Научен

On March 2, 2011, the Scientific Council of the Institute of Literature discussed Boyan Nichev's work on Branislav Nušić. Reviewers Emil Georgiev and Kujo Kuev highlighted the merits of the work, in which B. Nichev demonstrated his research and analytical talent and ability to richly illustrate and document the creative path of the Serbian writer. In their assessments, they noted that the author successfully coped with the difficult task and that for the first time in scientific literature a more comprehensive study of Nušić's work will appear. Another, equally important feature of the work is that the author worked with inspiration and demonstrated a healthy aesthetic sense. The reviewers recommended that B. Nichev make some compositional corrections, focus his attention on a certain proportionality of the sections, analyze more fully Nušić's great comedies of recent times, highlight more shortcomings in the Serbian writer's work, which are present even in his best works, etc. Eight people participated in the discussions.

On June 2, the Scientific Council of the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences discussed and approved for publication a collection of studies that the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and Sofia State University prepared on the occasion of the 1050th anniversary of the death of the outstanding Bulgarian and Slavic educator, teacher and man of letters Kliment Ohridski. It includes 24 studies by Bulgarian authors-historians, literary critics, linguists, specialists in the history of Bulgarian fine arts and music, as well as a bibliography of Bulgarian literature on Kliment Ohridski for the period 1945-1966.

At the end of last year, the Scientific Council of the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences discussed and accepted for publication the work of Acad. Mihail Arnaudov "Kiril Hristov. The Man and the Poet". In his review, Krastyo Genov highlighted the merit of Mihail Arnaudov in tracing every step of the life and work of Kiril Hristov: a difficult and responsible task in revealing the sharp contradictions in the poet's creative biography. The author selects what is truly important and significant in the work and in the difficult life of the poet, bypassing the erroneous, inaccurate and artistically petty. He correctly identifies the individual traits of the personality and the creator, achieving an objective and convincing assessment of a life filled with contradictions of an ideological and moral nature, with torment and dissatisfaction. The monograph is particularly valuable with the rich factual material skillfully used by the author. He managed to present a broad picture of social reality and literary mores, including personal memories, observations, and excerpts from his interesting correspondence with the writer.

Recently, in the Smetana Hall of the National House in Prague, a closed VI International Congress of Slavic Scholars was opened. Nearly two thousand of the most famous Slavic scholars in the world and as many guests had the opportunity, over the course of a whole week, to communicate in debates from the stands or in intimate conversations on the ancient streets and parks of Prague; to exchange scientific considerations and thoughts, searching for the great truth about the past and present life of the Slavic peoples, about their spiritual closeness with other non-Slavic peoples, about their common civic quests and spiritual aspirations, about their closeness in everyday life, in language, in verbal folk and personal creativity... And this great conversation about the peculiar fate of Slavism, which began again in the same hall approximately four decades ago at the First Slavic Congress (1929), is constantly expanding and deepening. More and more participants are making their modest contribution; More and more Slavic scholars are presenting their insights and discoveries, their themes and aspirations, solutions, hypotheses and concepts into scientific circulation... Sometimes - successfully defended and scientifically argued, and sometimes without analysis and based on random signs, without a deep knowledge of the facts and based on data devoid of any scientific systematics.

Academician Mikhail Arnaudov is one of the most inspired historians and interpreters of the Bulgarian Revival. In a number of monographs he builds in relief the images of selfless figures of this era, who saved Bulgarianness from melting. Among the most prominent figures of the Revival is Grigor Parlichev. A scientist, a post and an apostle of freedom with diverse activities - all his manifestations are the object of Arnaudov's scientific and literary interest. Grigor Parlichev is a true Bulgarian poet, "misunderstood", as Ivan Vazov puts it. His creativity and social activity have excited and will continue to excite Bulgarians. A fighter and creator, he directs his activities towards the affirmation of Bulgarian culture and its liberation from Ottoman slavery and Hellenization. 1 The newly published book about Grigor Parlichev is a new edition of the famous monograph by Mihail Arnaudov on the life and work of Grigor Parlichev, designated by the author as a "characteristic and notes" and a collection of Parlichev's works: "Autobiography", "The Serdar", translated into prose by Vasil Pundev, the poem "Skenderbey", a translation of the "Iliad", "The Dream of an Old Man" and illustrations. The following stanza by Ivan Vazov is set as the motto of the book:

Krastyo Genov's book "Romanticism in Bulgarian Literature" was published in 1968, and a year before that it was defended as a doctoral dissertation. The author has consistently defended some of the fundamental positions expressed in it in recent years in a number of his publications in the field of Bulgarian Renaissance literature, and most fully in his work "From Paisius to Botev", published by "Nauka iizkustvo", 1966. When evaluating his new book, one must take into account the fact that in our country there is almost no generalizing or more comprehensive research on the main trends and methods in Bulgarian Renaissance literature, in particular on the manifestation, scope and specificity of Romanticism in it. Apart from some of the more famous studies by Ivan Shishmanov and Boyan Penev in the past, the well-known article by Petar Dinekov "The Problem of Romanticism in Bulgarian Literature until the Liberation", written in connection with the Fourth International Congress of Slavists in Moscow, Pantelei Zarev's work "Panorama of Bulgarian Literature" and several other smaller publications, the bibliography of special studies on the subject offers almost nothing else original and significant. Of course, this does not mean that other studies on the issue of Romanticism in Bulgarian literature have not been conducted in Bulgarian literary scholarship on the Revival; the studies on Chintulov and Rakovski, on Drumev and Botev are well known. However, the conclusions in the relevant studies from the past are too general, and in the more recent ones - contradictory. Even in the second volume of the academic history of Bulgarian literature, different opinions on this fundamental issue have found expression.