поетиката

In the second half of August of last year, the first international conference on poetics was held in Warsaw, on the initiative of the Institute for Literary Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences, in which literary scholars, linguists and folklorists from the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, the United States, England, France, the Netherlands, and Israel took part. The conference program included reports by prominent Soviet scholars, academicians and professors V. V. Vinogradov, A. I. Efimov, N. I. Zhinkin, and D. S. Likhachev, but only the latter two took part in the conference. Polish literary scholars and linguists, led by the organizers of the conference S. Zhulkowski, M. R. Mayenova, and K. Vika, took part with reports from all areas of poetics. The world-famous Polish linguist Prof. J. Kurilovich was very active in the work of the conference. The largest was the US delegation, led by the prominent linguist and Slavicist Prof. R. Jacobson, who took part in the discussions on most of the reports. Among the participants in the conference were the well-known Czech Slavicist and Bulgarianist Prof. K. Horalek, the Romanian academician-literary critic T. Vianu, the German Slavicist and folklorist, professor at the University of Jena H. Peukert, the Dutch Slavicist, now professor in California Schonefeld, and many others. Bulgaria was represented by Petar Dinekov, Lyubomir Andreychin, Stoyan Dzhudzhev and Emil Georgiev. Over the course of 10 days, in morning and afternoon sessions, 50 reports were read and about 120 speeches were made on them. The reports were grouped thematically, so that each day reports from a specific area were read and discussed. It is difficult to cover the problems raised at the conference in a report like ours. They were truly numerous and diverse and affected all areas of poetics, as well as being connected to related areas. A suitable atmosphere was created for productive scientific work. The method of persuasion and arguments prevailed. Only rarely did a sharp polemical tone sound, revealing fundamental worldview contradictions and different understandings of the issues raised. Since the term "poetics" is not particularly popular in our country, and some even consider it outdated, including the content of this discipline in the theory of literature, it is not uninteresting for our reader to clarify the very concept and the content of this branch of literary studies. The subject matter of the reports that we outline in our report clarifies this quite fully. The German professor H. Peukert (GDR) in his report formulated the concept of the term that he accepts: the study of the essence, genres and forms of poetic creativity and their inherent content and visual means, which, through comparative observation of individual works, leads to the definition of typological features and genre regularities.

A few years ago, a fellow villager of mine, a passionate hunter, took me hunting with him. But it was only towards evening, when we were returning, that he signaled that he had seen something and whispered to me to stop and be silent. He aimed at the telephone wires. Two turtledoves were huddled on them, as if contemplating the increasingly pale, crimson west. One of them flinched and unexpectedly quickly left its companion. The other did not even notice, remaining motionless. At that moment a roar came from the rifle. The bird flew up in some last effort and fell rapidly, almost vertically, to the ground. Even the poor and dry vegetation of the stubble hid it. When my friend brought back the still fluttering bird, with its eyes painfully closed, in a moment we both looked at its half-open beak with shame. My fellow villager immediately came to his senses, picked up the turtledove, and began to tell incredible hunting stories. He was obviously thinking about what had happened as much as his wife had about the hen after he had cut off the rough woodcutter's head. I listened absently and remembered that moment B And Emilian Stanev's story, when the shot-shot squeaking jug flew in the same way, and the forest hid it from his eyes in order to conceal a murder. It was clear to me that my companion saw nothing particularly wrong with what had just happened, this story no longer concerned him. And why did Emilian Stanev seem to be haunted by such memories, why did he want to free himself from someone's intrusive gaze, why did he always talk about... murder in such cases? Was it not because of our gullibility that we mistakenly accepted these stories as "hunting"?

The issues of aesthetics have always been of great interest to both science and artists. This interest has obviously grown in recent times, thanks to which a lot of research has appeared. Despite this activity, however, there is still no unity among scientists on a number of issues. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the fact that theoretical generalizations are not always connected with the direct study of the artistic mastery of the individual artist-writer. If this statement is true for modern fiction, how much more so for medieval Slavic literature, especially for old Bulgarian literature. Of course, today it is no longer possible to maintain the view that this literature is purely religious-dogmatic, dry and uninteresting, that it has primarily cognitive significance, helping us to more fully reveal the relevant historical era. To deny any artistry in Old Bulgarian or Old Russian literature is not justified either historically or factually. Because in different centuries there was a different idea of ​​artistry, and when assessing the degree of artistry of a particular monument, we should not take our own point of view, we should not come up with our own claims to artistry, but take into account the understanding of artistry in the society of that era, monuments". 1 which was contemporary to each of these On the other hand, old Bulgarian literature, like Serbian and Russian medieval literature, possesses undoubted artistic merits: it holds the attention of its reader, satisfies his aesthetic sense, acts on his imagination and reason, elevates thoughts and feelings, and gives knowledge of a diverse nature. The stylistic and linguistic form of the works unconditionally corresponds to the appropriate cultural preparation of the reader, so that he can perceive them, be moved by them. Here it is absolutely necessary to observe a certain ratio between the creator and the reader. When this ratio is violated, the impact of the book is insignificant, a reaction begins against it, an opposite movement appears.

Iskra Panova presented her first book to readers. In it, she speaks her mind in a new way in our contemporary literary studies. Without departing from the best in the tradition of literary studies, she sweeps up independent terrain in an area where long-standing traditions are still absent in our country... Breaking ground in the complex field of stylistic analysis of the work of art, Panova has long thought through each step of her innovative work. She is not in a hurry to theorize about the results of her work, but she does not underestimate them either. She is not in a hurry to make generalizations, but she does not hide the rational in her difficult experiment. She proclaims less her guiding principles, which she relies on in her aesthetic analyses, but in return she gives her own arrangement of her scientific observations, derived according to the laws of an objective criterion. But no matter how discreet an author she turns out to be, she sheds abundant light on the complexity of the problem, draws her own conclusions, takes into account the complexity of the artistic evolution of the individual artist, in the three classics and reveals a number of regularities in the development of the literary process in Bulgarian literature from the recent past.