Iliya Konev

Before us is a biography that, with great detail and accuracy in terms of facts, depicts the life of one of the most deserving sons of the Bulgarian people from the era of the Revival - the writer and revolutionary Lyuben Karavelov. This biography, written by the skilled pen of the authoritative and respected not only in our country expert on the history of the national liberation movement in Bulgaria in the 19th century, Academician Mihail Dimitrov, is the result of the author's own long-term research and what has already been done by Lyuben Karavelov's previous biographers.

The creative development of Petko Slaveykov provides the literary historian with exceptionally rich material on the socio-political and cultural conditions under which our fiction from the period of the Revival was created and developed so rapidly. In the 1940s, when the future author of "Don't Sing to Me" and "Cruelty Has Broken Me" was developing a strong ambition to be partly useful to his people, our Revival poetry did not yet have its own national artistic traditions. Petko Slaveykov read with enthusiasm Paisius's History, the attempts of our first poets and every new Bulgarian book, he was inspired by the patriotism of their authors, which also ignited in him a passion for literary activity. His constant connection with the people, the diligent collection of folk songs, proverbs and fairy tales, his own life as a worker and teacher gave rise to many ideas in the poet, opening up to him a variety of themes and plots for artistic creativity. Slaveykov looked for examples in his native literature from which to learn; he consulted with his acquaintances and friends; he read with interest the Greek, Serbian and Russian books available to him. The knowledge he gained from his native patriotic literature happily are supplemented by that useful literary reading that other national literatures offer him, especially the Russian one. "Dear Fellow Citizens!" - he addressed his compatriots in an announcement from 1847. - The benefit of reading books is obvious, and I know the scarcity of books in the Bulgarian language. This has grieved me daily, it has prompted me to take up my pen to bring the Writer Kurganov, the eleventh printed book in Russia, without the grammar, and I have divided it, as it is divided, into two parts, because it is a very large book. And I am now publishing an announcement only for the first part, which will have, in addition to various moralizing, useful and conversational stories... some rules for poetry (k. m.) and will also be embellished with some translated poems of mine. Petko Slaveykov did not manage to publish his translation of Kurganov's "Pistol". But it is also clear from the cited Announcement that the same Slaveikov, who worked hard to master poetic mastery, in 1847 had at hand some rules for poetry. From that moment on, Russian fiction occupied an increasingly important place in his creative development.

The cooperation of our writers and men of letters from the Revival with cultural and socio-political figures in other Slavic countries is an important distinctive feature of their literary and public education activities. Lyuben Karavelov, Nesho Bonchev, Marin Drinov, Hristo Botev, Rayko Zhinzifov, Konstantin Miladinov and many more of their contemporaries studied in Russia and elsewhere, where they met prominent public figures, writers and publicists who provided them with valuable assistance. In their letters to them, our Revivalists made requests for services of various kinds, interceded for their compatriots who had gone to study in Russia or the Czech Republic, and expressed warm gratitude on their own behalf and on behalf of the Bulgarian people. The ties established between them in the period of our national revival are a completely natural and necessary phenomenon with undoubted positive consequences. In its turbulent socio-political and cultural development, the Bulgarian people attract the attention of other, more advanced peoples, receive the material and moral support of prominent Slavic scholars, scientists and statesmen, create works that are met with great interest in a number of countries. The aspiration of Bulgarian writers to establish close and lasting ties with more and more authoritative representatives of Slavism is actually an aspiration to connect our new literature and culture with the national culture of other peoples. With their most significant manifestations, the personal connections and acquaintances of our writers favor the development of native literature and culture, the affirmation of national traditions. This is their cultural and historical significance today.

The interest in the issues of Bulgarian-Serbian and Bulgarian-Croatian literary, cultural and ideological-political relations in the past is conditioned primarily by the rich content of these relations, by their scientific significance. Not only neighboring, but also with a relatively equal political fate, Bulgarians, Serbs and Croats followed very similar directions and traditions in their spiritual development for nearly a century. Even in the conditions of their political slavery they managed to use each other's experience and achievements in the field of culture to create original artistic values. The informed reader knows how characteristic in this respect is the literary activity of writers such as Konstantin Ognjanović, Petko Slavejkov, Ljuben Karavelov and Hristo Botev, Jovan Raič, Dositej Obradović, Vuk Karadžić, Jovan Sterija Popović, Ivan Kukuljević-Sakčinski, Petar Preradović, August Harambašić and others, whose works penetrated all South Slavic countries, accelerating the process of the formation and development of South Slavic literatures.

In the vast literature on the life and work of Hristo Botev, there is no more comprehensive study of the impact that the genius of the Bulgarian nation has exerted for decades on the development of our literary and social thought. The question of Botev's participation in the ideological, political and literary struggles of other peoples has not been considered in a broader sense. Only a few popular articles, and most notably Minko Nikolov's study "Botev in the ideological and poetic path of Vazov", printed in 1956 in book two of the Botev-Levski Institute Bulletin, as well as the article "Hristo Botev in Serbian and Croatian literature", published in volume four of the Slavic Collection, 1963, examine individual moments of this so multifaceted and so vital impact. Zdenek Urban's study "The Activity and Creativity of Hristo Botev and the Czech Republic in the 1970s and 1980s" also has such a character, published in 1959 in book three of the Proceedings of the Botev-Levski Institute.

In book 2 of the journal "Literary Thought" the article by V. Smohovska and B. Nichev "On Bulgarian-Serbian Literary Relations and on Some Issues of Comparative Literary Studies" was printed. In fact, it was conceived and carried out as a review for my book "Bulgarian-Serbian Literary Relations in the 19th Century (Until Liberation)". It does not specifically raise or resolve a single question of comparative literary studies on material from our or any other national literature, although at its very beginning a few words are said about "the most beautiful and fruitful manifestations of friendship and amity between the Balkan peoples". That is why I will not dwell here on the problem of comparative literary studies - a very important problem that cannot and should not be resolved incidentally. This area of ​​modern literary studies is attracting the attention of an increasing number of specialists in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, in our country and elsewhere. It is desirable that similar articles appear on the pages of the journal "Literary Thought", that a creative conversation be held on the fundamental and so complex questions of comparative literary studies. In this way, the path of the unauthorized presentation as an original thesis of opinions already known in science or of insufficiently verified and dubious thoughts will be blocked. Every book can be viewed from a variety of positions, and in it one can find successfully written pages, acceptable solutions, or findings that do not meet certain requirements. Even with its positive sides, it often suggests new possibilities, directs the specialized reader to new moments in the problem under study that were not previously noticed. It may even be that unsuccessful solutions prevail in a given book, but even in this case, scientific criticism is obliged to resist them with arguments in order to contribute as much as possible to a more comprehensive clarification of one or another issue, to proceed from the tasks that its author has set for himself. And when this is the case, any insinuations, rude epithets, etc., which inevitably replace the analysis with subjective preferences and qualifications, become completely inappropriate. And unfortunately, this is exactly what happened with the article by V. Smohovska and B. Nichev.

Bulgarian-Croatian literary and cultural relations in the past represent a very significant component in the national development of the two peoples and in their so diverse and rich in content connections with other literatures. Already in the second half of the 18th century, the work of the Croatian poet and educator Andrija Kacić Mišić "A Conversation Pleasant to the Slovenian People" gained wide fame not only in Croatia, but also in Serbia and Bulgaria, creating important prerequisites for the activation of literary and cultural relations between the peoples of these countries. Together with "Slavonic-Bulgarian History" by Paisij Hilendarski, copied in Serbia, and "History of Various Slovenian Peoples..." by Jozan Rajić, this work of Kacić enriched the cultural development of Serbs, Croats and Bulgarians, created new traditions of reciprocity between them, increased their national self-esteem, and activated their literary life at the dawn of their national revival.

Two years ago, when the various sections of the First International Congress of Balkan Studies were being outlined and a general outline of their issues was being drawn up, one could only assume the great interest that some of the planned reports would arouse. At that time, there was still no clear idea of ​​the wide boundaries of the issues that the individual branches of Balkan studies have - a complex science of the history, culture, literature, language, art and folklore of the Balkan peoples, of the historically created and increasingly intensively enriched relationships between them, of their lasting ties with other peoples and other national cultures. Now, when the congress has successfully concluded its work, we understand well how many more significant problems and questions (some of them only raised in the reports or discussions) are yet to be resolved and illuminated from modern scientific positions, in order to correctly outline all the common moments in the centuries-old development of the Balkan peoples, by overcoming the erroneous concepts and findings accumulated in the past. One of the undoubted positive results of the First International Congress of Balkan Studies is that it gave a serious impetus in this direction. And one more thing: in the days from August 26 to September 1, 1966, the congress turned the mutual collegial respect between the individual delegates into a tradition that should be strengthened by all as the main necessary condition for our further research and creative meetings. For if now, when we are at the very beginning of the more intensive and joint study of the problems of Balkan Studies, this atmosphere has ensured a calm and businesslike discussion of various, sometimes very specific, issues, tomorrow it will certainly give us the opportunity for unprecedented mutual acquaintance and study of the individual Balkan literatures and cultures.

From 1927, when the prominent Bulgarian literary scholar Boyan Penev virtually completed his voluminous "History of New Bulgarian Literature" in the form of university lectures, later systematized and published, to the publication of the second volume of the academic history of Bulgarian literature, four decades passed. Even before the printing of B. Penev's History, many issues of Bulgarian Renaissance literature had been studied, but it was the first and most complete scientific work that comprehensively reflected the literary development of the Bulgarian people from the appearance of "Slavonic-Bulgarian History" to the inspired poetry of Hristo Botev. The long period after its publication was filled with a number of new studies, some of which bear the stamp of original, in-depth scientific research. They shed light on individual aspects of the Bulgarian literary revival, the work of writers and men of letters of varying importance, as well as more specific problems related to the development of the periodical press, school work, pedagogical literature, folklore or the main literary genres, methods and trends. Even before September 9, 1944, very significant studies of a more general nature appeared, which further developed some of Dimitar Blagoev's ideas about the nature of the Bulgarian Revival, subjected certain bourgeois-idealist views and concepts to fundamental criticism, and, in accordance with the Marxist methodology of their authors, revealed in New Light the literary and social work of a number of writers.

Svetoslav Milarov is among those Bulgarian figures from the Bulgarian Renaissance era who, although not consistent supporters of the revolutionary program of the Bulgarian Communist Party in Bucharest, always had in mind the national interests and the sacred ideal of national freedom in their lives and activities. His Renaissance ideal of a free and democratic Bulgaria unswervingly imposed a progressive orientation on all his journalistic and public activities before and after the Liberation, directed against Ottoman slavery and the despotic regime of Battenberg-Stambolov. It is no coincidence that some of his contemporaries, who knew him more closely and even communicated with him, confess in their memoirs their admiration for both his high literary culture and for the views and those traits of his character that show the patriotism of the publicist, writer and man Milarov, the purity of his thoughts and ideals. "In vain would we search among the heroes of the latest Bulgarian literature for another face so enchanting, another face that would inspire the deep sympathy that the martyr Svetoslav Milarov inspires. Botev alone stands at an untouchable height in our hearts...Poor, poor Svetoslav Milarov, Dr. Krastev exclaimed pathetically shortly after his tragic death in 1892. What unspeakable feelings filled his great and noble soul when the executioner stepped forward to lead him on the last, longest journey of his wandering life. What a bitter irony of fate! The great idealist of the new Bulgaria is a robber for the Bulgarian state and it has no other crown for him, except - the crown of the gallows!" The death sentence and its execution also shocked Milarov's Croatian friend Jovan Hranilović, who long before and also after 1892 expressed his admiration for his personality and patriotic activities. "Eternal sufferer, eternal martyr, fearless fighter," he wrote to him on August 3, 1876, "I see you in my thoughts, I marvel at you, I congratulate you." And the national writer Ivan Vazov, who had a precise criterion for personalities and deeds of national significance, felt sympathy and respect for Milarov, which characterized his attitude towards the first figures of the Renaissance and post-liberation era.

In 1965, the Union of Bulgarian Writers held a theoretical conference on the topic "The National Originality of Contemporary Bulgarian Literature". The main reports and many of the speeches at the conference shed light on important aspects of the problem of the national originality of any literature in general, pointed out undoubted and well-noted features of this originality in Bulgarian literature during different periods of its centuries-old development. "In this area," the writer Dimitar Dimov noted in his speech at the time, "include, for example, the questions of the essence, origin and development of national originality in our folk epic and in the history of our old or contemporary literature, the question of the relative stability or relative lability of this originality in relation to the development of the world-historical process, the question of the relationship between the achievements of our national genius in culture and the achievements of other peoples, and finally the question of the relationship between the national and the international in our contemporary socialist literature.

And in the many studies on the life and work of Petko Slaveykov, his personality as a public figure and creator with great charm continues to be at the center of scientific research on the national peculiarities and the rapid development of Bulgarian Renaissance literature. And this is mainly due to the exceptional importance that Slaveykov has as the creator of New Bulgarian poetry, as an editor of meaningful periodicals and as a courageous tribune of Bulgarian national consciousness, who retained self-control in the face of more than one mishap in his diverse patriotic endeavors. But not only for this important reason. It so happened that in the literature about this our poet and public figure, quite a few aesthetic, bourgeois-idealistic, subjective and essentially unscientific assessments were preserved for the longest time, either for his political and social views, or for his individual works or - which is especially important - for the main directions of his poetic work.

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.