Книжка-6

1962 Booklet 6 Contents

What are the main conclusions you draw from your creative path so far? - Without taking the question lightly, I can say that when a writer has tortured the innocent white paper for nearly six decades, something has surely fallen into the literature basket that would give people a reason to say two nice words about him. First - age - it has two sides. One is that for the most part, life has passed and many of the joys and good feelings, creative delights, impressions of youth remain in it, until the day when a person has to take stock and see what is left for him in the future. And then he realizes - and this is the second side - that he has not completed too many things and regrets that perhaps he will not complete them. - What do you personally put into the first part and what into the second? - The river of life passes before us, passes spontaneously, but few look into the thousands of features, nuances, colors, into earthly and heavenly reality, into the existence of people and their struggle for their self-development as individuals, into getting to know the springs of social development. However, without some impetus, without a random and unexpected coincidence of circumstances, similar to the awakening of his consciousness of the diversity and beauty of the world described by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it is not possible to direct the human spirit to the source of Creativity. - Perhaps this is a natural phenomenon, but how has it been reflected in your work? - I am mentally going back to draw examples of the influence of life (in the broadest sense) on the development of a whole series of writers, from the closed world of individualism to the wide horizon of life's phenomena, of suffering and human dramas, of people's struggle for a better life, to remember my personal experience on this issue. This experience covers the period from 1905 to the present day. - You place the emphasis on reality, as if it were what makes the writer? - It often happens that the events of historical life act on the writer in one direction or another, and if he is not prepared to reveal their meaning, he would hardly be able to find his creative path. We discover similar hesitations in many writers, which either keep them in the stream of tradition and conservatism, or open up a wide path for them to the heights of their era.

In his study of K. Fotinov, Iv. Shishmanov called the images of our Revivalists, whom he so lovingly knew how to extract from the darkness of the past, shadows. And this was true. What else, if not a shadow for us, is the face of Paisius, for example? What do we know about his life path? Hardly anything more than what he himself wrote about himself in his "History". This can largely be attributed to the majority of representatives of our Revival. And they were exceptional personalities. In order to properly understand the era in which they lived, as well as their works, we must certainly feel not only the writer, but also the person with his distinctive qualities, experiences and temperament. It is necessary for the researcher to see the creative individuality of the writer in its unique originality, in its connection with the laws of literary development. That is why, recently, the consistent study of the creative and life biography of the writer has acquired such great importance. And it is here, in this aspect of research work, that a number of generally accepted recipes often fail, "precisely" establishing the writer's method, his worldview, the ratio of proportions of one or another side of the literary process. Petko R. Slaveykov is one of our Revival figures, about whom we know much more than about the others. His lively and colorful autobiography, his large archive and rich correspondence have revealed to us a number of sides of his life path. But despite this, there is still something to add to what is already known. For example, we know relatively little about the years spent by Slaveykov in Constantinople, as editor of the newspaper "Macedonia" - the most mature and inspired years of his life, when his work became Bulgarian history. During this remarkable time, the image of a woman is intertwined in the poet's life path, who becomes unique and unrepeatable for him. The memory of her has long been buried under the heavy layer of years, and because of this, we have made no small effort to understand the bond that so firmly and forever connected them, hidden under the weeds of slander and misunderstanding.

There is nothing more important for the value of a work of art, for its significance, for its lasting impact than whether it gives a true picture and a true expression of its time. Whether, with its own specific means, it reflects the new moments in life that have brought about the changes that give uniqueness to the historical moment, and also the features that are typical of man in general, or the historically conditioned unity of the particular, the variable and the general, the permanent. The social function of a work of art is therefore expressed in the fact that at the moment of its emergence and immediate impact it brings people knowledge of the unknown or not depicted by artistic means and that in this way it contributes to their worldview orientation and forms in them a new emotionality and aesthetics; that even in the next era, even if it is completely different, radically changed, the work of art becomes a document of past life, which remains an integral part of the content of the present, and has its own value for the future. In answering the question posed at the beginning, we interpret and measure the value of the work of Sophocles and Shakespeare, of Cervantes and Stendhal, of Tolstoy and Gorky, of Villon and Mayakovsky. In answering this question, we also evaluate contemporary Czech literature, Czech literature of the last fifteen years after the Second World War. It seems that this question concerns primarily the theme of literature. But in reality it does not concern only it, although it is precisely the theme that is a sufficiently sensitive indicator of the extent to which a work of art, with its ideological content and attitude, as well as its artistic expression and style, represents an expression of its time and contributes to shaping its physiognomy.

It is obvious that since the work of art exists objectively, i.e. it is perceived by us as a material phenomenon (in other words - as a complex organism of speech, sounds, volumes, lines, colors, etc.) and moreover represents a work of art insofar as it reflects in its forms specific moments and forms of objective reality in its own specific way: we can approach it with the basic tools of any science: the complex system of methods and means of comparison, selection and classification. Of course, these methods have been applied since aesthetics existed as a separate discipline. Aesthetic phenomena do not lie on the surface of the work of art, and therefore, for their disclosure, the application of the so-called methods of comparative analysis is necessary. Since by its very nature the law is universal, regardless of how many objects and facts are involved (the more, the better, of course), their legal "kinship" will inevitably manifest itself in different phenomena. Observing multiple phenomena in this way will allow us to find repeatability, i.e. the first sign of regularity.

The story of Paisius of Hilendar stands out brightly in the development of our literature, it outlines new trends in the cultural and political life of the Bulgarian people, exerts a strong influence on contemporaries and descendants. "Slavonic-Bulgarian History" ignites the soul of the Bulgarian, awakens and stirs in him a national consciousness, makes him dream of a brighter future. This great rejuvenating role of Paisius is the reason for the great scientific interest in him, thanks to which important questions from his life and work have been clarified. But despite the large scientific literature on Paisius, some questions still remain to be clarified, and others need new development. A very interesting question for our historical science is to see the state of Bulgarian literature during the time of Paisius - his predecessors, contemporaries and followers. What has been written on this issue is of a very general nature; it is usually expressed with the idea that Paisius shows some continuity with his predecessors, draws one or another news about Bulgarian saints from their lives, written and copied earlier. This is indeed so, but it does not exhaust the problem. Bulgarian literature before and after Paisius does not consist only of anonymous works, but is the work of many writers, some of whom left their names. Therefore, in order for the image of Paisius as a writer to stand out more clearly, in order to outline the meaning of his story more fully, it is necessary for his work to be outlined against a broader historical background. So far, the efforts of researchers have been directed at the main representatives of Bulgarian literature - Paisius of Hilendar and Sophrony of Vratsa, or at works with historical themes (hieroschimonk Spyridon, History of Zograf). The materials known today allow us to correct the incompletely presented picture of Bulgarian literature in the 18th century, to supplement it with new writers and works. The work of these writers is connected with the work of Paisius, which is of great importance for our literary development. Paisius is firmly connected with Bulgarian literature before and after him; from previous writers and works he zealously drew knowledge, which he carefully processed and passed on to his contemporaries and followers. Through the work of these writers, we obtain a much more complete picture of the state of our literature of that time, of the cultural interests of the Bulgarian people, and of the spiritual life of the people in general. Of course, the work of these writers cannot be compared in importance with the work of Paisius or Sophrony, but through their work they contribute to their ideological formation, and also contribute to the activation of spiritual life in our country.

In connection with the celebration of the 200th anniversary of "History of Slavs and Bulgarians", the question of the birthplace of its author was again raised in the press. The first to initiate this was Sl. Angelov with his article "The Question is Still Open" (Otechestven Front newspaper, issue 5397 of this year). To prove that Paisius was not from Bansko, he based himself mainly on the "irremovability" of the abbots of the monasteries. Elsewhere I prove in detail that this thesis is false, and therefore the conclusions drawn from it are incorrect. Here I will only be content with the following: Slavcho Angelov is wrong, since the abbots, as elected positions (and not titles), could be replaced or demoted. Such is, for example, the case of the nesfit Rilski in the Rila Monastery.

In September of this year, the great French writer, publicist and critic Louis Aragon was awarded the title of Doctor of Philosophy Honoris Causa by Charles University in Prague. Aragon's speech, delivered during the solemn ceremony, is anything but a traditional speech-response in which the new doctor thanks for the honor bestowed upon him. As Aragon himself says, in Prague he did not want to deliver the usual academic speech, suitable for Paris or Oxford, but to share his thoughts on things that excite him. Aragon's speech is dedicated to the most vital problems of contemporary realistic art, to the Question of the Theory and Practice of Socialist Realism. "As you know," Aragon addresses his listeners, "I belong to that category of men and women who for a century have thought and acted in accordance with the principle of the inseparability of theory and practice." "This principle - the writer continues - so universally recognized in all fields of science, in the field of art for some reason has not yet taken deep enough roots. Here it is often believed that the leading role belongs to theory, that first the representatives of literary science establish the theoretical premises of the work, and then the writers take them into account. That is, that it is not the artistic work that is a phenomenon that theorists must take into account, but on the contrary, that in this field the phenomena, the works must obey the theories. As a result, critics have been given the freedom, when faced with a phenomenon, a book, to measure it with the measure previously established by theorists, as if the theory were a foot and the work a shoe."

This year, the famous French anti-fascist writer Jean-Paul Sartre visited the Soviet Union for the second time. A full seven years separate the date of his previous visit in 1955 from the current one. After his return, Sartre shared his impressions of the cultural life of Soviet society in several interviews. Of particular interest is his interview with the Warsaw weekly "Politika". It is dedicated to the beneficial changes that have occurred in Soviet culture and, more specifically, in literature after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. The Soviet press reprinted this interview (see the journal, Voprosy literatury, vol. 10, 1962), noting that it contains controversial moments. But the conclusion about the socialist perspective on contemporary art that Sartre reached is indisputable. Sartre's thoughts are indicative of the attractive impact that the successes of Soviet culture after the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the CPSU have on broad circles of progressive Western intelligentsia. Since we believe that it is also of interest to our reader, we publish the most essential parts of the interview. - Above all - says Sartre - what is striking in comparison with 1955 is the extraordinary diversity, breadth and versatility of intellectual interests, the spirit of healthy discussion, the free expression of different points of view, without which the cultural life of society is unthinkable.

We are including in abridged form Yevgeny Yevtushenko's statement on Soviet poetry, printed in the magazine "Young Communist", vol. 10, 1962, under the title "We are the heirs of great poetry". We are omitting the entire part of the statement dedicated to Russian classical poetry, in which one finds brilliant, penetrating characteristics of Russian poets. Yevtushenko is undoubtedly the most generously gifted, the brightest representative of the young generation of Soviet poets that took shape in the years after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. His poetry is characterized by a keen sensitivity to the civil and moral problems of socialist society, youthful intransigence to any Falsehood, dead ossification and bureaucratic arrogance. In it, the pure voice of incorruptible truth, deep sincerity and frankness, the civic excitement of a person inspired by the greatness and holiness of the communist ideal sound. His latest poems "Fears" and "Stalin's Heirs" testify to the civic maturity and manliness of the poet, to his keen eye, to his ability to see things in their essence and depth and not to be afraid to show them to us. It is precisely these qualities of his poetry that always gather full audiences and make Yevtushenko a favorite post of today's Soviet youth. Yevtushenko's article is directly related to the conversations about young Soviet poetry and to the All-Union Conference of Young Writers in Moscow in December of this year.

The archive of Naicho Tsanov (1857-1923) contains 11 letters, and in the manuscript department of the National Library "V. Kolarov", Sofia - 3 letters of A. Strashimirov, sent from 1900 to 1903 from Sofia to N. Tsanov in Vidin. The letters cover a period of intensive economic development and political struggles in our country. Strashimirov was not left out of them, as he contacted the democrats from N. Tsanov's group at that time. In 1902, together with N. Tsanov, T. G. Vlaykov and others, he was elected for the first time as a people's representative in the 11th ordinary National Assembly. The publication of the letters will contribute to clarifying some moments in the life and work of Strashimirov, his ideological zigzags and his desire to take an active, correct and honest attitude towards contemporary social and cultural problems. At the same time, the information contained in the letters complements and clarifies the picture of public life, of the relationships between political parties and groups of the era, touches on interesting issues of the Macedonian revolutionary movement, of the revolutionary struggles of the Russian proletariat and progressive intelligentsia, and paints unknown aspects of the activities of G. Delchev, P. K. Yavorov, K. Hristov, T. Tserkovski and others.

A citizen writer, a talented realist artist, despite separate periods of tortuousness and inconsistency, Anton Strashimirov actively participated in the struggle of the progressive forces of the people. All this determines the great interest of our literary and cultural community in his life and creative path. However, his first steps in the public sphere are still covered by the obscurity of the past decades. The only source for these years remains the autobiographical notes of the writer, printed in 1931. But in them he shed light primarily on his creativity, and devoted only a few lines to his public and political activities. There is fragmentary data about this period of the writer's life in some articles and monographs. But they cannot restore his participation and role in public life from the late eighties and early nineties of the last century. And as Professor Assen Zlatarov notes, it was from this time that Anton Strashimirov was baptized for the feat of the citizen.

More than a hundred years ago, Hungarian readers first read individual thoughts about Bulgarian literature. In the second quarter of the last century, in parallel with socio-economic processes, interests in the literatures of Eastern European countries also increased among the Hungarian intelligentsia. Thus, in 1841, the first information about Bulgarian literature appeared in the literary magazine "Tudomanitar" by Kazinczy Gabor - a famous writer, critic and translator. To write his article, the author used a publication in German by the Czech scholar Jan Evangelista Purkyně. Kazinczy wrote with fraternal sympathy for the Bulgarians, who, despite five centuries of Turkish slavery and Greek spiritual rule, preserved their language and national culture. When characterizing the problems of the revival and noting the latest cultural achievements (the opening of the Gabrovo school, the grammar of Neofit Rilski and others), Kazintsi emphasizes that these achievements are the result of the activities of patriots, such as Beron, Aprilov, Bogorov, Hristaki Pavlovich. Despite its insignificant volume and artistic inferiority, the new literature plays an important role in the national development of the Bulgarian people, because it is in step with the progressive growth of national education. Kazintsi considers this fact as a pledge for the future enrichment and flowering of Bulgarian literature.

A book, the result of a strenuous theoretically sought-after path by a harmonious and prolific author, a book written sincerely and with temperament, in a language freed from the dogmatic template, justifiably arouses interest. Moreover, the author is already known for his independent positions, his erudition and his polemical fervor. This book outlines the period when people were emerging from the shell of dogmatism, but new paths had not yet been found. In order to assess what the author has achieved and to defend it, one must proceed from a direction that characterizes the current stage in our aesthetics. And since basic principles are still controversial, the considerations expressed are also of this nature.

More than twenty years ago, a Belgrade newspaper conducted a poll to find out which of its compatriots Yugoslavs considered the most popular. After the poll was completed, the name of Branislav Nušić was at the top of the list, along with that of the football player Moša Marjanović. This was and is one of the rare cases in our time when a great writer is surrounded by such popularity. In order to gain it, he undoubtedly entered both the everyday and the festive 1 Boyan Ničev - Branislav Nušić", publishing house of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1962 120 people. Only this could make them categorically place him among their chosen ones of the day. Because the greatness of a famous mind is usually not accompanied by great popularity.

The Bulgarian communist Dimitar Gachev, who inherited the theoretical principle and irreconcilability of Blagoev, fully formed himself as an art critic and historian of aesthetics in the USSR. The period from 1930 to 1937 was particularly active for his development. After that, the cult of personality not only slowed down, but also tragically interrupted his creative activity. Gachev felt on his shoulders the impact of forces, essentially alien and hostile to socialism, which inflicted so many defeats not only in the political and economic, but also in the intellectual life of our society. But he remained faithful to communism, to the great Soviet homeland, until his last breath, he went away with the dream of building communism in Bulgaria. The 20th Congress of the USSR and the April Plenum in our country returned, among many others, the cultural values ​​that Gachev created to the treasury of socialist culture.

In vol. 4 of "Literary Thought" (pp. 137-138) with a critical note on the literary studies department in issue 4 of the Abstract Bulletin for Linguistics, Literary Studies and Ethnography, published by the Center for Scientific and Technical Information and Documentation at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Along with some reasonably pointed out omissions and inaccuracies in the content of the bulletin, the author of the note, Lyuben Georgiev, has shown very unenviable awareness. He has also succumbed to bad suspicion. Therefore, as the editor of the mentioned department, I feel obliged to come up with the present counter-reply.

In October 1962, the Institute of Literature was visited by the prominent French Slavist Prof. André Mazon. A guest of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, during his two-week stay in Sofia, Prof. Mazon had set himself the task not only of conducting some scientific research, but also of getting acquainted with the work of our Slavic scientific institutes, of meeting with representatives of Bulgarian Slavic studies and of informing our public about the achievements of French Slavic studies - with this aim, he also read a report on the topic "Slavic studies in France". Prof. Mazon spoke with the director of the institute, Prof. G. Tsanev, and a number of scientific associates, showing a keen interest in their work. He became acquainted with the structure of the institute and its publications and expressed his admiration for the broad opportunities and the great material support that the Bulgarian People's Democratic State provides for the development and progress of science.

At the end of October of this year, a meeting of the well-known Soviet literary scholar and Bulgarian scholar, Professor Dmitry Feodorovich Markov, with the team of researchers at the institute took place at the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The guest showed interest in the work of all sections and in particular in the creative plans of the collaborators from the sections for contemporary literature, aesthetics and theory of literature, Russian and Soviet literature, etc. The scientific secretary of the institute, Efrem Karanfilov, introduced the Soviet scientist to the plan and the immediate tasks of the "youngest" section for contemporary literature, and Iskra Panova - to the tasks and achievements of the section for aesthetics and theory of literature. The director of the institute - Professor Georgi Tsanev, academician Lyudmil Stoyanov, Minko Nikolov, Ivan Tsvetkov, Atanas Natev, Boyan Nichev and others took part in the informal conversation.

Much has been written about the influence of Russian literary and social thought on the development of Bulgarian culture and the revolutionary-democratic formation of prominent figures during the Revival era. Sometimes, however, this influence is traced too generally and mechanically, without taking into account a number of facts that are of direct importance for the creative clarification of certain aspects of the activity and ideology of a given writer or public figure. Of course, in this case, a comprehensive study of the Russian periodical press, of fiction and other literature in the 19th century is necessary, above all, a task that is extremely difficult and almost impossible to accomplish without the collective efforts of writers, historians, folklorists, and philosophers. That is why the statements and notes of some of our Revival figures in their works or in their surviving archives about specific manifestations of Russian cultural and political life, about their interests in certain literary and scientific works, are all the more valuable. The catalogues of their libraries, which illustrate their preferences for famous authors, deserve no less attention. Therefore, the detailed notes from the archive of Lyuben Karavelov, as well as the catalogue of his unpreserved library, printed in the Izvestia of the National Library "Vasil Kolarov", served as reliable guides for more targeted research in the libraries and manuscript collections of Moscow and Leningrad. These bibliographical instructions did not narrow my task - the study of Russian literature and culture in the 60s-70s of the 19th century - to revolve exclusively around Karavelov. Considering the encyclopedic interests of the editor of "Svoboda" and "Nezavisimost", it is very easy to understand that getting acquainted with specific aspects of the ideological and cultural environment in which he lived and worked for ten years allows the researcher to feel the aspirations and excitements of the rest of our Renaissance writers who received their education in Russia. It is enough to note that 502 of the 821 books and magazines contained in Karavelov's library are Russian, a small part of which is preserved in the Vasil Kolarov National Library. Karavelov's library contained many of the works of the revolutionary democrats Belinsky, Herzen, Nekrasov, a number of works by Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov, valuable natural science and other studies. All of them, together with the hundreds of other titles of individual works or articles that Karavelov bibliographed, give a complete idea of ​​the richness and diversity of Russian life at that time.

The interest in the issues of Bulgarian-Serbian and Bulgarian-Croatian literary, cultural and ideological-political relations in the past is conditioned primarily by the rich content of these relations, by their scientific significance. Not only neighboring, but also with a relatively equal political fate, Bulgarians, Serbs and Croats followed very similar directions and traditions in their spiritual development for nearly a century. Even in the conditions of their political slavery they managed to use each other's experience and achievements in the field of culture to create original artistic values. The informed reader knows how characteristic in this respect is the literary activity of writers such as Konstantin Ognjanović, Petko Slavejkov, Ljuben Karavelov and Hristo Botev, Jovan Raič, Dositej Obradović, Vuk Karadžić, Jovan Sterija Popović, Ivan Kukuljević-Sakčinski, Petar Preradović, August Harambašić and others, whose works penetrated all South Slavic countries, accelerating the process of the formation and development of South Slavic literatures.

In connection with my work on the topic "Michael Tchaikovsky - Sadak Pasha and Bulgaria", which began several years ago, I studied a significant part of the archives of Prince Adam Czartoryski, which are located in the Czartoryski Museum in Krakow. These archives contain rich data and a number of important documents about the Bulgarian Revival and in particular about the church issue, as well as about the life and activities of such prominent Revival figures as Neofit Bozveli, Hilarion Makariopolski, Konstantin Ognyanovich and Alexander Exarch, as well as about Teohar Piccolo, Prince Bogoridi and others. Among the newly discovered documents are: 1. The previously unknown text of a detailed Memorandum by Bozveli to the Turkish authorities of September 1 (September 12, old style) 1844. This is the first memorandum submitted by Neofit after his return from the first exile. It has been preserved in a French translation. 2. The letter of Neophyte Bozveli to Prince A. Czartoryski of March 17, 1845; the Bulgarian original and the Polish translation have been preserved. The letter is an interesting literary work. 3. The letter-response of Prince A. Czartoryski to Neophyte Bozveli of July 7 (June 25, old style) 1845 in the Polish original. 4. The notes of Mikhail Tchaikovsky to the Sublime Porte on the Bulgarian question of May 11 and 18, 1845. 5. The note of Mikhail Tchaikovsky to Riza Pasha and Shakib Efendi of July 31, 1845 on the occasion of the abduction and exile of Neophyte Hilarion by the Greek Patriarch and the notes on the same occasion to the Sublime Porte of August 3, 1845 and to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs of August 9, 1845. All three notes have been preserved in French translation. 6. Mikhail Tchaikovsky's note to Reshid Pasha on the occasion of the Sultan's upcoming trip to the European lands of the Turkish Empire, dated February 10, 1846, in French translation. 7. Neophyte Bozveli's letter from his second exile to Lazar Teodorovich, the Serbian diplomatic representative in Constantinople, dated August 23 (September 5, old style), 1845, translated into Polish. This letter contains detailed information about Neophyte's abduction and exile. 8. Hilarion Makariopolsky's letter to Foad Effendi, first dragoman of the Sublime Porte, sent from exile, dated August 28, 1845, preserved in French translation. 9. The letter of Konstantin Ognyanovich: to the Polish agent (Tchaikovsky's assistant) Mikhail Dombrova Budzinski dated October 27, 1846 from Belokrinitsa and to Tchaikovsky from Vienna, dated June 13, 1848, and the second also from Vienna dated June 20, 1848. The first of these letters has been preserved in a Polish translation, and the other two have been preserved in their Russian original, with a translation in Polish. 10. The richest factual material on the course of the Bulgarian church struggle during these years, on the activities of a number of prominent Bulgarian writers and revivalists, and on Bulgarian-Polish relations during the mid-19th century is contained in Tchaikovsky's reports to A. Czartoryski, written from 1841 to 1850, regularly twice a month. From June 26, 1843, a special column entitled "Bulgaria" was introduced in them. A separate place among the materials found is occupied by the French translations of documents already known in Bulgaria: the petition to the Sultan from the residents of Svishtov dated November 15, 1844, a thank-you address from the Bulgarians from Constantinople to Mehmed Ali Pasha dated 1845, the appeal to the Sublime Porte on behalf of the entire Bulgarian people dated March 1845, and the preface to the translation of the Hatshepsut from January 1845, written by Hilarion in Bulgarian, but in the Latin alphabet. A significant part of these documents will be published in my work "New Data on Neophyte Bozveli and the Bulgarian Church Question", which is already prepared for publication. The materials found are clear evidence that the Polish archives not only in Krakow, but also in Wrocław, Poznań and Kurnik should be studied and that further research will provide an opportunity to discover a number of new documents and data on the Bulgarian Revival and Bulgarian-Polish relations.

1962 Booklet 6 *** - Contents of the 4th anniversary of the magazine "Literary Thought" - 1962.