едно

We simply did not feel when the anxious October rain restlessly pounded on the poetic window of Lyubomir Levchev, we simply did not see when the gentle youth matured into a serious young poet who persistently sought his own style in poetry. L. Levchev's first poems on the pages of the youth press were sprinkled with many stars, with very gentle romance. But he quickly stepped back to earth. He looked around. He saw the restless face of our modernity, he sought new paths to poetic truth. Very soon he turned into a proud contemporary of ours, who is admired by the majestic victories in Space, who is no longer carried away by the sweet, ancient sounds of grandfather's gadulka. He wants to live with the rhythm of a hurried, breathless, dynamic time. He brings something new with his verse, energetic and expressive, punchy and spiteful, he wants to capture the complex diagram of the psyche of the contemporary, the fragmented, impressionistic thinking of the civilized urban man. The lyrical hero of L. Levchev's poetry lives with the disturbing changes on our planet, with the profound changes that are taking place in our socio-economic life. This social unrest is one of the attractive features of Levchev's poetry. Unlike other young poets who waste time on the detailed and insignificant, L. Levchev is looking for a new civic voice in poetry, but expressed already with newer linguistic means. And L. Levchev's new collection of poems is entirely turned towards modernity, towards construction, towards the life of our youth. He wrote some interesting poems about construction. His poetic chronicles of our construction days are not boring protocols, but verses distinguished by a fresh construction romance, a life-affirming feeling, a constructive pathos. L. Levchev manages to poetically elevate our labor construction reality, to poeticize everyday labor, to break the banal framework in its depiction. And in this direction he managed to write a number of interesting poetic works. In the poem "Kremikovsko nacholy" there is a nice atmosphere, a new figurative vision: The picture is not at all beautiful - A field. A brown fallow. Above it the sun - low and foggy. And nothing else. Who dared to sow the seeds of dreams here instead of wheat?... The furrows smoke, smoke mysteriously, like the hearth of a proto-Bulgarian fortune teller.

The letter we are publishing, owned by Dr. Lyuben Tanchev from Plovdiv, sheds light on Lora's attitude towards Yavorov. Six years have passed since their acquaintance (1906), Mina Todorova has long been deceased, and at the beginning of 1912, a friendship was established between Lora and Yavorov. But it is interesting to note that a few days after writing the letter to her aunt in Plovdiv, she sent a letter to Yavorov, full of despair and pessimism. The two letters are completely opposite in mood. While the first one exudes a healthy confidence that the friendship with the poet will end successfully, in the second Lora attacks him unfoundedly, calling him cruel and unjust. In her letters to her relatives, however, she resolutely declares that she will link her fate with Yavorov, and admires his character. She hastens to introduce him to the family circle, instructs her aunt to receive him well, to send her letters through him, etc. To confirm that she truly knew him, she compares him with her father Petko Karavelov, deceased at that time, whom Lora greatly respected and loved. It is known that P. Karavelov took great care of the education and upbringing of his children. And Lora rightly writes that he gave his soul for them. But as much as Lora had tender feelings of love and gratitude towards her father, she was as wary of her mother. She without hesitation declares that she has no intention of listening to her, accuses her of ruining her youth and, by force, forcing her to marry Dryankov. This time Lora decided to vigorously fight for her happiness. After Laura's death (1913), her mother Ekaterina Karavelova contributed too much to the accusations against the post, to his bitterness, which led him to suicide on October 16, 1914.

The creators of artistic values ​​are a few people marked by fate, who cross the borders of many countries, inspiring more than one generation. The significance and the charming power of these creative personalities are all the greater and more comprehensive, the more organic the connection between artistic achievements and public behavior, between ideological-aesthetic insights and civic-ethical positions. Such people, like a beacon, attract the eyes of all who live with the impulses of a more intense spiritual life, possessed by higher ideals for social well-being and moral elevation. Readers turn to the work of such artists in order to become related to their soul and thinking, to find support for their torments and searches. Such a source of wisdom and knowledge, of ideological-aesthetic experiences and civic-humanistic ideals is undoubtedly the creative biography of Lyudmil Stoyanov, who has already crossed the last quarter of a century. For more than half a century, the personality of the writer and citizen Lyudmil Stoyanov has been towering in our literary and cultural life. It evokes love and gratitude not only in our country, but also among the cultural community of other countries. His life and creative path is truly rarely instructive. Many of the problems of the time, the anxieties and insights of several generations, the trends of our national literary and cultural development for decades have found embodiment in his work. Having gone through harsh trials, having paid tribute to the fashionable aesthetic trends of the beginning of the century, L. Stoyanov demonstrated ideological and moral stability, overcoming dangerous passions, in order to harden and rise later with all his stature as a humanist creator and a communist citizen.

It is known that one of the first (if not the very first) readers and judges of Botev's poems was Petko Slaveykov. Botev sent him a notebook of poems that burned in Stara Zagora along with many other manuscripts and books by Slaveykov, as his son Pencho testifies. In his newspaper "Gayda", year III, issue 19 of April 15, 1867, page 312, Botev's first published poem "Your Mother" appears. Slaveykov's words in "Macedonia", issue 33 of July 13, 1868 most likely refer to him: "I only know one of our young men with poetic abilities..." But after going to Bucharest, Botev no longer searched the pages of Slaveykov's publications. Standing on other, social-revolutionary positions, he cannot even condescendingly welcome some of the poetic confessions of Slaveykov, who, working in Constantinople under the nose of the Turkish authorities, could not accompany his fellow writers from the Transdanubian region in everything. And he was not spared by Botev in the humorous-satirical poem "Why Am I Not?"

The current stage of the development of Bulgarian literary studies is characterized by the awareness of the ever-growing need to specify the methodology, to build a secure basis for a private and general theoretical interpretation of the artistic facts, in order to be able to cope with all possible deviations from scientific truth, accumulated by both vulgar sociology and subjectivist criticism, which in a number of its manifestations demonstrates its militant anti-scientificity. By the way, there is one aspect in which subjectivism and vulgar sociology converge as much as possible: along with the claim to the indisputability of their assessments, the representatives of both directions showed disregard for the specificity of the work of art. This found expression in the arbitrary interpretation of the text, in a misunderstanding (underestimation and overestimation) of its structural features, and hence - underestimation of the function and semantics of both the whole and its elements.

When reviewers want to pay a big compliment to a critical or literary book, they say that it is "a pleasure to read" or reads like a novel. I do not believe that this is one of the main qualities that the author of such a book claims. Here the reviewers simply make a logical error - they exchange the places of our interest in a given issue with the slight pleasure that we can get from some fascinating reading, they translate a new concept into an older language. Therefore, I will not say that Georgi Konstantinov's book "An Extraordinary Friendship" (I have already heard such an opinion) is read easily, as a work of fiction. It simply reads as an interesting documentary, and in no case would I replace its content precisely as a documentary with the most skillful fiction construction. Incidentally, Georgi Konstantinov has also shown a certain fiction dexterity - he has arranged the documents at his disposal in such a way that the sequence of events and facts, their logical and plot connections, can be traced. But that is not what is important. It is important for us that we can feel the unique breath of authenticity, of personal testimony in history. The taste for the documentary, accurate, factual reproduction of historical events has been increasingly imposed in our country lately. It seems that we already prefer a letter, a memory of a living participant in events to any romantic imagination. Fiction seems to be starting to lose in a competition with history; History is increasingly imposing itself and dominating our consciousness, it seems to us more extraordinary and more fantastic than the greatest flights of fantasy, it seems to have the ambition to displace art, philosophy, and "mythology". Haven't you noticed that recently the memoir is the most sought-after, most preferred reading material? Of course, in the world historical process, and especially in our development since 9. IX., we will find many explanations for this "demythologizing", for this striving to unveil, deheroize, "historicize" history, for this desire to see how it was made, but these reflections would take us too far.