литературата

Bulgarian scientific and cultural workers, and especially Bulgarian writers, joining the nationwide celebration of the 90th anniversary of the greatest man of our time, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, rightly dwell first of all on the new that Lenin's creative genius brought to all areas of science, culture, art, education, politics, construction, etc. One of the issues that has always deeply concerned our cultural workers and writers is the question of the party affiliation of literature and art in general. It is included in almost all scientific and general ideological sessions, meetings and conferences that are taking place and are yet to take place in our country in connection with the 90th anniversary of V. I. Lenin, and the Union of Bulgarian Writers has also organized a special scientific session dedicated to the question of the party affiliation of literature and art in general. The issue does not leave the pages of the relevant magazines, newspapers and other periodicals and non-periodical publications.

P. Zarev's book "Style and Artistry" expresses that new spirit in Marxist aesthetics that has been felt over the last five or six years in the Soviet Union and in our country. Its characteristic features are a dislike for dogmatic Phraseology, an aspiration to overcome sociologism and epistemology, and an increased interest in the specific aspects of artistic depiction. In addition to clarifying general methodological positions, this new spirit also means emphasized attention to special aesthetic issues that will bring us closer to the intimate and unique in the poetic image. P. Zarev strives to follow the new trends not by theorizing on the basic principles, but by implementing them in more specific studies. In the pathos of the individual articles, we perceive a general concept that determines both the interests and conclusions of the author. And although it does not have a monographic character, although it is composed of individual articles, each of which arose on a specific occasion and treats an independent issue, the book is internally unified. From beginning to end, it is permeated by a characteristic aesthetic concept - the concept of the aesthetic wealth of literature. We constantly feel the conscious struggle against simplification and dogmatism, the desire to impress upon us a more precise artistic criterion. One may not agree with all the conclusions and solutions on the topics considered, one may even think that the author has not been able to fully fulfill the task set, this is a separate issue. However, there is no doubt that he has identified a correct and fruitful direction in the understanding and study of fiction and that in his efforts he has achieved a number of positive results. One cannot properly assess the book "Style and Artistry" if one does not penetrate its inner pathos, nor understand the fundamental meaning of the individual articles if one does not look at them in the light of this basic pathos. The main supporting points of the author's concept are two. The first emphasizes the aesthetic nature of artistic content, and the second - the subjective - creative nature of artistic reflection.

The periodicals from the era of our national revival often surprise us with the insight and sober ideological and aesthetic sense of the first Bulgarian Literary Critics. In them, next to the angry correspondence against the centuries-old slave system or the naive poetic work of some teacher, we often come across reviews of original and translated works of art or articles of a theoretical nature. Sometimes they are laconic and informative, sometimes detailed and categorical. Their authors are not always original. In most cases, they even popularize ideas and beliefs created and adopted in other countries dozens of years earlier. But even when they paraphrase or borrow textually, our literary pioneers do so not in order to be proclaimed by the ignorance of their compatriots as talented thinkers or as founders of movements and schools, but because of the utilitarian spirit of the time and for tactical considerations before the official political authorities. However, both as popularizers and as original The Bulgarian Renaissance writers and literary figures always lived with the problems and creative pathos of our literature. The influence of Russian realistic thought on their literary-critical views is undeniable. However, we do not set ourselves the task of tracing how and to what extent it was realized, we will limit ourselves to pointing out that almost all Bulgarian Renaissance writers were able to soberly use what they had learned both as writers and as literary critics. This is evident above all from their articles and notes, in which some of the problems of realism as a creative method in fiction are raised and examined. The literary-critical views of Karavelov, Botev, Nesho Bonchev, which reflect a relatively more mature stage in Bulgarian criticism, will not concern us in this case. By referring only at certain moments to some articles by our established literary critics, we will try to trace the concepts of Other Renaissance writers on our literary development, in order to see that the struggle for realism in Bulgarian literature until the Liberation was a struggle not only of individual, albeit great, writers, but a collective work of an entire literary generation. And since realism finds its fullest expression in literary prose, we will limit ourselves to indicating how literary criticism then greeted the first attempts in the field of "Bulgarianized" and original fiction, how some of our writers understood their tasks, what tasks they assigned to narrative creativity.

I predict that the reader will be perplexed when he reads the title of this article: is it possible that such general theoretical questions as the formation of the artistic image and the division of literature into genera and types can be solved or examined on the limited material of a literature for one decade and taken at that not in its best era: because in the 1840s of the 19th century, neither Botev, nor Vazov, nor Karavelov, nor Petko Slaveykov, nor Rakovski, nor even Chintulov had yet appeared on the literary horizon in Bulgaria. The literary field is mainly occupied by poets such as Neofit Rilski, Neofit Bozveli, Rayno Popovich, Konstantin Ognyanovich, Naiden Gerov and others.

Comrades, At our current meeting in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Union of Bulgarian Writers, we started an argument with the Chairman of the Committee on Culture and Art, Dr. Petar Vutov. I asked him to give me the floor later, so that I could prepare accordingly and get into tune, so to speak. But he told me: "It is not possible, Comrade Zhivkov, because the Chairman of the Union of Bulgarian Writers, Dr. Kamen Kalchev, will also speak, and other comrades will speak, and there will also be a literary program." It seems, as I understood from Dr. Vutov's information, that today's meeting will be more difficult than your solemn meeting last night. (Merry cheering. Applause). The second issue of our argument with Dr. Vutov concerns whether I should just raise a toast or deliver a speech. I do not know why Dr. Vutov, by giving me the floor, limits me and suggests that I raise a toast. I could not imagine how you, the writers, would exist if you did not write, and how we, the political and state figures, would exist if we did not deliver speeches. After all, that is how we earn our living. (Merry cheering. Applause). Dear writers, Dear comrades, Distinguished guests, I am fulfilling a pleasant assignment from the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, the people's government and my comrades - members of the Politburo and secretaries of the Central Committee of the party, who are present at this meeting. I greet you most cordially, warmly fatherly - I mean the party, friendly - I mean our comradeship and ties, on the occasion of the glorious 50th anniversary of the Union of Bulgarian Writers. (Prolonged applause).

Efrem Karanfilov is one of those authors for whom writing is not a casual occupation. He is usually not satisfied with a banal, impersonal examination of works and problems, because writing an article for him is a way to express himself, to express his attitude towards things, to communicate his discoveries about people and literature. He feels a writing vocation within himself, he is possessed by the ambition to involve readers in his thoughts, to instill in them his convictions. Naturally, the literary works he writes about are not indifferent to him, his attitude towards them is very active. With their images and ideas, they unleash the flow of his own thoughts and moods and always evoke certain emotional reactions. These features apply to E. Karanfilov's work in general, but they are manifested to the highest degree in his essays. Because this is indeed a very suitable genre for an author with his inclinations and temperament. The essay gives him exactly that complete freedom that he needs - to follow his thoughts, unbound by preconditions.

Georgi Gachev's book with the unattractive title "Accelerated Development of Literature" is, for me, the most attractive fruit of Bulgarian studies outside our borders. In it, Gachev demonstrates great advantages over his colleagues at home and abroad, his efforts are intertwined with some of the latest searches in contemporary literary studies. Relying on the brilliant tradition of Russian comparative literary studies and the contemporary achievements of Marxist literary theory, he makes almost the first attempt at a theoretical history of Bulgarian literature in one of the important periods of its development. Despite the complex, abstract-theoretical formulation of the questions and the purely rationalistic pathos in resolving them, the book bears a clear imprint of the researcher's personality, his spiritual searches and problems. You have to be Bulgarian for the tragic vicissitudes of our national cultural development, the fate of these figures distant in history, the weaknesses and discontinuities to arouse such fascination in you. of tradition. In general, to feel within oneself this thirst and longing for tradition, for supporting and stable forms. You have to be a foreigner to be able to look from the side, to have lived with other cultures, to be blinded by the astonishing paradoxes of a literature, the unexpected combinations, the tragicomic anachronisms and even more unexpected appropriations. Gachev has taken a voluntary and noble risk - to find the laws of a delayed and therefore accelerated cultural development, to discover the motives driving it, natural tendencies in an unnatural development. He undertakes his risky experiment on a period in the history of our literature - the end of the 18th and the first half of the 19th century - which as much complicates as it eases his task. The difficulty comes from the fact that, due to its nature, this literature knows nothing about itself, in it criticism, programs, aesthetic platforms are absent. In many respects this is not literature itself, but culture in the broadest sense of the word. With rare exceptions, its written monuments are far less interesting than the vital and spiritual adventures of their creators. In these written monuments, the creators are reflected palely and sluggishly. The difficulties are also increased by the fact that until now this period of our literary development has aroused and arouses factual, empirical interest in researchers. In our country, there is no theoretical interest in key periods, genres, trends and problems of literary development, and Gachev's work was prepared only from the factual side. Perhaps that is why for many it was a surprise, almost an unauthorized attempt and unnecessary complication.

The large color panel of the panoramic painting usually unfolds as a chronicle of a bygone era. As the greater and lesser artists appear before our eyes, they present to some extent the overall artistic development. However, conclusions are needed that illuminate the vast perspective of the past phenomena in more relief. The main differences, the original and distinctive features stand out best through model 1 of the literary process. On the one hand, it distances the details, avoids excessive complexity, so as not to repeat the process, on the other, by not breaking away from the broad plans, it captures what distinguishes our artistic creation from the creation of other peoples, which is our contribution to world literature. Let me say in advance that it is extremely difficult to establish the unique in a national poetics depending on the changes in the national psyche. It is easy to point out that the world in our country became different with the advent of printing or later - of bicycles and motor vehicles. It is more difficult to grasp the spirit of the times, the intimate and the special in literature that has lacked stability, since each new time has broken something of what was bequeathed. But let us also unfold this page and delve into issues touched upon here and there sporadically, without claiming to be exhaustive.

G. Dimitrov's statements about literature and art, his assessments of cultural manifestations in our artistic life are not accidental and isolated. They are determined by the great importance, role and specific social function of art. G. Dimitrov is characterized by a subtle sense of the historical originality of artistic phenomena. Therefore, he always turns to the problems that have arisen with the greatest acuteness from the course and development of society. For example: his thoughts on the superintendent, illuminated in the report of the VII Congress of the Comintern, are an example of a creative concrete-historical approach. And this undoubtedly had a particularly important significance not only for the correct direction in the party policy on this issue, but also became a broad platform for the unification of honest talents throughout the world in defense of culture against the barbarism of fascism and the falsification of the heritage.

"From Pure Form to the Literature of Facts" is a pioneering work in a somewhat neglected area of ​​contemporary literary studies. Given that literature up to the twentieth century has been fully developed and selected, and even traditions have been created in literary studies, the spontaneous and immanent nature of critical positions on twentieth-century literature stands out even more clearly. There is no analytical criterion for it, and therefore there is no work that has shown the integral directions of development throughout its complex and heterogeneous movement in time. An influence in this regard is undoubtedly the fact that many literary movements are still alive and, with their directions of evolution and metamorphoses, often diametrically change their relationships and put a question mark over some fundamental positions in their assessment. And in literary criticism itself, similar processes can be observed. The listed positions, as well as others for which there is no need to devote space in a small review, subject the writing of a book to from a similar risk of brevity, confine it to a certain, undoubtedly short period of time. Moreover, its ambitions and depth make this period even shorter, because a small change in the treatment of literary phenomena can turn an otherwise logical structure into a compilation of concepts devoid of a single interpretative basis. What is Hutnikevich's opinion on this issue? "The creation of the book was necessitated by three things - didactic needs, insufficient information, and the backwardness of scientific Polish studies in the field of popularization of scientific achievements." So the author himself evaluates his book more as a textbook than as a scientific work in a backward field. In this respect, the author has undoubtedly achieved his goal.

Belinsky wrote that the past helps us to better understand the present and suggests the future to us. By absorbing national trends in the artistic heritage and reflecting new phenomena in reality, our literature in the first years after September 9th paved the way for the later artistic peaks of our contemporary artistic creativity. Naturally, it exhibited a number of historical features - it bore the stamp of a comprehensive upsurge, breathed with the pathos of emotional display, resorted to a poster depiction of mass enthusiasm. It also had significant conquests. Works of art from that time still excite us today with their civic power, which has become a fruitful tradition in our literature. They conquer us with their active, effective, revolutionary humanism. The literature of those years and in the field of artistic mastery is an example that can be imitated in the days of our time.