The Bulgarian Quest for Origins 1879s –1914 (1918)
1
Stefan Detchev
During the nineteenth century the construction of modern national ideologies took
place. Part of this process was “the search for racial antiquity”, for “ancestors”, “origin”,
and “common descent” (Smith, An. 1983, p. 180; 1981, pp. 66-67; 1986, p. 147; 1991,
pp. 21-22.; Gellner, 1983; Eriksen, Th. 1993; Barkan, 1991, p. 17). Moreover, it is well
known that ethnicity is determined by the people who are in question. Ethnicity depends
on common descent, “blood”, a shared history, or myth of origin. Of course, selfawareness is the key ingredient here. It is this self-awareness that was determined by the
“story” concerning the origin of the people. That was the reason why the quest for origins
grew in importance in European culture. The word “ancestors” was used more broadly. In
the early nineteenth century it appeared the notion of an Ur-Volk, the Aryans, who had
supposedly migrated from northern India to invade and populate the European continent
in prehistoric times. By the mid-century the category was established across European
scholarship. European ethnic and cultural origins were detached from the JudaeoChristian tradition and the authority of the Bible. Transposing linguistic affinities to
ethnic ones, virtually all Europeans were Aryans but because of interbreeding some were
less than others (Burrow, 2000, pp. 106-107). At the turn of the century the “Aryan
Myth” was central not only in Germany but also in Britain and the United States. It was
seductive to the European mind because it posited a racism underwritten by an
increasingly reputable science.
The quest for origins is closely connected with the increase of nineteenth century
race science. The proponents of what was viewed as race science believed that in the
concept of “race” they held the key to history, culture and civilization (Fenton, 1999, p.
5). As D. Blackbourn emphasized arguments about “race” in the discriminatory sense
became more common in prewar Europe (Blackbourn, 1998, p. 432.). One should keep in
mind that in the context of growing nationalism and scientific revolution “race” and
“racial differences” had political objectives. Especially nationalism was sanctioned by the
growing repute of biology and evolutionary theory (Barkan, 1992, p. 17). “Race” was
perceived primarily as a scientific concept (Fenton, St. 1999, p. 69; Christie, Cl., 1998, p.
36). Especially after the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71) explanations in racial terms
became popular. Even Darwinian evolutionism and genetics, provided racism with what
looked like a powerful set of “scientific” reasons for keeping out strangers. The late
nineteenth and the very beginning of the twentieth century was characterised with antiliberal shift in politics as well. Moreover, the intellectual environment of the period was
impregnated with cultural pessimism, growing militarism and the emergence of a new
imperialism. The scientific “racial” discourse achieved increasing power and nationalism
became more racial. Social Darwinism was omnipresent throughout European higher
culture. As a result, contemporaries began to use the terms “race” and “nation” as
interchangeable. It appeared amalgam of biological theories of social change known since
1890s as “Social Darwinism” (Weindling, P. 1989, p.56). “Nation” was portrayed in
organicist terms as a social organism with its historical development and unity.
2
In the Bulgarian case after 1879 among the Bulgarian political elite circulated
ideas and concepts of the “people” (“nation” etc,) originating in the French
Enlightenment, French Jacobinism, Aglo–Saxon liberalism and civic humanism.
However, the Herderian idea of Volk (people) that formed a Blutsgemeinschaft
(community of blood), the Volksseele (national soul), and the Volksgeist (national spirit),
prevailed and the Tyrnovo constitution (1879) bear witness to those alignments. That is
why the idea of “national character” remained as the essence of a nation that remained
fixed once and for all. In this regard, in the quest for origins many authors essentialised
the alleged “national characteristics” and the supposed “national uniqueness”. In fact, in
the period mentioned Bulgarian national ideology was strongly influenced by the model
of German Romanticism as well as its Russian Slavophile version (including N.
Danilevski) and E. Renan’s concept about the nation. Nevertheless, the German
Romantic insights really prevailed and it marked the notions about the medieval times as
well. Despite Renan’s idea that “nations are not something eternal” and they are
“something fairly new in history”, having in mind the Balkan peninsula, the Bulgarian
scholar and politician M. Balabanov regarded the nations as something eternal. He wrote
explicitly how the “different peoples fall silent” during the “4-5 ages under Turkish
domination” keeping their “tribal affiliations” when began to “awake” during the
nineteenth century. Moreover, this statement was made despite the fact that according to
Balabanov the Bulgarian nation still had to be forged. Of course, this notion was part of
Renan’s concept. As Martin Thom underlines Renan have never denied the particular
contribution of the French revolution for proclaiming the existence of a nation of itself.
However, he believed that the principle of nationality was both the creation of more
recent period (1813-15) and of a more distant one concerning Germanic invasions
(Thom, Martin, p. 29).
The Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 and the establishment of the Modern
Bulgarian State (1879) just strengthen virtually axiomatic idea about the Slavic origin of
the Bulgarians as well as the self-perception of the Bulgarian elite that the Bulgarian
nation was part of the “Slavic tribe”. Even in the beginning of 1880s, many
representatives of the Bulgarian political class already shared the theory about “the
Turkic” origin of the Old Bulgars in private discourse or as far as “science” was concern.
However, as P. R. Slaveikov admitted in a private conversation with K. Irechek, they
were alerted of its public recognition because of “political reasons”. This firm
identification with the Slavic pedigree and avoidance of the "Tartars" or "Ugro-Fins"
was one of the ways to emphasize that the Bulgarians were "Slavs" and "Europeans". In
this study I choose the period roughly from the 1880s until the Balkan wars and the First
World War, including so called “long nineteenth century” chronology. In this regard,
one should keep in mind that many trends that were typical for 1880s and 1890s, and
especially about the first decade of the new century, managed to unfold during the war
period. Then the behaviour and culture of the nations involved became to be explained
through their origin and ancestors.
Most of the previous Bulgarian historiography had interpreted the problems
concerning Bulgarian origins imprisoned within the nationalist essentialist perspective
itself and the “primordialistic” approach to ethnogenesis. For the majority of the
Bulgarian scholars there is a linguistic concept of the “Slavic family of languages.” For
them there exists a group of languages that linguists agreed to call “Slavic”. However, the
3
”Slavs” never existed in any meaningful sense, although it is perfectly reasonable for us
to discuss and analyze the extent to which languages which we classify as Slavic were
spoken at any given time. There is never likely to have been a “Slavic nation” if that term
implies an association of populations speaking different languages and possessing some
coherently unified social organizations. The notion springs from the erroneous view that
there is a familial linguistic relationship between populations and polities. Moreover,
there is no contradiction in denying the existence of Slavic ethnicity, yet in recognizing
the importance of ethnicity among those whom we call the “Slavs”. Of course, “Slavs” is
an ethnonym often recorded to us. However, whether there was any awareness of unity
and solidarity beyond the local level. The term “Slavs” was externally imposed by the
Greek and Roman geographers. There is no reason to suppose that those groups thought
of themselves as related in any way, or called themselves “Slavs”. The population
designated as “Slavs” was not a single “people” or an ethnic unit. The notion of “Slavs”
is relevant only for designation of a language family.
Methodologically my study will be informed by the insight that ethnic categories
could thus be considered as concepts in the process of construction, much more plural,
complex, and subtle than the traditional concepts in social sciences and humanities. One
should underline that even if “Slavic” languages were spoken in some places they may
not have been called, or recognized as, “Slavic” by their speakers. Perhaps “Slavs” was
just the name that Roman and Byzantine authors used to call them. These descriptions
were geographical and cultural. It did not indicate that these people spoke Slavic or called
themselves “Slavs” as ethnonym.
Moreover, the ethnic/“racial” language and many writings on “race” by some
Bulgarian major politicians, writers, journalist, and academicians are largely ignored in
Bulgarian historiography. How did Bulgarian medieval period was appropriated, used
and misused by contemporaries in the end of the “long nineteenth century”? Perhaps one
of the reasons is that the appropriation should be hidden because it is very closed to the
new one. In this regard, leaving aside for a moment the question whether there is such a
thing as a “race”, I am going to subscribe to the prevailing view, that an ethnic group
should be sharply distinguished from a race in the sense of a social group that is held to
possess unique hereditary biological traits that allegedly determine the mental attributes
of the group (Smith, 1991, p. 21). Moreover, I will be against any essentialist view of the
languages themselves or of the mental powers of their speakers. I will be also against any
insights that took into consideration the genetic composition of any population. This
could lead us to some simplistic classifications in terms of racial or ethnic units. And last,
but not least, as A. Smith (1991, p. 22) emphasized it is myth of common ancestry, not
any fact of ancestry (which is usually difficult to ascertain), that are crucial. It is a fictive
descent and putative ancestry that matters for the sense of ethnic identification.
4
Moreover, often language could be equated with ethnicity but this observation
does not hold for language families. The notion of Indo-European language family is just
scientific term. The term “Indo-European” has adequate meaning only in the strictly
linguistic sense. It is a construct in the field of historical linguistics. There had never been
ethnic unite which could be properly described as “Indo-European”. It could be supposed
that there was “Proto-European ancestral population” before the separation of IndoEuropean languages, but the idea that those people thought of themselves as a welldefined ethic group is highly doubtful.
THE goal of this study is to investigate political instrumentalization of the quest
for origins in the political public sphere as well as in supposedly scientific discourse.
- I am going to investigate how thinking about medieval period in Bulgaria was a
combination and a mixture between German Romanticism., E.Renan’s insights and N.
Danilevski’s philosophy. Historiography was irrevocably bound up with the ideas of
nation and nation-state. There was an insight of an ”organic nation”. The organicism
somehow presupposed genetically transmitted differences and genetic inheritance. I will
demonstrate how important and fundamental historiographic notions about a
Blutsgemeinschaft (community of blood), Volksseele (national soul) and Volksgeist
(national spirit) entered in the presumably scientific disciplinary language. In the
Bulgarian case, I will reveal how one can come across organicist teleologies inherent in
romantic and Schlegelian concepts of the tribe-nation”. Following this German Romantic
fashion it was believed that nation is defined in terms on biological origin. For organic
nationalist ethnic views of history prevailed and the romantic quest for “our true
ancestors” was essential to the cause of the nation. Thus several myths of ethnic origin
appeared combining historical fact and legendary elaboration. They will be part of my
study.
- I am going to demonstrate the great influence of German Romanticism (Herder)
and quest for origins. I am going to trace how it was obvious in different journals like
“Сборник за народни умотворения, наука и книжнина”, “Периодическо списание на
Българското книжовно дружество”, “Известия на Историческото дружество”,
“Bulgarian review”. I will discern how Herderian notion of “history of fatherland” really
prevailed among the professionally trained historians and specialists in humanities. I will
try to reveal the role that was played by the Bulgarian Historical Association that was
established to study most of all “history of the fatherland” in 1901. In fact, following the
German model of Volk, the Bulgarian national view addressed the entire Bulgarian ethnic
community, a Volk united by blood as well as language and culture. As in the German
case, in fact, the notion of Volk could be attached to both democratic and racialist/ethnic
interpretations of Bulgarian history.
- I will demonstrate how even the French liberal history underpinned in the
Bulgarian context a kind of history that was called to demonstrate how the unified and
homogeneous community somehow remain the same despite the process of historical
change over centuries.
- Special importance I will dedicate to the role of the translations made from
Russian language (books, brochures, newspaper and journal articles) that continued to be
a major source for Bulgarian public to be acquainted with the current Western European
thought about medieval history and quest for origins in many places. This strong Russian
mediation is very obvious in the Bulgarian newspapers and journals at the time.
5
- I will reveal how some traces of racial thinking widespread in Europe at that
time entered on the pages of the Bulgarian academic journals. I will demonstrate how
according to M. Balabanov, “the peoples from this white race” were called “with justice”
“the peoples of history”; how referring to Bluntschli, M. Balabanov quoted that “they
create the destinies of the world” and celebrated their “intellectual development and their
energy.” Following quoting Bluntschli he represented how ”these peoples” were
separated into “two grand families: Semitic and Aryan, or the so called Indo-German…”
(p. 705).
- This study is going to explore to what extent Renan’s reception in Bulgaria
influenced the Bulgarian quest for origins as well. It will demonstrate how M. Balabanov,
translating E. Renan, in order to describe ethnic or ligusitic differences instead of “tribe”
used “раса” (“race”), word that he describes as “foreign”, together with other factors
forging the nation as “language”, “geography”, “religion” etc. I will show how
Balabanov felt a need to clarify how those 4-5 main tribes or races were different in color
of the body, yet different in their intellectual qualities, in their capabilities or inabilities
for state organization, in their historic development or centuries-old stagnation” (p. 705.).
- It deserves mentioning that the Bulgarian historians and scholars were committed to the
national paradigm but they were rarely openly racist. I am going to demonstrate how the
Bulgarian university professor M. Balabanov defintely opposed racial theory himself. I
will sho how more strictly speaking he was against the hierarchy among the “white race”
or “Indo-German race” according to their “intellectual development” and “state life”. (p.
706). He wrote that, treating the topic of “races”, some authors had already made some
exaggerated statements. (p. 706) Balabanov quoted Bluntchli who subscribed for the
“inity of human kin” and “common human nature even in the lowest tribes” emphasizing
the importance of this unity for “every one civilized state.” (p. 706).
- I am going to demonstrate how the professionalization of the Bulgarian science
was not a linear process and it had its discontinuities. I am going to demonstrate many
other instances when university scholars were against racism. I will reveal how they
represented their liberal views explaining the differences in the institutions of different
people with “geographical” and “cultural” factors, not with racial ones. I am going to
address how if there was nationalism in Bulgarian authors like in Ranke’s case it was
characterized by enlightened universalism. Enlightenment and cosmopolitanism were
typical to Herder and Bulgarian humanities at the time.
- I am going to demonstrate how M. Balabanov referred to N. Danilevski in order
to attack one racial theory according to which the Slavs were racially inferior in
comparison with the peoples from “Aryan” or “Semitic tribes”. He quoted Danilevski’s
idea that the future belongs to the “Slavic tribe”. (p. 707). Later referring to Emilè
Montèynt, Balabanov attacked the idea to search in the origin of the peoples for the
“secret of their destinies” and the role of the “race” in historical explanation (p. 710).
- I am going to investigate different theories - that the Bulgarians or “Bulgars” of
Asparuh were "Tartars" or “Turks” and contemporary Bulgarians “Slavinized Tartars”.
However, the idea about the general Slavic origin of the Bulgarians overwhelmingly
dominated in the “Revival period” and the notions about "Tartar", "Hun", "Turkic",
“Fin” or "Hungarian" origin of the “old Bulgars” were totally rejected or cover with
negligence. I will demonstrate with many details how especially in the periods 18861896 or 1915-1918 some Bulgarian politicians and journalists tried to find an escape
6
from the idea of Slavicdom. In this regard they evoked the origin of Asparuh's Bulgarians
and underlined it with its different versions – Tartar, Fin, or Turkic. I am going to
represent the typical racial language that spoke about Bulgarian “talent”, “innate
instinct”, and “gift”. In this regard, I am going to represent many examples when
different virtues were depicted as qualities inherited by “our ancestors” represented as
Asparuh’s Bulgarians. I am going to give examples how when it was confessed that “in
our veins there is certain Tartar blood” this “blood” was depicted as a determinant of the
military qualities of the Bulgarians. I am going to reveal many examples when some
virtues were represented as intrinsic and inherited by “our ancestors” referring to
Asparuh’s Bulgarians. I will try to reveal how these versions were evoked within a
context when the racial language became more visible in the Bulgarian public sphere. In
these cases “temper” and “qualities” of a “people” were represented not as products of
history, culture or social conditions but as determined by “descent” from a certain “race”.
I am going to represent how these examples also indicate that the vision of racial mixture
was seen as something superior and not leading the nation to “degeneration”. In fact, the
other elements of Bulgarian origin coming from Protobulgarians were seen as something
that situated contemporary Bulgarians higher than the “Pure Slavs”. The multiple origin
gave a chance to the Bulgarian politicians and journalists to depict richer transmission of
some values. Moreover, one should keep in mind that the question of whether language
relationship corresponded to biological relationship was hardly discussed at that time. It
was believed that all peoples belonging to the same linguistic family had the same
ancestors.
- I am going to represent how influenced by contemporary views and some
Hungarian authors some Bulgarian writers emphasized in suitable political and
international context how Proto-Bulgarians and Hungarians (Madzhars) were close by
origin and how the Southern Slavs were without state organization before the Coming of
Proto-Bulgarians who were their saviors.
- I am going to study the process of Bulgarization of medivel history and
underestimation of other ethnic elements in the Bulgarian quest for origins. I am going to
reveal many interesting examples of ethnicization or racialization of monarchical fugures
and their imaginary connections with contemporary Bulgarian population through
“Bulgarian blood”. Moreover, how “pure” “Bulgarian” and “Slavic” this “blood” was? It
is very well known that Proto-Bulgarian Dulo dynasty had had monarchical lineage that
had come from the designation “Bulgarian” not as an ethnonym but as politonym.
Although identifying themselves with Bulgarian political and monarchical tradition, the
ethnic descent of King Samuel and his brothers is contestable and perhaps Armenian. The
same political identification was also valid for the three dinasties of the Second Bulgarian
kingdom – Asens’, Terters’ and Shishmans’. However ethnically they were
predominantly of Kuman descent.
- I am going to devote special attention to the popular periodical journals and their
special status at the time. It should be known that those periodical journals were very
prestegos and they were read by pedagogical, high schools or secondary schools teachers.
- I will pay attention to school textbooks as well. There the interpretation of
“ancestors” also followed the version that had been basically established in the late 1860s
and the beginning of 1870s. The problem of the pedigree of the Protobulgarians was not
emphasized as well. “Finic Bulgarians” were easy melt into the Slavs and “Bulgarian
7
people” was coming from a “pure Slavic tribe”. It is evident that there were no
governmental efforts to make changes in those interpretations as well. I could
demonstrate how at turn of the century one can come across the renewed importance of
the Aryan myth in a world-wide context that was visible in some Bulgarian textbooks for
the first time. That is why one can see descriptions of the “Slavs” represented already
explicitly as “Aryans”.
- Studding the Bulgarian newspapers, journals, books etc., special emphasis I will
put on art images and imaginations. How did the Slavs are represented? What about
Proto-Bulgarians? What is the relation between those images and the image of the Balkan
man? Very special emphasis I will put here on gender and masculinity studies perspective
that could enriched my approach. I am going to demonstrate how the quest for origins
and the racial explanations and speculations, like in many other cases at that time in
Europe, were charged with a gender perspective. (some salient influences by authors like
Jules Michelet and Gustave Le Bon, Hippolyte Taine, Ch. Darwin). - the intellectual
fashion in Europe at that time - heredity and racial generalizations that were full of
prejudices - the very category of race was dressed up with the authority of contemporary
science and references to foreign authors.
- Special importance I will pay to the topic that was not that part of the histoirical
or historiographical studies. It is very interesting for me to follow the changes in the
politicised journalistic discourse. In this regard, one should take into consideration that
national ideologies played a crucial importance in public political domain. That was the
reason why the intersection between “ancestors”, ethnogenesis, science and politics was
quite obvious. Here I am going to trace diffirent regimes of speech and different
contraversial representations of Bulgaria, once defined as “Slavic” and Bulgaria defined
as a product of ethnic diversity. It is very interesting to trace how did Bulgarian authors
imagine and appropriate Bulgarian “descent” and the vision of Bulgarian “ancestors”.
- I will try to reveal the social meanings attributed to differences that were
supposed to be “racial”; that took into consideration some racial or ethnic characteristic
concerning Bulgarian origins. I will not miss to emphasize the interactions and the
energies between different domains – politics, literature, journalism, and science. I am
going to represent many examples that connected the quest for origins with the notions of
social groups, castes and classes influenced by racial language and the fashionable idea
about the conflict of races within nations.
- I am going to demonstrate how in the very end of the nineteenth century and the
beginning of the twentieth, following the European fashion and notions about medieval
period, “race” as a term, and evolutionary, and medical language influenced by Ch.
Darwin, entered intensively in the historiographic discourse and especially politics,
literature, and journalism, even more than professional historiography.
8
- I am going to represent Zlatarski’s scientific evolution as a representative
example for the developments of the Bulgarian medieval historiography at the time. He
was not able to avoid a cluster of contemporary Herderian and German Romantic
terminology that concerned the national development and the process of nation-building.
Talking about the medieval phenomena, in his text he spoke about “raising of national
spirit” and “the establishment of the popular ideal”.
- I will pay special attention to Iv. Shishmanov who marked the fundamental shift
in treating the problem of Bulgarian ethnogenesis. Not discussed in the history textbooks
the problem of the origin of Ptoto-Bulgarians was already represented in academic
writings in the end of nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. Mentioning
the long debated hypothesis of “Turco-Tartarian origin” of Protobulgarians – and the
“development of linguistics” he did not miss Bogdanov’s insight that the “contemporary
Bulgarian craniological type” was the one of the “very mixed population.”
- This direction in the academic field brought to debates about ethnic duality and
even plurality in Bulgarian history. I will reveal how academic scholars were still caution
in applying racial methods for resolving social and cultural issues. As the mentioned
above overview of the historical discourse shows, the notion of possible “racial mixture”
in Bulgarian origin was not totally unclear for the Bulgarian public. The most prestigious
anthropological studies at the time saw contemporary Bulgarians as “very mixed
population”. It was also considered obvious from the first glance. (S. Vatev)
- I will present overwhelming number of examples how in journalism, literary
history, non-academic historiography, literature, these ideas were much more received
and they became part of new directions in the thematization about Bulgarian origin,
political and cultural figures, different segments of the Bulgarian population and the way
of “mapping” of some regions. In this regard I am going to present a rich collection of
thematizations about the possible Bulgatroan ethnic origin. I will demonstrate how on the
eve of the wars the term “race” or “потекло” (“lineage”, “stock”) was used much more
often. It coincided with the increased appropriation of the term “nation” together with
“nationality” and already less “народност”. It was combined with constant usage already
of racial terms like the “Bulgarian tribe” referring to “blood” and the proverb “Blood
does not become water”. Гидиков, 1911, IX, с. 1236. However, even now it was the term
“tribe”, not “race” that was very telling. The Bulgarian public was aware that “it almost
does not exist nation in which some race to be kept pure.” (Гидиков, 1911, II, 143).
According to St. Gidikov: “Noone can deny that for biological (! S.D ) and historical
conditions, some groups had been created that are called nations, differing one from
another in specific psychology.” (Гидиков, 1911, II, с. 144). He added as well the
following: “The ostensible sameness hides deep differences in racial temperament or the
historically established psychology of every nation.” Гидиков, 1911, II, с. 145).
Moreover he spoke about “national peculiarities”, “national character” seen openly as
“biologically” determined. (Гидиков, 1911, II, с. 146.) Gidikov speaks about the “Slavic
tribe”, “racial community” of the Slavs that predetermines “close psychology”.
(Гидиков, 1911, III, 279). Contrary to Renan’s view, ethnographic principle was
celebrated because without “political unification”, according to Gidikov, there would not
be possible to have “complete national unity with respect to spirit and culture”.
(Гидиков, 1911, III, 284; Гидиков, 1911, IX, с. 1239) I will demonstrate how on the eve
of the war the model of German Romanticism with the notion of “genius” and Fichte’s
9
insight about personal character carried in the blood were part of Bulgarian public
discourse concerning the quest for origins.
- I am going to represent a huge variety of examples thematizing on Bulgarian
origin, They will come from university theacher in history of Bulgarian law P. Odzhakov
who represented women as symbolic bearers of the nation and speculate about young
females virginity; about “Slavic” female that was endowed with virtues; about female
chastity that was not preserved among the Ancient Thracians; how it was explained as a
supposed vestige of an ancient Thracian custom.
- I will present very many concrete examples written by authors like Kiril Hristov,
Anton Strashimirov, Petar Neykov and others based on the way contemporary Bulgarians
normatively imagined their “ancestors” and the real knowledge about ethnic complexity
of the Bulgarian past. I will investigate with many concrete examples how symbolically
the “Slavic” was supposed to mark what was closer to the European norms of politeness
and morality. What was “ill-looking”, “dark”, “yellow”, “Mongolian”, “Protobulgarian”,
“Oriental-Tartarian” was supposed to designate what was considered “Asian”,
“barbaric”, “primitive”, “plebeian” and “uncivilized.” I am going to represent how some
representatives of the Bulgarian political, social and cultural elite, living in the newly
established capital of Sofia, experienced increasing contact with people geographically,
culturally, and linguistically, if not phisically, different from people familiar to them.
They felt evident sense of cultural superiority towards the population of the surrounding
region. In this regard I am planning to present many examples of depictions in terms of
“shops”. In the very beginning of the twentieth century many authors were quite overt
talking about “tribe” or “race”, outward appearance, “temper”, connections with certain
“culture” and “civilization”. As far as “backwardness” connected with “origin” was
concerned, national writer Ivan Vazov referred to historical populations like “Pechenegs”
and “Kumans” - subscribing to purely racial explanations concerning origins of the
Bulgarian population at certain regions.
- I am going to present overwhelming number of examples for similar “racial”
explanations of social phenomena – e.g. how certain tensions, divisions, and weaknesses
within the Bulgarian nation were explained envoking the thematization of “origin” or
“origins” of the Bulgarian nation; how in popular histories Bulgarian origins were
thematized to explain in terms of origin even the contemporary political behavior of
regions and large parts of Bulgarian population invoking medieval ethnic migrations and
fusion of ethnic groups (S. Radev); how there were cases when the political stand of the
population North and South of the Balkan mountain was explain in terms of ethnic
origin.Those explanations in terms of ethnic origin were influenced by the French and
British schools and the whole intellectual fashion from the “long nineteenth century.”
- I will represent and analyze many concrete examples of political speculations
concerning the insistence on “our ancestors the Slavs” and racialization of political
adversaries, personal enemies or part of the Bulgarian subjects. I will reveal how in those
cases facial features should indicate that those persons, political figures, certain segments
of the Bulgarian population had at least symbolicaly lower status within the Bulgarian
community. It was usually combined with medieval language and medieval terms and it
relied on knowledge from medieval historiography about Protobulgarians”, “OrientalTartarian type”, “pure Mongolian”, “Protobulgarian from the time of Krum”,
“Pechenegs”, and “Kumans”. Usually Bulgarian authors used and misused stereotypes
10
about the lowest level of the established racial hierarchy among the “Whites” or the
“Europeans”. Moreover, their liminal position, even within the Bulgarian context,
endowed them with an Asian, “barbaric”, “Mongolian”, and “yellow” status.
- As it is evident from the title I am planning to include war period as well –
Balkan wars and First World war as well. That period is very interesting because Russia
was ally in the first war and enemy in the second. Moreover, during the wars in Bulgaria
historians and other scholars had consensus on national matters. In 1912 and 1915
intellectuals rallied to the national flag. Fin-de- siècle legacy on the racial thought after
the beginning of the wars was additionally developed, elaborated and appropriated. The
focus was again upon national community, “national self”, and “national character”. In
this regard, it was impossible the trends towards more racial phraseology and
explanation, even in its moderate versions, not to enter historical discourses. The
overwhelming number of political pamphlets and books, as well as Bulgarian press at the
time, supported this statement concerning the past. The above-mentioned intellectual
atmosphere substantially influenced Bulgarian science as well (sociology, collective
psychology, history etc.) They were marked by a trend towards more racial explanations
and the appropriation of racial language concerning ethnic past. The war atmosphere
strengthened the idea of “ancestors” and some different focuses as far as this topic was
concerned, strongly influenced by war alliances and conjuncture (e.g. T. Panov, G. Cenov
and many others). Moreover, the influence of race phraseology was so overwhelming that
it even influenced the writings of some left, socialist thinkers who were far from the
mainstream nationalism and racial language (e.g. Socialist Janco Sakazov spoke about
“race”, “Greek race”, “Turkish dominating race”, etc.). At the same time, the role of
historical knowledge and different regimes of historicity became even more important
(e.g. the first complete history of the Bulgarians was written by a politician at that time,
Sakazov, 1917).
- In 1917 it appeared the first Bulgarian medieval history written by the Bulgarian
historian V. Zlatarski. This history was non-racist and followed a discourse of objectivity
and distance marking the growing professionalization of science. There was less ethnicity
and less influence of current First World War atmosphere as one could expect. It spoke
about the period of “Hunno-Bulgarian domination” that was followed by an epoch of
“slavanization”. Nevertheless, I will reveal how Zlatarski spoke about “formation of the
Bulgarian nationality (narodnost)” and “the final ethnic physiognomy of the Balkan
peninsula – Slavic” He explicitly mentioned two ethnic elements Slavic and Bulgarian
and he spoke about “Slavic-Bulgarian state and nationality” as well as “etnhnic dualism”.
Moreover, Shishmanov emphasized “the quantitative increase of the Slavs in the state”
and how “Bulgarian Lords made a sacrify of their nationality (narodnost)”. Zlatarski
subscribed to the view that Proto-Bulgarians were from Turcic or Hunn origin. He added
that they had common Turcic origin with the Hunns and they were part of common
history of the Hunn peoples. According to him, the Hunns were Turks that came from
China. Usually, Zlatarski used the term ethnic community and he did not use the term
“race”. Zlatarski was very firm in his conclusion that “the Bulgarians by origin are Slavs,
crossed with Proto-Bulgarians and other Turcic peoples; by language – totally Slavs,
however their state is a deed of a Turcic people.”
- At the same time it was Gancho Cenov, who defended the thesis that Bulgarians were
“Hunns” but the Hunns or the Bulgarians have not come from China. According to
11
Cenov, they were “old Danubian people, who lived in Thracia from pre-historic times.”
As Cenov wrote “the Hunns are Thracians, but not Chineses.” Generally speaking,
according to Cenov, “Bulgarians are old Thracians, but they are old Troyans as well.”
- In the prewar period as well as during the war years, some authors referred to
Hungarian linguists Budenc, Munkachi and Gomboc. They emphasized their insights that
there were hundreds of Turcic words with Bulgarian origin in the Hungarian language.
Also Finish scholars like Mikkola and Pasonen supported the view that there were many
Proto-Bulgarian borrowings in contemporary Hungarian language.
- I am going to reveal how the mentioned above views took different direction of
development in non-scientific discourse. Authors like the writer Kiril Hristov (19131916) referred to race and racial policy and they spoke with proud about “TartarBulgarian” origin. During the First World War one can come across views how,
according to science and important scholars, in Europe the Hungarians “have no closer
relatives than us.” Authors like An. Strashimirov also tried to find some racial
explanations concerning Bulgarian origin.
- There are several other issues that could be addressed about the war period. To what
extent the war period emphasized the quest for origins? What were the links between
historians and other scholars in humanities and literature, on the one hand, and political
movements, including nationalist movements, on the other. What was the influence of
Neo-Rankeans or post-Risorgimento historiography on Bulgarian regimes of historicity
between 1912-1918? What was the influence of race and psychoanalyses, Freud’s ideas
and Jung’s notion of “archetypes”? Were there any applications of the concepts of
“collective soul” and “race soul”? What other kinds of influences one could trace? - to
what extent “race” was applied as a scientific category or Bulgarian authors carry on
subscribing to insight that historical change has nothing to do with race but with
economic and social conditions and political institutions. To what extent Social Darwinist
traces expressed through a diffusion of organic imagery and other racial overtones could
be distinguish in their writings. Why even some socialist thinkers were influenced by
racial discourse and ideas (e.g. P. Neykov) --- How did Bulgarian scholars cope with
German idea about racial inferiority, especially of the Slavic peoples? How did they cope
with German “Aryan” and already firmly Nordic, not Indian concept? How did they
domesticate theories of racial gradations
(“good” German, “worse” Slav and
“degenerate” French). How can one trace the relations between ethnically oriented
nationalism and racial ideas. In this regard, what were the influences of Slavophilism and
German Sonderweg. (e.g. P. Mutafchiev) --- How did Bulgarian thinkers cope with such
interconnected themes everywhere in Europe as “ancestry” and “race”? What were the
trends and differences in comparison with the prevailing paradigm from the beginning of
the century? In this regard what was the influence of the intellectual developments in
Europe? How can one define and estimate the typical application of the category of
“race” and racial thought in the Bulgarian intellectual context? What were the features of
“race biology of the Bulgarian people” (M. Popov); the concept of “Bulgarian race” or
“Bulgarian tribe”; the visions about “mixture of blood” and “psychological chaos” (K.
Hristov); What were the visions as far as the notions of homogeneous or heterogeneous
nation were concerned?
12