Проблеми

On February 25 of this year, the Scientific Council at the Institute of Literature reviewed the first volume of the collection "Problems of Children's Literature". The material of the collection is divided into three sections: General Questions", "Essays and Studies" and From the History of the Periodical Press". Reviewer Simeon Sultanov finds the initiative of the authors, who for the first time in our country have undertaken to compile a collection of studies and essays on the issues of children's literature, commendable. Although very late, this collection still does not cover all authors who have written for children, and does not exhaust all issues of children's literature, since little work has been done in this direction for years. Sultanov examines the three sections of the collection in detail. The first includes the articles: "Towards a Systematic and Basic Study of Children's Literature" by Krastyo Genov, "The Optimistic Character of Children's Literature" by Ivan Popivanov, and "The Educational Significance of a Fantastic Fairy Tale" by Zhecho Atanasov. The reviewer finds that Genov's article has a programmatic character and identifies a number of problems facing Bulgarian literary scholars. Sultanov points out the need for serious additions to this article, especially on issues related to our contemporary children's literature and artistic mastery. In his notes on Popivanov's article, the reviewer points out the interesting and important problem of optimism in children's literature and finds that the author does not hold his thesis convincingly enough that "critical realism cannot be spoken of in works for the youngest" and recommends not to get carried away with the analysis of some poems. Atanasov's study, which from the point of view of the educator poses the problem of the educational nature of the fairy tale, could have greater value if the author's thoughts were deepened and illustrated with more interesting examples from children's literature.

In June of this year, at a joint meeting of the section for Bulgarian literature after the Liberation, for Russian classical and Soviet literature and literary theory at the Institute of Literature, the work "Some Problems of Humor and Satire in Soviet Literary Studies" by Velichko Valchev was discussed. The reviewer Boyan Nitchev finds that the author has diligently and conscientiously studied almost all the works of Soviet researchers published in the last ten years, who deal with the work of prominent Russian and Soviet satirists. The review in this area highlights questions about the specificity of the genre and artistic mastery, distinguishes the various shades of the comic, devotes significant space to the character of Soviet satire and its ideological positions, etc. The author focuses on the works of prominent Soviet literary scholars Ya. Elsberg, Yu. Borev, L. Ershov, V. Kirpotin, A. K. Bushmin. The reviewer finds that, in general, the first three sections of the article are informative in nature. The presentation is concise, there are no problems, and in places the content of the works under consideration is impoverished. B. Nichev evaluates the second part of V. Valchev's work as more interesting. In it, the author shows more in-depth observations and presents correct opinions. The reviewer pointed out that V. Valchev should develop this part in a broader plan, focusing on more recent published works and making more complete and comprehensive summaries. In conclusion, B. Nichev pointed out that V. Valchev's work has no specific goal and in this form is informative in nature. After serious cuts (in the first part), revision and recomposition of the material, it can be used for the review department of the Institute's Bulletin.

The general statement that the most important, combative variety of literary critical thought - operational criticism - lives an anemic life, stagnates in one place, does not fulfill its primary tasks on time and at the required level has become a worn-out phrase. More and more names of critics, who until yesterday actively participated in the literary process and, to the best of their ability, assisted the emergence of new works and phenomena, today appear on the covers of studies of long-established and universally recognized writers, of studies of faded Bulgarian and European trends. We are slowly coming to terms with the fact - as interesting as it is revealing - that we already have, let's say, a richly argued, fascinatingly written book on French existentialism and the contemporary Western "anti-novel", while at the same time, there is almost no deep, penetrating and courageous research on Bulgarian novels published in the last few years. If, for example, someone wishes to familiarize themselves with the assessments of Bulgarian literary criticism for the novels published in 1961, they can be sure that they will not be particularly hampered by the abundance of opinions. A short review of "Ohrid Spring" by D. Sprostranov in "Plamak", a short review of "Skazanie za vremeno na Samuila" in "Literaturni novini", two short, but true and in many respects convincing reviews of "Martvo valnenie" in "Literaturni novini" and in "Septemvri", can be a few more semi-critical, semi-advertising notes in peripheral newspapers and magazines - and that's all! Namely, this year saw the publication of novels that deserve serious, comprehensive and intelligent conversation - sometimes pleasant, sometimes bitter.

It is customary to say that the main questions that we should address when examining our contemporary literature are whether the writer is firmly connected to life, whether he stands on sincere party positions, whether he reflects in his work the problems and characters characteristic of our era, whether he transforms into an exciting work of art those incredible changes that have taken place in socio-political life, in the psychology of the people, in the landscape of the country. These should really be not only the main questions, but also the starting points in all discussions of our contemporary literature. But the more books are published, the more names of young poets, fiction writers or playwrights appear on the literary horizon, the more it becomes customary to raise alarming cries that the writer stands far behind life, that he is moving aside from the general victorious course of our communist times. We have a considerable annual production - an average of fifty books of short stories, novels, essays. Among them we will meet convincing works and inept attempts, works written with a sure pen and literary blunders, which in most cases delight with their unfeigned sincerity, inner excitement and noble ambition, rather than with their literary qualities. We will also meet with the incarnations of the scheme, with soulless and artisanal written books, with tedious repetitions that bring nothing new to our literature. But what we can safely say is that all these books recreate plots drawn from the time in which we live, they concern the problems of socialist man, the struggles of our people for the construction of the new society. Another question is what artistic power, internal scale, aesthetic suggestion these books possess. If we want to get to know this "united and multifaceted" world, about which we so often speak, we will not find it in just one author, nor in just one book. On the contrary, we will establish that in the problematics of our contemporary prose there are many gaps, many more and different aspects of life have not found artistic reflection in our literature. First of all, we will mention that there are no books about the life and way of life of people from socialist structures. We will constantly have to talk about these gaps, to direct our writer to the key themes of the time, to demand a full and deep artistic transformation of reality in literature.

The Committee for Classical Studies Eirene (Mir), established by the academies of the socialist countries at the invitation of the Bulgarian Committee of the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria, organized this spring its Sixth International Conference in Plovdiv. The conference brought together many guests from abroad, specialists in various fields of the science of classical antiquity. They were fascinated by the fact that they were meeting in a city that, despite the strong beating pulse of socialist industry, has preserved as millennial witnesses of its past traces of Thracian, Greek and Roman culture, and in its Archaeological Museum preserves the unique and world-famous gold treasure from Panagyurishte. All foreigners undoubtedly took back to their homeland the most enthusiastic impressions of both the new life here and the old fragrance that wafted from antiquity. The organizing committee of the conference, headed by its chairman Acad. Vl. Georgiev had the excellent idea of ​​naming the meeting rooms of the individual sections in the hotel after the four old names of Plovdiv: Pulpudeva, Philippopolis, Eumolpiada and Trimontium. The meetings began on 24 and continued until 29 April 1962. Here Bulgarian linguists, historians, writers and archaeologists met with their distinguished colleagues from the USSR, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the GDR and Yugoslavia. Two Western scholars were also present as guests - Pierre Chantren, President of the French Academy of Inscriptions and Literature and Ronald Syme (England), Secretary General of the International Council for Philosophy and Humanities at UNESCO.

There is nothing more important for the value of a work of art, for its significance, for its lasting impact than whether it gives a true picture and a true expression of its time. Whether, with its own specific means, it reflects the new moments in life that have brought about the changes that give uniqueness to the historical moment, and also the features that are typical of man in general, or the historically conditioned unity of the particular, the variable and the general, the permanent. The social function of a work of art is therefore expressed in the fact that at the moment of its emergence and immediate impact it brings people knowledge of the unknown or not depicted by artistic means and that in this way it contributes to their worldview orientation and forms in them a new emotionality and aesthetics; that even in the next era, even if it is completely different, radically changed, the work of art becomes a document of past life, which remains an integral part of the content of the present, and has its own value for the future. In answering the question posed at the beginning, we interpret and measure the value of the work of Sophocles and Shakespeare, of Cervantes and Stendhal, of Tolstoy and Gorky, of Villon and Mayakovsky. In answering this question, we also evaluate contemporary Czech literature, Czech literature of the last fifteen years after the Second World War. It seems that this question concerns primarily the theme of literature. But in reality it does not concern only it, although it is precisely the theme that is a sufficiently sensitive indicator of the extent to which a work of art, with its ideological content and attitude, as well as its artistic expression and style, represents an expression of its time and contributes to shaping its physiognomy.

Only recently, in connection with the XIII Congress of the Union of Polish Writers, has a broad and deeply principled discussion unfolded about the state and prospects of Polish literature. Something new was also felt in the atmosphere, in the spirit of the sessions of the congress itself - greater principle. Attention was directed primarily to key, central problems, while at previous congresses the emphasis was often on secondary issues of a strictly professional nature. Even with the best desire for a conscientious and objective presentation of literary facts, one is not immune from the danger of falling into one-sided assessments, since in Polish literature there is such a diversity of creative individuals, and some creators have undergone such an evolution that information, especially the shorter ones, is quite difficult. Still, some phenomena are very obvious. If one compares the literature in Poland of the last six or seven years with the literature of the previous period, any unbiased reader will see that the newer literature stands on a higher artistic level, is characterized by depth, richness, and dynamism. The development of individual creative personalities has become much more organic, free, and unforced.

Nikolai Ivanovich Gnedich was a poet, a contemporary of Pushkin, and a translator who recreated the Iliad in Russian - a translation that continues to be talked about today, because it was made with great knowledge of both languages ​​and a subtle poetic taste. Decades would pass and the Gnedich family would give Russian literature other representatives. Until our days, when Tatyana Grigorievna Gnedich is the continuer of this family tradition... For several years, Byron's Don Juan has not left the stage of the Leningrad Comedy Theater. The newspapers wrote a lot about the beautiful performance and even more about the translation of the famous poem, made with incredible grace, linguistic orchestration, and beautiful verse. This translation belongs precisely to the aforementioned Tatyana Grigorievna Gnedich. The translation of Don Juan has a very interesting and instructive story. And it is as follows.

A year has passed since the Fifth International Congress of Slavists in Sofia concluded its work. The contribution of the congress was undeniable, and the fruitful impetus it gave has long been carried over to the dozens of centers of contemporary Slavic studies. However, a scientific congress is of interest not only for its scientific contributions in themselves. Of no less interest is the methodology of scientific research that it demonstrates. In the swarm of topics and problems of the Fifth Congress of Slavists, almost all the more significant methodological directions stood out, the main philosophical schools were refracted, and from there - the main class-party positions in science today. A study of the methodology of scientific research, as it was presented at the congress, would provide material for very interesting conclusions. The scope of the present notes is, for understandable reasons, much more limited: they concern only two reports. However, the philosophical and methodological positions from which their authors proceed are widespread in Western literary studies. And this makes these two studies typical and in a sense representative of the state and directions of Western Slavic studies today.

Two years ago, when the various sections of the First International Congress of Balkan Studies were being outlined and a general outline of their issues was being drawn up, one could only assume the great interest that some of the planned reports would arouse. At that time, there was still no clear idea of ​​the wide boundaries of the issues that the individual branches of Balkan studies have - a complex science of the history, culture, literature, language, art and folklore of the Balkan peoples, of the historically created and increasingly intensively enriched relationships between them, of their lasting ties with other peoples and other national cultures. Now, when the congress has successfully concluded its work, we understand well how many more significant problems and questions (some of them only raised in the reports or discussions) are yet to be resolved and illuminated from modern scientific positions, in order to correctly outline all the common moments in the centuries-old development of the Balkan peoples, by overcoming the erroneous concepts and findings accumulated in the past. One of the undoubted positive results of the First International Congress of Balkan Studies is that it gave a serious impetus in this direction. And one more thing: in the days from August 26 to September 1, 1966, the congress turned the mutual collegial respect between the individual delegates into a tradition that should be strengthened by all as the main necessary condition for our further research and creative meetings. For if now, when we are at the very beginning of the more intensive and joint study of the problems of Balkan Studies, this atmosphere has ensured a calm and businesslike discussion of various, sometimes very specific, issues, tomorrow it will certainly give us the opportunity for unprecedented mutual acquaintance and study of the individual Balkan literatures and cultures.

Vakhtangov as a fully developed artist with his own concept of the art of theater can be spoken of mainly in connection with his two last masterpieces - "Khadibuk" by A. N. and "Turandot" by K. Gotsi. Here he already reveals his understanding of the tasks of the new Soviet art, of the place of the director and the actor in it, of the relationship between the playwright and the theater, of the need to reach new social and psychological depths. It is quite natural that with these productions Vakhtangov managed to immortalize himself, to remain a symbol of a unified theatrical revolution, of a renaissance in Soviet art. Therefore, it is precisely these two performances that give us the right to examine in a generalized manner a number of more general questions of the art of theater, closely related to modernity.

In the last quarter of 1966, the Scientific Council of the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences decided to award the scientific degree "Candidate of Philological Sciences" to the regular graduate students at the institute, Stefana Tarinska and Docho Lekov.

The most important problem of a historical novel, as well as of any work of art, is its attitude to the present. Every significant historical novel is indicative of the moods, aesthetic principles, tastes and preferences of its time. To discover the modern in history, to draw the reader's attention to one or another of its sides, to one or another aspect of well-known and usually not new historical problems - this is an individual creative work. The category of subjectivity retains its place in our aesthetics as the writer's right to an original creative interpretation of the topic on the basis of the objective-materialist approach to history. This is a subjectivity of a new quality, which has nothing to do with the arbitrariness of subjectivism, since the writer does not oppose himself to the deep and enduring social moods, but, on the contrary, strives to express them as clearly and fully as possible.

The long-standing exceptional interest shown in our country in Soviet literary studies is beyond doubt. For the representatives of Marxism in the previous few decades it has been so obvious that it would be possible to point out to Dali at least one question of a methodological nature that concerned them and which had not previously been discussed in Soviet literary life. This is so easily explained that it is enough to simply recall it.

In the minds of the Bulgarian reader, the idea of ​​contemporary Swedish literature is almost exhausted by the works of August Strindberg and Selma Lagerlöf, who are known to the relatively older generation in our country. In recent years, the names of several more authors, representatives of different periods and trends in Swedish literature, have also been added to the two classic masters, whose individual works have been shown very limitedly, mostly with short stories and novellas. But Swedish literature as a whole, with its problems and tasks, with its main directions and tendencies, with its new names and works, still stands as undiscovered land not only for the ordinary reader, but also for our literary science.

This is the title of a publication of the Institute of World Literature at the Slovak Academy of Sciences. At the risk of presenting the author one-sidedly and (D. Durišin) I do not comment on the introductory part, the author's dialogue with new and newest authorities of world comparative literature (Van Tighemm, Volman, Žirmunski, Neupokoeva, Bakoš, Petrus and a number of others). It is also impossible to show the specific, analytical material on the basis of which the author builds a logically coherent concept. More important to me are those new trends and initiatives with which this Slovak publication could stimulate analogous spheres of comparative, and in particular comparative Slavic literary studies in our country.

Boyan Nichev is one of our contemporary critics who shows a certain interest in problematic thinking, in the complexity of literary phenomena. He combines a subtle critical observation and a talent for generalizing, for getting to the root of the relevant literary facts. In his writing, he is not spontaneous in the least, passion does not pursue him frantically. On the contrary, you feel how the mind slowly but persistently spreads before us the picture of the relevant literary reality, in order to then reach the regularities and new features of the whole. B. Nichev simply revels in the opportunity to enter the literary phenomenon, for him this is equal to an aesthetic experience. Therefore, he strives for the spiritual discovery to receive a corresponding plastic equivalent, to become visible, "visible" to the reader.

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.

At the Fifth Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party in December 1948, a decision was made to build the foundations of a socialist society in Bulgaria. The cherished dream of the Bulgarian people was realized - in the homeland of Botev and Levski, of Blagoev and Dimitrov, the construction of socialism began. For the first time in its historical development, the working Bulgarian people freely deployed their forces and capabilities, their creative talent, because, as Lenin predicted, "only with socialism will the rapid, real, truly mass, with the participation of the majority of the population, and then of the entire population, begin a rapid, real, truly mass movement forward in all areas of public and private life". The heroic labor march of the people was led by the Bulgarian Communist Party, headed by its experienced helmsman, the legendary hero of Leipzig Georgi Dimitrov. His personality, his life and struggle path increasingly awakened the creative inspiration of writers. In October 1947, B. Bozhilov published one of the most poetic works about Dimitrov:

The program of the "Bulgarian Literary Society", founded in 1869, is multifaceted: to make efforts to develop the Bulgarian language and literature, to spread education among the people; to study the way of life of the Bulgarians and their neighboring peoples; to collect and publish folklore, ethnographic and other materials, to arrange exhibitions, to encourage every more serious manifestation in the field of art, science, etc. Many of the tasks formulated in the society's statute remain a project. But one of them - the publication of a "Periodic Magazine" - it manages to implement. The organ of the Bulgarian Literary Society was conceived as a monthly publication with three sections: literary, for original and translated works of art; scientific, for "articles on various branches of science" and critical, for reviews and critical analyses" on the occasion of newly published literary and scientific works.

The appearance of the book "Images and Problems" is a positive phenomenon in our literary science. Its author Ivan Tsvetkov is known as one of the few best experts on Soviet literature in our country. 176 As early as 1964, the publishing house of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences released his book "Maxim Gorky and Bulgarian Literature", a solid study of some aspects of the great writer's work and of a number of problems of its penetration, distribution and creative perception in Bulgaria. Written with erudition, with a temperamental and lively pen, this work contributed a lot to the overall clarification of the issues of Bulgarian-Russian literary relations. In his first book, Tsvetkov is alien to the narrow setting and solution of problems. He does not mechanically transfer the results of one national literary development to another, does not turn the regularities in the development of one literature into a mandatory norm for another, but seeks the true creative interpenetrations, conditioned by a complex complex of social, political and cultural factors. The subject of the study is the literary-critical perception and stage adaptation of Gorky in our country, with the task of interaction with our poets and writers being set out in perspective. It has now been partially fulfilled.

In the recently published article by the prominent Soviet researcher, an excellent expert on Old Russian and Old Slavic literature in general, Professor D. S. Likhachev, a whole series of general and specific questions in the field of medieval Slavic literature are put forward for consideration, which deserve the greatest attention. The author first of all makes an attempt to introduce into literary studies some new concepts and definitions, which is, above all, the concept of "system of literature", that is, "a certain relationship of its parts to each other: the types of literature (translated and original, church, historical, natural science, journalistic, etc.), of its genres, of its individual works". At the same time, he points out that the system or structure of a given literature is subject to continuous change, and differences are discernible in it according to individual historical periods. Professor D. Likhachev sets himself the task of examining the most ancient period of this development, namely the period from the 9th to the 13th centuries, and this concerns the emergence and initial development of literature among the southern and eastern (that is, Russian) Slavs. His attention is directed primarily to Old Russian literature: in his opinion, it presents "an example of those phenomena that are also characteristic of other Old Slavonic literatures." These general considerations represent for the Soviet specialist in Old Slavonic literature only an introduction to the consideration of several partial questions of particularly great interest. First of all, this is the question of the influence of the medieval literatures of the eastern and southern Slavs.