L. V. Vorobyov

In his article "Hristo Botev in Russian Criticism and in Russian Translations" ("Literary Thought", No. 1, 1960) L. Erikhonov, while making a cursory review of my works, 126 also dedicated to Hristo Botev, draws the reader's attention to only one circumstance. Namely - L. Vorobyov, who in his works from 1950-1953 so fiercely fought against the desire to present Botev as a Proudhonist and Bakuninist, in 1957-59, without any apparent reasons, changed his position and now presents the great revolutionary-democrat as a follower of anarchism. From this follows the conclusion about the sad evolution in the researcher's views, i.e. about the unprincipled change of his positions. If Leonid Erikhonov had proceeded from objective data or if he had not shown oversight, this note would not have been needed. But, unfortunately, Erikhonov distorts the facts.

Lyuben Karavelov wrote in three languages ​​- Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian - and this is a unique phenomenon in the history of world literature. Lyuben Karavelov's literary works - novels, short stories, poems and feuilletons - are permeated by the tendency to critically expose not only the plagues of the Turkish feudal system, but also the collusion between the treacherous Bulgarian bourgeoisie and the clergy; drawing bright images of revolutionaries - fighters for the liberation of the homeland - Karavelov strives to awaken the consciousness of the masses from centuries-old backwardness, to raise them to active struggle (Doncho, "Bulgarians of Old Time", "Hadji Nicho", "Martyr", etc.). A huge influence on Karavelov was exerted by the revolutionary-democratic literature and aesthetics of Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov Pisarev. In the story "Is Fate Crooked?" (1869), written in Serbian, he applied the ideological and creative techniques of the novel "What is to be done?" by N. G. Chernyshevsky. In his writing, L. Karavelov comprehensively used the creative experience of the classics of Russian and Ukrainian literature, learned from them critical-realist techniques in depicting reality, and propagated the works of Pushkin, Gogol, Chernyshevsky, Herzen, Shevchenko, Marko Vovchok, Serbia and Bulgaria. All this makes the philosophical and artistic work of Lyuben Karavelov particularly interesting and close to us. B Lyuben Karavelov adopted the basic ideas of revolutionary-democratic criticism and aesthetics during the years of his stay in Russia (1857-1866), and this is reflected primarily in his artistic works and in their sharp critical focus. But he also tried to make sense of the principles of realism and revolutionary tendentiousness in a theoretical sense. "Poetry - we read in his Manuscript Notes - as well as everything else in the mental activity of man should serve the serious goals of life, and not be art for the sake of art." 1 In his articles from this period, L. Karavelov calls for the depiction of living folk life, for the rapprochement of writing with folklore, and calls for the liquidation of the archanization of the literary language. And in Serbia (1867-1869) L. Karavelov appears as an already formed literary critic, who gave a well-founded and firm assessment of the tendencies of abstract romanticism and sentimentalism, which had distanced Serbian literature from the truthful depiction of the social struggle in the sphere of intimate experiences. Lyuben Karavelov contributed to a great extent to the turn of Serbian literature from the late 60s-70s from the blind imitation of foreign models to national originality.