критика

The name of Hristo Botev became widely known in Russia in connection with the April Uprising. The Russian press in June-July 1876 repeatedly mentioned the name of Hristo Botev in numerous correspondences dedicated to the Bulgarian uprising as one of the prominent figures of the liberation movement in Bulgaria. Naturally, there were also significant exaggerations and inaccuracies in the newspaper reports, which are explained not only by ignorance, but also by the desire to present Bulgarian events to Russian society in a certain light. These newspaper notes are interesting insofar as they contain information about the revolutionary poet.

Many more works are appearing in the field of literary criticism. At least that is the case in our country. The battlefield of literary criticism is also much livelier. If we look into the past, we will see that it has a far richer heritage compared to our theater criticism. The scientific and aesthetic level of literary criticism in our country is also higher. If we open the pages of our press, we will find that review work was the main manifestation of theater criticism. Aesthetic issues were quite often neglected because of sociological findings about the theme and images in the play and superficial, artisanal or amateur assessments: "Some people faithfully convey their image, but others do not play well." That is why the appearance of the book - a collection of articles - Drama and Stage" by Professor Lyubomir Tenev is a welcome phenomenon. Indeed, it is already a manifestation, and one of the rare ones, in the actual field of theatrical aesthetics. The main distinction that gives aesthetic maturity and purposefulness to the articles in this collection is Tenev's aspiration and ability to proceed from the specifics of art as an independent human activity, to respect dramaturgy and theater as "creation according to the laws of beauty" (Marx). The skill of criticism is expressed in the "feeling", the perception and understanding of the aesthetic phenomenon as an indivisible, organically interdependent unity of ideological content and means of expression - as opposed to their mechanistic comparison and opposition in illustrative analysis. In the author's aesthetic analysis, "form is essential", i.e. It is sought in the very nature of the artistic reflection and reproduction of reality. This is a difficult but correct path in Marxist aesthetics, because it is consistent with the specific, complex dialectical process of creativity. It is the antithesis of both vulgarizing and simplistic criticism, as well as aesthetic criticism. By following this path, L. Tene convincingly proves to us that the problem of conflict is still open to all drama, that a significant conflict is not created only with marked images and with the opposition of social forces if it does not pass through man, if it does not encompass his ideas, thoughts, feelings and actions. Therefore, we find his verdict on the production "When Thunder Strikes, How the Echo Fades" fair, since the director K. Iliev has supported the external presentation of the text, the search for abstract psychology and eternal truths. Borrowing means of theatrical expression from another theater or elements of one solution for the stage solution of another play, completely different in character and style, is not at all a sign of innovation. "When everything is done not for the whole, but for the individual, in such cases we get a demonstration of the means of expression without internal connection and organic conditioning, and

Veselin Yosifov has already written dozens of reviews, articles and critical notes, and has published a number of reports and talks. Written on different occasions and at different times, scattered across many newspapers and magazines, prefaces to publications, etc., in their entirety they outline a temperamental creative physiognomy, diverse interests and literary culture. And here, after so many years of work in the literary and critical field, he presented to the reader a very small part of them in a book entitled "Articles for Bulgarian Writers". Whether this is the best thing written by a critic is difficult to judge, but in any case it must confirm and illustrate his understanding of literature and criticism. I have heard it said about Yosifov that he has a sharp pen. And this is undoubtedly true. Because there are few of our critics who affirm or deny as sharply as he does. In all his works, "hate" and "love" are clearly visible. Therefore, for a critic like Veselin Yosifov, it seems to me, the words of S. S. Smirnov from his article "Notes on Criticism" are precisely appropriate: "The profession of criticism is perhaps the most ungrateful of all literary professions. Writers usually treat critics like drivers treat traffic police inspectors - they either respect them or fear them, but rarely love them."

In world literary history, there are artists whose historical significance becomes more and more evident with the passage of time, who push for reflection, for new quests of the mind and heart. Such a notable personality is V. G. Belinsky, 150 years since the birth of whom today the progressive public from all countries marks with gratitude, making new efforts to delve into the rich heritage of this great son of the Russian people in order to establish the impact of his revolutionary-political, theoretical-philosophical, literary-critical thought on and later generations. contemporaries Having passed an instructive path of ideological and creative development, Belinsky stands on the most progressive positions of his time, understands the needs and tasks of the era, strives for new revolutionary concepts of social, ethical and aesthetic values. Many of the principles he established still resonate today with undiminished force, have lost none of their vital relevance, and serve as the basis for further research. Belinsky's multifaceted and rich work seems to embody the comprehensive spirituality of the great Russian people, as if the socio-political, moral-philosophical, and literary-theoretical problems of the era are gathered. The insights of the great thinker cut through the gloomy atmosphere of bourgeois-landlord Russia like lightning - groaning and struggling against oppression and injustice, against the Nicholas monarchical dictatorship, and outline the radiant horizons to which human thought has been striving for centuries. What excited and worried his contemporaries, what flashed in the minds of honest people, disturbed the squeamish consciences of all sorts of oppressors of the human person, manifests itself in Belinsky with astonishing power, to charm and inspire the wronged, to frighten those in power. His articles take up the most pressing issues of the time, are met as a revelation. In them one feels the bubbling of an immense energy, the daring of a penetrating thought, the rebellion of a restless civic pathos of a loving heart.

With the plays "Guilds" and "At the Bottom" a new stage in the work of Maxim Gorky begins, connected with the growing revolutionary upsurge in Russia with the first rumblings and the approach of the 1905 revolution. During this period, the author of the romantic hymns about the madness of the heroes" and about the flaming heart of Danko, the realist writer, revealed the tragic fate and spontaneous protest of the barefoot people against the corrupting influence of the guild, proprietary morality - he becomes more and more closely associated with the revolutionary movement, intervenes in political struggles against the Russian autocracy and gradually connects with the Leninist wing of Russian Social Democracy. He becomes a stormtrooper, the herald of the revolution, the first proletarian writer of world significance in whose work the principles of socialist realism are formed. It was at this time that he fully realized his long-standing dream - to create art that arouses heroic emotions, reaching the widest circles, calls for the reorganization of the social order. In the play "Guilds" Gorky for the first time in world literature created the image of a proletarian fighter - the train driver Nile with his optimistic life-affirming philosophy, which acts like thunder over the troubled guild swamp. In Nile's words "The owner is the one who works", "Rights are not given - rights are won", "There is no such train schedule that cannot be changed" speaks of a new proletarian class, which has gathered strength for decisive political battles. Gorky takes stock of his early work and in the play "The Bottom". He frees himself from any romanticization of the free and protesting barefoot people; now they are already unfortunate victims, having lost everything that can be lost, but remaining sensitive to the call for human dignity, for the greatness of man. The famous words "Man - this is magnificent! Man - this sounds proud!" spread with incredible speed all over the world and shake the packed theaters in European capitals. They are spoken by some pitiful fragments of the human race, sunk in rags, from the darkness of their pit - this temporarily emphasizes the active humanism of the play even more strongly. At the same time, as an outlet, Gorky rejects passive compassion, the comforting lie of heavy suffering, exposes the philosophy of powerlessness, which seeks reconciliation with reality as a means that helps the masters of power to plunder their victims even more cruelly.

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.

I recently read in a reference book that Nikolay Yankov first published his literary work back in 1943. And when I recalled the many examples from our contemporary literary life, I found it somehow too strange, too unfamiliar to me the fact that only at the end of last year, that is, almost two decades after his debut, did his first book, the collection of literary-critical articles "Books. Authors and Time", appear. The reasons for this atypical delay can be explained in a variety of ways, but I have no intention of taking on such a task, since I do not see any particular importance in solving it. I would only like to note in general that it is not the result of any ideological-aesthetic break, of a sharp turn on a completely opposite path, nor of genre wanderings, of genre instability, of jumping from one perimeter of activity to another. Without being one of our most productive critics, Nikolay Yankov delayed the publication of his first book not because of the lack of his own works, but undoubtedly in this case considerations of a different nature were at work, and in the first place, it seems to me, the feeling of self-criticism. I am led to this thought primarily by the circumstance that, with the exception of only three works, the remaining articles were written in the last five or six years. It is obvious that N. Yankov does not feel a particular weakness for his works from a long time ago, it is clear that when compiling the book he did not want to include in it all his long-standing critical production, including his very first manifestations, but considered it most expedient to present himself only with his articles from recent years. But unfortunately this self-criticism is relative, it is not fully manifested. While treating his earlier critical works with extreme strictness, N. Yankov somehow unexpectedly shows himself to be too liberal towards her recent work, voting her full confidence and deciding to present her in "Books, Authors and Time" almost without any exceptions. He also allowed the inclusion of some small notes, some - as he himself called them - "sketches", the meaning of which is limited to marking a certain anniversary or cultural event, notes that in the columns of the newspaper had undoubted value, but which - at least in this form - can hardly find justification outside it. The book of criticism should not become a kind of diary that records every manifestation, it always implies selection (demandingness is always mandatory, it is necessary not only in the assessment of the earliest manifestations). The book is always an assessment - and above all self-assessed, it presents a certain creative period from its most important, most essential sides. Without concealing the noted inclinations towards an unnecessary comprehensiveness, without concealing the unfulfilled self-criticism, it must nevertheless be emphasized without further reservation that Nikolay Yankov's first book gives a general idea of ​​his creative physiognomy.

"The whole world is a prison, and Denmark is the worst of its dungeons." Thus, through his hero Hamlet, Shakespeare defines the state of the world, the state of modernity, the essence of his era. But the prison and the dungeons can be destroyed, blown up. Even the prison of prisons - the Bastille - can be destroyed. Not suddenly, but still people have learned such revolutionary destruction. However, the dungeon into which humanity has now fallen is hopeless. There is no entrance! There is no exit! There is no life, because it is rendered meaningless by death, which erases everything. There is no death, because only the living can die. There is no path, because none of them leads out of this vicious circle. There is Absurdity, there is Nothing, there is "existence" of the world - meaningless, endless, empty. And now people do not live, but only exist.

The great creators of artistic values ​​are the few people marked by fate who outlive their time, cross the borders of many countries, attract attention, evoke the admiration and gratitude of more than one generation. The great charming power and eternal significance of these creative personalities are as significant and comprehensive as the more organic the connection between artistic achievements and social behavior, between ideological and aesthetic insights and civic and ethical aspirations. Such people, like a beacon, attract the eyes of all who live with the impulses of a more intense life, are possessed by higher ideals of social progress and moral elevation. Readers of different generations and eras turn to the work of such creators in order to relate to what they have achieved as artists and citizens. Getting to know their mental and emotional world, their trials, insights and conquests serves as a support and prerequisite for further development of national and universal literature and culture. Such a charming personality is undoubtedly the great citizen-humanist and writer-realist Aleko Konstantinov.

Dimitar Blagoev belongs to those creative personalities whose work we remember not only on anniversaries and celebrations. With all the enormous achievements of modern thought in various fields of human knowledge, the traditions and testaments of these notable personalities retain all their vitality and timeless significance. Generations from different eras turn to their work to draw knowledge and wisdom, lessons and inspiration in their efforts to realize high social and cultural ideals. Therefore, such historical figures are not only our teachers, who have given us a true compass for orientation in the complex problems of life, but also our living contemporaries, suggesting to us the direction to the great truths.

There is a motto of Marx, which in Russian sounds like this: "Be yourself and go your own way!" There is no more appropriate motto for a person and an artist with firm and unshakable convictions, for a complete personality that is always organic in its manifestations and does not deviate from the chosen path. Sometimes this striving for fidelity to oneself can cost extraordinary efforts, great moral endurance and readiness for sacrifice. The upheavals of time, surprising tremors and storms can confuse the weaker and break the susceptible to insidious temptations, break his resistance and turn him from a subject into an object of events. However, the stronger will not submit to circumstances and will not give up his essence. For me, this motto radiates nobility unclouded by time, apostolic selflessness and consistency in his convictions. He has no relation to those who play in life as on a stage, and after each intermission they put on a new costume, after each act they take a higher note. We know from history that all revolutions and the eras that followed them had their knights and silent heroes, but also their inevitable grimaces - I think a German poet said this back in the last century.

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.

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.

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 have always treated criticism with respect. But if I say that I am in love with it, I would obviously be lying, since it is too much to ask someone to love the stick that is waved under their nose with enviable constancy... Well, joking aside. Let's be objective and say that the arguments around the "problem" of whether literary criticism is equal to other literary genres seem pointless to me. In my opinion, this depends on criticism itself, just as it depends on fiction or poetry whether it will be equal to criticism. A critical article can be read with joy and pleasure, just like any other literary work. Unfortunately, this does not happen very often, and the great fuss that has been made recently about the rights of criticism has a certain basis: it lies both in the incorrect attitude of some writers towards criticism and in the lack of inner confidence of some critics. When you don't feel confident in yourself or your poetry, you sometimes start screaming and beating your chest without knowing why...

Certain people, aware of the full responsibility of their work, have set out to penetrate the essence of literary phenomena, patiently traversing the entire uneven surface of our literature, have studied it and continue to study it in full publicity. Personally, I deeply respect the activities of these literary critics and they cover my concepts of literary criticism. It is true that they are few, but at the same time this difficult work, which requires an extremely strong burning of thought, could be done by anyone. I do not understand the desires of some of our publications to talk more and more about literary criticism, and we even witness how huge spaces of these publications are taken up by disputes about whether it has a place or not, whether it takes good care of its work or only speaks kind words, whether it is able to fulfill its tasks, etc., etc.; as if someone has taken away its rights or does not want to recognize its merits. It is unsympathetic - I think - when someone is particularly insistent on having something acknowledged. At least this work is a frivolous occupation for serious people. There is a natural dislike and irritability for certain remarks in the work of this or that writer, personal considerations have accumulated and alienated the assessment of writers and books. It seems to me that no amount of effort will be able to bring people who have long since become strangers to each other face to face. A section of literary criticism also complains that it was not loved by writers. There are simple laws of human reciprocity and it is best if we do not complain. The work of the writer and the work of the literary critic is purely male work and I do not understand what explanation of love should exist where male sweat is boiling! Since we are talking about literary criticism, I cannot help but mention another group that I personally believe has nothing to do with literary criticism, but rather has leaned towards it and complains most about demanding recognition. Unfortunately, this dusty group argues more about the dust that it has raised for itself. I notice in it boys with whom our sideburns began to grow together, then they studied on state scholarships here or abroad and accumulated a lot of knowledge, but their manifestations are devoid of impetuosity of thought; they too early began to seek the protection of this or that broad back, of this or that significant face, they became voluntary squires, without realizing clearly enough that the sword of fate is carried by ordinary people. It is unpleasant to watch the frivolous waving of these squires, forgetting that we live in complete publicity. It's unpleasant to give advice, but I would say: let's learn to shave our own sideburns before shaving other people's beards. I wouldn't mention this group if it hadn't struck me that it is spreading more and more, gaining more and more territory, in order to fill, according to some, a concomitant void. If there is a hole somewhere, let it remain a hole, instead of filling it with cotton wool.

Critical thought in our country seems to be in a feverish hurry to catch up with what has been missed, to reduce the delay left as a legacy from years of inaction or stagnation. Discussions, discussions. And many new books by critics - with new and old works in them. Bogomil Nonev has called his collection "Critical Chronicle 1960-1965". He pays special attention to the literary critic and his work, examining this topic in a separate article. But the entire book of Nonev raises some questions of the stylistics of literary criticism. With the temperamental characteristics, with the defense of Aragon's innovation in the novel "Holy Week" Nonev involuntarily defends his existence in criticism. The mixture of genres, the use of various means and forms - even an entire essay on Caravaggio's painting - in Aragon's novel has led to interesting artistic solutions. Without making any analogy with the results and their significance, I will say that the symbiosis of elements of criticism and journalism in the style of Bogomil Nonev shapes his authorial capabilities, determines the achievements and weaknesses of his style. It is difficult, it seems to me even impossible, to precisely delineate the boundary between criticism and journalism, between criticism and other genres of artistic creativity. In each author, his tendency to a certain way of perceiving and experiencing the work prevails, lyrical, journalistic or fiction features dominate in his style. At one point in his book, Bogomil Nonev says that "... the literary critic is a thinker, a journalist and an artist". The emphasis in his articles falls most strongly on the second of these qualities.

Bulgarian literary criticism during the Revival attracted the least researchers of our classical heritage. Indeed, there are special studies on Karavelov and Botev, on Drumev and Nesho Bonchev. On various occasions, some literary historians and theorists have touched upon the issues of Revival aesthetic thought. However, the need for a comprehensive study has long been felt, which would enrich the not-so-complete and accurate ideas about literary criticism during the Revival, point out new names and facts, and seek the principles that determine the attitude of the Revival writer to literary phenomena. Such a work, of course, requires not only persistent and continuous work - a study of the periodical press, archival funds, and individual editions. Basically, one must also know Russian and Western European aesthetic thought of this period in order to be able to trace the nature of the influences, to distinguish the original from ordinary imitation. It is necessary to study both the original and translated literature, to see whether each given assessment meets an objective criterion.

"Contemporary Literary Issues" is the new book by Stoyan Karolev. A new theoretical and critical book in our literature is not a frequent occurrence to go unnoticed. Stoyan Karolev is one of the most mature, insightful and sincere representatives of the middle generation of Marxist literary theorists and critics. He possesses a rare talent: to respond to the most acute contemporary problems, to have a clear position and at the same time to be devoid of malicious pickiness and narrow-mindedness. This is a good and moral critical talent with great erudition and true principle. The arrangement of artists or scientists by age has always seemed unconvincing to me. The characterization of "young artist" or "young critic" has often included not only benevolence, but also condescending neglect - even the "young" are already approaching "the field of life". Referring to advanced age does not give us much either. Past merits and accumulated experience are worthy of respect. However, these values ​​are often overshadowed by the selfishness of age, by conservatism, by the fear of the new. And this has more than once led to "subjective honesty, objective reaction" (at best), to falling behind the needs of the era. Both youth and maturity are equivalent, as long as they can be measured by bold talent and high value productivity. Old Goethe had much younger talent than a number of beardless Eckermanns. Proof is the second part of "Faust". Every true talent is young, since every work presupposes the original creation of unconventional, fundamentally new values, for which there is no preliminary algorithm. This general rule is powerful both over the artist and over criticism.

"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

TODAY, and apparently since yesterday, it is almost unknown in our country. We do not know the essence and functions of Czech and Slovak literary criticism, we do not know about its relations to literary theory and history and, of course, to aesthetics, as well as to sociology, psychology and philosophy, about its connections to cultural policy and the social situation. And the long-standing disputes and polemics, especially of the last ten years, would tell us a lot about its subject, method and criterion, about the contribution of literary critics, with a unique creative expression and with a sharp eye for general and characteristic tendencies of literary development in Czechoslovakia. It is necessary to present in our country this complex of problems of contemporary Czech and Slovak literary and critical thought, at least in the most characteristic creative expressions. It is naive to assume that it can be revealed in separate, moreover, so sporadic, reviews and surveys. Today, our access to authentic material can be facilitated by the History of Czechoslovak Literary Criticism, by a significant number of anthologies with selected articles, essays, critical and analytical studies by prominent Czechoslovak literary scholars and writers, and not least by the high literary-theoretical and critical level of today's Czech and Slovak literary journals."

Dr. Todor Zhivkov's new speech "Carry and raise our pure, holy and victorious banner even higher!", delivered on March 14, 1969 before the sixteenth reporting and election conference of the capital's organization of the DCMS, as well as all his speeches and reports, found a lively response among our entire public. It was perceived as a very timely party document, a logical continuation of the "theses" for creative work among the youth, as a vivid manifestation of exceptional care and complete trust in the youth of the homeland and in the artistic intelligentsia, which was particularly moved by the fact that the main part of the speech was devoted to current problems related to the current state of the ideological front. This remarkable speech once again emphasizes the need to raise the role of social sciences and ideological disciplines, which are gaining in importance today, when a fierce battle is being waged between communist and bourgeois ideology to win the minds and hearts of people all over the world. That is why the party's call to young communists to take up the proud banner of Dimitar Blagoev and Georgi Dimitrov in their own hands, to raise it even higher and to carry it pure, holy, victoriously - through all trials and difficulties is so categorical.

During his lifetime, no literature was created around him, no scandalous noise was raised, and yet he was at the forefront of the Bulgarian intellectual process. It's not that he wasn't written about (on the contrary, his publications were always met with enthusiastic reception and laudatory reviews in the press), but he didn't like to impose his silhouette. Minko Nikolov had an innate dislike for scandalous fame and noisy appearances in literature. But his insufficient "noticing" was to some extent hindered by the innate myopia of his contemporaries. Many things prevented us from seeing him in his true stature. And here we involuntarily fell into the position of Chekhov's heroine, who had dreamed all her life of seeing the extraordinary man, and he was there for her. The daily routine, the controversial nature of the controversial profession - criticism (or as some writers call it, the "strange profession") prevented us from seeing him in his true scale, from taking into account the seriousness of his intellectual drama. This drama became deeper and deeper day by day, to reach the fatal denouement of the end of December 1966. It was only the black silhouette of the suicide bomber that forced upon the living in an inimitable way the magnitude of the life drama called Minko Nikolov. And now we see in the light of "what has happened" the irreversible, the terrifying. "Nothing, that many ridiculous life circumstances prevented us from seeing behind his kind smile the already maturing skeptical, hopeless smile, which often adorned his spiritualized face. And no matter how much we stared and were insightful, we could not discover the depth of his human tragedy. And he had already been carrying it for years, silently and imperceptibly, like some kind of "sarcoma" that torments the brain, takes away the energy of his nerves, the juice of his human and social enthusiasm. She was, with a kind of malicious pace, preparing the sudden catastrophe, the "cruel collapse" of a valuable and long-built creative personality.

In Bulgarian literary and historical science after 1944, the question of the development of our literary theory and criticism is not new, it has not just arisen. As a research task, this question has been raised more than once and not by one or two Bulgarian literary historians. For various reasons, however, no work has been done in this direction. There are too few researchers who have occasionally paid attention to one or another moment in the history of Bulgarian literary criticism, theory and science. The only more systematic and comprehensive studies that have been published so far belong to Georgi Dimov, who works mainly in this scientific field.

The anniversaries of the birth or death of great and notable personalities, connected through their work with a certain era in the history of the cultural conquests of humanity, are a good occasion to put us in a "dialogue with the past", as the prominent French literary historian Professor Jean Pomier titled one of his works, and to allow us to look at their ideas, concepts, and influences from the standpoint of our modernity, with a view to seeing the place they have in the panorama of their national literature, as well as in the general panorama of world literature.