литературното

The psychology of artistic creation in general and of literary creation in particular is a field that has been relatively least developed by Marxist-Leninist art science. Until recently, in the Soviet Union, the country where Marxist-Leninist aesthetics and literary theory were mainly created, almost nothing was written about the problems of the psychology of literary creation. Moreover, for a long time these problems were not posed as tasks for scientific research. This circumstance could not but create a certain void in the science of literary creation and, in particular, in the theory of literature. The lag in this respect becomes even more obvious when we consider that bourgeois science pays great attention to the psychology of artistic creation and it is in this area that it has created the most complex labyrinth of groundless philosophical speculations. Of course, it would be wrong to say that Soviet literary studies have done nothing to clarify the problems of the psychology of literary creation. Such a statement would be incorrect. Even for pre-revolutionary Russian literary studies, these questions were of considerable interest. It is enough to mention the collections "Questions of the Theory and Psychology of Creativity", published under the reaction of B. Lezin from 1907 to 1923 in Kharkov, and the wide range of problems covered in them, to convince ourselves of the truth of this statement. These collections, as well as individual books, for example, works such as those by S. Gruzenberg (Psychology of Creativity, Minsk, 1923 and "Genius and Creativity" 1924), clearly show that even then the mentioned problems, regardless of the erroneous methodological foundations on which they were placed, were understood as an important part of the general science of literature.

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.

Isn't it too inappropriate to open this question again? Haven't we been forced to "originality" for years, which has left us behind in a number of areas of science and life? A number of people have prejudices about the topic itself. But anyone who has followed literary life in recent years will not deny that it is becoming necessary, often dominating the press, criticism, and conversations. These conversations have even acquired the specific hue of self-disclosure and self-knowledge, so complacency and skepticism become inappropriate. This is no longer a dialogue, as it is now fashionable to say, but a kind of public monologism, since we are touching on very intimate matters. Among the many reasons for the maturation of these problems in our literary development in recent years, I will point out the following: The tendencies of socialist development of constant rapprochement of the peoples in the USSR and the gradual erasure of national differences are formulated in the Program of the CPSU. Development in this direction is a complex and lengthy process. Nations, as Marxism teaches, are permanent historical communities, subject to constant change. Their true rapprochement, as well as the elimination of differences between them, must go through a comprehensive socialist flowering of national cultures, through the disclosure of their entire vital and creative potential. ..... The elimination of national differences - says the Program of the CPSU - is a significantly longer process than the elimination of class boundaries... The Party does not allow either ignoring or exaggerating national peculiarities." On the subject of the national question, Lenin warned that "an unconditional requirement of Marxist theory in the consideration of any social question is its formulation within certain historical frameworks, and then... taking into account the specific peculiarities that distinguish a given country from others within the limits of a historical epoch."

A remarkable work in literary science is the recently published second edition of "Psychology of Literary Creativity" by Academician Mikhail Arnaudov. This work is a scientific and literary study of the psychological foundations of the creative process in writers and of its precise, albeit difficult to perceive determinism. Academician M. Arnaudov has mastered a methodology that has enabled him to make a realistic interpretation of the creative process. He applies the juxtaposition of opposing and contradictory poetic experiences and opinions, which he arranges in such a way as to highlight the objective truth about the creative process. In "Psychology of Literary Creativity" a huge amount of material from the poetic wealth of the classics of the 18th and 19th centuries is used, and mainly those confessions of poets are given that lead to the treasures of their creative thoughts and impulses. On a number of issues of literary psychology the author has discovered an opportunity for further research, indicating the path that should be followed. He usually does not lead discussions with the creators, but acts as a conductor of discussions held between them. In this way he ensures the integrity of the facts and the originality of their evidentiary force. Acad. M. Arnaudov does not strive for formulations. For him, individual peculiarities are important, which also reveal common characteristics, and at the same time lead to the laws of psychic experiences. The work is developed in a very broad plan of problems. The world's artistic and psychological experience is used, and in places parallels are made between different arts. As prerequisites for the psychology of creativity, the problems of genius, race and humanity, about the influence of heredity, environment and culture, about Mikhail Arnaudov. Psychology of literary creativity. 1965. 120 degeneration and neuroses. On these issues, the author has come to materialist conclusions. Particularly valuable is his work with arguments and evidence against all mysticism, demonism, racism and neurosis, the supporters of which most often seek evidence precisely in the work of poets, as an exceptionally wonderful area in which, they claim, the laws of ordinary mental life are invalid. The author proves to us just the opposite: creativity is health, work, perseverance, diligence, humanity and the struggle with everything painful. "Creativity is clarification and spiritual purification. How could the artist become an interpreter of thoughts and longings in his contemporaries if he does not rise above all internal limitations and above everything chaotic in himself?"