The welfare of socialism in the opera art in Bulgaria in the second half of the 20th century
Papers of BAS
Humanities and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, 2024, No. 2
Chief Assist. Dr. Еmiliya Zhunich
Institute of Art Studies
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
21 Krakra Str.
1000 Sofia, Bulgaria
Email: zhunich@mail.bg
Keywords: opera art, people’s power, socialism, ideology
The influences of the Bulgaria Communist Party’s directives handed down “from above”, the historical-cultural usages and the institutional changes during the time of socialism also reflect on the opera art in Bulgaria. By the end of 1944, the diversity of composers and works in the “emerging” Bulgarian opera scene was impressive. Sofia Opera launched a total of 175 premières, with that total including several ballets[1]. The only extant non-capital opera troupe, the Stara Zagora Opera troupe, had also been seeking repertoire diversity, in a more modest version though[2] Upon 9 September1944, political changes in Bulgaria led to alterations in all areas and that would also include the opera repertoire and the rendition thereof. Some professional ensembles were created such as orchestras, opera theatres, although members of the Fatherland Front Committees and formed shortly after 9 September 1944 Primary party organizations were not quite aware of what the opera art would mean, but on the other hand, they based themselves on some slogans that had gained some high levels of popularity, one of them being “art from the people and for the people” (Petrova 2020). As early as on 9 September 1944, Decree No. 1 of the Council of Ministers of Kimon Georgiev’s Government established three new ministries: the Ministry of Public Health, the Ministry of Social Policy and the Ministry of Propaganda (Elenkov 2008, 19). Dimo Kazasov[3] headed the Ministry of Propaganda[4] (Harkov 2021, 63, 102) that was renamed subsequently to Ministry of Information and Arts[5] (Decree No. 14 of 3 September 1945 - see Elenkov 2008, 67-68), and thereafter it was renamed again and this time its title sounded as Committee for Science, Art and Culture (Komitet za nauka, izkustvo i kultura - KNIK)[6] - this “administering and comprehensive ideological institute […] directly subordinated to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists)“ (Elenkov 2008, 19-20), whose employees were appointed directly by the Council of Ministers for their extraordinary merits in the “intensification of the revolutionary process” and in particular in the process of the “Cultural Revolution” (Elenkov 2008, 141). They administer the “inevitable adoption of the Soviet model of socialism”[7] and “the transformation of the class-party approach into the sole value criterion for science, art and culture” (Isusov 1978, 34; Elenkov 2008, 142). Less than a month later, on 4 October 1944, Dimo Kazasov reported to the National Committee of the Fatherland Front that the Soviet high command had expressed displeasure that the Bulgarian press was left uncontrolled (Ivanov 2009, 287). The Politburo, holding regular meetings almost every morning scheduled between 7 and 12 a.m. since September 1944, made some specific organizational decisions for the country’s administration, for campaigning and propaganda, book publishing, press, party and popular education, radio, work among writers, artists, etc. (Isusov 1978, 34). It would provide prescriptions in every field (Elenkov 2018), i.e., political, economic, cultural, although it had no way of having trained experts that would represent the Workers’ Party[8], which until then had been underground. It was quite logical that, with the changes imposed on the management staff and its continuous growth, the requirements that “all posts from inspector upwards be filled by persons with proved anti-fascist experience”[9] could not be met. That led to a number of decrees abolishing the required census for holding a certain office (Elenkov 2018, 44-45; Isusov 1978) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Order for the removal of educational qualification requirements
for regional directors and district governors, the director and officers of the People’s
Militia, etc., in effect from 9 September 1944[10]
At the same time, attempts were being made to destroy everything
related to pro-German, anti-Soviet and monarchist orientation (Ivanov 2009).
Prof. Stoyan Brashovanov, the first Bulgarian graduate musicologist and Doctor
of Philosophy, was visited late in the evening on 11 October 1944 in his home
by two civilians and was accused of possessing fascist literature, i.e., books in
Latin script (Yapova 2021, 16-31). He was then arrested and tortured. Due to
accusations of ideological sins, Brashovanov’s scholarly works on the history of
music were discredited (Brashovanova 2001, 76; Yapova 2010, 16-28) - a fact
that Angelina Petrova commented with a certain dose of irony: “A bourgeois
residue [...] was also the quote of Philipp Spitta (Bach’s first biographer - A. P.),
who (obviously and naturally - A. P.) was not a follower of Marxism-Leninism”
(Petrova 2020, 86-87). A similar fate befell the works of Ivan Kamburov11, another
German graduate, a musicologist who studied at the Leipzig Conservatory. The
fact that he was head of the music department of the Chamber of National
Culture (Kamarata na narodnata kultura - KNK) in the period 1945-1947 did
not save his written legacy afterwards.
On 1 April 1946, the signature of Dimo Kazasov nationalized a number
of drama theatres that had been municipal until that point, including the
Stara Zagora Opera (Draganov 1970; Dimitrova 2004; Zhunich 2014). The
day before, on 31 March 1946, the regents signed a decree on the composition
of the second cabinet of Kimon Georgiev (Isusov 1978, 265). That says the
nationalization order was definitely prepared earlier. Thus, after twenty-one
years of existence and more than 1,000 performances of 12 opera titles (in 18
productions) by 9 composers in front of more than 400,000 spectators[12], the
Stara Zagora Municipal Opera was nationalized (Biks et al. 2005). This act would
radically alter the organization of the troupe, the selection of the repertoire,
the artistic units, the creative pursuits and the fulfilments[13]. Immediately after
9 September 1944, as well as in all other organizations and institutes, a newly
formed Fatherland Front’s Committee temporarily took over the management
of the troupe. In the beginning, the opera staff seemed to be no stranger to the
enthusiasm that covered everyone. It was a phenomenon that was characteristic
of the era. They hoped for the moral and material support from the State. The
Fatherland Front’s Committee, which took over the leadership of the Stara
Zagora Opera, continued with the insistence of the troupe to turn it into a
branch of Sofia Opera. The idea was not new: since 1939, similar accounts and
requests had been written from the Stara Zagora Opera enthusiasts. The stage
director of the Sofia Opera, Ilia Arnaudov and the playwright Nikolay Liliev
(a native of Stara Zagora) encouraged the work of enthusiasts in Stara Zagora.
More than once, artists from the Sofia Opera were long-term seconded to the
Stara Zagora[14]. Otherwise, the membership fees and the revenue from the sale
of tickets did not cover the expenses, with the performances being moved to the
hall of the “Theatre” Society, and with the same scene being used by both the
Drama Theatre and the Community Centre Cinema, i.e., letters and requests
were written for each show, with every spectacle needing negotiations. The scene
was small and uncomfortable, there was no good acoustics, the heating was
almost symbolic, there were no dressing-rooms for artists, and the toilet under
the stage would bring the fetidity all the way to the hall. The correspondences
with the “Theatre” Society Board of Trustees, requesting improvements to the
hall, stage, and orchestra pit, continued (Draganov 1970; Dimitrova 2004).
The opera activists would continue to make specific proposals, mentioning that
despite requests and invitations to the previous Board of Trustees, this issue
had always been neglected, “because they were proverbially cheese-paring”.
However, now, when the Chitalishte (Community Centre) was headed by
“active and progressive people”, the Opera staff believed that improvements to
the stage and hall would finally be made (Dimitrova 2004, 103). Together with
their sympathizers, who were experts at the same time, the Opera members also
drafted a renovation project, pushed for a revision of the hall usage schedule,
and requested additional hours for rehearsals and performances[15].
In order to recruit Dragan Kardzhiev (until recently the chief stage director
of the Sofia Opera, but as a German graduate inconvenient to the Fatherland
Front authorities) the management had to have a written consent from Sofia
(Zhekov 2002, 42-43). The central management of the Union of Theatre
Employees specifically considered the matter and in September 1945 decided:
“It would give its consent to the appointment of Dragan Kardzhiev, former
chief stage director of the People’s Opera, to be appointed as stage director
of the Opera in Stara Zagora”. This is followed by the signatures of Chairman
P. Dimitrov and Secretary Asp. Temelkov[16]. In early October, Dragan Kardzhiev
submitted a report[17] to the Chairman of the Opera Board of Trustees. It stated
that he had already studied the working conditions of the Stara Zagora Municipal
Opera and considered it his duty to report that in terms of stage and technical
organization the Opera lagged quite behind, or more precisely, it lacked them
entirely... “Let us not forget that an opera is, first and foremost, a theatre and
only then a musical institution” - Kardzhiev reminded. With exceptional finesse,
conciseness, and clarity, he proposed the appointment of a set designer, a scenic
artist, a house manager, a props master, an upholsterer, wardrobe assistants and
tailors (both men and women), a hairdresser, stage technicians, a stage manager,
and lighting technicians - outlining various ways this could be implemented
gradually and with minimal disruption.
Based on the report by Kardzhiev, the Board of Trustees wrote a new
account to the Ministry demanding an increase in staff, i.e., it requested more
actors, more choir members, more members of the orchestra, a choir conductor,
four ballerinas, an electrician and an administrative secretary. Probably the
subsidies allocated so far (300,000 leva[18] by the end of 1944, 1,400,000 leva in
1945[19] and another 300,000 leva from the KNK[20] at the end of December that
year) were perceived as an acknowledgement and as an expression of a new
attitude to the provincial cultural institutions, or as a favourable attitude to the
problems of the only non-Sofia-based opera troupe that had existed for more
than two decades (Dimitrova 2004). The pride in the successes achieved during
the 1944/1945 season, along with Dragan Kardzhiev’s well-founded arguments
in his report, prompted the leadership to make greater and bolder requests to
secure both performing and technical staff for more normal operation. As a
result, on 9 October 1945, G. Kostov arrived in Stara Zagora for a meeting to
discuss the issues of the Opera and the Chitalishte.
The reason is that, in addition to theatre performances, opera productions,
and film screenings, the hall of the Chitalishte was then also used for political
meetings and other cultural and educational events. After the Opera’s
nationalization, the Chitalishte Board of Trustees took back to their possession
both pianos, making the preparation of the performances even more difficult.
Secondary schools’ managements and some individuals took back to their
possession the wind instruments and the harmonium (Dimitrova 2004, 110).
The Headmaster of the Girls’ Gymnasium prohibited to the students to take
part in the performances where they were invited as extras[21]. The widespread
propaganda claiming that the state would take greater care of culture than
previous governments, along with rumours that the Opera House would
be nationalized, likely led citizens to believe that everything necessary for its
development and operation would be provided immediately (Dimitrova 2004,
110). It may have happened that some citizens would fear that their instruments
might have been registered as property belonging to the nationalized Opera
House. At the same time, the possession of a German musical instrument could
have been qualified as an anti-national deed. There was also a further issue to be
considered and namely that the well-arranged city house at that time would be
a sufficient reason for its owners to be classified as members of the bourgeoisie,
i.e., to be declared “enemies of the people”.
During the 1946/1947 season, the Opera employed 10 managerial staff
members (conductors, a stage director, a stage manager, etc.), 67 performers
(including full-time choristers), 18 technical staff members, and 8 administrative
staff members. When shaping the personnel, members of the Bulgarian
Workers’ Party (Communists) insisted that some of the actors should not receive
an appointment because they were considered “inappropriate in idealogical
terms” (Dimitrova 2004).
With the seizure of power, the Fatherland Front’s Government launched an
ubiquitous “purge” of “enemy and anti-national elements” - “loyal representa
tives of the reaction, either open or hiding behind some Fatherland Front party
opposition”[22]. Entire files were filled with all sorts of lists of troupe members
with their complete personal details (even marital status, number of children
with specified ages and gender![23]), information on material assets, repertoire,
number of performances, number of visitors, etc., with requests often including
the word “immediately” (!) and a reminder that “whoever refuses to give the in
formation requested will be charged up to 50,000 leva worth fine, and whoever
knowingly provides false information will be imprisoned for up to 1 year and
will owe a fine of up to 100,000 leva”[24].
Having taken on the position of administrative director, Tosko Iliev
concentrated his great efforts to convince party members, mainly technical and
service staff, that in order to work well, it was necessary that the soloists and
the choir were properly arranged, and that there were no trained experts who
would stand left-wing ideas (Dimitrova 2004, 110). On a number of occasions,
he would write and explain (his legal education and former lawyer practice
speak for themselves!) that the performers had not had membership in any pro
fascist organizations and that, with a few exceptions, their interests were focused
on art, not politics. He was the reason why there was no purge at the Opera
(Dimitrova 2004). At the invitation of the musical workers, Tosko Iliev left his
lawyer practice[25] and accepted a position as a librarian in Stara Zagora (1933
1946), while in the evenings he transformed into Nikola from the Bulgarian
opera Gergana by Maestro Gueorgui Atanassov, or Alfredo, Manrico, Turiddu,
Almaviva, and others. Moreover, he was the most logical choice when the Opera
House was nationalized and the rule was introduced that the Opera House was
supposed to have an administrative director approved and appointed by the
Ministry, rather than elected by all members of the Board.
The constant inquiries about the repertoire or the performances of the
artists, on the number of performances, on the number of tickets, on all kinds
of personnel data, etc., as well as the ultimatum and threatening tone, caused
this otherwise benevolent person to answer that during the amateur performance
period in the Opera House, no documentation was kept and the requested
information could not be prepared and provided. Later, when the atmosphere
calmed down and the tone of the requests became softer, more humane, it turned
out that in the initial period documentation not only existed, but that it was
kept extremely accurately and precisely: with names, dates, protocols, revenues,
expenses, guest performances, tours, etc. (Draganov 1970). It was a separate issue
that in later years a large part of the cited archival documents was destroyed, and
again by order “from above”. After all, how else could it be claimed, even in the
pages of the officials 20-30 years later, that “all of this was created by our people’s
government”[26]!
In addition to the current troupe, Tosko Iliev had also to justify the selection
of titles. “Over this long period of amateur existence of the Stara Zagora Opera
House, no talking about repertoire policy could prove to be serious. Everything
in the past was adjusted according to the stage and staffing capacity”, he would
write in another report of his[27].
Today, we cannot even imagine what it means to justify before higher
authorities the staging of works such as Tosca or La Traviata, Carmen or Madama
Butterfly. Is there an opera theatre at all where such spectacles would not be
staged?! But in those years, world-renowned and established masterpieces would
be subjected to political dissection and would need an acceptable ideological
justification and protection... In a letter to the KNK chairman dated April 1947,
the Opera House Administrative Director Tosko Iliev explains that the Opera
House has not yet gained enough professional experience to follow a full-scale
repertoire policy as recommended by Sofia. However, the stage directors at
the Stara Zagora Opera House seek, interpret and recreate “all ideologically
progressive sentiments and life-inspired human emotions, even if they are subtly
suggested, striving to free themselves from the banal opera pattern”. Tosko Iliev
provides examples such as Tosca - directed by Stefan Makedonski, Rusalka and
Rigoletto - directed by Dragan Kardzhiev, in which the producers tried to bring
to the forefront the living human sense of righteousness and freedom (Tosca),
the elements of rebellion by a humiliated individual (Rusalka), and the struggle
against the “decayed aristocratic society” (Rigoletto) (Dimitrova 2004). Finally,
the Opera House Administrative Director expresses his confidence that the
Opera House will cope with the tasks set to meet the public and cultural needs of
people[28]. Tosko Iliev, beyond being a singer and an Opera House administrative
director, also became an advocate for the arts (Zhunich 2022a).
After its nationalization in 1946, the Opera House saw the imposition of
ideas originating from the ranks of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists).
This was also due to the fact that as early as 1946, members of the collective
established their own Primary Party Organization (PPO). The 24 members,
primarily technical and service staff, viewed the organization as a corrective
force in the board of the cultural institution (Dimitrova 2004). The Opera
House Administrative Director Tosko Iliev was forced to report on every action
he took and to discuss every decision with the PPO. Party members would
be generally dissatisfied with his management and would often express their
opinion that he was too “soft” with the collective. At the beginning of 1948,
Administrative Director’s work was considered and discussed at several meetings
of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists) organization within the Opera
House. The main issue on the agenda, in fact the primary accusation, was that
Tosko Iliev would not take sufficient measures against performers’ “fascist and
reactionary manifestations”. However, a representative of the City Committee
of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists), deliberately summoned, spoke
in defence of the Administrative Director. The statements made by the members
of the PPO were a troubling signal of an intolerant attitude toward the artistic
spirit of the ensemble, individualism, and pluralism - key characteristics of the
creative process and the main artistic core[29] (Dimitrova 2004). The PPO’s desire
to rule on all issues in an authoritative manner inevitably led to controversy,
aggravated the atmosphere and generally entailed a negative impact on the
quality of the work (Dimitrova 2004). The PPO maintained unity of command,
exercised great vigilance, monitored all statements and actions in order to
prevent “enemy elements” from infiltrating the collectives[30]. The PPO demanded
that every issue be first discussed at a party meeting and only then by the artistic
expert board. The Opera House trade union was also affected: it could have
a leadership only if it was pre-approved by the party organization’s bureau[31].
“The Administrative Director’s unjustified liberalism”, his consultations with
stage directors and especially with conductors Romeo Raychev (Zhunich 2022b)
and Simeon Fetvadzhiev (whom the PPO labelled as “ideologically unaligned
individuals”), as well as his consideration of their opinions were attributed to
their long-standing friendship rather than to their professional qualities and skills. The fact that the Administrative Director did have that right under
Article 13 of the Theatre Act (June 1949) was disregarded and carried no weight.
Given this accountability and documentation growing like an avalanche,
those endless reports, continuous meetings and stupid, annoying, even insulting
arguments, it seems almost unbelievable that Tosko Iliev still found the time
and energy to continue his singing activity[32]. However, in the summer of 1952,
exhausted by senseless disputes and petty remarks, by baseless criticism and
constant suspicion, by endless justifications against groundless accusations, he
resigned. However, he was forced to find the strength and continue to be the
operative administrative director, assisted by a newly formed team, for another
two years, i.e, until the end of August 1954 when a suitable replacement was
found. Meanwhile, the PPO proposed the candidacies of Kyosyo Markov, head
of the Propaganda and Agitation Department of the District Committee of the
Bulgarian Communist Party, and Ivan Bakalov from the Municipal People’s
Council[33]. Since 1 September 1954, the newly assigned Opera House adminis
trative director was Mihail Yankov[34], while the newly assigned deputy adminis
trative director became Lyubomir Piperov[35].
With the onset of Bulgarian society’s total politicization and the widespread
purges - first because of “fascist elements”, then because of “lack of ideological
content”, “bourgeois remnants” and so on, the “institutional battles” broke out
(Elenkov 2008, 85-86; Petrova 2020, 82-104; Zhunich 2016; Zhunich 2022a),
as well as the endless debates[36]. However, the pursuit of the new government
was not to achieve profitability of the structures being built but rather to show
case them (Harkov 2021, 82), i.e., the public was supposed to see how much
care was taken for the workers, how much more generous help was given when
compared to “all previous regimes”. At the same time, there was a shortage of
professionally trained personnel in opera theatres, vacant positions in orches
tras, discussions about the lack of professional stage directors, the absence of
an ideologically appropriate repertoire, and issues with the halls, stages, and
their technical capabilities. According to a number of authors (Elenkov 2008;Elenkov 2018; Dimitrova 2004), the decline in audience interest in the produc
tion was due to the complacency stemming from the “secured livelihood” of the
artists. However, the more likely reason thereto was that the replacement of the
previously functioning natural selection of creative personnel with forcefully
imposed new rules under the Communist party command, the denial and/or
downplay of all their previous achievements, and the qualification of their work
as “amateurish” and “dilettantism” led many to feel disgusted - they themselves
knew best what they had gone through and what they had achieved. Addition
ally, they were increasingly forced to work on coercion[37] in completely inappro
priate conditions[38]. After the order[39] that “all those who have shown some talent
should be encouraged to pursue art”[40], young but not entirely prepared talents
entered the theatres (Dimitrova 2004, 107-108), who, after the initial successes,
“thought they had already achieved a lot”[41], and did not want to learn anymore.
The Fatherland Front activists were quite sincerely convinced that the people’s
government generously provided money and created conditions “to sweeten a
little the lives of those who create the goods, of those with the cracked hands and
burned faces” (Z. T. 1945, 4). However, to what extent even the activists them
selves would be inclined to devote themselves to the opera art?! Or they would
just fancy a convenient lifestyle as “artists”?
An interesting document from 1959 is also noteworthy: Decree of the Cen
tral Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party and the Council of Ministers
of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on the regulation of the public, materi
al, and living conditions of the active fighters against fascism and capitalism,
signed on 14 July 1959 (Fig. 2). Fifteen years after seizing power, party members
had become so intoxicated by it that “as a sign of national gratitude” and in
connection with the solemn celebrations, they decided to place the “active fight
ers” in “suitable” jobs with priority, “without complying with the requirements
for educational and professional qualifications”; their children were supposed
to be accepted with an advantage to be assigned, in contradiction with the plan
of the schools, without age restrictions, etc.; the entitlement to people’s pension would be given starting from the age of 45 for women, while for men this age
threshold would be 50, etc. This explains why, at the end of the period under
review, the number of “active fighters” had increased instead of decreased (due
to natural causes)!
And despite upheavals of all kinds, the rejection of artists and works, the
bans, and the neglect of the Bulgarian professional opera ensembles (in favour
of amateur, pop and variety ones), opera has nevertheless survived. Immor
tal masterpieces outlive dictators and revolutions, take-overs, ideologies. This is
why they are immortal after all
Fig. 2a. Decree of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party and the
Council of Ministers of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on the regulation of the public,
material, and living conditions of the active fighters against fascism and capitalism[42]
Fig. 2b. Decree of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party and the
Council of Ministers of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on the regulation of the public,
material, and living conditions of the active fighters against fascism and capitalism, p. 3
Fig. 2c. Decree of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party and the
Council of Ministers of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on the regulation of the public,
material, and living conditions of the active fighters against fascism and capitalism, p. 4
Fig. 2d. Decree of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party and the
Council of Ministers of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on the regulation of the public,
material, and living conditions of the active fighters against fascism and capitalism, p. 5
Fig. 2e. Decree of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party and the
Council of Ministers of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on the regulation of the public,
material, and living conditions of the active fighters against fascism and capitalism, p. 16
1 Some operas have been staged several times: Cavalleria rusticana (1910, 1926, 1942), Eu
gene Onegin (1919, 1920, 1923, 1931), La traviata (1891, 1910, 1925), Un ballo in maschera (1926,
1941), Rigoletto (1920, 1930), Il trovatore (1891, 1914, 1927, 1933), Aida (1914, 1925), Tosca (1925),
Carmen (1891, 1912, 1919, 1924, 1942), Werther (1920, 1931), The Bartered Bride (1912, 1936), etc.
The interesting fact to note here is that the list of premières would also include some of the
quite rarely performed works such as Les Huguenots by Meyerbeer (1922, 1934), Samson et Dali
la by Saint-Saëns (1924), Dalibor by Smetana (1924), Orfeo ed Euridice by Gluck (1927, 1942),
La Juive by Halévy (1927), La Gioconda by Ponchielli (1934), The Queen of Sheba by Goldmark
(1935), Puccini’s Il trittico (Gianni Schicchi, Il tabarro, and Suor Angelica) (1936), La fanciulla del
West (1938), Fidelio by Beethoven (1941), and Wagner’s The Flying Dutchman (1930), Tannhäuser
(1931, 1939), Lohengrin (1934), and Das Rheingold (1943) (cited in Bozhkova 1975).
2 With its 18 premières by 9 authors of different nationalities, the enthusiasts from Stara
Zagora carried out a large-scale popularization string of activities oriented to the population in Southern Bulgaria and successfully toured beyond the Balkan Mountains (see Draganov 1970,
where the events of the establishment and subsequent resumption of the Kaval Music Society
were described meticulously and in detail until the nationalization of the Stara Zagora Opera
House in 1946; numerous documents were cited, of which only a small part is currently stored
in the funds of the State Archives (SA) and at the Stara Zagora Regional Museum of History;
yet another considerable part has been irretrievably lost).
3 Dimo Kazasov (1886-1980), Bulgarian intellectual, journalist, writer, politician, Minister of
Railways, Posts and Telegraphs (1923-1924) in the Government of Aleksandar Tsankov. During
World War II, he was active in the campaign to save Bulgarian Jews in his role as chairman of
the Committee for Protection and Amnesty of Political Fighters. Minister of People’s Propaganda
(1944-1945), Minister of Information and the Arts (1945-1947), Head of the Glavlit (Director
ate-General for Publishing, Printing Industry and Trade in Printed Works) (from 1950 to 1953).
4 Established to exercise control and censorship over art and culture by the State. Its in
stitutional predecessor was the Directorate of National Propaganda, established after the Coup
d’état of 19 May 1934 in the country, using the model of the Reich Ministry for Public Enlight
enment and Propaganda (Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda) headed by
Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany.
5 By mid-1945, it was already felt that the term “propaganda” would carry some sort of
compromising connotation. On 5 June 1945, Dimo Kazasov sent a report to the Chairman of
the Council of Ministers with the proposal to rename the Ministry with the main argument
“the problematic visibility of the propaganda tasks” (Elenkov 2008, 67).
6 From 1947 to 1954, it functioned as the Committee for Science, Art and Culture (KNIK)
with the rank of a ministry; in 1954 it functioned under the name of the Ministry of Culture,
and from 1957 to 1963, its name was Ministry of Education and Culture.
7 For the acquisition of Soviet experience and expertise, KNIK sent a Bulgarian delegation
to the USSR in October 1949 tasked to examine the structure and work of Soviet agencies and
services. The delegation staff included representatives of the Communist Party and administra
tive leadership of culture in Bulgaria, as well as of the creative organizations of the intelligentsia,
among them musicologist Stoyan Stoyanov. For their stay for 20 days, they examined (text in bold
by me, E. Zh.) the experience of the Committee on the Arts, including all its departments, main
directorates and services, as well as institutes and academies. Among the sites visited were the
Moscow Conservatory, the Moscow Philharmonic, the Maly Theatre, the K. I. Stanislavsky Theatre
(where they examined its organization, services, management and studios), the Operetta Theatre,
some libraries and more. The delegation took part, actually attended a meeting of the leadership
of the Committee on the Arts at the admission of a new opera show and also attended a concert by
Boyan Lechev who was completing his postgraduate studies (see Elenkov 2008, 146-147).
8 The knowledgeable specialists who were members of the Workers’ Party had already been
getting on in years. Although they had long shared the left-wing ideas, they did not approve of
the 1941 course of armed struggle and did not take any active part in that struggle. Consequently,
after upon 9 September 1944, they were severely criticized and deprived of their right to hold
responsible posts. “The issue of qualified human resources had many facets. In the course of the revolution,
it became more and more important. In a letter to Georgi Dimitrov, a member of the Politburo wrote: “There
is no complete clarity on the issue of the treatment of qualified staff who worked in the past, but for one reason
or another left the movement, and now return to the party”. In response to this, G. Dimitrov wrote on 4 No
vember 1944: “All the old party qualified staff who have not been compromised in the past should be used.
But you should not allow such comrades, who in the most difficult period for the party stood aside and took
care of their personal affairs, to take any leadership positions or to publicly represent the party. We should use
them mainly for auxiliary work. Preference should be given to those qualified people who have fought and
suffered for the cause of the party. At the same time, a special cult should not be created around partisanship
and prison experience. The approach should be individual” (Isusov 1978, 38-39).
9 Central State Archives, f. 2, inv. 1, file 2, p. 118. Predlozheniya na kulturnata komisiya pri
Agitpropa na TsK na BRP (k) za strukturata (Proposals of the Cultural Commission under the
Agitation and Propaganda Department (Agitprop) of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian
Workers’ Party (Communist) regarding the structure) (cited in: Elenkov 2008, 44).
10 With gratitude for the provision of the copy to Dr. Andrey Avramov Andreev.
11 Ivan Dimitrov Kamburov (26 September 1883 - 23 January 1955) was a Bulgarian choral
conductor, folklorist, teacher and kapellmeister. One of the first Bulgarian musicologists and
biographers of Bulgarian musical figures. As a specialist with a tendency for collecting, search
ing, studying and publishing Bulgarian and other folk songs of Slavic origin in 1926-1928,
together with Vasil Stoin, he recorded about 2,000 folk songs (cited in: https://bg.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Васил_Стоин).
12 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 2, file 7, p. 3.
13 “All organizations, associations and private directorates in Sofia should submit in advance for
approval to the Ministry of Propaganda, Department for Cultural Creativity, the programmes for the
concerts, matinees, parties, evening happenings, etc. they arrange. All posters, programmes, etc. should
also be presented. [...] It is forbidden for private persons to organize any kind of parties, matinees, evening
happenings, etc. [...]” (Rabotnichesko delo - organ of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian
Workers’ Party (Communists), cited in Andreev 2021).
14 Ivan Petrov, Antonia Deneva (Violetta, Rosina), Dimitar Hristov (tenor) and Stoyko
Dikov (baritone, who remained in the troupe after its nationalization, and all the way to his
retirement) - in 1940, at the insistence of the stage director of the Sofia Opera Ilia Arnaudov,
Mihail Yankov (Mephistopheles) - a basso, Zlatko Grigorov (tenor), later interned (1945-1948)
singers with national and foreign prestige, namely, Elisaveta Yovovich and Katya Spiridonova…
15 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 1, file 1, p. 9, 16.
16 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 1, file 2, p. 20.
17 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv.1, file 2, p. 27.
18 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 1, file 1, pp. 10-14.
19 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 1, file 1, p. 36. The newspaper Septemvri, No. 22 of 9 July
1945 states the amount of 1,600,000 leva.
20 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 1, file 1, p. 32.
21 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 1 B, inv. 1, file 152, p. 71.
22 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 1, file 5, p. 8.
23 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 1, file 5, pp. 4-5.
24 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 1, file 5, p. 14.
25 Draganov 1970, 23; SA - Stara Zagora.
26 A statement by Hristo Brambarov at the Festival of the Opera and Ballet Arts - Stara
Zagora, cited in Zhunich 2020, 110-121.
27 Reg. No. 230/21.04.1947 - SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 1, file 8, p. 10.
28 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 1, file 8, p. 10.
29 As a result of this “competence” in any issue, whatever its nature might be, along with
intolerance toward different opinions and the blatant interference even in privacy, several
significant events took place: the resignation of Tosko Iliev; the so-called “conductor crisis”
after the mid-1950s; Yosko Yosifov’s moving to the newly established Varna Opera House; the
departure of Romeo Raychev, who, as of 1 April 1954, began work at the Ruse Opera House
after being publicly insulted in front of the entire team by a seamstress from the workshops who
intruded into his personal life; Anna Vorobyova’s leaving in 1954; and later - the expulsion of
Simeon Fetvadzhiev to Sofia in 1958, and other similar cases.
30 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 47, inv. 1, file Х, p. 8: Circular dated 18/09/1946 on “purge of enemy
elements”.
31 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 409B, inv. 1, file 3, p. 39.
32 “…he [Tosko Iliev] is also the administrative director of the Opera House from its nationalization
and is daily absorbed with the administrative and artistic guidance of the opera” (Krastev 1951, 12-14).
33 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 409B, inv. 1, file 6, p.39.
34 Mihail Yankov, a basso, already known to Stara Zagora public from the Faust: the first
Mephistopheles interpreter in the city. He has also performed the parts of Don Basilio, Ange
lotti, Barone Douphol, etc. In 1945, he moved to Sofia where he became part of the State Musi
cal Theatre’s troupe; Administrative Director of the Stara Zagora Opera House until 31 August
1956. Later, he was a lecturer in the Sofia Conservatoire.
35 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 409B, inv. 1, file 6, p. 39.
36 It was precisely this “banal and cumbersome ideologization that was the reason to easily turn
the direction of the dispute and find a way to sharply hurt the canon of socialist realism, particularly in
the field of ideological constructs and the dominance of words over music. The dispute “journalism or
science” became serious”. And Stoyan Dzhudzhev’s position: “We do not have musicologists who would
be creative in the area of music science. And what is being written today is not science, it is journalism...”
(see Petrova 2020, 89).
37 Especially when the Party assigned them tasks to give concerts and performances at
construction sites, factories, Labour Cooperative Agricultural Farms, clubs, rallies, open-air
stages in towns, etc., where there were usually no basic conditions even for a chamber concert.
38 “… in 1946, when the students were building the Lovech-Troyan railway, a cultural brigade was
sent from the Opera House to sweeten the work of the youth with its songs. Every night at various sites,
Nadya Afeyan, Virginia Popova, Katya Popova, Mara Hinova, Lili Bareva, Ilia Yosifov, Boris Hristov,
Traycho Vatashki, Dimitar Nenkov, and a group of male choir would perform on the impromptu stages
songs and arias. They were accompanied by the newest pianist, Petar Shtabekov, under the baton of the
young conductor Konstantin Iliev. The solo ballerina Lili Beron also took part in this brigade...”(Bozh
kova 1975, 105).
39 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 91К, inv. 2, file 1, p. 65
40 SA - Stara Zagora, f. 91К, inv. 2, file 1, p. 65.
41 That was a speech by Stoyko Dikov, who besides being a baritone in the Stara Zagora
Opera troupe, together with the tenors Boris Hristov and Tosko Iliev, had been training new
comers who had shown a certain talent (see Draganov 1970, 146. SA - Stara Zagora).
42 With gratitude to Nikolay Padalski from a permanent action “Save a book” for provid
ing the copy of the document.
References
Andreev 2021: Андрей Аврамов Андреeв. Социокултурните реалности 4 месеца
след преврата на 9.09.1944 г. и тенденции в следващите десетилетия.
Пост във Фейсбук от 25.11.2021. (Andrey Avramov Andreev. Sotsiokulturnite
realnosti 4 mesetsa sled prevrata na 9.09.1944 g. i tendentsii v sledvashtite desetile
tiya. Facebook post, 25 November 2021.)
Biks et al. 2005: Р. Бикс, А. Янева, Р. Каракостова, М. Ценова. Български музика
лен театър. Опера, балет, оперета, мюзикъл. Театри, трупи, постанов
ки. 1890-2001. София: АИ „Проф. Марин Дринов“. 2005. (R. Biks, A. Yaneva,
R. Karakostova, M. Tsenova. Balgarski muzikalen teatar. Opera, balet, opereta,
myuzikal. Teatri, trupi, postanovki. 1890-2001. Sofia: AI “Prof.Marin Drinov”,
2005.)
Bozhkova 1975: Зл. Божкова. Софийска народна опера. Мемоари. София: Наука и
изкуство, 1975. (Zl. Bozhkova. Sofiyska narodna opera. Memoari. Sofia: Nauka i
izkustvo, 1975.)
Brashovanova 2001: Л. Брашованова. Мозайка от спомени и премълчавани факти.
София, 2001. (L. Brashovanova. Mozayka ot spomeni i premalchavani fakti. Sofia,
2001.)
Dimitrova 2004: С. Димитрова. Културните институции в Стара Загора (1944 -
края на 50-те години на XX век). Дисертация. Велико Търново: ВТУ „Св. св.
Кирил и Методий“, 2004. (S. Dimitrova. Kulturnite institutsii v Stara Zagora
(1944 - kraya na 50-te godini na XX vek). Disertatsiya. Veliko Tarnovo: VTU “Sv.
sv. Kiril i Metodiy”, 2004.)
Draganov 1970: Н. Драганов. Оперното дело в Стара Загора. София: Наука и
изкуство, 1970. (N. Draganov. Opernoto delo v Stara Zagora. Sofia: Nauka i iz
kustvo, 1970.)
Elenkov 2008: И. Еленков. Културният фронт. Българската култура през епо
хата на комунизма - политическо управление, идеологически основания, ин
ституционални режими. София: Сиела, 2008. (I. Elenkov. Kulturniyat front.
Balgarskata kultura prez epohata na komunizma - politichesko upravlenie, ideo
logicheski osnovaniya, institutsionalni rezhimi. Sofia: Siela, 2008.)
Elenkov 2018: И. Еленков. Орбити на социалистическото всекидневие. София:
Сиела, 2018. (I. Elenkov. Orbiti na sotsialisticheskoto vsekidnevie. Sofia: Siela,
2018.)
Harkov 2021: Ст. Хърков. Възгледи и дейност на Илия Арнаудов за създаване на
български държавни оперни театри извън столицата. Концепция за общобългарска оперна култура. 2. преработено и допълнено издание. Шумен:
Университетско издателство „Епископ Константин Преславски“, 2021.
(St. Harkov. Vazgledi i deynost na Ilia Arnaudov za sazdavane na balgarski dar
zhavni operni teatri izvan stolitsata. Kontseptsiya za obshtoblgarska operna kultura.
2. preraboteno i dopalneno izdanie. Shumen: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Episkop
Konstantin Preslavski”, 2021.)
Isusov 1978: М. Исусов. Политическите партии в България. 1944 - 1948. София:
Наука и изкуство, 1978. (M. Isusov. Politicheskite partii v Bulgaria. 1944 - 1948.
Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1978.)
Ivanov 2009: Д. Иванов. Възход и падение на социализма в България, 1944-1989.
София: Millennium, 2009. (D. Ivanov. Vazhod i padenie na sotsializma v Bulgaria,
1944-1989. Sofia: Millennium, 2009.)
Krastev 1951: В. Кръстев. - В: „Кавалерия рустикана“ и балетът „Копелия“. Бъл
гарска музика, 1951, 4, 12-14. (V. Krastev. - V: “Kavaleriya rustikana” i baletat
“Kolepliya” Balgarska muzika, 1951, 4, 12-14.)
Petrova 2020: А. Петрова. Идеологическият диктат и Новата музика в Бълга
рия. Щрихи върху документалното слово (1944-1969). София: ИИИзк - БАН,
2020. (А. Petrova. Ideologicheskiyat diktat i Novata muzika v Bulgaria. Shtrihi
varhu dokumentalnoto slovo (1944-1969). Sofia: IAS - BAS, 2020.)
Yapova 2010: Н. Япова. Стоян-Брашовановата „История на музиката“. - В: 120
години от рождението на Стоян Брашованов. Сборник статии. София:
СБК, 2010, 16-28. (N. Yapova. Stoyan-Brashovanovata “Istoriya na muzikata” - V:
120 godini ot rozhdenieto na Stoyan Brashovanov. Sbornik statii. Sofia: SBK, 2010,
16-28.)
Yapova 2021: Н. Япова. За личността, академичното дело и житейската съдба
на Стоян Брашованов. София, 2021. (N. Yapova. Za lichnostta, akademichnoto
delo i zhiteyskata sadba na Stoyan Brashovanov. Sofia, 2021.)
Z. T. 1945: 3. Т. Нам са нуждни народни артисти. - Септември, 26 ноем. 1945, 45,
4. (Z. T. Nam sa nuzhdni narodni artisti. - Septemvri, 26 noem. 1945, 45, 4.)
Zhekov 2002: П. Жеков. Стара Загора - град на музиката. Стара Загора, 2002.
(P. Zhekov. Stara Zagora - grad na muzikata. Stara Zagora, 2002, 42-43.)
Zhunich 2014: Е. Жунич, Емилия. Ролята на солиста певец в българския музика
лен театър (по материали от професионалния музикален театър в Ста
ра Загора). Дисертация. София: ИИИзк - БАН, 2014 (ръкопис). (E. Zhunich.
Rolyata na solista pevets v balgarskiya muzikalen teatar (po materiali ot profesio
nalniya muzikalen teatar v Stara Zagora). Doctoral thesis. Sofia: IAS - BAS, 2014
(manuscript).)
Zhunich 2016: Е. Жунич. 90 години Старозагорска опера и 70 години от одържа
вяването ѝ. - История, 2016, 2, 176-196. (Е. Zhunich. 90 godini Starozagorska
opera i 70 godini ot odarzhavyavaneto i. - Istoriya, 2016, 2, 176-196.)
Zhunich 2020: Е. Жунич. Фестивали за музикалносценични изкуства. Концеп
ции. Метаморфози. Реализации. София: ИИИзк - БАН, 2020. (Е. Zhunich.
Festivali za muzikalnostsenichni izkustva. Kontseptzii. Metamorfozi. Realizatsii.
Sofia: IAS - BAS, 2020.)
Zhunich 2022a: E. Жунич. Тоско Илиев - пламенен певец и адвокат на изкуство
то. - Балканистичен форум, 2022, 2, 281-292. (E. Zhunich. Tosko Iliev - plame
nen pevets i advokat na izkustvoto. - Balkanistichen forum, 2022, 2, 281-292.)
Zhunich 2022b: E. Жунич. Диригентът Ромео Райчев и „благата“ на социализ
ма. - В: Изкуствоведски четения 2021. Модул „Ново изкуство“: Personalia.София: ИИИзк - БАН, 2022, 621-628. (E. Zhunich. Dirigentat Romeo Raychev i
“blagata” na sotsializma. - V: Izkustvovedski cheteniya 2021. Modul “Novo izkust
vo”: Personalia. Sofia: IAS - BAS, 2022, 621-628.)
Коментари