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.
As for Shklovsky, his stay in Belgrade was extraordinary. He delivered three lectures for which I was the interpreter, I interviewed him for Belgrade television, and during more than a week, while we were touring Belgrade, he spoke to me about his life experiences, Russian avant-garde poets and formalists, very much about Bakhtin, whom he introduced to me that summer in Moscow. At the end of his visit Shklovsky asked me to give to “Romka” a brief letter he had written him and which he read to me. After thanking for the book with the dedication, Shklovsky added that Jakobson was probably unique in failing to recognize the sexual symbolism of a teapot.
I saw Jakobson and Krystyna Pomorska for the last time in Arlington, near Boston, in the home of Taranovsky, in the early spring of 1982. After dinner, Taranovsky and Jakobson suggested that the three of us withdraw to our host’s office, while our wives Vera, Krystyna and Krinka continued their conversation in the dining room. The presumed reason for this was that they didn’t want to impose on the ladies our tiresome conversation on scholarship in the late hours of the evening. The real reason was, of course, our wish to drink vodka without our wives’ worries for our health. We stayed long into the night telling stories, Jakobson and Taranovsky much more than myself. Being very lively and in a very good mood, Jakobson talked about many things, noting at one moment that without such socializing there would have been no Russian Formalism or Prague Linguistic Circle. New scholarly theories resulted from the direct exchange of views, often polemical, but always relaxed and friendly, with vodka playing an important role. Finally, when Jakobson was leaving, knowing that my wife Krinka was a specialist in Hispanic literature, he dedicated and gave her a Spanish edition of his book. Taranovsky commented on Jakobson’s courtesy as a refined apology for having broken our small company into men and women. It turned out that this was the last encounter of two friends from the long past days in Prague. Jakobson passed away that summer.
Donat B. Tzv. ruski formalizam // Delo. 1964. Br. 8/9. S. 1233–1256.
Erlich V. Russian Formalism: History – Doctrine. The Hague, 1955.
Flaker A. “Formalna metoda” i njezina sudbina // Pogledi 55. Zagreb, 1955.
Ocvirk А. Teorija primerjalne literarne zgodovine. Ljubljana, 1936.
Ocvirk А. Formalistična šola v literarni zgodovini // Slovenski jezik. 1938. Letnik 1. № 1/4. S. 154–161.
Petrov A. Ruski formalisti o književnoj evoluciji // Vidici. 1967. God. XV. Br. 6.
Petrov A. (ur.). Poetika ruskog formalizma. Beograd, 1970.
Београдски међународни славистички састанак (15–21. IX 1955). Београд, 1957.
Богдановић Н. Предговор // Томашевски Б. Теорија књижевности. Поетика. Београд, 1972.
Захаров Е. Формалистички правац у руској књижевности // Мисао. 1932. св. 7/8.
Јакобсон Р. Лингвистика и поетика. Београд, 1966.
Нова критичка опредељења. Београд, 1973.
Петковић Н. Језик у књижевном делу (Варијације на теме Опојаза). Београд, 1975.
Петров А. О природи поетског // Књижевне новине. 1966. Бр. 279.
Петров А. У простору прозе. Београд, 1968(a).
Петров А. Поетика руског формализма // Књижевност. 1968(b). Бр. 1–3.
Петров А. Песнички свет «Коре» // Попа В. Кора. Београд, 1969. С. 7–46.
Петров А. Поезија Црњанског и српско песништво. Београд, 1971.
Петров А. Ејхебаум – историја и теорија књижевности // Ејхенбаум Б. Књижевност. Београд, 1972.
Суботин С. О Виктору Шкловском // Шкловски В. Zoo или писма не о љубави; Трећа фабрика. Београд, 1966. С. 7–17.
Тарановски К. Методе и задаци савремене науке о стиху као дисциплине на граници лингвистике и историје књижевности // III Међународни конгрес слависта. Издања Извршног одбора, 4. Београд, 1939. С. 108–132.
Тарановски К. Руски дводелни ритмови, I–II. Београд, 1953.
Томашевский Б. Русское стихосложение. Метрика. Пг., 1923.
Томашевский Б. О стихе. Л., 1929.
Тынянов Ю. Н. Поэтика. История литературы. Кино. М., 1977.
Шкловский В. Журнал как литературная форма // Шкловский В. Гамбургский счет. Л., 1928. С. 112–117.
Эйхенбаум Б. Теория «формального метода» // Эйхенбаум Б. Литература. Л., 1927. С. 116–148.
Якобсон Р. О чешском стихе преимущественно в сопоставлении с русским. [Берлин], 1923.
Виктор Шкловский и Джованни Боккаччо: об истории одной малоизвестной статьи Шкловского
В апреле 1972 года в Венеции при Фондационе Джорджио Чини состоялась международная конференция, посвященная восприятию Ф. М. Достоевского в современном мире. Сборник статей, под редакцией Санте Грачотти, вышел гораздо позже [Graciotti, 1981]. В венецианской конференции приняли участие итальянские писатели Карло Бо и Эуриало де Микелис, ученые из Италии (среди них Этторе Ло Гатто и Риккардо Пиккио), из Западной Европы (Жак Катто, Пьер Паскаль, Юрген Молтман), из Югославии (Александр Флакер) и из Советского Союза. Из Ленинграда приехал Михаил Алексеев, из Москвы Борис Сучков, востоковед Николай Федоренко и Виктор Шкловский. Состав советской делегации свидетельствует о культурной политике того времени. Политика кнута и пряника… Бери Шкловского и Алексеева! И вместе с ними Сучкова и Федоренко…
Приезд В. Б. Шкловского, безусловно, стал событием для итальянского литературного и научного мира. Дело в том, что в эти же годы в Италии, как и на общей мировой арене, русский формализм был в центре внимания, и не только специалистов. Благодаря итальянскому изданию книг В. Эрлиха [Erlich, 1966] и Ц. Тодорова [Todorov, 1968], многочисленным переводам работ русских формалистов[96], а также антологиям по советскому структурализму и семиотике Умберто Эко – Ремо Факкани [Faccani, Eco, 1969] и Клары Страда-Янович [Strada Janovič, 1973] влияние русского формализма, структурализма и семиотики оказалось решающим для итальянского литературоведения и культурологии тех лет, что доказывают многочисленные труды итальянских постструктуралистов, интенсивная пропаганда семиотического подхода на страницах туринского журнала «Strumenti critici» (тут стоит упомянуть деятельность таких филологов, как Д’Арко Сильвио Авалле, Чезаре Сегре и Мария Корти)[97] и проведение организованного Умберто Эко международного конгресса по семиотике в Милане в июне 1974 года (среди участников – Ролан Барт и Роман Якобсон), см. [Panorama, 1979].
Статья Виктора Шкловского, представленная как доклад на конференции по Достоевскому, называлась «Достоевский и европейская культура» и была написана в духе очерков позднего Шкловского. Сам Грачотти в предисловии к сборнику замечает, что статья Шкловского – «гениальная и визионерская». Безусловно, само выступление старого формалиста поразило всех присутствующих.