The article represents a part of a study focused on the inheritance of modernist tendencies by the Bulgarian literature of the period between 1944 and 1989, when it was dominated by the movement of socialist realism. This continuity had not been conceptually manifested by its protagonists. It had often been deliberately underestimated and neglected by the critics and researchers who worked during the period. Also there were many cases in which it had been tendentiously distorted for the sake of rejection of some works and authors – through the frequent stigmas of “bourgeois formalism” and “decadent ideas”. Thereby, a tradition of its silencing was set, which, by inertia, was accepted to some extent even by the literary studies after 1989.
A STORY OF TWO KNIGHTS: THEODOR TRAYANOV AND IVAN PEYCHEV
-
-
Elka Dimitrova
Institute for Literature – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, BulgariaORCID: 0009-0000-8918-7200Д-р Елка Димитрова (1971) е доцент в Института за литература към Българската академия на науките. Работи върху проблематиката на българския и световния литературен модернизъм и на българската литература от периода след 1944 г. Защитава докторат на тема „Аспекти на митологичното и историчното в българската поезия от 20-те години на ХХ в. (Гео Милев, Никола Фурнаджиев, Атанас Далчев и Николай Лилиев)“ (Институт за литература, 2000). Автор на следните книги и учебни помагала: „Изгубената история“, София: ИЦ „Боян Пенев“, 2001; „Нови анализи на литературни творби“. За обучението в 11. и 12. клас. Т. 1, 2 .София: „Дамян Яков“, 2002; „Нови анализи на литературни творби“. За кандидат-студенти. Т. 1,2. София: „Дамян Яков“, 2004; „The Marginal Intellectual“ – CAS (Centre for Advanced Study, Sofia), 2017, монография (eлектр.публ.: https://www.cas.bg/en/working_paper_series/advanced-academia-programme-2015-2016-1850. html; https://www.ceeol.com/search/journal-detail?id=659).
-
-
Abstract:ABSTRACTThe article represents a part of a study focused on the inheritance of modernist tendencies by the Bulgarian literature of the period between 1944 and 1989, when it was dominated by the movement of socialist realism. This continuity had not been conceptually manifested by its protagonists. It had often been deliberately underestimated and neglected by the critics and researchers who worked during the period. Also there were many cases in which it had been tendentiously distorted for the sake of rejection of some works and authors – through the frequent stigmas of “bourgeois formalism” and “decadent ideas”. Thereby, a tradition of its silencing was set, which, by inertia, was accepted to some extent even by the literary studies after 1989.
Keywords:
