Pages

Monday, May 21, 2018

some Bulgarian Interpretations


Bulgarian  Interpretations  of  Ancient and Medieval  

                                Philosophy


excerpt from a paper, published in 2001 in Studies is East European Thought, vol. 53 (1-2), p. 75-109

     What is peculiar in the history of ancient and medieval philosophy, interpreted in a small country like ours?
      Standing at the mere edge of the century and trying to grasp the essence of the intellectual tendencies that had evolved here, of course we could make a general retrospection of several prominent scholars who had contributed a lot to the spiritual efforts of our nation. However, most of their works are not translated in any of the used European languages and that’s why we could do something of a broader interest: we could attempt to conceive the deep-lying formative causes which had engendered one or another interpretation; we could try to delineate the background which had forced one or another point of view; we could outline the personal and existential motivation of some Bulgarian historians of philosophy which had determined their choice of certain ancient and medieval philosophical ideas; we could dare to assess their undeniable achievements and unavoidable limits. By all these we could not only represent the particular  - the history of ancient and medieval philosophy made in Bulgaria, but also satisfy the more general need of explanation of the phenomenon history of philosophy.

I.                   The pioneers  of the growing philosophical culture
         
           In the so-called Bulgarian Renaissance several persons with encyclopedical education have mentioned here and there in their writings something of the philosophical heritage of the past. Still, these were merely enthusiastical remarks and exotic pronouncements[i]. The foundations of the history of philosophy as serious philosophic study were laid by Ivan Georgov.  He had been one of the founders of the High Pedagogical school (1889) which later became Sofia University. He had been the professor who taught history of philosophy in it for four decades; person with enormous energy and administrative talent, he had been elected five times to serve as Rector of the University. He had been one of the scholars who had established the learning of philosophy as the prime and most important humanitarian discipline taught at the University.
          He had left 8 big volumes in history of philosophy as manuscripts, but only two of them had been entirely finished and published [ii] - the first and the fourth. His concept of philosophy and history of philosophy is developed and defended in the Introduction to the first volume. According to him philosophy is contemplation and reflection, deprived of all practical interests and every-day application. Philosophy is knowledge searched for its own sake, the knowledge that by its essence and merit is above all the other sciences. Philosophy is the knowledge of truth and cognition.
According to him history of philosophy is the succession of various ideas belonging to different traditions, schools and individuals, but the historian of philosophy ought to emphasize not on the struggle between them, but on the fact that they all asymptotically adhere to the truth - some of them in greater, others in lesser degree. What matters is that they all are in search of the truth and this unites them despite the apparent opposition and at times sharp criticism amongst them[iii].  As a historian of philosophy Ivan Georgov was inevitably influenced by his immediate teacher in Germany  - Rudolf Eucken, but also by Ed. Zeller and Windelband, Alfred Fouillee and Theodor Gomperz. He relies on their authority and often quotes them respectfully. It might seem that he is a follower of Winckelmann as well, because just like him Ivan Georgov speaks with inspiration of the beauty of Greek nature ( just like Winckelmann he had never seen it with his own eyes) and of the magical impact of the Greek climate and geographical peculiarities. They had so great an effect on those who had created art and philosophy there. However on that issue Georgov never mentions Winckelmann explicitly and that is rather an insight of his own.
          But there is something unique which distinguishes his view on the philosophy of antiquity: he stands very far from the europocentrism, which is so wide-spread among the historians of ancient philosophy. On the contrary, he is convinced that philosophy is common euroasiatic spiritual phenomenon and that there is intrinsic congeniality between the philosophizing of ancient India and Greece. Philosophy as the highest striving of man’s reason and spirit has one origin and essence wherever it appears. Ivan Georgov tries to prove this belief of his devoting almost one third of the first volume of  “History of philosophy” to the ancient Indian philosophy[iv]. He had made an interesting comparative analysis between the metaphysical thinking and the logical conceptions in ancient Greece and India, pointing out the resemblances and the differences between them. He also stresses the fact that despite their comparability it would be an oversimplification to think that the one of them had been immediately dependant on the other – neither the Greek thinkers had borrowed some strange knowledge from the Indian sages nor the profound Indian logical systems are taken from the Greeks[v].
        
      
        Ivan Saruiliev had continued the work begun by Prof. Gueorgoff. Prof . Saruiliev had lectured on history of philosophy for 24 years. A considerable part of his interpretative efforts had been directed to the ancient philosophers. He had graduated from classical lyceum in Sofia, and after that had studied philosophy in Oxford and Paris where he had got a doctor’s degree. The strongest influence on his conceptions came from Bergson and Berkeley, whom he translated in Bulgarian.
       In his works Generic ideas and On will we can see the talent he had possessed to develop the view-point, acquired during the years of the philosophical education abroad by his own critical reestimation and enrichment.
       As a historian of philosophy he had been mostly attracted by the ancient thinking and the pragmatism which had been for him a near past.
       His real solidity as an interpreter of the ancient thought is exhibited in The philosophy of Socrates (Sofia, 1947, 275 p.)[vi] . He had been mastering two professional qualities which not so often go together in equality – the perfect handling with the ancient languages (that enabled him to propose a provoking translation of some decisive places in the sources) and the brave philosophical reflection. For him the venerable past of antiquity is the greatest rational challenge for mankind and that’s why it must be not only properly understood as something precious in itself, but also it must be commeasured with the following valuable rational systems in the history of the western thinking.
       According to Ivan Saruiliev philosophy and respectively history of philosophy begin with the analysis of the phenomena of the consciousness. This understanding poses Socrates as the father of our European philosophy. In his respectably professional study The philosophy of Socrates Prof. Saruiliev represents not only the rare combination of detailed classical erudition, linguistic talent and sharpness of the speculative conceptualization. Naturally, he had been well acquainted with the French and the English philosophical traditions, but this had not prevented him from the acquisition and the sophisticated usage of the typically German dialectics. That is evident especially in the pages dealing with the inseparability of the moral teaching and the dialectical method in Socrates’ philosophy.  In his interpretation Prof. Saruiliev insists that the most important idea in the philosophy of Socrates is his theism, exposed in the conception of the teleological essence of nature and in the hints of existence of only one omniscient and omnipotent god, who appeared in his individual consciousness as the famous prohibitive daemon. What is more, thus that consciousness became aware of itself and anticipated the concept of self-consciousness.
        Unfortunately, Prof. Saruiliev could not fulfill his intentions to write similar studies on Plato and Aristotle. When in 1953 again the severe repressions had began against all the intellectuals and political figures expressing their disapproval and doubts in “the luminous future”, Ivan Saruilieff had been one of the University professors, who were most crudely injured. He had not only been expulsed from the University, but also his personal archive had been confiscated and a;most entirely deleted.

       In this presentation of the scholars who devoted all their intellectual capacities and personal energy for the constitution of the philosophical culture in Bulgaria, we are obliged to include the two most influential thinkers in the period of the status nascendi.They are Tsecko Torbov and Dimitar Michaltchev. Both of them were not exactly historians of philosophy and humble interpreters, but used a great deal of the ancient and medieval conceptual heritage in the philosophical constructions of their own.
       Tsecko Torbov had been a German alumnus and one cannot imagine a more faithful upholder of the Kantian and neo-Kantian tradition than him[vii]. He lectured mainly in philosophy of mind, critical philosophy and philosophy of law[viii], but in his teaching  and writings he referred constantly to the thinking of the past. He had translated in Bulgarian The method of Socrates by Leonard Nelson[ix]. He prepared and in 1949 finished a manuscript of a historical study of the period which attracted his analyses mostly. This manuscript was published only in 1996. It is Fundamentals of the history of philosophy. Ancient philosophy and philosophy in the middle ages (Sofia, University Publishing House, 1996, p. 154)[x]. Here a homogenous interpretation is given of the reasoning of these epochs seen from the neokantian point of view. Its concept of history of philosophy presupposes that philosophy is the strict system, which searches for the self-understanding of reason through pure concepts. Accordingly history of philosophy must provide the answers given in the previous mental traditions to the question: how is possible cognition? That explains why Tsecko Torbov treats the ancient and medieval philosophizing as an approach to the development of the concepts almost regardless of the persons who had expressed them. He is preoccupied with the seeking of the forerunners who almost had reached the conceiving of analytical and synthetical, a priori and a posteriori cognition, the possibility of cognition and the boundaries of reason.

       Dimitar Michaltchev had gained the recognition of being the patriarch of the Bulgarian philosophizing. He is the most prolific author in our philosophical literature, the soul of the enormous organization occupied with the publishing of Philosophical review – the most respectable Bulgarian review in the humanities published 6 times a year from 1928 till 1943. He had studied and received his doctoral degree in Germany[xi], where had shifted gradually from neo-Kantian to Remkean  positions. As a professor at the University and author of numerous papers, articles and books Dimitar Mikhalchev devoted his analyses mainly to the theory of knowledge, philosophy of logic and cognition,  history of epistemology and theory of truth. Besides that he had written much on philosophy of history and sociological ideas, exercised smashing criticism on certain occult theosophical school that had caught popularity in the 30-s in this country, and also he had kept uninterruptedly polemical dialogue with the Marxists here – he had denied that Marxism is philosophy at all senso stricto, but he had admitted that in the explanation of the social reality and the historical processes it is worth listening to this ideology.
       In all his lectures and writings he had plumped boldly in history of philosophy in order to prove what he had maintained, but to be true he is not a paradigmatic historian of philosophy. He had written studies as Time, succession and moment (in which he resorts to the Eleatic conception of time), The problem of the relativity of truth in the teaching of the ancient Greek sophistsNew rethinking of an old sophism, Could a man bathe into the same river twice?, Being and consciousness, The “essence” of  things and its “manifestations”, The origin of the logical thinking. The functional semantics and the problem of the unreal formation of concepts[xii]. His own quite individual philosophizing rethinks the past and implements it in the contents of the voluminous works Form and relation (sec. ed. 1931) and The traditional logic and its materialistic justification (published only in 1998)[xiii].  Not only in these, but also in numerous other papers [xiv] he constantly refers to the eleatics, the sophists, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant and Hegel. Prof . Michaltchev is not the kind of interpretator, aiming at the immanent objective understanding of the thinking of the past. He is rather one of the famous European thinkers who absorb and transform the ideas of their great predecessors instead of making only punctual study of them. Just like Aristotle and Hegel, Heidegger and Derrida, Prof. Mikhalchev exemplifies the rule that the independent thinker cannot be a proper and strict historian of the thinking of the previous philosophers. The elaborateness of his own system, the peculiar point of view of his makes the references to the past not a cautious dealing with objective mental facts, but transforms them in useful elements for the development of his own ideas. That is evident especially in the analyses made by him on the problems of the conceiving of reality as a psychophysical parallelism, the essence of truth, the philosophical interpretation of logic, the reasoning of the eleatics, the sophists and above all the philosophy and logic of Aristotle[xv].

II.                Under the auspices of Marxist  ideology (1944-1989)

The brutal imposition of Marxism in all spheres of public life  - politics, economy, education – have had hard consequences. Several times in all schools and Universities had been made purges ( in 1944, 1946, 1948, 1953 and 1954). In the beginning, in  September – December 1944  the most prominent collaborationists  to the previous regime among the University staff and the directors of the schools had been not only fired, but also prosecuted and  in 1945 sentenced to death by the so called “Law-court of the people”. For some years Bulgaria had remained a country with relatively democratic pluralistic political system (relatively, because only left-wing parties were allowed to continue to exist) . Nevertheless, one by one all leaders of the non-communist political parties were swept from the political scene by absurd trials and murders despite their deputy’s immunity. A great number of intellectuals, priests, reserve-officers, teachers and directors of schools, and even communist-activists who were unlucky enough to be well educated, were arrested and vanished tracelessly. Without charge and trial thousands of people were killed or sent to concentration camps ( by the way they have existed till the early 70-s) and most frequently that was in result of personal revenge  or  in application of the uncontrollable revolutionary terror proclaimed a long time ago. In  1946 The Referendum declared that Bulgaria is no longer a monarchy, but becomes a “democratic republic”. In December 1947 the new Constitution had been promoted, all the political parties except the BCP (Bulgarian Communist Party) and BAPA (Bulgarian Agrarian People’s Alliance) were set out of law. In 1948 were created the Law for the public education and the Law for the high University education. All these had given repeatedly the start of new repressions and persecutions – thousands of teachers, educational regional inspectors, University professors, publishers, writers were fired and forbidden to continue their work for a life time. The grounds for that were different – of course, all of them had been punished for being “ bourgeois reactionaries”, but the proofs for that were sometimes ridiculous: some of them had been treated as enemies of “the building of socialism” only because they have studied in Western countries and mastered perfectly foreign languages[xvi].        
       Similar had been the fate of the University professors, whom we have mentioned above. Three of them had been fired in 1953. Prof .Saruiliev  had been not only expulsed, but also forbidden from teaching and publishing for a life-time. Prof. Torbov had been allowed to continue to teach only German. Prof. Mikhalchev had been allowed to continue to be only a member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (thanks to the fact that he had been ambassador in the Soviet Union and had accepted the historical materialism as a relevant sociology), but several months later, when he presented his manuscript of the The traditional logic… [xvii], after a scandalous public discussion he had been condemned  for his retrograde thinking and expelled from the Academy as well. Several times they had been searched without an order and certain papers of theirs had been confiscated[xviii]. Nevertheless, they continued to work courageously “for the drawer” – something well familiar for many their “brothers in fate” in the ex-socialist countries – without knowing whether their writings would reach to the readers[xix].
        The flourishing  diversity of points of view in the humanities and the variety of cultural and intellectual trends between the two wars had been crudely eradicated. Only one possibility had been left: to praise the only true and veritable philosophy, to speak and write, to create science and art in accordance with its ideology. No wonder then that for almost 40 years (from the establishment of “the power of the people” till the early 80-s ) in  our country ( as in all the rest  former socialist countries) had appeared books, films, theater-performances, exhibitions etc., the loyalty of which to the communist regime had been beyond of doubt. For almost 40 years the slightest innocent digression in a direction different from the grandeur of Marxism was taken as very suspicious.
        In this atmosphere of totalitarian ideology the teaching and study of history of philosophy was totally neglected as useless and moreover, as a potential threaten in front of  “the building of socialism”[xx].  
         In similar conditions in all countries from the “socialist camp” appeared several histories of ancient – and some of medieval – philosophy, which resembled one another like the drops of water. Although written by different authors, all of them are made in the same way, as if following the same prescription: each issue must be posed predominantly in the light of  “the fundamental philosophical question” which has either materialistic or idealistic solution; the ideas of the past have to be presented in very brief and schematic account without whatsoever authentic Greek resource [xxi]; preferable attention is to be paid to the progressive materialistic ideas of the so called ‘line of Democritus’ and  respectively, the hostile idealistic ‘line of Plato’ is to be ignored or blamed; the indispensable instrument  of the ‘analysis’ must be the usage of the supreme criteria – the opinions of ‘the classics of Marxism’ - and   correspondingly the labels expressing everything in accordance with these unquestionable ‘criteria’: ‘materialism / idealism’, ‘sensitive  / rational’, most of all ‘progressive or reactional?’, ‘favorable for the slave-owners or disastrous for the people?’. Especially with regard to the ancient philosophy the faithful Marxist had to know by heart several quotations from the doctoral thesis of Marx (on Epicurus), from the Philosophical notebooks by Lenin and from Anti – Duering by Engels. These quotations had to be present in all studies and articles dealing with the thinking of antiquity, regardless of their particular topic. That resulted in a stupid – but absolutely unavoidable – quoting of Engels’ opinion of Heraclitus for example in a study on Plato.
      It was unthinkable to explain the origin or the essence of given idea otherwise than by its dependence on the social and political positions of the thinker who conceived it. The opposite procedure was also obligatory. The philosophical systems of the past were not only conceived as entirely determined by the “material conditions of life” and “the productive means”. They also had to be revealed from their outer form and their contents   had to be reduced to the social dimension, to their probable political application. And last but not least, whatever was the issue, whoever was the interpreter, the question in view from the past had to be juxtaposed with its answer given by the “only true and veritable” philosophy and if there was not such an answer available in Marxism, it meant that such a question cannot be posed at all.
          In that pattern were created  ‘histories’ of ancient philosophy or studies on particular problems by many authors, whose chief concern was to remain as close as possible to the holy paradigm. In our country this typical Marxist procedure in the making of history of ancient philosophy was represented in the works of several University professors: Prof. Grozju Grozev, and the academicians Nickolai Iribadjakov and Angel Bunkov.
          Prof. Grozev prepared an anthology which followed the Marxist prescription  and represented only the “good ones” . This anthology is entitled The ancient Greek materialists. Fragments and texts from  Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Democritus and Epicurus (S., 1958)[xxii]. He also obediently provided works in which admired Democritus and condemned Plato – ‘The materialism of Democritus’ (published in German, 1958) [xxiii]and The philosophy of Plato(S., 1984)[xxiv].
          Angel Bunkov in the 40-s had been an assistant-professor of Prof. Mikhalchev and had a very promising future as an exponent of the Remkean philosophy, but one night he had fallen asleep and on the next morning he had awoken as a convinced Marxist. Since then he had subdued his talent and sharp thinking to his new philosophical credo. From his previous conceptual period he preserved the interests to the problems of epistemology and logic, but the world-view and the ideology he had accepted made him interpret and think about everything in harmony with the prescriptions of ‘the only true and veritable philosophy’. In the prolific heritage of his philosophical writings in respect of the ancient  thinking  for example we can pick up the study ‘The problem of the individual and the universal in the logic of Aristotle’[xxv], which perfectly conforms to what was demanded by the dominating ideology. Understandably, such a scholar becomes academician.

           Nickolai Iribadjakov had also become an academician thanks to his peculiar  qualities: enough talent for  a proper reasoning, undeniable abilities devotedly to teach and write on philosophical matters in accordance with the ‘only true and veritable philosophy’, inexhaustible energy for its propaganda  and for the conceptual smashing of everything different from it. At the University he passionately lectured on the discipline Criticism against the contemporary  bourgeois philosophy . In regard of the ancient thinking he created his enormous The sociological thought of the ancient world in three volumes and [xxvi]– as could be expected -  a study of the father of the ‘materialistic line’ – Democritus – the laughing philosopher (S., 1982). With  these  writings of his he could become a champion of the utmost fulfillment of the Marxist prescriptions. He superseded all the rest authors who had written similar books in similar manner especially in one thing: in each discussed issue he used the following proportion – one tenth of the whole exposes the thinker of the past and the remaining nine tenths give the solution to his problems in ‘the only true and veritable philosophy’. In order to be fair, we have to acknowledge that he possesses another remarkable differentia specifica, which distinguishes him from the rest. He supersedes even many younger interpreters by his acquaintance with the most important contemporary writings, written in the wide-spread European languages on the same subject on which he wrote. All of them had to be well examined, in order to be mercilessly refuted. This is something for which the new generation of Bulgarian humanitarians feels very indebted to him. In the totalitarian times very few of the significant Western studies particularly in the humanities reached the libraries and it was forbidden by law privately to possess such books. A very limited number of readers had an access to this literature, kept in the special reserves of the libraries. Thanks to the energy of Nickolai Iribadjackov, who felt obliged belligerently to criticize everything published abroad by non- Marxist authors in the enormous specter of issues on which he wrote, many readers at least got some idea of what was going outside.

         However, in the 70-s and more remarkably in the 80-s the circumstances changed a little bit. Gradually appeared the symptoms of the impoverishment of the planned economy, more and more the inefficacy of all mechanisms of managing, control and even the uselessness of the suppressions became evident. In the sphere of art and philosophy, in the humanities and in the way and quality of life it was already possible to make thinks different from the previous monopoly of the totalitarian ideology. Socialism was very far from whatever normalization but at least it had lost its most grotesque features.            
         Of course, in the sphere of the humanitarian studies and in history of philosophy as well that made possible the appearance of other kind of works, standing at a distance from the boringly uniform interpretations, totally determined by the ideological prescriptions. The period of the transition from the absolute dominance of  Marxism-Leninism to the liberated writings of the younger generation of Bulgarian scholars in the 80-s  is  closely connected with the interpretative energy of Prof. Radi Radev. He has taught since 1965 (to the present day) history of the ancient, medieval and Renaissance philosophy at Sofia University. Being a respectable and authoritative scholar, he has succeeded to prove the study of the thinking of the past as necessary and indispensable, as having value and merits in itself. He resumed the obligatory reference to the authentic ancient sources, which previously had been substituted by the blunt quotations from “the classics”. He provided two substantial and representative anthologies: Ancient philosophy and Medieval philosophy[xxvii], which gather the most important excerpts from the most important works in philosophy, created in the antiquity and the middle ages. He wrote a very exhaustive  - in respect of the objective factual information - History of the ancient philosophy[xxviii] in two volumes (the first volume deals with the Greek philosophy from its beginning to the Socratic schools and the second one – from Plato to Carneades), a survey of the Philosophy in the Hellenistic epoch[xxix], and a series of minor works, devoted to prominent ancient and medieval philosophers: Socrates, Heraclitus, Epicurus, The Latin Aristotle (Peter Abaelard)[xxx]. His greatest concern has always been the understanding and the interpretation of the philosophy of Aristotle and the Aristotelian tradition. Naturally, in the 60-s he could publish only Materialistic statements in the gnoseology of Aristotle[xxxi] and From the history of the Arab philosophy[xxxii] ( engaged mainly with  the medieval Islam aristotelism). Inevitably he had to hide his sympathy for the peripatetic tradition. His earlier study of its evolution from Aristotle to Etienne Gilson is published under the title Critique of neotomism, but this is perspicuous for all who have lived in that part of the world  - in order to treat something different from the officially recognized in a manner different from the officially tolerated, and above all  to publish such thing, the author was forced to use the hypocritical ‘criticism’ or ‘critique’. Later on appeared Aristotle. The historical fate of his philosophy (exploring again the development of the peripatetic tradition from its founder’s ideas to the neotomistic thinkers) and the popularizing  Aristotle[xxxiii].
***

Full text of the paper available at:
      








[i] More on that in:  Boian Angelov, Antichnata filosofia prez b”lgarskoto V”zrazhdane,S., 1996, 122 p. ( Boyan Angelov, Ancient Philosophy in Bulgarian Renaissance, PH “Bogianna”, Sofia, 1996, 122 p.)
[ii] Prof. Dr. habil. Ivan Georgov, Istoria na filosofiata, I tom Drevna filosofia, I otdel : Uvod. Filosofskite v”zgledi u starite iztochni kulturni narodi. II otdel : Gr”tska filosofia. P”rvi period: Predsokratovska filosofia.,1926,Sofia, Universitetska biblioteka No 49, 697 p. (Ivan Gueorgoff, History of philosophy, vol.I,  
 Ancient philosophy I, Section one: Introduction. Philosophical views of the ancient cultural people in the far East. Section two: Greek philosophy. First period: Presocratic philosophy. Sofia, University Library  No 49, 1926, 697 p.) Istoria na filosofiata.tom ІV, Nova filosofia do Kanta. Chast I: Nova filosofia do Khobsa.S., 1936, 460 с. (History of philosophy, vol. IV, Modern philosophy to Kant, Chapter I: Modern philosophy to Hobbes, S., 1936, 460 p.)
     Also he had published studies on Giordano Bruno, Roger Bacon and Tomaso Campanela, Herbert Spencer  and Kant,   and a history of the modern philosophy from Kant to Hegel (Istoria na novata filosofia ot Kant – Hegel,S., 1920, 160 p. )
[iii] Op. cit. Vol. . I, Introduction.
[iv] There is also a brief review of the most important ideas in ancient China, Egypt and Babylon, and the teaching of Zoroaster as well, but according to him all they are closer to theogony and mythology than  is the speculative Indian philosophy.
[v] See especially p. 133-135, 315 ff., op. cit.
[vi] Ivan Sar”iliev, Filosofiata na Sokrat, S., Universitetska biblioteka № 352, 1947, 275 s.
[vii]  In that respect see his studies from the 20-s and 30-s published lately in: Izsledvania v”rkhu kriticheskata folosofia. S., 1993, 261 s. (Studies in critical philosophy, ed. By Valentina Topuzova and Dimitar Tsatsov, University Publishing House, 1993, 261 p.)
[viii] Filosofia na pravoto I iurisprudentsia, S., 1930 , S., 1992, “Vеk 22”, s. 120. ( Philosophy of right and jurisprudence, S. , 1930, sec. ed. 1992, “Vek 22”, S., 120 p.
[ix]  Leonard Nelson, Sokratoviat metod,  S., 1993, Liubom”drie,
[x]  Tsecko Torbov, Osnovi na istoria na filosofiata. Antichna filosofia I filosofia na srednite vekove. S., University Publishing House,1996, p. 154.
[xi] Philosophische Studien. Beitrage zur Kritik des modernen Psychologysmus. Leipzig, 1909, 575 S.
[xii] All of them published in : Dimitar  Mikhalchev. Dialectic I sofistika. Etiudi na razni filosofski temi, University Publishing House, 1994, 461 с.
[xiii]  DIMIT’R  Mikhalchev,  Forma I otnoshenie, S., т.1, 1914, 760 с., second improved ed.,1931, University Library, No 107, 547 p. Idem, Traditsionnata logika I neinoto materialistichesko obosnovavane, S., 1998, Zakharii Stoianov PH, 581 p.
[xiv] Some of them republished in  Dimitar Mikhalchev, Izbrani s”chinenia, S., 1981, “Nauka I izkustvo”, с. 438 ( Dimitar Mikhalchev, Selected writings, S.,1981, “Science and art”, 438 p.
[xv] See Form and relation, op. cit.  and  The traditional logic…, op.cit.
[xvi]  Among the most paradoxical deeds in the times of the repressions was the expulse from the University and the schools of thousands of students and teachers,  who had taken part in the last phase of the Second World War – what mattered was not they had fought against the fascist alliance, but that they had been officers in the Army. Needless to say, the children of all these thousands of repressed people were forbidden to study at the University for a life-time (in accordance with the Law for the public education and the Law for the high University education). A very detailed information and analysis of that period could be found by the foreign reader in A short history of modern Bulgaria by Richard J. Crampton,  Cambridge University Press, 1987. Published also in Bulgarian by the Open Society PH, S., 1994. 368 p. Particularly  with regard to the injures of the University professors, students, teachers, directors and inspectors in secondary schools in the 40-es abundant facts and document evidence is given in Vesela Chichovska. Politikata sreshtu prosvetnata traditsia, S., 1995, 457 p. ( Vesela Tchitchovska :Politics against the educational tradition, Sofia, University Publishing House, 1995, 457 p.   
[xvii] Op. cit.
[xviii] Prof. Torbov had been searched  or  - what seems more polite- visited without invitation by  notorious “scholars-party functionaries” in 1973. They had never returned  to him what they had taken from his archive.  See the Introduction to his History and theory of right by  Neno Nenovski, Sofia, 1992, Publishing  House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, p. 7. ( Tsecko Torbov : Istoria I teoria na pravoto, S., 1992. Ed. And  introduction by  Prof. Neno Nenovski.)
[xix] In fact some of these writings were published after their death: Prof. Torboff’s History and theory of right and Prof. Michaltchev’s  The traditional logic and …. . What is more, in the so called “discussion” meant to bring to an end his intellectual carrier in 1954, he had not been allowed to answer to the criticism, exercised  by the young Marxists at the University. He had only to listen to them and keep silence. However, he answered them profoundly and with dignity in a manuscript “for the drawer”. Of course, his response appeared only in 1995: Listen to the other side as well, S., University Publishing  House (Chuite I drugata strana), 392 p.
[xx] Even in the early 80-s a student in philosophy could hear from his colleagues confessing Marxism that in order to  understand the skeleton of the ape one has to know in advance the skeleton of man. That wisdom ascribed to Marx saw the philosophy of the past as the skeleton of the ape and it is needless to say which one philosophy was compared to the skeleton of man.
[xxi] The knowledge of the classical languages was considered to be a bourgeois excess and that’s why all the classical schools were closed in 1948. It had been a real disaster especially when one pays attention to the fact that in Bulgaria even original Greek texts had been published in the 40-s in Bibliotheca Graeca et Latina, published by Metodi B”rdarov and Todor Donchev. In it has appeared about 25 small, but important texts. Later it has been impossible to resume this again.
[xxii] Drevnogr”tskite materialisti. Fragmenti I textove ot Heraklit, Anaxagor, Empedok”l , Demokrit I Epikur. S., 1958.
[xxiii] Der Materialismus des Demokrit. Das Altertum, Band  IV, Heft 4, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1958.
[xxiv] Filosofijata na Platon.S., BAN, 1984, 189 p.
[xxv] In the Annuary of the Sofia University, Faculty of Philosophy,  Book – Philosophy, S., 1986, vol.76, ,.p. 5-55. In Bulg. Problemata za obshtoto I edinitchnoto v logikata na Aristotel.
[xxvi] The sociological thought of the ancient world, vol.I : Egypt, Sumer, Babylonia, S., 1978, 511 p. Vol. II: In the bosom of philosophy. Greece (from Hesiod to Democritus), S., Partizdat, 1981, 535 p. Vol.III: Sophistry and materialism. Metoikos in philosophy, Partizdat, S., 1982, 435 p.
[xxvii] Radi Radev (ed.): Antichna filosofia. S., 1977, 1982, 1988, 1994, p. 514. Introduction and notes by Radi Radev, translation by Christo Danov. Radi Radev (ed.): Srednovekovna filosofia, 1987, 1994, p. 576.   . Introduction and notes by Radi Radev, translation by Christo Danov and Temenuga Angelova.
[xxviii] Istoria na antichnata filosofia. S., Nauka I izkustvo, tom I, 1981, p. 370; tom II, 1983, p.451.  
[xxix]  Filosofiata na elinizma. S., Nauka I izkustvo, 1973, 309 p.
[xxx]  Sokrat. Zhivot I delo. S., 1980, Partizdat, 176 p.; Epicurus, S., Partizdat, 1976, p.; The Latin Aristotle, S., Partizdat, 1982, 175 p.; Heraclitus. S., Partizdat, 1986, 209 p. All of these books have as appendixes translations of selected places and fragments from the most important writings of these philosophers.
[xxxi]  Materialisticheski polozhenia v gnoseologiata na Aristotel, S., 1961, Nauka I izkustvo,p.
[xxxii] Iz istoriata na arabskata filosofia. S.,1966, Nauka I izkustvo, 263 p.
[xxxiii]  Aristotel. Istoricheskata s”dba na negovata filosofia. S., 1989, University Publishing House, 417 p. Aristotel. S., 1988, Narodna prosveta, 215 p.