баснята

Боало в своя „L'Art poétique“, изброявайки поетичните жанрове, споменаваше баснята, отнемайки и правото да се числи към поезията. Но може би той не еимал намерение да отрече баснята като поезия, а просто я е забравил или е считал, че тя принадлежи повече към прозата. Боало може да е сгрешил, но грешат ли всички наши и чужди учебници, речници и справочници, които дефинират баснята само като някаква дидактическа форма и нищо повече, в един речник се казва, че баснята е „кратък нра воучителен разказ или стихотворение“, което поставя ударението върху пра вилата на морала. Други определят баснята като „разказ, който има за цел да даде някаква морална максима“, или който „дава алегорично тълкуване на известни житейски или нравствени правила" и т. н.

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.