![Језички знак у светлу философије именославља](/api/image/getbookcoverimage?id=document_cover-page-image_481558.jpg)
We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
The church of Saint Sophia in Ohrid was built by Archbishop Leo (1037–1056), “the first of the Greek” since the founding of the Archbishopric of Ohrid (1019), on the site of an older church. On the model of the cathedral church of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, he dedicated the church to St. Sophia, and its chapels to the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, Saint John the Baptist and the Holy Apostles, whose relics are kept in their Constantinople church. No doubt, the painters were brought from the capital, as well; certain scenes distinctive of Constantinople art were also painted in St. Sophia, again probably by the intervention of Archbishop Leo. His imprint is most perceptible in the decoration of the sanctuary. Certain dogmatic-liturgical themes are presented there, whose iconography coincides for the most part with Leo’s viewpoints expressed between 1052 and 1054 in his epistles addressed to Bishop John of Trani, and also the entire Western clergy including the Pope. In his polemic with the West, the Archbishop of Ohrid drew mostly from the Pauline epistles and argued that leavened bread was the only true body of Christ, and as such needed to be used in the Eucharist. There is, therefore, very little doubt why the Eucharist should be painted in the apse of the church in Ohrid instead of the Communion of Apostles. This image contains subtle iconographic meanings, very closely related to the theological discussions of the time. Two scenes from the north wall are also connected to the Communion of Apostles: the Vision and the First Service of Saint Basil, depicting the origin of Byzantine liturgy. It stems from Christ and the Apostles, for it was Christ who inspired St. Basil to compose his Liturgy, which Basil himself served in the sanctuary immediately thereafter. It was probably Leo again who had the eminent Greek hierarchs gathered around St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom painted in the apse, along with several scenes from the Old Testament prefiguring the Incarnation and the New Testament service. There is no doubt that Archbishop Leo is to be further accredited with the representations of the great number of holy bishops and with their order. They served to assert the primacy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople which constituted the center of all the local Orthodox churches. This ideal image of Christian ecumenism also included the Western Church, which was represented by the images of Roman Popes honored by the Byzantine world. Furthermore, Leo accounted for the origin of his Archbishopric by the portraits of the popes Innocent and Vigilius who recognized the autocephaly of the Vicariate of Thessaloniki and Justiniana Prima, Church organisations preceding first the Bulgarian, and then the Archbishopric of Ohrid. The Bulgarian Church — the second component which led to the creation of the autocephaly of the Archbishopric of Ohrid — was presented in the Ohrid fresco-painting by the images of SS. Cyril and Clement, whereas the constitution of the Archbishopric of Ohrid was represented by the portrait of Patriarch Eusthatius (1019–1025), during whose time the Archbishopric was established. Taking all of this into account, one should regard Archbishop Leo as the real creator of the fresco programme in St. Sophia in Ohrid: he authorized it, but also propagated certain themes which he found particularly important. Those were associated with liturgy, the issue of communion bread, the relationship between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Rome, as well as with the autocephaly of the Archbishopric of Ohrid. The frescoes are permeated with references to the events at the time of the Great Schism, in which Archbishop Leo played one of the most important roles. Today, without the historical context it would be hard to understand the frescoes in Ohrid and their iconography. Therefore, the frescoes should be dated between the years 1052, the start of the polemic with Rome and 1056, the passing of Archbishop Leo. In his cathedral church, he not only created a first-rate work of art, but also an artwork which marks the threshold of a new era in Byzantine art after 1054.
More...
The countenance and role of portraits on the partly preserved fresco in St. Sofia church in Ohrid showing manifestation of Divine Wisdom have been differently interpreted. Starting from the hagiography of St. Basil the Great, some art historians have interpreted this fresco as Christ’s and holy Apostle’s epiphany to St. Basil the Great, who is being called to the service in the holy altar. Other art historians have envisaged the composition in a wider context, primarily pointing to a special place of St. Paul in the apostolic choir, as well as to a special bond between Paul the Apostle, the most meritorious New Testament herald of the Holy Wisdom, and his best hermeneutist, St. John Chrysostom. It is certain that the painter of the St. Sofia Church found an inspiration for the presentation of Holy Wisdom in sophiological texts of the Old Testament, in St. Paul’s epistles as well as in the testimonies of St. Proclus of Constantinople re corded in the Hagiography of St. John Chrysostom. The representation of the Holy Wisdom as a girl stems from the tradition relying on the King Solomon’s tales, in which the Holy Wisdom builds a home and summons people to eat bread and wine she has prepared (9, 1–5). In this context, the representation of the Holy Wisdom should not be interpreted regardless of the image of Jacob’s ladder, since this representation, being placed in the altar symbolizing Heaven, makes present the very incarnation of the Son who came down from Heaven (John 3, 13). The liturgical context of Holy Wisdom representation is underlined by the image of St. Basil the Great, certainly the most significant Divine Liturgy maker/creator, beside St. John Chrysostom. Both of these compositions, the Jacob’s ladder and Service of St. Basil the Great, related to the epiphany of Holy Wisdom to St. John Chrysostom, enclose both aspects of “Divine Economy”: the coming of Christ into the world and his Eucharistic sacrifice in Liturgy. The position of Holy Wisdom in the altar suggests not only “symbolic interpretation of an exceptional rhetorical gift” nor just “Divine inspiration — a dream of St. John Chrysostom” since both the rhetorical gift and divine inspiration need the same life-giving source — the Holy Eucharist. The participation in the agape that Holy Wisdom prepared (as it is stated in the 3rd line of the 9th chapter of King Solomon’s tales) refers to, according to St. John of Damascus, ineffable future goods that Holy Wisdom would give to those who take her Body as their meaningful food and her Blood as their meaningful drink. The Holy Wisdom’s agape, which was prepared long before, in the words of St. Maximus the Confessor, is a final destination and purpose of the painting in the Church of St. Sofia in Ohrid.
More...
The fragments of three rulers’ images are preserved in the highest zone of the eastern wall of what is known as Gregory's Gallery in the exonarthex of the Ohrid cathedral. They are represented on each side of the images of the Deesis, with Christ on the throne, flanked by the images of two archangels, and two saints who mediate for the rulers. Based on the number of the ruler’s portraits, scholars assumed that these are the portaits of the Serbian emperor Dušan, his wife Jelena, and their son Uroš. Therefore, the mural paintings of the gallery are dated to the period between 1350 and 1355 because of the great stylistic similarity between the frescoes of the gallery and those on the first floor of the narthex which were painted by John Teoryanos and his assistants at the end of the fifth decade of the 14th century. One can reliably assume that the first ruler’s image from the left side of the north wall is, in fact, the portrait of the male member of the family. Such an assumption is based on the existence of the small fragment of an extremely long loros, a detail that was not observed by researchers. On the right side of the adjacent figure, a fragment of a semicircular decorative detail is preserved. This detail is reminiscent of the semicircular ornaments on the male sakkos. However, the possibility that the mentioned image is a portrait of the empress Jelena should not be excluded. Namely, one may think that the detail in question is, in fact, the fragment of a long, wide sleeve of a female ruler’s dress. Portraits of Jelena in Saint Nicholas Bolnički in Ohrid and in Lesnovo point to this conclusion. In addition, one should pay attention to the fact that the throne and the legs of Christ are intentionally directed to the south side. That is why we assume that the portait of Dušan was represented on that side, and the portraits of his son and wife who is nearer to Christ , were on the opposite, north side of the eastern wall of the gallery. Based on the existence of a supaedion, on which the figure nearest to Christ on the north side is standing, one can conclude that it is the image of the Virgin. The vertical decorative stripes on her dress are almost identical to those in the churches of Saint Demetrios in the Patriarchate of Pe}, Marko’s Monastery, Lesnovo and Konče. The assumption that the bishop represented on the opposite side of Christ should be identified as Saint Clement of Ohrid cannot be accepted without reserve. Namely, he was not represented with the long pointed beard that covers a part of his omophorion, as was the case on almost all of the images of Saint Clement. That is why the possibility that the image of some other holy bishop is in question seems more acceptable. One should especially examine the possibility that it was Saint Nicholas of Myra. Primarily, the only holy bishop that was represented in the Deesis in Eastern Christian iconography instead of Saint John the Forerunner was, as far as we know, just Saint Nicholas. As valid comparative examples, one can mention the images of the Deesis from the diakonikon of Sopo}ani, above the portal of the narthex of Saint Nicholas Domnesc in Kurtea de Arges, or the Deisis represented on the Russian icon from Tver, painted at the begining of the 16th century. It should be emphasized that Saint Nicholas was greatly respected during the reign of Dušan. This Serbian ruler had an almost personal attitude towards this saint and bishop. Evidence of this is Dušan’s gift to the basilica of Saint Nicholas in Bari, dedications of the smaller church of his mausoleum and the paraklession in Dečani, as well as from the texts of several of his charters. In some of the aforementioned documents, the mediating role of Saint Nicholas is especially stressed. Such a status was assigned to Saint Nicholas in the western part of the Dečani naos, as well. There is a “spatial Deesis” consisting of the figure of the Christ, the Virgin, Saint John the Baptist and Saint Nicholas. Finally, since Saint Nicholas was the namesake of the archbishop of Ohrid, there are grounds for assuming that it was the archbishop who wanted Saint Nicholas to be represented in the Deesis composition.
More...
Having come under the scientific spotlight almost half a century ago, the Church of St.Nicholas at the village of Čelopek, westward of Skopje, has remained unpublished up to the present day, with just scanty research so far undertaken (notes 2–4). There are no historical data preserved on the said church that was repaired in the 19th century. The original fresco-paintings of this small, single-nave church include fragments preserved in the pendentives (part of the figures of four evangelists), the apse (Old-Church Slavonic scrolls as fragments of the scene of the Officiating Prelates) and in the second register of the side walls, the reduced programme of major iconographic wholes, the Great Feasts and the Passion Cycle: on the south wall are the Nativity of Christ, the Presentation in the Temple, the Baptism, and the Resurrection of Lazarus and on the north wall — the scene of Christ before Pilate, the Way to Calvary, the Crucifixion of Christ and the Resurrection (fig. 1–6). A couple of scenes are of singular iconography. An interesting conception of the Nativity of Christ — iconographically created by the modification of its model — expresses a powerful parallelism between the birth and the death of Christ (notes 6–27). The fresco abounds with allusions of predominantly poetic inspiration, aiming through the scenes of Christ’s coming, to present in a seemingly paradoxical way, a simultaneous emphasis on His (role and) death (the manger as a stone sarcophagus, the Magi offering myrrh, a shepherd playing the flute alluding to a heavenly hymn, the Angels' adoration, the posture of Joseph reveals rather grief than anxiety, and Christ, in the arms of the chief midwife, wrapped up in a burial shroud, with a dark-colored aureole, who looks like the personification of the soul of a deceased person, not a new-born). The fresco is rather uncommon for its time, since the midwife (the apocryphal Salome) faces Christ in the cave whereby she is deprived of her regular iconographic role (pouring water into the basin). Christ before Pilate (fig. 4, note 32–42) stands out from the other examples for its depiction of the tent in which Pilate sits; the judge’s desk is omitted and the servant, bringing the dish and holding the jug — a boy commonly depicted as a young bareheaded man — wears a pinkish-white cap that is sometimes given to Pilate himself. Two events are combined within the composition the Way to Calvary — an advancing procession with Christ and Simon, carrying the cross, and the one presenting Jesus with the vinegar -the episode that does not belong to a standard iconography of the scene the Way to Calvary (fig. 4, n.43–50). The strange figure, standing before Christ and presenting the vinegar, is of an excessive height and ugly appearance, with a head resembling a bearded angel, probably intended to mark a negative person within the scene i.e. the person being mocked. The Crucifixion of Christ is characterised by the agitated posture of the clustered figures gathering around the Virgin, who has a completely languishing body posture (Fig. 5, notes 51–61). The motif of Mary's accentuated pain in this composition has not been commonly applied; however, it seems it was often used within a certain period, in the middle of the 14th century (Staro Nagor~ino, Pološko, Lesnovo, Marko’s Monastery and Čelopek). The motif complies with the laments of the Holy Mother in Byzantine works of literature, specifically in the liturgical drama of the Passion of Christ; still, it might have originated under the influence of contemporary art pieces in the West. As for the characteristics of style, the frescoes of Čelopek have been directly compared with the works of the so-called Skopje workshop, works of which may be registered in a certain part of the programme in the Lesnovo Monastery (the painter of the pendentives and vaults) and in Marko’s Monastery (the artists that painted the mid-area of the naos and the narthex). The painting of this workshop greatly resembles the work of the artist in the narthex of the De~ani Monastery (the painter of the Calendar, after 1343); it also bears a similarity to the iconography in St. Athanasius at Lešak. Their art constitutes a part of a movement of expressionism in Byzantine painting during the Palaeologan era; the term relates to the style characterized by powerful and intense expressions.
More...
The group of scenes of Pilate’s Court in the Monastery of King Marko represents the most developed example of this iconographic theme in the fresco painting. It consists of seven episodes. They are part of the Passion cycle and are painted in the third register of the western wall of the naos. The first scene illustrates the verses of John 18:33–38, Matthew 27:11, Luke 23: 3, Mark 15:2 : ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ The second is described in John 18:38 and Luke 23:5. Pilate says to the Jews: ‘I find in him no fault at all.’ The third scene is also according to John 19:10, describing Pilate when he said to Jesus: ‘Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?’.The fourth depicts the moment when Pilate said to the Jews, "You take Him and judge Him according to your law," (John 18:31). In the fifth scene Pilate brought Jesus out and sat down in the judgement seat in a place that is called ‰TheŠ Pavement, but in Hebrew, it is Gabbatha (John 19:13). For the previous scenes there are no analogies which could enrich the iconographic analyses. They demonstrate a narrative attitude and a close connection to the Gospels — their textual source. The most prominent iconographic elements are the depictions of Domus Pilati, Gabbatha and Lithostraton, which indicate the interest in the Loca sancta of Jerusalem. The next scene is the Flagellation of Christ. Its iconography extends over the limits of the textual sources of the Gospels and Apocrypha. The closest parallel is the depiction of the Flagellation in the Church of St. George in Re~ica, near Ohrid. The key motive of the scene is the the coloumn of Christ’s Flagellation. If we compare this type of composition with three figures, it can be seen that it was disseminated in Byzantium as well as in Western Europe. Some of the examples which confirm this are: the icon with Passion scenes from the Vlatadon Monastery (c. 1370), the diptych with miniatures of the Passion from the Chilandar Monastery (beginning of the 14th c.), the engraved scene at the bottom of the Cross from the treasure of Conques (the first half of the 14th c.), the triptych in Namur (c. 1320–1330) etc. The last scene is Pilate washing his hands (Mattew 27:24–25). The most important elements of the iconography are the depiction of the table and implements for writing. According to the Late Roman and Early Byzantine sources, such as Notitia Dignitatum and John the Lydian, these elements represented the insignia of the governmental authorities. This is well illustrated in the Trial miniatures in the Rossano Gospels. Their depiction in the Byzantine monuments of the Palaiologan period is founded on the iconographic experience of the Early Byzantine examples, as well as their administrative context during the Middle Byzantine period and also on contemporary practices. Pilate’s Court in the Church of St. Demetrius reflects the strengthened interest in the trial process. It is represented according to the elements of the Roman juridical process-cognitio. Another important question concerns the reason for devoting so much attention to the Trial scenes in the fresco programme of the Monastery of King Marko. In an attempt to come closer to the answer, we found it useful to bear in mind what the image of Pilate was in Byzantine tradition. The second part of the paper is devoted to the comments and characterization of Pilate in the historical, dogmatic, hymnographic and juridical sources. The subject also included the categories and meanings of the law and justice. The elaborately presented scenes of Pilate’s Court in the Monastery of King Marko are an isolated instance, which, in the absence of analogies, raises numerous questions about the establishment and development of the iconographic themes. However, its contents indicate that the persons, who were responsible for designing the fresco programme, had a knowledge of the doctrinal, historical, political and legal significance of this topic.
More...
The sakkos of ecclesiastical dignitaries is festive attire of a rectangular cut, joined at the sides, with very short sleeves. Previous researchers have pointed out that only three Byzantine writers wrote about it. They were Theodore Balsamon, chartophylax of St. Sophia in Constantinople and the Patriarch of Antioch (second half of the 12th century), Ohrid Archbishop Demetrios Chomatenos (first half of the 13th century) and Archbishop Symeon of Thessaloniki (first decades of the 15th century). There is no preserved written source that would testify which Serbian church dignitaries wore the sakkos and when they received the right to wear it. The only sources on the use of the sakkos in the Serbian Church are the preserved representations of its highest dignitaries. St. Sava of Serbia and his successors — archbishops and later, patriarchs — were depicted wearing the sakkos. The oldest paintings date back to the reign of King Milutin (Figs. 1–2). Some time later, in 1334, the ancient city of Ohrid was included in the Serbian state. Its archbishops enjoyed the right assigned to them much earlier, to wear the sakkos, and they retained that right. So in the Serbian Church, the sakkos was worn by the archbishops and later patriarchs, and the Ohrid archbishops, as well. The oldest preserved pictures of the Serbian archbishops clad in the sakkos are the representation of St. Sava of Serbia in the narthex of the Virgin Ljevi{ka church (Fig. 1), decorated between 1307 and 1313, and the portrait of Archbishop Sava III in the illustration of the Christmas sticheron in the passage that leads to the narthex in @i~a (Fig. 2), painted between 1309 and 1316. That means that awarding the right to wear the sakkos occurred in 1313, at the latest. It certainly was not only a religious but also a political gesture. Byzantine state policy toward Serbia and probably church policy as well, significantly changed for the better during the reigns of Emperor Andronicus II and King Milutin. That created fertile ground, enabling the Serbian church dignitaries to receive the honor to wear the most festive ecclesiastical vestments. The Byzantine emperor, apparently, could have had a major influence on the process of bringing such a decision. However, the question arises as to which patriarch of Constantinople granted this right to the Serbian archbishops. At the beginning of the 14th century, the ecumenical patriarchs were John XII Cosmas (January 1, 1294 to June 21, 1303), Athanasius I (second time, from June 23, 1303 to September 1309) and Niphon I (May 9, 1310 to April 11, 1314). At that time, the throne of the Serbian archbishops was occupied by Eustatius II (1292–1309) and Sava III (1309–1316). Very little is known about these Serbian archbishops. On the other hand, there are numerous sources about the Church's policies and attitudes of the mentioned Constantinople patriarchs. Eustatius II could have received the right to wear the sakkos from John XII Cosmas or Athanasios I. For a long time, the former was fiercely opposed to the marriage of the Serbian king and the daughter of the Byzantine emperor. The latter maintained a very strict attitude. He left data on almost all of his moves in numerous letters, in which such a decision is not mentioned. Therefore, the probability that the first Serbian archbishop who received the sakkos was Eustatius II is negligible. Sava III could have obtained that right from Niphon I. That patriarch, along with an inclination for the easy life, pursued a conciliatory policy and pragmatism. So it is possible that, on the initiative of the emperor, he made the decision that the successors to the throne of St. Sava of Serbia should have the right to wear the sakkos. If this assumption is correct, then the Serbian archbishops received the honor to wear the most festive ecclesiastical garments after the appointment of Niphon I to the throne of the Constantinople patriarchs, which was performed on May 9, 1310. Anyway, this occurred after many changes in the political relations between the Byzantine and the Serbian state during the reigns of Emperor Andronicus II and King Milutin. In those crucial years the Serbian Church advanced from an organization whose canonical foundation was denied at the time of Michael VIII Palaeologos, to the archbishopric whose leaders received the right to wear the festive sakkos, like those worn by the ecumenical patriarchs at the time of Andronicus II.
More...
The subject o f this scholarly meeting is summarized in its title which gives the best possible formula of all topics dealt with in the said projects. Our goal is to see that, after the first year of work on the projects, these two research and education institutions organize a transparent conference which would provide access to the entire experience related to the project activities and to the results achieved by the research workers after a year-long effort. In the course o f such presentations, a need will arise for a critical overview and discourse o f all the issues and dilemmas encountered hitherto by the scholars. From the very start o f the sign-up period, in July 2001, the problems have, unfortunately, emerged in the formulation of entries in pursuance of the instructions in the project registration form. These were not the only nor the biggest problems. A prolonged waiting for the foreign reviews and for the allocation of research time, which w as considerably reduced as concerns our Institute, resulted in a 30% reduction of funding, and in a year-long struggle to get reimbursement for direct material expenses. Everyone is aware that such projects in the humanities, which have then special national significance, cannot be even conceived o f without fieldwork. As a matter o f principle, it should be pointed out here that the attitude to the humanities has, in the case o f our projects, proved inadequate. After this first year o f research work, in which a number o shortcomings has crystallized as being inappropriate to the nature and spirit o f the humanities, we do hope that in the ensuing stages such shortcomings will be eliminated. W e expect understanding and support from our financier. I am sure that today ’s presentations, a long with the afore said, and in combination with individual experiences acquired by the scholars during their research work in 2002, w ill yield a fruitful discussion which, as a rule, is the best achievement of such symposia.
More...
Ubistvo premijera Zorana Đinđića obeležilo je ne samo celu 2003. godinu, već će, sudeći po razvoju situacije u Srbiji, predstavljati istorijsko raskršće za Srbiju: za ili protiv Evrope. Ubistvom reformskog premijera, ne samo da su zaustavljene reforme i prekinuta saradnja sa Haškim tribunalom, već je otvoren put radikalizaciji Srbije, što su potvrdili i vanredni parlamentarni izbori. Nesposobnost i nespremnost DOS da napravi diskontinuitet sa Miloševićevim politikom, posebno ratnom, otvorilo je put restauraciji regime anciene i ubedljivoj pobedi njegovih predstavnika na vanrednim parlamentarnim izborima. Od ubistva premijera Zorana Đinđića do parlamentarnih izbora ostvareni su skoro u celosti ciljevi puzećeg puča, uprkos pokušaju međunarodne zajednice da održi kurs reformi kroz, pre svega, prijem SCG u članstvo Saveta Evrope već tokom vanrednog stanja. Sve aktivnosti ujedinjenih snaga (cela opozicija, većina nevladinih organizacija i medija) bile su usmerene na obaranje vlade i njenu kompromitaciju. Na izborima su pobedile one snage koje su zbog rešavanja "nacionalnog pitanja" odlagale tranziciju i demokratizaciju društva. Zbog istrošenosti i poraza nacionalnog projekta, kao i zbog sprečavanja stvaranja alternative, konzervativna srpska elita našla je novi oslonac populističke politike u produkciji afera i skandala. Njihov cilj nisu bile ekonomske reforme već diskvalifikacija protivnika, što je potpuno devalviralo stvarnu borbu protiv korupcije, kao i same reforme. Pobeda SRS i DSS garancija je da će se kurs nastaviti, što se prelama preko debate o novom ustavu, rešavanju kosovskog i vojvođanskog pitanja, saradnji sa Haškim tribunalom, odnosu prema državnoj zajednici i odbijanju suočavanja sa neposrednom prošlošću. Radikalizacija politike u Beogradu dodatno destabilizije, ne samo zemlju, već i ceo region.
More...
With Montenegro’s successful referendum on independence and the resolution of Kosovo status on the international agenda in 2006 the process of ex-Yugoslavia’s dissolution moved into the final stage. Serbia was faced with the challenge of constituting and defining herself in terms of state and society. The very fact that the process of ex-Yugoslavia’s disintegration nears its end contributes to consolidation and stability of the Balkans. The decision to admit Serbia – her fluid domestic situation and hesitation to decisively opt for Europe - into the membership of the PfP was meant to round off the security structure of the Balkan region. 1 Membership of the PfP moved Serbia closer to the European option but also implied establishment of mechanisms that could play important role in the event of her destabilization. At the same time, the membership of the PfP figured as a victory over the army’s conservative bloc that has not only stood in the way of its reform but also obstructed the army’s adjustment to new circumstances and the new concept of security under the pretext of defending the state’s sovereignty. Gen. Zdravko Ponos’ appointment the Chief of General Staff completed the package recommending Serbia for speedier access to European integrations. However, the strong lobby that will be refuting and slowing down such orientation is still there.
More...
The international community’s intervention put an end to two decades of massive violation of human rights (genocide, war crimes, persecution, torture, etc.) in the Balkans. The international community also set up the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to impose non-impunity and justice. Unfortunately, the end of massive and brutal violation of human rights did not result in adequate punishment of crimes. The process of establishment of a legal frame that would incorporate relevant international human rights documents is slow-paced and meets a number of obstacles – from both local and international players. Almost ten years after the intervention, it is still disputable whether the endeavor to protect human rights has actually promoted the human rights concept as imperative for a modern, democracy-oriented society. Serbia’s experience – but also that of neighboring countries – clearly indicates that such an ambitious plan necessitates decades of commitment. Some progress has been made in Serbia that – under the pressure from the international community but also from domestic actors – had to sign all relevant international conventions and regulate the domain of human rights under the Constitution and a number of laws.
More...
EU strategic decision on Serbia’s candidacy is crucial for the country’s further movement towards European integrations. Had it not been for it, Serbia’s poor democratic potential would have been trapped by its strong, populist right-wing. The Serbian society is still incapable to definitely opt for a substantive, democratic transformation and fulfillment of the Copenhagen criteria. Regardless of all the pressures to which it has probably been exposed, the political pivot’s, the Democratic Party’s, failure to progress more towards Europeanization testifies of its lack of states manly leadership and inability for a political U-turn. Having radicalized the Kosovo issue Belgrade has undermined its standing in EU. Mainstream political and intellectual elites do not look to the future. Serbia needs to take stock of its situation. The society’s un-readiness to cope with the past plays into the hands of the political right and its attempts at blocking Serbia’s Euro-Atlantic integration. Rather than accept the reality, the political elite is autistic and trapped by self-pity. As long as its elite role-plays a victim Serbia will not be able to work constructively on its future and the future of the region.
More...
O tome kako je Srbija reagovala na izazov na početku Trećeg milenijuma napisano je već mnogo knjiga. Pred čitaocem je knjiga koja se u tom mnoštvu izdvaja po tome ko, kada i šta u njoj govori. Na talasima Radija Deutsche Welle, 149 intelektualaca, pretežno srpske nacionalnosti, ali i stranaca koji se Srbijom profesionalno bave, u 169 intervjua govore o stanju u Srbiji uglavnom posle 5. oktobra 2000. godine. Po definiciji kritičko, individualno mišljenje ekonomista, istoričara, lekara, diplomata, umetnika zaokružilo je zabrinjavajuću sliku celine. Govoreći nezavisno jedan od drugoga, sagovornici Radija Deutsche Welle otkrivaju realnost Srbije koja se bitno razlikuje od službene realnosti. Označavan kao mirna revolucija, kao novi početak za Srbiju, kao njena istorijska šansa da, uz nepodeljenu podršku Evropske unije i Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, prestane da gubi vreme, 5. oktobar 2000. godine, kada je uklonjen konsenzualni autokrata Slobodan Milošević, bio je višeznačan događaj. Probuđene su velike nade; stvorena nerealna, ali objašnjiva očekivanja; postignuto prividno jedinstvo intencija glavnih aktera. Ali, sam po sebi, 5. oktobar 2000. godine nije predstavljao bilans onoga što se u prethodnih 15 godina događalo, a još manje jasnu projekciju Srbije u budućnosti. Pokušaj koji je u tom pravcu učinio premijer Zoran Đinđić brutalno je zaustavljen njegovim ubistvom. Legalizam je bio novo ime za velikodržavni projekat devedesetih godina koji je Srbiju doveo do katastrofe, a srpsko nacionalno i državno pitanje u ćorsokak. Demontaža režima Slobodana Miloševića mogla je nastupiti samo kao posledica diskontinuiteta sa tom politikom. Diskontinuitet nije, međutim, moguć tako što će se reći ’’sada je prekretnica, ovim danom prestaje ono i počinje ovo, već tako što će se, prethodno, objasniti šta se to desilo u prethodnim godinama, i sa čim se to ne uspostavlja kontinuitet već se gradi novo društvo’’ (O. Milosavljević). Sagovornici Radija Deutsche Welle nepodeljeni su u uverenju da je glavno merilo kontinuiteta/diskontinuiteta odnos prema zločinima koji su počinjeni u Hrvatskoj, Bosni i Hercegovini i na Kosovu. Taj odnos su i sve demokratske zemlje u svetu postavile kao uslov da Srbija povrati izgubljeni državni kredibilitet. Posle isporučivanja Slobodana Miloševića Međunarodnom krivičnom sudu u Hagu, odnosno posle ubistva premijera Zorana Đinđića, došlo je do identifikovanja Srbije sa zločinom. To je produbilo sukob sa svetom i, samim tim, blokiralo unutrašnje promene: ’’Poricanje zločina jeste najveći problem i zbog toga što konzervira srbijansko društvo, a srbijansko društvo, zahvaljujući tom poricanju zločina, ostaje da živi u atmosferi u kojoj je sasvim normalno i, čak, poželjno ubiti nekoga zato što pripada drugoj etničkoj grupi.’’ Tako se ’’ne prekida sam ciklus nasilja’’ (M. Toma). Upravo u ovom postratnom razdoblju došlo je do grube netolerancije prema svim manjinama, do buđenja antisemitizma i klerofašizma. U glavama, rat još uvek traje: ’’Zvijer je tu ... zato što u ovoj savani ima još toliko hrane za nju’’(V. Krmpotić). Čime se ona hrani? Upravo zaokupljenošću istrošenim velikodržavnim projektom, državom kao mitskom a ne ljudskom tvorevinom, ksenofobijom, političkom kulturom koja se održava na proizvodnji neprijatelja. A za to vreme, Srbija nazaduje: sve je dalje od vladavine prava i ekonomskih sloboda. Srbija se okreće u sve užem krugu i sa sve manje mogućnosti izbora. Vladajuće strukture ’’mogu da se obogate samo dok su na vlasti ... kroz korupciju’’, i promene im nisu u interesu. U takvu zemlju teško dolaze investicije, i ona je osuđena na stagnaciju (M. Prokopijević). Produbljuje se jaz između Srbije i sveta (S. Popović). U svim istočnoevropskim zemljama postoje otpori promenama, ali u Srbiji ’’Vlada pokušava da vrati zemlju u samoizolaciju’’. Ne radi se samo o inerciji već o ideološkim opredeljenjima ’’koja su antizapadna i antievropska’’. Analitičari razmišljaju o tome šta može da se uradi da se ta ideologija promeni, ali se ne ustežu da postave pitanje: ’’Da li to uopšte može da se menja?’’ (J. Lyon) Formiran je mentalitet čije su karakteristike ’’veličanje negativnog’’, ’’emocionalno mrtvilo’’, odsustvo ’’dissenta (neslaganja), nema opozicije, pobune’’ (M. Ilić). Zemlju sve više karakteriše zatvaranje. Posledice su dvojake. Na unutrašnjem planu: etnička i politička homogenizacija, svaki politički protivnik je neprijatelj. Na spoljnom planu, Srbija postaje ekonomski i društveno inkompatibilna sa okruženjem koje se menja. (’’Srbija, još uvek, ima najvišu državnu potrošnju u Evropi - 55 procenata.’’ (M. Prokopijević)). Njene institucije se urušavaju: u Vojsci ginu regruti, i to ostaje bez objašnjenja. Crkva ne unosi u narod veru već politiku. I u njenom je dugoročnom interesu da podupre težnje ka pravdi, jer bez pravde nema oproštaja i pomirenja, nema mira. Država gubi kredibilitet jer odbija da ispuni svoje međunarodne obaveze. Šta u toj situaciji može pojedinac? Da dijagnosticira stanje u oblasti za koju je kompetentan. Bez toga nije moguć bilans neposredne prošlosti. U tom smislu, pojedinačni iskazi 149 intelektualaca na Radiju Deutsche Welle predstavljaju izraz nepristajanja na nazadovanje. Sabrani u ovoj knjizi, oni predstavljaju važno svedočanstvo koje obavezuje vladajuće strukture u Srbiji. Ne može se ignorisati stvarnost ako postoji politička volja da se ona menja i da se nazadovanje Srbije zaustavi.
More...
(ANOTHER SERBIA) Every Saturday for a period of two months, from the beginning of April till the end of June 1992, sessions organized by the Belgrade Circle were held at the Student Cultural Centre in Belgrade. At these sessions, ten in all, intellectuals, members of the Belgrade Circle and their quest – distinguished writers, scientists, artists, journalists, film and theatre directors, architects, actors, interpreters – expressed their own views of another, radically different Serbia. In times of anguish and affliction, the meetings, attended by a large assembly of listeners experiencing a kind of moral purification, were nonetheless imbued with a frail hope that there still might be a chance for a turn in events. With a desire to present ideas, opinions and sensations shared by the participants of the Belgrade Circle sessions to a much larger audience, the reading public, and to preserve them, because of their merit, in a more lasting form, discussions of over eighty intellectuals were compiled to form this book. In the meantime, the overwhelming disaster has reached its climax: »The Bosnian War«, still raging with no feasible way out as yet, exploded and blazed up like fire. The Belgrade Circle participants, distressed and abashed at the display of all those real or imagined evil deeds, so eagerly reported by the portentous heralds of death voiced hitherto often deeply hidden and silent feelings and thoughts about their burdensome disgust at the plague gripping and afflicting us all. Each participant contributed in his or her own way – rigorous scientific analysis, artistic susceptibility, eyewitness accounts, or simply. A public-minded desperate wail – to the shaping of one new, public opinion, the one that stirred in that sad Spring of ’92 and rebelled against the general fear, animosity, devastation, extermination, ethnic cleansing, forcible population exchanges... All those responsible and public-minded citizens, holding different political opinions, some members of various political parties, with incomparable personal experiences, varied professional interest and often of »objectionable« national origin, showed, however the will to insert tolerance among the basic principles of a humanized way of fife. But, in spite of the pronounced differences, their common aim, discernable in each and every speech imported to the audience, was to finally establish a community based on simple but as yet still unattainable ideals such as peace, freedom, tolerance and justice in place of degrading political, national and religious exclusiveness. Participants focussed their attention on various aspects of the problem: some analysed the roots of hatred and evil; some indicated the disastrous consequences of irresponsible national myth revivals; others warned of menaces yet to come unless we see reason in time. Some were stern, others witty and others still perhaps too prone to pathos, but they were all deeply concerned, and, as it unfortunately turned out, correct in predicting subsequent events. Therefore, individuals who take no notice of current, official policy and who have for a long time now tenaciously refused to render their talent and knowledge to the needs of the authorities, gathered round a project titled »Another Serbia«. Instigating a state of war and providing alleged erudite justification for the necessity of mutual extermination in the name of some noble goals, vague even to the very massacre executors, must not and cannot be the vocation of anyone who considers him or herself an »intellectual«, or earns a living acting as one. Hence, all session participants had but one desire: to mark out a path that may lead into a more promising future, to another, different, better and happier Serbia. »Another Serbia« soon became the synonym of resistance to fabricated lies, nationalistic madness, criminal war, a fascist holocaust, senseless destruction of villages and cities. Thanks are also due to the daily newspaper »Borba« which regularly reported on the Belgrade Circle Saturday sessions, and published a number of contributions presented there... We hope that the Another Serbia we all aspire to be easily discernable in the collection of essays presented in this book. The reader who hopes to find traces of at least some political program will be gravely disappointed. At present, when politics have poisoned the very soul of so many men of letters and knowledge, and when, among the most violent oppressors, in the ranks of all mortal enemy groups, one finds so many proud bearers of scientific degrees, who may actually be designated as men of unmerited and easily squandered reputation, it has become somewhat indecent to praise »intellectual pursuits«. The Belgrade Circle was, however, founded early in 1992 with the aim of retrieving dignity – another dangerous quality! – to public speech and conceived plans of action for the benefit of truth. We do not take an elitist position and stand indifferently above the crowd. On the contrary, being deeply involved and concerned, we place ourselves in its midst. The Association of Independent intellectuals insists upon its main goal, as declared in the program, namely, to bring together »critically oriented public figured who wish to unite their own civil and intellectual engagements with those of other, basically similarly oriented people«. That is why the Belgrade Circle will continue to »promote ideas, deeds and activities that affirm the values of a democratic, civil and plural society...« The Belgrade Circle will »encourage free and critical thought in all spheres of public life. It will support and help institutions and individuals who resist violence and animosity, and who plead for dialogue and for the survival of culture as the only humanly valid way of life«. Fine speeches? Maybe. Nevertheless, the Belgrade Circle has already, and despite many organizational and financial hardships, as well as ugly and unjust abuse from people who should have been, by the very nature of their vocation, in our ranks had they not knuckled under the burden of a more noble – national to be sure – mission, gained an undeniably high reputation. The words uttered with the aim of promoting »Another Serbia« and presented in this book to serve at testimony to the existence of a number of sensible people, shrewd and brave enough to resist suffocation by overwhelming absurdity, were not the only »weapon« used by Belgrade Circle members. They had also an active part in numerous civil and peace movements and events, thus contributing to the establishment of critical public opinion in Belgrade and Serbia: let us recall, for instance, the sad candles and our wake in the park, with souls colder than the Belgrade frost, while one of the past infernal wars – God, which one was it? – was raging out there somewhere; let us recall the »Black Band«, »Yellow Band«, »Student Protest ‘92«, and our endeavours to bring the people of Hrtkovci (»Srbislavci«) to reason; let us recall our guests from Pljevlja, Montenegro, Bosnia... All the time we were just launching our unhappy and, we believe, noble, though perhaps futile venture the very first participant said: let the Belgrade Circle begin it’s work! We hope that by offering this book to the public we have already come a long way. (INTELLECTUALS AND WAR) This volume, Intellectuals and War, follows on the heels of last year’s publication of Another Serbia. Like the latter, it is the result of the work of the Belgrade Circle. As the reader will recall, Another Serbia is a collection of over eighty talks given by members of this association of independent intellectuals and their guests, during ten of the sessions of the Belgrade Circle held every Saturday from the beginning of April to the end of June 1992. Intellectuals and War brings together some fifty texts, which were presented as part of the series »Intellectuals and War« organized every other week, for ten sessions from the beginning of October 1992 until the end of February 1993. At a time when every call for peace, national tolerance, and liberal democracy was being confronted with scorn, disdain, and open ridicule; at a time, that is, when even the most cautious doubts about the utility of the war, which might deflate the state mythology were being denounced as acts of treason committed by slanderers of the National Idea, the Belgrade Circle organized the thematic series, »Another Serbia« and introduced itself to the domestic public as one of the truly rare associations (not to mention political parties, the few exceptions not withstanding) whose members refused on principle to contribute to the destruction of other nations and the demise of their own. With this series and, particularly, with the publication of our book by the same name, the expression »Another Serbia« became a motto for all those who sooner or later came to see the dangers of the nationalist policies of the past five or more years. Unfortunately, many of the dark forebodings expressed in that first series proved to be true. With tragedies mounting at an alarming rate, many words that then sounded very strong, sometimes even, strident, have become but mild reproaches today. Words that once, only a year ago, were just short of blasphemy, have long since become commonplace in the mildest critical discourse in which almost everyone engages. Yet, in looking through the pages of Another Serbia today, one issue emerges from a number of the contributed works that still has not permeated public consciousness deeply enough and has only with great difficulty found its way into the conscience of those individuals to whom it directly refers. This is, of course, the matter of the responsibility of intellectuals for spreading national intolerance, inflaming hatred, advocating war, and – eventually – for instigating crimes and barbaric destruction and causing the isolation, poverty, denigration and scorn which has since come our way. With this in mind, the Belgrade Circle, as an association of – to repeat – independent intellectuals, decided to organize its second thematic series of discussions around this sensitive and uncomfortable question, which is often protected by taboo. The Belgrade Circle did not act impetuously in calling for an open examination of the role of public-opinion makers in the Yugoslav tragedy. Nor did it do so only after having seen the tragic results of conspicuous blunders by writers, scholars, and religious figures in irresponsible national mythmaking or – worse – in open incitement to war. Such a decision was part of the original motivation guiding the future founders of the Circle. Long before the disintegration of the country and before borders were redrawn, territory occupied and people expelled from their homes, they witnessed a number of their colleagues working as free agents or, more often, as institutional propagandists, dutifully reviving national myths, recounting the victims of pats years as if infatuated with death, reworking the ideology of land and blood and skilfully explaining the need for the South Slavic peoples to »separate« from one another once and for all. Seeing this, it became clear to the future members of the Belgrade Circle that it would not be long before these words were turned into deeds. The common denominator for the some twenty philosophers, sociologists, scientists, artists, and journalists who joined together in the Belgrade Circle was, in fact, the decisive refusal to participate in such undignified activities, which could only end in the horrors of war. In its founding Act, and later in number of public statements and individual appearances by its members, the Circle pointed to the responsibility of the »national intelligentsia« and »national institutions« for war and condemned their abuse of public speech. Although against political trials as a matter of principle, the Belgrade Circle argued in its first public statement that not only should politicians, military leaders, and those directly involved in executing their policies be held accountable for their deeds, but also intellectuals responsible for inciting war and causing crimes against humanity, the destruction of cultural and historical treasures, massive displacement of populations and the exile of numerous distinguished creative figures, and the involuntary flight of educated young people. The fact that it was precisely those individuals who given the nature of their work, should have been among our ranks, but chose instead to put their talents, knowledge, and reputation in the service of legitimising a new collectivism, who were the first to poke fun at the Circle and attack it with angry, even threatening messages made it convincingly clear that this important initiative was directed to the right address. At the crucial moment when the class-based identity of society began to collapse from within, these intellectuals, rather then putting their strength and authority into the democratic enlightenment of an apathetic citizenry actively helped to enthrone another new unifying principle, a new unio mistica which would, this time, be based on an artificially awakened and stimulated national identity. Thanks largely to these efforts, the opportunity to become a society of free individuals who act as autonomous citizens in the political sphere and not as anonymous members of the one and only Class, on Nation was again – and, again for a long time – gambled away. Put simply and crudely: once again, »ideologues«, »clerics«, and »guard dogs« have sold us a bill of goods. Few or the participants in the series »Intellectuals and War« were prepared to say that all »national intellectuals« were guided by evil intentions, hatred toward other peoples, vicious greed, futile craving for fame and honour, or the desire to gain the favour of the new/old rulers. It was clear to our authors that there were honest and intelligent people among these »national intellectuals« who sincerely believed that after the fall of the »old regime« it was more important to resolve the national question than to work for the establishment of parliamentary democracy. Reality – as is most often the case – provided them with a real basis for dissatisfaction. However, just as the framers of the idea of the social revolution before them, they turned to the implementation of the national revolution, without paying attention to the means those contracted do to the job – nurtured as they were in our rich tradition – would more than likely use. Thus, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the war began in words. Any rational observer of the now distant events could reasonably have expected the abbreviated series of exchanges between abstract ideas and concrete acts to turn easily and rapidly into bullets. After all, doesn’t the saying go: the pen is mightier than the sword!? A majority of the authors contributing to this volume, share the belief that if intellectuals – who have since become peace advocates – are now amazed and horrified by the sea of spilled blood, the ruined cities and villages, the rivers of displaced and uprooted people, and the previously unimaginable faschisation, impoverishment, and criminalisation of society, they must – if nothing else – face up to their own professional and moral responsibility for this. But this is a question of individual conscience which no one may or should pas a judgment. Some of the text, however, express the belief that another kind of responsibility – one that presumes more tangible consequences than merely having to confront oneself – must surely fall on the shoulders of that »portrait gallery« of our intellectual guard who have consciously advocated war and misted the people, captivating them with otherworldly messages, promising them the heavenly city, submerging them into the past, offering them dignity through force, and turning them away from the most natural desire to live a better and happier life with Others rather than in isolation from the outside world, imprisoned by self-love. One moment openly, the next moment covertly, they supported the consolidation of an authoritarian and indifferent regime, which would carry out the dirty work for them and for the greater glory of the Nation. They graciously allowed the forces of evil to strike, always ready to put the intellectuals’ most daring plans into action. Sometimes participating directly in the government, but more frequently, acting in the shadows as advisors to the absolute ruler and his priests and in collusion with our Volksgeist, these intellectuals were not prepared to take a stand at those moments when the people appeared to have come to their senses. They introduced even greater discord into the already confused political scene as they entered into the ranks of political parties that had the appearance of becoming democratic. Through both their silence and action, they allowed the uneducated electoral body to surrender itself to the one and only real leader. With these texts in front of us, it is tempting to outline a series of »generic-types«, that is, to construct a certain number of »ideal types« from among our national intellectuals. It is easy to understand those readers who would be happy with a string of unique caricature-like portraits. We have merely to think about all those crazed painters, poets of hearth and home, ominous prophets, patented demystifyers of planetary conspiracies and experts in deconstructing the »new world order«, ethno geneticists and amateur historians who trace their nation’s roots to ancient, even prehistoric times, former Marxists who find solace for their collapsed ideology in the »sweet joy of belonging« to the Nation, indefatigable drafters of geopolitical maps, and journalists and columnists who have persistently presented our unsophisticated readers and television audiences with an up side down picture of history and the world. But for now, let’s just keep these in mind: as, in this brief introduction we cannot even hope to sketch out such a typology, much less, to take on a detailed study of some prominent cases. What we can do is hope that a future systematic examination of the role of intellectuals in the wars we are going through will enable us to arrive at an answer to the question posed by the authors of this volume. They themselves have not been motivated by the ambition to offer an answer now and this motivation could hardly be sad to be common denominator among the various texts, which differ both in genre and in the opinions they present. As in Another Serbia, the contributors to Intellectuals and War have their own views and are alone responsible for their words.
More...
Actions of UNMIK ''Justice system'' in proceedings against the Monastery of Decani, which are the subject of substantive disputes regarding the rights of ownership of real estate by the monastery (originally taken from the monastery by the implementation of repressive measures in 1946 and then returned to a lesser extent under the Contract of Gift in 1997) indicate the lack of basic guarantees for the exercise of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and the right to a fair trial. Judgment of ''EULEX's Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo'' from 2012 sheds new light on the (in)ability to protect property of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Kosovo and Metohija.
More...
Starting from the observations on the advancement of modernity and the parallel regression of the authority and signification of the Christian moral values, we believe that an attempt to interpret the recent senses of the tensions between the temptation of sins and the imperative of the moral values is necessary. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the impact of sins on the capacity and disposition of the modern man for acknowledging the values of the Christian integrity, trying to concentrate mostly on interrogations as “why” and “how” we face a distancing from the values of the moral verticality and their substitution with the human horizontality. In other words, we will discuss the theological content of the causes and predictable results of the indissoluble contradiction between the human general propension for sin and the desiderate of the moral integrity.
More...
Any reference to the Romanian philosophy of the 20th century must also contain details about its relationship with modernity / modernization. As everywhere in Europe, in Romania, modernity has produced a paradigm shift. This position expressed a certain way of thinking about philosophy in a modernizing society. This volume contains the works of the Panel entitled "Tradition and modernization in Romanian philosophy in the twentieth century", proposed and moderated by Mihaela Gligor, as part of the International Conference "Modernism, modernization, modernity. Historiographical and methodological perspectives", organized by the "George Baritiu" Institute of History of the Romanian Academy of Sciences and Babeș Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca, between October 13-15, 2021, within the Cluj Academic Days 2021.
More...
Situated on the border of Latin and Orthodox Christianity, in a region where the infrastructural and the economical possibilities were limited, the Romanian village Seuca became an internationally known place for pilgrimage due to a blind Gypsy women's public visions about Virgin Mary in the first years of the new millennium. The author presents both the history of the ethnical and confessional co-existence in the village and the economical and social problems which affected the whole community. Then, the attitudes towards the apparition of the different denominations will be highlighted by presenting also the way the seer attempts to question the different denominational opinions. The legitimating strategies of a gypsy woman influenced very much the aspects of Virgin Mary vision from Seuca.
More...
The 𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑜 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑆𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 collections contain reports from the recurrent international symposium “Tarnovo Literary School”, which is the oldest and most respected forum on Old Bulgarian studies in Bulgaria and worldwide. It was held for the first time in 1971 under the auspices of UNESCO, and the first collection of articles came out in 1976. The𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑜 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑆𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 collections are among the most cited editions in the fields of Old Bulgarian studies and research into medieval Bulgarian spiritual and material culture from its pre-Tarnovo and Tarnovo periods, as well as on the cultural and literary ties between Byzantium, Bulgaria, and the Eastern Orthodox Slavic world. The main purpose of 𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑜 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑆𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 is to publish scholarly articles by Bulgarian and foreign researchers in the field of interdisciplinary medieval studies in order to explore the cultural and historical heritage of the Second Bulgarian Empire.
More...