Reception

Първоначалният замисъл на тази работа предвиждаше да се изследват статиите на проф. Пьотър Михайлович Бицили върху творчеството на А. С. Пушкин с оглед на един новооткрит ръкопис на професора за характера на Пушкиновия роман. Заниманията с атрибуцията на ръкописа постепенно изместваха акцента от частичното към едни по-мащабни литературно-исторически и компаративистични контексти, в които този нов текст провокативно се вписваше, подсказваше преоценки на утвърдени становища, предлагаше възможности за неочаквано обединяване на противоположни и противоборстващи интерпретативни подходи. Казано по друг начин- частното изведнъж съвмести привидно нееднозначните импулси на изследователските интереси: проучванията върху съдбата на руската литературна емиграция в България чрез творчеството на един от най-значимите И представители се съчетаха с компаративистичните изследвания върху историята на българо-руските литературни връзки в литературно-исторически и теоретичен план. И още нещо. Проучванията върху историята на руската емиграция в България - представители, творчество, институции, общуване и пр. - са още в начален стадий. Липсващата възможност за позоваване на иследователска традиция неизбежно наложи информационно да се разширява текстът, което обуславя и фрагментарността на изложението.

The essay is the first attempt to encompass the reception of the renowned Italian woman writer Matilde Serao in Bulgaria. The most frequent place of publication of her works were the pages of the Bulgarian journals and the most active period of the reception was from the 1890s to 1920s. This is exactly the period when Bulgarian literature started experimenting with generic and self-reflexive techniques on the one hand, and with a more socially grounded approach to writing fiction, on the other hand. As a result of the poetic of Mathilde Serao, which contains both these trends, fitted very well the taste of the Bulgarian reading audience. For the period at question, we found twenty-three translations in fourteen different journals, as well as several critical reviews of her work. After providing quantitative data of appearance of Matilde Serao in Bulgaria we describe the translators’ choices of works and provide hypotheses on the identity of her translators, and on the influence which her writing had on the Bulgarian literary scene.

The text discusses one aspect of the receptive horizon of Bulgarian literature – the lack of active reception of such writers as Thèophile Gautier, Henri de Régnier, and Andrè Gides. The focus falls on their works which reveal a modern way of working with the pastoral code and their absence in receptive circles in our country; on the feeble interest our literature (and reading public) displays towards the pastoral in its “classical” and modern shape. The observations here are limited mostly to the cultural processes from the first half of the 20th century but I also touch upon the contemporary reception in Bulgarian translation of pastoral works as well as the critical reception of writers such as Kiril Merdzhanski.

The current review examines the structure, content, textual and biographical annotation, and the reception of translated texts in the field of American literary theory and criticism in Albena Bakracheva’s American literary theory & criticism (2020). In addition, it offers a comparative platform for the appreciation of the said anthology in view of a selection of contemporary guides in literary theory and criticism published in Bulgarian and in English. Last but not least, there is a thought on Albena Bakratcheva’s overall contribution to the initiation of the Bulgarian reader into American literature, with an especial focus on American transcendentalism – itself a context for the current edition.The current review examines the structure, content, textual and biographical annotation, and the reception of translated texts in the field of American literary theory and criticism in Albena Bakracheva’s American literary theory & criticism (2020). In addition, it offers a comparative platform for the appreciation of the said anthology in view of a selection of contemporary guides in literary theory and criticism published in Bulgarian and in English. Last but not least, there is a thought on Albena Bakratcheva’s overall contribution to the initiation of the Bulgarian reader into American literature, with an especial focus on American transcendentalism – itself a context for the current edition.

The text offers a departure from the dominant paradigm of critical interpretation of “Time Shelter”, related to the political and philosophical ideas in the novel and the author's strategy. Observations are directed at genre constructions and narrative structures that can be connected to G. Gospodinov's novel. Some of them, perceived as prestigious, are explicitly stated in the text of the work; others remain in the shadows.

The paper is focused on two movies, dedicated to the life and deeds of the Bulgarian poet and revolutionary Hristo Botev. Chronologically, the first one – “Freedom or Death” (1968), was directed by Nikola Korabov – a film director, considered as a part of so-called classical era of the Bulgarian cinematography. The second one, entitled simply “Botev” (2022), was directed by Maxim Guenchev – a contemporary movie director, known with his history-based works. In different time contexts, both movies were met with considerable criticism by the audience and cinema professionals. The paper pays particular attention to the reasons why these films provoked so many pronounced negative reactions. The first movie was not accepted positively because of the political circumstances took place in 1968. Prague Spring affected the whole socialist block. Thus, the movie by Nikola Korabov was seen as deviating from the politically correct line of the Bulgarian socialism, so its screening was stopped by the ideological censorship. The interpretation of the main character and the way the history events were shown was regarded as diverting from the socialist canon. Consequently, the movie was prohibited for public display. “Botev” movie’s reception was not particularly warm as well. The audience was influenced by the director’s pro-Russian point towards the Russian aggression in Ukraine. The same attitude was shared by the main movie character from the screen. It should be taken into account that nowadays the national-populism is in constant raise, and the dictionary of the social dialogue, dedicated to the problems of the national identity, is radicalized respectively. Concerning the artistic language of the first movie, it is defined as a style mixture with no coherent intention, as involving unnecessary Biblical reminiscences, overexaggerated aestheticization with no plot motivation. Summarizingly, the movie was seen as a display of mannerism, unfitting the idea of the national hero’s concept in its socialist version. The movie “Botev” by Maxim Guenchev leaves an impression for amateur, informal event, targeted for close friends and the families of the cast. In conclusion, the image of Hristo Botev was not properly screened either in the socialist period or in the 21 century and more than 30 years after its collapse.

The reception of Cervantes’ work in Bulgaria is a complex process that has continued for over a century and a half. An interesting case and integral part of the latter is represented by the “Novels,” which have remained in the shadow of “Don Quixote” in terms of the quantity and quality of their translations, the critical approach to them, and their artistic assimilation. The study traces their gradual entry into the Bulgarian literary context, focusing on their early translations from the 19th century, made through the mediation of the French language, the 1976 edition of two of the novels, and the only complete edition from 2004. A significant part of the analysis is devoted to the translation strategies used in the recreation of semantically charged names, metaphors, realia, archaic elements, stylistic choices, proverbs, and idioms