оценка

Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov, as teachers, writers and public figures, were the first advocates for preserving and strengthening the national self-consciousness of the population of Macedonia, threatened during the Turkish rule by the assimilationist offensive of the Phanariotes. The Hellenizing policy of the Greek Patriarchate caused D. Miladinov, as early as 1852, when he himself was leading school education in Greek, to turn anxiously to Alexander the Exarch: "The six-eighths of Macedonia, which are populated by monolingual Bulgarians - he wrote to him - are all learning the Hellenic script and are called Hellenes by the Hellenes, except for the northern Slovenes, who are advancing in the Slovenian (language)", 1 Therefore, after the Crimean War, when the movement for the political and spiritual liberation of the Bulgarian people entered its decisive stage, Miladinov became one of the pioneers of the national awakening of Macedonia. As a teacher, with the active assistance of his younger brother Konstantin, Rayko Zhinzifov and other of his students and followers, he was the first to lead the struggle for the introduction of the Bulgarian language, which had been overthrown by the Phanariotes, into the school and the church, and with his exceptional activity against the denationalizing advances of the patriarchate, he established himself as a universally recognized figure in the Bulgarian revival. That is why, when in the January days of 1862 the news of the martyrdom of the two brothers was brought from Constantinople, it disturbed their compatriots from all corners of Bulgaria, and a number of Slavic periodicals, appreciating the value of their great work, widely popularized their names. Having received a solid education for their time in Greek educational institutions, which Konstantin subsequently enriched at the Faculty of Philology in Moscow, the Miladinovs perceptively understood the role of culture for the national revival of every nation. The rich literature of Greece, which excitingly reflected the life of ancient Hellas and the flowering of its civilization, not only does not disturb their national consciousness, but makes them look at the preserved material and spiritual values ​​of their people in order to document through them their historical past, the stability of their way of life and character. And if the Bulgarian literature of that time, whose development was hindered by the conditions of political and spiritual oppression, could only partially respond to this patriotic need, in the folk poetic work of Dimitar Konstantin Miladinovi discovered both the past, the present, and the future of his people. The collection of samples of folklore and their publication in the collection “Bulgarian Folk Songs” strengthened, enriched, and exalted their patriotic and democratic work.

There is too much work and talk about the exact methods of describing artistic phenomena in our time. It is quite natural that people talk mainly about their present and even more about their future, while groundlessly self-confident statements about their efficiency are often met with extreme skepticism, with positions that are essentially nihilistic: exact methods will never be able to cope with this or that problem... However, in conversations and polemics, the fact is constantly ignored that the vigorous modern development of exact methods is not a unique phenomenon in the history of aesthetics, as some of its advocates try to suggest. Aesthetics experienced, and not so long ago, a hardly less vigorous fascination with the search for exact methods for describing the work of art, the creative and perceptual process, and the development of art. And although the two periods differ from each other in a number of essential features, interesting analogies with useful, orienting conclusions can be drawn between them.

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.