въпроса

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

The nature of the Enlightenment must be clarified, as this will allow a more correct understanding of the ideological and political struggle in Bulgaria in the 1860s and 1870s. Scholars who have studied the Bulgarian Enlightenment in the period in question (Jacques Nathan, Mikhail Dimitrov) note the following features: 1. The Enlightenment is a reactionary ideology of the wealthy merchants and artisans; 2. It is opposed to the ideology of the revolutionaries; 3. The ideas of the Enlightenment are opposed to the views of the Russian revolutionary democrats. Mikhail Dimitrov points out that "after the Crimean War, the Enlightenment was adopted by the entire bourgeois class in our country". 1. In the national struggles during this period (the 1860s and 1870s, L. E.) they played a demobilizing role. 2 "It is characteristic of the Enlightenment as an ideological trend that it preferred the path of evolution to revolution, 3 In one of his last works, Mich. Dimitrov comes to the conclusion: "the Enlightenment lent a hand to Turkophilism, it was an ideology for the fight against the revolutionary movement and became a common weapon of all bourgeois political trends before the Liberation, on both sides of the Danube. 4 In the above conclusions, M. Dimitrov puts an equal sign between the Enlightenment, evolutionism and Turkophilism. Jacques Nathan in his book "The Bulgarian Revival" also speaks of the opposition between the Enlightenment and revolutionaries. "While - writes Jacques Nathan - the enlighteners and churchmen expressed the interests of the wealthy elite of the Bulgarian people, the revolutionaries were the exponents of the interests of the declining guilds, the vast majority of the peasants and a part of the emerging bourgeois class (the liberal part)" 5 Analyzing Karavelov's worldview, Jacques Nathan and Mich. Dimitrov oppose him to Rakovski and Botev - as an enlightener of revolutionaries. Grozy Grozev in "History of Bulgarian Philosophy" distinguishes two directions of public thought in Bulgaria in the 60s-70s of the 19th century, opposing each other - the revolutionary and the enlightened.

An extraordinary amount has been written about the birthplace of Paisius of Hilendar - 3 of our prominent scientists, writers, publicists, and teachers have spoken. The writings, mostly published in newspapers, appeared in connection with the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the "Slavonic-Bulgarian History" in 1912, and later on the occasion of the notorious Kralevdol legend (since 1923). Based on the language of Paisius's history according to its Sofroniev transcript from 1765, Professor M. Drinov was the first in Bulgarian scientific literature to express the opinion that Paisius originated from the Razlog-Gornodzhumay region or from the Macedonian outskirts of the Samokov diocese. Meanwhile, separate legends about the birthplace of Paisius appeared: Dospeisko, Ralyovsko, Belovsko, Bansko, Razlovsko, Lavriotsko, and the collective Athos. Each of them has its ardent defenders (for details, see Prof. Yord. Ivanov, Istoriya Slavianobolgarskaya, Sofia, 1914, pp. XII-XIX). On this issue, Prof. Yord. Izanov summarizes: "Some of these reports have an undoubted literary basis, while others are based on overheard memories of some Athonite and attributed to Paisios. Until more reliable data and written information are published, the reported reports cannot be recognized by science and will remain only as "traditions", especially since they often contradict each other and do not coincide with the known positive information about Paisios" (p. XII).

Old Bulgarian literature began its development eleven centuries before our era and therefore differs sharply from modern literary creation. The most obvious indicator of the difference is the predominant religious character of medieval literary works. However, it would be far from the truth to claim that this character alone is the mark that separates them from new Bulgarian literature, mainly from that created in the second half of the 19th century to the present day, although it is inherent in both the content and the form of medieval art. Behind it stand peculiar artistic norms, a specific creative vision, which for modern man is very unusual. On this basis, the principled, problematic characterization of medieval artists who created historically conditioned, historically timely and historically valuable art should be built.

The creative development of an author consists in searching for and gradually revealing what is personally his. Along the way of this search, he will naturally come into contact with what has already been created and will take from it his own. Dimcho Debelyanov appeared in our literature in the first years of our century, when the Vazov tradition was gradually being displaced by the modern literary trends of the time. Debelyanov quickly oriented himself towards them, of course, after paying tribute to the tradition.