Книжка-5

1961 Booklet 5 Contents

October 1917! The volleys of the "Aurora" heralded the coming of a new world. Landowner Russia, Russia of material poverty, reaction and suffering, was buried forever, so that the first socialist state could be born. The country of the Soviets, which was the first to dare to reject the wolfish laws of bourgeois society, became the pillar of hope for all toiling humanity. For decades now, the capital of the mighty Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Moscow, has been the gaze of all people who yearn for justice, peace and happiness. The first Soviet state, which took on the historical task of putting into practice the great ideas of Marxism-Leninism, was destined to go through many trials in order to chart the paths that lead to a world without plunderers and oppressors, a world of social justice, human happiness and spiritual beauty. And October 1961! The world followed with particular interest what was happening in white-stone Moscow. Here the tried and enthusiastic warriors of the party of the immortal Lenin, the mind and conscience of the heroic Soviet peoples, had gathered to evaluate the path traveled and, having learned from the past, to outline the tasks of the present and the future. At their XXII Congress they had to fulfill a historical mission - to discuss and approve the magnificent program for building a communist society - the society that the brightest minds of humanity had dreamed of. It is difficult for one to assess the entire historical significance of everything that was done in those October days to pave the way to the future, for the triumph of humanism and internationalism, of material prosperity and moral beauty. A new stage had begun not only in the development of the Soviet peoples, but also of the entire communist movement, in the life of all working humanity. In the remarkable reports of N. S. Khrushchev, in the wise and frank statements of the delegates revealed the enormous successes achieved since the 20th Congress, when the cult of personality was condemned, Leninist norms of party life were restored. With rare principle, with scientific depth and perspective, the issues of the theory and practice of the party were analyzed, the problems of our time were considered.

Not even those who have studied our literary history know that Botev was an innovator for his time, a unique poet with an original spiritual view of the world. And more. That, despite the great power and originality of his talent, he follows a tradition characteristic of our pre-liberation literature: his lyrics carry something of the atmosphere of the magnificent and emotional images of folk art. But isn't this a very stable phenomenon for the time? Don't we recognize traces of the poetic world of folk song in the works of many others? Already in Nayden Gerov's poem "Stoyan and Rada", in Kozlev's heroic epic "Haidut Sider and the Black Arab", in the early lyrics and the first poems of P. R. Slaveykov, traces of coexistence between personal and folk art are visible. It is as if the poet could not spread his wings under the horizon of the Bulgarian sky without listening to the song born of the people, without drinking from its source, without perceiving its imagery, rhythm, style. No matter how much our literature has been in contact with foreign poetic worlds, the great and original art of great creative individuals is still little known. Both the content and the form carry within themselves the atmosphere of folk poetry, even in works written on a new, original, personal theme. Botev could not escape this regularity of time. And where will he escape, since he himself feels the lyric as a song, since he himself is deeply fascinated by the motifs in the poetry of the people. His contemporaries recall with excitement how he - the poet, the publicist, the thinker, who stood high above the people around him - responded enthusiastically to our folk song. He is always moved and captivated by it. And this was so, despite his self-awareness as a person who creates a new, his own art. His inspired worship of folk song comes very deeply. He has been under the influence and power since his childhood, those years of independence, when, imitating the heroes of the folk epic, he terrified the neighborhoods of the town with the games of "outlaws". It is known that his mother, a woman with a wonderful memory and a personal gift of a singer, often sang haidush songs about folk protectors who roamed the fields, mountains. She took the child's imagination from everyday life to the heights of the Balkans, to the beauty of a world filled with heroic thoughts. A person with a strong character, inclined to say things outright, in winter, she probably reinforced the idea of ​​the heroism of the C e C 16 Outlaws.

With this article we set ourselves the goal of examining those problems of genre that are directly related to the question of the content and form of art. Because - let us emphasize this at the very beginning - genre is a category that has a bearing on both the content and the form of the work of art. There are three ways of literary depiction: lyrical, epic and dramatic. The interaction between them, the manifestations and originality of creative individuality, the impact of historical reality, etc. have not taken away their essential features - they have remained stable and unchangeable in their essence. In connection with these three ways of literary depiction, the corresponding literary and artistic forms have also arisen - lyrical, epic and dramatic. It is customary in literary studies to call these forms genres. Genre, in turn, is a specific concept in relation to the literary genre. For example, the epic, the novel, the short story, etc. are genres in relation to the epic. In contemporary aesthetics and literary studies, the view that genre is a special type of artistic form still prevails. At first glance, there seems to be nothing to object to such a view, since genre is related to one or another element of the form, which in its totality can be considered as a type of artistic form. We do not dispute that there is much truth in the view in question; genre could indeed be considered a special type of artistic form, but only on one hand, from one aspect. At the same time, on the other hand, it has a direct relationship to the content of the work of art and is itself a specific artistic content. (We will clarify the term “specific artistic content” below.) So the above view, according to which genre is a type of artistic form, absolutizes only one of its sides, and, to the extent that it does so, it is one-sided and limited.

The feuilletons occupy the most significant place among the poet's prose. Both in volume and in importance. If in Smirnenski's lyrics there are four humoresques and satires for every non-humorous poem, in his prose the number of feuilletons and zlobodnevki compared to that of stories and impressions is even greater. This shows that, in addition to being a poet, Smirnenski systematically, consciously and continuously developed as a feuilletonist. Here he also follows a tradition inherited from Botev. As a genre, the feuilleton is widely represented in Bulgarian literature. The active civic consciousness of our writers of the past directs them to use the most efficient satirical weapon for quickly and surely defeating the enemy, for instantly exposing vice. From a journalistic genre with a sharp publicistic focus, the feuilleton gradually turns into a work of art, in which memorable images and characters are concisely and vividly outlined. Incidentally, the elements of artistry and publicism are so closely connected with each other that it would perhaps be most correct to speak of artistic publicism in Bulgarian literature. There are no strict barriers and barriers; the genres flow into each other. Only in a conditional sense can one speak of artistic and publicistic feuilleton - to the extent that one or another element predominates in the individual work. Hristo Botev uses the feuilleton form both for the direct publicistic-satirical expression of his thoughts and ideas, and for the creation of negative human types. Aleko Konstantinov, who has made great contributions to the development and improvement of this genre in our literature, is also following in his footsteps. In the acute political clashes after the liberation, the feuilleton did not leave the pages of the newspapers. It would not be an exaggeration to say that there was hardly a Bulgarian writer of that time who did not leave his name or pseudonym under the regular column with the feuilletons. After Aleko's death, one name stands out brightly among the authors-feuilletonists - Georgi Kirkov. Botev, Aleko Konstan and Georgi Kirkov were Smirnensky's teachers, their traditions continued by his contemporaries in the new historical environment. Of course, he was influenced by Kyulyavkov, his proletarian feuilletonists (D. I. Polyanov, Krum).

Having become acquainted with the article by Ya. E. Elsberg "Scholastic Concepts", published as a discussion in issue 1 of the journal "Questions of Philosophy" of the current year, the reader cannot help but ask: what, exactly, did the author want to prove with this article? What general epistemological and special aesthetic position does the author of the article take? The article is directed against the "scholastic concepts" of L. N. Stolovich in his new book "Aesthetics in Reality and in Art" (Gospolitizdat, 1959). It goes without saying that there is nothing unacceptable or incorrect in the fact that one Soviet author discusses with another author such an extremely important general epistemological and special aesthetic question. However, from what positions does Ya. E. Elsberg lead this discussion? From what positions does he criticize the "scholastic concepts" of his opponents, in this case L. N. Stolovich? At the very beginning of the article, Ya. E. Elsberg himself gives a fairly clear answer to these questions. Criticizing L. N. Stolovich's book, Elsberg points out first and foremost that L. N. Stolovich transforms aesthetic categories (beautiful, sublime, disgusting, tragic, comic, etc.) into "elements" of reality itself. Below, Ya. E. Elsberg writes: "Of course, it is good that L. N. Stolovich seeks the source (my interpretation - T. P.) of the aesthetic in objective reality, but what is bad is that he mechanically transfers the categories of aesthetics into reality, identifying these categories with the properties of the latter." And even further down, allegedly referring to Chernyshevsky, the author again states: "Yes, the tragic, the comic, the beautiful are contained in life itself, and in it are the roots (my exp. - T. P.) of the corresponding phenomena of art and of aesthetic categories. But to reduce life to them means to pay a tribute to scholastic systematics" ("Questions of Philosophy", No. 1, 1961, pp. 114, 115, etc., my exp. - T. P.).

Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov, as teachers, writers and public figures, were the first advocates for preserving and strengthening the national self-consciousness of the population of Macedonia, threatened during the Turkish rule by the assimilationist offensive of the Phanariotes. The Hellenizing policy of the Greek Patriarchate caused D. Miladinov, as early as 1852, when he himself was leading school education in Greek, to turn anxiously to Alexander the Exarch: "The six-eighths of Macedonia, which are populated by monolingual Bulgarians - he wrote to him - are all learning the Hellenic script and are called Hellenes by the Hellenes, except for the northern Slovenes, who are advancing in the Slovenian (language)", 1 Therefore, after the Crimean War, when the movement for the political and spiritual liberation of the Bulgarian people entered its decisive stage, Miladinov became one of the pioneers of the national awakening of Macedonia. As a teacher, with the active assistance of his younger brother Konstantin, Rayko Zhinzifov and other of his students and followers, he was the first to lead the struggle for the introduction of the Bulgarian language, which had been overthrown by the Phanariotes, into the school and the church, and with his exceptional activity against the denationalizing advances of the patriarchate, he established himself as a universally recognized figure in the Bulgarian revival. That is why, when in the January days of 1862 the news of the martyrdom of the two brothers was brought from Constantinople, it disturbed their compatriots from all corners of Bulgaria, and a number of Slavic periodicals, appreciating the value of their great work, widely popularized their names. Having received a solid education for their time in Greek educational institutions, which Konstantin subsequently enriched at the Faculty of Philology in Moscow, the Miladinovs perceptively understood the role of culture for the national revival of every nation. The rich literature of Greece, which excitingly reflected the life of ancient Hellas and the flowering of its civilization, not only does not disturb their national consciousness, but makes them look at the preserved material and spiritual values ​​of their people in order to document through them their historical past, the stability of their way of life and character. And if the Bulgarian literature of that time, whose development was hindered by the conditions of political and spiritual oppression, could only partially respond to this patriotic need, in the folk poetic work of Dimitar Konstantin Miladinovi discovered both the past, the present, and the future of his people. The collection of samples of folklore and their publication in the collection “Bulgarian Folk Songs” strengthened, enriched, and exalted their patriotic and democratic work.

The cooperation of our writers and men of letters from the Revival with cultural and socio-political figures in other Slavic countries is an important distinctive feature of their literary and public education activities. Lyuben Karavelov, Nesho Bonchev, Marin Drinov, Hristo Botev, Rayko Zhinzifov, Konstantin Miladinov and many more of their contemporaries studied in Russia and elsewhere, where they met prominent public figures, writers and publicists who provided them with valuable assistance. In their letters to them, our Revivalists made requests for services of various kinds, interceded for their compatriots who had gone to study in Russia or the Czech Republic, and expressed warm gratitude on their own behalf and on behalf of the Bulgarian people. The ties established between them in the period of our national revival are a completely natural and necessary phenomenon with undoubted positive consequences. In its turbulent socio-political and cultural development, the Bulgarian people attract the attention of other, more advanced peoples, receive the material and moral support of prominent Slavic scholars, scientists and statesmen, create works that are met with great interest in a number of countries. The aspiration of Bulgarian writers to establish close and lasting ties with more and more authoritative representatives of Slavism is actually an aspiration to connect our new literature and culture with the national culture of other peoples. With their most significant manifestations, the personal connections and acquaintances of our writers favor the development of native literature and culture, the affirmation of national traditions. This is their cultural and historical significance today.

In recent years, significant differences have emerged in the assessment of the creative method of individual Renaissance writers, opposing opinions have been expressed about the beginning of critical realism, and the question of romanticism and realism in our Renaissance literature has been raised. In his study "The Problem of Romanticism and Bulgarian Literature" 1 P. Dinekov examines, along with romanticism, some other questions: the relationship between sentimentalism and romanticism, revolutionary romance and romanticism, etc. Characterizing romanticism, the author makes a number of general observations about realism, which is the only one to take shape as a literary school with its own lasting traditions", but whose "first manifestations can only be separated with great difficulty from the strongly mixed elements of sentimentalism and romanticism". In our literary science, the prevailing view is that critical realism was first established as a specific direction in the creative work of L. Karazelov, who was its founder. P. R. Slaveykov does not reach the critical realism. P. Zarev dwells on this issue in more detail. Slaveykov's work, in Zarev's words, is in principle, in character and in pictorial system a work of pre-critical realism and a transition to it. 2 The opposite thesis is advocated by G. Tsanev in his article "The Beginning of Critical Realism in Bulgarian Literature." 33 He claims that almost all Bulgarian writers, with the exception of the representatives of proletarian literature and socialist realism, as well as the predecessor of socialist realism in our country - Hr. Botev (naturally, and the representatives of decadent literary movements) are critical realists, with all their work or with a part of it. The gaze of Bulgarian writers is turned towards society, the critical-accusatory tone is inherent in Bulgarian literature. Further, the author disputes the prevailing view that L. Karavelov is the founder of Bulgarian critical realism and comes to the conclusion that the first representative of critical realism in our literature is P. R. Slaveykov. To prove this statement, the author of the essay refers to two poems - Boy, gather your wits", written in 1857 and Song for my coin - from 1861 - poems that reflect a critical satirical attitude towards "the robber and reveal the power of money, on which everything in the emerging bourgeois society depends. Critical realism before the Liberation is a reflection of reality, in which a struggle is waged not only against bourgeois social relations, but also against the national and social oppression of Turkish feudalism. "Critical realism in our country is directly, organically connected with the national liberation struggle of our people". "The object of artistic reflection also includes moments of national character and feudal nature." The above-mentioned views on realism before the Liberation are far from exhausting everything written on the subject. Our task is only to outline some basic theses and fundamental differences.

Once Karaslavov reproached Zhendov that he, Smirnensky's best friend and comrade, had not thought of making at least one portrait sketch of him from life. Surprised by the sudden comradely reproach, the artist was embarrassed and sincerely replied: "How could I have known that he was a brilliant poet! Smirnensky was more ordinary than everyone else around me and no one suspected that one day his name would thunder throughout the four corners of Bulgaria." This short confession of our remarkable caricaturist contains an exceptional truth. So would anyone be able to notice and single out their close friend as something exceptional in the comradely collective, among which he is every day? Hardly! Therefore, Zhendov's wise answer can with full reason be set as the Motto of Georgi Karaslavov's entire book - Meetings and Conversations with Nikola Vaptsarov." Indeed, which of Vaptsarov's closest comrades (and the author was among them) could have imagined that one day Vaptsarov's name would travel to the four corners of the five continents and spread the glory of our small people? Which of them could have even for a moment assumed that Every moment of the poet's life, every creative impulse, idea and dream, every object he touched, every vital detail, every gesture even, . . would attract the curious attention of his millions of admirers? And precisely because no one noticed the extraordinary personality in their proverbially modest comrade, that is why they did not think of recording at least one of his conversations with all its colorful details. Nor did his artist friends think of making a portrait or a sketch from life. Should we reproach them in turn? It is hardly necessary. Nor is it appropriate now, with the appearance of an entire book of memories about Vaptsarov, in which the preface emphasizes: "Yes, even then in his work Vaptsarov had outgrown everyone, had risen to a level that we, his closest comrades, could not see. (p. b). And on the next page it is added: "But Vaptsarov was so modest, so "ordinary", so close to us, that we could not see and measure his gigantic stature during his lifetime."

It is so young that its name is still being debated. But it strives to keep pace with every other science. On the desks of the people who deal with it are manuals and reference books on differential calculus, higher mathematics, information theory, psychology, and physiology; their file cabinets are full of statistical data from mass tests, their sound libraries are teeming with recordings, in their laboratories the tape recorder is being replaced by the complex equipment of wide-ranging sound spectrograms. In just a few years, these people have done a tremendous job of clearing away the metaphoricalism in the terms and concepts that have dominated our knowledge of verse so far: today it has been experimentally established that the objectively stressed vowel does not carry any stress and that usually the sound that we feel stressed is not pronounced the most stressed; that the sound flow is objectively indivisible and is not separated into syllables or words, that the Sound itself is not uniform, but represents a whole bouquet of sounds, in which no one can yet establish exactly how our ear manages to recognize what it needs. As you can see 150 - complete chaos reigns even in our ideas about the physical nature of the verse. Yanakiev boldly puts an end to everything that has been done so far and proposes to start from A and B: a complete break with the current metaphorical use of terms, the application of exclusively scientific methods, relying solely on logic, precise formulations and dealing only with material and clearly distinguishable for everyone components of the verse composition - these are Yanakiev's principles. As a true man of science, he believes that the first step must be absolutely accurate, though small and far behind what the intuitive glimpses of aesthetes and critics have so far given us on the path to penetrating the depths of poetic Mysteries. His first step is to study - if one may so say - the anatomy of verse; to make a purely structural examination of the structure of the poem, to study the different forms of rhythm and to specify the terms by which these forms will henceforth have to be named.

The mutual relations between the old Russian Literature and the old South Slavic literatures (Bulgarian and Serbian) have long been the subject of research. In this field of science, the most has been written so far by Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian scholars. The number of studies becomes even greater if we take into account the studies in general on the cultural relations between these three fraternal peoples, whose cultural development has many common features and trends. It was a natural phenomenon at the beginning of these studies to search for and indicate the influence of the South Slavic literatures on medieval Russian literature, more precisely on the oldest period of its development. Such is indeed the beginning of their relationship, but it alone does not exhaust the nature of the mutual relations between the Russian and South Slavic Literatures. Because ancient Russia not only adopted cultural values ​​from the Slavic south, but in turn it also influenced the cultural development of Bulgarians and Serbs, works of Russian literature penetrated the old Bulgarian and Serbian literature. This process has been particularly strong since the 16th century, but such an influence also existed before the 16th century, albeit in a weaker form. This statement of the problem of the Russian-Southern Slavic cultural and especially literary relations was first given by the famous Russian Slavic scientist M. N. Speransky. Presented first in his introductory lecture "Dividing the history of Russian literature into periods and the influence of Russian literature on Yugoslavia" (Русский филологический вестинк, XXXVI 1896, vol. 3-4, pp. 193-223). Yugoslav and Russian texts "Stories about the construction of the temple of Sophia of Tsaregrad". Speransky managed to present his many years of observations on this common problem in his monograph “Toward the History of the Relations between Russian and South Slavic Literatures (Russian Monuments of Southern Slavonic Literature), published in 1923 in the Proceedings of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences (vol. XXVI, pp. 143-206). Here the author asserts: “The number of these facts - Russian monuments of one or another type of the indicated works that were in use among the South Slavs, the participation of Russian writers in the life of South Slavic literatures - although not as large as the number of South Slavic monuments in the practice of writing from the old period, is still quite significant, so that the more general question of the role of Russian literature in South Slavic literature can now be raised, just as we at the time raised and resolved the question of the role of South Slavic literature in Russian (p. 12). This correct methodological indication of Speransky is embedded in the scientific literature after him; he develops this thought in his more recent works, prepared for publication, but remained unpublished. Speransky's numerous studies rightly outline him as a scientist who not only knows best the mutual connections between the old literatures of Bulgarians, Russians and Serbs, but also who has made the greatest contribution to revealing the history of these connections. It is this assessment, perhaps, along with the observation that the problem of Russian-Slavic connections in the 11th-17th centuries, which is of great scientific interest, still needs development, that served as an occasion to publish some of Speransky's studies that remained in his archive.