Lilyana Grasheva

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.

Old Bulgarian literature began its development eleven centuries before our era and therefore differs sharply from modern literary creation. The most obvious indicator of the difference is the predominant religious character of medieval literary works. However, it would be far from the truth to claim that this character alone is the mark that separates them from new Bulgarian literature, mainly from that created in the second half of the 19th century to the present day, although it is inherent in both the content and the form of medieval art. Behind it stand peculiar artistic norms, a specific creative vision, which for modern man is very unusual. On this basis, the principled, problematic characterization of medieval artists who created historically conditioned, historically timely and historically valuable art should be built.

During the solemn scientific session for the 1050th anniversary of the death of Clement of Ohrid, achieving its jubilee purpose with the greatest accuracy, the cleverly and interestingly written book by Nadezhda Dragova about the outstanding Bulgarian and Slavic enlightener was published. Without a doubt, in the bibliographies of those dedicated to Clement 1 N. Dragova, Kliment Ohridski. A Story about Him and His Enemies. S., Publishing House of the National Council of the Fatherland Front, 1966, 266 p. Works it will find its place in the section "popular scientific literature". It is not excluded that it will be passed over negligently by both individual representatives of strict academic thought and some of the creators of contemporary historical fiction, if they a priori attribute to it the known shortcomings of books of its kind. And it is neither elementary, nor dry and lifeless. From its first to its last page, we are greeted by the results of a perfectly clear, meticulously thought out and precisely executed plan, and we are delighted by the qualities of a high-class popularizer.

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.

Recently, in the Smetana Hall of the National House in Prague, a closed VI International Congress of Slavic Scholars was opened. Nearly two thousand of the most famous Slavic scholars in the world and as many guests had the opportunity, over the course of a whole week, to communicate in debates from the stands or in intimate conversations on the ancient streets and parks of Prague; to exchange scientific considerations and thoughts, searching for the great truth about the past and present life of the Slavic peoples, about their spiritual closeness with other non-Slavic peoples, about their common civic quests and spiritual aspirations, about their closeness in everyday life, in language, in verbal folk and personal creativity... And this great conversation about the peculiar fate of Slavism, which began again in the same hall approximately four decades ago at the First Slavic Congress (1929), is constantly expanding and deepening. More and more participants are making their modest contribution; More and more Slavic scholars are presenting their insights and discoveries, their themes and aspirations, solutions, hypotheses and concepts into scientific circulation... Sometimes - successfully defended and scientifically argued, and sometimes without analysis and based on random signs, without a deep knowledge of the facts and based on data devoid of any scientific systematics.

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.