The Theory of the Formal Method by Boris Eichenbaum

Eichenbaum is one of the great members of Russian Formalism who tried to systematize formalist principle to set up a theory. Eichenbaum tries to employ scientific procedures and establish Formalism, a scientific theory. For the science of literature, both independent and factual methods are needed.

He however agrees with the opponents that, in Formalism, there is no strict methodology. He says that Russian Formalism is not dogmatic but it is a historical summation. The theory is valued only as a working hypothesis. He says that he is not concerned with definitions nor does he intend to argue formalist position.

Anatoly Lunacharsky in The Press and the Revolution says that Formalism is decadence. He rejects Lunacharsky’s ideas. His chief purpose here, is to show how the formal method, by gradually evolving and broadening its field of research, spread beyond the usual methodological limits and became a special science of literature, a specific ordering of facts. He says that formalists focus on the empirical study of material, which is historically good. General attention has been caught not by its technique but by its understanding and the study of technique. He accepts that there is the historical battle between symbolism and Formalism, and also between Impressionism and Formalism. Futurists support formalists because they oppose Symbolism. Formalism is characterized by scientific positivism. Eichenbaum quotes Jacobson’s formulation of the objectivity of the science of literature that is not literature but literariness. There is the analogous relationship between linguistics and formal methodology.

Leo Jakubinsky’s essay “On the Sounds of Poetic Language” compared practical and poetic languages. Victor Shklovsky in “On Poetry and Nonsense Language” says that even words without meaning are important in poetry. Osip Brik on “Sound repetitions” studied Puskin and Lermontov, where he doubts that poetic language is a language of images. Formalists began their work with the question of the sound of Verse. Mukarovsky’s “Distinction between Practice and Poetic Language” and Shklovsky in “Art as Technique” exposes the summation of the first phase of the formalist’s achievements. The idea or the style of plot to motivate the readers is dominant in Sterne’s Tristram Shandy and Cervantes’ Don Quixote. The OPOYAZ group devoted the volumes of works in the study of poetic language. Tomashevsky studied Pushkin’s iambic pentameters.

Eichenbaum provides a general conclusion in a summary form that the historical nature of Formalist task is not personal. The science is still evolving and the Formalists are along with it. To conclude, following points can be extracted:

1. There is a conflict between Poetic and Practical language that is discussed by     Jakubinsky an Jacobson

2. Formalist deal with the general idea of form and its function.

3. They consider the idea of rhythm. So, the verse is an especial form of speech having     extra features e.g. Structural: Syntactic, Lexical and Semantic.
4. The structure of the plot is created in terms of its motivation.

5. Single device is applicable in various materials in differentiating different techniques:     Evolution of the form according to its function.

Eichenbaum, lastly, says that for formalism, theory and history merge not only in words but also in facts. It has scientific principles. Russian Formalism is there fore objective, scientific and timely to study literature systematically.