Slovenian Poetry, the Prešeren Structure, and the Politics of Poetic Form

Abstract

This article deals with contemporary interpretations of Slovenian poetry that emerged after the independence of Slovenia. Reference is made to the basic theses of Dušan Pirjevec in his article “Vprašanje poezije” (“The Issue of Poetry”). Pirjevec wrote about the social role of poetry in the preservation of Slovenian national identity and he referred to this type of poetry as the “Prešeren structure”. In his opinion, this stateless nation exercised its creativity in culture, in which literature in particular—and, within it, poetry—is essential. When Slovenia became part of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, poetry was able to be developed as an autonomous art, representing a rejection of the Prešeren structure. According to Peter Kolšek, contemporary interpretations establish two megastructures, those of Prešeren and Murn, which represent two types of poetic production: poetry in the service of the nation, a certain idea, or class, and poetry that focuses on language in its autonomous aesthetic function. The poetry of Srečko Kosovel seems to have been the most radical departure from the Prešeren structure in the early twentieth century. However, Janez Vrečko argues that Kosovel’s work contains an active Prešeren structure, which established the discursive extent to which this poet could undermine the traditional lyric paradigm. – Other researchers, including Denis Poniž, Peter Kolšek, and Matevž Kos, believe that the most radical rejection of the Prešeren structure occurred in ultramodernist and neo-avant-garde poetry. The visual and concrete poets of the 1960s rejected the national poetic tradition. Given the open socialist Yugoslav society of the time, one could say that neo-avant-garde poetry attained its most radical forms in Yugoslavia, especially in Slovenia. There seems to be no agreement on the issue of postmodern poetry and its social function or social indifference. – When Slovenia attained independence, culture and especially poetry lost their importance under the new political and economic conditions. In the poetry of the new poets—referring to those born in the 1960s and 1970s—radical poetic moves are not possible. It is as though the Prešeren structure is still active but concealed under the new circumstances: it is still operating and, as always, setting the discursive boundaries of poetry.