Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T11:49:02.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New School of Literary History in Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Boris Tomashevsky ,
Gina Fisch  and
Oleg Gelikman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Anthologies of literary theory, the backbone of courses on literary criticism, rely on viktor Shklovsky's “Art as a Device” or Boris Eikhenbaum's “The Theory of the ‘Formal Method‘” to broach the subject of Russian formalism. The canonical status of these essays is well deserved. Written when the author was merely twenty-four, Shklovsky's 1917 essay bristles with a polemical fervor, wit, and knack for example that announce him as a critical prodigy. Marked by the mixture of embittered pride, rigor, and self-conscious malaise typical of later formalism, Eikhenbaum's dense history of the formal school is remarkable for its titanic effort to marry historical considerations to a systematic analysis of the evolution of key formalist doctrines.

Type
Criticism in Translation
Information
PMLA , Volume 119 , Issue 1: Special Topic: Literatures at Large , January 2004 , pp. 120 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Bann, Stephen, and Bowlt, John E., eds. Russian Formalism. New York: Harper, 1973.Google Scholar
Roland, Barthes. “Introduction à l'analyse structurale des récits.” Barthes et al. 7–33.Google Scholar
Roland, Barthes, et al. Communications 8: L'analyse structurale du récit. Paris: Seuil, 1981.Google Scholar
Èjxenbaum, Boris. Leningrad: Priboj, 1927.Google Scholar
Èjxenbaum, Boris. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo, 1929. Moscow: Agraf; Saint Petersburg: Inapress, 2001.Google Scholar
Èjxenbaum, Boris. Leningrad: Xudožestvennaja, 1986.Google Scholar
Èjxenbaum, Boris. “The Theory of the ‘Formal Method.‘” Critical Theory since Plato. Ed. Adams, Hazard. New York: Harcourt, 1971. 801–16.Google Scholar
Galan, František William. Historic Structures: The Prague School Project, 1928–1946. Austin: U of Texas P, 1985.Google Scholar
Genette, Gérard. Figures I. Paris: Seuil, 1966.Google Scholar
Genette, Gérard. Figures II. Paris: Seuil, 1969.Google Scholar
Genette, Gérard. “Frontières du récit.” Barthes et al. 158–69.Google Scholar
Genette, Gérard. Mimologiques. Paris: Seuil, 1976.Google Scholar
Roman, Jakobson. “Co je poezie?” Studies in Verbal Art: Texts in Czech and Slovak. Ann Arbor: Dept. of Slavic Langs., U of Michigan, 1971. 20–32.Google Scholar
Roman, Jakobson. “Vers une science de l'art poétique.” Preface. Théorie de la littérature, textes des Formalistes russes. Introd. and trans. Tzvetan Todorov. Paris: Seuil, 1965. 9–13.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Karcevskij, Sergej, Mathesius, Vilém, et al. “Theses Presented to the First Congress of Slavic Philologists in Prague, 1929.” The Prague School: Selected Writings, 1929-1946. Ed. Steiner, Peter. Austin: U of Texas P, 1982. 5–31.Google Scholar
Matejka, Ladislav, and Titunik, Irwin R., eds. Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge: MIT P, 1976.Google Scholar
Pavel, Medvedev. The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship. Trans. Albert J. Wehrle. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.Google Scholar
Pomorska, Krystina, and Matejka, Ladislav, eds. Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Cambridge: MIT P, 1976.Google Scholar
Richard, Sherwood. “Victor Shklovsky and the Development of Early Formalist Theory on Prose Literature.” Bann and Bowlt 26–40.Google Scholar
Viktor, Sklovskij. “Art as Technique.” Literary Theory: An Introduction. Ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Michael. London: Blackwell, 1998. 17–24.Google Scholar
Viktor, Sklovskij. “In Defense of the Sociological Method.” Trans. Ann Shukman. Formalist Theory. Ed. and trans. O'Toole, L. M. and Russian Poetics in Translation 4 Shukman. Oxford: Holdan, 1977. 92–99.Google Scholar
Viktor, Sklovskij. “Resurrection of the Word.” Bann and Bowlt 41–47.Google Scholar
Viktor, Šklovskij. 3 (1927): 20-25; 4 (1927): 30–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peter, Steiner. “The Roots of Structuralist Aesthetics.” The Prague School: Selected Writings, 1929–1946. Ed. Steiner. Austin: U of Texas P, 1982. 174–219.Google Scholar
Tzvetan, Todorov. “Les catégories du récit littéraire.” Barthes et al. 131–57.Google Scholar
Tzvetan, Todorov. “L'héritage méthodologique du formalism.” La poétique de la prose. Paris: Seuil, 1971. 9–31.Google Scholar
Tzvetan, Todorov. “Some Approaches to Russian Formalism.” Bann and Bowlt 6–19.Google Scholar
Boris, Tomasevskij. Moscow; Leningrad, 1925. 4th ed., 1928. Ann Arbor: Ardis, [1971?]. Moscow: Aspect, 1996.Google Scholar
Tynianov, Jurii, and Jakobson, Roman. “Problems in the Study of Literature and Language.” Pomorska and Matejka 79–81.Google Scholar
D., Ustinov 6 1927 50 (2001): 247–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar