Никита Нанков

Сблъсъкът между две враждуващи теми - темата за всесилието на тирана, за стеснените робски хоризонти, за разгрома и унищожението и темата за коравата неунищожима българщина, който след по-внимателен прочит се оказва постъпателна замяна на първата тема с втората, ражда прелестта на един от най-хубавите Вазови разкази. Първата тема в своето развитие се обляга на документално-очеркови елементи и дневни картини, а втората използува по-специфични средства за епическо изграждане, тя представлява същинският" разказ и е неразделна от нощта. Двете теми се разгръщат не единствено п р е з деня и през нощта, но и чрез деня и чрез нощта, т. е. следвайки общата за разказа тенденция опорните понятия многопосочно да разширяват обема си, да се разрастват с нови значения, да се превръщат в символи, денят и нощта стават двата най-главни и многообемни символа, двете колони, върху които ляга цялата творба. Освен като част от денонощието де нят в разказа има значение на нещо видимо, очевидно, категорично само по себе си, а нощта - на нещо скрито, неподозирано, непредвидимо и необхват но. Неделимата сплавеност на двете основни теми и двата главни символа ни дава право да наименуваме първата тема „тема за робския ден", а втората - ,, тема за българската нощ. Редуването на двете теми оформя симетричната композиция на разказа: Тема за робския ден - тема за българската нощ - тема за робския ден - епилог. След тези общи наблюдения може да навлезем по-детайлно в творбата и да проследим развитието на двете теми. РОБСКИЯТ ДЕН. В четириделния първи епизод на разказа темата за робския ден зазвучава с градирана категоричност. Дяловете се обособяват според Ъгъла, от който се описват събитията, и според степента на конкретизация, на която се строи и варира темата. Първият дял обхваща частта от началото на разказа до мястото, черкезки първенец Джамбалазът ..." - съобщава се съдбата на Ботев и четата му; вторият - от „... на левия бряг на Искъра..." и т. н. до - Хайде мари, по-скоро!" - дава се най-общо картината на размирните времена; третият - от „В същия миг зададоха се ..." и т. н. до „Подир това жените, посърнали, хванаха да се връщат назад покрай нивята" - тук се вижда как се отнасят заптиетата към робините-българки: и последният, четвърти дял - от, - Аго, чекай, чекай, молим те!“ и т. н. до края на епизода - описва се дързостта на Илийца, която настоятелно моли турците да я вземат в лодката.

An article is focused on the structuring ideological, aesthetic and poetical functions of the motif ‘Nevermore’ (presented in Poe’s poem The Raven) into Bulgarian literature. The first stage of examination deals with the adoption of the motif in Bulgarian symbolist poetry especially Debelyanov’s ‘Nevermore’ (1907, 1908, 1910), Yavorov’s ‘Shepot nasame’ and Trayanov’s ‘Tazhen privet’ (1909, 1912, 1928). Next stage of the analysis shows that the motif ‘Nevermore’ (in Elin Pelin work ‘Salza Mladenova’) can be used as a stepping-stone in the study of the parody dialog between Bulgarian modernist poetry and non-modernist literature. This way of thinking outlines two perspectives to analyze the motif: 1. Examination of relationship between The Raven and four famous Bulgarian literary works, on one hand, and, seeing the parody as a dialog, gives an opportunity to discuss much more complicated problems such as identity of Bulgarian literature and its European or/and Balkan belonging, on the other.

Geo Milev (1895–1925) is one of the most erudite, versatile, controversial, and enigmatic Bulgarian modernists. He is a poet; translator fluent in several European languages; literary, art, theatre and music critic; illustrator; theatre director; and editor of two of the most radical modernist magazines in Bulgaria – Vezni (Scales) and Plamuk (Flame). This study explores how Bulgarian Left criticism, from the mid 1930s to the end of the 1980s, interpreted Milev by means of the narrative of the Biblical prodigal son. Milev (and his Bulgarian modernist peers) are portrayed and interpreted by a story consisting of three stages: from 1913 to 1914 Milev created realistic art; then, from 1914 to 1922, he was interested only in modernism in the form of Symbolism, Expressionism, and avant-garde, and his greatest sin as a writer is that he avoided the burning social issues of his time; and, finally, from 1922 to 1925 Milev again shifted to realism in art that now, due to his newly acquired Marxist-Leninist worldview, made him a socialist realist and a poet whose martyr’s death elevated him to the Pantheon of Bulgarian literature. The essay critically outlines several aspects of the interpretive narrative about Milev: first, the story of Milev as a prodigal son is an ideological and teleological verbal construct; next, the critical fable of Milev as a repenting modernist has two forms–a detailed and short one which are used in different periods of Bulgarian cultural history; then, the narrative of the prodigal son is a form of the aesthetics of realism, whereas philosophically it bears some major resemblances with Cartesian idealism; next, rhetorically, the fable of Milev is rendered by means of metaphors of the path, whereas in terms of poetics the narrative is told always chronologically. The analysis concludes by sketching five corollaries of the narrative about Milev as a prodigal son that, in one form or another, can be perceived in Bulgarian culture down to this day.

This essay has two entwined purposes. First, on a practical level, it analyzes the hierarchy of Slavic languages and literatures in American academia and some of the means by which it is created and perpetuated. It also covers the mechanisms used to promote Western literatures as superior to Russian literature. The main issue at this level is the unenviable place of Bulgarian Studies, especially Bulgarian language and literature, in the context of Slavic Studies in the US. Second, on a theoretical level and using the peripheral status of Bulgarian Studies as a springboard, the inquiry investigates the relationship between "major" and "minor" literatures and cultures and the role of academia and the media in creating this division of power. In clarifying the two objectives, the essay details various academic aspects such as: some general principles of paid higher education, language teaching in American academia, the value of scholarly degrees obtained in the West and in Eastern Europe, the American academic job market, the function of some scholarly organizations and journals, certain rhetorical and narrative means of writing post-modern literary histories, and the role of ideological and other cliches and biases in presenting Bulgarian culture in the US. The essay also shows how in American academia and media "minor" cultures are presented as things-in-themselves rather than things-for-themselves. The inquiry's conclusion speaks critically of the role of Bulgarian intellectuals after the dismantling of communism, and hypothesizes that the obscurity of Bulgarian Studies could be overcome within the dialectics among a) symbolically marked reality, b) narratives, and c) reading, interpretation, and action. The study's overall theoretical approach is in the Continental critical tradition, i.e., first, it presents things as they are and explains their man-made nature (deconstruction), and, second, it offers a better alternative (emancipation). The genre of the study is the marginalia, because this subsidiary scholarly genre is an exemplary implement for deconstruction and emancipation. The essay partakes in several disciplines: post-communist studies, theory of education, literary studies, narratology, Slavic Studies, Bulgarian Studies, semiotics, philosophy, theory of reading, and theory of action.