Эпоха «остранения». Русский формализм и современное гуманитарное знание

The Russian formalist never had his or her own journal. Nonetheless, they dedicated due attention to the problems specific to periodical publications. They were first in introducing the term “journal problems” [Эйхенбаум, 1927: 119]. At the beginning of their activities, they considered journal publications “utterly superior to academic studies and ideas coming from universities” [Eikhenbaum, same] This “journal scholarship” was comprised of works authored mainly by symbolist critics and theoreticians and was “based on certain theoretical principles and formulae supported by new artistic currents accepted by that epoch” [Eikhenbaum, same] Serbian critics of the new orientation had the same attitude towards journal criticism and scholarship of their own times, towards the traditional scholarship of mainstream university professors who mostly engaged in biographical and sociological studies, and towards the predominantly impressionistic current literary criticism.

Even later, when interest for “journal scholarship” waned due to its “subjective and tendentious character” [Эйхенбаум, 1927: 119], the interest of Russian formalists for periodicals continued. Shklovsky was probably the first to indicate that prior to the formalists periodicals were studied with neglect to their literary form. He also claimed that in the twenties a journal could exist only as “a specific literary form”. “A journal must be sustained not only by interest for its specific parts, but also by interest for their mutual relationship” [Шкловский, 1928: 116]. Tynyanov (“Journal, Critic, Reader and Writer”) also stressed that journals and almanacs began to be considered as “literary works” and “literary facts” only in his time [Тынянов, 1977: 225]. He defined criticism and polemics published in journals as a “literary necessity” of journals: “the basic life of a journal consists always of criticism and polemics” [Там же: 461]. Younger Serbian scholars in the early seventies could hardly find more inspiring predecessors for their historical and theoretical approach to literary journals than the Russian formalists. The journal Književna istorija featured an emphatically critical and polemical character during the first years of its publication, especially because it organized round table discussions on significant issues of literary theory and history.

The authors of the book New Critical Orientations [Нова…, 1973], which consisted of two parts – theoretical contributions in the first one, and applied and analytical in the second – had diverse interests and approaches ranging from phenomenology, structuralism, aestheticism to Formalism. One of the authors was Novica Petković. Already in 1970 he had published a translation of Ju. M. Lotman’s Lectures in Structural Poetics and written a Foreword for the book. In 1974 he defended his doctoral dissertation associated with Russian formalist theories on the nature of poetic language and the tasks of literary scholarship. Petković’s dissertation was published in book form in Belgrade 1975 under the title Language in the Literary Work (Variations on the Opojaz Theme) [Петковић, 1975]. Influence of Russian Formalism become definite for historians and theoreticians of literature of coming generations when Petković became professor at the Faculty of Philology in Belgrade.

Finally, here are a few reminiscences of encounters with some of the “heroes” of my article. In the spring of 1973 Roman Jakobson, who lived in the outskirts of Boston, invited me to visit him and thus I met him and his wife Christina Pomorska. They knew about my Poetics of Russian Formalism thanks to professor Taranovsky. I mentioned to Jakobson that Victor Shklovsky would be coming to Belgrade that autumn and that I was designated to accompany him during his whole stay. Jakobson then told me that Shklovsky had written critically about his and Levi Strauss’ analysis of Baudelaire’s “Cats”, criticizing them for overlooking the erotic elements of the poem. Jakobson took one of his books, dedicated it to Shklovsky and asked me to give him the book when he comes to Belgrade. In the dedication, which he showed me, Jakobson reproach Shklovsky because, as he wrote, what really motivating Shklovsky in his criticism was not their neglect of eroticism but “the Judaic fear”. And he added that Shklovsky would detect sexuality in everything, including a teapot.

My hosts invited professor Taranovsky for lunch, but he could meet with me only in the afternoon. The encounter with Jakobson and Pomorska was of course interesting, but the almost eight hour long encounter with Taranovsky turned into a two decades long friendship with him and his wife Vera, long and frequent conversations, correspondence and mutual visits in Arlington and Belgrade.