език

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.

The dispute over Yavorov continues. The largest - after Botev - Bulgarian post awaits its new and insightful interpreters. They will recreate his social and personal drama more deeply. They will open more shells to reveal all the pearls of his work. The disputes over the poet are not from yesterday and today. They are already entering their sixth decade. While in the past they highlighted the sharp ideological contrasts in criticism itself - from the naturalizing individualism of one pole to the sectarian narrow-mindedness of the other, today the situation is completely different. The authors who are discussing have stood on a single social platform, determined by our Marxist ideology. This does not mean that old sins cannot take new forms, that relapses of one or another passion will not arise today. However, what is new in our current literary science should be the civil and moral purity of the disputes. Even in the greatest heat of polemics, the opponent should not be suspected of impure intentions, classified in the category of "dubious elements" and "unclean forces." Otherwise, the dispute degenerates and, instead of clarifying the mature issues, it pursues other, extra-literary goals. Techniques that seek only to wound the opponent more effectively, to smear his face with more mud, to discredit him in front of society cannot be the techniques of a socialist scientist.

More than once, both officially, at teachers' conferences, and in the press with separate articles, it has been emphasized that the topics for homework and class exercises in Bulgarian language and literature must be formulated specifically, graded in difficulty for a given class and by classes - for a given course. But precisely in this very important and complicated area of ​​training and education through written speech, there has been no unity in understandings, in requirements. The variety of languages ​​in the formulations of the topics for a given class has been and is determined not by any principles, but by purely individual preferences and inclinations of teachers, sometimes even by happy ideas or by an unfounded striving for external brilliance, for a parade form of speech, without taking into account that the thought title is unclear to the majority of those who will develop it as a topic.