развитието

Until recently, the question of the beginning of critical realism in Bulgarian literature was undisputed - Lyuben Karavelov was considered its founder. Recently, however, G. Tsanev came up with an article "The Beginning of Critical Realism in Bulgarian Literature", in which he believes that "a careful examination of the facts is necessary, which would lead us to new conclusions". In this article, he reviews and analyzes Slaveykov's work, emphasizing its critical-realistic character. He also focuses on his literary-critical articles and his translated literature. Based on our social reality, G. Tsanev points to critical realism as the main trend in Bulgarian literature, and its first representative is P. R. Slaveykov. On the same occasion, P. Zarev has recently written an article - "Our Literary History and the Wealth of the Literary Process". The author focuses more on the analysis of the aesthetic views and artistic practice of P. R. Slaveykov. As a result, he comes to the conclusion that Slaveykov's work "by character, by its system of exposition, is the work of pre-critical realism and is a transition to it." 1 While trying to reveal the general direction" of his poetry, he adopts a position that is, in our opinion, erroneous, that the main feature of Slaveykov's work is his "specific interest in the intimate, in the world of the awakened personality" - his love poetry. On the other hand, he believes that since Slaveykov is a realist with a very versatile attitude to reality, without focusing on the specific conflicts and trends of the time - his realism is characterized by "completeness" and "multifacetedness" in depicting life, without a single definite and consistently expressed tendency. This prevents him from growing as a critical realist. Without agreeing with the idea that Slaveykov's work lacks a specific and consistently expressed trend, or that it lacks a focus on the specific conflicts and trends of the time, nevertheless, a number of the author's thoughts and observations in this part of the article are so interesting that they make the reader think again about these problems.

In a letter to the newspaper "Nezavisimost" from 1874, the brothers Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov are characterized as figures of national importance. Their names are placed alongside the names of Georgi Rakovski and Petko Slaveykov. Entire centuries and thousands of years will pass - the letter emphasizes - and their name will be pronounced with reverence in Bulgarian songs, Bulgarian fairy tales, and on the sedenki... Because "The Miladinovs are forerunners, and their followers are complements of that beginning, on which the first pages of the new Bulgarian church and civil freedom will be written..."1 Whether in this case we have a letter actually sent by an unknown patriot from Tarnovo, or whether it was also composed in the editorial office of "Nezavisimost" itself, cannot be established with certainty. However, one thing can be considered indisputable - that both Karavelov and Botev, as editors of the newspaper, at least agreed with the thoughts developed in the letter and, above all, with the assessment of the Miladinov brothers. And this is indicative enough. Moreover, these "forerunners" of the great struggle for national liberation were themselves clearly aware of the great historical task they had taken upon themselves. Therefore, they could not help but foresee the dangerous risks it posed to them as "tsarist enemies". That is why, when, before the bayonets of a numerous police convoy, he was brought to trial for the capital of the Ottoman Empire, Dimitar Miladinov did not doubt for a moment that he was being led to an open death. 3 And at the same time, it was not by chance that the younger brother made such a fervent patriotic confession to his noble patron Joseph Strossmayer: that "spreading enlightenment as much as possible and preparing the people for freedom" - he was ready to sacrifice, if necessary, himself, his blood and his life for his people. And they truly sacrificed them without hesitation, so that the hearts of grateful generations would live forever in the souls of the Navskis.

The work of Cyril and Methodius is very diverse, can be viewed from different angles and raises many questions. One of the most interesting is the question of its connection with the development of Bulgarian literature. Some will say that this goes without saying - Cyril and Methodius are organically intertwined in the history of Bulgarian literature, without their work its emergence is unthinkable; everything is clear here, there is nothing to dispute and nothing to add. In fact, the questions are more complex than they seem at first glance. Let us take just two of them. On the one hand - were there not manifestations of Slavic writing in Bulgaria before the time of Cyril and Methodius and in that case can their work be considered the beginning of Bulgarian literature? On the other hand - is not a work included in the history of Bulgarian literature that developed up to the Moravian mission in the sphere of Byzantine culture, and then - among the Western Slavs? Is this not a stage of pan-Slavic literature that had a strong influence on the development of old Bulgarian literature, but did not enter into its history? That these questions have not been fully resolved, and at the very least - there is no agreement on them, is clearly visible when we turn our attention from the literary work of Cyril and Methodius to their language - it still bears different names in science: Old Church Slavonic, Old Church Slavonic, Old Bulgarian.

Defining the concept of "world literature" can hardly be achieved without effort and polemics, as it probably seems to many who are accustomed to it. It is indeed not easy to give a decisive answer to questions such as: which are the literatures that have managed to impose their achievements as conquests of the entire human society; what guides a development that runs through the entire history of mankind; what are the ingredients, criteria and drivers of the process that merges the achievements of folk and national literatures into one and at the same time fertilizes folk and national literatures; and so on.

As is known, already in the 18th and 19th centuries, Serbian and Bulgarian writers dedicated their works to the revival of the two peoples. Andrija Kačić-Miošić, for example, did not divide the southern Slavs. Dositej Obradović mentioned in his works not only Serbia, but also "poor Bulgaria". Vuk Karadžić was the first to publish Bulgarian folk songs, Konstantin Ognjanović worked for the spiritual awakening of the Bulgarian people, to whom he dedicated his works. Major writers such as Hristofor Žefarović and Jovan Rajić were of Bulgarian origin. They wrote their works in the Russian-Slavic language and contributed equally to the Bulgarian and Serbian spiritual and political development. During the Renaissance, an unprecedented transfer of ideas and themes from one literature to another occurred. However, when we must note the undoubted impact of South Slavic literatures in our country, especially since the beginning of the 19th century, we must also bear in mind the fact that these South Slavic literatures themselves sought models in Italian, Russian, Greek and Austrian literature, that they were in natural, natural relationships with these literatures. First of all, Dalmatian, and for a long time after that, the other Slavic literatures suffered the general influence of the European Renaissance, which manifested itself somewhere earlier, somewhere later in separate borrowings and imitations of one or another model. That is why, when we study the Serbian and Croatian literary and cultural influence in our country at the beginning of the 19th century, we cannot help but notice that this is actually a natural creative process that encompasses both countries, as well as the other Balkan peoples, that historically conditioned interconnections are taking place here, that from what we have taken in a given period, we have created qualitatively new works with which we have moved literary development forward.

Among all the arts, literature is distinguished by having both a very unlimited and a very limited character. Unlimited, because its intellectual content tends to spread, to go beyond the framework in which it was created, or, conversely, to come from outside - to be assimilated, transformed within the boundaries of a new environment. Limited, because its means of expression, language, is not perceived directly, but presupposes the introduction of a new expression in connection, undoubtedly, with the depicted object, but nevertheless different from it and on another plane of contact. "The shackles of idiom, said one critic (F. Baldensperger) prevent literature, so to speak, from crossing the threshold of its own home." These two opposing aspects, inherent in the literary work, are manifested especially clearly when the literary historian proceeds to make comparisons. Comparative literary studies is actually more a method than a branch. And perhaps that is precisely why it gives us the opportunity to grasp the nature of literary phenomena particularly well. Every work, no matter how comprehensive, no matter how radiant it is, remains the fruit of an era, a country, an environment, as well as of an author. With its content, reflecting the environment, the country, the era, it can represent a document, a testimony, useful both for compatriots and foreigners. It can also be an attempt by the author to break away from his environment and tradition, to become a messenger calling for innovative creativity. The literatures of Southeast Europe give us many examples in this regard, especially if we focus on their development from the end of the 18th century to the present day in relation to other European literatures and, first of all, to those of the West. Thus, to the historical aspect in the study of literatures, the comparative one is added - and here the problems of parallel development are intertwined with those of influence. The reports presented below, written by specialists in each of these literatures, primarily reveal the specific features of the works, as well as the conditions under which they arose, but they also allow us to establish some connection between literary phenomena in different countries.

It is an undeniable historical truth that the Bulgarian nation affirms its conquests in the field of culture, art and literature with organic closeness and deep brotherly love for the great Russian people. Without denying the undoubted independent contribution of our people to the treasury of human thought and art, one should not underestimate the enormous contribution of Russian culture to our spiritual development. More than half a century ago, one of our greatest writers and thinkers - Pencho Slaveykov - made the following significant recognition: "Russia liberated us politically. Even children know this. But Russia liberated us mentally; to her, above all, we owe that small culture that we have for now and which is the best guarantee for the culture of the spirit in our further life and development.

Events that change life also change people's thinking, change their spiritual peace, change their concepts of the beautiful and the ugly, of the sublime and the low. They also change artistic thinking, which receives verbal and figurative embodiment in literature. Literature is a seismograph for the changes taking place in the lives of peoples. It captures new phenomena and, if they are seeds in the folds of fertile furrows, gives them life. At the same time, it creates an appropriate form to accommodate the new content. The Great October Socialist Revolution is the greatest of these events that change life. It was natural that it would become a turning point in the development of art and literature, especially of those peoples who were most affected by it. Such were the Slavic peoples, not only those in the Soviet Union, but also those outside it. I will not speak here about the Slavic peoples in the Soviet Union - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. The turning point that occurred in their general and literary development with the Great October Revolution is well known, obvious to everyone. I will focus on the literatures of the Slavic peoples outside the Soviet Union.

The Great October Revolution not only changed the public consciousness, thinking and spirituality of millions of people in the world, but also created for them a clear and precise answer to the agonizing question of a way out of capitalist slavery. The victory of October became a worldview, a significant page in history, a complete system of ideas and feelings, of perception of life phenomena.

"History will have to think about which immortal figure to attribute you to!" - this is how Vazov exclaims in amazement in his remarkable "Epic of the Forgotten", when he recreates the image of Rakovski. The folk poet is as if stunned by the personality and versatility of the work of this "mad dreamer, an impossible image", seething with "giant love" and "satanic enmity", who boldly peered into the dark past to reveal the tragic present and embrace the dreamed future with his eagle gaze. For all its romantic hyperbolicity, this poetic glorification seems to most accurately capture Rakovski's extraordinary scale in ideological insights and revolutionary scope, in national impulses and efforts to serve devotedly a great idea with thought and deed, with pen and weapon. One is truly amazed by this all-encompassing, revolutionary, uniquely original, spiritually rich personality. The scope of the revolutionary, the searches of the historian, the insights of the scientist, and the visions of the poet - everything is nourished by a deeply realized and suffered national ideal, which found a kind of synthesis and expression in his entire activity. The scale and significance of this activity seem to go beyond national dimensions and remind us of the great conquests of the human spirit in general.

Dobri Chintulov is our first poet who has a developed sense of the nature of various literary genres and forms. The lyrics and poems of Pushkin and Lermontov, the works of the Russian pseudo-classics and pre-romanticists (Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Baratynsky, etc.) awaken in him the follower, not the imitator. Acquaintance with an impressive literary tradition leads to the manifestation and progress of personal powers. As with any original talent, here too the school suggests above all that which corresponds to one's own nature. Chintulov does not experience the anxiety of P. R. Slaveykov, who has to struggle with weak literary preparation, and marks the beginning of that intimate kinship with the forms of poetic art, with the style and composition of poetic genres, without which any creativity is unthinkable. While Nayden Gerov still struggles with the principle of organization, in Chintulov the motifs find their most appropriate expression in the forms of the hymn, the elegy, and the poem.

There is no dispute - the old literatures of Bulgarians, Serbs and Rus' show some common features in content, trends, development, style, genres, writers, etc. This is precisely what gives reason in the history of the pan-European literary development to consider them as a group of literatures, to search for and point out features that represent something new in this development. To a certain extent, the latest publication of the well-known and prominent Soviet scholar and medievalist Dmitry Sergeyevich Likhachev - "Old Slavic Literatures as a System" is due to this indisputable commonality. More precisely, the thoughts expressed here further develop and detail his opinions expressed several years earlier. His last publication, in fact an expanded and revised report, delivered in Prague in 1968 at the VI Slavic Congress, touches on several very important problems in the history of the old Slavic literatures: 1. Phenomena of literary transplantation; 2. Old Slavonic literature as a mediator and the Slavic review (redaction) of Byzantine culture; 3. Genres and types of Old Slavonic literatures; 4. Old Slavonic literatures and folklore; 5. Old Slavonic literatures and the visual arts; 6. Old Slavonic literatures and reality.