Книжка-5

1965 Book 5 Contents

It is unnecessary to speak of criticism as an important stimulating factor of general human progress. This is once and for all established. Also of literary criticism, which is mainly discussed in these few lines. Criticism comes first of all from the mental activity of man. It is knowledge, understanding, strict reasoning, inclination and skill for detailed analysis, reverence for all logic and regularity, ability for deep penetration and a sense for that which may remain hidden for others. Only then is it or, more precisely, can it be a feeling, excitement, a taste for beauty and harmony, rapture, enthusiasm. Only then are the feelings in it subordinate to reason. The critic, the good critic, if we want to arrange the creative forces in him, first of all knows and understands, and then feels. Or no matter how much he has been moved and admired by a given work, in his work as a critic he wants to be primarily fair. He wants to be a courageous judge, interpreter, discoverer. He wants to be honest, impartial. The good critic, the called one, the true one. He is so fair, conscientious and strict, he knows and understands so much that he never puts himself above the work, the creation that he judges and evaluates. Because first the work is born, and then comes the criticism, which is also a work, a creation, but for itself.

Much has been said about literary criticism, so I will not repeat things that are already known, but will dwell only on one poorly concealed detail in connection with the flight of criticism from contemporary problems and phenomena. It is a well-known fact that there are some writers in our country who, even during their lifetime, have secured for themselves the indisputable right to be considered classics. Elevated by a fortunate coincidence of circumstances to an honorable height, these dubious idols with modest talent are typical continuers of the cult of personality. Their obvious creative failures and weaknesses are not only generously kept quiet, but are even the subject of constant praise from critics. Their works are published and republished in mass circulations on a non-stop conveyor belt, distributed in schools and educational circles, and are crammed into the defenseless minds of readers along with the works of Botev, Vazov, Yovkov, Elin Pelin. If any critic dares to doubt the immortality of these pseudo-classics - woe to him. All kinds of slander, slander and false accusations are immediately poured against him, and the unfortunate man is deprived of even the opportunity to seek satisfaction through the courts, because it is "inconvenient" to publicly darken the halo of the officially recognized Laurel Bearer.

What can I wish for our literary criticism? First. That it should show less old taste: life changes, forms change, everything is new for its time. Many declare their sympathy for innovative moments in searches, but when they encounter facts, with realizations - they either do not understand them, or do not feel them, or simply cannot overcome their conservative literary habits. There is hardly a literary critic who would openly declare himself in favor of the "orientation" of literary form only and primarily to the known pictorial systems of classical models. But in reality many critics do just the opposite: they are guided in their judgments and analyses only and primarily by the artistic principles realized in these models. Some will surely say: "That's how it should be!" Yes, but on one condition: that nothing gets old and nothing gets boring, that the general world culture and the culture of the reader stand on the same level and that the soul of man is constant from now on and forever. Second. A ghost wanders here and there, which must be irrevocably "blown away" sooner or later: unprincipledness. "The author of this book is not one of ours" - to keep quiet if it is good or to find a "calf under the ox" to belittle it, and yet this or that book is by one of our people, look - do not be stingy, please, praise yourself!" Another option: "This book is not written according to the type of my aesthetic understandings and tastes. To hell with it!" Of course, both the first and second options are not typical phenomena for our criticism, but they certainly occur, albeit as private cases. Inadmissible, right, even as private cases!

"Either good or nothing." Perhaps there are authors who prefer the Latin maxim - aut bene, aut nihil - to apply to their works. But for conscious authors, for true people of the arts, for people who do not write and print just to see their name under the title of some printed work, indifference is the greatest insult. In fact, the maxim of the wise Romans applied to the dead. But a book, a work of art, is something living, dynamic, subject to development. One must say either good or bad about it, but something must be said and said in time. I believe that this is the duty of literary criticism. Until recently, authors, especially young ones, after seeing their works printed, waited with fear and excitement to hear or read what the critics thought of them. And the critics were usually silent. It did not seem to consider it its duty to deal with newly published books, to seriously evaluate the undertakings of young authors. The established critics in particular preferred to print long and exhaustive expositions of our old, well-known authors, of Zhinzifov or Dobri Chintulov, of course, of Botev and Vazov, reaching as far as Yavorov and Yovkov. Young authors could not count, as the young Russian writers of the time did, on hearing the voice of Dobrolyubov, Belinsky and Pisarev, on seeing their works subjected to analysis by our established critics, on feeling a sure hand opening the way to literary horizons for them. Fortunately, nowadays, literary criticism and assessments of young, new authors, of poems, stories and novels, have begun to appear more regularly in our literary newspapers and magazines. Of course, not as often and regularly as for any kind of film, but still it is a joyful phenomenon and I am confident that it has a beneficial effect, when critical or negative, on the development of our literary talents.

It is too late, or rather inappropriate - at least for me - to theorize on literary criticism. Criticism is a Greek word, I don't know its etymology, but one dictionary says that it meant "a detailed examination, especially of a literary work, pointing out its faults and merits..." The second meaning of this word, according to the dictionary, was "blasphemy, slander. As for our contemporary literary criticism, I find that it rather adheres to the second meaning of its calling, as formulated in the aforementioned dictionary. It's not that there are no manifestations of sober, honest, and inspired assessment of literary facts in our literary life. Quite the opposite - blasphemy, slander, misunderstanding, sociologization, taste, on the one hand, or unprincipledness, partiality, and unliterary considerations, on the other, are much more numerous. I know that my statement will cause many involuntary and condescending grimaces. But I, too, am tired of being a reader of works that fumble with unclean fingers. in the lifeblood of literature, and which are simultaneously unimaginably far from the realm of art.

The liberation of Bulgaria from centuries of Ottoman oppression opens up wide opportunities for the unleashed national spiritual and creative energy. Having manifested itself with unsuspected force and so brightly during the last decades of the glorious Renaissance era, now with the changes in socio-political life it marks new significant successes in various fields of knowledge. The cultural-historical, literary-artistic, critical-aesthetic traditions of the Renaissance are being revived and rethought, in accordance with the new social reality. It also nourishes the emergence of new phenomena and trends. Although the liberation of 1878 created a new stage in the socio-political and socio-economic development of the Bulgarian people, in the field of spiritual and intellectual activity during the decade immediately after the Russo-Turkish War, we are witnesses of a very broad ideological and aesthetic continuity. Here, the processes seem to continue in the same direction, they show greater vitality, their pace is not so rapid.

The feuilleton work of Hristo Botev is not large in volume - only seven works and covers a relatively short period of time - about two years. But it gave expression to characteristic trends in the development of satirical prose during the Revival and finally established the feuilleton as a full-fledged form in our fiction. Botev's feuilleton appears on the pages of the newspaper "Budilniki". Obviously, these are not the writer's first attempts at journalistic satire, nor his initial searches in the field of the feuilleton genre. Botev's humorous newspaper reflects the capabilities of a mature satirist and the individual handwriting of a master of the feuilleton. When issue 1 of "Budilniki" was published, Hristo Botev had already been working for ten months in the editorial office of the newspaper "Nezavisimost" as Karavelov's assistant. His idea of ​​publishing a satirical newspaper was not detached from the tasks that faced the organ of the revolutionary party. The intensification of socio-political struggles, the activation of anti-revolutionary elements, especially after the capture and death of V. Levski, forced the satirical denunciation from the positions of the revolution to seek a wider field of action. During the period 1869-1876, numerous attempts were made in the country and among the emigration to publish satirical newspapers. And in the organ of the revolutionary party itself, we observe, along with the maintenance of a permanent satirical column, the invasion of the satirical element in almost all journalistic forms, up to the editorial notes of the newspaper. Botev's "Alarm Clock" undoubtedly arose as an assistant to the revolutionary organ, in order to raise the exposing pathos of the column "Do you know who we are?"

There is hardly any other view of art that is more unanimously rejected than that of naturalistic aesthetics. According to the general conviction of specialists, art would commit suicide the moment it decided to put its harsh principles into practice. It would lose its soul - creativity. This conviction goes so far that today it is enough for a work of art to be called "naturalistic" to be considered compromised. Unlike other artistic concepts that have aroused sharp reactions at their appearance, but over time have imposed themselves on public opinion or, conversely, have been rejected only when they degenerated into fruitless norms that stifled the free flight of creative imagination, naturalism, both as an aesthetic and as an artistic practice, has been the subject of the most fierce attacks from its birth to the present day. Perhaps the basis of this constant hatred lies in its latent vitality, its comparatively easier adaptation to the criteria of elementary taste, or simply its not always clear distinction from another method of which it became the historical successor - realism. For it is a fact that when it appeared in France in the last century, naturalism was closely related to realism, that these two concepts were often used as synonyms. Their common struggle against the false classicism of official bourgeois art, against romanticism, against the ideal of universal beauty and the glorification of the past, their common cult of nature, truth and science, their love for the prosaic sides of reality, which until then had been considered unworthy and unacceptable as objects of artistic reproduction, quite naturally turned them not only in the eyes of the general public into manifestations of the same aesthetic concept, which is indifferent whether it is called "realism" or "naturalism". No one thought that there was anything essential that could distinguish the art of Flaubert from that of the Goncourt brothers and Zola, or the painting of Courbet and Millet from that of Manet and Degas. All were equally accused of lack of idealism, of vulgarity, of apotheosis of the ugly, of indecency, of blind copying of nature.

When we celebrate a milestone anniversary, the emphasis falls on what remains as a contribution to our literature. With Georgi Tsanev, there is more than enough on which to place such emphasis. His restless creative youth is connected with the rise of our revolutionary literature. With his very first article (in the newspaper "Mladezh", 1922), he defended the international element of Smirnensky, who, as a devoted "son of the people", sang the "desires of all humanity" for more beauty and happiness. Bourgeois critics denied the poet's right to become a "spiritual leader, prophet and mouthpiece of his people", so Georgi Tsanev, with his characteristic temperamental pen, denounced the impartiality of critics poisoned by the "prejudices" of the old world: "How little these gentlemen are interested in the culture that the proletariat creates. And they are always ready to deny: the scoundrels lie, the sincere do not know, do not recognize, do not understand. Because they look through glasses covered with the dust of the past. In his fiery articles from that harsh and romantic time, the critic directs young poets to the "revolutionary struggles for the realization of communism", to those dreams and reveries illuminated by the immense dawn of October. He demands from them to saturate their verse with the pathos of the "heroic", of the "struggle", but on a social basis. He pleads for their direct participation in the struggle and in the lives of the toiling people, in order to feel and experience closely their moods, feelings, desires, "in order to then "recreate them sincerely, naturally, without posturing." He denies the expressionless pathos, the naked rhetoric, the revolutionary phraseology, the meager feelings and moods, the lack of convincing images. He strives for a profound poetry that warms the souls and is felt by the people as "an indispensable, sincere experience." He dreams of significant artistic generalizations in literature, of mature works that will be imprinted in the mind and ignite the imagination. He assigns to the creator the fate of a restless trumpeter of his time and demands from him all his creative fire, all his inspired soul, in order to become a worthy singer of his class, in order to embody in artistic ideas and images the great proletarian ideal - communism. Enthusiastic about the conquests of the world proletariat, pointing the way to social poetry, Georgi Tsanev turns to the young proletarian poet: "Be sincere, write when you have something to say, when you cannot remain silent - and you will give valuable works, poetic creations that will speak to the hearts of others what they have tasted of yours."

I saw him for the first time when I started working at the Institute of Literature. He was a member of the Scientific Council of the institute. He had come with Konstantin Petkanov to a meeting. I was impressed by the poet's spiritualized face, his sad gaze, which radiated such tenderness and nobility. At that time, the collection of studies on Ivan Vazov was being prepared intensively, on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary of his birth. Nikolay Liliev participated in the editorial board. And a year before that, a collection of memories of Vazov was published, edited only by Liliev. He had to search for and collect the materials, constantly urging the authors to submit them. This task was not at all easy. Later, from the archive of Elin Pelin at the Institute of Literature, a postcard written in humorous verses came across, in which Liliev asks the great writer to send him his memories of Vazov. This witty parody of Vaz's poem "Kings Mark" shows how much the collection of memories tormented him. Since the letter has been lost, I will quote it approximately, from memory:

"Procrustean bed" - I can't find another more apt image to characterize the monstrous work of police censorship during the time of fascism in our country. Indeed, this censorship did not cut off arms and legs, did not physically mutilate, as the legendary Procrustes did (other organs of the Police Directorate were engaged in this), but it castrated and mutilated ideas and concepts, and this procedure was much more cruel, it inflicted much greater damage. Even in the Christian Gospel it is said: "And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the spirit, for more terrible are those who kill both body and soul at the same time." I remember once in a private conversation one of the former heads of censorship, E. K. (now deceased), exclaimed with cynical frankness:

Literary history is still indebted to a very important question: the interest of other nations in our people. I say that it is still indebted because this question has not been a thing of the past, but has been considered partially or, most often, its subject has been studies of individual mutual influences. Thus, many facts have been clarified that have shown the interest of people from another nation in ours. Generalizing, systematizing and exhaustive studies and publications of this kind, although few in number, are already appearing, expanding the horizons of literary history and even more accurately and truthfully defining the place and role of the Bulgarian people in literary Europe. Of particular value for us are the interests that the Slavic peoples have shown and are showing in our people. Books have already appeared about our relations with some of them, there may already be works in manuscript about others, and still others have not been well studied. These third ones include our ties with the Slovenian people, which have been evident for several centuries - sometimes more intensely, sometimes less. They have always expressed a marked interest of the progressive Slovenian cultural community in the fate and life of our people, and have shown the desire for close ties and a thorough acquaintance with the Bulgarians. This short and chronological article could not cover everything that is known about this interest. And it has no other purpose than to inform about its development, to give a very concise picture of the attitude that matured in Slovenia towards us. The studies that we are doing now and which we believe will bring new things, will be the subject of a more extensive work on this issue.

Early in the morning of December 6, 1929, a new newspaper appeared among the newspapers and magazines on newsstands in Sofia and other cities of the country: "RLF" (Workers' Literary Front). The original title with large painted letters and the peculiar layout suddenly attracted the attention of buyers. From the introductory article "On a Clear Class Position," lovers of fiction understood without hesitation what this newspaper was. But here is the very introductory article, which best speaks of the editorial program: "Today. A clear delineation of two camps. No gap! The civil war very clearly delineates the fronts: on the one hand, the bourgeois intelligentsia, which during the war was shamefully silent or sang hymns of murderous chauvinism, today stands on its clear class position. It spent the civil war, taking part in the campaign against the workers and peasants in the Spitz commandos, and then continues "its heroic work: it sings the exploits of the murderers, denies the proletarian intelligentsia and follows the cultural policy of the current government. On the other hand stands the proletariat itself with its inexhaustible wealth of culture and art, with its intelligentsia, its proletarian writers...", etc. From this introductory article the reader sees that the newspaper "RLF" is a militant, combative literary organ of the party, which appeared in the name of a new culture, a new art, a new literature - the proletarian one. This is particularly strongly emphasized by the other materials in the first issue. Under the introductory article is an announcement about the arrest and imprisonment under the fascist law for the protection of the state of a large number of editors of labor newspapers, whose names make up a whole list. The remaining two columns print the poem "On Post" by Nikola Doronski (pseudonym of Nikola Lankov). This poem excites with the freshness of feeling and especially with the innovative vision of its author:

I am not aware of any other publication that has been made that was conceived and carried out by the small team of Stoyko Bozhkov, Stoyan Stoimenov and Hristo Dudevski. To search for numerous publications and documents relating to the penetration, spread and influence of Soviet literature in Bulgaria from the October Revolution to September 9, 1944, to organize the writing of memoirs by writers, cultural figures, book publishers, distributors and ordinary readers of Soviet books - this is a truly difficult task, but it turned out to be within the power of the three compilers and editors. First of all, it should be emphasized that they had set themselves a real and useful task. Real - because all three have the work of Soviet literature and Bulgarian-Soviet literary ties close to their hearts and have solid direct practical and research experience in this area. And mainly - because our history itself really offers a lot of material. And yet, it was inevitable that the implementation of the task would involve attention and effort for nearly 14 years - such a large volume of research, collection and editorial work had to be carried out. The two-volume collection "Soviet Literature in Bulgaria - 1918-1944" covers the penetration, distribution and influence not only of artistic and literary creation, but of Soviet literature in general - ideological (historical, philosophical, economic, aesthetic, pedagogical), natural science, etc. In addition, its scope partially includes the distribution and influence in Bulgaria of works of Soviet cinematography, music, theater, fine arts.

I trust these critics, who bring with them the atmosphere of art, its wonderful hypnosis. In recent years, they have become more and more numerous. There is no smell of office mold or annoying lecturer's edification from them. They displace from the consciousness of my generation the idea of ​​criticism as a prototype of Chekhov's man in a case, which had become entrenched in our country from the boring syllogisms of high school textbooks and christami from a dozen years ago... They do not talk to readers from a podium. Academic dignity is alien to them. With their infectious enthusiasm, with their strange, unceasing fervor, they resemble the artists from poor attic studios, where, amidst the scattered motley of paints, canvases, and cheap furniture, endless passionate arguments about art take place, wine is drunk and new poems are recited, dancing is madly done, and rebellious avant-garde manifestos are read under the attic vaults...

Nikola Traykov was one of our conscientious, hardworking and experienced translators from Greek and Modern Greek, a commentator and editor of archival materials from the figures of the Bulgarian Revival, although he sometimes got carried away and overloaded his notes on the documents with unnecessary details. In the second half of 1964, the publishing house of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences released his new, very valuable work on the Bulgarian Revivalists - "The Miladinovi Brothers, Correspondence, researched, commented on and edited by N. Traykov". The vast majority of these letters, scattered throughout various archives, were researched, translated and printed long ago in various periodicals and books, and used by all researchers of the Miladinovi brothers. Only 7 letters from D. Miladinov to Petar Sevastiyanov, 1 to Pavel Sevastiyanov and 1 from Konstantin Miladinov to Petar Sevastiyanov, although known for a long time, have been translated and printed for the first time in the present edition. That is why Veselin Traykov, who prepared the book for printing, and the responsible editors Acad. Iv. Snegarov and Prof. T. Vlahov, had to put in the title cover instead of the word and searched - collected. Now in the present new more complete edition of the letters, reviewed, clarified and updated in the Bulgarian translation, collected in one volume, they become more suitable for scientific research and will undoubtedly greatly facilitate future biographers of the Miladinov brothers. The letters from the rich, vast and very valuable archive of the Robevi brothers, also known and used, are now given clarified and in full translation. Attached to them are letters from other individuals in the same archive that relate to the tragic life of the two brothers in prison.

On October 7, this year, the Scientific Council at the Institute of Literature discussed the work of Acad. Mihail Arnaudov "From the History of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The Bulgarian Literary Society in Braila (1869-1876)". In their reviews, Assoc. Prof. Georgi Dimov and Nikolay Todorov give an affirmative assessment of the work, indicating in detail its merits and at the same time making some recommendations for its improvement. In his review, Georgi Dimov emphasizes the task that the author of the work set himself - to study the long-term process of maturing the idea of ​​organizing a scientific center, as a result of which the Literary Society in Braila was created. The work traces the activity of this cultural center for a certain period - until 1876, when it practically ceased to exist, and its activity was resumed after the Liberation under different socio-historical and cultural conditions. On a very broad scale and using rich factual material, Acad. M. Arnaudov focuses on the efforts of the Bulgarians for an independent educational and scientific-cultural life since the beginning of the 19th century, and in this way the exposition in many places turns into a history of the development of spiritual life in general during the Revival. The author's broad erudition has allowed him to build his study on a comparative-historical basis - he acquaints the reader with similar phenomena in neighboring and more distant countries, which could serve as an example for our Revival figures. An expert on that era, the author freely handles historical sources, presents materials of various nature, drawn from the periodical press, from correspondence, from general and literary works or from previous research. Thus, the reader has the opportunity to see how the idea of ​​organizing special societies or centers with the task of working for the advancement of Bulgarian enlightenment, education, culture, etc. is taken up by one or another figure, what content is put into it, in what specific form they want to carry out their patriotic undertakings. The author examines cultural and educational phenomena against the background of social reality. The difficulties that accompany the realization of this work are thoroughly presented. True thoughts are also expressed about the struggle between the two trends in emigration.