Книжка-1

1963 Book 1 Contents

If we look at the stories published in the literary press over the past few years, what is striking is the fact that young authors are less and less satisfied with bare declarations, with the noisy and placard expression of ideas, that the tendency to call things by their real names, to bring the writer closer to reality, is becoming more and more necessary. Approaching life is no longer a slogan, but a starting, artistic ideological position, without which a real work of art cannot be created. Far behind are the fictional, sugar-coated heroes, the dead virtues. The optimism in a number of stories about everyday work is born as a result of a more concrete look at reality. More and more sought-after, exceptional conflicts give way to characters and experiences, to heroism that is born in everyday life, in the sphere of small, everyday incidents, in the ordinary working life of people. Two main starting points move the young people on their creative path: personal observation, the desire to gather direct life material, and a great faith in man, in socialist justice. On the basis of this realistic view, the combination between the truthful reflection of difficulties and the heroism of labor, between realism and romantic pathos, is increasingly clearly outlined.

The innovators and seekers, the Argonauts of the march for new art, go against the tide. They teach their contemporaries the most difficult habit - to break traditional notions, to get used to the unknown and unusual. Ehrenburg congratulated the 80-year-old Picasso on his youth. The surest sign of an artist's youth are the disputes that flare up around his work. Innovation does not like the fanfare of unanimous recognition, it does not tolerate the incense of jubilee eulogies. Its ambition is different: to divide minds, to clash them and thus make new and unsuspected truths phosphoresce. Brecht is among the great phenomena of contemporary art, which are very contested and against which aesthetic inertia has long persisted. His value is affirmed through the resistance of canonical opinions and traditional tastes. Like other of his contemporaries such as Mayakovsky and Picasso, he caused aesthetic disturbances throughout his life due to his firm intention to renew the language of the centuries-old stage art, to satisfy the needs of a scientific age and a dialectical way of thinking. When Brecht's theater visited Moscow or Paris, it did not generate universal approval and recognition with its performances. The audience was far more unanimous and enthusiastic, applauding Vico Torriani's variety evenings or the numbers of the Viennese revue on ice. After Brecht, however, something else remained: the restlessness, the productive anxiety that the theater was being cleared of junk. The fools stirred, the routineists united. After Brecht, the debates began.

Staff Captain Mikhailov from the second Sevastopol story ("Sevastopol in May") by Leo Tolstoy is a modest man. His place in the sea of ​​critical writings about the great writer's work is also modest. There, the tall, stooped figure of the staff captain is almost invisible. It seems to hide behind the large silhouette of the slumbering Field Marshal Kutuzov, behind the brilliance of the restless, eternally out of breath Prince Andrei, behind the romantic charm of Hadji Murat, or finally - behind the gunpowder smoke that enveloped Captain Tushin. Of all the interesting characters of the writer, the least has been written about Staff Captain Mikhailov. There is something natural in this. Because he is one of Tolstoy's early favorites. In him, the writer concluded many of his innermost youthful observations and thoughts. But that is precisely why we will see how this character is repeatedly reincarnated with one or another of his qualities in various later heroes of Tolstoy. These latter characters overshadow the former.

The bold feuilletons of the Lucky Man appeared in the 1990s, when the bourgeoisie, eager for power and wealth, had already thrown the people into a new slavery. At that time, the Populist party, headed by Konstantin Stoilov, was ruling. Stambolov was overthrown from power, but his deputy oppressed the people with the same barbaric means. The democratic Tarnovo constitution, which was at that time, was cruelly trampled. This is how Dimitar Blagoev characterizes this bloody era: "In terms of domestic politics, the Populist regime was just as gangster and violent as Stambolov's. The Stambolov regime had many political murders through torture in prisons, through mass shootings during elections, through military executions, etc. But the Populist regime added to these horrors political murders from ambushes by bribed robbers and gangs. "1

It is not surprising that it was precisely after the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the CPSU, in the relaxed atmosphere of the literary front, that the problems of humanism in contemporary literature were raised broadly and insistently. These problems became the subject of a several-day discussion in Moscow, organized by the Union of Soviet Writers and the M. Gorky Institute of World Literature. While in the West art is experiencing a rapid process of dehumanization, which Jean-Paul Sartre also spoke about in one of his interviews, in our country, in the socialist countries, the humanistic tasks of literature and art are growing. The construction of communism - the highest and most complete ideal of humanism - must be ensured in a moral attitude. The highest goal of our social development is the all-round and harmonious development of the human personality, the creation of such conditions in which the abilities and talents, the best moral qualities of a free person, fully blossom and are revealed. And this undoubtedly enriches our art, develops humanistic ideas in it.

The famous American writer John Steinbeck received the Nobel Prize in Literature for his novel "The Winter of Our Discontent". On this occasion, articles about the writer's creative path and personality were published in American newspapers. Two of them were published in the Soviet weekly "Abroad", from where we take them for our magazine. To the Bulgarian reader, John Steinbeck is known for his novels "The Wrath of the Ants" and "Tortilla Flat", as well as for the story "The Pearl".

The biographical literature on Hemingway is not rich. That is why the book about Hemingway's life, published this year in the USA, was met with great interest, especially since its author is Lester Hemingway, the brother of the deceased writer. The material, completely reliable, is collected from personal observations. The author's goal is not to emphasize Hemingway's literary significance. His task is to acquaint readers with the family, with the writer's personal life, with the process of his creativity. This book refutes many of the fabrications that some bourgeois journalists have created around Hemingway's personality. As the author points out, Hemingway himself expressed a desire for a book to be written about his life. Lester Hemingway is sixteen years younger than his brother. Therefore, he collected information about the writer's childhood and adolescence from his mother, sisters and relatives. For us, the book is interesting as a document about the life of the talented novelist. We can agree with the statement of the famous researcher of Hemingway's work, Carlos Baker, who wrote in the weekly "Saturday Review": "The portrait of the brother, painted by the author of the book, is reliable, understandable and human." A great influence on the young Hemingway was exerted by his parents. Hemingway inherited his passion for adventure, travel and hunting from his father, a doctor by profession. His mother, an energetic woman, passionately loved music and continued to play until old age.

"What can be done to help the Bulgarians" ("Chem mozhno pomoch bolgaram") is one of the most interesting documents preserved in the archive of Lyuben Karavelov (National Library "Vasil Kolarov", Bulgarian Historical Archive, Fund No. 2, Archival Unit 21, p. 6-11). This is a report to the Moscow Slavophile Charity Committee, which sets out a detailed program for the creation of a Belgrade branch of the committee. The text written by Karavelov was corrected and supplemented by the Russian revolutionary democrat Ivan Gavrilovich Prizhov. Thus, the document also reveals new aspects of the cooperation between the two revolutionaries. "Chem mozhno pomoch bol garam" has repeatedly attracted the attention of researchers. The document has already had two editions. The first is by Academician Mikhail Dimitrov in "The Journalism of Lyuben Karavelov before the Publication of the Newspaper "Svoboda", S. 1957, pp. 622-625, the second by the Soviet scholar L. V. Vorobyov in "Notices of the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences", vol. IX, 1960, p. 275. The edition by Academician M. Dimitrov reflects almost exclusively Karavelov's text. It is indeed noted that there are corrections on it by another person. It is also said that according to L. V. Vorobyov this person is the Russian publicist I. G. Prizhov.

The Soviet Union is the country where the proletarian revolution first triumphed. With the successful construction of socialism in it, the cherished dream of humanity was realized - the construction of a classless society. A guiding star, a model and an example - this is what the country of the Soviets represents for the oppressed and exploited masses of the whole world! One of the main tasks facing the proletarian and anti-fascist press of the 1930s - to show the truth about the USSR, to propagate its successes - was also subordinated to the special task of the "RLF" - to inform its readers about the cultural development of the USSR and, in particular, about the successes of Soviet literature. The newspaper organized the first survey of its kind in our country about Soviet cinema, dedicated two special issues to Soviet books.

Elin Pelin's story "Unclean Power" is one of those literary works that, through its variants and edits, can introduce us to the secrets of writing mastery, to the development of an artist, to show us the laws that he - consciously or not - constantly follows. The time interval between the first version of the story "Unclean Power" (vol. 1, 2 and 3-4 of the magazine "Sunflower" from 1909) and the final form of the first chapter of this story, which we find printed after the writer's death in the magazine "September", vol. 4 from December 1949 and which we know was written no earlier than 1947, and perhaps in 1949, this interval of 40 years is much greater than between any two edits of any other work by Elin Pelin. Therefore, here the differences will be much more distinct, more contrasting and the idea of ​​these two states - much clearer. Before us are two literary works that have a common idea, theme, characters, plot, but are different in implementation. It remains to clarify how the same events and incidents are transformed from a pale and inexpressive story into some of the most perfect pages of Bulgarian prose, in order to explain one of the mysteries of artistic creativity, in order to see what creates the power of literary art.

Every unbiased reader cannot fail to notice that in his new book of literary-critical articles "Writers and Time" Pencho Danchev embarks on a very interesting discussion about the significant achievements and painful new searches, about the inevitable difficulties, experimental passions and obstacles in the development of our contemporary poetry. He does not hide his justified enthusiasm for the fact that in our contemporary literature there are different and very good poets, broadly reflecting life, its clashes, sharp conflicts and rapid changes. He shares his own reflections, generated by the creative originality of such an outstanding master of lyric poetry as Nikola Furnadzhiev. He analyzes the most significant in the work of the poets Veselin Hanchev, Valeri Petrov, Radoy Ralin and Penyo Penev. He rejoices in the irrepressible impulses and the excited discovery of the "young" - Lyubomir Levchev, Vladimir Bashev, Hristo Fotev and Damyan Damyanov. With concern and love he guides the "youngest" - Stefan Tsanev, Ivan Dinkov, Nikola Indjov, Ivan Trenev, Atanas Mochurov, Konstantin Pavlov, Alexander Milanov, Hristo Katsarov, Krastyo Stanishev, Minko Tsonevski, Slav Hr. Karaslavov.

On the issues of the comic, a lot of theoretical literature has been accumulated. But comedy as a literary genre and, in particular, the development and contemporary state of Bulgarian comedy have not been studied in detail. Even the articles dedicated to the various manifestations of Bulgarian comedy can be counted on the fingers of one hand. That is why Ivan Bogdanov's initiative to study the paths along which this genre has developed in our country is commendable. He sought to be a pioneer in a complex and undeveloped field. And as the first, it was his work that aroused interest among both writers and theater figures. But despite the particular difficulties in such a first attempt, Bogdanov did not successfully solve his task.

The interdependence and interrelationship between the ideological-aesthetic and literary-artistic values ​​of different eras necessitate the comprehensive study and creative use of the achievements of previous generations. To see under what conditions certain achievements of national creative thought emerged, what needs called for them, what impact they had on broadening the horizons, on directing the searches of the mind, the excitements of the heart of the people of that time on the right path, is undoubtedly a primary task of our modernity. This is all the more necessary for those achievements that emerged in transitional eras, when the paths to a new life were being traced, when the spiritual forces of the people were particularly strained in order to win and affirm the right to free national existence and development. Such an era is undoubtedly the Bulgarian Revival. In that time of political slavery and spiritual darkness, when the Bulgarian nationality was put to great trials, our small intelligentsia had to strain its intellectual and moral forces to the limit in order to give the right direction to the awakening creative energy of the Bulgarian people, to lay solid foundations for the forming national literature and culture. To search for and collect the literary heritage of these first pioneers on our cultural level, to study and illuminate it comprehensively, so that it could truly become a support for the further development of scientific and theoretical literary and artistic thought, undoubtedly represents one of the duties of today's Marxist-Leninist literary studies. Belinsky's thought - in order to understand the present and predict the future, one must study the past, a thought insistently recalled by many people in creative pursuits, should not be forgotten by today's generations.

The "Selected Novels" library at the "Narodna Kultura" publishing house is entering its fifth anniversary. This period is quite sufficient to assess its achievements and weaknesses to date, to point out some shortcomings in the selection of contemporary novels. It is hardly necessary to emphasize how useful an undertaking it has proved to be. The best evidence of this is the great interest of readers in it. It could have been born and realized in the new and serene atmosphere after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, after which the cult barriers and stifling dogmas collapsed, in an environment of an objective view of the artistic values ​​of world literature. Through it, our reader is connected to everything good in literature, created by various peoples around the world.

At the end of 1961, a "panorama" of contemporary literatures in the world was published, very luxuriously published in Paris in French by the well-known publishing house Hachet. The book is included in a series entitled "From the World", edited by Jean-Claude Hubert, with a foreword by the famous French essayist Roger Caillois, director of the Department of Literature and Art at UNESCO. "Contemporary Literatures in the World" is a collective work, carried out with the cooperation of twenty-one writers, among whom are the names of prominent French critics and connoisseurs of foreign literatures.

In early November 1962, the scientific council of the institute held an extended meeting at which the Bulletins of the Institute of Literature (issues 7 to 11 inclusive) were discussed. Senior research associate Stoyko Bozhkov presented a report on the Bulletins. He traced the history of this institute publication, its character and tasks, the circle of its collaborators, its characteristic achievements and weaknesses. Then the rapporteur was asked questions, which he answered. 11 research associates took part in the speeches. Iskra Panov shared her impressions of the latest booklets of the Bulletins. They contain a section of materials that are clearly defined by genre - publications and scientific communications. Their scientific value cannot be disputed. Then comes a section of studies and articles that are at a more primary stage of scientific processing. They are something in between documentary materials and historical and literary studies. These are the works that occupy the main share of the published production in the Bulletins. There is a complete lack of materials on contemporary topics, as well as theoretical studies. One gets the impression of thematic disarray. Only the volume dedicated to Smirnensky is thematically focused. It turns out that articles and studies that are related to more current issues go to the journal "Literary Thought", larger works are published as separate books, and for the Izvestia there are things that are primarily related to older literature.

On December 20 of this year, an expanded meeting of the scientific council was held, at which the work of the Institute of Literature in 1962 was reported. The management report, presented by the director of the institute, Georgi Tsanev, examined in detail the scientific research and scientific organizational activities of the institute, gave assessments of the work of the sections, departments and the "Ivan Vazov Museum", clarified the issue of the state of the personnel, the material and technical base, etc. The work of the scientific workers in 1962 took place in the light of the XXII Congress of the CPSU, the April and November Plenums of our party. This was a year of great tension and sharp disputes, a turning point in which, from the high tribune of the historic Eighth Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party, the cult of personality and the associated dogmatism, scholasticism, pseudoscientific interpretation, dispassionate registration of facts, doctrinaireism... A remarkable year in which the truthful word of the party sounded with enormous force, reality was given abundant light, the great importance of the entire ideological front, of our literary science, was emphasized. The historic Marxist-Leninist decisions of the Eighth Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party opened up a wide field for calm, independent work to the scientific staff of the institute, brought complete democratization into the disputes, mobilized the forces of the scientific workers for an even more active, merciless struggle against revisionism and the influence of bourgeois ideology, against the remnants of the cult. This was a year of a rapid, healing process that brightened the atmosphere and the situation in the institute and gave the opportunity to overcome all kinds of petty, personal ambitions, to strengthen a single, cohesive scientific team. The decisions of the April and November plenums are of great importance and the scientific workers of the institute sought to apply them specifically in the tasks that lay before them. for consideration.

In two meetings (on November 15 and 22 of this year) of the scientific council at the Institute of Literature, the works for the Slavic Congress by Emil Georgiev - General Laws in the Development of Slavic Literatures"; Kuyu Kuev - The Idea of ​​Slavic Unity in the Poetry of Petar Preradovich" and Georgi Dimov - "Traditions of Russian Revolutionary-Democratic Aesthetics in the Formation and Development of Bulgarian Literary Criticism" were discussed by the scientific council at the Institute of Literature. The meetings were attended by more than 30 researchers, associates and literary critics, who took an active part in the discussions. Both discussions were chaired by the director of the Institute of Literature Georgi Tsanev. The following spoke on the reports for the Slavic Congress: Kr. Genov, B. Nichev, P. Dinekov, L. Minkova, V. Smohovska-Petrova, G. Valchev, Efrem Karanfilov, St. Karolev, Il. Konev, Iv. Tsvetkov, M. Nikolov, A. Todorov, etc. Finally, the chairman G. Tsanev summarized the speeches. On the report of Em. Georgiev, he pointed out that the author had taken on a very difficult task - to establish general regularities in the development of Slavic literatures and therefore perhaps had not resolved all the questions on the topic. It is necessary for Em. Georgiev to focus even more on socialist realism and Marxist-Leninist methodology, to bring to the fore the specific regularities in the development of Slavic literatures, to clarify some inaccurate positions, to shorten long quotations and for the author to take into account the notes of those who spoke. On the report of K. Kuev, the chairman noted that the work was topical and interesting, saturated with materials from the life and work of Petar Preradovich. G. Tsanev expressed the opinion that the work would gain more if it were systematized by problems, but even in this form the work should be condensed and tightened. It was emphasized that Georgi Dimov's report was correctly constructed, convincing, not only stating facts, but also developing in depth the issues of the influence of Russian revolutionary-democratic aesthetics in the formation and development of Bulgarian literary criticism. It was recommended to the author to make some additions.