Bonyo Angelov

The great work of the Slavic enlighteners Cyril and Methodius plays an extremely important role in the life of our people. This role was especially prominent during the years of our national liberation movement from the middle of the 19th century. In the struggle for the cultural affirmation of the Bulgarian people, for broad national education, it is in the first place. The names and images of Cyril and Methodius are the center of this struggle, they inspire people-friendly activity. Evidence of this is the numerous publications about them that appeared during the Bulgarian Renaissance. All social strata show interest in them, and, of course, each perceives and interprets their immortal work from its own positions. The highest and most truthful assessment, closely related to the current political tasks of the historical moment, was received by Lyuben Karavelov and Hristo Botev - prominent representatives of our national liberation struggles, significantly influenced by the ideas of the Russian revolutionary-democrats. All Bulgarian cultural and political figures of the Renaissance who wrote about Cyril and Methodius had an enthusiastic and positive attitude towards their work. They perceived and affirmed it as the basis of the new Bulgarian culture that was being built. They wrote separate books about them, many articles in newspapers and magazines, translated and published scientific studies by prominent foreigners on Cyril and Methodius issues, delivered hundreds of passionate speeches at the annual celebrations organized on the occasion of the holiday of Slavic enlightenment, published many reports on the celebrations held, etc.

The literature of Bulgarians and Serbs in the Middle Ages is the best illustration of the extremely close cultural ties between the two neighboring and fraternal peoples, of the constant borrowing of values ​​from one literature, which permeate the literature of the other. Individual works, literary genres and schools, style and language are the subject of this literary communication. Having begun in the first decades of Slavic writing, it continued until the end of the 18th century, when a new stage in the literary ties between the Bulgarian and Serbian peoples began - ties of their new literatures. This long period of literary relations, of course, has its own history, periods of rise and fall, its own character and scope of action, typical manifestations, common genres and writers, characteristic stylistic and linguistic features.

In the great Cyril and Methodius problem, the main question is the question of the beginning of Slavic writing. Many prominent Slavic scholars have written about it: Dobrovsky, Shafarik, Bodiansky, Sreznevsky, Yagich, Shakhmatov, Lavrov, Lamansky, Ogienko, Emil Georgiev, etc. And yet it is still open, there is no unified opinion among scholars on it. While some scholars directly connect the beginning of Slavic writing with the Great Moravian mission of Cyril and Methodius (862-863), other scholars move this beginning a few years earlier, connecting it with 855, indicated by Chernorizets Hrabar. This special question - which year to take as the beginning of Slavic writing - has existed almost since the emergence of Slavic studies as a science. For a long time, it was not written about separately, because in most cases, scholars, when they touched on it in their research, took one position or the other. After the Second World War, in our country, somehow imperceptibly, it became the subject of several larger or smaller studies, such as those conducted by Al. Burmov, M. Genov, Em. Georgiev, K. Kuev, P. Petrov, B. St. Angelov, etc. And here two groups emerged - supporters of

The mutual relations between the old Russian Literature and the old South Slavic literatures (Bulgarian and Serbian) have long been the subject of research. In this field of science, the most has been written so far by Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian scholars. The number of studies becomes even greater if we take into account the studies in general on the cultural relations between these three fraternal peoples, whose cultural development has many common features and trends. It was a natural phenomenon at the beginning of these studies to search for and indicate the influence of the South Slavic literatures on medieval Russian literature, more precisely on the oldest period of its development. Such is indeed the beginning of their relationship, but it alone does not exhaust the nature of the mutual relations between the Russian and South Slavic Literatures. Because ancient Russia not only adopted cultural values ​​from the Slavic south, but in turn it also influenced the cultural development of Bulgarians and Serbs, works of Russian literature penetrated the old Bulgarian and Serbian literature. This process has been particularly strong since the 16th century, but such an influence also existed before the 16th century, albeit in a weaker form. This statement of the problem of the Russian-Southern Slavic cultural and especially literary relations was first given by the famous Russian Slavic scientist M. N. Speransky. Presented first in his introductory lecture "Dividing the history of Russian literature into periods and the influence of Russian literature on Yugoslavia" (Русский филологический вестинк, XXXVI 1896, vol. 3-4, pp. 193-223). Yugoslav and Russian texts "Stories about the construction of the temple of Sophia of Tsaregrad". Speransky managed to present his many years of observations on this common problem in his monograph “Toward the History of the Relations between Russian and South Slavic Literatures (Russian Monuments of Southern Slavonic Literature), published in 1923 in the Proceedings of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences (vol. XXVI, pp. 143-206). Here the author asserts: “The number of these facts - Russian monuments of one or another type of the indicated works that were in use among the South Slavs, the participation of Russian writers in the life of South Slavic literatures - although not as large as the number of South Slavic monuments in the practice of writing from the old period, is still quite significant, so that the more general question of the role of Russian literature in South Slavic literature can now be raised, just as we at the time raised and resolved the question of the role of South Slavic literature in Russian (p. 12). This correct methodological indication of Speransky is embedded in the scientific literature after him; he develops this thought in his more recent works, prepared for publication, but remained unpublished. Speransky's numerous studies rightly outline him as a scientist who not only knows best the mutual connections between the old literatures of Bulgarians, Russians and Serbs, but also who has made the greatest contribution to revealing the history of these connections. It is this assessment, perhaps, along with the observation that the problem of Russian-Slavic connections in the 11th-17th centuries, which is of great scientific interest, still needs development, that served as an occasion to publish some of Speransky's studies that remained in his archive.

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).

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.

The beginning of New Bulgarian poetry is usually associated with the first decades of the 19th century, with the names of Dimitar Popski, G. T. Peshakov, and others. It is also accepted that "new Bulgarian poetry arose outside the traditions of medieval literature. The writers who in the 19th century laid the foundation for modern Bulgarian poetry neither knew Slavic-Bulgarian poetry nor learned from it. Their gaze was directed towards other models - Russian, French, Greek, Serbian, Romanian poetry, on the one hand, and Bulgarian folk song, on the other".1 Of course, it is correct to believe that new Bulgarian poetry did not develop in isolation, on its own, but in close contact with the poetry of neighboring and more distant European peoples - Russian, Serbian, Greek, Romanian, French, etc., from which it was enriched both in form and content.

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 rich Bulgarian literature of the Middle Ages has not yet been sufficiently well presented to a wider circle of cultural readers and activists. The main reason for this is the fact that a large part of its most valuable works have not been published, which is why they remain inaccessible for direct scientific studies. And the difficulty becomes even greater when one takes into account the fact that most of these works are located abroad (USSR, Romania, Yugoslavia, Mount Athos, France, Germany, England, etc.). And therefore, a joyful fact for our cultural community is the printed appearance of one of the important monuments of old Bulgarian literature, namely the Manassian Chronicle, published under the title "The Chronicle of Constantine Manassi". The Vatican transcript of the chronicle has been published in phototype form, with an introduction and notes by Prof. Ivan Duychev. Thus, a long-standing dream of the Bulgarian public and Bulgarian scientists to see a complete edition of this valuable historical monument is realized. And it must be said right away that the fine initiative to publish old Bulgarian manuscripts (phototype or in block form) should continue, and be placed on a sounder organizational basis. The Chronicle is published as the first book in the well-conceived series "Monuments of Old Bulgarian Literature". It is desirable that the next issues of the series appear sooner. The institutes of literature, language and history at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences are directly interested in and responsible for the implementation of this task. The Manasseh Chronicle has long been known to science, especially through the publications of the Russian scholar A. D. Chertkov and the Romanian Slavist Ioan Bogdan, who published a later transcript from the 16th and 17th centuries. The Vatican transcript is valuable not only for being one of the ancient transcripts of the chronicle, but especially for being its only richly illustrated copy. After Prof. Duychev made a separate color edition of the miniatures of this chronicle, now a natural addition is its complete publication according to the Vatican transcript. The two latest editions, related to the Manasseh Chronicle, already greatly facilitate any kind of research not only on it, but on Bulgarian culture in general, literature and painting in particular. They also have an important place in the studies on our medieval historiography.

Bulgarian-Byzantine cultural and literary ties continued for several centuries. Undoubtedly, the main and dominant influence here was the penetration and influence of Byzantine literature on Bulgarian medieval literature throughout its historical development. Still as strong, although slightly transformed, it continued during the difficult period of Turkish slavery. And the borrowings and ties continued because they had a socio-economic and political prerequisite. Every nation suffered the influence of other nations and, above all, of its neighbors. Moreover, "every society lives in its own special historical environment, which can be - and indeed often is - very similar to the historical environment surrounding other nations, but can never be and never is identical with it". 1 Nations can exert mutual influence only when there are certain points of contact in their social, political and cultural life. The strength of the influence is determined by the degree of community between them. "The influence of the literature of one country on the literature of another is directly proportional to the similarity between the social relations of these countries. It does not exist at all when this similarity is equal to zero... This influence is one-sided when one people, due to its backwardness, cannot give anything to the other either in terms of form or in terms of content... Finally, this influence is mutual when, due to the similarity of social life, and therefore of cultural development, each of the two exchanging peoples can borrow something from the other."

The issues of aesthetics have always been of great interest to both science and artists. This interest has obviously grown in recent times, thanks to which a lot of research has appeared. Despite this activity, however, there is still no unity among scientists on a number of issues. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the fact that theoretical generalizations are not always connected with the direct study of the artistic mastery of the individual artist-writer. If this statement is true for modern fiction, how much more so for medieval Slavic literature, especially for old Bulgarian literature. Of course, today it is no longer possible to maintain the view that this literature is purely religious-dogmatic, dry and uninteresting, that it has primarily cognitive significance, helping us to more fully reveal the relevant historical era. To deny any artistry in Old Bulgarian or Old Russian literature is not justified either historically or factually. Because in different centuries there was a different idea of ​​artistry, and when assessing the degree of artistry of a particular monument, we should not take our own point of view, we should not come up with our own claims to artistry, but take into account the understanding of artistry in the society of that era, monuments". 1 which was contemporary to each of these On the other hand, old Bulgarian literature, like Serbian and Russian medieval literature, possesses undoubted artistic merits: it holds the attention of its reader, satisfies his aesthetic sense, acts on his imagination and reason, elevates thoughts and feelings, and gives knowledge of a diverse nature. The stylistic and linguistic form of the works unconditionally corresponds to the appropriate cultural preparation of the reader, so that he can perceive them, be moved by them. Here it is absolutely necessary to observe a certain ratio between the creator and the reader. When this ratio is violated, the impact of the book is insignificant, a reaction begins against it, an opposite movement appears.

A more detailed acquaintance with the preserved Old Slavonic manuscripts allows for a more complete disclosure of the repertoire of the old Slavic literatures, their genre richness, and connections with other literatures (Byzantine and Western European). Too often it presents the researcher with new and interesting details concerning the activities of individual writers. One such case is discussed in the present note, related to the literary activities of the prominent Old Bulgarian writer John the Exarch, a participant in the construction of the "Golden Age" of Bulgarian literature during the time of Tsar Simeon. The work "Heaven" - a work by the Byzantine writer John of Damascus (8th century) is closely associated with the name of John the Exarch, because it was first through his translation that it penetrated the old Slavic literatures (Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian), received wide distribution and had a profound impact on the religious and philosophical thinking of the medieval reader. It became generally accessible to the scientific world thanks to the efforts of O. M. Bodyansky, who prepared it for publication, and the publication itself was published under the editorship of Andrei Popov in 1878 under the title "Theology of Saint John of Damascus in the translation of John the Exarch of Bulgaria. According to the haratheon list of the Moscow Synodal Library". Our writer approached his task quite soberly - taking into account the specific reality of Bulgarian society and the cultural preparation of his reader, he did not translate "Heavens" in its entirety, consisting of 100 chapters, but translated only 48 chapters, the most necessary and suitable for the reader.

For the revival of the southern Slavs in the 18th century, the cultural, social and political work of Hristofor Jefarovich played an important role. A Bulgarian by birth, a native of the town of Dojran, his activities took place outside the borders of the Bulgarian lands, mainly among the Serbian population in the then vast Austrian monarchy. He loved to travel a lot, he was in Palestine, and also went to Moscow, where he died in 1754. Hristofor Jefarovich is the author of several books, the most important of which is undoubtedly his "Stematography", published in Vienna in 1741. His desire was to resurrect the glory of the South Slavic peoples - Bulgarians and Serbs, to awaken in them an interest in their native past, so that through this they would think about their difficult life as slaves: "How they were, what a kingdom it was, what nature, with what shield of arms... so that the memory among people would not fade away, but would be in the eternal ages, I dared to write this little book in type". The content of the book highlights Zhefarovich as one of the early, enthusiastic and convinced figures of the South Slavic cultural and political community, his book has indeed achieved the goal outlined by the author - awakening national consciousness among Bulgarians and Serbs, activating this consciousness, which leads them to their political liberation.

It is well known that not all the works of the rich Byzantine literature have survived; some of them are known only bibliographically, and others only from Latin or Old Church Slavonic copies. As an illustration of this idea, at least as far as Old Church Slavonic literature is concerned, the name of Georgi Skylitsa, a Greek cultural and public figure of the 12th century, is usually mentioned. In addition to his other works, he is also the author of a life of Ivan Rilski, which is now not known in its original Greek version, but only in Slavic. "1 It is assumed that it was written "between 1166 and 1183, when the relics of the saint were taken to Hungary, and for this reason the latter event is not mentioned in the life"

Although partially surviving, the legacy that has remained to us from our old literature is great. Valuable monuments in many respects have been preserved - purely church liturgical books, philosophical treatises, encyclopedic collections of readings, linguistic and orthographic treatises, legal monuments, chronicles, lives, stories, damascenes, etc. These monuments are an invaluable source for the history of our language, of Bulgarian literature, of Bulgarian social, legal and philosophical thought, of Bulgarian art throughout the centuries. And despite their great and multifaceted importance, little work is done in our country on the publication and study of these monuments, especially on their publication. A large part of the previous editions of Bulgarian medieval manuscripts are the work of foreign scholars, mainly Russian.

"The Alphabetical Prayer has given rise to quite lively debates in science, and yet some questions closely related to it remain open, not yet resolved. A natural prerequisite for such advancement of the issue is the presentation and publication of more materials related to the work of Konstantin Preslavsky and, above all, directly related to this remarkable work of our old literature. The primary task is not only to search for previously unknown transcripts of the "Alphabetic Prayer", but also to publish them, since the previous publications are few. And this is all the more possible for a composition like the "Alphabetic Prayer" - very short in size. Such is the purpose of the present communication - to make another previously unknown transcript of one of the first poems in old Bulgarian literature known to science.

In the history of our old literature there are still details to be clarified, some previous assumptions to be re-evaluated, there is a great need to search for and publish new materials on individual writers or periods. But when one proceeds to re-evaluate previous conceptions, it is necessary that the argumentation be more comprehensive and more convincing, so as not to introduce unnecessary or premature disturbances into the course of our literary history, which has to solve such important tasks, to clarify more fully the content, the problematics and the significance of old Bulgarian literature.

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.

Along with other unresolved issues in the history of our old literature, there is also the question of the historiographical works that it had. That is why every initiative that has been noticed recently, related to Bulgarian medieval historiography, is commendable. I am referring to the studies of Goran Todorov "The Origin and Initial Development of Bulgarian Historiography (681-1018)" and "Bulgarian Historiography in the 11th-14th Centuries"1 and Konstantin Mechev "The Bulgarian Chronicle of the Early 15th Century (Historical Content, Ideological and Artistic Appearance, the Question of Its Authorship")2. The reason for these notes is given to me by the study of K. Mechev. I say notes, since I do not intend to dwell in detail on the issue touched upon by it; I would rather just like to take a position on the question posed - To what extent can the author's thesis be accepted, according to which the famous Old Bulgarian (South Slavic) writer Isai Serski also wrote the anonymous Bulgarian chronicle from the beginning of the 15th century? I want to take a position because our science still has so many important questions to solve, which is why there is no need to divert the efforts of the few scientific workers with publications that are insufficiently argued. It is better to direct these efforts to other issues. The answer is all the more compelling, taking into account the fact that the publication is published without an editorial note, it is not presented as a discussion one.