литературната

The ever-increasing differentiation and narrow specialization of the various branches of knowledge is a well-known and widely recognized fact today. Among the literary-philological scientific disciplines - clearly separated from the so-called "textual criticism" and paleography - textology already has its own independent scientific subject. At present - and especially that part of it that studies the monuments of medieval literature - it is not only an "applied discipline", but a foundation on which the precise observations and final results of literary history are built. From this fruitful starting point, all the textological assessments of the famous Soviet literary historian-medievalist D. S. Likhachev were made in his new voluminous book, entitled "Textology" - the first systematic exposition in the USSR of textological problems as a new part of modern philology.

I have always treated criticism with respect. But if I say that I am in love with it, I would obviously be lying, since it is too much to ask someone to love the stick that is waved under their nose with enviable constancy... Well, joking aside. Let's be objective and say that the arguments around the "problem" of whether literary criticism is equal to other literary genres seem pointless to me. In my opinion, this depends on criticism itself, just as it depends on fiction or poetry whether it will be equal to criticism. A critical article can be read with joy and pleasure, just like any other literary work. Unfortunately, this does not happen very often, and the great fuss that has been made recently about the rights of criticism has a certain basis: it lies both in the incorrect attitude of some writers towards criticism and in the lack of inner confidence of some critics. When you don't feel confident in yourself or your poetry, you sometimes start screaming and beating your chest without knowing why...

The issues of aesthetics have always been of great interest to both science and artists. This interest has obviously grown in recent times, thanks to which a lot of research has appeared. Despite this activity, however, there is still no unity among scientists on a number of issues. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the fact that theoretical generalizations are not always connected with the direct study of the artistic mastery of the individual artist-writer. If this statement is true for modern fiction, how much more so for medieval Slavic literature, especially for old Bulgarian literature. Of course, today it is no longer possible to maintain the view that this literature is purely religious-dogmatic, dry and uninteresting, that it has primarily cognitive significance, helping us to more fully reveal the relevant historical era. To deny any artistry in Old Bulgarian or Old Russian literature is not justified either historically or factually. Because in different centuries there was a different idea of ​​artistry, and when assessing the degree of artistry of a particular monument, we should not take our own point of view, we should not come up with our own claims to artistry, but take into account the understanding of artistry in the society of that era, monuments". 1 which was contemporary to each of these On the other hand, old Bulgarian literature, like Serbian and Russian medieval literature, possesses undoubted artistic merits: it holds the attention of its reader, satisfies his aesthetic sense, acts on his imagination and reason, elevates thoughts and feelings, and gives knowledge of a diverse nature. The stylistic and linguistic form of the works unconditionally corresponds to the appropriate cultural preparation of the reader, so that he can perceive them, be moved by them. Here it is absolutely necessary to observe a certain ratio between the creator and the reader. When this ratio is violated, the impact of the book is insignificant, a reaction begins against it, an opposite movement appears.

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.

There is a verse in "Faust" that can be translated as: "Our first step is free, with the second we are slaves!" This thought is all too appropriate for the artist, who, having once given free rein to his own imagination in "inventing" a new composition, soon becomes dependent on it. Should the same be said of the writer and art critic? How far does his freedom of choice extend? Is he not a slave to his own, previously preferred or subsequently guessed method? Such questions go so far in today's literary and art studies that they cast doubt on the possibility of a scientific interpretation of the work of art, or at the very least - treat this interpretation as something not quite as certain and expedient as was previously thought. Some contemporary authors believe that the methodological basis of artistic interpretation is only just being formed or is yet to be formed; others are convinced that a scientific analysis of the work is possible only insofar as it does not feed interpretative claims, i.e., insofar as it renounces interpretation in the traditional sense of the term. All those who today argue for "modern" literary studies and art studies, however, mercilessly attack attempts to reveal the meaning of artistic images by establishing historical, biographical, etc. facts. This was yesterday's word for dubious knowledge.

The theory of literature as the main discipline of literary science has gone too far in its development: it is about to become not only a theory of literature, but also a methodology of literary science. The problems of the methodology of Marxist literary science were left in the background for some time. Raised sometimes by individual authors, they were not always correctly formulated, which is why the results were partial, and the concepts of fiction as art one-sided. This underestimation of the methodology caused a certain stagnation in literary science and allowed the spread of the abstract-class approach, which has not been completely overcome even today. Here we must also look for the arguments of some Western literary scholars who underestimate or deny the importance of Marxist literary science.

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.