насоки

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.

A necessity for our literary science is the combination of the sociological, psychological and aesthetic-philosophical principles in the literary-theoretical problematic, so that it can emerge from the role of a simple companion of the literary process and take its rightful place as a generalizing and guiding force. In this sense, the relapses from journalism and the template in literary-theoretical and critical work must be condemned, the danger of essayism as a scientific approach and the risk associated with modern formalistic and experimental methods must be highlighted. An illustration of these thoughts, expressed by Acad. Pantelei Zarev in his speech before the First Congress of Bulgarian Writers, is the theoretical-historical model of our literature from before the Liberation to the First World War, proposed by him in his book "Panorama of Bulgarian Literature". Through it, he not only makes a deeply justified characterization of the concepts of "national destiny" and "national character", as well as of their dialectical interrelation and unity with our literature, but also brings out his thought about the originality of our historical national existence and the literature associated with it. "The decisive thing in our ideological existence - writes P. Zarev - were not the influences, strong and even stimulating in themselves, but the pressure of hidden forces, moral, psychological and socio-historical. The grain grows on its soil, draws its juices from it, leaves its fruit in it. Such is the original fate of the writer. Naturally, our national destiny weighs on him, even when the separation from the generic begins, when the phenomena contrasting with the past and the raging forces of individualism are already emerging. This is precisely what provides the grounds for a literary-historical logic, for a national