страни

The question of characteristic detail is connected with almost all the important problems of literary creation and, of course, to a considerable extent with the problem of conciseness in prose, of condensed, synthetic prose. It is needless to emphasize that the detail that enlivens the incident, the event, the character, that individualizes them, but at the same time typifies them, is the basis of what separates realism both from naturalism and from schematism and simplification in their various forms. It is known that the fiction writer, faced with the life that he has to recreate, first of all encounters a huge number of details. In the diversity of human actions, in the multiplicity of tones that fill the atmosphere, in the tangle of human experiences, the writer should orient himself and recreate them in his presentation. We know how complex reality is, both in the great of the infinite and in the small, in the fragment, even in the microscopic. In a single blade of spring grass there is so much life and color and meaning that, as is known, ancient Japanese artists created an entire school.

The development of contemporary Bulgarian literature and the emergence of various creative trends in it require an increasingly insistent consideration of the issues of style by our theoretical thought. We are far from the illusion that we will resolve the issue. We will be satisfied if we only manage to highlight some of its aspects. Style is a tough nut to crack. It does not obey dry dogmas, pedantic rationality. It must be approached with broader understandings of art. A separate formula cannot contain the wealth of styles. Before deriving laws about the essence, power and effect of style, we must penetrate the living tissue of artistic phenomena.

While before September 9, 1944, only the translations of the most prominent representatives of our classics such as Ivan Vazov, Pencho Slaveykov, Elin Pelin, Yordan Yovkov, and in separate anthologies of about 40 other authors were known abroad, now we can state with satisfaction the fact that over the past 20-year historical period, more than 1,450 volumes of Bulgarian prose, poetry and drama have been published in 57 foreign languages ​​in a total of 24,000,000 copies.

It cannot be said that Bulgarian literature is known in Western European countries. This is most clearly demonstrated by the sometimes very strange notes that appear in some Western publications, and serious ones at that, such as "Larus Mansuel" for example, about our literature, in which, in addition to gross factual errors, we also find such assessments that directly arouse both bewilderment and a smile. Wasn't the short essay on Bulgarian literature in the luxurious edition of the large Parisian publishing house Hachet "Contemporary Literatures in the World", which was also promptly noted on the pages of "Literary Thought", really simply comical? But was there not some intention here, in the article by this author, Bernard Georges? Many things that this text contained give us decisive grounds to assume some intention.

The poetic legacy of Pencho Slaveykov is a fruitful topic for the study of the creative process. To clarify the psychic functions of Slaveykov's poetic personality in view of the artistic text, letters, documents, memories, etc. - this is one of the main problems facing our literary critics. These functions determine the main psychic units of his creative system, they clarify the psychomotorics of the poet, his creative psychogram. The explanation of Slaveykov's poetic work cannot be achieved only within the framework of the most general findings and with the means of a terminology, in whose basic linguistic structures-definitions in most cases there is not enough scientific content. The poet's creative system, explained in a number of studies and articles, needs, in my opinion, a revision.

The business plan recommended by the International Association for the Study of the European Southeast also includes comparative studies in the field of Balkan literatures. Although the idea of ​​this is very fortunate, it seems to me, however, that the task will be difficult for researchers if certain preliminary measures are neglected, which are necessary to take, in the haste to arrive at conclusions that would obviously be too approximate. It will be necessary, in my opinion, first of all to establish the methodology in the order of the searches, in order to leave nothing to chance, by eliminating from the very beginning the possibility of falling into errors, a possibility that would be, I think, incompatible with the aim pursued by this type of work. It is needless to say that any researcher who would embark on such an activity faces enormous difficulties. For it can be asserted without exaggeration that the literatures of the Balkan peoples existed and developed in a closed circle, without obvious relations between them. The difference in language, religion and culture often raised insurmountable barriers that prevented free exchange between the "intelligences" of the ethnic communities of the Balkans. The empires that succeeded each other over the centuries were unable to melt into a single crucible the heterogeneous elements of these peoples, who, although they sometimes lived under the same political power, developed in the direction of their own destiny. Especially since the beginning of the 19th century, the national awakening that marked the life of every Balkan people and the struggles that followed, carved a deep chasm between the intellectuals of this part of the world; the Balkan literatures therefore saw themselves as very distant from each other, I would even say, in some cases fiercely opposed to each other. This explains why the elite of the Balkan countries did not know each other, and with rare exceptions, no Balkan country showed any interest in getting to know the literature of its neighbor. We must also add that the attention of Every country was attracted by the brilliance of the great world literatures, which served as models for writers.

"September poetry" - this is how Georgi Bakalov first, and then Ivan Meshekov and others called the poems and stories of Nikola Furnadzhiev, Angel Karaliychev and Asen Raztsvetnikov, which appeared in "Nov Pat" as the first poetic echo of the majestic and terrible September days. Over time, literary critics began to add to the "September" artists Geo Milev and the other poets from "Plamak", Krum Kyulyavkov and the other collaborators of "Zvanar", Anton Strashimirov and the budding poets and writers from "Vedrina".... For more than four decades, September has been a constant and ageless theme in our poetry and prose, and September literature - as a new, aesthetically distinct moment in literary development - one of the important problems of literary history and criticism. The most vivid and characteristic, truly "September" stage is taken (it was this that contemporaries called "September") to be the period from 1923, immediately after the uprising until the April assassination attempt of 1925. However, starting from the specific historical moment itself, from the approximately equal illumination of the September theme, from the similar or identical aesthetic positions and artistic tasks of the September artists, one could add to this characteristic stage a year or two later - after the April assassination attempt until 1927 - with Strashimirov's activity in "Vedrina".