Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda:
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Bulgarian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Sofija
Tangra TanNakRa
2014
|
| Ausgabe: | 1. izd. |
| Schriftenreihe: | Bălgarska večnost
107 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache |
| Beschreibung: | 739 S. |
| ISBN: | 9789543781225 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV042373290 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20150428 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 150223s2014 |||| 00||| bul d | ||
| 020 | |a 9789543781225 |9 978-954-378-122-5 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)907337583 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV042373290 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a bul | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Michajlov, Kamen |d 1954- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1069144533 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda |c Kamen Michajlov |
| 250 | |a 1. izd. | ||
| 264 | 1 | |a Sofija |b Tangra TanNakRa |c 2014 | |
| 300 | |a 739 S. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Bălgarska večnost |v 107 | |
| 500 | |a In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache | ||
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Kulturkontakt |0 (DE-588)4033569-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Russen |0 (DE-588)4051034-7 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Bulgaren |0 (DE-588)4088623-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Bulgarien |0 (DE-588)4008866-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Russland |0 (DE-588)4076899-5 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Russen |0 (DE-588)4051034-7 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Bulgaren |0 (DE-588)4088623-2 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Kulturkontakt |0 (DE-588)4033569-0 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Geschichte |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 689 | 1 | 0 | |a Russland |0 (DE-588)4076899-5 |D g |
| 689 | 1 | 1 | |a Bulgarien |0 (DE-588)4008866-2 |D g |
| 689 | 1 | 2 | |a Kulturkontakt |0 (DE-588)4033569-0 |D s |
| 689 | 1 | 3 | |a Geschichte |A z |
| 689 | 1 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Bălgarska večnost |v 107 |w (DE-604)BV012764044 |9 107 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027809515&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027809515&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 306.09 |e 22/bsb |g 471 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 306.09 |e 22/bsb |g 499 |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-027809515 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1806960971544002560 |
|---|---|
| adam_text |
СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ
ВЪЗСТАНОВЕНИЯТ ИПОСТАС НА ЕДНА НАУЧНА ИСТИНА
.9
ОБРАЗИ И ФАКТИ. ВМЕСТО ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ
.19
ОБРАЗИ И ПАМЕТ. КОРПУС НА ИЗТОЧНИЦИТЕ
.27
Част
I.
ОБЩО ПОЗНАНИЕ. ИСТОРИКО- ФИЛОЛОГИЧЕСКИ
КОМПЛЕКС (възстановени образи)
.35
1.
ДОСЛАВИСТИЧНИ ФОРМИ И ПАРАСЛАВИСТИЧНИ
ФОРМИ НА БЪЛГАРИСТИЧНО ПОЗНАНИЕ
.35
1.1.
Познания за България в рускоезична среда
.35
2.
ЕЗИКЪТ КАТО МОДЕЛ
.43
2.1.
Преводът на християнски текстове
.43
2.1.1.
Отче наш
.58
2.1.2.
Псалтир
.71
2.1.3.
Евангелие
.81
2.1.4.
Изборници на Симеон
.83
2.1.5.
Руските светци
.89
ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ
-
цветни илюстрации
.
I-XVI
2.1.6.
Византийските летописи
.97
2.2.
Езикови етномаркери
.106
2.2.1.
Лингвистични текстове
.106
2.2.2.
Азбуковници/Лексикони
.114
3.
ИСТОРИЧЕСКИ ОБРАЗИ НА БЪЛГАРИЯ/БУЛГАРИЯ,
БЪЛГАРИТЕ/БУЛГАРИТЕ И БЪЛГАРСКОТО/
БУЛГАРСКОТО В РУСКОЕЗИЧНА СРЕДА
.122
3.1.
Интерпретации на миналото
.134
3.1.1.
Българската история в ПВЛ
.134
3.1.1.1.
Текстове и коментар
.138
3.1.2.
„Модуси
булгара"
в науката
.158
3.1.3.
Покръстване
.160
3.1.4.
Писменост и език: Константин-Методиево дело
.172
3.1.5.
Богомилство
.174
3.1.6.
Средновековна държавност
.190
3.1.7.
Политическа идентичност
.199
3.2.
Борбата между „пробългарската",
„провизантийската" и „проруската" партия
.205
3.2.1.
Борба за църковно влияние
.214
3.3.
Историкии
.221
3.3.1.
Историята на Й. Щритер
и неговите истории
.225
3.3.2.
Историзмът на М.
Ломоносов
.244
4.
ИНФОРМАЦИОННИ НОСИТЕЛИ ЗА ШИРОКА УПОТРЕБА
.267
4.1.
Картини
.279
4.1.1.
Изображения на България,
българите и българското
.279
4.1.2.
Изображения на Булгария,
булгарите и булгарското
.295
5.
БИТОПОЗНАНИЕ
.301
6.
ДЕЙЦИ И ИСТОРИЯ
.312
6.1.
Йоаким Всеруски и българската съдба
.312
6.2.
Васил Априлов и някои особености
на руския национален бит
.324
7.
ГЕОГРАФСКИ И КАРТНИ ОБРАЗИ
НА БЪЛГАРИЯ, БЪЛГАРИТЕ И БЪЛГАРСКОТО
.328
7.1.
Бишингова география или как историята придобива
граници
.329
8.
КНИГИ. ДВОЙНСТВЕНИЯТ ИМ ОБРАЗ
.335
8.1.
Книгите като образ на престижа
.335
8.2.
Унищожаване паметта за българското
.352
8.2.1.
Унищожаване на българските книги
.352
8.2.2.
Пренебрегване/заличаване на етноними
.369
Част
II.
ЕТНОРЕЦЕПЦИЯ (възстановени образи)
.373
1.
ОТРИЦАТЕЛНИ ОБРАЗИ
.373
1.1.
Образ на съперника
.373
1.1.1.
Врагът
.375
1.1.1.1.
Войни срещу булгарите
.379
1.2.
Несполучливият владетел
.394
1.3.
Владетелят-антихрист
.416
1.4.
Еретикът
.427
1.4.1.
Концепцията на руската историческа мисъл
за българския еретизма
.428
8
1.5.
Друговерецът
булгар
.446
1.5.1.
Аврамий Български
.446
1.6.
Антиучителят
.450
1.6.1.
Образ на натрапника (Теодорит, Киприан, Цамблак).45О
1.6.2.
Образ на недостойния пастир (Киприан)
.456
1.6.3.
Образ на отстъпника
(Григорий Цамблак)
.464
1.6.3.1.
Приложение
.478
1.7.
Образ на отрицателния пример
.479
1.7.1.
„Стояние на Угре" и
българската връзка
.483
1.8.
Образ на невежествената маса
.498
Част
III.
ЕТНОРЕЦЕПЦИЯ (възстановени образи)
517
1.
ПОЛОЖИТЕЛНИ ОБРАЗИ
.517
1.1.
Митрополията
.517
1.2.
Българският разпев
.522
1.3.
Образ на владетеля
—
защитник
на правата вяра
.531
2.
ОБРАЗ НА ДУХОВНИЯ ВОДАЧ
.533
2.1.
Апостолът-мисионер
.542
2.1.1.
Константин Философ и Методий Моравски
.542
2.1.2.
Софроний и Иоаникий Лихуци. Превъплъщенията на
културните модели. Традиции, актуализация, провокация
.578
2.2.
Образ на покръстителя
.598
2.2.1.
Българските епископи в Киев
.598
2.2.2.
Григорий Мних.
604
3.
ОБРАЗ НА ПОКРОВИТЕЛЯ
.610
3.1.
Св.
Иван Рилски
.615
4.
ОБРАЗ НА ПИСАТЕЛЯ
.626
4.1.
Черноризец Храбър
.626
4.2.
Теофилакт Български
.628
4.3.
Киприан
.633
4.3.1.
„Неизвестно" произведение на Киприан
.635
4.4.
Григорий
Цамблак
.642
АЛЛ.
„Неизвестно" произведение
на Григорий
Цамблак
.643
ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ
.660
ИЗПОЛЗВАНА ЛИТЕРАТУРА
.665
ИМЕНЕН ПОКАЗАЛЕЦ
.682
РЕЗЮМЕ
.703
Summary
.716
716
Summary
The present book is divided into three parts, each of them cohe¬
rently developing the main topic towards a conclusive representation of
the relationships between Bulgaria and Russia from the past
160-170
years. Its main objective is to give a truthful picture based on their true
nature, rather than make a story out of facts from history, an approach
that has often been taken to reflect a sentiment, rather than find its
reflection in reality. To this effect, I went all the way from critical
dealing with the sources for their historicality to the reinterpretation of
the historic truth found in them and ascertaining their historicity as
events. The historicity of events connected to the Bulgaria-Russia rela¬
tionships has often been subjectively reflected upon their historicality,
the researcher's viewpoint often replacing the historic context in inter¬
pretation. It is the background from history that is brought forth in this
research, and through which events become significant as facts. Another
objective of this book is to give an idea about the popular paradigms
through which Bulgaria has been represented before Russian public, sup¬
ported by particular facts, occurrences and developments from history.
To make a detailed research on the topic, I had to go through an over¬
whelming bibliography of books, articles and monographs on the topic,
while its comprehensive overview meant accommodating an unmana¬
geable historic time (from the 7th to the 20th century). To achieve
truthfulness of representation, part of the bibliography on the issue was
discarded as irrelevant to the scope of this book.
Introduction
The introduction highlights the relevant issues to the topic and
introduces the key terms for its discussion. The subject matter of research
is to conceptualises the historic paradigms by which the Russian public
has made sense of Bulgarian politics and society throughout history.
Historically, Bulgarian people came into contact with the ethnicities
inhabiting the broad territory of present-day Eastern Europe as early as
717
the 7th century, which is confirmed both by the scanty sources from that
period and by the archaeological artefacts uncovered on that territory.
Most of these ethnicities were Finno-Ugric, and just about
30
per cent
were Slavic people. The latter did not seem to be particularly diverse as
ethnic groups, appearing with their names
(Polanš,
Radimchs, Severians,
Vyatichs,
Drevlyans)
in later records written in Old Russian. By contrast,
the Finno-Ugric groups were much more mixed, featuring names like
Mordvin,
Chude,
Merya, etc. In linguistic terms, however, their dialects
were gradually replaced by Slavic vernacular languages as a medium of
communication, which makes it plausible to suggest strong Russian
influence during the ages that followed. On the other hand, it is worth
noting that Finno-Ugric people were much bigger in number, and
although they failed to assert their dialects as
koinè
languages in the
region, they still represented a substantial part of the culture in the area.
This means that despite their barbaric background among the ethnicities
open to Russian civilisation influence, they are nevertheless integral to
understanding the values, ideas and existence of the broadly Slavic
population there. With time, they were integrated to Slavic community,
very much like the various
Bulgar
ethnicities (Onogurs, Unogundurs,
Kutrigurs) became subject to Slavic integration on the other side of the
Danube river. However, the latter were outstandingly minor as ethnic
groups compared to the vast Slavic population on the Balkans, which
makes their assimilation by number seem as an objective phenomenon
from history. Contrary to that, the assimilation of the heavily outnum¬
bering Finno-Ugric population by influence from the Russian-minded
Slavic people raises the researcher's attention to this historic fact and its
accompanying events.
Some peripheral ethnographic terms, such as Ruotsi, Bulgarian and
Bulgar,
are also elicited in the introduction, as well as the central concept
of paradigm, which guides the narrative to the frame of reference and the
world view on which ethnic image saw itself reflected. As a term, Ruotsi
also features in a number of documents, like contracts from the Byzan¬
tine age, as common denominator for barbaric population including pre¬
dominantly Finno-Ugric people with minor Slavic participation. This
makes it adequate for use in both historiological and
historiographie
sense. Research shows that from 11th century onwards, when political
identity became an issue for people in the region, the vast majority
claimed
Russ
belonging. Although this doesn't necessarily turn it into an
ethnonym for them, it still represents fairly the existence of the popu¬
lation from the East part of the European continent at a time when their
718
life was organised in polis-type settlements and was governed by aristo¬
cratic order. However peripheral to ethnography it may seem, the term
Ruotsi is etymologically related to the
toponymie
term
Rus,
or the
Rus'
people (also Rhos) for the population inhabiting the territory of the
medieval
Rus
state, regardless of their diverse cultural, ethnic and reli¬
gious background. On the other hand, Russia and Russian are ethno-
nymic terms applied to the genetically related population inhabiting a
common area and sharing common historic and political background.
Unfortunately, it is only the latter, ethnonymic term, and its derivations
that have been used in Bulgarian historic research, hampering to a large
extent the adequate interpretation of particular events and developments
from history.
Regarding the paradigm, as a frame of reference and a worldview
reflected on the ethnic image as a representation, it is
paradigmái
in the
broadest sense of this word. It was underlied by verbal descriptions,
visual concepts evoked by artistic forms, or aural perception awakened
by Bulgarian melody system within Russian Orthodox music. The me¬
thodology of research into the topic has been based on comparative ana¬
lysis of facts and deductive reasoning in the common context of culture.
Part One
General Concepts. Historical and Philological Conceptualisation
Part One starts with the chapter "Bulgarian conceived beyond the
paradigm of eurrieular and extra-curricular Slavic studies". It opens the
topic by subverting the existing tenets of conceptualising Bulgarian eth¬
nic culture in the mainstream of the historical and philological paradigms
taught in the University course of Slavic studies. According to popular
belief, it was not before Slavic studies had been included in the Univer¬
sity curriculum that the Russian public developed any interest in Bulga¬
rian culture. Contrary to this, I have given enough arguments supporting
the opposite thesis, that a serious interest in Bulgaria as a country,
although under Ottoman rule, and in the issue of Bulgarian ethnicity in
Russia far preceded eurrieular Slavic studies at University. What is even
more important, there had already been a coherent concept of Bulgarian
tradition in Russian society, distinguishing it as ethnic culture, philolo¬
gical knowledge and religious form. Such inference openly contradicts
Russian research on the issue that make cruel generalisations about his¬
tory, making historic facts insignificant to social developments. Their
position has been that the fall of Bulgarian sovereignty unconditionally
719
ended any cultural influence, if it ever existed. My counter argument to
this thesis is the analogy with Byzantine cultural influence, which went
on well into the 19th century, long after the demise of the East Roman
Empire. Such reasoning anticipates the analysis of the so-called second
period of Old Bulgarian influence on Russian literature and culture,
taking place in the
11
-12th century. At that time, the First Bulgarian me¬
dieval state, from which this influence stemmed, didn't exist but the ties
between Bulgarian Apostolic and Russian Orthodox churches were still
quite intensive. It was then that scripts transferred from Bulgarian
libraries influenced greatly the work of Russian men of letters, and a big
number of Bulgarian scholars of the church emigrated to Russian land,
where they worked actively as scholars, priests and educators. The chap¬
ter also points to the importance of extra-curricular Slavic studies, unat-
tested so far, which were no less extensive than
curricular
Slavic studies,
and deserve researchers' interest.
The concept of Old Bulgarian language as the main paradigm in the
Russian frame of reference for Bulgarian culture has been developed in
subdivided chapters, analysing script texts, such as The Lord's Prayer, the
Psalms, the
Aprikos
gospel (evangeliary), the Anthologies of sacred texts
composed for Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, known in Russia as the Antholo¬
gies of Svetoslav. In their religious writings about the life of Russian
saints and about historic topics and issues, Russian scholars have also
been influenced by Bulgarian texts. Russian 20th century research in
medieval chronicle writing has gone out of its way to refer these erudite
texts indigenously to their culture. In recent years, however, there have
been increasing data confirming the conclusions held by a school of
nineteen-century Slavic researchers maintaining objectively that Byzan¬
tine chronicles were originally made available to the Slavic world in
Bulgarian translation and through Bulgarian narratives. The chapter ends
with a review of sources previously disregarded by Bulgarian researchers
on the topic. Word comes for the primers, popular in Russia as Azbukov-
nici (literally ABC books
-
translator's note), as a primary source of texts
in the original, where explicit mention is made of Bulgaria and Bulgarian
in script. The distinction of ethnic traits among the sources has
traditionally been verified through documented words in script (gloss-
words), or alternatively through the authorship of texts. In all medieval
literature, authorship features together with the title, and the origin of
texts is recognizable either through ethnonymic reference, like in Bulga¬
rian Archbishop of the Church, or Bulgarian Exarch of the Church, or
alternatively, in ethnonyms personified as family names, e.g. Theophy-
720
lact of Bulgaria. The ethnonyms featuring in the Azbukovnici primers are
even clearer in reference and more complete in denotation.
The following chapter, called "Paradigms from history for concep¬
tualising Bulgaria and the Bulgarian", develops further the thesis that
Bulgarian/Bulgar were conceived historically in reference to our people.
It opens with an annotated introduction of the widely commented Rus¬
sian narrative called The Primary Chronicle
{Povesť Vremyan'nikh
Let',
in Latin transliteration, or literally, Tale of Bygone Years), coherently
commenting on the distorted historic interpretation of our ethnic culture
by researchers. I use this early occasion to start an argumented discussion
about the skeletons in the cupboard of Russian historical and cultural
research. It has recurrently been the case that Russian scholars jump on
the bandwagon of history, burning all bridges that culture, regardless of
age or ideology, had built and through which it had flown in the veins of
history. This tendency of denying reference beyond what is conceived as
national history has been traced back to Byzantine historical records, but
in Russia it took roots and flourished. It started there as late as 14th
century and involved deleting all traces that might imply foreign influ¬
ence on Russian culture, including the destruction of sources in the
original. This policy has been carried out both by Byzantine scholars sent
to Russia to temper with the original sources and by their Russian
disciples in the trade. As a result of the long-term cooperation between
the pioneers of culture from Byzantium and the Russian champions of
historic tradition, the links keeping together Bulgarian cultural and reli¬
gious development throughout the ages of national independence have to
a large extent dissolved. Adding to this, it has consistently afflicted the
public mind in Russia, most notably its social elites, to conceive Bul¬
garian cultural heritage beyond its development in diachrony, brushing
its own freedoms with history under the carpet. In a few thematic
chapters, I have followed the struggle for influence of the church among
lobbies in the Russian principalities and polis-type settlements, broadly
defined in cultural orientation as pro-Bulgarian, pro-Russian or pro-
Byzantine. Part of the thesis have already been coherently developed in
the writings of previous authors, most notably by A. Chilingirov, V. Ni-
kolaev and I. Tabov, but are brought here to further conclusion about
their implications for Bulgarian national culture. Lamentably, there has
been no writing on the issue by researchers of Bulgarian medieval history
of the church. It is, therefore, expected that a thorough analysis of reli¬
gious doctrine controversies in that age is to be part of the agenda of
Bulgarian scholarly research in the field.
721
Considering the topic about the particular influence of Bulgarian
medieval scholars on the Russian educated elite of the time, I focus on
subjects that seem particularly important to me, such as state govern¬
ment, national politics and the administration of territories. Its impor¬
tance as Bulgarian influence on Russian frame of reference about society
has always been left aside by researchers and I can only hope that the
matter is not still lost on culture researchers, as it has been, I am afraid,
on historians.
The fourth chapter points to the earliest research on Bulgarian
history, comparable to Paisius of Hilendar in our national history and
mentioned for the first time in Bulgarian historiology, like Miller and
Shtriter for their groundbreaking studies. Shtriter not only translated from
Latin an enormous body of Byzantine chronicles referring to Bulgarian
culture in historic terms, but also annotated briefly certain points about
their sense. It was as late as the
1960s
that such an approach to our
history was taken up by Bulgarian scientific researchers, translating a
bulk of foreign chronicle writings into Bulgarian language. Apart from
this, Shtriter took special interest in commenting on the basic facts and
events relevant to Bulgar/Bulgarian national history for popular editions,
like history calendars. The historic dating by M. Lomonossov was
thoroughly analysed in comparison to the chronology in the History by
Paisius of Hilendar, which has been another unexplored direction by
Bulgarian historians.
In a separate chapter, I have paid special attention to the so-called
popular historic editions, meaning above all different types of calendars
(like the history calendars, already mentioned). Others, implicitly
referring to places, people or particular phenomena from Bulgarian
history are lubki woodcuts, engravings and lithography. I have uncovered
more than
70
such historic artefacts from Russian archives, the most
notable of which give a sense of the Bogomil movement, Bulgar/Bul¬
garian historic personalities, or of Bulgarian symbolic (like Bulgarian
Knyaz, Bulgarian Yunak, 'Bulgaria
zove',
or Bulgarian Call to the World,
among others). A representation showing Bulgarian population from
Macedonia as punished by divine providence has been referred to its
cultural archetype reflecting the historic concept of Bulgaria and its
people as heretics in religion, and their church and state as established in
paganism of mind.
Unprecedented for Bulgarian ethnographic research, I have attemp¬
ted at a comprehensive study of household terminology as an issue,
which evinces cultural contacts between the Ruotsi first, then the
Rus,
722
and the world of the Bulgar/Bulgarian. A number of researchers, most of
whom Hungarian, have proven beyond doubt that a few hundred words
relevant to crops growing, cultivation of vine, production wine, animal
husbandry and accessories of war have been adopted by the Magyar
language from
Bulgar (proto-Bulgarian)
tongue. This fact clearly shows
that the
Bulgar
had a well-organised land and animal farming, as
confirmed by contemporary Bulgarian research concluding that the wheat
grains found in burial chambers left by the
Bulgar
were carefully selected
sorts. Laboratory experiments have shown that by the time the grains
were lain in the offering urns, the practice of selecting crops had been
going on for
200-300
years. Additionally, many Asian and even Arab
nations have used the name bulgur
(bulgar)
for the whole wheat grain
used for cooking. The inference is that the ancestors of Bulgarian people
have been a farming nation at least since 2nd century AD, patently
denying scientific credibility to all research concluding the nomadic or
uncivilised existence of the
Bulgar
tribes at that time. The chapter also
considers evidence from Armenian and Arab travellers and missionaries
giving important details about the
Bulgar
arms equipments, military
tactics and their traditional goods sold in trade. Some of them were iron
objects, like mail armour, sabres, farming and craft tools, attesting to
their developed technology for mining the ore, casting and crafting of the
metal.
Another chapter discusses the activities of Joachim, Patriarch of All
Russia, who took on to develop a plan for liberating Bulgaria and making
it part of the Russian state under the Tsar through clever diplomacy.
However, following the Russian-Polish peace treaty, openly aimed at
diminishing Turkish influence, there was little place left for diplomatic
tactic on the Balkans. As his political moves were quickly losing mo¬
mentum, Joachim of All Russia took efforts to aid the Bulgarian, who
were organising a revolt against the Ottoman (remembered as the Second
Uprising of Tarnovo). The grandson of Bulgarian liege Ivan Sracimir
went in person to Moscow with his appeal for help. Our knowledge of
this revolt is increased a lot by the evidence found in the Testament of
Patriarch Joachim, relatively unknown in Bulgaria, especially with refe¬
rence to its real scope and its true instigators.
Chapter Eight comments on a source which, until that point, was
completely considered irrelevant for scientific study, but has been found
surprisingly useful as evidence, the geographic maps and books. They
show clearly the state boundaries and the national territories of Bulgaria
throughout the ages, often including considerable data about the
popula-
723
tion
in different settlement areas, their customs, dress, dispositions, living
and trade. The most notable in this respect has been the Geography by
Byushing, dedicating whole
70
pages from its content to Bulgaria and the
Bulgarian. It is particularly note-worthy that this geography book was
used for a long time as a textbook for students, diplomats and liege heirs
and successors to the throne.
Part One of this doctoral thesis is rounded with a serious discussion
on the significant issue of destroying Bulgarian heritage in print and in
cultural reference. Apart from the widely known position of Bulgarian
figures of the Enlightenment, which has been overviewed, I have also
painstakingly followed the position taken by foreign scholars, travelling
to Bulgaria to get a first-hand experience for their research. The outstan¬
ding figure in this respect is Victor Grigorovich, giving a rich descrip¬
tions from his scientific journeys of the libraries and crypts in the
monasteries of Mount
Athos,
as well as in some churches and monaste¬
ries in Macedonia. The destruction of Bulgarian heritage has been denied
historicity by a number of contemporary Bulgarian researchers. They
base their opinion on the point made by Yurdan Trifonov, denying the
complicity of
Hilarión
of Crete, the Greek Orthodox priest of the
Partii-
ardiate
of Constantinople, in the burning of the books from the pat¬
riarchal/tsar library in Tarnovo. It has obviously been lost on them that
Trifonov contends only the collaboration of
Hilarión
in the wrong-doing,
not the heinous destruction of the library and its books. The historicality
of this event is certain and I have attempted to lay bare all available data
of destroyed items as was given in the sources at my disposal. I cannot
but think strongly that this issue deserves fully the scientific interest of
researchers, both by way of establishing the truth about such historic
villainy and for the purposes of exposing its culprits.
Part Two
Negative Paradigms
Part Two looks into the conceptualisation through cultural
paradigms by the Russian public of Bulgaria in national and in ethnic
terms, the Bulgar/Bulgarians through history and the issue of Bulgar/Bul-
garian heritage in tradition. The methodology of research used to estab¬
lish properly the cultural paradigms is reconstructing them in history,
based on the written sources from the 14th-19th century. The bulk of
sources points to the chronographies and historical synopsis as the main
resource for study. I have also included in the discussion some key texts,
724
such as the already mentioned Tale of Bygone Years (formally known as
Nestor's Chronicle), The Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible, as
well as some other manuscripts. A primary example from history are the
doctoral theses of L. Karsavin and
N.
Osokin dating from the early 20th
century, which have been published in a modern edition. The two have
been lauded for their academic merit and recommended for a new edition
in print by both academic scientists and Russian Orthodox authorities,
making them an expert source of evidence on the topic they discuss. In
reality, they fly in the face of history with their blatant disregard for the
distinctly Bulgarian cultural origin of the Bogomil movement, reiterating
the classic formulae of manipulative interpretation for historic facts.
This part of the book is focused on the frame-setting paradigms
aimed at constructing negative image of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian in
Russian mentality. Based on a study of the source texts used in my
research, I have established a whole inventory of negative paradigms
from culture leading to the conception of unfavourable images from
history. For the biggest part of the period between 7th and 19th century,
the Ruotsi, then the
Rus,
have conceived the Bulgarian/Bulgar mostly as
enemies. The only exception have been the intermittent decades of tra¬
ding relations when Russian society welcomed the masterly crafted and
richly ornamental goods of Bulgar(ian) origin, even sometimes arms
equipment and technology of training. Notable examples in this respect
were the practice of rearing horses, the craft of tacking them up for battle,
and the military tactics of using cavalry in combat. Apart from the
historic evidence to that respect, there is also the phonetic parallel
between the Russian word for horse, transliterated as loshad' and the
lexeme alasha from
Bulgar
tongue. Bulgarian readers may also find
useful the chronologic accounts of war conflicts between the Ruotsi/Rus
armies and Bulgarian state establishments offered here.
Archetypically, the Bulgarian have mostly been conceived by Rus¬
sian mind in opposition, as the ethnic and religious other. The opposition
between Christian and Muslim in religion, starting in 10th century,
transformed the relationships between the
Rus
and the Bulgarian. The
issue of legal protection for the Christian tradesmen subject to a Muslim
state, as well as the wanton rule of their property by the basurmani
(Russian word for infidels), came to the forefront. The worst cases of
Muslim cruelty were epitomized as New Martyrs of the Eastern Ortho¬
dox Church, a title given to martyrs who died under heretical rulers
(particularly under Islam). The Russian Orthodox Church gave this title
to Abraham of Bulgaria, a saint venerated in Russia, whose relics are
725
kept in the town of Vladimir. Contemporary Bulgarian scientific (as well
as religious and ecclesiastic) sources make just a few mentions of him. I
have tried, on the contrary, to represent his personality in complete
details, including an account of his life story, based on data and sources
about him that have not yet been widely available. The story of the holy
icon Theotokos of Kazan, becoming emblematic for Russian Church,
exhibits certain similarities in the same respect, by way of revealing
Russian attitudes to the
Bulgar
as a mob of fanatic people. The story of
this icon is represented here for the first time in research, as part of a
scientific analysis.
The Danube Bulgarian generally reflected the idea of the
unfortunate monarch, the rule of the antichrist, the unworthy priest of the
church, the metropolitan impostor in rank, the weak in faith and the
heretic in mind. Through source material unpublished before, I have
drawn the conclusion that the face of Bulgarian state and sovereignty was
represented in the mind through the image of their rulers. This allows me
to infer that the concept of the clumsy ruler, unfortunate in reign,
surrendering his house, dignity and state through his clumsy handling of
power and his lenience, as was the case with Samuil of Bulgaria, aimed
particularly at biasing the public mind in Russia on a wide scale against
the Bulgarian as a nation of people. In this respect, the chronicle account
of the life of the last of Bulgarian rulers, Samuil, cannot be considered
just as a moral story, but exhibits a distinctly Russian interpretation of the
last in line of sovereign rulers of the first Bulgarian state. His story is
deliberately meant to provoke the Russian public mind, and particularly
that of the feudal class in Russian society, to draw a moral about the
wrong way of dealing with state authority and power. The Great Standoff
on the Ugre River, a historic event epitomised in Russian literature,
makes an example of both Bulgarian rulers and their armies, who let the
Ottoman conquer their land through their wrong action. The whole of
Bulgarian people are also represented as inadequate to the circumstances.
This part of the book, representing negative concepts reflected in
the image of Bulgarian people, their nation and their state, is rounded
with the paradigm of their ignorance about the world. The sources here
come from Russian traveller^ writings, most often by V. Grigorovich.
His initially stated purpose, to write about the Bulgarian as a people with
their own ethnic features, characteristic skills, cultural tradition and
mother tongue, obviously fails him in his descriptions. The narrative,
originally meant to be submitted to the Emperors Academy of Sciences
for his trip outside the boundaries of Russian land, gives curious insight
726
into the life of Greek, Albanian and Turkish population. As for the Bul¬
garian, they feature primarily in form, rather than as part of the content of
his narrative. The Russian traveller mentions spending the night at Bulga¬
rian homes, the hospitality of the people and the hearty welcome, the
attention paid to him as a guest, the bundles of books they showed him,
as much as that. He did not consider it relevant to quote the names of his
Bulgarian hosts, give some sense of Bulgarian cuisine, or describe in
some detail his Bulgarian acquaintances guiding him through the roads in
Sofia and Macedonia. If there is any mention of their character, the
Bulgarian invariably feature as unlearned, listless, fearing, grumbling and
unreliable. The time when it was written, the beginning of 19th century,
was a period when the Russian concepts of Bulgaria and its people were
slightly amended to accommodate the image of the poor Bulgarian
relative. This concept is reflected in the writing of Grigorovich, but also
in Russian periodicals of the time, where a group of journalists openly
questioned the will of Bulgarian people for national independence and
their true potential to achieve it. They argued that the oppression by the
Ottoman, ruling the Bulgarian for
500
years, was not completely uninvi¬
ted by the reluctance of Bulgarian population, obviously finding comfort
in the foreign rule.
Part Three
Positive Paradigms
Part Three is written to balance the discussion from the previous
chapters by way of pointing to those facts and events from Bulgarian
history that invoke a positive paradigm in conceptualising Bulgarian
people as a representation in the mind of the Russian. One example in
this respect was the evocation of the historic site Mount
Athos
of
Tarnovo, bringing back in historic memory the years of glory for
Bulgarian state in the Middle Ages with its
metropole
capital (from East
Orthodox mater, meaning „mother" and applied to the Russian Church).
The image of Bulgarian masters of the written word, sending their moral
messages through literature, dates from the present age. However, it has
been conceived in transcendence, going beyond the limits of their earthly
existence, by circulating their names as authors of memorable texts. Such
has been the name of Gregory Tsamblak, noted for his literary works in
different editions. The paradigms invoking Bulgaria and the Bulgarian in
history and tradition are derived from broad cultural context. Like in Part
One, where verbal descriptions express visual concepts evoked by artistic
727
form, I make an analogy with the Bulgarian melody system within
Orthodox music as a cultural archetype by itself, including the artistic
forms developed by Bulgarian composers of religious music. These artis¬
tic forms include certain specific genres of Orthodox hymnography, like
the kontakion, canon, or troparion, whose Bulgarian versions combine
synaesthetically the effect of melody and text. The reason to open this
discussion is a text written by
Eugenios Boulgarís
that had not been
previously considered by Bulgarian researchers. He was a scholar of the
church and enlightener of Bulgaria, a writer, and at the same time a high
cleric in the Russian Orthodox Church.
In this part, I also make reference to Bulgarian ruler Boris I, briefly
mentioned in some chronicles as a defender of Christianity. The reason is
his struggle against the pagan supporters of the ethnic deity Tangra to
restore the aristocratic order and the heathen worship in Bulgaria in the
second part of 9th century. However, the mention of Boris I refers solely
to his action in defense of Christianity, while his policy goes much
further in significance, from the viewpoint of Bulgarian history. The
chronicle purposefully takes no notice of the political implications for
Bulgaria from adopting Christianity as an official religion of the state.
These were, in the first place, the weakening of the state as a result of the
resistance among the pagan aristocracy to accept the religion embraced
by the Slavic majority under their rule. Also, the increased Byzantine
cultural influence, which at a certain point won the Eastern Empire
enough supporters in Bulgarian court to interfere in political matters of
the state. Within the paradigm of positive concepts evoked in represen¬
tation, the account of our medieval ruler in the chronicle is nevertheless
epitomai
and exemplary in giving due historic respect to cultural figures.
It is also worthy to note its unbiased description of the Act of Conversion
by Boris I. It is represented as his responsible decision for Bulgarian
state, rather than by political predicament, resulting from a lost war and
the need to sign a peace treaty accepting the Christianisation of his bar¬
baric people.
By the use of particular examples in this part of the book, I have
also paid attention to the images of Bulgarian leaders of the church as
apostles with their own mission, baptizers, educators and scribes. The
epitome are the saint-guardians, whose life started in Bulgarian ethnic
lands, but were also venerated by social communities in other lands. This
is the point to consider the parallel exhibited by positive and negative
paradigms in comparison. The fact is that neither of them produces clear-
cut images or event accounts, no matter if representing positive or
negati-
728
ve
through their concept. The attention of the reader is turned to the ima¬
ge of Cyprian, conceived as an image through both paradigms, positive
and negative, which reflects the historic interpretation of the activities of
this high cleric of the church. As a representative of the Russian Ortho¬
dox Church, its recognised head and an honourable clergyman, his repu¬
tation among the official circles was impeccable. On the other hand, how¬
ever, his leadership in the church was marred by strong opposition to
him, representing him as an impostor, lusting for glory and power, thin¬
king only about his personal fortune and betraying the high duties to which
he was bound by his office. A similar ambiguity marks the images of Gre¬
gory Tsamblak, Theodoret, Ignatius, among others. The inference is that
the equivocal concepts implied by their personality make explicit the
opposition between the two opposing lobbies in Russian society, pro-Bul¬
garian and pro-Russian, in their aspirations to prevail in Eastern Christianity.
Through a critical approach of the studied sources, I have managed
to come up with a conclusion about the tradition to which some of the
historical works belong. I have discussed in detail one particular historic
work by Cyprian and Tsamblak that I consider worthy of attention by the
scientific reader. I identify it as inspired by the tradition of Hesychasm,
which is uncommon for Cyprian's work. I have chosen the text of
Cyprian's universal prayer during the attack of the Mongol and the Tatar
armies on Moscow. Joining with researchers who had previously
commented this work as written in the tradition of Hesychasm, I make
my own analysis of the literary text. I have analysed rhetorically the
original document, as written by the hand of Tsamblak himself, an
approach which has not been typically applied to medieval texts.
Special attention in Part Three is given to writers who never iden¬
tified themselves as Bulgarian in belonging, but who included a Bulga¬
rian ethnonym in their name. Such were the two brothers from Kefalonia
Sophronius and Joanniki Lichudi, and Theophylact of Bulgaria, arch¬
bishop of
Ohrid.
The three were proud of their Greek heritage, although
Sophronius and Joanniki allegedly had Slavic Bulgarian origin. This is
suggested by a look at their trusted advisers, most of whom were
Bulgarian, their knowledge of Bulgarian language, as well as a few of
their writings that were in this language.
I have also introduced a few religious texts from Old Believers
books, which I found in the Old Believers' Cultural Centre in Bryansk
Province
-
Klintsi. They may be interesting with their idiosyncratic inter¬
pretation of personalities and events from history, which is not in the
mainstream of Russian Orthodox canon. |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Michajlov, Kamen 1954- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1069144533 |
| author_facet | Michajlov, Kamen 1954- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Michajlov, Kamen 1954- |
| author_variant | k m km |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV042373290 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)907337583 (DE-599)BVBBV042373290 |
| edition | 1. izd. |
| era | Geschichte gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV042373290</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20150428</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">150223s2014 |||| 00||| bul d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9789543781225</subfield><subfield code="9">978-954-378-122-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)907337583</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV042373290</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">bul</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Michajlov, Kamen</subfield><subfield code="d">1954-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1069144533</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda</subfield><subfield code="c">Kamen Michajlov</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="250" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1. izd.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Sofija</subfield><subfield code="b">Tangra TanNakRa</subfield><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">739 S.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bălgarska večnost</subfield><subfield code="v">107</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kulturkontakt</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4033569-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Russen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4051034-7</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Bulgaren</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4088623-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Bulgarien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4008866-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Russland</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4076899-5</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Russen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4051034-7</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Bulgaren</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4088623-2</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Kulturkontakt</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4033569-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Geschichte</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Russland</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4076899-5</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Bulgarien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4008866-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Kulturkontakt</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4033569-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Geschichte</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Bălgarska večnost</subfield><subfield code="v">107</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV012764044</subfield><subfield code="9">107</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027809515&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027809515&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="g">471</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="g">499</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-027809515</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Bulgarien (DE-588)4008866-2 gnd Russland (DE-588)4076899-5 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Bulgarien Russland |
| id | DE-604.BV042373290 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-08-10T01:11:08Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9789543781225 |
| language | Bulgarian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-027809515 |
| oclc_num | 907337583 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 739 S. |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publishDateSearch | 2014 |
| publishDateSort | 2014 |
| publisher | Tangra TanNakRa |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Bălgarska večnost |
| series2 | Bălgarska večnost |
| spelling | Michajlov, Kamen 1954- Verfasser (DE-588)1069144533 aut Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda Kamen Michajlov 1. izd. Sofija Tangra TanNakRa 2014 739 S. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Bălgarska večnost 107 In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Geschichte gnd rswk-swf Kulturkontakt (DE-588)4033569-0 gnd rswk-swf Russen (DE-588)4051034-7 gnd rswk-swf Bulgaren (DE-588)4088623-2 gnd rswk-swf Bulgarien (DE-588)4008866-2 gnd rswk-swf Russland (DE-588)4076899-5 gnd rswk-swf Russen (DE-588)4051034-7 s Bulgaren (DE-588)4088623-2 s Kulturkontakt (DE-588)4033569-0 s Geschichte z DE-604 Russland (DE-588)4076899-5 g Bulgarien (DE-588)4008866-2 g Bălgarska večnost 107 (DE-604)BV012764044 107 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027809515&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027809515&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Michajlov, Kamen 1954- Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda Bălgarska večnost Kulturkontakt (DE-588)4033569-0 gnd Russen (DE-588)4051034-7 gnd Bulgaren (DE-588)4088623-2 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4033569-0 (DE-588)4051034-7 (DE-588)4088623-2 (DE-588)4008866-2 (DE-588)4076899-5 |
| title | Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda |
| title_auth | Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda |
| title_exact_search | Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda |
| title_full | Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda Kamen Michajlov |
| title_fullStr | Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda Kamen Michajlov |
| title_full_unstemmed | Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda Kamen Michajlov |
| title_short | Bălgarski/bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezična sreda |
| title_sort | balgarski bulgarski obrazi v ruskoezicna sreda |
| topic | Kulturkontakt (DE-588)4033569-0 gnd Russen (DE-588)4051034-7 gnd Bulgaren (DE-588)4088623-2 gnd |
| topic_facet | Kulturkontakt Russen Bulgaren Bulgarien Russland |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027809515&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027809515&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV012764044 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT michajlovkamen balgarskibulgarskiobrazivruskoezicnasreda |