Надя Данова

An account of Bulgaria’s history is here introduced classed as an “imagined text” which was in all probability the brainchild of Konstantin Fotinov (1785-1858). Evidence for the project for such a text has been garnered from material in the Fotinov archive, e.g. his correspondence, and the title of a manuscript which has by now disappeared: A Look At the Origins of the Bulgarians and the Beginning of Bulgarian History as well as excerpts from works by various writers who are still the staple of studies on the Middle Ages in Bulgaria, such as Ioan Zonara, Procopius of Kesaria, Nikita Choniat, Georgi Acropolit, Georgi Kedrin and others. These, and Fotinov’s published works, provide groundwork for reconstructing the content, the fundamental concepts and methodology of this “History”. The hypothesis for the presumed existence of the draft calls forth some thoughts on the role of historical studies in the emergence of the Bulgarian national identity.

In the present article the author tries to reveal the attitude towards the laughter on the Balkan during the formation of bourgeois ethic code. The data, collected from many Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian and Ottoman texts from XVIII and XIX centuries, show that the image of Balkan’s homo ridens is not undivided but depends on the entire ideological atmosphere, as it is presented by different texts. The demonic image of the laughing person is categorically shown in the texts, representative of the conservative circles, which were connected with Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Ottoman Empire. The heralds of the Enlightenment’s new ideas defended a contrary opinion. The problem of the laughter is shown in the article as an intriguing issue in the context of the debates between church and the defenders of new ideas about modernization of society, burst forth on the threshold of the bourgeois era. It can be proved definitely by juxtaposition of the negative attitude of Nikodim of Mount Athos towards the laugh and the laughing person with the opposite viewpoints of Rigas Velestinlis, Adamandios Korais, Konstantin Fotinov, Neophit Bozveli, Emanuil Vaskidovich, Raino Popovich, etc.

This paper examines Ivan Shishmanov’s contribution to the refuting of some myths inherited from the age of the Bulgarian national identity forming, when the Bulgarian intelligentsia representatives who played the leading part 201 in creating the “imagined community” constructed the national narative and built up the myths needed. Shishmanov takes up a sober position on the important issue about the role of the Greeks and the Greek culture in Bulgarian history (15th –19th century). Following the myth widespread in the Bulgarian romantic historiography of that time about the long-standing hellenizing policy towards the Bulgarians, Shishmanov reaches the conclusion that up to 1830 the Constantinople patriarchate did not function as a Greek national institute. He stresses the necessity for each phenomenon to be examined in its concrete historical context. He opposes the accusation against the Greek clergy that is has sistematically pursuited and destroyed the Bulgarian letters. He rejects the romantic thesis about the entirely negative role of the Greek culture and education for the Bulgarians and arrives at the conclusion about the positive role of the Greek cultural influence over the Bulgarian history, ranking it among the Bulgarian national revival factors. Shishmanov is convinced that we can be well acquainted with our own history only if we examine the phenomena of Bulgarian society’s spiritual life in their Balkan context, thus he convincingly refutes the romantic myth about the “uniqueness, originality, exceptionality and exclusiveness” of the nation, a myth that eliminates the search for parallels between the particular peoples’ development. Exactly on the basis of the similarity in the peoples’ development he reveals the mutual influence and borrowings in the cultural life of the Balkan peoples. Shishmanov disproves the view inhereted from the foregoing age that in the 19th century there existed tensions and conflicts connected only with opposing to “the other” on national base, since the national mythology requires the nation to be absolutely united and integrated. He is deeply convinced that myths in history can thrive only upon the ignorance for “the other” and therefore insists that it is Bulgarian school’s duty to make the Bulgarian children acquainted with the culture of the neighbouring Balkan peoples.

The aim of this study is to present and find the historical place of some of the Balkan utopias created by Greeks and Bulgarians during the 18th,19th and 20th century. The focus falls on a way of thinking,which although marginal and eclectic, existed in its own time and helps to make clear the difficult process of the building of modern ideologies.Attention is paid to the mechanism which transfers the utopias of the future, born elsewhere, into the Balkan space as well as to the social and cultural circumstances that help to build the ideal picture of the future.The author studies the problem of the role of history and memory in the imagined communities as an expression of the relation between history and utopia,as well as the relation between utopia and eschatology.The examples that are studied testify to the comparatively quick reaction of some of the representatives of the Balkan intelligentsia to what is happening in the sphere of the utopia in other countries.Texts which aim at living up to the existing expectations, while at the same time making an attempt to turn them into instruments are created.The conclusions of the analysis of the utopian texts allow elaborations concerning the level of the political culture as well as about the different tendencies in the idealogical and political life, which caused combinations of views and tastes that are paradoxical at first glance.

The study focuses on Neofit Bozveli’s views on childhood revealed in his writings and biography. One of his strongest messages is his belief that a kid’s mind is a tabula rasa. He pleads for a new understanding of childhood as a stage in human development, requiring adults specific treatment. His views on the power model in the family and society remain traditional, as he regards the infant as "imperfect" and the child deprived of the knowledge and experience that would entitle him to autonomous decisions.