Division of Slovene poetry of the Moderne and the “Second Moderne”

U radu se općeprihvaćenom historiografskom pojmu slovenske moderne predlaže pojam „druge slovenske moderne“. Nakon terminološkog razjašnjenja, obje se moderne pobliže književnopovijesno i stilski određuju te se slovenska moderna i slovensko pjesništvo pedesetih poetski analiziraju. Zatim se slovenska moderna stilski i recepcijski uspoređuje s hrvatskom te se poetika pjesništva poslije perioda socrealizma analizira u kontekstu jugoslavenskog sukoba na književnoj ljevici. Pritom se posebno proučavaju fenomeni kanonizacije „štirih pesnika slovenske moderne“ (D. Kettea, I. Cankara, O. Župančiča, J. Murna Aleksandrova) te slovenskog pjesničkog kanona pedesetih, osobito „pesnika Pesmi štirih“ (K. Koviča, C. Zlobeca, J. Menarta, T. Pavčeka), kako unutar vlastitih poetika tako i sa sebi suvremenim pojavama hrvatske književnosti. Konačno se među njima radi određivanja poetskih koordinati dvaju razdoblja kao premosnice sa sebi prethodnim poetikama detaljnije izučavaju Ketteova i, u odnosu na nju, Kovičeva.The paper proposes the term “Second Slovene Moderne” to the generally accepted term Slovene Moderne. After a terminological clarification, both Modernes are more closely literary historically and stylistically defined after which the Slovene Moderne and Slovene poetry of the fifties are poetically analysed. The Slovene Moderne is then stylistically and by mutual reception compared to its Croatian counterpart after which the poetry of post socialist realism is analysed in the context of the Yugoslav Conflict on the Literary Left. In doing so, the phenomena of canonization of the Four Poets of the Slovene Moderne (D. Kette, I. Cankar, O. Župančič, J. Murn Aleksandrov) and the Slovene poetic canon of the fifties, especially the poets from the Poems of the Four (K. Kovič, C. Zlobec, J. Menart, T. Pavček), are studied, both within their own poetics and with contemporary phenomena of Croatian literature. Finally, among them, to determine the poetic coordinates of the two periods, Kette’s and, in relation to his, Kovič’s poetics are studied in more detail as bridges with poetics before their own