Literat u r es as W orld Literatu re Can th e literature o f a specific cou n try, auth or, or gen re b e u sed to ap proach th e elusive con cept o f “w orld literatu re”? Literatures as World Literature tak es a n ovel ap proach to w orld literature by an alyzin g specific con stellation s—accor d in g to lan gu age, n at ion , form , or th em e—o f literary texts an d au th ors in th eir ow n w orld-literary dim en sion s. W orld literature is ob viou sly so vast th at an y view o f it can n ot h elp bu t be par tial; th e qu estion th en becom es h ow to red u ce the com plex t ask o f u n d er st an d in g an d d escrib in g w orld literature. M ost treat m en t s o f w orld literatu re so far eith er h ave b een th eoretical an d th u s abstract, or else h ave m ad e b r o ad u se o f exem plary texts fr om a variety o f lan gu ages an d epoch s. Th e m ajor it y o f critical w ork, th e fillin g in o f w h at h as b een tr aced, lies ah ead o f u s. Literatures as World Literature fills in th e devilish d etails by allow in g sch olars to m ove ou tw ard from th eir ow n areas o f specialization , fosterin g sch olarly w ritin g th at app roach es m ore closely th e polyph on ic, m u lt iperspectival n atu re o f w orld literatu re. Series Editor Th om as O. Beebee Editorial Board Ed u ar d o Cou tin h o, Federal Un iversity o f Rio de Jan eiro, Brazil H sin ya H u an g, N ation al Su n -yat Sen Un iversity, Taiw an M eg Sam u elson , Un iver sity o f Cap e Tow n , Sou th Africa Ken Seign eu rie, Sim on Fraser Un iversity, Can ad a M ad s R o se n d ah l T h om sen , A ar h u s U n iversity, D e n m ar k Volumes in the Series Germ an Literature as W orld Literature, ed ited b y Th om as O. Beebee Roberto Bolaho as W orld Literature, ed ited b y Nich olas Birn s an d Ju an E. D e Castr o Crime Fiction as W orld Literature, ed ited b y David D am rosch , Th eo D’h aen , an d Lou ise N ilsson Danish Literature as W orld Literature, ed ited b y D an Rin ggaard an d M ad s Rosen dah l Th om sen From Paris to Tlon: Surrealism as W orld Literature, b y D elia U n gu rean u American Literature as W orld Literature, ed ited b y Jeffrey R. D i Leo Rom anian Literature as W orld Literature, ed ited by M ir cea M artin , Ch rist ian M orar u , an d An dr ei Terian Brazilian Literature as W orld Literature, edited b y Ed u ar d o F. Cou tin h o Dutch and Flemish Literature as W orld Literature, ed ited by Th ecf D’h aen Afropolitan Literature as W orld Literature, ed ited by Jam es H od ap p Francophone Literature as W orld Literature, ed ited by Ch rist ian M oraru , Nicole Sim ek, an d Ber tr an d W estph al Sam uel Beckett as W orld Literature, ed ited by Th irth an kar Ch ak rab ort y an d Ju an Lu is Toribio Vazqu ez Bulgarian Literature as W orld Literature, edited b y M ih aela R H ar p er an d D im lt ar Kam bou rov Bu lgar ian Liter atu r e as W or ld Liter atu r e Ed it ed by M ih aela P. H ar p er an d D im it ar Kam b ou r ov BLO O M SBU R Y ACADEMIC M W YON« • I.ON'DON • OXFORD • NltW OKI.HI • RYDNKY B L O O M S B U R Y A C A D E M IC B lo o m s b u r y P u b lis h in g In c 1 3 8 5 B r o a d w a y , N e w Y o rk , N Y 1 0 0 1 8 , U S A 5 0 B e d fo rd S q u a re , L o n d o n , W C 1 B 3 D R U K B L O O M S B U R Y , B L O O M S B U R Y A C A D E M I C a n d t h e D ia n a lo g o a r e t r a d e m a r k s o f B lo o m s b u r y P u b lis h in g P ic F ir s t p u b lis h e d in t h e U n it e d S t a t e s o f A m e r ic a 2 0 2 0 V o l u m e E d i t o r 's P a r t o f t h e W o r k © M ih a e la P H a r p e r a n d D im it a r K a m b o u r o v E a c h C h a p te r © C o n tr ib u to r s 2 0 2 0 C o v e r d e s ig n b y S im o n L e v y A ll r ig h t s r e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f t h is p u b lic a t io n m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d o r t r a n s m it t e d in a n y f o r m o r b y a n y m e a n s , e le c t r o n ic o r m e c h a n ic a l, in c lu d in g p h o to c o p y in g , r e c o r d in g , o r a n y I n f o r m a t io n s t o r a g e o r r e t r ie v a l s y s t e m , w i t h o u t p r io r p e r m i s s i o n in w r i t i n g f r o m t h e p u b lis h e r s . B lo o m s b u r y P u b lis h in g In c d o e s n o t h a v e a n y c o n t r o l o v e r, o r r e s p o n s ib ilit y fo r , a n y t h i r d - p a r t y w e b s i t e s r e f e r r e d t o o r In t h i s b o o k . A l l i n t e r n e t a d d r e s s e s g i v e n in t h i s b o o k w e r e c o r r e c t a t t h e t i m e o f g o i n g t o p r e s s . T h e a u t h o r a n d p u b l i s h e r r e g r e t a n y In c o n v e n ie n c e c a u s e d If a d d r e s s e s h a v e c h a n g e d o r s ite s h a v e c e a s e d to e x is t, b u t c a n a c c e p t n o r e s p o n s ib ility fo r a n y s u c h c h a n g e s . L ib r a r y o f C o n g r e s s C a t a lo g in g - I n - P u b lic a tio n D a ta N a m e s : H a r p e r , M ih a e la P , e d it o r . | K a m b u r o v , D lm lta r , e d it o r . T it le : B u lg a r ia n lit e r a t u r e a s w o r ld l i t e r a t u r e / e d i t e d b y M ih a e la P H a r p e r a n d D im it a r K a m b o u r o v . D e s c r ip tio n : N e w Y o rk : B lo o m s b u r y A c a d e m ic , 2 0 2 0 . | S e r ie s : L it e r a t u r e s a s w o r ld lit e r a t u r e | In c lu d e s b ib lio g r a p h ic a l r e f e r e n c e s a n d in d e x . | S u m m a r y : " E x p lo r e s B u lg a r ia n li t e r a t u r e 's a d v e n t f r o m th e s t a n d p o in t o f Its In te rn a l re la tio n s to t h e w o r l d " - P r o v id e d b y p u b lis h e r . Id e n tifie r s : L C C N 2 0 2 0 0 1 8 9 9 9 | IS B N 9 7 8 1 5 0 1 3 4 8 1 0 5 (h a rd b a c k ) | IS B N 9 7 8 1 5 0 1 3 6 9 7 8 0 ( p a p e r b a c k ) | I S B N 9 7 8 1 5 0 1 3 4 8 1 1 2 ( e p u b ) | I S B N 9 7 8 1 5 0 1 3 4 8 1 2 9 ( p d f) S u b je c t s : L C S H : B u lg a r ia n lit e r a t u r e - H i s t o r y a n d c r it ic is m . | B u lg a r ia n lit e r a t u r e - A p p r e c ia t io n . C la s s if ic a t io n : L C C P G 1 0 0 1 .B 7 9 5 6 2 0 2 0 | D D C 8 9 1 .8 /1 0 9 - d c 2 3 L C r e c o r d a v a ila b le a t h t t p s :/ / lc c n . lo c . g o v / 2 0 2 0 0 1 8 9 9 9 IS B N : HB: 9 7 8 -1 -5 0 1 3 -4 8 1 0 -5 ePDF: 9 7 8 -1 -5 0 1 3 -4 8 1 2 -9 eB ook: 9 7 8 -1 -5 0 1 3 -4 8 1 1 -2 S e r ie s : L it e r a t u r e s a s W o r ld L it e r a t u r e T y p e s e t b y In te g r a S o ftw a r e S e r v ic e s P v t. L td . T o fin d o u t m o r e a b o u t o u r a u th o r s a n d b o o k s v is it w w w .b lo o m s b u r y .c o m a n d s ig n u p f o r o u r n e w s le t t e r s . В п ам е т н а баща ми, П етър Боянов Казанджиев; н а Кая и Анди M ih aela Р. H ar per In m emory ofKostadin Dimitrov Kambourov, for Deyna, Daphina and Traci D im it ar Kam b ou rov 8 An om aly an d D ist ext in Bu lgar ian Literature: Kir il Kr ast ev Vassil Vidinsky, M aria Kalinova, and Kamelia Spassova Bey on d You n g an d O ld In each n at io n al or w o r ld lit er at u r e th er e ar e p len t y o f an o m alie s, ab er r at io n s, m alfu n ct io n s, or e xclu sio n s r e gar d in g w h at w as fo r m e d as an in st it u t io n al n o r m an d as n orm at ivity . Th ese an o m alie s can b e an aly zed in at le ast fo u r d ifferen t w ays: (1) as n oticeab le o r u n n o t ice ab le flu ct u at io n s in t h e e st ab lish ed lit e r a r y can o n o r (2) a s a co n scie n t io u s av an t - gar d e r evolt again st an u n d e r st an d in g o f classical liter atu r e. W e cou ld also t h in k ab o u t an o m alie s in (3) a con v en t io n al (so m e t im e s even co m m e r cial) se n se — th e su d d e n p o p u la r it y o f cer t ain t h em es, gen re, style, o r t ast e p r efer en ces am o n g r ead e r s, w h ich r e p r e sse s p ar t icu lar lit er ar y alt er n at iv es th at alr ead y exist m ar gin ally o r in th e p e r ip h e r y ; o r even (4) t h e ob ject ive m at h em at ical fr e q u e n cy th at co n d it io n s th e ab u n d an ce o f ce r t ain th em es, gen r es, st yles, an d p r efer en ces in a given con text th at even t u ally fo r m s a G a u ssian cu r ve, a n o r m al d ist r ib u t io n t h at also p o in t s ou t th e excep t ion s. Th e h ist o r y o f Bu lgar ian lit er at u r e con st it u t es a m ast e r n ar r at ive t h at can b e t r aced t h r o u gh o u t th e tw en t ie t h cen tu r y , fo r m in g b o t h it s can o n an d th e m ain t e n d e n cy o f Its r m at iv e b ack gr o u n d . Th is n ar r at iv e cat ego r izes au t h o r s an d p r o c e sse s o n t h e axis betw een Y oung an d Old, (t h e You n g) m o d e r n ist s an d (th e O ld ) t r ad it io n alist . Th is o p p o sit io n st e m s fr o m a b o o k calle d Y oung an d Old. Critical Notes on Con tem porary Httlgarian Literature (1 9 0 7 ) b y Dr . Kr ast y o Kr ast e v (1 8 6 6 - 1 9 1 9 ), a cr it ic w h o b elo n ged to th e m o st in flu en t ial m o d e r n ist cir cle, М и съл (Th ou gh t ). A cco r d in g t o Dr. Krast ev, th e t r en d t ow ar d r e alism t y p ical o f th e O ld is r ep r esen t ed fir st an d fo r e m o st b y th e "p at r iar ch ” o f Bu lgar ian lit er at u r e, Ivan V azov (1 8 5 0 - 1 9 2 1 ), w h ile th e ap t exam p le n| th e You n g is P en ch o Slavey k o v (1 8 6 6 - 1 9 1 2 ). In a t im e o f n e w sp ap e r sn ip p e t s an d o p in io n at e d “b ean eater s,” Dr . Kr ast e v ar gu ed , th e p o p u lar it y o f a giv en au t h or i Ir p rlves h im o f aest h e t ic v alu e. Slaveykov, an o u t st an d in g p o e t in sp it e o f t h e fact t h at h r w as n ot a p ar t o f th e w id er p u b lic’s m ass tast e, n ever t h ele ss p o sit s th e “th e n ew ” tr en d as aest h e t ically self- r eflexiv e an d au t o t ext u al (self- m o d elled ) ar t. In t h is way, th e “uncrowned k in g o f t h e You n g and o f co n t e m p o r ar y Bu lgar ian lit er atu r e” in it iat es a Bulgarian Literature as World Literature 100 n ew order. Th u s, t h e t r ad it io n ally r ealist ic, p at r iar ch al lit er atu r e t h at u n it es th e n at io n al w it h th e so cial co m e s t o b e e m b o d ie d b y Vazov, w h ile Slaveykov, th e m o d e r n ist k in g, co m b in e s th e n ew w ith t h e h ist o r ical an d t h e fict ion al. Th e d y n am ic b et w een th e You n g an d t h e O ld is an alo go u s t o th at p r o p o se d b y Fr ied r ich Sch iller in h is “O n N aiv e an d Sen t im en t al P o et r y ” (1 7 9 5 - 1 7 9 6 ), even th ou gh th e referen ce is n o t m ad e exp licit b y Dr. Krast ev. “N aive” ar t , i.e., th e O ld , is im m ed iat ely an d n ece ssar ily lin k ed to n at u r e an d an cien t t im es, w h ile th e m o d e r n ist d isp o sit io n p r e su p p o se s a m e d iat e d r eflection , w h ich is also su b ject iv e, d ist an cin g, an d an t agon ist ic; acco r d in g to Sch iller ; it is a t r an sit io n fr o m a stat e o f n at u r e t o a stat e o f fr eed om . Th is self- reflexive asp e ct o f th e М и съл cir cle, cou p le d w it h it s gen r e- r elat ed co n scio u sn e ss, d r aw s th e at t en tion o f Bu lgar ian an d w or ld lit er atu r e sch o lar G alin Tih an ov, w h o p o in t s ou t th e t e m p o r al p a r a d o x th at e m e r ge s w h en lit er atu r e is t ailo r ed post factu m . A cco r d in g to Tih an ov, Dr . Kr ast e v ’s t h eses r e gar d in g th e O ld an d th e You n g “are u n it ed b y t h e n o t io n t h at u p t o t h at p o in t , Bu lgar ian lit er at u r e exist s as an u n co o r d in at ed , ch aot ic w h ole, w h ich n e e d s t o r e assign it se lf as t r ad it io n . Still, t oget h er w it h a lo gic p ar ad o xical fo r a m o d e r n lit er ar y co n scio u sn e ss, t r ad it io n e m er ges in a sy n cop e as d e p ar t in g fr o m th e p ast w h ich is called fo r w ar d in o r d e r t o b e forgotten .” 1 In th at way, T ih an o v ar gu es, Bu lgar ian liter atu r e in scr ib e s it se lf in t h e m o d e r n W estern Eu r o p e an p r oject , in w h ich th e w ill for m o d e r n it y co n d it io n s b o t h th e (n o n )e xist in g p ast an d th e p o in t s o f it s r u p t u r e. At th e sam e t im e, it is th e sam e “in scr ip t io n ” in th e W estern m o d e l t h at cau se s in t er n al co n t r ad ict io n s w ith in b o t h th e n at io n al an d th e lit er ar y id en t it y: th e th em e o f on e’s ow n an d th e fo r eign , as w ell as t h e im p o r t an t d ist in ct io n b etw een borderline (o r m ar gin al) an d periphery .2 Th e d ich o t o m y b et w een t h e You n g an d th e O ld o r m o d e r n ist s an d t r ad it io n alist s is paradigm atic fo r th e h ist o r y o f Bu lgar ian lit e r at u r e — a se r ie s o f ge n e alo gie s can b e list e d , all r ely in g o n a sim ilar n ar r at iv e. W h et h er r e d isco v e r in g, r eaffir m in g, cr it icizin g, o r at t e m p t in g t o d e c o n st r u c t it, th ey st ill co m e b a ck t o t h is fo u n d a t i o n p o sit io n in g t h e m o d e r n ist k in g aga in st t h e O ld Vazov. P r e cise ly t h is d ich o t o m ic n ar r at iv e m ak e s u p t h e n o r m at iv e b a ck gr o u n d o f Bu lgar ian lit er at u r e’s h ist or y . Is it p o ssib le , h ow ever, t o p in p o in t an even t t h at av o id s t h e co n st it u t iv e r ole o f t h e O ld , o f t h e fat h e r s an d an ce st o r s, as w ell as o f th e “em p o w e r e d ”; t h at also d isr u p t s th e n o r m at iv e n ar r at ive an d , in t h e en d , t r an sce n d s t h e d e lin e at io n o f O ld an d You n g? W h at k in d o f fr e e d o m w o u ld o r igin at e fr o m su ch an even t? H o w w o u ld o n e con ceive n o r m at iv it y th en ? A n d w h at r e lat io n t o t h e fu t u r e w o u ld it fo r ge ? Su ch an an o m aly w as p r o p o se d b y an o t h e r Kr ast ev, sin ce m o d e r n ism co n ce als so m e t h in g clan d e st in e , so m e t h in g fo r go t t en , an d d y sfu n c t io n al— n o t th e jo u r n a l М и съл cir cle b u t Crescendo, n o t th e m o d e r n ist Dr . Kr ast y o Kr ast e v b u t th e av an t - gar d ist , ar t t h e o r e t ician , an d cr it ic Kir il Kr ast e v (1 9 0 4 - 1 9 9 1 ).3 Kir il Kr ast e v c o m p o se d m o st o f h is av an t - gar d e w or k s b et w een 1922 an d 1927 as a st u d e n t an d a gr ad u at e ; h is w o r k is alm o st sim u lt an e o u s w it h late D a d a m an ife st o s in Z u r ich , Be r lin , C o lo gn e , H an n o ver , P ar is, an d N e w York. A r o u n d t h is t im e, New York D ad a w as p u b lish e d (A p r il 1921), a on eissu e m agazin e b y M ar cel D u ch am p an d M an Ray, w it h t h e im p o r t an t p ar t icip at io n o f T r ist an Tzar a. Anomaly and Distext 101 “Lu tt e con t re les P oètes” In 1926, th e fam o u s It alian Fu t u r ist T o m m aso M ar in et t i r eceived a h ar d co p y o f th e r ad ical “M an ife st o o f t h e Fello w sh ip Figh t in g A gain st Poets,” sign e d b y Bu lgar ian av an t - gar d ist s Kr ast ev, V asil Pet kov, N ed y alk o Gegov, an d Tot yu Br an e k o v (t o d ay th e cop y can b e fo u n d in t h e Be in e ck e Rar e Bo o k an d M an u scr ip t Lib rary , Yale U n iver sit y Lib r ar y ). Th e m an ife st o st at e s sever al m et ap h y sical, social, an d aest h e t ic r e aso n s fo r th e b ir t h o f th e fello w sh ip aga in st t h e cat ego r ies o f p o e t (p ar t icu lar ) an d ar t ist (u n iv er sal). Ce le b r at in g th e r eject io n o f “t h e r eign o f t r ad it io n al ab solu t es,” t y p ical fo r t h is con text, th e m an ifest o ad d r e sse s t h e “p r im a l valu e o f th e in t er n ally or igin al an d t r u e ar t ” an d p r o claim s th e so cial an d civ il r esp o n sib ilit y o f th e p o e t as o p p o se d t o t h e ir st o o p in g to so m e w h im sical r h y m in g. Th e au t h o r s are t er r ified b y th e b an alit y o f ar t u p t o t h is p oin t, b y “t h e im m u t ab ilit y o f a p o e t ’s co n cep t io n o f reality,” w h ich assu m e s t h at each p o e t fr o m an t iq u it y to t h e p r e se n t d ay 4 is n o t h in g m o r e t h an a t r an slat io n o f an y oth er p o et , all o f it u tt er ly u n ifo r m , on e an d th e sam e. Th e d iffer en ce b etw een t h e You n g an d th e O ld is n o t co n st it u t iv e an y m o r e , sin ce t h e m an ifest o ju x t ap o se s “h u m an e scie n ce” to “fr iv o lo u s ar t ” an d in sist s t h at “p r o fe ssio n al ar t can on ly h old a t h ir d - r at e p o sit io n ” in life. A lo n gsid e all k in d s o f ext r e m e o r legit im at e o b se r v at io n s o n co n t e m p o r ar y lit er atu re, th e au t h o r s e xclaim : “H er e w e celeb rate th e d ad aist m o t t o : life can d o w ith ou t a p o e t b u t n o t w it h ou t a join er .”5 Th e m an ifest o d e n o u n cin g p o e t s an d ar t ist s w as sen t t o m o st o f Bu lgar ia’s n e w sp ap e r s an d p e r io d ical ed it o r ials. In h is M em ories o f the Cultural Life betw een the Two W orld W ars (1 9 8 8 ), Krast ev, in h is o ld age, tells th e st o r y o f th e m an ife st o , sh ar in g t h at it r eceiv ed a lo t o f feed b ack , yet h e r e gar d s it as an “ep h em er al even t” t h at h ad a st r o n g D ad aist t h r ead w oven in to it s fab r ic.6 Even if w e co n sid e r t h at th e o ld K r a st e v is p ar t ially b lin d t o h is ow n ear ly ach ievem en t s (it is ty p ical an d p ar ad igm at ic fo r se n e sce n ce t o m isr e p r e se n t it s p ast ), w e can still r efer to th e even t as ep h e m e r al fr o m a h ist o r ical o r co n t ext u al p er sp ect ive. Th e m an ife st o w as a n in d ir e ct co n t in u at io n o f th e id e as o f th e lit er ar y cir cle fo r m e d ar o u n d th e m o st av an t - gar d e Bu lgar ian p e r io d ical Crescendo, w it h t h r ee ed it ion s p u b lish e d in t w o v o lu m e s, in t h e sp an o f tw o m o n t h s (vol. 2 an d vol. 3 - 4 , 1922), in th e sm all tow n o f Yam b ol. M ar in et t i, r eceiv in g v o lu m e s o f th e p e r io d ic al as w ell as literatu re in Bu lgar ian , h a d alr e ad y c o r r e sp o n d e d w it h Krast ev, b u t t h is m an ifest o w as d efin itely th e m o st r ad ica l gest u r e. Th e It alian fu t u r ist gave h is p e r so n a l cop y t h e fo llow in g title: M an ifeste du Cercle “Lutte contre les Poètes,” an d u n d e r t h e last lin e t h at r ead s “Yam b ol, A ugust 1926,” h e a d d e d t h e m o r e r eco gn izab le Bulgarie.7 At fir st glan ce, t h is m an ife st o is p e r h ap s t h e m o st ext r em e act in th e h ist o r y o f Bu lgar ian liter atu r e, an d it h as b een p e r ceiv ed an d an aly zed th u s sin ce. Still, several Ih eor etical an d h ist o r ical q u e st io n s em er ge: To w h at exten t d o e s it r eally co m e d ow n to r ad icalism , an d isn ’t it “lat e again ” in co m p ar iso n t o even ts th at h ad u n fo ld e d in W estern Eu r o p e ?8 H as t h is id e a b een in flu en t ial (d esp it e it s “ep h em er al” ch ar act er ist ic) o u t sid e o f t h is sm all lit e r ar y cir cle, an d w h at is, in fact, it s r elat ion t o t h e D ad a m ovem en t ? A n d , m o st im p o r t an t ly , w h at d o e s t h is an o m aly say ab o u t th e h ist o r y o f Bu lgar ian literatu re? 102 Bulgarian Literature as World Literature In gratit u d e: Lib er at ion or Sm u gn ess I f w e are to t r ace t h e gen ealogy o f the an om aly o f Kr ast e v an d t h e Crescendo p e r io d ical, th en w e sh ou ld b et t er t ak e a st ep b ack t o h is sch o o l y ear s, w h en , at age eigh t een , h e p u b lish e d th e first Bu lgar ian D ad aist m an ifest o u n d e r t h e b lu n t a n d sy m p t o m at ic title “In gr at it u d e” in t h e Лебед (Sw an ) p e r io d ical. O n th e on e h an d , t h is t y p ical in gr at it u d e is th e “e m ot io n ally eth ical fo r m u la o f a d isr u p t e d con tin u ity,”9 an d t h is is w h at h ap p e n s in th e d iach r o n ic p lan (You n g vs. O ld ). O n th e ot h er h an d , t h is in gr at it u d e is also d ir ect ed at fellow ar t ist , an in gr at it u d e t ow ar d oth er avan t - gar d ist s. A s Kr ast e v w r it es— t h is b e in g th e k ey p r o b le m th e av an t - gar d e h as t o so lv e— “Th e q u e st io n is t o r et h in k th e lib eration ,” 10 n ot the f act o f leavin g b eh in d r e alism o r t r ad it io n an d t r an sit in g t o th e oth er r iver b an k , t h at o f “Tr u e Art,” b u t th e r et h in k in g o f t h is t r an sit , th e an aly sis o f th is r u p t u r e, th at is, w h at t o d o w it h fr e e d o m on ce it is ach ieved . Th is q u e st io n is o f u t m o st im p o r t an ce n o t o n ly w h en it co m e s t o Bu lgar ian lit er at u r e b u t also w ith in th e con t ext o f Bu lgar ian h ist o r y ; it st an d s as a d eep ly t r au m at ic issu e co n n ect ed b o t h t o th e n at ion al Lib er at io n in th e n in eteen th cen t u r y an d it s cu lt u r al co n se q u e n ce s an d co n t r ad ict io n s. For Bu lgar ian cu lt u r e a s a w h ole, it is a r efer en ce p o in t (o r d ir ect io n ) fr o m w h en ce t o fo r m it s e xe m p lar y figu r e s an d d et er m in e w h ere it is h e ad e d , w h at it w an ts t o r esem b le, o r w h at it w ou ld w an t t o b e co m e . O f cou r se, t h is co n t r ad ict io n b etw een m o d e r n ist gen u in e gest u r e an d it s reflexive d ist an ce is cr u cial an d t y p ical for th e av an t - gar d e it self— it h ap p e n s sy n ch r o n ically in Yam b ol, Z u r ich , an d N ew York. Still, h ow d o e s Kr ast e v r et h in k t h is fr e e d o m an d th e w ay s to ap p r o ach it ? Lit t le is d ir ect ly st at ed ; alb eit n o t alw ay s cle ar an d fir m en o u gh , m o st ly in a p lay fu l m an n er , it alw ays fits th e lu d ic av an t - gar d e aest h et ics: “m an u n d e r st o o d t h at th er e is n o fu r t h er m or e. T r agicism gave b ir t h t o lau gh ter,” o r “A n d it [Th e Sou l] asp ir e d — an d it sh o u ld asp ir e — to : D eat h : N o t h in gn e ss: Ab solu te,” o r “It lo gically en t ails t h at w e sh o u ld alw ays k eep th e o n ly w h it e b o o k — fo r p ain t in g, an d t h e in t e r v al— fo r m u sic,” or “A r t — ah , th e p e r fe ct p n e u m at ic m ach in e, th at co u ld d r ag th e m e an in g o f t h in gs d ow n to t h e d eep b o t t o m , o n ly t o p lace t h e m in a n ew r o t at io n —liv in g a n ew m e an in g o f it s ow n : M e an in glessn ess.” 11 O f co u r se , w e can e asily see a co m m o n t h r e ad u n it in g th e “lack o f fu r t h er m or e” w it h d eat h , th e in t er val, m e an in gle ssn e ss, n o t h in gn e ss, an d th e ab solu t e. Bu t w h at k in d o f a r et h in k in g w ou ld t h at b e ? A b o u t tw o m o n t h s later, Kr ast e v exp r e sse d h is id e a m o r e clear ly in h is n ext m an ifest o : “Th e t r u t h ab o u t h u m an n at u r e d e m an d s lib e r at in g ou r selves fr o m th e w h ole o f A r t ...”12 A cco r d in g t o t h is st at em en t , it seem s, t h at th e lib e r at io n th at w e n e e d to r et h in k can b e con cep t u alized in sever al w ays. Fir stly, as a q u e st io n o f lib er at io n fr o m th e classical n o t io n o f n orm at ivity , an d th at se e m s t o h ave alr e ad y b een ach ieved . Th is is also th e t y p ical d ich o t o m y b etw een You n g an d O ld th at w e alr e ad y p o in t e d ou t in th e b egin n in g. Bu t in th at case, th e q u est io n Kr ast e v h im se lf ask e d em er ges: W h at ar e w e t o d o w it h th e at t ain e d fr e e d o m , o n ce wc h ave re ach ed th e islan d o f Tr u e Art ? Secon d ly, com p licat in g th e p r ev io u s q u est io n , lib er at io n can b e seen as a n ever en d in g, syn t h etic, an d ab so lu t e str ive o f th e sou l tow ar d n o t h in gn e ss (asp ir at io n to Anomaly and Distext 103 m e an in gle ssn e ss, d eat h , a n d t h e in t er val). N o ot h er asp ir at io n s are left, sin ce th is o n e is et er n al. It also ge n e r at e s a cle ar a- h isto ricit y, as it relies o n ab solu t e play, on ab so lu t e p r e se n ce o f th e m o m e n t — t h is hic et nunc m o d e r n ist act is p r even t in g its t r an sfo r m at io n in t o p a st a n d t r ad it io n . Bu t t h en w h at is t h e r ole o f ar t w ith in t h is k in d o f lib er at io n ? Th ir dly, lib er at io n is b y all m e an s a fo r m o f cat h ar sis, i.e „ p u r ificat io n v ia ar t fr om ar t it self. Th is is, acco r d in g t o Kr ast ev, a sy n th et ic r et u r n fr o m ar t t o m an . O n ly aft er t h is t r ip ar t it e e xp o sit io n d o e s t h e p ar t o f lib er at in g an d th e sy n th et ic st r iv e 13 in Lutte contre les Poètes b e co m e m o r e evid en t. U n su ccessfu l D ist ext : Ep h em er alit y an d Sm u gn ess So far, w e h ave d e scr ib e d t h e av an t - gar d e’s t y p ical r ad icalit y o f d isr u p t io n an d p lay in its d iach r o n y as w ell as in it s sy n ch ro n y. Kr ast e v im p lem en t ed th e th em e o f lib e r at io n —an e m b lem at ic t o p ic in th e Bu lgar ian p o lit ical con t ext —p r ecisely as a co n d it io n fo r th e sy n ch r on ic d isr u p t io n fr o m th e r e st o f th e avan t - gar d e, p r esen t in g it in a su r p r isin g, tr ip ar t it e way. Still, th e fo llo w in g m o m en t is o f u t m o st im p or t an ce, even t h o u gh it is rarely m e n t io n e d b y lit e r ar y cr it ics— t h e fin al lin e o f “In gratit u d e,” w it h it s offen se, d en ial, iron y, an d gr it , go e s: “(Bu lgar ian ar t sh r u gs an d sm iles).”14A sid e fr o m it s gr ap h ic r ep r esen tation , con t en t - w ise, t h is m e t a- co m m e n t , p lace d in b r ack et s, is o n e o f th e m o st cr u cial o b se r v at io n s t h at w e can elicit fr o m Kr ast e v ’s re flect io n s on Bu lgar ian cu lt u re. O n th e on e h an d , Kr a st e v h as th e r em ar k ab le sk ill t o b e at o n ce im m e r se d d eep ly in to th e av an t - gar d e m ilie u , w it h it s lan gu age an d r age, an d at a d ist an ce, in c o m m an d o f an o t h er lan gu age , or, sh o u ld w e say, a m et alan gu age. O n th e ot h er h an d , it is n o t h is p e r so n al o r in t e lle ct u al sk ills t h at co u n t in t h is case b e cau se p r e cise ly t h is d u al con d it ion , d e scr ib e d b y h im , is th e st r u ct u r al (an d m e t h o d o lo gical) r ep r esen t at io n o f I h e issu e w e ar e fr am in g. In sh o r t , t h is is th e p r e m o n it io n o f a r evo lu t ion th at w as to n o avail. A n d t h e r e aso n s fo r it s failu r e ar e in t er n al on es, ju st as th e sm u g sm ile o f a con ser v at ive r e alist v ic t o r y p u sh e s again st t h e b r ack et s. In 1927, Kr ast e v st at ed : " In so cial fo r m s, in th e c o n clu sio n s o f co n t e m p o r ar y N at u r p h ilo so p h ie , as w ell as in ar t ist ic fo r m s, in all c ase s w e se e k t o so o t h e (o r n eglect ) th e con t r ad ict io n s.” 15 Fr o m II »day’s view p oin t , th e n o r m alizat io n o f th e 1920s, d e scr ib e d b y Kr ast e v a s “O r t h od oxy )’ ' a sy st em at ic even t, i.e., a r ep et it ive on e. W e can even call it th e recurrin g h istorical context o f Bu lgar ian lit e r at u r e an d ar t. In t h at case, h ow can w e d e scr ib e t h e st r u ct u r al I u n ct ion o f in gr at it u d e in Kr a st e v ’s w or k s u sin g th e sam e t e r m in o lo gy ? Th is is, o f ( n u rse, a b r eak , b u t i f w e h av e t o b e m o r e sp ecific: in gr at it u d e is an at t em p t to creat e a d lslcxt w ith in th e r e c u r r in g co n t e xt .16 In h is m e m o ir s o f t h e 1980s, Kr ast e v r egu lar ly r et u r n s to th e w or d “ep h em eral,”17 w h en d e scr ib in g t h e av an t - gar d e rage. Th e sam e ep it h et is u se d t o d ep ict t h e sh o r t life nl th e Crescendo p e r io d ical. Th e e p h em er alit y or d e cr e sce n d o o f th e m o st ext r em e av an t - gar d e ge st u r e s ar e a st r u ct u r al p ar t o f th e h ist o r y o f Bu lgar ian literatu re. I p h em er al is th at w h ich slip s aw ay an d can n o t h old ; an d ju st as w ith d r e am s th at fad e 104 Bulgarian Literature as World Literature aw ay, on e m igh t ask o n e se lf— d id th e ep h em er al act u ally t ak e p lace, d id th e avan tgar d e really h ap p en ? Bu t h ap p e n in g it se lf st r u ct u r ally p r even t s lon gevit y an d iden tity. I f w e sp ell ou t th e sy st em ic issu e in su ch a m an n er , th en w e can also t u r n ar o u n d th e ju xt ap o sit io n w it h w h ich w e h ave b een w or k in g: in t h e en d , t h e sm u gn e ss o f Bu lgar ian ar t face s th e in gr at it u d e th at t r ie d t o o p p o se (t h ou gh e p h em er ally ) t h is sam e sm u gn e ss. W e sh ou ld r em em b er t h is d escr ip t io n as co m in g fr o m th e exp e ct at io n s ar t icu lat ed in t h e m an ifest o it self, as w ell as fr o m its con clu sio n . In th at case, lib er at io n is n o t (yet ) an ob ject o f r et h in k in g, as Kr ast e v w o u ld say — it h as n o t even h ap p e n e d yet . Is it n ot on e o f th e t y p ical cr ise s t h at th e av an t - gar d e n e e d s t o face? Th e d ifferen ce, in th e con text o f Bu lgar ia, is t h at it r em ain s a sy st em at ic an o m aly w ith in a t r ad it io n ally r ealist ic an d sen t im en t al can o n . Lat er , Kr ast e v co n fe sse s th at “U n fo r tu n ately, I w as alon e, th er e w as n o ot h er t h eo r et ician t h at w ou ld su p p o r t m y claim , th at w ou ld fo r m a gr ou p , a m ovem en t , a sch o o l; n o t a p u b lish er , n o r in st it u t ion t h at w ou ld w an t to d evelop t h is Bu lgar ian fu t u r o lo gy (t h is w or d , b ack th en , w as q u it e u n k n o w n , t h er e w as on ly th e It alian an d R u ssian ar t ist ic m o v em en t calle d ‘fu t u r ism ’).” 18 Th is r em ar k ab le p h ilo so p h ical an d cu lt u r o lo gical r et h in k in g o f fu t u r ism as fu t u r o lo gy is n o t a p r o d u ct o f later ed it in g, n o r an in t er p r et at ion post factu m . In h is “R o m an ce an d Slavic Fu t u r ism ” (1927), Kr ast e v d isc u sse s th e cu lt u r e o f fu t u r ism b y st at in g: “In its classical m e an in g, fu t u r ism (as a p assio n for th e fu tu r e t im e s) h as alw ay s exist ed,” an d “Th e ap p ear an ce o f Fu t u r ism in ar t is p r o b ab ly le ss sign ifican t t h an th e Fu t u r ist ic cu lt u r e an d it s p h ilosop h y . O n ly a few Fu t u r ist s w o u ld claim th at t h ey h ad u n d e r st o o d it.”19 Th is u n r ealized fu tu r ology , t h is “Slavic Fu t u r ism ” (o r in ot h er w or d s, “th e b e gin n in g o f th e last ”) is n o t ju st an an o m aly b u t a m yth o f Bu lgar ia’s ow n . N or m at ive Back d r op, Sen t im en tality, an d D e cre sce n d o In th e sp r in g o f 1922, Kr ast e v r eceived a w ritt en in vit at io n t o t ak e over th e college p e r io d ical Лебед, fr o m it s p r e v io u s ed it o r an d ar t t h e o r ist t o- b e, N ik o la M avr od in ov. Th e title o f th e p e r io d ical it se lf (Sw an) an d it s con t en t ar e b o t h r ep r esen t at iv e exam p les o f th e lit er ar y field ’s sen t im en t ally r o m an t ic in er t ia. In h is m e m o ir s, Kr ast ev stat es th at th e n ew title o f t h e p e r io d ical sh o u ld act as a p r o gr e ssiv e o v e r st e p p in g o f b o u n d ar ie s, as an im p e t u s, an “offen sive” m ove again st an e st ab lish e d re p er t oir e, on e th at h as a d ist in ct ly sen t im en t al ch ar acter. T h is “offen sive” can b e t r ace d b ack t o th e t r an sfor m at ive t u r n in g o f Лебед in to Crescendo.20 Back in th e 1870s, sen t im en t alit y w as r egar d e d as th e m ass- co n su m e r t ast e in literatu re, m ak in g a p e jo r at iv e o u t o f th e co n cep t w ith in th e fr am e w o r k o f a con tr a m o d e r n ist p r o je ct th at b o t h d o u b les th e m o d e r n ist p r o je ct o f Bu lgar ia’s N at io n al Revival an d p ar alle ls it. In t ellect u als w h o h eld co n t r a- m o d e r n v iew s ju d ge d th e p u blic's r eact ion to th e first t r an slat ed sen t im en t al p lay s an d n ovellas b ase d on t h eir con ser v at ive n o t ion o f “co m m o n sen se” (co m p ar e d w ith th e first Bu lgar ian n ovel Под и г о то [Under The Yoke] by Vazov) as w ell as th e n egat ive In flu en ce o f su ch lit eratu re on th e m o r als o f y ou n g lad ies. A lt er th e Lib er at io n , th e sen t im en t al ton e so lid ified as a sy n on y m for Anomaly and Distext 105 n aivet y, i.e., e lu d in g th e m e an in g t h at Sch iller v est e d in th e w or d sentim ental: self­ reflexive ar t an d th e p o e t ’s ow n lit e r ar y co n scien ce. O f cou r se, th e sen t im en t al m o d e is p ar t o f t h e n o r m at iv e o r d e r an d it s p r e se n ce can b e fo u n d even in v ar io u s h yb rid lit e r ar y fo r m s, fo r in st an ce a m o n g th e so cio - se n t im e n t al exam p les o f left ist p oetr y, o r as a p ar t o f th e p o st m o d e r n collage. To h ave a clearer id e a o f th e fr am e w o r k o f th e co n ce p t w ith in t h e 1920s, w e n e e d t o t u r n t o t h e issu e s o f Лебед: co m p r ise d lar gely o f “y o u t h fu l” p oet r y , ce le b r at in g st r o n g st ir r in gs o f th e so u l, o u t b u r st s in clich é p h r ase s, e asy ju m p s t o m o r al co n clu sio n s ab o u t t h e st r aigh t for w ar d d ist in ct io n b et w een go o d an d evil, an d o st e n t at io n , a c c o m p a n ie d b y en d le ss sigh s, t ear s, an d joy. Crescendo w as p u b lish e d fo r t h e fir st t im e st ar t in g w it h it s secon d issu e (t h e con ten t o f it s first issu e w as p r in t e d u n d e r Лебед). W e can o b ser v e h er e an u n u su al an d p r o v o cat iv e intersection o f b o t h se n t im e n t alism an d fu t u r ism in Bu lgar ian lit er at u r e— a p o in t o f in t er est t o lit e r ar y h ist o r ian s. O n th e o n e h an d , Crescendo ab r u p t ly b r e ak s th e se n t im e n t al lin e o f Лебед: o n t h e o t h e r h an d , it exist s as its su cce sso r : “The offensive b egin s fr o m issu e n u m b e r tw o, w h ich gave th e sen t im en t al Лебед it s n ew d y n am o - fu t u r ist ic n am e Crescendo (It alian : crescendo —in cr e ase t o c lim ax)”21— an in t r icat e d isp lacem en t , a gr o w in g d efor m it y , st asis, u n fo ld in g a s d y n am ic, con t in u at ive in t er r u p t io n . I f w e are to p r o v id e a b r ie f d e scr ip t io n o f th e n o r m an d n o r m at ive b ack d r o p o f th e 1920s, th e aest h e t ic an d t h e o r e t ical t r an sfo r m at io n fr o m Лебед to Crescendo offer s a cle ar p ictu re. In t h e con t ext o f t h e 1920s, n o r m at iv it y can b e d efin e d acco r d in g to: (1) it s t o n e — e m p h asize d sen t im en t alit y ; (2) it s lit e r ar y h ist o r y — p r o claim in g th e n ew in ar t w it h in th e fr am e w o r k o f co n t in u it y (w it h o u t an y fo r m o f d isr u p t io n ); (3) p o lit ical r e lat io n s— d efe n d in g th e O ld ar t ; a n d (4) it s ow n “m e ch an ics”—k eep in g t h e eq u ilib r iu m (st asis) o f th e p o w e r s w ith in t h e lit e r ar y field. D e sp it e t h e r elatively cle ar p r o gr am o f Crescendo to fo r m u lat e n ew ar t as w ell as its im m acu lat e o r ie n t at io n w it h in t h e co n t e m p o r ar y (st at ic) con t ext , th e lar ger lit er ar y field d id n o t en gage in a p h ilo so p h ic al r e t h in k in g o f fu t u r ism , n o r w as a Bu lgar ian fu t u r o lo gy ever e st ab lish ed . Th u s, it is d ifficu lt t o p o in t ou t ar t ist ic exam p le s o f th ese id eas. Th e an o m aly o f Kr a st e v fails t o p r o d u ce su cce sso r s o r sch o o l w ith in th e h ist or y o f Bu lgar ian lit er at u r e, in t h e sam e w ay in w h ich D ad aism fails t o in scr ib e it se lf w ith in th e n at io n al lit e r ar y c an o n .22 Be y o n d t h e m an ife st o s, it se e m s t h at Bu lgar ian literatu re is left w it h n o t h in g; w it h in t h is con t ext , b o t h fu t u r ism an d D ad a seem lik e u n at t ain ab le p oetr y. Be cau se o f t h at , issu e 3 - 4 o f Crescendo p u b lish e s t r an slat ed w or k s b y Ben jam in l’ér et, “N o t e s p o u r les b o u r ge o is” (1916) b y T r ist an Tzar a, “A n A n n a Blu m e” (1919) by Ku r t Sch w it ters, in st r u ct io n s fo r n ew p o e t ic t ech n iq u es, etc. In t h is w ay, k ey avan tgar d e t ext s an d figu r e s ar e in clu d e d in Crescendo in o r d e r t o m ak e Bu lgar ian literatu re sy n ch r on ic an d sim u lt an e o u s w ith w or ld literatu re. A lo n gsid e th e t r an slat io n s m e n t io n e d , an im p o r t an t p lace is giv en t o M ar in e t t is ae r o p o e t ics,23 “Bu lgar ian aer op lan e,” w it h th e su b title o f “m an ifest o t h r o w n d ow n from a Bu lgar ian ae r o p lan e o n O ct o b e r 30t h 1912 at 5PM ,”24 as an ab st r act fr o m Ids p o e m Z an g Tum b Tum b (1 9 1 4 ). Th e av an t - gar d ist s fr o m Yam b ol r e- en act ed th e p o e m at n igh t t im e to th e h o r r o r o f d o r m an t civ ilian s.25 In its gr ap h ic r ep r esen t at io n , th e text “te st ifies” to th e sie ge o f Ed ir n e d u r in g th e Balk an W ars (1 9 1 2 - 1 9 1 3 ), w h en M ar in ett i w as a m ilit ar y correspondent for th e Fren ch n ew sp ap er Gil Bias. Th e au t h or 106 Bulgarian Literature as World Literature o f “Bu lgar ian aer o p lan e” r ep r esen t s b o t h au d ib ly an d t y p o gr ap h ically th e m o m e n t o f th e “m o n o p lan e’s b u zzin g” over Ed ir n e as w ell as t h e op e r at io n o f d isch ar gin g th e m an ifest o s, w h ich are, on th e o n e h an d , p r o clam at io n s again st th e Tu r k ish gov er n m en t , an d , o n th e oth er, e v o cat io n s o f th e p e ace fu l r escu e o f th e M u slim p o p u lat io n . Betw een th ese Bu lgar ian m an ife st o s an d t h e “b u r n t Tu r k ish v illages” se e n fr o m u p h igh , w e can see a “b ig T ” d o m in at in g t h e sp ace .26 M ar in et t i’s text, o f cou r se, w as a ch alle n ge b o t h t o Crescendo's p o ly gr ap h y an d its d esign . Th e b e gin n in g o f “Bu lgar ian aer o p lan e” w as also a ch alle n ge w it h it s “in d iffer en t” co u p lin g o f a “su n ” an d th e sp h er e- lik e “b allo o n ” o f th e av iat ion d ep ar t m en t , th e tw o “sp h er es” lin ger in g over th e Balk an s, co n jo in ed b y th e p lu s sy m b o l [+]. A m ajo r d ifficu lt y w ere also t h e v er t ical lin es: “p e r ch e d flam es” / “p illar s (m ad e ) o f sm ok e” / “sp ir als (m ad e ) o f sp ar k s.” At t h e e n d o f th e w or k , th e e d it o r s left an ir on ic n o t e ab o u t th e im p o ssib ilit y o f su ch p o e t ic te xt s t o b e “r ealisab le” in Bu lgar ian lan gu age an d w it h in t h e Bu lgar ian con text: “A s for t h e m ise r ab le — in t h is case — Bu lgar ian lan gu age, th is d e e d r em ain s, o f cou r se, im p o ssib le / N o t e Cresc.” 27 W elt lit erat u r, M o v im e n t o Fu t u r ist a d i Jam b o ly , an d th e M eet in g Th at N ever H ap p en ed In h is essay “Th e Id eal o f ‘W or ld lit eratu re’” (1970), th e lit er ar y th eo r ist Tzvetan St oy an ov (1 9 3 1 - 1 9 7 1 ) seek s t o m ap ou t th e p lace o f Bu lgar ian lit er at u r e w ith in w or ld liter atu r e an d p o in t s ou t t h r ee th r eat s: a) cu lt u r al iso lat io n ism as a co n se q u e n ce o f n at io n alism an d th e at o m izat io n o f th e w or ld ; b ) co sm o p o lit an assim ilat io n or th e r eject io n o f th e n at ion al in fav or o f th e u n iver sal; c) n at io n al t u r n e d exotic, am p lifie d b y th e co m m e r cial r elat ion s t h at sell ar t w or k s as u n k n o w n an im als fr o m a zo o .28 Kr ast e v ’s id e as ab o u t literatu re’s d evelop m en t d o n o t fall in to an y o f t h ese d an ge r o u s cat egor ies. It m igh t com e as a su r p r ise , b u t sustain in g an d endurin g cultural contradictions is a st r ik in gly effective t ech n iq u e fo r o v er co m in g t h ese r isk s.29 Be sid e s t h is, Kr ast e v ’s t ext s (cu r io u sly en o u gh ) can b e r egar d e d as an o m alie s w it h r egar d t o all fo u r p e r sp e ct iv e s:30 th ey are ab e r r at io n s fr o m th e st r ict Bu lgar ian can o n an d fr o m th e self- p r oclaim ed can o n ical m o d e r n ist con text; t h ey d o n o t b e lo n g t o th e n o t io n o f classical lit er at u r e at all (fr o m H o m er t o th e Bu lgar ian Revival e p o ch in lit er at u r e); t h ey ar e in d isce r n ib le w h en it co m es t o p o p u la r t ast e (i.e., sen t im en t alit y o r oth er p o p u la r fo r m s); an d last , b u t n o t least , t h ey vo ice issu e s t h at are go in g t o b e st at ist ically ir r elevan t in Bu lgar ian lit eratu re (i.e., “M an ife st o o f th e Fello w sh ip Figh t in g A gain st P oets”). Th is is w h y w e in vestigate t h is an o m aly n o t as a sin gu lar even t, b u t as a st r u ct u r al p h en o m en o n w ith in th e p e r io d ic con t ext o f Bu lgar ian liter atu r e. O n e o f t h e m o r als sh ar e d by Kr ast e v h im se lf is t h at av an t - gar d e r ad ical ge st u r e s— th e sc issio n s an d th e b r e ak s— are alm o st in st an t ly n e u t r alized an d n o r m alize d w ith in an y in er t ial con t ext .31 In t h is way, th e n o r m at ive b ack d r o p m an age s t o ab so r b all o f its ir r egu lar it ies b y t r eat in g t h em as ep h em er al m u m b lin g, d ay d r eam in g, an d d r e am in g w ith ou t an y co n se q u e n ce s.32 Th u s, it p o se s th e issu e o f ingratitude as a st r u ct u r al fu n ct ion an d as a feat u r e o f ep h em er al Anomaly and Distext 107 ch ao s.33 So, Kr ast e v ’s r e sist an ce t o t h e th r ee p r e v io u s t h r eat s ou t lin e d b y St oy an ov act u ally e n ab les t h e p la ce m e n t o f Bu lgar ian lit er at u r e w ith in w or ld lit er at u r e.34 Th e exist en ce o f an av an t - gar d e in Bu lgar ia b u t o u t sid e o f Sofia is p e cu liar ly sim ilar to th e b ir t h o f D ad a in 1915, at t h e “Cab ar e t Voltaire” in Z ü r ich , i.e „ at th e p erip h ery . In th e 1920s, Yam b ol, alb eit far aw ay fr o m th e cap it al (w h ich m ar k s th e in tellectu al cen t er ), h ad gat h e r e d an ar ch o - co m m u n ist s, so cialist s, o ccu lt ist s, t h eo so p h ist s, p r ot est an t e, fr an cm aso n e s, an d fu t u r ist s. Fo r t h e Yam b ol av an t - gar d ist s, th e sin gle m o st in sp ir in g n am e o f Bu lgar ian lit er at u r e is t h at o f t h e exp r e ssio n ist p o e t G eo M ile v (1 8 9 5 - 1 9 2 5 ), w h o su p p o r t e d t h e m an d p u b lish e d so m e o f h is ow n w or k s in Crescendo. G e o M ile v is a lso t h e m o st in flu en t ial av an t - gar d e figu r e o f th e 1920s, ed it or o f th e p e r io d ic als Везн и (Lib r a) (1 9 1 9 - 2 2 ) an d П л амък (Flam e) (1 9 2 4 - 2 5 ). Th ey even sen t h im a gr o u p p h o t o gr ap h in 1922, p r e se n t in g t h em selv es u n d e r th e b lat an t n am e M ovim ento Futurista di Jam boly ,35 K r a st e v u n d e r st o o d t h e c h ar ac t e r ist ic o f Yam b o l as p e r ip h e r y (o r m ay b e a b o r d e r lin e t e r r it o r y ), d e sc r ib in g it p ost fact u m a s fo llo w s: “T o d ay I u n d e r st a n d t h at w e w ere n o t p o sse sse d b y a fe e lin g o f exclu sivit y , m an ia, an d a r ist o c r a t ism (o n ly w h en it co m e s t o t h e so u l), t h at w e h av e fo u n d a n e w ‘A m e r ica.’ O u r h o r izo n s, th e in fo r m at io n w e h ad , a n d o u r cr e at iv e p o w e r s b a c k t h en an d aft e r w ar d s, t h ey w er e n o t e n o u gh fo r b ig ac c o m p lish m e n t s, st ill t h at w as o f n o im p o r t a n c e — o u r st r iv e s t h at in sp ir e d u s, t h e y w er e cr u cial.”36 P r e cise ly t h is e xcit e m e n t ab o u t th e sy n ch r o n icit y w it h t h e w o r ld ’s a r t ist ic p r o c e sse s giv e s K r a st e v t h e r igh t t o call it “t h e Y am b o lian sp ir it u a l u n iv e r se ,” a n d t o c o m p a r e it s t e m p o r a l in t e n sit y t o a Yam b o lian “click in g o f id e as.” It is b o t h e x e m p lar y an d c o m ic t o se e t h e e n d o f M ar in e t t i’s lett er, a d d r e sse d t o Kr a st e v : “V eu ille z m e d ir e si Ja m b o l— Bu lga r ie est u n e a d r e sse su ffisan t e ” ( “P le ase , in fo r m m e w h e t h e r Yam b ol, Bu lga r ia is a su fficien t a d d r e ss lin e ”).37 Y am bol, Bu lgaria w as, in d e e d , a su fficien t a d d r e ss lin e. M ar in e t t i’s let t er ar r iv e d an d t h e m a n ife st o s o f t h e e p h e m e r a l p e r io d ic a l Crescendo w er e in c o n so n a n c e w it h t h e w o r ld av an t - gar d e ev en t s. To su m m ar iz e , t h e an o m a ly o f Kr ast ev, alb e it u n d e r r e p r e se n t e d a s a p a r t o f Bu lga r ia n lit e r at u r e , r e m ain e d o p e n t o I lie c o sm o p o lit a n p r o je c t o f w o r ld lit er at u r e. In t h is se n se , Kr a st e v ’s d ist e x t fin d s it s ow n c o n t e xt w it h in W eltliteratur. I-n 1932, w h en M ar in e t t i m ad e h is visit to Bu lgar ia, h e w an t ed to m e e t h is fr ien d Kr astev, ask in g h is h o st s in t h e cap it al o f Bu lgar ia: “I d o h ave a fu t u r ist fr ie n d h ere, is it p o ssib le t o se e h im ?”38 D e sp it e b e in g th er e, an d a p ar t o f a gr o u p p h o t o gr ap h , Kr ast ev d id n o t in t r o d u ce h im self. Th e r e aso n fo r t h is is m ad e clear b o t h in Kr ast e v ’s texts fr om th e en d o f 1920s a n d in h is m e m o ir s: it is M ar in et t i’s r elat ion sh ip w ith Ben it o M u sso lin i.39 Th is p o lit ical b r e ak is th e st r ict d iffer en t iat in g lin e b et w een th e 1920s an d th e 1930s an d t h eir co n t r ast in g p olit - aest h et ics. In Bu lgar ia, as w or ld - w id e, th e p r e m o n it io n o f an o t h e r w ar , as w ell as th e p r e p ar at io n s for it, b e cam e m o r e t an gib le an d im m in en t , an d p o lit ic al d e lin e at io n s w er e m o r e n e ce ssar y t h an ever. Sim ilar ly to G o et h e’s id e a o f W eltliteratur, th e im p o r t an t ch ar act er ist ic o f in t ellect u al exch an ge ( W eltum lauf) d o e s n o t co n fin e it se lf t o sw ap p in g lett ers; p e o p le sh o u ld m eet each oth er . Yet, in th is case w e h ave W eltliteratur w ith ou t an act u al m eet in g. Th er e is ju st a p h o t o gr ap h . 108 Bulgarian Literature as World Literature N ot es 1 Galin Tih an ov (Галин Ти хан ов), Ж ан ровото съзнание на кръга “Мисъл ” (Соф и я : Е. Т. Ки ри л М ари н ов, 1998), 220. Tih an ov par allels th e Мисъл circle’s st rive for artistic au ton om y w ith th e id ea o f th e classical an d au ton om ou s in Goeth e an d Sch iller w ith in th e op en receptive h orizon o f w orld literatu re (194). 2 Yordan Ljuckan ov, “Bu lgar ian Cu ltu ral Iden tity as a Borderlin e One,” Interlitteraria 20, no. 2 (2015): 8 8 - 1 0 4 ,10.12697/IL.2015.20.2.9. M argin alit y or bord erlin e statu s, u n like “periph ery;” im plies th e pot en t ialit y o f gravitatin g tow ard m or e th an on e “center.” For an altern ative ap proach to th e avan t-garde, see Yordan Lyutskan ov, “Notes on h ow th e avan t-garde cou ld recall n on - m od er n ity on a Eu ropean periph ery,” in Transferts, appropriations et fonctions de l’avant-garde dans l’Europe intermédiaire et du nord, ed. H ar d Veivo (P aris: L’H arm at tan , 2012), 185-99. 3 Krastev stu d ied ph iloso ph y (1923- 25), grad u at in g w ith a degree in n atu ral scien ces from Sofia Un iversity in 1930. H e specialized in Visu al Ar ts in Paris in 1938- 39. After th at h e w orked at th e Bu lgar ian Academ y o f Scien ces. 4 O r fr om Sapph o t o Peyo Yavorov, th e latter b ein g a p ar t o f th e Мисъл qu artet. Th us, th e m an ifesto explicitly proclaim s it self again st th e You n g fr om Мисъл , w h o follow an in divid u alistic sacerd ot al prin ciple o f au ton om ou s art. 5 Kuril Kr astev (К и ри л К р ъ стев), Vasil Petkov (Васи л П етк ов), Ned yalko Gegov (Н едялко Гегов), Totyu Bran ek ov (Тотю Б ран ек ов), “М ан и ф ест н а д руж еството за б ор ба п р о ти в п оети те” (Ям бол, 1926), 3. At th e tim e, D ad a is, o f cou rse, p ast its prim e in Eu rope an d som e o f th e D ad aist au th ors h ave orien t ed th em selves tow ard th e m ore com preh en sible practices o f su rrealism . Bu lgar ia n ever h ad su rrealist auth ors, so Crescendo seem s to be th e u ltim ate radical position . 6 Kiril Krastev (Ки ри л К р ъ стев), Спомени за кул турн и я жи в от между д вете световн и войни (Соф и я : Б ългар ск и писател, 1988), 56. “Th e m an ifesto w as a real post- w ar cu ltu ral an d h istorical d ad aist jok e th at on ly a few cou ld u n d er stan d, even th ou gh it provoked a lot o f respon ses.” Ibid., 54. 7 Filippo Tom m aso M arin etti, Manifesto in Bulgarian. M arin ett i ad d ed on top o f page: “M an ifeste D u Cer cle “Lu tte Con t re Les Poètes.” (Bu lgaria, 1926), [4773- 1], h tt ps:// brbl- dl.libr ary.yale.ed u /vu fin d /Record /4151525. Yale Un iversity Library, Bein ecke Rare Book an d M an u scrip t Library, G EN M SS 475. Slid es are derived fr om a m icrofilm copy o f M arin etti’s seven Libroni (scrap b ook s) d ocu m en tin g fu tu rism , th e fu tu rist m ovem en t, an d th e avan t-garde. “Delayed developm en t” is on e o f th e m ost im port an t, pain fu l, frequ en tly d iscu ssed , an d difficu lt th em es in Bu lgar ian cu lture. It em erges in th e n in eteen th cen t u ry an d is also prom in en t today. Th is topic h as to deal w ith som e o f th e m o st cru cial th eoretical qu estion s regar d in g th e con cep ts o f con text, w orld literature, self-colon ialism , stages o f h istorical developm en t et al.; it also p resu p poses th e n otion o f th e “W estern m odel.” 9 Elk a Dim itrova (Ел к а Д и м и тр ова), “М ан и ф ести те н а Ки ри л Кръстев,” in Кри ти ч еското н асл едство на бъл гарския модернизъм, vol. IV, eds. Едвин Сугарев, Ел ка Д и м и тр ова an d Ц ветан к а Атан асова (Соф и я : Боян П енев, 2011), 202 . 10 Kiril Krastev (Ки ри л К р ъ стев), “Н еблагодарн ост,” Лебед 3, n o. 1 (1922): 5. 11 Ibid., 6. 8 Anomaly and Distext 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .’ 1 М 25 26 27 .'H 109 Kiril Krast ev (Ки ри л К р ъ стев), “Н ач ал ото н а Последн ото,” Crescendo, n o. 3 - 4 (1922): 15. “Th e psych e an d cu lt u r e o f ou r con tem por an eit y are con ceived u n der th e sign o f An alysis. Th e real life, n everth eless, m ean s Syn th esis.” Kiril Krastev (Ки ри л К р ъ стев), “Роман ски и л и сл авя н ск и ф у ту р и зъ м ?”, Стрел ец 1, по. 12 (Ju n e 23, 1927): 3 - 4. Krastev’s att itu d e tow ard th e n otion o f syn th esis is d u al— it is o f absolu te n ecessity, an d at th e sam e t im e it is th e death o f art: "Th e Syn th esis o f ar t is its ow n destru ct ion .” Krast ev (К р ъ сте в), "Н ач ал ото н а П оследното,” 16. Kiril Krast ev (Ки ри л К р ъ стев), “Н еблагодарн ост,” Лебед 3, по. 1 (1922): 7. Kr astev (К р ъ стев), “Р ом ан ск и и ли славян ск и ф у ту р и зъ м ?”, Стрел ец , 1, по. 11 (Ju n e 16, 1927): 4. W e can defin e context as th e “cu lt u ral con d it ion s o f p ossible or actu al em ergen ce or existen ce.” W h ile distext is th e cu ltu ral con d it ion s o f im p ossible em er gen ce or existen ce. Bu t th ere is an oth er possibility: distext is an y given state in w h ich we ob serve a break w ith th e cu lt u r al con dition s o f possib le or actu al em ergen ce or existen ce. Or, briefly pu t: con text it self can con t ain distext. Th is is n ot a n ecessary con dition , yet d istext is an extrem ely im por tan t p ar t o f th e m ore in tricate real con texts in w h ich w e exist an d w h ich we attem pt to u n d erstan d. D istextu al relation s th em selves can assu m e m or e in ten se or m ild er for m s. At its h igh est level, d ist ext can b e con sid er ed an isolated case o f external or internal empty relation. Som etim es d ist ext can b e con textu alized, bu t on ly post factum . See Васи л Ви ди нски, М ар и я К ал и н ова, и Кам ел и я Сп асова, Хаос и безредие. Сл у ч ай н ото н а езика, л и те р ату р ата и фи л ософи ята, п ор ед и ц а “Т ъ л к у ван и я ” (Соф и я : Л и тератур ен вестн и к , 2018), 176- 7. Krast ev (К р ъ стев), Спомени, 54. Ibid., 44. Krastev (К р ъ стев), “Р оман ски и ли славян ск и ф у ту р и зъ м ?”, по. 11,4. Th e n am e Crescendo m ean s a scream , a sh riek, in ten sification o f force. Th e p er iod ical h ad “an u n com p lim en t ary b ig form at,” resem blin g a w h ite n otebook, th e cover o f w h ich w as p ain ted b y th e avan t- gar d ist M irch o Kach u lev, a d iagon al in scr ip tion o f th e title Crescendo, “in an exp an d in g m an n er bu lk y an d con structivistic,” giv in g th e con cep t s et ym ology a su it ab le grap h ic an d m aterial d im en sion —Krast ev (К р ъ стев), Спомени, 43. Ibid., 43. M ore ab ou t som ew h at o f a th eoret ic D ad aism beyon d th e w orks o f Kr astev an d m ore o f a com m en t on th e polit- aesth etics o f W estern D ad aism , see Vlad islav Tod or ov (Вл ад и слав Т од ор ов), Red Square, Black Square: Organon for Revolutionary Im agination (Alban y: SU N Y Press, 1995). O n th e gen re o f aer op oetics, see N ad ezh d a Stoyan ova (Н ад еж д а Стоя н ова), “Поглед отгоре. Ж ан р ъ т н а аеропи са в бъ л гар ск ата л и тература,” Л и тер ату р а и техн и к а, h t t ps://b glit er t ech .com /pogled -ot gore-zh an rat- n a-aer opisa. Filippo Tom m aso M ar in ett i, “Bu lgar ian aeroplan ,” Crescendo, no. 3 - 4 (1922): 8. Krastev (К р ъ стев), Спомени, 39. Marin etti, “Bu lgar ian aer oplan e,” 8. Ibid., 9. T/.vetan St oyan ov (I (ве тан Стоя н ов), “И деал ът за ‘световн а л и тер ату р а?’ in К у л ту р ата к ато общение, Събрани съчинения, vol. 1 (Соф и я : Бъ лгарск и писател, 1988), 65 6. n o 29 30 31 Bulgarian Literature as World Literature Krastev (К р ъ стев), “Н еблагодарн ост,” 7. See th e first p ar agraph o f th is essay. Com p ar e w ith th e an alogou s position on D ad a accord in g to Alexan d er Kiossev (Алексан д ър К ьосев), “Господи, колко си ху бава! Р азм и ш лен и я н а въ зр астн и я дадаист,” Л и терату рен вестн и к, по. 18 (2011): 9. Th is period ic con text o f th e statu s-qu o coexists w ith th e p er iodically recu rrin g op posit ion betw een You n g an d O ld. Both o f th ese n orm ative con texts m u tu ally determ in e each oth er, overlap, an d en force each oth er. 33 See Види нски , К али н ова, и Сп асова, Хаос и безредие (2018). 34 Th e w ay we u se th e n otion W eltliteratur is n eith er th at o f Goeth e, n or th at o f David Dam rosch . W e follow Galin Tih an ov’s id eas w h ich qu est ion th e d om in an t An gloSaxon d iscou rse th r ou gh a con cept u al gr id o f fou r factors: time, space, language, and self-reflexivity th at op p oses n eoliberal n ot ion s o f globalization an d tran sn at ion alism . W e can also th in k o f W eltliteratur as a pre-m od er n term . See Galin Tih an ov, “The Locat ion o f W orld Literature,” Canadian Review of Com parative Literature / Revue Canadienne de Littérature Comparée 44, n o. 3 (2017): 468- 81. 35 “Th e you th arou n d Crescendo take a grou p ph otograph in th e sam e year o f 1922 an d p ost it to Geo M ilev for St. George’s D ay w ith th e gloriou s in scr ipt ion Movimento Futurista di Jam boly,” Geor gi G o sp od in ov (Георги Господи н ов), “ Crescendo—п р ови н ц и я та к ато аван гард,” Бъл гарски ятл и терату рен модернизъм (2012), h tt p s://b gm od ern ism .com /N au ch n i- statii/georgi_g. 32 36 37 38 39 Krastev (К р ъ стев), Спомени, 32. Ibid., 39. Ibid., 46. Even in h is “Rom an ce o r Slavic futu rism ,” Krastev iron ically rem ark s th at fu tu rism kept on existin g an d flou rish in g, especially as “th e m ost ben eficial factor tu rn ed ou t to be th e patr on age o f Italian d ictator Mu ssolin i.” Krastev (К р ъ стев), “Роман ски или славя н ски ф у ту р и зъ м ?”, по 11,4. See a later com m en t in Krastev (К р ъ стев), Спомени, 46.