Книжка-4

1962 Book 4 Contents

Literary studies and literary criticism in the Soviet Union are at a new stage of their development, which passes under the sign of the historic decisions of the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the CPSU. Now all the necessary conditions are in place for a new upsurge of literary criticism and science. They are determined exclusively by the beneficial atmosphere that the Communist Party created in the country. The liquidation of the cult of Stalin's personality, the defeat of the anti-party group caused a stormy revival in public and scientific life, in ideological work. The program of the CPSU, adopted at the 22nd Congress, inspired the Soviet people for new creative tasks, armed them for a practical struggle for communism, for communist culture. It is known that the cult of Stalin's personality caused great harm to ideological work. In his speech to the 21st Congress, the Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU L. F. Ilyichov said: "In the atmosphere of the cult of personality, theory and social sciences could not develop fruitfully. The question was: will theory continue to keep pace with life and illuminate the path of practice, or will it become ossified? At the 20th Congress, the party resolved this issue in favor of the creative development of Marxism-Leninism." These words can be fully applied to literature and art, as well as to literary science. At the general meeting of the Department of Literature and Language at the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, I. Anisimov pointed out: "Literary scholars completely agree with these words, because they were convinced from their own experience how difficult it was in the early 1950s to undertake major scientific research, the urgency of which was imperiously dictated by life."

Everyone enters literature in their own way. Especially when they have something significant to leave behind. Emilian Stanev came to our white trist of the thirties with the tedious boredom of gray guild workdays and with the fresh breeze of dense forests, of young game and wild licorice. And in these two such different worlds he managed to find his theme in our literature, his inviolable aesthetic perimeter. And he transformed them into his own aesthetic peace. The relationship between man and nature became the main axis around which his work revolved. And in him the complex image of an original artist came to life. He is very contradictory and at the same time unified. Here, he would have been a pantheist, if he had not been too much of a skeptic and rationalist; he is a stern and cool observer of nature and a gentle, restrained poet of its beauty, a calm portrayer of the guild and a merciless critic of the guild, a skeptic by mind and a poet by heart", as one of his characters would say. The list of contradictory traits in his image could be increased. Those who know him closely present him as a constantly agitated and restless creator. But very little of this is visible behind the pages of his books. Can you imagine that the writer, who with such artistic ease masters his material and with such restrained tact always manages to maintain a distance between himself and his characters, cried when he wrote the chapter about Kolyo Rachikov in "Ivan Kondarev", in order to master a character, he needs to create an intimate, inner connection between himself and him. He is one of those artists who look for a way to his creatures everywhere - even through his own character. If Ibsen needed to see his character down to the last button of his coat in order to recreate him, Emilian Stanev is one of those writers who must see himself in this coat, feel the hero's blood in his veins, get into his skin. He experiences the character as a lyricist in order to imprint it as a strict fiction writer. He himself often likes to summarize this peculiarity of his talent in a paradox: "I could not capture anything in others that I do not carry within myself. The writer actually plays himself.

Vlaykov belongs to those creators of our native literature who did not dazzle contemporaries with the relevance of the ideas or the monumentality of the images in their works. And readers did not discover new worlds in Vlaykov's works, they could not feel in them the "heroism" of the era. Slowly and silently, the writer presented to his contemporaries - and with somewhat outdated even for the time fiction techniques - joyful and more often sad pictures of everyday life, of relations in the patriarchal family. The ideological-emotional, aesthetic impact came not from the exceptional events and characters, but from the truthfulness, warmth and immediacy of the image. For literary historians and critics today it is not difficult to prove that the creative experience of the fiction writer Vlaykov is a lived and overcome stage. Indeed, the author's ideas and hopes, which found embodiment in his artistic works, have long lost their meaning. The softness and naivety of the writer's narrative tone is far from the dynamism and drama of both our time and the complex psyche of the contemporary, etc. Despite the convincingness of scientific-critical arguments, one cannot help but admit that we, today's readers, continue to be respected in Vlaykov's novels and stories, to be moved by the fate of the uncles and aunts dear to the author's heart, by the tragedy of the peasants and small owners crushed by the chorbadjis and by the new economic relations. And when he speaks of the past, the writer also extends his hand to us along the bright and tender threads of memories, in order to direct us to the charm of childhood years and experiences... It is true that in Vlaykov we will not find the expressiveness and dynamism of today's authors. But his works have not completely lost their charm on us, because in them the fullness of the former patriarchal way of life flows. And most importantly - the unadulterated truth of the life phenomena in his works is deeply morally meaningful and emotionally saturated. In his works, we, the contemporaries, also find such moral traits and national virtues, which are the basis of our national psychology. Therefore, Vlaiko's creative work still has many living elements. The writer is not one of the "companions", but one of the leaders of our Artistic Prose.

There was much debate about the date, as well as the place of the grave. According to some, it was between August 3rd and 6th, according to others - the 16th, according to still others - August 19th, 1936. "A cry," Lorca had written, "and a great horn of fire!" ... He had wanted to be buried in the sand, along with his guitar, but it was not there. He had wanted to leave the balcony open when he died. He had died many times, he had walked with Death, who played his old white guitar at the crossroads, under the orange and olive trees, together with gypsies, with black horses and sinister people, he had been wounded in Seville and killed in Cordoba, he had gone in and out of the tavern with Death. Death from thousands of images, both tender and innocent, both white and transparent - to the stinking, gangrenous deaths, like that of Ignacio Sánchez Mejias, the famous bullfighter, all these deaths merged into one or two shots from a revolver and one from a carbine. Three Granadan lumpens set off in their red Buick on the way back to Granada, to the village of Visnar. On the horizon remain the positions of the Republicans, from where a guitar can be heard, a silent witness to an absurd death. In time, they will look for the poet's bones among the bones of three thousand Granadans buried under this sand dune, but to this day nothing can be said with certainty. Federico García Lorca dissolved into Spanish soil - he is everywhere and nowhere, he has no grave - his grave is Spain. Then one of the assassins was shot by his own colleagues over some smuggling deal, another died of cancer, the third of typhus. Lorca's distant relative - Antonio Benavides - who had arrested him, hoping to appropriate part of the inheritance, had to flee Granada. And the other assassins scattered, disappeared. Only one Francisco Franco remained. And that people remained who can contemplate death behind a fence of saltpeter flowers and can communicate with death, whose most significant things carry its supreme metallicity. After all, Lorca painted this picture:

The literary heritage of Boyan Penev has not been collected and systematized. The eightieth anniversary of the birth of our great literary historian and critic should be an occasion to return to this heritage, to search for the valuable in it, which will benefit us in our further work. Penev's work is complex and contradictory. In it, the method of the serious scientist, the literary historian and erudite is combined with the subjectivist passions of the critic, who is more than once extreme in his conclusions, biased in his attacks. However, in Penev's works, even when they do not stand the test of time, we will always be impressed by the author's personality, categorically prominent and independent, comprehensively prepared and artistic. The overall assessment of Penev's work has yet to be carried out and it will be an important moment in the common efforts to assimilate everything positive and significant in our literary heritage. In this booklet, the magazine "Literary Thought" publishes several letters from Penev's correspondence to his wife, the poet Dora Gabe. The letters have a double meaning. First of all, they are a document characterizing Penev's personality. They contain information about Penev's attitude to important social issues (for example, the letter of September 22, 1912, written on the occasion of Penev's mobilization during the Balkan War), the breadth of his interests, his special literary and musical culture are evident. The letters also reflect his distinctive temperament and style. Second, the letters provide valuable material for some of the literary relations of the time. The names of Yavorov and Pencho Slaveykov, with whom Boyan Penev maintained close contact, are intertwined in them. Penev's attitude towards Yavorov is not free from a certain bias, which is evident both in the categorical opinions about the moral character of the poet, and in the clearly untenable views about Yavorov's nature as an "unchangeable given" or about the reasons for Yavorov to write "At the Foot of Vitosha". But our Literary Science is obliged to know the literary life of the time from sources, regardless of what subjective and incorrect moments in these sources it may encounter.

The first impetus for the discussion dedicated to literary criticism was given by the young critic Andrzej Kiyowski, who, in his conversation with three of the most prominent Polish writers - Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz, Kazimierz Brandys and Wilhelm Mach, accused contemporary Polish literature of a number of mortal sins: it has failed to find a new interpretation of the social commitment of writers that would replace the previous, already rejected formulation, it has failed to achieve harmony with contemporary world literature, the image of man that it creates is outdated compared to modern knowledge about man, and finally, it has severed its ties with tradition. The three prominent writers who took part in the conversation not only triumphantly rejected the accusations, but also launched a counterattack, stating in turn that literary criticism suffers from acute micromania and lack of perspective, delving into books by individual authors without seeing what they create as a whole, and lacking a broader view and ability to synthesize. Another of its shortcomings is the complete lack of trust in the native soil and its fertility. Critics often, as if hypnotized, see only their own interpretation of the social commitment of writers or elevate some foreign writer to a cult, and all the works offered to them by Polish artists are perceived as values ​​of secondary value in comparison with foreign models.

The letter we are publishing, owned by Dr. Lyuben Tanchev from Plovdiv, sheds light on Lora's attitude towards Yavorov. Six years have passed since their acquaintance (1906), Mina Todorova has long been deceased, and at the beginning of 1912, a friendship was established between Lora and Yavorov. But it is interesting to note that a few days after writing the letter to her aunt in Plovdiv, she sent a letter to Yavorov, full of despair and pessimism. The two letters are completely opposite in mood. While the first one exudes a healthy confidence that the friendship with the poet will end successfully, in the second Lora attacks him unfoundedly, calling him cruel and unjust. In her letters to her relatives, however, she resolutely declares that she will link her fate with Yavorov, and admires his character. She hastens to introduce him to the family circle, instructs her aunt to receive him well, to send her letters through him, etc. To confirm that she truly knew him, she compares him with her father Petko Karavelov, deceased at that time, whom Lora greatly respected and loved. It is known that P. Karavelov took great care of the education and upbringing of his children. And Lora rightly writes that he gave his soul for them. But as much as Lora had tender feelings of love and gratitude towards her father, she was as wary of her mother. She without hesitation declares that she has no intention of listening to her, accuses her of ruining her youth and, by force, forcing her to marry Dryankov. This time Lora decided to vigorously fight for her happiness. After Laura's death (1913), her mother Ekaterina Karavelova contributed too much to the accusations against the post, to his bitterness, which led him to suicide on October 16, 1914.

Many times in my life I have faced fascist censorship and have always successfully escaped its clutches - the claws of the dragon, as we used to say then. But there were two cases when I could not deceive its bloodthirsty gaze and fell between its teeth. Now, I would like to tell you about these two cases in a few words. In 1929, at the beginning of December, the newspaper "RLF" began to be published. From its very first issues, it attracted attention with its militant, revolutionary tone and suddenly won the love of numerous readers, thirsty to hear a progressive word. The bold act of its publishers and editors, fighters for a new proletarian art and literature, was greeted with joy by young, just beginning writers. To create a workers' literary front that would gather the creative forces scattered after the uprising, especially after the April events, and unite and unite them around the slogan of truthful and honest artistic thought - this was the task that the party had set before the handful of communists around the newspaper. The program of the "RLF", expressed in the introductory article of its first issue, and later in other articles, was accepted by all writers close to its work, and soon many other fighters for a new art and literature stood and walked with them in the ranks of its creators. At that time, I, still quite young, a student in the seventh grade of high school, was taking my first uncertain steps in fiction. I had already published poems in a number of progressive newspapers and magazines, mainly student magazines, and I longed for such a newspaper that would fully express my understandings as a communist about art and literature. I greeted the appearance of "RLF" with joy and excitement that such a newspaper was finally starting to be published. Every Wednesday I waited impatiently for it to appear on the newsstands and early in the morning, on my way to school, I secretly bought it, read, reread, even studied by heart many of its materials, some of which I still remember so strongly that they are imprinted in my memory. The following year, in issue 44 of March or April, my first printed story "Unemployment" was published and I remember with what excitement I unfolded the pages of "RLF" to read it on the street. Since then, I have regularly collaborated with the newspaper with poems, stories, reports and other materials. I was accepted by its small team as one of its youngest colleagues and participated, even though I was a student, in all its initiatives and actions.

This is the first study of Bulgarian literature in English. This new book is invaluable to readers who would like to compare the achievements of Bulgarian literature with those of other national literatures... "1 "Professor Manning of Columbia University and Professor Smolstocki of the Slavic Institute of Marquette University are the authors of several books on Slavic culture, politics, and literature and are experts in this field," is the note about the two authors of this work. From the introductory words to the book we learn that both of them have been to Bulgaria several times, that they have many friends in our country ". . deeply sympathize with the tragic fate of this tormented Slavic people. . . " They further report that American influence was great in Bulgaria before the First World War, since many Bulgarians studied at Robert College in Constantinople, and then at the American College in Sofia " ... Many Bulgarian professors visited the USA in happier times. . . " It is stated that American Slavists know almost nothing about modern Bulgarian literature. It is regretfully noted that, with the exception of the few translated works by Botev and Vazov, which have long been exhausted, nothing is known about the literature of the 19th and 20th centuries, that almost no attempts have been made to acquaint the Anglo-Saxon world with the literary culture of Bulgaria.

Ivaylo Petrov... So far, he has shown love for the Dobrudzha people, who build cooperative farms and carry within themselves a new ethical world, for trips through quiet towns, where the houses, the streets, the people attract him like a magnet. I have often wondered who he resembles in our literature. To Yovkov? Because with great creative courage he decides to follow him through the plains and hills of Dobrudzha, where the stud farms, the silhouettes of the inn and people with powerful shoulders are no longer visible, but there is still something left of the past that he wants to capture and transform. Or maybe to Elin Pelin and Emilian Stanev? After all, like them, he is a hunter, a wanderer in the fields, a fugitive from the stuffy city, who, hunting, kills with difficulty - but still kills, putting his humanistic heart to a severe test. He loves the shiver of the mist, the long wanderings, the fatigue from them and all those experiences, collected like pearls, that only the wanderer-hunter knows? And yet how does he separate himself from these authors, even though he follows traditions bequeathed by Elin Pelin and Yovkov or now created by Emilian Stanev? He pave his own way, because something stubborn is embedded in his own individuality. Maybe he walks slowly, as the peasant, bent over his plow, walked, but he is stubborn and unwavering in his creative pursuits like him. How persistently he defends his plots - already with his first stories about peasants from the Dobrudja cooperative world, then with the story "Nonka's Love", now with the small stories-impressions dedicated to people on the street, hotels, buses, people traveling between the city and the village. He is artistically unique - at the same time easily excitable, prone to subtle grace and patient in the realistic drawing of details. In his stories lyricism and reflection are intertwined, the "epic course" of the plot is replaced by the lightness, haste" of personal experience. These qualities also stand out in his first 114th novel. A story, do you think, for whom? - About Dobrudja. About the people who are today taking root there a new way of life, whose fathers and grandfathers Yovkov has sung. And also - about modernity. About its deep changes and conflicts. The author of "light" novels and stories has taken on the difficulties of the Novelist to portray both the people of the past and the new man who is transforming the spacious, romantic Dobrudja Land. He has not only opened his senses to new impressions of nature, everyday life, and man, but has also strained his honest mind to explore current problems, often neglected by those writers who want to be "tribunes" of the new, but do not penetrate sufficiently into its real world.

During the national discussion of literature education, one of the main issues, which was debated quite temperamentally, was the quality of literature textbooks. Despite some extreme and incorrect statements, to which enthusiasm and partly prejudice led some critics, the general assessment was unanimous and correct. The discussion confirmed that literature textbooks, although some authors have achieved partial success, lag behind the development of literary science, are not full-fledged assistants to students and teachers. Literature textbooks do not reveal clearly and fully the ideological depth and aesthetic value of the artistic work. The historical-literary process is not illuminated in its breadth and complexity. Errors of the most different nature are allowed - scientific, methodological. The language is dry, inexpressive, inaccurate, overloaded with formulaic phrases.

The need for a thorough study of the nature and interrelations of aesthetic categories has long been apparent. Dr. Yuri Borev, in the second, expanded and revised edition of his book, has made an interesting attempt at their systematic study. His claim is well-founded that the consideration of aesthetic categories has so far remained at a low theoretical level, without a historical approach and especially without studying the connections between them. His efforts are aimed at overcoming these shortcomings and where he has succeeded, his work has a contributing character. The introductory part is an attempt at a historical study of the development of aesthetic categories. The author sought to comply with the dialectics of the logical and the historical. He has created a certain logical system of categories, from which he also proceeds in their theoretical study, “The categories of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, as well as the categories of Marxist dialectics, are pivotal points in the history of human thought.

No, this is not about so this is moved after the conclusion of "freedom" clever proof, 100 years, i.e. it will become in and contradictions" in parallel which two and two is 2029?! (Italics mine, the production by Boyan Daravno on five. Here the numbers played an unpleasant joke on the professor from VITIZ Stefan Karakostov. Rather, he unintentionally made the joke himself, deciding to use a randomly mentioned number as the main evidence in assessing the artistic qualities of the production "Darvenitsa" by Boyan Danovski at the state santirika theater. We are talking about the article "High distinction for the tops in our theater", printed in issue 107 of the newspaper "Trud". In it, filled with a passion for discovery, Karakostov writes: "The greatest weakness of the production is Myakovski's free reworking. It turns out that Danovski's great sin was that he transferred the action, which develops in communist society, not after 50, but after 100 years. This directorial freedom is precisely what horrifies Karakostov: The Great T post expected that in 50 years the communist society would win, something that was outlined in the plans of the CPSU, i.e. by 1979. In a production

We are talking about the principles by which fiction is selected and published in our literary magazines "September" and "Plamak". Because more than one or two books from the previous anniversaries (especially "September") have the character of a literary almanac rather than a living literary publication.

The bulletin is published in two languages ​​(Russian and French) and aims to present with short annotations the scientific works published during the past year. On its cover, instead of the publishing house, the names of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, the Committee for Technical Progress and the Center for Scientific and Technical Information and Documentation appear. In addition to the responsible secretary Zh. Doseva, the editorial board includes: B. Bozhikov (stenography), K. Genov (literary studies) and I. Gulbov (linguistics). As noted in a note to the reader, the individual issues do not include abstracts of selected scientific works published in the People's Republic of Bulgaria. The last issue contains information on the scientific works (articles, studies and monographs) published in 1961.

One of the main tasks of the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is to collect and publish the works of Bulgarian classical writers. In fulfillment of this task, volume 1 of the Collected Works of Petko R. Slaveykov has been prepared for publication. This edition will collect for the first time the works of the poet, publicist and public figure Petko R. Slaveykov, who was unable to see even a single volume of his collected poems printed during his lifetime. It will also be the first academic publication of the Institute of Literature.

The Manuscript Department at the Institute of Literature is part of its research base, which also includes the library and the bibliographic collection. Its activity is closely related to the scientific tasks of the institute and is aimed at searching for and preserving the manuscripts of Bulgarian writers. In addition, both the heads of this department and the research associates conduct surveys, interviews, and collect biographical materials about Bulgarian writers, which are also stored in the Manuscript Department. It also has a fairly rich collection of photographs and various photographic materials, original portraits and reproductions of our and foreign writers, of their birthplaces, of sessions and celebrations related to Bulgarian and Slavic literatures, etc.