Методи

The great work of the Slavic enlighteners Cyril and Methodius plays an extremely important role in the life of our people. This role was especially prominent during the years of our national liberation movement from the middle of the 19th century. In the struggle for the cultural affirmation of the Bulgarian people, for broad national education, it is in the first place. The names and images of Cyril and Methodius are the center of this struggle, they inspire people-friendly activity. Evidence of this is the numerous publications about them that appeared during the Bulgarian Renaissance. All social strata show interest in them, and, of course, each perceives and interprets their immortal work from its own positions. The highest and most truthful assessment, closely related to the current political tasks of the historical moment, was received by Lyuben Karavelov and Hristo Botev - prominent representatives of our national liberation struggles, significantly influenced by the ideas of the Russian revolutionary-democrats. All Bulgarian cultural and political figures of the Renaissance who wrote about Cyril and Methodius had an enthusiastic and positive attitude towards their work. They perceived and affirmed it as the basis of the new Bulgarian culture that was being built. They wrote separate books about them, many articles in newspapers and magazines, translated and published scientific studies by prominent foreigners on Cyril and Methodius issues, delivered hundreds of passionate speeches at the annual celebrations organized on the occasion of the holiday of Slavic enlightenment, published many reports on the celebrations held, etc.

It is obvious that since the work of art exists objectively, i.e. it is perceived by us as a material phenomenon (in other words - as a complex organism of speech, sounds, volumes, lines, colors, etc.) and moreover represents a work of art insofar as it reflects in its forms specific moments and forms of objective reality in its own specific way: we can approach it with the basic tools of any science: the complex system of methods and means of comparison, selection and classification. Of course, these methods have been applied since aesthetics existed as a separate discipline. Aesthetic phenomena do not lie on the surface of the work of art, and therefore, for their disclosure, the application of the so-called methods of comparative analysis is necessary. Since by its very nature the law is universal, regardless of how many objects and facts are involved (the more, the better, of course), their legal "kinship" will inevitably manifest itself in different phenomena. Observing multiple phenomena in this way will allow us to find repeatability, i.e. the first sign of regularity.

There is too much work and talk about the exact methods of describing artistic phenomena in our time. It is quite natural that people talk mainly about their present and even more about their future, while groundlessly self-confident statements about their efficiency are often met with extreme skepticism, with positions that are essentially nihilistic: exact methods will never be able to cope with this or that problem... However, in conversations and polemics, the fact is constantly ignored that the vigorous modern development of exact methods is not a unique phenomenon in the history of aesthetics, as some of its advocates try to suggest. Aesthetics experienced, and not so long ago, a hardly less vigorous fascination with the search for exact methods for describing the work of art, the creative and perceptual process, and the development of art. And although the two periods differ from each other in a number of essential features, interesting analogies with useful, orienting conclusions can be drawn between them.

A year has passed since the Fifth International Congress of Slavists in Sofia concluded its work. The contribution of the congress was undeniable, and the fruitful impetus it gave has long been carried over to the dozens of centers of contemporary Slavic studies. However, a scientific congress is of interest not only for its scientific contributions in themselves. Of no less interest is the methodology of scientific research that it demonstrates. In the swarm of topics and problems of the Fifth Congress of Slavists, almost all the more significant methodological directions stood out, the main philosophical schools were refracted, and from there - the main class-party positions in science today. A study of the methodology of scientific research, as it was presented at the congress, would provide material for very interesting conclusions. The scope of the present notes is, for understandable reasons, much more limited: they concern only two reports. However, the philosophical and methodological positions from which their authors proceed are widespread in Western literary studies. And this makes these two studies typical and in a sense representative of the state and directions of Western Slavic studies today.