литератури

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.

The meetings of the section for Slavic literatures until the end of the 17th century took place in a businesslike, creative atmosphere, with a marked interest in the presented reports and scientific communications. Most of them were accompanied by lively, fruitful discussions, in which prominent representatives of Slavic science took part, such as Prof. N. Gudziy ((USSR), Prof. D. S. Likhachev (USSR), Prof. J. Radojcic (Yugoslavia), Prof. R. Yagodich (Austria), etc. The above reports and learned communications were read, not including the four reports presented at the plenary session in honor of the 1100th anniversary of the work of Cyril and Methodius.

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.

Two years ago, when the various sections of the First International Congress of Balkan Studies were being outlined and a general outline of their issues was being drawn up, one could only assume the great interest that some of the planned reports would arouse. At that time, there was still no clear idea of ​​the wide boundaries of the issues that the individual branches of Balkan studies have - a complex science of the history, culture, literature, language, art and folklore of the Balkan peoples, of the historically created and increasingly intensively enriched relationships between them, of their lasting ties with other peoples and other national cultures. Now, when the congress has successfully concluded its work, we understand well how many more significant problems and questions (some of them only raised in the reports or discussions) are yet to be resolved and illuminated from modern scientific positions, in order to correctly outline all the common moments in the centuries-old development of the Balkan peoples, by overcoming the erroneous concepts and findings accumulated in the past. One of the undoubted positive results of the First International Congress of Balkan Studies is that it gave a serious impetus in this direction. And one more thing: in the days from August 26 to September 1, 1966, the congress turned the mutual collegial respect between the individual delegates into a tradition that should be strengthened by all as the main necessary condition for our further research and creative meetings. For if now, when we are at the very beginning of the more intensive and joint study of the problems of Balkan Studies, this atmosphere has ensured a calm and businesslike discussion of various, sometimes very specific, issues, tomorrow it will certainly give us the opportunity for unprecedented mutual acquaintance and study of the individual Balkan literatures and cultures.

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.

Due to centuries of foreign oppression, the Bulgarian nation underwent a peculiar socio-historical development. Our national revival began only in the second half of the 18th century. However, cultural and historical processes have become particularly intense since then. In just one century (1762-1878), national creative thought went through several stages, only to soon rise to great heights. Continuing the traditions of the Revival, literary science from the beginning of our century quickly expanded its problematic, adopting reliable principles for a more comprehensive interpretation of cultural and aesthetic phenomena and processes. Both the great writers and critics of the Revival, and the few academically educated literary scholars after the Liberation, demonstrated a number of correct understandings regarding the diverse prerequisites for the formation of the Bulgarian national culture and literature, regarding the interrelationships and interdependence of the ideological and artistic phenomena of the individual peoples. Directing their research gaze towards the problems of our national revival, the first great Bulgarian literary historians realized that they could not be comprehensively and truthfully illuminated if one did not take into account similar processes and phenomena in neighboring countries - Greece, Serbia, Romania, Russia, with which our people communicated in different ways, through diverse forms.

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 literature of any people, studied in any period, represents a complete dynamic system. 2 By the system of literature I understand a certain relationship of its parts to each other: of the types of literature (translated and original, church, historical, natural science, journalistic, etc.), of its genres, of its individual works. The concept of a system of literature also includes the relationship of literature to other areas of culture: to science, religion, public thought, to various arts, folklore, etc. Finally, the system of literature also includes its relationship to the cultures and literatures of other countries and peoples. Ultimately, the system of literature is determined by its relationship to historical reality - the relationship with it constitutes the most essential part of the system. This internal structure and the relationship with the external environment surrounding literature constitute an organic whole. The system of literature, despite the fact that its individual parts are in constant equilibrium with each other, is not static. It is constantly changing. However, the permanently disturbed balance is restored again and a dynamic equilibrium exists.

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.

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.