труд

We have before us a truly interesting, passionately and vividly written book. The author boldly raises some fundamental questions of aesthetic science that have often been sidestepped in recent times. The central problem that has completely absorbed Burov's attention is the relationship between "the subject and content of art." Everything else is subordinate to this problem. What is said about the function of art is an illustration of the main thesis about the peculiar subject and content of art. In the first chapter, Burov criticizes the widespread view that the subject of art is the whole world and that its specificity arises not from the subject, but from the form of reproduction of life (the figurative form). Of course, the reflection of life in the "form of life itself," in a living, concrete, individual image, is a very important feature of art. But imagery is also inherent in science, photography, and the practical activities of people. After offering an interesting and accurate critique of Kant and Schiller on the one hand, and of some Soviet theorists on the other, Burov comes to the following conclusion: Imagery is not an essential specific feature of art. It explains nothing and must itself be explained. The whole point is in the specific subject matter of art, which gives rise to the specific figurative form. What is this subject matter? All true art

Before us is a biography that, with great detail and accuracy in terms of facts, depicts the life of one of the most deserving sons of the Bulgarian people from the era of the Revival - the writer and revolutionary Lyuben Karavelov. This biography, written by the skilled pen of the authoritative and respected not only in our country expert on the history of the national liberation movement in Bulgaria in the 19th century, Academician Mihail Dimitrov, is the result of the author's own long-term research and what has already been done by Lyuben Karavelov's previous biographers.

In its relatively long development, since 1842, when Iv. A. Bogorov published the first collection of Bulgarian folk songs and proverbs, Bulgarian folklore studies have achieved significant successes not only in terms of collecting and publishing folklore materials, but also in their research. However, one important gap, which until recently remained unfilled, was the absence of more significant comprehensive and generalizing works on Bulgarian written folk poetic creation, with the necessary scientific depth and competence. The reviews, which were placed in the past mainly in some textbooks on Bulgarian literature, such as Al. T. Balan in his "Bulgarian Literature" (1896) and others, very valuable for their time, today can no longer be fully used due to the often outdated and scientifically overcome views that are advocated in them, and also due to the significantly smaller amount of materials on which they are built. The prominent gap in our science of Bulgarian folk poetic creativity was largely filled in the past 1959 with the appearance of two photo-chronicle works of important importance, namely "Bulgarian Folk Songs" by Prof. Y. Ivanov (published by the Institute of Bulgarian Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) and "Bulgarian Folklore" by Prof. P. Dinekov. Prof. P. Dinekov's book presents the first part of his comprehensive review of Bulgarian folklore, the second part of which is due to be published in the near future. Compared to what has been done in this field to date, it represents a very serious attempt to assess Bulgarian poetic folk art from the point of view of modern progressive science, by clarifying and criticizing all outdated explanations and concepts based mainly on the experience of Soviet folklore studies, which the author has carefully studied.

What is aesthetic?" - this is the question that begins the monograph of L. N. Stolovich "Aesthetics in Reality and in Art" (Moscow, 1959). "From the point of view of modern aesthetic science," the author writes, "those phenomena and objects of reality, those human abilities are characterized as aesthetic, which in one way or another are included in the special, special attitude of man to reality - the aesthetic attitude." As we see, a very general definition, the meaning of which is expressed in the fact that the aesthetic is understood as a special attitude. From this premise to a more comprehensive definition of the aesthetic, several directions are possible. Stolovich chose the one according to which the aesthetic attitude is determined by its object - the aesthetic properties of reality. They (beautiful, disgusting, ugly, tragic) exist objectively, independently of our will and our consciousness, although they are not outside of society and man. The author distinguishes himself from A. I. Burov, according to whom aesthetic qualities are not realized "without the perceiving subject."

On March 2, 2011, the Scientific Council of the Institute of Literature discussed Boyan Nichev's work on Branislav Nušić. Reviewers Emil Georgiev and Kujo Kuev highlighted the merits of the work, in which B. Nichev demonstrated his research and analytical talent and ability to richly illustrate and document the creative path of the Serbian writer. In their assessments, they noted that the author successfully coped with the difficult task and that for the first time in scientific literature a more comprehensive study of Nušić's work will appear. Another, equally important feature of the work is that the author worked with inspiration and demonstrated a healthy aesthetic sense. The reviewers recommended that B. Nichev make some compositional corrections, focus his attention on a certain proportionality of the sections, analyze more fully Nušić's great comedies of recent times, highlight more shortcomings in the Serbian writer's work, which are present even in his best works, etc. Eight people participated in the discussions.

The Bulgarian communist Dimitar Gachev, who inherited the theoretical principle and irreconcilability of Blagoev, fully formed himself as an art critic and historian of aesthetics in the USSR. The period from 1930 to 1937 was particularly active for his development. After that, the cult of personality not only slowed down, but also tragically interrupted his creative activity. Gachev felt on his shoulders the impact of forces, essentially alien and hostile to socialism, which inflicted so many defeats not only in the political and economic, but also in the intellectual life of our society. But he remained faithful to communism, to the great Soviet homeland, until his last breath, he went away with the dream of building communism in Bulgaria. The 20th Congress of the USSR and the April Plenum in our country returned, among many others, the cultural values ​​that Gachev created to the treasury of socialist culture.

On the issues of the comic, a lot of theoretical literature has been accumulated. But comedy as a literary genre and, in particular, the development and contemporary state of Bulgarian comedy have not been studied in detail. Even the articles dedicated to the various manifestations of Bulgarian comedy can be counted on the fingers of one hand. That is why Ivan Bogdanov's initiative to study the paths along which this genre has developed in our country is commendable. He sought to be a pioneer in a complex and undeveloped field. And as the first, it was his work that aroused interest among both writers and theater figures. But despite the particular difficulties in such a first attempt, Bogdanov did not successfully solve his task.

Tradition has forever linked the names of two prominent representatives of the Bulgarian revival - Paisius and Sophrony of Vrachanski. And not by chance. The Kotla priest Stoyko Vladislavov was the first to transcribe "History of Slavonic Bulgaria", the first to understand and implement as a writer and public figure the national and universal ideas of the Hilendar monk. In 1962, the 200th anniversary of the writing of "History of Slavonic Bulgaria" was celebrated - articles and studies were published in the periodical press and scientific publications that shed light on important moments in the work of the immortal revivalist. Just a few months later, a monograph on the life and creative path of Sophrony of Vrachanski appeared. Its author, the famous specialist in Old Bulgarian literature V. Sl. Kiselkov, has shown interest in Sophrony as a scientist and citizen, because, as he notes in the introduction to his work, he was born and raised "in the birthplace of Sophrony" (p. 4). Therefore, the tracing and interpretation of the facts is often warmed by a warm feeling for his native land, by reverence for its historical past, by a captivating enthusiasm for the work of notable Kotel residents. V. Sl. Kiselkov's aspiration to outline the era and activities of Sophrony as completely as possible, to challenge established concepts and propose new ones, has determined both the composition of the monograph and the volume of its individual parts. It is made up of four mutually complementary chapters: 1. Kotel; 2. From the cradle to the grave; 3. Writer's image; 4. Literary work.

The work of Georgi Konstantinov comes to satisfy the growing interest in the personality of the poet Liliev. Liliev's poetry - gentle and ethereal, musical and airy, graceful and timid, died down along with the decline and overcoming of symbolism in our literature. New problems have emerged in modern times, and manly and strong artists have grown up. Who today reads "Hymns for the Superman" by Pencho Slaveykov, "Bulgarian Ballads" by Teodor Trayanov? Who is excited by "Regina Mortois"? In these works, the poets failed to find the key, they did not see "the truth that makes sense to write about", as B. Brecht expressed it in his essay on "The Five Difficulties". At the beginning of the century, our literature suffered heavy losses. Many artists were prisoners of a decadent aesthetics and philosophy hostile to realistic art. Liliev's talent also wandered in the labyrinths of symbolism. He closed himself in his own gloomy poetic tower. He burned the last bridges to hope and became a Sad Loner. Today we cannot help but be aware of the pessimistic beginning in Liliev's poetry. Through the mists and with difficulty the dawns of his native Thrace, the silver rays and the bright morning of life shine. But through the vague and semi-airy outlines of this symbolic Lyric, the virtuoso perfection of Liliev's verse is visible, transformed into a sonorous, expressive and gentle instrument. With its imagery and melody, with its virgin purity and snowy whiteness, this verse occupies a certain place in Bulgarian lyric poetry. The modern socialist reader finds in the poetry of the pale lilies hidden treasures of humanity and sublime ethics, a reverence for beauty and nobility, which still excite today.

The breadth of the concept of history in its present sense in itself determines the complexity of the task that confronts the compilers of works on the history of literature. Solving this task requires, above all, an exceptionally competent penetration into the spirit of the time about which one writes and into the spirit of the time in which one writes. For we can be less and less satisfied with literary histories that are reduced to stating facts and commenting on events, proceeding from literary works. We are talking about something significantly more complex: showing literature as an expression of spiritual, social and economic processes in their progressive development. This means that literary history has radically changed its role and purpose, trying to penetrate deeply to the foundations of social phenomena, creative impulses, etc. Objectivist registration can no longer be its distinguishing feature. It now aims to provide a broad panorama of the literary and spiritual life of peoples in different eras, to shed light on literary, and hence social, sociological problems from our point of view. It is true that literary history has its own methods and literary creation is examined in it with different intentions than poetics examines them. But in its current state, literary history already has a significantly comprehensive and generalizing character and connects a number of defining elements from individual literary sciences. If we decide to look for general historical works on Slavic literatures, written from such an aspect, they will turn out to be very few. And one of them, which in some respects strives to meet these requirements, is the two-volume "Essays on the History of Slavic Literatures" by Prof. Dr. Emil Georgiev.

Recently, the book by Vitaly Zlidnev "Russian-Bulgarian Literary Relations of the 20th Century" was printed in Moscow as a publication of the Institute of Slavic Studies at the Academy of Sciences, 220 pages. Vitaly Zlidnev is one of the talented students of the unforgettable N. S. Derzhavin, who continue and deepen the tradition he created for active and comprehensive research into issues of history, literature and in general the spiritual activity of the Bulgarian people, illuminating them very often and depending on the development of Russian history and literature, with which the Bulgarian people have been firmly connected since time immemorial. At the Institute of Slavic Studies, and not only there, there are about a dozen relatively young researchers who know in detail individual eras of Bulgarian history and individual our historical figures and writers... It seems to me that I will not be exaggerating at all if I say that the Institute of Slavic Studies occupies a high, honorable place in the process of mutual acquaintance of the two peoples, where its activists often participate with the unique breadth and depth of Russian and Soviet researchers, with the unique humanistic pathos characteristic of them, with the nobility of true brothers and internationalists.

Recently, Alexander Nichev published a monographic study dedicated to the work of Aleko Konstantinov. Much has been written about the life and literary work of the citizen and writer Aleko. "Bai Ganyo" and "To Chicago and Back" are classic works of Bulgarian prose, a lasting artistic document against a denied world. A document that does not preach despair, doom and fear and, despite the denial of an ugly and deformed reality, has a purifying and ennobling effect. "The Lucky One" is a figure that attracted not only the writer's contemporaries, but still has a charm on us today.

The Bulgarian periodical press, whose beginnings date back 124 years in the city of Smyrna by Konstantin Fotinov with the appearance of the trial booklet of the magazine "Lyuboslovie", has an important share in the political, cultural and literary history of the Bulgarian people. The unpretentious beginning in the distant and isolated from our people region of Asia Minor over the years ignited the spark of the people's struggle for universal Bulgarian education, church autonomy and political independence. The Bulgarian periodical press before the Liberation was an important factor for the national awareness of our people, for its cohesion in a whole nation, for the manifestation of the people's ideals, in the name of which a merciless struggle was undertaken. After the Liberation (1878-1885) periodical 1 Georgi Borshukov. History of Bulgarian Journalism. 1844-1877/1878-1885. Sofia, 1965, p. 578.8°. Ed. of Science and Art. 149 The Czech press supported the implementation of the Unification and the consolidation of the Bulgarian state.

At the end of last year, the Scientific Council of the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences discussed and accepted for publication the work of Acad. Mihail Arnaudov "Kiril Hristov. The Man and the Poet". In his review, Krastyo Genov highlighted the merit of Mihail Arnaudov in tracing every step of the life and work of Kiril Hristov: a difficult and responsible task in revealing the sharp contradictions in the poet's creative biography. The author selects what is truly important and significant in the work and in the difficult life of the poet, bypassing the erroneous, inaccurate and artistically petty. He correctly identifies the individual traits of the personality and the creator, achieving an objective and convincing assessment of a life filled with contradictions of an ideological and moral nature, with torment and dissatisfaction. The monograph is particularly valuable with the rich factual material skillfully used by the author. He managed to present a broad picture of social reality and literary mores, including personal memories, observations, and excerpts from his interesting correspondence with the writer.

Soviet folklore studies have accumulated rich research material. The vast land of the victorious October has revealed interesting aspects of the spiritual culture of a number of nationalities and tribes, which have shed new light on folk poetic creativity. The numerous works published with folklore materials and monographic studies have greatly facilitated the theoretical studies of Soviet scientists, enriched their knowledge and ideas about the origin, character and essence of folklore. Recently, several works on the aesthetics of folklore have also appeared.

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.

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.

We know under what circumstances and when Nikola Vaptsarov wrote his two death poems: "Farewell", dedicated to his wife, and "The Fight is Mercilessly Cruel". The poet wrote under them the date July 23, 1942 and the hour - 2 p.m., on the very eve of his execution. The excitement that overwhelms us when we read these two poems of two stanzas is irresistible: they sound in our hearts and memories, vibrate as if each verse is a string, constantly vibrating under the pressure of a feeling, immeasurable in its depth, a sublimation of a shaking lyricism. Perhaps before Vaptsarov, only in Botev - in his "Farewell" - do we find such dramatic tension and feel such a conquering power of the lyrical wave.

And in the many studies on the life and work of Petko Slaveykov, his personality as a public figure and creator with great charm continues to be at the center of scientific research on the national peculiarities and the rapid development of Bulgarian Renaissance literature. And this is mainly due to the exceptional importance that Slaveykov has as the creator of New Bulgarian poetry, as an editor of meaningful periodicals and as a courageous tribune of Bulgarian national consciousness, who retained self-control in the face of more than one mishap in his diverse patriotic endeavors. But not only for this important reason. It so happened that in the literature about this our poet and public figure, quite a few aesthetic, bourgeois-idealistic, subjective and essentially unscientific assessments were preserved for the longest time, either for his political and social views, or for his individual works or - which is especially important - for the main directions of his poetic work.

Academician Mikhail Arnaudov is one of the most inspired historians and interpreters of the Bulgarian Revival. In a number of monographs he builds in relief the images of selfless figures of this era, who saved Bulgarianness from melting. Among the most prominent figures of the Revival is Grigor Parlichev. A scientist, a post and an apostle of freedom with diverse activities - all his manifestations are the object of Arnaudov's scientific and literary interest. Grigor Parlichev is a true Bulgarian poet, "misunderstood", as Ivan Vazov puts it. His creativity and social activity have excited and will continue to excite Bulgarians. A fighter and creator, he directs his activities towards the affirmation of Bulgarian culture and its liberation from Ottoman slavery and Hellenization. 1 The newly published book about Grigor Parlichev is a new edition of the famous monograph by Mihail Arnaudov on the life and work of Grigor Parlichev, designated by the author as a "characteristic and notes" and a collection of Parlichev's works: "Autobiography", "The Serdar", translated into prose by Vasil Pundev, the poem "Skenderbey", a translation of the "Iliad", "The Dream of an Old Man" and illustrations. The following stanza by Ivan Vazov is set as the motto of the book:

Krastyo Genov's book "Romanticism in Bulgarian Literature" was published in 1968, and a year before that it was defended as a doctoral dissertation. The author has consistently defended some of the fundamental positions expressed in it in recent years in a number of his publications in the field of Bulgarian Renaissance literature, and most fully in his work "From Paisius to Botev", published by "Nauka iizkustvo", 1966. When evaluating his new book, one must take into account the fact that in our country there is almost no generalizing or more comprehensive research on the main trends and methods in Bulgarian Renaissance literature, in particular on the manifestation, scope and specificity of Romanticism in it. Apart from some of the more famous studies by Ivan Shishmanov and Boyan Penev in the past, the well-known article by Petar Dinekov "The Problem of Romanticism in Bulgarian Literature until the Liberation", written in connection with the Fourth International Congress of Slavists in Moscow, Pantelei Zarev's work "Panorama of Bulgarian Literature" and several other smaller publications, the bibliography of special studies on the subject offers almost nothing else original and significant. Of course, this does not mean that other studies on the issue of Romanticism in Bulgarian literature have not been conducted in Bulgarian literary scholarship on the Revival; the studies on Chintulov and Rakovski, on Drumev and Botev are well known. However, the conclusions in the relevant studies from the past are too general, and in the more recent ones - contradictory. Even in the second volume of the academic history of Bulgarian literature, different opinions on this fundamental issue have found expression.