стил

Not even those who have studied our literary history know that Botev was an innovator for his time, a unique poet with an original spiritual view of the world. And more. That, despite the great power and originality of his talent, he follows a tradition characteristic of our pre-liberation literature: his lyrics carry something of the atmosphere of the magnificent and emotional images of folk art. But isn't this a very stable phenomenon for the time? Don't we recognize traces of the poetic world of folk song in the works of many others? Already in Nayden Gerov's poem "Stoyan and Rada", in Kozlev's heroic epic "Haidut Sider and the Black Arab", in the early lyrics and the first poems of P. R. Slaveykov, traces of coexistence between personal and folk art are visible. It is as if the poet could not spread his wings under the horizon of the Bulgarian sky without listening to the song born of the people, without drinking from its source, without perceiving its imagery, rhythm, style. No matter how much our literature has been in contact with foreign poetic worlds, the great and original art of great creative individuals is still little known. Both the content and the form carry within themselves the atmosphere of folk poetry, even in works written on a new, original, personal theme. Botev could not escape this regularity of time. And where will he escape, since he himself feels the lyric as a song, since he himself is deeply fascinated by the motifs in the poetry of the people. His contemporaries recall with excitement how he - the poet, the publicist, the thinker, who stood high above the people around him - responded enthusiastically to our folk song. He is always moved and captivated by it. And this was so, despite his self-awareness as a person who creates a new, his own art. His inspired worship of folk song comes very deeply. He has been under the influence and power since his childhood, those years of independence, when, imitating the heroes of the folk epic, he terrified the neighborhoods of the town with the games of "outlaws". It is known that his mother, a woman with a wonderful memory and a personal gift of a singer, often sang haidush songs about folk protectors who roamed the fields, mountains. She took the child's imagination from everyday life to the heights of the Balkans, to the beauty of a world filled with heroic thoughts. A person with a strong character, inclined to say things outright, in winter, she probably reinforced the idea of ​​the heroism of the C e C 16 Outlaws.

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?