българския

In its relatively long development, since 1842, when Iv. A. Bogorov published the first collection of Bulgarian folk songs and proverbs, Bulgarian folklore studies have achieved significant successes not only in terms of collecting and publishing folklore materials, but also in their research. However, one important gap, which until recently remained unfilled, was the absence of more significant comprehensive and generalizing works on Bulgarian written folk poetic creation, with the necessary scientific depth and competence. The reviews, which were placed in the past mainly in some textbooks on Bulgarian literature, such as Al. T. Balan in his "Bulgarian Literature" (1896) and others, very valuable for their time, today can no longer be fully used due to the often outdated and scientifically overcome views that are advocated in them, and also due to the significantly smaller amount of materials on which they are built. The prominent gap in our science of Bulgarian folk poetic creativity was largely filled in the past 1959 with the appearance of two photo-chronicle works of important importance, namely "Bulgarian Folk Songs" by Prof. Y. Ivanov (published by the Institute of Bulgarian Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) and "Bulgarian Folklore" by Prof. P. Dinekov. Prof. P. Dinekov's book presents the first part of his comprehensive review of Bulgarian folklore, the second part of which is due to be published in the near future. Compared to what has been done in this field to date, it represents a very serious attempt to assess Bulgarian poetic folk art from the point of view of modern progressive science, by clarifying and criticizing all outdated explanations and concepts based mainly on the experience of Soviet folklore studies, which the author has carefully studied.

Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov, as teachers, writers and public figures, were the first advocates for preserving and strengthening the national self-consciousness of the population of Macedonia, threatened during the Turkish rule by the assimilationist offensive of the Phanariotes. The Hellenizing policy of the Greek Patriarchate caused D. Miladinov, as early as 1852, when he himself was leading school education in Greek, to turn anxiously to Alexander the Exarch: "The six-eighths of Macedonia, which are populated by monolingual Bulgarians - he wrote to him - are all learning the Hellenic script and are called Hellenes by the Hellenes, except for the northern Slovenes, who are advancing in the Slovenian (language)", 1 Therefore, after the Crimean War, when the movement for the political and spiritual liberation of the Bulgarian people entered its decisive stage, Miladinov became one of the pioneers of the national awakening of Macedonia. As a teacher, with the active assistance of his younger brother Konstantin, Rayko Zhinzifov and other of his students and followers, he was the first to lead the struggle for the introduction of the Bulgarian language, which had been overthrown by the Phanariotes, into the school and the church, and with his exceptional activity against the denationalizing advances of the patriarchate, he established himself as a universally recognized figure in the Bulgarian revival. That is why, when in the January days of 1862 the news of the martyrdom of the two brothers was brought from Constantinople, it disturbed their compatriots from all corners of Bulgaria, and a number of Slavic periodicals, appreciating the value of their great work, widely popularized their names. Having received a solid education for their time in Greek educational institutions, which Konstantin subsequently enriched at the Faculty of Philology in Moscow, the Miladinovs perceptively understood the role of culture for the national revival of every nation. The rich literature of Greece, which excitingly reflected the life of ancient Hellas and the flowering of its civilization, not only does not disturb their national consciousness, but makes them look at the preserved material and spiritual values ​​of their people in order to document through them their historical past, the stability of their way of life and character. And if the Bulgarian literature of that time, whose development was hindered by the conditions of political and spiritual oppression, could only partially respond to this patriotic need, in the folk poetic work of Dimitar Konstantin Miladinovi discovered both the past, the present, and the future of his people. The collection of samples of folklore and their publication in the collection “Bulgarian Folk Songs” strengthened, enriched, and exalted their patriotic and democratic work.

It is so young that its name is still being debated. But it strives to keep pace with every other science. On the desks of the people who deal with it are manuals and reference books on differential calculus, higher mathematics, information theory, psychology, and physiology; their file cabinets are full of statistical data from mass tests, their sound libraries are teeming with recordings, in their laboratories the tape recorder is being replaced by the complex equipment of wide-ranging sound spectrograms. In just a few years, these people have done a tremendous job of clearing away the metaphoricalism in the terms and concepts that have dominated our knowledge of verse so far: today it has been experimentally established that the objectively stressed vowel does not carry any stress and that usually the sound that we feel stressed is not pronounced the most stressed; that the sound flow is objectively indivisible and is not separated into syllables or words, that the Sound itself is not uniform, but represents a whole bouquet of sounds, in which no one can yet establish exactly how our ear manages to recognize what it needs. As you can see 150 - complete chaos reigns even in our ideas about the physical nature of the verse. Yanakiev boldly puts an end to everything that has been done so far and proposes to start from A and B: a complete break with the current metaphorical use of terms, the application of exclusively scientific methods, relying solely on logic, precise formulations and dealing only with material and clearly distinguishable for everyone components of the verse composition - these are Yanakiev's principles. As a true man of science, he believes that the first step must be absolutely accurate, though small and far behind what the intuitive glimpses of aesthetes and critics have so far given us on the path to penetrating the depths of poetic Mysteries. His first step is to study - if one may so say - the anatomy of verse; to make a purely structural examination of the structure of the poem, to study the different forms of rhythm and to specify the terms by which these forms will henceforth have to be named.

The general statement that the most important, combative variety of literary critical thought - operational criticism - lives an anemic life, stagnates in one place, does not fulfill its primary tasks on time and at the required level has become a worn-out phrase. More and more names of critics, who until yesterday actively participated in the literary process and, to the best of their ability, assisted the emergence of new works and phenomena, today appear on the covers of studies of long-established and universally recognized writers, of studies of faded Bulgarian and European trends. We are slowly coming to terms with the fact - as interesting as it is revealing - that we already have, let's say, a richly argued, fascinatingly written book on French existentialism and the contemporary Western "anti-novel", while at the same time, there is almost no deep, penetrating and courageous research on Bulgarian novels published in the last few years. If, for example, someone wishes to familiarize themselves with the assessments of Bulgarian literary criticism for the novels published in 1961, they can be sure that they will not be particularly hampered by the abundance of opinions. A short review of "Ohrid Spring" by D. Sprostranov in "Plamak", a short review of "Skazanie za vremeno na Samuila" in "Literaturni novini", two short, but true and in many respects convincing reviews of "Martvo valnenie" in "Literaturni novini" and in "Septemvri", can be a few more semi-critical, semi-advertising notes in peripheral newspapers and magazines - and that's all! Namely, this year saw the publication of novels that deserve serious, comprehensive and intelligent conversation - sometimes pleasant, sometimes bitter.

The Bulgarian periodical press, whose beginnings date back 124 years in the city of Smyrna by Konstantin Fotinov with the appearance of the trial booklet of the magazine "Lyuboslovie", has an important share in the political, cultural and literary history of the Bulgarian people. The unpretentious beginning in the distant and isolated from our people region of Asia Minor over the years ignited the spark of the people's struggle for universal Bulgarian education, church autonomy and political independence. The Bulgarian periodical press before the Liberation was an important factor for the national awareness of our people, for its cohesion in a whole nation, for the manifestation of the people's ideals, in the name of which a merciless struggle was undertaken. After the Liberation (1878-1885) periodical 1 Georgi Borshukov. History of Bulgarian Journalism. 1844-1877/1878-1885. Sofia, 1965, p. 578.8°. Ed. of Science and Art. 149 The Czech press supported the implementation of the Unification and the consolidation of the Bulgarian state.

Slowly and with difficulty, the Bulgarian people emerge from the medieval darkness of the Ottoman Empire to live in the light of the New Age, which has long since flooded most of the European continent. Of course, the processes unfolding in its own bowels lead it onto the path of new development. In the conditions of its new historical existence, one after another, figures appear who create its new national life, its new national culture, its new national literature. Of essential importance for its further development is its inclusion in the contemporary socio-political and cultural life of the European peoples. Prominent representatives of the cultural life of the related Slavic peoples have special merits for its inclusion in this life. The names of Vuk Karadzic, Konstantin Kalajdovic, Yuri Venelin, Pavel Yosif Safarik are names of discoverers of the people forgotten in the depths of the Ottoman Empire. The Bulgarian images and pictures of Bulgarian life and the Bulgarian fatherland that have come to life in the works of a number of Slavic writers bring him closer to the consciousness and emotional peace of the Slavic peoples, who will live with his fate, will seek ways to help him, to protect him, to lead him out of his servile misery.

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