като

In the extensive activity that G. Bakalov develops for the popularization and establishment of Russian literature in our country, a particularly important place is occupied by the work of N. A. Nekrasov. The Marxist critic has known and loved the poet of Russian revolutionary democracy since early adolescence. He admires his highly ideological art, is inspired by his deep love for the people, by his passionate hatred for their enemies. Like Nekrasov, he values ​​in a literary work above all its ideological content - its connection with life, with the revolutionary ideals of the time.

Of the three greatest epic works by Y. Yovkov, The Reaper, The Farmstead on the Border, and The Adventures of Gorolomov, the latter turned out to be almost completely outside the interests of literary criticism and literary history. The two short articles by M. Arnaudov,2 the study by G. Tsanev in the first anniversary of "Art and Criticism," the attempt at an ideological assessment of the work contained in the book by Iv. Meshekov, as well as the interesting review by P. Dinekov - this is in fact almost everything that has been written so far about this novel. Among other articles and historical and literary works, apart from individual notes, we do not find a single work that represents an attempt to clarify the ideological and artistic meaning of the work. How can such indifference on the part of critics and literary historians be explained? Two reasons have an influence: first - the novel was published in fragments for seven years, and second - it remained an unfinished work. Chapters I-IV were published in books II-V of the magazine "Bulgarian Thought" from 1931, and chapters V-X in books II-VII of the same magazine from 1937. In the manuscripts remaining after the writer's death, an almost illegible and stylistically underdeveloped sketch of the eleventh chapter was found, which was read with great effort by Dr. D. Yovkova and printed in the already mentioned magazine "Art and Criticism".

The feuilletons occupy the most significant place among the poet's prose. Both in volume and in importance. If in Smirnenski's lyrics there are four humoresques and satires for every non-humorous poem, in his prose the number of feuilletons and zlobodnevki compared to that of stories and impressions is even greater. This shows that, in addition to being a poet, Smirnenski systematically, consciously and continuously developed as a feuilletonist. Here he also follows a tradition inherited from Botev. As a genre, the feuilleton is widely represented in Bulgarian literature. The active civic consciousness of our writers of the past directs them to use the most efficient satirical weapon for quickly and surely defeating the enemy, for instantly exposing vice. From a journalistic genre with a sharp publicistic focus, the feuilleton gradually turns into a work of art, in which memorable images and characters are concisely and vividly outlined. Incidentally, the elements of artistry and publicism are so closely connected with each other that it would perhaps be most correct to speak of artistic publicism in Bulgarian literature. There are no strict barriers and barriers; the genres flow into each other. Only in a conditional sense can one speak of artistic and publicistic feuilleton - to the extent that one or another element predominates in the individual work. Hristo Botev uses the feuilleton form both for the direct publicistic-satirical expression of his thoughts and ideas, and for the creation of negative human types. Aleko Konstantinov, who has made great contributions to the development and improvement of this genre in our literature, is also following in his footsteps. In the acute political clashes after the liberation, the feuilleton did not leave the pages of the newspapers. It would not be an exaggeration to say that there was hardly a Bulgarian writer of that time who did not leave his name or pseudonym under the regular column with the feuilletons. After Aleko's death, one name stands out brightly among the authors-feuilletonists - Georgi Kirkov. Botev, Aleko Konstan and Georgi Kirkov were Smirnensky's teachers, their traditions continued by his contemporaries in the new historical environment. Of course, he was influenced by Kyulyavkov, his proletarian feuilletonists (D. I. Polyanov, Krum).

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.

"Galileo of modern aesthetics!" (A. Richards), "a seer, a teacher who sheds light on life" (J. Mackail), the founder of many modern artistic and literary trends... For our reader, these definitions of the English romantic poet S. T. Coleridge sound strange and lofty. Some bourgeois literary critics also accept that they are lofty, but what is their subtext, what is the reason for bourgeois literary criticism's fascination with Coleridge, and whether he can only be a "progenitor" of the Neoplatonists, the intuitionists, the Freudians, the "stream of consciousness" - this is still a question that Marxist literary criticism has not answered exhaustively.

The question of literary influences on Karavelov is complex and interesting. It is inextricably linked with the entire complex of problems of the writer's creative path, of the features, place and significance of his literary work. It cannot be properly understood if we do not approach it concretely and historically. The concretely and historically approach implies a study not only of the historical moment, but also of the specific features of national development, of the national cultural process. As a writer, L. Karavelov learned from the work of strictly defined authors: primarily from revolutionary-democratic Russian and Ukrainian literature and from Gogol's work. The revolutionary-democratic direction influenced him with two of its main tendencies, manifested, on the one hand, in the works of writers who developed the journalistic genre in fiction, such as Chernyshevsky and Herzen, and on the other hand, in works that are distinguished by a peculiar national, even populist pathos. The most significant representative of the latter trend is the Ukrainian writer M. Vovchok. The influence of M. Vovchok and T. Shevchenko on Karavelov's work is particularly strong, undeniable. The task of the present work is to raise and clarify some questions about the development of the fiction writer Karavelov, in connection with the influence of the Ukrainian writer M. Vovchok, about the common trends in their work and about the differences between them.

The literature of any people, studied in any period, represents a complete dynamic system. 2 By the system of literature I understand a certain relationship of its parts to each other: of the types of literature (translated and original, church, historical, natural science, journalistic, etc.), of its genres, of its individual works. The concept of a system of literature also includes the relationship of literature to other areas of culture: to science, religion, public thought, to various arts, folklore, etc. Finally, the system of literature also includes its relationship to the cultures and literatures of other countries and peoples. Ultimately, the system of literature is determined by its relationship to historical reality - the relationship with it constitutes the most essential part of the system. This internal structure and the relationship with the external environment surrounding literature constitute an organic whole. The system of literature, despite the fact that its individual parts are in constant equilibrium with each other, is not static. It is constantly changing. However, the permanently disturbed balance is restored again and a dynamic equilibrium exists.