Общи

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.

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.