наука

Every science is a science precisely because it studies, explains, and determines first and foremost what is common (a property, an essential relationship, a law) in the things and phenomena it studies. A science that is incapable of discovering and determining what is common in the object of its research is not and cannot be a science. This is, so to speak, an axiom confirmed by the entire development of all sciences without exception—philosophical and specific, natural and social, scientific-research and scientific-applied. Aesthetics as a science is no exception to this general rule. At the same time, everything that is general is general precisely because it is given in dialectical unity with the particular and the individual. The general, which does not constitute the deep and ever deeper essence of particular and individual things, but exists as pure, bare generality in and of itself and for itself, ceases in fact to have the character and significance of the general and becomes some kind of abstract, metaphysical and ultimately mystical idea, which in various idealistic theories acquires the meaning of a transcendental divine principle or some kind of transcendental value, etc. Something that is not common to at least two things (objects, phenomena) is not and cannot be common and therefore is not and cannot be any scientific concept, category, or law.

Over the past five or six years, literary scholarship in the Soviet Union has been undergoing a real renewal. One only has to think how many mistakes and misconceptions, how many incorrect views have been overcome in this short time! And the timid tone, and the empirical character of Literary Criticism, and the recurrence of a narrow Rappian conception of literature, and the intolerable backwardness of aesthetic and literary-theoretical thought, and often blatantly lowered aesthetic criteria. It seems as if the times were long gone when collections of current literary-critical articles and monographic essays on Soviet writers could be counted on the fingers; when there were no comprehensive studies of new Russian and Soviet literature, and no generalizing works on realism and socialist realism were written. The books that were published did not cover all literary phenomena, the more complex ones were overlooked, and entire periods of the history of Russian literature - for example, the late 19th and early 20th centuries - remained insufficiently illuminated. A number of circumstances prevented a more objective view and a more understanding assessment of even such a phenomenon as the proletarian poetry of the first years of Soviet power, not to mention the poetry of Blok and Yesenin or the satirical work of Ilfi Petrov. Writers who had played a significant role in literary life at the time were excluded from literary development. And as a natural result of all this, along with clever and serious books, illustrative, primitive-sociological writings began to appear one after another, flooded with an abundant number of quotations, behind which hid the lack of independent creative thought, of the ability to subtly and inspiredly penetrate artistic phenomena (which is associated with a natural gift, with a vocation), of truly profound knowledge.

I have always been amazed by the almost incredible indifference with which many literary facts in our country are usually passed over. Unknown names appear, new books are published, questions are raised, and periodicals often not only do not write about them, but do not even note them. And this applies not only to translated literature, which for some unknown reason is not given any attention, but also to quite a few works by Bulgarian writers who are vitally connected with the development of our literary word. That is why, without having resigned myself to this practice, I have already become accustomed to this practice and I am not surprised that a critical book like "Four Fiction Writers" by Simeon Sultanov, which I had to edit as part of my official duties, remains unnoticed by the literary press for nearly a year and a half after its publication. Note, however: I say unnoticed, but not unnoticed by readers, which is something else. I emphasize this because I know for a fact that despite the disrespect shown towards it, this book made an impression on all those interested in literary criticism and was very well received. And if I return to it today, I do so not so much to fill some gap in the reader's mind, but rather for another, more important reason - to note some positions that are of a principled nature and give cause for reflection. First of all, anyone who has read "Four Fiction Writers" will agree that this is a complete book - a book with a physiognomy. It is known that, in the beginning, national Literature is created in the periodical press and is affirmed through it. And this applies not only to small types, not only to what is conceived by the malice of the day, but very often also to great literary works that leave a lasting mark behind them. That is why we can say about most Books that they are born twice - once on the pages of magazines and newspapers, often as a result of a commission, and a second time united by a single title in a common cover. However, since one can collect not only what is conceived and realized as a whole, but also what is the fruit of chance, in this second birth one often falls into passions and reaches an unwanted automatism. As a result, books appear that contain heterogeneous works that are difficult to unite not only in volume, by subject and by meaning, and even by genre. And this unacceptable practice, of course, affected literary criticism: here too, there is an effort to present to the reader everything that the author has written - even the literary notes in the daily newspapers and speeches at meetings. Thus, in recent years, quite a few voluminous collections of articles have appeared in our country, which are compiled in a very mechanical manner and, along with the significant, which deserves attention, also contain things that have no literary value. That is why Simeon Sultanov made an all the stronger impression with his efforts to deviate from a practice that sometimes seems insurmountable, and to present to the readers under one common title four uniform monographic essays on four prominent representatives of the Bulgarian short story: G. P. Stamatov, Georgi Raichev, Angel Karaliychev and Iliya Volen. In this way, he presented himself with a first book (if we do not count the separately published study on Angel Karaliychev) that no young critic has presented himself with in recent years - with a book that contains nothing accidental, nothing thoughtless, and speaks of such literary requirements that are usually the first sign of emerging creative maturity.

The restoration of the Leninist spirit in the field of ideology after the 20th Congress of the CPSU gave impetus to the rapid development of Soviet aesthetics. The period of stagnation, of scholastic reasoning, far from the living problems of art and the aesthetic needs of the people was gradually replaced by serious scientific research, with numerous discussions, with a significant increase in research culture. Of particular interest were the problems of the nature of the aesthetic, of the subject and methods of aesthetic science, of the connections with communist construction. The fighting, offensive line is being revived In our aesthetics, the best traditions left to us from the time of Marx, Engels and Lenin are being revived. Among the numerous new aesthetic literature, the small in volume, but very rich in content and problems, book by the famous Soviet art theorist L. N. Stolovich "Subject of aesthetics" stands out. We are accustomed to the bad habit of books on aesthetics being, as a rule, thick, with large deviations, filled with vague reasoning, which so scares creators of artistic values ​​and repels them from the significant questions of theory. And therefore even the volume of the book under consideration can be a pleasant surprise, especially since it has been a long time since I have read such a brief, so clear and at the same time such a complete exposition of some basic questions of aesthetic science. Stolovich's work has the following structure. The first chapter examines the main results of the discussion on the nature of the aesthetic in recent years. The core of the book is the second chapter - on aesthetics and the essence of the aesthetic. But perhaps the most interesting is the third chapter, with a number of new considerations. - on the limits and methods of aesthetics. The generalizing Fourth Chapter examines the place and tasks of aesthetics in the aesthetic education of working people.

I would not have undertaken to write a review of V. Velchev's study "Turgenev in Bulgaria" if I had not been interested in the numerous and promising reviews about it. They made me think that I had missed a very important study that has enriched our native literary studies and even gone beyond its narrow framework. I was particularly surprised by the insistence with which the inscrutable Soviet literary studies were suggested that the newly appeared work was a huge achievement for them as well. Even this seemed modest to one of my predecessors in review, so he (or rather - she) linked V. Velchev's study with the tasks of the seven-year plan in the USSR... Moreover - it is quite seriously claimed that not only is Soviet Turgenev studies enriched with new data on the political views of the writer-democrat, but general patterns in inter-national literary relations are revealed through the analysis of individual facts. The upcoming V International Slavic Congress in Sofia - 1963 is not forgotten either. After recalling V. Velchev's participation in the previous congress in Moscow, it is specially emphasized that this work is dedicated to the main issue of the congress-Slavic literary relations". "From the reviews of all three reviewers it follows that this is the first study of its kind in our country, that while earlier studies in this area were mainly of a bio- or bibliographic popular nature, now this study is distinguished by "a wide scope of the topic and the depth of the problems studied", that for the first time the influence of an individual writer on the socio-historical and literary process in our country is being studied so comprehensively and comprehensively. The harmonious composition of the work and many, many other of its merits have not been overlooked.

At the beginning of this century, the famous physicist Hautermans discovered that nuclear explosions are the source of the great solar energy. This is a brilliant insight that later gave rise to unprecedented results in the development of modern sciences. They give reason to many people to call the time in which we live - the atomic age. TOR Hautermans returns in his memories to his youth, when he reached the conclusion of his several years of research and reflections. And he tells of that day of joy from the scientific discovery, in which the imagination quickly draws new perspectives and scientific programs for work, as if bathed in the sunshine, giving rise to new hopes and the will to penetrate the depths of the secrets of nature. "But that same evening," he continues, "I went out for a walk with a beautiful girl. When it got dark and the stars, in all their splendor, began to appear one after another, my companion exclaimed: "How beautifully they shine, don't they?" I puffed out my chest and said importantly: "Since yesterday I know why they are glowing." But it immediately became clear to me that my statement did not move her at all. It was possible that she simply did not believe me. But, it seems to me that at that moment she did not feel the slightest interest in any problems.

Due to centuries of foreign oppression, the Bulgarian nation underwent a peculiar socio-historical development. Our national revival began only in the second half of the 18th century. However, cultural and historical processes have become particularly intense since then. In just one century (1762-1878), national creative thought went through several stages, only to soon rise to great heights. Continuing the traditions of the Revival, literary science from the beginning of our century quickly expanded its problematic, adopting reliable principles for a more comprehensive interpretation of cultural and aesthetic phenomena and processes. Both the great writers and critics of the Revival, and the few academically educated literary scholars after the Liberation, demonstrated a number of correct understandings regarding the diverse prerequisites for the formation of the Bulgarian national culture and literature, regarding the interrelationships and interdependence of the ideological and artistic phenomena of the individual peoples. Directing their research gaze towards the problems of our national revival, the first great Bulgarian literary historians realized that they could not be comprehensively and truthfully illuminated if one did not take into account similar processes and phenomena in neighboring countries - Greece, Serbia, Romania, Russia, with which our people communicated in different ways, through diverse forms.

There is a verse in "Faust" that can be translated as: "Our first step is free, with the second we are slaves!" This thought is all too appropriate for the artist, who, having once given free rein to his own imagination in "inventing" a new composition, soon becomes dependent on it. Should the same be said of the writer and art critic? How far does his freedom of choice extend? Is he not a slave to his own, previously preferred or subsequently guessed method? Such questions go so far in today's literary and art studies that they cast doubt on the possibility of a scientific interpretation of the work of art, or at the very least - treat this interpretation as something not quite as certain and expedient as was previously thought. Some contemporary authors believe that the methodological basis of artistic interpretation is only just being formed or is yet to be formed; others are convinced that a scientific analysis of the work is possible only insofar as it does not feed interpretative claims, i.e., insofar as it renounces interpretation in the traditional sense of the term. All those who today argue for "modern" literary studies and art studies, however, mercilessly attack attempts to reveal the meaning of artistic images by establishing historical, biographical, etc. facts. This was yesterday's word for dubious knowledge.