Митология

Тази книга стига до българския читател с огромно закъснение. Написана през 1918 г. в три тома, през 1923 г. по желание на читателите тя е преработена от автора в еднотомно издание, с облекчен библиографски апарат. Именно превода на това съкратено издание четем днес. Всъщност Джеймс Фрейзър е вече познато име у нас. През 1984 г. Издателството на Отечествения фронт отпечата неговия фундаментален труд „Злат ната клонка", написан през 1890 г. - една от непреходните книги в европейската етнография и религиознание. Там с помощта на сравнителноисторическия метод авторът е обхванал и научно осмислил огромен фактологически материал, доказвайки връзката на съвременните религии с първобитните вярвания и земната основа на религиозния светоглед. Сега в труда си „Фолклорът в Стария завет" Джеймс Фрейзър, една от най-известните фигури в английската културна антропология, анализира праисторията на човешкото общество, пре чупена през призмата на старозаветните предания в Библията. Отношението между магия, фолк лор и история, между митология, религия и култура става основа за неговото амбициозно проучване. По изобилие на събрания материал и по значение книгата на Фрейзър „Фолклорът в Стария завет може да се сравнява с капиталното изслед ване на Александър Веселовски „Историческа пое тика". Но целта на автора не е само да предложи добросъвестно фактите на любознателния читател. Стремежът на Фрейзър е научното осмисляне на суровия материал, достигането от фактологията до синтеза, разкриването на сложния път от емпирията до обобщението. Сравнително-етнографският метод, който той използува, несъмнено е ограничен от неговото време и от проучванията, направени до тогавашния момент - началото на ХХ в. В някои отношения научните изводи на Фрейзър са оспорими. Днес науката вече е отишла далече напред. Но като цяло изследването на Фрейзър не е загу било своята стойност. При това то е написано на достъпен език, разбираем за широк кръг читатели.

Every nation rationalizes itself through a system of images of sameness and otherness. These images, which define its identity, are involved in certain plots that can be interpreted as national mythology. One of the basic plots in Bulgarian national mythology refers to the mistreatment of faith. This motive can be found in of new martyrs’ passionals, in historical notes, folk songs and other texts. By analyzing and categorizing its numerous variants, this article tries to reconstruct the archetypal basis of this myth and its functional mechanisms and search for its context in real historical developments and processes as well as literary documents. The long-term goal is reconsidering the rhetoric of nationalistic mythological discourse, its development in time, the accents it uses and its means of operation.

Bulgarian national mythology was not unified and solid, even in the period of the National Revival. There were different rival variations competing in the sphere of the literature. There were parodies of the main myths too. Interestingly enough they were not only in the texts of radical authors like Luben Karavelov and Chisto Botev, but in the work of writers who build national mythology in other texts. Practically all mythical constructions were objects of parody. The paper is focused only at some cases: mock interpretations of the glorious past, the lives of the new martyrs, and the motif of the unfortunate family. The examples were driven from works of Vasil Popovich, and memoirs of Svetoslav Milarov, Zachari Stoyanov, Stoyan Zaimov, and Mincho Kunchev. The conclusion is that parodying some nationalistic constructions this text did not subvert the mythology as unit.

This paper examines Ivan Shishmanov’s contribution to the refuting of some myths inherited from the age of the Bulgarian national identity forming, when the Bulgarian intelligentsia representatives who played the leading part 201 in creating the “imagined community” constructed the national narative and built up the myths needed. Shishmanov takes up a sober position on the important issue about the role of the Greeks and the Greek culture in Bulgarian history (15th –19th century). Following the myth widespread in the Bulgarian romantic historiography of that time about the long-standing hellenizing policy towards the Bulgarians, Shishmanov reaches the conclusion that up to 1830 the Constantinople patriarchate did not function as a Greek national institute. He stresses the necessity for each phenomenon to be examined in its concrete historical context. He opposes the accusation against the Greek clergy that is has sistematically pursuited and destroyed the Bulgarian letters. He rejects the romantic thesis about the entirely negative role of the Greek culture and education for the Bulgarians and arrives at the conclusion about the positive role of the Greek cultural influence over the Bulgarian history, ranking it among the Bulgarian national revival factors. Shishmanov is convinced that we can be well acquainted with our own history only if we examine the phenomena of Bulgarian society’s spiritual life in their Balkan context, thus he convincingly refutes the romantic myth about the “uniqueness, originality, exceptionality and exclusiveness” of the nation, a myth that eliminates the search for parallels between the particular peoples’ development. Exactly on the basis of the similarity in the peoples’ development he reveals the mutual influence and borrowings in the cultural life of the Balkan peoples. Shishmanov disproves the view inhereted from the foregoing age that in the 19th century there existed tensions and conflicts connected only with opposing to “the other” on national base, since the national mythology requires the nation to be absolutely united and integrated. He is deeply convinced that myths in history can thrive only upon the ignorance for “the other” and therefore insists that it is Bulgarian school’s duty to make the Bulgarian children acquainted with the culture of the neighbouring Balkan peoples.