българското

The nature of the Enlightenment must be clarified, as this will allow a more correct understanding of the ideological and political struggle in Bulgaria in the 1860s and 1870s. Scholars who have studied the Bulgarian Enlightenment in the period in question (Jacques Nathan, Mikhail Dimitrov) note the following features: 1. The Enlightenment is a reactionary ideology of the wealthy merchants and artisans; 2. It is opposed to the ideology of the revolutionaries; 3. The ideas of the Enlightenment are opposed to the views of the Russian revolutionary democrats. Mikhail Dimitrov points out that "after the Crimean War, the Enlightenment was adopted by the entire bourgeois class in our country". 1. In the national struggles during this period (the 1860s and 1870s, L. E.) they played a demobilizing role. 2 "It is characteristic of the Enlightenment as an ideological trend that it preferred the path of evolution to revolution, 3 In one of his last works, Mich. Dimitrov comes to the conclusion: "the Enlightenment lent a hand to Turkophilism, it was an ideology for the fight against the revolutionary movement and became a common weapon of all bourgeois political trends before the Liberation, on both sides of the Danube. 4 In the above conclusions, M. Dimitrov puts an equal sign between the Enlightenment, evolutionism and Turkophilism. Jacques Nathan in his book "The Bulgarian Revival" also speaks of the opposition between the Enlightenment and revolutionaries. "While - writes Jacques Nathan - the enlighteners and churchmen expressed the interests of the wealthy elite of the Bulgarian people, the revolutionaries were the exponents of the interests of the declining guilds, the vast majority of the peasants and a part of the emerging bourgeois class (the liberal part)" 5 Analyzing Karavelov's worldview, Jacques Nathan and Mich. Dimitrov oppose him to Rakovski and Botev - as an enlightener of revolutionaries. Grozy Grozev in "History of Bulgarian Philosophy" distinguishes two directions of public thought in Bulgaria in the 60s-70s of the 19th century, opposing each other - the revolutionary and the enlightened.

In connection with my work on the topic "Michael Tchaikovsky - Sadak Pasha and Bulgaria", which began several years ago, I studied a significant part of the archives of Prince Adam Czartoryski, which are located in the Czartoryski Museum in Krakow. These archives contain rich data and a number of important documents about the Bulgarian Revival and in particular about the church issue, as well as about the life and activities of such prominent Revival figures as Neofit Bozveli, Hilarion Makariopolski, Konstantin Ognyanovich and Alexander Exarch, as well as about Teohar Piccolo, Prince Bogoridi and others. Among the newly discovered documents are: 1. The previously unknown text of a detailed Memorandum by Bozveli to the Turkish authorities of September 1 (September 12, old style) 1844. This is the first memorandum submitted by Neofit after his return from the first exile. It has been preserved in a French translation. 2. The letter of Neophyte Bozveli to Prince A. Czartoryski of March 17, 1845; the Bulgarian original and the Polish translation have been preserved. The letter is an interesting literary work. 3. The letter-response of Prince A. Czartoryski to Neophyte Bozveli of July 7 (June 25, old style) 1845 in the Polish original. 4. The notes of Mikhail Tchaikovsky to the Sublime Porte on the Bulgarian question of May 11 and 18, 1845. 5. The note of Mikhail Tchaikovsky to Riza Pasha and Shakib Efendi of July 31, 1845 on the occasion of the abduction and exile of Neophyte Hilarion by the Greek Patriarch and the notes on the same occasion to the Sublime Porte of August 3, 1845 and to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs of August 9, 1845. All three notes have been preserved in French translation. 6. Mikhail Tchaikovsky's note to Reshid Pasha on the occasion of the Sultan's upcoming trip to the European lands of the Turkish Empire, dated February 10, 1846, in French translation. 7. Neophyte Bozveli's letter from his second exile to Lazar Teodorovich, the Serbian diplomatic representative in Constantinople, dated August 23 (September 5, old style), 1845, translated into Polish. This letter contains detailed information about Neophyte's abduction and exile. 8. Hilarion Makariopolsky's letter to Foad Effendi, first dragoman of the Sublime Porte, sent from exile, dated August 28, 1845, preserved in French translation. 9. The letter of Konstantin Ognyanovich: to the Polish agent (Tchaikovsky's assistant) Mikhail Dombrova Budzinski dated October 27, 1846 from Belokrinitsa and to Tchaikovsky from Vienna, dated June 13, 1848, and the second also from Vienna dated June 20, 1848. The first of these letters has been preserved in a Polish translation, and the other two have been preserved in their Russian original, with a translation in Polish. 10. The richest factual material on the course of the Bulgarian church struggle during these years, on the activities of a number of prominent Bulgarian writers and revivalists, and on Bulgarian-Polish relations during the mid-19th century is contained in Tchaikovsky's reports to A. Czartoryski, written from 1841 to 1850, regularly twice a month. From June 26, 1843, a special column entitled "Bulgaria" was introduced in them. A separate place among the materials found is occupied by the French translations of documents already known in Bulgaria: the petition to the Sultan from the residents of Svishtov dated November 15, 1844, a thank-you address from the Bulgarians from Constantinople to Mehmed Ali Pasha dated 1845, the appeal to the Sublime Porte on behalf of the entire Bulgarian people dated March 1845, and the preface to the translation of the Hatshepsut from January 1845, written by Hilarion in Bulgarian, but in the Latin alphabet. A significant part of these documents will be published in my work "New Data on Neophyte Bozveli and the Bulgarian Church Question", which is already prepared for publication. The materials found are clear evidence that the Polish archives not only in Krakow, but also in Wrocław, Poznań and Kurnik should be studied and that further research will provide an opportunity to discover a number of new documents and data on the Bulgarian Revival and Bulgarian-Polish relations.

The long-standing exceptional interest shown in our country in Soviet literary studies is beyond doubt. For the representatives of Marxism in the previous few decades it has been so obvious that it would be possible to point out to Dali at least one question of a methodological nature that concerned them and which had not previously been discussed in Soviet literary life. This is so easily explained that it is enough to simply recall it.

In the era of the Bulgarian Revival, deep and diverse processes are taking place, which fill the socio-economic and spiritual life with new content. On the basis of the objectively created historical prerequisites, the Bulgarian nation is formed, with all those components that accompany its affirmation. In long-standing efforts for national individualization, for the conquest of political and cultural independence, it manifests itself with unsuspected vital energy. National social, scientific, aesthetic thought is rapidly gaining strength.

Habit nullifies surprise. However, there are comparisons that never cease to surprise us even when we should already be used to them. On the eve of the 25th anniversary of the September 9th People's Uprising, these comparisons are inevitable. After all, the meaning of every anniversary is to tear us away from the myopia of everyday worries - to raise us to a height from which the path we have traveled is embraced with a glance: to provoke us to reflect on near and distant prospects. And then repeatedly repeated statements begin to amaze us with their truthfulness. Things that we are used to surprise us again - by the way, also with the fact that they have become commonplace for us so quickly.

The participation of representatives of the revolutionary Bulgarian emigration in Romania and other Renaissance figures in the establishment of the Bulgarian Literary Society is well known. Nevertheless, some new documents point even more specifically to their contribution in the preparatory stage of the Society's establishment and in its further development.

When more than three decades ago, the unknown village teacher Krum Grigorov made his literary debut with his story "The Border", few could have guessed that these were the first sprouts of the future storyteller of the Bulgarian village. The small stories that soon appeared on the pages of the progressive periodical, written with a vivid sense of life's injustices, began to attract more and more attention from the reader. In them, the persistent efforts of the village teacher towards an artistic expression of his ideological anxieties and social aspirations stand out more and more clearly. And quite naturally, he soon found his place among progressive writing circles, joining the ranks of the anti-fascist literary front, which in the 1930s was rapidly growing and setting the tone for artistic life.