Bulgarian historiography began to professionalize itself after the creation of an independent Bulgarian state (de facto in 1878, de jure in 1908), and the foundation of scholarly institutions. Until then historical writing had been dominated by enthusiasts (clergymen, teachers, local dilettanti), passionately serving the ideas of cultural revival and political independence through historical knowledge. Thus, Bulgarian historiography at its inception was shaped both by its romantic predecessors, whose noble (and only) aim was to stir national consciousness and legitimize national aspirations, and by the influence of the positivist and romantic historiographies then prevalent in Europe.

Threevery fine papers deal with the Ottoman menace as metaphor in what we now designate as the post-Habsburg period, that discreet time span between the closing decades of the nineteenth century and World War II, with some forays into the contemporary period. In all three papers, the Ottoman (or the Turk, as was the current usage) served as a foil for contemporary grievances. It is not really the “Ottoman menace” they are dealing with, but, accordingly, the communist, socialist, working-class, Jewish, Serbian, or other “menaces” that are additionally demonized by introducing the analogy to a well-known and popular symbol. In the apt observation of the Austrian playwright J. P. Ostland, quoted by Maureen Healy, this was the present packaged as the past. It needs to be stressed that even the phrase “Ottoman menace” is a neologism form the post-World War II period, when scholarly works insisted correctly on a distinction between “Ottoman” as an imperial designator and “Turk” as an ethnic and later a national one. Although this distinction is justified for analytical purposes, it introduces a tinge of anachronism that belies one of the primary goals of history writing.

This article focuses on the discourse of backwardness as an aspect of what has been recognized as the dominant trope in east European historiography undl the end of the twentieth century, namely nationalism. Through a survey of east European historiographies, it demonstrates how different notions of temporality are employed. Eastern Europe as a whole and the particular problem of east European nationalism have been constituted as historical objects of study very much on the pattern of anthropological objects, through structural models of “timeless” theory and method and bracketing out time as a dimension of intercultural study. The article proposes a way to circumvent the trap of origins, which carries backwardness as its corollary, by introducing the idea of relative synchronicity within a longue durée framework. This allows the description of a period in terms of linear consecutive developments but also as a dialogical process without overlooking important aspects of short-term historical analysis involving sequential development, transmission, and diffusion.

In his review of Jean-Baptiste Duroselle’s ‘Europe. A History of Its Peoples’, Paschalis Kitromilides lamented that in most general accounts, Europe has been reduced to a history of Visigothic Europe. In these two volumes reflecting his oeuvre until 1994 — one a valuable monograph on a crucial figure of the Balkan Enlightenment, the other an updated collection of essays written in the course of fifteen years and covering some of the central processes of the past two centuries — Kitromilides is rectifying this short-sighted view of Europe. What he shows is a Europe as a common playground of ideas where elements from the core regions are transmitted and transformed to other, adjacent and peripheral territories. His focus is on the Balkans (or Southeastern Europe in his preferred nomenclature). What he also shows admirably is the reverse relationship of core and periphery in scholarship. Even good scholars of the core are parochial in their exclusive confinement to the centre. Conversely, good scholars of the Balkan region are, as a rule, deeply knowledgeable and conversant with ideas and trends outside their immediate geographic sphere of expertise (immensely complex in itself). Paschalis Kitromilides happens to be not simply among the good scholars of and from Southeastern Europe; he is one of the best.