”," the de-autde-automatizedomatized movement of our speech organs prodproducingucing unusual phonic patterpatterns.32ns.32 "Ma“Maybe,”ybe," he musedmused,, "the“the greatest part of the pleasure caused by poetry lies in its articulatory as­as- pect, in the peculiar dance of the speech organsorgans.”33."33 29.2g. "Otkuda“Otkuda berutsberutsjaja stichstichi,"i," KniKniz'nyjinyj ugol no. 7 (19(1921),21), 23. 30. "O“O poezii i zaumnom jazyke,"jazyke,” Poetika,Poétika, p. 25. 31. This speech was published separately in 1914 as The ResurrectionR/esurrection of the Word; see VoskresenieVoxkres'enie sloSlova,va, repr. in Texte der russischenrussixchen FormalistFormalistm,�n, vol. 2, p. 14. 32. LiteraturaLiteralura i kinematograf(Be (Berlin,rlin, 191923),23), p. 8. 33. "O“O poezii i zaumnom jajazyke,"zyke," p. 24.

151511 Russian Formalism

The metaphor of dance ememployedployed by SSklovskijklovskijis telltelling.ing. Once poetic langlanguageuage is purged of meaning, veverbalrbal art can ququiteite con­con- venientvenientlyly be dedescribedscribed in tetermsrms of another nonthemnonthematicatic art. Mu­Mu- sic-thesic—the art of pure sousound—isnd-is an obvious parallelparallel;; that is, if literature is nothing but a striking organization of phoniphonicc mate­mate- rialrial,, the poetic text is very much like a mumusicalsical compositicomposition.on. Osip Brik, another concontributortributor to the early OPOOPOJAZJAZ collectiocollections,ns, de­de- clared that "p“poeticoetic langlanguageuage is mumusicalsical language"language” and attattemptedempted to describe a mamajorjor principle of the phonic organization of verse that had so far escaped the attention of other investiginvestigators.34ators. 34 Brik proceeded from the same assumassumptionption as Jakjakubinskij,ubinskij, namelynamely,, that poetic utterances are composed accordaccordinging to cer­cer- tain combinatory rules that are phonic in naturenature.. For Jajak-k­ ubinskijubinskij,, this was the clustering of liquiliquids,ds, but BrBrikik went beyond this in two respectsrespects.. First of all, he did not stop with liquidliquids,s, but included all the consonantsconsonants.. Second and more imimportant,portant, he was not interinterestedested mermerelyely in isolatisolateded consonantal patterns but in the reiteration of these patterns throughout the poetic textext.t. Tradi­Tradi- tional literary studies, acaccordingcording to BrikBrik,, merely paid lip service to the phonic aspect of poetic langualanguagege and recorded only the most obvious cases of speech sound repetitirepetition:on: rhymerhyme,, asso­asso- nancenance,, alliteratioalliteration,n, onomatonomatopoeia.opoeia. But these are memerelyrely an "ob­“ob- vious manifmanifestation,estation, a spspecialecial case of fundamentfundamentalal eueuphonicphonic lawslaws,”," and there are other cases that followthese laws but remain unnunnoticedF"5oticed. 35 BrBrik’sik's essay studstudiedied one of thesethese—the-the recurrence of consonantconsonantalal pattepatterns—asrns-as it apappeared,peared, for exexample,ample, in this Puskin lineline::

Vezuvij zev otkryl ...... (V(Vesuviusesuvius opened its gorggorge)36e)36

BrBrikik termed this type of consonantal reiteration "sound“sound reperepeti-ti­ tion"tion” and attattemptedempted not only to provide a typology of such repe-

34. "Zvuk“Zvukovyeovye povtorypovtory:: Analiz zvukovozvukovojj struktury stisticha,”cha," ibidibid.,., p. 62. 35. IbiIbid.,d., p. 60. 36. IbidIbid.,., p. So.80.

11525 2 A Synecdoche titiotitionsns but also to relate them to the overall outer form of the poetic text (verse, stanza, rhythrhythm).m). Using literally hundrhundredseds of lines fromPuskin and Lermontov BrBrikik demondemonstratedstrated that sound repetition permeates even the most canonicanonicalcal of Russian poetpoetry.ry. Another contributor to the early OPOJAZ vovolumes,lumes, BoBorisris Kusner, argued that the treatment of poetic language in terms of the other arts, forexample example,, dance and musicmusic,, is natunaturalral be­be- cause their matmaterialserials have something in common. They are tem­tem- poral rather than spspatialatial media. "But,"“But,” Kusner warns, "des“despitepite their sharshareded sound materimaterial,al, one can spspeakeak of verse musmusicic only metonymicametonymically.lly. HeHerere the term musimusicc no longer signifiessignifies a given art but the basic material of its worksworks—sound.”37-sound."37 This figurefigure of spspeecheech is therthereforeefore not productive for poetipoetics,cs, KuiiKusnerner argargues,ues, for mumusicalsical and poetic sounds are incompaincompatibletible phenomenaphenomena.. The former are tones (toni(tonirujuic'ieruju5lie zvukzvuki),i), sounds correlated ac­ac- corcordingding to precise scales and intervalintervals,s, whereas the latter are merely sonorous sounds (soni(sonimjus’c'ieruju5lie zvuki) whose actual phonic values are largely ararbitrary.bitrary. Music and poetry cancan,, howevehowever,r, be related metaphormetaphorically,ically, ththroughrough the simisimilaritylarity of their artistic formsforms,, that is, the precispreciselyely calculated ororganizationganization of sound materimaterial.al. These "sonorous“sonorous chords"chords”—the-the repetitions of particu­particu- lar sounds and their grgroupsoups in a poetic work-arework—are what KuiinerKusner sets out to stustudy.dy. But how do Kusner'sKusner’s "sonorous“sonorous chorchords”ds" differ from BrBrik’sik's "soun“soundd repetitrepetitions”?ions"? First of all, in the way they are descdescribed:ribed: BrBrikik presents his repetitions as obobjectivejective phonic structurstructures,es, whereas KuiinerKusner is concerned with the constitution of the "chor“chords”ds" in the perceiver'sperceiver’s consciconsciousness.ousness. SecSecond,ond, BrBrik’sik's treat­treat- ment of the poetic sound stratum is quite atomistatomistic:ic: he deals with a couple of isolated lines each timetime.. For Kuiiner,Kusner, on the other handhand,, the "son“sonorousorous chords"chords” are the propropertyperty of an entire popoem.em. Of all the factorsthat create a rhythrhythmicalmical imimpressionpression on the perceiveperceiver,r, Kusner focuseson twotwo:: the articulation of speech

37. "O“O zvuzvukovojkovoj storone poetieespoeticeskojkoj reCireci,”," Sbomiki pop0 teorii poeticeskogopoétiieskogojazyka, jazyka, volvol.. I,1, Pp.· 43·43.

115353 Russian Formalism

into syllabsyllables,les, and the segmentsegmentationation of the continuous ututteranceterance intintoo verse lines. In this way each speech sound is assigned a precise place within a two-dimensional grid based on its position vis-a-vis the other syllables of the line and vis-a-vis corrcorrespond-espond­ ing syllables in other lines. The resulting grid of verse positions accounts for the distdistributionribution of all speech sounds in the poetic text, thus enabling Kusner to detect any patterns that they might forform—them-the sonorous chorchords.ds. The Formalists discussed so fartackled the catcategoryegory of poetic langlanguageuage as a primarily phoniphonicc phenomephenomenon.non. Their preoccupreoccupa-pa­ tion witwithh poetic sound was chieflychiefly ins inspiredpired by KrucenyKrucenych’sch's concon-­ cept of zaumzaum’—language' -language contemptuous of everyday rationality and semantisemantics.cs. It must be stressed that even though KrucenychKrucénych scoffscoffeded at langulanguageage that merely conveys thought, he conceived of transrational langlanguageuage as something more than mere soundsound.. The unfolding of the "self“self-valuable-valuable word"word” was only one aspect of zaumzaum’,', forthe desdestructiontruction of syntsyntaxax and grammar still served a particular obobjective.jective. A normally structured utteranceutterance,, Kru­Kru- cenyccenychh reasoreasoned,ned, contains a logical meaning that tratransmitsnsmits thought intintoo worwords.ds. The deformed zaumzaum’,', on the other hand, lacks such a definidefinitete meaning, but precisely because of this its words can express directly the noncognitive components of the poet'spoet’s consciconsciousness.ousness. "The“The clear and decisive evidence for the factthat ununtiltil now the word has been in shackles is its subordina­subordina- tion to sense. Until now it has been maintmaintainedained that 'thought‘thought dictdictatesates laws to the word and not the other way arouaround.’nd.' We have pointed out this mistmistakeake and provided a free langlanguage,uage, transrational and ecumeniecumenical.cal. The path of previous artists led through thought to the wordword;; ours leads through the word to direct apapprehension.”38prehension. "38 KrucenycKrucenych,h, however, failed to explain in any cogent way ei­ei- ther the mechanism forthis immediimmediateate apprapprehensionehension or its ob­ob- jeject.ct. His point might be expexpectedected to carry rhetorical weight with­with- in a poetic manmanifestoifesto but certainly not elsewhereelsewhere.. Yet it caught

38. "No“Novyevye puti sloslova,”va," pp. 65-66.65—66.

115454 ASA Synecdocheynecdoche the fancy ofofthe FormalisFormalists,ts, who argued against PotebnPotebnja’sja's iden­iden- tification of poetic langlanguageuage with inner linguistic formform.. From ' their point of viewview,, KrucenyKrucénych’sch's zaumzaum’ was the best evidence that veverbalrbal art can do quitquitee well without any imagimages.es. To sustsustainain this argumentargumentlthey they hahadd to translate Krucenych'sKrucenych’s statstatementsements about the dirdirectect expressivity of outer poetic form intointo more scholarly terterms.ms. HeHerere they could turn to a theory of another member of the KazKazan’an' SchoolSchool,, MiMikolajkolaj Kruszewski (1(1851—1887).851-1887). In studying the univeruniversalsal laws of associatassociationion operating in lanlanguage,guage, Krus­Krus- zewski had argued that "t“thehe coexistence of the two aspects of the word-itsword—its exexternalternal apappearancepearance and its meaningmeaning—rests-rests on an as­as- sociation based on contiguity which binds these two aspects 'i‘intonto an inseinseparableparable pairpair.’.' But to our memory 'such‘such a binding seems weak and insufinsufficient;ficient; it must be suppsupportedorted by an association to another word based on similarsimilarity.’ity.' "” This dual linkage of each veverbalrbal unit is the engine that drives linglinguisticuistic changchange.e. Kruszewski dedepictspicts the process of linguistic evolution as "an“an eternal antagonism between a progressive force determineddeterminedby associations based on similarsimilarityity and a conservative one deter­deter- mined by associations based on contiguitycontiguity.”39."39 Kruszewski'sKruszewski’s two types of association correspond in turn to two figuresfigures of spspeech:eech: metaphor and metmetonymy.onymy. The ingenious SSklovskijklovskijused this tropologtropologicalical disdistinctiontinction in attaattackingcking PotebnPotebnja.ja. He claimed that not only poetic but prosaic langulanguageage might involve inner linguislinguistictic formform,, that is, the figurfigurativeative transftransferenceerence of meaning. But it is necessary to distdistinguishinguish between two diffdiffer-er­ ent figures of spspeech:eech: the "conser“conservative”vative" metonymetonymy,my, based on contigcontiguity,uity, and the "pr“progressive”ogressive" metaphor, based on sim­sim- ilarity. Given the bias of SSklovskianklovskian aesthetics toward novelty in art it is not sursurprisingprising that he considered the metaphor as the only truly poetic trtrope.ope. Metonymy is mermerelyely the "pr“practicalactical means of thinking, of conceptualizing obobjects”jects" and as such it

39. R. JakobJakobson,son, "Znacenie“Znaéenie Krusevskogo v razvitii nauki oojazyke," jazyke," Selected WritingsWritings,, volvol.. 22, , pp. 436-3436—37.7.

IJJI55 Russian Formalism

charcharacterizesacterizes prosaic language, but metaphor is the "means“means for intensifintensifyingying perception"perception” and hence the essence of poetic lan­lan- guageguage.. To illuillustrate,strate, calling someone "a“a hat"hat” simply because he happens to wear one is to evoke a prosaic imagimage-trope,e-trope, wherwhereaseas the same desdesignationignation for a helpless, languid fefellowllow would be a poetic fifigure.40gure. 40 Despite SSklovskij’sklovskij's criticriticism,cism, howevehowever,r, he was still opoperatingerating with PotebnPotebnja’sja's concept of inner form.The metmetaphoricaphoric designa­designa- tion that he descrdescribedibed involved a cognitive tertium comparationicomparationis—s­ a mental construct linking the outer form of the word with its figurativefigurative meaning, as in "helplessness"“helplessness” and "sloppiness"“sloppiness” in his "h“hat”at" exexample.ample. But the Formalists insinspiredpired by KrucenKrucenych’sych's zaumzaum'' were not much concerned with traditional poetic trtropes.opes. RathRather,er, they looked for cases of what Roman Jakjakobsonobson apaptlytly termed "neg“negativeative inner formform,”," that is, "words“words which so to speak seek their meaning,meaning,”" or, put difdifferently,ferently, words with a dirdirectlyectly expressive outer forform.41m.41 One hypothesis about the immediimmediateate emotive value of poetic sound was enuenunciatednciated by Lev Jajakubinskij.kubinskij. He apprapprovinglyovingly quoted the observation of the famous French InIndo-Europeanistdo-Europeanist Antoine Meillet (1(1866—1936)866-1936) that in "pr“practicalactical language there is no inner link between the sound of the words and their meanings. Their link is determined by an association based on contiguity and is fafactual,ctual, not natunatural.”42ral."42 This is so because in practical language ·.L sounds merely serve to difdifferentiateferentiate meaning. The foregrforeground-ound­ ing of sound that is proper to poetic languaglanguage,e, however, changes the picturepicture.. In such lanlanguage,guage, "because“because our atteattentionntion is attracted by sounsounds,ds, an emotive attitude is aroused toward themthem.. This circircumstance,”cumstance," Jajakubinskijkubinskij stressedstressed,, "is“is very important fordeter­deter- mining the interrelations of the phonic and semasemanticntic asaspectspects of speech in verse languagelanguage.”43."43 HeHerere the two are linked by the relation of simsimilarity.ilarity. Jakjakubinskij’subinskij's notion of simsimilarityilarity is, howev-

40. "Isk“Iskusstvo,usstvo, kak pripriém,”em," p. 103. 41. NoveNovejs'ajajiaja russkarusskajaja poezija:poézija: Nabrosok perpervyjvyj (P(Prague,rague, i91921),21), p. 67.67‘ 42. "O“O zvuzvukachkach stichotvornogo jazyka," p. 44. 43. Ibid. A Synecdoche

er, somewhat difdifferentferent fromthat of KruszewskiKruszewski:: what is similar in poetic language is the emotive charge belonging to the phonic and semsemanticantic aspects of the wordword.. "The“The emotions evoked by certain sounds and their combinations can take various coursescourses:: 'p‘pleasure-displeasure,’leasure-displeasure,' 'arousal-satisfa‘arousal-satisfaction,’ction,' 'tension-resoluti‘tension-resolution.’on.' It is also absolutely clear that the emotions triggered by sounds should not take a course antithetical to the emotions trigtriggeredgered by the 'content'‘content’ of the poem (and vice versa)versa)...... ThusThus, , the poet selects sounds and combinations that emotionally correspond to images valued by him forsome reasoreason,n, or, vice versa, he selects images that emotionally correspond to soundsand combinations that are significantsignificant forsome reason in the given circumstcircumstances.”44ances."44 In addition to the emotive chachargerge of sounsounds,ds, the similarsimilarityity of the phonic and semantsemanticic asaspectspects of poetic language is provided by whatJakubinskijcalled the "ca“capacitypacity of the spspeecheech organs for expressive movementmovements.”45s."45 There is, he believedbelieved,, a curious junjuncturecture of emotions and langlanguageuage in our facial expressionexpressions.s. The movement of our facial muscles can be caused on the one hand by our emotiemotions,ons, and on the other, by the articulation ooff spspeecheech soundssounds.. In practical language, wherwheree the phone is just a means, spspeecheech sounds can be modifiedmodified to accoaccommodatemmodate the emotionemotions.s. This is impimpossible,ossible, however, in language domidominatednated by soundsound.. ThThus,us, in verbal art the poet is forced to "select“select words whose sounds are pronounced thrthroughough movements of the spspeecheech organs correscorrespondingponding roughly to given expressive move­move- mentsments...... BrBroadlyoadly speaking, if the poet experiences emotions pertaining to a smile (a stretstretchingching of the lips sidewasideways),ys), then he naturnaturallyally will avoid sounds articulated by pushing the lips for­for- ward (e.g.(e.g.,, u, o)0).”46."46 Another theortheoryy of diethe dirdirectect expressiveness of linglinguisticuistic sound was formulformulatedated by a spspecialistecialist in Far Eastern languages, Evgenij PolivPolivanov,anov, in an essay dealing with a phenomenon that he termed "sound“sound gesturegesture.”." This essay consconstitutedtituted a partial dis-

44. IbiIbid.,d., p.p, 45·45. 45·45. IbidIbid,. 46. IbiIbid.,d., p. 48.

115757 Russian Formalism

puputationtation of Jakubinsjakubinskij’skij's views. Polivanov began by dividing all the means of linglinguisticuistic expression into two by now familiarcate­cate- gorigories:es: the one complcompletelyetely arbitrary and conventiconventional,onal, forexam­exam- ple, the phonic structure of the Russian word for table­table— s+ t+o+t+o+l—which l-which in itself does not susuggestggest its meanimeaning;ng; the other motivated and natural, such as the intonation that expresses emotional states and seems to be immediimmediatelyately ununderstandablederstandable to anyanyone,one, even to animaanimals.ls. GestuGestures—nonlinguisticres-nonlinguistic means of ex­ex- pression that often accoaccompanympany emotive langulanguage—areage-are prime examples of the latter categorycategory.. They convey emotions in the most direct fashifashion.on. Very soosoon,n, however, Polivanov undercut this simpsimplele oppopposi-osi­ tition.on. As he arguedargued,, both motivated and arbitrary linguistlinguisticic ex­ex- pressions are in factconvenconventional—deriving tional-deriving from thetherelation of contiguitcontiguityy between expressions and their meaningsmeanings.. "If“If we know that a given extralextralinguisticinguistic phenomenon is expressed through a particular intintonationonation or gesture, the origin of this knowledgknowledgee can be simply explained by the fact that we have always or ofoftenten observed such an emotion acaccompaniedcompanied by the given intonation or gesturegesture.. Thus, we have learned this link in precisely the same fashion as we learned the link between the phonic sequence s+ts+t+o+l+o+l and the representrepresentationation of tatable,ble, for thisthis sequence was always used by the spspeakereaker when the thought of table was pre­pre- sensent.”47t."47 Therefore, the diffdifferenceerence betbetweenween so-called natural and conventional linguistlinguisticic expressions is not absolute but rather a matter of degdegree,ree, an admiadmixturexture of the two principlprinciples.es. If all means of expression were placed on a scale from "con­“con- venventional”tional" to "na“natural,”tural," the closest to the natunatural,ral, in PolivanPolivanov’sov's opinion, would be mimimeticmetic gestures that copy obobjectsjects or actions and seem spontspontaneouslyaneously comprehensicomprehensibleble to everyeveryone.one. Well aware that the process of reproduction is always conventionalconventional,, PoPolivanovlivanov calls these gegesturesstures "p“potentiallyotentially naturalnatural.”." The ques­ques- tition,on, thenthen,, is whether langlanguageuage contains any "phonic“phonic sequences (combinations of vowels and consonants in a certain order)

447. 7. "Po“P0 povodu 'zvuk‘zvukovychovych zestov'iestov’japonskogo japonskogo jazykjazyka,"a," ibidibid.,., p. 30. 158 A Synecdoche whose role is analogous to that of potentially natural gesturgestures.”48es."48 The answer is yesyes,, as Polivanov illusillustratestrates with numnumerouserous Ja­ja- panese onomatonomatopoeticopoetic words imitating sounsounds,ds, and redreduplica-uplica­ tive words imitimitatingating the repetition of an action or the recurrence of a phenomenphenomenon.on. By analogy with "mimet“mimeticic gegestures,”stures," Pol­Pol- ivanov termed these imimitativeitative linguislinguistictic expressions "sound“sound gesturgestures.”es." PoPolivanovlivanov dedepartedparted from Jajakubinskijkubinskij both in denying that emotions are the vehicle of the direct expressiveness of linglinguisticuistic sounds, and in not considering the connection between sound gestures and ververbalbal art.49 In some respects, howhowever,ever, the two Formalists shared common groundground.. First of all, Polivanov claimed that sound gestures and children'schildren’s langlanguageuage were relat­relat- eded.. "J“japaneseapanese 'sound‘sound gestures'gestures’ can be regarded in genegeneralral as the principle of a spspecial,ecial, childish morphologmorphologyy that has retained its right to existence in the langulanguageage of adultsadults.”50."50 In additiaddition,on, both JaJakubinskijkubinskijand Polivanov believed that a substsubstantialantial phoniphonicc difdif-­ ferenceference,, which has its roots in pronuncipronunciation,ation, existed between poetic language and sound gestures on the one handhand,, andand‘prac-· prac­ tical or normal language on the other. For Jakubinjakubinskij,skij, the clus­clus- tering of liquids impedes pronunciatipronunciation,on, thus attracting atten­atten- tion to the sounds themselvesthemselves.. Polivanov observed that in Japjapaneseanese onomonomatopoeticatopoetic and redureduplicativeplicative words the phoneme [p] occuoccurred,rred, which has disapdisappearedpeared from contemcontemporaryporary Ja­Ja- panese except in loan worwords;ds; the "n“nasalasal g"g” [q.J[IL] is also found in initial position in these worwords,ds, though otherwise it occurs only medially or finallyfinally.. Such aberratioaberrations,ns, Polivanov believbelieved,ed, are

48. IbiIbid.,d., p. 31. 49. Nevertheless, this conneconnectionction is implimpliedied by the factthat Polivanov'sPolivanov’s essay appeared in the OPOJAZ Studies in the TheoryThemy of Poetic Language. Viktor SklovskiSklovskijj wrotewrote,, "The“The observation that in Jajapanesepanese poetic language there are sounds which do not exist in practicalpracticaljapanese Japanese was most likely the firstfirst actual indiindicationcation that these two langlanguagesuages are divergent" ("I(“Iskusstvo,skusstvo, kak priempriém,”," p. 10104).4). Still, it seems far-fetchedto claim,as Ladislav Matejka does, that Polivanov wrote about Japanese poetry ('(“The'The Formal MeMethodthod and LinguistiLinguistics,”cs," Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist andand Structuralist Views, ed. L. MatejkaMatejka and K. Pomorska [Ann Arbor, MichMich.,., 191978],78], p. 282). 50. "P“P0o povodu 'zvu‘zvukovychkovych zestoviestov,” ,' " p. 36.

115959 Russian Formalism

caused by the fact that the "value“value of the particular phonic struc­struc- ture [of sound gestures] is greater than in other worwords.ds. In nor­nor- mal worwords,ds, as a matter of fact, it does not make any difdifferenceference which phonic comcomplexesplexes express a particular ideaidea...... But ob­ob- viously for 'onomat‘onomatopoetic’opoetic' worwords,ds, some links between the exex-­ pressed representrepresentationsations and particular sounds are importantimportant.”51."51 Thus, Polivanov concludes, the p in normal langulanguageage can easily be replareplacedced by any other speech soundsound,, but it must be retained in words imitating, forexamexample, ple, the puffingof tobacco smoke or the sound of a flutflute.e. The FormalistsFormalists,, to be sure, did not claim originality in dis­dis- covering the imporimportancetance of oral articulation in languaglanguagee and ververbalbal art. They refreferrederred to such nineteenth-cenineteenth-centuryntury scholars as the German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt (1(1832—920)832-920) or the PoPolishlish classical philologist Tadeusz Zielinski ((1859—1944), 1859-1944), who had made similar observations aboaboutut pronuncipronunciationation as the bridbridgege between sound and meaningmeaning.52.52 But the ForFormalists’malists' in­in- terest in the articulatory aspect of langualanguagege was most likely trig­trig- gered by the rise of Ohrenphilologi,eOhrenphilologz'e in the German literary studies of EdEduarduard Sievers (1(1850—1932),850-1932), his pupil Franz Saran (1(1866—866- 191931),31), and othersothers.. In contrast to traditional AuAugmphilologie,genphilologi,e, which analyzed the text primarily as a visual or graphic man­man- ififestation,estation, Sievers'sSievers’s "aural“aural philology"philology” emphemphasizedasized the acoustic aspect of the text. Of particular intinteresterest were the involuntinvoluntaryary motor reactioreactionsns (movements of the diaphdiaphragm,ragm, bodily motimotions,ons, facial expressiexpressions,ons, and gegestures)stures) accaccompanyingompanying an ututterance,terance, whiwhich,ch, in their opinion, were decisive in articulating the phphoniconic subsubstancestance of language. There are severseveralal reasons that Ohrenphilo0hrenphilologielogi,e was so attractive to the OPOOPOjAZJAZ Formalists. First of all, even though its overall

5i.51. IbiIbid.,d., p. 34. 52. In an appendix to the first volume of the OPOJAZ SbornikiSbomiki apappearedpeared a Russian translation of segments of M. Grammont'sGrammont’s Le vers frafrangaixru;ais and K. NyrNyrop’sop's Grammaire historique de la langue frafrangaisen(aise that discussed the exprexpressiveessive quality of linguistlinguisticic sound stemming in part from its articulatory properties (see SbornikiSbomikipopo teoriitearii poepoétiéeskogoticeskogo jazyka, vol. 1, pp. 5151—71).-7 1).

161600 A Synecdoche outoutlooklook and goals werweree incomincompatiblepatible with those of the Russian FuFuturiststurists whom the Formalists foundso congenial, their respec­respec- tive views of literature coincided on one imimportantportant point, name­name- ly, that sound is central to poetrypoetry.. Earlier I mentioned that Kru­Kru- cenychcénych attributed poetic value to foreignlanglanguages uages ununknownknown to him as one soursourcece of his zaumzaum’' (see note 20). In a striking corre­corre- spondence SarSaranan wrotewrote:: "the“the theoretician of verse ...... ought to adopt toward verse the attitude of a foreigner who listens to it without knowing the langlanguageuage in which it is wrwritten.”53itten."53 Jakjakobsonobson considered this statstatementement an epitome of the OhrenphOhrenphilologicalilological outlooutlook.ok. Like OhrOhrenphilologie,enphilologi,e, OPOJAZ was essentessentiallyially positivistpositivistic,ic, at­at- tempting to establish a new science ofliterature that would "turn“turn to the factsand push aside genegeneralral systems and problproblems.”54ems."54 In this "new“new fervorof scientificpositivipositivism,” sm," sound was considered the only concrconcreteete reality of verbal art, for meaning, in its ephemephemerality,erality, was only a subsubjectivejective menmentaltal coconstructnstruct that could not be pinned down with any certitcertitude.ude. An earlier linguist and teacher of some of the OPOJAZ members, Lev SSéerbacerba (1(1880—880- 191944),44), had expressed this view in his intintroductionroduction to a "linguist“linguisticic commentcommentaryary [tolkovanie]"[tolkovanie]” on one of Puskin'sPuskin’s poems that was pri­pri- marily a dirdirectiveective forthe proper oral delideliveryvery of this tetext.55xt.55 In it, Sscerbacerba argued that "all“all semantsemanticic observations can only be subsubjec-jec­ tivtive,”e," whereas the analysis of poetic soundsound,, esespeciallypecially in the ororalal reareadingding of a text, can attain to some dedegreegree the obobjectivityjectivity of a laboratory experexperiment.56iment. 56 This claim to scientificscientific obobjectivityjectivity is reflectedreflected in the title of an inforinformativemative artarticleicle on Ohrenphilologi,eOhrenphilologie

53.53, SarSarah,an, quoted in R. Jakjakobson,obson, 0 lesies’skomskom stiche preimuflepreimm'iestvennostvenno v sopostavlenii ss russkimrusskim (Be(Berlin,rlin, 191923),23), p. 21. 54. Boris Echenbaum,jchenbaum, "Teo“Teorijarija 'for‘formal'nogomal'nogo metodmetoda,a,'n;" Literatura: TeoriTeorija,ja, kritika, polemika (Leningr(Leningrad,ad, 191927),27), p. 12120.0. 55.55, It was from Sscerba‘si"erba's monograph on Russian vowvowels,els, RusskieRuss/tie glasnye v12 ka­ka- leiestvennomstvennom i kolilestvennomkolic'estvennom otnoseniiotnofienii (St. Petersburg, 1911912),2), that the Formalists drdrewew their conclusions about the nature of sound in practical language (see, for exexample,ample, L. Jakubinsjakubinskij,kij, "O“O zvuzvukachkach stichotvornogostichotvornogojazyka," jazyka," p. 38;38', or R. Jakjakob-ob­ son, NoveNovejs'ajajiaja russkarusskajaja poezija,paézija, p. 9). 56. "O“Opytypyty linlingvistiéeskogogvisticeskogo tolkovanitolkovanijaja stichotvorenijstichotvorenij.. I: 'Vospominanie'‘Vospominanie’ Pus­Pus- kina,"kina,” RusskaRusskajaja rel',rec”, vol. 1, p.p, 17.

161 Russian Formalism

by SSklovskij’sklovskij's brother VladimirVladimir,, which apappearedpeared in the second volume of the OPOPOjAZOJAZ Studies: "The“The RhythmiRhythmical-Melodiccal-Melodic Ex­Ex- periments of ProfessorSieversSievers.”57 ."57 This estesteemeem forthe methods of "aur“auralal philology"philology” extended beyond the early ststageage of For­For- malimalism.58sm.58 Aside fromthe German literliteraryary theorist Oskar Walzel (1(1864—1944),864-1944), Sievers and Saran were the only honohonoraryrary mem­mem- bers of the SectSectionion forVer Verbalbal Arts at the StStateate InInstitutestitute forthe HistHistoryory of the ArtsArts,, the instinstitutionitution that absorbed OPOOPOJAZJAZ in the twentiestwenties.59. 59 Of the concontributorstributors to the OPOOPOJAZJAZ Studies, the closest to OhrenphilologieOhTenphilologie was BorBorisis Echenbaum.jchenbaum. His affinity to this ap­ap- proach was most likely a function of his ageage.. Born in 181886,86, Echenbaumjchenbaum began his literliteraryary studies beforbeforee the advent of For­For- malimalism.sm. Thus, he did not always sharsharee the Bohemian proclivities of some of the younger members of OPOOPOjAZ,JAZ, appaapparentlyrently more imprimpressedessed by sober scholarship than the vague notions of Futur­Futur- ism. The scientism of Ohrenphilologie0hrenphilologie coincided with Echen-jchen­ baubaum’sm's own orientorientation,ation, as recorded in his diary entry ofofjanu- J anu­ ary 11919:9 1 9: "P“Proceedingroceeding from Rickert, one realizes that the methods of the natunaturalral sciences must be apappliedplied to the histhistoryory of the arts ...... when we deal with the 'nature'‘nature’ of the matmaterialerial from which the work is made. In [this field]field] thetheconsconstruction truction of laws and dedefinitionsfinitions is quite conceivableconceivable.”60."60 MoMoreover,reover, Echenbaumjchenbaum held that the material of verbal art is the oral wordword..

We always speak about literature, the bookbook,, the writer. WritteWritten—n­ printed culcultureture has inculcinculcatedated the letter in usus...... We often totally forget that the word has nothing to do with the letter, that it is a living, ongoing activity created by the voice, articulation, and intinto-o-

57. "O“O rytmikrytmiko-melodiceskicho-melodiceskich ekspéksperimentacherimentach prof. SiversaSiversa,”," SbornikiSbomiki pop0 teorii poetpoétiéeskogoiceskogo jazyka, vol. 2, pp. 87-94.87—94. 58. For a list of Formalist articles pertaipertainingning to Sievers'sSievers‘s schoschool,ol, see M. R. Mayenowa, "R“Rosyjskieosyjskie propozpropozycjeycje teoretyczne w zakresie form poetyckipoetyckich,”ch," RosRosyjskayjska szkolszkoIaa stylistyki, ed. M. R. Mayenowa and Z. Saloni (Warsaw, 191970),70), p. 1818.. 59. "Ot“Otéétcet o naucnonaucnojj dejatel'nostdejatel'nostii Otdela slovesnych iskussiskusstvtv Giii0111 s l/l[/1 19192626 g. pop0 IllM 19192828 g.," Poetika:Poélika: Vremennik OtdelaOldela slovesnych iskusstviskusxtv 4 (19(1928),28), 15155.5· 60. Quoted in M. 0.O. CuCudakova’sdakova's commentcommentaryary to Jurjurijij TynTynjanov’sjanov's PoetikaPoétika,, istorijairton'ja literatury, kino (M(Moscow,oscow, 191977),77), p. 455·455.

162 A Synecdoche

nation and joined by the gesture and facial exexpressionpression [mimi[mimika].ka]. We think that the writer writes. But it is not always so, and in the rearealmlm of the artistic word it is more often justjust the oppopposite.osite. The German philologists (Sievers, SaranSaran,, et alal.).) began to argue a few years ago that the phphilologyilology of the "eye"“eye” (Augenphilologie) must be replaced by its "aural"“aural" countcounterparterpart (Ohr(Ohrenphilologie).enphilologie). This is an extreextremelymely fefertilertile idea which has already yielded interesting re­re- sults in the domain of verseverse...... Such an "aural"“aural” analanalysis,ysis, howev­howev- er, is also fruitfulfor the study of artistic proseprose.. The bases [of this form] are also marked by its origin in the oral skaz which influ­influ- ences not only its syntsyntacticactic structurstructuree and the selection and com­com- bination of its worwords,ds, but its very compositicomposition.“on.GI

The ununtranslatabletranslatable term skaz (akin to the RRussianussian verb skazatskazat’,', to tell) susubsequentlybsequently gained wide currency in Slavic literary stud­stud- ies. It was the focal point of Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's Formalist debdebut,ut, his analysis of GogGogol’sol's short story, "The“The OverOvercoat.”coat." Skaz designated a particular narrative technique in which the elements of oral delivery play a crucial rorole.le. The structure of GogGogol’sol's storystory,, Echenbaumjchenbaum claimclaimed,ed, in not organized accordaccordinging to the laws of the plot but rather by a "certain“certain system of varied expressive­expressive- articulatory facial gesturesgestures.”62."62 In a later study devoted to the Akmeist poet Anna Achmatova, Echenbaumjchenbaum appappliedlied the notion of the articulatarticulatoryory gesture to poetry as wellwell.. His thesis was that Achmatova'sAchmatova’s poetry "is“is oriented toward the process of pronun­pronun- ciatiociation,n, of expressive [mim[mimic’eskij]iceskij] pronupronunciation.”63nciation."63 This orienta­orienta- tion is manifestmanifesteded in the frequent occurrences of what Echen-jchen­ baum termed the "“expressiveexpressive qualityof speech [rec[reéevajaevaja mimika].mimika].”" HHee showed how the repetition of the 'Samesame or similar vowels or the juxjuxtapositiontaposition of contrasting ones forforcesces the reader to move his lips in a particular way so that the "words“words come to be perceived not as 'sounds'‘sounds’ and not as articulation in genegeneralral but as an ex­ex- pressive [mim[mimic’eskzj]iceski]] motimotion.”64on."64

61. "I“Illjuzijalljuzija skazaskaza,”," Knif.nKniz'nyjyj ugol, no. 2 (1918(1918),), 1010.. 6262.. "K“Kakak sdelana 'S‘Sinel”inel" GogoljGogolja,”a," Poetika:Poétika: SbornikiSbomiki pop0 teorii poetpaétifeskogojazyka,ileskogo jazyka, P·p. 151. 63. AnAnnana Achmatova:Aehmatova: OpytOpyl analiza (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 191923),23), p. 87. 64. IbIbid.,id., p. 86. I63 Russian FFormalism onnalism

The years separseparatingating Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's study of GogolGogol’' and his monograph on AchAchmatovamatova mark an imimportantportant period in the develodevelopmentpment of OPOOPOJAZ.JAZ. As Echenbaumjchenbaum himself observobserved,ed, the teens forthe Petersburg Formalists were "years“years of strustruggleggle and polemicspolemics,”," so that "many“many of the principles [they] advanced dur­dur- ing these years of intensive strustruggleggle with their adversaries were not merely scholarly principles but paradoxical slogans exagger­exagger- ated forpolemical and contrastive purpospurposes.es. The failurfailuree to take this intintoo accoaccount,unt, to treat the 19161916—1921-192 1 works of OPOOPOJAZJAZ as strictly scholarlyscholarly,, would be to ignore histhistory.”65ory."65 The ststock-takingock-taking that followed this pperioderiod of SturmSlurm und Drang was to lead to an intensive reexamination of the earlier positiposition.on. The linglinguisticuistic apprapproachoach to verbal art and the key notion of poetic langulanguageage were among the first to undeundergorgo this scrutinyscrutiny.. Echenbaumjchenbaum himself launched this criticritique.que. He commended the recerecentnt confluenceconfluence of poetics with linguistics as a healthy councounterbalanceterbalance to the traditional domdominationination of poetics by psy­psy- chology or sociologsociology.y. "But,"“But,” he warnedwarned,,

a rapprrapprochementochement with a neighboring discipline can be gegenuinelynuinely fruitfulonly if it does not lead to a new submission. In associating with linlinguistics,guistics, poetics ought to retain its independence. For lin­lin- guistics, a poetic work is a "phenomenon“phenomenon of langlanguage”uage" that fur­fur- nishes intinterestingeresting material for the study of phonetic, syntsyntactic,actic, or semansemantictic issues. LinguiLinguisticstic observatioobservationsns ababoutout poetic langulanguageage en­en- rich the general science of language with new phenomena that occur only rarely in normal "practical“practical spspeech.”eech." The liliteraryterary theoreti­theoreti- cian, however fruitful he may find linglinguisticuistic methods to be, should pose his questions in a completely diffdifferenterent wayway.. What emerges here is the didistinctionstinction betbetweenween the concepts of language and style,style, linguistlinguisticic phenomenon and styliststylisticic device. LinguistLinguisticsics be­be- longs among the natural sciencsciences,es, poetics among the huhumanitiesmanities [nauki o0 duchduehe].e]. LinguistLinguisticsics classifies poeticpoeticlang languageuage as one of its varietievarieties;s; it diffdifferentiateserentiates among them accordaccordinging to their goals merely to classifclassifyy the phenomena of langulanguageage as functionfunctions.s. Poet­Poet- ics begins with the seseparationparation of poetic language from other lin­lin- guistic phenomena as an activity set toward a particular goalgoal.. And

6,tj.65. "Teorija“Teorija 'formal‘formal’nogo'nogo metometoda,da,"'vn p. 13132.2. 164 ASA Synecdocheynecdoche

even thougthoughh this goal cannot be defineddefined with any precisioprecision,n, its symsymptomsptoms are apparent. In this wayway,, poetics is built on the foun­foun- dation of a teleological principle and thus proceeds from the notion of the device; linglinguistics,uistics, like all natunaturalral sciencsciences,es, deals with the category of causality and therethereforefo.re proceeds from the notion of the phenomenon as such.55such. 66

LinguiLinguisticallystically oriented Formalists tended to dismiss this ststate-ate­ ment of Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's as a relic of nineteenth-century schol­schol- arshiarship.p. Viktor VinogVinogradov,radov, forexexample, ample, claimed that "both“both the inclusion of linguislinguisticstics among the natural sciences and the dis­dis- regard for the teleologteleologicalical principle in it are widesprwidespreadead but incorrect, narrow-minded ideasideas.”67."67 Echenbaumjchenbaum was not the only Formalist in the early twenties to clash with the concept of poetic language and the linguistic ap­ap- proach to literature so centrcentralal to OPOOPOJAZ.JAZ. In a proposal fora monograph on Evgenij Oneg'in,Onegi.n,Jjurij urij TynTynjanovjanov listed as one of his topictopics,s, "Why“Why poetic langlanguageuage is not a poetic dialect and does not belong completely within descridescriptiveptive linguisticslinguistics.”68."68 ThusThus,, Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's (and TynTynjanov’s)janov's) dissent from the other For­For- malists cannot be simply swept aside. Any charcharacterizationacterization of Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's position will depend on what we make of his concept of the devicedevice.. At firstfirst glanceglance,, his contrasting of poetic teleology with linguistlinguisticic causality may ap­ap- pear to be another version of SSklovskij’sklovskij's mechanistmechanisticic modelmodel.. However, Echenbaumjchenbaum spspeakseaks of styliststylisticsics and linglinguistics,uistics, and contrasts the stylistic device with the linguistic phenomephenomenon.non. In this respect his polemics recarecallslls ZZirmunskij’sirmunskij's critique of the mechanistmechanisticic metaphor discussed in the precprecedingeding chapter. It was precisely thrthroughough the notion of style that ZZirmunskijirmunskij reformu­reformu- lated the funfunctionalctional defindefinitionition of the device. From his stand­stand- popoint,int, style is a principle of unity dedeterminedtermined by the overall artistic goalgoal,, which ascribes to each device a spspecificecific role within

66. Melodika russkogo liriceskogoliric'eskogo sticha (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 191922),22), p. 14. 67. "O“O zadai':achzadacach stilistikistilistiki:: NabljNabljudenijaudenija natlnad stilem zitijaiitija protoprotop.p. AvvAvvakuma,"akuma," RusskaRusskajaja ret',rec", vol. 1, p. 206. 68. Poetika,Poétika, istoriistorijaja literatury, kino, p. 416416.. 165 Russian Formalism

the artistic wholewhole.. The device is thus not an a prioripriori,, indepen­indepen- dent monad of artisartistictic form forfor the morphologists, but a func­func- tionally intintegratedegrated element of the workwork.. In the same way, though from a diffdifferenterent theoretical perspeperspective,ctive, TynTynjanovjanov ar­ar- gued agaagainstinst an atomistic apprapproachoach to the devicedevice.. In his systemic metaphor, the idenidentitytity of each element is a functionof the hier­hier- archarchicalical relations within the work and the higher systems in which the element participarticipates.pates. It is obvious that Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's rerejectionjection of the linlinguisticguistic model was momotivatedtivated by similar considerconsiderations.ations. For the linguist, he beliebelieved,ved, poetic and practical langlanguageuage are nothing but abstrac­abstrac- titions.ons. In sepaseparatingrating the twotwo,, the student of language might classi­classi- fy ththem,em, "among“among other ways"ways” (JaGakubinskij’skubinskij's worwords),ds), accordaccordinging to their resrespectivepective goagoals.ls. To do so, however, is only a heurheuristicistic proceprocedure,dure, a matter of choice, as Jajakubinskijkubinskij himself demon­demon- strated when in 11922922 he rerejectedjected the goal as an inadequatinadequatee criterion and proposed to classifclassifyy ututterancesterances accoaccordingrding to their actual forms.forms.6969 Students of literatuliterature,re, however, do not have this choice, forthey deal with concrete literary worksworks,, that is, inten­inten- tionally created poetic wholes. From their persperspective,pective, the on­on- tological diffdifferenceerence between poetic and practical language (for example, the clustering of the same liqliquids)uids) or between sound gestures and normal linglinguisticuistic usagusagee (for examexample,ple, the occur­occur- rence of the speech sound p)[2) is unimunimportant.portant. It is not the presence or.or, absence of these particular fefeaturesatures that concerned Echen-jchen­ baum as a literary scholar, but their functfunctionalional place in the liter­liter- ary work. "P“POeticoetic language,language,”" he argargued,ued, "is“is chacharacterizedracterized solely by a particular set towartowardd certain elements of speech and a spspeciecificfic utilization of themthem.”70."70 In more abstract termterms,s, it might be said that the two factionsin OPOOPOJAZJAZ used diffdifferenterent "logics“logics.”." Those advocatiadvocatingng the linguistic model were quitquitee doseclose to the mechanists in casting their categocatego:� ries in the formof polar opoppositions.positions. Their critics shunned this

69. "O“O dialogicesdialogiceskojkoj reCireci,"," pp. 111 15—16.5-16. 70. "Or“Oratorskijatorskij stilstil’' Lenina," Literatura, p. 25250.0.

161666 A Synecdoche disdisjunctivejunctive stance, instinsteadead casting their categories in terms of a gradatiogradation,n, a relative diffdifference.erence. Thus, the linguist Jakubinsjakubinskij,kij, insinspiredpired by the Futurists'Futurists’ zaumzaum',', split all linguistlinguisticic behavior intintoo two incomincompatiblepatible classesclasses:: poetic langlanguageuage orientorienteded solely toward the phonic aspect of spspeech,eech, aandnd its oppopposite,osite, practical langlanguageuage set towan:ltoward the semantsemanticic asaspectpect of spspeech.eech. His criticcritic,, Echen-jchen­ baubaum,m, though considering this a powerful workingworkinghypothesishypothesis, , claimed that it was not supsupportedported by the factsfacts.. Commenting on practical language, he wrotewrote,, "It“It is quite doubtful that there actually exists a type of spspeecheech in which our attitude toward the word would be totally mechanimechanical,cal, in which the word would be exclexclusivelyusively a 'sig‘sign.’n.' Forms such as oratory, for instance, instance, re­re- gardgardlessless of their 'p‘practical’ractical' charactcharacter,er, are in many respects quite close to poetic languaglanguage.”71e."7 1 And ZZirmunskijirmunskij criticized the abso­abso- lutism of the oppoppositeosite categorycategory,, poetic languaglanguage,e, conceived as a pupurelyrely phoniphonicc ststructure.ructure. "If“If the poet really wanted to affect us by mere sounds he would take up musimusic.”c." Poetry "does“does not affectthe listener by sound as such but by sounding words, i.e., sounds tied to meaningmeaning.”72."72 Though ZZirmunskijirmunskij and Echenbaumjchenbaum both conceived of style as the funfunctionalctional intintegrationegration of elements in an artistic wholewhole,, they didisagreedsagreed on the nature of this intintegration.egration. ZZirmunskij,irmunskij, faithful to his organic metaphor, favored a static notion of the whole in which elements were harmoniously relatrelated.ed. Echen-jchen­ babaum,um, in contrascontrast,t, prepared the way forthe systemic metaphor by advocating a more dynamic viewview.. AccordAccordinging to him, the ununityity of a work was a fragile equilibrium of elements struggling for domdomination.ination. I dwelt on this diffdifferenceerence in the preceding chapter and repeat it only to avoid the false imprimpressionession that ZZirmunskijirmunskij and Echenbaumjchenbaum were spspeakingeaking the same lanlanguage.guage. In fact, ZZir-ir­ munsmunskij’skij's criticism of those conflatingconflating literatureliterature andand music was not addaddressedressed to the linglinguisticallyuistically inclined OPOJAZ members at all but to Echenbaum,jchenbaum, in a review of Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's book The

71. IbIbid.id. ‘ 7272.. "M“Melodikaelodika stisticha:cha: PoP0 povodu knigi B. M. Echenbauma,jchenbauma, Melodika sticha, Pbg. 191922,”22," Voprosy teoriitearii literatury, p. 14149.9.

I67 Russian Formalism

Melodics of Russian Lyric Verse. In this work Echenbaumjchenbaum had formuformulatedlated his dynamic notion of the poetic whole as a strustruggleggle between the orgorganizinganizing element (the dominant of the work) and the other subordinatsubordinatee elements constituting this wholewhole.. He illusillus-­ trated his position with lyric poems in which the dominant into­into- nation deformed all the other aspects of languagelanguage,, including semantisemantics,cs, to its neeneeds.ds. The dedeformationformationof semantics that Echenbaumjchenbaum discussdiscussed,ed, de­de- spspiteite ZZirmunskij’sirmunskij's claims to the contrarycontrary,, was quite difdifferentferent from that described by the early OPOOPOjAZJAZ membersmembers.. We recall that they treated poetic language as sound that might but need not be accoaccompaniedmpanied by a cognitive meaning. Echenbaumjchenbaum was concerned not with the presence or abseabsencence of meaning in a particular veverbalrbal constructiconstruction,on, but rather with its funfunctionction therethere,, a functfunctionion determining its hierarchical position relative to the other elements of the constconstruction.ruction. In other worwords,ds, for him, meaning is always involved in a verbal constructiconstruction,on, but some­some- times it is subordisubordinatenate to other elements and at other times it dominates ththem.em. OrOratory,atory, Echenbaumjchenbaum arguedargued,, may fore­fore- ground the phonic aspect of langlanguageuage for the sake of persua­persua- sion, whereas artistartisticic prose may be quitquitee indifindifferentferent to sound if its goal requires this. Joiningjoining Echenbaumjchenbaum againagainstst Jakjakubinskij’subinskij's sepseparationaration of poetic frompr practicalactical langulanguageage was BorBorisis TomasevsTomasevskij,kij, who wrotewrote,, "In“In-­ stead of the clear, though perhaps terminterminologicallyologically unforunfortunatetunate oppoppositionosition of the old scholasscholastictic theorytheory,, 'p‘poetry’oetry' and 'pr‘prose,’ose,' we, following a linglinguisticuistic path, have advanced another oppopposition:osition: 'p‘practical’ractical' versus 'artistic'‘artistic’ langualanguage.ge. This oppositiopposition,on, however, does not cover all aspaspectsects of a ververbalbal composcomposition.ition. It pertains solely to the spspherehere oflanguage andand,, secondsecondly,ly, does not coincide with the bounds of 'poetry'‘poetry’ and 'pro‘prose.’se.' For the 'pr‘prosaic’osaic' perhaps as much as the 'p‘poetic’oetic' should be contrasted to 'p‘practical’ractical' lan­lan- guagguage.”73e."73

73. "K“Konstrukcijaonstrukcija tezisovtezisov,”," LeLeff 5, no. 1 (1(1924),924), 14140.0.

161688 A Synecdoche

Earlier in this chaptchapterer I described how Jakjakubinskijubinskij arrived at his frame of of referencereference.. He prproceededoceeded from PotebnPotebnja’sja's original oppoppositionosition between poetic and prosaic langlanguage,uage, but replaced the second element with "p“practicalractical langlanguage,”uage," which he consid­consid- ered more approprappropriate.iate. His critics proceeded in the oppoppositeosite fashionfashion;; they retained "pr“prosaicosaic language"language” and replaced the other element of the oppoppositionosition with what they claimed to be the more accuaccuraterate concept of "verse“verse languaglanguage.”e." In the introduction to his pioneering 19192424 monogrmonograph,aph, The Problem of Verse Lan­Lan- guage, TynTynjanovjanov explained this ststep:ep: "The“The notion of 'p‘poeticoetic lan­lan- guage'guage’ put forth not so long ago is today in a crisis which is undouundoubtedlybtedly caused by the broad and diffdiffuseuse character of this psychological-lingupsychological-linguisticistic concept. The term 'p‘poetry’oetry' that had long existed in our langlanguageuage and scholarscholarshipship has now lost its concrete scope and content and gained an evaluative tingtinge.e. In this book I shall analyze the spspeciecificfic concept of verse (in oppoppositionosition to the concept of prose) and the specificspecific features of verse language.language.”74"74 These conceptual shifshiftsts were not solely a matter of termi­termi- nology. By substituting the notion of practical language forPot­Pot- ebnebnja’sja's "pr“prose,”ose," Jajakubinskijkubinskij was redefiningredefining the category of the poeticpoetic.. The same was true of his criticritics.cs. Their oppoppositionosition be­be- tween verse and prose is not equivalent to the earlier dichotomy of poetry and proseprose.. The early OPOJAZ members ignored verseverse,, considering verse rhythm jujustst one of many artistic devices that de-familide-familiarizearize the sound stratum of languagelanguage,, whereas their

74. Problema stichotvornogostichotvomogojazykajazyka (Lening(Leningrad,rad, 191924),24), p. 5. In this passage Tyn­Tyn— jajanovnov insists on a subsubtletle but ununtranslatabletranslatable difference between two synonymic adadjectivesjectives stichotvornstiehotvomyjyj and stichovostiehovoj,j, both rendered in EngEnglishlish as "verse“verse.”." His preference forstichovostiehovoj j most likely can be attributed to the factthat jakjakubinskij,ubinskij, who conceived of "verse“verse langlanguage”uage" as a mere subcategory of "p“poeticoetic languaglanguage,”e," used stichotvornstichotvomyjyj (see note 26 abovabove).e). For this reareason,son, it is quite surprising that stichotvornstiehotvomyj,yj, rerejectedjected by TynTynjanov,janov, should have appeared in the very title of his bobook.ok. TynTynjanov’sjanov's correspondence revereveals,als, however, that this title was chosen by his publisher who was apprehenapprehensivesive about the original title Problema stichovosliehovojj semantiki (see TynTynjanov’sjanov's letter to Lev LuneLunc of Janjanuaryuary 14, 191924,24, reprinreprintedted in NovyNovyj} iurnal, no. 83 [19[1966],66], 142). 169 Russian Formalism

critics argued that verse and prose occur in both literature and bbyt.75yt. 75 What these two formsrepresent is not the oppoppositionosition of art to nonart, but two diffdifferenterent principles of verbal constconstruction,ruction, or what TynTynjanovjanov called funfunctions.ctions. Tomasevskij wrote in his com­com- .prehensive prehensive Russian VersifVersificationication that "the“the diffdifferenceerence between prose and verse rests in the factthat in verse the phonic imper­imper- ative [zvukovoe zadanie] dominatdominateses the semantsemanticic one and in prose the semasemanticntic domdominatesinates the phoniphonicc one. Everything boils down to the relative role of these two originsorigins.”76."76 SimiSimilarly,larly, TynTynjanovjanov argued that "it“it would be premature to conclude that verse form diffdiffersers from prose form merely because in verse the external sign of the word plays the exclusive role whereas in prose such a role is performed by its meanmeaning.”ing." He concludedconcluded,, "P“Proserose and poetrypoetry,, it seseems,ems, do not differ from each other in their imma­imma- nent phophonationnation and in the consequent set toward sound in poet­poet- ry and semantsemanticsics in prose, but rather in the way these two ele­ele- ments interainteract:ct: how the semasemanticntic aspect of prose deforms its phonic aspect (the mentmentalal set toward the semantsemantic)ic) and how verse deforms the meaning of the wordword.”77."77 In short, the linguistlinguisticic model and its fundamentfundamentalal concept, poetic languagelanguage,, ununderwentderwent a criticism within OPOPOJAZOJAZ in the early twenties that entailed a significantsignificant shiftshift in the scholarscholarlyly endeendeavorsavors of the grgroup.oup. Of coursecourse,, this shifshiftt was not a total abandabandonmentonment of the previous Formalist traditiotradition.n. Those who rerejectedjected the "vague"“vague” and "inadequate"“inadequate” concept of poetic lan­lan- guage followedthe path established by their predecessors in one

75. In the conclusion to his "Art“Art as DevicDevice,"e," Sklovskij promised to devote a special book to the probleproblemsms of rhythrhythm.m. This plan never materializmaterialized,ed, however, perhaps because SSklovskijklovskij considerconsidereded poetic rhythm nothing but a defodeformationrmation of prosaic rhyrhythm,thm, a deformadeformationtion that must remain unprunpredictableedictable and hence unsystemaunsystematizabletizable in order to carry out its de-famide-familiarizingliarizing funfunctionction ("(“Iskustvo,lskustvo, kak pripriém,”em," p. 11114).4). 76. RusskoeRuss/we stichosloienie:rtichosloz'enie: Metrika (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 191923),23), p. 8. 77. "O“O kompozicii Evgenija OnegOnegina,”ina," Poetika,Poélika, istoriiston'jaja literatury,literatmy, kino, pp. 53 and 54·54- 170 A Synecdoche important respect. They too focused their attention on ververbalbal constrconstructionsuctions in which sound played the dominant rorole.le. HoHowev-wev­ er, they no longer carried out their researresearchch under the banner of the theory of poetic language but under that of metrics and verse semantsemantics.ics.

l1717 l Verse

I1 would defdefiine,ne, in briefbrief,, the Poetry of words as The Rhythmical Creation of BeautBeauty.y. ItItss sole arbiter is TasteTaste.. With the IntIntellectellect or with the Conscience, it has only collateral relatirelations.ons. UnUnlessless incidenincidentally,tally, it has no concern whatever either with Duty or with Truth. -EDGAR—EDGAR ALLAN PoE,POE, "The“The Poetic PriPrinciple"nciple"·

Perhaps the most infinfluentialluential among the early Formalist stud­stud- ies of verse was Osip BrBrik’sik's i9192020 lecture at OPOPOJAZOJAZ ententitleditled "R“Rhythmhythm and SySyntax.”1ntax."1 In it he coined the term "rhythmi“rhythmicalcal impulsimpulse,”e," which became the "focal“focal point of the Formalist and StStructuralistructuralist conception of verseverse.”2."2 To apprappreciateeciate BrBrik’sik's concontri-tri­ bution fully it is necessary to sksketchetch out its histhistoricalorical context. The principles of Russian versificationversification the Formalists inher­inher- ited were those of the great poet-theoreticians of the Symbolist genegeneration,ration, A. BelyBelyjj and V. BrBrjusov.jusov. Though innovative in their apapproachproach to the study of verse (Bel(Belyj,yj , forinstance, was the first

1. Although quoted in the early twenties by many Formalists, "Ritm“Ritm i sintak­sintak- sis: Materialy k izucizucenijuenijustichotvornostichotvornoj j reCi"reci” was not published until 1927, when it appappearedeared in fourinstallments in the journal NovyNovyjj LeLef.f. 2. M. CCervenka,ervenka, "R“Rytmickyytmicky impulsimpuls:: Poznamky a komenkomentare,"tare," zZ velern[vec’erm’ skoly5'}:o versologie: CCtyr'ityfi studie 1971975—835-83 (P(Prague,rague, 191983),83), pp. 52-53.52—53. 172 A Synecdoche in Russia to apply ststatisticsatistics to metricsmetrics),), their theories did not satisfsatisfyy the young FormaFormalists.lists. In their eyeseyes,, the three mamajorjor fail­fail- ings of SymbSymbolistolist metrics were as followsfollows:: first, an atatomisticomistic ap­ap- proach to ververse;se; next, the separation of meter fromrhyt rhythm;hm; and finally,finally, prosodic egocentrisegocentrism.m. The SySymbolistsmbolists considerconsidereded the foot the minimal unit of verseverse.. UnUnableable to detdetectect any overall gestalt in the verse under study, they arbitrarily analyzed even the most regular verse into heterogeneous feet. This blindness to the holistholisticic nature of verse stemmed from their divorce of meter from rhytrhythm.hm. They insistinsisteded that meter was an ideal scheme existing prior to verse, wherwhereaseas rhythm was the actual pattern of deviations from this schemescheme.. Because the SymbolistSymbolistss attributed aesaestheticthetic value precisely to such deviatideviations,ons, in their own analyses they purppurposelyosely sought to segment verse into as many diffdifferenterent kinds of feet as possible. To avoid the problems of Symbolist metrimetrics,cs, BrBrik’sik's study did away with the concept of meter entirely. InInsteadstead it treated rhythm as the motoric or kinetic precondition of verseverse.. "As“As a scholarly termterm,, rhythm means a particular formation of the motor processes ...... motion shaped in a particuparticularlar waway.”3y."3 Rhythmic shaping is a function of quantity (the increase or decrease in motion) and durdurationation (the continuity or0r discreteness of motionmotion).). The proprojectionjection of rhythm onto veverbalrbal matematerial—therial-the kinetic organization of an ututteranceterance in terms of stresses and intervalsintervals—constitutes--constitutes what BrBrikik terms the "rhythmical“rhythmical imimpulse.”pulse." This impulse organizes the verse as a a whole, a fact that had elu­elu- ded the Symbolist theoretitheoreticians.cians. Only if we know the rhythmical movement of the entire poem can we correctly identifidentifyy its smsmall-all­ er units. BrBrikik takes as an illusillustrationtration a line from PuskPuskin,in, which in isolation seems dactylic but within the poem as a whole turns out to be trochaictrochaic.. He concconcludes,ludes, "one“one should not speak of strong and light syllables [dow[downbeatsnbeats and upupbeats]beats] but of stressed and ununstressedstressed ones. TheoreticalTheoretically,ly, any syllable can be stressed or ununstressed;stressed; everything depends on the rhythmical impulseimpulse.”4."4 3. "Ritm“Ritm i sintsintaksis,”aksis," NovyNovyjj Les,f, i91927,27, no. 3, 1616.. 4. IbiIbid.,d., i7.17.

rI7373 Russian Formalism

BrBrik’sik's statstatementement clearly reflectsreflects the iconoclastic attitude of his HyHylaeanlaean friends toward traditional acaccentual-syllabiccentual-syllabic versififica­ca- tition.on. As they wrote in 19131913,, "we“we stopped seeking meters in the ·srschoolbooks;choolbooks; every motion generates a new, freerhythm forthe poepoet.”5t."5 To achieve such total rhythmirhythmicalcal freefreedom,dom, Futurist poets manipulamanipulatedted lanlanguageguage in a particular wayway,, as they themselves admiadmitted.tted. They "di“disregardedsregarded grammatgrammaticalical rules"rules” and "s“shatteredhattered syntaxsyntax.”." It soon became evident to BrErik,ik, however, that the ma­ma- jorjorityity of Russian verse is written in more traditional language than zaumzaum’,', language whose words are units of meaning com­com- bined semansemanticallytically as well as prosodicallyprosodically.. To accaccountount for the the semantsemanticic constconstraintraint upon the rhythmirhythmicalcal impulse in ordinary Russian verseverse,, BrBrikik returned to the concept of sysyntaxntax disdained by the Futurists. "Synt“Syntax,”ax," he wrotewrote,, "is“is the system of combining words in ordinary language. As long as verse langulanguageage does not abandon the essentessentialial laws of prosaic syntax these laws are obligobligatoryatory for it."6it.”6 ThusThus,, the relatirelationshiponship of sound and meaning in verse is necessarily complexcomplex;; it is al­al- ways a comcompromisepromise between rhythmirhythmicalcal and synsyntactictactic considerconsidera-a­ titions.ons. A verse line, in BrBrik’sik's opinion, is the minimal implementimplementa-a­ tion of this rhythmicarhythmical-syntacticl-syntactic compromicompromise.se. It is a unit separseparatedated from the rest of the ututteranceterance to which it belongs on the basis ofofits its prosodiprosodicc fefeatures,atures, but at the same time containing synsyntactictactic conconnectionsnections among its elementselements.. "A“A rhythmicarhythmical-syntac-l-syntac­ tic word combination diffdiffersers froma purpurelyely synsyntactictactic one in that it incorporincorporatesates words into a fixedfixed rhythrhythmicalmical unit (a line)line);; it diffdiffersers from a purpurelyely rhythmirhythmicalcal combination in that it links words not only phonphoneticallyetically but semansemantically.”7tically."7 Rhythmical and syntsyntacticactic requirements may coincide in verseverse,, as when a line is a comcompleteplete sentencesentence,, or they may claclash,sh, for exexample,ample, in caesuras or enenjambments.jambments. In either casecase,, words in verse are always subsubjectject to two sets of combinatcombinatoryory rules.

5. D. BuBurljuk,rljuk, et alal.,., Sadok sudesudejj II (St Petersburg, 19131913),), reprinted in V. Markov, eded.,., ManifManifestyesty iiprog'rammy programmy russkichmskich fufutunktov turistov (M(Munich,unich, 191967),67), p. 52. 6. "Ritm“Ritm i sintakssintaksis,”is," NoNovyjvyj Lef, 191927,27, no. 5, 32. 7. Ibid.

117474 ASA Synecdocheynecdoche

The value of Brik'sBrik’s essay forFormalist metrics lay in its firmfirm grasp of the structuring principle of verse. This gragrasp,sp, howevhowever,er, was achieved only at the cost of considconsiderableerable oversimplifioversimplification,cation, and all subsequent Formalist studies of the topic comcomplicatedplicated BrBrik’sik's clear-cut pictupicture.re. ItItss firstfirst limitlimitation ation was its equation of the vehicle of rhythm with word stress alalone.one. ObviObviously,ously, in addition to the stress within an isolated word there aarere a variety of stresses belonging to higher syntsyntacticactic unitsunits.. Once this premise is acaccepted,cepted, syntax can no longer be seen in simsimpleple opoppositionposition to rhythm as meaning versus soundsound.. SySyntaxntax actually consists of both phonic and semantsemanticic strstrata.ata. FuFurthermore,rthermore, the phonology of syntax cannot be limitlimiteded to the intensity of the voice (synt(syntacticactic stressstress).). The voice also has pitpitch,ch, whose modulation creates syn­syn- tactic intonatiintonation.on. It was this aspect of verse that Echenbaumjchenbaum examined in his study of the melodics of Russian lyric poetry. Echenbaumjchenbaum divided the lyric intintoo three categories accordaccordinging to the role played in each by intonatintonation.ion. In the declamatory (rhet(rhet-­ orical) lyriclyric,, intintonationonation suppsupportsorts the logical structure of the tetext;xt; in the conversational lyric it serves to link the verse to everyday langulanguage.age. In both these types of lyriclyric,, intonation is subordinate to other verse elementselements.. In the third lyric type, intintonationonation per­per- formsa more significantsignificant funfunction.ction. This is the singable (napev(napevnyj)nyj) lyriclyric,, which purposely imimitatesitates musimusicalcal melomelody.dy. In such poetry "we“we observe not a simpsimplele alternation of speech intonations but a develodevelopedped system of intonation that determines the composition of the poem more than its veverbalrbal themesthemes.”8."8 Only such intintonationalonational schemschemes—symmetries,es-symmetries, repetitirepetitions,ons, or cadencescadences—can--can in Echen-jchen­ baubaum’sm's view be called melodics proper. HeHerere intonation ceases to be a mere epiphenomenon and becomes the organizing prin­prin- ciple of verseverse—its-its dominant. The semantsemanticic asaspectpect of sysyntaxntax is subordinatsubordinateded to intintonationonation in this type of lyric. For exexample,ample, VasilijZZukovskij, ukovskij, a Russian poet of the firstfirst half of the nineteenth century, exploited the synsyntactictactic patterns of emotive language for melodimelodicc ends. Some of his

8. MelodikaMélodika russkogo liriceskogoliric'eslwgo sticha (Petersburg, 191922),22), p. g.9.

rI7575 Russian FFonnalism onnalism poems are merely a series of inteinterrogativerrogative sentences combined with exclamatioexclamations.ns. AfAfanasijanasij Fet (1(1820—1892),820- 1892), in contrascontrast,t, built his melmelodiesodics on intonational emphasis. To attain it he inverted word order, repeated lexical items in significantsignificant positions (ana­(ana- phora, epipepiphora)hora) and ememployedployed syntsyntacticactic paraparallelism.llelism. With such cases in mind, Echenbaumjchenbaum concluded that the "analysis“analysis of the melodic style in which the role of intintonationonation is obvious suggests the need for a study of the role it plays in verse in generalgeneral.”9."9 The strength and the disadvadisadvantagentage of Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's study lie in its specialispecialization.zation. His scheme convincingly illusillustratedtrated the idea that verse is a hiehierarchicalrarchical structure and called attention to one hithehithertorto negneglectedlected element of this structurestructure.. But given its au­au- thor'sthor’s mistrust of linguistlinguistics,ics, the concept of syntax with which it operoperatedated was vaguevague,, to say the least. Furthermore, by focusing on intintonation,onation, it inevitinevitablyably slighted other imimportantportant facfactors.tors. A study of melodics cannot subssubstitutetitute for aa general theory of verseverse.. The formformulationulation of such a theory was left to the other FormalistsFormalists.. In 11919,9 1 9, at a lecture before the Moscow Linguistic CiCircle,rcle, Boris Tomasevskij defined the role of rhythm in verse as the "distribut“distributionion of expirational enerenergygy within the limits of one wavewave—the-the verseverse.”lo."10 This defidefinition is broad enough to subsume both BrBrik’sik's rhythmirhythmicalcal impulse and EIijchenbaum’sjchenbaum's melodimelodics.cs. In additadditionion to "lexical-accentual"“lexical-accentual” (slovesno-udarn(slovesno—udamyj)yJ) and "int“intona-ona­ tiotional-syntactic”nal-syntactic" (intonacionno-(intonacionno-frazovoj)fra zovoj) rhytrhythm,hm, Tomasevskij spoke of "harmonic"“harmonic” rhytrhythm.llhm. 11 BoBorrowedrrowed from the French lin­lin- guist MaMauriceurice Grammont ((1866—1946), 1866- 1946), "harmony"“harmony” desdesignatesignates the relation between speech sound disdistributiontribution and the rhyth­rhyth- mical organization of the lineline.. In verseverse,, accordaccordinging to TomaseTomasevskij,vskij, "h“harmonyarmony fulfulfillsfills a twofold tatask:sk: fifirst,rst, dissidissimila-mila­ tion-thetion—the segmentsegmentationation of speech into rhythmical perioperiods;ds; sec­sec- ondond,, assimilationassimilation—the-the evocation of the idea that the segments thus marked are analoganalogous.”12ous."12

9. IbiIbid.,d., p. 19195.5. 1010.. "P“Pjatistopnyjjatistopnyj jamb Puskina,"Puskina,” 0 stiche: StatStat'i'i (Lening(Leningrad,rad, 191929),29), p. 182. 111 1.. "P“Problemaroblema stichotvornogo ritma," ibid., p. 25. 12. IbiIbid.,d., p. 22. A Synecdoche

Rhyme is a good example of a harmonic correlatiocorrelation.n. On the one handhand,, it demardemarcatescates one rhythmirhythmicalcal unit (a line) from the text, and on the other, it renders the two lines analoganalogousous through the repetition of sousounds.nds. But rhyme is not the only such phenomenon in verseverse.. As BrBrikik argargued,ued, verse is always marked by the orchesorchestrationtration of spspeecheech sounsounds.ds. Using Puskin'sPuskin’s and Ler­Ler- montov'smontov’s poems as exexamples,amples, he showed how thoroughly poetry is permeated with sound repetrepetition.ition. TomasevsTomasevskij’skij'sattitude toward sound repetition diffdifferedered con­con- sidersiderablyably from BrBrik’s.ik's. Tomasevskij was not interesinterestedted in repeti­repeti- tion as a manifmanifestationestation of the "fundam“fundamentalental eueuphonicphonic laws"laws” of poetic language, but as a functional element of rhythmically organized spspeech.eech. In the Russian trochaic tetramettetrameter,er, he ar­ar- guedgued,, even feet carry stress more often than odd ones and the line tends to break into two colons each comcomposedposed of one strong and one weak foot. This rhythmical partition of the line is un­un- derscored by the distdistributionribution of vowels in Puskin'sPuskin’s verse (where each downbeat is stressedstressed):):

On0n imel odno videnviden'e 'e o--eo—e o--eo—e (He had a singsinglele vision)vision)13l3

This, of coursecourse,, is just one instinstanceance of the correlation of spspeecheech sound repetition and verse rhytrhythm,hm, and TomasevsTomasevskijkij provides many others to suppsupportort his thesis that "verse“verse 'harmony'‘harmony’ belongs fully within the theory of rhytrhythm.”14hm."14 Not only was TomaTomasevskij’ssevskij's theory of verse rhythm more in­in- clusive than that of the other OPOJAZ members, but it was consconstructedtructed from the standpoint of the perceiving subsubject.15ject. 15 In discussing harmonic rhythmrhythm,, forexexample, ample, he ststressedressed its capaci­capaci- ty forevoking the idea of analogy in the subsubject.ject. In this respect he dedepartedparted considerconsiderablyably fromboth BrBrikik and Echenbaum.jchenbaum. BrBrikik

13. IbiIbid.,d., p. 23. 14. IbiIbid.,d., p. 24. 15. For a detailed discussion of this topic see M. CCervenka,ervenka, "“RytmickyRytmicky im­im- pulsPUIS’"," pp.PP- 73-84.73—84.

1I7777 Russian Formalism arrived at his concept of the rhythmirhythmicalcal impulse from thethe per­per- spective of the creating subsubject.ject. The kinetkineticic organization of the verse (the regular distribution of word stresses in it) engenders motor processes that are present durduringing its generatiogeneration.n. The per­per- ceiver merely re-re-presentspresents this original motion in his or her read­read- ing. It might seem that OhrenphilologieOhTenphilologie had reversed this hierhier-­ archy in stressing the aural perception of verseverse,, so that the perceiving subsubjectject was its point of dedepartureparture as well, but this shifshiftt was purely a heuheuristicristic devidevice.ce. Sievers'sSievers’s experiments with recitation in fact served as the basis forreco reconstructingnstructing what he took to be the correct authorial reareading.ding. And Echenbaumjchenbaum deldelib-ib­ erately bracketed off the act of pperception,erception, seeking only the "ob“objective”jective" preconditions of verse melodics that he identified with syntsyntax:ax: "I“Independentndependent of individual nuances in reareading,ding, syntsyntacticactic structure is a totally obobjectivejective factand syntsyntacticactic intintona-ona­ tition,on, within the bounds 'ofof our requirerequirements,ments, is obligatoryobligatory.”16."16 This reduction of verse to its "ob“objective”jective" preconditions was clearly ununacceptableacceptable to TomasevsTomasevskij.kij. "We“We do not recognize verse through immediimmediateate perceptiperception,”on," he argued in the opening para­para- graph of Russian VersifVersification.ication. "'“ ‘Verse-quality’Verse-quality' [priznak stichotvor­stichotvor- nosti] is generated not solely from the obobjectivejective attributes of poetic language, but from the conditions of its artisartistictic percep­percep- tion as wellwell,, from the hearer'shearer’s jujudgmentdgment ababoutout it based on his tastetaste.”l7."1 7 Thus, the starting point of metrics should not be rhythm as suchSuch but its constitution in the perceiver'sperceiver’s conscious­conscious- ness. At the most abstract levelevel,l, rhythm is experienced when a "ph“phenomenonenomenon becomes arranged in 'p‘periods’eriods' that are perceived as 'isochron‘isochronous,’ous,' wherwhereaseas in obobjectivejective time they may be un­un- equalequal.”18." 1 8 This is a generalization of TomaseTomasevskij’svskij's observations on the twofoldtask of "harmonic“harmonic rhythm"rhythm” discussed earlieearlier.r. The consconstitutiontitution of rhythm in the perceiperceiver’sver's consciconsciousnessousness has both dissimildissimilativeative and assimiassimilativelative aspectsaspects.. It dissolves the ututteranceterance

16. Melodika russkogo lirileskogoliriiexkogo sticha, p. 1616.. 17. Russkoe stichosloz‘enie: stichosloienie: Metrika (Petersburg, 191923),23), p. 7. 1818.. "Ritm“Ritm prozyprozy,”," 0 stiche, p. 258. A Synecdoche intintoo distinct rhythmirhythmicalcal periods and at the same time, by render­render- ing these periods rhythmically equivalequivalent,ent, recoreconstitutesnstitutes the ut­ut- teranceterance.. In terms of the inner experience of time, this act can be described as a continuous intinterplayerplay of expectations and fulfill­fulfill- ments. The readreadinging of a "long“long series of repeatrepeated,ed, analogous lines creates a sort of rhythrhythmicalmical inertia in the perceivperceiver,er, a scheme of 'pr‘prosodicosodic expectatiexpectations.’ons.' "”‘919 Expectation alone is insufinsuf-­ ficientficient for the the arousal of rhythm in consciousnessconsciousness:: "R“Regularityegularity distinguishes rhythmirhythmicalcal spspeecheech fromununorganized, organized, ununregulatedregulated speech only if the formed complexcomplex of phonic phenomena ...... recurs and is perceived as similar, thus enforenforcingcing in perceperceptionption the sensation of this 'regularit‘regularity.”’y.' " :.fheThe fulfillmentfulfillment of expecta­expecta- titions,ons, the "'“ ‘recognition’recognition' at every moment of a rerecurringcurring reg­reg- ularitularity,”y," must accoaccompanympany the original expectation for the emeremergencegence of rhythm in the perceiver'sperceiver’s consciconsciousness.20ousness. 20 ConceConceptualizedptualized so generagenerally,lly, however, the notion of rhythm clearly exceeds the sphsphereere of metrimetrics.cs. The experience of rhythm as just dedescribedscribed occurs not only in poetry but in the other temporal artsarts,, as well as in extra-artistic areasareas.. SecSecond,ond, "rhythm"“rhythm” in TomasevsTomasevskij’skij's usausagege refers to the "ob“objective”jective" ststratumratum of rhyth­rhyth- mical experienceexperience,, the real phonic sequensequencece that the perceiver facfaces.es. In its actual physiphysicalcal heterogheterogeneity,eneity, this ststratumratum inevitinevitablyably defiesdefies systsystematicematic descriptidescription.on. According to TomasevskijTomasevskij,, "rhythm“rhythm can only be concreteconcrete,, can be based only on the elements of phonation that we hear or actually take into accoaccountunt in both rhythmical and nonrhythnonrhythmicalmical spspeech.”21eech. "2 1 In this respect, rhythm is a singsingularular phenomenonphenomenon:: every ututterance,terance, every line, can have its own rhythm based on the repetition of any phonic element. In relation to verse, TomasevskiTomasevskijj prefers not to use the term "r“rhythm”hythm" but to speak instinsteadead of the "r“rhythmicalhythmical impulseimpulse.”." As I pointed out earlier, the concept of the rhythmirhythmicalcal impulse was introduced into Formalist terminology by Osip Brik. With TomasevsTomasevskij,kij, however, it acquiracquireded quite a diffdifferenterent meanmg.meaning.

19. "P“Pjatistopnyjjatistopnyj jamb Puskina,"Puskina,” p. 142. 20. "Ritm“Ritm prozyprozy,"," p. 260. 21. "P“Problemaroblema stichotvornogo ritmaritma,”," p. 13.

rI7979 Russian Formalism

Whereas BrBrik’sik's rhythmical impulse pertained to the motor pro­pro- cess generating verseverse,, TomasevsTomasevskij’skij's pertained to the process of interactioninteraction between verse and its perceperceiver.iver. In this new meaning, the rhythmical impulimpulsese is an absabstractiontraction fromthe actual rhythm perceived by the subsubject.ject. The isochronism of verse periods im­im- plies a selection among phonic fefeatures,atures, the desdesignationignation of those to be consconsideredidered equalequal.. Tomasevskijcalls these "rhythm-creating“rhythm-creating elementselements.”." ThusThus,, verse, in "dissolving“dissolving itself into periods that are subsubjectivelyjectively evaluated as equivalent, maintains the law common to all periods and orders its rhythm-creating elements analanalo-o­ gouslgously.”22y. "22 This reduction of all phoniphonicc dadatata to those that aarere rhythm-creating, and hence regularly repeated throughout a popoem,em, limlimitsits considerconsiderablyably the number of rhythmirhythmicalcal possibilities and provides the perceiver with a grid or skeletal structurstructuree within which the interplay of expeexpectationsctations and fufullfillmentsfillments takes place. _F~Foror under these conditconditionsions "rhythm“rhythm is perceived against the backbackgroundground of an average rhythmical scheme, the most frefrequent,quent, most expeexpectedcted one. We shall call this rhythmirhythmicalcal expectation created in our perception by the aggregataggregatee effect of a series of recited lines, this 'general‘general idea'idea’ aboaboutut the rhythmirhythmicalcal character of a poempoem,, the rhrhythmicalythmical impuimpulse.”23lse."23 It must be stressedstressed,, howevehowever,r, that Tomasevskij distinguished rhythm in general from the rhythmirhythmicalcal impulse proper to verse not only on intrinsic critcriteria.eria. The hetheterogeneouserogeneous phonic ele­ele- ments whose repetrepetitionition constconstitutesitutes rhythm lack a social and his­his- torical dimensidimension.on. As rhythm occurs outside languagelanguage,, virtually any phonic fefeatureature can serve as its vehiclevehicle,, but verse languaglanguagee is a linglinguisticuistic phenomenon and its reperepertoirertoire of rhythm-creating elements is necessarily restrrestrictedicted by the social nature oflangulanguage.age. "Languag“Language,”e," in TomasevsTomasevskij’skij'sview, "is“is what links the spspeakereaker to the hearhearer.er. The spspeakereaker not onlonlyy ututtersters words but also listens to ththem,em, and the hearer is not absolutely passive in his listening. Language is apapprehendedprehended because the hearer knows it. The

22. "Ritm“Ritm prozyprozy,"," p. 260. 23. RusskoeRuss/we stichoslof.enie,stichosloz'enie, p. 65.

181800 ASA Synecdocheynecdoche sounds reareachingching his ears are signals for him to recognize the spspeecheech as an ututteranceterance that he could have made himselfhimself.. The most passive listening is always 'aaccompaniedccompanied by an activiactivity—ty­ inner spspeech.eech. Thus, recereceptionption and production inextricably comcom-­ prise any linglinguisticuistic fact.Only those fefeaturesatures copresent in pronun­pronun- ciation and perception can be esseessentialntial to languaglanguage.e. Only this linklink—the-the consonance of the utterer and the hearer-ishearer—is real lan­lan- guageguage.”24. "24 In terms of the theory of verseverse,, not every linguilinguisticstic idiosyncrasy of intinterlocutorserlocutors (such as a poet'spoet’s stastammer),mmer), but only those that are obligobligatoryatory forboth ututtererterer and hearer, can become rhythm-creating elements in verse. This premise was elaborated in detail by Jakobsonjakobson in a book on Czech metrics written about the same time as TomasevsTomasevskij’skij's remarks (see below pp. 238-238—40).40). It became the cornerstone of his phophonologicalnological metrimetrics,cs, which Tomasevskij himself emembracedbraced in the mid-mid-19205.1 92os. The social nature of literature and the histhistoryory of verse impose another constconstraintraint on the selection of rhythm-creating elementselements.. In encountering a popoem,em, for examexample,ple, hearhearersers or readers are usually not a tabula rasa, innocent minds exposed to verse forthethe, , first time. Almost always they carry with them the memory of their previous dealingdealingss with poepoems,ms, a backlog of literary educa­educa- tition,on, tradittradition,ion, and so forthforth.. TThehe factthat they are willing to see the various lines of a poem as comcomparable,parable, even if quite dissidissimilar,milar, indicates that the constitution of the rhythrhythmicalmical impulse has at its basis some canonized set of rhythmirhythmicalcal conventiconventions.ons. This for TomasevskiTomasevskijj is "met“meter.”er." MetMetricalrical norms fufunctionnction simisimilarlylarly to linglinguisticuistic ones in the perception of verse rhytrhythm.hm. They "m“makeake the comcomparisonparison [of verse units] easier by highlighting those features whose apapprehensionprehension yields material for appraising the equiv­equiv- alence of speech perioperiods.ds. The goal of these norms is to provide a prearrangedsystem foforr orgorganizinganizing the system of phonations, that neces­neces- sary conventionality which links the poet with his audieaudiencence and helps his rhythmical intentions to be perceivedperceived.”25."25

24. "P“Problemaroblema stichotvornogo ritmaritma,"," p. 30. 25. IbiIbid.,d., p. i11. 1.

181 Russian FFormalism onnalism

In using the concept of meter, howehowever,ver, Tomasevskij did not revert to the SymbSymbolistolist dichotomy of meter and rhythrhythm.m. For him, the two were not absolutabsolutelyely distindistinct:ct: "It“It is clear that the study ofofa a norm cannot be seseparatedparated from the the study of actual possibilitpossibilities,ies, the concrete forms of the phenomenon that are subsubjectject to this normnorm.”26."26 The actual impleimplementationmentation of a metrical norm is not a series of deviations frofromm an untuntenableenable ideal but a set of tenden­tenden- cies complying to one degdegreeree or another with this normnorm.. Thus, TomaseTomasevskij’svskij's i9191919 study of Puskin'sPuskin’s iambic pentameter mea­mea- sursureses statistically the tendency of syllables to be stressedstressed.. As might be expectexpected,ed, odd syllables are stressed onlonlyy excexceptionally;eptionally; even ones are much more frequently stressed,stressed, but even these are not stressed equallyequally.. Only the last syllasyllableble (or the penultpenultimateimate one in

feminineendingendings) s) carries an oblobligatoryigatory stress, because "this“this sylla- ·' ble is the boundarboundaryy of the rhythmirhythmicalcal series (the line) and subse­subse- quent syllables ...... do not continue this series but lie outoutsideside of itit.”27."27 On all the other even syllasyllables,bles, stress is distdistributedributed accord­accord- ing to poetic stystyle.le. Puskin'sPuskin’s iamb diffdiffersers in this respect from the iambs of other nineteenth-centnineteenth-centuryury poets, and even the propor­propor- tion of stressed syllables varies in diffdifferenterent ststagesages of his career. TomasevsTomasevskij’skij's conception of meter also diffdiffersers from the Sym­Sym- bolists'bolists’ in its relativrelativism.ism. DifDifferentferent languages inevinevitablyitably ememployploy diffdifferenterent prosodic elements as vehicles of the "same“same metmeter.”er." And even within a sisinglengle poetic tradition the memetricaltrical system changchangeses in time. The changchangee is triggered by shifshiftsts in the hierarchy of what TomasevskiTomasevskijj calls primary and secondary fefeaturesatures of ververse.se. A prprimaryimary fefeatureature is a regular distribution of one phonic element canonized by a given metrical conventiconvention.on. "Thus,“Thus, in classiclassicalcal [Russian] metrimetrics,cs, the canonized element of sound ordered ac­ac- cording to the metrical norms is accaccent.”28ent."28 BeBecausecause verse lan­lan- guage is a complex structurstructuree of correlated elements, the can­can- onized ordering of one phoniphonicc feature ententailsails the regular distribution of othersothers.. This pattpatterning,erning, though often vague or

26. "Stich“Stich i ritmritm:: MetMetodologiceskieodologiceskie zameeanizamecanija,”ja," 0 stiche:sliche: StStat'i,at'i, pp. 53-54.53—54. 27. "P“Pjatistopnyjjatistopnyj jamb Puskina," p. 141. 28. "P“Problemaroblema stichotvornogstichotvornogoo ritma,"ritma,” p. 8.

I82 A Synecdoche

subliminasubliminal,l, creates the secondary fefeaturesatures of verseverse,, that is, its actual rhytrhythm.hm. Such a clear-cut distdistinctioninction between primarprimaryy and secondary fefeaturesatures exists only at the moment when a particular metrmetricalical system is generally accepted as the only one possibpossible.le. When its autauthorityhority begins to be questquestioned,ioned, the secondary fea­fea- tures come to the fore. Poets realize that "it“it is possible to write verse governed only by secondary fefeatures,atures, that an utterance can sound like verse even without meter.meter.”29 "29 UlUltimatelytimately such a situation leads to the abanabandonmentdonment of the previous memetricaltrical norm and the esestablishmenttablishment of one of the secondary features as a rhythm­rhythm- creating element. Given the paramoparamountunt role of meter in generating the rhyth­rhyth- mical impulse, it is not remarkable that Tomasevskijconsidered it the "s“specipecificfic diffdifferentia erentia of verse vis-a-vis proseprose.”30."30 But insofaras he defineddefined verse as the implementimplementationation of a specific metmetricalrical normnorm,, he was ununableable to accoaccountunt for its overall unitunity.y. It was imimpossiblepossible forhim to say what iambic and trochaic verse have in common, or, given the geographical and histhistoricalorical relativity of meters, what the connection is betweebetween,n, say, iambic verse in diffdifferenterent languages or diffdifferenterent histhistoricalorical periodperiods.s. ThereTherefore,fore, Tomasevskij introduced the concept of verse lanlanguage,guage, which unites memetricallytrically disdisparateparate verse on the basis of other shsharedared prproperties.operties. For instanceinstance,, "in“in contemcontemporaryporary EurEuropeanopean practice the custom was established of writing verse in even lines diffdiffer-er­ ententiatediated by cacapitalpital lettersletters,, and to print prose in continuous lines without brebreaks.aks. DesDespitepite the heheterogeneityterogeneity of gragraphiaphia and living speechspeech,, this fact isissignificant, because there are specificspecific linguislinguistic tic associations with writwriting.ing. The segmentsegmentationation of the utterance into 'lin‘lines,’es,' periods whose phonic potential is comcomparableparable or even idenidenticaltical in very simple cascases,es, is evidently the distdistinctiveinctive fefeatureature of verse languagelanguage.”31."31 This fact, however, does not imply that prose written as verse will always and everywhere be perceived as such, or vice versaversa..

29. IbIbid.,id., p. g.9. 30. IbiIbid.,d., p. lo10.. 331. i. IbiIbid.,d., p. 1111.. I r8I833 Russian Formalism

The custcustomaryomary graphic arrangarrangementement merely signals to ththee EurEuro-o­ pean reader one formaldifdifference ference between verse and proseprose,, but does not establish either of thethem.m. Only the proprojectionjection of an uttutteranceerance against the current metrical norm can do that. For TomasevskiTomasevskijj meter is a relative categocategory;ry; theretherefore,fore, "there“there is no hard boundarboundaryy between prproseose and verseverse.”32."32 TomasevskiTomasevskij’sj's claim was almost immediimmediatelyately challenged by Jurjurijij TynTynjanov,janov, who devoted an entire monograph enentitledtitled The Problem of Verse Language to discovering a factor cacapablepable of difdiffer-fe r­ ententiatingiating verse fromproseprose. . However, TynTynjanov’sjanov's argument with TomasevskiTomasevskijj did not involve a radically difdifferentferent view of verse language. As I shall show, the two were quite close on many essentessentialial ississues,ues, but the logic of TynTynjanov’sjanov's systemisystemicc metmetaphoraphor and his insights into the semansemantictic dimension of verse led him to diffdifferenterent concluconclusions.sions. As I argued in the preceding chapter, the key concept of TynTynjanov’sjanov's poetics was the literary systsystem.em. UndUnderstooderstood as a hier­hier- archical set of variabvariables,les, it consisted of a series of correlated subsystems (for exexample,ample, genresgenres),), which in turn consisted of individual work-work-systems.systems. TynTynjanovjanov related the interdepen­interdepen- dent variables through the concept of "fun“function.”ction." Thus, every work exhiexhibitsbits a particular functfunction—aion-a correlation of the domi­domi- nant constructive factor with the subordisubordinatenate materialmaterial.. This functifunction,on, dubdubbedbed by TynTynjanovjanov the "pr“principleinciple of constructiconstruction,”on," goes beyond the level of the single work. It ununitesites individual works intintoo literary subsystemssubsystems—interdependent-interdependent variables in the overall literary systsystem.em. This system is not simsimplyply a logical con­con- strustruct;ct; it has a histhistoricalorical correlatcorrelate—thee-the series of actual literary forms evolving in titime.33me. 33 These forms are not jujustst accidaccidentsents of histhistoryory that cannot be systemsystematicallyatically studiedstudied;; they are embodi­embodi- ments of spspeciecificfic functions and their continucontinuityity or changchangee is

32. RusskoeRuss/toe stichosloienie,stichosloz'em'e, p. 9. 33. For TynTynjanov’sjanov's discussion of the relation between form andandfuncti function,on, see espespeciallyecially "O“0 literaturnoliteraturnojj evolevoljucii,”jucii," Archaisty i novatory (Leni(Leningrad,ngrad, 191929),29), pp. 38-438—41.1. A Synecdoche

indiindicativecative of relations among the variables within the literary systsystem.em. From this persperspective,pective, the Formalist TynTynjanovjanov held that verse language should not be treated as a form alone, but also as a funfunction.ction. The factthat poetrypoetry,, unlike prose, has long been writ­writ- ten in even lines betrays a funfundamentaldamental funfunctionalctional diffdifferenceerence between them. For TynTynjanov,janov, verse and prose were the two most general literliteraryary subsystems constconstitutedituted through the inversion of their respective principles of constconstruction.ruction. "In“In verse the pivotal constructive factoris rhyrhythmthm and the material (in a broad sense) is the semantic grouping; in prose the consconstructivetructive factoris the seman­seman- tic grouping (the plot) and the material is the rhythmical (in the broad sense) elementelementss of the wordword.”34."34 TThehe oppoppositionosition between prose and poetry is thus not absolute but a funfunctionction of the litliteraryerary system as a whole. As the system evolvevolves,es, the "time“time may come when it will be inessentinessentialial whether a work is written in verse or prprose,ose, but as long as the distdistinctioninction between prose and poetry remains palpalpable,pable, their two contrastive principles of construction coexist within the literliteraryary systsystem.35em. 35 BeBecausecause by definidefinitiontion the principle of construction is always a correlation of two elemenelements—ints-in the case of verse, rhythm and meaningmeaning—one--one cannot adequadequatelyately descrdescribeibe verse by describing only its dominant component, rhytrhythm.hm. On this point TynTynjanovjanov dedepartsparts signifisignificantlycantly fromTomasevskij Tomasevskij,, who confinedhis poetic study to metrimetrics,cs, a "discipline“discipline...... ststudying udying the principles that underunderlielie the ordering of actual rhytrhythm.”36hm."36 TynTynjanovjanov believed the theory of verse langlanguageuage must also include verse semantisemantics,cs, which is a "discipline“discipline concerned with the meaningmeaningss of words and verbal grgroups,oups, and their evolution and shifshiftt in poetrpoetry.”37y."37 The deforma­deforma- tion of meaning in verversese distinguishes it from proseprose as signifi-

34. "Li“Literaturnyjteraturnyj fakt,"fakt,” ibiibid.,d., p. 1515.. 35. "O“O literaturnoliteraturnojj evoljevoljucii,"ucii," p. 39. 36. RusskoeRuss/toe stichosloienie,stichosloz'enie, p. 111. 1. 37. "Predislovie“Predislovie k knigknigee Problema stichovostichovojj semantisemantiki,"ki," Poetika,Poétika, istorija literatury, kino (M(Moscow,oscow, 191977),77), p. 253253. .

185 .l I Russian Formalism

candycantly as the dominandominancece of rhythrhythm.m. AccoAccordingrding to TynTynjanov,janov, "p“proserose and poetry are enenclosedclosed semantsemanticic categoriecategories;s; prosaic meaning is always distinct from poetic meaning, and conse­conse- quently poetic syntsyntaxax and even its vocabulary are also essentessentiallyially diffdifferenterent from those of prose.prose.”38 "38 By systemsystematicallyatically examexaminingining the meaning of the lexical ununitsits that make up verseverse,, Tynjanov went beyond the other OPOPOJAZOJAZ members who (begin(beginningning with BrBrik)ik) claimed they were including semantsemanticsics within their schemes. In fact,these FormalistFormalistss reduced semantics to syntax, the rules for combining words into more comcomplexplex meaningful wholeswholes,, and neglected the actual lexical content of the words involinvolved.ved. TynTynjanov’sjanov's treatmetreatmentnt of rhythmrhythm,, however, did not diffdifferer much from that of the other FormalistsFormalists.. In conceiving of it pri­pri- marily as a "mot“motor-energic”or-energic" phenomenphenomenon,on, he was quite close to Brik. InInsteadstead of spspeakingeaking of verse isochronism (whether obobjec-jec­ tive or subsubjective),jective), he treated rhythmirhythmicalcal segmentation as a quantquantityity of labor or energy expendedexpended.39. 39 As we have seen, the idea of verbal art as eneenergy-extensivergy-extensive langlanguageuage was the basis for SSklovskij’sklovskij's conception of artistic de-famde-familiarization,iliarization, but in his purposive explanation of art the signifisignificancecance of rhythm lay in its effeffectect upon the perceiveperceiver.r. Rhythmical irregularities werweree sup­sup- posed to frusfrustratetrate the reader'sreader’s expectatiexpectations,ons, thus requiring mormoree effeffortort on his or her part. In TynTynjanov’sjanov's systemic meta­meta- phor, on the other handhand,, rhythm participates in the constconstructiveructive funfunction—action-a hierarchical correlation with other elements of the work. HeHerere the labor involved in the rhythmirhythmicalcal organization of verse seems to be the eneenergyrgy soursourcece for thetheongoing strustruggleggle for domidominationnation of its elements. TynTynjanov’sjanov's conception of rhythm was perfperfectlyectly in keeping with his overall antisubstantisubstantialistantialist positioposition.n. As eneenergy,rgy, rhythm cannot be identifiedidentified with any of the phonic elements constconstitut-itut­ ing verseverse.. RathRather,er, it is a systemsystem—a-a dynamidynamicc interpinterplaylay of many factorsfactors:: "'“ ‘Rhythm’Rhythm' [is] the entire dynamidynamicscs of the poem compris-

38. "O“O kompozicii EvgenijaEvgemja OneginOnegina,"a," ibiibid.,d., p. 55. 39. Problema stichotvomogo jazyka (L(Leningrad,eningrad, i921924),4), p. i129—33. 29-33.

181866 A Synecdoche ing the intinteractionseractions among meter (accentual schemscheme),e), linguislinguistictic relations (synt(syntax),ax), and sound relations (r(repetitions).”40epetitions)."40 Among thethese,se, TynTynjanovjanov claimedclaimed,, meter plays the dominant rorole.le. Al­Al- thougthoughh this apapparentlyparently echoes TomaseTomasevskij’svskij'sbelief in the para­para- mount significanceof meter forverse, a closer scrutiny reveals a diffdifference.erence. In TynTynjanov’sjanov's viewview,, what domdominatesinates rhythm is not meter as a system of regularly alternating prosodic featurfeatures,es, but rather the "pr“principleinciple of metermeter,”," in other wordwords,s, the "dynamic“dynamic grgroupingouping of ververbalbal material accordaccordinging to a prosodic featurefeature.. Most elementary and basic to this is the singling out of some metrmetricalical grgroupoup as a unit. This act also prepares dynamically for the isolation of a subsequent, similar grougroup.p. If this metrical preparation is realized we get a metrmetricalical systemsystem.”41."4 1 Even if this preparation is not realized in the subsequent grgroup,oup, even if the metrical system is absent (as in free versverse),e), we are still dealing with verse language. "'“ ‘UnrealizedUnrealized preppreparation’aration' is also a dyna­dyna- mizing instinstance.ance. Meter is preserved in the form of a memetricaltrical impulse. Every 'non‘nonrealization’realization' involves a memetricaltrical regrregrouping:ouping: either as a coordination of the two units (carried out pro­pro- gressively) or as a subordination (carried out regreregressively).ssively) ...... HeHerere the meter as a system is replaced by meter as a dynamic principle, namely, the set toward meter, the equivalent of metermeter.”42."42 As the term "m“metricaletrical impulse"impulse” indicatindicates,es, TynTynjanov’sjanov's "meter"“meter” covecoveredred what TomasevskiTomasevskijj perceived to be two separate catego­catego- riries.es. In the sense of "m“metricaletrical systsystem,”em," it coincided roughly with TomaTomasevskij’ssevskij's notion of meter, but as the "equiva“equivalentlent of metmeter,”er," it overlapped with TomasevsTomasevskij’skij's "r“rhythmicalhythmical impulseimpulse.”." For TomasevskiTomasevskijj the rhythmical impulse alone could not constitutconstitutee verseverse;; for TynTynjanovjanov the principle of meter wouldwould.43.43 This vari-

40.4o. "Ob“Ob osnosnovachovach kino,kino,"" Poetika,Paélika, istoriistorijaja literatury, kino, p. 34341.1. 41. Problema stichotvornogostichotvomogo jazyka, p. 30. 42. Ibid. 43. Apparently in the mid-twenties, perhaps under TynTynjanov’sjanov's influence,influence, TomasevskijTom sevskij modifiedmodified his position somewhat. Thus in 19192525 he was willing to concede that "Ma“Majakovskij’sjakovskij's verse is constrained merely by its rhythmirhythmicalcal im­im- pulse" ("(“StichStich i ritmritm,”," p. 59). I87 Russian Formalism

ance reflectsreflects the difdifferenceference in TomasevsTomasevskij’skij's and TynTynjanov’sjanov's ori­ori- ententations.ations. TomasevskiTomasevskijj proceeded from concrete veverserse forms, concentrating on their heterogeneheterogeneity,ity, wherwhereaseas TynTynjanovjanov pro­pro- ceeded from the general category of the literary systsystem.em. Striving to discover the ideidentityntity of verse as a functionwithin this overall systsystem,em, TynTynjanovjanov concenconcentratedtrated on what poems have in commoncommon.. NaNaturallyturally then, TynTynjanovjanov rerejectedjected fefeaturesatures that were chacharac-rac­ teristic of verse at one point but later disappdisappeared.eared. Meter, in the sense of a prosodic systsystem,em, was such a casecase.. "In“In a certain litliteraryerary system the funfunctionction of verse was fufullfilledfilled by the formal element of metmeter.er. But prose didiversiversifiedfied and evolvevolved,ed, and so did verseverse.. The diversificationdiversification of one type of [sound-m[sound-meaning]eaning] correlation involvinvolves,es, or bettebetter,r, is linlinkedked to the diversdiversiiffiicationcation of another type of correlaticorrelation.on. The rise of metrical prose (with AndreAndrejj BelyBelyj)j) was connected to the trtransferenceansference of the verse funfunctionction from meter to other fefeaturesatures of verse that were often secondary or concomi­concomi- tant, such as the rhythm-demrhythm-demarcatingarcating verse units, particular syn­syn- tactic formsforms,, or vocabularyvocabulary.. The function of prose or verse re­re- mains, but the formal elements fulfillingfulfilling it are difdifferent.”44ferent."44 Thus, in a seeming paraparadox,dox, TynTynjanovjanov reversed the hierarchy between cencentraltral and peripherperipheralal fefeaturesatures as markers of verseverse.. BeBecausecause cencentraltral fefeaturesatures are always the prime victims of histhistor-or­ ical change, the idenidentitytity of a verse system lies in its peripperipheralheral fefeatures,atures, in those elements that despidespitete changes in the center continue to distinguish it from prprose.ose. "The“The principle of con­con- struction is revealed not in the maximum conditions comprcomprisingising it, but in the minimaminimall ones. For it is obvious that these minimal conditions are the ones intintrinsicrinsic to the given construction and in them we should seek the key to the specificspecific character of the constructiconstruction.”45on."45 Free verseverse,, then, belongs to the verse system despidespitete the fact thatthat it does not correspond to any metrical sys­sys- temtem.. By segmenting a continuous ututteranceterance into rhythmirhythmicalcal pe­pe- riods it transforms the verbal material acaccordingcording to the same principle as memetricallytrically regular verseverse.. 44. "O“O literaturnoliteraturnojj evolevoljucii,”jucii," p. 59. 45. Problema stichotvornogoxtichotvomogo jazyka, p. i17. 7.

181888 A Synecdoche

There is, however, one imimportantportant diffdifferenceerence between free verse and more tradtraditionalitional verse forms. In metrically regular verseverse,, recurrent rhythmirhythmicalcal units tend to be smaller than those of freeverse verse.. They are the syllabsyllable,le, foot,and hemisthemistich,ich, whereas in verse organized solely by the metrmetricalical principle, the basic unit is the entire line. In the absence of any prosodic systemsystem,, the only marker of such a unit is its graphic formform.. In freeverse "g“graphicsraphics plays a spspecialecial rolerole,, forit stands not only forthe rhythm but for the metrical unit as wewell.ll. HerHeree graphics is the signal of a lineline,, of rhytrhythm,hm, and by the same token of memetricaltrical dynamdynamics—theics-the indis­indis- pensapensableble condition ofrhytrhythm.”46hm."46 For this reasoreason,n, TynTynjanov,janov, un­un- like TomasevsTomasevskij,kij, ascrascribedibed mamajorjor imimportanceportance to the graphic form of verseverse.. Graphic form provides the minimal conditions forthe rise of rhythm as the dominant factorof verse construc­construc- tition.on. I TynTynjanovjanov believed that not only rhythrhythm,m, the constructive fac­fac- tor of ververse,se, was reducible to its gragraphicphic formform,, but the subordi­subordi- \ nate matmaterial—thaterial-that isis,, the semantic groups within it, was as wewell.ll. In Puskin'sPuskin’s poetrypoetry,, for exexample,ample, a series of dots sometimes re­re- i places a line or a group of lines, as in the original version of the i thirteenth stanza of “To the Sea”: l thirteenth stanza of "To the Sea": 1i The world has ememptiedptied ......

Here, ththreeree and one-haone-halflflines of dots serve as the graphic equiv­equiv- alent of the same expanse of worwords.ds. This substitution is purely graphicgraphic;; no oral rendition is possible. The voice has at its dis­dis- posal only a pausepause—a-a silence indicating the absence of worwords.ds. The graphic equivalent sigsignalsnals the presence of this absence, and in doing so carries the metrmetricalical enerenergygy of the ververse.se. "Obvi“Obviously,ously, the successive segmentsegmentationation and reunireunificationfication of metrical ele­ele- ments ...... does not occur [her[here].e]. The meter is given only as a

46. IbiIbid.,d., p. 3i.31.

I89 Russian Formalism

sign, a potential that is hard to detect. To us, however, the frag­frag- ment and the dots are equal to the entire stanza and we perceive the lines of the following stanzastanza...... prprecisely ecisely as the following stanza. That is, a stanza has elapsed between the fragmefragmentnt com­com- mencing the stanza discussed and the next stanza, and the frag­frag- ment carries the metrical enerenergygy of the whole stanstanza.”47za."47 As long as the semantsemanticallyically ememptypty dots serve the consconstructivetructive principle and fulfillfulfill the funfunctionction of actual worwords,ds, they are a minimal equivalent of the matmaterialerial in the verse consconstruction.truction. Earlier I susuggestedggested that TynTynjanovjanov conceived of verse rhythm as a system composed not only of the dominant meter but of other rhythmirhythmicalcal factorsfactors.. The most imimportantportant of these are sound repetition and rhyme, which Tomasevskij includedincluded ununderder the rubric of harmonic rhythrhythm,m, as we have seseen.en. For TomaseTomasevskij,vskij, sound repetition and rhyme operoperateate on the principle of expectexpecta-a­ tion and fulfulfillment,fillment, thus performingthe twofoldtask of rhyth­rhyth- mical dissimdissimilationilation and assiassimilation.milation. TynTynjanovjanov considered them only secondarsecondaryy rhythmirhythmicalcal factors because'thebecause the proportion of progressive and regreregressivessive forces they command diffdiffersers from that of meter. In meter, the proprogressivegressive forforcece is most important. It in itself is capable of generating rhythrhythm,m, as in free verseverse,, where the regrregressiveessive realization of the initinitialial expectation is for­for- ever frustratfrustrated.ed. The perception of sound repetition is jujustst the opposite. It lacks all progressive forceor, as TynTynjanovjanov caucautiouslytiously added in a footnote,it "is“is extremely weakweak.”48."48 We ususuallyually do not expect a sound to be repeatrepeated.ed. In rhymerhyme,, on the other handhand,, both forcesforces—regressive-regressive and proprogressive—operate.gressive-operate. NeNeverthe-verthe­ leless,ss, TynTynjanovjanov argues that here regreregressionssion is the primary factfactor.or. This claim may require some clarificaticlarification.on. One could obobjectject that in a regularly rhymed and strophically organized poem the progressive force is paramparamount:ount: the reader has every expecta­expecta- tion of the recurrence of a rhyming ending. For TynTynjanov,janov, howhow-­ ever, this situation mermerelyely shows rhyme under maximamaximall condi-

47. IbiIbid.,d., p. 24. 48. IbiIbid.,d., p. i2128.8. 190 A Synecdoche

titions.ons. In texts with looser rhyme and ststrophicrophic schemschemes,es, the readreader’ser's expectation that some subsequent lines will conclude with a grgroupoup of sounds similar to those he or she is presentpresentlyly perceiving drdropsops considerably. TynTynjanovjanov illusillustratestrates this claim with a poem of TjTjutcev’sutcev's in which a rhyme separseparatedated by five verse lines passes by virtually ununnoticed.49noticed. 49 What accoaccountsunts for the weak effect of this rhyme is the lack of expectation on the reader'sreader’s part, for heheor she realizes it only regrregressively,essively, and then only if he or she has retained the firstfirst rhyming ending over an intintervalerval of five lineslines.. Rhyme, moreover, is secondary to meter because it depends on prior metrmetricalical segmentsegmentation:ation: the rhyming sounds occupy the same positions within lines that have already been memetricallytrically delimitdelimited.ed. I All utterances organized accaccordingording to the constructive princi­princi- ple of verse just outlined exhibit, accoaccordingrding to TynTynjanov,janov, four I essentessentialial fefeatures.50atures. 50 The firstfirst he calls the unityof the verse sequence \ [r[rjad],jad], which is created by metrically isolating a particular seg­seg- ment from the continuous speech chainchain.. Through this segmen­segmen- tation the second property of verse language arisearises,s, namenamely,ly, the I densitdensityy of the verse sequence. The isolation of a metrical segment i from its linguistic context brings its consconstitutivetitutive elements closer I togtogether:ether: new connections among ththem,em, nonexistent beforethis segmentsegmentation,ation, are estestablished.ablished. This explains "why“why the quan­quan- titative content of a verse sequence must be limlimited.ited. A unit that is quantquantitativelyitatively excessive either loses its boundboundariesaries or itself be­be- comes segmentsegmenteded into other unitunits.s. In both cascases,es, however, it ceases to be a unit."5unit.”511 The ununityity and density of the verse se­se- quence generate the third featureof verse constructionconstruction—the-the dydy-­ namization of the verbal material. The segmentsegmentationation of an ututter-ter­ ance int�into recurring rhythmical units makes the semantsemanticic ununitsits similar to each other not only because of their meanings but also because of their phonic and grammgrammaticalatical fefeatures,atures, position in the line, and so forthforth.. In the progressive-regressive builbuildupdup of

49.49- IbiIbidud., p.P- 34. l 550.0. IbiIbid.,d., p. 47. J 51. IbiIbid.,d., p. 39. ' \ 191 I Russian Formalism

the lineline,, words and their groupings cease to be mere carriers of infiinfinitelynitely repeatable meanings and turn intintoo heterogheterogeneouseneous en­en- tities whose mumultipleltiple facets areareconstan constantlytly foregrforegroundedounded in the ongoing process of rhythmirhythmicalcal permutatipermutation.on. The most diffificultcult to grasp of TynTynjanov’sjanov's four fefeaturesatures of verse constconstructionruction is the successivitsuccessivityy of its verbal material. In the firstfirst placeplace,, he opposes it to the simusimultaneityltaneity of the verbal material of proseprose.. Language is a ttemporalemporal mediumedium,m, so the verbal material of any speech consconstructiontruction must be successivesuccessive.. In TynTynjanov’sjanov's usageusage,, howevehowever,r, the words "successivity"“successivity” and "simult“simultaneity”aneity" re­re- fer not to the medium itself but to the mode of its perceptioperception.n. In prprose,ose, the dominant set toward semantsemanticsics prevents us fromper­per- ceiving the ututteranceterance as a prprocess.ocess. The successivitsuccessivityy of its ele­ele- ments is there merely to help us grasp the meaning of the ututter-ter­ ance in its totalitytotality.. This perception of wholeness occurs only after the utterance is finishedfinished and we retain all of its elements in our consciousness as a simulsimultaneoustaneous wholewhole.. In verseverse,, with its dynamized verbal materimaterial,al, the goal sought is not a simultsimultaneousaneous meaning but the sequence itselfitself,, the rhythmirhythmicalcal unfoldingof the ververbalbal mmaterial.aterial. Such speech is perceived as a processprocess—a-a contin­contin- uous correlation of difdifferentferent facets of language whose hetero­hetero- geneity resists any finalfinal semanticsemantic sumsummation.mation. But amazingamazingly,ly, at the same time TynTynjanovjanov claims that in prose "time“time is perceptibleperceptible,”," whereas in verse "time“time is not perceptible at alall.”52l."52 Here we are confronted by appapparentarent oxymoroxymorons:ons: the "temporal“temporal simusimultaneity”ltaneity" of prose and the "at“atemporalemporal suc­suc- cessivity"cessivity” of verseverse.. This contcontradictoryradictory notion arises fromthe fact that TynTynjanovjanov was really taltalkingking ababoutout two difdifferentferent temtemporalporal stratastrata:: the temtemporalityporality involved in the perception of the artistic medium and the temporalittemporalityy of the extralinguistic semasemanticntic grgroupingsoupings that occur in it. This extralinguistic temporal stratum is esespeciallypecially imimportantportant in prprose,ose, where such groupings are the dominant consconstructivetructive factfactor.or. Through a series of gradgradualual se-

52. IbiIbid.,d., p. i119. 19. 192 A Synecdoche mantic buibuildups,ldups, the reader constitutes chcharactersaracters and events whose causal-tempcausal—temporaloral relations (the story) present one tem­tem- poral flux. In In addition to the indirindirectect experience of temporal flowflow presentpresenteded in the ststoryory lfa(fabula),bula), the reader experiences di­di- rectly the fluxflux of the plot (s(sjuz'et).juiet). That the readreaderer is simul­simul- taneously aware of both of them is apparent in Gogol’s .short taneously aware of both of them is apparent in Gogol's • short story "The“The NosNose,”e," in which the "deceler“deceleratedated ...... narrative about the barber Ivan Jakjakovlevicovlevic eating bread and onions produces a comical effect because too much of the (lit(literary)erary) time is devoted to it."53it.”53 In verse language domindominatedated by rhythm, semantics (in the broad sehse)sense) is mermerelyely a suborsubordinatedinate materialmaterial.. The con­con- stitutive elements of verse constconstructionruction are organized primarily through their rhythmirhythmicalcal permutpermutations,ations, and the experience of time in the story-plotstory—plot intinteractioneraction is largely missing. Moreover, as these permutpermutationsations are an ongoing procprocess,ess, there are no breaks in its perception dividing the temporal contcontinuuminuum into "now"“now” and "then"“then” pointspoints.. Every moment is simultsimultaneouslyaneously a funfunctionction of its future (p(progressiverogressive preparation) and its past (t(thehe regressive realization of a previous prepreparation).paration). TynTynjanov’sjanov's claim about the imperimperceptibilityceptibility of time in poetry refers there­there- foreto the factthat the unfoldingof an enentiretire verse construction takes place in a singsinglele perceptual "now"“now” sussuspendedpended from the temportemporalal flow. The discussion of temportemporalal perception in prose and verse occurs in the second half of TynTynjanov’sjanov's monogrmonograph,aph, which is concerned with the·the effectsof verse consconstructiontruction on lexical mean­mean- ing. The fact that he originally planned to call his book The Problem of Verse Semantics indiindicatescates how crucial he considered this part to be. The nearly six decades that have passed since its publication have rendered TynTynjanov’sjanov's many revolrevolutionaryutionary in­in- sights about verse semasemanticsntics commoncommonplacesplaces in modern liteliteraryrary scholarscholarship,ship, but within the context of Russian FormalFormalismism their value is unquunquestionable.estionable. And though TynTynjanov’sjanov's metrics often depdependedended upon discoveries made by other members of the 53. IbidIbid..

119393 Russian Formalism

movement, his study of verse semantsemanticsics is without any doubt an original concontributiontribution to Formalist poetipoetics.54cs.54 TynTynjanov’sjanov's analysis of verse meaning was fifirmly rooted in his systemic metaphor, acaccordingcording to which every phenomenon is relatrelational.ional. For semantsemanticsics this meant that "it“it is not necessary to proceed frfromom the word as the singsinglele indivisiindivisibleble element of verbal art, to regard it as the 'bricks‘bricks with which an edifiedificece is builbuilt.’t.' This element is analyzable into much fifinerner 'verbal‘verbal elementelements.’”55s."'55 Hence, as with rhythm, verbal meaning is a system of hierarchically correlated factorsfactors—semantic-semantic featurfeatures.es. The first distdistinctioninction TynTynjanovjanov drew was that between the "basic“basic fefeature”ature" and the "second“secondaryary features"features” of semantisemantics.cs. A basic feature is a general lexical category common to all the usausagesges of a word and hence guarantguaranteeingeeing its semansemantictic identitidentity.y. This ideidentityntity is purely semantic, forthough homophones share the same outer formform,, they do not share their basic semasemanticntic featufeature.re. Drawing a parallel with phonologphonology,y, TynTynjanovjanov saw the "concept“concept of the basic featurein semantsemanticsics as analogous to that of the phoneme.phoneme.”56"56 The secondsecondaryary fefeaturesatures of meaning can be divided into the "vacillat“vacillating”ing" and the "st“steady.”eady." The formerare a funfunctionction of the immimmediateediate linguistlinguisticic context in which the word appearsappears.. Every speech construction semantsemanticallyically colors the words which com­com- pose it by furnishing them with (slightly) diffdifferenterent conconnota-nota­ titions.ons. StSteadyeady secondsecondaryary fefeaturesatures are a function of a broader social contecontext:xt: the milieu from which the word comes (slangs, dialectsdialects,, and so fortforth).h). TynTynjanovjanov calls it the "lexical“lexical coloring of the wordword”" and claims that it is "“discerniblediscernible onlonlyy outside the activitactivityy and situation which it characterizes.characterizes."" FinallyFinally,, in synthetsyntheticic languages like RussianRussian,, words are usuausuallylly composed of two partsparts:: the "ref“ref--

54. This, of coursecourse,, does not mean that TynTynjanov‘sjanov's semantsemanticic theory is without any intintellectualellectual predecessopredecessors.rs. As the footnotes to his book indiindicate,cate, he adopted some of his most imimportantportant notions from French and German students of lan­lan- guageguage:: M. Brea!,Bréal, C. BallBally,].y,]. Vendryes, H. Paul, A. RoseRosenstein,nstein, and W. Wundt, to name a few. 55. Problema stichotvornogostichotvornogojazyka,jazyka, p.pt 35. 56. IbiIbid.,d., p. 52; p.p i3134.4.

119494 A Synecdoche erential"erential” (v(ve§c’estvennyj)escestvennyJ) part that carries the semantsemanticic chachargerge of the wordword,, and the "formal"“formal” part-the part—the vehicle of its grammatical meaningmeaning.57.57 The domination of rhythm in verse tends to realign the hierhier-­ archy of semantsemanticic features in its words accaccordingording to their verse funfunction.ction. The unitunityy and density of the verse sequence is perhaps the most obvious cause of such a semantsemanticic shifshift.t. In a verse con­con- struction the rhythmical and semantic divisions need not coin­coin- cicide,de, and synsyntacticallytactically related words may be sepseparatedarated by metri­metri- cal bou11dariboundaries.es. EnEnjambmentjambment is a case in point. A word seseparatedparated fromits concontexttext and incorpincorporatedorated into a memetricaltrical sequence gains strstrongong new connotations because of the density of the sequensequence.ce. An intinteractioneraction of rhythm and semantsemanticsics also occurs within segmentsegmentss smsmalleraller than the line, forexam example,ple, feet and syllasyllables.bles. If a line is compcomposedosed of words whose boundarboundariesies coincide with footboundariboundaries, es, every word turns into a rhythrhythmicalmical unit (a foot) and its syntsyntacticactic relation to other words weakweakens.ens. Such word-fword-feeteet tend to be perceived as if in isolatiisolation,on, so that their basic semantic featufeaturesres are intensifiedintensified.58. 58 Caesura, an obligatory word bound­bound- ary after a particular syllablsyllable,e, is another rhythmical division ca­ca- pable of inteinterferingrfering with semantsemanticsics if, forexampleexample, , the concomi­concomi- tant intonational pause dividedividess words that are synsyntacticallytactically closely relatrelated.ed. ThusThus,, in Lermontov'sLermontov’s line

No ne s5 tobotobojj I/ ja serdcem govorgovorjuju (But not to you I/ with my heart I spspeak)eak) such a pause (accompanied by a seeming paralleliparallelismsm of the two hemistychs) even leads to a misrmisreadingeading (a "secondary“secondary semasio­semasio- logizatlogization”ion" in TynTynjanov’sjanov's terterms),ms), attested to by the fact that two years after the poet'spoet’s death this line was printed asas::

No ne s5 tobotobo'j,j , I/ -j—jaa s serdcem govorgovorjuju

5757.· IbiIbid.,d., pp. 56-556—57;7; p. 58; p. 56. 58. IbiIbid.,d., p. 71.

119595 Russian Formalism

(But not to youyou,, I/ to my heart I speak)59

The lexical coloring of words (a steady secondary feature) enenjoysjoys a special position in the semantics of Russian verse. It results from the strong influeninfluencece of liturgliturgicalical ChurChurchch Slavonic on literary Russian. Lomonosov'sLomonosov’s linguistic reform of the eigh­eigh- teenth century and his theory of three styles identifiedidentified the high style with the use of ChurChurchch Slavonic vocabularyvocabulary.. Although in modern Russian this factor has decreased considerconsiderably,ably, there are still many cases in which a poet can play on the synonymsynonymityity or homonyhomonymitymity of Russian and ChChurchurch SlavoniSlavonicc worwords.ds. Lexical coloring can even become a dominant semantsemanticic fefeatureature when the ChurChurchch SlavoniSlavonicc word is no longer underunderstandablestandable to the reader but still carries the loflofty,ty, lituliturgicalrgical connotations belongbelong-­ ing to that tongtongue.ue. Vocabulary drawn from other foreign lan­lan- guagguages,es, proper names characterizing foreign culturescultures,, or even Russian words connected to a parparticularticular regioregion,n, tratrade,de, or milieu fulfilla similar fufunction.nction. All of them foregroundsecondary fea­fea- tures in the words with which they comprcompriseise a verse sequesequence.nce. In additadditionion to the semsemanticantic features thatthat I have discussed so far, the word consists of referentreferentialial and formal partsparts.. Their relatiorelation,n, or mormoree preciseprecisely,ly, the changchangee in this relation caused by rhytrhythm,hm, is equally important forverse semantisemantics.cs. HeHerere second­second- ary rhythrhythmicalmical factorsfactors—sound-sound repetition and rhyrhyme—playme-play a cencentraltral rolerole.. Needless to saysay,, for TynTynjanovjanov these devices are complexcomplex'phenomena, phenomena, and in studying them he takes into ac­ac- count the proximity of reprepeatedeated sounds and rhymes, their rela­rela- titionshiponship to meter, the quantquantityity and quality of the sounds uti­uti- lizedlized,, the part of the word in which they occuoccur,r, and the general character of the wordword.60. 50 Sound repetitions affect lexical meaning in many waways,ys, for instanceinstance,, through the mimetmimeticic and expressive sound patterns that the early Formalists found especespecially!ally intrigintriguing.uing. TynTynjanov,janov,

59. IbiIbid.,d., p. 63. 60. IbiIbid.,d., pp. 102 and 10109.9.

11969 6 A Synecdoche

however, was less intinterestederested in this direct link between the phon­phon- ic and semasemanticntic aspects of individual words than in their rela­rela- titionshiponship in words interlocked in a verse sequencesequence.. For exexample,ample, his commecommentaryntary on the line

UnUnylajaylaja pora, oceoe'ejj ocarovoc'arovan'ean'e (Doleful timetime,, the charm of eyeyes)es)

provides a good explanation of this phenomenonphenomenon.. "“ 'O‘Oéejcej ocaro­oéaro- van'van'e’ e' is a group ununitedited both metrically and phonically, and we perceive the sounds oceoéej,j, oea-oc'a- as compacomparable.rable. This perception involves two successive momentsmoments:: the recognition in the word ocarovanoéarovan’e' e [charm] of an element fromthe previous word and the ununitingiting of the two words into a grgroup.oup. In thisthis,, the refreferentialerential part of the word ocarovan'oc'arovan’e e becbecomesomes colored through its strstrongong linkaglinkagee to the referential part of oceoc'ejj [eye[eyes].s]. It is as if the firstfirst l stagstagee in the redistribution of the rereferentialferential and foformalrmal parts ...... had taken place, in this case, as though we derived ocarovanoc'arovart'e' e fromthe t root oci.0622”“"6 1 ObviObviously,ously, sound repetitions need not be limited to con­con- l tiguous worwords.ds. They may permeate an enentiretire verse consconstruction;truction; by rendering words phonically similar they dynamize their ver­ver- l bal materialmaterial,, and through a regressive movement make this ma­ma- terial successivesuccessive.. Summing up the role of sound repetition in l verse semantsemantics,ics, TynTynjanovjanov wrote that its "evocation“evocation of the vac­vac- illating fefeaturesatures of meaning (through the redistribution of the referentialand formalparts of the word) and transformation of l the utterance into an amalamalgamated,gamated, correlated whole, cause me to view them as a particular kind of rhrhythmicalythmical metaphor.metaphor.”62 "62 The role of rhyme in verse semantsemanticsics is to some dedegreegree similar to that of sound repetitiorepetition.n. There are, howevehowever,r, certain difdif-­ feferencesrences between the twotwo,, the stronger progrprogressiveessive force of rhyme being the most impimportant.ortant. BeBecausecause of the anticipation raised by the first rhyming member, rhyme is capable of de-de—

6i.61. IbiIbid.,d., p. 10107.7. 62. IbiIbid.,d., p. 10108.8. 197 Russian Formalism

formingnot only the meaningmeaning'of of the rhymed words but also the "d“directionirection of the utterance itselfitself."." Put diffdifferently,erently, the very play on the fulfillmentfulfillment or frufrustrationstration of expectations in an actual rhyme can of itself motivate the unfolding of a lyrical "plot"“plot” outside of any ststory.ory. The poem seems to come about only as an exercise in rhyming. Moreover, because of their fixedfixed positiopositions, ns, rhyming words tend to retain their relative independenceindependence:: they do not interpeinterpenetratenetrate or amalgamalgamateamate as do words in a sound repetitirepetition.on. "The“The moment of juxtajuxtaposition,position, comparison,comparison,”" wrote TynTynjanov,janov, "is“is so important that I view rhyme as a partiparticularcular kind of rhrhythmicalythmical simile with a partial change in the rhyming mem­mem- ber'sber’s basic fefeatureature or the foregrouforegroundingnding of its vacillating fea­fea- turtures.es. ItItss significancesignificance as a powerfulsemantsemantic ic lever is beyond any doudoubt.”63bt."63 TynTynjanov’sjanov's The Problem of Verse Language was the most signifi­signifi- cant criticism of the early OPOPOJAZOJ AZ notion of poetic langlanguageuage and the lingulinguisticistic model that ununderliesderlies it. Yet, despite such for­for- midable oppopposition,osition, the linguistlinguisticic model and its key notion of poepoetictic language did not vanish from Formalist discdiscourse.ourse. Quite the contrarycontrary:: this synecdoche not only sursurvivedvived the movement that spawned it, but after recereceivingiving a powerfulpowerful boost from Prague Structuralism during the thirties and fortiesforties,, continued into the present day. The reemergence of this theoretical model after its OPOPOjAZOJAZ critique was the work of the second wing of the Formalist movement whose instinstitutionalizeditutionalized center was the Moscow LinguistLinguisticic Circle. In particparticular,ular, the genius of the vice­vice- chairman of this grgroup,oup, RoRomanman Jakjakobson,obson, invested the linguislinguistictic model with a depth and sophisophisticationstication that it had lacked in the early days of OPOPOJAZ.OJAZ. We now arrive at the comcomplexplex topic of Jajakobsoniankobsonian poeticspoetics..

63. IbiIbid.,d., p.p 10109;9; p. 11117.7.

198 ExpreExpressionssion

Jeje disdis:: une flefleur!ur! et, hors de l'oublil’oubli ouoil ma voix relegue aucun contour, en tant que quelque chose d'd’autreautre que les calices sus, musicalement se leve, ideeidée meme et suavesuave,, l'absentel’absente de tous bouquets. -ST—STEPHANEEPHANE MALLARMMALLARME,E, "“CriseCrise de vers"vers”

Within the limlimitsits of this study of Russian FormaliFormalism,sm, Roman Jajakobson’skobson's theorettheoreticalical model poses a special probproblem.lem. In Julyjuly of i9192020 he left Russia forCzechoslovak Czechoslovakia,ia, and with the exception of a handful of articles all his mamajorjor works were published out­out- side his native landland.. His ststayay abroadabroad,, which only subsequentsubsequentlyly turned intintoo permanent exile, did not in the beginning preclude scholarly or personal contact with the Formalists he had left behindbehind.. His works were read in Russia and his ideas had an imimpactpact on several members of the movemovement.ment. But the scholarly and political situation in BoBohemiahemia was quite diffdifferenterent from that of Russia, and as time passed the difdifferenceference grgrew.ew. By the late twenties all the other Formalists discussed so far had yielded to

EpigraEpigraph:ph: When I saysay:: "a“a flowerflower!”!" then from that forgforgetfulnessetfulness to which my voice consigns all floral form, something differentfrom thethe usualusual calyces arisarises,es, something all music, essence, and sofsoftness:tness: the flowerflower which is absent from all bouquets (Quoted fromMallarme:Mallarme’: Selected Prose Poems, Essays,Eisays, and Letters,Letteri, eded.. aandnd tr. B. Cook [Ba[Baltimore,ltimore, i91956]).56]).

119999 Russian Formalism

offofficialicial pressure and abandoned either their scholarly careers or their earlier theortheoreticaletical vieviews,ws, whereas Jajakobson’skobson's intellectual histhistoryory does not contain any such cacaesura.esura. This is not to say that his ideas stood stillstill.. In fact, as his research progrprogressed,essed, his ap­ap- proach to linguistlinguisticsics and poetics evolved intintoo a wholly new schol­schol- arly paradigm that in i9192929 he christened "S“Structuralism.”ltructuralism." 1 This development, ununlikelike that of his former comrcomrades,ades, was not the result of an abrupt leap that negnegatedated an earlier positiposition;on; ratherather,r, it was a series of gradgradualual chanchanges—anges-an expansion of intellectual horizons �andnd a shifshiftt in theortheoreticaletical emphasis. It is this very continucontinuityity in Jajakobson’skobson's thought that makes my accoaccountunt of it rather difdifficult.ficult. BeBecausecause of its organic develop­develop- ment, it is impossiimpossibleble to pinpoint with any precision the moment at whichjjakobson’sakobson's Formalist period ended and his StructurStructuralistalist phase begbegan.an. And while it is obvious that his linguistlinguisticic model was an intintegralegral part of the Russian movement, it is equally indisindisputa-puta­ ble that a refined version of it informed Structuralist poetics as wellwell.. For these reasoreasons,ns, if I am to remain within the strict limits of my topic of Russian ForFormalism,malism, I cannot treat Jakjakobson’sobson's apprapproachoach to verbal art adequateadequately;ly; yet any serious attattemptempt at a full analysis will lead me far astastray.ray. To escape this dilemma, my treatmetreatmentnt of the Jajakobsoniankobsonian model will be somewhat more arbitrary than that of the others I have discusseddiscussed.. As a way of stressing the Formalist quality of Jjakobson’s akobson's notion of poepoetictic langulanguageage I shall focuson his booklet on ChChlebnikovlebnikov "wr“writtenitten in May, i9191919,, in MosMoscowcow as an introduc­introduc- tion to ChlChlebnikov’sebnikov's Collected Works in preparation"preparation” and pub­pub- lished some two years later in PragPrague.2ue.2 The ChChlebnikovlebnikov book contains in nuce most ofofjakobson’s Jakobson's ideas about verbal art, but as it is not a full-full-fledgedfledgedtheor theoryy of literature but only a prelimpreliminaryinary sketch (nabrosok(nabrosok),), I shall extract from it the basic principles that came to underunderlielie Jakjakobson’sobson's "lite“literaryrary sciencescience.”." At the same time, because many of the notions vaguely hinted at in the ChChlebnikovlebnikov

I.1. "Roman“Romantickéticke vseslovanvseslovanstvi—novastvi-nov� slavistislavistika,"ka," CCmin I1 (1(1929),929), 1111.. 2. N. S. Trubetzkoy'sTrubetzkoy’s Letters and Notes, eded.. R. Jakjakobsonobson (The HaHague,gue, 191975),75), p. 1717..

202000 A Synecdoche pamphlet are much more fully presented injajakobson’skobson's works of the twenties and early thirtithirties,es, I shall turn to them whenever they clarifclarifyy the earlier principles of his linguistic model, though I shall make every effortto respect the didiachronicachronic development of his thought. As Elmar HoHolensteinlenstein has argued persuasively, among the in­in- tellectual movements that shaped Jajakobson’skobson's theoretical outout-­ lolook,ok, HuHusserliansserlian phenomenphenomenologyology occupied an espespeciallyecially promi­promi- nent positioposition.n. Jakjakobson’sobson's acquaintacquaintanceance with this subsubjectject dated back to his student days at Moscow UnUniversityiversity in the mid-temid-teens,ens, as shown in the epistepistemologicalemological assumassumptionsptions behind his earliest proprojectject in the new litliteraryerary sciencescience.. His conception of literary studies closely parallels the procedures of eidetic phenomenol­phenomenol- ogyogy,, which in Holenstein'sHolenstein’s accaccountount "is“is concerned with the grasp of the essentessentialial features common to obobjectsjects of the same catego­catego- ry.ry.”3 "3 AccordAccordingly,ingly, Jakjakobsonobson believed that the literary scholar should bracket off the phenomenal hetheterogeneityerogeneity of poetic works and focus on the ununderlyingderlying essence that endows them with their categorical identity. As he susuccinctlyccinctly put it, "the“the obobjectject of literliteraryary science is not literature but litliterariness,erariness, i.e., what makes a given work a literary workwork.”4."4 Jakjakobson’sobson's conception of this eidos yielded the firstfirst principle of his new poetipoetics.cs. It is the "set“set [ustanovka] toward expressiexpression,”on," he wrotewrote,, "that“that I desdesignateignate as the only factoresseessential ntial forpoetrypoetry.”5 ."5 Holenstein calls this principle "phe“phenomenological”nomenological" in that it definesdefines poetry in terms of a perperceiver’sceiver's mentmentalal set, thus follow­follow- ing the basic premise of phenomephenomenologynology that no obobjectject can be studied "in“in itself'itself” but only as it is appapperceivederceived by an experienc­experienc- ing or observing subsubject.6ject.6 As we have seen, however, both Tomasevskij and TynTynjanovjanov adadvocatedvocated that the study of verse

3. E. Holenstein, Roman jakobson'sjakobson’s Approach to Language: PhenomenolPhenomenologicalogical Structuralism (Bl(Bloomington,oomington, InInd.,d., 191976),76), p. 4. 4. NovNovejs'ajaejiaja russkarusskajaja poezija: NabrosokNabrosok pervpervyjyj (P(Prague,rague, 191921),21), p. 1111.. 5. IbIbid.,id., p. 41. 6. Holenstein "Ein“Einfiihrung:fiihrung: LinguistLinguistischeische PoetiPoetik,"k," in R.R.jakobson, Jakobson, Holderlin.Ho‘lderlin. Klee. BBrecht:recht: Zur WortkunstWort/mast dreier Gedichte (F(Frankfurtrankfurt a/M., 191976),76), p. 9.

201 Russian Formalism

must begin with the particular mentmentalal set with which a perceiv­perceiv- ing subsubjectject apprapproachesoaches rhythrhythmicallymically organized speespeech.ch. Thus, if I were to follow Holenstein'sHolenstein’s susuggestionggestion fully I would have to extend the label "phe“phenomenological”nomenological" to desigdesignatenate their metrical studies as wellwell.. However, for me, what is phenomenolphenomenologicalogical in Jajakobson’skobson's formuformulationlation is not the mentmentalal set alone but its qualifi­qualifi- cation as the "set“set toward expressexpression.”ion." That Jajakobsonkobson himself con­con- sidered this qualifificationcation crucial is obvious from his sugsuggestiongestion that his method of litliteraryerary study be called "expressio“expressionist.”7nist."7 It would seem vitalvital,, ththen,en, to apprapproachoach the phenomephenomenologicalnological nature of Jajakobson’skobson's poetics through the concept of the expressexpression.10n. The expression (Ausdruck(Ausdruck),), a notion that HuHusserlsserl advanced with great rigor in "I“Investigationnvestigation I"1” of his Logical Investigations, served as the cornerstone of his search for a universalist sesemioticmiotic theorytheory.. For HuHusserl,sserl, only a reperepeatableatable sign, a sign that retains its essenessentialtial self-sameness under all circucircumstances,mstances, can serve as a vehicle of logical thought capable of embodying trutruth.th. The psy­psy- cholchologisticogistic and phphysicalisticysicalistic doctrines of representrepresentationation prpreva-eva­ lent in his day fafailediled to accoaccountunt forthe ideal nature of the logical sign. By reducing it to a mere representamen of the mementalntal states it indiindicatescates or the obobjectivitiesjectivities it dendenotesotes they opened the sign'ssign’s identidentityity to the vicissitudes of the phphenomenalenomenal worldworld.. Radi­Radi- cally statedstated,, if evereveryy signifsignifiicativecative act posits the sign in a new and unrepeatunrepeatableable spspatiotemporalatiotemporal nexnexus,us, each of these acts inevinevitablyitably turns the sign intintoo a unique, nonidentnonidenticalical event. To avoid the relativism inherent in all naturalistic semisemiot-ot­ icsics,, HuHusserlsserl didividedvided signs into two incomincompatiblepatible categoricategories:es: ((1) i) the expresexpression,sion, idenidentifiedtified as "each“each instance or part of speech"speech” and "each“each sign ...... essenessentially tially of the same sort"sort” that are capable of remaining selfself-same-same regardless of the actual contextcontext;; and (2) the indiindicationcation (Anzeiche(Anzeiehen),n), which is any sign lacking such ideidentityntity and hence mermerelyely representrepresentinging a fluctuating ststateate of affaiaffairs.8rs.8 7. NoveNovejsajajfaja russkarusskajaja poezija,poézija, p. 10. 8. Logical Investigations, vol. 1, tr. J.]. N. Findlay (New York, 191970),70), p. 275.

202 A Synecdoche

This scheme, however, was merely taxonomic and did not in any way explain why words (and this is what expressions pri­pri- marily are) can remain unaffunaffectedected by the contcontextext of the spspeecheech event. ThusThus,, HuHusserlsserl was forforcedced to analyze the internal ststructureructure of the expression to discover a factor resistant to contextual changechange.. "In“In the case of a name [for examplexample],e], we distinguish between what it 'shows‘shows forth'forth’ (i.(i.e.,e., a mentmentalal ststate)ate) and what it meansmeans.. And again between what it means (the sense or 'content'‘content’ of its naming presentpresentation)ation) and what it names (the obobjectject of that presentatipresentation)”9on)."9 Both the "showing“showing forth"forth” and the "naming"“naming” are contingent upuponon emempiricalpirical reality and thus cannot retain their sameness in repetitrepetition.ion. Only the "content“content of an exprexpression’session's naming presentpresentation,”ation," the "meaning"“meaning” (Bedeutung) of the lin­lin- guistic sign, is independent of the phenomenal contecontext.xt. It is therefore this lexical meaning inherent in the word prior to its reprrepresentingesenting other enentitiestities that endows the expression with its identity and distdistinguishesinguishes it from thethe indindication.ication. This distdistinctioninction has a direct bearing on Jjakobson’s akobson's probe into the essence of ververbalbal art. To the three functions of the namename—­ showing forth, naming, and meaningmeaning—correspond---correspond Jajakobson’skobson's three goagoal-orientedl-oriented veverbalrbal activitieactivities,s, or more preciselprecisely,y, func­func- tional dialectdialects—thes-the emotiveemotive,, the practicalpractical,, and the poeticpoetic.. He arguearguedd against the claims of F. T. Marinelli,Marinetti, the leader of the ItItalianalian FutuFuturists,rists, that their experiments in poetry werweree in fact perfectvehicles forthe modern sensibilitsensibility.y.Jakjakobsonobson agreed that "in“in both emotive and poetic language, linguislinguistictic representations (both phonetphoneticic and semantic) attract attention to themselvthemselves;es; the bond between sound and meaning in them is closer, more inti­inti- matmate.”e." However, "these“these facts exhaust what ememotiveotive and poetic language have in commoncommon.”'0."1° For Jajakobson,kobson, emotive language was a clear-cut case of the communicommunicativecative use of languagelanguage.. By intimating a spspeaker’seaker's mentmentalal ststate,ate, an emotive utterance refers

g.9. IbiIbid.,d., p. 27276.6. I10.O. NoveNovej§ajajfaja russkarusskajaja poezija,poézija, p. IO.10.

202033 Russian FFonnalismonnalism

to a phenomenal ententityity very much as practical language spspeakseaks of an obobjectivejective state of afaffairs.fairs. But "the“the poetic word is to a certain degdegreeree obobjectless”;jectless"; it "lacks“lacks what HusHusserlserl terms dinglicher BeBezug.”“zug. " 11 Poetic language stands apart from thethe other two fufunc-nc­ tional dialects because the "commu“communicativenicative funfunctionction inherent in practical and emotive language is minimal in it."it.” ThusThus,, "p“poetry,oetry, which is nothing but an ututteranceterance set toward the expressexpression,ion, is gov­gov- erned by its own immanent lawslaws.”12."12 The suspsuspensionension of representrepresentationation in verbal art profoundly affaffectsects the way the poepoetictic ututteranceterance operatoperates.es. Whereas in its communicommunicativecative function the worwordd is a mere transparent vehicle forthe signifsignificationication of other, nonlinguistnonlinguisticic entitientities,es, in poetry the word itselfitself,, its intinternalernal structurestructure,, occupies center ststage.age. GrigoriGrigorijj VinokurVinokur—another-another influeinfluentialntial member of the Moscow Linguistic CirCircle—drewcle-drew attention to this fact. "A“A poepoetictic creaticreation,”on," he claiclaimed,med, "is“is work with a word that is no longer a mere sign but a thing endowed with its own structurestructure,, whose elements are re­re- evaluated and regrouped in evereveryy new poetic ututterance.terance ...... if the commucommunicativenicative fufunctionnction makes social intercourse possible through the wordword,, the poepoetictic fufunctionnction informs the perceiver about tthehe very structurstructuree of the wordword,, shows him the elements that compose its ststructure,ructure, enenrichesriches his mind with knowledgknowledgee of a newneW'object—the object-the wordword.. The poetic funfunctionction tells us through the word what the word is, whereas through the other funfunctionsctions of the word we learn about obobjectsjects ontontologicallyologically diffdifferenterent from the wordword:: other functionstell us through the word ababoutout something elseelse.”13."13 Jakobson'sjakobson’s conversion of the HuHusserliansserlian expression from a logical to an aestheaesthetictic categcategoryory was unorunorthodox,thodox, to say the least, and generated certain problems that had to be solved as his

II11.. IbiIbid.,d., Pp.· 47·47. 12. IbiIbid.,d., p. 10. 13. "Poetika,“Poétika, linglingvistika,vistika, sociologisociologija:ja: MeMetodologiceskajatodologiceskaja spravkspravka,”a," LeLef,f, no.n0. 3 (19(1923),23), 10109—110.9-110. 204 A Synecdoche expressionist model developeddeveloped.14. 14 Within its immedimmediateiate histhistor-or­ ical concontexttext the rationale for his move was quite clear. By ren­ren- dering the expression the key notion in his poetpoetics,ics, Jakobsonjakobson staked out the territterritoryory of this discipline beyond the two oppoppos-os­ ing camps of contemcontemporaryporary Russian litliteraryerary stustudy.dy. The ex­ex- pressionist model rerejectedjected the transrational theory of poetic lan­lan- guage propounded by early OPOPOjAZ,OJAZ, but avoided slislippingpping into the pre-Formalist notion of the literary work as an undundistortedistorted mirror of either the poet'spoet’s soul or the social reality it depidepicted.cted. With the expressionist model Jajakobsonkobson could deny that the art­art- work was a mere psychologpsychologicalical or sociolosociologicalgical document without implying that it was thereforedevoid of meaning. If poetrypoetry,, as another critic of the transrational modelmodel,, Jurjurijij TynTynjanov,janov, wrotewrote,, "does“does not opoperateerate ...... with the word but with the expressexpression,”ion," meaning is ststillill always a component of its structure.structure.1515 Earlier I susuggestedggested that the theoretical gulf between the Pe­Pe- tersburg and Moscow Formalists on the issue of poetic langlanguageuage correscorrespondsponds in some degree to the two notions of zaumzaum’' among the FuturistFuturists.s. For KrucenycKrucénych,h, who insinspiredpired the foundingmem­mem- bers of OPOOPOJAZ,JAZ, transrational language was an attattemptempt at liber­liber- ating linguistic sound from the yoke of rationalityrationality;; for ChlChleb-eb­ nikov, the subsubjectject of Jakjakobson’sobson's firstfirst book,book, it was a return to an original language of pure ratiorationality.nality. "It“It is possible to sasay,”y," ChlChlebnikovebnikov arguedargued,, "that“that everyday langlanguageuage is the shadow of

14. Although Jakjakobson’sobson's defindefinitionition of verbal art proved to be quite workable for distinguishing poetic lanlanguageguage from its emotive and practical countcounterparts,erparts, because of its origin in logic it tended to obliterate the differencebetween poetic lanlanguageguage and another funfunctionalctional dialect which Jakjakobsonobson later termed "m“meta-eta­ languaglanguage.”e." ViViktorktor SklovskijSklovskij,, for example, example, when analyzing authorauthorialial meta­meta- discourse in Don Quixote, viewed it as a manimanifestationfestation of the "set“set toward 'ex­‘ex- pressiopression’n' which is so typical in art" ("K(“Kakak sdelan Don-Kichot,"Don—Kiehot,” 0 teorii prozy [M[Moscow,oscow, 191925],25], p. 85). Thus Jakjakobsonobson and some other Prague Structuralists were eventually forced to come up with a secondary criterion to distinguish the metalinguistic from the poetic set toward expressiexpression;on; see, for example,] example, J. MukMukarovsky,afovsky, "O“O jajazycezyce basnickbasnickém,”em," Slovo a slovesnostxlovemort 6 (1(1940),940), 11114—15;4-15; or R. Jajakobson,kobson, "L“Linguisticsinguistics and PoeticsPoetics,”," Style in Language, ed. T. A. Sebeok (Cambridge, MasMass.,s., 191960),60), p. 358. 15. "Ill“Illjustracii,”justracii," ArArehaixtychaisty i novatory (L(Leningrad,eningrad, 191929),29), p. 509.

202055 Russian Formalism

tthehe great laws of the pure word fallen on an uneven susurface.”16rface."16 And the proper domidomicilecile of this purpuree wordword,, as he observed elsewhereelsewhere,, is the human mindmind:: "besides“besides the language of words there is a mute langulanguageage of concepts composed of mentmentalal units (a tissue of concepts governing the language ofwordwords).”17s)."1 7 Or, in an anthropomorphic metaphor, "the“the word is a face withwitha hat tilted over it. The rational [myslimoe][myslimoe] in it precedes the ververbal,bal, the auralaural.”18."1 8 From ChlChlebnikov’sebnikov's standpoint, thertherefore,efore,verbal art as the art of the word is forever caught in the conceptual web generated by ratirationality,onality, is always permeated with cognitive meanmgsmeanings.. Such a view of verbal art, however, has in recent years become somewhat unpunpopular.opular. It exhiexhibitsbits what the French philosophilosopher,pher, Jajacquescques Derrida, calls a "log“logocentric”ocentric" biasbias,, forit conceives of the linguistic sign as an instrument of reareason.son. This biasbias,, Derrida argargues,ues, has its roots in the "Western“Western metaphysics of presencepresence,”," which forged the image of the sign as an instinstanceance of logos, the signifisignification of TruthTruth.. Whatever ChlChlebnikov’sebnikov's reasons might have been for elevating rational meaning in the verbal parparcel,cel, Jakobson'sjakobson’s seem somewhat less metaphysmetaphysicalical than Derrida would sugsuggest.gest. They stem from another conviction of hishis—un--un­ expected perhaps, given his phenomephenomenologicalnological orienorientation—tation­ that literature is a social institutiinstitution,on, a consensus among the members of a particular collectivcollectivity.ity. Jakjakobsonobson believed that po­po- etic works are intintersubjectiveersubjective signs involving some form of ra­ra- tionality which he conceptualized as the (imperf(imperfect)ect) sharing of cognitive meanings. The OPOOPOjAZJAZ theorists who emphasized the transrational components of poetic langlanguageuage (the emotive and so forth)had in Jjakobson’s akobson's opinion lost sight of the social nature of verbal art. His i9192222 comparison of the MosMoscowcow and Pe­Pe- tersburg branches of the Formalist movement makes this point ununequivocally:equivocally: "Wh“Whereasereas the former [the [the Moscow branch] ar­ar- gues that the histhistoricalorical development of artistic forms has a so-

1616.. "Na“Naia!la osnovaosnova,"," SobranieSobmm'e soCinenij, roéinenij, vol. 5 (Lening(Leningrad,rad, 191933),33), p. 23230.0. 1717.. "N“Neizdannajaeizdannaja statstat’ja,"'ja," ibiibid.,d., p. 18187.7. 1818.. "Razg“Razgovorovor Olega i KazimirKazimira,"a," ibiibid.,d., p. 191.191,

206 ASA Synecdocheynecdoche ciologciologicalical basis, the latter [the Petersburg branch] insistinsistss upuponon the full autonomy of these formforms.”19s."19 Thus, accepting Derrida'sDerrida’s notion of the "in“institutedstituted tratrace”20ce"20 as a substitute for thethe concept of the sign (dam(damagedaged beyond repair by its millennia-long mar­mar- riage to the Western metaphysics of presencepresence),), one might say that Jakjakobson’sobson's "log“logocentrism”ocentrism" stems at least in part from his taking too seriously the fact thatthatthe trace is instituted. For what else does the act of instituting a trace achieve but some form of presenpresence,ce, that is, a consensus among those whose vestvesteded power or interest enables them to promulgpromulgateate one trace as opposed to another and those who recognize the others'others’ efforts as an accom­accom- plished fact? Anyone like Jakobson,jakobson, who had experienced revo­revo- lution and civil war, would be well aware of the brutal force by which such a consensus is brought abouabout.21t.21 Physically enforenforcedced presence hardly qualifies as metaphysimetaphysical.cal. ReRejectingjecting the social deterdeterminismminism of pre-Formalist literary the­the- ory, but maintaining nevertheless that literaturliteraturee is essentessentiallyially socialsocial,, Jakjakobsonobson formulformulatedated a rather unusual view of "literary“literary sociologysociology.”." HeHerere the secsecond,ond, "ling“linguistic,”uistic," principle of the ex­ex- pressionistpressionisticic model becomes relevarelevant.nt. This principle proprojectsjects the social dimension of literature intintoo its linguislinguistictic materialmaterial.. If ververbalbal art, in contrast to commucommunicativenicative discourse, didirectsrects our attention to the intinternalernal structure of languagelanguage,, poetic forms are above all linguistic forms. Thus, in Jakobson'sjakobson’s worwords,ds, "p“poetryoetry is languaglanguagee in its aesthetic functionfunction.”22."22 BeBecausecause langlanguageuage is for him the so­so- cial instinstitutionitution par excelleexcellence—ance-a set of rules obligatory for the members of a particular spspeecheech communitcommunity—verbaly-verbal art cannot

1919.. P. BogatyrevBogatyrév and R. Jakobson,jakobson, "Slav“Slavjanskajajanskaja filologijafilologija v Rossii za g.g.gig. 191914—1921,”Slavia14-192 1," Slavia I1 (19(1922),22), 458. 20. J.]. Derrida, Of0f Grammatology,Grammalology, tr. G. C. Spivak (Ba(Baltimore,ltimore, 191974),74), p. 46. 21. See, for example,example, the joke that Jakjakobsonobson quotes in his review of AndreAndré Mazon'sMazon’s Lexique de la guguerreerre et de la revolutionrévolulion en Russie about a peasant asking the direction to LjLjubljankaubljanka (a quarter in Moscow where a penitentpenitentiaryiary is locatedlocated).). The answer he got waswas:: "Start“Start to sing the Czarist anthem and you will get there quite quickly"quickly” ("(“VlivVliv revoluce na rusky jazyk," NaveNove’ Atheneum, no. 3, 2 (1[1920],920], 111111)). 22. NoveNovejs'ajaj5aja russkajaruxskaja poezija,poézija, p. 1111..

202077 Russian Formalism

be asocialasocial.. "The“The theory of poetic langulanguage,”jakobsonage," Jakobson declardeclared,ed, "can“can be developed only if poetry is treated as a social fact, if a poetic didialectologyalectology of its own kind is estestablished.”23ablished."23 To apappreciatepreciate Jakjakobson’sobson's linguistic model fully it is necessary to introduce his overall concept of language. The great Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de SaussSaussure,ure, exerted the most decisive influ­influ- ence on the young Jakjakobson.obson. As Jakjakobsonobson recollected in 191956,56, he gained his first insightinsightss inintoto SaussurSaussureanean linglinguisticsuistics through Saussure'sSaussure’s student SergeSergejj KarcevsKarcevskij,kij, "who“who in 19171917—1919,-1919, dur­dur- ing his shoshort-livedrt-lived return to Russia, fired the young generation of Moscow linguists with the Cours de lingulinguistiqueistique generagénérale.”24te. "24 Jajakobsonkobson would have found Saussure'sSaussure’s theory of language esespeciallypecially stimulating because the main problem it tackled-thetackled—the identidentityity of the linguistlinguisticic sign:_wassign—was also the centcentralral theme of HuHusserl’ssserl's "I“Investigationnvestigation I."I.” The solution the Swiss linguist had to offer waswas,, however, ququiteite diffdifferent.erent. We have seen that Hus­Hus- serl found the meaning of the expression to be the vehivehiclecle of its samenessameness.s. But this ststepep only raised the furtherquestion, "what“what is the nature of that meanimeaning?”ng?" To answer it HuHusserlsserl was forcforced,ed, first, to come up with a situation in which the word would func­func- tion as a pure meaning free of any indiindicativecative relatrelations,ions, and then to accoaccountunt for the selfself-sameness-sameness of meaning in repetitiorepetition,n, its idenidentitytity in every actual situation belonging under this headheading.ing. HeH'e fixed on the mentmentalal soliloquy to meet the firstcondcondition. ition. In an interior monologue the subsubjectject knows what he meansmeans;; his words do not serve him as indiindicatorscators of his thought. InInstead,stead, inin» the dirdirectlyectly expeexperiencedrienced ununityity of the signifisignificatorycatory act, the mean­mean- ing of the expression mermergesges with the subsubject’sject's meaning-intmeaning-inten-en­ tition.on. ThisThis,, however, does not imply that for HussHusserlerl meaning was a totally subsubjectivejective entityentity:: if it werewere,, meaning would disdissipatesipate into a multiplimultiplicitycity of meaning-intending acts and so would lack any essentessentialial sameness. In addition to its intuitive presence in one'sone’s consciousnessconsciousness,, meaning had to exist intersubintersubjectivelyjectively for

23. IbiIbid.,d., p. 5. 24. Jakobson, "Se“Sergerge KarcevsKarcevski:ki: August 28, 181884—November84-November 7, 191955,"55," Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, vol. 14, 191956,56, p. 10.

202088 ASA Synecdocheynecdoche

HuHusserlsserl as a universal obobjectject (like nunumbersmbers or geometrical fig­fig- ures) prior to and independent of its actualizaactualization.tion. All subsubjectivejective meaning-intmeaning-intentionsentions would thus be merely tokens of a type, their idenidentitytity being the ideal selfself-sameness-sameness of the members of a clasclass.s. What conneconnectscts the Swiss linguist to the German philosopher is Saussure'sSaussure’s mentalist stastance.nce. The starting point of Saussure'sSaussure’s "semi“semiology”ology" was not the word in its physiphysicalcal existence but its representation in the subsubject’sject's consciousnesconsciousness.s. The two con­con- stitutive elementelementss of the linguistic sign (the signifiersignifier and the signified)signified) are not the actual sound and referent whose mate­mate- riality renders them unique, but instinsteadead ininfinitelyfinitely repeatable mentmentalal representrepresentations—theations-the "sound“sound image"image” and the "conce“concept.”pt." Like HuHusserl,sserl, SaussurSaussuree is not a subsubjectivist,jectivist, for such a stance would subvert the issue of semisemioticotic idenidentitytity from the very start. But unlike HuHusserl,sserl, who relegated the intintersubjectiveersubjective sameness of the sign to the ideal realm of ununiversaliversal obobjects,jects, SaussurSaussuree sought it in the social nature of languaglanguage.e. The basic postupostulatelate of SaussurSaussureanean linguistlinguisticsics is that every phe­phe- nomenon of lanlanguageguage has a strictly dudualisticalistic existenceexistence.. On the one handhand,, it is a component of an actual utterance by an indi­indi- vidual speaker (parol(parole),e), and on the other it is an element within the potential and socially shared system of language (lang(langue).ue). ConcrConcreteete utterances are nothing but particularized instances of the preexistent systsystem,em, its implementimplementationsations in physical, hetero­hetero- gegeneousneous matter. In its purpurelyely material being every utterance inevitinevitablyably diffdiffers,ers, if ever so slightly, from any other oneone;; there­there- fore the sameness of a linguistic sign cannot be a fact of parole. The situatisituation,on, howevhowever,er, is radically different with langue. It is a homohomogeneousgeneous system of purely linguistic relations devoid of any physphysicalical subsubstance,stance, sheer form articulating sound images and concepts intintoo linguistlinguisticic Units.units. The value of every such unit is precisely circumcircumscribedscribed by its incorporation intintoo this diffdifferentialerential gridgrid.. Moreover, though entirely conventconventional,ional, at any given mo­mo- ment langue is fixedfixed and obligatobligatoryory for all users of a language. Thus, the sameness of the linguistlinguisticic signsign,, which cannot be dis­dis- cerned in its manifold material manifmanifestations,estations, is a fufunctionnction of 209 Russian Formalism

the linguistlinguisticic systsystem.em. The sign retains its identidentityity through repeti­repeti- tions only because each of its occurrences is an embodembodimentiment of the selfself-same-same unit of langue. Needless to saysay,, for SaussurSaussuree the science of language should concern itself solely with this internal system of lanlanguage.guage. Eschewing the tradtraditionalitional preoccpreoccupationupation of0f linguists with culculturaltural or natural phenomena contingent upon languagelanguage,, he declareddeclared:: "“thethe true and unique obobjectject of linguistics is language studied in and foforr itself.itself.”25" 25 Though he acceptaccepteded Saussure'sSaussure’s postpostulateulate of0f the social nature of language, Jajakobsonkobson was quitquitee uneasy about the abstract char­char- acter SaussSaussureure ascribed to it. From his point of viewview,, the trace­trace— to return once more to Derrida'sDerrida’s terminolterminology—isogy-is never in­in- stituted at random but rather for some particular purposepurpose.. In other wordwords,s, languagelanguage,, he believedbelieved,’, is preeminentpreeminentlyly a means­means— end structure allowing the user to achieve particular goagoals.ls. Earlier I menmentionedtioned a simsimilarilar notion of langualanguagege advocated by the Petersburger Jajakubinskij.kubinskij. The two Formalists difdifferedfe red in an imimportantportant respect, however. ForForjakubinskij, Jakubinskij, the classificationof utterances accordaccordinging to telos was only a heurheuristicistic device, possible but definidefinitelytely not the exclusive possibilitypossibility.. For JakJakobson,obson, in con­con- trast, languaglanguagee existed in no other mode than as a means to a particular end, so that the teleological view was the only one possiblepossible.. Furthermore, in accord with the strict binary structure of his transrational model, Jakubinskijakubinskijj recorecognizedgnized only two funfunctionalctional didialects—practicalalects-practical language, in which sounds are mere meansmeans,, and poetic language, in which they are ends. This bifurcationof language was ununacceptableacceptable to JaJakobsonkobson because it jujuxtaposedxtaposed sound and meaning as two incomincompatiblepatible phenome­phenome- na. His own classiclassificationfication (ins(inspiredpired by HuHusserl)sserl) proceeded from the actual speech situatisituation,on, allotting an apappurtenantpurtenant fufunctionnction to each of the indispensaindispensableble components of the situatsituation—theion-the speaker, the refreferent,erent, and the signsign.. For Jakjakobson,obson, sound and meaning coexist in every funfunctionalctional dialedialect;ct; only their rela­rela- titionshiponship is a variabvariable.le. 25. Course in General Linguistics, tr. and ed. W. Baskin (Ne(Neww York, 191959),59), p. 232.

212100 A Synecdoche

Maintaining his means-endmeans—end model for better or for worseworse,, Jakjakobsonobson chachallengedllenged Saussure'sSaussure’s credo that linguistlinguisticsics was con­con- cerned solely with lanlanguageguage "in“in and foritselfitself.” ." "Languag“Language,”jak-e," Jak­ obson arguedargued,, "according“according to the correct defidefinition of contempo­contempo- rary French linguistslinguists,, is a system of conventconventionalional vavalues,lues, very much like a pack of cardscards.. But because of this, it would be wrong to analyze it without taking intintoo accoaccountunt the mumultiplicityltiplicity of possi­possi- ble tasks witwithouthout which the system does not exisexist.t.Just as we have no rules for a ununiversaliversal card game valid equally for rummy, poker, and cardcard-house-house builbuilding,ding, linguistic rules can be deter­deter- mined only for a system defined by its goalgoal.”26."26 What is under attack here is not langue per se, but Saussure'sSaussure’s notion of it as a homogeneous system uniforuniformlymly governing each and every ut­ut- terterance.ance. InInstead,stead, JakJakobsonobson conceives of languaglanguagee as a set of funfunctionalctional didialectsalects each with its own system of rules structured in the way best susuitedited to its spspeciecificfic goagoals.ls. Of course, the division of langue into functional didialectsalects pre­pre- sents some problems of its own, the unity of the national lan­lan- guage being perhaps the most impimportant.ortant. It would seem reason­reason- able to argueargue,, for instaninstance,ce, that a Russian poem has more in common with utterances belonging to other Russian fufunctionalnctional dialects than with a popoem,em, let us saysay,, in EnEnglish.glish. To accaccountount for this unity in variety, Vinokur proposed a modimodificationfication of Saus­Saus- sure'ssure’s rigid dudualismalism of langue and parole. BeBetweentween the social sys­sys- tem of a lanlanguageguage and its individual utterancutterances,es, he posited sets of "st“stylistic”ylistic" nornorms,ms, each governing one particular type of goal­goal- oriented ververbalbal behavior. These normsnorms,, pertaipertainingning only to spspe-e­ cificcific usagusageses of a langulanguage,age, are less genegeneralral than the norms of langue, but at the same time they are sharshareded by at least some speakers of a langulanguage.age. Like langue, they are socialsocial.. Viewed through this conceptual prisprism,m, evereveryy utteranceutterance,, poetic or otherwiotherwise,se, is simsimultaneouslyultaneously governed by two normative sys­sys- temstems:: a general langue and a particular stylestyle.. "The“The word taken as

26. "K“Koneconec basnickehobésnického umprumaumprumactvictvi a zivnostniiivnostnictvi,"ctvi," Pdsmo:Paismo: Revue interna­interna— tionale moderne,modeme, nos. i3/1413/14 (19(1925),25), i.1.

211 Russian Formalism

a thing [i.[i.e.,e., the poetic worword],d], insofar as it is a wordword,, remains liable to all the laws that determine the liflifee of a word in general, that rivet every kind of supsuperstructureerstructure belonging to the spspherehere of the ututteranceterance to the firmfirm,, normatnormativeive basis of language prop­prop- er."27er.”27 At the same titime,me, a poetic wordword,, Vinokur arguedargued,, is not ju.stjust an anut utteranceterance but a poetic ututteranceterance that belongs in the specifspecif-­ ic class of utterances united by the pursuit of the same goal. "Taken“Taken in itself, of coursecourse,, each empirempiricallyically concrconcreteete utterance (poet(poeticic ones included) is asocial. But the point is that stylisticsStylistics in general and poetics in particular study these concrete utterances as elements of a specifspecificic system that is supsuperimposederimposed upon the system of languaglanguagee proper. An utterance is an individindividual,ual, cre­cre- ative, volitional act. But several of these acts are no longer mermere-e­ ly a sum total of individual acts but a sysystemstem endowed with a purpose, a signifsignificance,icance, that is generally valid within perhaps narrnarrow,ow, yet sursurelyely social, limitslimits.. This system of poetic utterances is, in fact, the genuine obobjectject of poetipoetics.”28cs."28 Although Jajakobsonkobson did not at first discuss the unitunityy of func­func- tional dialects as fully as Vinokur, his occasional statestatementsments on the subsubjectject reveal a more critical attitude toward Saussure. He rerejectedjected the notion of a homogeneous langue equally imple­imple- mented in every utteranutterance,ce, instinsteadead conceiving of a national lan­lan- guage as a "sy“systemstem of systsystems,”ems," a hihierarchicallyerarchically organized struc­struc- ture of functfunctionalional didialectsalects each with its own langue. Within such a structurestructure,, each dialect is only relatively autautonomous.onomous. Practical languaglanguagee is the most basic or, accoraccordingding to Jakobson'sjakobson’s later ter­ter- minominology,logy, the unmaunmarkedrked dialect. Every member of the spspeecheech commucommunitynity is inevinevitablyitably competent in it, forthrough it one com­com- mumunicatesnicates one'sone’s everyday business. As the most universal func­func- tional dialect, practical langlanguageuage creates the background against which the utterances of all other dialects are perceivperceived.ed. As Jak­jak- obson argued in the Prague Linguistic CiCircle’srcle's i9291929 "Theses“Theses,”," "F“Fromrom a synchrsynchroniconic standstandpoint,point, poetic lanlanguageguage has the form ofof

27. "P“Poétika,oetika, linglingvistika,vistika, sociologijsociologija,”a," 10log.9. 28. IbiIbid.,d., 111111..

212 A Synecdoche a poetic utterance (parole) and hence of an individual creative act evaluated both against the backdrop of the immedimmediateiate poetic tradition (p(poeticoetic langue) and against that of the contemporcontemporaryary practical [sdelovaci][sdélovacfj languagelanguage.”29."29 A poetic utterance is perceived against the backbackgroundground of practical languaglanguagee because the two are functional didialectsalects and not foreign languaglanguages.es. They shasharere most of their linguistic ele­ele- ments and mechanismechanisms,ms, diffdifferingering only in their methods of ex­ex- ploiting themthem.. Arguing againstagainstJakubinskij’s J akubinskij'sdefinition of poetic langulanguageage as a particular phophoneticnetic fefeature,ature, JakJakobsonobson wrotewrote,, "The“The clustering of liquids is possible in both practical and poetic lan­lan- guage, but in the former it is causal wherwhereaseas in the latter ...... [it is] goal-oriegoal-oriented;nted; i.e., they are two esseessentiallyntially diffdifferenterent phe­phe- nomenanomena."30."30 At this point, the concept of the "device"“device” enters JaJakobson’skobson's critical vocabularyvocabulary.. The clustclusteringering of liquids and other striking organizations of verbal material in poetry are not, as in other linguistlinguisticic procesprocesses,ses, mere accidentsaccidents,, but means to a specific endend.. They disrupt the communicommunicativecative function of the ververbalbal sign and in this way redirect attention from the subsubjectivejective or obobjectivejective realities signifiedto the intinternalernal structure of the sign itselfitself.. The langue of poetic languaglanguage,e, the "im“immanentmanent laws"laws” gov­gov- erning this dialect, can thus be seen as a system of poetic devicesdevices.. HeHencence Jakobson'sJakobson’s oft-oft-quotedquoted slogan that "if“if the science of liter­liter- ature wishes to become scientificit must recognize the 'device'‘device’ as its sole 'her‘hero.’o.' ""3‘3 1 This statstatementement obviously sugsuggestsgests Sklovséklovskij’skij's mechanistic met­met- aphor, in which the device, if not the sole hero, was defindefinitelyitely one of the main protagprotagonists.onists. The affinityfinity between SklovskiSklovskijj and Jakobson herheree is undeundeniable;niable; however, there are several imimpor-por-

29. "Teze“Teze pfedloi:enepredloiené Prve Prvémumu sjsjezduezdu slovanskych filologufilologfi v Praze i91929,"29," in U zakladuza’kladii praiskeprairke’jazykove'dne’ jaz ykovedne skoly,ikoly, ed. J.J Vachek (P(Prague,rague, i91970),70), p. 47. To maintain JakobsJakobson’son's earlier nomenclature I have translated "sdelovaci"“sdélovacz’” as "practical"“practical” in­in- stead of the more correct "communi“communicative."cative." By the late twetwenties,nties, however, Jak­Jak- obson expanded his funfunctionalctional dialectology and "practical“practical language"language” became a subcategory of the more general "communi“communicativecative languaglanguage."e." 30. 0 cesées'skomskom stiche preimu.Spreimus'éestvennocestvenno v sopostavlenii s russkim (Berlin, i91923),23), p. i17. 7. 331. i. NNovejx'ajaove jsaja russkaja poezija,poézija, p. i11. i.

212133 Russian Formalism

tant diffdifferenceserences between them as wellwell.. One of these, concerning the lingulinguisticistic versus extrextralinguisticalinguistic nature of the artistic device, was discussed in the precprecedingeding chapter. A second diffdifferenceerence is that for SkSklovskij,lovskij, the devidevicece functioned to de-famide-familiarize,liarize, and hence was crucial to the process of artistic perceptiperception.on. For Jak­jak- obsobson,on, however, the devidevice�e was imimportantportant to the process of artis­artis- tic signifisignification:cation: a poetic utterance de-famide-familiarizesliarizes language be­be- cause of its peculiar semiotsemioticic ststatus,atus, because it does not refer in the manner of communicommunicativecative utterutterances.ances. FinalFinally,ly, the two For­For- malists apapproachedproached the device with diffdifferenterent episepistemologicaltemological econoeconomies.mies. SkSklovskijlovskij clearly mumultipliedltiplied the ententitiesities desigdesignatednated as devicesdevices,, cataloguing as many diffdifferenterent varieties as possiblepossible.. Jak­jak- obsoobson,n, in accord with his general phenomenphenomenologicalological orientatiorientation,on, was decidedly reductivist. Rather than describing the manifold heterogeneity of poetic devices he strove to isolate a few elemen­elemen- tary structuring principles imimplementedplemented in all of ththem.em. What are these basic principles that govern every poetic ututter-ter­ ance? BeBecausecause the "set“set toward expression"expression” renders prominent the internal structure of the wordword,, ververbalbal art operates with the consconstitutivetitutive elements of this structurstructure—phonice-phonic and prosodic fac­fac- torstors,, morphemes of all types, semantsemanticic featuresfeatures—which-which play only a subssubsidiaryidiary role in communicommunicativecative languagelanguage.. From this point of viewview,, poetic praxis is the restructuring of an ututteranceterance to bring to the foreground the constconstitutiveitutive elements of lan­lan- guageguage.. This goal is achieved through two correlated processprocesses:es: the uncoupling of the speech chain inintoto its basic linguislinguistictic ele­ele- ments, and their reassemblreassemblageage into new patterns determined by some form of equequivalence.ivalence. As Jakjakobsonobson wrotewrote,, "in“in poepoetry,try, the role of mechamechanicalnical associations is minimminimized,ized, forthe didissociationssociation of verbal elements is the exclusive gogoal.al. The disdissociatedsociated frag­frag- mentmentss are [then] easily regrregroupedouped into new combinacombinations.”32tions."32 This view was subsequentsubsequentlyly reiterated by Vinokur, for whom the "s“specipecificityficity of the poetic tendentendency”cy" in language "u“ultimatelyltimately boils down to the dissolutdissolutionion of a linguistlinguisticic structure into its

32. IbiIbid.,d., p. 4i.41. 214 A Synecdoche elementelements,s, which are then recorecombined.mbined. But herehere,, in contrast to the language system proper, the relations among the parts are resreshuffledhuffled and disdisplacedplaced and thus the verysignifsignificance, icance, the valency, the linguistic value of these constitutive parts are laid bare and preciselpreciselyy calculated. "”3333 This dual process of analysis and resynthesis operoperates,ates, accord­accord- ing to Jakobson,jakobson, at all levels of poetic langulanguage.age. Analysis occurs in such devices as the rhythmirhythmicalcal splitting of the wordword,, poetic etymologizing, and "accentual“accentual dissimdissimilation,”ilation," that is, the reac­reac- centuation of a word or the jujuxtapositionxtaposition of accentual doubletsdoublets.. ReResynthesissynthesis is imimplementedplemented in such devices as "rhyme,“rhyme, asso­asso- nance and alliteration (or repetitirepetition)”on)" and "all“all forms of paral­paral- lelilelism:sm: partial parallelismparallelism—the-the simisimile;le; paralparallelismlelism unfolding in timetime—the-the metamorphometamorphosis;sis; [and] parallelism reduced to a pointpoint—the-the metaphormetaphor.”34."34 The poetic restructuring of an utterance not only affects the individual strata of languaglanguage,e, but esestablishestablishes new relations among ththem.em. Most imimportantlyportantly it realigns the link between sound and meaning. Throughout this chapter I have noted the keen interest of the Formalists in the simsimilarityilarity of poetic sound to what it signifiessignifies.. Jakjakobsonobson was no exceptexception.ion. He also believed that in poetic langulanguageage "the“the link between sound and meaning is closer, more intimate ...... insofar as the habitual associations based on contcontiguityiguity retreat to the backgroundbackground.”35."35 Earlier we saw OPOOPOJAZ’sJAZ's preoccupation with expressive and mimetmimeticic sound metaphors and TynTynjanov’sjanov's study of the semantsemanticic amalgamation of similar sounding words within a verse line. Jakobsonjakobson de­de- scribed yet another simisimilaritylarity between ththee phonic and semasemanticntic aspects of poetic lanlanguage,guage, which might be chcharacterizedaracterized as the themathematizationtization of sounsound.d. It occurs when the phonic ststructureructure of seveseveralral semantsemanticallyically disdisparateparate words is repeated in the key word of an utterutterance.ance. A Russian proverb mentmentionedioned by Jakjakobsonobson is a good illusillustration:tration:

33. "Poetika,“Poetika, linglingvistika,vistika, sociologisociologija,”ja," 10log.9. 34. NovNovejs'ajaejsaja russkamskajaja poepoézija,zija, pp. 47-48.47—48. 3535.· IbiIbid.,d., Pp.· JO.10.

212155 Russian Formalism

Sila solomu !omitlomit (P(Powerower breaks the straw)

HeHerere "two“two membmembersers of a construction intersect in the third onone.”36e."36 The key word soloma (st(straw)raw) contains both the conso­conso- nants of the initinitialial word sila (p(power)ower) and the root of the finalfinal verb lomit[omit (breaks(breaks).). This sound equequivalenceivalence creates a semsemanticantic rapprocrapprochementhement among the words composing the sequencesequence.. The poepoetictic restructuring of an utterance not only disrupts its commucommunicativenicative functifunction,on, but affaffectsects poetic perception through a third principle of expressionist poetipoetics,cs, which might be called "F“Futurist”uturist" (in accord with Holenstein'sHolenstein’s terminologterminology).37y).37 The nonnonreferentialreferential poetic word transtransformsformsour attitude to languaglanguage;e; it makes what seemed intimatintimatelyely familiarintinto o something strange and unkunknown.nown. AccordAccordinging to the "F“Futurist”uturist" principleprinciple,, the dis­dis- tinctive feature of verbal art as a type of linguislinguistictic behavior is that it de-de-familiarizesfamiliarizes langulanguageage and renders its forms unusual. Like SklovskiSklovskij,j, Jajakobsonkobson insistinsisteded that poetic "form“form exists only insofaras we feel it, as we sense the resisresistancetance of the material, as we wonder whether we face prose or ververse.”8se."38 Hence de-famide-famil-l­ iarization is a histhistoricalorical process in which all three dimensions of time interpenetinterpenetrate.rate. As the "un“unknownknown is comprehensicomprehensibleble and striking only against the background of the knownknown,”39,"39 so de­de- famfamiliarizationiliarization necessarily involves the past: the old autautomatizedomatized forms that serve as a backdrop to the new perceptioperception.n. At the same time, the novelty of the present poetic forms is is merely transitorytransitory.. "There“There comes a timetime,”," wrote JaJakobson,kobson, "when“when tradi­tradi- tional poepoetictic language ossifies,ossifies, ceases to be palpapalpableble and be­be- comes outoutlivedlived like a ritual or a sacred text whose very lapses are considered holyholy...... the form masters the material, the matmaterialerial becobecomesmes fullydomin dominatedated by its formform,, the form turns into a ster-

36. IbiIbid.,d., p. 51. For a more detailed discussion of this proverb see Jakjakobson’sobson's essay, "Quest“Quest for the Essence of LanguageLanguage,”," Diogenes 51 (19(1965),65), 32-33.32—33. 37. Holenstein "E“Einfinfiifihrung,”hrung," p. 1818.. 38. NoveNovejs'ajajfaja russkaruxskajaja poepoéziju,zija, p. 5. 39. IbiIbid.,d., p. 30.

2I6216 A SynecdSynecdoche<;>che eotype and didieses out."40out.”40 New, unusuaunusuall formsmust at this point be created to rerejuvenatejuvenate poetic languaglanguage.e. Yet this futurfuturee de-famide-famil-l­ iarization is contcontrastivelyrastively related to the forms now becbecomingoming automatizautomatized,ed, and these present forms, as the cause of the subse­subse- quent development, contain the seeds of the futfutureure within them. Moreover, JaJakobsonkobson held that de-famide-familiarizationliarization takes place not among isolated poetic phenomena but among phenomena intintegratedegrated intintoo structures corrcorrespondingesponding to literary schoolsschools,, grgroups,oups, movements, or even individualsindividuals.. Thus, like langue, the system of poetic language is not homoghomogeneous.eneous. RatRather,her, it com­com- prises various subsystems intinterlockederlocked in an ongoing histhistoricalorical struggle.struggle. Jajakobsonkobson descrdescribesibes this process in terms of geogrageograph-ph­ ical linglinguistics.uistics. "F“Fromrom this point of view, Puskin is the center of the poetic culturculturee of a particular time with a particular zone of influenceinfluence.. The poetic didialectsalects of one zone gravitating toward the cultculturalural center of another can be subsubdivided,divided, like the didialectsalects of practical lanlanguage,guage, intointo:: transitional didialects,alects, didialectsalects with a·a- transitory tendency, and mixed dialectsdialects.. The firstfirst havehaveadopted a grgroupoup of canons from the center toward which they gravitategravitate;; the second have adoadoptedpted certain poetic tendencies from it; and the thirdthird,, only individual heterogeneous elemenelements—devices.ts-devices. Fi­Fi- nally, one must take intintoo account conserconservativevative archaic didialects,alects, whose centers of gravity belbelongong to the paspast.”41t."4 1 The de-famide-familiarizationliarization of lanlanguageguage is not fully exhaustexhausteded by the interaction of old and new poetic formsforms.. I noted previously that in the expressionist model, poetic language is closely related to another funfunctionalctional didialect—practicalalect-practical langlanguage.uage. Within this didialectalect too a histhistoricalorical clash goes on between the conservative tendency of ststandardandard literliteraryary language to preserve traditional forms and the innovative tendency within living colloquial speech to genergenerateate new onesones.. Russian poetspoets,, accaccordingording to Jakob­jakob- son, have always exploited the creative potenpotentialtial of colloquial speech forthe sake of de-famide-familiarization.liarization. "F“Fromrom Simeon PolockiPolockijj

440� lbIbid.�d. 41. IbIbid.,id., pp. 5-6.5—6.

221717 Russian Formalism

on, through Lomonosov, DerfaDeriavin,vin, Puskin, NeNekrasov,krasov, and Ma­Ma- jakovskijjakovskij,, Russian poetry has continuously adopted newer and newer elements of the living langulanguage.”42age."42 RawRaw,, uncuuncultivatedltivated col­col- loquialiloquialismssms replace old poetpoetisms-turned-clichésisms-turned-cliches to render the medium of verbal art vivid once agagain.ain. The Futurist principle introduces another facet denied by Saussure into the langulanguageage systsystem:em: timetime.. In Saussure'sSaussure’s CourCourse,se, langue is defineddefined as atemporal, and linguistlinguisticic change as asys­asys- temictemic.. The motivation for this decision is obviouobvious:s: concern over the identity of the signsign.. Once diffdifferenterent stages of langue are in­in- cluded in one systsystem,em, the precise value of linguistlinguisticic units is com­com- prpromised.omised. By funfunctioningctioning simsimultaneouslyultaneously in diffdifferenterent relational gridgrids,s, their ideidentityntity becomes ambiguambiguous.ous. Moreover, SaussurSaussuree maintmaintainedained that the impuimpulselse for chachangenge came not from within the homoghomogeneouseneous system of langulanguage,age, but only from without it, through the accidental destdestructiveructive intervention of extra­extra- lingulinguisticistic factorsfactors.. TherThereforeefore he split the science of language intintoo its sysynchronicnchronic and diachronic branches and identifiedidentified the study of langue solely with the former. But can we actually pupurgerge a linguistlinguisticic system of its histhistory?ory? The Jakobsonianjakobsonian de-famde-familiarizationiliarization of poetic language woulwouldd argue against it. This process inevitinevitablyably brings together past, present, and futurestates of the systsystem.em. Moreover, the resulting mutmutationsations are not caused by accidents external to the system but by its immanent need forconstant rerejuvenation.juvenation. True, ininjakob- Jakob­ son'sson’s opinion, the imimpulsepulse for changchangee is greater in poetic lan­lan- guage than in other functional dialects, but synchrony and di­di- achrony interpenetinterpenetraterate in other linglinguisticuistic systems as well. Hence, a langue devoid of temtemporalityporality would be a fictiofiction.n. In every synchronous linlinguisticguistic system "there“there are styles of pronun­pronun- ciaticiation,on, grgrammaticalammatical variantsvariants,, phrasphrases,es, which are intinterpretederpreted by a collectivity of spspeakingeaking subsubjectsjects as belonging to and appropri­appropri- ate to a generation of older peopeople,ple, and others which are consid­consid- ered the prerogative of youthyouth,, the latest fashifashion.”on." BeBesidessides these

42. IbiIbid.,d., p. 30.

2I8218 A Synecdoche time-marked variavariants,nts, Jajakobsonkobson argargues,ues, diachrony mingminglesles with synchrony because of the funfunctionalctional hetheterogeneityerogeneity of the lin­lin- guistic systsystem.em. "The“The most charcharacteristicacteristic form of the proprojectionjection of diachrony intintoo synchrsynchronyony is the attribution of a diffdifferenterent fufunctionnction to the two terms of a changechange;; thus, two phonophonologicallogical stages are jujudgeddged as attributes of two funfunctionalctional didialects,alects, two 'styles‘styles.’.' The charcharacteristicacteristic form of the proprojectionjection of synchrony intintoo diachrony, on0n the other handhand,, is the generalization of a stylestyle;; two styles become two [developme[developmental]ntal] stagstages.”43es."43 The diffdifferenceerence between Saussure'sSaussure’s and Jakobson'sjakobson’s notions of the linglinguisticuistic systsystemem might be represented as shown in the diagrdiagram.am.

Saussure Jajakobsonkobson

cC c

'-.,-.'W” D d

Saussure'sSaussure’s didiagramagram contains the following coordinatescoordinates:: "(“(1)1) the axis of simultaneitsimultaneityy (AB(AB),), which stands forthe relations of coexist­coexist- ing thingsthings,, from which the intervention of time is excexcluded,luded, and (2) the axis of succession (CD)(CD),, on which only one thing can be considerconsidereded at a time but upuponon which are located all the thingthingss on

43. RemarRemarquesques sur !'evolutionl’e’volution phonophonologiquelogique du russe comparee a celle des autres lan­lan— gues slaves (= TravauxTravawc du circle linguistique de Prague 2 [1[1929]),929]), p. 1515.. 219 Russian FFonnalism onnalism

the firstfirst axis together with their changchanges.”44es."44 The system of lan­lan- guage, then, is the geomegeometrictric point at which the two axes intinter-er­ sectsect.. For Jakjakobson,obson, as my didiagramagram sugsuggests,gests, the axis of simultsimultaneityaneity (ab) is imimpregnatedpregnated with histhistory,ory, for in language at evereveryy mo­mo- ment a number of time-time-markedmarked variants (archa(archaisms,isms, modern­modern- isms) always co-occuco-occur.r. By the same toktoken,en, the axis of succession (cd) contains more than one element at a timetime.. Language con­con- sists of several systems of functional dialectsdialects each involving a number of subsystems linked both synchronically and diachron­diachron- icaically.lly. Thus, rather than a hiebio et nuncmmc point, the JaJakobsoniankobsonian lingulinguisticistic system is a fieldfield comprising homogeneous and hethetero-ero­ geneous elementselements.. What my diagram omitomits,s, however, is the prprofoundlyofoundly didialecticalectic nature of Jajakobson’skobson's linguistilinguistics,cs, which makes any separation of the system from its hihistorystory imimpossiblepossible a prioripriori.. AccoAccordingrding to this viewview,, languaglanguagee is not a harmoniharmonious,ous, symsymmetricalmetrical whole but an ongoing strustruggleggle between revolutionary tendencies aiming to alter the status quo and their conserconservativevative coucounterpartsnterparts set on preserving it. At any moment the system is both balanced and imbalanceimbalanced;d; it is simultsimultaneouslyaneously a state and a mutmutation.ation. The ruptrupturesures in previous equequilibriumsilibriums coexist with the equilibrequilibriumsiums that mended these ruptruptures,ures, and all of them point to subsequent changchangeses that will redress this situation in the fufuture.ture. This dialec­dialec- tic concepconceptiontion of language also contradicts Saussure'sSaussure’s claim that the causes of linguistlinguisticic changchangee are necessnecessarilyarily extrextrasystemicasystemic and hence accidental. For Jajakobson,kobson, linguistlinguisticic develodevelopmentpment is trig­trig- gered by internal contradictions within langlanguage,uage, and as such is subsubjectject to the rules of the systsystem.em. External factfactors,ors, theretherefore,fore,are neither accidental nor desdestructivetructive to langue. They are able to pepenetratenetrate and affect it only if they satisfsatisfyy some of its internal demandemands,ds, that is, only if they correspond to the developmedevelopmentalntal tendencies of the systsystemem itselfitself.. To return to verbal art, de-famide-familiarizationliarization there accordaccordinging to

44. Course in General Linguistics, p. 80.

222200 A Synecdoche

Jakjakobsonobson operoperatesates on three planesplanes.. "We“We perceive every fact of contemcontemporaryporary poetic language in necessary relation to three fac­fac- .tors: tors: the current poetic traditiotradition,n, contemcontemporaryporary practical lan- guage, and the prior poetic tendencytendency.”45."45 In the case of Chleb­Chleb- ninikov—thekov-the poet with whom jajakobson’skobson's booklet was conceconcerned—rned­ the poetic tendency of the immeimmediatediate past was Russian Sym­Sym- bolbolism.ism. Whereas SySymbolistmbolist poetry strstroveove to emulate music, ChlChlebnikovebnikov considerconsidereded the word the only proper material of veverbalrbal art. His zaumzaum’—speech' -speech transcendtranscendinging the utilitarian ra­ra- tionality of practical languaglanguage—hade-had no countcounterparterpart in Symbolist poetrypoetry.. Equally new was his penchant for what the Formalists termed the "laying“laying bare of devicesdevices,”," that is, the pure unfolding of ververbalbal material in poepoetictic constructions lacking any psychologpsychologi-i­ calcal,, naturnatural,al, or metaphmetaphysicalysical motivationmotivation.46.46 And in contrast to the predominantly lyrical mode of Symbolist poetrypoetry,, ChChlebnikovlebnikov re­re- turned to the epiepicc genregenre.. InInjakobson’sjakobson's assessment, "C“Chlebnikovhlebnikov gave us a new epos, the first genuinely epic creations after many decades of drougdrought.”47ht."47 CeCentralntral to ChChlebnikov’slebnikov's rebellion against the Symbolists was his use of the Russian vernacular. "M“Mostost of ChChlebnikov’slebnikov's workwork,”," Jakobsonjakobson observedobserved,, "is“is written in langlanguageuage derived from collo­collo- quial spespeech.”48ech."48 This introduction of collcolloquialismsoquialisms into poetry was a deldeliberateiberate challenge to the Symbolist dogma that the pro­pro- fane language of the mob is incomincompatiblepatible with the sacred lan­lan- guage of poetspoets.. AccorAccordingding to VjVjaceslavaeeslav IvIvanov,anov, an outoutstandingstanding poet-theopoet-theoreticianretician of this movement, "in“in all ages in which poetry has flourishedflourished as an art, poetic langlanguageuage has been contrasted to the colloqcolloquial,uial, common langulanguage.age. Both singsingersers and the people loved its diffdifferenceserences and peculiaritiespeculiarities—singers,-singers, as their pre­pre- rogrogative,ative, a lituliturgicalrgical or imimperialperial roberobe;; the crowdcrowd,, as a national treasure and cult.cult.”49 "49

45. NoveNovejx'ajajsaja russkajamskaja poezija,poézija, p. 4. 46. IbiIbid.,d., p. 28. 47. "O“O pokolenii rastrativsem svoich poetovpoetov,”," Smert'Smert’ VladimiraVladimim MajaMajakovskogokovskogo (Berlin, 191931),31 ), p. 8. 48. NoveNovejs'ajajiaja russkarusskajaja poezija,poézija, p. 30. 49. "Spora“Sporady,”dy," Po zveuiam:zvezdam: StatStal’i'i i afoafon'zmyrizmy (St. Petersburg, 191909),09), p. 355.

221 Russian Formalism

NaNaturally,turally, ChChlebnikovlebnikov was not the only Russian poet reacting against the SymbSymbolistolist canon in the second decade of this centurycentury.. There were at least two antipodal tendencies within Russian post-Symbolist poetrypoetry:: the archaizing of Akmeists such as N. S. GumilevGumilév and 0.O. E. MaMandel'stam,ndel'stam, who sought inspinspirationiration in the poetic tradition of past agages,es, and the iconociconoclasmlasm of0f Futurists such as ChChlebnikov,lebnikov, who claimed that they were inventing the art of an epoch yet to come. And even within Futurism there was a distdistinctinct strustruggleggle between the old and the newnew,, as manifemanifestedsted in the writings of its three leading figurfigures,es, MajaMajakovskij,kovskij, PasternaPasternak,k, and ChChlebnikov.lebnikov. Jakjakobsonobson desdescribedcribed this conflictas followsfollows:: "In“In the evolution of Russian post-Symbolist poetry MaMajakovskijjakovskij per­per- sonifiessonifies the Sturm und Drang, ChlChlebnikovebnikov the most clear-cclear-cut,ut, chcharacteristicaracteristic conquestsconquests,, and Pasternak the link of this new art with SymbolismSymbolism.”50."50 This sketch of the Futurist movement is a good illustillustrationration of Jakobson'sJakobson’s didialecticalectic conceptconceptionion of the linguistic (p(poetic)oetic) system as a synchronous statstatee containing consconservativeervative tendencies point­point- ing toward the past and revolutiorevolutionarynary tendencies pointing to the futufuture.re. The de-famide-familiarizationliarization of language in ververbalbal art is not a simsimpleple uniunilaterallateral progression in which every new work leaves all previous ones automatizedautomatized.. The intinteractioneraction of old and new is instead an oscillation, a seesaw movement, as the contempocontemporaryrary literary reception of the thrthreeee Russian Futurists verifiesverifies.. "De­“De- spitspitee the fact that ChChlebnikov’slebnikov's poetic personality crystallized prior to MaMajakovskij’sjakovskij's andand,, in turn, MaMajakovskij’sjakovskij'sbeforbefore e Paster­Paster- nak'snak’s ...... the reader brought up on SySymbolismmbolism was willing to acceacceptpt Pasternak first,first, then then he stumbled over MaMajakovskij,jakovskij, and only after conquerconqueringing him was he ready to begin the strstrenuousenuous siege of ChChlebnikov’slebnikov's fortressfortress.”51."51 ChlChlebnikov’sebnikov's belated critical recognitiorecognition,n, eloquently described by Jakobson,jakobson, is a function of what might be called the dialogic nature of the literarliteraryy procprocess:ess: the spspatiotemporalatiotemporal gap between

50. "K“Konturyontury GleGlejlu,"jtu," repr. in R. Jajakobson,kobson, SlovesneSloveme’ umeniumém’ a umeleckeumélecke’ slovo (P(Prague,rague, i91969),69), p.9387‘ 387. 5i.51. Ibid.

222222 A Synecdoche the author and rereader.ader. HerHeree we reach a crucial contcontradiction,radiction, for to conceive of the poetic utterance as dialogic is utterly in­in- consistent with HusHusserl’sserl's or SaussurSaussure’se's semisemioticotic concept underunderly-ly­ ing the expressionist modelmodel.. HuHusserl’ssserl's contempt for the didialogicalogic form of language was ab­ab- solutesolute.. Once the word is addressed to someone and leaves the safsafee haven of a singsinglele consciousnesconsciousness,s, its identidentityity is totally com­com- prpromised,omised, for "all“all expressions in commucommunicativenicative speech funfunc-c­ tion as indiindications.”52cations."52 SaussurSaussureanean linguilinguisticsstics isis' equally mono­mono- logicallogical.. It relegrelegatesates any actual verbal intintercourseercourse to the spherspheree of parole and focuses solely on lanlangue—thegue-the set of all linguistic ele­ele- ments at a given moment which are uniformly internalized by the speech communitcommunity.y. And because SaussurSaussuree deemed langulanguageage prior to thought, the lingulinguisticistic system is not merely a seamless semisemioticotic web connecting all individual minds but their identidenticalical content as well. Thus, even though his Course begins with a dis­dis- cussion of the spspeech-circuiteech-circuit through a schematized didialoguealogue between Mr. A. and Mr. B, ultimaultimatelytely these gentlegentlemenmen are noth­noth- ing but two idenidenticaltical instinstancesances of a hyhypostasizedpostasized social con­con- scisciousness,ousness, two intinterchangeableerchangeable voices in a singsinglele monologmonologue,ue, two terminals whose semisemioticotic input and output are one. Saussure'sSaussure’s postulpostulateate that the linguistlinguisticsics of langue is possible only if the distdistanceance between the intinterlocutorserlocutors is obliterated had reperrepercussionscussions among the Russian FormalistsFormalists.. Those who paid attention to the didialogicalogic form of of lalanguagenguage turned against the notion of systsystem,em, whereas those concerned with system ignored the dialogic. Jakubinskijjakubinskij and TynTynjanovjanov are the two most obvious representatives of these oppoppositeosite tendencitendencies.es. In his 19192323 essay "On“On DiDialogicalogic SpSpeech,”eech," Jakubinskijjakubinskij rerejectedjected the teleological view that divided lanlanguageguage intintoo functfunctionalional didialectsalects accordaccordinging to their respective goals (thoug(thoughh he himself had earlier propounded one variant of this view) because he considerconsidereded it too abstract forthe classificlassificationcation of concrconcreteete utterancutterances.es. This classificaticlassification,on, Jak­jak- ubinskij insistinsisted,ed, must proceed from the linguistics of parole,

52. Logical InvestigInvestigations,ations, vol. 1, p. 277.

222233 Russian Formalism

actual discoursediscourse.. AccordingAccordingly,ly, he drdrewew the criteria for his classi­classi- ficationfrom the two charcharacteristicsacteristics of every human interactiinteraction:on: the type of contact between the subsubjectsjects (immed(immediate/mediated)iate/mediated) and the dirdirectionalityectionality of the infoinformationrmation flow (alternating(alternating// continuocontinuous).us).

To the immediate (fa(face-to—face)ce-to-face)form fo rm of human interaction corrcorrespondespond immediate formsfa rms of verbal interaction. These are characterized by the immediimmediateate visual and aural perception of the speaker. To medi­medi- ated intinteractioneraction corrcorresponds,esponds, forexampleexample, , the written formof an utteranceutterance.. CoCorrelatedrrelated with the alternating forms of intinteractionseractions involving a relatively quick exchange of actions and reareactionsctions between intinteractingeracting indindividualsividuals is the dialogic formfo rm of linguistlinguisticic intintercourse.ercourse. And for the continuous form we have the monomonologiclogic formfo rm of utteranceutterance.53.53

JJakubinskij akubinskij believed that min contrast to the "artificial"“artificial” mono­mono- loguelogue,, dialogue is the "nat“natural”ural" form of language and that the "d“dialogicialogic form is, in fact, almost always linlinkedked to the immimmediateediate form of intinteraction.”54eraction."54 As a result he concenconcentratedtrated on the oral dialogue and descrdescribedibed various linguistlinguistic,ic, paralparalinguistic,inguistic, and so­so- cial features of such exchangexchanges.es. FruitfFruitfulul as it might be for the study of dialogue in general, Jakubinsjakubinskij’skij's apapproachproach was incapable of dealing with what I have termed the dialogic qualitqualityy of the literary procesprocess.s. From a purpurelyely formal standpoint, the literary work is nothing but a medimediatedated continuous commucommunication,nication, the monologue of an absent author read by a passive audienceaudience.. The curious delayed reaction to ChChlebnikov’slebnikov's work (as descrdescribedibed by Jakjakobson)obson) sugsuggestsgests that ththee relatirelationshiponship between the author and reader is much more com-

53. "O“O dialogicesdialogiceskojkoj reCireci,"," RusskaRusskajaja ret'rec":: Sbornikistateitatej, }, vol. 1, ed. L. V. Sscerbacerba (P(Petersburg,etersburg, 191923),23), pp. 11116—17.6-17. 54. IbiIbid.,d., p.p, 1 1717.. The concept of dialogue gained a rather prprominentominent status in the subsequent development of Russian inintellectualtellectual life as a rallying point for the scholars connconnectedected with Michail Bachtin. But with their negative attitude toward FormalisFormalism,m, the Bachtinians apprapproachedoached dialogue from a difdifferentferent persperspective.pective. They saw it primarily as a metalinguistic phenomenphenomenon—aon-a chain of utterances commenting upon each other from different points of view. Thus, for thetheBach­Bach— tinians, didialoguealogue was a predominantly ideological phenomenophenomenon.n.

222244 ASA Synecdocheynecdoche plex. The literary audience is not merely a sounding board for the poet'spoet’s worwords:ds: its choicechoiceiof of reading mattmatter,er, the timing of its choicechoice,, and so forth areare,, in fact, the audience'saudience’s replies to the author'sauthor’s poetic messamessage.ge. ClearClearly,ly, such replies are a function not only of the actual literary discourse but of the socially sharshareded literary system as well, the poetic tradition that conditions the readreader’ser's interaction with the text. TynTynjanovjanov opposed Jakjakubinskijubinskij in that he built his model spe­spe- cifically on the notion of the systemsystem.. In doing so, he, like Saus­Saus- sure, collapsed the spspaceace between author and reareader.der. BeBecausecause he believed that a work'swork’s idenidentitytity is detdeterminedermined by its evolution­evolution- ary position within a literary systsystem,em, this gap is irrelevant to its identidentityity and is simsimplyply another name forthe work'swork’s alienatialienation,on, its inauthentinauthenticity.icity. Paying attention to it mermerelyely subverts the sys­sys- temic metaphor and leads to subsubjectivismjectivism and psychologpsychologism,ism, to a 6“ "naive“naive evaluatievaluation,”on," which instead of viewing the "'value'value’ of a given literary phenomenon ...... in its 'developme‘developmentalntal signifi-signifi­ cance and charcharacter,’acter,' "” arbitrarily "transfers“transfers the value from one era-system to anotheranother.”55."55 DesDespitepite the fact thatthatTynTynjanov janov conceives of the era-system as a diachronic lamlaminationination of several contrastive principles of con­con- structistruction,on, there seems to be no gap between the author and the reader within it. A "lit“literaryerary fact"fact” is identical for everybeverybody.ody. "Wher“Whereaseas a hard deffiinitionnition of literature is more and more didifficultfficult to makemake,”,'' TynTynjanovjanov claimedclaimed,, "every“every contemcontemporaryporary can point his fingerat what is a literaryfafact."56 ct."56 But once agaagain,in, the reaction of the Russian reading public to ChChlebnikov’slebnikov's experiments contra­contra- dicts this asserassertion.tion. By refusing to read ththem,em, the mamajorityjority of ChChlebnikov’slebnikov's contemcontemporariesporaries indiindicatedcated that for them his works belonged among the facts of byt, somewhere between infantinfantileile babble and the ravings of a madmmadman;an; only a miniscule minominorityrity considered them literary worksworks.. ThusThus,, even within a singsinglele era­era- systsystem,em, one person'sperson’s literary fact is not necessarily anothanother’s.er's.

55. "O“O literaturnoliteraturnojj evévoljucii,”oljucii,"ArchaistArchaixty y i novatory, pp. 31-31—32.32. 56. "Literaturny“Literaturnyjj fakt,"fakt,” ibiibid.,d., p. g.9.

222255 Russian Formalism

The de-famide-familiarizationliarization of poetic langulanguageage takes place among a mumultitudeltitude of individuals whose reactioreactionsns will difdifferfer consider­consider- ably. Jajakobson’skobson's expressionist model stands between Jakjakubinskij’subinskij's and TynTynjanov’s.janov's. It acknowledges tthehe dialogic relatiorelationshipnship be­be- tween the artist and audaudienceience but accoaccommodatesmmodates it within a shared system of artistic conventiconventions.ons. Jakjakobsonobson explored the diffdifferenceerence between the subsubjectsjects involved in the artistic process in his essay "On“On ReaRealismlism in Art,"Art,” published the same year as his ChChlebnikovlebnikov pamphlet. The notion of realisrealism,m, because of its ap­ap- parent simsimplicity,plicity, offered esespeciallypecially fefertilertile groundground for debunk­debunk- ing the monologic view of art. According to the simsimplestplest defini­defini- tition,on, realism is an "a“artisticrtistic movement that strives forthe closest possible representrepresentationation of realityreality,, formaximal probabilityprobability.”." But within a dialogic context, "represent“representation”ation" and "p“probability”robability" ac­ac- quirquiree a curious duaduality:lity: "On“On the one hand we deal with an inten­inten- tition,on, a goalgoal;; that is, a work is realisrealistictic if the author conceived of it as probable (meaning A)A);; on the other handhand,, a work is real­real- istic if I, the judgjudginging subject, perceive it as probable (meaning B)."B).”5757 The diffdifferenceerence between the author and the perceiver de­de- scribed bybyjakobson Jakobson need not, however, lead to the subsubjectivismjectivism that TynTynjanovjanov fefeared.ared. The degdegreeree of realisrealistictic probability is not totally idiosyidiosyncratic;ncratic; it is measurmeasureded against the backgrbackgroundound of a given artistartisticic traditiotradition,n, the socially valid norms for representrepresenta-a­

tion in art. Thus, authorial realism can be subdivided into "A“A11 = the tendency to deform a given artistic canon, intinterpretederpreted as an

apapproximationproximation to reality"reality” and "A2“A2 = the consconservativeervative tendency within the bounds of a given artistic tradititradition,on, interpreted as faithfulness to realityreality.”." The same holds forthe perceperceiver.iver. In the "meaning“meaning BIB1 [he] is a revolutionary vis-a-vis the given artistic conventiconventions,ons, who comprehends their deformatdeformationion as an apapprox-prox­ imation of realitreality.”y." In "meaning“meaning B2 [he] is a conserconservativevative who sees the deformdeformationation of the artisartistictic conventions as a shortchang­shortchang- ing of realityreality.”58."58

57. "O“O rearealismulismu v umeni,"uméni," CCert/enerven 4 (19(1921),21), 3o301.i. 58. IbiIbid.,d., 302302..

226 A Synecdoche

JakJakobsonobson succeeded in accoaccommodatingmmodating the spspatiotemporalatiotemporal gap between the particparticipantsipants in the artisartistictic process within the concept of system because of his dialectdialecticic ououtlook.tlook. As I argued earlier, he conceived of the system not as a homogeneous langue but as an ongongoingoing strustruggleggle among antantitheticalithetical tendencies and hetheterogeneouserogeneous elementselements.. MorMoreover,eover, the system was not inter­inter- nalized uniforuniformlymly and totally by every subsubject.ject. RaRather,ther, each indi­indi- vidual approprappropriatediated only a particular segment of it. From this persperspective,pective, the author is neither ideidenticalntical to nor absolutely dis­dis- tinct from the reareader.der. DesDespitepite the factthat the two are separseparate,ate, insofaras they shasharere a similar attitude to past artistic canons they are closer to each other than two contemcontemporaneousporaneous authors who represent opposing artisartistictic tendencies. At the same time, conser­conser- vatives and revolutionaries are not unrunrelatedelated either, although their connection is a negnegativeative one. They emembodybody the thesis and antithesis of a single artisartistictic state and as such they are inseinsepara-para­ bly bound to each other within the given systemsystem.. One imimportantportant problem arises with this argargument.ument. The in­in- terplay of sameness and diffdifferenceerence occurs within the limits of a systsystem.em. But what are the limits of the systemsystem,, or in other worwords,ds, how far apart can an author and reader be before they cease to share anything (whether positive or negativenegative)?)? TThishis problem is aggravated by the particular modalitmodalityy of literary discoudiscourse—itsrse-its written formform.. Once a work is fixedfixed in a permanent substancesubstance,, it can transcend the moment of its origin and become available to a distant reareader,der, proprojectedjected against a poetic system that is radically diffdifferenterent from the the one that generated it. When Jakobson and another Moscow CiCirclercle exile in PragPrague,ue, PetrPétr Bogatyrev,Bogatyrév, com­com- pared high literature and folk poetrypoetry,, they discovered that the primary diffdifferenceerence between the two is their respective utilization of permanent and transient lingulinguisticistic subsubstances—writingstances-writing and speespeech.ch. Their findingsfindings,, published in "F“Folkloreolklore as a SpSpecialecial Form of CrCreativity,”eativity," can be summarsummarizedized as followsfollows.. A literary work is usually writwritten,ten, so its existence does not coincide with its accept­accept- ance by the readreadinging publicpublic.. It can be ignored by the author'sauthor’s contemporaries and become popular decades or even centuries 227 Russian Formalism

latlater.er. This fact explains the considconsiderableerable freedom of the writer in respect to the poetic canon of his or her titime.me. The writer may not only emulemulateate or rerejectject it, but ignore it tottotally.ally. "In“In the domain of political econeconomy,”omy," BogBogatyrévatyrev and Jakjakobsonobson wrotewrote,, "so-called“so-called production for the market provides a close parallel to the rela­rela- titionshiponship of literature to the consumerconsumer.”." In folklore, on the other handhand,, this relatiorelationshipnship "is“is closer to 'p‘productionroduction on demanddemand.’.' "59”59 A folkloric work, framed in the transient oral mediumedium,m, comes into existence only when acceptaccepteded by the community. In fact, it is nothing but a potential set of nornorms,ms, a living artistic tradtradition,ition, which persists in the collective memory of a given grogroupup to be actualized in every individual performanperformance.ce. Any innovations in­in- trtroducedoduced by these performances can sursurvivevive only if they corre­corre- spond to the immanent developmedevelopmentalntal tendencies of the nor­nor- mative structurestructure,, and fulfilla collective demand. Asocial aberra­aberra- tions are rerejectedjected andand,, unrunrecorded,ecorded, they vanish without a trace. The performer'sperformer’s attitude toward his or her creation reflects this state of affaffairs.airs. The performer exercises a "preventive“preventive cen­cen- sorsorship”ship" and voluntvoluntarilyarily conforms to the collective traditiotradition.n. ProProjectedjected into SaussurSaussureanean terminologterminology,y, the diffdifferenceerence be­be- tween oral and written poetic works thus corrcorrespondsesponds to the oppoppositionosition of langue and parole. BogBogatyrévatyrev and Jajakobsonkobson wrotewrote::

The role of the performer of folklorfolkloricic works may not be identidenti-i­ fiedfied with that of either the reareader,der, the recitereciter,r, or the author of liliteraryterary works. From the folfolkloreklore performer'sperformer’s stastandpoint,ndpoint, the work is a fact of langue, i.i.e.,e., an extrapersoextrapersonal,nal, given fact inde­inde- pendent of the performer,even if the factallows for deformationdeformation and the inintroductiontroduction of new poetic and quotidian material. To the author of a work of literature, the work apappearspears as a fact of parole. It is not given a prioripriori,, but is subsubjectject to an individual realizatiorealization.n. There is simply a set of artworks effective at a given moment. The new work of art is to be created and perceived agagainstainst the backgrobackgroundund of their formal reqrequisitesuisites (in that the new work of art apprappropriatesopriates some forms,forms,‘ trtransformsansforms othersothers,, and rerejectsjects still otherothers).60s).60

59. "Die“Die FolklorFolkloree als eine besondere Form des SchaffSchaffens,”ens," Donum natalicum SchrijnenSchnjnen (Nij(Nijmegen,megen, 191929),29), p. 906. 60. IbiIbid.,d., p. 905905..

228 A Synecdoche

This is a radical statstatement;ement; indeedindeed,, it is seemiseeminglyngly at odds with Jakobson'sjakobson’s notion of verbal art as a social institutiinstitution.on. "As“As a fact of parole,parole,”" the poetic work is above all a unique and individuaindividuall product defidefinitionally exceeding the lingulinguisticistic system of a given collectivitycollectivity.. One could argue that I am reading too much into BoBogatyrévgatyrev and Jakobson'sjakobson’s essayessay.. As its title suggsuggests,ests, it does not pretend to deal with the entire literary process but only with its productioproduction.n. Such a reduction is possible because the principal topic of the piece is folklore, in which creation and reception coincicoincide.de. Had the two authors dealt with literary recereception,ption, the issue of poetic langue would have inevinevitablyitably ememerged.erged. This obobjectionjection does not invalidate the point I made earlier, however. IfIf,, as BogBogatyrévatyrev and Jakobson argargue,ue, high literature is unlike folklorein the seseparationparation of its production and recepreception,tion, then written literary texts must eventually outoutlivelive the system that spawned them,them, only to be "mi“misread”sread" by later audiences sub­sub- scribing to totally diffdifferenterent poetic canonscanons.. And considering the actual conditions of the litliteraryerary proprocess,cess, one might wonder how things could be otherotherwise.wise. This was, of coursecourse,, in part the point Sklovskij made in his article on Puskin, discussediscussedd in the preced­preced- ing chapter. JakJakobson,obson, like most of the other FormFormalists,alists, rerejectedjected the radical relativism of SklovsSklovskij’skij'sReRezepzionsdsthetik. zepzionsiisthetik. In his book­book- let on ChChlebnikov,lebnikov, he assailed the aesthetaestheticic egocentrism of old­old- fashifashionedoned critics who "usu“usuallyally impimposeose upon the past current modes of poepoetictic productiproduction”on" for negating the social nature of verbal art.art.61 61 To check the relativism creeping intintoo his expressionist model, Jajakobsonkobson had to deal with two problproblems:ems: the need to bridgbridgee the gap between author and reader, that is, to find a system obliga­obliga- tory for the two partiesparties;; and the need to neuneutralizetralize the written subsubstancestance of literatuliterature,re, whose permanence opens the identidentityity of the litliteraryerary work to the vicissitudes of histhistory.ory. These probleproblemsms turned out to be two sides of the same coin, and a singsinglele solution proposed by Jakobson took care of both of ththem.em.

6i.61. NoveNovejs'ajajsaja russkarusskajaja poezija,poézija, p. 5. 229 Russian Formalism

The path that led JakJakobsonobson inintoto this difdifficultyficultyis worth consid­consid- ering. The starting point of his poetipoetics,cs, we recallrecall,, was the con­con- cept of the expressiexpression—aon-a sign whose selfself-sameness-sameness was absoluteabsolute.. Jajakobsonkobson depadepartedrted from HussHusserl,erl, however, in conceiving of this semisemioticotic identidentityity in terms of a SaussurSaussureanean "s“socialocial conscioconsciousness”;usness"; he then furfurtherther relativized it by breaking up langue into histhistor-or­ ically changing functional didialects.alects. Among these, poetic lan­lan- guageguage,, propelled by its need for incessant de-famide-familiarization,liarization, exhibited the highest degdegreeree of change and thus, ironicalironically,ly, was the least reliable guarantor of long-term semisemioticotic identidentity.ity. To mitigmitigateate the tension between phenomenphenomenologicalological stability and Futurist instinstabilityability in the aesthetic sign JakJakobson’sobson's strategy was to turn to languaglanguagee itselfitself,, a move I call the "linguistic“linguistic princi­princi- ple" of his poetpoetics.ics. For him, the literary work is always perceived against the background of contemcontemporaryporary practical languagelanguage.. Po­P0- etic langulanguage,age, to apprappropriateopriate Vinokur'sVinokur’s "M“Marxist”arxist" lingolingo,, is a mere susuperstructureperstructure built upon this normatnormativeive basbasis;is; the aes­aes- thetic effificacycacy of a liteliteraryrary work is founded upon it. Once the author and audience cease to shshareare the system of practical lan­lan- guageguage,, the text can no longer function poetipoetically.cally. Jajakobsonkobson made this point clear in the introduction to his edition of two Czech poetic comcompositionspositions of the early fourfourteenthteenth centurcentury:y : "L“Lit-it­ erary works are so connected with langulanguage,age, they are linguislinguistictic facts to such a degree that the distdistanceance between the linguistlinguisticic structure giving rise to the medieval poem and modern lin­lin- guistic usage is a serious hindrhindranceance to its living perceptioperception.n. It is easier to perceive the aesthetaestheticic value of an ancient painting or building than to live out the linguistlinguisticic consciousness of a writer or a reader fromthat periodperiod.. This explains why the resurrection of the medieval poetic work as an aesthaestheticallyetically experienced fact lags behind our sursurmountingmounting of the merely archaeological ap­ap- proach to the medmedievalieval visual artsarts.”62."62 This argargument,ument, of coucourse,rse, has its roots in Jakjakobson’sobson's "logo-“logo-

62. "Dve“Dvé staroceskestaroceské skladby o smrtsmrti,"i," SporSpar d'USedus'e s telem.télem. 0 nebezpeenemnebezpec'ném casuEasu smrti (P(Prague,rague, i91927),27), p. g.

22303 0 A Synecdoche centric"centric” notion of language, accordaccordinging to which every linguistlinguisticic fact is a vehicle forint intersubjective,ersubjective, cognitcognitiveive meaningsmeanings.. A poetic uttutterance,erance, as an expresexpression,sion, is a prime example of such a signsign.. The same holds for commucommunicativenicative ututterances.terances. They diffdifferer from expressions not in being without such meaningsmeanings,, but in subordinating them to the referentreferentialial funfunctionsctions they carry out. This intrinsic bond between the two funfunctionalctional dialects limits the possible spspatiotemporalatiotemporal disdisplacementplacement of the literary work that threatened its identity. Therefore, the writer and the reader cannot be totally isolated from each other as long as they share a langlanguage.uage. They might susubscribebscribe to difdifferentfe rent literary cancanons,ons, but the more conserconservativevative system of practical languaglanguagee is still com­com- mon to them. Thus, the "mi“misreading”sreading" of a work, its proprojectionjection against.against‘a a set of poetic norms totally alien to it, still imimpliesplies that the work makes [sensesense as an ututterance.terance. Such a misreading is qualqualitativelyitatively diffdifferenterent from the simpsimplele incomprehension that occurs when a work is produced in a language unknown to the rereader.ader. At this point, however, it might appear that Jakobsonjakobson would like to have it both waways.ys. He claims that "every“every word of poetic langlanguageuage is in essenessencece phonically and semasemanticallyntically deformed vis-vis­ a-vis practical language"language” and thus he can spspeakeak of "language“language in its aesthetic funfunction”ction" as a specific dialectdialect "governed“governed by its own immanent lawslaws.”63."63 Yet at the same time he maintains that in some respects poetic utterances are not totally unlike those ful­ful- filling a commucommunicativenicative fufunction.nction. UltUltimatelyimately thoughthough,, Jajakobsonkobson comes down on the side of non­non- uniquenuniqueness.ess. If verbal art is the "organized“organized violence of poetic form upuponon langlanguage,”uage," such violence is necessarily circumscribed by certain limits, and these are the limits of langulanguageage itselfitself.64. 64 A poetic form cannot distdistortort its material to such a degdegreeree that it loses its linguistlinguisticic nature. TherTheree is a sacrosanct structure undunder-er­ lying all funfunctionalctional dialects and rendering articulated sounds

63. NoveNovejs'ajajfaja russkarusskajaja poezija,poézija, p. 47. 64. 0 cesEefiskomskom stiche, p. 1616..

22313 1 Russian Formalism

(even the Futurist zaumzaum')') linguistlinguisticic factsfacts.. This structure is the phonological system of a given national languagelanguage.. It was thus phonphonologyology thatthatjakobson Jakobson chose as the key to the selfself-sameness-sameness of the literary sign. For Saussure, the study of phphonologyonology outlined in his Course was an imimportantportant aspect of linguistic scienscience.ce. This discipline was chachargedrged with the task of examining the ververbalbal signifier outside its histhistoricalorical develdevelopment.opment. It proceeded from the the prepremisemise Jajacquescques Derrida has termed "phon“phonocentrism,”ocentrism," namelynamely,, the view that the spoken word is the originaloriginal,, authentic form of lan­lan- guageguage.65. 65 Phonocentrism counters the ininfinitefinite spatiotemporal disdislocationlocation of the sign that relativizes its identity by eliminating the cause of this slippagslippage—writtene-written languaglanguage.e. In Saussurean lin­lin- guistiguistics,cs, the absolutabsolutee selfself-sameness-sameness of the verbal sign is guaran­guaran- teed by its participation in the synchrsynchroniconic system of langue inter­inter- nalized uniformly by every member of the speech commucommunity.nity. Because of its transientransience,ce, inintangibility,tangibility, and absolute proximity to the spspeakingeaking subsubject,ject, voice is much better suitsuiteded to embodying the signifier than than writing isis.. Fixed in permanent and tangible mattmatter,er, the inscription falls outoutsideside the purely mentmentalal langue, and hence is subsubjectject to the vagaries of external forcesforces.. The nu­nu- merous discrepancies between pronuncpronunciationiation and spspelling,elling, in Saussure'sSaussure’s opinion, reveal the inability of the graphic substsubstanceance to represent faithfully the internal system of languagelanguage.. Whether flukesflukes of histhistory,ory, geograpgeography,hy, or false etymologyetymology,, they lead to a singsinglele concluconclusion:sion: "writing“writing obscures lanlanguage;guage; it is not a guise for lanlanguageguage but a disguisedisguise.”66."66 It is, however, obvious that in its raw physical heterogeneity the phonephoné cannot participate in the system of language as Saus­Saus- sursuree conceives of it. ItItss amorphous multmultiplicityiplicity must be reduced to a limitlimiteded inveinventoryntory of elements which can be incorporincorporatedated into the relational grid of langue. HerHeree Saussure'sSaussure’s phonocen­phonocen- trism merges with his logocentric viewview,, accordaccordinging to which voice

65. See, for example, Of0f Grammatology, pp. 2727—44.-44. 66. Course in General Linguistics, p. 30.

232322 A Synecdoche is solely the vehicle of reason and has no value outside this relatiorelationship.nship. "Sound“Sound,”," as he sees it, "is“is only the instrument of thoughtthought;; by itself it has no existenceexistence.”67."67 The phonemephoneme—the-the minimal unit of the signifiersignifier—is,-is, therefore, defined through through its relation to the signsignified—theified-the rational meaning it exprexpresses.esses. "The“The imimportantportant thing in the word is not sound alone but the phophonicnic diffdifferenceserences that make it possipossibleble to distinguish this word from all othersothers,, for diffdifferenceserences carry signifisignification.”68cation."68 Thus, the phoneme is nothing but a speech sound that is capable of difdiffer-fer­ ententiatingiating morphemesmorphemes.. SaussSaussureure illustillustratesrates this point with the Russian spspeecheech sound t. It can be pronounced in a number of waysways:: aspirataspirated,ed, palatalipalatalized,zed, and so forthforth.. The aspaspiratedirated variavariant,nt, though acoustacousticallyically ququiteite distinct, does not differentiate mean­mean- ing in Russian andand,, hence, is not an element of its phonphonologicalological systsystem.em. The palatalized t, on the other hand, as a verbal desi­desi- nence, signals an infiniinfinitivetive form of the Russian verb, in contrast to the nonpalatalized t which in the same position indiindicatescates the third person singsingularular form, and thereforthereforee is a phonemephoneme.. This apapproachproach to phonology provided Jakjakobsonobson with a solu­solu- tion to the two possible sources of relativism within his ex­ex- pressionist model. By procproclaiminglaiming the voice to be the original susubstancebstance of language, phonolphonologyogy eliminaeliminatedted one cause of the spspatiotemporalatiotemporal disldislocationocation of the literary workwork:: its written form. As a mere secondary representrepresentationation of soundsound,, the written text must always relate to the primprimaryary substansubstance—voice—whosece-voice-whose basic structure is provided by the phophonologicalnological system of a given lanlanguage.guage. PhonPhonologyology also takes care of the second cause of semisemioticotic slip­slip- page-thepage—the distdistanceance between the participants in the literary pro­pro- cecess.ss. Of the multmultitudeitude of norms making up languagelanguage,, the pho­pho- nological systsystemem is the most obligatobligatory,ory, the one the interlocutors mustshare if any intercourse at all is to take plaplace.ce. This postupostulatelate stems from the SaussSaussureanurean conception of langulanguageage as a semisemioticotic

67. IbiIbid.,d., p. 8. 68. IbiIbid.,d., p. 11118.8.

223333 Russian Formalism

system whose signisignificatoryficatory mechanism is by definitiondefinition double­double- tieredtiered.. Full-fledgedFull-fledged signs or signifiers that carry meaning re­re- quire the existexistenceence of smsmalleraller sound elements which do not sig­sig- nifnifyy in themsethemselveslves but serve to diffdifferentiateerentiate the signsignifiersifiers of unlike meanings. These meaning-diffmeaning-differentiatingerentiating elementselements,, or phonemes, thus consconstitutetitute the most elemeelementaryntary linguistic sys­sys- tem, which is indisindispensablepensable to the semisemioticotic functioning of lan­lan- guage. In other worwords,ds, according to this view there can be no langulanguageage without a phonemic systsystem.em. TherTherefore,efore, poetic violence cannot deform this system in any significant wayway,, or verbal art would lose its linguistic nature and becobecomeme a "variety“variety of less than perfect vocal musicmusic.”69."69 The. phonologphonologicalical conception of the linguistic signifiersignifier en­en- abledabledjakobson Jakobson to treat poetpoeticic sound in a way radically difdifferentferent from the the transtransrationalrational model of OPOOPOjAZ.JAZ. Even if the phophonicnic stratum of poetic language is deformed on purposepurpose,, its relation to cognitive meaning is not eliminated, for verbal art "o“operatesperates not with sounds but with phonemphonemes,es, i.e., acoustic represerepresenta-nta­ tions capable of being associated with semasemanticntic representrepresenta-a­ titions.”70ons. "70 Even utterances that "d“deliberatelyeliberately strive to avoid any relatirelationshiponship with a given practical language"language” (such as the zaumzaum’' of the Russian Futurists) cannot escape the constraints of phpho-o­ nolognology,y, "for“for insofar as [a given practical language] exists and a phonphoneticetic tradition is present, transrational language is as distdistinctinct from prelingual onoonomatopoeiasmatopoeias as a nude contempcontemporaryorary EurEuro-o­ pean is from a naked troglodyttroglodyte.”7|e."71 Jajakobson’skobson's claim extended not only to poetic production but to reception as well. Once a subsubjectject internalizes the phonologphonologicalical

69. NoveNovejs'ajajfaja russkarusxkajaja poezija,poézija, p. 48. A special problem that deserdeservesves more attention than I can devote to it herheree is the histhistoricalorical changchangeabilityeability of phonemiphonemicc systsystems.ems. In contrast to Saussure, JaJakobsonkobson maintained that these systems evolve. At the same time, he regarded this changchangee as purely phenomenal, not affaffectingecting their "deep“deep structures"structures”——the-the uniuniversalversal and absolute inventinventoryory of hiehierarchicallyrarchically correlated distidistinctivenctive features that in one way or another is implemented in every actual phonologphonologicalical systsystem.em. 70. NoveNovejs'ajajfaja russkarusskajaja poezija,poézija, p. 48. 71. IbiIbid.,d., p. 6767..

22343 4 A Synecdoche systsystem,em, he or she perceives every linguistlinguisticic sound in terms of it. HeHerere the expressionist model didivergesverges from thethepurely acoacousticustic approach to poetry charcharacteristicacteristic of Ohrenphilologi,e0hrenphilologie and its For­For- malist followersfolloWers.. Arguing against one of its basic postulates pro­pro- popoundedunded by SaranSaran—that-that the "theor“theoreticianetician of verse ...... ought to adopt toward verse the attitude of a foreigner who listens to it without knowing the languaglanguage”—jakobsone"-Jakobson wrotewrote:: "Not“Not a singsinglele person perceives the sound formof poetry in his native totongue,ngue, its rhythm in particular, as Saran'sSaran’s foreignerdoesdoes. . Indeed, even this foreigner is fictitifictitious;ous; even his perception would not be purely acoustic. He would merely approachapproach the foreign utter- utter­ ance from the standpoint of his own phonolphonologicalogical systsystem,em, with his own phonphonologicalological habitshabits.. He wouldwould,, so to speak, trans­trans- phonphonologizeologize this ututterance.”72terance."72 Jakjakobsonobson did not stop at criticizing older conceptions of poetic soundsound;; he advanced his own theories about the phonic organiza­organiza- tion of poetrypoetry.. The most ambitious was the proprojectject of a "p“pho-ho­ nological prosody"prosody” laulaunchednched in a comcomparativeparative study of Czech and Russian verse in 1919223.3. Earlier we encouencounteredntered the polariza­polariza- tion of the OPOPOjAZOJAZ membermembershipship on the issue of poetic language as opposed to verse langlanguage.uage. Those on the side of poetic lan­lan- guage considerconsidereded rhythm jujustst one among many devices charcharac-ac­ terizing poetic language, and hence largely ignored it, whereas the others rerejectedjected the notion of poetic langlanguageuage as too vagvague,ue, and focused on the spspecificecific probproblemslems of verse rhythrhythm.m. The ex­ex- pressionist model, however, managed to bring these two per­per- spectives together by integrating versifiversiflcationcation into the overall study of poetic languagelanguage.. Jajakobson’skobson's discussion of verse was indindirectlyirectly a polemic against Brik'sBrik’s identificationidentification of verse with the sisinglengle device of rhytrhythm.hm. AccordAccordinging to Jakobson,jakobson, the mere presence of rhythm in an ut­ut- terance does not render it poeticpoetic,, forrhythm may equally occur in practical languagelanguage.. It is the role rhythm performs in these funfunctionalctional didialectsalects that diffdiffers.ers. "The“The dynamic rhythm of prac-

72. 0 cesies'skomskom stiche, p. 21.

223535 Russian Formalism

tical languaglanguagee is a proceprocessss that automatizes exhalation durduringing an utterutterance.ance. In contrast, poetic rhythm is one of the ways to de­de- autautomatizeomatize the ututterance.terance. It is the prereqprerequisiteuisite of the [ment[mental]al] set toward the time of the utterutterance,ance, what the German psychol­psychol- ogogistsists call the experiencing of time (Zeiterlebni(Zeiterlebnis).s). The division of an utterance intintoo subsubjectivelyjectively equal segmentssegments,, the rhythmirhythmicalcal inerinertiatia that makes us expect the repetition of a spspeciecificfic signal at a spspeciecificfic moment, the repetition of this signal that foregrforegroundsounds that signalized sound vis-a-vis its neighborsneighbors,, all of this is missing in practical language, wherwheree time is not experiencedexperienced.”73."73 This delimitdelimitationation of practical and poepoetictic rhythm proceeds from thethesame principles that JakJakobsonobson empemployedloyed to distinguish poetic language from the other funfunctionalctional didialects.alects. What is in­in- volvvolved,ed, firstof all, is the phenomenphenomenologicalological principleprinciple:: verse trig­trig- gers a particular set towartowardd the utterance in the perceperceivingiving sub­sub- ject. ItItss temtemporalporal dimension, which in commucommunicativenicative discourse is irrelevairrelevant,nt, becobecomesmes the center of attention in verse languagelanguage.. According to JakJakobson,obson, "poetic“poetic time is a typical ErwarErwartungszeit;tungszeit; after a paparticularrticular period expires we expect a particular signalsignal.. This time supsuperimposederimposed upon the ututteranceterance subsubjectivelyjectively trans­trans- forms it.it.”74"74 What is in question herheree is another manifestmanifestationation of the Futurist principleprinciple.. By foregrforegroundingounding a feature which in practical langulanguageage is merely a means toward a commucommunicativenicative end, verse de-famide-familiarizesliarizes the verbal medium and renders prom­prom- inent the intinternalernal structure of the ververbalbal signsign.. Moreover, this trantransformationsformation ememploysploys a particular variant of the two basic devices operoperatingating in every poetic utteranutterance.ce. The speech chain is dissolved into rhythm-rhythm-creatingcreating elements only to be reassembled on the basis of their regular repetitiorepetition.n. At this point, it might apappearpear that Jakobson'sJakobson’s phonolphonologicalogical prosody does not difdifferfer signifsignificantlyicantly from the other Formalists'Formalists’ positions on verse. ViViktorktor SkSklovskij,lovskij, for example, arguing against SpSpencer’sencer's conception of rhythm as an energy-saving mechanismechanism,m, had already pointed out the diffdifferenceerence between

73. IbiIbid.,d., pp. 1717—18.-18. 74. IbiIbid.,d., p. 19. 236 A Synecdoche prosaic and poetic rhythmrhythm—between-between the regular rhythm of a work song, which by automatizing movements tends to save la­la- bor, and the violation of this rhythm in art for the sake of de­de- famifamiliarized,liarized, diffificultcult perperception.75 ception. 75 One could also drdrawaw a paral­paral- lel between TynTynjanov’sjanov's and Jakobson'sjakobson’s discussions of the tern-tem-‘. porality of verse lanlanguage.guage. TomasevsTomasevskij’skij's redefinition of the "rhythm“rhythmicalical impulse"impulse” is also quite close to Jakobson'sjakobson’s under­under- standing of verse perception as the pendulum-like process of expectations and fulffulfillmentsillments aroused in a perceiver'sperceiver’s con­con- sciousness by the regular recurrence of rhythm-crrhythm-creatingeating ele­ele- mentments.s. As I obserobservedved earlier, the Formalists never reacreachedhed an agree­agree- ment as to what those rhythmrhythm-creating-creating elements werewere.. Tyn­Tyn- janov'sjanov’s graphic apprapproach,oach, accordaccordinging to which the ulultimatetimate soursourcece of poetic rhythm is the visual property of the verse line, was rerejectedjected by other Formalists as too simsimplisticplistic to have any explanatexplanatoryory vavalue.lue. TomasevskiTomasevskijj wrote that in ververse,se, "g“graphicsraphics is merely a signsign,, not unlike punpunctuation,ctuation, that expresses other lin­lin- guistic correlations but only sometimes is the sole obobjectivejective evi­evi- dence of these correlations (as when it happens that only punc­punc- tuation makes a sentence undunderstandable).erstandable). For often the other factors are so powerful that grgraphicsaphics becomes redundant and mermerelyely accoaccompaniesmpanies an ututteranceterance that is underunderstandablestandable without it. Thus, Puskin'sPuskin’s classic verses will remain such even if printed as proseprose.”76."76 It is the various prosodic fefeaturesatures existing in lan­lan- guagguage,e, TomasevsTomasevskijkij assertasserted,ed, whose regular alternatioalternationsns create the rhythmrhythmicalical impulse. But even though he seemed intuitively aware of what these featureswere were,, he failed to spspecifyecify them, and went on to embrembraceace Jakjakobson’sobson's phophonologicalnological prprosody,osody, which provided a coherent and simpsimplele hyphypothesisothesis about the naturnaturee of the rhythmrhythm-creating-creating elementelementss in verseverse.77. 77

75. "Isk“Iskusstvo,usstvo, kak pripriém,"em," Poetika:Poétika: SbornikiSbomiki pop0 teoriitearii poetileskogopoétiieskogo jazyka (P(Pe—e­ tersburg, 19191919),), p. 11114.4. 76. '1“Ju. u. TynTynjanov,janov, Problema stichotvornogostichotvomogojazyka,”jaz yka," Russkijsovremennikxovremennik 3 ((1924), 1924), 267. 26777.77. See especially his 19192525 essay, "Stich“Stich i ritmritm,”," 0 stiche.·stiche: StatStat'i'i (Lening(Leningrad,rad, 191929),29), pp.PP- 39-39-42-42.

22373 7 Russian Formalism

Jakobsonian metrics evolved from the linguistlinguisticic principle of poetic language, accoaccordingrding to which, as we have seen, verse is an utterance with a particular organization of its sound stratstratum.um. This organizatorganization,ion, moreover, must be rooted in the phonolphonologi-ogi­ cal system of a particular language. Given the resistance of this system to poepoetictic violation, the linguistlinguisticic principle leads to two conclusiconclusions:ons: first, verse deforms above all the extraextraphonemicphonemic elements of language, and secsecond,ond, it is the inviolainviolableble pho­pho- nolognologicalical elementelementss that provide the organizational base for this violenceviolence.. That is, phophonologicalnological fefeaturesatures are those hitherto elu­elu- sive rhythmrhythm-creating-creating elementselements.. Earlier I tried to show how the diffdifferenceserences among the various FormalistFormalist theories of verse were conditioned by their points of depdeparture.arture. The same applies to Jajakobson.kobson. The other membmembersers of the movement dealt primarily with Russian verseverse:: Jakjakobson’sobson's orientorientationation was comcomparative.parative. As an exile in PragPrague,ue, he was in fact Saran'sSaran’s foreigner forcedforced to experience poetry in an alien langulanguage.age. InIndeed,deed, it was this experience that convinced him of the intimintimateate link between verse and langlanguage.uage. WhiWhilele the other Formalists consiconsidereddered prosodic features such as stress non­non- problematproblematic,ic, Jajakobson,kobson, transplanted into a foreign linguistlinguisticic milimilieu,eu, directdirectlyly witnessed their relativitrelativity.y. This relativity was es­es- pecially evident because Czech and Russian are so similar. At firstfirst glanceglance Puskin'sPuskin’s line appears almost identical to its Czech translattranslation:ion:

RuRussian:ssian: BurBurjaja mglomglojuju nebo kroet CzechCzech:: BoutBouree mlhou nebe krykryje78je78

And yet an actual reading reveals a tretremendousmendous prosodic difdif-­ feferencerence between ththem.em. This diffdifference,erence, Jakjakobsonobson argargues,ues, resultresultss from the dissimdissimilarityilarity of the Czech and Russian phonolphonologicalogical systsystems.ems. While both languages contain dynamic strstress,ess, only in Russian is it a phophonologicalnological eleelement;ment; for example, mukamdka (tor-

78. 0 leffes'skomskom stiche, pp. 4646—47.-47. In English the line means "The“The storm covers the sky with hazehaze”;"; it is from Puskin'sPuskin‘s poem "Zim“Zimnijnij veter"vecer" (Winter EvEvening).ening).

238 A Synecdoche ment) diffdiffereseres frommuka mukd (flour) only in the position of its strstress.ess. Czech strstress,ess, on the other handhand,, always fallson the initial syllable of the word andand,, therefore, is nonphonemic. But vocalic length diffdifferentiateserentiates words in CzechCzech,, forexample, byt (apartment) and byby:t:t (to be)be),, something it cannot do in Russian, where vocalic length is obligatorily bound to stress. Given Jajakobson’skobson's premise that the rhythm-crrhythm-creatingeating elements must be phonologphonologicallyically basedbased,, it might appappearear that the difdif-­ feferencerence between Czech and Russian prosody lies in the fact that the former is quantitquantitativeative (tied to vocalic lengtlength),h), whereas the latter is accentual (tied to word strestress),ss), but, with the exception of the early nineteenth century when a few attempts at quantquantitativeitative metrics apappeared,peared, modern Czech verse, like Russian verse, has been based on the regular alternation of stressed and unstunstressedressed syllablesyllables.s. AccordAccordingly,ingly, Jakjakobsonobson introduced another phonphonologi-ologi­ cal element into his theory-wordtheory—word boundaryboundary.. Justjust as Russian quantity always coincides with strstress,ess, Czech stress (fixed(fixed on the initial syllable of the wordword)) always coincides with word bound­bound- aryary.. Therefore,Jakjakobson obson concconcluded,luded, not stress but word bound­bound- ary is the rhythm-rhythm-creatingcreating element in Czech verseverse.79.79 The foregoing discussion yields the following typology of phonic phenomena that play a role in the constitution of ververse:se: "“(1)( 1 ) the phonologphonologicalical basis of rhythrhythm,m, (2) concomitant extra­extra- phonemic elementelements,s, and (3) autonomous phonphonologicalological elementselements,, or mormoree preciselprecisely,y, phophonologicalnological elements that in a given poetic language are not a factor in the rhythmirhythmicalcal inertiainertia.”80. "80 The pro­pro- found diffdifferenceerence between the CzCzechech and Russian systems of versificationversiflcation becomes obvious if we susuperimposeperimpose this grid upon the prosodic fefeaturesatures with which they operoperate:ate: strstress,ess, quantity, and worwordd boundaryboundary..

79. This is the most controversial point in Jakjakobson’sobson's theory. For the oppos­oppos- ing view, which maintains that stress rather than word boundary constitutes the prosodic basis of Czech verse, seesee,, forexample, J.] MuMukaf‘ovsky,katovsky, "Roman“Roman JakJakob-ob­ sonson:: ZakladyZa’klady leskehoEexke’ho verse,vers'e,"" Na5eNas'e felfee" lo10 (1(1926),926), 217217—20;-20; or M. CCervenka,ervenka, "Der“Der versologische Band von Jakjakobsonsobsons Selected Writings: BemerBemerkungenkungen emeseines BohemistBohemisten,”en," Wiener slawistischerslawistircher Almanach, no. 7 (19(1981),81), 260-65.260—65. So.80. 0 lesc'es'skomskom stiche,sliche, p. 46.

22393 9 Russian Formalism

PhonologPhonologicalical Concomitant Autonomous RRHYTHMICHYTHMIC basis of extraphonemic phophonologicalnological SEGMENT rhythm element element

CZECH word boundary dynamidynamicc stress quanquantitytity RUSSIAN dynadynamicmic stress quantity word boundarboundary?“ys•

Returning to Puskin'sPuskin’s line and its Czech translatiotranslation,n, it is ob­ob- vious now why the two are so diffdifferenterent despdespiteite their susurfacerface simisimilarity.larity. First of all, Jajakobsonkobson argueargues,s, they difdifferfer in their dis­dis- tribution of quantquantity.ity. In the Russian original, following the reg­reg- ular troctrochaichaic alternation of strstresses,esses, every odd syllable is long, whereas in the Czech version only the first and foufourthrth syllables with the diphtdiphthonghong ouon are quantquantitativelyitatively difdifferentfe rent from thethe rest. SecondSecond,, because Russian stress is free,the factthat every word in Puskin'sPuskin’s line is disyldisyllabiclabic is "p“perceivederceived as an episepisodicodic coincidence of the normally autonomous word boundary with the rhyth­rhyth- mical ineinertia.”rtia." In Czech, on the other hahand,nd, with its fixedfixed stress and with "word“word boundarboundaryy the basic rhythm-crhythm-creatingreating factor ... . . the quoted line in respect to its word boundaries is canonical.canonical.”82 "82 This example illustillustratesrates the plausibility of JaJakobson’skobson's hypoth­hypoth- esis about the close link between the prosodic and phophonologicalnological systsystems.ems. It would be wrong to interpret this link in a totally detdeterministicerministic fashifashion,on, to say that one particparticularular phonologphonologicalical system inevinevitablyitably gives rise to one particular system of versifica­versiflca- tition.on. On the contrary, as the histhistoryory of Czech verse has shown, the early ninetnineteentheenth century witnessed a struggle between quan­quan- titative and accentual (or, more precprecisely,isely, acaccentual-syllabic)centual-syllabic) prosprosodies,odies, both based on diffdifferenterent phophonologicalnological elements coex­coex- isting in CzechCzech.. Thus, the actual victory of acceaccentual-syllabicntual-syllabic verse cannot be explained in terms of phonologyphonology.. This was the conclusionconclusionjakobson Jakobson reached in the finalparagraph of his studstudy:y: "I“I think that a versificationversiflcation system can never be totally deduced

Si.81. This is a truncated version of Jakobson'sjakobson’s table from ibid. 82. IbiIbid.,d., p. 47. 240 A Synecdoche

from a given langlanguage.uage. If a versifiversificationcation system is the ununknownknown X, and what is given to us are only the prosodic elements of the langulanguage,age, we can arrive mermerelyely at an indetindeterminateerminate equatioequation,n, i.e.i.e.,, the possibility of several values forthe X. An explanation for the histhistoricalorical choice of this or that solutsolutionion from amongamong thethe severseveralal possible ones involves factors that are outside the pho­pho- netics of the given language, namely, the present poetic tradi­tradi- tition,on, the relatirelationshiponship of the given poetic movement to this tradi­tradi- tition,on, and culturculturalal influinfluences.”83ences."83 This conclusion was not at variance with the ununiversalisticiversalistic thrust of the expressionist modelmodel.. DesDespitepite its possible hethetero-ero­ morphismorphism,m, the essence of vverseerse is still provided by the pho­pho- nological systsystemem of the langulanguageage underunderlyinglying it, the ultimate sys­sys- tem connecting the participants of the liteliteraryrary proceprocess.ss. But, as Stephen Rudy has obseobserved,rved, Jakobson'sjakobson’s conclusion contains the seeds of the fullsubsequent development ofJakobsonian poetipoetics:cs: "It“It anticipates his later realization that literature is part of a 'system‘system of systems'systems’ and its study necessnecessitatesitates a 'correlation‘correlation be­be- tween the literary series and other hishistoricaltorical seriesseries.’.' "84”84 The quotquotationation within Rudy'sRudy’s passagpassagee is taken from the the nine-point thesis written in i1928 928 by TynTynjanov,janov, the leading theoretician of the then-defunct OPOOPOJAZ,JAZ, and Jakobson,jakobson, the vice-chairmanvice—chairman of the newly established Prague Linguistic CirCircle.cle. These theses are gen­gen- erally recognized as marking the end of the Formalist era and the begbeginninginning of a new stagstagee of literliteraryary studies that emeremergedged in Prague under the name of StStructuralism.85ructuralism. 85

83. IbiIbid.,d., p. 11118.8. 84. S. RuRudy,dy, 'Jakobson's“jakobson’s InInquiryquiry intintoo Verse and the Emergence of StructuStructuralral PoeticsPoetics,”," in Sound, Sign and Meaning: Quinquagenary of the Prague Linguistic Circle, ed. L. MateMatejkajka (Ann Arbor, MichMich,., 191978).78). . 85. Cf., for exexample,ample, V. ErliErlich,ch, Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine,History—Doctrine, 3d ed. (The HaHague,gue, 191969),69), p. 13135;5; or L. Matejka and K. PomorsPomorska,ka, "Preface“Preface,”," in their anthology, ReadReadingsings in Russian Poetics: FormalistFormalisl and Structuralist Views (Ann Ar­Ar- bor, MichMich.,., 191978),78), p. viii. UnfUnfortunately,ortunately, a descridescriptionption of the transformation of .jakobson’sJakobson's linglinguisticuistic poetics into Structuralism lies beyond the scope of this book.

241 4 The DeDevelopmentalvelopmental SigSigninificanceficance of RusRussiansian FormalismFormalism

[The scientist] accepts gratgratefullyefully the epistepistemologicalemological conceptual analysisanalysis;; but the external conditiconditions,ons, which are set for him by the factsof experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to an epistepistemologicalemological systsystem.em. He there­there- fore must appear to the systsystematicematic epepistemologististemologist as a type of unscrupulous oppopportunist.ortunist.

-A—ALBERTLBERT EINSEINSTEIN,TEIN, "R“Replyeply to CritCriticism”icism"

Readers who have patiently followed my discussion up to this point might now findfind themselves uneasy aboaboutut its metmetapoeticapoetic methmethod.od. I began by berating those who dealt with ForFormalismmalism in a piecepiecemealmeal fashion,and demanded instinsteadead a holistholisticic approaapproach.ch. Yet have I not treated the Formalist movement as a cluster of loosely connectconnecteded theortheoreticaletical models without any obvious com­com- mon denodenominator?minator? FurthermoreFurthermore,, in chapter r1 I argued that the epistemolepistemologicalogical assumptassumptionsions behind ' the individual FormalistFormalist models were too disdisparateparate to provide a unified basis for the 242 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism movement. I also insistinsisteded on the futfutilityility of a purely histhistoricalorical apapproachproach fordistinguishing Formalism frofromm the other schools that preceded or followed it. Given all these counterindicatiocounterindications,ns, it must surely appear ststrangerange to persist in seeking an overall unitunityy for Russian FormalisFormalism.m. Yet persist I willwill.. For the seseparationparation of Formalist epistepistemologyemology from itsitshisthistory ory with which I began is ultultimatelyimately the cause of the difdifficultiesficulties that we now encounter. Such a separation is quite inapinappropriatepropriate for this movement, whose theoretical hetero­hetero- geneity is largely a fufunctionnction of its histhistoricalorical situatsituation,ion, andand,, vice versa, whose vague histhistoricalorical boundaries can be traced to its epistepistemologicalemological eclectieclecticism.cism. It is a mistake to seek the unity of the school in either of these sphersphereses alonealone;; it must be sought in their conconjunction.junction. In my opinionopinion,, there is an intellectual co­c0- herence to Russian FormalFormalism,ism, and that coherence lies in its evoluevolutionarytionary significance, the developmentdevelopmentalal role it played in the histhistoryory of Slavic literliteraryary theory. This rorole,le, as I shall argue subsequently, consistconsisteded above all in destdestabilizingabilizing the traditional patterns of liliteraryterary scholarscholarshipship and in opening up new and provocative vistasvistas.. ‘ Such an assumassumption,ption, I believebelieve,, is apprappropriateopriate fordealing with a movement as aware of its place in RRussianussian litliteraryerary stustudydy as For­For- malismalism.m. The young theoreticians conceived of their enterprise as a delideliberateberate dedepartureparture fromprevious critical practice. Theirs was to be a truly scientificscientific apapproach proach to literature. AccordAccordinging to Victor Erlich, "t“thehe driving force behind Formalist theorizing was the desire to bring to an end the methodologmethodologicalical confusionprevailprevailing ing in traditional literliteraryary studies and systsystematizeematize liliteraryterary scholascholarshiprship as a distinct and inintegratedtegrated field of intintellectualellectual endeavendeavor.”lor."1 Given this goalgoal,, the "st“stateate of the art"art” oflitofliteraryerary study could not but strike the Formalists as deeply unsatisfactunsatisfactory.ory. "The“The status of liliteraryterary histhistoryory among the other sciences of culturculture,”e," TynTynjanovjanov com­com- plainedplained,, "remains“remains that of a colcolony.”2ony."2 This is so,so,jakobson Jakobson pointed

1. Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine,History—Doctrine, 3d ed. (The Hague, i1969), g6g), pp. 171-171— 7272.. 2. "O“O literaturnoliteraturnojj evolevoljucii,”jucii," ArArchaistychaisty i novatory (Lening(Leningrad,rad, i91929),29), p. 30. 243 Russian Formalism

out, because "lit“literaryerary historians have found a use foranything that came to handhand:: byt,psychology, politipolitics,cs, phiphilosophy.losophy. InInsteadstead of a literary science they created a conglomconglomerateerate of homespun disciplinesdisciplines.”3."3 The criticism that literary histhistoryory was a totally disunifieddisunified fieldfi eld,, however, was not uniunidueque to the FormalistsFormalists.. As early as 1871870,0, Aleksandr VVeselovskij eselovskij had declardeclared,ed, "The“The hihistorystory ofbf literature reminds one of a geographical zone that international law has sanctified as a res nullius, wherwheree a historian of culturculturee and an aestheticiaaesthetician,n, a savant and a student of social thought hunt [side by side]side].. Everyone takes out of it whatwhateverever he can, accordaccordinging to his talents and opinions. The googoodsds or booty carry the same label but are far fromfromhaving the same contcontent.ent. With no prior agree­agree- ment as to norms, everyone constantly returns to the same ques­ques- tition:on: what is liliteraryterary histhistory?”4ory ?"4 VeseloVeselovskij’svskij'sanswer was that literature should be defineddefined in terms of the histhistoryory of ideasideas.. But this solution did not satissatisfyfy the Formalists either, for it simsimplyply confirmedconfirmed their belief that liter­liter- ary study is unsunscientificcientific because it, unlike any other discipline that claims the status of a science, has no distinct obobjectject of inqui­inqui- ryry.. For TomasevskijTomasevskij,, whwhenen traditional critics apapproachedproached the litliteraryerary work as a facetof its author'sauthor’s biograpbiography,hy, a sociosociohistoricalhist orical docdocument,ument, or a manifmanifestationestation of some particular philosophilosophicalphical systsystem,em, they were dissolving litliteraryerary studies into a series of dis­dis- connected disciplindisciplines.5es.5 The lesson that the Formalists drew from their predecessors'predecessors’ foraysinto such heterogheterogeneouseneous cultuculturalral domains was purpurelyely negnegative.ative. "Thanks“Thanks to these inquiriinquiries,”es," Gri­Gri- gorij Vinokur wrote, "we“we have gradgraduallyually begun to learn at least what the obobjectject of poetics or literary histhistoryory is not.not.”6 "6 NeNevertheless,vertheless, out of this negative lesson came a positive pro-

3. NoveNovejsajaj5aja russkarusskajaja poezija:poézija: Nabrosok pervpervyjyj (P(Prague,rague, 191921),2 1), p. II.ll. 4. "Iz“12 vvevvedenijadenijav istoriceskuistoriceskujuju poetipoetiku:ku: VoprVoprosyosy i otvetyotvety,"," lstoric[storiieskajaeskaja poetikapoétika (L(Leningrad,eningrad, 191940),40), p. 5353.· 5. "No“Novava ruska skola v badanibadéni literarnliterarné-historickém,”e-historickem," tr. J. MuMukafovsky,kafovsky, CCasopisasopis pro modemodemifilologiirnifilologii 15 (1(1929),929), 1212—13.-13. 6. "P“Poétika,oetika, linglingvistika,vistika, sociologijsociologija:a: MetMetodologiceskajaodologiceskaja spravkaspravka,”," Lef, no. 3 (19(1923),23), 10104-4.

224444 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism gram for a new litliteraryerary sciencescience,, a CopCopernicanernican revrevolutionolution in liter­liter- ary studstudy.y. BefoBeforere FormaliFormalism,sm, literliteraryary studies revolved around other branches of knowledgeknowledge,, but the FormalistsFormalists provided the didisciplinescipline with its own center of gravity by insisting that it had a unique and particular obobjectject of inquiryinquiry.. In Vinokur'sVinokur’s worwords,ds, the FormalistFormalist revolution boils down to a "simp“simplele idea, that literary science studies literature itself, and not anything elseelse;; that the student of an artwork has as his subsubjectject matter the structure of this work and not factors that are histhistoricallyorically or psychologically concomitant to its creationcreation.”7."7 Or as Ejchenbaumchenbaum put it, "the“the prime concern of the 'F‘Formalists’ormalists' is ...... literaturliterature e as the obobjectject of [literary] studiesstudies.”8."8 This step necessarily involved a new conception of what liter­liter- ature waswas.. Traditional critics had not treated literary texts in terms of psychology, socisociohistory,ohistory, or philosophy just to be per­per- versely "uns“unscientific,”cientific," but because they saw these works as ex­ex- pressions of their authors'authors’ mentmentalal liveslives,, documents of their timetime,, or philosophphilosophicalical meditmeditations.ations. The FormalistFormalist view was quite difdif-­ feferent.rent. For them litliteratureerature was an autonomous reality governed by its own regularity and more or less independent of con­con- tiguous sphsphereseres of culture. From this persperspectivepective the vital issue forliterary science was no longer the investinvestigationigation of other real­real- ities that literary texts might reflereflect,ct, but the descridescriptionption of what it was that made them a literary realreality.ity. "Ther“Theree should be only a singsinglele principrincipleple that estestablishesablishes the content or the obobjectject of a sciencescience,”," fjchenbaumchenbaum declardeclared.ed. "Our“Our principrincipleple is the study of literature as a spspeciecificfic series of phenomena. Next to it ...... there can be no other principprinciple.”9le."9 This primary principle of FormalistFormalist literary sciescience—thence-the speci­speci- ficityficity of its subsubjectject mattermatter—was-was utterly unaunacceptablecceptable to other Russian liliteraryterary critics, regardless of their theortheoreticaletical stripestripe.. Their reactions can be summsummeded up in the questquestion:ion: What are the

7. IbidIbid.. 8. "Teorija“Teorija 'fo‘formal’nogormal'nogo metometoda,”’da,"' Literatura: TeoTeorija,rija, kritika, polemika (Lening(Leningrad,rad, 191927),27), p. 11116.6. m 9.g. "Vokrug“Vokrug voprosa o 'formali‘formalistach,stach,"' Petat'Pec'at’ iirevoljucija, revoljucija, no. 5 (1(1924),924), 4.

224545 Russian Formalism

grgroundsounds for this principprinciple?le? The MaMarxistsrxists offered a predictable answer. In the Formalists'Formalists’ attattemptempt to de-idede-ideologizeologize literature they saw the classical move of bourgeois ideologists to neutralize liter­liter- ature as an effeffectiveective weapon of class strustruggle.ggle. OthersOthers,, forwhom this analysis was too crude, traced the Formalists'Formalists’ view of liter­liter- ature to avantavant-garde-garde artistic practicepractice,, and in particular to Futurist poetipoetics,cs, with its stress on the "self“self-valuable”-valuable" wordword.. ThougThoughh theirs was a more perceptive obobjectionjection than the Marxists'Marxists’ it still requires some modifimodification,cation, foras we have seseen,en, the Formal school was as heterogheterogeneouseneous in its origins as in its theorettheoreticalical modemodels.ls. Some of its members did begin as proponents and interpreters of Futurist art. Others came to Formalism from the mainstream of tradi­tradi- tional literary study and still others entered its orbit after the close relatrelationshipionship with Futurism was over. TrTrue,ue, not all the Formalists complecompletelytely severed their ties to avant-garde art. But the young scholars aspiraspireded to be more than mere spokesmen of a poetic movement. They set out to establish a science of literature capa­capa- ble of dealing with ververbalbal art in all its histhistoricalorical manifmanifestations.estations. These and similar attempts to "deconstruct"“deconstruct” Formalism by pointing out its ideologideologicalical or aesthetic basis proceed from a fundafundamentalmental misunderstmisunderstandinganding of its aims. Though Echen-jchen­ baum argued forthe spspecificityecificity of the subsubjectject matter of literary sciencescience,, he did so not as an article of faith needed to advance either bourbourgeoisgeois or Futurist intinterests,erests, but as a heuristheuristicic device needed to advance sciescience.nce. The postulate of the spspeciecificityficity of literary phenomena, the Formalists maintainmaintained,ed, was not an ap­ap- odictic ststatementatement or an expression of some ontontologicalological commcommit-it­ ment, but merely a hypothesishypothesis,, a cognitive lens forfocusing the material at hand and unfolding a literary theotheory.ry. It was not sacrsacrosanct,osanct, and if proven ununproductiveproductive it could be replareplacedced by any other such devicedevice.. '

We did not and do not have [[chenbaumEjchenbaum wrote in i91925]25] any ...... reaready-made dy-made system or doctrdoctrine.ine. In our research we value theory only as a working hypothesis which helps us to disdiscovercover factsand make sense of ththem:em: that is, to ascertain their regularity and render them a matmaterialerial of studystudy.. Therefore we do not care 246 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism

fordefide finitions,nitions, so dear to epepigones,igones, and do not construct general theoritheories,es, so appealing to eclecticseclectics.. We advance concrete principles and stick to them to the extent that they are jusjustitifiedfied by the materialmaterial.. If the material requires their furfurtherther elaboration or alteration we elaborate or alter themthem.. In this respect we are free enough of our own theoritheories,es, as a science should be if there is a difference between theory and convicticonviction.on. A science lives not by estestablishingablishing certitudes but by overcovercomingoming errorerrors.‘0s.10

This "laying“laying bare of0f heuheuristicristic devicdevices,”es," howevhowever,er, did not pla­pla- cate the detrdetractorsactors of FormaliFormalism.sm. It perhaps refuted the claim that Formalist liliteraryterary science depended on certain ideological or artistic assumptions, but that refurefutationtation only invited a diffdiffer-er­ ent criticiscriticism.m. The notion that basic principles are mere hypoth­hypoth- eses falsififalsifiableable by the facts is a sign of philosophiphilosophicalcal naivete,naiveté, the critics arguargued.ed. Theories should not be advanced in such a ran­ran- dom fashion if science is to make any sensesense.. To proceed prop­prop- erly, students of art should firstfirst of all seek a secure epepis-is­ temologtemologicalical basis for their theortheorizing,izing, which can be provided only by the most genegeneralral branch of knowledgknowledge—philosophy.e-philosophy. The denial of this truthtruth,, the argument gogoes,es, betrays either naive realism or facile emempiricism.piricism. lpIppolitpolit UdusUdus’ev’s' ev's philosophiphilosophicalcal debunking of Formalism ex­ex- emplifiemplifieses this attitudattitude.e.

The Formal method existsexists,, but the Formalists themselves lack any philosophy of this methodmethod...... Do not bother asking them about the philosopphilosophicalhical foundafoundationstions of their own methodmethod.. In vain would you inquirinquiree why, while rebrebellingelling agagainstainst the dualism of "form"“form" and "cont“content,”ent," they introduced another dualidualism,sm, "form"“form” and "mat“material.”erial." And why is the latter better than the former? ...... Why do they break the inteintegralgral work into the elements of form and motivatimotivation?on? Where did they get the criterion forthis delim­delim- itatiitation?on? On the basis of what world view do they eliminaeliminatete the artist'sartist’s world view from their studistudies?es? How can one explain any­any- thing, even the rerejectionjection of a world view, without some alternate world view? ...... Why must litliteraryerary phenomena be severed from all other culturculturalal domaindomains,s, particularly the domain of culturculturalal

1010.. "Teorija“Teorija 'formal‘formal’nogo'nogo metometoda,da,"'yn p. ll117.7. 247 Russian FFonnalism onnalism

ununity:ity: philosophy in its broabroadestdest sense? Why do the Formalists (I know very well whwhy!)y!) deny any philosophiphilosophical-aestheticcal-aesthetic foundfoundationation of their theorytheory?? Do they really think (alas, they dodo!)!) that the theory of art can be foufoundednded outside of philosophiphilosophicalcal aesthet­aesthet— icsics?ll? I I

The charge of philosopphilosophicalhical naivetenaiveté that UdusUdus’ev' ev (whoever is hidden behind this nom de guerre) and like-minded critics level­level- ed agagainstainst the Formalists should not, however, be accepted with­with- out reservatioreservation.n. We have seen that the Formalists were not igno­igno- rant of modermodernn phiphilosophicallosophical developments, and if certain procedures or concepts from that discipline suited their needs they did not hesithesitateate to put them to useuse.. As the flippantflippant SSklovskij klovskij remarked in a ststatementatement that shocked the Marxist estestablishment,ablishment, "We“We are not MaMarxists,rxists, but if in our househhouseholdold this utensil proves necessary we shall not eat with our hands out of spitspite.”l2e."12 Moreover, ifwe look at Echenbaum’sjchenbaum's pre-Formalist essays, we quiquicklyckly realize that the concerns voiced by UdusUdus'ev'ev were not at all alien to him. "E“Everyvery literary histhistorian,”orian," Echenbaumjchenbaum main­main- tained in i91916,16,

no matter whwhatat particular field he chooses to investinvestigate,igate, must rely on a whole series of aesthetic and even epistemoepistemologicallogical pre­pre- suppsuppositionsositions that he acceacceptspts as selfself-evident-evident and that areare,, there­there- fore, totally heterheteronomous.onomous. No matter how well he is insinsulatedulated in his particular fieldfield,, no matter how remote he seems at firstglance from aesthetaestheticsics and epepistemology,istemology, those hidden prpresuppositionsesuppositions will show up in his methodmethod.. For in the huhumanities,manities, more than in other branches of knowledge, there is no method in itselfitself,, sepa­sepa— rate from the the principle that founds it. it.There There is no particular distinct from a generagenerality,lity, there is no analysis without a syntsynthetichetic intuitiintuition.on. If the histhistoryory of litliteratureerature has a future, it will come about onlyonly’ when the philosophiphilosophicalcal attitude of the scholar toward his discipline becomes an absolutabsolutee necessity for hihim.13m.13

This statstatementement susuggestsggests that Echenbaumjchenbaum was defindefinitelyitely a bet-

I!1 1.. "Vz“Vzgljadgljad i nectonecto:: OtryOtryvok,"vok," SovremenSovremenmjanaja literatura: SbomikSborm'k statestatejj (Lenin­(Lenin- gradgrad,, 191925),25), pp. 17176—78.6-78. 12. "Delo,“Delo, kotoroe ja plocho veduvedu,”," Tret'jaTret’ja fafabrikabrika (M(Moscow,oscow, 191926),26), p.p, 88.88, 13. "D“Deriavin,”erfavin," SkvozSkvoz’' literliteraturu:aturu: SbomikSborm'k statestatejj (L(Leningrad,eningrad, 191924),24), pp. 5-6.5—6. 248 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism

ter historian than a prophet. It might also explain why of all the Formalists he was the most capable of providing a synsyntheticthetic overview of the movemovement’sment's intintellectualellectual progrprogram.am. Above all, it offers an alternative to UdusUdus’ev’s'ev's view of ForFormalism.malism. What char­char- acterized the Formalist mode of inquiry was not a naive neglect of philosophiphilosophicalcal assumptassumptionsions but a well-calcuwell-calculatedlated rerejectionjection of philosophy as the ultultimateimate arbitarbiterer of scientificscientific theortheory.y. For the young scholars (as Echenbaumjchenbaum noted in his diary in 191922),22), "a“a ·cconcreteoncrete science [is] not a dirdirectect and immediaimmediatete extension of philosphilosophy.”14ophy."14 Rather than being aphilosophical, the Formalists'Formalists’ theortheoreticaletical posture was consciously antiphilosophiantiphilosophical.cal. Moreover, this posture was perfectly in keeping with the latest trtrendsends in the philosophy of science, which were well known to the FormalistsFormalists.. I have in minmindd in particular HuHusserl’ssserl's Ideen, pub­pub- lished in 1913 and populpopularizedarized in Russia by his student GustGustavav SSpet.pet. 15 In this book the founderof phenomephenomenologynology drdrewew a strict line between sciences of a spspeciecificallyfically philosophicphilosophical al standpoint and those of a dogmatic standstandpoint.point. The former "ar“aree concerned with the sceptical problems relating to the possibility of knowledgknowledge.e. Their obobjectject is fifinallynally to solve the problems in principle and with the apprappropriateopriate generalitygenerality,, and ththen,en, when applying the solu- . tions thus obtaobtained,ined, to study their bearing on the critical tastaskk of determining the eventual meaning and value for knowledge of the resresultsults of the dogmatic sciencessciences.”16."16 The obobjectivesjectives of those practicpracticinging sciences of a dogmatic standpoint are radically diffdiffer-er­ ent. "“TheThe right attitude to take in the pre-philosophicalpre—philosophical andand,, in a good sense, dogmatic spspherehere of inquiryinquiry,, to which all the emempiricalpirical sciences (but not these alone) belong, is in full consciousness to discard all scepticism together with all 'natural‘natural philosophilosophy’ phy ' and 'theory‘theory of knowlknowledge’edge' and findfind the data of knowledgknowledgee there whwhereere they

14. Quoted in M. 0.O. CGudakova’sudakova's commentary to Ju. TynTynjanov,janov, Poetika,Poétika, istoistorijarija literatury, kino (M(Moscow,oscow, 191977),77), p. 454. 15. See SSpet‘spet's letter to HuHusserlsserl of February 26, 191914,14, quoted in E. HolenstHolenstein,ein, ''J“jakobsonakobson and HuHusserl:sserl: A ContContributionribution to the Genealogy of StructurStructuralism,”alism," The Human Context 7, no. 1 (19(1975),75), 62. 16. IdeasIdeas:: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, tr. W. R. BoBoyceyce Gibson (New York, 191962),62), p. 87. 249 Russian Formalism

actually faceyou, whatever diffidifficultiesculties epistepistemologicalemological reflection may subsequensubsequentlytly raise concerning the possibility of such data being therthere.”'7e."17 It is noteworthy that HuHusserlsserl specificallyfically rebuffrebuffss skeptskepticsics (of UdusUdus’ev’s'ev's type) who block the progress of the dogmatic sciences by raising epistepistemologicalemological issues. This procedure he sees as not only unwunwarrantedarranted but premature, for the basic problems of knowledgknowledgee have themselves not been satisfasatisfactorilyctorily solvedsolved.. "“Hav-Hav­ ing regard to the present situation, and so long as a highly dedevelopedveloped critique of knowledgknowledgee that has attained to complete rigrigourour and clearness is lacking, it is in any rate right to fefencence ofofff the fifieldeld of dogmatic research frfromom all 'critical'‘critical’ foformsrms of inquiry. In other worwords,ds, it seems right to us at present to see to it that epistemoepistemologicallogical (which as a rule are scesceptical)ptical) preprejudicesjudices upon whose validitvalidityy as right or wrong philosopphilosophicalhical science has to decidedecide,, but which do not necessarily concern the dogmatic workworker,er, shall not obstructObstruct the course of his inquiriesinquiries.”l8."18 HuHusserl’ssserl's charcharacterizationacterization of the mode of inquiry proper to the dogmadogmatictic sciences explains well the Formalists'Formalists’ steadfast re­re- fusal to engengageage in philosophilosophicalphical didiscussionsscussions ababoutout the epis­epis- temological ramifificationscations of their theoriztheorizing.ing. GiveGivenn the variety of mutmutuallyually incomincompatiblepatible systematizations of knowledknowledgege that comcompetedpeted for recognition in the Russian intellectual life of the time, it was obvious to them that such an unundertakingdertaking could hardly yield satissatisfactoryfactory resultsresults.. MoreoMoreover,ver, becobecomingming embembroiledroiled in the philosophiphilosophicalcal fray would only didistractstract them from what they considerconsidereded their main obobjective:jective: the advancement of a new litliteraryerary sciescience.nce. "Yes,"“Yes,” Tomasevskij replied to those who ac­ac- cused OPOOPOJAZJAZ of methodolmethodologicalogical unrunreeflexiflexiveness,veness, "the“the For­For- malists deal with methodologmethodology,y, but only as a concrete testing of the literary histhistoricalorical methods in their researresearch,ch, and not as a methomethodologydology masking basically ememptypty talk about what is liter­liter- atature,ure, how it relates to the general prproblematicoblematic of spirit, epis-

i7.17. IbiIbid.,d., p. 86. i818.. IbiIbid.,d., p. 87.

22505 0 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism temologtemology,y, and metaphysimetaphysics.”19cs."1 9 In a similar vein, Echenbaumjchenbaum blasted his scholarly contemporaries forforgetting literatureliteraturein the heat of lofty philosophiphilosophicalcal discussionsdiscussions:: "H“Henceence the new ar­ar- dor of scientific positivism charcharacteristicacteristic of the FormalistsFormalists:: the rerejectionjection of philosophiphilosophicalcal prespresuppositions,uppositions, aesthetic interprinterpreta-eta­ tiontions,s, and so on. The break with philosophiphilosophicalcal aesthetics and ideological theories of art was dictated by this state of afaffairs.fairs. It was necessarnecessaryy to turn toward the factsfacts,, leave behind general schemes and problproblems,ems, begin in the middlemiddle—at-at the point wherwheree the artistic fact faces us. Art had to be tackled didirectlyrectly and sci­sci- ences to becobecomeme concreteconcrete.”20."20 We now have an answer, I believe, to the problem with which this chapter openedopened.. The common denominator, the "absolute"“absolute” prespresuppositionupposition of the Formalists'Formalists’ litliteraryerary sciencescience,, was that there should be no prepresuppositionssuppositions in scientifiscientific inquirinquiry.y. This seemiseeming-ng­ ly simsimpleple and reasonable progrprogram,am, the demand forthe elimina­elimina- tion of all "m“metaphysical”etaphysical" commitments from science, under closer scrutscrutinyiny becobecomesmes ququiteite a complex issue. In the firstpla place,ce, the idea of presuppresuppositionlesspositionless knowledgknowledgee by no means originat­originat- ed with Russian FormaliFormalism;sm; in fact its wide circulation caused it to acquire a great variety of meanings. In the second pplace,lace, becabecauseuse of the hetheterogeneityerogeneity of the Formalist movement itself and its developmentdevelopmentalal fluidfluidity,ity, didifferentfferent members on diffdifferenterent occasions ututilizedilized the idea of prepresuppositionlesssuppositionless knowledge in quite dissimilar waways.ys. ThereforeTherefore,, it might be useful totospecifspecify y at the onset of our discussion the main functions of this notion in Formalist discourdiscourse.se. First of all, "presupp“presuppositionlessositionless knowledge"knowledge” signified a So­So- cratically naive, "k“know-nothing”now-nothing" attitude toward the subsubjectject mat­mat- ter of literary studies, which the Formalists waved as a polemical flagbefore the literary-theorliterary-theoreticaletical establestablishment.ishment. On a more so­so- phisphisticatedticated levellevel,, this idea imimpliedplied not so much the abolition of all prespresuppositionsuppositions as the Formalist quest fora secursecuree basis for

1919.. "F“Formal’nyjormal'nyj metodmetod:: Vmesto nekrologa,"nekrologag" SovremenSovremennajanaja literatura, p. 14148.8. 20. "Teorija“Teorija 'for‘formal’nogomal'nogo metodametoda,’","' p. 12120.0.

22515 I Russian Formalism

the discipline of literary scienscience.ce. Such a basis would not itself qualifqualifyy as a prespresuppositionupposition in the ususualual sense of this wordword.. It would be selfself-evident-evident or certain and hence, unlike its tradtraditionalitional coucounterparts,nterparts, obligobligatoryatory and imimperviouspervious to any further epis­epis- temologtemologicalical critique (which as a rule invites an infiinfinitenite regrregress).ess). Finally, in what seems the most fruitful apprapproachoach to this idea, "presup“presuppositionlesspositionless knowledge"knowledge” expressed the Formalists'Formalists’ deep­deep- seated skeptskepticismicism about the adequacy of any systematic or uni­uni- fied accaccountount of presupresuppositionsppositions in sciencescience.. Given this imimpos-pos­ sibilitysibility,, the Formalists conceived of their own scientificscientific ententer-er­ prise as a process unfounfoldinglding in spite of this imimpossibilitypossibility and in the course of time consistently negnegatingating all of its own prpresuppo-esuppo­ sitisitions.ons. The first meaning of "p“presuppositionlessresuppositionless knowledge"knowledge” as an epiepistemologicallystemologically fresh ststart—isart-is undunderstandableerstandable within the his­his- torical context that gave rise to FormaFormalism.lism. Dissatisfiedwith con­con- temtemporaryporary literary studies whose apprapproachesoaches derived from metaphysical, spespeculativeculative sources, the young scholars wished to start all over again, to wipe the slate cleanclean.. And this goal could best be achievedachieved,, they believbelieved,ed, by expunging not only previous presuppresuppositionspositions but all prespresuppositions.uppositions. Yet obviously the positive science of literatureliterature,, at least as the Formalists envisioned it, could not proceed from a mere nenegation.gation. IfIf,, accordaccordinging to their primary principleprinciple,, literary study has a specificsub subjectject mat­mat- ter, its task would have to be to pin down and descrdescribeibe this specifispecificity,city, to explain what makes litliteratureerature litliterature.erature. In my very formuformulationlation of this notinotion,on, thoughthough,, I cannot but notnoticeice the deliberate vagueness of the spspeciecificityficity principleprinciple.. It hypothesizes the distdistinctnessinctness of literary phenomena from other cultural do­do- mains without stipulating in the least in what this distinctness consists. By programmprdgrammaticallyatically excluding all prior presuppresupposi-posi­ tiotionsns from their inquiry, the Formalists seemed to be caught in an obvious paradoxparadox.. They insisted that literature has a dis­dis- tinctness of its ownown;; yet any specifispecificationcation of this distinctness would ententailail a commitment on their part, a prpresuppositionesupposition of their owown.n.

22525 2 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism

At this point the idea of presupresuppositionlessppositionless knowledgknowledgee in its second meaning becomes vital forFormalist theorytheory.. The young scholars werweree willing to put their necks on the line and propose that what they saw was the distdistinctiveinctive featurfeaturee of literliterature.ature. They held that this ultimate grogroundund of their literliteraryary science was qualitatively diffdifferenterent from the traditional presuppositions of the discipline. It was selfself-evident-evident or certcertain,ain, in the sense that it was derived from thethe very subsubjectject matter of their inquinquiryiry and not fromany speculative, nonscientificnonscientific soursources. ces. In this quest for a secure ground of literliteraryary sciencescience,, the Formalists associated themsthemselveselves wwithith some of the most productive currents in mod­mod- ern thought which pursued the same obobjectivejective in other disci­disci- plines or for knowledgknowledgee in generalgeneral.. NinNineteenth-centuryeteenth-century positivism was certainly one of those cur­cur- rentsrents.. The positivists declared themselves totally free of meta­meta- physical prepresuppositions,suppositions, deriving their knowledgknowledgee of the world solely from observable facts as sensorsensoryy experience fufurnishesrnishes ththem.em. This positivistic emempiricism—thepiricism-the reduction of factsto sen­sen- sory data-fodata—foundund its most susustainedstained appapplicationlication in OPOJAZ in the early dadays.ys. In a radical move the young scholars reduced the literary work solely to its phonic stratum and directed all their efforts to discovering the immanent laws of sound that charac­charac- terize poetic disdiscourse.course. This is not to say that the Formalists were unaware of the fact that literliteraryary texts are semantsemanticallyically chargedcharged,, and hence involve valuesvalues,, ideas, and other qualities not open to direct sensorsensoryy experience. RathRather,er, they would argue that these qualities do not constconstituteitute the essence of litliterature.erature. What makes texts literary is the particular organization of their palpalpablepable substancesubstance:: soundsound.. Whether spspeakingeaking of the "clustering“clustering of liq­liq- uidsuids,”," "sound“sound repetitionsrepetitions,”," or "sonorous“sonorous chordschords,”," the early For­For- malists were arguing that the diffdifferentialerential qualitqualityy of verbal art lies in its phonic stratstratum.um. The reduction oflitliteratureerature to its senso­senso- ry vehicle might appear quitquitee strange taken outside its histhistoricalorical context. But at the same time that it was formulatformulated,ed, the Futurist experiments with zaumzaum’—transrati0nal' -transrational langlanguageuage deprdeprivedived of meanimeaning—providedng-provided the young theoreticians with empirempiricalical evi-

225353 Russian Formalism

dence that the manipulamanipulationtion of the phonephoné alone is sufficientsufficient to generate poetipoeticity.city. Even when in the early twenties the Formalists rerejectedjected the belief that the spspeciecificityficity of literary phenomena resides only in its sensory ststratum,ratum, they did not accoaccordinglyrdingly abandon their com­com- mitment to presuppresuppositionlesspositionless knowledknowledge,ge, the program for a literary science that would be solely a cognitive extextensionension of the factsunder studstudy.y. They merely changchangeded their minds about what the liteliteraryra_ry facts were. In doing so, they were perfectly consistent with other turn-ofturn-of-­ the-centhe-centurytury scholars who searched for selfself-evident-evident grougroundsnds of knowledgknowledge.e. Positivist science was then cocomingming under heavy at­at- tactack,k, but not all critics didisagreedsagreed with its goal of eliminating metaphysimetaphysicalcal presuppresuppositionspositions and relying exclusively on the factsfacts.. What critics did question was positivist phenomenalphenomenalism,ism, the belief that only observable facts, those furnishedby sensory perceptiperception,on, are the gegenuinenuine obobjectject of scientificscientific inquiryinquiry.. They considered the positivist commitment to experience as the sole sousourcerce of knowledgknowledgee too limiting and offered more adequate procedures for a direct, unmediunmediatedated grasgraspp of reality. Among the welter of postpositivist notions of sciencescience,, the most influentinfluentialial for the Formalists were HuHusserl’ssserl's phenomenolphenomenologyogy and Saussure'sSaussure’s linguislinguistics.tics. HusHusserlserl was farfrom denig denigratingrating the scientifiscientificc vigor of positipositivism.vism. "Em“Empiricisticpiricistic NaNaturalism,”turalism," he wrote in Ideen,Idem, "s“springs,prings, as we must recorecognize,gnize, from the most praiseworthy motimotives.ves. It is an intellectually practical radicalradicalism,ism, which in oppoppositionosition to all 'idols‘idols,’,' to the powers of tradition and susuperstition,perstition, to crude and refinedrefined preprejudicesjudices of every kindkind,, seeks to establish the right of the selfself-governing-governing Reason to be the only authoauthorityrity in matters that concern truthtruth.”2l."2 1 HoweverHowever,, a fal­fal- lacy was built intintoo the positivist progrprogram,am, Husserl insiinsisted,sted, which stemmed from its conflationfiation of facts with sensorily perceptible phenomena. "The“The fundamentfundamentalal defectof the emempiricist’spiricist's argu­argu- ment lies in this, that the basic requirrequirementement of a return to the

221. i. Ideas, p. 74.

225454 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism

'facts‘facts themselves'themselves’ is identifiedidentified or confused with the requirement that all knowledgknowledgee shall be grounded in exexperience.”22perience."22 No scien­scien- tistist,t, HussHusserlerl arguedargued,, proceeds in research through pure experi­experi- ence. Such an apprapproachoach could provide no more than knowledgknowledgee of a singsinglele fact in ina a unique spspatiotemporalatiotemporal nexnexus,us, that is, an accidaccident.ent. ScientificScientific lawslaws,, in order to qualifqualifyy as suchsuch,, must have broadbroaderer imimplications,plications, must appapplyly to a category of phenomena. The notion of the category clearly exceeds the empiempiricalrical realm and is not a product of didirectrect experience. It is grgroundedounded in what HuHusserlsserl terms the "esse“essentialntial insinsight”ight" that discerns in a sensory multmultitudeitude the categorical eidos common to all the obobjectsjects of the same categorycategory,, in fact, constituting it. HuHusserl’ssserl's name for thethe "science“science which aims exclexclusivelyusively at es­es- tabltablishingishing the 'k‘knowledgenowledge of essences'essences’ [W[Wesenerkennmisse]esenerkenntnisse] and ab­ab- solutely no 'fact‘facts’s' "” was "p“pureure phenomenphenomenology.”23ology."23 Such a science would proceed not fromsensor sensoryy experience but fromintuition­intuition— the direct grasp of the essences underunderlyinglying the phenomenal world which provide it with its categorical identity. And whereas positivispositivism,m, in HuHusserl’ssserl's opinion, by uncuncriticallyritically privileging expe­expe- rience as the ultimatultimatee guarantor of truthtruth,, had actually betrayed the idea of presuppresuppositionlesspositionless knowledgknowledge,e, phenomenology pos­pos- tulated it in its full puritypurity.. "We“We start out from that which ante­ante- dates all standstandpoints:points: from the totality of the intuitively self­self- given which is prior to any theorizing reflexioreflexion,n, from all that one can immeimmediatelydiately see and lay hold of, provided one does not allow oneself to be blinded by preprejudice,judice, and so led to ignore a whole class of genuine datdata.a. If by 'Positivism'‘Positivism’ we are to mean the absolute ununbiasedbiased grgroundingounding of all science on what is 'p‘positive,’ositive,' i.e.i.e.,, on what can be primordially apapprehended,prehended, ththen,”en," HusHusserlserl declareddeclared,, "it“it is we who are the genuine positivistspositivists.”24."24 In this respect, the later work of Formalism can be seen as a "pur“puriifiedfied”" positivism as wellwell.. Whereas HuHusserlsserl was providing a prescription for thethe science

22. IbiIbid.,d., pp.pp- 74-75.74—75- 23. IbiIbid.,d., p. 40.40- 24. IbiIbid.,d., p. 78.

225555 Russian Formalism

of all sciencessciences,, Ferdinand de Saussure was pursuing a more limlimitedited gogoal.al. He wished to establish the ultultimateimate foundations of a singsinglele disciplinediscipline—a-a science of languagelanguage.. In this respect, his undeundertakingrtaking was much closer to that of the FormalistsFormalists,, who as­as- pired to do the same for literatuliterature.re. The task that the Swiss linguist set out to accaccomplishomplish might be characharacterized_cterized in Hus­Hus- serlian terms as the consconstructiontruction of a "r“regionalegional ontologyontology,”," the isolation of the eidos that makes linglinguisticuistic facts linglinguistic.uistic. Tradi­Tradi- tional apprapproachesoaches to language were unsaunsatisfactory,tisfactory, SaussurSaussuree maintainedmaintained,, because they never asked the essentessentialial questiquestion,on, "what“what is languaglanguage?”e?" InsInstead,tead, they stopped at the emempiricalpirical level and rather than studying language, concenconcentratedtrated on its phphysical,ysical, psychological, and cultural manifmanifestations.estations. InInevitably,evitably, from this persperspectivepective "the“the obobjectject of linglinguisticsuistics appappearsears as a confused massmass of hetheterogeneouserogeneous and unrunrelatedelated thingthings.”25s."25 To rectifrectifyy this situa­situa- tition,on, Saussure prproposedoposed the strict separation of what is lin­lin- guistguisticallyically phenomenal, individual, and accidaccidentalental from what is essentialessential,, socialsocial,, and rule-grule-governed.overned. He bisected langlanguageuage intintoo actual speech (parole) and potenpotentialtial linguistic system (langue) and proclaimed the latter the sole obobjectject of linguistics. Saussure argued that linguists should not ststartart with the obser­obser- vation of emempiricalpirical realitreality,y, forin their psychophypsychophysicalsical actualityactuality,, individual utterances are totally disdisparate.parate. InInstead,stead, linguists should proceed from an insight into the essence of langulanguage,age, from their intuitintuitiveive grasp of langue, which provides all utter­utter- ances with their linguilinguisticstic identity but is never fully imimple-ple­ mentmenteded in any of themthem.. SecondSecond,, in orgorganizinganizing this knowledgknowledgee lingulinguistsists need not draw on patterns and schemes extrinsic to langlanguage.uage. Because linguilinguisticstic facts are by their very essence sys­sys- temic, they can be treated adequately only on the basis of the system (langue) that they engender. And because Saussurean linguists proceed from an intuintuitiveitive gragraspsp of langue, the obobjectject of their inquinquiryiry furnishes them with a framework for the system­system- atization of their knowledgknowledge.e.

_ 25. Course in General Linguistics, tr. and ed. W. Baskin (New York, 191959),59), p. 9.g. 256 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism

Saussure'sSaussure’s and HuHusserl’ssserl's influinfluenceence on the Formalists was pro­pro- foundfound,, as we have already seen. HuHusserl’ssserl's program found its most faithful follower in the vice-chairman of the Moscow Lin­Lin- guistic CirCircle,cle, Roman Jajakobson.kobson. By postulating that literarinessliterariness. . rather than literature was the obobjectject oflitliteraryerary sciencescience,]akobson, Jakobson was conceiving of poetics as an eideteideticic disciplinediscipline.. Furthermore, in definingdefining the disdistinctivetinctive fefeatureature of litliterature,erature, he utilized Hus­Hus- serl'sserl’s concept of the expresexpression,sion, a sign whose idenidentitytity lies in the nonemnonempiricalpirical domaindomain.. It was exactly this concept that enabled him to transcend the empirempiricismicism of the early OPOJAZ membersmembers,, for whom the specificityficity of poetic langlanguageuage lay in its sensory stratstratum.um. ThougThoughh the impimpactact of HuHusserl’ssserl's thougthoughtht on the other Formalists is less clear, in genergeneral,al, phenomenology was an imimportantportant component of the antipantipositivistositivist climate surrounding the later phases of Formalist theorizing. Yet its methods for grasgraspingping essences apappearedpeared to them too abstract and too impimpli-li­ cated in what they regarded as purely philosophiphilosophicalcal issues to be directly apapplicableplicable to their own enterprise. AccorAccordingly,dingly, they sought their inspirinspirationation for treatitreatingng the spspeciecificityficity of litliteraryerary phenomena elsewheelsewhere—inre-in SaussurSaussureanean linguistilinguistics.cs. As II observed earlier, SaussurSaussuree and the Formalists werweree purpur-­ suing the same obobjective:jective: to wrest their respective fields from other discidisciplinesplines that had traditionally domindominatedated thethem.m. Saus­Saus- sure'ssure’s Course provided the young Russians with a well-well-elaboratedelaborated program forwhat they themselves wished to achieve in literary studiesstudies:: a science generated intrinsicallyintrinsically,, on the basis of its own subsubjectject matter. SaussurSaussure’se's path-breaking discussion of the es­es- sence of langlanguageuage susuggestedggested where the spspecificityecificity of literary phenomena might lie. Like langlanguage,uage, literature is a social instinstitu-itu­ tiotion,n, and it is the literliteraryary syssystem—thetem-the set of norms valid for a given collectivicollectivity—thatty-that ultimately determines whether a particu­particu- lar text is poetic or not. This conceptconceptionion of liliteratureterature clearly informed TynTynjanov’sjanov's notion of literary history, Jakobsojakobson’sn's poet­poet- ic language, and to a great extent TomasevsTomasevskij’skij's metrimetrics.cs. The antipositivist rebelrebellionlion in EurEuropeanopean intellectual liflifee also provoked interest in scientifscientificic models that predated positivismpositivism..

22575 7 Russian Formalism '

In rerejectingjecting the scientifiscientificc inquinquiryiry of the immimmediateediate paspast,t, scholars were drawn to achievementachievementss that the positivists had branded passe.passé. This development helps to accoaccountunt for the revival of Goethe'sGoethe’s morpmorphology,hology, which several Formalists tratransplantednsplanted into the realm of literary studies. The theortheoryy of organic forms advanced by the German poet-tpoet-turned-naturalisturned-naturalist was in some respects quitquitee similar to the notion of science that was emeemergingrging some huhundredndred years later. In the spspiritirit of a Spinozan "“scientiascientia intuitiva,intuitiva,”" Goethe had striven to grasp the "fo“formalrmal essence"essence” of living beingsbeings,, the ideal Ur-TUr-Typyp that underlies all actual organisms desdespitepite their perplexing emempiricalpirical heterogheterogeneity.26eneity.26 The dynam­dynam- ic notion of natunaturere in GoetheGoethe’s's thought provided a particular attraction for the modern periperiod.od. What Goethe hoped to dis­dis- cover were the generative rules gogoverningverning the formation and transformationof all organic forms. This apprapproachoach was close to the hearts of Formalists seeking the essentessentialial invariant of literary genres and didissatisssatisfiedfied with SSklovskij’sklovskij'sovertly ststaticatic conception of the litliteraryerary work as a "sum“sum of devicesdevices.”." Thus, positivismpositivism,, the phenomenolphenomenologicalogical pupuririficationfication of positipositivism,vism, and the science precprecedingeding positivism all entered Formalist thought through their search forthe ultimultimateate grgroundsounds of litliteraryerary sciencescience.. The foregoing discussidiscussionon helps illusillustratetrate how the Formalists went about their science of literatuliterature.re. They started from a gen­gen- eral hypothesis that the literary series has an idenidentitytity of its own and that literary facts constitute a realitrealityy of a difdifferentferent order from other culturculturalal phenomena. Guided by their belief that a scholarly theory must be above all a cognitive extension of its subsubjectject mattmatter,er, they at firstfirst looked forthe specificityspecificity of verbal art in its sensorsensoryy stratum and later in a varietvarietyy of nonempnonempiricalirical "deep“deep structures"structures” ununderlyingderlying the literary process and man­man- ififestedested in actual worksworks.. NeNevertheless,vertheless, even a quick glance rrevealseveals the obvious inconsis­inconsis- tency of Formalist procprocedures.edures. These proponents of a "pur“puree

26. "Br“Briefief auf F. H.JH.]ac0bi,acobi, 5. Mai 11786,” 786," Goethes Werke (Weimar, 181887—1912),87-1912), sec. 4, vol. 77,, p. 21214.4. 258 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism science of literature"literature” indiscrimindiscriminatelyinately borrowed frames of refer­refer- ence from other disciplinesdisciplines:: linglinguistics,uistics, philosophilosophy,phy, or biologybiology.. Every FormalistFormalist modelmodel,, desdespitepite the claim that scientific knowl­knowl- edge must be presuppositipresuppositionless,onless, arose from preconceived ideas ababoutout literature and molded its data accordaccordinging to a preexistent matrix. Given this fact, should we not assume that the Formal school failed to accoaccomplishmplish its own progrprogram?am? The answer to this ququestion,estion, I believebelieve,, is no. Here we should return to the third meaning of prpresuppositionlessesuppositionless knowledgknowledgee in Formalist parlparlance.ance. PrProfoundlyofoundly mistrustmistrustfulful of any unififieded or systsystematicematic accoaccountunt of scientific prespresuppositions,uppositions, the Formalists conceived of science as a contention among theoritheories,es, a selfself-cor--cor­ recting prprocessocess of elimination and attritioattrition.n. AccAccordingording to Jurjurijij StrStriedter’siedter's keen observatiobservation,on, "t“thehe histhistoryory and theory of Russian Formalism are an uniuninterruptednterrupted dialogue between the For­For- malists and their opopponents,ponents, but even more so among the For­For- malists themselvthemselves,es, who opopposedposed and criticized one another...... They were all at one and the same time partners and adversaries in the fascinatingdidialogue alogue which produced and rerepresentedpresented the formal methodmethod.”27."27 What charcharacterizesacterizes FormalisFormalism,m, ththus,us, is its "eristic"“eristic” mode of theoritheorizing:zing: its refusal to reduce the hetero­hetero- geneity of art to a single explaexplanatorynatory schemescheme.. "“EnoughEnough of monismmonism!”!" Echenbaumjchenbaum had declardeclareded in 191922.22. "We“We are pluralistspluralists.. LifLifee is diverse and cannot be reduced to a singsinglele principprinciple.”28le."28 By proceedproceedinging from very didissimilarssimilar premisespremises,, the young scholars turned their prespresuppositionsuppositions agagainstainst themselvthemselves,es, underundercutting,cutting, subverting, and refuting each other. ThThus,us, in its histhistoricalorical dynamidynamics,cs, Russian Formalism is not the sum total of its theoriestheories—a-a ststaticatic set of models derived from a variety of sousources—butrces-but a polemos, a strustruggleggle among contradicto­contradicto- ry and incomincompatiblepatible views none of which could become the abso­abso- lute ground of a new liliteraryterary sciencescience.. TomasevskiTomasevskij’sj's remark that

27. "Zur“Zur formalistischen TheorieTheorieder Prosa und der literarischen EvolutionEvolution,"," quoted from EnglishEnglish tr. by M. NiNicolson,colson, "The“The Russian Formalist Theory of ProseProse,”," PTL 2 (1(1977),977), 435435.· 28. "5“5=100,",Kniz'nyj=100," Knifoyj ugol,ago], no. 8 (19(1922),22), 40.

225959 Russian Formalism

"the“the Formalists rerejectedjected more than anything else the excessive tendenctendencyy toward inertia"inertia” encapsuencapsulateslates the movement'smovement’s attitude not only toward previous critical schools but also toward its own theoritheories.29es.29 "In“In the momemoment,”nt," Echenbaumjchenbaum wrotewrote,, "that“that we our­our- selves are comcompelledpelled to admit that we have a universal theorytheory,, ready for allall the the contingencies of past and future and thereforthereforee not in need or capable of evolving, we would have to admit that the Formal method had ceased to exist, that the spirit of scien­scien- tific inquiry had dedepartedparted from it."3°it.”30 Such a view of scienscientifictific inquinquiryiry as an incessant strustruggleggle among provisional frames of refreferenceerence was conditiconditioned,oned, I be­be- lieve, by certain prpragmaticagmatic considerconsiderations,ations, the firstfirst of which is the collective naturnaturee of Formalist theorizing. "The“The evoluevolutiontion of the Formal methodmethod,”," Echenbaumjchenbaum insiinsisted,sted, "ap“appearspears as a con­con- sistent development of theortheoreticaletical principlprinciples,es, independent of the role any one of us individuaindividuallylly played in it."3it.”311 This selfself-­ abnegation is quite understunderstandableandable if we do nonott forget that the Formalists as a grgroupoup pursued a higher goalgoal:: the trantransformationsformation of literary studies intintoo a sciencescience.. MeasurMeasureded by this goal, it seemed more reasonable to stress the imimpermanence,permanence, the tran­tran- sience of one'sone’s own theory than to maintain it at any cost and thereby endanger the grgroup’soup's loyalty and the commoncommonalityality of their ententerprise.erprise. Strategically speaking, the centrifugcentrifugalal tenden­tenden- cies so strong within Formalism had to be balanced by an imimplicitplicit agragreementeement to disadisagreegree if this movement were to succeedsucceed.. The eristic mode of theorizing was usefusefulul in still another wayway..

29. "No“Novava ruska skola v babadénidani literame-hiliterarné-historickém,’storickem,", 12. 30. "Teorija“Teorija 'forma‘formal'nogol'nogo metodametoda,’",' " p. 14148.8. Readers familiar with with recerecentnt developdevelopmentsments in the philosophy of science might recognize that the Formalist view of the "spirit“spirit of scientificscientific inquiry" ananticipatesticipates to some dedegreegree Paul Feyera­Feyera— bend'sbend’s "anarchistic“anarchistic theory of knowledge" (Against Method [London, 191975]).75)). It is noteworthy that the Formalists in their polemics with Marxism occasoccasionallyionally in­in— voked the "anarchy“anarchy of liflife,"e,'' a notion that is always incomprincomprehensibleehensible to the adherents of the rigid and doctrinairdoctrinairee Marxist Weltanschauung. Explicitly com­com— paring the struggle between the traditional philphilologistsologists and the Formalists to that between the MaMarxistsrxists and anarchists, Echenbaumjchenbaum exclexclaimed,aimed, "Lif“Lifee is not built accordaccordinging to Marx-allMarx—all the better"better” (''5=(“5: 10100,"0," 41)41).. 31. "Teorija“Teorija 'for‘formal'nogomal'nogo metometoda,’"da,"' p. 147.

262600 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance ofRussian‘Russian Formalism

As I argued earliearlier,er, by rerejectingjecting the prepresuppositionssuppositions of the older critical schools as "metaphysical"“metaphysical” the Formalists could distance themselves from the past and launch their new literary science from point zerozero.. To comcompetepete with elaborate principles and methods that had been in circulcirculationation fordecades, however, the rising scholars had to advance convincing substitutes in the shorshortesttest time possible, and here their notion of prespresupposi-upposi­ tionless knowledge proved extremely effectieffective.ve. Bound merely by a general hypothesis aboaboutut the spspecificityecificityof the literary series and an agreeagreementment to disadisagree,gree, the young scholars were able to genegenerate,rate, seemiseeminglyngly overnight, an amazing variety of theories concerning the most dispardisparateate fieldsfields of litliteraryerary stustudy:dy: versifica­versiflca- tiotion,n, narratolognarratology,y, genre theortheory,y, and liliteraryterary histhistory.ory. True, some of their more flamboyantflamboyant hypothypothesesheses fell by the waysidwayside,e, but many others took firmfirm rooroot,t, becbecomingoming the common property of modern literary scholarscholarship.ship. DespitDespitee this succesuccess,ss, the FormalistsFormalists’' victory was to some degree Pyrrhic. They changed the entire coucourserse of Russian literarliteraryy ststudy;udy; yet no sooner had they done their work and suffsufferedered disdispersionpersion than their closest heirsheirs,, the BaBachtinchtin circle and Prague StStructuralists,ructuralists, werweree already declaring them papassé.sse. The BaBachti-chti­ nians set themselves up as uncomuncompromisingpromising critics of FormalFormalism.ism. They viewed its members as their enemiesenemies,, with the imimportantportant qualification that one should "appr“appreciateeciate a good enemy much more than a bad allally.”32y."32 The Prague theotheoreticians,reticians, perhaps be­be- cause of the Formalist contingent among themthem,, were much bet­bet- ter disdisposedposed ttowardoward their Russian predecessorspredecessors.. NevNevertheless,ertheless, the two groups mountmounteded quite similar campaigns agagainstainst their Formalist precursorsprecursors.. The main target of the BaBachtinians’chtinians' critique was the Formalist visionVision of literature as an autonomous reality independent of other cultculturalural domainsdomains.. By challenging this viewview,, the BaBachti-chti­ nians were not, however, returning to the old apprapproachesoaches dis-

32. P. N. MedvMedvedev,edev, Formal'Formal’nyjnyj metod v literaturovedenii: KritileskoeKritiieskoe vvedenie v sociologileskusociologic'eskujuju poetikupoétiku (L(Leningrad,eningrad, 191928),28), p. 232.

261 Russian FoFonnalismrmalism

credited by the FormalistsFormalists.. TTheirheir new persperspectivepective is apparent in the very firstfirst sesentencentence of Medvedev'sMedvedev’s book-length critique of FormaliFormalism:sm: "Lit“Literaryerary studystudy,”," he wrotewrote,, "is“is one branch of the extensive science of ideologies that encompasses ...... all all the sphersphereses of man'sman’s ideological creativitycreativity.”33."33 This opening sentence indicates the didirectionrection of the entire studystudy:: the presentpresentationation of literature as an ideological phenomenon closely related to other such phenomena (p(politics,olitics, religioreligion,n, and so fortforth),h), yet possessing an idenidentitytity of its ownown.. For the BaBachtinians,chtinians, a limlimitedited rather than total autonomy characterized literature as a spspecificecific seriseries.es. Of course, this position was not ututterlyterly alien to FormaFormalism.lism. TThehe Formalist principle of the specifispecificity of the literary series was vague enough to allow some members of the school to study the relatrelationshipionship between liliteratureterature and social liflife.e. What set the BaBachtinianschtinians apart was their semsemioticiotic frame of refreference.erence. EverEveryy ideological phenomenphenomenon,on, accoraccordingding to Valentin VVolosinov, olosinov, is a sign, a reality that stands for some other realreality.ity. "Within“Within the spspherehere of signs, i.e.i.e.,, within the ideologideologicalical sphersphere,”e," however, "t“therehere exist profound diffdifferences.erences. After allall,, this category in­in- cludes the artistic image as well as the religious symbol, the scien­scien- tifictific formulaas well as the jujuridicalridical normnorm.. Every spspherehere of ideo­ideo- logical creativity has its own orientation toward reality and refractsit in its own way. Every domain performs its own func­func- tion in the totality of social liflife.”34e."34 The BaBachtinians’chtinians' definitdefinitionion of litliteratureerature in semsemioticiotic terms may seem to paraphrparaphrasease Jajakobson,kobson, who also conceived of verbal art as a spspecificecific type of signsign—the-the expresexpression.sion. In fact thethe two are quitquitee diffdifferent.erent. As an expressiexpression,on, the literary work is an oxy­oxy- mormoron:on: a semisemioticotic nonsign. It is endowed with meaning, yet it does not represent any other realityreality.. For the BaBachtinians,chtinians, how­how- ever, literature diffdiffersers from other ideological domains not in failing to signifsignifyy but in its mode of signifsignifying.ying. Literary signs, Medvedev claimedclaimed,, are metasignsmetasigns—representations-representations of represen-

33. IbiIbid.,d., p. 1111.. 34. Marksizm ifi filosofijajazyka:losofijajaz yka: OsnovnyeOxnovnye problemy socioxociologic'eskogologileskogo metodameloda v nauke o0 jazyke, 2d ed. (L(Leningrad,eningrad, 191930),30), pp. 1414—15.-15.

262 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism tatitations.ons. "Lit“Literatureerature reflectsin its content an ideological horizhorizon:on: alialien,en, nonartistic (ethic(ethical,al, cognitivecognitive),), ideologideologicalical formatiformations.ons. But in reflecting thesethesealien signs literature creates new formsforms—liter--liter­ ary worksworks—new-new signs of ideological interintercourse.course. And these sisigns—literarygns-literary worworks—becomeks-become in turn an actual component of the social reality susurroundingrrounding man. By refracting what lies out­out- side thethem,m, liliteraryterary works are, at the same time, selfself-valuable-valuable and distinct phenomena of the ideologideologicalical milieu. Their presence cannot be reduced to the simpsimple,le, technicaltechnical,, auxiliary role of refracting other ideologideologems.ems. They have their own ideological role and refract socioeconomic reality in their own waway.”35y."35 This metasemiotic defindefinitionition led the BaBachtinianschtinians to a thor­thor- ough revision of Formalist theories of langlanguage,uage, the medium of literatliterature.ure. From a linguistlinguisticic point of viewView,, a verbal sign that reflects or0r refracts another ververbalbal sign is exactly like an ututter-ter­ ance commenting on or replying to another ututterance.terance. It forms a dialogue. This concept is the controlling metaphor of BaBachti-chti­ nian literary-theorliterary-theoreticaletical didiscourse.scourse. Moreover, the didialogicalogic con­con- ception of language was a direct challengchallengee to Saussure'sSaussure’s lin­lin- guistics and HuHusserl’ssserl's logic. The FormaFormalists,lists, as I showed earliearlier,er, did relativize the asocial and ahistahistoricalorical categories of their intel­intel- lectual predecpredecessors,essors, but they were primarily concerned with the centripetal forforcesces operating in language that make it systemicsystemic.. The BaBachtinians’chtinians' priorities were precisely the oppopposite.osite. As a dialogue, language is not a system (ergon) but a process (ener(energeia),geia), an ongoing struggle between diffdifferenterent points of view,View, didifferentfferent ideologieideologies.s. Hence, what intrigued them was not the homogenei­homogenei- ty of discourse but its heterogheterogeneity,eneity, the centrifcentrifugalugal forforcesces that resist intintegration.egration. Like the BaBachtinchtin grgroup,oup, the Prague StructuStructuralistsralists also rerejectedjected the radical Formalist view ofliliteratureterature as an autonomous realreality.ity. "It“It would be wrong,wrong,”" wrote the CirCircle’scle's leading aesthetiaesthetician,cian, Janjan MukMukafovsky,afovsky, in 191934,34, "to“to place poetry in a vacuum under the pretext of its spspecialecial funfunction.ction. We should not forget that the

35. Formal'Formal’nyjnyj metod v literaturovedenii, p. 29. 263 Russian Formalism

develdevelopmentalopmental series of individual structures changing in time (e.g(e.g.,., the politicpolitical,al, economic, ideologiideological,cal, literary) do not run parallel to each other without any contcontact.act. On the contrarycontrary,, they are elements of a structure of a higher order and this structure of structures has its hierarchy and its dominant element (the prevailing series)series).”36."36 The attentive reader might hear in MuMukarovsky’skafovskfs "s“structuretructure of structures"structures” an echo ofTynTynjanovjanov andjjakobson’sakobson's conception of culture as a "syst“systemem of systsystems,”ems," a notion advanced by the two in 19192828 as a corrective to the purely immanent apprapproachoach to literary history that had chacharacterizedracterized earlier FormaFormalism.lism. But TynTynjanovjanov and Jakjakobsonobson had failed to explain the mechanism that makes the ininteractionteraction among diffdifferenterent cuculturalltural systems possibpossible.le. With­With- in six years of their titime,me, howevehowever,r, MukMukarovskyafovsky developed such an explanatiexplanation.on. Like the BaBachtinians,chtinians, he accounted forthe rela­rela- tivtivee autonomy of the litliteraryerary structure by means of the general theory of signs. "Without“Without a semiotsemioticic orientorientation,”ation," he declared at the 19193434,CongCongress ress of Philosophy in PragPrague,ue, "the“the theoretician of art will always be inclined to regard the work either as a purpurelyely formal construction or as a direct reflectionreflection of its author'sauthor’s psy­psy- chic or even physphysiologicaliological dispdispositions,ositions, of the distinct reality ex­ex- pressed by it, or of the ideologiideological,cal, economiceconomic,, socialsocial,, or cultculturalural situation of a given milieumilieu...... Only the semsemioticiotic point of view will permit the theoretician to recognize the autonomous exis­exis- tetencence and essentessentialial dynamism of the artistic structure and to underunderstandstand its develodevelopmentpment as a movement which is immanent yet in constant dialectic relation to the development of other sphsphereseres of culturculture.”37e."37 BeBecausecause they considered "all“all of realityreality,, from sensorsensoryy percep­percep- tion to the most abstract mental construction"construction” a "vast“vast and com­com- plex realm of sigsigns,”ns," the Structuralists had to introduce some

36. "Polakova“Polakova VznesVznes'enostenost pnrod[Jfirodysy: PoPokuskus o rozbor a vyvojovevyvojove' zafazafadem’deni basnickebasnické struktstruktury,"ury," KapitolKapitolyy z leskefies/{é poetiky, 2d eded.,., volvol.. 2 (P(Prague,rague, 191948),48), p. 16166.6. 37. ''“L’artL'art comme faitsemsémiologique,” iologique," Actes du huitiemehuitiéme congrescongrés international de philosaphiephilosophic) a Prague 2-72—7 septembre 191934,34, ed. E. Rad!Radl and Z.Z SmetSmetécekacek (P(Prague,rague, 191936),36), P·p. w70.1070. 264 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism criterion to diffdifferentiateerentiate individuindividualal semsemioticiotic structures from each other.other.38 38 HeHerere the notion of fufunctionnction enenteredtered Structuralist thought. Rooted in a purppurposiveosive view of human behavior, it des­des- ignated "the“the active relation between an obobjectject and the goal for which this obobjectject is usedused.”39."39 The Structuralists stressed the social dimension of funfunctionality,ctionality, the necessary consensus among the members of a collectivity about the purpose the obobjectject serves and its utility forsuch a purpose. From the funfunctionalctional perspec­perspec- tive, evereveryy individual semisemioticotic structustructure—art,re-art, religreligion,ion, science­science— apappearedpeared as a set of social norms regulating the attaattainmentinment of values in these culturculturalal spspheres.heres. The StStructuralistructuralist concept of the aesthetic function was es­es- pecially imimportantportant to their revision of FormaFormalism.lism. It might be said that this funcfunctiontion was the didialecticalectic negnegationation of all other functionsfunctions.. Whereas in "pr“practical”actical" functiofunctions,ns, the telos lies outside the obobjectject usedused,, in the aesthetic function the telos is this obobject.ject. That is to say, in extra-artistic activities functfunctionalional obobjectsjects are instruments whose value stems fromtheir suisuitabilitytability forparticu­particu- lar pupurposes.rposes. Works of art, on the other handhand,, as the obobjectsjects of the aesthetic funfunction,ction, do not serve any practical goal dirdirectlyectly and thus constitutconstitutee ultultimateimate values in and of themselvthemselves.es. The dichotomy between the aesthetaestheticic and practical fufunctionsnctions may appappearear simsimplyply to restate in diffdifferenterent terms the Formalist notion of de-familiarde-familiarization,ization, accoaccordingrding to which the disdisplace-place­ ment of an obobjectject from its custcustomaryomary contextcontext—byt—makes-byt-makes it a "self“self-valuable”-valuable" work of art. It is necessary to point out, howhowever,ever, that StructurStructuralistsalists conceived of an obobject’sject's funfunctionalityctionality in terms of hierhierarchyarchy rather than in terms of the FormalistsFormalists’' mutual ex­ex- clusivitclusivity:y: the domdominanceinance of one funfunctionction did not preclude the presence of othersothers.. Further, because of their semisemioticotic outlooutlook,ok, they did not see the aesthetic set toward the obobjectject as a total break from the social context. On the concontrary,trary, a dominant aes­aes- thetic fufunctionnction prevents the practical functions contacontainedined in the

38. B. HaHavranekvranek et alal.,., "“Uvodem,”Uvodem," SlovoSlave a(1 slovesnostslovemoxt 1 (19(1935),35), 5. 39. MukMukafovsky,afovsky, "Pr“Problémoblem estetickeestetické hodnotyhodnoty,"," CtstamiCertami poetiky a estetiky (P(Prague,rague, 19711971), ), p. 117. 7. 265 Russian Formalism

work from rearealizinglizing their corrcorrespondingesponding valuesvalues;; therethereforefore these values are trantransferredsferred fromthe empiempiricalrical to the semantsemanticic planeplane.. Extra-aesthetic values become meanings that contcontributeribute to the total semantsemanticic structure of the work. Thus, "fr“fromom the most ab­ab- stract point of viewview,”," MuMukarovskykafovsky claimedclaimed,, "the“the work of art is nothing but a particular set of extra-aestheextra-aesthetictic valuesvalues.. The mate­mate- rial components of the arartistictistic artifact and the way they are exploitexploiteded as formal devicesdevices are mere condconductorsuctors of energenergyy rep­rep- resentresenteded by extra-aesthetic valuesvalues.. If at this point we ask our­our- selves where aesthetaestheticic value lies, we findfind that it has dissolved intintoo individual extra-aesthetic values and is nothing but a general term for the dyndynamicamic totality of their intinterrelations.”40errelations."40 We have seen that both the BaBachtinianschtinians and the Prague Struc­Struc- turalists redefinedredefined the primary principle of Formalist liteliteraryrary science from a semsemioticiotic persperspective.pective. They did not stop therethere;; they also questquestionedioned the "ult“ultimate”imate" prpresuppositionesupposition of this sci­sci- ence, namelynamely,, that its theories must be gegeneratednerated solely from the data studstudied.ied. Medvedev'sMedvedev’s critique of Formalism takes up this point several timtimes.es. "In“In the humahumanities,nities, to apapproachproach the con­con- crete material and to do so correctly is rather hardhard.. Pathetic appappealseals to the 'f‘factsacts themselves'themselves’ and the 'concrete‘concrete material'material’ do not say or prove much. Even the most extreme specimens of the biographical method are founded on facts and concrete mate­mate- rial. Eclectics of all kinds are esespeciallypecially 'factual'‘factual’ and 'concret‘concrete.’e.' "” But since a correct grasp of the material at hand influeninfluencesces the entire theory that follows from it, "the“the onset of researresearch,ch, the firstfirst methodomethodologicallogical orientorientation,ation, the mere sketsketchingching out of the obobjectject of inquiry, are crucicruciallyally imimportant.portant. They are of decisive value. One cannot establish this initinitialial methodologmethodologicalical orientorienta-a­ tion ad hoc, guided solely by his own subsubjectivejective 'intuition'‘intuition’ of the obobject.”1ject.''41 This, of course, was precisely what Medvedev thought the Formalists had been doing. Sprung from an "unh“unholyoly union"union” of

40. EsteticktiEstetickd fufunkce, nkce, norma a hodnota jako socidlnisocia’lm’fakly fakty (P(Prague,rague, i91936),36), p. 69. 4i.41. Formal'Formal’nyjnyj metod v literaturovedenii,literalurovedenii, p. io108.8. 266 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian Formalism positivism and Futurism, Formalism lacked any solid philosoph­philosoph- ical foundfoundationsations and molded its obobjectject of inquiry accoaccordingrding to the aesthetic sensisensibilitybility of modernist art. ObviObviously,ously, many of Medvedev'sMedvedev’s charchargesges were polemical exaggeratioexaggerations,ns, but the over­over- all thrust of his argument was ststraightforward:raightforward: literary studystudy,, in order to treat its material adequatadequately,ely, must proceed froma well­well- defined,defined, correct philphilosophicalosophical point of view. This, he happily announced, is MarxisMarxism.m. The "ult“ultimateimate prespresupposition”upposition" of Med­Med- vedev'svedev’s sociologsociologicalical poetics is that the litliteraryerary factis first of all an ideological factand literary study a branch of the general science of ideologyideology.. "The“The foufoundationsndations of this science concerning the general defifinition of ideologideologicalical susuperstructures,perstructures, their functions in the unitunityy of social liflife,e, their relatiorelationshipnship with the economic basis and partially also their intinteraction,eraction, werweree laid deeply and firmlyby MarMarxism.”42xism."42 Although one may ask how well the BaBach-ch­ tinians'tinians’ metasemiotics squarsquareded with the officialofficial Soviet Marxism­Marxism- Leninism and its flat-flat-footedfooted theory of reflectionreflection (and hence whether they should be called MarMarxistsxists at alall),l), the choice of a tag is not imimportant.portant. The point is that the BaBachtinianschtinians saw philoso­philoso- phy as the necessary grgroundound of litliteraryerary study and the Formalists did not. On this issue the members of the Prague school were perhaps mormoree reserved than the BacBachtinians;htinians; yet they certainly did not deny the relevance of philosophy to theortheory.y. The Formalists had considered themselves specspecifiers,ifiers, pioneers in the new science of literatureliterature,, but the Structuralists ememphasizedphasized the interdisciplin­interdisciplin- ary naturnaturee of their research and the simisimilaritylarity of their principles and methods to those in other fieldsfields of knowledgeknowledge.. "“Struc-Struc­ turalism,turalism,”" as the coiner of the termterm,, Roman Jakjakobson,obson, stated in 191929,29, "is“is the leading idea of present-day science in its most variovariousus manifestmanifestations.”43ations."43 Its ememergenceergence heralds the eclipse of one era in EurEuropeanopean intintellectualellectual histhistoryory and the beginning of a new one. "Eur“Europeanopean Romantic scholarscholarship,”ship," Jakobsonjakobson argueargued,d,

42. IbiIbid.,d., p. l11. I. . 43. "R“Romantickéomanticke v�eslovansvseslovanstvi—novatvi-nova slavistislavistika,"ka," Ccmin l1 (1(1929),929), l11. I. 267 Russian FFormalism onnalism

"was“was an attemattemptpt at a general, global conception of the universeuniverse.. The antithesis of Romantic scholarsscholarshiphip was the sacrifice of unitunityy for thethe oppopportunityortunity to collect the richest factualmaterialmaterial, , to gain the most varied partial truths. Our time seeks a sysynthesis:nthesis: it does not wish to elimineliminateate genegeneralral meaning from its purvipurview,ew, a law­law- governed structurstructuree of eventsevents,, but at the same time it takes into accoaccountunt the great reservoir of facts gathered during the pre­pre- vious epoch.epoch.”44 "44 This view of StStructuralismructuralism was echoed by other members of the Prague CiCircle.rcle. AccordAccordinging to MukMukarovsky,afovsky, the modern hishisto-to­ ry of European scholarsscholarshiphip was mamarkedrked by an oscillation be­be- tween Romantic deductideductivism,vism, which subordinated scientifiscientific data to an overall phphilosophicalilosophical systsystem,em, and positivistic inductiinductivism,vism, which reduced philosophy to a mere extension of the emempiricalpirical sciencsciences.es. The noveltnoveltyy of StructuraliStructuralism,sm, MukMukarovskyafovsky believedbelieved,, lay in its effeffortsorts to bridgbridgee this dichotdichotomy.omy. "S“Structuralisttructuralist research ...... consciously and intentintentionallyionally operates between two extrextremes:emes: on the one handhand,, philosophiphilosophicalcal prpresuppositions,esuppositions, on the other, data. These two hahaveve a similar relation to sciencescience.. Data are neither a passive obobjectject of study nor a completely determdeterminantinant one, as the positivists believedbelieved,, but the two are mumutuallytually determinidetermining.”ng." For MuMukarovsky,kafovsky, "St“Structuralismructuralism is a scienscientifictific attitude that proceeds from the knowledgknowledgee of this unceasing intinterrelationerrelation of science and philophilosophy.sophy. I say 'attitude‘attitude,’,' "” he continucontinues,es, "to“to avoid terms such as 'theory'‘theory’ or 'method‘method.’.' 'Theory'‘Theory’ suggests a fixedfixed body of knowledgknowledge,e, 'method'‘method’ an equally homogenizhomogenizeded and unchangunchangea-ea­ ble set of working rules. Structuralism is neithneither.er. It is an epis­epis- temological stance [my italics] from which particular working rules and knowledgknowledgee followto be sure, but which exists independently of them and is therefore capablecapableof development in both these aspectsaspects.”45."45 Against these two philosophiphilosophicallycally oriented schoolsschools,, the nature

44. "Sp“Spoleénaoleena feerec kulturkultury:y: PoznamkyPoznémky k otazkam vzavzajemnychjemnych stykustykfi sovetskesovétské a zapadzépadnini vevedy,"dy," ZemeZemé sovetusovétfi 4 (19(1935),35), 11110.0. 45. "Struktura“Strukturalismuslismus v estetice a ve vedevédé o0 literaturliterature,"e," Kapitoly z ceskeEeske’ poetiky, 2d eded.,., vol. 1, pp. 1313—15.-15.

262688 The DeveloDevelopmentalpmental SignificanceSignificance of Russian FormalismFormalismi of Russian Formalism is apparent. It served as what can only be termed an "int“interparadigmaticerparadigmatic ststage”age" in the evolution of Slavic literary scholarsscholarship.hip. Thomas Kuhn, who introduced this notnotion,ion, argues that normal scientificscientific practice is characterized by the presence of a "paradigm“paradigm,”," a "st“strongrong network of commitmencommitments—ts­ conceconceptual,ptual, theoreticaltheoretical,, instrumentinstrumentalal and methodologmethodological”ical" shared by researchers in a given fieldfield.46.46 The paradigm provides the scientificscientific community with everything it needneedss for its workwork:: the probproblemslems to be solvedsolved,, the tools for doing so, as well as the standards forjujudging dging the resultsresults.. At a certain moment, howev­howev- er, the hitherhithertoto accepted paradigm comes under sussuspicionpicion be­be- cause of its persistent failurfailuree to yield the results it predictspredicts.. Kuhn notnoted,ed, "Confr“Confrontedonted with anomaly or criscrisis,is, scientists take a dif­dif- feferentrent attitude towartowardd the existing paradigms and the nature of their research changes accoraccordingly.dingly. The prolifproliferationeration of com­com- peting articulatioarticulations,ns, the willingness to try anything, the ex­ex- pression of explicit discontdiscontent,ent, the recourse to philosophy and to debatdebatee over fufundamentals,ndamentals, all these are symptsymptomsoms of a transition from normalnormal to extraordinary researresearch.”47ch."47 SuchSuch- ininterparadigmaticterparadigmatic hallmarks are the prime charac­charac- teristics of Russian FormalisFormalism.m. Though it might be argued that the sisituationtuation in the huhumanitiesmanities is somewhat difdifferentfe rent from that in the exact sciencessciences,, inasmuch as the total domination of fla single paradigm never occurs therthere,e, Kuhn'sKuhn’s remarks fitfit the pic­pic- ture of the Formalist movement quite wewell.ll. Motivated by the desirdesiree to provide a "mor“moree rigid definidefinitiontion of the fieldfield,”," the For­For- malist scholars raised funfundamentaldamental questions about the princi­princi- ples and methods of literliteraryary study. In order to dedestabilizestabilize the older paradparadigm,igm, they strove to open the theortheoreticaletical space as wide as possible rather than to limit it by some a priori agreeagreement.ment. Hence the extreme hetheterogeneityerogeneity of their enterprienterprise,se, the pro­pro- lifliferationera ti on of widely divergent and often incompincompatibleatible modemodels.ls. What ties the individual Formalists togetogetherther is the goal they

46. The Structure of ScienScientzfictific Revolutions, 2d ed. (Chi(Chicago,cago, 191970),70), p. 42. 47. IbiIbid.,d., pp. 90-990—91.1. 269 Russian Formalism

pursuedpursued:: to changchangee the scholarly practice of their disciplinediscipline.. The uniunityty of Formalism is thus of a spspecialecial kindkind.. It is a unity of actioaction,n, a dynamic conficonfiguration of multiplex forces converging in a particular histhistoricalorical concontext.text. As suchsuch,, Russian Formalism does not reprrepresentesent a singsinglele para­para- digm of literary study but a cluster of diverse theoriestheories.. DesDespitepite this fact, or perhaps because of it, some seventy years after its inception Formalism still exerts considerable influenceinfluence on liter­liter- ary study. ItItss debunking of earlier paradparadigmsigms and its wealth of insiinsightsghts into the nature of the literary process provided a fertile ground for the new syntheses, new disciplinardisciplinaryy matricematrices,s, that began to appear at the very moment of FormalisFormalism’sm's demise in the late twentitwenties.es. One of these emeemergedrged in Prague under the label of StStructuralism,ructuralism, and for thethenext fortyyears achieved an ever-growing worldwide influenceinfluence.. The other was BaBachtinianchtinian metasemimetasemiotics,otics, forciblysusuppressed ppressed formany decadecades,des, but since the seventies enenjoyingjoying an international reputreputationation as a viable alternative to StructuraStructuralism.lism. Russian Formalism was without a doubt a transitional and transittransitoryory period in the histhistoryory of liter­liter- ary studstudy.y. But insinsofarofar as the literary-theoretical paradigms it inauginauguratedurated are still with us, it stands not as a mere histhistoricalorical curiosity but a vital presence in the critical discourse of our day.

227070 Index

Achmatova, Anna, 10105,5, 16163—1643-164 BByt,yt, 48, 51, 55-655—61,1, 63, 65, 76, go,90, g6,96, Akmeism, 16163,3, 222 10100,114,122—123,126—127,132,0, 114, 122-123, 126-127, 132, AristotAristotle,le, 38, 74, 101 1144,44, 14147—148,7-148, 17170,0, 225, 265 Arvatov, Boris, 202o Augenphilologie, 16160,0, 163 Canonized and noncanonized liter­liter- Ausdruck {expressi(expression).on). See Sign atureature,, 5656—57,-57, go,90, 1o109,g, 111144 Author, 64-65,64—65, 73-74,73—74, 121, 12129—g- Carlyle, Thomas, 64 13137,7, 22224—2284-228 CassirCassirer,er, Ernst, 71, 101-101—102,102, 10104,4, 111144 BachtBachtin,in, MichailMichail,, 33-36,33—36, 224, 26261—1- CausalityCausality,, 31, 51, 53-5553—55,, 60, g97,1, 148, 264, 266-266—267,267, 272700 v 161655 BaluchatBaluchatyj,yj , SergeSergej,j, 45 CCelpanov,elpanov, GeorgijGeorgij,, 101000 BaBaudoinudoin de Courtenay, Jan,jan, 141488 Cervantes SaavedSaavedra,ra, Miguel de, 65, BelyBelyj,j, AndreAndrej,j, 26, 17172,2, 181888 g393 Black, Max, 41-41—4242 CCervenka,ervenka, MirMiroslav,oslav, 17172,2, 17177,7, 23g239 Blok, AleksAleksandr,andr, 101055 Chlebnikov, Velimir, 14143—144,3-144, 14146—6- Boccaccio, GiovGiovanni,anni, 88 147, 200, 205-206,205—206, 221-221—222,222, 22224—4- BogatyrevBogatyrév,, Petr,Pétr, 1717,, 27-28,27—28, 207, 22226,6, 22g229 227227—229-22g ChrChristiansen,istiansen, BrBroder,oder, 10104—1054-105 BrBrentano,entano, Franz, 148 ClassiciClassicism,sm, 12125—1265-126 BrBrik,ik, Osip, 21, 445,5, 64-64—65,65, 73, 15152—2- Clustering of liquids, 15150,0, 15159,g, 16166,6, 15153,3, 17172—177,2-177, 17179—180,g-180, 18186,6, 235 21213’3, 253 BrjuBrjusov,sov, ValValerij,erij, 26, 172 ColeColeman,man, WilliWilliam,am, 71, So80 BurBurljuk,ljuk, David and VlaVladimir,dimir, 1143,43, ColeridgeColeridge,, Samuel Taylor, 68 171744 CompositiComposition:on: and dispdisposition,osition, 85-86;85—86; BByliny,yliny, 7777—80-80 of fairytatale, le, g1,91, g494

22717 1 Index

Concept formation, 10100—104,0- 104, 111 14,4, FokkFokkema,ema, Douwe, 32 121 222 Folklore, 7777—80,-80, 82-85,82—85, 90-96,90—96, 227227—- ConConstructivism,structivism, 46 229 CratylCratylus,us, 141466 FormForm:: and content, 16-1716—17,, 47, 57, CudCudakova,akova, Marietta, 101, 16162,2, 249 14145,5, 247; inner and outer, 1818,, CukCukovskij,ovskij, Kornej,Kornej, 26 141-141—142,142, 14144—145,4-145, 15156;6; and mate­mate- Cuvier, Georges, 70-770—71,1, 79-879—81,1, 84, rial, 52, 57-58,57—58, II115,5, 216216,, 247; and 96 motivatiomotivation,n, 51-51—5252 FregeFrege,, Gottlob, 37-3837—38 De-famiDe-familiarization,liarization, 48-50,48—50, 53,53, 55-56,55—56, FreudFreud,, SigSigmund,mund, 151 59-659—61,1, 11119,9, 14144,4, 14147,7, 16169,9, 18186,6, FreudFreudianism,ianism, 64 21214,4, 216216—218,-218, 22220,0, 226, 23230,0, 23236—6- FunctiFunction:on: aesthetic, 1717,, 207, 23231,1, 237, 265 265; in biological sense, 72, 74-7574—75,, DerridDerrida,a, Jacjacques,ques, 206-207,206—207, 210210,, 232 84, 94-9594—95,, 111 13;3; commucommunicative,nicative, DerfaDeriavin,vin, GavrGavrila,ila, 2218 18 203-204,203—204, 213213—214,-214, 216216,, 23231;1; con­con- DeviceDevice:: and form, 50, 111 14,4, 14145;5; structivestructive,, II118,8, 121121,, 18186;6; literary, function of, 66, 72, 74-774—75;5; laying 12121—122;1-122; in mathematmathematicalical sense, bare of, 60-660—61,1, 111 19,9, 22221;1; as a lin­lin- 102, 11113;3; socialsocial,, 121, 121233 guistic phenomenonphenomenon,, 51, 213213—214,-214, FuturiFuturism:sm: ItItalian,alian, 46, 203203;; RussiRussian,an, 217217;; and materialmaterial,, 32, 50-550—52,2, II115;5; 49,49,53,62:143-144,151,161— 53, 62, 143-144, 151, 161- sum total of, 20, 66-67,66—67, 74; system 162, 167, 17174,4, 222,222,232,234, 232, 234, 246, of,of,20,32,74—75 20, 32, 74-75 253, 267 Dialectics, 10104—105,4-105, 10107—108,7-108, 12120—0- 121, 22220,0, 222, 227 GerseGersenzon,nzon, Michail, 28 DialoguDialogue,e, 33, 222222—224,-224, 22226—227,6-227, Gestalt psychology, 101000 259,259,263 263 Ginzburg, Lidija, 45 Dominant, 73, 7676—77,-77, 10104—106,4-106, 11111 1,, GoGoethe,]ohannethe, Johann Wolfgang, 68, 71, 11117,7, 16168,8, 171755 8080—82,-82, 84, 88, 90-990—91,1, 96, 258 DostoevskijDostoevskij,, Fedor, 58, 93 GogGogol’ol' NikoNikolaj,laj, 63, 65, 16163—164,3-164, 191933 DrobiDrobisch,sch, Moritz, 101022 GorGor’kij,'kij, Maksim, 42 Durdik, Josef,josef, 30 Gomfel'Gornfel’d, d, ArkadiArkadij,j, 20 GramGrammont,mont, Maurice, 16160,0, 171766 Efimov, N. I., 18 Gumilev,Gumilév, NiNikolaj,kolaj, 222 Einstein, Albert, 242 fjchenbaum,chenbaum, Boris, 1616—17,-17, 1919—22,-22, HaHansen-Love,nsen-Love, Aage, 34, 3838 24-25,24—25’27,34,45,62-63,65’70, 27, 34, 45, 62-63, 65, 70, HarveyHarvey,, William, 67 101, 10105—106,5-106, 11110,0, 161-161—168,168, 17175—5- HavrHavranek,anek, Bohuslav, 265 17178,8, 245-246,245—246, 248-249,248—249, 25251,1, 259-259— HeHegelianism,gelianism, 101044 262600 Herbartian FormaFormalism,lism, 30 Eliot, T. S., 99 HiHistorystory of literatureliterature:: genetic, 10109—9- EmersEmerson,on, Ralph Waldo, 64 1111 1 1;; and hihistorystory of ideas, 53-55,53—55, EEngel’gardt,ngel'gardt, Boris, 53, 63 244; immanent, 17-1817—18,, 56-59,56—59, Erlich, Victor, 29, 33-35,33—35, 67, 14140,0, 207; linguistic, 217217,, 221-221—222,222, 24240—0- 24241,1, 243 24241;1; and literary receptireception,on, 62-63,62—63, 73, 13136—137,6-137, 225, 22229—230;9-230; and Fairy tatale,le, 82-85,82—85, 9191—96-96 literary theorytheory,, 83, 97;97; modernist, Fet, AfanasijAfanasij,, 171766 60-660—62;2; status of, 2727—28,-28, 243-244;243—244; FeyerabeFeyerabend,nd, Paul, 260 systemic, 107107—-1121 1 2,, 111 19—122,9- 122, 12125—5- Filosofov, DimitrijDimitrij,, 141 12128,134—135,2588, 134-1 35, 258 272 Index

HoHolenstein,lenstein, Elmar, 10100,0, 12125,5, 20201—1- 227-229;227—229; laws of, 45-4745—47,, 51, 65; 202, 21216,6, 249 technology of,of, 44-4844—48 Hostinsky, Otakar, 31 Literary systsystem,em, 10103,3, 10106—113,6-113, 11115,5, HumHumboldt,boldt, Wilhelm von, 1414o0 11117,12o—121,124,126—129,132,7, 120-121, 124, 126-1 29, 132, HusHusserl,serl, Edmund, 18, 201201—204,-204, 13134—137,4- 137, 18184—185,4- 185, 18188,8, 2225—227�Ji-227 208208—210,-210, 223, 230, 249-249—250,250, 254-254— LogoLogocentrism,centrism, 14147,7, 206-206—207,207, 23230—0- 257,257,263 263 232 HyHylaea,laea, 14143—144,3-144, 171744 LomoLomonosov,nosov, MichailMichail,, 1.1118,8, 12125—126,5-126, 19196,6, 218 IntIntonation,onation, 10105,5, 16168,8, 17175—176,5-176, 171788 Lune,Lunc, Lev, 161699 Ivanov, VjVjaéeslav,aceslav, 26, 221 Lyric, 10106,6, 17175—176,5-176, 221

JakobsJakobson,on, RoRoman,man, 1717,, 2121,, 23-24,23—24, MajakMajakovskij,ovskij, VlaVladimir,dimir, 46, 143, 18187,7, 2727—28,-28, 30-330—31,1, 45,45,48, 48, 50-550—51,1, JO100,O, 218 101o4,109,111,125,128,4, 109, 111, 125, 128, 143, 14148,8, MallarMallarmé,me, StephSte’phane,ane, 191999 15156,6, 161,161,181, 181, 19198—208,8-208, 21210—222,0-222, MandelMandel’stam,'stam, Osip, 222 224, 22226—241,6-241, 243,243,257, 257, 262,262,264, Marinetti, Filippo Tommaso, 203 267 Markov, VlaVladimir,dimir, 141444 Jakubinskijjakubinskij,, Lev, 21, 14140,0, 148148—152,-152, Marty, Anton, 141499 15156—159,6-159, 161, 16166—169,6-169, 21210,0, 21213,3, MarxMarx,, KarlKarl,, 24, 249 22223—2263-226 Marxism, 21, 26, 33-34,33—34, 4242,, 11110,0, JamesonJameson,, Fredric, 29, 42-43,42—43, 101088 230, 246, 248-249,248—249, 267 Jarcho, Boris, 69 Maskin, A., 26 MateMatejka,jka, Ladislav, 15159,9, 241 KaramziKaramzin,n, NiNikolaj,kolaj, 10106,6, 121277 Maupassant, Guy de, 88-8988—89 KarcevskijKarcevskij,, SerSergej,gej, 101, 208 Mayenowa, Maria Renata, 162 Kareev, NiNikolaj,kolaj, 26 Mazon, Andre,André, 207 KazKazan’an' School, 14148,8, 151555 Meaning, 142, 14144—145,4- 145, 17170,0, 203, KoffkaKoffka,, Kurt, 10100—102,0- 102, 101044 206, 208, 23231;1; and sousound,nd, 14146,6, KogKogan,an, Petr,Pétr, 26 14149—152,154,156,159—161,167—9-152, 154, 15� 159-161, 167- Konov, N. N., 28 16168,8, 17170,0, 17174—175,4-1 75, 18185—186,5-186, 18188,8, Krucenych,Krucénych, AlekseAleksej,j, 14140,0, 14143—146,3-146, 191-191—192,192, 203203,205,, 205, 21210,0, 215215—216,-216, 14149—151,154—156,9-151, 154-156, 161,161,205 205 233-234233‘234 KruszeKruszewski,wski, MikolaMikolaj,j, 15155,5, 151577 Medvedev, Pavel, 21, 33, 13139,9, 26261—1- KuKuhn,hn, Thomas, 269 262, 266-267266—267 Kusner, Boris, 20-220—21,1, 15153—1543-154 Meillet, AntoineAntoine,, 151566 MelodiMelodics,cs, 17175—1765- 1 76 LanLanguegue and parole, 103, 10108—109,8-109, MetMetaphor,aphor, 41-41—42,42, 10105,5, 15153,3, 15155—5- 111111,, 209-2209—213,13, 218218—220,-220, 222222—223,-223, 15156,6, 19198,8, 215 227227—230,-230, 232, 256 MetMetasemioticsasemiotics (also metalinguistmetalinguistics),ics), LarLarin,in, Boris, 45, 67 35, 224, 263, 272700 Lenin, Vladimir, 46 MeMeter,ter, 17173,181—184,3, 181-184, 18187—1917-191 Lermontov, Michail, 12120,0, 15153,3, 17177,7, MetMetonymy,onymy, 42, 15153,3, 151555 191955 Mill, John Stuart, 37 Levi-StrLévi-Strauss,auss, Claude, 81, 91, 94-9594—95 Morphology, 69-769—71,1, 25258;8; static, 71-71— LiterariLiterariness,ness, 23, 11114,4, 20201,1, 257 81, 96; transformatiotransformational,nal, 80-9680—96 Literary fact, 10100—101,0-101, 10103,3, 10106—6- Moscow LinguistLinguisticic Circle, 1616—18,-18, 26, 10108,8, 121, 12124,4, 13136,6, 225 28-30,28—30, 13139,9, 147, 17176,6, 19198,204,8, 204, Literary productiproduction:on: and folfolklore,klore, 257

227373 Index

MotMotivation,ivation, 51-51—52,52, 58-60,58—60, 221 PoeticsPoetics:: genetic, 63-65,63—65, 76-79,76—79, 82-82— MukMukaf‘ovsky,afovsky, Jan,jan, 30, 12128,8, 205, 239, 8383;; ininductive,ductive, 63, 65-67,65—67, 77, 83-83— 263-266,263—266, 268 84 MusMusicic and literature, 15152—153,2-153, 16167,7, Polivanov, EvgeniEvgenij,j, 15157—1607-160 17175,5· 221, 234 PolockijPolockij,, Simeon, 217 Pomorska, KrystyKrystyna,na, 242411 NekrNekrasov,asov, NiNikolaj,kolaj, 12120,0, 218 PositiPositivism,vism, 49, 64, 161, 25251,1, 253-253— NeNeo—Formalism,o-Formalism, 35, 11112,2, 131366 255, 257-258,257—258, 267-268267—268 Novel, 58-5958—59 PotebnPotebnja,ja, Aleksandr, 27, 14140—148,0- 148, Nyrop, Kristoffer, 161600 151, 15155,5· 161699 Prague LinguisLinguistictic Circle, 27-327—31,1, 36, ObObjectject of literary studies, 23, 20201,1, 12128,8, 212212,, 24241,1, 267-268267—268 245-246,245—246, 261261—266-266 Prague School. See Prague LinguistLinguisticic Ode, 12125—1265-126 Circle Ohrenphilologie,OhTenphilologie, 16160—163,0- 163, 17178,8, 235 PrPresuppositionsesuppositions of literary studies, OnomaOnomatopoeia,topoeia, 15159—160,9-160, 234 247-249,247—249, 251251—259,-259, 26261,1, 266-268266—268 OPOOPOJAZ,JAZ, 1616—20,-20, 24, 26, 28, 32-33,32—33, Proper name, 36-40,36—40, 13132—1342-134 38, 45, 56,56,64,64, 772,2, 11112—113,2-113, 13139,9, PropPropp,p, Vladimir, 32, 70, 8080—85,-85, 90-90— 141,141,146—148, 146-148, 152152—153,-153, 15159—162,9-162, 95,95’ 97 16164—170,4- 17� 17172,2, 17177,7, 18186,6, 19198,8, 205-205— PuskPuskin,in, AleksandAleksandr,r, 61, 64-65,64—65, 67, 206, 21215,5, 23234—235,4-235, 24241,1, 25250,0, 253, 74,74,118—12o,136, 118-120, 136, 152152—153,-153, 161, 257 17173,3, 17177,7, 182, 18189,9, 217217—218,-218, 22229,9, Oppel, Horst, 81 237-238,237—238, 240 Orlov, Aleksandr, 28 RaRadl,dl, Emanuel, 707o Paradigm of literary studies, 31, 20200,0, Rezepzionsiisthetik,Rezepzionsfislhetik, 73, 76, 229 267-270267—270 Rhyme, 17177,7, 19190—191,0-191, 19196—198,6-198, 215 ParodParody,y, 61, 111 18—1208-120 RhythRhythm,m, 17170,0, 17173—183,3-183, 18185—186,5-186, PastPasternak,ernak, Boris, 2222 2 2 18189,193,195,235-237� 193· 195· 235-237 PercePerceptibilityptibility of speech conconstruction,struction, Rhythm-creating element, 18180—181,0-181, 10104,4, 10106—1076-107 18183,3, 23236—2406-240 Peretc, Vladimir, 27 RhythmiRhythmicalcal impulse, 17172—174,2-174, 17176,6, PetroPetrovskij,vskij, Michail, 18, 70, 8080—83,-83, 17178—180,8-180, 18183,3, 18187,7, 237 85-985—911 Rickert, Heinrich, 162 Phenomenology, 24, 201201—202,-202, 21214,4, RoRomanticism,manticism, 64, 12120,0, 12127,7, 131, 23230,249,254—255,257-2580, 249, 254-255, 257-258 267-268267—268 Phonology, 19194,4· 232232—235,-235, 238; and RoRozanov,zanov, VasiVasilij,lij,56, 59 metricsmetrics,, 181, 235235—241-241 Rudy, StepheStephen,n, 241 Plato, 141466 Plot and story, 51, 58, 85-86,85—86, 111 15—5- SarSaran,an, Franz, 16160—163,0-163, 235, 238 11116,6, 193, 198 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 103-103—104,104, Poe, Edgar AllAllan,an, 171722 10108—109,8-109, 1111 1 1—1-112, 111 18,8, 208-2208—212,12, Poetic lanlanguage:guage: its articulatory as­as- 218218—220,-220, 223, 225, 22228,8, 23230,0, 232-232— pect, 151, 15157,7• 16160,0, 163; and 23234,4, 254, 25256—257,6-257, 263 emoemotivetive language, 203-205203—205;; and SSéerba,terba, Lev, 161 practical lanlanguage,guage, 50, 148148—150,-150, Searle, John,john, 39-4039—40 15154,156—157,4· 156- 1 57, 15159,9· 16164—171,4-171, 203, Semiotics, 3434—35,-35, 202202,, 209, 21214,4, 205, 21210—212,0-212, 215215—217,-217, 22221,1, 23230—0- 23233—234,3-234, 262, 264264—266-266 23231,1, 23234—236,4-236, 257257;; and prose lan­lan- SengeliSengeli,, GeorgijGeorgij,, 20 guageguage,, 13139—141,9-141, 143·143, 14148,8, 161688 Sentimentalism, 12125—1265-126

2274 74 Index

SheldSheldon,on, RichardRichard,, 58 System of systsystems,ems, 111 12,2, 111 15,5, 12128,8, Short story, 85-985—900 212212,, 24241,1, 264 Sievers, Eduard, 16160,0, 16162—163,2-163, 171788 Sign, 201201—204,-204, 205-209,205—209, 21213—214,3-2 14, TeleologyTeleology,, 31, 50-550—51,1, 72, 74-7674—76,, 79, 230-23230—231,1, 257, 262-262—264264 84, 12124—125,4-1 25, 14148—149,8-149, 16165,5, 21210,0, SignifierSignifier and signifiesignified,d, 209, 23232—2342-234 213213,, 223 Simile, 19198,8, 215 ThemeTheme,, 72, 76, 78, 92-992—955 Skaftymov, Aleksandr, 70, 75-80,75—80, ThompsThompson,on, Ewa, 19 82-83, 93, 97, 101055 TjTjutcev,utcev, Fedor, 11118,8, 191 SSklovskij,klovskij, Viktor, 1717,, 1919—21,-21, 29, 32, TolstoTolstoj,j, Lev, 58, 111 100 38, 42, 4444-53,-53, 54-654-67,7, 69, 72-75, TomasevskijTomasevskij,, Boris, 1616,, 1919—21,-21, 23-23— 85-86,85—86, 88, go,90, 93, 10109,9, 111 13—13-116, 24, 27, 29, 338,8, 51, 12129—132,9-132, 13134,4, 11118—119,8-119, 14147—148,7-148, 151-151—152,152, 15155—5- 16168,8, 17170,0, 17176—185,6-1 85, 18187—190,7-190, 20201,1, 15156,6, 15159,9, 16165,5, 17170,0, 18186,6, 205205,, 213213—- 237, 244244, 25�250: 257, 259 21214,4, 21216,6, 22229,9, 236, 248, 258 TrockijTrockij,, Lev, 111100 SklovskijSklovskij,, Vladimir, 161622 TrTroll,oll, WilheWilhelm,lm, 81 Smirnov, P. N., 32 Turner, Josephjoseph MallorMallordd William, Society forthe Study of Poetic Lan- 111 10—10-1 111 1 guage. See OPOJAZ TynTynjanov,]urij,janov, Jurij, 15, 1717,, 1919—20,-20, 229,9, Sonorous chorchords,ds, 15153—154,3-154, 253 32, 34, 45, 57, 6262,, 73, 99-99-104,104, Sound gesture, 15157—160,7-160, 161666 10106—129,6-129, 132132—137,-137, 16165—166,5-166, 16169—9- Sound repetitiorepetition,n, 152-152—153,153, 17177,7, 19190,0, 17170,0, 18184—198,4-198, 20201,1, 205, 215215,, 223, 19196-197,6- 197, 253 225-226,225—226, 237,23% 2424171, 24243’3, 257,257: 264 Spencer, HeHerbert,rbert, 49, 236 Spet, Gustav, 1515,, 18, 249 Udus'ev, IpIppolitpolit (p(pseud.),seud.), 247-25247—2500 Spinoza, BaruchBaruch,, 258 Ustanovka:Uslanovka: as directive correlaticorrelation,on, State Academy forthe Study of the 12125—128;5-128; as intentiintention,on, 56, 76, 10105;5; ArtsArts,, 1818,, 26, 69 as mentmentalal set, 61, 16166,6, 17170,0, 19192,2, State InInstitutestitute forthe HiHistorystory of the 20201,1, 20204—205,4-205, 21214,4, 236 Arts, 17-1817—18;; 85, 161622 StempelStempel,, Wolf-Dieter, 141400 Verse harmony, 17176—178,6-178, 1g190o Stendhal, 58 Verse language and prose language, SterSterne,ne, LaurenceLaurence,, 61, 111 188 11117,7, 16169—170,9-1 70, 18183—185,3-185, 18187—188,7-1 88, Stoljarov, Michail, 18 191-19191—1933 SStoll,toll, Ladislav, 30 Verse semantics, 18184—186,4-186, 19193—1983-198 Striedter, Jurjurij,ij, 20, 32-35,32—35, 55, 62, VeselovskijVeselovskij,, Aleksandr, 27, 49, 53-53— 111 19,9, 12124,4, 259 55, 57, 60, 63-64,63—64, 77, 83-84,83—84, 141, StructurStructuralism,alism, 20, 28-328—32,2, 35, 38, 244 12128,8, 17172,2, 19198,8, 200, 205,205,241, 241, 26261,1, Vinogradov, Viktor, 1919,, 101, 10108,8, 263-268,263—268, 270 161655 Style, 49, 75, 79, 10105,5, 16164—165,4-165, 211211—- Vinokur, GrigorijGrigorij,, 1717—18,-18, 29, 45, 61, 212212,, 218218—219-219 11117,7, 204, 21211—212,1-212, 21214,4, 230, 244-244— Svoboda, Karel, 30, 38 245 SymboliSymbolism,sm, 15, 26, 13136,6, 141, 14143,3, Volosinov, ValValentin,entin, 33, 262 151, 172172—173,-173, 18182,2, 221-221—222222 VoltaireVoltaire,, 131300 Synchrony and diachrdiachrony,ony, 20, 10108—8- VroVroon,oh, RonaRonald,ld, 141466 10109,9, 218218—220,-220, 222 VygotskijVygotskij,, Lev, 34 SynecdocSynecdoche,he, 13138—1398-139 SyntSyntaxax and verseverse,, 17174—176,4-1 76, 17178,8, WalzeWalzel,l, Oskar, 72, 161622 18186—1876-187 Williams, William Carlos, 44

227575 Index

WritWriting:ing: and verse, 18183—184,3-184, 18189,9, 15156,6, 161, 16167,7, 17174,4, 205-206,205—206, 22221,1, 237; and voicevoice,, 16162—163,2-163, 227, 22229,9, 2232,32, 2234’34, 252533 232-233232—233 ZieliZielir’lski,nski, Tadeusz, 161600 Wundt, WilhWilhelm,elm, 1616o0 ZZirmunskij,irmunskij, VikViktor,tor, 1919—22,-22, 26, 66, 7070,, 72-72—76,76, 779,9, 97, 10105,5, 111 12—12-1113,3, 13136,6, 13138,8, 16165,5, 16167—1687-168 Zaum’, 106, 144—147, 149—151, 154, ZZukovskij,ukovskij, VasiliVasilij,j, 171755

276 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Steiner, P. (P(Peter),eter), i91946—46- Russian formalismformalism.. Based on the author'sauthor’s thesis. InIncludescludes index. l.1. Formalism (L(Literaryiterary analyanalysis)——Sovietsis)-Soviet UnUnion.ion. I. Title. PN9PN98.F68738.F6S73 19198484 80801'.g51 '.95 884—77084-7708 ISBN 0-80—8014—1710—4014-1710-4 (alk. paper)