Victor Shklovsky-Theory of Prose

8/11/2019 Victor Shklovsky-Theory of Prose

1/231

Viktor Shklovsky

THEORY OF PROSE

Translated by Benjamin Sher withan Introd!tion by "erald #$ Brans

UWE,

%alkey &r!hive Press


2/231

En'lish translation e())* Benjamin SherIntrod!tion + ())* "erald #$ Brns

#ibrary o, -on'ress -atalo'in' in Pbli!ation %ataShklovskii$ Viktor Borisovi!h. (/)01()/2

3O teorii 4ro5y$ En'lish6Theory o, 4rose 7 Viktor Shklovsky8 introd!tion by "erald #$ Brns8 translated

with an introd!tion by Benjamin Sher$Translation o,9 O teorii 4ro5y. :d ed$ ;


3/231

-ontents

Pre,a!e

Introd!tion

Translators Introd!tion

(9 &rt as %evi!e

:9 The Relationshi4 between %evi!es o, Plot

-onstr!tion and "eneral %evi!es o, Style

09 The Str!tre o, Fi!tion 29 The


4/231


5/231

Introduction

Toward a Random Theory o, Prose

"erald #$ Brns

I have a taste ,or readin' even torn 4a4ers

lyin' in the streets$ >%on JiGote

and not only a theory

bt a 4ro'ram o, strate'i! o4erations !a4able o, enterin' into the hetero 1

'eneity o, thin's and brin'in' it nder !ontrol$ One !old say that with

modernity the task o, reason was no lon'er to inter4ret the world bt rather

to over!ome it>to red!e it !on!e4tally. to 'ras4 and !ontain it within an

order o, 'eneral laws and te!hnolo'i!al systems. ,inally to intervene in its

o4erations and to trn it to 4rod!tive a!!ont$ To make sense o, the world.

we mst 4enetrate its in!oherent sr,a!e and lay bare its dee4 str!tres8 we

mst 'ras4 not its hidden meanin's bt its inner workin's$ "rammar is

mastery$ &nd with this idea !omes the invention o, 4oliti!s. whose task is to

4rod!e a !ltral system ,ree ,rom internal !ontradi!t ion. so!ial ,ra'1

mentation. and endless !rises o, le'itima!y$

&nother way to 4t this mi'ht be to say that modernity be'ins with the

dis!overy that the book o, the world is written in 4rose$ & 4oeti! niverse

is. 4hiloso4hi!ally s4eakin'. a niverse o, !orres4onden!es$ In a 4oeti!

niverse. every ,ra'ment is a lminos detail$ It resonates with the s4er1

sensos$ It is in 4er4etal trans4ort ,rom the everydayness o, its material

a44earan!e to the s4here o, the trans!endental where it is really lo!ated.

and its im4a!t 4on !ons!iosness !onstittes a moment o, vision or the

sense o, embra!in' the totality o, all that is$ There are overar!hin's every1

where$ Bt a 4rose niverse is jst one damn thin' a,ter another. like an atti!

or jnkyard or side o, the road$ Shklovsky says that -ervantes be'an his

'reat book by or'ani5in' it as a dinner table. bt almost at on!e thin's 'ot


6/231

x Theory of Prose

away ,rom him$ Don Quixote as Shklovsky em4hasi5es. is a narrativewhose 4arts are ot o, 4la!e8 and so is the world it mirrors. in whi!h ;inOrte'a y "assets 4hrase= the 4oeti! has !olla4sed. leavin' only le,toverslike the books %on JiGote reads$ The 4rose world is a 4la!e o, violentinterr4tion8 it is the nonlinear re'ion o, 4re histori!ality that !an only bedes!ribed by means o, !haos theories and models o, !atastro4he. or 4erha4snot so m!h !atastro4he as the slow breakin' down o, entities 4ie!e by

4ie!e$ It is an n4redi!table and dan'eros world in whi!h everyone issomeones vi!tim$ e are liable to a beatin' at every interse!tion. be!ase

is needed to take s to him8 he is always at or blind side. the rovin' banditor lrkin' street th'. bt o, !orse he mi'ht jst as easily be the lo!al inn1kee4er or a member o, the ,amily$ The world o, 4rose is bor'eois all theway down$The task o, reason in the world o, 4rose is to brin' thin's nder !ontrol1not. however. by 4oeti!i5in' them. not by alle'ori5in' events into semanti!s4erstr!tres ;theories o, !hivalry. ,or eGam4le. or o, !ltre=. bt ratherby the !onstr!tion o, 4lots. that is. by means o, dee4 synta!ti! str!treswhose o4erations do not so m!h abolish randomness as jsti,y it. rather theway lin'isti!s tries to jsti,y the arbitrariness o, words by a44eals tointernal ne!essity$ SyntaG. so to s4eak. re4la!es semanti!s$ The e,,e!t o,sti,i!ation wold not be to trans,orm the sin'lar 4arti!le into some

4 er4reted as an element in asymboli! order that sbsmes it and renders it trans4arent8 the 4arti!le

remains re,ra!tory and dense. nothin' in itsel, bt only a !ombinatory4otential$ En!losed in a 4rely relational environment o, !odes. networks.and total systems. the 4arti!le 'ains in 4ower what it loses in meanin'8 orrather its meanin' is now its relationality as s!h rather than its !orres4on1den!e to somethin' eGternal to itsel,$ So %on JiGote is always ot o,4la!e8 he is not a !hara!ter in a roman!e bt at best a !hara!ter eGiled ,romroman!e. a !hara!ter trned to 4rose. wanderin' in a world that takes hima4art 4ie!e by 4ie!e and s4reads him alon' a 4lane o, random interse!tions$The task o, reason is to !onne!t him 4 with San!ho Pan5a$ Here is arandom en!onter with binary !onse?en!es. the be'innin's o, a newsystem ;!all it the novel. or the dis!orse o, everyday li,e=$ The di,,eren!ebetween San!ho and %on JiGote has a 4oint to it ;it ins!ribes everyday1ness as the !olla4se o, the 4oeti!=$ San!ho meanwhile. like the !omi! ,i'resShakes4eare is a 4rose !hara!ter who nderstands that the world is best


7/231

Introdu ction

reason in the world o, 4rose is to arti!late this ethi!al ,ramework. whi!h

does not seek to endow the ordinary with any trans!endental sblimity bt

sim4ly seeks to 4reserve it as the ntrans!endable hori5on o, the sin'lar$

Shklovskys way o, 4ttin' this is to say that the task o, art is to make the

stone stony. that is. to kee4 s ,rom eG4erien!in' an obje!t as somethin'

other than it is8 as i, the task o, art were to ,ree s ,rom alle'ory or the

semanti! trans4aren!y o, 4arti!lars$

It is obvios at on!e. however. that the world o, 4rose is irred!ible even

to a str!tralist 4oeti!s$ Prose is by natre nstable and sel,1inter,erin'8 itis re,ra!tory and n!ontainable$ Prose does not so m!h ,low as over,low$

San!ho Pan5as storytellin' in !ha4ter :* o, 4art ($ whi!h is more like

!ontin' than re!ontin'. 4reserves eGa!tly the nonlinear. sel,1interr4tin'

eG!essiveness o, the 4rose world$ #Tell it !onse?entially. like an intelli'ent

man. says the bewildered JiGote. bt San!ho is already ,ollowin'

Tristram Shandys 4hiloso4hy o, !om4osition. whi!h is to let the world

s4eak. let every sin'larity have its say. withot res4e!t to rles o, reason or

4ro4osi tional order $ Indeed . o ne !old say that the natra l i n!lina tion o,

4rose is to or'ani5e itsel, into lists rathe r than into stories and 4ro4ositions$

-old a historio'ra4her drive on his history. as a mleteer drives on his mle.>>strai'ht ,orward $ $ $ he mi'ht ventre to ,oretell yo to an hor when he shold 'et tohis jorneys end8111 11bl the thin' is. morally s4eakin'. im4ossible9 For. i, he is aman o, the least s4irit he will have ,i,ty deviations ,rom a strai'ht line to make withthis or that 4arty as he 'oes alon'. whi!h he !an no ways avoid$ He will have viewsand 4ros4e!ts to himsel, 4er4etally soli!itin' his eye$ whi!h he !an no more hel4standin' still to look at than he !an ,ly8 he will moreover have varios

&!!onts to re!on!ile9&ne!dotes to 4i!k 49Ins!ri4tions to make ot9Stories to weave in9

Traditions to si,t9Persona'es to !all 4on9Pane'yri!ks to 4aste 4 at this door8Pas?inades at that811111&ll o, whi!h both the man and his mle are ?ite eGem4t

,rom$ !Tristram Shandy ($(2=

The world o, 4rose only !omes into its own with the invention o, the 4rintin'4ress. whi!h eman!i4at es dis!orse ,rom the trans!end ental bonda'e o,narrative and the hi'her ,orms o, !onse!tive reasonin'$ Prose do!mentsits environment ,rom the inside ot. not ,rom above. and so it !onts thin'sone by one instead o, or'ani5in' them systemati!ally into a!!onts that.amon' other !oherent thin's. be'in and end and 4oint a moral$ Prose is byits natre realisti! in its n4redi!table !on!ern with the density o, what issin'lar and re,ra!tory to !ate'ories$ Prose is the n,inished dis!orse o,inhabitants ;who themselves never stay in 4la!e bt$ i, they have the leasts4irit. wander maddenin'ly in every dire!tion. 4i!kin' 4 odds and ends.losin' bits and 4ie!es9 one thinks here o, Be!ketts


8/231

xii Theory of Prose

essay. the de!re4it billboard. the meanderin' joke. entries in an abandoneddiary. the mddled ?otation. the jotted note. the news4a4er 4a'e to wra4yor !4s in. dirty words in the 4bli! toilet. mens in Fren!h. 4ointlessane!dotes. the !rm4led sho44in' list. the broken1o,, !onversation. 4oli!ere4orts. the missent letter. the ad in the window. si'ns at a rally. 'ossi4 orhearsay. a stdents answer. the weak radio si'nal. brea!rati! memos$translations ,rom Ka4anese. shotin' in the street. ma'a5ines in the 'ara'e$

or words to that e,,e!t9 these are some o, the basi! 'enres in the 4rose o,4rose$Shklovsky$ o, !orse. is thinkin' ;mostly= o, artisti! 4rose. or 4rose that

in some ,ashion redeems itsel, ,rom itsel,. raises itsel, by its bootstra4s intosome ty4e o, ,ormal !oheren!e$ Bt he re!o'ni5es that there is always ahistori!al tension between 4rose and ,orm. and it is this tension that he seeksto stdy in the book that ,ollows. whi!h 'ives s the theory o, 4rose. not as asemioti!ian or a narratolo'ist mi'ht. bt thro'h the mediation o, histori!al;one mi'ht jst as well say random= detail$ Rssian Formalism is not Str!1tralism$ Its method is histori!al resear!h rather than the analyti!al !on1str!tion o, models$ Str!tralism raises itsel, on an o44osition betweensystem and history. str!tre and event8 Rssian Formalism de,ines itsel,not a'ainst history bt a'ainst 4sy!holo'y$ The di,,eren!e between Formal1ism and Str!tralism lies in the way the sin'lar is 4reserved in the one bterased by the other$ Str!tralism is a method o, sbsm4tive thinkin'$hat matters is the totality o, the system$ Bt Shklovskys ,ormalism isdistribted alon' a dia!hroni! 4lane$ His theory o, 4rose is a prose theory o,4rose. not the systemati! !onstr!tion o, a model indi,,erent to its eGam4lesbt hetero'eneos. internally !on,li!tin' des!ri4tions o, teGts strewnirred!ibly thro'hot the history o, writin'$ Shklovskys model is not the

lin'isti!s o, Sassre bt histori!al lin'isti!s and !om4arative 4hilolo'y$He is !loser to &erba!h than to Todorov$ He is interested in the histori1!ality o, ,orms rather than in the rles o, how ,ormal obje!ts work$ So histheory has the ri!hness o, 4ra!ti!al !riti!ism as well as the l!idity o,theoreti!al re,le!tion. as in his s''estion that an ane!dote that is notrandom ;not to say 4ointless= is not an ane!dote$

@ot a'ainst history bt a'ainst 4sy!holo'y9 the idea here is to ,ore'rondthe individal teGt in its ,ormal intelli'ibility rather than to re!onstr!t whatlies behind the teGt in the ,orm o, an ori'inatin' eG4ression or rle$ The tasko, Rssian Formalism was to eman!i4ate the work o, art ,rom the theory o,eG4ression. whi!h was Romanti!isms way o, !o4in' with the world o,4rose$ hats the 4oets 4la!e in a world o, 4roseL This was essentiallyordsworths ?estion in his 4re,a!e to the "yrical #allads. The idea wasto inte'rate eGtraordinary events o, the mind into the everyday and so toredeem the everyday ,rom its banality$ The 4oets task is to mediatebetween the banal and the trans!endental>tem4orality redeemed by itss4ots$ That the 4oet mi'ht !ome ot o, this mediation a bit 4rosy>lookin'entirely nremarkable. in "eo,,rey Hartmans 4hrase>is ,air eG!han'e.


9/231

Introduction xiu

sin!e the world !omes ot lookin' 4oeti!. even inhabitable and serene.

whereas withot the 4oets intervention it wold be a 4lane o, sllen obje!ts

im4edin' movement or es!a4e$ alla!e Stevens is 4erha4s not the last

ordsworthian bt hes !lose9 the 4oet determined to bild an inhabitable

world ,rom the debris o, 4rose$

Bt to make the stone stony is to !hi4 away the ins!ri4tion someone

!arved on it8 it is to trn si'ns ba!k into thin's$ Formalist 4oetry ;not to say a

'ood deal o, modern writin'= does this by ,ore'rondin' the materiality o,lan'a'e. disr4tin' the si'ni,yin' ,n!tion in order to ,ree words ,rom the

symboli! order that rational 4eo4le say we !onstr!t ,rom them$ Other sorts

o, 4oets jst take the world o, 4rose to heart and !on,ond the idea o, 4oetry

alto'ether. as when illiam -arlos illiams says ;4a!e Stevens= that &

4oem !an be made ot o, anyt hin '9 'ro !er y lis ts. news4a 4er !li 44in 's.

!rde love notes. the nrevised doodlin's o, an eGhasted 4ediatri!ian$ &

sbstantial 4ortion o, &meri!an writin' has tried to work ot the !onse1

?en!es o, this idea. most re!ently in the movement !alled lan'a'e

4oe try. whi !h. amo n' oth er thi n's . tri es to wri te a 4oe try tha t ;4a !e

doesnt. ,or

eGam4le. try to seal itsel, o,, ,rom the randomness o, everyday talk$ Here

are some lines ,rom Ron Sillimans $hat ;()//=9

oman do!tor and male nrse are rnnin' downthe hos4ital !orridor$ SyntaG ,ree5es them ,orever.tho'h I merely made them 4$ hatness vs$hi!hness$ Ts not jst the lar'e beard on thesmall 'y bt the way it jts ,orward$ Swivel yorhi4s with a knee di4 and the skateboard serves 4

the !rb ram4$ Brit ,la' in window serves as!rtain$ alker in sweatsit and knit !a4>lone,i're on tra!k at dawn$ Pa'es o, GeroG in adimestore binder$ So lets 4atent blood ;knowin' themarket=$ So theres Habermas in a 'est s4ot on

%iami &ice. Or the way tabloids se ?otation marks in4la!e o, itali!s$ #ike water. lan'a'e rns to the sea.,lsh with in,ormation$ @ot that. aardvarkM Pre,er

4oets ya4 to their la4$ %is!ordan!e in nmbertri''ers an adit$ S?int jst to kee4 'lasses ,romslidin' down nose$ & line a day kee4s the ! riti!away$ Rework !onteGt ,or 4revios vowel$


10/231

xi' Theory of Prose

@O P&R I## BE TOE%s4ray14ainted ,reehand on 'ara'e door$Nen 'ro!er$ Eyes a!hea,ter day at -RT$& teena'e 'irl with a bri'ht smile.sa,ety 4in thr her nose$

&s Ste4hen Fredman says in his bookPoet(s Prose lan'a'e 4oetry like

Ron Sillimans is written in 4rose bt is not 4rose 4oetry8 rather it is 4oetry

that de,amiliari5es lan'a'e by in!or4oratin' the over,amiliar. or what

belon's to the dai ly l i,e o, a 4rose environment$

& ,inal 4oint wold be that 4rose is inherently !omi! 4re!isely be!ase it

is the dis!orse o, what is near at hand or everyday$ hat is remote is

always mysti,ied. bt what we rb 4 a'ainst every day always in!lines s

toward la'hter. 4arti!larly when we see it take the ,orm o, lan'a'e.

whi!h is to say lan'a'e that is not only material bt 4al4able$ Prose

belon's to the world o, ,lesh and skin$ It is in its natre to be !or4lent rather

than lean$ O, !orse. 4hiloso4hers try to make 4rose lean by red!in' it to

4ro4ositional ,orm. be!ase they know that theres no sayin' anythin' in

4rose. no sayin' somethin' abot somethin' and 'ettin' it eGa!tly ri'ht. not

when 4rose is allowed to 'o its natral way. 'rowin' as m!h as ,n!tionin'$

Theres more to 4rose than senten!es$ It over,lows tho'ht$ One needs

4ara'ra4hs. !ha4ters. volmes>and still 4rose will 4rove n!ontainable$@ot ,or nothin' Henry Kames !alled s!h novels as he himsel, did not write

loose and ba''y monsters. nor that his 4rose is distant. distan!in'. not o,

this world. im4al4able and 4re!ise$ Bt even Kames !old hardly sto4 revis1

in'. as i, what he had on!e written had 'one to 4ot and needed to be 4onded

ba!k into sha4e. the way o, all 4rose$


11/231

Translator(s Introduction

Shklovsky and the Revoltion

Benjamin Sher

"ods voi!e !alled ,or me and said9

&rise. O 4ro4het. listen and behold.

Fill every sinew with Psh kin. The Pro4 het

Standin' on the brink o, the Stalinist ni'htmare o, the ()0*s. ViktorShklovsky de!lared !ora'eosly and ,orthri'htly that the word is aton1omos and that the artist who !ommands its 4ano4ly o, devi!es is soverei'nand absolte in his domain9

& literary work is 4re ,orm$ It is neither thin' nor material. bt a relationshi4 o,materials$ $$$ Hmoros works. tra'i! works. world1en!om4assin' or intimateworks. !on,rontations o, worlds or o, !ats and stones>are all e?al in the eyes o,literatre$ It is ,rom this that !omes the ino,,ensive !hara!ter o, art. its sense o, bein'sht 4 within itsel,. its ,reedom ,rom eGternal !oer!ion$ $ $ $ &n arti,a!t has a solthat is very m!h like a ,orm. like the 'eometri! relationshi4 o, masses$ ;(/). ()(=

hat eGa!tly does Shklovsky meanLIs he 4ro!laimin' a @ew -riti!al mani,esto a la Brooks. arren -o$

!entered on the artist as master !ra,tsmanL Or is he wa'in' a rear'ardbattle to 4reserve a de!adent. elitist. art1,or1arts1sake individalism a'ainstthe new dominant


12/231

Theory of Prose

him the artist is a ma'i!ian. a s4reme master in !ommand o, a whole arrayo, devi!es ;4lot. rhythm. ima'e. word4lay. et!$=. withot whi!h art doesnot eGist$

I, this is so. a estern reader mi'ht be tem4ted to re!o'ni5e a,,initiesbetween Shklovskys ideas and !ertain estern tenden!ies. when what is!alled ,or here is nothin' less than a seein' that attem4ts to nderstandShklovsky ,rom within. that is. that sees him as a !riti! who so'ht to

enstran'e. to trans,orm or !onventional 4er!e4tions o,literary history$;See below ,or a dis!ssion o, the key !on!e4t o, enstran'ement$=#ike Pasternak.


13/231

Translator(s Introduction x'ii

events and were ,rankly Dto4ian and hy4erboli!$ & 'ro4 o, 4roletarian 4oets.!allin' themselves -osmists. 4redi!ted a !on?est o, s4a!e beyond or 4lanet9 wewill ,irst overthrow the earth. then we shall sta'e the rebellion o, the stars$ $ $ $ TheyeG4e!ted the orld Revoltion to !ome at any moment ,rom jst arond the !orner8they !old hear the tread o, history$ -ons!iosly or n!ons!iosly. the 4eo4le o,Rssia wel!omed the advent o, a new era$

Thrst into this a4o!aly4ti! trmoil. Shklovsky mst have ,elt the earth

tremblin' beneath his ,eet$ Yet. he boldly and ne?ivo!ally 4ro!laimed the

soverei'nty o, the artist and his vo!ation in a d yin' world that was waitin' tobe r ebor n$

#ookin' at a 4i!tre o, Shklovsky in the !om4any o, re4rod!ed on the !over>I ,ond mysel, wonderin' abot the

4oss ibl e rel eva n!e o, this 'ro 4 4ho to to the maj or themes o, Theory of

Prose.hat is the si'ni,i!an!e o, Shklovskys 4resen!e in the !om4any o, two

revoltionary FtristsL hat were the eG4onents o, a s4irital and histor1i!al trans,ormation thro'h destr!tion and re'eneration doin' side by sidewith an e!!entri! devotee o, the artist and his devi!esL

It sddenly str!k me that Shklovsky may have !onsidered his role to be,ar more than a mere de,ender o, the artist and his !ra,t ;a role he 4layed.admittedly. with !onsmmate art himsel,=$ Is it not !on!eivable thatShklovskys 4reo!!4ation with !ra,t may have arisen ,rom a heroi!.revoltionary !on!e4tion o, the artist as a man1'od whose mission is todestroy the old and bild the new. that is. the new 4aradise. on earthL I, thisis so. then may we not s''est. in trn. that the real thrst o, Shklovskys!riti!ism was dire!ted not merely at establishin' the atonomy o, the artistthro'h his !ra,t bt at the emancipation o, the artist ,rom his histori!albonda'e to eGtra1literary ,or!es that have eG4loited him like a la!key ,or

their own endsL In e,,e!t. Shklovsky is strivin' with mi'ht and main. or so itseems. to rehabilitate the artist. whether in the 4erson o, the anonymosstoryteller o, the


14/231

x'iii Theory of Pros e

hy4othesis wold hel4 eG4lain Shklovskys disa44roval o, Belys involve1

ment with the mysti!al movement o, anthro4oso4hy$ For in Shklovskys

o4inion. Bely doomed his 4henomenolo'i!al sear!h ,or his !hildhood by

!hainin' it to the 4ro!rstean bed o, anthro4oso4hy$

e may ths !onsider Theory of Prose as Shklovskys 4aean to the

artists o, the 4ast. who had in trn enstran'ed the materials o, their world

and art. and who ths s!!eeded in trans,ormin' the ,ormlai!. !onven1

tional 4er!e4tions o, their a'e into a tre vision o, what man is and !an be$

In his very style. Shklovsky betrays his kinshi4 to the new revoltionary;tho'h not ne!essarily


15/231

Translator(s Introduction xix

shove aside6=$ It is a 4retty ,air assm4tion. then. that Shklovsky s4eaks o,ostraniene as 4ross or4!t that endows an obje!tor ima'e with stran'en?ss by rernovi?'$ i#ilJKI#jKie network o, !onventional.$1,o!nwhjj#!.sieKQ+i0iPMJ)lj:er!LPiBI1(>.$DjlDistj.! eG4ressions ;based on s!h 4er!e41tinn'= This bein' die !ase. how shold we translate this !on!e4t intoEn'lishL

The translation estran'ement is 'ood bt ne'ative and limited$


16/231

On the other hand. #emon and Reis are 4ro,essional. l!id and eand I ho4e Ive mat!hed their 4assionate !ommitment with@atrally. or terms o,ten di,,er. bt that is inevitable in translatinas !hallen'in' as Shklovsky$

JDOT&TIO@S9 &ll translations ,rom Rssian teGts are mine nless otherwisenoted$ For other non1En'lish works. standard translations have been sedand translators !redited$ &ltho'h


17/231

Translator(s Introduction xxi

with some o, the more obs!re as4e!ts o, Rssian ,olk tales$


18/231

hapter 1

&rt as %evi!e

&RTISTHI@I@"I@Ito be 4re!ise. a mode o, thinkin' inima'es$ This mode entails a !ertain e!onomy o, mental e,,ort that makes s,eel the relative ease o, the 4ro!ess$ The aestheti! sense is a !onse?en!eo, this e!onomy$ This is how a!ademi!ian Ovsyaniko1likovsky nder1stands it. and his re!a4itlation o, this theory. based as it was on his tea!her.whose works he had stdied with 'reat !are. was in all likelihood ?itea!!rate$ Potebnya and the nmeros members o, his movement !onsider4oetry to be a s4e!ial ,orm o, thinkin' ;i$e$. o, thinkin' with the aid o,ima'es=$ The raison detre o, the ima'e !onsists. in their o4inion. in hel4in'to or'ani5e hetero'eneos obje!ts and a!tions into 'ro4s$ &nd thenknown is eG4lained thro'h the known$ Or. in Potebynas words9

The relationshi4 o, the ima'e to that whi!h is eG4lained by means o, it may takeone o, two ,orms9 ;a= either the ima'e serves as a !onstant 4redi!ate to a s!!essiono, ever1!han'in' sbje!ts>a 4ermanent means o, attra!tin' !han'eable 4er!e4ts.or else ;b= the ima'e is m!h sim4ler and !learer than that whi!h is to be eG4lained$

Ths. sin!e the 4r4ose o, ima'ery is to brin' the si'ni,i!an!e o, the ima'e!loser to or nderstandin'. and sin!e. withot this. an ima'e has no mean1in'. then. the ima'e o'ht to be better known to s than that whi!h iseG4lained by it$

It wold be interestin' to a44ly this law to Tyt!hevs !om4arison o,smmer li'htnin' with dea,1and1dmb demons or to "o'ols simile o, thesky as the raiments o, the #ord$

There is no art withot ima'es$ &rt is thinkin' in ima'es$ Enormosener'y has been 4t into inter4retin' msi!. ar!hite!tre. and son' alon'the lines o, literatre$ &,ter a ?arter o, a !entry o, e,,ort. Ovsyaniko1likovsky has ,inally re!o'ni5ed the need ,or a s4e!ial !ate'ory o, non1ima'isti! art en!om4assin' son'. ar!hite!tre. and msi!$ Se4aratin' them


19/231


20/231

Art as De' ice 4

On the basis o, Potebnyas !on!lsion. whi!h asserts that 4oetry e?als

ima'ery. a whole theory has arisen de!larin' ,rther that ima'ery e?als

symbolism$ This 4res44oses that an ima'e is !a4able o, servin' as a

!onstant 4redi!ate to a s!!ession o, !han'eable sbje!ts$ This !on!lsion.

lyin' at the heart o, the Symbolist movement. has sed!ed. by virte o, its

kinshi4 o, ideas. s!h writers as &ndrei Bely and


21/231

6 Theory of Prose

vehi!le ded!t ,rom its e,,i!ien!y8 and that in !om4osition. the !hie,. i, not the solethin' to be done. is to red!e this ,ri!tion and inertia to the smallest 4ossible amont$)The Philosophy of Style*

&nd Ri!hard &venaris writes9

I, the sol 4ossessed ineGhastible resor!es. then it wold be o, no moment to it.o, !orse. how many o, these ineGhastible resor!es had a!tally been s4ent$ Theonly thin' that wold matter wold be. 4erha4s. the time eG4ended$ However. sin!eor resor!es are limited. we shold not be sr4rised to ,ind that the sol seeks to!arry ot its 4er!e4tal a!tivity as 4r4ose,lly as 4ossible. i$e$. with. relativelys4eakin'. the least eG4enditre o, ener'y 4ossible or. whi!h is the same. with.relatively s4eakin'. the 'reatest reslt 4ossible$

By a mere allsion to the 'eneral law 'overnin' the e!onomy o, mental

e,,ort. Petra5hitsky dismisses Kamess theory. in whi!h the latter 4resents

the !ase ,or the !or4oreal basis o, the a,,e!t$ The 4rin!i4le o, the e!onomy o,

!reative e,,ort. so sed!tive es4e!ially in the domain o, rhythm. was

a,,irmed by &leksandr Veselovsky$ Takin' S4en!ers ideas to their !on!l1

sion. he said9 The merit o, a style !onsists 4re!isely in this9 that it delivers

the 'reatest nmber o, ideas in the ,ewest nmber o, words$ Even &ndrei

Bely. who. at his best. 'ave s so many ,ine eGam4les o, his own laborios.

im4edin' rhythm and who. !itin' eGam4les ,rom Baratynsky. 4ointed ot

the laboriosness o, 4oeti! e4ithets. ,ond it. nonetheless. ne!essary to

s4eak o, the law o, e!onomy in his book$ This work. re4resentin' a heroi!

attem4t to !reate a theory o, art. demonstrates Belys enormos !ommand

o, the devi!es o, 4oetry$ Dn,ortnately. it also rests on a body o, nveri,ied

,a!ts 'athered ,rom ot1o,1date books. in!ldin' rayevi!hs 4hysi!s teGt1

book . in ,as hion when he w as a std ent at t he l y!e e$

The idea that an e!onomy o, e,,ort lies at the basis o, and 'overns the

!reative 4ro!ess may well hold tre in the 4ra!ti!al domain o, lan'a'e$

However. these ideas. ,lorishin' in the 4revailin' !limate o, i'noran!e!on!ernin' the natre o, 4oeti! !reation. were trans4lanted ,rom their

native soil in 4rose to 4oetry$

The dis!overy that there are sonds in the Ka4anese 4oeti! lan'a'e that

have no 4arallels in everyday Ka4anese was 4erha4s the ,irst ,a!tal indi!a1

tion that these two lan'a'es. that is. the 4oeti! and the 4ra!ti!al. do not

!oin!ide$ #$ P$ Yakbinskys arti!le !on!ernin' the absen!e o, the law o,

dissimilation o, li?id sonds in the lan'a'e o, 4oetry. and. on the other

hand. the admission into the lan'a'e o, 4oetry. as 4ointed ot by the

athor. o, a !on,len!e o, similar sonds that are di,,i!lt to 4ronon!e

;!orroborated by s!ienti,i! resear!h=. !learly 4oint. at least in this !ase. to

the ,ndamental o44osition o, the laws 'overnin' the 4ra!ti!al and 4oeti!

ses o, lan'a'e$

For that reason we have to !onsider the ?estion o, ener'y eG4enditre

and e!onomy in 4oetry. not by analo'y with 4rose. bt on its own terms$

I, we eGamine the 'eneral laws o, 4 er!e4tion. we see that as it be!omes


22/231


23/231

7 Theory of Prose

&nd so. in order to retrn sensation to or limbs. in order to make s ,eel

obje!ts. to make a stone ,eel stony. man has been 'iven the tool o, art$ The

4r4ose o, art. then. is to lead s to a knowled'e o, a thin' thro'h the or'an

o, si'ht instead o, re!o'nition$ By enstran'in' obje!ts and !om4li!atin'

,orm. the devi!e o, art makes 4er!e4tion lon' and laborios$ The 4er1

!e4tal 4ro!ess in art has a 4r4ose all its own and o'ht to be eGtended to

the ,llest$ Art is a means of experi encin5 the process of creati 'ity. The

artifact itself is 8uite unimportant.

The li,e o, a 4oem ;and o, an arti,a!t= 4ro!eeds ,rom vision to re!o'nition

,rom 4oetry to 4rose. ,rom the !on!rete to the 'eneral. ,rom %on JiGoteM

the s!holarly and 4oor aristo!rat endrin' hal,1!ons!iosly his hmiliation

at !ort. to Tr'enevs broad and hollow %on JiGote. ,rom -harlema'ne

to -harles the Fat$ &s the work o, art dies. it be!omes broader9 the ,able is

more symboli! than a 4oem and a 4roverb is more symboli! than a ,able$

For that reason. Potebnyas theory is least sel,1!ontradi!tory in its analysis

o, the ,able. whi!h. he believed. he had investi'ated thoro'hly$ &las. his

theory never dealt with the eternal works o, ima'inative literatre$ That

a!!onts ,or the ,a!t that Potebnya never did !om4lete his book$ &s is well

known. 2otes on the Theory of "i teratu re was 4blished in ()*A. thirteen

years a,ter the athors death$ Potebnya himsel, had mana'ed to work ot

,lly only the se!tion on the ,able$

&,ter bein' 4er!eived several times. obje!ts a!?ire the stats o, re!o'1

nition$ &n obje!t a44ears be,ore s$ e know its there bt we do not see

it. and. ,or that reason. we !an say nothin' abot it$ The removal o, this

obje!t ,rom the s4here o, atomati5ed 4er!e4tion is a!!om4lished in art by a

variety o, means$ I wish to 4oint ot in this !ha4ter one o, the devi!es sed

almost !onstantly by Tolstoi$ It is


24/231


25/231

4d' 4ni,orm a

e see by the end o, this story that Tolstoi !ontines to make se o, thisdevi!e even when no motivation ,or it eGists$

In $ar and Peace Tolstoi des!ribes battles sin' the same devi!e$ They

are all 4resented. above all. in their stran'eness$ Dn,ortnately. I !annot

o,,er any ,ll eGam4les. be!ase this wold re?ire eG!er4tin' a lar'e

4ortion o, the monmental novel$ Ho wever. a des! ri4tion o, the salons and

the theater will s,,i!e ,or the moment9

#evel boards were s4read ot in the !enter o, the sta'e$ &lon' the win's stood4ainted 4i!tres de4i!tin' trees$ Behind them. a !anvas was stret!hed on boards$ Inthe middle o, the sta'e sat yon' 'irls in red bodi!es and white skirts$ One yon' 'irl.very ,at. and attired in white silk. was sittin' se4arately on a low ben!h to whi!h a

'reen !ardboard was atta!hed ,rom behind$ They were all sin'in' somethin'$ henthey ,inished sin'in'. the yon' 'irl in white walked over to the 4rom4ters boG and aman in ti'ht1,ittin' silken hose on his ,at le's a44roa!hed her. s4ortin' a 4lme.s4read his arms in des4air and be'an sin'in'$ The man in ti'ht1,ittin' hose san'alone. then she san'$ Then they both ,ell silent. the msi! roared. and the man be'an,in'erin' the hand o, the yon' 'irl dressed in white. evidently waitin' a'ain ,or histm to join her in son'$ &,ter their det. everyone in the theater a44laded andshoted$ "esti!latin'. the lovers then smiled and bowed to the adien!e$

The se!ond a!t in!lded s!enes de4i!tin' monments$ The moon and stars4ee4ed in thro'h holes in the !anvas and lam4shades were raised in ,rames$ Then.to the sond o, bass horns and doble basses. hordes o, men rshed onto the sta'es4ortin' bla!k mantles and brandishin' what looked like da''ers$ Then still othersran 4 and started 4llin' on the arm o, a yon' 'irl$ %ressed earlier in white. shewas now dressed in a li'ht ble dress$ They did not dra' her o,, ri'ht away$ First.they joined her in a son' ,or what seemed like a very lon' time$ &t lon' last. a,terwhiskin' her o,,. they str!k three times on some metalli! obje!t o,,sta'e$ Then.everyone ,ell on his knees and be'an sin'in' a 4rayer$ Several times the a!tions o,the 4rota'onists were interr4ted by the enthsiasti! s!reams o, the adien!e$

So also in the third a!t9

$ $ $ Bt sddenly a storm broke ot and in the or!hestra yo !old hear the!hromati! s!ales and diminished seventh !hords and they all ran 4 and dra''edanother o, the !hara!ters o,,sta'e as the !rtain ,ell$

; Theory of Prose


26/231

Art a s De 'ice

Or in the ,orth a!t9

There was a !ertain devil on the sta'e who san'. with arms ots4read. ntilsomeone 4lled the board ,rom nder him and he ,ell thro'h$

Tolstoi des!ribes the !ity and !ort in +esurrection in the same way$

Similarly. he asks o, the marria'e in The ?ite sin!erely. I mi'ht add>as a ,orm

o, blas4hemy. !asin' them 'reat 4ain$ &nd yet this is the same devi!e that

Tolstoi a44lied to his 4er!e4tions and des!ri4tions o, the world arond him$

Tolstois ,aith was shattered by his 4er!e4tions$ He was !on,rontin' that

whi!h he had been tryin' to evade ,or a lon' time$

The devi!e o, enstran'ement is not 4e!liar to Tolstoi$ I illstrated it with

eGam4les ,rom his work ,or 4rely 4ra!ti!al !onsiderations. that is. sim4ly

be!a se his work is k nown to e very one $

Havin' delineated this literary devi!e. let s now determine the limits o,

its a44li!ation more 4re!isely$ In mv ,t 4ini4n$ enstrneement !an be ,ond

$almost anywheG'-ltS1i wherever there is an ima'e =$

hat distin'ishes or 4oint o, view ,rom tha t o, Potebnya may be


27/231

1> Theory of Prose

,ormlated as ,ollows9 The ima'e is not a !onstant sbje!t ,or !han'in'

4redi!ates$ The 4r4ose o, the ima'e is not to draw or nders tandin'!loser to that whi!h this ima'e stands ,or. bt rather to allow s to 4er!eive

the obje!t in a s4e!ial way. in short. to lead s to a vision o, this obje!trather than mere re!o'nition$

The 4r4ose o, ima'ery may be most !learly ,ollowed in eroti! art$ Theeroti! obje!t is here !ommonly 4resented as somethin' seen ,or the very

,irst time$ -onsider. ,or eGam4le. "o'ols -hristmas Eve9

Then he moved !loser to her. !o'hed. let ot a la'h. to!hed her eG4osed. ,llarm and said in a voi!e that eG4ressed both !nnin' and sel,1satis,a!tion9

&nd whats that yo have there. my s4lendid SolokhaL Sayin' this. he tookseveral ste4s ba!k$

hat do yo meanL


28/231

An as De'i ce 11

How we learned or al4habet to'ether9a e4he1

mism o, sorts$ It is also the ,ondation o, all riddles$ Every riddle either

de,ines and illstrates its sbje!t in words whi!h seem ina44ro4riate drin'

the tellin' o, it ;,or instan!e9 hat has two rin's with a nail in the middle o,

itL= or else it re4resents a 4e!liar adio ,orm o, enstran'ement ;i$e$. a kind

o, mimi!ry9 9slon da 0ondri09 instead o, 9=aslon i 0onni09*.

Similarly. eroti! ima'es that are not riddles may also be a ,orm o,

enstran'ement$ I mean. o, !orse. the whole ran'e o, !olor,l obs!enities

asso!iated with the brles?e$ The devi!e o, enstran'ement is 4er,e!tly

!lear in the widely disseminated ima'e>a kind o, eroti! 4ose>in whi!h

bears and other animals ;or the devil. 4rom4ted by a di,,erent motivation ,or

non1re!o'nition= do not re!o'ni5e man$ Very ty4i!al is this tale o, non1

re!o'nition. one o, the ?reat +ussian Tales of )he Perm Pro'ince !olle!ted

by % $ S$ Nele nin 9

& 4easant was !ltivatin' a ,ield with a 4iebald mare$ & bear a44roa!hes him andasks9 Hey. brother$ ho made this mare 4iebald ,or yoL

I mysel,. o, !orse. the 4easant re4lied$Really. and howL the bear ,ired ba!k$-ome on. let me make yo 4iebald too$The bear a'reed$The 4easant tied the bears le's with a ro4e. removed the 4lo'hshare ,rom the

4lo'h. heated it in the ,ire. and o,, he went to a44ly it to the bears ,lanks$ Thiss!or!hed his !oat to the very bone. makin' him 4iebald$ &,ter the 4easant ntiedhim. the bear moved away and lay nder a tree$

& ma'4ie swoo4ed down on the 4easant to 4e!k at his ,lesh$ The 4easant sei5ed itand broke one o, its le's$ The ma'4ie then ,lew o,, and sat down on the same treea'ainst whi!h the bear was restin'$

Finally. a horse,ly !ame alon' and sat on the mare and be'an bitin' it$ The4easant sei5ed the horse,ly. shoved a sti!k 4 its behind. and let it 'o$ The horse,ly,lew o,, and sat in the same tree where the ma'4ie and bear were re4osin'$

&ll three were restin' to'ether when the 4easants wi,e arrived on the s!ene withher hsbands dinner$ &,ter eatin' his dinner in the o4en air. the 4easant beat hiswi,e. throwin' her re4eatedly to the 'rond$Seein' this. the bear said to the ma'4ie and the horse,ly9


29/231

13 Theory of Prose

Oh. no. ,ellows. yo 'ot it all wron'. the horse,ly annon!ed solemnly9 @ot atall$ He wants to shove his sti!k 4 her behindM

The similarity o, the enstran'ement devi!e here with its se by Tolstoi inholstomer is. I believe. ?ite obvios$

The enstran'ement o, the seGal a!t in literatre is ?ite ,re?ent$ For

eGam4le. in the Decamer on Bo!!a!!io re,ers to the s!ra4in' o, the

barre l. the !at!hi n' o, the ni'htin 'ale. the merry woolbea tin' work

;the last ima'e is not de4loyed in the 4lot=$ Kst as ,re?ent is the enstran'e1ment o, the seGal or'ans$

& whole series o, 4lots is bilt on non1re!o'nition. ,or eGam4le.

&,anasievs Indecent Tales. The whole tale o, the Bash,l #ady revolves

arond the ,a!t that the obje!t is never !alled by its 4ro4er name ;i$e$. it is

based on a 'ame o, non1 re!o 'niti on=$ The same is t re o, On!h kovs &

omans Blemish ;tale no$ A:A= and The Bear and the Rabbit. also

,rom Ind ece nt Tal es in whi!h a bear and a rabbit 'ive ea!h other a

wond$(

To this devi!e o, enstran'ement belon' also !onstr!tions s!h as the

4estle an d the mortar or the devil and the in,ernal r e'ions !Decameron*.

-on!ernin' enstran'ement in the ,orm o, 4sy!holo'i!al 4arallelism. see

my neGt !ha4ter on 4lot ,ormation$ Here let me say only. what is im4ortant

in 4sy!holo'i!al 4arallelism is ,or e a!h o, the 4arallel str!tres to retain its

inde4enden!e in s4ite o, obvios a,,inities$

The 4r4ose o, 4arallelism is the same as that o, ima'ery in 'eneral. that

is. the trans,er o, an obje!t ,rom its !stomary s4here o, 4er!e4tion to a new

one8 we are dealin' here with a distin!t semanti! !han'e$

In or 4honeti! and leGi!al investi'ations into 4oeti! s4ee!h. involvin'

both the arran 'ement o, words and the semant i! str!t res based on t hem.

we dis!over everywhere the very hallmark o, the artisti!9 that is. an arti,a!tthat has been intentionally removed ,rom the domain o, atomati5ed

4er!e4ti on$ It is arti ,i!ia lly !rea ted by an arti st in s!h a way that the

4er! eive r. 4as in' in his readin' . dwel ls on the teGt $ This is when the

literary work attains its 'reatest and most lon'1lastin' im4a!t$ The obje!t is

4er!eived n ot s 4atia lly bt. as it were . in its tem4o ral !ont init y$ T hat is.

be!ase o, t his devi !e. the obje !t i s bro'h t in to v iew$

These !onditions are also met by 4oeti! lan'a'e$ &!!ordin' to

&ristotle. 4oeti! lan'a'e o'ht to have the !hara!ter o, somethin' ,orei'n.

somethin' otlandish abot it$ In 4ra!ti!e. s!h lan'a'e is o,ten ?ite

literally ,orei'n9 jst as Smerian mi'ht have been re'arded as a 4oeti!

lan'a'e by an &ssyrian. so #atin was !onsidered 4oeti! by many in

medieval Ero4e$ Similarly. &rabi! was tho'ht 4oeti! by a Persian and

Old Bl'arian was re'arded likewise by a Rssian$ Or else it mi'ht indeed

be a lo,ty lan'a'e. like the lan'a'e o, ,olk son'. whi !h is !lose t o litera 1

tre$ To this !ate'ory belon' also the wides4read ar!haisms o, 4oeti!

lan'a'e. the di,,i!lties o, the lan'a'e o, the twel,th !entry !alled dol!e


30/231

Art as De'ice 14

stil novo. the lan'a'e o, %aniel. with its dark style and di,,i!lt ,orms.presupposin5 difficulties in pronunciation. Yakbinsky has demonstrated inhis arti!le the law o, di,,i!lty ,or the 4honeti!s o, 4oeti! lan'a'e. 4arti!1larly in the re4etition o, identi!al sonds$ In this way. there,ore. the lan'a'eo, 4oetry may be said to be a di,,i!lt. laborios. im4edin' lan'a'e$In !ertain isolated !ases. the lan'a'e o, 4oetry a44roa!hes the lan'a'eo, 4rose. bt this does not violate the 4rin!i4le o, di,,i!lty$ Pshkin

writes9Her sister was !alled Tatiana$ill,lly shall we shed li'ht Onthe tender 4a'es o, this novel$@amin' her so ,or the ,irst time$

For the !ontem4oraries o, Pshkin. the elevated style o, %er5havin :as4oeti! lan'a'e. while the style o, Pshkin. de to its banality ;as wastho'ht then= re4resented ,or them somethin' neG4e!tedly di,,i!lt$ #etsnot ,or'et that Pshkins !ontem4oraries were horri,ied at his trite eG4res1sions$ Pshkin em4loyed ,olk s4ee!h as a s4e!ial devi!e o, arrestin' thereaders attention 4re!isely in the same way that his !ontem4oraries inter1s4ersed+ussian words in their everyday Fren!h s4ee!h ;see the eGam4lesin Tolstois $ar and Peace*.

&t this 4oint. an even more !hara!teristi! 4henomenon takes 4la!e$Tho'h alien to Rssia by its natre and ori'in. the Rssian literary lan'a'ehas so dee4ly 4enetrated into the heart o, or 4eo4le that it has li,tedm!h o, 4o4lar s4ee!h to nheard1o, hei'hts$ &t the same time. literatrehas be!ome enamored o, diale!t ;Remi5ov. lyev. Esenin. and others.all o, these so neven in their talent and yet so near to a !ons!iosly

4rovin!ial diale!t= and o, barbarisms ;we mi'ht in!lde here Severyaninss!hool=$


31/231

i

16 Theory of Prose

Kst as the body in re!eivin' a series o, varyin' !on!ssions. mst kee4 the

ms!les ready to meet the most violent o, them. as not knowin' when s!h may

!ome9 so. the mind in re!eivin' narran'ed arti!lations. mst kee4 its 4ers4e!tives

a!tive eno'h to re!o'ni5e the least easily !a'ht sonds$ &nd as. i, the !on!ssions

re!r in de,inite order. the body may hsband its ,or!es by adjstin' the resistan!e

need,l ,or ea!h !on!ssion8 so. i, the syllables be rhythmi!ally arran'ed. the mind

may e!onomi5e its ener'ies by anti!i4atin' the attention re?ired ,or ea!h syllable$

This a44arently !onvin!in' remark s,,ers ,rom a !ommon de,e!t. that is.the trnin' 4side1down o, the laws that 'overn 4oetry and 4rose$ In hisPhilosophy of Style S4en!er !om4letely ,ailed to distin'ish them$ It maywell be that there eGist two ty4es o, rhythm$ The rhythm o, 4rose or o, awork son' like %binshki re4la!es the need ,or an order ,rom a s4er1visor by its rhythmi! !hant9 lets 'roan to'ether$ On the other hand. it alsoeases and atomati5es the work$ &nd indeed. it is easier to walk with msi!than withot it$ O, !orse. it is jst as easy to walk while talkin' 4 a storm.when the a!t o, walkin' disa44ears ,rom or !ons!iosness$ In this sense.the rhythm o, 4rose is im4ortant as a ,a!tor leadin' to automati=ation. Bts!h is not the rhythm o, 4oetry$ There is indeed s!h a thin' as order inart. bt not a sin'le !olmn o, a "reek tem4le ,l,ills its order 4er,e!tly. andartisti! rhythm may be said to eGist in the rhythm o, 4rose disrupted.&ttem4ts have been made by some to systemati5e these disr4tions$They re4resent todays task in the theory o, rhythm$ e have 'ood reasonsto s44ose that this systemi5ation will not s!!eed$ This is so be!ase weare dealin' here not so m!h with a more !om4leG rhythm as with a disr41tion o, rhythm itsel,. a violation. we may add. that !an never be 4redi!ted$ I,this violation enters the !anon. then it loses its 4ower as a !om4li!atin'devi!e$ Bt eno'h o, rhythm ,or the time bein'$ I shall devote a se4aratebook to it in the ,tre$


32/231

hapter 3

The Relationshi4 between %evi!es o,Plot -onstr!tion and "eneral %evi!es o, Style

hy walk on a ti'htro4eL &nd. as i, that were not eno'h. why s?at every

,or ste4sL asked Saltykov1Sh!hedrin abot 4oetry$ Every 4erson who hasever eGamined art !losely. a4art ,rom those led astray by a de,e!tive theoryo, rhythm as an or'ani5ational tool. nderstands this ?estion$ & !rooked.

laborios 4oeti! s4ee!h. whi!h makes the 4oet ton'e1tied. or a stran'e.nsal vo!ablary. an nsal arran'ement o, words>whats behind all

thisLhy does in' #ear ,ail to re!o'ni5e entL hy do both ent and #ear

,ail to re!o'ni5e EdwardL So asked Tolstoi in tter astonishment abot the

nderlyin' laws o, Shakes4earean drama$ This !omes ,rom a man who

knew 'reatly how to see thin's and how to be sr4rised by them$hy does the re!o'nition s!ene in the 4lays o, this is the road o, art$

One word ,its another$ One word ,eels another word. as one !heek ,eelsanother !heek$ ords are taken a4art and. instead o, one !om4leG word

handed over like a !ho!olate bar at a !andy store. we see be,ore s a word1

sond. a word1movement$ %an!e is movement that !an be ,elt$ Or more

a!!rately. it is movement ,ormed in order to be ,elt$ &nd behold. we dan!eas we 4low$ Still. we have no need o, a ,ield$ e !an dan!e even withot it$

Theres an old story in some "reek !lassi! $ $ $ a !ertain royal 4rin!e was

so im4assioned with the dan!e at his weddin' that he threw o,, his !lothes

and be'an dan!in' naked on his hands$ This enra'ed the brides ,ather. whoshoted. Prin!e. yo have jst dan!ed yorsel, ot o, a weddin'$ To

IS


33/231

17 Theory of Prose

whi!h the yon' man. addressin' the wold1be ,ather1in1law. said. Yor


34/231


35/231

1; Theory of Prose

reason. Ka!obs is wron'9 he 4res44oses an absen!e o, laws 'overnin' 4lot,ormation. 4ositin' instead a ,ortitos arran'ement o, moti,s into series or!lsters$ &s a matter o, ,a!t. s!h stories are ,orever disinte'ratin' and,orever bein' rebilt in a!!ordan!e with s4e!ial laws o, 4lot ,ormation stillnknown to s$


36/231

Plot onstruction and Style 1B

o, land by Ero4ean !olonists$Havin' ths eGhastively tra!ed all o, the variants o, this 4lot.


37/231

3> Theory of Prose

weddin's$ $ $ $ &nd so we shall not be mistaken i,. in smmari5in' or !on!lsionwe say that in those modern nationalities :here the predatory abduction of :omen

still ta0es place this practice has arisen as a corruption of an ori5inal ritualabduction. &ltho'h weddin' rites have been traditionally re'arded as an e!ho o,the abd!tion rital. these mst be !onsidered only as measres desi'ned to 4rote!tthe weddin' 4ro!ession ,rom the Evil S4irits$ This is so be!ase these rites. like the!stom o, rital abd!tion. are !losely bond 4 with the 4rimitive reli'ios !on1!e4tions o, the nation$


38/231

Plot onstruction and Style 31

diver'en!e$ $$ $hy is the lyri!al 4oetry o, a ,orei'n !ontry never revealed to s in its ,llness

even when we have learned its lan'a'eL

e hear the 4lay o, its harmoni!s$ e a44rehend the s!!ession o, rhymes and

,eel the rhythm$ e nderstand the meanin' o, the words and are in !ommand o, theima'ery. the ,i'res o, s4ee!h and the !ontent$ e may have a 'ras4 o, all the

sensos ,orms. o, all the obje!ts$ So whats missin'L The answer is9 di,,erential4er!e4tions$ The sli'htest aberrations ,rom the norm in the !hoi!e o, eG4ressions. in

the !ombinations o, words. in the sbtle shi,ts o, syntaG>all o, this !an be mastered

only by someone who lives amon' the natral elements o, his lan'a'e. by someone

who. thanks to his !ons!ios awareness o, the norm. is immediately str!k. orrather. irritated by any deviation ,rom it$

Yet. the domain o, the norm in a lan'a'e eGtends ,ar beyond this$ Every lan'a'e4ossesses its own !hara!teristi! de'ree o, abstra!tion and ima'ery$ The re4etition o,

!ertain sond !ombinations and !ertain ,orms o, !om4arison belon' to the realm o,the norm. and any deviation ,rom it is ,elt ,lly only by a 4erson who is thoro'hly at

home in the lan'a'e$ Every !han'e o, eG4ression. o, ima'ery. o, a verbal !ombina1tion. strikes him as a sensos 4er!e4tion$ $$ $


39/231

33 Theory of Prose

a ,n!tion other than that o, servin' as a basis ,or ,ormal. rhythmi! 4er!e4tions Italso serves as a standard by whi!h to 'a'e deviations ,rom the norrnnathe itserves as a ,ondation ,or the di,,erential 4er!e4tions themselves

ThisW same 4henomenon is ,amiliar to s ,rom msi!9 the mathemati!al !on!e4tiono, the beat is ,elt as a ba!k'rond a'ainst whi!h a livin' stream o, sond ,lows andthis is attained by the !ombination o, the most sbtle nan!es and distin!tions ISV$ 3-hristiansen.Philosop hy of A n ()((=

Ste44ed -onstr!tion and %e!eleration

There are those who think that the 4r4ose o, art is to ,a!ilitate somethin' orto ins4ire or to 'enerali5e$ #a!kin' a s,,i!ient nmber o, steam hammers.these 4eo4le enlist the hel4 o, rhythm to do the job ;see. !hie,ly. Bti!hers$or0 and +hythm*. &nd yet. those who have looked dee4ly into thismatter know better$ Indeed. how thoro'hly alien is 'enerali5ation to art$How m!h !loser it is instead to 4arti!lari5ation$

&rt is not a mar!h set to msi!. bt rather a walkin' dan!e to be eG4eri1en!ed or. more a!!rately. a movement o, the body. whose very essen!e it isto be eG4erien!ed thro'h the senses$

The 4ra!ti!al mind seeks 'enerali5ations by !reatin'. inso,ar as 4ossible.wide1ran'in'. all1en!om4assin' ,ormlas$ &rt. on the !ontrary. with itslon'in' ,or the !on!rete ;-arlyle=. is based on a ste41by1ste4 str!treand on the 4arti!lari5in' o, even that whi!h is 4resented in a 'enerali5edand ni,ied ,orm$

Pro'ressive str!tre in!ldes nder its rbri! s!h devi!es as re4etition;with its 4arti!lar ,orm o, rhythm=. tatolo'ies. tatolo'i!al 4arallelism.

4sy!holo'i!al 4arallelism. retardation o, the a!tion. e4i! re4etitions. theritals o, ,airy tale and le'end. 4eri4eteia and many other devi!es o, 4lot!onstr!tion$

The !onver'en!e o, many identi!al 4hrases o, the ty4e I !ommandyo. I order yo. and so ,orth. are o,ten en!ontered in re,ined En'lishbsiness s4ee!h ;as 4ointed ot by %i!kens in Da'id opperfield*. Thiswas !ommon 4ra!ti!e in an!ient oratory ;Nelinsky=$ This 4henomenonre4resents a kind o, 'eneral 4rin!i4le in ,olk 4oetry$ Here are someeGam4les ,rom %ovnar1Na4olskys Son5s of the Pinchu0s They arebeatin' the drms > they are 4ondin' on them8 tamborines > drms8 thewind blows > the wind wa,ts8 !herry > wild !herry8 to order > to!ommand8 walks > strolls8 wee4s > 'rieves8 drank > !arosed8 kno!k >rattle. et!$

Here are some eGam4les ,rom Pro,essor S4eranskys +ussian ral

"iterature

Rssian 4oetry is a44arently ?ite enamored o, this devi!e and has evolved in thisres4e!t a 'reat diversity o, ,orms9 this !onsists either o, a sim4le re4etition ot oneand the same word or o, !onsonants synonymos in meanin'. e$'$. 9chudnim


40/231


chudno9 (-di'nim E di'no9 et!$ This devi!e may also take ;with es4e!ial ,re1?en!y= the ,orm o, a re4etition o, the 4re4osition. s!h as in 'lorios in oldin iev et!$. or. a'ain. this devi!e may ,re?ently take the ,orm o, a re4etition o,one and the same word or 4hrase in two adja!ent lines o, verse. where the ,inal wordo, one line rea44ears as the ,irst word o, the neGt line9

O, this sable. 4erha4s. ,rom abroad$From abroad. a sable with ear,la4s$& sable with ear,la4s. !overed with down $ $ $

Sometimes this re4etition takes the ,orm o, a denial o, an antithesis9 by a

dire!t rote. not a !ir!itos one8 ,rom 'reat rather than little veGation8

a ba!helor. an nmarried man$ Here belon' also s!h synonymos

eG4ressions as withot a ,i'ht. withot bloodshed8 ,rom 'rie,. ,rom

sorrow8 an estate >1 ,ortne8 et!$. et!$ Sometimes this eG4ression

!onsists o, two words. one native. the other borrowed or diale!t in ori'in. as

,or eGam4le. l!k > ,ate. et!$ Or else o, a s4e!ies !on!e4t modi,yin' a

'ens !on!e4t9 4ike ,ish. ,eather'rass. titmose$

& more advan!ed ,orm. a sim4le re4etition. may involve entire e4isodes

o, a story$ These !an be es4e!ially e,,e!tive and 4leasin'$ S!h. ,or

eGam4le. are the bylina e4isodes !on!ernin' the battle between %obrynya

and %naya;the des!ri4tion o, %nas tent. %obrynya ( s arrival. %obrynya

and &lyosha. %obrynyas 4nishment o, his wi,e and its !onse?en!es=$ &s

an es4e!ially !lear eGam4le o, re4eti t ion. we may 4oint to Poty!ks

wrestlin' with the nder'rond ser4ent ;"il,erdin'. no$ A:=$ Finally we

o'ht also to in!lde nder this rbri! !ombinations o, two words. ea!h o,

whi!h belon's to a di,,erent 'rammati!al !ate'ory yet linked by the root9 to

b il d a bi ld in '. to 'i ld wi th 'ol d. to !r y o t wi th a !r y. et !$

The se o, synonyms was "o'ols ,avorite stylisti! devi!e$

The distin'ishin' ,eatre o, "o'ols style lies in the nsal ,re?en!y. indeed.

the !onstan!y with whi!h the athor em4loys two synonymos eG4ressions in

s!!ession. even tho'h this does not ne!essarily !ontribte to 'reater !larity or4re!ision o, tho'ht$ @early always o ne o, the eG4ressions trns ot to be !om1

4letely s4er,los. bein' in every sense a ,ll re4etition o, the other eG4ression andonly rarely servin' to brin' the symbol into 'reater relie,$ The reader may satis,y

himsel, as to the trth o, this 4henomenon by eGaminin' its o!!rren!e even within a!om4aratively narrow s!o4e9 $ $ $ :ithfirmness in the !ase o, li,e. with cheerful-

ness and with the encoura5ement o, all arond yo$ Or$ in the same vein. bt in the,orm o, a verb9 so that he may he Ip his ,ellow man with 'ood !onsel$ $ $ so that he

may cheer and in'i5orate him with intelli'ent words o, 4artin'$ Or else in the ,orm

o, a 4arti!i4le or adje!tive9 yo will there,ore !arry it ot 4re!isely as one shold.

and as re?ired by the 'overnment.1 i$e$. with in'i5oratin5 and encoura5in5stren5th...9- Yo may a!t with measres that are neither coerci'e nor 'iolent. . .9

%ire!t 4assa'es have become :ea0er have lost their stren5th de to theintrod!tion o, indire!t$ $ $8 %o not hurry do not hasten to add them on. and so

on$

In his book The 2ature of ?o5ol(s St'le Pro,essor


41/231

36 Theory of Prose

nmeros s!h eGam4les$ In Pshkin too we ,ind s!h eGam4les as the

thnderstorm thnders and lo!ked in by a lo!k ;!,$ Briks Sond

Re4etitions=$

This 4henomenon eG4resses the !ommon 4rin!i4le9 form creates for

itself its o:n content. For that reason. whenever the !orres4ondin' twin o, a

word is absent. its 4la!e is taken by an arbitrary or derivative word For

eGam4le9 helter1skelter. to4sy1trvy. 4ell1mell. and so on$ &ll o, these

eGam4les o, an im4eded. 4ro'ressive !onstr!tion do not sally a44ear

to'ether and a se4arate eG4lanation has been o,,ered by some ,or ea!h o,

these !ases$ So ,or eGam4le. an attem4t has been made to shar4ly delimit

4sy!holo'i!al and tatolo'i!al 4arallel str!tres$ & 4arallelism o, the ty4e

OrYelino!hkais ha44y winter and smmer Or


42/231

Plot onstruction and Style 3F

For the #ord knows the way o, the im4ios$&nd the way o, the im4ios leads to 4erdition$

Here we observe a 4henomenon !ommon in art9 a 4arti!lar ,orm seeks to

!om4lete itsel, in a manner analo'os to the way that words seek !om4le1

tion in !ertain sond1blrs in lyri!al 4oetry ;see Veselovskys Three

-ha4ters ,rom Histori!al Poeti!s and H'os !omments on !om4letin'

the s4a!e between rhymes=$ For this reason. in the Finnish e4i! where

synonymos 4arallelism is the norm and where the stan5as take the ,orm o,I, yo take ba!k yor in!antation$ I,yo withdraw yor evil s4ell $ $ $

and where nmbers are ,ond in the verse whi!h. as is well known. la!k

synonyms. then the nmber that is neGt in order is sele!ted that does not

nmeri!ally !all attention to a distortion in meanin'$ For eGam4le9

He ,inds siG seeds on the 'rond$ Seven

seeds he raises ,rom the 'rond$

Or !onsider the Finnish


43/231

37 Theory of Prose

Gll4X de!eleration$ &s an eGam4le. here is

an eG!er4t ,rom a %yima wa nin' Ilya


44/231

Plo t ons tru ct ion and Sty le 3@

hat is tre o, de!eleration is e?ally tre o, 4arallelism9 a 4arti!lar

,orm seeks ,l,illment and. i, nmerals ha44en to o!!r in the !reation o, the

ste4s. then the athor deals with it in a very ori'inal way. in a!!ordan!e with

the laws o, a 'iven web9


45/231

Theory of Prose

Finally$ Roland. who has been wonded. de!ides to blow his horn$(=Roland 4la!es his horn in his moth. 'ras4s it Firmly with his hand and be'ins to

blow ,or!e,lly$ The montains are tall$ Yo !old hear the e!hoes ,ar away$ On thethirty major 4eaks yo !old barely hear its e!ho$ -harlema'ne and his troo4s hearit$ The em4eror says9 Its or boysM They are ,i'htin' the 'ood ,i'ht$ Bt "anelonanswers him9 Had anyone said that. it wold have been !onsidered a 'reat lie$

:= -ont Roland blows his horn with m!h e,,ort. di,,i!lty and'reat 4ain$

S!arlet blood streams ot o, his molh and the veins on his tem4les brst$ Far awaythe sond o, his horn is heard$ -harlema'ne hears it as he advan!es thro'h the'or'es$ %ke @emon hears it$ The Fren!h troo4s hear it$ The em4eror says9 I hearRolands horn$ "anelon answers9 @o. there is no battle$ He twits the a'ed em4eror,or his !hildish 'llibility. as i, he didnt know how ha'hty Roland was$ hy. hewas jst showin' o,, be,ore his 4eers$ #ets 'o ,orward$ Fran!e is still so ,ar away$

0= Blood streams ot o, -ont Rolands moth$ The veins on histem4les are

brstin'$ He blows his horn with 4ain and di,,i!lty$ -harlema'ne hears him$ TheFren!h troo4s hear him$ The em4eror says9 This horn is mi'hty and 4ower,l$ %ke

@emon answers9 Barons. a loyal vassal is ,i'htin' the 'ood ,i'ht$ In my o4inion. abattle is ra'in'$ He ss4e!ts "anelon$ e mst hel4 o r own men$$ $ $


46/231

Plot onstruction and Style

Shaded by the Beskids snowball trees$Stands a new tavern 4rod and stron'$ithin. a Trk sits drinkin' away$&s a 'irl kneels be,ore him and !ries9Oh. Trk. oh. Trk. oh. TrkM%ont kill me. ,or I am so yon'M

The yon' woman says that her ,ather has already 4aid ,or her ransom$

Bt her ,ather does not show 4 and the yon' woman wee4s$ The ,ollowin'

stan5a re4eats the same s!ene9 Beskid. the inn. and the yon' womansentreaty$ This time it a44ears that her mother has 4aid her ransom$ The

third time the same thin' ha44ens and ,inally a kind man a44ears with the

ransom$

Similarly. a yon' wi,es !all home in the vernal son's o, the


47/231

4> Theory of Prose

-onstr!tions o, the ty4e a Z ;aZa= Z ;Ua Z ;aZa=6= Z $ $ $ ,ollow anarithmeti! 4ro'ression$

There are tales !onstr!ted on a 4e!liar 4lot tatolo'y o, the ty4e a Z;aZa= Z ;3a Z ;aZa=6 Z a:=. et!$ For eGam4le. these tales ,rom E$ R$Romanovs#elorussian Antholo5y

The Slave Hen

"rand4a and "randma had a slave hen$ She lay a basket,l o, e''s$ "rand4a beaton them. beat on them bt didnt break them8 "randma beat on them. beat on them

bt didnt break them$ & mose 4assed by. wa''ed its tail and broke them"rand4a we4t$ "randma we4t. the hen !a!kled. the 'ate !reaked. the ,ire !ra!kledthe do's barked. the 'eese honked. 4eo4le yelled$

& wol, !ame alon' and said9 "rand4a. why are yo !ryin'L"rand4a answered9 hy shold I not be !ryin'L "randma and I were livin'

4ea!e,lly$ e had a slave hen$ She lay a basket,l o, e''s$ I beat on them. beat onthem bt didnt break them$ "randma beat on them. beat on them bt didnt breakthem$ & mose 4assed by. wa''ed its tail and broke them. $ $ $ "rand4a !ried. thehen !a!kled. the 'ate !reaked. the ,ire !ra!kled. the do's barked. the 'eese honked.

4eo4le yelled$ $ $ $The wol, howled$ &lon' !ame a bear who said9 hy are yo howlin'. oh wol,Lhy shold I not be howlin'. said the wol,$ On!e there was a "rand4a and a

"randma$ They had a slave hen$ She lay a basket,l o, e''s ,or them$ "rand4a beaton them. beat on them bt didnt break them$ "randma beat on them. beat on them

bt didnt break them$ & mose 4assed by. wa''ed its tail and broke them$ $$$"rand4a !ried. the hen !a!kled. the 'ate !reaked. the ,ire !ra!kled. the do's barked.the 'eese honked. 4eo4le yelled. and I. a wol,. am howlin'$ $ $$

&nd the bear 'rowled$ &lon' !ame an elk who said9 hy are yo 'rowlin'. ohbearL

&nd why shold I not be 'rowlin'L On!e there was a "rand4a and a "randma$

They had a slave hen$ She laid a basket,l o, e''s ,or them$ "rand4a beat on them.beat on them bt didnt break them$ "randma beat on them. beat on them bt didntbreak them$ & mose 4assed by. wa''ed its tail and broke them$ $ $ $ "rand4a !ried."randma !ried. the hen !a!kled. the 'ate !reaked. the ,ire !ra!kled. the do's barked$the 'eese honked. 4eo4le yelled. the wol, howled. and I. a bear. am 'rowlin'$

&nd the elk lowered its horns$ $ $ $

This rond o, ?estionin' eventally leads to the 4riests servants. who

!rsh a b!ket ,rom 'rie,$ &nd then to a dea!on who rends his books ot o,

sym4athy$ &nd. ,inally. to the 4riest himsel,. who. ,rom sheer woe. sets the

!hr!h a,lame$

The Rooster and the Hen

"rand4a and "randma had a rooster and a hen$ On!e they were di''in' a hole in thedm4$ The hen d' 4 a 4in and the rooster d' 4 a 4ea$ The hen then said to therooster9 "ive me yor 4ea. and Ill 'ive yo my 4inM The rooster 'ave the hen the


48/231


4ea. and the hen 'ave him the 4in$ The hen ate the 4ea. while the rooster swallowedthe 4in and started !hokin' on it$

The hen ran to the sea ,or water and said9 Oh my sea. my sea. 'ive me water$ Therooster is !hokin' to death$

@o. no. I shall not 'ive yo water$ "o down to the bad'er$ "o down and ask thebad'er to 'ive me his tsks$

The hen ran 4 to the bad'er and said. Oh bad'er. my bad'er. 'ive the sea yortsks$ Then the sea will 'ive me water. ,or the rooster is !hokin' to death$

@o. no. I shall not 'ive yo my tsks. 'o down to the oak and ask him to 'ive mehis a!ornsM

The hen ran to the oak and said9


49/231

43 Theory of Prose

blade o, 'rass re,ses$ He sends ,or the 'oat. then ,or the wolves then ,or4eo4le. and ,inally ,or ,ire. et!$ They all re,se$ Finally. the hens are on theirway to 4e!k the worms$ The worms are on their way to shar4en the 4in. andso on$ The 'oat is ,ora'in' ,or a blade o, 'rass$

Similarly. that whi!h is desi'nated in 4rose by an & is eG4ressed in artby means o, an &; I= & ;,or eGam4le. a tatolo'y= or by means o, an& &; (= ;,or eGam4le. 4sy!holo'i!al 4arallelism=$ This is the ,ondation o,

all te!hni!al devi!es$ In a!!ordan!e with this. i, the reali5ation o, a !ertaintask demands a de'ree o, e,,ort e?al to &; n=. then it wold take the ,orm o,&;n>:=. &;n>(=. &;n=$ Ths. in the byliny it is &lyosha Po4ovi!h whotakes the ,ield o, battle ,irst. then %obrynya @ikiti!h. and ,inally Ilya


50/231

Plot onstr uctio n and Style

%e!eleration as an &rtisti! %evi!e

In 'eneral. the devi!e o, a belated res!e. as a ,ittin' theme ,or a ste41by1

ste4 str!tre. is widely sed in le'ends and in adventre novels$ The 4rin!e

is near death$ &nimal hel4ers. rshin' to his res!e. eat their way thro'h

twelve iron doors$ The 4rin!e asks ,or 4ermission to bathe$

Ivan Tsarevi!h walks 4 to the bathhose and starts li'htin' the ,ire$ Sddenly. a!row ,lies 4 to him. !ryin' ot9

-awM -awM Ivan Tsarevi!h$ #i'ht the ,ire$ #i'ht the ,ireM Its 'oin' otM Yor'reyhonds are rshin' to yor res!eM They have already broken thro'h ,ordoors$

Behold Ivan Tsarevi!h as he li'hts the ,ire$ Still. it kee4s 'oin' ot$@o sooner does the !row vanish than osh!hei. the evil s4irit who knows not

death. a44ears to the boy9Ivan Tsarevi!h. is the bathhose readyL@o. not yet. the stones are not yet in 4la!e$ell then. try harderM&t that very moment a se!ond !row ,lies 4 to the boy. !ryin' ot9 -awM -awM

Ivan Tsarevi!h$ li'ht the ,ire. li'ht the ,ireM Its 'one ot a'ain$ Yor 'reyhondshave broken thro'h another ,or doors$

@o sooner does the se!ond !row vanish than osh!hei$ the 'oblin who knows notdeath. a44ears a'ain9

Ivan Tsarevi!h. Ivan Tsarevi!h. is the bathhose ready yetL@ot yet. bt Ive jst set the stones in 4la!e. the lad re4lies$ell then. hrry 4 and li'ht the ,ireMBehold a'ain how Ivan li'hts the ,ire$

& third !row ,lies 4 and !ries ot9 -awM -awM Ivan Tsarevi!h. li'ht the ,ire. li'htthe ,ireM Its 'one ot a'ain$ Yor 'reyhonds have broken thro'h the last ,ordoors$

&t that moment Ivan ,inally li'hts the ,ire$ hen the ,ire is hot and ready.osh!hei. the s4irit who knows not death. a44ears and says9

ell 'o on. take yor bath$ I !an wait a little lon'er$&s soon as Ivan walks into the bathhose. his 'reyhonds rsh in $ $ $ ;E$ R

Romanov.#elorussian Antholo5y*

In another version. Ivan Nlatovs re!eived 4ermission be,ore his death to

4lay the 5hlei ka. a wooden , lte9

He !limbed 4 the bir!h tree$ hen he 4layed the ,lte. a bird ,lew 4 to him$hen he 4layed it the se!ond time. more birds Hew 4$ hen he 4layed it ,or thethird time. all o, the beasts o, the ,ield ran 4 to him$ ;Ibid$=

This brie, introd!tion is in sin'le s4a!e. withot ?otes. in the Rssian teGt. as is.o, !orse. the tale that ,ollows it$ Shklovskys ;his editorsL= 4n!tation. 4ara'ra4hdivision. et!$ are. like so m!h else in Theory of Prose so errati! and arbitrary thatone !annot always be sre what his real meanin' in a 'iven !onteGt is$ In this !ase. itseems that Shklovsky himsel, is s4eakin'$ UTrans$ note=


51/231

46 Theory of Prose

So also does Solomon 4lay nder the 'allows tree as he !limbs 4 ste4 by

ste4 !allin' ,or hel4 ;see &$ @$ Veselovsky. Solomon and itovras=$

The eGisten!e o, ritals in le'end has been. 'enerally s4eakin'. a!knowl1

ed'ed by everyone to be !anoni!al ,or this 'enre$ I wold like to o,,er

several eGam4les ot o, the thosands available9 the three nder'rond

kin'doms o, honey. silver and 'old8 the heros three battles with the !har1

a!teristi! 'radated natre o, the tasks>,or eGam4le9 the !a4tre o, the

Fire Bird. the !a4tre o, the steed. the !a4tre o, the Beati,l Vasilisa$

This series o, tasks is 4re!eded by an eG4osition whi!h eG4lains thene!essity ,or the tasks$ This ty4e ;threadin' o, the tasks= 4assed on into

the adventre and !hivalros novel$

The tasks themselves are eGtremely interestin'$ They serve as a motiva1

tion ,or the !reation o, an a44arently nresolvable sitation$ Here the

4osin' o, r iddles serves a s the sim4lest means o, ! reati n' s !h a ho 4eless

sitation$ -hara!teristi! o, this ty4e are the tales o, the seven years

;&,anasiev=$

& task is im4osed9 do not !ome by ,oot. do not !ome on horseba!k. do not

!ome naked. do not !ome dressed. and so on$ & yon' woman is wra44ed in

a net. and rides on the ba!k o, a rabbit. et!$ Here the story is !onstr!ted

ba!kwards . as a mo tivation is so 'ht t ojsti,y a s !!ess,l resoltion o, the

story$ The re!o'nition o, one o, twelve look1alikes with the hel4 o, a bee is

similarly !onstr!ted. et!$ The wisdom here is more !om4leG. that is. it

!alls. ,or eGam4le. ,or distin'ishin' yon' maidens ,rom adoles!ent 'irls$

Similarly. it !alls ,or identi,yin' the ille'itimate son by the latters ina41

4ro4riate tho'hts. as. , or in stan!e. in the !ase o, the smiths son. wh o has

been ,radlent ly re4 la!ed by Solom on$ D4on seein' the bea ti,l 4 la!e. he

says9 Here shold we 4t the bla!ksmiths ,or'e ;On!hkov. "e5end s o f

the 2orth*.

-onsider also the thie, inA Thousand and ne 2i5hts who. amon' his

other tasks. re!o'ni5es the !ook as the sltans son be!ase the latter

!on,ers 4on him an award in the ,orm o, ,ood$ e meet with an e!ho o, this

in the nobility o, mistaken !hildren in adventre novels>,or eGam4le.

#e %estin in S!arrons "e roman comi 8ue and the nmeros heroes o,

!hildrens tales$

;&n interestin' story abot a ,alsely eG!han'ed !onter,eit white boy

is to be ,ond in


52/231

Plot ons truc tio n an d St yle 4F

alone !an do$ The ant 'athers seeds ;tale ,rom &4leis=$ Sometimes. the

ant is !alled 4on to a!!om4lish a s4e!i,i! task. s!h as 'atherin' and brin'1

in' ;or takin' ot= seeds into ;or ot o,= a !losed barn$ & ,ish or !rab is !alled

4on to brin' a rin' ,rom the de4ths o, the sea$ & mose 4rloins the rin'

,rom the teeth o, the abd!ted 4rin!ess$ The ea'le or ,al!on !a4tres a d!k$

In !ases where the tasks are o, a similar natre. ea!h animal is !alled 4on

to 4er,orm its task with a 4ro'ressively 'reater de'ree o, stren'th ;tale o,

Prin!e #arokoney=$ The animal hel4ers may be re4la!ed by hel4,l 4eo4le

and hel4,l ma'i!al obje!ts or o, the ty4e Oak1Slayer ;,ellin' the oak=or


53/231

47 Theory of Prose

a work o, art than the reality o, India im4in'es 4on the 'ame o, !hess$ The

adventre novel is to this day interr4ted. a!!ordin' to Veselovsky. by

s!hemata and methods inherited ,rom the 'enre o, the le'endary tale$Veselovsky himsel, !onsiders adventres to be a stylisti! devi!e ;Belle

#ettres in &n!ient "ree!e=$

This ty4e. the ty4e o, the !ir!itos 4ath. very !losely resembles the'ame !alled


54/231

Plot onstruction and Style 4 @

li,ted with little e,,ort. an nder'rond 4assa'e is d' 4. a ro4e ladder is

!onstr!ted and handed over to the 4risoner in a 4iro'e. the nei'hbors are

warned o, the abd!tion>in a word. everythin' is 4layed a!!ordin' to the

rles o, art$ &t the !on!lsion o, the novel. it trns ot that Kim is not a,'itive at all$ He had been eman!i4ated lon' be,ore$ e may see a 4arallel

here with a re!o'nition and with the attendant !olla4se o, all obsta!lesstandin' in the way o, a marria'e$ It is 4re!isely this marria'e. a,ter all. that

the 4arents o, the !on!erned 4arties desire$ So how do we answer Tolstois

?estion hy didnt #ear re!o'ni5e ent. and why didnt ent re!o'ni5eEdwardL Sim4ly by sayin' that this is ne!essary ,or the !reation o, adrama. that Shakes4eare was as ndistrbed by the nreality o, the literary

work as a !hess4layer is ndistrbed by the ,a!t that a kni'ht !an only moveobli?ely on the board$

I wold like to now retrn to the abd!tion and re!o'nition 4lot$ Nelinsky

s44oses that it has a ,ondation in reality$ -on!ernin' a !ertain 4lay by&4ollo aristsky. he writes9

@o dobt abot itM Yo !oldnt ,ind a better 4lanned story line$ Theres nothin's4er,los in it. all the s!enes hold to'ether beati,lly$ Similarly. there is no viola1tion o, the 4rin!i4le o, verisimilitde. eG!e4t 4erha4s ,or the !a4ri!ios 4lay o, Fate$Bt 4eo4le saw thin's ?ite di,,erently in those trobled times be,ore the advent o,

4ass4orts and tele'rams$ DneG4e!tan!y rled their lives$ For that reason. it was4ermissible ,or an athor. in !onstr!tin' his work. to sele!t ,rom a mltitde o,meanin'less. ,ortitos events by whi!h he was srronded. to sele!t those events inwhi!h an intelli'ent 4lan and 'ood will made themselves mani,est$

First and ,oremost. Nelinskys eG4lanation ,ails to eG4lain 4re!isely how

the 4lot !old have srvived beyond the times o, &leGandria to the times o,


55/231

4; Theory of Prose

skall 4eriods o, de!aden!e$ This is not a 4a'an 4atriar!hal severity. whi!h ween!onter in Homer and in the works o, the "reek tra'edians>rather. itre4resents a !ase o, sava'ery. o, a !oarsenin' o, mores in a de'eneratin' !ltre$O, !orse. it wold be absrd to !ondemn the athor9 he took ,rom li,e only whathe ,ond in it. and a dee4 artisti! obje!tivity 4revented him ,rom embellishin'

it$ !ternal ompanions*

&s I have already said. the abd!tion 4lot had already be!ome a

4rel y book ish a ,,ai r b y tha t tim e$ T o set


56/231

Plot onstruction and Style 4B

The ei'hth story o, the ,i,th day9 In Ravenna a !ertain @asta'io de'liOnesti loves a yon' woman o, the Traversari ,amily$ Even a,ter lavishin'his ,ortne on her. his love remains nre?ited$ &t the insisten!e o, rela1tives. he travels to -hia55a$ There he wat!hes as a kni'ht 4erse!tes ayon' woman. kills her and throws her body to the do's$ Seein' this. heinvites his kin,olk and the woman he loves to -hia55a ,or dinner$ %rin'dinner. she sees the do's ri44in' the yon' woman a4art$ Fearin' a similar

,ate. she de!ides to marry @asta'io$ @or was it in her instan!e alone thatthis terror was 4rod!tive o, 'ood9 on the !ontrary. it so wro'ht amon' theladies o, Ravenna that they all be!ame. and have ever sin!e been. m!hmore !om4liant with mens desires than they had been wont to be ;Ri''translation=$

Bo!!a!!ios women. it trns ot. are ths severely 4nished ,or theirintra!tability$ In the le'end whi!h serves as the 4rototy4e ,or this story.however. s!h a 4nishment was reserved ,or adltery only$ Veselovsky!atiosly s''ests that Bo!!a!!io did not draw on this le'end ,or his 4roto1ty4e bt on a di,,erent. less orthodoG one$ This is Veselovskys sal 4ointo, view$ He has never ,lly re!o'ni5ed the inde4endent. deliberate !han'esand trans,ormations e,,e!ted by the writer himsel,. and whi!h are the verysor!e o, his !reativity$ e may s44ose that Bo!!a!!io had in mind here awork based on the !on,li!t between new and old inter4retations o, moralityand 4nishment$ This assm4tion is all the more ri'ht in that Bo!!a!!ioo,,ers s another story with !almin' assran!es !on!ernin' retribtionbeyond the 'rave$ This is the tenth story o, the seventh day$

Re!o'nition. however. re4resents only an isolated !ase o, a 4eri4eteia$The ,ndamental 4rin!i4le on whi!h 4eri4eteia is based also !alls ,orim4edin' and retardin' it$ That whi!h o'ht to have been revealed immedi1ately and that whi!h is already !lear to the s4e!tator is slowly made knownto the hero$ EGam4le9 Oedi4s ,inds ot abot his mis,ortne$ Here thedrama slows down. !a'ht in the tortre o, de,erred 4leasre ;see Nelinskysanalysis o, 4eri4eteia in So4ho!les edipus*. Bt this ?estion is easier tostdy in the everyday ritals o, li,e than in a 4lay that is a work o, art$ #et mere!ommend. as an eGam4le. the best mans story at a Rssian weddin'.re4orted by Veselovsky$

The best man de!lares that he has !ome neither nder dress nor nder!oer!ion$ Rather he was sent by the bride'room. and so on9

Or yon' bride'room was !omin' ot o, the tower !hamber onto thewide street jst as I. his best man$ walked 4ast$I harnessed my brave horse. saddledand reined il and whi44ed it with a silken lash$


57/231

6> Theory of Prose

twelve roots standin'$ So I rode to the eastern shore o, the sea. I rode 4 to that oakand a marten jm4ed ot$ @ot the one who roams the ,orest. bt the one that is ayon' woman sittin' on the latti!e !hair in the tower !hamber. weavin' a towel ,orher bride'room$ ($ the 'rooms best man$ ,ollowed the martens tra!k and rode 4 tothe tower !hamber. to the tower !hamber on the broad street. to the newly wed

bride$ The martens tra!ks led to the 'ates and there they !ame to an end$ Show sthe martens tra!ks or o4en the doorM

Riddles by the 'ate9

ho are yo$ a mos?ito or a ,lyLI am neither a mos?ito nor a ,ly$ I am a man o, the Holy S4irit$ Show s the

martens tra!ks or o4en the 'ale$

There ,ollows an eGtremely im4ortant 4assa'e whi!h I wold like very

m!h to insist on$ & debate ,ollows$ From within they 4ro4ose to the best

man9

a= Stand nder a !orner window$b= -limb over the 'ate$

!= The 'ates are lo!ked$ The keys have been thrown into the sea$

d= He went to the wron' 4or!h$

e= The 'ates are over'rown with ,orest and thi!ket$

To all these 4ro4osals the best man res4onds with9 Show s the martens

tra!ks or o4en the 'ate$ Finally. they allow him into the 4easant ht$

He answers ;!= as ,ollows9

Or bride'room rode to the ble sea. where he hired some brave ,ishermen.men o, 'ood will$ They !ast a silken net into the waters and !a4tred a white ,ish$

In that white ,ish they ,ond the 'olden keys to the tower !hamber$

To ;e= he answered9

Or bride'room rode to the bla!ksmiths. to the yon' bla!ksmiths$ They ,or'edheroi! aGes and hired bold workers. who !ho44ed down the ,orest and the thi!ket

and battered down the 'ates$

e see the devi!e o, de!eleration even more !learly in the eGtraordinarily

!rios !stom re!orded by Roman Kakobson in the villa'e o, ostyshino.

o, the Ro'a!hesky Volost. %emidovsky %istri!t.


58/231


hat do yo wantL

#et me in$\O, !orse$She lets him in and says9 I am alone bt there are many o, yo$ Iam alone too$She eG4oses him as a liar$ He tries to jsti,y himsel, and says9 Bt yo are not

alone either$ @yshka


59/231


60/231


however. the hsband le,t his wi,e a 4arrot$ Every day this 4arrot re!ites a

di,,erent story to its mistress. and ea!h ni'ht it ends its story by sayin'9

Yoll ,ind ot the rest tomorr ow. i, yo stay home toni'ht$

3 wold s''est !om4arin' this story with the son' abot &lvass ;,rom

thedda* in whi!h Tor. seekin' to hold ba!k the snrise. when he wold

s44osedly be trned into stone. kee4s askin' ,or the names o, varios

obje!ts amon' the 'ods o, the elves. trs and !arls$

It is worth notin' that in this 4arti!lar !ase the devi!e is !ons!iosly

4er!eiv ed as a dela yin' ta!t i!$

#et me o,,er another eGam4le9

& vi5ier disobeys the kin's order to kill the ?een$ Instead. he hides her$

The kin'. not knowin' this. laments her death$ The vi5ier. answerin' the

kin's ?ery. 4lays with his im4atien!e in a way analo'os to a ,ramin'

devi!e$ For instan!e9

The kin' says9 Yo have 4set my state o, mind and in!reased my sorrow$ So

he eGe!tes the 4aGn$The 4a'h res4onds9 There are two kinds o, 4eo4le who deserve sorrow9 the

one who !ommits sins every day o, his li,e and the one who never does any 'ooddeeds$ hyL Be!ase their joy in the world and their bliss are insi'ni,i!ant. whiletheir re4entan!e. i$e$. a,ter a lon' 4eriod o, 4nishment. is beyond measre$

The kin' says8 Yo are ri'ht$ I, the 4aGn were alive$ I woldnt 'rieve ,or any1thin' in the world$

The 4a'h answers9 There are two kinds o, 4eo4le who shold not 'rieve$ One o,them is the man who eGer!ises himsel, by doin' 'ood deeds. et!$

In one version o, this story )


61/231

66 Theory of Prose

rFrom this it ,ollows that the battle between ,ather and son is a reslt o, the

artists !ons!ios !hoi!e and not be!ase o, matriar!hal re!olle!tions ;Ilya

and Sokolnik. Rstem and Sokhrab and so on=$

I wold like to !all the readers attention to the ,a!t that all o, the versions

o, the story s4eak o, the sons re!o'nition by his ,ather$ That means that

the writer who ,ormed the 4lot is !onvin!ed that the ,ather o'ht to know his

own son$

O, interest to s are the di,,erent eG4ositions !onstr!ted by the athor to

enable him to kill o,, the ,ather and !reate a state o, in!est$ For eGam4le.

Ylian


62/231

Plo t o nst ruc tio n a nd S tyl e

is a!!om4lished within the 4lay by &l!maeon &stydamanta or by Tele'ons

in $ounded dysseus.

There is a third 4ossibility9 & !hara!ter who intends to !ommit a !ertain

n,or'ivable !rime !omes to re!o'ni5e his mistake be,ore a!tally !om1

mittin' his deed$ Other than this. there is no other 4ossible alternative$ One

mst either !ommit the !rime or not !ommit it. whether !ons!iosly or

n!ons!iosly$ O, these alternatives the worst is that where someone has

!ons!iosly 4lanned to !ommit the !rime bt does not 'o thro'h with it. ,or

this ,ailre to !ommit the !rime is re4'nant bt not tra'i! to s$ This is so

be!ase s,, erin' is absent ,rom the sita tion $ Fo r that reason. no one has

!om4osed in that vein eG!e4t 4erha4s ,or a ,ew !ases. as ,or eGam4le in

Anti5 one. In this 4lay. Haemon intends to kill -reon bt does not kill him$

There is also the !ase where the !rime ;nder similar !ir!mstan!es= is

4er, ormed $ Best o, all is a sita tion where someo ne !ommit s a !rime in

i'noran!e and a,terwards re!o'ni5es his deed. be!ase s!h a sitation

ins4ires in s not dis'st. bt astonishment$

The most e,,e!tive alternative is re4resented by the !ase above$ &s an

eGam4le. !onsider the


63/231

67 Theory of Prose

a lot more abot it than I do$ &nd i, thesei

these myo4i! !riti!.think that I intended to des!ribe only that whi!h I ,ond to my likin'.,or eGam4leOb,onsky at dinner or areninas sholders. then they are mistaken

In everythin'. in almost everythin' that ( have ever written$ ( have been 'ided bythe need to !olle!t my tho'hts. to !onne!t them in s!h a way that I may eG4ressmysel,$ However. every tho'ht that is eG4ressed in words loses its meanin' andde'enerates horribly whenever it is taken by itsel,. that is. whenever it is ri44ed oto, the inte'ral str!tre o, whi!h it is a 4art$ The str!tre o, words !onsists not o,ideas as s!h ;I believe=. bt o, somethin' else. and it is im4ossible to eG4ress the

basis o, this str!tre dire!tly thro'h words$ This basis !an be eG4ressed onlythro'h the mediation o, words. that is thro'h ima'es. a!tions. sitations

@ow. however. when nine1tenths o, what is 4blished !onsists o, !riti!ism. weneed 4eo4le who wold show s the absrdity o, sear!hin' ,or 3individal6 tho'htsin a work o, art and who !old 'ide the reader 4ermanently in that endless labyrintho, inter!onne!tions whi!h is the essen!e o, art$ &nd in a!!ordan!e with those lawswhi!h in,orm these inter!onne!tions$

The tale or le'end. the short story. the novel>are a !ombination o,moti,s$ The son' is a !ombination o, stylisti! moti,s$ For that reason the 4lotand the natre o, 4lot !onstitte a ,orm no less than rhyme$ From the stand14oint o, 4lot. there is no need ,or the !on!e4t o, !ontent in or analysis o,a work o, art$ e may !onsider ,orm in this !onteGt to be the 4rin!i4lenderlyin' the !onstr!tion o, an obje!t$

&PPE@%I &

3Trans. note9 Sh0lo's0y be5ins :ith abbre'iated biblio5raphic citations to further

examples of the 0ind of story referred to on p. 4> abo'e. The terse citations

demonstrate Sh0lo's0y(s :ide ac8uaintance :ith fol0lore literature but :ould

mean little to the contemporary reader and hence are omitted. The text resumesJ

These tales have !lose relatives in barter stories$ For eGam4le. &,anasiev. ,irsttale. variant9 The she1,oG eG!han'es a sti!k ,or a 'oose. the 'oose ,or a trkey. thetrkey ,or a bride$ Same devi!e in the est Ero4ean tale worked ot by &ndersennder the title o, hatever the #ittle


64/231

Plot onstruction and Style 6@

,amily$ hen the 'irl rea!hed adlthood. the 'ood hermit be'an sear!hin' ,or a

worthy sitor ,or her$Sin!e she asked ,or the stron'est man alive. the soli!itos 'ardian trned to the

sn. who was the most 4ower,l bein' in the niverse. and 4leaded with him to marryhis da'hter$ In doin' this. he eG4lained why he was trnin' to the sn and to no oneelse$ Bt then the sn answered9

I will show yo someone who is stron'er$ It is the !lod. whi!h !overs anddetains all o, my rays and e!li4ses my rays$

Then the hermit went to see the !lod and said to him what he had earlier said tothe sn$ Bt the !lod answered9

I too will show yo someone who is stron'er$ "o see the wind. who moves meba!k and ,orth and drives me to t he east an d west$

So the hermit went to see the wind and said to him what he had already said to the!lod$ The wind answered9I too will show yo someone stron'er$ Its the montain. whi!h I !annot move$ Sothe hermit !ame to see the montain and re4eated his s4ee!h$ &nd the montain saidto him9I will show yo someone stron'er$ Its the rat. ,rom whi!h I am 4owerless to

4rote!t mysel, when he bores a h ole within me and sele!ts me ,or his dwellin'$ Sothe hermit went to see the rat and asked it9 ont yo 4lease marry myda'hterL &nd he answered9

How !an I marry her when my brrow is so narrow$ On the !ontrary. a rat woldrather marry a mose$

So the hermit. with the !onsent o, the yon' woman. be'an to 4ray to his #ord.im4lorin' Him to trn his da'hter ba!k into the mose she had on!e been$ So "odtrned her ba!k into a mose and she and the rat lived ha44ily ever a,ter$This tale was !lled by me ,rom the book o,


65/231

6; Theory of Prose

ell. all ri'ht. then bow down be,ore the rain !lodsM

O, !orse. bt woldnt it be more !orre!t ,or me to bow down be,ore the winriwhi!h s!atters the rain !lodsL &braham obje!ts a'ain$ Fine. then 'o

ahead and bow down be,ore the windM I, so. then woldnt it makemore sense to bow down be,ore the beine

!ontains the wind within himsel,L &nd the kin'. in!ensed. !ries ot9 These are,oolish ideas that yo are tterin'$ #ook here. I shall bow down be,ore

the ,ire. and it is into the ,ire that I shall !ast yo$ #et yor 'od. the 'od yo believe

in. !ome save yo$

e read the ,ollowin' edi,yin' 4assa'e in the Babylonian Talmd !on!ernin' themi'hty and bene,i!ial 4ower o, virte ;jsti!e. 4ea!e o, mind. et!$=>in whi!h asimilar bt more detailed 4arallelism ;a kind o, order= 4la

Documents

Victor Shklovsky-Theory of Prose