творчество

The paths by which a writer penetrates beyond the borders of his homeland are very different and complex. Having followed their winding paths, the artist often receives new dimensions from different eras and among different peoples, is "discovered by those who are not even aware of them in their time. There is something very characteristic of the fate of a writer in the way in which he is assimilated outside his homeland. Sometimes, having vividly expressed the trends of his time, having created a unique style and handwriting, the artist powerfully conquers the minds of his era, his work becomes a banner, a slogan, a platform, and often in the end - because the last stage of the rapid assimilation of a unique talent is almost always epigonism - and a literary fashion. Such is the fate of some great artists of the Western European classics of the last century (Byron, Schiller). There are also writers who remain almost undiscovered by their contemporaries, in order to measure their value from other eras or among other peoples. Such is the fate of Stenda Often literary fashion opens a green light for some unhealthy literary trends. The fame of such literary ephemera, the most characteristic example of which in our country is perhaps Przybyszewski, only testifies to the aesthetic level of famous circles during the era.

One of the main issues in Yordan Yovkov's work is the question of tragedy in life and its artistic reflection in art. The writer is able to see and convey with irresistible force the tragic beginning in reality. With his best works, he convinces in an artistic way that tragedy can be caused not only by the immediate material conditions and circumstances inherent in a given time, but also by a number of individual qualities and characteristics acquired during the millennial existence of humanity. In this way, Yovkov shows that these qualities and characteristics, which are ultimately formed again under the determining role of material conditions (only not the current material conditions), have relative independence and very often have a great, even decisive influence on the fate of man. Such an artistic attitude comprehends, albeit insufficiently, the economic reasons, without ignoring other factors and circumstances for the existence and manifestation of tragedy. Although it increases the risk of errors in the artistic reflection of reality, it opens up great possibilities for the comprehensive and profound depiction of life. Thanks to it, in some of his best works Yovkov manages to reach true heights of artistic mastery in reflecting the tragic in reality.

The psychology of artistic creation in general and of literary creation in particular is a field that has been relatively least developed by Marxist-Leninist art science. Until recently, in the Soviet Union, the country where Marxist-Leninist aesthetics and literary theory were mainly created, almost nothing was written about the problems of the psychology of literary creation. Moreover, for a long time these problems were not posed as tasks for scientific research. This circumstance could not but create a certain void in the science of literary creation and, in particular, in the theory of literature. The lag in this respect becomes even more obvious when we consider that bourgeois science pays great attention to the psychology of artistic creation and it is in this area that it has created the most complex labyrinth of groundless philosophical speculations. Of course, it would be wrong to say that Soviet literary studies have done nothing to clarify the problems of the psychology of literary creation. Such a statement would be incorrect. Even for pre-revolutionary Russian literary studies, these questions were of considerable interest. It is enough to mention the collections "Questions of the Theory and Psychology of Creativity", published under the reaction of B. Lezin from 1907 to 1923 in Kharkov, and the wide range of problems covered in them, to convince ourselves of the truth of this statement. These collections, as well as individual books, for example, works such as those by S. Gruzenberg (Psychology of Creativity, Minsk, 1923 and "Genius and Creativity" 1924), clearly show that even then the mentioned problems, regardless of the erroneous methodological foundations on which they were placed, were understood as an important part of the general science of literature.

In our time, when the importance of literary translation as a connecting link between the cultures of individual nations has grown unusually, there are more and more grounds to raise the question of the independent nature of this type of literary work. For more than 150 years, literary translation in the modern sense of the word has been distinguished as a field with its own goals and objectives, with its own problems, with its own creative process. Creative individuals have emerged in this field with their own specific characteristics, related to the peculiarities of their activity. Regularities have emerged in the history of literary translation that also speak of an independent development. A theory of translation has been created, which has been significantly enriched and deepened, especially in recent decades. The benefit of correctly distinguishing literary translation work from other related fields is more than obvious. Only on this plane can one resist some misconceptions that are particularly reflected in the theory and criticism of translation. The necessity of such a separation stands out particularly clearly today, when within the boundaries of translation a new field is rapidly developing and expanding its reach, from which the translation of fiction must be clearly distinguished - machine translation based on modern cybernetic technology.

"A person without secrets is like a flower without a scent. The scent is the secret of the flower. My house also has its secrets." The beginning of the story "Sunday" - one of the last works of Yordan Radichkov. "A rooster crows all night, we all hear it, but in whose bathroom the rooster is - no one knows." Here is the first secret... It may disappoint a little the one whom the opening words have set in a too secretive mood. Through a cooling and intriguing irony at the same time, the writer seems to be in a hurry to warn us: do not expect anything extraordinary, nothing exceptional, no heroic or tragic deeds, no deep psychological secrets. And indeed, whoever expected them did not wait for them until the last page of the story, dotted with ordinary incidents and scenes in an ordinary residential building on an ordinary Sunday.

A remarkable work in literary science is the recently published second edition of "Psychology of Literary Creativity" by Academician Mikhail Arnaudov. This work is a scientific and literary study of the psychological foundations of the creative process in writers and of its precise, albeit difficult to perceive determinism. Academician M. Arnaudov has mastered a methodology that has enabled him to make a realistic interpretation of the creative process. He applies the juxtaposition of opposing and contradictory poetic experiences and opinions, which he arranges in such a way as to highlight the objective truth about the creative process. In "Psychology of Literary Creativity" a huge amount of material from the poetic wealth of the classics of the 18th and 19th centuries is used, and mainly those confessions of poets are given that lead to the treasures of their creative thoughts and impulses. On a number of issues of literary psychology the author has discovered an opportunity for further research, indicating the path that should be followed. He usually does not lead discussions with the creators, but acts as a conductor of discussions held between them. In this way he ensures the integrity of the facts and the originality of their evidentiary force. Acad. M. Arnaudov does not strive for formulations. For him, individual peculiarities are important, which also reveal common characteristics, and at the same time lead to the laws of psychic experiences. The work is developed in a very broad plan of problems. The world's artistic and psychological experience is used, and in places parallels are made between different arts. As prerequisites for the psychology of creativity, the problems of genius, race and humanity, about the influence of heredity, environment and culture, about Mikhail Arnaudov. Psychology of literary creativity. 1965. 120 degeneration and neuroses. On these issues, the author has come to materialist conclusions. Particularly valuable is his work with arguments and evidence against all mysticism, demonism, racism and neurosis, the supporters of which most often seek evidence precisely in the work of poets, as an exceptionally wonderful area in which, they claim, the laws of ordinary mental life are invalid. The author proves to us just the opposite: creativity is health, work, perseverance, diligence, humanity and the struggle with everything painful. "Creativity is clarification and spiritual purification. How could the artist become an interpreter of thoughts and longings in his contemporaries if he does not rise above all internal limitations and above everything chaotic in himself?"

At two consecutive meetings, the Scientific Council of the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences discussed and accepted for publication Vasil Kolevski's work "The Pathos of October", dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. In his review, Angel Todorov emphasized the importance of the topic, gave a positive assessment of the work and concluded that the influence of Soviet literature on Bulgarian is a profound regularity for the activation and development of our entire culture and literature. From this position, the author also considers the issue of the reflection and reception of Soviet literature in Bulgarian progressive periodicals from 1917 to 1944. Angel Todorov made a brief overview of the material presented in the book, emphasized its breadth, systematization and assessment from a modern scientific point of view. He characterized the study as seriously and competently written. He also made some critical remarks.

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.

The word "intuition" in psychology and aesthetics is used in the sense of sudden knowledge, knowledge without the mediation of concepts and reasoning at the very moment of its occurrence. For example, a scientist arrives at the solution to the problem that concerns him, not at the moment of intellectual effort, not when he is standing at his workbench, but at a moment when he is not thinking about it, when he is walking or when he is having fun, when he wakes up from a dream or when he is thinking about the solution to a completely different problem. The riddle was solved - says Gauss - so that, as if lightning flashed before me, I myself was not able to restore the connection between what I knew earlier and what led me to the desired result. The solution to the riddle, of course, must be substantiated in order to have scientific value. It must be clarified through a chain of reasoning connecting the known with the unknown that has been discovered. This justification, however, usually occurs slowly, as one moves from step to step on the ladder leading to intellectual clarification of the knowledge gained. Kepler wrote of the discovery of his third law: "Eight months ago the first ray of light shone before me, three months ago I saw the day, and finally, only a few days ago I was honored to contemplate the radiant sun itself."

On April 24, 1969, the public defense of Hristo Yordanov's dissertation on the topic "Veselin Andreev - Life and Creativity" took place. In the presence of the members of the scientific council, the research associates of the Institute of Literature and many citizens, the reviewers Acad. Pantelei Zarev and Prof. Efrem Karanfilov read their reviews of the proposed work, emphasizing its merits: conscientious study of the material, penetration into the contemporary problems of our literature, kinship with the work of Veselin Andreev, building an accurate portrait of a moral and creative personality. In his review, Acad. P. Zarev emphasized that he fully shared the main concept of the dissertationist: the beauty and humanism of the socialist revolution give birth to poets and communists worthy of the traditions of our literature, coming from Botev. He also pointed out that the life and work of Veselin Andreev are presented in relief and so illuminated that they are turned into a truthful apology for communist ideas. Prof. E. Karanfilov pointed out that Yordanov comes to some interesting problems about the transition between realism and romanticism, about socialist humanism in our poetry, about revolutionary optimism, etc.

On May 29, 1969, the defense of the dissertation on the topic "Georgi of Elka Konstantinova Raychev. Life and Creativity" took place. The scientific supervisor was our late literary historian and critic Minko Nikolov, and the reviewers were Prof. Stoyan Karolev and Assoc. Prof. Zdravko Petrov. The members of the scientific council, literary workers and many citizens were present. The director of the Institute of Literature, Stoyko Bozhkov, who chaired the discussion, introduced those present to the content of the presented documents and gave a characteristic of the scientific achievements of the graduate student. The head of the section at the institute, Prof. Georgi Tsanev, presented the work of Elka Konstantinova, and the two reviewers read their reviews. Both emphasized the seriousness of the work done, the penetration into the world of the writer and the difficult time of its formation and creative realization.