Ботев

The name of Hristo Botev became widely known in Russia in connection with the April Uprising. The Russian press in June-July 1876 repeatedly mentioned the name of Hristo Botev in numerous correspondences dedicated to the Bulgarian uprising as one of the prominent figures of the liberation movement in Bulgaria. Naturally, there were also significant exaggerations and inaccuracies in the newspaper reports, which are explained not only by ignorance, but also by the desire to present Bulgarian events to Russian society in a certain light. These newspaper notes are interesting insofar as they contain information about the revolutionary poet.

In the vast literature on the life and work of Hristo Botev, there is no more comprehensive study of the impact that the genius of the Bulgarian nation has exerted for decades on the development of our literary and social thought. The question of Botev's participation in the ideological, political and literary struggles of other peoples has not been considered in a broader sense. Only a few popular articles, and most notably Minko Nikolov's study "Botev in the ideological and poetic path of Vazov", printed in 1956 in book two of the Botev-Levski Institute Bulletin, as well as the article "Hristo Botev in Serbian and Croatian literature", published in volume four of the Slavic Collection, 1963, examine individual moments of this so multifaceted and so vital impact. Zdenek Urban's study "The Activity and Creativity of Hristo Botev and the Czech Republic in the 1970s and 1980s" also has such a character, published in 1959 in book three of the Proceedings of the Botev-Levski Institute.

Bulgarian historiography has shown an understandable interest in the friendship of Hristo Botev with Russian revolutionary-democrats, emigrants to Romania in the 1970s. Their relations were on a personal and political basis, and their clarification would clarify some moments of the biography and ideology of Hristo Botev, immediately before the formation and passage of his detachment to Bulgaria. Some of the names of Botev's "Russian friends" are known: Bonifacio Florescu, Nikolai Petrovich Zubcu-Codryanu, Nikolai Konstantinovich Sudzilovski, Nikolai Filipovich Meledin, Alexander Shapchenko, Costica Dobrudzhanu-Gerya, Zamfir Arbore-Rali, Dr. N. Lucicki, Henryk Dembitski, etc. The closest to Botev were the first three: B. Florescu, whose real name was Hertrat, N. Codreanu, known in journalism by his pseudonym Dragos, and N. Sudzilovski, better known under the name of Doctor Roussell. From them we present several letters that are directly or indirectly related to Botev and his group. The originals or photocopies of them are in the Romanian Academy, and are being published in Bulgarian for the first time. The letters cover one of the relatively little-known periods of Botev's life, namely from the autumn of 1875 until his departure from Bucharest for "Radecki". The relations between Botev and the emigre revolutionary democrats are of a nature to complement and clarify the ideology of our revolutionary and poet, his moving away from utopian socialism and his approach to Marxism and scientific socialism, which occurs with their joint in-depth study of "Capital" by Karl Marx and the socialist literature that began to penetrate Romania, which is also reflected in the contemporary Romanian progressive periodical press.

The historical figures whose names we have united in the title of this work have linked their destinies in the history of the Serbian and Bulgarian peoples almost a hundred years ago, thus embodying the unified process of the emergence of their modern history and culture. Everything that occurred in the Balkans in the sixties and seventies of the last century is so significant for the modern history and culture of the Balkan peoples that considerable scientific efforts must be made to fully study the given historical events, to understand their internal laws and to find ourselves in the channel of those invisible, repeatedly intersecting currents that then organically connected our peoples and determined their subsequent historical destiny. In the numerous attempts undertaken so far to clarify the events of that time and to characterize the individual personalities who in one way or another determined these events, there is a certain tendency towards isolation and an aspiration to consider the facts in their significance, detached from the pan-European processes, limiting them within the narrow Slavic framework and thus reducing, I would say, their general significance. In this case, the authors have often fallen into pathos and nationalism, have been uncritical and have themselves succumbed to ecstasy. By the way, there have been researchers, alien to such affectation and excessive enthusiasm, who have managed to suppress their own excitement, which necessarily accompanies any research, especially such, carried out in a very restless and exciting time. Naturally, such researchers have achieved larger and more significant results.

In recent months, our Botev studies have been enriched with another valuable contribution - the book by St. Tarinska "The Prose of Hristo Botev". Not large in volume, this new book about the great son of our people is the result of long-term, systematic, in-depth research work. Its subject is the relatively little-studied prose of Botev - his articles, essays and feuilletons. The author has collected a large amount of historical and literary material and has built a study that is distinguished by its overall harmonious composition, internal logic and consistency, in-depth penetration and analysis. With the scientific precision, accuracy and analytical skills of a talented literary historian, Tarinska collects observations and facts, traces the path of the publicist and feuilletonist, outlines the atmosphere of the time more and more closely, and delve deeper and deeper into the peculiarities and uniqueness of the literary process. Interesting precisely from a literary-historical point of view is the versatile, very specific analysis that she makes of the works under consideration - articles, essays and feuilletons. The method of fragmentation, of detailed literary-historical analysis is applied particularly consistently in the most extensive chapter of the study - "Master of the Feuilleton". The author searches for the sources used in writing each feuilleton, which served as material and as an occasion for the feuilletonist. Studying with literary-historical depth the "prehistory" of the work, i.e. the occasion for its emergence, the sources, the prototypes, Tarinska arrives at interesting observations, imperceptibly and slightly entering its atmosphere. The author argues with Al. Burmov about the time in which the feuilleton "The Wardrobe" was written, without getting carried away by the accumulation of facts for its own sake, in historicism for its own sake. "Al. Burmov's arguments at first glance are completely plausible and convincing, she writes, but if we carefully follow the content of the work and turn to the actual facts that lie at its foundation, we will see that his statement is false. We will dwell on this issue in more detail not only to specify the time of the creation of the feuilleton, but because this is largely a question of the principles on which Botev builds the feuilleton work." (p. 106). 1 Stefana Tarinska, The Prose of Hristo Botev", ed. Nauka i izkustvo, S., 1966. Tarinska is constantly searching for "principles", the main problems. The specific analysis of "The Closet" leads to principled conclusions and generalizations about the birth and development of the feuilleton theme, about Botev's ability to remain faithful to the actual fact and at the same time provide himself with sufficient distance to organize his material in such a way that the great social theme resonates. Through the analysis, the answer to the question is reached - how does the feuilletonist embed the actual fact in the general fabric of the work? For Botev, "the concrete-topical is not an illustration of the idea, but an expression of the idea. That is why he needs it in its unity between the particular and the general - as it manifests itself in reality itself." When examining the feuilleton "That Night I Dreamed..." Tarinska again searches for the principle on which the satirical exposure is built, discovers the intersection of the small and large themes of the feuilleton, the connection of the plot development. And she comes to the summary: "A constant overflow, a constant transition from the small to the large theme of the work. A continuous alternation of the fable-allegorical with the real-believable and all this through unexpected transitions, at the same time smooth, logical" in its illogicality, externally acceptable - on these principles Botev builds the feuilleton story." (p. 120) The analysis of "That Night I Dreamed..." gives the author material to reveal Botev's ability to fabulate, to create with ease and ease a feuilleton plot - interesting and deeply meaningful, saturated with a wide variety of motifs and at the same time monolithic and purposeful", to build the plot development on specific evil daily facts and at the same time project it onto the big, fundamental issues of the time, giving it a clear political focus.

In their written reviews, Prof. Georgi Tsanev and Assoc. Prof. Ivan Undzhiev made a detailed analysis of St. Tarinska's dissertation work, focusing primarily on the new things she brings to the topic. Stoyan Karolev, Petko Totev and Pantelei Zarev took part in the discussion of the dissertation. They emphasized the originality of the study. The author attempts to reveal Botev's journalism from its artistic side, points out the aesthetic value of Botev's prose, and acquaints the reader with his poetics. The work traces the feuilleton as a literary genre of the modern era, highlights Botev's mastery of composing and fabulating, and indicates his great skill in using the various forms of artistic journalism. Tarinska also has interesting observations about the internal movement, the internal dynamics of Botev's thought, of Botev's speech, which especially contributes to the emotional impact of Botev's journalism. The author emphasizes the polyphonic nature of Botev's feuilleton, studied as an artistic-journalistic entity not only literary-historically, but also literary-theoretically. The work clarifies a number of questions about the nature of Botev's prose, its appearance in intellectual and emotional terms, and this makes Tarinska's work an original phenomenon, a contribution to our literary science.

Botev's feuilletons are the highest achievement in the development of Bulgarian feuilleton until the Liberation. They are closely related to Karavelov's feuilleton. Botev undoubtedly learned from Karavelov, set out on the path outlined by him, adopted the main genre and style features of his feuilletons. The general, principled attitude of Karavelov and Botev to the factual basis of the feuilleton, to the artistic image, to the journalistic essence, power and pathos of the feuilleton denunciation, to the great revolutionary tasks that the feuilletonist solves and to which his work also serves, are very close in both authors. The deep connection and continuity in their creative work of great masters of the feuilleton is undeniable. At the same time, however, Botev takes a significant step forward. His feuilletons are one of the peaks not only in the history of Bulgarian feuilleton, but in the development of our literature in general. Despite the great proximity and undeniable continuity with Karavel's feuilletons, Botev's feuilleton legacy has its own independent place and significance, and is subject to its own laws. The great proximity is accompanied by deep and essential differences. The more we delve into the structural and generally artistic features of Botev's feuilleton, the more clearly its peculiar world emerges.

The Soviet scientist K. A. Poglubko continued for several years to research the Bulgarian-Russian revolutionary relations of the 1960s and 1970s. The result of his research are the interesting studies "Iz istorii Russko-Bulgarskikh revolutionarynyh syvyaz kontsa 60-kh ogode XIX c." (News of the Academy of Moldavian SSR, No. 1, 1965), "Some new materials about the connections of Russian revolutionaries with H. Botev in the early 1970s." (Izvestia AN Moldavskoi SSR, No. 2, 1966), "Connections of Bulgarian and Russian emigrants (1869)" (Izvestia AN Moldavskoi SSR, book 1, 1968) and others. The studios are interconnected. They are obviously key moments of a comprehensive monographic work that will shed new light on a remarkable heroic period of our national Revival and on the activities of the greatest figures of the era.