Книжка-2

1968 Book 2 Contents

Marx's monumental style was admired by people of the rank of Engels, J. Marx, P. Lafargue, W. Liebknecht, Lenin, F. Mehring, and others. In their memoirs and notes, one finds extremely important observations and assessments of Marx's style, but without any attempt at analysis. Mehring merely sets the task: "The language of Karl Marx deserves a detailed study; this would be an important contribution to the study of Marx's personality and his work." 1 Exactly sixty years have passed since then, but the question still remains open. Why is the problem of style unanimously overlooked among the countless studies of Marx's literary heritage? Of course, as Mehring points out, this is not a primary task compared to propaganda and the further development of Marx's ideas. And although it is true in its essence, this explanation is already outdated and incomplete. According to Engels, when a new teaching is spread, for the sake of ideas, at first they do not pay attention to the form or attribute it to accidents, to the peculiarity of the creative personality. Later they begin to identify the thinker with his teaching, evaluating them as a whole. Finally, they reduce the ideas to the scale of the work, and the personality to the sum of the qualities necessary to carry it out. And so in the final stage they remain: Marxism as a revolutionary-proletarian teaching, Marx - the founder of scientific communism, and Marx the man - drowns in biographies. Therefore, the return path from the personality to the immanent features of its creativity encounters exceptional difficulties. But not so much because of a lack of biographical data, but as a result of the systematic underestimation of the principle of dialectical unity between the personality and its creativity. And they do not complement each other, but exist through each other. Marx did not construct his doctrine speculatively - the objective premises were prepared by history - but he created it. He is its creator. But not only with his genius and colossal erudition, but also with his will, his heart, his love for the proletariat, his contempt for the bourgeoisie, with his whole personality. On what grounds then is a titanic personality reduced to a function of intellect and class struggle?

Gorky is already a classic of world literature. The strict augurs of literary history are careful not to immortalize him, but they have already assigned him a place alongside Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov... It is not a question of who is greater or lesser. Here, among the mighty shadows of the past, the role in the spiritual development of humanity, the place in the literary process, is important. Gorky is a classic. In this dearly won title is both the recognition and the love of generations for the great writer-humanist. But there is also something unusual in it. This is still a "posthumous award", and for us Gorky is so alive, so relevant.

Bulgarian history after the Liberation is dramatic and oppressive. The selfless patriotism of the Bulgarian National Revival was replaced by ruthless partisan struggles, which brought to the surface unscrupulous careerists and gangsters, dark characters like Vazov's Gorolomov and Alekov's Bai Ganyo. With bitter irony, Vazov called this period an era that nursed great people. In vain did his Kardashev seek romantic plots. Reality offered him only vulgarity, vulgar accounting, and crime. No matter how biased Irecek's assessments may be in places, in his diary he still faithfully captured the degeneration of political morals in the young principality, the rampant passions for power and material well-being. "People are ready with inner rage to throw stones at anyone, recklessly;..." "A person who does not lie and does not slander others, here is something extraordinary, a miracle of the world..."2 The young Czech scientist was shocked by the selfishness of the rulers with whom he was in constant contact. On the pages of his diary we repeatedly encounter such statements: "A person will become dull. .No longing, no idealism, no enthusiasm. I have fallen away. A desperate struggle against stupidity... A person becomes a misanthrope". Of course, in this miserable world there also live bright personalities, with Renaissance idealism, such as Petko Slaveykov, Vasil Drumev, Petko Karavelov, Vazov, Pencho Slaveykov, Aleko Konstantinov, Svetoslav Milarov, Olimpiy Panov, Trayko Kitanchev and others. They actively participate in political life, but its appearance is given by self-forgetful tyrants like Stambolov and Stoilov. The power is in their hands and with the most brutal means they neutralize their ideological enemies. Because of his love for Russia, boldly expressed in a church sermon, Metropolitan Kliment (Vasil Drumev), is threatened with a death sentence, which is commuted to 15 years in prison and eternal exile. Petko Karavelov spent years in the Black Mosque, Svetoslav Milarov, Atanas Uzunov, Olimpiy Panov, Alexander Karagyulev and others. They perish at the will of Stambolov, and later a villainous bullet from an ambush pierces Aleko's heart. Stambolov had found a brazen justification for the lawlessness and murders - that he was committing them out of inner conviction, and his successor Konstantin Stoilov called the violence of his district governors and gendarmes "exerting a moral influence on citizens". In the young principality there are no obstacles to the development of capitalism. But due to its lateness, due to the lack of democratic traditions, this development takes on the most ugly forms.

"The tragedy begins!" - writes Geo Milev about the bloody September of 1923. In fact, the tragedy began years before that. Bai Ganyo lit the first fuse and with political fireworks presented Alek's head as the greatest achievement in the hands of Ferdinand. This was the opening blow, the first cry of those in power - In the name of the people!" Parties and governments passed this "motto" to each other like a baton. "Lies lie, lies rule, lies steal." The new time invades and with a stunning blow proves that one cannot live only with memories and the past, throwing them overboard like ballast. The spirits of the martyrs of the Bulgarian National Revival excite, perform the insidious movement in the minds, but do not give an answer. "Power is my eternal mistress" - every political department brazenly and loudly confesses. The idols, the "collapsed idols" press their shoulders. But the Buzludzha Congress in Bulgaria is indisputable proof that living water exists. It brings "first love" to an entire generation of the Bulgarian intelligentsia, without, however, providing it with a protective armor at the crossroads. The revolutionary romanticism of a pre-liberation era does not allow for much reflection, but the end of the past and especially the beginning of the 20th century necessitates a logical reassessment, a painful search for new sources. Under other social and political conditions, this search is already a fact in Russia, France, Belgium, Germany. Ethically pure natures face chaos - hopeless and dreamy - protected only by the tormenting images of their "drunken ships", their wanderers, loners and eccentrics. The creators, the creators of spiritual freedom, embodied in poems, colors and music, turn out to be both the Achilles' heel of society and its saviors. Earthly purity is already infinitely compromised in the world of capital and the leaps of human minds from "supermen", from Maeterlinck's "Treasure of the Humble", through the multinational, fragmented internal dialogues of symbolism, through the roar of Verhaeren's "The Ringer" to Ernst Toler's "Massa-Man" - are fully justified by the brutality of the era. In Bulgaria, this era is pouring out in a very short period of years, when our progressive thought must collectively pass through populism and socialism, through symbolism, impressionism, expressionism. A review of the periodicals of just a few of the magazines such as: "Den", "Delo", "Novo Vreme", "Nash Zhivot", "Misl", "Khudozhnik" to the magazine "Cherven Smyah", to the magazine "Plamak".

The most natural and therefore the most widespread idea of ​​criticism is that it should be distinguished from art by its scientific-logical, conceptual nature of thinking. But we often encounter a directly opposite definition, emphasizing the connection of criticism with artistic thinking, the peculiar way in which it recreates vital and literary problems. The artistry of criticism and its belonging to the vast and diverse field of art were spoken of primarily by authors who examined Belinsky. Leafing through the fiery pages of his works, they enthusiastically noted the poetic aspiration, the captivating lyricism and dramatic tension of his articles. "The point is," writes Al. Grigoriev, "that both art and criticism are subject to one criterion." And in this sense it is clear that he evaluates Belinsky's articles as works of art, which are distinguished by "extraordinary lyricism" and conquer with their brightness, passion and intoxication of the first feeling. The same delight in the artistic and poetic nature of Belinsky's articles, in the power of his words, was also felt by such contemporaries as Goncharov, Turgenev, Dostoevsky and many others.

Until recently, Dragomir Asenov was among the young authors, but now a solid series of books respects anyone who dares to take up his work. The qualities of the best of them are undeniable. But there is something else that is undeniable. Dragomir Asenov is a very productive author, but because he successfully puts his efforts into different genres, high productivity is not a handicap for him. He could very well settle down in a single genre, say the short story or the novel - and after mastering the mastery of composition, start producing book after book in series. However, such productivity, even in the presence of talent, would be simply reprehensible. Why then should we consider it a handicap if the author writes a lot, but does not repeat himself either in plots and characters, or in forms? If he has something to tell us, if the vital content and the author's ideas are pressing, they will express themselves in various forms, each time in a new way. Only craftsmen and newcomers to art once take up the "turban" and produce ready-made books, at the same level, without surprises, equal and mediocre.

They had pointed it out to me. And I already knew who Teodor Trayanov was. I wanted to meet him. This happened after a long trip of mine around the country giving talks about Rabindranath Tagore. It was in May 1925. The tragedy of the April events had darkened the people - only two years after the June 9 coup and the September anti-fascist popular uprising. Morning. In front of the Tsar Osvoboditel cafe, I was waiting for my friend Ivan Rachev. He had made my trip easier as a lecturer. The Sunday morning in May had filled the boulevard with people. In the courtyard of the Military Club, the brass band of the Guards Regiment was playing with its conductor, Maestro Georgi Atanasov. And so Teodor Trayanov walked from the club to the cafe. He was alone. His gait was that of a thoughtful man - slow. When he walked, he used a cane. In his ashy checked suit, he was a medium-sized and slender man, with dark brown hair and a slightly swarthy face, an aquiline nose and a high forehead over thick eyebrows that overshadowed his large, dark eyes. When he crossed Rakovski and stepped onto the sidewalk in front of the cafe, I stopped him and turned to him with my desire to meet him. He stopped, pleasantly surprised. When we stepped aside so as not to disturb passersby, he wanted to know where I was from, what had brought me to Sofia "in these anxious days." My youthful interests in Rabindranath Tagore were not foreign to him. And in order to continue our conversation, Teodor Trayanov invited me for coffee. His first visitors were already sitting here and there in the cafe, among whom were his acquaintances. He wanted us to be at a separate table, alone. He ordered coffees. Before they could even be served, he put the lid on. Here I sat as if I had known him for a long time: his direct tone in the conversation predisposed and brought an intimacy that did not leave my friendship and meetings with him until the end of his life. I remember - when he learned that I was from northeastern Bulgaria, in the precincts of Dobrudzha, his discharge transferred to a characteristic of the national-typical of that region, about the psychology of the people there - the Bulgarian woman and the Bulgarian man ... About the past of that part of our land, on which the first Bulgarian state was created, about an equal Dobrudzha ... When I reached to get up, Teodor Trayanov did not hesitate to say smiling, with the nobility of a rarely hospitable person, devoid of the banal intellectual arrogance: - Since you are in Sofia, I want you to call me. I am pleased that we met. At that moment, another person came and sat at his table, who, as it turned out, was his friend.

Slowly and with difficulty, the Bulgarian people emerge from the medieval darkness of the Ottoman Empire to live in the light of the New Age, which has long since flooded most of the European continent. Of course, the processes unfolding in its own bowels lead it onto the path of new development. In the conditions of its new historical existence, one after another, figures appear who create its new national life, its new national culture, its new national literature. Of essential importance for its further development is its inclusion in the contemporary socio-political and cultural life of the European peoples. Prominent representatives of the cultural life of the related Slavic peoples have special merits for its inclusion in this life. The names of Vuk Karadzic, Konstantin Kalajdovic, Yuri Venelin, Pavel Yosif Safarik are names of discoverers of the people forgotten in the depths of the Ottoman Empire. The Bulgarian images and pictures of Bulgarian life and the Bulgarian fatherland that have come to life in the works of a number of Slavic writers bring him closer to the consciousness and emotional peace of the Slavic peoples, who will live with his fate, will seek ways to help him, to protect him, to lead him out of his servile misery.

It is well known that not all the works of the rich Byzantine literature have survived; some of them are known only bibliographically, and others only from Latin or Old Church Slavonic copies. As an illustration of this idea, at least as far as Old Church Slavonic literature is concerned, the name of Georgi Skylitsa, a Greek cultural and public figure of the 12th century, is usually mentioned. In addition to his other works, he is also the author of a life of Ivan Rilski, which is now not known in its original Greek version, but only in Slavic. "1 It is assumed that it was written "between 1166 and 1183, when the relics of the saint were taken to Hungary, and for this reason the latter event is not mentioned in the life"

Sixty years ago, on November 16, 1907, the very next day after his arrival, Konstantin Velichkov died in Grenoble. Not only the last days, but the entire life and writing destiny of this public figure and writer of ours is connected with French culture and literature, with France in general. Let us recall the more important facts, adding some less known data about his death, extracted from the French press. Velichkov's first and at the same time the deepest and most lasting impressions of French literature, and indirectly also of the freedom-loving French spirit, were from the time of his studies at the French Lyceum in Constantinople. When the authorities asked for a young man from Pazardzhik to study at state expense, the city government unanimously proposed and sent Velichkov - who had already shown himself to be a capable and diligent student. And in September 1868, he entered the Lyceum Imperial Ottoman. At the same time and later, the following people studied here: Stoyan Mihaylovski, Georgi N. Zlatarski (the later famous professor-geologist), Hr. Genadiev, An. Frangia (political figures) and others. Organized according to the French model and with French teachers and educators, the lyceum gave its graduates the opportunity not only to learn French excellently, but also to become acquainted with French literature, with the rich and instructive history of the struggles of the French people for freedom.

The epistolary heritage has, as is well known, an important significance for illuminating the personality of a given social, political or cultural figure, for revealing his "peace of mind", the motives of his actions, etc., as well as for filling in the gaps or correcting the inaccuracies made in his biography. This is especially true for the period of formation, maturation of the creative personality, for which period there is usually very scarce or uncertain information. Hence the justified interest that is shown in the correspondence of prominent personalities both by the researcher and by the wide circle of readers.

Iskra Panova presented her first book to readers. In it, she speaks her mind in a new way in our contemporary literary studies. Without departing from the best in the tradition of literary studies, she sweeps up independent terrain in an area where long-standing traditions are still absent in our country... Breaking ground in the complex field of stylistic analysis of the work of art, Panova has long thought through each step of her innovative work. She is not in a hurry to theorize about the results of her work, but she does not underestimate them either. She is not in a hurry to make generalizations, but she does not hide the rational in her difficult experiment. She proclaims less her guiding principles, which she relies on in her aesthetic analyses, but in return she gives her own arrangement of her scientific observations, derived according to the laws of an objective criterion. But no matter how discreet an author she turns out to be, she sheds abundant light on the complexity of the problem, draws her own conclusions, takes into account the complexity of the artistic evolution of the individual artist, in the three classics and reveals a number of regularities in the development of the literary process in Bulgarian literature from the recent past.

I do not hesitate in the title and in the following lines to qualify Vasil Kolevski's book "The Pathos of October (Soviet Literature in the Bulgarian Proletarian and Anti-Fascist Literary Press 1917-1943)" in this way, because the work done by the author, dedicated to an important issue of literary relations between the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, whatever its shortcomings, is at a scientific level and testifies to a certain knowledge of the material and problems, to a conscientious and close attitude to a not so easy task. During the bourgeois-fascist dictatorship in our country, the proletarian and anti-fascist literary press was almost the only place where Soviet literary-theoretical and aesthetic thought and the artistic and literary production of Soviet writers could be presented and evaluated more fully or more mutilatedly - depending on the behavior of the censorship - and where at the same time their influence on our communist literary thought and practice found expression. Therefore, it is quite natural, when developing the topic of Soviet literature in Bulgaria, that the researcher's attention should be directed primarily to progressive newspapers and magazines.

This is the title of a publication of the Institute of World Literature at the Slovak Academy of Sciences. At the risk of presenting the author one-sidedly and (D. Durišin) I do not comment on the introductory part, the author's dialogue with new and newest authorities of world comparative literature (Van Tighemm, Volman, Žirmunski, Neupokoeva, Bakoš, Petrus and a number of others). It is also impossible to show the specific, analytical material on the basis of which the author builds a logically coherent concept. More important to me are those new trends and initiatives with which this Slovak publication could stimulate analogous spheres of comparative, and in particular comparative Slavic literary studies in our country.