първата

I recently read in a reference book that Nikolay Yankov first published his literary work back in 1943. And when I recalled the many examples from our contemporary literary life, I found it somehow too strange, too unfamiliar to me the fact that only at the end of last year, that is, almost two decades after his debut, did his first book, the collection of literary-critical articles "Books. Authors and Time", appear. The reasons for this atypical delay can be explained in a variety of ways, but I have no intention of taking on such a task, since I do not see any particular importance in solving it. I would only like to note in general that it is not the result of any ideological-aesthetic break, of a sharp turn on a completely opposite path, nor of genre wanderings, of genre instability, of jumping from one perimeter of activity to another. Without being one of our most productive critics, Nikolay Yankov delayed the publication of his first book not because of the lack of his own works, but undoubtedly in this case considerations of a different nature were at work, and in the first place, it seems to me, the feeling of self-criticism. I am led to this thought primarily by the circumstance that, with the exception of only three works, the remaining articles were written in the last five or six years. It is obvious that N. Yankov does not feel a particular weakness for his works from a long time ago, it is clear that when compiling the book he did not want to include in it all his long-standing critical production, including his very first manifestations, but considered it most expedient to present himself only with his articles from recent years. But unfortunately this self-criticism is relative, it is not fully manifested. While treating his earlier critical works with extreme strictness, N. Yankov somehow unexpectedly shows himself to be too liberal towards her recent work, voting her full confidence and deciding to present her in "Books, Authors and Time" almost without any exceptions. He also allowed the inclusion of some small notes, some - as he himself called them - "sketches", the meaning of which is limited to marking a certain anniversary or cultural event, notes that in the columns of the newspaper had undoubted value, but which - at least in this form - can hardly find justification outside it. The book of criticism should not become a kind of diary that records every manifestation, it always implies selection (demandingness is always mandatory, it is necessary not only in the assessment of the earliest manifestations). The book is always an assessment - and above all self-assessed, it presents a certain creative period from its most important, most essential sides. Without concealing the noted inclinations towards an unnecessary comprehensiveness, without concealing the unfulfilled self-criticism, it must nevertheless be emphasized without further reservation that Nikolay Yankov's first book gives a general idea of ​​his creative physiognomy.

The large color panel of the panoramic painting usually unfolds as a chronicle of a bygone era. As the greater and lesser artists appear before our eyes, they present to some extent the overall artistic development. However, conclusions are needed that illuminate the vast perspective of the past phenomena in more relief. The main differences, the original and distinctive features stand out best through model 1 of the literary process. On the one hand, it distances the details, avoids excessive complexity, so as not to repeat the process, on the other, by not breaking away from the broad plans, it captures what distinguishes our artistic creation from the creation of other peoples, which is our contribution to world literature. Let me say in advance that it is extremely difficult to establish the unique in a national poetics depending on the changes in the national psyche. It is easy to point out that the world in our country became different with the advent of printing or later - of bicycles and motor vehicles. It is more difficult to grasp the spirit of the times, the intimate and the special in literature that has lacked stability, since each new time has broken something of what was bequeathed. But let us also unfold this page and delve into issues touched upon here and there sporadically, without claiming to be exhaustive.

Few are left of those writers who forty or fifty years ago took a direct part in the creation of a great critical-realist literature in Germany. More of the great writers are now deceased - we mourn the loss of Heinrich and Thomas Mann, Feuchtwanger, Döblin, Hesse, Leonhard Frank, and also Brecht, Becher and Wolf. Born in 1887 - the above-mentioned writers were either born shortly before him or were his contemporaries - Arnold Zweig knew them all and accompanied them in their aspirations; a ray of the radiance of this great age of art and enlightenment falls on him. He is one of its last torchbearers, a writer in whom spiritual breadth, traditionalism and a connection with the future are happily combined.

The First World War and the October Revolutions changed the entire course of world history and inevitably gave a new direction to art. The blow that shook and changed the world fell on the bourgeois-aesthetic thought of the pre-war decade and cleared the way for new ideological and artistic searches. In Bulgarian literature, a new, deeply reviving process of returning to real life, to the fighting cries of the street, to the baked soil of the black earth, to the life-giving juices of the earth began to mature. The October Revolution, which pushed the spiritual development of the peoples along a new path, played a fateful role for the Bulgarian people as well, determining to a large extent their further economic and cultural development. It is enough to glance at our literature of those years to feel the irresistible power of the revolution, to feel the reviving power of the new and spiritual engines.