Книжка-2

1962 Book 2 Contents

The general statement that the most important, combative variety of literary critical thought - operational criticism - lives an anemic life, stagnates in one place, does not fulfill its primary tasks on time and at the required level has become a worn-out phrase. More and more names of critics, who until yesterday actively participated in the literary process and, to the best of their ability, assisted the emergence of new works and phenomena, today appear on the covers of studies of long-established and universally recognized writers, of studies of faded Bulgarian and European trends. We are slowly coming to terms with the fact - as interesting as it is revealing - that we already have, let's say, a richly argued, fascinatingly written book on French existentialism and the contemporary Western "anti-novel", while at the same time, there is almost no deep, penetrating and courageous research on Bulgarian novels published in the last few years. If, for example, someone wishes to familiarize themselves with the assessments of Bulgarian literary criticism for the novels published in 1961, they can be sure that they will not be particularly hampered by the abundance of opinions. A short review of "Ohrid Spring" by D. Sprostranov in "Plamak", a short review of "Skazanie za vremeno na Samuila" in "Literaturni novini", two short, but true and in many respects convincing reviews of "Martvo valnenie" in "Literaturni novini" and in "Septemvri", can be a few more semi-critical, semi-advertising notes in peripheral newspapers and magazines - and that's all! Namely, this year saw the publication of novels that deserve serious, comprehensive and intelligent conversation - sometimes pleasant, sometimes bitter.

It is customary to say that the main questions that we should address when examining our contemporary literature are whether the writer is firmly connected to life, whether he stands on sincere party positions, whether he reflects in his work the problems and characters characteristic of our era, whether he transforms into an exciting work of art those incredible changes that have taken place in socio-political life, in the psychology of the people, in the landscape of the country. These should really be not only the main questions, but also the starting points in all discussions of our contemporary literature. But the more books are published, the more names of young poets, fiction writers or playwrights appear on the literary horizon, the more it becomes customary to raise alarming cries that the writer stands far behind life, that he is moving aside from the general victorious course of our communist times. We have a considerable annual production - an average of fifty books of short stories, novels, essays. Among them we will meet convincing works and inept attempts, works written with a sure pen and literary blunders, which in most cases delight with their unfeigned sincerity, inner excitement and noble ambition, rather than with their literary qualities. We will also meet with the incarnations of the scheme, with soulless and artisanal written books, with tedious repetitions that bring nothing new to our literature. But what we can safely say is that all these books recreate plots drawn from the time in which we live, they concern the problems of socialist man, the struggles of our people for the construction of the new society. Another question is what artistic power, internal scale, aesthetic suggestion these books possess. If we want to get to know this "united and multifaceted" world, about which we so often speak, we will not find it in just one author, nor in just one book. On the contrary, we will establish that in the problematics of our contemporary prose there are many gaps, many more and different aspects of life have not found artistic reflection in our literature. First of all, we will mention that there are no books about the life and way of life of people from socialist structures. We will constantly have to talk about these gaps, to direct our writer to the key themes of the time, to demand a full and deep artistic transformation of reality in literature.

The literary historian who would undertake a more fundamental examination of the development and significance of proletarian and anti-fascist poetry in the thirties of our century will be confronted with a number of unexplained problems and contradictions in the work of individual poets, as well as - on the other hand - with the great revolutionary upsurge of this poetry, with its contribution to the revolutionary education of the new generation in the midst of the great historical events that were brewing. It is necessary, first of all, to clarify the driving forces of the era that led humanity to the Second World War. The rise of Italian fascism and German Nazism, the strengthening of the reactionary course in Europe,

There are three masters of the short story in our literature: Vazov, Elin Pelin and Yovkov. How do they write? How are they made? "Is it possible?" and "All Souls' Day", "A Bulgarian Woman" and "Shibil", "Andreshko" and "Midnight Guest"? It is a banal truth to say that the question is very interesting and that it has a bearing on all aspects of a writer's work, not least of which is style. Practically, what is more interesting is that it is preceded by another question: where to begin to unravel the figurative fabric of a story in order to see how it is "made". Undoubtedly, a work of art is an organic whole - wherever you start, you will reach everything, you will encompass the whole. But each genre has its own specific structure, and when you take it into account, the work is made much easier. Alexei Tolstoy says that architecturally the short story should be built on the fifth and "but" (..., but...). And indeed, in Vazov - grandfather Yotso goes blind, but the liberation of Bulgaria gives him a second set of eyes; in Elin Pelin - the bailiff is preparing to rake the barn of the poor man Stoichko, but Andreshko plays the judge and saves his life; in Yovkov - Sali Yashar wants to do something, but he understands that "the cars he makes, do something". The formula is not only witty: it hits the heart of the short story as a genre - its structure, its plot-composition scheme. The short story takes the incident - the character - the problem at the moment when the incident occurs, the character changes, the problem is resolved - at the turning point, when one thing turns into another. Alexei Tolstoy's comma and the note express precisely this "contrapuntal" structure of the story. That is why the short story is eventful and when it is only psychology, epic and without a particular plot, it is conflictual, without being a drama: it gives the setting, illuminates the intersection, reveals the change. That is why, perhaps, in no other literary genre does the question - how the work is constructed - acquire such specific importance.

The discussion of literature education in schools has become a necessity of life. Our society has already encountered serious weaknesses in the linguistic and literary culture of youth on several occasions. However, the reason for the nationwide interest in the quality of literary education has a deeper basis. It lies, first of all, in the special place that literature occupies in the system of general education subjects, in the nature of the knowledge it provides, in the strength and immediacy of the educational impact it has. The aesthetic specificity of literature is the basis of a complex and comprehensive impact not only on the mind, but also on the heart of the student, which cannot be replaced by anything. Literature as a subject of study most often poses problems that are directly related to the ideological and moral education of students. Therefore, any underestimation of the educational and educational significance of literature as a subject of study is in contradiction with the great tasks of the "communist construction of the younger generation." Hence the lively interest that the general public shows in the narrowly professional at first glance problems of literary education in schools. The questions that arise when discussing the teaching of literature are many and varied. However, there are some that are fundamental and decisive. Of the greatest importance, precisely for the teaching of literature, is the problem of the analysis of the literary work. Not only because the curriculum devotes the most time to studying the work of Bulgarian and foreign writers. First of all, because the specificity of the subject is determined by the specificity of the literary work, which becomes material for educational work in literature classes. Recently, however, the problem of literary analysis in the teaching of literature has not been studied in depth, despite its complexity and diversity, although this is the weakest point in the work of a number of teachers. The detachment of methodological science from this problem has also led to the lagging behind of the methodology in general from the latest achievements of literary theory and aesthetics. Therefore, it is entirely justified that the issues of literary analysis in school are at the center of the national discussion of literature education.

The nature of the Enlightenment must be clarified, as this will allow a more correct understanding of the ideological and political struggle in Bulgaria in the 1860s and 1870s. Scholars who have studied the Bulgarian Enlightenment in the period in question (Jacques Nathan, Mikhail Dimitrov) note the following features: 1. The Enlightenment is a reactionary ideology of the wealthy merchants and artisans; 2. It is opposed to the ideology of the revolutionaries; 3. The ideas of the Enlightenment are opposed to the views of the Russian revolutionary democrats. Mikhail Dimitrov points out that "after the Crimean War, the Enlightenment was adopted by the entire bourgeois class in our country". 1. In the national struggles during this period (the 1860s and 1870s, L. E.) they played a demobilizing role. 2 "It is characteristic of the Enlightenment as an ideological trend that it preferred the path of evolution to revolution, 3 In one of his last works, Mich. Dimitrov comes to the conclusion: "the Enlightenment lent a hand to Turkophilism, it was an ideology for the fight against the revolutionary movement and became a common weapon of all bourgeois political trends before the Liberation, on both sides of the Danube. 4 In the above conclusions, M. Dimitrov puts an equal sign between the Enlightenment, evolutionism and Turkophilism. Jacques Nathan in his book "The Bulgarian Revival" also speaks of the opposition between the Enlightenment and revolutionaries. "While - writes Jacques Nathan - the enlighteners and churchmen expressed the interests of the wealthy elite of the Bulgarian people, the revolutionaries were the exponents of the interests of the declining guilds, the vast majority of the peasants and a part of the emerging bourgeois class (the liberal part)" 5 Analyzing Karavelov's worldview, Jacques Nathan and Mich. Dimitrov oppose him to Rakovski and Botev - as an enlightener of revolutionaries. Grozy Grozev in "History of Bulgarian Philosophy" distinguishes two directions of public thought in Bulgaria in the 60s-70s of the 19th century, opposing each other - the revolutionary and the enlightened.

An extraordinary amount has been written about the birthplace of Paisius of Hilendar - 3 of our prominent scientists, writers, publicists, and teachers have spoken. The writings, mostly published in newspapers, appeared in connection with the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the "Slavonic-Bulgarian History" in 1912, and later on the occasion of the notorious Kralevdol legend (since 1923). Based on the language of Paisius's history according to its Sofroniev transcript from 1765, Professor M. Drinov was the first in Bulgarian scientific literature to express the opinion that Paisius originated from the Razlog-Gornodzhumay region or from the Macedonian outskirts of the Samokov diocese. Meanwhile, separate legends about the birthplace of Paisius appeared: Dospeisko, Ralyovsko, Belovsko, Bansko, Razlovsko, Lavriotsko, and the collective Athos. Each of them has its ardent defenders (for details, see Prof. Yord. Ivanov, Istoriya Slavianobolgarskaya, Sofia, 1914, pp. XII-XIX). On this issue, Prof. Yord. Izanov summarizes: "Some of these reports have an undoubted literary basis, while others are based on overheard memories of some Athonite and attributed to Paisios. Until more reliable data and written information are published, the reported reports cannot be recognized by science and will remain only as "traditions", especially since they often contradict each other and do not coincide with the known positive information about Paisios" (p. XII).

I have always been amazed by the almost incredible indifference with which many literary facts in our country are usually passed over. Unknown names appear, new books are published, questions are raised, and periodicals often not only do not write about them, but do not even note them. And this applies not only to translated literature, which for some unknown reason is not given any attention, but also to quite a few works by Bulgarian writers who are vitally connected with the development of our literary word. That is why, without having resigned myself to this practice, I have already become accustomed to this practice and I am not surprised that a critical book like "Four Fiction Writers" by Simeon Sultanov, which I had to edit as part of my official duties, remains unnoticed by the literary press for nearly a year and a half after its publication. Note, however: I say unnoticed, but not unnoticed by readers, which is something else. I emphasize this because I know for a fact that despite the disrespect shown towards it, this book made an impression on all those interested in literary criticism and was very well received. And if I return to it today, I do so not so much to fill some gap in the reader's mind, but rather for another, more important reason - to note some positions that are of a principled nature and give cause for reflection. First of all, anyone who has read "Four Fiction Writers" will agree that this is a complete book - a book with a physiognomy. It is known that, in the beginning, national Literature is created in the periodical press and is affirmed through it. And this applies not only to small types, not only to what is conceived by the malice of the day, but very often also to great literary works that leave a lasting mark behind them. That is why we can say about most Books that they are born twice - once on the pages of magazines and newspapers, often as a result of a commission, and a second time united by a single title in a common cover. However, since one can collect not only what is conceived and realized as a whole, but also what is the fruit of chance, in this second birth one often falls into passions and reaches an unwanted automatism. As a result, books appear that contain heterogeneous works that are difficult to unite not only in volume, by subject and by meaning, and even by genre. And this unacceptable practice, of course, affected literary criticism: here too, there is an effort to present to the reader everything that the author has written - even the literary notes in the daily newspapers and speeches at meetings. Thus, in recent years, quite a few voluminous collections of articles have appeared in our country, which are compiled in a very mechanical manner and, along with the significant, which deserves attention, also contain things that have no literary value. That is why Simeon Sultanov made an all the stronger impression with his efforts to deviate from a practice that sometimes seems insurmountable, and to present to the readers under one common title four uniform monographic essays on four prominent representatives of the Bulgarian short story: G. P. Stamatov, Georgi Raichev, Angel Karaliychev and Iliya Volen. In this way, he presented himself with a first book (if we do not count the separately published study on Angel Karaliychev) that no young critic has presented himself with in recent years - with a book that contains nothing accidental, nothing thoughtless, and speaks of such literary requirements that are usually the first sign of emerging creative maturity.

The restoration of the Leninist spirit in the field of ideology after the 20th Congress of the CPSU gave impetus to the rapid development of Soviet aesthetics. The period of stagnation, of scholastic reasoning, far from the living problems of art and the aesthetic needs of the people was gradually replaced by serious scientific research, with numerous discussions, with a significant increase in research culture. Of particular interest were the problems of the nature of the aesthetic, of the subject and methods of aesthetic science, of the connections with communist construction. The fighting, offensive line is being revived In our aesthetics, the best traditions left to us from the time of Marx, Engels and Lenin are being revived. Among the numerous new aesthetic literature, the small in volume, but very rich in content and problems, book by the famous Soviet art theorist L. N. Stolovich "Subject of aesthetics" stands out. We are accustomed to the bad habit of books on aesthetics being, as a rule, thick, with large deviations, filled with vague reasoning, which so scares creators of artistic values ​​and repels them from the significant questions of theory. And therefore even the volume of the book under consideration can be a pleasant surprise, especially since it has been a long time since I have read such a brief, so clear and at the same time such a complete exposition of some basic questions of aesthetic science. Stolovich's work has the following structure. The first chapter examines the main results of the discussion on the nature of the aesthetic in recent years. The core of the book is the second chapter - on aesthetics and the essence of the aesthetic. But perhaps the most interesting is the third chapter, with a number of new considerations. - on the limits and methods of aesthetics. The generalizing Fourth Chapter examines the place and tasks of aesthetics in the aesthetic education of working people.