Книжка-4

1963 Book 4 Contents

The speech of Dr. Todor Zhivkov before the workers of the cultural front "Communist ideology - a principle of our literature and art" came in time to draw our attention to some disturbing phenomena in the education of our youth, in our cultural life, in our literature and art. That is why it found full approval among our intelligentsia and among the entire working people. This speech is an expression of the special attention with which our Party has always treated the development of artistic culture in our country. Although caused by various harmful phenomena and manifestations in the field of art and literature, it goes far beyond the tasks of just fighting against these phenomena and manifestations. It raises fundamental ideological questions that affect the very essence of our today's literature. Dr. Todor Zhivkov's speech also acquires a programmatic character. Its essence is directed towards the further development of art and literature along the path of socialist realism. And not only of art and literature - it also gives instructions for the development of our literary studies.

In its centuries-long socio-historical development, the Bulgarian people created deeds that left deep furrows in the minds and souls of people, riveted the gaze of contemporary and later generations, and continue to excite and inspire in the struggle for social and cultural progress, for justice and happiness in the world. Such an epoch-making deed in its ideological-revolutionary aspiration and moral-social essence is also the people's anti-fascist uprising in September 1923. It is a natural result of the socio-political development of our country after the First Imperialist War, it is conditioned by the efforts to resolve the maturing social contradictions and marks a turning point in the overall life of our people.

Whether a foreign writer will be welcomed as an expected and beloved guest, as a spiritual interlocutor and comrade, whose work fertilizes and enriches the native literature and public thought with new ideas, or whether he will be rejected as an uninvited stranger, alien to public morals and literary traditions, depends on many factors. First of all, on the writer's own work - on its scale, on the depth of its social content, on the nature of the ideas and the degree of its innovation. Then on that absolutely necessary contact and affinity with the social and aesthetic needs of the country in which he has entered, on his ability to satisfy mature ideological searches and quench the thirst for new ideals, i.e. to become one's own, to flow as an organic element into progressive culture and thought. This, in turn, depends on the historical moment in which the encounter with the writer takes place. In the national Literary development there are moments that are extremely favorable for the perception of ideological and artistic values ​​that have come from outside. Usually these are years of transition from one era to another, of ideological fermentation and boiling, when the national consciousness works hard to free itself from old idols and set out on new paths. At such a time, a great artist from outside can invade as a desired conqueror and in a short time conquer the minds and hearts of thinking people in society, become a spiritual ruler for the intelligentsia and youth. He suddenly gives the long-sought directions of progressive thought, accelerates spiritual processes, helps to shape new social ideals. Therefore, his merit is invaluable, his share in the mental development of the nation, in its spiritual maturation is undeniable. And precisely because of this, he ceases to be foreign, but is revered as close and native.

Defining the concept of "world literature" can hardly be achieved without effort and polemics, as it probably seems to many who are accustomed to it. It is indeed not easy to give a decisive answer to questions such as: which are the literatures that have managed to impose their achievements as conquests of the entire human society; what guides a development that runs through the entire history of mankind; what are the ingredients, criteria and drivers of the process that merges the achievements of folk and national literatures into one and at the same time fertilizes folk and national literatures; and so on.

K. Zhinzifov (1839 - 1877) spent half of his life, almost 19 years, in Russia. In Macedonia, under the influence of D. Miladinov and his personal participation in the struggle for his native language and school, he developed into an ardent patriot of his enslaved fatherland. Such Zhinzifov remained until the end of his life. After his arrival in Russia, Zhinzifov, like many other representatives of Slavic youth, was taken under the protection of the Slavic Committee and became one of its graduates. He became close to the Slavophiles (I. S. Aksakov, N. A. Popov, P. I. Bartenev) and entered their ideological circle. Of the Bulgarians who received education in the 1950s-1970s in Russia, K. Zhinzifov was the most orthodox like-minded person and associate of I. S. Aksakov. In 1861, Zhinzifov began collaborating with I. S. Aksakov's newspaper "Den" (1861-1865), then continued in the newspapers "Moskva" and "Moskvich" (1867-1868). After Aksakov's publications ceased to be published, Zhinzifov participated in the organs close to the editor of "Den" - "Moskovskiye Vedomosti", "Sovremennaya letopis" and "Pravoslavnoe obozrenie". The Bulgarian publicist was a close person in the Aksakov household. He treated I. S. Aksakov with extreme respect, as an exceptionally noble, good and honest man", 1 In one of his letters, Zhinzifov wrote: The house of Aksakov and the house of Bartenev will remain forever in my memory, wherever my fate takes me. "2 It was probably not pleasant to make a remark to you about the exam in more than one glass of wine, but Zhinzifov perceived Aksakov's words as from a close and playful person and therefore shared with Bartenev:,, Ivan Sergeevich gave me quiet and calm instruction and suggestion about the way of my life 3

Here the curtain is lifted and the reality, which is supposedly so familiar to us, is revealed in some unseen, unsuspected light. The reason, of course, is at least in the modern, unfamiliar, often a little bizarre artistic means, although they are sometimes necessary. The reason is in the unusually fresh, wise, communist contemporary view of the author, in his new discovery of the world. The bearer of "innovative power" in the play, of that dreamed thing that the viewer seems to want to take with him after the performance, is the dramatic image. Through it, the playwright achieves his ultimate goal: to influence the viewer. Without a dramatic image, the most fulfilling idea, the most complexly conceived conflict, and the most original dramatic composition hang in the air. Only the dramatic image-discovery can give them flesh and blood, revive the author's innermost thoughts, excite the viewer with his fate, make him think, believe in the improbable.

In our time, when the importance of literary translation as a connecting link between the cultures of individual nations has grown unusually, there are more and more grounds to raise the question of the independent nature of this type of literary work. For more than 150 years, literary translation in the modern sense of the word has been distinguished as a field with its own goals and objectives, with its own problems, with its own creative process. Creative individuals have emerged in this field with their own specific characteristics, related to the peculiarities of their activity. Regularities have emerged in the history of literary translation that also speak of an independent development. A theory of translation has been created, which has been significantly enriched and deepened, especially in recent decades. The benefit of correctly distinguishing literary translation work from other related fields is more than obvious. Only on this plane can one resist some misconceptions that are particularly reflected in the theory and criticism of translation. The necessity of such a separation stands out particularly clearly today, when within the boundaries of translation a new field is rapidly developing and expanding its reach, from which the translation of fiction must be clearly distinguished - machine translation based on modern cybernetic technology.

Georgi Dimitrov's statements on literary issues represent not only a very interesting and important page from his multifaceted and rich life as a communist revolutionary of global significance, but they are also extremely valuable documents, the in-depth study of which makes it possible to clarify and resolve some of the basic problems of our literary development.

The works of the young generation of German writers have recently aroused an increasingly lively and deserved interest among the literary community and reading circles in the GDR. They are at the center of creative discussions when discussing the literary reflection of the immediate socialist everyday life and the new moral qualities of human relations that are taking shape in it. These works are also used as a starting point when talking about certain trends in the literary process, about the search for more original means of expression - linguistic, stylistic and compositional, as well as about a new "feeling of life" in literature. Of course, there can be no question of any ideological or principled creative differences between the different generations of writers in the GDR. Indeed, the older generation, which as the bearer of proletarian-revolutionary traditions rendered invaluable services to the creation of socialist German literature, in its new works less often develops the problems of our time in all its contradictions and originality. Usually the limit of its thematic amplitude is 1945. (There are, of course, exceptions such as Hans Marchvitsa, Willi Bredel and especially Anna Zegers. Her novel "The Decision", known in translation to the Bulgarian reader, is an exciting epic about the years 1947-1951, i.e., about that decisive stage of (the most recent history of the GDR, when the first German workers' and peasants' state was created, developed and strengthened.) The middle generation, although very thin since the time of fascism and war, is more active in mastering contemporary themes. It is enough to mention only the works of Franz Fuemann or "Love Story" by Yuri Brezan, a novel that, according to critics, belongs to the most beautiful things created here in recent times. And yet the greatest aspiration for current issues, the greatest inclusion with the new time and identification with the new society of the GDR is felt in the work of young writers. They continued the traditions created from 1952 to 1959 in mastering the socialist reality of today's, higher stage of the development of German literature.

It is known that Strashimirov traveled constantly throughout Bulgaria and got to know all corners of the country. Since his childhood and adolescence, he wandered around Northeastern Bulgaria. Later, as a tireless storyteller and political orator or as a simple observer and researcher of folk life and nature, he did not leave a single corner of his homeland where his foot had not set foot. During these trips, the writer was always among the people, studying their lives, delving deeply into their fate, and drawing material for his artistic works. And in most cases, he documents his diverse impressions in the most direct travel notes. Strashimirov describes with extraordinary vividness and fiction that which his eye has noticed in nature or in public life. He shares his thoughts on the most current political and literary problems in the most direct and sincere way, and often quite boldly. With the civic-patriotic pathos and fervor of his travel notes, Strashimirov appears to be the closest continuation of the work of such major representatives of travel writing in our country as Ivan Vazov and Aleko Konstantinov. Strashimirov's travel notes are very interesting and valuable pages in his very figurative literary work, which, however, due to the fact that they have not been republished, remain almost unknown to the wide circle of readers to this day.

The letters of Geo Milev to Nikolay Liliev, which are printed here, were written in the period between 1915 and 1919. They were taken from Liliev's personal archive. Of the 7 preserved letters, one was published as a preface to Geo Milev's translated poems by H. Heine - "Selected Songs and Romances". This letter is dated June 20, 1919 and is entirely dedicated to Heine. It is also included in volume II of Selected Works of Geo Milev edited by Mila Geo Mileva, S., 1940. Nikolay Liliev and Geo Milev were very close, cordial friends. Although Liliev is ten years older, the two feel like they are from the same generation, completely understand each other in life and literary problems, and live with the same joys and sorrows. They are related by their common cultural interests, love of art, and affection for their hometown of Stara Zagora. Geo Milev was born in the village of Radnevo in Stara Zagora, but he considers Stara Zagora his hometown, because he grew up there both physically and spiritually. During their youth, Stara Zagora held one of the first places in the country as a vibrant cultural center, as the birthplace of other contemporary writers and poets: Georgi Bakalov, Dimitar Podvarzachov, Ivan Kh. Hristov, Ivan Mirchev, Kiril Hristov. ..

The collection "From the History of World Literature" (edited by Prof. Emil Georgiev and Dr. Georgi Dimov, Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia 1962), conceived around 1959, has finally come out of print. Regardless of the delay, this is a good event. And it would be even better if the Literary Institute decided to make a non-periodical edition of similar collections, which would be published once or twice a year. Our literary research activity has good traditions in the field of Western European, ancient and Slavic literatures - it is enough to remember the names of Shishmanov, Krastev, Mich. Arnaudov, Al. Balabanov. And in recent years, work in this area has not subsided, but remains, unfortunately, limited to university publications. Finding readers outside the university environment is, however, vital for literary scholars who do not get space for their special studies in literary journals, which are limited in scope and related to more topical issues. So the question of contact with a wider audience remains unresolved for the time being.

Let a person not get a bad name once! A good name can easily be lost, a bad one cannot be erased. Let them not call a dog, that fuck it - he's done for. A bad wound heals, people say, a bad word remains. Do we realize that it's the same in literature? How much work, what incredible efforts are needed for a writer to prove that he is good, if criticism has already given him a bad name! He must come out of his skin, he must be born again. . . But there is something else. A literary name also depends a lot on external circumstances, on the situation, on the conjuncture, on the surroundings. How many charlatans have taken advantage of the moment to make a career in literature! Of course, when will the reckoning come?

A book that respects the scale of spiritual synthesis! Thirty years of condensation of the author's thought into one Main goal: relief compaction of the contours of the aesthetic sketch bequeathed by Marx and Engels. Double and triple casting and polishing of each fragment with theoretical significance for art and its precise incorporation into the logical structure of Marxism. Historical and conceptual analysis of the basic aesthetic concepts - from the idealistic formulation to the Marxist synthesis of their real content: theoretical substantiation of each aesthetic principle in view of the internal logic of Marxist philosophy. This approach elevates Friedlander above the narrow interpretation of the aesthetic ideas of Marx and Engels as an expression of their personal artistic judgments, devoid of theoretical significance; replacing them with the general principles of historical materialism or using them to confirm the statement that "we have yet to create a Marxist theory of artistic creativity" (M. N. Pokrovsky). Friedlander convincingly proves that the aesthetic theory of Marxism, although not formally completed and systematized, is one of the aspects of the overall revolutionary worldview of K. Marx and F. Engels, inextricably linked to their common principled party position" (4).

On June 24, 1963, an expanded meeting of the scientific council was held at the Institute of Literature, at which a report of the institute's management was discussed in connection with the speech of Dr. Todor Zhivkov to the figures of culture and art. The report, delivered by the director of the institute, Prof. Georgi Tsanev, analyzed the scientific research work of the institute's staff in connection with the main tasks outlined in the speech of the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party. Both the work of the institute as a whole and the individual mistakes and indulgences in the work of the research associates were criticized. The prospects for the development of the institute were also outlined, as well as the most important immediate tasks arising from the spirit of the party's requirements for Marxist-Leninist literary studies. Georgi Dimov, Iliya Konev, Hristo Dudevski, Krastyo Genov, Toncho Zhechev, Vanda Smohovska, Ivan Tsvetkov, Georgi Valchev, Iskra Panova, Stoyko Bozhkov spoke on the report, highlighting the great importance of the speech for the development of our literary studies. The associate of the Department of Culture and Art of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Dr. Alexander Dunchev, who was present at the meeting, also made a statement.