Книжка-3

1962 Book 3 Contents

There has been much debate about the role and significance of fiction, and indeed of art in general. In sharp contradiction to the main and main trend of Bulgarian literature, realism, not a few critics and literary theorists in the past sought to tear writers away from the life of the people, to distract them from the main tasks of our national development. Vain efforts! Life is so strong that even on the pages of the magazines that carried out these theories in the most drastic form, Misl and Zlatorog, their most talented contributors perceived and depicted true images of life - more than once in contradiction with their own ideological and political positions. The case of Bloody Song by Pencho Slaveykov is characteristic: at the center of the poem he places Mladen as an exponent of the ideas of the writer himself (along with the fact that this hero is an exponent of one wing in the national-revolutionary movement) - with a hesitant acceptance of the uprising and with a strong admixture of late individualistic views, artificially included in that era. And yet it is not Mladen who imposes himself on the minds of the readers, but the Voivode (Benkovski), although in many cases he is presented in the poem in an unfavorable light. Even more vividly stand out before us are images such as Boycho Ognyanov in Vazov's novel Under the Yoke and a number of heroic images in Epic of the Forgotten: their political pathos is high, as it is the fruit of the deep and sincere convictions of the writer, who grew up socially in the struggle for national liberation. For a long time, the Revival-revolutionary heroes were at the center of the literary works of our best writers; In this way, these writers highlighted the testaments of the Revival in order to oppose them to the entire bourgeois reality that was being created in our country with all its negative sides. But even when Bulgarian critical realism, following its positive, denunciatory tasks, had to bring to the forefront the Baiganiovites and the Vazov Gorolomovites, as well as the number of negative characters in the works of Vlaykov, Mikhailovsky, Elin Pelin, Stamatov, Stefan Kostov, Yovkov, Svetoslav Minkov and others, the positive hero was always felt, present in their works. Sometimes - as in Yavorov - it was the writer himself, whose angry figure stands above the denunciatory pages.

In the 19th century, the novel assumed a leading role in the hierarchy of literary genres. The prose of commodity relations, the businesslikeness of bourgeois daily life, demanded a comprehensive study of social mores, an analytical penetration into the social nature of the new order. The noble dreamers of romanticism, the proud and unyielding rebels, the Prometheans at odds with heaven, fell to the ground, bruised themselves, and opened their eyes. They were surrounded by a prosaic reality in which vulgarity had banished the ideal, and brazen material interest had replaced high impulses. It was the art of the epic, of critical analytical canvases, that had to give a complete picture of the new relations that had been established. The writer increasingly became a doctor of social sciences, a historian of social and public types. And since literature is called upon to explore essences, to analyze morals, to write their history - then naturally the novel will enter into its full rights. It is the most stable fortress of the "objective" in literature. Through it, the art of critical realism mastered a wide public terrain, tested the principle of the concrete-historical approach to human character, and showed limitless possibilities for a comprehensive portrayal of the individual as a product of the typical social environment. The development of the novel in different national literatures underwent a series of reversals depending on the infinite diversity of historical-national conditions and according to the peculiarities of national psychology and traditions. The literary process also proceeds with its own significant differences with the formation of the main directions, genres and styles in Bulgarian literature. The centuries-long foreign yoke, the slow and painful establishment of capitalist relations in our country, left a mark of belatedness in the cultural self-affirmation of the Bulgarian nation. When the great European literatures were already tasting the bitter fruits of disappointment, of lost illusions regarding the nature of the new society, Bulgaria was experiencing the most romantic period of its national revival, the infantile enthusiasm of the Chetnik struggle and later of the April Uprising.

How does Vazov - this master painter of the visible world - paint what is invisible? How does he convey the soul movements of the characters and the atmosphere of the event, in other words - the lyrical-psychological filling of the story, in comparison with the other two narrators and especially with Elin Pelin? - In principle, in the same way: as a witness and observer. When the "soul" of the character, of the event or of the landscape needs to be revealed, the author takes the floor to describe and explain it. Naturally, before the author, the characters themselves do this, insofar as they are characterized by their actions and lines: Vazov is the master of lines and dialogue and would remain untouchable if Elin Pelin were not his equal rival in this respect. Both of them master the characterological possibilities of lines to perfection. But not all mental movements can receive adequate expression in the replica, not to mention the ideological-emotional, spiritual filling and meaning of the situations, actions, the moment, especially in the short story with its strictly defined possibilities. What and how much can characters like grandfather Yotso or grandmother Iliytsa, or Stancho and Stoilka, or Lisichkata say about themselves, even when they are Elin Pelinovi villagers? As for nature, objects and animals, they are silent at all. The author must help them. The question here is – how?

Real facts and related considerations have given the problem of the beautiful a dominant significance, have brought it to the forefront of aesthetic categories and concepts. Theoretical analysis has long been faced with the fact that in characterizing such categories as the sublime, the tragic, and the comic, it becomes necessary to operate with the ideal, that is, with the comparison (brightly polarized or silent) of what is with what should be. The ideal as the norm of what is due determines to one degree or another the perception of the sublime, the tragic, and the comic. The sublime is usually understood as a variety of the beautiful in which power and grandeur are deeply emphasized, the tragic - as the downfall of the beautiful, and the comic most often as its antipode, as its negative realization. The ideal is, of course, a human ideal and in this sense subjective, but at its base always lies that real or possible existence that a person evaluates as beautiful. It can be found as a moment even in utopian ideals. And if the ideals and the beautiful that lie at its base are necessary, characterizing signs of the sublime, the tragic and the comic, then obviously they, as more general concepts, must be brought out at the beginning of the analysis, placed at the center of aesthetics. The opposite is not noticeable. Although in the analysis of the beautiful, both the sublime, the tragic and the comic can introduce certain nuances or even correctives, the problem of the beautiful does not need them in order to be theoretically achieved. This is seen not only logically, but also historically - in the history of aesthetics. Plato was not concerned with the sublime, and he was interested in the tragic and the comic with a view to their effect, but not in their essence. Hogarth and Burke had no special interest in the comic and tragic (Hogarth also in the sublime), yet they have left us some of the most interesting treatises on the beautiful; the same applies to Diderot. In the Critique of Judgment there is no analysis of the tragic, and only isolated observations about the comic; in his three-volume Aesthetics Hegel shows an obvious disregard for the sublime, etc.

In the first decades after the Liberation, the socio-historical needs of the Bulgarian people required scientific and cultural figures to work on a broad front, to undertake and implement numerous initiatives, to demonstrate civic responsiveness and foresight in order to lay solid foundations for the developing national science and culture. If one part of the post-liberation intelligentsia was carried away by the political demagogy and careerism of the ruling bourgeoisie and their actions deservedly provoked the criticism and indignation of the best realist writers, then another significant part gave their talents and knowledge to the flourishing of education, science, and literature. The great socio-patriotic, ideological, and moral-ethical traditions of the Revival era continued to be a source of inspiration for them to serve devotedly for the all-round progress of our newly liberated people. Among these enthusiastic builders of our national culture, the personality of Prof. Iv. D. Shishmanov. His diverse and fruitful work as a scientist and cultural figure, as a citizen-humanist and a patriot writer is a valuable contribution to the spiritual and intellectual development of our people from the end of the last and the first decades of the current century. Here it is not our task to consider the contribution of Iv. Shishmanov in the numerous areas in which he worked. We will only point out the role of the prominent scientist-humanist in the development of our literature through the comprehensive support he gives to writers and poets, through the rare responsiveness to their needs and aspirations. Shishmanov is one of the few at that time who with such great love and concern follows the development of our national artistic and scientific thought, seeks all possible means and forms in order to create the necessary conditions for the manifestation of creative talents, for the emergence of literature with great ideological-cognitive and patriotic-emotional significance. A trained literary historian and critic who has studied the development of many other national literatures, he accurately sees where the necessary prerequisites are hidden for talents to grow and manifest, what needs to be done so that they are properly nurtured and not wasted. The history of world literature has taught him that artistic thought develops on the basis of a higher culture of the entire people, that its bearers can only be people who live with higher socio-ethical and cultural-aesthetic ideals, but who can also find objective conditions for creative expression with such ideals. That is why he works with dedication to expand and democratize education, to raise the general cultural level of the people. "If you want a richer Bulgarian literature to develop - first of all, provide education and through education, give the opportunity to manifest the hidden talents that exist in all classes, but are silenced because they cannot find the necessary conditions for development." With proverbial persistence, for decades Shishmanov worked to organize a variety of cultural and educational institutes and institutions and deservedly occupies one of the first places among the builders of a new cultural Bulgaria.

The City People's Council in Stara Zagora has set itself the noble task of building a house-museum for the writers of Stara Zagora, to be called "Literary Stara Zagora" from now on. The initial stage of the creation of this first-of-its-kind institute in our country will be the collection and systematization of materials related to the life and creative activity of literary creators. The first results in this direction are encouraging. Some time ago, materials were made available to the council that reveal some moments of the life, public activity and artistic creativity of Kiril Hristov. Of particular interest among them is a literary study written by Iliya Ivanov (pseudonym - I. I. Radin). The author was a classmate and close friend of the poet, a former high school teacher in Shumen, a man with literary interests, erudition and culture, who died ten years ago. Radin himself evaluates his study very modestly, although the work arouses considerable interest not only from a factual point of view. In the introduction, Radin notes that he had absolutely no intention of making a serious study and assessment of the poetic work of Kiril Hristov and only for the sake of consistency and systematicity of the exposition has included here and there creative questions. The author's goal, as he himself defines it, is to examine some of the poet's works from their factual side; to indicate their origin and significance for the creation of one or another relationship of K. Hristov with people of literature and society; as well as to highlight some moments of his life and temperament, which "had created for him a heavy and suffocating atmosphere, in which it was difficult to breathe, let alone create, and which atmosphere forced him into voluntary exile". B And so far this interesting portrait of the man and poet Kiril Hristov has not been brought to public attention. It was sent by Radin to the poet's wife. In one of her letters to the curator of the "Geo Milev" museum in Stara Zagora, she shares: "For a long time, while he was healthy, I. Ivanov was occupied with the idea of ​​writing something more extensive about the works of his friend Kiril. He knew that I would preserve such a thing most carefully until it could be printed. When he finished the two articles (the second article is entitled "The Slavic Feeling in Kiril Hristov"), he gave them to me with a request that I keep them as my property and one day hand them over to wherever I find it useful." Here we publish excerpts from Radin's essay.

I think that it is sometimes difficult to judge the qualities of works of art, and even more so the moods of artists and readers, based solely on what is written about them. The world of art is much more extensive than is usually assumed, and the paths of artistic influence are much more complex than they seem at first glance, in order to encompass them from one or another observation post without falling into obsessions. Therefore, we very often see that, along with the names that we have surrounded with recognition, people also carry in their minds others that have remained outside our horizon, along with proven values, they also enjoy those that seem controversial to us, along with the pointed examples of civic and creative behavior worthy of imitation, they also admire those who do not bear the mark of heroism. On this basis, some forgotten artists, sometimes justly - sometimes unjustly, come to life through the memory of their acquaintances and sometimes even become legends in famous circles of admirers before their works have reached the average reader. When I say this, I will not say a word, I have in mind more than one case, but it is enough to mention just one that interests me at the moment and seems to me one of the most characteristic - it is enough to mention the case of Alexander Vutimsky. Alexander Vutimsky, as is known, lived in great poverty and died very young, barely twenty-four years old. Despite the efforts of relatives and friends, which some letters suggest, during his lifetime he was unable to publish his works in a separate book and present himself fully to readers. Thus, his poems remained for many years in the dusty pages of magazines or in some private archives, accessible only to a very narrow circle of poetry lovers. And surprisingly, this undeserved neglect lasted for a very long time - almost two decades after his death. Fate has not been kind to him this time either: between fasts he is the last of the benevolent friends of our world whom we have thought of. Yet it would be inaccurate to claim that during these years he remained among the forgotten - due to the nature of his poetry, which is difficult to connect with the tasks of modernity, he was rather silenced, forgotten forever. And indeed, if it is true that Alexander Vutimsky is a relatively new name for a large number of young readers, it is also true that he has often occupied a significant place in private conversations and literary discussions of recent years. The number of those who have had the opportunity to read him is small, but many are those who live with the memory of his poetry and his tragic fate. It may seem strange, but there is no doubt that this young man, who died early, before establishing himself as an artist, with his poetry and his personal fate, reflects on many of the living - and today we feel his presence in the moods, intonation and figurative thinking of some poets of his generation. Therefore, contrary to expectations, the small collection of his works, entitled "Poems", which was published two years ago (1960), came at least for the Literary circles not to discover and establish a name, but to respond with great delay to an already ripe interest. This book came to outline the real dimensions of a literary work, which was most often assessed in the 1960s. The Hoarseness of Memory and a Woman Already with a Legend.

I recently read in a reference book that Nikolay Yankov first published his literary work back in 1943. And when I recalled the many examples from our contemporary literary life, I found it somehow too strange, too unfamiliar to me the fact that only at the end of last year, that is, almost two decades after his debut, did his first book, the collection of literary-critical articles "Books. Authors and Time", appear. The reasons for this atypical delay can be explained in a variety of ways, but I have no intention of taking on such a task, since I do not see any particular importance in solving it. I would only like to note in general that it is not the result of any ideological-aesthetic break, of a sharp turn on a completely opposite path, nor of genre wanderings, of genre instability, of jumping from one perimeter of activity to another. Without being one of our most productive critics, Nikolay Yankov delayed the publication of his first book not because of the lack of his own works, but undoubtedly in this case considerations of a different nature were at work, and in the first place, it seems to me, the feeling of self-criticism. I am led to this thought primarily by the circumstance that, with the exception of only three works, the remaining articles were written in the last five or six years. It is obvious that N. Yankov does not feel a particular weakness for his works from a long time ago, it is clear that when compiling the book he did not want to include in it all his long-standing critical production, including his very first manifestations, but considered it most expedient to present himself only with his articles from recent years. But unfortunately this self-criticism is relative, it is not fully manifested. While treating his earlier critical works with extreme strictness, N. Yankov somehow unexpectedly shows himself to be too liberal towards her recent work, voting her full confidence and deciding to present her in "Books, Authors and Time" almost without any exceptions. He also allowed the inclusion of some small notes, some - as he himself called them - "sketches", the meaning of which is limited to marking a certain anniversary or cultural event, notes that in the columns of the newspaper had undoubted value, but which - at least in this form - can hardly find justification outside it. The book of criticism should not become a kind of diary that records every manifestation, it always implies selection (demandingness is always mandatory, it is necessary not only in the assessment of the earliest manifestations). The book is always an assessment - and above all self-assessed, it presents a certain creative period from its most important, most essential sides. Without concealing the noted inclinations towards an unnecessary comprehensiveness, without concealing the unfulfilled self-criticism, it must nevertheless be emphasized without further reservation that Nikolay Yankov's first book gives a general idea of ​​his creative physiognomy.

The dispute over Yavorov continues. The largest - after Botev - Bulgarian post awaits its new and insightful interpreters. They will recreate his social and personal drama more deeply. They will open more shells to reveal all the pearls of his work. The disputes over the poet are not from yesterday and today. They are already entering their sixth decade. While in the past they highlighted the sharp ideological contrasts in criticism itself - from the naturalizing individualism of one pole to the sectarian narrow-mindedness of the other, today the situation is completely different. The authors who are discussing have stood on a single social platform, determined by our Marxist ideology. This does not mean that old sins cannot take new forms, that relapses of one or another passion will not arise today. However, what is new in our current literary science should be the civil and moral purity of the disputes. Even in the greatest heat of polemics, the opponent should not be suspected of impure intentions, classified in the category of "dubious elements" and "unclean forces." Otherwise, the dispute degenerates and, instead of clarifying the mature issues, it pursues other, extra-literary goals. Techniques that seek only to wound the opponent more effectively, to smear his face with more mud, to discredit him in front of society cannot be the techniques of a socialist scientist.

A huge amount of work lies ahead for our workers on the ideological front to explain the historical decisions of the XXII Congress of the CPSU and the November Plenum of the Bulgarian Communist Party, to resolutely clear away the harmful remnants of the Cult. The fulfillment of this important task is made difficult by some manifestations, the result of a lack of insight into the party documents or of ignorance.

On March 29 and April 2 of this year, an extended meeting of the scientific council was held at the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, at which the five-year activity of the journal “Literary Thought and the perspective plan for 1962” was discussed. Present were: Prof. Georgi Tsanev, Prof. Pantelei Zarev, Prof. Petar Dinekov, Prof. Emil Georgiev, Prof. Mihail Arnaudov, Prof. Stoyan Karolev, the scientific secretary of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Stoyko Bozhkov, Snezha Avramova from the founding party committee at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, senior scientific associates Georgi Dimov, Krastyo Genov and Efrem Karanfilov, scientific associates Iskra Panova, Minko Nikolov, Ivan Tsvetkov, Boyan Nichev, Krastyo Kuyumdzhievi who became associates of the institute. In his report, the editor-in-chief P. Zarev addressed the participants in the discussion with an appeal for the most active participation and careful assessment of the five-year activity of the magazine, in order to help the editorial board improve the writing of "Literary Thought", to enrich it and make it more interesting for the reader. He noted the particularly favorable time in which the discussion is taking place and the new inspiring tasks that the XXII Congress of the CPSU set for literary science and the overall development of socialist society. What had been started since the XX Congress of the CPSU was now confirmed with new, even more powerful force and persuasiveness: clearing away everything old and stifling that prevents the material and spiritual forces of the new system from unfolding and opening up new horizons for socialism, for the international communist movement, for socialist thought. B. emphasized the need to enrich the cultural and spiritual life of socialist society, to make new achievements in this direction, and pointed out the ways for the further development of socialist democracy and the complete elimination of the methods created during the cult of personality.