руски

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.

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.

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