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 SymbolistSymbolist 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."