Обсъждане

Recently, the first volume of the four-volume Marxist "History of Bulgarian Literature" under preparation was discussed at the Literary Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.1 The volume under discussion covers our literary and historical development from the emergence of old Bulgarian literature to Paisii Hilendarski. This scientific work is the fruit of the systematic efforts of a team of authors: Petar Dinekov, Emil Georgiev, Velcho Velchev, Ivan Duychev, Bonyu St. Angelov and Kuyu Kuev. It should be noted at the outset that all specialists and the entire institute staff greeted the first volume with marked interest, which is why its six-day discussion turned into a truly creative discussion dedicated to the characteristic problems associated with the specific features of our old literature. A serious conversation took place about the appearance, methodology, national identity, literary aesthetic essence, stylistic features, artistic criteria, literary movements and schools and all the distinctive features of our ancient centuries-old literature and culture. Almost all those who spoke expressed their views on certain aspects of this rich Bulgarian literature, made high demands on the authors' collective, gave interesting recommendations, defended familiar theses or presented new original hypotheses...

In two meetings - on September 29 and October 13 of this year, the Scientific Council at the Institute of Literature in an expanded composition discussed the work of Alexander Nichev on Aleko Konstantinov. The work has a monographic character and includes the following sections: Introduction: Biography; Literary Attempts; To Chicago and Back; Bai Ganyu; Feuilletons; Poetics; Aleko Konstantinov and Bulgarian Social Democracy. The reviewers Emil Stefanov and Rozalia Lykova evaluate Nichev's work as the first comprehensive scientific monograph on the life and work of our great writer. They see its positive qualities both in the collection of valuable and in many respects new factual material, and in the analysis of this material. "Everywhere in his book, Nichev has carefully, in detail, and with the necessary arguments explained Aleko's ideological and political development," emphasizes Emil Stefanov. "For the first time in our Literary History, Aleko's ideological positions have been widely and thoroughly examined and explained."

On October 4 and 15, 1960, the Section of Bulgarian Literature until the Liberation continued the discussion of the materials for the collection dedicated to Lyuben Karavelov. Diverse and rich, still insufficiently studied and illuminated, the creative work of the editor of "Svoboda" provides for study interesting problems in the fields of literature, journalism, folklore, ethnography, linguistics. This to a significant extent predetermines not only the diversity of the topics that will be included in the collection, but also the striving for originality in their development. Svetla Gyurova's article, for example, "Lyuben Karavelov as the 143rd editor of P. Hitova's book "My Journey through the Stara Planina" is a successful attempt to give a true idea of ​​Karavelov's editorial manner through Hitova's memoirs. Comparing the original of the work and its first edition, made by P. Berkovski, with the text printed in 1873, the author comes to the conclusion that Karavelov, without making changes to the content, makes creative corrections” to the language, composition, imagery and social sharpness of the work. Along with tracing the editorial work on the Memoirs, Gyurova also provides an idea of ​​the work as a whole, of the interest shown in it in some Slavic countries and of the place it occupies in Bulgarian Renaissance literature. Highlighting the undeniable merits of the article, which were also pointed out in their statements by Prof. M. Arnaudov and Prof. P. Dinekov, the reviewer Docho Lekov expressed a wish to place more emphasis on those Karavelov’s additions that have a social and political character, to expand the concluding part of the work and to bring unity to the bibliographical notes.

In June of this year, at a joint meeting of the section for Bulgarian literature after the Liberation, for Russian classical and Soviet literature and literary theory at the Institute of Literature, the work "Some Problems of Humor and Satire in Soviet Literary Studies" by Velichko Valchev was discussed. The reviewer Boyan Nitchev finds that the author has diligently and conscientiously studied almost all the works of Soviet researchers published in the last ten years, who deal with the work of prominent Russian and Soviet satirists. The review in this area highlights questions about the specificity of the genre and artistic mastery, distinguishes the various shades of the comic, devotes significant space to the character of Soviet satire and its ideological positions, etc. The author focuses on the works of prominent Soviet literary scholars Ya. Elsberg, Yu. Borev, L. Ershov, V. Kirpotin, A. K. Bushmin. The reviewer finds that, in general, the first three sections of the article are informative in nature. The presentation is concise, there are no problems, and in places the content of the works under consideration is impoverished. B. Nichev evaluates the second part of V. Valchev's work as more interesting. In it, the author shows more in-depth observations and presents correct opinions. The reviewer pointed out that V. Valchev should develop this part in a broader plan, focusing on more recent published works and making more complete and comprehensive summaries. In conclusion, B. Nichev pointed out that V. Valchev's work has no specific goal and in this form is informative in nature. After serious cuts (in the first part), revision and recomposition of the material, it can be used for the review department of the Institute's Bulletin.

In early November 1962, the scientific council of the institute held an extended meeting at which the Bulletins of the Institute of Literature (issues 7 to 11 inclusive) were discussed. Senior research associate Stoyko Bozhkov presented a report on the Bulletins. He traced the history of this institute publication, its character and tasks, the circle of its collaborators, its characteristic achievements and weaknesses. Then the rapporteur was asked questions, which he answered. 11 research associates took part in the speeches. Iskra Panov shared her impressions of the latest booklets of the Bulletins. They contain a section of materials that are clearly defined by genre - publications and scientific communications. Their scientific value cannot be disputed. Then comes a section of studies and articles that are at a more primary stage of scientific processing. They are something in between documentary materials and historical and literary studies. These are the works that occupy the main share of the published production in the Bulletins. There is a complete lack of materials on contemporary topics, as well as theoretical studies. One gets the impression of thematic disarray. Only the volume dedicated to Smirnensky is thematically focused. It turns out that articles and studies that are related to more current issues go to the journal "Literary Thought", larger works are published as separate books, and for the Izvestia there are things that are primarily related to older literature.