Ганка

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.

On June 23, 1966, the Scientific Council at the Institute of Literature also discussed the work of senior research fellow Ganka Naydenova "The Romantic Image - a Symbol of the Creator". In his written review, Professor Stefan Stanchev made a detailed description of the work. According to him, Naydenova's work represents an original scientific study with a contributing character. The author's concepts are built on rich material from all of Western European literature. The material is treated originally with a view to the author's thesis. During the discussion of G. Naydenova's work, the following spoke: Professor Emil Georgiev, Professor Stoyan Karolev, senior research fellow Minko Nikolov, academician M. Arnaudev, senior research fellow Krastvo Genov and the director of the institute Stoyko Bozhkov. The speeches emphasized the importance of the topic, the richness of the material on which the work is built and the original analyses and author's concepts. It was emphasized that the work has contribution. The speakers made some recommendations: greater unification and stretching of the material in view of the central theme; greater precision of some formulations; the chapter on Bulgarian literature to be dropped because it feels artificially attached. In his closing remarks, the director of the institute, Stoyko Bozhkov, recommended that the author take into account the wishes made and unify the material in view of the topic set, to direct her attention to the concepts she deals with and which characterize phenomena that are different in their genesis.