Maria Todorova - Historiography in Bulgaria

8/12/2019 Maria Todorova - Historiography in Bulgaria

1/13

Historiography of the Countries of Eastern Europe:Bulgaria

M A R IA T O D O R O V A

T h r e e y e a r s a f t e r t h e e u p h o r i a over the East European revolution, which in

Bulgaria is called more modestly and soberly the changes of November 10,

1989, a tentative attempt to look back and assess the repercussions of the

transformations on different spheres of economic, political, and intellectual life

seems justified. O n the tho rny road to pluralism, the greatest achievement is the

degree of openness. This is most noticeable in the mass media, particularly in

the proliferation of a free press. T ru e, th ere are already unm istakable signs that

this period may be remembered as the short honeymoon of the (almost abso-

lutely) free press, but the fact that Bulgarians are enjoying an unprecedented

degree of freedom of expression for the first time in over a century is beyonddoub t. Some o f the high est expectations in this new atmo sph ere o f ope nness have

been placed on his to riogra phy, given the centrali ty o f his tory in the national

consciousness, its unrivaled role as justifie r and legitimizer, and the d eg ree o f its

former subordination to the political demands of the state and the ideological

hegemony o f communism.

To outline the main aspects of this transformation as it affects the historical

pro fessio nth e questions o f methodolo gy and histo riographyper se, the institu-

tional organization o f historical scholarship, an d the problem o f personnel this

analysis will focus on the following questions: In what sense can one speak ofradical or revolutionary changes in historical scholarship? To what extent can

con tinuity be discerned? W here is the balance between the optimistic progno sis of

a longawaited intellectual outburst and the gloomy prospects of prolonged

stagnation?

T h e chara cter of Bulgarian historical scholarship at presen t is shap ed m ore by

the traditions within the discipline and by the problems o f hum an potential than

by the legacy o f th e political and ideological conju nctu re o f th e past fo rty years.

Bulgarian historiography began to professionalize itself after the creation o f an

ind ep en den t Bulgarian state (de facto in 1878, de ju re in 1908) and the

foundation of its scholarly institutions. Until then, historical writing had been

dominated by enthusiasts (clergymen, teachers, local dilettanti) who passionately

served the ideas o f cultural revival and political ind epe nd enc e thro ug h historical

knowledge. Thus Bulgarian historiography was shaped both by its romantic

pre decessors, whose noble (and only) aim was to stir national consciousness and

1105


2/13

1106 Maria Todorova

legitimize national aspirations, an d by the influence of the positivist and rom antic

his toriographies then prevalent in Europe.1

The periodization of Bulgarian his toriography mirrors the main s tages of

poli tical life in the country .* Betw een 1878 a n d th e end o f W orld W ar 1, the

historical profession functioned within the framew ork o f the newly bo rn an d

developing nationstate, with a strong and optimistic irredenta. Historical schol-

ars hip o f this perio d becam e, for the first time, organized in scholarly institutions,

an d its prim e efforts were directed tow ard the discovery, recovery, and systematic

study o f the his torical heri tage. T he Bulgarian Academy o f Sciences (known

u nd er this nam e since 1911) was, in fact , an outgrow th o f the Bu lgarian Literary

Society, founded in 1869 along the lines of the existing European academies. It

focused its initial efforts on the humanities: ethnography and folklore, archaeol-

ogy, his tory, languag e, and l i terature. By the tu rn o f the century, it a lso suppo rted

significant activities in the sciences. Despite limited funds, the Society/Academy

finance d the research o f individual scholars, gave awards, spon sored publications,

and directed some truly impressive undertakings (for example, the recording of

over 200,000 folk songs by the Academys Musicology Institute).5

The principal focus of historical research was medieval Bulgarian history, a

choice influenced partly by the high level of European (especially German)

medieval studies of the period but mostly by the desire to reveal the glorious

his tory o f the two medieval B ulgarian em pires . Th e basic task o f historiography

was the sh ap ing o f national consciousness an d selfesteem on the basis o f historicalknowledge. From its beginnings, Bulgarian his toriograph y dev eloped according

to the idea that history is an active educational, cultural, ideological, and political

factor in social life. In this respect, the Bulgarian case was in line with the

dominant views on the functions of his torical scholarship in the contemporary

Balkan and other European countries . Any differences would be found in the

degree of poli t ic izat ion and ideologization and in the at tempts to look for

al ternative his torical app roaches an d m ethods of presentat ion.

T he interw ar period was shape d by the severe blow dealt the national i rreden ta

and was a time of acute social and political conflict. The historical professionbecam e m ore specia lized, while th e fo cus o f sc hola rly research b ro a d en ed to

include gre ater a t tention to the ancient and m ode rn periods, especial ly the p eriod

o f national revival in the eightee nth an d nineteen th centuries, primari ly B ulgar-

ian cultural his tory and the s truggle fo r emancipation by both the chu rch an d the

1O n Bulgar ian h is tor iography before the c rea tion of an indep end ent na t ionsta te , sec Bonyu

Angelov. Stvremenmtsi na Paisii (Sofia, 1964); DimitSr Tsanev, Osnovni napravlcniya v bilgarskataistoriografiya p rez pirvata polovina X IX v. ,"Izvestiya na bilgarskoto istorichesko dn uhts tv o . 29 (1974).

2 For gen eral w orks on Bu lgarian h istoriograp hy, see Problemi na bilgarskata istoriografiya sUdVtoraia svflovna voina (Sofia, 1973); Veselin iladzhinikolov, "Istoricheskata v Btlgariya pri

sotsializma: Etapi i nasoki na razvitie." htorichtski prtgUd. 45 (1989) : 3 19 . The re a rc nume rous

studies on differen t period s o f Bulgarian historiography an d on individual historians in thehis toriographical sec tions of th e m ajor annua ls an d journa ls dea l ing wi th Bulgar ian h istory : Izvestiya

na biigarsoto istorichesko druzJiestvo. htorieheski prtgUd, Izvestiya na instituia po istariya. Etudes historiques,

Vtkovt. For a detai led historiographical review o f a cen tral aspect of Bulgarian historical scholarship

that is represen tat ive of th e profession as a wholethe Ottom an period an d i ts legacysee M aria

Todorova, Die Osmanenzcit in dcr bulgarischen Gcschichtsschrcibung seit der UnabhSngigkeit ."Die Staalen Sudosteuropas und die Osmanen. H. G. Majer, ed. (Munich, 1989).

s Istoriya na Bi lgarskata akademtya na naukite (Sofia, 1971).

A m e r i c a n H i s t o r i c a l Re v i e w O c t o b e r 1 9 9 2


3/13

Bulgaria 1107

nation. The center of his torical research became Sofia Universi ty, founded in

1888. R esearch and the teaching o f his tory (which was nominally u n d er the

HistoricalPhilological Faculty) was on e o f the ch ief tasks o f the university as a

whole . After the turn of the century , there emerged an ent i re genera t ion of

professional h istoria ns (tra in ed bo th at hom e an d abroad) w ho tau g h t a t Sofia

University and whose research emphasis was mostly on ancient and medieval

history. Despite the universitys formal academic autonomy, its dependence on

state support was made clear several times by political pressures exerted on it

during the interwar period. A short l ived experiment with a private Free

University revealed the serious constraints that such institutions incur in small

co un tries with lim ited resou rces.4 Alongside the d om inan t positivist and rom antic

trends in Bulgarian his toriography, some at tempts were made (though, on the

whole, marginal to the mainstream) at a reassessment of the historical process

from o th er viewpoints (M arxist, psychological, racist). T h er e was no reevaluation

o f the basic goals an d tasks o f his tory as they h ad been form ulated in the previous

period . 1 'h e d eg ree o f poli ticiz ation o f historic al scholarship , a ch arg e usu ally

reserved for the Communist period, was extremely high.5

Finally, the p eriod a fter W orld W ar II saw the imposition of M arxis t m etho d-

ology. Th is shift was principally reflected in m ore intensive research o n problem s

and periods heretofore comparatively underdeveloped: social and economic

history (which has p rod uc ed , probab ly, the best work from this period), as well as

the history o f different types o f revolutionary m ovem ents and class s truggle. A t

the end o f the 1940s and the beginning o f the 1950s, a num ber o f dogmat ic

truths were introd uce d (about the inherently reactionary role o f the B ulgarian

bourgeoisie , fo r exam ple, th e artific ia l jux tapo sition o f the revolutionary and

educational t rend s in the national s truggle to the de trim en t o f the la tter , etc .) ,

while traditional, welldeveloped and welldocumented research topics were

neglected (especially cultural history a nd the his tory o f ideas othe r tha n revolu-

tionary).

How ever, this period coincided, m ore o r less, with the brie f caesura o f the

domination of the Marxist discourse in what I have called elsewhere thenational(is t) continuu m o f the nineteenth and twentieth centuries .6 From the end

o f the 1950s, there was a steady retu rn to the them es tradit ionally dev eloped by

Bulgarian his toriography. The al legiance to doctrine was usually provided by

lipservice introductions, afte r which the rem aind er o f the w orks consisted, m ost

often , o f solid studies u nco ntam inated with ideological cliches. By the 1980s, even

* Istonyx na Sofiiskiya unrversitet"Kliment Okhndskt" (Sofia, 1988). William A. W alsh, "Politics and Sch olarship in Bu lgaria," Balkan Stud ies, 8 (1967): 13849.

p resen ts th e resu lt s o f a sociologica l s tu dy o f th e m em bers o f t h e B ulg aria n A ca dem y o f S cicnce s an d

the i r re la tionship with the governm ent in the in tc rw ar per iod . Am ong o the r th ings, he m ent ions thefact that th e first presiden t of the A cademy (Ivan Geshov) and i ts last prew ar presiden t (Bogdan

Filov, a m ajor archaeologist an d an cient historian) were prim e m inisters while serving as hea ds o f theAcademy.

6 M aria To dorova . Ethnici ty , Nat iona li sm an d the C om m unist Legacy in E aste rn Eu rope" (paperp resen ted at th e con fere n ce T h e Soc ia l Leg ac y o f C om m unis m " in W ashin gto n D .C ., F eb ruary

1992). Th e pape rs of th is conference a re be ing publ ished in a separa te volume by the Inst itu te for

SinoSovict Studies. Sec also T od orov a. "T he Co urse and Discourses o f Bulgarian N ationalism."EastEuropean Na tio na lism, Peter Sugar, ed. , American Universi ty Press (forthcoming).



4/13

1108 vlaria Todorova

the l ip scrvicc had been discarded. At the same t ime, Bulgarian his toriography

was completely untouched by the developments in Western Marxism after the

war.7

Fo r at least two decade s, in the 1960s an d especially in the 1970s, a continuo usescalation took place in th e national feelings of all gro up s within the intelligentsia,

b u t p rim arily am on g the liberal a rts a n d particularly acute ly am ong h isto ria ns a nd

writers. This intensification of national feeling reached its culmination in the

1980s. Given the significant de gre e o f symbiosis between intelligentsia an d party

in Bulgar ia (com pared to some o f the o th er Eas t Eu ropean countries, wh ere the

divorce had occurred earlier),8 it would be an understatement to say that these

feelings were only well m onitored and m anipulated by the party authori t ies ; they

were, in fact, sometimes cautiously, more often overtly, supported and directly

inspired by the political elites.H istorians, in p art icular , took upo n themselves the voluntary task o f protect ing

an d prom oting the national interests an d the "national cause, which enabled

them to espouse the false but selfsatisfying illusion that they were taking a

diss ident posit ion. T h e rehabili ta t ion and glorificat ion o f the g reat f igures o f the

m edieval pastthe scores of khans an d tsars who had created a s trong Bulgarian

statewere seen as means for countering the pernicious effects of what was

defined as "national nihi lism and overcom ing what seemed to these scholars the

anonymous, antiindividual, deterministic, and overly schematic methodological

ap pro ac h o f socioeconomic M arxist history. T his project was perfectly acceptable

to the Communist leadership because i t saw in such his toriography the ideal

legitimation o f its au thori tarian and , o ften, totali tarian ambit ions. T h e central ized

state o f the past with its stro ng individual leadership ap pea led to them as a m odel

to emulate . The only ambiguity in this respect affected the s trong man of

Bu lgarias politics at the e nd o f the nin eteen th c entury , Stefan Stambolov. It was

his overt nat ionalism shap ed in defiant opposit ion to Russian encroachm ents , not

his poli t ical intolerance and heavyhanded dictatorship, that made him an

unlikely hero in the existing circumstances.9The l if t ing of ideological taboos after 1989 and the general a tmosphere of

openness are expected to produce a reversal in longheld or imposed views in

historiograp hy , as well as to boost the fre e spirit o f inqu iry an d original thou gh t,

im prisoned he retofo re in the shackles o f official doctrine.

7 T h e easiest way get an accurate idea o f the sta te o f Bu lgarian historical scholarship in the past

decades is to rea d the m ost ambit ious collective un dertak ing o f the historical profession: the

multivolume History o f Bulgaria . I t eng aged the effo rts o f practically al l historians of B ulgaria . O f thep la nn ed fo u rte e n volu m es, seven hav e a p p e are d th u s far: htoriya na Bilgariya,vol. 1 (Sofia, 1979), on

antiquity; vol. 2 (Sofia, 1981), first Bulgarian kingdom; vol. 3 (Sofia, 1982), second Bulgarian

kingdom; vol. 4 (Sofia, 1983), fifteenth to eighteenth centuries; vol. 5 (Sofia, 1985), eighteenth to

midnineteenth century; vol. 6 (Sofia. 1987), 18561878; vol. 7 (Sofia, 1991), 18781903.* O n the pecu liar posit ion o f the Bu lgarian intell igentsia within the poli tical context , see Maria

To dorova . " Imp robable Maverick or Typical Conformist? Seven Th ou gh ts on the New B ulgaria ."E asltm Europe in Revolut ion, IVO Banac, ed. (Ithaca. N.Y.. 1992), 16063.

0 Even be fore 1989. Stambolov was the object o f passionate discussions, but th ere was no serious

monograph on him despite the fact that no formal taboo was in place. A book has now beencom pleted by F.ncho M atecv, Dirihaxmikit Stefan Stambolov (Sofia, 1991).

A m e r i c a n H i s t o r i c a l Re v i e w O c t o b e r 1 99 2


5/13


6/13

1110 Maria Todorova

an d th a t , there fore , th e fac tua l h is tory o f these per iods n eed s rewr i t ing . But th is

is c e r ta in ly no t t r ue fo r t he pe r iods be fo re t he t u rn o f t he ce n tu ry , i n wh ich

in tens ive a rch iva l w ork has prod uce d a mass ive nu m be r of pub l ished sou rces .15

M oreov er , in the 1970s an d 1980s, a wel l funde d, tho ug h not suffic ient ly eff ic ient,c am pa ign b ro ug h t i n to t he cou n t ry m ic ro f ilm o f a r ch iva l m a te r ia l conce rn ing

B ulgar ia f rom pract ica lly all m ajor wor ld a rch ives .H In fact , from the po in t o f

v iew o f the d eve lopm ent o f its auxil ia ry d i sc ip l inesbibl iography, pa leog raphy,

d ip lomat ics , numismat icsBulgar ian h i s tor iography can boas t a fa i r ly sound

b ase .15 W ith o u t in an y way d iscla im ing th e im p o rta n ce o f f u r th e r a rch ival w ork,

i t seems tha t the concent ra t ion on an adequa te a rch iva l base d i sp lays no t on ly a

p re o cc u p a tio n w ith c o n te m p o ra ry is sues b u t, m uch m o re in te restin g ly , a cen tra l

charac te r i s t i c o f any empir ica l schola rsh ip : the fe t i sh i sm toward the a rch ive ,

toward the newly found fac t , toward the event .T h i s p a t t e rn is co r rob ora t ed by an analys is o f t he o th e r conce rn : t he zones o f

s il ence . T o a g r ea t ex t en t , the zones nam ed a r e s imp ly an e l abo ra t ion on the

them e o f na t iona l ( is t) an d ideologica l taboos : the assessm ent of the ro le o f the

bo u rgeo is ie in th e in te rw a r p e r io d ; th e t ru th a b o u t th e re la tio n s o f B u lgaria

wi th Russ ia / the USSR; mos t impor tan t , the dramat ic and t rag ic per iods in

B ulgar ia s re la tions w ith i ts ne ighb ors , which is the eup hem is tic ren de r ing o f the

resen tm ent fe lt toward B ulgar ia s i so la tion and f rus t ra ted i r red en ta (pr im ar i ly the

Macedonian ques t ion) fo l lowing the Balkan wars and the two wor ld wars , and

which a f te r 1944 was a them e to be con t ro lled an d som et im es s i lenced in o rd e r top re v en t accusa ti on s o f rev ision ism o r to p ro m o te a new , cla ssbased, n o n n a tio n a l

d iscourse . All these a reas w ere par t ial ly o r com ple te ly cen sored for ideo logica l o r

poli tic al exp ed iency . Sti ll, th e n u m b e r o f p u b lish ed w orks o n th e M acedon ian

qu es t ion , which was forb id de n unt i l the m id1960s an d th en " re leased , is t ru ly

am az ing and f a r su rpas ses t he nu m ber o f supposed ly l eg it im a te t op i cs .16

In fac t, the soca lled zones o f s il ence w ere o f pass iona te c once rn to h i s tor ians .

A g rea t dea l o f m a te r ia l was accum ula ted ; t h e r e we re nu m erou s and in tense

p riv a te d iscussions a m o n g co ll eagues; th e in te res ted re sea rc h e rs w ere in p la ce,

ac tua lly w ork ing on the sub jec ts , an d on ly wa i ti ng fo r t he opp or tun i ty t o expa nd

'* See f ir s t an d forem ost the ser ies Chu zhdi izvori za btlgarskata istoriya,wh ich began to be pub l i shed

in t he 1950s a s a con t inua t ion and r e f inem en t o f t he p r e w ar e ffo r t s an d co n t inues t o is sue t oday

f rom the p r e s s o f t he B u lga r i an A cademy o f Sc iences i n a n um ber o f m u l t i vo lume subse ri e s: Greek,

L atin , Byza ntine, Ara bic , Turkish. Jew ish, Rom anian, H unga rian, Serbian, Austrian, German, a n d Russ ia n

Sources fo r B ulgaria n History. Add i t iona l ly , t he r e a r c two ser ie s o f tr ave l e r s accoun t s on Bu lga r ia and

the B a lkans pub l i shed by two p re s se s: N auka i i zkus tvo and Otcches tvcn F ron t . Seve ra l dozens o f

vo lumes have been pub l i shed du r ing r ecen t decades p r e sen t ing co ll ect ions o f au tho r s (F rench .

Eng l i sh . A us t r ian and G erm an . H un ga r i an , A rm en ian . Rom an ian . Czech . Russ ian ) a s well a s

indiv idual t rave lers .

14 T he se microf ilm col lect ions a re k ept in th e In s t i tu te of His tory and in the C ent ra l S ta te Archives .

11 See Bilgar skata istoricheska nauka : Bibliografiya (Sofia, 1965 ). o f which six volum es hav e been

p u b lish e d to d ay co v e rin g th e p e r io d 1 96 0198 9 ; th e o n g o in g Bib liograph ic des tt udes balkaniques(Sofia.

1966 ) : Rep ertoire d'ttu des balkan iques, 1 96 619 75, vols . 12 (Sofia. 1983 84); M. Stoya nov . BU garska

l izrothdm ska knizhnina,vo ls . 1 2 (Sof ia , 19 5759) ; an d nu m erou s exce ll en t b ib l i og raph ie s on sepa ra t ehis tor ica l f igures , mass mo vem ents , im po r tant events , an d h is tor ica l problem s. I sho uld a l so men t ion

he re t he exce l len t an no ta t ed ca t a logues o f a r ch iva l m a te ri a ls f rom d i f f e r en t co l lec ti ons .

19 Fo r an exce l len t ove rv iew o f B u lga r ian h i s to riog raphy on t he M acedon ian qu es t ion in t he

p o s tw ar p e rio d , see S tefan T ro e b s t , D iebulgar isch -jug os tauische Kontroi-rrse um M ak ed onien, 1 9 6 7 -1 9 8 2

(M un ich . 1986), 221 37 .



7/13

Bulgaria 1111

their research further and publish without restraint. Only the ability to publish

open ly was lacking, the final act, legitimate pub lication, th e sha ring o f the final

p ro d u c t with an in terested public, an d th is was rightly resen ted .

The same is t rue for topics such as the assessment of the bourgeois ie , the

glorif ication and overestimation o f the role o f the party, an d BulgarianRussian

relat ions. T hese them es were discussed, some o f them even in the op en (like the

his torical discussion about the designation of the bourgeois ie of the interwar

p erio d an d the poli tical regim es as fascist, au th o rita rian , m il ita ry o r m onarchic

dictatorships , or parl iamentary democracies) . The explosion of art ic les and

m on og raph s on problem s and individuals o f the period between 1878 an d 1944,

which is beginning and will l ikely continue in the near future, is not a new

intel lectual t rend . I t s imply is the com ing into th e ope n o f these longcherished

themes. Likewise, it is not new in the sense that it had not been totally repressed.In the 1970s and 1980s, a con siderable num ber o f serious works were published

dealing with sensitive questions. However, the authors always ran the risk that

their work might provoke someone's disapproval , and selfcensorship was in

pla ce, esp ecia lly w hen som e works w ere a rbitrarily d eem ed unsu itab le fo r

public ation.

W hat is t ruly rem arkable abo ut the p roliferat ion of works on the prewar

p e rio d today is th e continu ity o f discourse an d id eas. Even w orks th a t a ttem p t to

p resen t a revis io nis t view an d appraisal a re , to a g rea t ex ten t, a d irec t con ti nuation

of work accomplished in the preceding decades. The only thing that has real lychan ged is the open ness , the lack o f tension, the d rop pin g o f the periph rast ic so

typical o f the previous pro se.17 Th is , o f course, should no t be un derest im ated: it

is undo ub tedly a s tep in th e r igh t direction.

A lthough the l if t ing o f the ban on "forbidd en them es will result prim ari ly in

the filling in some gaps in factual knowledge (important in itself), the chief

p u rp o se o f these new w ritings will be th e ir cathartic effe cts on th e repressed

national psyche. In some cases , the present period already assumes a mirror

image to th e p rew ar pe riod as a little golden age o f its own. Any the m e tha t has

been considered fo rb idden o r negle cte d in the la st d ecades hold s a stro n g

attraction. O n th e oth er ha nd , the new open ness does not affect the p ractice o f the

pro fession per se : the quest ions of his torical theory and methodology and the

m odes o f discourse. It is no t surprising , in fact, tha t these problem s have not been

en um era ted un d er the ru bric zones o f s ilence. T he zones of si lence contained

fields that w ere alive and vigorous bu t that were supposed to be u nd er co ntrol; to

p a rap h rase , they w ere z ones to be s ilenced. T h ey d id not contain field s t h a t have

been th e em bod im ent o f g en u in e in te lle ctual si lence an d th a t a re th e real zones

o f silence.

The only methodological quest ion raised in the programmatic art ic le on

Bu lgarian his toriography is the deleterious influence of the m onopoly o f Marxism

with its class and party bias and the only proposal that we should be offered

17 Fo r a good exam ple o f this continuity, see Plamen T svetkov and Nikolai Pop petrov. Ktm

tipologiyata na politicheskoto razvitie na Bilgariya prez 30te godini,IsU niehesh prtgled, 16 (1990). Asolid piece o f rese arch, this artic le displays all the c haracterist ics m entioned above.



8/13

1112 Maria Todorova

altern ative s in the pr ese nt theo retical vacu um .18 As a conc rete step, Isusov

suggests seminars, public discussions, and roundtable talks on the fate of

historical scholarship u n d er totalitarian regimes, the values o f historical science,

the m ethod s, principles, an d m odels o f historical research. But, when it com es tothe formulation of themes for these seminars and research, his specifics revolve

faithfully aro u n d the zones o f silence: Nation an d N ational Policy, T he

Bou rgeois Political System in Bu lgaria, Ty polog y o f Bulgarian Society afte r the

Second W orld W ar, Historical Science and the T otalitarian S ystem.

N aturally , th is d ocu m ent, fo r all its program m atic an d represen tative character,

reflects the limitations of its author, his generation, and his immediate profes-

sional surro un din gs. A close survey o f the main Bulgarian historical jou rn als fo r

the post1989 period, however, reveals practically no interest on the part of

yo un ge r h istorians in th e ways o f the profession.,w No t surprisingly, a basiccontinuity of themes and styles persists. The exclusion of the previously obliga-

tory ideological m aterials, com m em orations o f annive rsaries o r public figures, is

merely a mechanical change; even before, such pieces looked like unnatural

accretions on th e m ain bo dy o f the publications. As for occasional essays by

his torians published in the daily press , they usually ei ther bemoan the past or

settle p erson al accounts.

Yet i t would be unfair to overlook some at tempts , especial ly on the part of

younger historians, to tackle important problems. In the mid1980s, a systematic

at tem pt was m ade to introduce th e main tren ds o f W estern his torical thou gh t byway o f translations. A n antholog y was published tha t p resen ted theoretical essays

from m ajor Eu rope an a nd Am erican his torians o f the twentieth ce ntury.20 A

series was plann ed in 1986 to be pu blished by Sofia U niversity Press, an d w ork was

in p rogre ss on translations o f Max W eber, Marc Bloch, an d Jacq ue s Le GofF, as

well as several gene ral historiograph ical w orks on W estern historical scholarship.

Unfor tunate ly , market cons idera t ions and the present shor tage of paper have

indefinitely po stpo ne d th e publication o f these tran slations.21

Praiseworthy as they were, these initiatives were fa r beh ind what had been do ne

by B ulgarian ph ilo sophers th ro u g h o u t th e 1970s and 1980s in o fferin g thereading public a systematic view of the diversity of philosophical thought. Still ,

15 Isusov, "H istorica l Sc iencc," 7.19 T h re e jou rna ls have been exam ined for 1989, 1990. and 1991: Istorieheski pregUd, Etudes

balkaniques, a n d Bulga rian Historical Review . I have not had the op po rtunity to see the first issues for1992. Istorieheski pregledis writ ten en tirely in Bulgarian. I t h as published the only art ic le dealing with

a methodological problem, though in a narrat ive and rather unhelpful way: Georgi Boyadzhiev.

Istoricheskata nau ka i kon kretnite proyavi na obshtestvenite zakon om em osti , htoricheski pregUd,46(1990): 5. Etudes balkaniquesis published in the m ajor Euro pean languages (English. French. Germ an,

and Russian) but has a m ore special ized profile of B alkan studies.Bu lgarian Historical R ev iew gives a

good idea in English of the p resent sta te o f Bulgarian historiograph y. Sec also a newly publishedjo u rn a l in English:Bulgar ian Q uarterly(19 91) whose aim is to reflect the continuing transform ation.

It publishes materials in a broad variety of fieldspolitics, economy, law. and ecologybut a

substant ia l nu m be r o f the cont r ibutors a re h is tor ians , and a good ha l f of the a r t ic les a re on h is tor ica l

topics.m IstorUsi za istoriyata (Sofia , 1988). (Th ree years earl ier , a volum e was published only for the use

o f history students) .

11 Instead , the prefere nce is for interw ar m aterials, especially mem oirs dealing with th e m onarch

an d his ento ura ge , and with national issues, tha t is, readin gs that in these difi iciut days can st il l f indan avid public ready to buy them.



9/13

Bulgaria 1 1 1 3

oth er e fforts , t ruly heroic at a t ime w hen quest ions of everyday l ife and often

survival predominate, are being made to keep intellectual curiosity aflame. For

exam ple, the D epartm ent of H istory at Sofia has organized two conferences, T h e

Crisis of History" and The Individual in the Historical Process," and intends to

continue this type of activity on an annual basis.22 Similar efforts have been

initia ted by the you ng his torians in the insti tutes of the Bulgarian A cademy of

Sciences a n d in the archives.25

T h e i d e o l o g i c a l s c r e e n h a s b e e n l i f t e d , bu t th e expected revolu tion in the

profession is not tak in g place. It is no t only trad itio n th a t is to bla m e. T h e re are

serious obstacles aris ing from the s tructure of his torical scholarship and the

character and quali ty of the individuals making up the his torical profession.Following 1945, important structural changes took place in the organization of

historical scholarship. T he se postwar mod ifications followed the Soviet practice of

dividing research and education, shift ing the center of research from the

university to the academy. Historical research within the Bulgarian Academy of

Sciences was organized in several institutes: the Institute of History (1948),

Institute o f Archaeology (1949), Institute for E thno grap hy (1949), Institute for

Balkan Studies (1964), and Institute of Thracian Studies (1974), totaling a few

hundred scholars and staff altogether. Two semischolarly institutions affiliated

with the Academy , the C en ter for B ilgaristika (1974) (whose prim ary goal was thep ro m o tio n o f B ulgarian scholarship abroad by ex tend in g adm inistrative an d

scholarly help to foreign scholars) and the Center for Demography (whose

activities, u n de r that m isleading title, we re direc ted tow ard th e study o f and

contacts with Bu lgarian 6migrs).

The Department of History at Sofia Universi ty functioned as the main

edu cation an d research center (between 1951 a nd 1972 as pa rt of the H istorical

Ph ilosophy D epartm ent) w ith a staff o f several dozen scholars. In 1963, history

a lso became p ar t o f the curr iculum o f the newly found ed Univers ity o f T lrnovo.

The short l ived at tempt in the 1970s at integrat ing the universi ty departmentswith the respective institutes of the academy proved to be a superficial bureau-

cratic move, but ties were nonetheless in place, and, at least as far as Sofia was

concerned, an exchange of ideas and scholars between the two inst i tut ions

co ntinu ed . O rganizationally ap art were several ot h er institutions with a historical

profile: th e Institu te fo r M ilitary H is to ry; th e ne tw ork o f cen tral, loca l, an d

inst i tut ional archives; and museums and l ibraries , many of which produced

separate publications o f the ir own.

Finally, a system o f ideological institutes was crea ted on the basis o f the form er

School for H igh P arty Education: th e Academy o f Social Sciences an d G ove rn-m ent u n d er the d i rec t auspices o f the Centra l Comm ittee of the Com m unis t

22 Ivan PIrvcv, Lichnosua v istoricheskoto razvitie, Is torkkesk i pregled. 46 (1990): 7.

25 Kuinvana Koneva. "Con tinuity in Science and Between G enerations."Bu lgar ian H istorical Review,

2 (199 1); M iriyana Piskova, Chetvirta mladezhk a nau chn a sesiya na dir/h av nitea rkh ivi ," Tstoricheskipreg ltd. 46 (1990): 6; Darina Vasileva, Erste nationale Jugendschule filr Balkanistik." Bulgaria nHistorical Rev iew. 18(1990): I .



10/13

1 1 1 4 Maria Todorova

Party. I t consis ted o f a n um be r of research a nd educational enti ties (am ong them,

the In st i tute for the H istory o f the Bulgarian Com m unist Party) employing

severa l hu nd red people, a good m any his tor ians amo ng them.

At p resent, now here in E as tern E urope (except for the fo rm er East Germany,

w here the system is being rapidly dism antled in or d er to be adjusted to the West

German model) have the institutes of the Academies of Science been dissolved,

despite nu m erou s discussions of their s tructure , efficiency, an d fu ture form and

size. T he Bu lgarian Academy o f Sciences, an e norm ous research insti tut ion that

de p en ds entirely on the state budg et, is going th ro u g h a grave financial crisis. Cu ts

in person nel and research budg ets put into quest ion the very exis tence o f some

institutes. T h u s far, h owev er, the position o f the historical institutes has no t been

que stioned. Even in today s polarized atm osp he re, wh en ideological co nf ron ta-

tions m ost often conceal generat ional c lashes and caree r s truggles , an o verriding

reflex for survival has generated a consensus among the his torians in the

Academy about the necessi ty of preserving their inst i tutes . Should they close

dow n, it is clear th at edu cational institutions, even if they were to exp an d, wou ld

not be able to absorb all the displaced specialists.

Sofia U niversity, by contrast, has received the au tono m y it has long soug ht and

hopes to resume the uncontested central place i t enjoyed during the interwar

pe rio d . T h e serious fin ancia l dif ficult ie s in th e educational institu tio ns have been

som ew hat relieved by the introd uction o f tuition fees. A lthoug h state institutions

are challenged by the mushrooming private and foreign inst i tut ions, his tory isusually marginal to the curricula of these new institutions. Still , i t seems very

unlikely that in a country with practically no large private fortunes and virtually

no established emigration or lobbyists abroad, institutions without state backing

would surp ass statesponsored establishm ents.24 At the m om ent, the Academy

an d, to a lesser ex tent, th e u niversity are at an organizational standstill. It would

be p re m a tu re to forecast fu tu re developm ents, which a rc entirely d e p en d e n t on

the overall economic situation and also on the ability of the rival academy and

university lobbies to secure s tate supp ort in th e sho rt run .

T h e radical cha ng e in fun ding has affected the ideological disciplines: theim pe nd ing o r already accomplished closings of o r drast ic cuts in the ideological

inst itutes has sent the n um bers o f unem ployed historians soaring. T h ere is a lso

the virtual c losing down of univers i ty programs such as the History of the

Bulgar ian Co m m unis t Par ty and the His tory of the Co m m unist Par ly o f the

Soviet Union.25 However, in the latter case, the professors have not been

term ina ted bu t abso rbed by closely related disciplines: the H istory o f M odern

B ulgaria, H istory of Russia an d Soviet U nion," and o thers , with the result that

the tran sform ation has affected only the universi ty curriculum , not the bearers

and t ransmit te rs o f knowledge. In the long run , the d isappearance o f thesehistorical courses o f study will, in itself, have an impact o n th e new g enera tions o f

university grad uates. In the sho rt run , however, the sh ift is m ore symbolic, hiding

b eh ind th e fa gade o f ti tles o f courses an d chairs th e con tinuity o f personnel.

24 As o f Au gust 1992. the fate of on e o f these newly em erged inst itutions (in Varna) is st il l a t stake.25 '1 o th er ideological disciplines, such as s cientific com m unism , dialectical m aterialism, political

economy, were served by philosophers awl economists.



11/13

Bulgaria 1 1 1 5

This short outl ine of the problems facing the reorganization of his torical

scholarship in Bulgaria is not m eant simply to provide a backg roun d to the central

issue o f new them es and new m odes of writing in historiograp hy. It is just that

these problem s (and the p roblem of funding) preoccupy his torians at the presen tmoment and, in the near future, are l ikely to overshadow other concerns about

the craft.

The other aspec t wi th an immedia te bear ing on the charac ter and qual i ty of

Bu lgarian his toriography is the quest ion o f individuals and their influence. Who

created the his tory o f the period? How w ere the scholars and teachers selected

and appointed? How did the political transformations following 1989 affect

them?

Because history was considered an ideological discipline, it suffered from the

various filters the regim e app lied to sensitive aspects o f a pe rson s backg roun dsuch as fam ily history, political affiliation, an d loyalty. T h e univ ersity was subject

to strict requirements, since it was considered an institution disseminating

immediate knowledge and thus more responsible for the indoctrination of the

next generation. Despite this responsibility, in the atmosphere of widespread

nep otism a nd lack o f anony m ity typical for a small coun try, real victims o f

ideological taboos in th e sp he re o f historical scholarship were rare . A t most, on e

can speak o f the psychological dam age inc urred by people who w ere subjected to

lengthy and demeaning scrutiny or, more seriously, who were not al lowed to

teach but were absorbed by the research institutes. Without minimizing the

debil i ta t ing effects o f personnel control and o f censorship on the m oral c limate in

the discipline as a whole, one could argue that, with a few exceptions, the

historians p racticing the ir cra ft were represen tative o f the pool available for

selection.

T h e r e f o r e , t h e u s u a l e x p l a n a t i o n for the s tate o f Bulgarian h is toriography

ideological an d social pressu res is plausible but not necessarily correc t. It is tru ethat the ha rd sciences were disproport ionately favored in the quotas for intern a-

tional ex chan ges o f scholars, especially with the West. T h e same a pplies to access

to info rm ation, particularly the allocation of library fu nds. Part o f this favoritism

was legitimized by the contention that ideological disciplines should not be

subjected to ideological con tagion from abroa d. In th e 1970s an d 1980s, this

exp lanation had become an ideological euph em ism for the widely held b elief that

the humanities were a dispensable intellectual occupation, whereas the sciences

were at the cen ter o f the industrial an d technological revolution, and the co untrys

l imited resources should therefore be al located to them. This argument hasserved, however, as an easy way for Bulgarian historians to excuse their one

dim ensionality. A fter all , philosophy a nd especially linguistics proved to be m uch

m ore susceptible to "contam ination by foreign and un ortho do x ideas, a lthoug h

they had been subjected to the same ideological and financial limitations. After

1989, a surprisingly sophisticated p ostm ode rnist discourse bro ke o ut in the p ress,

re pr es en ted chiefly by scholars in philosop hy, literary criticism, an d linguistics. It



12/13

1 1 1 6 Maria Todorova

is tru e that the re was practically n o dialog ue betw een the d ifferen t social sciences,

bu t it is no t only the ato m iz ation o f society (inte llectu al life inclu ded), so typical o f

Eastern E urop e in general , that is to blame. Bulgarian his toriography rem ained

outside the m ain trend s o f the historical profession a nd did no t even try toconfront the great debates , or even to get informed about them, a s i tuat ion

attr ibutable m ore to the quality of people who entere d the discipl ine and to the

traditions that it has followed closely from its inception than exclusively to

external circumstances.

The same reasons that explain the preferential t reatment of the sciences

l ikewise account for the gre ater p art o f the top high school s tuden ts in the 1960s

an d 1970s en terin g th e disciplines o f physics, biology, o r chemistry. A nd the top

grad uates o f the foreign language high schools chose courses in diplomacy an d

foreign trade, preparing for posts in the managerial and the government el i te .T h ere was a reversal of this t rend in the 1980s, when hum anit ies again became

fashionable am ong high school graduates , b ut his tory did no t seem to be the most

favored am ong them . I t is t ru e that a considerable nu m ber o f s tude nts enrolling

in his tory courses had the intention, up on g radu ation, o f en tering the p arty and

the adminis tra tive bureaucracy, but th is grou p reduced even fu r the r the nu m ber

o f those who app roac hed his tory as a vocation. In large coun tries l ike the Un ited

States or the Soviet Union, trends like this would not have had such a decisive

effect on the c har acte r o f the respective disciplines, b ut in a small coun try like

Bulgaria, in which the university curricula presented practically the entirespectrum o f scholarly disciplines , the ebb an d flow of s tuden t interest was of

p a ram o u n t consequence.

Also significant was the small n um be r o f linguistically p rep are d students,

especially the graduates of the foreign language high schools. A small country

can no t afford to supply its scholars with a pro pe r samp le o f worldwide scholarly

achievements in translation or, indeed, even in the original languages. The only

world language that was easily accessible to Bulgarians was Russian, and

although it offered an adequate window on global output in the sciences, its role

a nd use in the hum anities, pa rticularly history, was m ore re stricted because o f itsaccompanying ideological element. All this is not to say that the historical

professio n lacked e ru d ite schola rs w ho were cult ivated linguis ts an d in te lle ctuals

o f integrity. Bu t it lacked the critical mass o f such individuals ne cessary to

influence th e e ntire discipline.

Today, there is a basic continuity of personnel in the somewhat shaky

orga nizational struc ture o f the historical discipline. T his is only na tural w hen the

focus of public attention is on changes in the polit ical and economic sphere. T h e

tradit ion in historical scholarship is not one o f drast ic t ransform ations. T he m uch

m ore p rofou nd changes a f te r W orld W ar I I , which in a score o f o th er academicdisciplines produced a major reshuffling, left the historical profession with

com paratively small o r superficial shifts, as the old g u ar d clumsily and em ba r-

rassingly accommodated i tself to the new hegemonic doctrine. The recent

personnel changes th a t have ta ken pla ce in th e lead ersh ip o f in stitu tes and

universi ty departments , a l though presented as radical , have not produced, and

do not seem to have the potential to produce, significant innovations. Further-

A m k r i c a n H i s t o r i c a l Re v i e w O c t o b e r 1 9 9 2


13/13

Bulgaria 1 1 1 7

more , f inancia l cons tra in ts an d a c urren t f ree /e in prom ot ions and aw arding o f

academic deg rees will addit ionally h am per the chances for mobil ity an d c om pe-

tition within the historical profession, limited as they have been heretofore.

To summarize, a l l usual obstacles to change, except for the l i f t ing of the

ideological screen, are in place: limited resources, favoring of the sciences and

o th er critical technical skills, con descen sion to h istory as th e serv an t o f politics,

an d the com peti tion o f new and fashionable discipl ines in th e hum anit ies , such as

political science a n d busin ess and m anagem ent. I f th e re is to be a revolu tion in

historiography, it will have to take place within the framework of the existing

structure and among exis t ing his torians. Most important is the tradit ion within

which Bulgarian historiography has evolved.

Bo rn in the age o f nationalism , developing in the context o f the nationstate and

as on e o f its most im po rtant pillars, Bu lgarian historiog raph y has evolved almost

exclusively according to the precepts of what was considered to be its duty to

shape the national consciousness and thus fulfill an important social function.

T his overwhelmingly didactic character o f B ulgarian his toriography , alongside its

obsession with national history',26 makes it a selfcontained and parochial disci-

plin e, with clearly defined an d lim ite d functions. O th e r functio ns o f his to ry, su ch

as its cognitive value, its satisfaction of human curiosity or the need for self

know ledge, even its oth er political functions, have been far less realized. B ulga r-

ian historiograp hy do es p rod uce works o f high qu ality within its own selfdefined

and confining sphere, but it is fair to say that, as a whole, it operates within the

framew ork an d traditions o f the R ankean wie es eigentl ich gewesen. Questions

like was es eigentlich bedeutet" seem as yet to be marginal, if raised at all.

An exc eption, in (his respect , is the serious deve lopm ent o f Balkan studies, w hich pu ts thescholarly analysis in a bro ad er and co m parative context. As for general E urop ean o r wo rld history,the few a t tem pts a re of a predom inant ly popula r iz ing na ture .


Maria Todorova - Historiography in Bulgaria

Documents

Transcript of Maria Todorova - Historiography in Bulgaria