Обсъдени

In two meetings (on November 15 and 22 of this year) of the scientific council at the Institute of Literature, the works for the Slavic Congress by Emil Georgiev - General Laws in the Development of Slavic Literatures"; Kuyu Kuev - The Idea of ​​Slavic Unity in the Poetry of Petar Preradovich" and Georgi Dimov - "Traditions of Russian Revolutionary-Democratic Aesthetics in the Formation and Development of Bulgarian Literary Criticism" were discussed by the scientific council at the Institute of Literature. The meetings were attended by more than 30 researchers, associates and literary critics, who took an active part in the discussions. Both discussions were chaired by the director of the Institute of Literature Georgi Tsanev. The following spoke on the reports for the Slavic Congress: Kr. Genov, B. Nichev, P. Dinekov, L. Minkova, V. Smohovska-Petrova, G. Valchev, Efrem Karanfilov, St. Karolev, Il. Konev, Iv. Tsvetkov, M. Nikolov, A. Todorov, etc. Finally, the chairman G. Tsanev summarized the speeches. On the report of Em. Georgiev, he pointed out that the author had taken on a very difficult task - to establish general regularities in the development of Slavic literatures and therefore perhaps had not resolved all the questions on the topic. It is necessary for Em. Georgiev to focus even more on socialist realism and Marxist-Leninist methodology, to bring to the fore the specific regularities in the development of Slavic literatures, to clarify some inaccurate positions, to shorten long quotations and for the author to take into account the notes of those who spoke. On the report of K. Kuev, the chairman noted that the work was topical and interesting, saturated with materials from the life and work of Petar Preradovich. G. Tsanev expressed the opinion that the work would gain more if it were systematized by problems, but even in this form the work should be condensed and tightened. It was emphasized that Georgi Dimov's report was correctly constructed, convincing, not only stating facts, but also developing in depth the issues of the influence of Russian revolutionary-democratic aesthetics in the formation and development of Bulgarian literary criticism. It was recommended to the author to make some additions.

On 16. I. of this year, in the section on Bulgarian literature before the Liberation, three works were discussed: by Iliya Konev - Hristo Botev in Serbian and Croatian literature, by Docho Lekov - Karavelov's interest in the folklore and ethnography of the Slavic peoples, and by Stefka Tarinska - The development of the feuilleton during the Bulgarian Renaissance. The following spoke: prof. P. Dinekov, S. Baeva, D. Lekov, St. Tarinska, P. Totev, B. Nichev. The work of Il. Konev was positively evaluated in view of the interesting topic and its development. The chapter on the influence of Botev's poetry on the work of the Croatian poet August Harambašić was indicated as the most valuable. The author was recommended to introduce greater systematicity and proportionality into the presentation and to increase the analysis of the examples.

On October 7, this year, the Scientific Council at the Institute of Literature discussed the work of Acad. Mihail Arnaudov "From the History of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The Bulgarian Literary Society in Braila (1869-1876)". In their reviews, Assoc. Prof. Georgi Dimov and Nikolay Todorov give an affirmative assessment of the work, indicating in detail its merits and at the same time making some recommendations for its improvement. In his review, Georgi Dimov emphasizes the task that the author of the work set himself - to study the long-term process of maturing the idea of ​​organizing a scientific center, as a result of which the Literary Society in Braila was created. The work traces the activity of this cultural center for a certain period - until 1876, when it practically ceased to exist, and its activity was resumed after the Liberation under different socio-historical and cultural conditions. On a very broad scale and using rich factual material, Acad. M. Arnaudov focuses on the efforts of the Bulgarians for an independent educational and scientific-cultural life since the beginning of the 19th century, and in this way the exposition in many places turns into a history of the development of spiritual life in general during the Revival. The author's broad erudition has allowed him to build his study on a comparative-historical basis - he acquaints the reader with similar phenomena in neighboring and more distant countries, which could serve as an example for our Revival figures. An expert on that era, the author freely handles historical sources, presents materials of various nature, drawn from the periodical press, from correspondence, from general and literary works or from previous research. Thus, the reader has the opportunity to see how the idea of ​​organizing special societies or centers with the task of working for the advancement of Bulgarian enlightenment, education, culture, etc. is taken up by one or another figure, what content is put into it, in what specific form they want to carry out their patriotic undertakings. The author examines cultural and educational phenomena against the background of social reality. The difficulties that accompany the realization of this work are thoroughly presented. True thoughts are also expressed about the struggle between the two trends in emigration.

At two consecutive meetings, the Scientific Council of the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences discussed and accepted for publication Vasil Kolevski's work "The Pathos of October", dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. In his review, Angel Todorov emphasized the importance of the topic, gave a positive assessment of the work and concluded that the influence of Soviet literature on Bulgarian is a profound regularity for the activation and development of our entire culture and literature. From this position, the author also considers the issue of the reflection and reception of Soviet literature in Bulgarian progressive periodicals from 1917 to 1944. Angel Todorov made a brief overview of the material presented in the book, emphasized its breadth, systematization and assessment from a modern scientific point of view. He characterized the study as seriously and competently written. He also made some critical remarks.