vious thlat no one amonl)g us is better eqcuippecl, or more strongly motivated, to l)rovide it than is Riclhard Sheldon. Yet to say that the strenuously clharitable interpretation of Slhklovsky's career whiclh he offers in the March 1975 issue of Slavic Review' is both legitimate and welcome is not necessarily to imiiply tiat it is enitirely persuasive. Having plondered Professor Slheldon's amply documenited brief, I am inlclined to qualify or amend some of the judgmenlts miiade over twenty years ago but not to revise substantially nly original view of Shklovsky's vicissitudes, a view, I submit, which is considerably more modulated thani Slheldon is prepared to allow. Let me start with the least importanlt nmatter. Professor Sheldon maintains that miiy Ruissian Forinmalismt "downgrades Shklovsky's role as a founder of the nmovement and leaves the imiipressioln that the Moscow Lingtuistic Circle acttually precedes Opoiaz." Allegedly this mlisconceptioln "results mainly from the fact that Professor Erliclh nlever menltions in his text even the title of Shklovsky's booklet Reslurrectioni of the Word (1914)" wlhose ptublication attracted the attention of stuch inlnovative young linguists as L. Iakubinskii and E. Polivanov anid thuts spurred the formation of Opoiaz. We are told furtlher that "nearly every treatment of Formalisnm has recognized that booklet as a cornerstone of the movement.''2 As Professor Sheldonl notes himself, I did mention the Resurrection of the Word in miiy dissertation, witlhout, however, attaching to this brochure as crucial an importanlce as he does. In revising my thesis for publication, I deleted a number of passages which at the time I did not consider absoltutely germane to its subject. In retrospect, I would have been well advised to spare