началото

The problem of the originality of realism of the 20th century and its relationship to other creative methods attracts the keen attention of literary critics, since it is organically connected with the current and vital issues of our time. The experience of every national literature can serve to resolve this problem. Some generalizations, supporting or supplementing our ideas about the peculiarities of the world literary movement of the 20th century, can also be made on the basis of material taken from the literature of Bulgaria. In 1912, A. M. Gorky noted the characteristic feature in the development of Bulgarian literature - the exceptional intensity of the processes taking place in it. It was in this connection that he wrote: "After five centuries of oppression by foreign nationalities, Bulgaria returned to life, bright with individuality, full of creative forces and quickly took its rightful place in the family of cultural nations." Indeed, in Bulgarian literature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such phenomena arose and sometimes manifested themselves with great force, which, when taken into account, are of interest of a fundamental nature - they contribute to a broader understanding of both the general regularities and the diversity of national forms in the world literary process. It is characteristic, for example, that the literature of critical realism in Bulgaria, as well as some other countries of Central and Southeastern Europe (unlike a number of Western European countries) at that time was not on the line of decline, but on the line of rise: in the 90s of the last century, Bulgarian critical realism entered the phase of its flowering, establishing itself as the strongest literary trend. At the same time, developing in conditions of heightened class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the revolutionary proletariat already entering the historical arena, Bulgarian literature acquired other features largely similar to those processes that took place in all European literatures in the era of imperialism.

In the great Cyril and Methodius problem, the main question is the question of the beginning of Slavic writing. Many prominent Slavic scholars have written about it: Dobrovsky, Shafarik, Bodiansky, Sreznevsky, Yagich, Shakhmatov, Lavrov, Lamansky, Ogienko, Emil Georgiev, etc. And yet it is still open, there is no unified opinion among scholars on it. While some scholars directly connect the beginning of Slavic writing with the Great Moravian mission of Cyril and Methodius (862-863), other scholars move this beginning a few years earlier, connecting it with 855, indicated by Chernorizets Hrabar. This special question - which year to take as the beginning of Slavic writing - has existed almost since the emergence of Slavic studies as a science. For a long time, it was not written about separately, because in most cases, scholars, when they touched on it in their research, took one position or the other. After the Second World War, in our country, somehow imperceptibly, it became the subject of several larger or smaller studies, such as those conducted by Al. Burmov, M. Genov, Em. Georgiev, K. Kuev, P. Petrov, B. St. Angelov, etc. And here two groups emerged - supporters of

Recently, a handwritten collection from the 1830s was discovered in Veliko Tarnovo and handed over to the library of the Higher Pedagogical Institute "Brothers Cyril and Methodius" in the city. Its content - over 20 different in nature and size compositions, placed on 406 pages, will be announced separately. Among the other works in the collection, two poems are also recorded, which, due to their New Bulgarian language and their ideological and artistic qualities, deserve special attention. For the most part, the collection is the work of Mihail Popovich, a writer from Sevlievo, who is probably also the author of the poems. The first of them, "Oh, my son," was recorded in 1835. This is confirmed by the author's note, left on one of the following sheets. The second poem, "Unfortunate Bulgaria," was probably written later. It is located at the end of the collection and due to the lack of close inscriptions around it, it is difficult to establish the year of its creation. The name of the writer Mihail Popovich is unknown to our literary history, because so far none of his literary works have become public knowledge. The collection is kept as a valuable family relic by the descendants of the writer and only at the beginning of 1964 did professors from the Higher Pedagogical Institute in Veliko Tarnovo follow its trail and discover it. Before the common binding, it consisted of several books written at different times. The works included in the books that make up the collection and a number of other issues related to the manuscript will be discussed in detail elsewhere. However, here we cannot fail to highlight the fact that we are faced with a well-established writer from the first half of the 19th century, who was systematically engaged in literary work. The entire collection has a distinctly New Bulgarian appearance. Along with works of a church-religious nature, it also includes works with clearly expressed patriotic-enlightenment tendencies.

When reviewers want to pay a big compliment to a critical or literary book, they say that it is "a pleasure to read" or reads like a novel. I do not believe that this is one of the main qualities that the author of such a book claims. Here the reviewers simply make a logical error - they exchange the places of our interest in a given issue with the slight pleasure that we can get from some fascinating reading, they translate a new concept into an older language. Therefore, I will not say that Georgi Konstantinov's book "An Extraordinary Friendship" (I have already heard such an opinion) is read easily, as a work of fiction. It simply reads as an interesting documentary, and in no case would I replace its content precisely as a documentary with the most skillful fiction construction. Incidentally, Georgi Konstantinov has also shown a certain fiction dexterity - he has arranged the documents at his disposal in such a way that the sequence of events and facts, their logical and plot connections, can be traced. But that is not what is important. It is important for us that we can feel the unique breath of authenticity, of personal testimony in history. The taste for the documentary, accurate, factual reproduction of historical events has been increasingly imposed in our country lately. It seems that we already prefer a letter, a memory of a living participant in events to any romantic imagination. Fiction seems to be starting to lose in a competition with history; History is increasingly imposing itself and dominating our consciousness, it seems to us more extraordinary and more fantastic than the greatest flights of fantasy, it seems to have the ambition to displace art, philosophy, and "mythology". Haven't you noticed that recently the memoir is the most sought-after, most preferred reading material? Of course, in the world historical process, and especially in our development since 9. IX., we will find many explanations for this "demythologizing", for this striving to unveil, deheroize, "historicize" history, for this desire to see how it was made, but these reflections would take us too far.

Along with other unresolved issues in the history of our old literature, there is also the question of the historiographical works that it had. That is why every initiative that has been noticed recently, related to Bulgarian medieval historiography, is commendable. I am referring to the studies of Goran Todorov "The Origin and Initial Development of Bulgarian Historiography (681-1018)" and "Bulgarian Historiography in the 11th-14th Centuries"1 and Konstantin Mechev "The Bulgarian Chronicle of the Early 15th Century (Historical Content, Ideological and Artistic Appearance, the Question of Its Authorship")2. The reason for these notes is given to me by the study of K. Mechev. I say notes, since I do not intend to dwell in detail on the issue touched upon by it; I would rather just like to take a position on the question posed - To what extent can the author's thesis be accepted, according to which the famous Old Bulgarian (South Slavic) writer Isai Serski also wrote the anonymous Bulgarian chronicle from the beginning of the 15th century? I want to take a position because our science still has so many important questions to solve, which is why there is no need to divert the efforts of the few scientific workers with publications that are insufficiently argued. It is better to direct these efforts to other issues. The answer is all the more compelling, taking into account the fact that the publication is published without an editorial note, it is not presented as a discussion one.