изследване

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.

Every touch of Lermontov's work brings us face to face with his titanic spirit, entered into a "proud enmity with heaven", rebellious and freedom-loving, with the raging and restless passions of a heart that has been swinging between love and hate all its life, yearning for freedom, but suffocating in the atmosphere of slavery and lackeys, thirsting for faith and a high purpose, but is forced to writhe in disbelief and despair, to tremble with anger and tremble with rage before the picture of the Russian autocracy. His amazing personality has the ability to draw us closest to him, to make us suffer with his sufferings, to rise with his impulses, to feel his anger towards the cold external brilliance and internal nothingness of secular society, which, like the ancient anchar tree, poisons everyone who touches it. He had the misfortune to be born in the valley of horror and despair, to breathe the decaying breath of defeat after the fateful year of 1825, to live through the years of deaf groans, of broken flights, of mercilessly trampled faith, when evil and vulgarity triumphed unhindered, when informers and renegades became the heroes of the day. Years when only blue uniforms were visible before the eye, when in the monstrous empire of Russia every police officer was a tsar, and the tsar was a crowned police officer. In this valley of slavery and torture, of silent anger and hidden unrest, Lermontov's muse was born. From her first days she experienced the freezing cold of the autocratic empire and came to the bitter, terrifying conclusions that the closest person to everyone was himself, that everyone was doomed to proud solitude. Herzen says of this era that "you had to know how to hate out of love, to despise out of humanity, you had to possess boundless pride, so that with chains on your hands and feet you could hold your head high." And although the adolescent and young man Lermontov is surrounded on all sides by evil, he does not bow his head before it, although he sees how they are destroying the wall between good and evil, how the masters trade with their people, and the people with their freedom, he does not fall into disarming reflection, into passivity and inaction, but chooses the path of manly purposeful struggle. It does not matter that this struggle leads him to death - it is as if he remains undefeated. He is not at all to blame for having fallen into "a bottomless abyss into which the best swimmers sink," where even the greatest talents disappear before they have reached what they are fighting for. The storm of his feelings, the power of his fiery word survived an entire century and reached us and his descendants, who have settled the enmity with heaven by conquering its heights, who know the price of courage and a proud mind.

In the history of literature, the period of Romanticism occupies an important place as a specific artistic method for reflecting reality. In literary theory, disputes are still being conducted to this day, studies are being conducted on the characteristic features and romantic forms of reflection and artistic generalization. This emphasized interest in Romanticism stems from the fact that it covers an interesting period in the development of public thought, where the views, dreams and aspirations of progressive people for the transformation of the world, for national liberation from centuries-old oppression intersect, a period that reflected both on the economy and on philosophy and all branches of art - literature, painting, music. In recent years, interesting monographs on Romanticism and its artistic method have appeared in Soviet literary theory by researchers such as Elistratova, Reizov, Sarinyan, etc. Among them is the work of the Armenian scholar S. Sarinyan - "Armenian Romanticism".

The work K. Kuev on Chernorizets by Professor Hrabar is the result of several years of research work, remarkable for the scope and depth of the studies, for the fruitful respect for the "black" textological studies, for the comprehensive knowledge of every step of the movement of Slavic thought in this area. Its precursors were a number of smaller publications by the author, which outlined some of the main problematic elements of the future book. Against the background of the scientific literature on the notable Old Bulgarian writer, created over a period of nearly 150 years (its beginning, as is known, was laid by K. Kalaydovich in 1824) and including a significant number of valuable works - but works partially illuminating the issues surrounding Hrabar - the monographic nature of Kuev's work stands out. Compositionally, the book is divided into two heterogeneous parts - a literary-historical study and an edition of the Tale in 73 transcripts, of which 67 contain its entire text. But for its general spirit, for the appearance and for the new word of philological science, the synthesis of the author's literary-historical and textual awareness has proven decisive - an indisputable guarantee and at the same time a measure, an indicator of its real value. It is difficult to say whether there is a leading factor in this unity of mutually complementary knowledge; practically, what is more important is that the 57 transcripts published for the first time significantly broaden the horizons of the literary historian, suggest new statements of questions, correct or confirm already established positions.

On September 12, 2001, at Kiev University, Pavel Andreevich Bugaenko, a professor at Saratov University, successfully defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic "A. V. Lunacharsky and the Literary Movement of the 20s", published in a separate book. I begin with these preliminary clarifications, because not only the general readership, but also specialists in Bulgaria learn very little about what is published in the Soviet Union outside of Moscow and Leningrad. Perhaps this applies more to literary critics, because, as far as I know, every physicist or biologist must, in principle, be informed about all the novelties in his field, otherwise he risks starting to work on a problem that others have already solved. For specialists in the humanities, this rule does not always seem to be mandatory. And recently, a number of phenomena in the development of literary literature have been radically reassessed, and separate trends, styles, and aesthetic categories are being clarified in a different way; there are attempts to read the classics in a new way, etc.

The current stage of the development of Bulgarian literary studies is characterized by the awareness of the ever-growing need to specify the methodology, to build a secure basis for a private and general theoretical interpretation of the artistic facts, in order to be able to cope with all possible deviations from scientific truth, accumulated by both vulgar sociology and subjectivist criticism, which in a number of its manifestations demonstrates its militant anti-scientificity. By the way, there is one aspect in which subjectivism and vulgar sociology converge as much as possible: along with the claim to the indisputability of their assessments, the representatives of both directions showed disregard for the specificity of the work of art. This found expression in the arbitrary interpretation of the text, in a misunderstanding (underestimation and overestimation) of its structural features, and hence - underestimation of the function and semantics of both the whole and its elements.

It has become a tradition for every review of a new book studying Karavelov's work to begin with the statement that with his strong and complex personality the writer still attracts the attention of literary history and criticism today. And this statement does not sound clichéd, because it notes a significant literary-historical fact. Our modernity has precisely realized a complete edition of Karavelov's works and made a decisive contribution to Karavelov studies both with voluminous monographs and with individual studies that pose new and interesting issues. At the same time, the critical eye discovers in contemporary studies of Karavelov a more emphatically pronounced specific literary approach. In place of factual and biographical research, in place of the descriptive approach, there logically comes the aspiration for a more concrete consideration of the aesthetic and theoretical problems posed by Karavelov's work, for the study of his writing skills in relation to the laws of the Literary Process, the peculiarities of his talent, etc. Tsveta Undzhieva's book has its positive significance primarily as a phenomenon that supports this direction in the development of the science of Karavelov. It not only discovers and uses new factual material, not only enriches ideas and specifies accents, but above all seeks a solution to essential literary-historical, theoretical and stylistic problems posed by Karavelov's work. It is precisely this focus of the study that arouses interest in it and gives it its own appearance.

On January 16, 1969, the Scientific Council at the Institute of Literature discussed the work of Prof. Yuri Konstantinovich Begunov - Ph.D. - Kozma Presbyter in Slavic Literatures. In addition to the members of the Scientific Council, the work of the extended meeting was attended by lecturers from Sofia State University "Kliment Ohridski", from the Higher Pedagogical Institute "Cyril and Methodius" in Tarnovo and researchers from the institutes of Bulgarian Language and Balkan Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. This interest in the work is due both to its problematics and to the broad framework in which the study of the famous "Conversation" of Presbyter Kozma is set. The result of the joint work between the Institute of Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Russian Literature (sector of Old Russian Literature) in Leningrad, the work of Yu. K. Begunov is new evidence of the fruitful Bulgarian-Soviet cooperation in the field of science.