* * * Scientific papers discussed at the Institute of Literature

In two meetings (on November 15 and 22 of this year) of the scientific council at the Institute of Literature, the works for the Slavic Congress by Emil Georgiev - General Laws in the Development of Slavic Literatures"; Kuyu Kuev - The Idea of ​​Slavic Unity in the Poetry of Petar Preradovich" and Georgi Dimov - "Traditions of Russian Revolutionary-Democratic Aesthetics in the Formation and Development of Bulgarian Literary Criticism" were discussed by the scientific council at the Institute of Literature. The meetings were attended by more than 30 researchers, associates and literary critics, who took an active part in the discussions. Both discussions were chaired by the director of the Institute of Literature Georgi Tsanev. The following spoke on the reports for the Slavic Congress: Kr. Genov, B. Nichev, P. Dinekov, L. Minkova, V. Smohovska-Petrova, G. Valchev, Efrem Karanfilov, St. Karolev, Il. Konev, Iv. Tsvetkov, M. Nikolov, A. Todorov, etc. Finally, the chairman G. Tsanev summarized the speeches. On the report of Em. Georgiev, he pointed out that the author had taken on a very difficult task - to establish general regularities in the development of Slavic literatures and therefore perhaps had not resolved all the questions on the topic. It is necessary for Em. Georgiev to focus even more on socialist realism and Marxist-Leninist methodology, to bring to the fore the specific regularities in the development of Slavic literatures, to clarify some inaccurate positions, to shorten long quotations and for the author to take into account the notes of those who spoke. On the report of K. Kuev, the chairman noted that the work was topical and interesting, saturated with materials from the life and work of Petar Preradovich. G. Tsanev expressed the opinion that the work would gain more if it were systematized by problems, but even in this form the work should be condensed and tightened. It was emphasized that Georgi Dimov's report was correctly constructed, convincing, not only stating facts, but also developing in depth the issues of the influence of Russian revolutionary-democratic aesthetics in the formation and development of Bulgarian literary criticism. It was recommended to the author to make some additions.