[Cyrillic: e u yu] -- yeh oo you [Cyrillic: i a o] -- ee ah oh [Cyrillic: o a] -- oh ah [Cyrillic: o a e e i e ya] -- oh ah yeh yeh ee yeh yah [Cyrillic: o a] -- oh ah [Cyrillic: e u i e u] -- yeh oo ee yeh oo [Cyrillic: i e e] -- ee yeh yeh [Cyrillic: i i y i e i i y] -- ee ee eh ee yeh ee ee eh Do you feel the heights? The poet does, however, and he proclaims in his defense: "The more subjective is truth, the more objective is the subjective objectivity." * * * * * Brusov's point of view is expressed in the impassioned words of the historian of literature who appears at the end of the above-mentioned dialogue: In the new poetry, that is, in the poetry of the last centuries, one observes a definite shifting of two currents. One school puts forward the primary importance of the content, the other--that of form; later the same tendencies are repeated in the two successive schools. Pseudo-Classicism, as a school, placed above all form not the "what" but the "how." The content they borrowed from the ancients and then performed the task most important in their eyes--the elaboration of that material. The Romanticists, in contra-distinction to the Pseudo-Classicists, insisted first of all on the content. They admired the middle ages, their yearning for an ideal, their religious aspirations. Of course, the Romanticists contributed their did this, so to speak, casually, while actually they neglected the form of their verses; recall, if you will, the frolics of Musset or the carelessness of the poems of Novalis. The Parnassians once more proclaimed the primariness of form. "Reproachless verse" became their motto. It was they who declared that in poetry not the "what" was important, but the "how," and it was none other than Théophile Gautier who invented the formula "art for the sake of art." The Symbolistic school again revived the content. All this was in reality not so simple, schematic, rectilineal, as I expressed it. To be sure, all true poets have endeavored to bring into harmony both content and form, but I have in view the prevailing tendency of the poetic school as a whole. If my point of view is correct, then it is natural to expect that there is to come a new school, replacing the Symbolists, which will once more consider form of primary importance. At the appearance of a new school the doctrine of the old corresponding school becomes more subtle, more poignant, more extreme. The Parnassians went further than their progenitors, the Pseudo-Classicists. It is natural then to foresee that the new coming school will in its cult of form go further than the Parnassians. As such a school, destined to take the place of Symbolism, I consider Futurism. Its historic rôle is