Книжка-1

1965 Book 1 Contents

At the end of October 1964, a scientific session was held at the Department of Linguistics, Literary Studies and Art Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences on the topic "Tradition and Innovation", dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the people's liberation. The session was opened with a short speech by Pantelei Zarev, who spoke about its significance. We are including the reports of Alexander Obretenov and Georgi Tsanev and some of the speeches made by collaborators of the Literary Institute.

Tradition and innovation. Two terms that hardly ever leave the pages of literary periodicals in socialist countries today. So much is explained about their relationship, so many disputes are waged around them - that many are probably tired of it already. "Amen to this banal topic" - you will hear some people say here and there. But literary life constantly - and sometimes too insistently - poses the banal topic.

Tradition and innovation is a problem that has been discussed the most in the history of literature. This problem is infinitely broad and connected with the very essence of literature. When talking about it, one must take into account the questions of the national and cosmopolitan character of a literature, the traditions in this literature, the mutual influences between individual writers and individual literatures, schools and creative individualities, literary fashions and snobbery, the contemporary sensibility and worldview of the writer, the changes in the consciousness of the contemporary in view of social changes, the nationality and party affiliation, the role of social ideals, etc. In our country, this question is often understood narrowly and is limited mainly within the form of the means of expression.

In the movement of Bulgarian literature there are a number of inconsistencies, a number of paradoxes, which are caused by the lateness and backwardness of our life due to the five-century yoke. In a short time, without the necessary experience and preparation, we had to catch up with what was missed, to catch up with the new in thought and in contemporary ideas, to participate in the world cultural process with our national contribution. In this haste, in the impatience to keep up with the new, to not remain provincials, a number of our writers of the past thoughtlessly put on foreign costumes, made the Bulgarians get out of their skin, to rave uncharacteristically, to repeat ready-made thoughts. In our country, some currents of European thought have taken too caricatured forms, have borne the unripe fruits of superficial imitation. These questions have found a proper formulation in G. Tsanev's report, which contains Some new clarifications about individual movements and authors in the development of our literature.

I want to start with the not-so-stunning paradox that the most beautiful tradition is innovation. It is in the very essence of Marxism as a doctrine, it is the most permanent and most rejuvenating tradition of our society and of our art. The history of humanity and of human thought, the history of art have always been the history of innovators and never the history of epigones, of frozen traditionalists. The first are movement, the urge towards the unknown future, the second are stagnation, attachment to the proven and comfortably furnished present. The first are flights, the second - crawling. The first beat their chests and make revolutions - in science, art, society and open the way for all of humanity or for their people; the second keep their peace, their goods and welcome or carry out the return. They are the knights of inertia. In their fear of the new, they are ready to banish any innovation and theoretically justify its uselessness. That is why we say that communists are the greatest innovators, the most convinced opponents of stagnation, routine, mold, rust. Because let us not forget that in addition to pseudo-innovation, which discredits true innovation, there is also pseudo-tradition, which is already a buried tradition. To break recklessly with the established tradition and to adhere blindly to it - is the same thing. The second is no less harmful than the first. To write henriads and petriads in the 18th century is indeed pseudo-tradition, but to write an epic about Krali Marko in the middle of the 20th century is simply a curiosity. No one is able to restore that artistic consciousness that created the folk epic and the needs that made it necessary.

The discussion of the problem of tradition and innovation is one of the most meaningful manifestations of our institute, related to the very foundations of aesthetics and art. Both Alexander Obretenov and Georgi Tsanev put this problem on a Marxist-Leninist basis. I liked Obretenov's thought that not everything that differs from the old is innovation. Also the emphasis on communist ideology as the basis of innovation.

There are hardly any brighter and more convincing arguments for revealing the essence of the issues under consideration about tradition and innovation than the problem of ideology in literature and art. Unfortunately, when talking about tradition and innovation, the emphasis is usually placed on the secondary, on the derivative, on issues of artistic form, even more limitedly - on the means of expression, and much less is revealed about the essence, change and development of the ideological content in art, which to a large extent determines the artistic form, means of expression, techniques, etc.

All Marxist critics and writers are for both tradition and innovation in their dialectical unity, without which literary development is unthinkable. Differences and disputes arise in the interpretations of this unity and especially in the assessment of the traditional and the innovative in authors and works. This is natural, because here theoretical and literary culture, depth of thought, artistic flair, etc. have their say.

The question of tradition and innovation is one of the key problems of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics. It permeates all aspects of our art from the past and the present, and its correct scientific resolution supports its future achievements. The reports presented examined the issues of tradition and innovation in depth and in many ways, both theoretically and historically. The speeches developed many aspects of the problem. However, we cannot help but point out that the way in which the discussion was organized and carried out could not sufficiently create the necessary prerequisites for the development of a creative exchange of opinions. The reports were presented only on the eve of the discussion, and there was no opportunity to prepare speeches on the specific questions raised in them. Nevertheless, with their speeches, the comrades touched upon a significant number of new aspects of the problem and of literature, especially contemporary literature, thereby contributing to the further development of the ideas addressed in the reports.

The literature of every nation is connected in a unique way with reality, with its ideals. At different times, depending on the nature of social ideas and the state of art, this connection is realized in a specific way in the individual literary genres, with each individual creator. However, the bold social thought always seeks means to express itself aesthetically, to assert itself through artistic images. Bulgarian literature during the Revival is to a significant extent utilitarian. It was supposed to "react" to all current problems in a more specific form, to seek the most direct path to the reader. Its very first manifestations, regardless of its aesthetic inferiority, were ideologically purposeful - to find the positive hero of modernity and recreate him as an artistic reality, as a type. Of course, this was a long and difficult process, which was influenced by various factors - the definiteness of public ideas, the degree of artistic knowledge of the writer and reader, the literary tradition, the talent and worldview of the individual person, etc. That is why the literary process does not proceed evenly - there are periods of stagnation and flourishing, of "orientation" and innovation. All this cannot be ignored when the question of the positive hero of Renaissance literature in general and fiction in particular is raised. In lyric poetry, for example, he appears and is established significantly earlier than in the short story and the novella. But between the lyrical and the fictional positive hero there is a certain dependence, which is determined by the regularities in the development of the New Bulgarian literature. Common moments in the treatment of the positive hero are also observed in the translated and original works of art. In many of the translations made before the Crimean War, he is religious and humble, associated with the passing patriarchal life. His portrait characterization is schematic, the spiritual world - one-sided. But he also undergoes development, consistent with the worldview and artistic practice of translators and "Bulgarizers".

When, about six decades ago, several literary excerpts appeared in a school periodical under the pseudonym Pavlusha, no one suspected that these were the first steps of an exceptionally gifted creative individuality, who would later manifest himself with an astonishing breadth of interests in various fields of human knowledge, with boundless dedication to great social and cultural ideals. And here today, the former Pavlusha crosses the threshold of the last quarter of a century with graying but youthfully lush hair, with a furrowed but serene and spiritualized face, with eyes shining with flame, hunched over by the burden of that enormous scientific and cultural heritage that foretells us, a heritage accumulated over decades, filling his entire existence with meaning and content. What a harmonious combination between the public figure and the thinker, between the man and the scientist! What an intense spiritual life, an epic life, filled with great trials and ceaseless quests, with penetrating reflections and creative daring! Today, the rich and versatile work of Todor Pavlov stands out brightly against the background of world Marxist thought, increasingly permanently holding and will hold the attention of contemporary and future generations, of all those burned by the flame to become related to the laws of social and cultural development, to penetrate the primordial essence of social and natural phenomena.

For nearly four decades, the Bulgarian reader has been communicating with the artistic images and poetic wisdom of the writer Orlin Vassilev. And all the time he has met the restless and searching citizen, the thinking and exploratory poet of human justice - with a sharp reaction and lively impulsiveness - with an excited and captivating artist, who has tried almost all literary genres... He will try in the short story to listen very closely to the pulse of the "simple hearts" and to hear better the imperative and powerful "voice of the people", he will write stories and novels about the haidush past and the even more heroic present life-being of the people; will denounce the cruel "ring of fire" of fascism and will affirm the armed "resistance" and the beauty of the "white path" of the people's struggle, along which the working man, in a cruel class battle, at the cost of many victims, reached the happy shore of freedom, will remain captive for a long time to the heights of the native dramaturgy, in order to fertilize it with his "anxiety", "love" and "happiness". ..

In December of this year, our cultural community celebrates the 60th anniversary of one of the most widely read Bulgarian writers in our country and abroad - Orlin Vasilev. The vivid examples of civic and literary valor in "The White Path", "The Ring of Fire 1923", "The Dead Guilty", "The Wild Forest", "The Outlaw's Mother Doesn't Feed", in the dramas "Anxiety", "Love" and "Happiness" and in his other books, as well as in the hundreds of publications in the periodical press, once again presented before us the multifaceted creative figure of Orlin Vasilev. For thirty-seven years, he communicated with readers, conveyed to them his restless thoughts and observations, and excited them with his experiences, which reflected a great wealth of themes, images and conflicts. The young Orlin Vasilev entered the literary field boldly and confidently. The first two publications appeared in Strashimir's newspaper "Vedrina". In issue 37 of June 29, 1927, the articles "On Prostitution" signed Orlin Vassilev and "Letter from a Woman", signed under another pseudonym Plama Petrova, were printed. Shortly thereafter, in issue 45, "Poklon" was published - a small prose excerpt, an expression of love for the Soviet country. His first printed stories "Service" and "In Sofia" appeared in the collection "Days and Nights", along with several stories and poems by Emil Koralov, Todor Harmandzhiev, Lachezar Stanchev and Ivan Velev. This was the literary environment in which the young writer initially found himself. In the following year, 1929, his name was already frequently found on the pages of the newspapers "Duma", "Globus" and "Vestnik na zhenata". Almost every issue of "Duma" published his works - stories, essays and articles, signed with various pseudonyms - Edin Ognjar, Ivan Kalev, Tesnyak, Rog, Yan or without a signature. This was also the year of his first book - the novel "The White Path" was published. It was followed by the collection of stories "Simple Hearts" (1930). The two books were met with extraordinary interest and caused a sharp controversy in the party literary press, which lasted for more than a year. At the same time, the young writer increased the circle of newspapers and magazines in which he collaborated. These were "Chervena Tribune", "Misl i Volya", "Bulgarska Misl", "Savremennik", "Sudba", "Rodina", "Krgosvet", "Detska radost", "Svetulka" and others. In 1929, in volume 2 of the magazine "Svetulka" the first short story for children "The Deceived Winter" was published, and in volume 6 and 7 the fairy tale "The Horse Camberata".

Recently, a handwritten collection from the 1830s was discovered in Veliko Tarnovo and handed over to the library of the Higher Pedagogical Institute "Brothers Cyril and Methodius" in the city. Its content - over 20 different in nature and size compositions, placed on 406 pages, will be announced separately. Among the other works in the collection, two poems are also recorded, which, due to their New Bulgarian language and their ideological and artistic qualities, deserve special attention. For the most part, the collection is the work of Mihail Popovich, a writer from Sevlievo, who is probably also the author of the poems. The first of them, "Oh, my son," was recorded in 1835. This is confirmed by the author's note, left on one of the following sheets. The second poem, "Unfortunate Bulgaria," was probably written later. It is located at the end of the collection and due to the lack of close inscriptions around it, it is difficult to establish the year of its creation. The name of the writer Mihail Popovich is unknown to our literary history, because so far none of his literary works have become public knowledge. The collection is kept as a valuable family relic by the descendants of the writer and only at the beginning of 1964 did professors from the Higher Pedagogical Institute in Veliko Tarnovo follow its trail and discover it. Before the common binding, it consisted of several books written at different times. The works included in the books that make up the collection and a number of other issues related to the manuscript will be discussed in detail elsewhere. However, here we cannot fail to highlight the fact that we are faced with a well-established writer from the first half of the 19th century, who was systematically engaged in literary work. The entire collection has a distinctly New Bulgarian appearance. Along with works of a church-religious nature, it also includes works with clearly expressed patriotic-enlightenment tendencies.

Everyone knows the specific occasion that gave rise to Iliya R. Blaskov's idea to write his story "Lost Stanka". During a dark night during "Great Lent" in 1863, a strange man came to Father Konstantin, with whom Blaskov lived in one of the school buildings in Shumen, and stayed with him longer than usual. Intrigued by the unusual night visit, the next day Blaskov inquired of the clergyman what kind of man this confessor was and what he had told him so much. "Such a man and such a confession," replied Father Konstantin, "I have met him for the first time in my life. I can tell you who this man is, but his confession - I cannot, it is forbidden to me by church laws." The answer intrigued Blaskova even more and he set out to look for the night guest. He barely found him, because this man - his name was Zhelyu - was an outlaw, hid and rarely appeared in public. When they met, Zhelyu confided in Blaskova and told her about his turbulent and adventurous life. Already the author of two books with religious content, Blaskov had long wanted to write a third, but with a plot from the life of the Bulgarians. He had as models Rakovski's books "Predvestnik Gorskago patnika" (1856) and "Forest Traveler" (1857) and, above all, Vasil Drumev's "Unhappy Family" published in 1860. Inspired and fascinated by these books himself, Blaskov saw the interest with which they were read by young and old, and therefore he wanted his new book to be like them. But he did not have a suitable plot. And so it was until he met Zhelyu. From the numerous stories he told him, Blaskov chose the story of the girl Stanka stolen by the Tatars and sat down to describe it (Ilya R. Blaskov "Memories from my student, teacher and writer life", S., 1907, p. 167). After its publication in 1865 in Bolgrad, Blaskov's story gained immense success. It became one of the most sought-after and read books before the Liberation. In 1870, "Lost Stanka" was dramatized by Bogdan Kovachev and, as Vazov testifies, was played with great success. The pages from "Unlovable-Unlovable" are unforgettable, where it tells of the delight and patriotic enthusiasm that "Lost Stanka" evoked among the crowds when it was presented in Wallachia. Zhelyu and Nikola, heroes of the story, became the most popular names, synonymous with fearlessness and selflessness.

Petar Pondev is the author of nine literary-historical and critical books, the most significant of which were created in the last ten years. This is not only a fruitful period for him, but also a truly new stage in his creative development. Over the last decade, Podev has further developed his concepts on the main issues of literary development, literary trends and works. The initial stage of its formation is painful and contradictory, accompanied by a long and persistent search for the right path. The struggle that the critic leads with himself to overcome the stifling dogmas, to clarify his research thought, to achieve logic and harmony in his presentation was crowned with success. The progress in Pondev's creative development in the second half of his literary-critical activity is obvious and undeniable. The book "Literature and People" contains selected works by the author and, of course, the most significant that he has created and which presents him as a serious literary worker - a fighter against dogmatic and stereotyped thinking in Bulgarian literary science. Everything in this book speaks of a broader view of the problems studied and of a conscious aspiration to analyze Literature not only as one of the forms of public consciousness, but also as a specific, complex area of ​​art. The important thing here is to establish to what extent the author of "Literature and People" succeeded in realizing this undoubted aspiration of his, to what extent he succeeded in revealing literary processes precisely as literary, to enter into their complex essence, to understand and feel the world of the artists he writes about.

The idea that there is no true literary historian who is not also a critic does not originate from yesterday, and yet it is very often neglected, left in the shadows. This attitude is especially to the taste of those who like to return to the "eternal dispute - is literary criticism a science or an art, or does it happily unite these two spiritual human activities. In fact, literary history does not know and does not recognize the separation of the theorist from the historian - we are talking about the historian-creator and the critic-creator - each of them in different aspects does the same thing: aesthetically evaluates the works of verbal art; one deals mainly with works from the present, the other is oriented towards the past. Another question is to what extent and how each achieves this. A wonderful, extremely useful example in this regard is the literary heritage of Professor Dr. Ivan D. Shishmanov. Getting acquainted with this heritage, our contemporary enters an ideological world where true service to science is combined in an unusual way with active social activity - the latter is the basis for the proper conduct of the former. Ivan Shishmanov is equally original and significant as a researcher of the Revival, as a folklorist, and as a historian of Western European literatures, and as a critic. Perhaps this is facilitated by the fact that his accumulation of diverse and rich knowledge is based on an original, innate talent as a writer. That is why the publication of a literary-critical essay about this great scholar of ours in "Bulgarian Writer" should be noted as very timely and useful.

On January 4, this year, an expanded meeting of the Scientific Council of the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences was held, at which its work in 1964 was reported. A report on the scientific research activities of the associates was presented by the director of the institute, St. Bozhkov.