1. Shklovsky, Viktor B., Zoo, ili pis'ma ne o liubvi (Berlin, 1923)Google Scholar. Censored versions of this edition appeared in the Soviet Union in 1924, 1929, 1964, and 1966, with new letters added and subtracted along the way. For a full account of these changes see the English translation published by Cornell University Press in 1971.

2. Shklovsky, Viktor B., Tret'ia fabrika (Moscow, 1926)Google Scholar. I have completed an annotated translation of this book, which Ardis Press will publish later this year.

3. Shklovsky, Viktor B., “Pamiatnik nauchnoi oshibke,” Literaturnaia gazeta, Jan. 27, 1930, p. 1.Google Scholar

4. For a detailed account of the struggle between these two groups see Muratova, K. D., M. Gor'kii v bor'be za sovetskuiu literaturu (Moscow and Leningrad, 1958), pp. 23–42.Google Scholar

5. These events are described by Shklovsky in his book Sentimental'noe putcshestvie: Vospominaniia, 1917-1922 (Berlin, 1923). Censored versions were published in the Soviet Union in 1924 and 1929. See the English translation published by Cornell University Press in 1970.

6. See Gorky, Maxim, Untimely Thoughts, trans, and ed. Ermolaev, Herman (New York, 1968)Google Scholar. These articles, omitted from Soviet collections of Gorky's work, were published in Gorky's journal Novaia zhizn', which Lenin suppressed in July 1918.

7. See, for example, Brik’s provocative statement in the issue dated December 29, 1918: “Many gods have been overthrown by the proletariat, many idols have been overturned. But one god has been spared. The conquering proletariat is afraid to enter one temple. This god is beauty, this temple—art.”

8. Shklovsky, Viktor B., “Ullia, Ullia, Marsiane!” Khod konia (Berlin, 1923), p. 39 Google Scholar. This article first appeared in Iskusstvo kommuny (Mar. 30, 1919). The title is a reminder to Khlebnikov of the independent position he.espoused before the October Revolution. In a strident manifesto called “The Trumpet of the Martians” he had contemptuously denounced the philistines and declared that he would withdraw the Futurists from their society and declare them Martians, with H. G. Wells and Marinetti invited to their Duma as consultants. The agenda would include the subject “Ullia, Ullia, Marsiane.” This manifesto has been reprinted in Brodsky, N. and L'vov-Rogachevsky, V., Literaturnye manifesty (Moscow, 1929), pp. 83–86.Google Scholar

9. Shklovsky, Khod konia, pp. 37-41. Professor Barooshian, in his otherwise excellent account of this period, should not have included Shklovsky in the list of artists and critics who aligned themselves with Narkompros. See Barooshian, Vahan D., “The Avant-Garde and the Russian Revolution,” Russian Literature Triquarterly, 4 (Fall 1972): 349 Google Scholar. In Sentimental Journey Shklovsky refers to Belinsky as the “killer of Russian literature,” and he expresses the wish to trample him with the legs of his writing desk (see the English translation of Sentimental Journey, pp. 233-34).

10. Shklovsky, Khod konia, pp. 12-17.

11. See Erlich, Victor, Russian Formalism: History—Doctrine, 3rd ed. (The Hague and Paris, 1969 [1st ed., 1955]), p. 136Google Scholar. This book also downgrades Shklovsky’s role as the founder of the movement and leaves the impression that the Moscow Linguistic Circle actually preceded Opoiaz—a misconception recently corrected in Ewa Thompson’s Russian Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism (The Hague and Paris, 1971). This misconception results mainly from the fact that Professor Erlich never mentions in his text even the title of Shklovsky’s booklet Resurrection of the Word (St. Petersburg, 1914). The title is simply listed in the bibliography, though nearly every treatment of Formalism has recognized that booklet as the cornerstone of the movement (Eikhenbaum, Medvedev, Lo Gatto, Markov, Ivan Vinogradov). Professor Erlich does mention Resurrection of the Word in his doctoral thesis, where he disagrees with those who consider it fundamental: “This seems to be something of an overstatement. While Shklovsky’s critical debut undoubtedly anticipates some aspects of Formalist theory, especially the author’s subsequent notion of ‘making strange’ the object, it was, on the whole, too much of a hodgepodge to be construed as a coherent statement of a new school of criticism” (Columbia University diss., 1952, p. 133). Resurrection of the Word may or may not be a hodgepodge, but it nonetheless stimulated the formation of Opoiaz in 1914 and outlined, in inchoate form, the concerns to be pursued by the group during its initial period. Shklovsky stressed the sound component of poetic language as pre-eminent over meaning, and he raised the question of what makes form perceptible. Even before its publication, the booklet was read to an assemblage at the Stray Dog Cabaret in December 1913, and it made a powerful impression on the Futurists present (Benedikt Livshits, Polutoraglazyi strelets, Leningrad, 1933, pp. 200-201). After its publication, Shklovsky presented a copy to Baudouin de Courtenay, who introduced Shklovsky to his most brilliant students, Lev Iakubinsky and Evgenii Polivanov. They were intrigued by the notion of applying linguistic analysis to poetic language. A few months later Brik, who shared Shklovsky’s interest in Futurist poetry, became part of the group. Consequently, in its earliest formation the nucleus of the movement consisted of “Futurists” like Shklovsky and Brik united with the linguistics students of Baudouin de Courtenay. Eikhenbaum and Tynianov joined the group much later; neither of them contributed to the first collections published by Opoiaz in 1916 and 1917.

12. Piper, D. G. B., V. A. Kaverin: A Soviet Writer’s Response to the Problem of Commitment (Pittsburgh, 1970), p. 1.Google Scholar

13. Shklovsky, Viktor B., Gamburgskii schet (Leningrad, 1928), p. 107 Google Scholar. See also his remarks in Kak my pishem (Leningrad, 1930), pp. 211-16.

14. See the English translation of Sentimental Journey, p. 117.

15. See Erlich, Russian Formalism, p. 131.

16. See Piper, V. A. Kaverin, pp. 50-52.

17. See my article, “Sklovskij, Gor'kij, and the Serapion Brothers,” Slavic and East European Journal, 12, no. 1 (Spring 1968): 8-9.

18. See Brown, Edward J., The Proletarian Episode in Russian Literature, 1928-1932 (New York, 1953), pp. 235–40 Google Scholar, for an English translation of this resolution.

19. For an excellent discussion of these developments see Herman Ermolaev, Soviet Literary Theories, 1917-1934: The Genesis of Socialist Realism (Berkeley, 1963), pp. 44-54. Professor Struve, who interpreted this party resolution as a Magna Carta in the 1950 edition of his book, recognizes in the new edition that Ermolaev’s interpretation is compelling. See Struve, Gleb, Russian Literature Under Lenin and Stalin, 1917-1953 (Norman, 1971), p. 91 Google Scholar. Professor Ermolaev did not use Third Factory in his analysis, but it supports his thesis.

20. See Ermolaev, Soviet Literary Theories, p. 214.

21. Shklovsky, Gamburgskii schet, p. 109. Hamburg Account also contains Shklovsky’s vehement protests against censorship in the film industry. He proclaims the importance of “artistic integrity” and says, inter alia, “It must be understood that in art there are no orders, that a too literal carrying out of orders has always been a form of sabotage” (p. 158).

22. Gorky to A. K. Voronsky, Nov. 20, 1926, in Letopis' zhizni i tvorchestva A. M. Gor'kogo, ed. B. V. Mikhailovsky, L. I. Ponomarev, and V. R. Shcherbina, 4 vols. (Moscow, 1958-60), 3: 486.

23. Lezhnev, A., Sovremenniki (Moscow, 1927), pp. 133–38 Google Scholar. This article first appeared under the title “Tri knigi” in Pechat' i revoliutsiia, 1926, no. 8, pp. 80-86.

24. Beskin, O. M., “Kustarnaia masterskaia literaturnoi reaktsii,” Na literaturnom postu, 1927, no. 7, pp. 18–20.Google Scholar

25. See Mayakovsky, V. V., “Vystuplenie na dispute ‘LEF ili blef?’” held on March 23, 1927, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 13 vols. (Moscow, 1955-61), 12: 345–50.Google Scholar

26. Shklovsky, Viktor B., Udachi i porazheniia Maksima Gor'kogo (Tiflis, 1927), p. 62.Google Scholar

27. See Lunacharsky, A. V., “Formalizm v nauke ob iskusstve,” Pechat' i revoliutsiia, 1924, no. 5, p. 26.Google Scholar Shklovsky conducted a similar running debate with Trotsky during the twenties. In Khod konia Shklovsky had presented five propositions demonstrating the falsity of the Marxist conception of art. In his book Literature and Revolution Trotsky refuted these propositions point by point and then concluded: “The Formalists show a fast-ripening religiosity. They are followers of St. John. They believe that ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ But we believe that in the beginning was the deed. The word followed, as its phonetic shadow.” See Trotsky, Leon, Literature and Revolution (Ann Arbor, 1960), p. 1960.Google Scholar

In his introduction to Theory of Prose Shklovsky had the last word: “It is perfectly clear that language is influenced by social relations… . All the same, the word is not a shadow. The word is a thing.” See Viktor B. Shklovsky, O teorii prozy (Moscow and Leningrad, 1925), p. S. (An English translation of Theory of Prose, prepared by Richard Sherwood and me, will be published by Gregg International Press later this year.)

28. Nusinov, I. M., “Zapozdalye otkrytiia, ili kak V. Shklovskomu nadoelo est' golymi formalistskimi rukami i obzavelsia samodel'noi marksistkoi lozhkoi,” Literatura i Marksizm, 1929, no. 5, pp. 3–52 Google Scholar. Nusinov was arrested during the purge of Jewish intellectuals in the late 1940s and died in 1950.

29. See Grossman-Roshchin, I., “Bank obshchestvennogo doveriia ili bogadel'nia deklassirovannykh,” in S kem i pochemu my boremsia, ed. Averbakh, L. L. (Moscow, 1930), pp. 166–74 Google Scholar. This article first appeared in Oktiabr', 1929, no. 6.

30. Shklovsky, Gamburgskii schet, p. 52.

31. Kaverin’s book Skandalist, ili vechera na Vasil'evskom ostrove first appeared serially in the journal Zvezda, 1928, nos. 2-7. It appeared in book form in 1929 and has been published several times since. All quotations are taken from the 1931 edition.

32. See Shklovsky, Viktor B., O Maiakovskom (Moscow, 1940), pp. 208–14.Google Scholar

33. Eikhenbaum, Boris, “O Viktore Shklovskom,” Moi vremennik (Leningrad, 1929), pp. 131–32 Google Scholar. This issue, the first of what Eikhenbaum planned as a series of journals, proved to be the only issue.

34. Gukovsky, G, “Shklovskii kak istorik literatury,” Zvezda, 1930, no. 1, pp. 191–216 Google Scholar.

35. Erlich, Russian Formalism, p. 137.

36. Romains, Jules, Donogoo Tonka, ou Les miracles de la science: Conte cinématographique (Paris, 1920).Google Scholar

37. Shklovsky, “Pamiatnik,” p. 1.

38. Erlich, Russian Formalism, p. 139.

39. M. Gel‘fand, “Deklaratsiia tsaria Midasa, ili chto sluchilos' s Viktorom Shklovskim,” Literaturnaia gazeta, Mar. 3, 1930, p. 2Google Scholar. This article was also printed in Pechat' i revoliutsiia, 1930, no. 2, pp. 8-15.

40. Shklovsky, Viktor B., “Sukhoplavtsy, ili uravnenie s odnim neizvestnym,” Literaturnaia gazeta, Mar. 31, 1930, p. 2 Google Scholar. On the same page Gelfand replied in a short article entitled “Otvet neponiatnomu.”

41. It should be pointed out that there has been a tendency to accept Professor Erlich’s interpretation of “Monument” without examining the original document. See, for example, the introduction to Russian Formalist Criticism, trans. Lee Lemon and Marion Reis (Lincoln, 1965), pp. ix-xvii. See also Thompson, Russian Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism, p. 33.

42. See “Usilit' bor'bu s formalizmom,” Literaturnaia gazeta, Apr. 11, 1933, p. 1. See the entry on Formalism in Bol'shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia (Moscow, 1926-47), 62: 441.

43. Viktor B. Shklovsky, “Iugo-zapad,” Literaturnaia gazeta, Jan. 5, 1933. Shklovsky was forced to print a retraction, which appeared as a letter to the editor in Literaturnaia gazeta, Apr. 29, 1933.

44. See “O formalizme i naturalizme v literature,” Literaturnaia gazeta, Mar. 15, 1936, p. 3.

45. O Maiakovskom, first published in 1940, was included, with minor revisions, in Shklovsky’s recent book of memoirs, Zhili-byli (Moscow, 1964; 2nd ed., Moscow, 1966). An English translation by Lily Feiler, entitled Mayakovsky and His Circle, was published in 1972. The reaction to the book may be seen in Literaturnaia gazeta, especially the issues of Nov. 12, 1940; Nov. 24, 1940; and Dec. 15, 1940.

46. Shklovsky, Viktor B., “Aleksandr Veselovskii—istorik i kritik,” Oktiabr', 1947, no. 12, pp. 174–82.Google Scholar

47. Shklovsky, Viktor B., Zametki o proze russkikh klassikov (Moscow, 1953; 2nd ed., Moscow, 1955).Google Scholar

48. Mandelstam, Nadezhda, Hope Against Hope: A Memoir, trans. Hayward, Max (New York, 1970), p. 1970.Google Scholar