Паисий

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).

Paisii Hilendarski rises as a bright beacon among the historical and historical-literary processes that take place at one of the peak moments in our development - at the beginning of the Bulgarian Revival and the new Bulgarian literature. His work collects the light of the past and directs it forward into the future. As the founder of a new era, he has a clear view of its needs and sees deeply into the fate of our people. And the famous Slavo-Bulgarian History is not only a major work of new Bulgarian literature, but presents a program that sets the tasks of the Bulgarian Revival and charts a path for the development of the Bulgarian BO people. The bright figure of the first Bulgarian Revivalist has long attracted the attention of our science. However, the sources for both his activities and his era are scarce and the scientific search is struggling to find its way to his personality and to the processes that brought him to the brink of two eras, as a harbinger of a new moment in the historical and literary development of our people. Our Marxist historiography and literary studies - one might say - have already explained the essence of our Revival, which represents a period of transition from a feudal to a capitalist formation. However, a number of extremely important questions that the development during the era poses have remained unclear; Their solution would reveal to us more specifically the processes that lead to the appearance of the Slavonic-Bulgarian History in 1762 and that follow after this appearance, in order to complete in our country "the Great Engels Revival. 1 of a progressive revolution" - as he called it. Our general and literary historiography of recent times has rightly directed its attention not only to the phenomena that register the offensive movement and acquaint us with the picture of life and the achievements of culture and literature, with a number of personalities and works representing the individual moments and successes of our socio-historical and literary past, but also to the processes and laws of our development. However, in order for these processes and laws that drive our development to become fully apparent, Paisius' work and our Revival must be placed in the light of the general historical and historical-literary development that European peoples have undergone over the centuries.

The story of Paisius of Hilendar stands out brightly in the development of our literature, it outlines new trends in the cultural and political life of the Bulgarian people, exerts a strong influence on contemporaries and descendants. "Slavonic-Bulgarian History" ignites the soul of the Bulgarian, awakens and stirs in him a national consciousness, makes him dream of a brighter future. This great rejuvenating role of Paisius is the reason for the great scientific interest in him, thanks to which important questions from his life and work have been clarified. But despite the large scientific literature on Paisius, some questions still remain to be clarified, and others need new development. A very interesting question for our historical science is to see the state of Bulgarian literature during the time of Paisius - his predecessors, contemporaries and followers. What has been written on this issue is of a very general nature; it is usually expressed with the idea that Paisius shows some continuity with his predecessors, draws one or another news about Bulgarian saints from their lives, written and copied earlier. This is indeed so, but it does not exhaust the problem. Bulgarian literature before and after Paisius does not consist only of anonymous works, but is the work of many writers, some of whom left their names. Therefore, in order for the image of Paisius as a writer to stand out more clearly, in order to outline the meaning of his story more fully, it is necessary for his work to be outlined against a broader historical background. So far, the efforts of researchers have been directed at the main representatives of Bulgarian literature - Paisius of Hilendar and Sophrony of Vratsa, or at works with historical themes (hieroschimonk Spyridon, History of Zograf). The materials known today allow us to correct the incompletely presented picture of Bulgarian literature in the 18th century, to supplement it with new writers and works. The work of these writers is connected with the work of Paisius, which is of great importance for our literary development. Paisius is firmly connected with Bulgarian literature before and after him; from previous writers and works he zealously drew knowledge, which he carefully processed and passed on to his contemporaries and followers. Through the work of these writers, we obtain a much more complete picture of the state of our literature of that time, of the cultural interests of the Bulgarian people, and of the spiritual life of the people in general. Of course, the work of these writers cannot be compared in importance with the work of Paisius or Sophrony, but through their work they contribute to their ideological formation, and also contribute to the activation of spiritual life in our country.

In connection with the celebration of the 200th anniversary of "History of Slavs and Bulgarians", the question of the birthplace of its author was again raised in the press. The first to initiate this was Sl. Angelov with his article "The Question is Still Open" (Otechestven Front newspaper, issue 5397 of this year). To prove that Paisius was not from Bansko, he based himself mainly on the "irremovability" of the abbots of the monasteries. Elsewhere I prove in detail that this thesis is false, and therefore the conclusions drawn from it are incorrect. Here I will only be content with the following: Slavcho Angelov is wrong, since the abbots, as elected positions (and not titles), could be replaced or demoted. Such is, for example, the case of the nesfit Rilski in the Rila Monastery.

Recently, Soviet Slavic studies have shown a great deal of interest in the history of our literature. And it must be said right away that the problems of old Bulgarian and Renaissance literature are still being avoided from their perspective. And in this direction there is much to be found, concerning the history of Russian and Bulgarian literature. A good illustration of this thought is the extensive and valuable work by A. N. Robinson "History of the Slavic Revival and Paisii Hilendarski" (Moscow, 1963, 139 p.), written in connection with the Fifth Slavic Congress, which took place in Sofia in September 1963. The personality and work of Paisii Hilendarski have long aroused interest among Russian Slavic scholars, manifested mainly in an archaeographic direction (V. I. Grigorovich, Yu. Iv. Venelin, O. Bodyanski, Vl. Lamanski, P. A. Lavrov, etc.). What's more, Paisius was introduced into scientific literature by the Russian scholar V. I. Grigorovich in 1852. After that, interest in Paisius gradually grew. Now a new and particularly important moment is the introduction of Paisius into the history of pan-Slavic literatures, which first appeared in the famous "History of Slavic Literatures" by Pipin and Spasovich (1879). The prominent Slavist P. A. Lavrov made a thorough historical and literary analysis of "One of the revisions of the "History of Slavonic Bulgaria" by the monk Paisius..." (1895). After a long break in similar scientific publications, in 1941 the extensive study "Paisius of Hilendar and his "History of Slavonic Bulgaria" 1762" appeared by Academician N. S. Derzhavin, included in his famous "Collection of Articles and Research in the Field of Slavic Philology" (pp. 63-124). And again a new break, broken in 1963 with the appearance of the above-mentioned work by A. N. Robinson.

The work of B. St. Angelov, senior research associate at the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, deals with the Bulgarian writers of the 18th century, little studied or completely unknown to the educated circles in our country, although they represent a significant interest for the construction of the Bulgarian literary and cultural history. While the most prominent figures of this era, Paisii of Hilendar and Sophrony of Vrachan, have long entered the horizon of scientific researchers and the enlightened society, being examined in detail in literature textbooks, their more modest in merits, but still worthy of attention, their predecessors, contemporaries or closest followers, have long remained in the shadows, despite their valuable contributions to the development of our literature and the growth of education or of national and civic consciousness. To honor these forgotten workers of the pen, smaller or larger links in the chain of the historical process, remained the duty of the specialists who undertook to follow this process conscientiously and correctly. The work of B. Angelov comes to fill a significant gap here.