Ljubljana as a Social and Literary Space of Slovenian Writers

Abstract

The starting point of this article is the finding by the German sociologist Georg Simmel, who claimed that every city’s impersonal, official, and administrative image is “individualized” by its residents, who use various names and labels to refer to the city and its districts, streets, and houses. This process can also be observed among Slovenian writers and their relationship to Ljubljana as the national and literary capital. This process takes place at two levels. First, at the level of their professional, social, cultural, and political activities, through which they influence the conditions in the city, change these conditions, and subsequently also the city image. Second, writers “individualize” Ljubljana even more in their literary works, in which they portray the city either directly or indirectly, but always subjectively. These general findings are made concrete by selected Slovenian writers, who according to the author represent well the relationship between them and Ljubljana at the social and literary levels: the author and playwright Ivan Cankar (1876−1918), the author, art historian, and politician Izidor Cankar (1886−1958), the author Vladimir Bartol 1903−1967), the poet and politician Edvard Kocbek (1904−1981), and the author Vitomil Zupan (1914−1987). – Based on the descriptions of their social experiences of Ljubljana and its depiction in their literary works, one can define a typology of the relationship between Slovenian writers and the national capital. The main points of this typology are as follows: the Slovenian writer is usually not born in Ljubljana, but comes from the Slovenian countryside, typically from a rural or small-town background. He arrives in the city in order to go to school there and typically remains in the city afterwards, working there professionally as a writer and sometimes also engaged in politics. A change in the political system can accelerate his professional and literary career. The less democratic and the more totalitarian the political system, the stronger the violence against the writer due to his political views, public activity, or literary works. Due to changed sociopolitical and literary conditions, future generations can devalue or manipulate the writer and his literary works. The writer “individualizes” Ljubljana in his literary works by openly or covertly taking it into account, placing it at the center of his work, or pushing it to the edge of the story. He can assign a positive or negative value to it. However, the reader always receives the impression of Ljubljana as the epicenter of Slovenian literature, culture, and politics, even if he does not agree with the writer’s evaluation.