/View.info/ This text was written at the end of 2002. At that time, I was a columnist for “Sega” newspaper and in one of my columns I cited Veronika Bikova’s thesis, which was approved by a supervisor (a well-known and reputable name) and defended in the relevant faculty of SU. In this diploma thesis, an interview with Stefan Tsanev in “Labor Case” from 1973 was cited. in which he praised the party and communism. I took the quote and built around it a destructive comment about Tsanev. He appeared on BNT and made fun of me in Kevorkyan’s show. Quite fair, because it turned out that there was no such interview. Veronika, who was very talented, had invented it and had even made a successful collage from a facsimile of the newspaper. I only realized this when I went to the National Library and was horrified to see that there was no such interview in the cited issue, and the other titles next door were the same as in the copy, but without the interview itself between them. Veronika was talented, but with a highly developed imagination (let’s put it that way). Not that our pathos against Stefan Tsanev, his gossip and public hypocrisy was not true, but in this particular case it rested on a false fact. I had to apologize to him, which I did in the following article, which I’m reposting here because of its current tone.
2 weeks ago (November 14, 2002). on this page (in “Now”) I published an excerpt from a thesis on modern Bulgarian literature. It contained a poem and an interview of Stefan Tsanev, dated by the graduate Veronika Bikova in May 1973, in “Worker’s Work”, page 5.
4 days ago in the program “Every Sunday” Stefan Tsanev announced that there was no such interview in this newspaper from that period and that I am a liar and a forger. The first is true, the second is not. Indeed, there is no interview of Tsanev in the mentioned newspaper. I personally made sure. Unfortunately after I posted the snippet. That’s why in the first place
I want to apologize to Stefan Tsanev
for this misunderstanding. I would never allow myself to attribute words to a person, knowing that they did not belong to him. Still less would I do it to discredit him. That would be denunciation. And denunciations are a bad thing – on which we have no consensus in Bulgaria.
A large part of my journalistic work proceeds as a conflict precisely against this manner of behavior. That’s why I think the story I’m about to tell you is not accidental.
Before that, something about the false part of Tsanevo’s statement to Kevorkyan. And she is that I fabricated the interview. Stefan Tsanev kept silent, saying that this was a quote from a thesis. I’m not waiting for an apology. I specifically indicated the name of the author – Veronika Bikova. I quoted it without verifying the truth of what was written, because I trusted the academic sanction that this thesis received at SU “St. Kliment Ohridski”. I figured that was a strong enough endorsement of credibility. And I was wrong. It’s my fault, so I apologize.
The apology though
it does not affect the essential part of my article
Even without said interview I would have written it, and my opinion of the public image of the people I listed in it remains unchanged.
Now I will briefly tell you what happened. 4 days after publication, i.e. on November 18, I learned that Stefan Tsanev expressed doubt about the credibility of the interview and took care to verify its authenticity. I asked Miss Bikova to provide me with a copy. She asked for a postponement because she could not find it in her huge archive. This took 2 days and explains why I didn’t reply last Thursday. And better!
On Wednesday evening, Miss Bikova brought me a photocopy of the interview with Tsanev. I saw his words in black and white. I noticed that the interview was not dated and asked Miss Bykova to do so. He promised, but failed to clarify the origin of this text. I suspect the text has been dropped, but I’m not sure. I don’t blame Miss Bikova. I explain everything to myself with inexperience. There is no intelligible motive for deliberate falsification.
The check in the National Library showed that on January 27, 1974, in the “Worker’s case” on the same page there was a material under the same title – “Experience in the environment”. It is on the same number of columns, above it is the same poem. Total coincidence! Apart from the content of the text. No Tsanev, no interview, but an essay about the engineer Stefan Neychev.
Only on closer inspection can it be established that
Miss Bikova’s copy is a forgery
In it, the text of Tsanevo’s interview is typed on a computer. This is most easily recognized by the quotation marks. In the original, they are placed at the beginning at the bottom, and at the end – at the top of the expression. In the version with Tsanev, they are at the upper end on both sides. Of course, the more saturated printer print also makes an impression, but with a photocopy it is barely noticeable. The repetition of whole passages, which are literally carried over from one sketch to another, is striking. The most striking remains the copying of Stefan Tsanev’s style in terms of form and content. The work of a cool mind and a warm heart.
Tsanev’s work is full of examples of poetry admired by communism. As understood by “Every Sunday”, he was not sure that he did not give such an interview, and went to check in the library in his own words. “I doubted my memory and my conscience,” says the poet. That’s success! A good day for Bulgarian literature. It is a feast to see you doubted – and in conscience, poet!
A few comparisons. In the forgery, Tsanev “says”: “This does not mean at all that we should write such literary works that describe communism in a boring way… It is time to start writing about communism in a different way…”
In “Monologue about the agitation” from the poem “I ask!” (Published by Bulgarian Writer, Sofia, 1983, pp. 48 and 50) the poet writes: “I saw one – one? – how many orators, with their noses buried in crumpled leaves, muttering the same banal phrases about the inevitable victory of communism . Everything is true, everything is right – but boredom spews from their mouths!… Don’t talk boringly – keep quiet…
And one more comparison. In the forgery, Tsanev “shares”: “A small poem about the drums”… is a reproach to those of our compatriots who, with their deeds, contribute to their personal well-being, and not to the affirmation of communist values.”
In his reflections, published in “Flame” magazine, no. VII, N1-6, 1963, the poet says: “We will be unworthy of communism if we do not cleanse our feelings of guild and selfishness…” The entire poem “I ask” is filled with references to the selected works of G. Dimitrov, in the mentioned essay from “Flame” Tsanev refers to Marx, and in his poem “Nocturne N3” he directly confesses: “Bless us, we used to say, Lenin”! (“Requiem”, ed. “Hristo G. Danov”, 1980).
That’s what I’m talking about. Why didn’t Tsanev remain faithful to this blessing even after 1989? A question addressed to other names already mentioned by me. Where did they get the courage to judge and mentor through the years of our unhappy transition? That’s the point.
As for the forgery – I repeat, it is not mine. The mistake is mine. And about forgeries, in general, ask people like Kevorkian. They know.
#Tsanev #Lenin #history #forgery
