national renown and international reputation: the case of ivan vazov

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

National Renown and International Reputation: The Case of Ivan VazovAuthor(s): Charles A. MoserSource: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Spring, 1979), pp. 87-93Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/307802 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 21:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 21:59:03 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatseel

http://www.jstor.org/stable/307802?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


NATIONAL RENOWN AND INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION: THE CASE OF IVAN VAZOV

Charles A. Moser, The George Washington University

The extent to which a great writer in a small (or little known) culture may be recognized internationally is a special case of the general problem of reputation, or, more precisely, reputation for excellence. The connection between actual achievement in any particular field-including literature and art, scholarship, or statecraft-and national or international reputation for excellence poses thorny sociological questions and resists neat analysis. This becomes more evident as we consider the "market" in reputation, for an individual of renown may lapse into total obscurity after his death while one of little prominence may years later be considered among the most talented individuals of his time and place. An elucidation of the entire problem of reputation would require at least a large book, but perhaps a shorter study may promote clarification by observing a writer considered great by nearly all those who know his work in detail, but whose international reputation (by which we mean primarily his reputation in Western Europe and America) is relatively limited: the modern Bulgarian writer Ivan Vazov.

Ivan Vazov (1850-1921) published poetry, prose, travel sketches, essays, and plays, and indeed the 1880s saw his output as nearly co-extensive with Bulgarian literature of that time. Scholars and critics both within Bulgaria and without agree that Vazov most fully embodied the national spirit of his day and that, moreover, he is his country's greatest writer. Though other writers may surpass him in particular genres or areas, it is plain that Vazov's oeuvre overshadows that of any other Bulgarian author. In his brief Panorama of modern Bulgarian literature, written in 1936, Georges Hateau devoted an entire chapter to Vazov;' the Italian scholar Lavinia Borriero Picchio, in her 1961 survey of Bulgarian literature, also allocated a number of pages to him, and explicitly termed him "the greatest Bulgarian writer";2 the division of space in Clarence Manning and Roman Smal-Stocki's History of Modern Bulgarian Literature (1960) clearly indicates that they agree with this evaluation.3 Other such examples could easily be cited.

One difficulty a national writer faces in achieving an international reputation is that the more closely bound he is to a particular time and peo- SEEJ, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1979) 87



88 Slavic and East European Journal

pie, the less likely in the long term he is to appeal to an international audience which knows little of his native culture. Vazov sought to be the conscience of his country, and to delineate its unique character. Hateau remarks that his poetic lyricism is most frequently stimulated by "love of his country and appreciation of nature" (83), and that nature is largely Bulgarian. Much of his writing consists of historical fiction or drama, poems on national topics, and travelogues of an historical and cultural bent.

Vazov exhibited a quite limited international perspective, rarely writing on foreign themes. One of the few such poetic cycles he ever produced was Italija (1884), a collection of poems he wrote during a journey to Italy where he hoped to recover from an unhappy love affair. These works demonstrate his appreciation of the natural and man-made beauties of an ancient land: in the lyric "Italija," for instance, he extends Bulgaria's greeting to this "land of ringing song, / of genius, of beauty."4 While sailing past Greece en route to Italy, he paid poetic tribute to Lord Byron's sacrifice in the struggle for Greek independence; he dedicated individual poems to paintings viewed in Italian galleries, or to the galleries themselves. Vazov was certainly no Baj Ganju (Aleko Konstantinov's philistine tourist) but he always remembers who he is: in the poem "Slavjanskijat zvuk" ("Slavic Sounds") he rejoices upon overhearing a young Russian woman speaking Russian on board ship; in "Kapuanska dolina" ("The Valley of Capua") he writes of a beautiful Italian valley which evokes memories of the even more lovely Valley of Roses in his native country (II, 104, 118). Though the Italy poems may be internally balanced between nationalism and internationalism, the cycle as a whole is an anomaly in the corpus of Vazov's work, since otherwise he was little interested in the achievements of foreign cultures. He was too busy creating a national literature and culture for his own land.

To be sure, Vazov's concern with Bulgarian history and culture also helped him to gain an international reputation. That very concern impelled him to compose the poetic Epopeja na zabravenite (Epic of the Forgotten, 1881-84), in which he celebrated the heroes of Bulgaria's Renascence and Liberation; and especially the prose work Pod igoto (Under the Yoke, 1889- 90), a historical novel describing the abortive April Uprising of 1876 which preceded the Liberation of 1878. His most powerful work, Under the Yoke, came to the attention of influential individuals in the West; in a short time, in 1894, it was rendered into English and published in England. Georges Hateau observes that such a novel as Under the Yoke may attract foreign readers by its "documentary interest" (89) and perhaps this is so, for the foreign reader can learn much about Bulgarian society of a century ago from its pages. And yet, in his introduction to the 1894 edition, the eminent British critic Edmund Gosse stressed not the book's documentary value, but rather its universal aesthetic appeal:



The Case of Ivan Vazov 89

In any language, however hackneyed, the extreme beauty of this heroic novel, so simple and yet so artfully constructed, so full of ideal charm, permeated with so pure and fiery a passion, so human and tender, so modern and yet so direct and primitive, must have been assured among all imaginative readers. .... The first quality which strikes the critic in reading this very remarkable book is its freshness. It is not difficult to realise that, in its original form, this must be the earliest work of genius written in an unexhausted language.5

That which Gosse perceived in the novel attracted others as well. By 1959 it had appeared in thirty-one Bulgarian editions and had been translated into twenty-eight foreign languages, with three English editions and five French editions (although it should be noted that a portion of these translations was done in Sofia).6 The Germans were slow to translate it, and when they did, the author of the brief introduction to the first German translation of 1917 or 1918 felt obliged to apologize for the delay.7 By now Vazov has become the most frequently translated Bulgarian author, and Under the Yoke the Bulgarian novel most often published in foreign languages (Koteva, 188). There can be no question, then, that Under the Yoke is known to a degree in Western Europe, and it certainly remains the work upon which Vazov's international reputation rests.

The extent of that reputation in another matter. Among the general Western European reading public - or among the intelligentsia which might be expected to take an interest in such things without any specialized knowledge of Bulgarian literature - Vazov's reputation seems to be limited. In 1951 the Bulgarian critic Nikolaj Doniev published an article summarizing the commemoration in other countries of the hundredth an- niversary of Vazov's birth.8 Most of the articles appearing abroad in the popular press at that time came out in the Soviet Union, or in other Eastern European countries, where cultural anniversaries are force-fed to readers. Some pieces published in Austria (then still under Soviet occupation) emphasized the links between Vazov's work and Russian literature, but those printed in France, Italy, or Belgium were done by Bulgarian con- tributors, with Donkev himself producing several of them. This would seem to indicate that Western European interest in Bulgaria's greatest writer is rather mild.

An article of 1955 on Vazov published by Charles Hyart in the Belgian journal Synthises corroborates this surmise. Hyart comments that in Vazov's case the saying that a prophet is not without honor save in his own country must be reversed: Vazov enjoys full recognition within Bulgaria, but he too has been unable to breach the barricade of unfamiliarity which separates the West from such great writers as Pu'kin, Lermontov, Os- trovskij, Mickiewicz, and Slowacki. Hyart then summarizes Vazov's career, paying special attention to Under the Yoke, and concludes that since Vazov's writing unquestionably contains "valuable human messages across space and time," it is regrettable that his work is not better known at the op- posite end of Europe.9




To be sure, Vazov did have domestic detractors. Prominent among them was the aesthetician and critic Dr. Krostjo Krostev, who in the early years of this century mounted a sustained effort to depose Vazov as a national writer in favor of IPenio Slavejkov.1' One reason for this attempt was precisely a difference in viewpoint on the question of national and international culture. While Vazov sought to create a national literature and culture for his newly liberated land, Slavejkov, Krostev, and their allies promoted what might be termed the "conscious internationalization" of Bulgarian culture: by roughly 1900, they believed, the time had come for Bulgarian culture to undergo a fuller integration with world culture. In his collection Epitleski pesni (Epic Songs, 1907) Slavejkov paid poetic tribute to such giants of modern world culture as Beethoven, Shelley, Michelangelo, and Nietzsche. Taking Mickiewicz's Pan Tadeusz as his model, Slavejkov also set out to compose a narrative work designed as the national poetic epic on the Liberation, Karvava pesen (Song of Blood), which remained un- finished. Where Vazov's roots were firmly fixed in his native soil, with some Russian influences, Slavejkov and Krostev looked to Western Europe, and especially Germany, for their inspiration. They by no means rejected their native culture. On the contrary, they wished it to incorporate all that was best in classical and contemporary international culture, and simultaneously to make its own contribution to international culture. But if this latter were to occur, the Western intelligentsia would have to be made much more aware of Bulgarian achievements.

Krostev, then, in his role as critic and publicist, set out to enlighten the European reading public on Bulgarian culture. He did not deny Vazov's contribution to Bulgarian literature, but considered him outmoded and ex- cessively embedded in his native culture, whereas Slavejkov had transcended the limitations of that culture without abandoning it. Consequently, in a collection of articles by Bulgarian scholars on Bulgarian culture published in Stockholm in 1918 by the eminent Swedish Slavist Alfred Jensen, Krostev allotted a mere four pages of an article of forty-five pages to Vazov, while giving twelve to Slavejkov and another ten to ally Petko Todorov." Kra stev also understood the importance of the Nobel Prize as a means of gaining recognition both for a writer and for a smaller national culture, and therefore he and his colleagues organized a serious effort to secure a Nobel Prize in literature in 1912 for Pen'o Slavejkov. Unhappily their attempts came to nought, for Slavejkov went into exile and died an untimely death in that same year.

However, the Nobel Prize campaign on Slavejkov's behalf evidently impelled the Vazov camp to launch a similar effort for him. At the end of 1911, the Secretary of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences corresponded on the subject with Ivan Silmanov, Vazov's faithful supporter, a prominent scholar and former Minister of Education.'2 Their principal foreign ally was




Alfred Jensen, who (if we may judge from the appropriate segments of his extensive publications on Slavic cultures) shared their view that Vazov was the most outstanding Bulgarian writer.'" Evidently Vazov's collected works were sent to Stockholm for Jensen's use in reporting to the Nobel Commit- tee, and in addition Sismanov formally requested, in an undated letter probably sent in early 1912, that Vazov be considered for a Nobel Prize. Un- like Gosse, in his letter ;ismanov emphasized the national aspects of Vazov's work: very few countries, he argues, boasted a single poet who could "embody the soul of an entire people." Bulgaria possessed just such a writer in Vazov. Vazov deserved the prize, gisamov went on, "both as a true artist and as an inspired fighter for the rights of his nation and of humanity. S

. . Bulgaria, proud of its national poet, awaits his recognition by the civilized world. The Swedish Academy has the opportunity to gladden a people heroic but still too little known." (346-47.)

We do not know how seriously the Nobel Prize committee took the Vazov nomination in 1912, but we do know that Vazov did not receive a prize. No Bulgarian writer ever has. And although it would be an exaggera- tion to claim that the award of a Nobel Prize for literature guarantees appropriate international prestige for a writer from a small country, or for the culture he represents, a Nobel Prize for literature is surely the single greatest honor which may symbolize or lead to international recognition for a writer.

We must conclude, then, that Ivan Vazov, despite his reputation within Bulgaria and among foreign specialists as an author worthy of comparison with well-known Western writers, enjoys at best a very limited reputation in intellectual circles of Western Europe and America. Moreover, no other Bulgarian writer boasts an international reputation even approaching Vazov's. There are several reasons for this situation.

First any writer in a small culture is more likely to win recognition abroad if he publishes prose rather than poetry, since poetry is so intimately bound up with language. This helps to explain why even Pu'kin's reputation outside Russia is so insubstantial, and why Vazov's foreign reputation rests primarily upon one novel. Second, a writer who hopes to achieve an international reputation must depend upon that much maligned individual, the translator, to faithfully render his work into a major European language, thus accessible to a wider reading public. Under the Yoke has been fortunate in this respect, having been published many times in major European languages. Even Russian literature was little appreciated in the West until Constance Garnett published her monumental translations of the Russian classics. Translators are a necessity for any writer from a small country who wishes to be known internationally.

Likewise important for the development of a writer's reputation are critics, writing for a general intellectual audience and preferably foreign, who appreciate his work and promote it consistently. Vazov did arouse the




approbation of a critic like Edmund Gosse, but it was not sustained. Of course he did receive continuing support from Alfred Jensen and some other foreign historians of Bulgarian literature. Specialists, however, are often thought to suffer from a certain parti pris, and moreover they write for limited audiences. Vazov's writing never found an independent, general, foreign critic who liked it sufficiently to promote it over several years. And that is probably the chief reason for his relative lack of international renown.

An ancillary contributing factor here is the character of Vazov's writing, which is so deeply bound up with the culture of a small country. One may conjecture that a writer who catches a national spirit too adeptly and too consistently has little chance of becoming well known outside his native land. To this extent Krastev was correct in arguing that a man of international culture like Pencio Slavejkov had a better chance of acquiring international standing than Vazov. The flaw in Krastev's reasoning was that Slavejkov as a poet was made, not born: he lacked any great innate poetic talent.

Thus it develops that a writer in a small culture, no matter how remarkable his talent, must depend much more heavily for his international reputation upon others than a great author in a major culture. If he never attracts the translators and critics he requires, he will remain unknown to the outside world. If he attracts them only to a degree - as did Vazov - he may become only the best-known representative of an obscure culture, which is little enough in absolute terms.14

NOTES

1 Georges Hateau, "Vazov, 'Poete national,"' Panorama de la litterature bulgare contem- poraine (Paris: Sagittaire, 1936), 75-94.

2 Lavinia Borriero Picchio, Storia della letteratura bulgara (Milan: Nuova accademia, 1961), 173-85.

3 Clarence A. Manning and Roman Smal-Stocki, The History of Modern Bulgarian Literature (New York: Bookman Associates, 1960), 80-93.

4 Ivan Vazov, Sabrani saxinenija (4 vols.; Sofia: Bzlgarski pisatel, 1955), II, 109-10. 5 Edmund Gosse, "Introduction," in Ivan Vazov, Under the Yoke (London: Heinemann,

1894), v, x-xi. 6 See the statistics in Elena Koteva, "Pod igoto u nas i v uibina, " Septemvri, 1959, No. 11,

188-89. 7 Dr. K. Kassner, "Vorwort," in Unter dem Joch (Leipzig: I. Parlapanoff, [1917 or 1918]),

iii-iv. 8 Nikolaj Doniev, "Otglasi ot vazovata stogodignina v 6uidija peiat," Septemvri, 1951, No.

4, 154-56. 9 Charles Hyart, "Ivan Vazov, porte bulgare," Syntheses, 105 (1955), 100, 105.




10 For more information on this cultural quarrel, see Charles A. Moser, "Dr. Kraistyu Krdstev: A Bulgarian Mentor," Slavonic and East European Review, 43 (1964), 130-51 et passim.

11 See the chapter on Bulgarian literature by Dr. Krastev in Marcus Ehrenpreis and Alfred Jensen, eds., Bulgarerna (Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt, 1918), 187-232.

12 The correspondence on this topic is published in Ivan Sismanov, Ivan Vazov: Spomeni i dokumenti, ed. Mixail Arnaudov (Sofia: Bolgarska akademija na naukite, 1930), 343-47.

13 See, for example, his treatment of Vazov in Slavia. Kulturbilder frdn Volga till Donau (2 vols.; Stockholm: A. Bonnier, 1896-97), II, 299-303. This book is-a popularized travel, cultural, and political guide to the Slavic countries.

14 A slightly different version of this paper was delivered at the Southern Conference on Slavic Studies at the University of Virginia, 21 October 1976.



national renown and international reputation: the case of ivan vazov

Documents