Here is an extract from The Writer in Petrograd and the House of Arts by Martha Weitzel Hickey. (A really interesting book!)
The interest of OPOIAZ members looking to define what was specific to poetic language as verbal material overlapped with those of the Institute of the Living Word. Boris Eikhenbaum's often-quoted introductory remarks to his seminal essay on narrative, "The Illusion of Skaz," were consonant with the view of literature and the word that the institute embraced.
We always speak of literature, of the book, of the writer. The culture
of writing and the press have accustomed us to the letter ... We often
forgot entirely that the word itself has nothing in common with the
letter --- that it is a living, mobile activity, created by the voice,
articulation, intonation, to which are joined gesture and mimesis. We
think that the writer writes. But it is not always so, and in the
realm of the artistic word it is more often just the opposite. The
German philology of the "eye" (Augenphilologie) must be replaced by
its oral counterpart (Ohrenphilologie).
There are, of course, special
written forms, but literature (or rather more precisely, literariness)
is not exhausted by them, and even in them one can find traces of the
My understanding of the word Augenphilologie is that it is referring to the branch of knowledge that deals with the structure, historical development, and relationships of languages unconcerned of how the language "sounds" (the voice, pronunciation, articulation, intonation, etc), in another words, philology of the eyes.
To me this is an extremely uncommon word and I doubt anyone would actually use it in non-academic writing/conversation unless she or he is unconcerned of whether the readers/listeners would understand what it means.