Книжка-2

1967 Book 2 Contents

The large color panel of the panoramic painting usually unfolds as a chronicle of a bygone era. As the greater and lesser artists appear before our eyes, they present to some extent the overall artistic development. However, conclusions are needed that illuminate the vast perspective of the past phenomena in more relief. The main differences, the original and distinctive features stand out best through model 1 of the literary process. On the one hand, it distances the details, avoids excessive complexity, so as not to repeat the process, on the other, by not breaking away from the broad plans, it captures what distinguishes our artistic creation from the creation of other peoples, which is our contribution to world literature. Let me say in advance that it is extremely difficult to establish the unique in a national poetics depending on the changes in the national psyche. It is easy to point out that the world in our country became different with the advent of printing or later - of bicycles and motor vehicles. It is more difficult to grasp the spirit of the times, the intimate and the special in literature that has lacked stability, since each new time has broken something of what was bequeathed. But let us also unfold this page and delve into issues touched upon here and there sporadically, without claiming to be exhaustive.

One of the most characteristic features of the new Bulgarian literature is that it is born and develops in organic unity with the national socio-historical and cultural-moral processes. Its first representatives lived and created with a clear awareness of its great role in the development of national self-knowledge, they sought various forms and means to direct creative thought on the right path. The era from Paisius to Botev, an era in which the foundations of our national literature were laid, is incomparably grand in civic pathos and creative tension, in intellectual-spiritual insights and artistic conquests. The struggle for political and cultural independence - understood in all its comprehensiveness, depth and meaning, is accompanied by an equally stubborn struggle for sound national aesthetic and artistic principles. With artistic speech, with cultural-publicistic and literary-critical articles, with writings of the most diverse genre and thematic aspects, people, possessed by creative impulses, strive to create a nationally distinctive literature, in tune with the needs of life, passionately fight against the primitive and retrograde in social and aesthetic understandings. A rare dedication and foresight characterize the work of these pioneers of national literary thought. The artistic and critical-theoretical traditions established by them have served as a support and inspiration for later works.

It is incomprehensible to us how Fletcher, who according to current criticism cannot even compete with lesser-known playwrights of the time such as Middleton, Webster, or Ford, could throughout the 17th century be counted alongside Shakespeare and Johnson in the "triumvirate of the spirit" and even completely overshadow the name of Shakespeare for at least a generation. This can hardly be explained solely by the "bad taste" of a more elegant and frivolous public, from which - due to the hostility of the Puritan bourgeoisie to the arts and the transition to smaller, closed theatres with correspondingly higher prices - the broad masses, one of the mainstays of Shakespeare's theatre, were gradually excluded. Obviously, Fletcher, with his vision and his themes, responded better to the needs of the time than Shakespeare, with his Renaissance mentality. For Fletcher, although a mediocre poet, is an original and independent mind, and although he outwardly follows the stage technique of Renaissance drama, he is the first who categorically found the way to a new inner form of drama - the Baroque drama. And even those of his own generation who imitated him most could not discover this inner form, but only repeated its external effects. This is the main reason for the great respect paid to him during the time of the nascent Baroque; but it is at the same time and the reason for the extreme disfavor into which he now falls. Baroque drama in England, even in the hands of its greatest representative, John Dryden (1631-1700), is not particularly appreciated by a people nourished on the spirit of Shakespeare's Renaissance theatre, and Fletcher is now regarded not as a pioneer seeking new paths appropriate to his time, but as a renegade from the sound traditions of the Renaissance. Not that any substantial reassessment of Fletcher's work can be expected or even desired. Fletcher is not a great dramatist, but he is an interesting figure: and if his dramas are far inferior to those of Shakespeare, the reason lies rather in the skill of the two dramatists than in the dramatic form itself. The important thing is to understand that this is after all a different kind of drama.

"I am sad that I am leaving without having given the people what they should have"... - these are the last words of the writer Georgi Raichev, spoken in the hospital room a few hours before his death. There is nothing more painful and depressing for a creator than the consciousness that he has not fulfilled his task, that he has not given his people all his strength, all his talent, all his heart... Georgi Raichev dies with such a tragic consciousness of an unfulfilled duty, tormented by the thought that he has wasted something of himself, something of his talent. Is there any reason for the writer to make such a confession in the last moments of his life? Did he really not create "what he should have" and what he could have created? The author of "Tiny World", "Lina" and "Sin" occupies a prominent place in our fiction. He is not one of our greatest writers, but he is one of the most original and diverse. Nature has generously endowed him with a true, subtle sense of what is significant in life, and with a bright, original gift for embodying the manifold manifestations of the human spirit, and with a true, artistic sense of color and language... But the overall creative development of Georgi Raichev convinces us that he has not fully realized all his talents. Only in his most beautiful works, and they are not very numerous, does he remain true to himself. It is not uncommon for him to betray his talent, take foreign, steep and impassable paths that tire him with their sharp turns, their dangerous winding paths and their insurmountable obstacles, unnecessarily enslave himself to fashion, throw himself headlong and recklessly into contradictory passions that suck out much of his vital creative forces. It seems that he did not want to remain within the limits of his capabilities, he strove to break them and go beyond their limits and beyond the limits of Bulgarian literature. This ambition of his to surpass in the field of fiction not only his predecessors and contemporaries, but also himself, is perhaps his most positive trait. In this respect, he is very similar to another of our writers, who is his first teacher and mentor in the literary field - Anton Strashimirov, whose work also arouses a disturbing feeling of something unfulfilled. But Strashimirov is by nature spontaneous and contradictory, extremely active and deeply social. His rebellious spirit draws him not only into contradictory literary whirlwinds, but also into all the social hurricanes of the era. His insatiable curiosity pushes him towards the most diverse activities.

1967 is a special year in the life of Soviet society, of Soviet literature. For us, the fiftieth anniversary of the October Socialist Revolution is both a solemn holiday, and a business review of our work, and a determination of its further prospects. Broad opportunities have opened up before researchers of literature for solving all the problems of artistic creativity in the historical projection of the half-century development of the new art, from the tested positions of Marxist-Leninist scientific thought. This fully applies to the journal "Questions of Literature", which in April enters the eleventh anniversary of its existence. Each issue of our journal in 1967 will open a large section "Before the 50th anniversary of October". But all other materials are also connected in one way or another with the fifty-year experience of social and cultural construction, of the struggle for socialist realism.

"Art and Criticism" is one of the few progressive publications that continued to be published even during the most difficult years of fascist terror in our country - during the Second World War, when Bulgaria was turned into a bridgehead for the Hitlerites, when the fighting anti-fascist forces defended the honor and freedom of the Bulgarian people with arms in hand. The editor of the magazine is Georgi Tsanev, a critic who brilliantly began his literary activity in the publications of the party and the Komsomol in the 1920s with the affirmation and passionate defense of the poetry of Smirnensky and of young Soviet literature. Later he fell into the nets of "Zlatorog" and for a whole decade the evil Torogshtina stifled his voice, killed his talent. The critic himself felt that this atmosphere was ruining him as a person and a creator and in the mid-1930s he sought to break with the magazine "Zlatorog". The first step was taken with the publication of "LIK". But Tsanev dreams of a magazine that would stand on anti-fascist positions, a magazine that, on the basis of high artistic achievements (a question that "Zlatorog" has always speculated on), would unite progressive and democratic writers. "Since the end of 1935," writes Tsanev, "I had planned to organize the publication of a literary magazine, the contributors of which would be anti-fascist writers. After long efforts and repeated attempts to obtain permission, this idea was able to be realized: in early 1938, "Art and Criticism" began to be published under my editorship and with the close participation of Hristo Radevski, Georgi Karaslavov, Iliya Beshkov, Lyubomir Pipkov, Orlin Vassilev, Georgi Raichev, Blenika, the young Pavel Vezhinov, Valery Petrov, Bogomil Raynov and other progressive writers."1

Having emerged from the dark Middle Ages in the second half of the 18th century, the Bulgarian people entered modern European socio-political life, found ways to the new economic activity of Southeastern, Eastern and Central Europe, and took part in the arena of the struggle for freedom, which was waged by the peoples enslaved by feudalism during the era. And significant figures of European socio-political and cultural life met its representatives on their way. The meetings of European writers with Bulgarians left interesting, and often significant, traces in modern literature. We can start these meetings with one great name - Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin. The meeting of the great Russian poet with bright and colorful images of Bulgarians left a certain mark on his creative path, which is why it cannot but arouse the interest of the literary historian. Pushkin met Bulgarians during his exile in Chisinau, Bessarabia. As is known, the Chisinau period of Pushkin's life and work covers the time from the autumn of 1820 to the summer of 1823. Pushkin arrived in Chisinau to take up a clerical position in the office of General I. N. Inzov. The Chisinau period is very important in the development of the poet. He matures, his ideological peace is enriched, his poetic talent flourishes. Exile does not break his freedom-loving nature. His hatred of tyrannical power is tempered.

A more detailed acquaintance with the preserved Old Slavonic manuscripts allows for a more complete disclosure of the repertoire of the old Slavic literatures, their genre richness, and connections with other literatures (Byzantine and Western European). Too often it presents the researcher with new and interesting details concerning the activities of individual writers. One such case is discussed in the present note, related to the literary activities of the prominent Old Bulgarian writer John the Exarch, a participant in the construction of the "Golden Age" of Bulgarian literature during the time of Tsar Simeon. The work "Heaven" - a work by the Byzantine writer John of Damascus (8th century) is closely associated with the name of John the Exarch, because it was first through his translation that it penetrated the old Slavic literatures (Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian), received wide distribution and had a profound impact on the religious and philosophical thinking of the medieval reader. It became generally accessible to the scientific world thanks to the efforts of O. M. Bodyansky, who prepared it for publication, and the publication itself was published under the editorship of Andrei Popov in 1878 under the title "Theology of Saint John of Damascus in the translation of John the Exarch of Bulgaria. According to the haratheon list of the Moscow Synodal Library". Our writer approached his task quite soberly - taking into account the specific reality of Bulgarian society and the cultural preparation of his reader, he did not translate "Heavens" in its entirety, consisting of 100 chapters, but translated only 48 chapters, the most necessary and suitable for the reader.

Bogomil Raynov's story "Roads to Nowhere" belongs to the series of works by our most restless and searching fiction writers, in which, based on a liberated aesthetic ideal and an idea of ​​today's man enriched by the experience of the last decade, our complex and dramatic modernity is depicted. It captivates us with the sincere civic anxiety and anti-dogmatic pathos with which the author poses the problem of the harmony between the individual and the environment, which was disrupted during the cult of personality, of the freedom of thought and scientific research, of the self-awareness and creative realization of modern man. A writer with a clearly expressed active attitude towards reality, with a sharp analytical mind and a subtle sense for the current social conflicts and ideological and moral issues of our heroic and exciting modernity, Bogomil Raynov could not remain on the sidelines of the conversation that has begun in our literature in recent years on the most vital issues of modern life. "Modernity - this is us we - shares B. Raynov. Everyone defines their attitude towards it in their own way. The writer does it with his books. The problem of modernity - or rather a piece of it, is also reflected in my latest book "Roads to Nowhere. Why did I write it? This was necessary for me, I felt obliged to take my position on some phenomena of modernity, phenomena with distant roots in the past and with a belated, short-lived flowering in our time: careerism, slander, servility. Literature is always a battle for something better, against something that challenges it". The position that Bogomil Raynov takes in this story is a position of honesty, of 1 Bogomil Raynov, Roads to Nowhere, story, 1966 2 See Trud newspaper, issue 16, 1966 136 moral vigilance and the free citizen Danish conscience. The story "Roads to Nowhere" is one of those works of fiction whose artistic significance is determined primarily by the truthful recreation of the tense spiritual atmosphere of our decade, of the characteristic of our time, above all ideological and moral purposefulness of the intellectual pursuits of modern man. It is one of those works that many trust because they discover episodes from their own spiritual biography in them. It attracts us because with some of its moments it gives us a key to penetrating the mystery of the tragic end of personalities who, with their deeds and moral charm, have become our spiritual idols.

The proposed work, which has 312 pages in total, represents an important contribution to the general Literary Studies in our country. Although similar studies have been attempted earlier by writers and scholars who were interested in Bulgarian-German literary relations, the study by the Germanist Stefan Stanchev has the great advantage that it covers a larger period of translations and research and that it examines the problems of the penetration and assessment of Goethe's works in our country from a strictly critical and consistently advanced standpoint. What is special in this case is that the author everywhere brings the perception of Goethe in Bulgaria 1.St. Iv. Stanchev, Goethe in Bulgaria, part I, II, III. Yearbook of Sofia University, volume LVII and LIX Sofia, drzh. Publishing House Nauka i izkustvo, 1963-1965, pp. 150, 74 and 88. 140 in close connection with the overall process of literary life in our country, perceiving the dependence of the choice and interpretation of Goethe's works on the character and directions of the poetic creativity and the literary views of the Bulgarian writers. Accordingly, Stanchev's work includes, compositionally speaking, four chapters: 1. Translations until the Liberation; 2. Translations and literary-critical views until the October Revolution; 3. Goethe in our country until September 9, 1944 and 4. The same theme in literature about Goethe until recent times. A detailed bibliography finally complements the broad plan of the study. Goethe himself, with his comprehensive literary education and the rapid spread of his works in numerous translations into various languages, had more than once the occasion to pronounce on the importance of Literary communication between nations and on the meaning and justification of translations. Especially during the last period of his life, when Goethe was already one of the most recognized representatives of his native literature in all cultural countries, he felt more and more strongly the need to include his work in the scope of the new "world literature", making this Literature accessible everywhere, despite the diversity of national languages. Goethe passionately advocated the introduction of international solidarity in the name of a common artistic culture and the great idea of ​​fraternizing nations through art and science capable of enhancing human dignity.

The Bulgarian periodical press is the characteristic manifestation of the Revival. More than two centuries late to Europe, it is widely developed and covers (especially after the Liberation) the entire socio-political, economic and cultural life of the country. To a significant extent, the work of ardent patriots, the Bulgarian press takes an active part in the problems of its time. It is impossible to present the struggles of the Revival without the feverish journalistic activity of Karavelov, Slaveykov, Botev; the work of the party - without the support of "Novo Vreme", "Rabotnicheski Vestnik". By collecting within itself the creations of the greatest Bulgarian minds, expressing their ideological searches, aspirations, disputes, struggles, the Bulgarian periodical press is also the most reliable witness to our past. If taken entirely as a completed work, it gives a broad, complete and detailed picture of public life in Bulgaria. It goes without saying that the press is a lasting source for scientific research of all kinds. The scientist, having looked to the past, even with the aim of speaking about the present or the future, approaches the periodicals of the past years as a reliable assistant.

The Bulgarian people first encountered Shakespeare a hundred years ago, when Romeo and Juliet was staged on our stage. Since then, his name and his work have become part of the cultural heritage and the Bulgarian cultural reality. Shakespeare's dramatic works are translated, staged, studied and researched. In the beginning, mainly translators wrote about Shakespeare. The first critical article about the great English playwright was the preface by I. P. Slaveykov to his translation of Julius Caesar (January 1880). The first Bulgarian researcher was, in a sense, B. Raynov, who translated twelve of Shakespeare's plays and wrote relatively extensive introductions to each of them. His translations are accompanied by numerous notes and explanations. Another one of Shakespeare's early translators, T. Ts. Trifonov, also wrote introductions in which he gave an assessment of the respective plays. These are works in which some observations and thoughts are found, but they are mainly popularizing and imitative.