Нови

In the creative circles of Poland, two completely contradictory phenomena emerged after the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the 8th Plenum of the Polish United Workers' Party. One was expressed in a criticism of dogmatism and in the revelation to writers of new creative socialist perspectives. On the other hand, however, under the influence of sometimes unprincipled criticism, a process of ideological regression took place in some circles. In the midst of the criticism, revisionist voices spoke out, placing political issues at the center of their attacks: the attitude of the authorities towards the masses, the role of the party in society, the importance of socialist ideology in practical state and public life. Even individual authors came to the conclusion that in order to avoid mistakes, one must act without relying on any ideology, on the basis of a technologically practical attitude towards social issues. These revisionist views found their most vivid expression in Leszek Kolakowski's essay "The Priest and the Fool", in which the author tries to prove that man is faced with only one basic alternative: to adopt the attitude towards life of a priest or a fool. And Kolakowski proved all the advantages of the fool's attitude. All kinds of systems and ideologies limited freedom and conscience with dogmas, stiffened the mind - the only expressor of human dignity. The main mistake in the past was to put history in the role of the former god, to replace facts with assessments, while only the mind, unconstrained by any systems and dogmas, ready to mock the accepted order, could judge the facts. For Kolakowski, the "fool's attitude" meant a technological attitude towards problems, it was a revisionist transition to the positions of bourgeois neopositivism. I will dwell in detail on this "revelation" of revisionism, to understand the essence of the revisionist manifestations in Poland during the years 1956-57 and so that we can also grasp those positive phenomena that have been observed in Polish cultural life for the past three years.

Humanity is facing new great prospects, illuminated by the decisions of the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Congress demonstrated the living embodiment of the creative thought of Marxism-Leninism in guiding ideas. Since its adoption of a program for economic construction, for the development of social relations and culture, we feel how today's socialist society is gradually approaching communism. With its decisions, the Congress raised to a great height precisely that active work of thought that transforms theory into practice, and practice into theory. With the program for the construction of the communist society long dreamed of and suffered by mankind, the grandiose vision is connected in a single whole with the creative daily work, with the organizational work that is currently necessary. The program expands and enriches our concrete ideas about the shape of future society. It points to the enormous progress that will be made in the field of economics and social relations. It continued the scientific development of the questions of socialist democracy, of the role and significance of Marxist-Leninist ideology, of the political, moral, and aesthetic re-education of the people. One of the important tasks of the congress was practical measures for the final elimination of the harmful consequences of the cult of Stalin's personality. It is impossible to move forward, to new conquests, without eliminating everything that was layered during the cult of Stalin's personality and which prevented the creation of normal conditions for the creative activity of the masses and the individual, for the development of the forces and capabilities of the collective in the construction of communist society.

Brecht's penetration into the individual socialist countries has its own history. First came the interest in the writer as an innovator who broke with the canons and opened new horizons for revolutionary art. Then - at different intervals - followed the translations and the first productions of Brecht's plays. Today, the dividing wall of some dogmatic postulates that could not fit Brecht into the framework of socialist realism has been finally demolished. The experience of the original playwright is being studied and summarized. From the phase of guesses, he passes into the phase of research, which aims to acquaint us with all the values ​​of contemporary world literature. Over the past two or three years, in-depth studies on the principles of Brecht's Creativity have appeared in the Soviet Union, along with reviews of new performances of Brecht's works in Soviet theaters. A few months ago, readers received the first comprehensive monograph dedicated to Brecht. Its author is Bernhard Reich, a German emigrant to Moscow since 1926. Reich's book, voluminous and documented, accompanied by photographic material from various productions of Brecht's plays, is distinguished by several advantages. It is an attempt at solid research and at the same time a personal memory and personal assessment of Brecht's work. Its author was among the young Brecht's entourage in Munich after the First World War. He observed his first directorial performances, and retained personal impressions of the characteristics of Brecht's individuality and method of work. Reich, however, was not tempted by the temptation to endure all his work in a subjective and memoiristic plan. He tried to study and interpret Brecht's theatrical aesthetics comprehensively, to understand both its theoretical positions and its stage realization. He did not * B. Reich Teatralnoe - Brecht, essay on creativity, ed. 1960. Society, Moscow, 124 was satisfied only with the analyses of individual works, and he united his observations in a special section on the theatrical mission of the innovative writer. Thus, the analytical exposition did not prevent the personal accent, the researcher's own voice, from sounding there too.

In connection with my work on the topic "Michael Tchaikovsky - Sadak Pasha and Bulgaria", which began several years ago, I studied a significant part of the archives of Prince Adam Czartoryski, which are located in the Czartoryski Museum in Krakow. These archives contain rich data and a number of important documents about the Bulgarian Revival and in particular about the church issue, as well as about the life and activities of such prominent Revival figures as Neofit Bozveli, Hilarion Makariopolski, Konstantin Ognyanovich and Alexander Exarch, as well as about Teohar Piccolo, Prince Bogoridi and others. Among the newly discovered documents are: 1. The previously unknown text of a detailed Memorandum by Bozveli to the Turkish authorities of September 1 (September 12, old style) 1844. This is the first memorandum submitted by Neofit after his return from the first exile. It has been preserved in a French translation. 2. The letter of Neophyte Bozveli to Prince A. Czartoryski of March 17, 1845; the Bulgarian original and the Polish translation have been preserved. The letter is an interesting literary work. 3. The letter-response of Prince A. Czartoryski to Neophyte Bozveli of July 7 (June 25, old style) 1845 in the Polish original. 4. The notes of Mikhail Tchaikovsky to the Sublime Porte on the Bulgarian question of May 11 and 18, 1845. 5. The note of Mikhail Tchaikovsky to Riza Pasha and Shakib Efendi of July 31, 1845 on the occasion of the abduction and exile of Neophyte Hilarion by the Greek Patriarch and the notes on the same occasion to the Sublime Porte of August 3, 1845 and to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs of August 9, 1845. All three notes have been preserved in French translation. 6. Mikhail Tchaikovsky's note to Reshid Pasha on the occasion of the Sultan's upcoming trip to the European lands of the Turkish Empire, dated February 10, 1846, in French translation. 7. Neophyte Bozveli's letter from his second exile to Lazar Teodorovich, the Serbian diplomatic representative in Constantinople, dated August 23 (September 5, old style), 1845, translated into Polish. This letter contains detailed information about Neophyte's abduction and exile. 8. Hilarion Makariopolsky's letter to Foad Effendi, first dragoman of the Sublime Porte, sent from exile, dated August 28, 1845, preserved in French translation. 9. The letter of Konstantin Ognyanovich: to the Polish agent (Tchaikovsky's assistant) Mikhail Dombrova Budzinski dated October 27, 1846 from Belokrinitsa and to Tchaikovsky from Vienna, dated June 13, 1848, and the second also from Vienna dated June 20, 1848. The first of these letters has been preserved in a Polish translation, and the other two have been preserved in their Russian original, with a translation in Polish. 10. The richest factual material on the course of the Bulgarian church struggle during these years, on the activities of a number of prominent Bulgarian writers and revivalists, and on Bulgarian-Polish relations during the mid-19th century is contained in Tchaikovsky's reports to A. Czartoryski, written from 1841 to 1850, regularly twice a month. From June 26, 1843, a special column entitled "Bulgaria" was introduced in them. A separate place among the materials found is occupied by the French translations of documents already known in Bulgaria: the petition to the Sultan from the residents of Svishtov dated November 15, 1844, a thank-you address from the Bulgarians from Constantinople to Mehmed Ali Pasha dated 1845, the appeal to the Sublime Porte on behalf of the entire Bulgarian people dated March 1845, and the preface to the translation of the Hatshepsut from January 1845, written by Hilarion in Bulgarian, but in the Latin alphabet. A significant part of these documents will be published in my work "New Data on Neophyte Bozveli and the Bulgarian Church Question", which is already prepared for publication. The materials found are clear evidence that the Polish archives not only in Krakow, but also in Wrocław, Poznań and Kurnik should be studied and that further research will provide an opportunity to discover a number of new documents and data on the Bulgarian Revival and Bulgarian-Polish relations.

In recent years, much has been written about Karavelov. His work and political activity are examined in the works of Bulgarian and Soviet writers, historians, philosophers, and linguists. A contribution to resolving a number of issues related to the enormous work of the notable Renaissance man is also represented by the studies included in the recently published collection "Studies and Articles on Lyuben Karavelov", published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, S. 1963. A significant part of the articles are devoted to the ideology of Lyuben Karavelov. This is perhaps due to an effort to finally resolve, albeit in general terms, the question of the nature of Karavelov's ideology, which has already been the subject of very lengthy disputes. It is to be regretted, however, that very little space has been devoted to Karavelov the writer and journalist. Two of the studies prove Karavelov's authorship of articles and other materials that have not been included in his legacy until now. The collection also examines issues related to Karavelov's attitude to the traditions of Bulgarian literature, Karavelov's work as an editor, etc. The subject matter of the collection is clearly too diverse, and this makes it very difficult to group the articles by problem. The authors have touched on different aspects of Karavelov's multifaceted activity, and uniting their studies would be rather arbitrary.

I don't know if it's true now, but once upon a time, high school students had albums, on the colorful covers of which was printed Poesie, or Pour souvenir, or simply Album, and inside were all sorts of wishes, thoughts of great people, sometimes transcribed without indicating the author and directly signed by someone who liked them; they also wrote poems, most often prose poems" and all sorts of confessions or just: "my signature is modest, keep it as a souvenir... The graduates of the Svishtov Commercial High School were businesslike young men. The serious practical work for which they were preparing perhaps protected them from the sentimental passions inherent in their youth. Many of them, as is known, including the sons of wealthy parents, were already thinking about the imperfections of the social order, reading socialist books and newspapers, dreaming about the future, preparing for the struggle that was to come in order to reorganize society. Nikolay Liliev ended up at the commercial high school by chance and by a misunderstanding, which remained fateful in his life, because he was weak to remove it, and it was imposed on him with power later on. In Svishtov he already stood out among his classmates with his penchant for poetry, they remembered him as a reciter of Botev and Polyanov. But he studied his lessons diligently and read not only poetry, but also philosophical and political-economic literature in Bulgarian, Russian and German. We cannot know what part he took in the disputes on the then vexed political issues, especially on the disagreements between narrow and broad socialists. How much he was withdrawn may or may not have manifested himself in them. But it is very indicative that when in January 1903 his friend and classmate Tsonyu Stoyanov Gerganov from the Dryanovo village of Kereka presented him with his album with a request to write something as a souvenir, Nikolay Mihaylov did not use the nice paper to leave some of his own work there, nor did he copy other people's poems, but shared thoughts that really moved him and which it was very appropriate to point out to a student, obviously dedicated to his preparation to become a business activist:

If we look for the reason for the new phenomena in contemporary fiction - the expansion of the ideological and thematic circle of the reflected phenomena, the changes in the problematic, the new illumination of the image of the contemporary, the intensified process of artistic searches - we will inevitably come to changes in the aesthetic positions of the contemporary writer, to his expanded artistic and sociological vision. It is an indisputable truth that the aesthetic attitude is historically concrete and objectively conditioned by the general level of development of social existence and consciousness. The generalized experience of the writer of recent years naturally pushes him towards a new self-consciousness, towards new conclusions about the relationship of man to nature and society, towards new assessments of reality. From the positions of an expanded idea of ​​the beautiful, which included the experience of the last decade, from the positions of an aesthetic ideal liberated from dogmatic thinking, he strives to give a broader idea of ​​​​modern man, of the beautiful in man and his life.

In the concluding part of his study "The Birth of the Poetic Work," Jean-Paul Weber makes the following self-confident and significant declaration: "In our thematic readings there is nothing reminiscent of the rigid generalizations of psychoanalysts or stylists, of their Oedipus complexes, oral, anal, and genital stages, or of their baroque, classical, romantic, and so on styles."1 Self-confident because, as we will see below, Weber's results differ little from the Freudian ones and because the positive aspects of the "stylists'" concepts are also lightly rejected. Significant because a representative of the latest bourgeois literary criticism is attempting to break with, or at least declaring that he wants to break with, the two most characteristic trends in art and literary criticism's non-historicism in the first half of our century. The stylistism of the formalists and "philologists" and psychologism with all its orthodox and schismatic tendencies are the two poles between which the many nuances of this non-historicism move. What polarizes them is the stylists' transcendence of artistic development beyond the will and peculiarities of the creative personality and the psychoanalysts' complete closure of the determining factors of development within the individual or "collective subconscious." And what connects them is the isolation of artistic development from the class-economic and ideological development of society. In this environment, the French literary critic and psychologist Jean-Paul Weber announced that he had achieved an approach that overcomes the limitations of both stylists and psychoanalysts.

Lyuben Karavelov is one of the few Bulgarian nationalists who collected and carefully preserved documents about his diverse social and writing activities. Unfortunately, his uncertain emigrant fate, and after his death - irresponsibility and negligence, became the reason for the dispersion and, for the most part, destruction of this Karavelov collection, so valuable for the history of our cultural life. Little and mostly fragmentary materials have reached us - heart-wrenching fragments of a rich and multifaceted comprehensive work. The preserved manuscripts from Karavelov's archive are today kept in the Bulgarian Historical Archive at the Cyril and Methodius National Library and in the Boyan Penev Archive at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Difficult to read, they have remained almost unused to this day. It was not until 1964 that three collaborators from the Institute of Literature - Docho Lekov, Lilyana Minkova and Tsveta Undzhieva - published the most significant of them in one solid volume: "From the Archive of Lyuben Karavelov. Manuscripts, Materials and Documents". The publication includes primarily Karavelov's manuscripts and some manuscripts of his collaborators, closely related to the writings of Karavelov himself. Abandoned are copies of foreign artistic or scientific works, known translations of his, or manuscripts of his famous works. The compilers present us with a volume composed almost entirely of new materials, reflecting the diverse creative activity of the great Bulgarian Renaissance public figure and writer.

We are talking about the first decade after the victory of the October Revolution. Because, if it is a question of its influence at all - with all the new things that it brought to social and cultural life - this influence continues in our country, as everywhere in the world, to this day. But, it seems to me, the most interesting, historically innovative is the impact that the October Revolution - as an epochal phenomenon, as the beginning of a new era in the history of mankind - had on us in the first years after its triumph. It was then that the new ideas and solutions to problems that it suggested to Bulgarian literature, the new impulses with which it strengthened its development in the moment after the First World War - a moment of crisis and the search for new paths for artistic activity - had a turning point.

It is well known that not all the works of the rich Byzantine literature have survived; some of them are known only bibliographically, and others only from Latin or Old Church Slavonic copies. As an illustration of this idea, at least as far as Old Church Slavonic literature is concerned, the name of Georgi Skylitsa, a Greek cultural and public figure of the 12th century, is usually mentioned. In addition to his other works, he is also the author of a life of Ivan Rilski, which is now not known in its original Greek version, but only in Slavic. "1 It is assumed that it was written "between 1166 and 1183, when the relics of the saint were taken to Hungary, and for this reason the latter event is not mentioned in the life"

We know under what circumstances and when Nikola Vaptsarov wrote his two death poems: "Farewell", dedicated to his wife, and "The Fight is Mercilessly Cruel". The poet wrote under them the date July 23, 1942 and the hour - 2 p.m., on the very eve of his execution. The excitement that overwhelms us when we read these two poems of two stanzas is irresistible: they sound in our hearts and memories, vibrate as if each verse is a string, constantly vibrating under the pressure of a feeling, immeasurable in its depth, a sublimation of a shaking lyricism. Perhaps before Vaptsarov, only in Botev - in his "Farewell" - do we find such dramatic tension and feel such a conquering power of the lyrical wave.

Dr. Todor Zhivkov's new speech "Carry and raise our pure, holy and victorious banner even higher!", delivered on March 14, 1969 before the sixteenth reporting and election conference of the capital's organization of the DCMS, as well as all his speeches and reports, found a lively response among our entire public. It was perceived as a very timely party document, a logical continuation of the "theses" for creative work among the youth, as a vivid manifestation of exceptional care and complete trust in the youth of the homeland and in the artistic intelligentsia, which was particularly moved by the fact that the main part of the speech was devoted to current problems related to the current state of the ideological front. This remarkable speech once again emphasizes the need to raise the role of social sciences and ideological disciplines, which are gaining in importance today, when a fierce battle is being waged between communist and bourgeois ideology to win the minds and hearts of people all over the world. That is why the party's call to young communists to take up the proud banner of Dimitar Blagoev and Georgi Dimitrov in their own hands, to raise it even higher and to carry it pure, holy, victoriously - through all trials and difficulties is so categorical.

The Soviet scientist K. A. Poglubko continued for several years to research the Bulgarian-Russian revolutionary relations of the 1960s and 1970s. The result of his research are the interesting studies "Iz istorii Russko-Bulgarskikh revolutionarynyh syvyaz kontsa 60-kh ogode XIX c." (News of the Academy of Moldavian SSR, No. 1, 1965), "Some new materials about the connections of Russian revolutionaries with H. Botev in the early 1970s." (Izvestia AN Moldavskoi SSR, No. 2, 1966), "Connections of Bulgarian and Russian emigrants (1869)" (Izvestia AN Moldavskoi SSR, book 1, 1968) and others. The studios are interconnected. They are obviously key moments of a comprehensive monographic work that will shed new light on a remarkable heroic period of our national Revival and on the activities of the greatest figures of the era.

The strong emphasis on the moral moment, revealing the revolutionary essence of the spiritual atmosphere of our time and days, inevitably led to a certain didacticism in dramaturgy. The socialist ideal, expressed in the concrete idea of ​​the work, as the norm of life, i.e. as its driving and determining force and the reverse process - the revelation of life, from which the idea is logically derived, determined part of our newest dramaturgy.

The participation of representatives of the revolutionary Bulgarian emigration in Romania and other Renaissance figures in the establishment of the Bulgarian Literary Society is well known. Nevertheless, some new documents point even more specifically to their contribution in the preparatory stage of the Society's establishment and in its further development.