Download PDF | State And Church Studies In Medieval Bulgaria And Byzantium American Research Center In Sofia (2011)
315 Pages
PREFACE
This collection presents thirteen studies dedicated to the history of medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium from the sixth to the fifteenth centuries. The explorations revolve around issues of critical import for the functioning of the church and state in medieval Bulgaria, and their intimate linkages to similar phenomena in Byzantium.
Most of the essays have already appeared in Bulgarian publications. The collection acquaints English-speaking experts and students in the field with a sample of the directions that Bulgarian medieval scholarship has taken in the last twenty years. The historiographical overview at the beginning and the annotated bibliography at the end of the volume further introduce the reader to that academic tradition by highlighting its major phases and achievements.
On behalf of the contributors and the editors of this collection, we should like to express our gratitude to Charles Denver Graninger, Director of the American Research Center in Sofia (ARCS), for his encouragement and kind assistance, and for the Center's consistent moral and financial support. The America for Bulgaria Foundation has been most generous with extending a subvention without which this publication would not have been possible. Finally, we would like to thank Todor Petev, Director of the US Office of ARCS, for his conceiving the idea for this volume and putting together the plan for its execution. It is our honor to dedicate this volume to the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies in Sofia, perhaps the most important scholarly event to take place in Bulgaria over the past century.
The Editors Vassil Gjuzelev and Kiril Petkov
MEDIEVAL AND BYZANTINE STUDIES IN BULGARIA IN THE NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES: A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION Vassil Gjuzelev
The formation and rise of European nation-states in the nineteenth century stirred vivid interest in the history of the Middle Ages. For scholars of the time, the medieval centuries were the period of national genesis and entrance into history. 1 It was only logical therefore that the Middle Ages would attract the effort of some of the most distinguished European historians. The nationalist interest evident in European medieval studies also affected the work of the prominent exponents of the Bulgarian medieval historiography.
While continuing the work of the Bulgarian medievalist school of the eighteenth century, the highly erudite Bulgarian historians of the nineteenth century did eventually overcome the Romantic approach of the preceding generation. They laid the foundations for the systematic and critical investigation of medieval history, an approach which placed them in line with contemporaneous European historiography.
The Period before 1878
The first half of the nineteenth century was a period in which the Slavic studies by Russian and Czech scholars stimulated interest in the medieval history and culture of the Bulgarians. The work of a Czech scholar, Pavel-Josef Safafik, on the Golden Age of Bulgarian letters in the tenth century won considerable popularity in its Russian, German, and Bulgarian translations, drawing attention to an important moment in Bulgaria's cultural history and inspiring interest in Old Bulgarian literature. Bulgarian literary topics held an important place in Slavic and medieval studies in Russia, which also contributed to the interest in Bulgarian medieval history.
A study by Konstantin Kalaidovich, published in 1824 and devoted to John the Exarch, the outstanding man of letters ofTsar Symeon's GoldenAge (ninth-tenth century), heralded the advent of mono graphic investigation of Old Bulgarian letters and culture. This was followed by the publications of the Ukrainian philologist and ethnographer Yuri Venelin, on the history of medieval Bulgaria, which gained considerable currency among Bulgarians during the National Revival period. Other influential works were the philological studies of Osip Bodyansky, professor at Moscow University, who introduced a number of his Bulgarian students to historical and philological research. A second major center where Bulgarian studies were being advanced was formed at the University of Odessa, where the key figures were N. Murzakevich and V. Grigorovich. Bulgarian medieval manuscripts in the published catalogs of various collections in Russia, and the discovery of the fourteenth-century Middle Bulgarian translation of the Chronicle of Constantine Manasses further stimulated interest of Russian historians in medieval Bulgaria.
The first scholarly product of the Bulgarian students in the circle around Bodyansky was a compilation by Zahari Knyazhevski (1810-1877), Introduction to the History of the Bulgarian Slavs from the Fifth Century to 1396, published in Moscow in 1848. The author had not directly studied the sources, but composed his work mainly on the basis of books by the Austrian historian Johann Engel, the Russian translation of Slovanske starozitnosti [Slavonic Antiquities] by Pavel-Josef Safafik, and studies of Russian scholars. This popular history of medieval Bulgaria became an important conduit of contemporary historical ideas to readers in Bulgaria. The public activity and scholarly work of Vasil Aprilov (1789-184 7) were important factors in the further development of medieval Bulgarian historiography during the National Revival period.
In many respects, Aprilov played a decisive role in imposing the critical scholarly approach. In his works, relatively few in numbers, he attempted to resolve the question of the ethnogenesis of the Bulgarians, contending that they belonged to the Slavic group, after J. Raijc and Y. Venelin who had developed that theory and applied it to the issue of the ethnic origins of the Proto-Bulgarians. Aprilov also maintained the view that the conversion to Christianity, and the adoption and spread of the Slavonic script, had a crucial and enduring impact on the development of the medieval Bulgarian state. A champion of Eastern Orthodoxy in general and of the identification of the Bulgarian people with it, Aprilov asserted his conviction about the nefarious role played by the Byzantine Empire, Church, and culture in Bulgaria's historical fortunes. He presented impressive logical and philological arguments in support of his thesis that Cyril and Methodius were Bulgarians. Aprilov's publication of medieval Bulgarian charters in his book, Bulgarian Charters (1845), marks his significant contribution to the field. In it the author demonstrated the importance of domestic sources in scholarly research.
This publication stirred interest in Old Bulgarian written records and, until 1911, was the sole edition of documents of the Bulgarian medieval chancellery. Aprilov was influential in the overall organization and promotion of Bulgarian studies in general. He was one of the first to treat Bulgarian history as an integral whole in keeping with the contemporary standards of scholarship. He rallied patriotic Bulgarians to search for and bring to light Bulgarian antiquities (medieval manuscripts, charters, inscriptions, coins, etc.), making every effort to heighten interest in the Bulgarian people and their history in Russia and other Slavic countries. The Romantic historiography developed concurrently with the emergence of the critical approach in historical studies during the National Revival period. Its works had a broader appeal to and exercised a stronger impact on Bulgarian society.
The deliberate extolling of the ancient past and the grandeur of Bulgarians in the Middle Ages was more to the liking of the general public and helped to strengthen national self-awareness and historical memory. The Tsarstvenik [The Book of Kings] of Hristaki Pavlovich and Slaviyanske starini [Slavic Antiquities] by Konstantin Fotinov, were based on Paissy of Hilandar's patriotic Slav-Bulgarian History (1762). They were followed by the fervent historical writings of Georgi Rakovski and Gavril Knlstevich. These works left no appreciable trace in the development of the scholarly studies of medieval Bulgaria and, after a brief period of relevance, sank into oblivion. Three remarkable and highly erudite historians in the second half of the nineteenth century shaped the character and trends of medieval studies in Bulgaria and their place in a European context: Spiridon Palauzov, Marin Drinov, and Konstantin Jirecek.
In their works, the traditions of Russian Slavistics were blended with the methods and critical approach of Western and Central European historical science. They set the patterns and standards to be followed by generations of Bulgarian medievalists. The subsequent sound study of the history, institutions, and culture of medieval Bulgaria is due to a great extent to these three scholars, who were inspired by the spirit of the national Romantic school, but completely distanced itself from its methods in the interest of genuine academic scholarship. Spiridon Palauzov (1818-1872) received solid university training in Odessa, Munich, Vienna, and Moscow. His immediate teachers in medieval studies were such remarkable scholars as J. Fallmerayer, F. Miklosic, 0. Bodyansky, and I. Sreznievsky. His monographic studies cover a range of topics on the political, ecclesiastical, and cultural history of medieval Bulgaria and other nations. He introduced to the Bulgarian academic discourse a number of new sources and urged the writing of comprehensive historical works. With all that, Palauzov thoroughly regenerated Bulgarian medieval studies of the National Revival period, equipping them with the methods of European historiography.
Prominent among his thematically diverse writings are two monographs: The Age of the Bulgarian Tsar Symeon (1852) and Jan Huniyadi (1860), and his eminently instructive studies of primary sources. His work was motivated by inspiration associated with the National Revival period, but it crossed the threshold to a historiography of a higher order, laying the foundations of the discipline. 2 Marin Drinov ( 183 8-1906), until recently considered the "first Bulgarian historian," was closely related to the so-called "Bulgarian critical school of history" and the work of Spiridon Palauzov (Fig. 1 ).
His research activity and publications, which were repeatedly scrutinized, have long since won high and deserved recognition. A graduate of Moscow University, fellow-student of the outstanding Russian historian V. Klyuchevsky and a number of Bulgarian national revivalists, Drinov adopted the critical approach and methods of the advanced Russian historical and philological scholarship, and was imbued with the spirit and ideas of the Bulgarian National Revival movement.
Thanks to his remarkable and highly topical monographic studies and works of general character, he made a name for himself in European Slavistics, a discipline which had come into being in the second half of the nineteenth century. His contributions further accelerated the dominance of critical methodology in Bulgarian medieval studies. Similar to Paissy, Drinov's activities and research on Bulgaria's medieval past were closely linked to the main matters preoccupying the nation during the Revival period: they responded to the need for a well-grounded defense of its historical right to national independence and recognition among other European nations. Drinov was the rallying figure of Bulgarian historical and philological scholarly self-awareness, a true pillar of these disciplines in Bulgaria in the second half of the nineteenth century. While Drinov's monographs on Bulgarian medieval history continued the tradition started by Spiridon Palauzov, they were distinguished by considerably higher erudition, analytical prowess, and insight. His work covered the entire history of the Bulgarian lands and people from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages through the eighteenth century. According to his brief but pertinent formulation, "national self-awakening" was the ultimate objective of Bulgarian historiography. Drinov did not write a comprehensive work on political and cultural history, but he left behind a systematic and inclusive study of the history of the Bulgarian Church that became of paramount importance to the struggles of Bulgarians for national recognition.3
Fundamentally significant to the progress of medieval studies in Bulgaria, many of his publications contain ideas still relevant today. In his notable study on the settlement of the Slavs on the Balkan Peninsula, he demonstrated the early penetration of the Slavic ethnos in these lands, their massive colonization in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, and accurately located the areas settled by particular Slavic tribes.4 Overturning certain assumptions made by his predecessors, he resolved the extremely complicated problem of the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, the beginnings of Bulgarian history and the Bulgarian state, and the role of the Proto-Bulgarian element in this process. Of particular importance for the recognition of Drinov as an outstanding European authority on Slavic-Byzantine and Bulgarian-Byzantine relations was his monograph The Southern Slavs and Byzantium in the Tenth Century (1875). This book was not only one of his major contributions to medieval studies in general, but also defined ,,an epoch in Slavic historical studies". 5
Eminently influential in the advancement of historical source criticism and its affirmation as a first-rate auxiliary historical discipline were Drinov's investigations of a number of valuable medieval records (the Synodicon of the Bulgarian Church; the charters of Basil II Bulgaroktonos; several charters of Bulgarian tsars, etc.). Drinov decisively established the scholarly investigation of Bulgarian history as an important component in Slavic, medieval, and Byzantine studies, and vindicated its right to independent existence and development. Konstantin Jirecek (1854-1918), the eminently gifted Czech scholar of the medieval history of the Southern Slavs, largely owed his vocational orientation to his family background, but also to the support and encouragement of Marin Drinov (Fig. 2).
At the age of twenty-one, Jirecek wrote his remarkable Geschichte der Bulgaren (1876), synthesizing the monographic studies and general works that had been published until then. Appearing at a time of events crucial to the fortunes of the Bulgarian people (the April Uprising of 1876 and the Liberation of Bulgaria in 1878) and published in Czech, German, and Russian, Jirecek's History played a pivotal role in the "discovery" of the Bulgarians by the European public and, for a long time, retained its preeminence as a fundamental and authoritative work on Bulgaria's past. At the same time, in various adaptations, it served as a reliable source for the "national self-awakening" of the Bulgarians' in their liberated homeland.
Due to its wide diffusion and role in the formation of a Bulgarian "national self-consciousness," it can rightly be compared to Paissy of Hilandar's SlavBulgarian History. Although written by a foreigner, History of the Bulgarians was an intellectual product closely involved in the evolution of medieval studies in Bulgaria and epitomizing an important stage in their development. Composing it in the positivistic and ideographic spirit dominant in European historiography at the time, the author examined specific areas of research and social structures-such as the church, government and administration, social and economic conditions, etc.-and traced the overall political and cultural development of Bulgaria. In this way, a completely modern pattern of investigating history was set, which regrettably did not meet the preferences of later Bulgarian medievalists.
Bulgarian history continued to hold an important place in Jirecek's work, though it was gradually displaced by his studies on the medieval history of Serbia and Dubrovnik. His revisions to his celebrated History of the Bulgarians, for which he planned another edition, have survived only in the numerous "amendments and additions" published long after his death. These have proved essential to the expansion of the framework of his History, as well as to modern historical approaches in general. Jirecek's Travels across Bulgaria, published in Czech in 1888, was also helpful for the study of the antique and medieval history of the Bulgarian lands and was considered to be a veritable "encyclopedia of Bulgarian towns and villages." The Late Nineteenth Century till 1945 Bulgaria was liberated from Ottoman rule in 1878, and the new Bulgarian state was established.
Almost a decade earlier, in 1869, the Bulgarian Literary Society moved from Braila, Romania, to Sofia (in 1911 it evolved into the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences). A Higher School was founded in Sofia in 1888, which in 1904 became the Sofia University. These factors all contributed to the favorable conditions in which Bulgarian studies thrived. This, in turn, benefited medieval studies, which were now becoming part of the university curriculum and were in a better position to foster the need for national consciousness and education.
The post-Liberation political and cultural upswing, the setting up of various institutions and associations, and the increasing role of the University and the Academy favored scientific and scholarly activity. The changes that occurred in the political, social, and economic life of Bulgaria in the twentieth century left their mark on the fortunes of scholarship, its strategies and performance. For a long period after the Liberation certain fields in the humanities (history, philology, archaeology, and ethnography) had political influence, which stabilized the nation. Those disciplines became the public face and defined the achievements of Bulgarian scholarship as a whole. Two distinct periods can be discerned in the development of Bulgarian medieval studies during the twentieth century. The first phase encompassed the span between the turn of the century and the end of the Second World War in 1945; the second reached to the end of the century.
Three consecutive generations of Bulgarian medievalists were active during these two periods. The current political and ideological circumstances and the changes in the Bulgarian state and society had strong impact and distinguished the work of these scholars. While the historical publications of the first period show an unbroken continuity with the scholarship of the nineteenth century, in the second period this continuity was severely disrupted. We shall now turn to examine the conditions which shaped Bulgarian medieval historiography in the first half of the twentieth century. Medieval studies developed as the leading branch of historical and philological studies during the first half of the twentieth century.
The outstanding researchers of the field were among the most influential and respected scholars in Bulgaria as well as beyond its borders. The medievalist school at Sofia University emerged at this time with a distinctive profile, methods ofresearch, and traditions, some of which have survived to the present day. During the early decades of the century the discipline consolidated the groundwork of scholarly research laid in the nineteenth century and developed its own unique character as it gradually detached from Russian Byzantine and Slavic studies from the pre-revolutionary period and aligned with the trends of Central European ( especially German) historical scholarship. The undisputed founding father of medieval studies as an academic discipline in Bulgaria was Vasil N. Zlatarski (1866-1935), the most distinguished Bulgarian medievalist of all times (Fig. 3).
He and his students and followers, Nikola Milev (1881-1925), Petur Nikov (1884-1938), and Petur Mutafciev (1883-1943), (Fig. 4), came to the foreground as the universally recognized leaders in Bulgarian historical studies. Zlatarski graduated from the St. Petersburg University under the founders of Byzantine Studies in Russia, V G. Vasilevsky and V Lamansky, and did postgraduate work in Germany. His students, on the other hand, began their education under him at Sofia University and then continued with postgraduate work in Germany and Austria-Hungary with such eminent scholars as Karl Krumbacher, Konstantin Jirecek, Karl Ubersberger, and August Heisenberg. The first post-Liberation generation of medievalists and its leader were superbly trained and erudite scholars, trained in the spirit of the National Revival and the tradition in Bulgarian medieval studies established in the late ;1 nineteenth century. Under their care the second generation of medievalists was raised and matured, including Ivan Dujcev (1907-1986) (Fig. 5),
Alexandur Burmov (1911-1965), Dimitur Angelov (1917-1996) (Fig. 6), and Borislav Primov (1918-1983). After graduation from Sofia University, the members of this second generation continued their advanced studies in Italy, Austria, Germany, and Great Britain. A sizable number of students were drawn toward medieval studies during he post-Liberation period until the end of the Second World War. This trend corresponded to that of the rest of Europe, but, as with other Balkan countries, it was rather more pronounced in Bulgaria due to the desire to foster national selfconsciousness. The collapse of national ideals after the First World War resulted in a need to search for moral and spiritual mainstays in the shadows and the monuments of the medieval past.
As during the National Revival period, the gloomy post-war times, Bulgarian medieval studies sustained and stimulated the frustrated national spirit and revived the traditions of national education. Concurrent with the traditional investigations of Bulgarian past, Bulgarian scholars published works in the fields of Byzantine and general history of the Middle Ages. The leading centers for such explorations in the country were the Faculty of History and Philology and the Faculty of Law at Sofia University, and the Historical and Philological Branch of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The major works of the notable medievalists were published in several prominent periodicals: Yearbook of the St. Kliment Ohridski Universrty of Sofia, Periodical Publications of the Literary Society (the later Journal of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), and Compendium of the Bulgarian Academy a/Sciences. The founding of the Historical Society and the Sofia Archaeological Society (both in I 901 ), as well as a number of regional archaeological associations in other towns and cities, stimulated interest in medieval Bulgarian monuments and the study of Bulgaria's cultural heritage. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople (est. 1894) headed by Fyodor Uspensky was contributing actively to the interest in the archaeological monuments and material culture of medieval Bulgaria. The exploration of sites in Macedonia and the excavations at the Old Bulgarian capitals of Pliska and Veliki Preslav, published in the Proceedings of the Institute, actually laid the groundwork for the archaeology of medieval Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Archaeological Institute was set up in 1923 and, thanks to the efforts of its director, Bogdan Filov (1883-1945), evolved quickly into the leading center for the study of Old Bulgarian material culture and art. The institute organized the Fourth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, held in Sofia in 1934. On this occasion (and for the first time), extensive excavations were undertaken at the sites of major Old Bulgarian state and religious centers (Pliska, Madara, Veliki Preslav, Ti1rnovo, etc.). The Institute's two periodicals, Proceedings of the Bulgarian Archaeological Institute and Proceedings of the National Museum in Sofia, became authoritative publications of national and international importance for the study of the material culture of medieval Bulgarian and the Slavic-Byzantine cultural commonwealth. While the significance of primary sources was understood during the National Revival period, it was the post-Liberation Bulgarian medievalists who fully realized the need for systematic study and publication of sources, especially texts. V. N. Zlatarski devoted a number of his works to the study of historical sources. In 1905, anArchaeographic Commission, composed of eminent scholars, was appointed at the Ministry of Public Education on the initiative of the eminent philologist and politician Ivan Shishmanov (1862- 1928). Its main task was to trace and publish domestic written records. In 1914, the functions of the Commission were transferred to the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. From 1918 onwards, a number of Old Bulgarian literary works and documents were published in a series entitled Bulgarski starini [Bulgarian Antiquities]. In his inaugural university lecture delivered in 1920, Peti1r Nikov articulated a view already firmly established among historians, namely, that "it is necessary to prepare and start (in Bulgaria) the publication of a comprehensive collection, the various sections of which will gradually incorporate, in rigorous critical editions, all materials on Bulgarian history now dispersed in the four quarters of the globe, in this country and abroad."6 The reasons that this idea was only partially implemented should be sought, above all, in the meager financial support provided by Bulgarian governments and the absence of a long-term strategy in national policy. Textual sources from medieval Bulgaria, diverse in origin, language, and character, were published in uncoordinated fashion in separate volumes or dispersed in various periodicals. The reliance on Byzantine documents as the principal and most trustworthy sources for reconstructing Bulgarian political history led some of the leading medievalists to a sad conclusion best articulated by P. Mutafciev: "It could boldly and without reservations be stated that if historical research did not have access to the accounts of Byzantine authors regarding their Bulgarian contemporaries, we would hardly have had the discipline of Bulgarian historical studies today. Precisely the fact that the sources used to study the history of Bulgaria are of foreign origin, explains why our (Bulgarian) history, such as we commonly know it, presents mainly a beadroll of kings and wars-an unsatisfying history of our (Bulgarian) state rather than a history of the Bulgarian people. The Byzantines, and foreigners generally, showed interest in us and referred to us only insofar as their national interests crossed with ours. Accordingly, they have noted only those external phenomena, events, and facts of our life that were in some way related to their own historical existence. It is therefore only natural that in the sole presence of such accounts a history of Bulgarian life-intellectual, social, and political-cannot be written. Even less possible is here the drawing of broader general inferences."7 The ubiquitous use of Byzantine sources for scholarly research found in compendia and single publications did not inspire any inclination to publish them in a systematic fashion. Individual readings of Byzantine epigraphic records, the publication of certain charters, letters, and other sources in fragmentary form or in translation, round off the impression of slight interest in Byzantine source study. The most serious achievement in that area are the translations by Symeon, Metropolitan of Varna and Preslav (1840-193 7), of the Letter of Photius to Prince Boris I Mikhail of 866 and the Letters of Archbishop Theophylactus ( eleventh-twelfth centuries). On the other hand, there was a pronounced tendency established in post-1878 Bulgarian medieval studies to publish and make accessible Old Bulgarian · literary, epigraphic, artistic, material, and other records. The ordering and cataloging of Old Bulgarian texts and literature was soon to produce useful results. The manuscript collections of the National Library, the Holy Synod, and the Rila Monastery were described and published in catalogs. 8 An effort was made to register Bulgarian manuscripts in libraries abroad. Among the published Old Bulgarian literary records of crucial importance are the Oration of Presbyter Kozma (tenth century) and the Synodicon of the Bulgarian Church of the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries, which came out in the Bulgarian Antiquities series. The compendia of local literary records compiled by Y9rdan Ivanov are valuable sources still frequently used by Bulgarian and foreign researchers. The translations and publications made by Vasil S. Kis~lkov (1887-1973) and Ivan Dujcev of a number of Old Bulgarian literaf)'." and historical monuments from the First and Second Bulgarian Kingdoms widely propagated local historical sources both in academic and lay circles. The publication of the Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions in Greek by Veselin Beshevliev (1900-1992) (Fig. 7), documenting the brilliant history of the Bulgarian khanate on the Lower Danube in the pagan period ( seventh to ninth centuries), was an outstanding scholarly feat.
The editions by two foreign scholars of the charters of medieval Bulgarian tsars and the writings of Patriarch Euthymius (1375-1394) and other Old Bulgarian men of letters of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries closed a substantial gap in the study of Bulgarian historical sources.9 The critical editions of domestic textual sources contributed to revealing the Bulgarian "perspective," and this was in itself a serious attempt at overcoming the Byzantino-centrism and the weighty records on medieval Bulgaria left by Byzantine historians and chroniclers. Another important advancement in the study of historical sources was the introduction of Western (mainly Latin) sources to scholarly research and publication. A number of Western historical texts-Hungarian medieval charters of the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, documents from the archives of Venice, Genoa, and Dubrovnik, the Vatican Secret Archives, and othersentered into academic circulation and portended the gradual integration of Bulgarian medieval studies within the conceptual framework of medieval studies in Central and Western Europe.
The crowning achievements of this integration were two exemplary publications: The Answers of Pope Nicholas I to the Queries of the Bulgarians of866byDimitiir Dechev (1877-1958) and the Correspondence of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) with the Bulgarians by Ivan Dujcev. The information provided by Latin sources enriched our knowledge of medieval Bulgaria in terms of events, persons, economic conditions, domestic culture, and ethno-demographic and socioeconomic processes. Significant progress in the study of medieval Bulgarian history was made upon the discovery of artifacts of material and artistic culture with the aid of auxiliary historical disciplines such as archaeology, numismatics, sphragistics, and art history. In the period after 1878 these disciplines were given full scope to unfold their potential.
On the one hand, they were linked to museum activity; on the other, they were part of the process of searching for new sources of information on the early period of Bulgarian history. Thanks to V N. Zlatarski and the noted Russian Byzantinist, F. U spensky, the organic connection between historical and archaeological research was recognized as two sides of an integral process. The earliest excavations at the Old Bulgarian capitals Pliska and Veliki Preslav with the participation of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople at the beginning of the twentieth century gave impetus to the development of Bulgarian medieval archaeology and, at the same time, produced a brilliant model of comprehensive publication of the archaeological findings. 10 The subsequent resumption of these excavations, for which the credit must go to Karel Skorpil, Yordan Gospodinov, and Krastyu Miyatev, and the publications on the cultic site of Madara, had an important role in introducing the international academic community to the unique and splendid culture of early medieval Bulgaria. The grandeur of the Madara Horseman, the numerous Proto: Bulgarian inscriptions in Greek, and the monumental painted ceramics of Pliska and Preslav commanded the attention not only of Bulgarian and foreign specialists ( archaeologists, art and architectural historians), but of the general public as well. The activities and authoritative periodicals and mono graphic publications of the Archaeological Institute created by B. Filov transformed the institution into a major scholarly center for the study of the Old Bulgarian cultural heritage.
During that period appeared several remarkable studies of individual monuments with emblematic significance for Bulgarian history or of great artistic and historical merit, such as the treasure of Nagy-Szent-Mikl6s (ninth century), published by Nikola Mavrodinov, and the murals of the Boyana church of 1259, examined by Andre Grabar. During this period, important studies were conducted on outstanding examples of Bulgarian manuscript illumination, such as Filov's publications on the Chronicle of Manasses (1345) and the Tetraevangelia of Tsar Ivan Alexander (1356) . In the period between the two World Wars a Hungarian archaeologist, Geza Feher (1890-1955), played a prominent role in the investigation and presentation of the Old Bulgarian historical and artistic heritage, though his views on particular issues remained controversial. Publishing and popularizing the monuments of Old Bulgarian material culture and art had a powerful impact both on academic research and social life in Bulgaria.
The historical and cultural heritage of medieval Bulgaria emerged as the mainstay of national identity and self-confidence, especially in the distressing years after the two national catastrophes, the Balkan Wars and the First World War. Once again, the ruins of medieval towns and strongholds, of churches and monasteries of the medieval past resonated deeply in the Bulgarian self-consciousness with their indications of past glory and grandeur, to heal the wounds inflicted by the disastrous policies of modem times. It is hardly surprising that during that period numerous general studies in almost every branch of medieval studies in Bulgaria saw the light of day, some of which have retained their value to the present. Without doubt, Zlatarski's History of the Bulgarian State in the Middle Ages (1918, 1927, 1934, 1940) holds the place of pride among them. The result of nearly forty years of active research, this unfinished opus (it reaches to the year 1280) epitomizes its author's unparalleled achievement in the study of medieval Bulgarian political history. A sort of encyclopedia in many ways, it is a departure point and a benchmark for subsequent studies. In contrast to K. Jirecek, V. N. Zlatarski subscribed to the notion that a presentation of the history of the Bulgarians must begin with the earliest references to them in the written sources rather than with the history of the eastern Balkan territories in Antiquity. The drawback to his multi-volume work is that it pieces together investigations on particular issues and lacks the organic unity that would have been supplied by an integrated heuristic approach and conceptual organization.
Two comprehensive works by P. Mutafciev, while essentially addressed to the general reader, attempt to make up for that shortcoming. Mutafciev's History of the Bulgarian People (1943-44), which also remained unfinished (reaching to the year 1323), is closer in structure to Jirecek's History of the Bulgarians, but surpasses it in factual content and is compositionally and conceptually superior. The sound argumentation and compelling ideas of Mutafciev's History continue to exercise a strong influence on modem medieval studies in Bulgaria. His Book about the Bulgarians, left in manuscript form and only recently published, is a work of original conception. Indeed, so far it is the only attempt to describe the driving forces at play in Bulgarian medieval history from the vantage points of geopolitics and cultural history; it is an unique example of a sui generis philosophy of Bulgarian medieval history.
The comprehensive history of the Bulgarian Church has been a subject of numerous studies since Marin Drinov's publication in 1869 opened the field for critical investigation. Regrettably few, if any, of these early publications have stood the test of time. An exception in that respect is Ivan Snegarov's History of the Archbishopric of Ohrid (1924-31 ), a remarkable and scrupulously documented work that remains essential. The early studies of medieval Bulgarian law also, proved largely inadequate. The numerous general surveys, which appeared in the form of university textbooks in the first half of the twentieth century, are now obsolete. Despite the scores of specialized publications by Bulgarian and Russian scholars of Old Bulgarian literature, the period left no comprehensive work on medieval Bulgarian literary life and its diverse literary genres. Archaeology and art history, on the other hand, made important advancements towards syntheses. 11 A prime example of that is Andre Grabar's study of medieval Bulgarian monumental painting, which delineated the place of medieval Bulgarian art in the Byzantine-Slavic cultural symbiosis. 12 This work had a defining impact on the evolution of Bulgarian art history.
A distinctive development during the period before the Second World War was an increasingly intensifying interest in the origins and history of the Proto-Bulgarians, which bordered on a sort of academic obsession. Fortunately, the authoritative intervention ofV. N. Zlatarski and several of his followers cooled passions and restored the standard for serious scholarship. That fleeting fashion produced some valuable results, among which the highly erudite work oflvan Shishmanov on the name and origin of the ProtoBulgarians (1900) and important studies by Zlatarski and Feher. The long neglected subject of the economic history of medieval Bulgaria found a talented and dedicated researcher in Ivan Sakuzov (1895-1935). His economic and social studies focused on the relations of Bulgaria with Dubrovnik, Venice, and Genoa, and were based on solid research of unpublished archival material scattered among different collections. 13 Occasionally, the overriding interest in political, ecclesiastical, and cultural history gave way to studies on socioeconomic issues, heretical religious teachings and movements, some of which were presented from a Marxist standpoint. Written unprofessionally, without the requisite knowledge and academic rigor, these desultory attempts did not exert any appreciable influence on the development of medieval studies in Bulgaria.
Bulgarian medievalists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries demonstrated little affinity toward theorizing and the philosophy of history. Many of them received their education or specialized training in Russia, Germany, and Austria. Ideologically and methodologically, they were exposed predominantly to the influence of positivism and the ideographic approach to history. Marxism had initially attracted some eminent medievalists, such as P. Muta:fciev and I. Sakuzov, but with time, they gradually emancipated themselves and drifted away from its postulates. The positivistic leaning in historiography, a conviction in the inherent objectivity and logic of historical events and processes and a belief in the causality in history, were powerfully expressed in 1895 by V. N. Zlatarski in his inaugural lecture at the University of Sofia. According to him, "the historian does not create events, nor can he change their course; they occur, take their course, and follow one another according to natural and historical laws and hence, by virtue of these laws, they group by themselves and define the boundaries of certain epochs and periods." Further, he argued that "chance cannot have a place in history as long as we recognize the existence of historical laws."14 In his historical investigations, however, Zlatarski eschewed his early theories and sought rather to depict Bulgarian medieval history through personalities and events in a strictly chronological framework while looking for particular (geographic, political, ethnic, and other) factors. Zlatarski endorsed the "social school" of Karl Lamprecht and recognized the importance of the cultural processes in historical context. His work, however, remained attached primarily to political history.
Petiir Nikov was an ardent adherent of the critical method of positivism championed by the German historian Berthold Niebuhr. A pupil of Niebuhr's followers, Karl Krumbacher and Konstantin Jirecek, Nikov set as his principal task the pursuit of objectivity based on a critical and unbiased approach to sources. In his appraisal of contemporary historiography, he advocated no theoretical interpretation of history, only a drive toward the statement of facts. The main task of historical studies, in his view, was to reconstruct as accurately as possible the past based on historical sources. In contrast to most Bulgarian medievalists, Petur Muta:fciev showed a marked predilection for a theoretical-philosophical approach to the factors behind the historical processes and to the motivations behind the actions of historical personages. This is clearly discernible in some of his articles and particularly in his books, History of the Bulgarian People and Book about the Bulgarians.
His original although somewhat eclectic views derived from three main sources: his own independent analytical investigations, the Marxist influence in the early years of his career, and exponents of the early school of cultural history (J. Maurer, Jacob Burckhardt, and especially his teacher in Byzantine studies, August Heisenberg of Munich). According to Mutarciev, "History would not have been history if it did not tell the truth, just like no one would have lasting profit from the fallacies they were fed with." In his opinion, "Historical synthesis is the last stage of historical knowledge. It is, however, objectively admissible only if sufficient factual material has been established and accumulated by detailed research.
Without this it has no value and would at best amount to empty philosophizing on things unknown."15 As first among the factors which shaped medieval Bulgaria, Mutarciev recognized the foreign policy and culture of the Byzantine Empire: "Our medieval past will never be sufficiently elucidated and properly understood if, in discussing it, the fundamental and unchanging fact is not taken into account that Bulgarians happened to live in the immediate neighborhood of Byzantium and, what is more, in lands very close to its administrative and cultural center, Constantinople. This factor determines to a higher or lesser degree the most characteristic phenomena and events in our (Bulgarian) early history. Indeed, there is more: our (Bulgarian) proximity to Byzantium has laid down the course of our entire medieval life; the influence ( of the empire) has shaped our historical destiny both as a state and as a culture."16 Mutarciev asserted that geopolitical factors have also played a crucial role in Bulgaria's past.
The mountains (particularly the Hemus Mountains) played a key role in protecting the Bulgarian people; the seas surrounding the Balkan Peninsula defined medieval Bulgaria's aspiration (almost never fulfilled) to extend its borders from sea to sea; finally, the choice of political centers of the state (Pliska, Veliki Preslav, Ohrid, and Ti:imovo ), shaped to a significant extent the Bulgarian geo-political identity and territorial expansion. Assessing the political development and fortunes of Bulgaria, Mutarciev argued _that the sole and permanent trait in Bulgarian medieval history
was the absence of constancy. In his view, Bulgarian history of that period was characterized by leaps and turns, upswings and downfalls, power and impotence. The reasons for all this, he claimed, lie, first, in the pernicious Byzantine influence, and second, in the prevalent spirit of negativism inherent in Bulgarian culture. Even when Mutafciev's generalizations are carried to excess and are at odds with the facts, they are thought-provoking. A case in point is a statement of his where he described the Bulgarians in this manner: "Compelled to fight a life-and-death struggle with Byzantium, we had to catch up and draw level with it. And since we had not the time and peace needed to draw the elements of a higher cultural condition from the principles of our own way of life, we were compelled to entirely abandon the paths of independent creative effort and embark on those of imitation promising easier and faster achievements."17 Excellent theoretical elaborations on the methods of historical science ( and particularly medieval studies) can be seen in the works of the Russian historian Petr M. Bitsilli (1879-1953), who immigrated to Bulgaria after the October Revolution and taught at the University of Sofia in 1924-1948.
Regrettably, his exceptionally insightful studies, which span a wide range from the Latin Middle Ages and Renaissance to nineteenth and twentiethcentury Russian history and literature, had no substantial impact on the work of Bulgarian medievalists. The product of a higher level of philosophical and sociological interpretation of medieval phenomena, his essays offered a new way of thinking about traditional medieval studies. Only in recent years has Bitsilli's work aroused scholarly interest and been appreciated for its contributions. 18 *** Established as one of the leading disciplines in the humanities, proud of their attainments and public prestige, medieval studies in post-Liberation Bulgaria participated actively in the formation of the curriculum of national education, shaping the historical image of Bulgaria and bolstering the awareness of past greatness.
The ascendancy of the medievalist branch of Bulgarian historical studies followed the general pattern observed in other Balkan and European countries. The discipline is represented mostly through the individual achievements of leading scholars in the field rather than judiciously planned long-term team projects. It is for this reason that scholars of medieval Bulgaria failed to accomplish one of the objectives they had repeatedly set for themselves: the compilation and publication of domestic and foreign sources about Bulgaria in multi-volume compendia. Bulgarian medievalists held their dominant place in the humanities for long time; increasingly, however, they were overshadowed by the studies on the National Revival period because of its richer source material and its linguistic accessibility. Medieval Studies between 1945 and the End of the Twentieth Century The outcome of the Second World War and the sweeping political, social, and economic changes that began in its wake, the imposition of a totalitarian communist regime in Bulgaria, and the process of Sovietization had a dramatic impact on social sciences and the humanities in the country. Between 1944 and 1949, a radical ideological realignment took place. The dominance of the Communist Party and the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism were established. A massive reshuffle of university cadres in the social sciences occurred.
Some medievalists changed their ideological positions abruptly, compelled by the need to adapt to the totalitarian political regime established after the Soviet pattern in the country. Others suffered less favorable fortunes. By early October 1944, within a month from the socialist revolution in Bulgaria, B. Filov's Old Bulgarian Art, P. Mutafciev's History of the Bulgarian People, works by G. Feher, and numerous other books were listed in the notorious "List of banned books." Toward the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945, B. Filov, V. Besevliev, I. Dujcev, and a short time after, B. Primov were consecutively dismissed from the university on accusations of nationalism. 19 A new journal, lstoricheski pregled [Historical Review], was launched in late 1944 and became the anchor of ideological change. Bulgarian historical studies were scathingly criticized and branded as "chauvinistic" and "panBulgarian" at discussions, conferences, and meetings in the campaign for "Marxist-Leninist reconstruction."
This marked the beginning of the decline of Bulgarian medieval studies, exiling them from the current trends and topics of European medieval and Byzantine studies. From their preeminent status in post-Liberation historiography, Bulgarian medieval history gradually turned into an appendage to the newly introduced studies of the Communist Party and the most recent Bulgarian history. For a long time, the imposition of Marxist-Leninist ideology and methodology impoverished scholarly activities. The new ideological framework and objectives of medieval studies in Bulgaria twisted the logic of inquiry and produced numerous utterly biased unhistorical interpretations bordering on absurdity. Instead of being primary material for exploration, medieval sources and documents were often used as illustrations to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine.
The chief periodical, Istoricheski pregled, played an active part in this process. A typical case is an article published in 1945 by Alexander Burmov under the title "Feudalism in Bulgaria." Using selected quotations from the Marxist-Leninist classics, combined with a contrived attempt to illustrate them with examples from Bulgarian historical documents, the author tried to prove the obvious-the existence of a "feudal order in Bulgaria"-and to subject its development to general social laws postulated by the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. He also criticized some Bulgarian historians who had failed to recognize the "correct" logic of medieval history in Bulgaria, and whose work was off the party line. 20 In 1946, at a national conference of historians, Georgi Dimitrov, the leader of the Bulgarian Communist Party, assigned great ideological significance to historical studies: "We need our own Marxist philosophy of our [Bulgarian] history like bread and air," he pontificated. In 1948, the national convention of Bulgarian historians disparaged V N. Zlatarski and P. Nikov as typical exponents of "philological formalism" with its characteristic "methodological uncertainties," whereas P. Mutafciev was denounced as the expounder of idealist, nationalist, and fascist ideas.
The reverberations in the press of such ideological branding were even more violent. The forcible ideologization of historical studies during the 1950s was manifested in the general surveys of Bulgarian medieval history. Generations of students and of the general public went through those schematic and dull constructs, which were full of anachronistic pseudo-Marxist terminology and which sought phenomena and processes of socio-economic nature that were irrelevant to medieval Bulgaria.21 In the late 1950s and early 1960s, this blind dogmatic approach and slavery to hackneyed cliches began gradually to be surmounted. The works of such esteemed Russian-Soviet Byzantinists as Alexander P. Kazhdan (1920-1997) and Gennady G. Litavrin (1925-2010), who devoted studies to the socioeconomic, political, and cultural history of Byzantium and medieval Bulgaria, were like a breath of fresh air and exercised strong influence among Bulgarian scholars. In the early 1970s the works of the most distinguished Bulgarian medievalists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were republished-a development which ensured certain intellectual continuity among the different generations of scholars. Interest in the Bulgarian Middle Ages was significantly stimulated in the late 1970s by the national campaign for the commemoration of the 1300th anniversary of the founding of the Bulgarian state.
The celebrations involved series of events and publications which strengthened the prestige of Bulgarian medieval studies. The first two volumes of the multi-volume History of Bulgaria, published in 1981-1982, marked an important departure from the dogmatic approach found in general surveys up to that point. The edition was co-authored by almost all leading Bulgarian medievalists. Its emphasis on socio-political and cultural history set a new trend, shaped largely in response to a shift in the policies of the then-ruling Bulgarian Communist Party and the adoption of a moderate kind of nationalism by the intellectuals of the younger generation, who rallied around Lyudmila Zhivkova (1942-1981), a key political and cultural functionary and the daughter of Bulgarian communist leader Todor Zhivkov. Indeed, by the late 1970s the outdated Marxist-Leninist dogmatism of the generation that had adapted to the regime was gradually fading into history.
It is during that time that medieval studies began to shed their ideological fetters and look to new subject areas. The comprehensive volume on the history of medieval Bulgaria written in 1999 by I. Bozilov and V. Gjuzelev marked the definitive rupture with the onerous legacy of MarxistLeninist socialism that had characterized the preceding decades. By giving prominence to political history, it ushered in the return to the roots of postLiberation medieval studies. It also cast the history of Bulgarian medieval culture and ecclesiastical and state institutions in fresh light. Seen from the point of view of institutionalization of medieval studies in Bulgaria, the period after 1944 brought some signs of a positive renewal: an increased number of specialists in the centers for historical research, systematic approach in long-term research projects, and growing emphasis on the study of primary sources. The surge of new academic institutions and research units with focus on medieval history during that period is remarkable. At the Institute of Bulgarian History ( est. 194 7) of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (BAS), a Section for Medieval History of Bulgaria was set up, the main objective of which was to track down, translate, and publish Greek and Latin sources.
Similar programs in medieval studies were also established at other institutes of the Academy, including the Institute for Literature, the Institute for Bulgarian Language, the Institute for Art History, and the Institute for Music Studies, as well as the Institute for Balkan Studies founded in 1966. As a result, the leadership that the St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia had enjoyed in the field of medieval studies was now taken over by the various institutes of the Academy. The establishment of the University ofVeliko Tiimovo (1963) and the affiliates of the Archaeological Museum in Veliko Tiimovo and Shumen (1976) led to the formation of regional medievalist centers. The Manuscript Department at the St. Cyril and St. Methodius National Library also became an active unit in the study of medieval manuscripts. Another advancement in medieval studies was the establishment of the Cyrillo-Methodian Research Center at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in 1980. In 1986 the Center for Slavo-Byzantine Studies was founded, in affiliation with the University of Sofia.
The Center, named after the late Bulgarian medievalist Ivan Dujcev, has a manuscript collection, a rapidly expanding specialized library, and its own series of publications. Parallel to the establishment of new institutions dedicated to medieval studies after the war, a nUlllber of specialized periodicals and series appeared, which have acquired both local and international renown. Among these are Byzantinobulgarica, Kirilometodievski studii [Cyrillo-Methodian Studies], Palaeobulgarica, Pliska-Pres/av, Starobulgarska literatura [Old Bulgarian Literature], and Tsarevgrad Turnov. Research on medieval subjects is also published in regional university yearbooks and established academic periodicals, such as Istoricheski pregled [Historical Review], Archaeologia, and Etudes balcaniques, among others. Unfortunately, the lack of comprehensive bibliographical reference guides of recent periodicals and the boom in historical publications in the last few decades make it increasingly difficult to follow the development of the discipline.
The prestige of medieval studies during the later decades of the twentieth century can be largely credited to the unprecedented scale of research in archaeology and philology. Both disciplines brought to a light significant amount of new material about the history and culture of medieval Bulgaria. Among the remarkable achievements of Bulgarian archaeology are the excavations at the old capitals of Pliska, Veliki Preslav, and Turnovo, and a number of medieval strongholds, settlements, and necropolises which provided insight into everyday medieval life and invited lively scholarly debates. 22
The erudite synthetic works of Krilstyo Mijatev (1892-1966), devoted to medieval Bulgarian architecture, and of Stancho Vaklinov ( 1921- 1978) on early Bulgarian material culture, were the result of many years of field work. 23 Perhaps the most promising development in medieval studies in Bulgaria during the late twentieth century has been the systematic collections of source material about Bulgarian history. Never before had such abundant, diverse and valuable source material been made accessible to specialists and the general public. These projects have paved the way for future advanced studies. An outstanding contribution to the current corpus of historical texts has been the series lzvori na bulgarskata istoriya [Sources of Bulgarian History], presenting a comprehensive, multi-volume ( eighteen so far) edition of Greek and Latin documents about medieval Bulgaria. 24
Compiled by members of the Section for Medieval History at the Institute for Bulgarian History, the volumes incorporate the efforts of different generations of Bulgarian medievalists. The increasing importance of textual sources is also attested by the numerous critical editions of works by renowned men of letters in medieval Bulgaria that have been published, as well as editions of individual literary works from the period. These include the edition of the works of Clement of Ohrid (d. 916); the discovery and publication of new works of Bishop Konstantin Preslavski (late ninth-early tenth century); the edition of the Law for Judging People (late ninth century); the analytical study and classification of the apocalyptical-historical works in Old Bulgarian literature and the marginal notes of men of letters from the tenth to the fifteenth centuries; the complete edition of the works of Konstantin Kostenechki ( d. 1431 ); and published volume of the Bulgarian Anonymous Chronicle of the fifteenth century.
A compendium of Old Bulgarian written musical works has also been published for the first time, filling a substantial gap in source studies.25 Several exemplary catalogs of collections of ancient Greek and Slavic manuscripts from the St. Cyril and St. Methodius National Library, the Library of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and from Rila and Zograph monasteries, among others, have been compiled. 26 Old Bulgarian manuscripts in numerous foreign book depositories were cataloged.
The substantial increase of diverse sources, the instrumenta studiorum, on medieval Bulgaria, their integration into the research process, and their wide dissemination may rightly be considered the greatest achievement in Bulgarian medieval studies of the second half of the twentieth century.
These sources have allowed the discipline to embark upon a new phase in research and have provided a more integral perception of medieval Bulgarian civilization. An impressive wealth of O Id Bulgarian and Byzantine numismatic and sphragistic monuments is now also available in expertly compiled compendia.27 The recent publications of the Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions in Greek and of Old Bulgarian Glagolitic and Cyrillic epigraphic monuments have furnished authentic and extremely valuable written material.28 Those advances in Slavic paleography, codicology, epigraphies, and sphragistics are truly representative of the notable achievements and discoveries of Bulgarian medieval studies. The thematic range of the studies of the Bulgarian Middle Ages in the first decades after the Second World War was dramatically affected by the imposed communist ideology.
Yet, a number of studies conducted during that period made significant contributions to the field and still hold their value today. Two monographs, the first dedicated to social and economic relations in Macedonia, and the second to the medieval Bulgarian town, stand apart with their impressive erudition and creative approaches.29 Archaeological discoveries and excavations conducted on a large scale stimulated studies of particular towns, strongholds, and urban/rural agglomerations. These studies demonstrate originality and indicate an attempt to systematize research findings and establish continuity in the historical processes that shaped medieval Bulgarian settlements.3 ° Formulaic studies of class struggle, which had been prescribed by the political ideology, produced little of value. However, the investigation of socio-religious teachings and movements led to the publication of insightful studies on the Bogomil doctrine and its diffusion in Europe during the medieval period.31
The interest in the institution of the ruler as well as the offices and positions of authority in the medieval Bulgarian khanate/kingdoms, produced series of excellent publications.32 Another thread of exemplary studies follows the genesis and formation of the medieval Bulgarian nationality, a topic first broached by V. N. Zlatarski. 33 Several valuable monographs examined particular reigns and addressed Bulgaria's relations with other medieval states and ethnic groups. 34 Besides the major contribution made in this area by I. Dujcev, in his numerous studies and articles, there are the erudite prosopographical studies of I. Bozilov on the Asenid dynasty and the Bulgarian presence in the Byzantine Empire: both will surely endure in the annals of historical research. 35 The ideological, thematic, and methodological transformations in Bulgarian medieval studies preceded the political changes in the fall of communism in 1989. Yet the restrictions imposed by the straight jacket of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the severe limitations on the mobility of scholars and ideas before 1989 left vast areas in the history of medieval Bulgaria underexplored. The current state of medieval research in Bulgaria is the subject of another article.
By way of conclusion I would like to outline some of the essentials necessary for the education and research of the next generation of Bulgarian medievalists. First, there is the necessity of a specialized manual for undergraduate and graduate students, which would provide a convenient and up to date orientation in the diverse areas of medieval Bulgarian history and culture. Second, the publication of a systematic bibliography of medieval studies in Bulgaria is needed. Third, we lack both a manual on Old Bulgarian paleography and epigraphy and a compilation of an authoritative reference work on medieval Bulgarian letters and literary culture. All this notwithstanding, I would like to conclude with the succinct Latin dictum: in principio sunt /antes. Much remains to be done in the collecting and publication of written and material sources about medieval Bulgaria, bringing new material to the discipline. Futura sunt in manibus hominum scientiae.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق