Stefan Detchev

 

 

Mapping Russia in the Bulgarian Press (1886 – 1894)

 

 

Abstract: The article focusses on the image of Russia as reflected in the Bulgarian press from 1886 until 1894.

Keywords:  Russia, Bulgaria, Eastern Europe, mass-media

 

“We should always be obedient and grateful to Russia, because she is our mother that revived us”.

Sv. Milarov, 1886

“… She-Bear, which is standing up on her back legs and which is crying against you”.

Z. Stoyanov, 1886

“Russians are our brothers, our will, our blood”.

P.R. Slaveikov, 1879

“People, who are trying to rob your house, even if they are your brothers, they deserve bullet”.

D. Petkov, 1887

 

 

In 1878, as a result of the Russo-Turkish war, the modern Bulgarian state was born, reinforcing the long tradition of popularity that Russia had among the Bulgarian people. In the years after 1878, Russia was so popular in Bulgaria that there was no political force ready to openly oppose St. Petersburg.

This paper deals with a unique period in Bulgarian history when, as a result of the Bulgarian Unification of 5 September 1885[1] and the coup d’etat of 9 August 1886 (when pro-Russian Bulgarian officers kidnapped theBulgarian monarch), the country entered political crisis and Bulgarian-Russian relations were broken for a period of almost ten years. These events had a shattering impact on Bulgarian society and its political culture because they brought crucial political and cultural matters into debate. The “Bulgarian crisis” (1886-87)[2] challenged many assumptions about the role of Russia in Bulgarian history and politics. During that crisis as well as in the following years,[3] the politically active part of the population and the whole Bulgarian intelligentsia were irreconcilably divided when the debate about ”Russia” and the ”Russian menace” became central to Bulgarian political life.

In the period under consideration, because of the universal male suffrage that followed the Turnovo constitution of 1879,[4] how ordinary people in Bulgaria thought about political issues became increasingly important. That was why the pro-Russian and anti-Russian press competed for Bulgarian public opinion. In those years, and especially in 1886-87, relations with Russia was the main topic of many conversations, the burning issue of the day. The capital and the main towns were flooded with printed materials full of emotionally charged rhetoric about Russia. The debate about Russia and the “Russian menace” also played an important role in almost all pre-election campaigns. Moreover, during those years, the Russian theme was used for the mapping and drawing of political boundaries through inclusion and exclusion of one group or another from the frameworks of the Bulgarian political spectrum. The boundaries were presented as between “patriotism” and “treason”. The pro-Russian camp represented its policy as “patriotism” and “fidelity” to the “Bulgarian popular tradition” and depicted its adversaries as “criminals” and “traitors” to the “fatherland”.[5] It was just the opposite on the pages of Russophobian newspapers and political pamphlets, where the supporters of Russian policy were called “black traitors”, “black souls”, “traitors”, “Russian party”, “Russian agents”, “Russian spies” and “more Russian than real Russians”. Pro-Russians were depicted as admirers of “Russian occupation” and “Russian tutelage” over Bulgaria.[6]

Because of public opinion and the predominant trends in Bulgarian political culture, there was a certain instability and ambivalence in the use of terms such as “Russophile” and “Russophobe”. This ambivalence was the reason several different rhetorical strategies existed to describe these phenomena. In the very beginning, Bulgarian nationalists denied that they were “Russophobes”[7] and even depicted themselves as “Russophiles” blaming their adversaries for misusing the anti-Russian label.[8] It was during Stambolov’s rule (1887-94) that terms such as “Russophile” and “Russolover” were charged with negative meaning and used in pejorative contexts.[9] In other cases, “Russiphilism” was represented as an exploitation of popular feelings, sincere blindness or conscious treason. At the end of this period, “Russophilism” was depicted as a disreputable policy directed against “Bulgarian interests” and “Russophobia” as an embodiment of “patriotism.”[10] For the pro-Russian writers and politicians, on the other hand, “Russiphilism” was always a positive term and they used it to describe their policy. These authors definitely depicted the other camp as “Russophobes” and “Russohaters”.

The main goal of this paper is to analyze and reveal images and notions of Russia and the mapping of Russia’s Balkan policy in the Bulgarian press. Attention is paid to the Russophile and Russophobe discourses articulated in different printed materials. In this regard, Russia is considered here above all as an object of intellectual operations practiced upon it by Bulgarian political leaders, thinkers and journalists. Perhaps the relative adjacency and acquaintance of Russia to Bulgarians rendered it susceptible to depictions and representations that partook of both fact and imagination. That is why in what follows, I juxtapose different kinds of facts, artifacts and contemporaneous historical documentation.[11] The paper is based on a wide range of primary sources such as newspapers, journals and pamphlets, which were widely read at that time by a relatively small but politically active minority. Use has also been made of the rich archive materials of the Bulgarian Historical Archive of the National Library in Sofia, the Central State Historical Archive, the Scientific Archive of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, etc.

During the above-mentioned period, the Russian theme had a central place in Bulgarian newspapers and political pamphlets, and it was directly appropriated and interpreted in the frameworks of Bulgarian political reality and the political struggles in Bulgarian society. The main emphasis was put on the problems of Russian policy regarding Bulgaria and on Bulgarian-Russian relations, as well as on the role of Russia in international politics. Because of this international emphasis, the mapping of Russia had special importance.

In what follows I will concentrate on the extreme versions of both the Russophile and Russophobe discourses rather than on more moderate articulations because the latter were very marginal at that time. Because of the great number of themes, the result may seem overly schematic, but it is the only way to present all the languages that were included in the two conflicting discourses that contributed to the process of mapping Russia on the Bulgarian mental map.

In the very beginning, the Russophile press emphasized themes concerning the need for improvement of deteriorated Bulgarian-Russian relations[12]; the support and even the appeal for Russian occupation was depicted as a good solution to the political crisis.[13] In the following years, the main Russophile theme was connected with future reconciliation with Russia and the search for Russian protection in order to reach the Bulgarian national ideal.[14]

After the end of 1886, when the pro-Russian press met many obstacles,[15] Russophile sentiments were expressed on the pages of literary journals by means of several rhetorical strategies – silencing of the Russian theme, reminding readers of “The War of Liberation” or covering the cultural activities of the Slavophile committees in Russia – without being directly articulated. Russophile authors also tried to express their pro-St. Petersburg position through pro-Slavic and anti-Western interpretations of international politics.

The Russophobian press gave priority to Russian policy against Bulgarian Unification after 6 September 1885[16] and the interpretation of Bulgarian-Russian relations after 1878 as a humiliating experience for Bulgarians.[17] In the depiction of the place and role of Russia in European policy, the main emphasis was on Russia’s weak position in the international scene[18] in order to convince Bulgarian society that this Russia was not capable of occupying Bulgaria.[19] Interpretations of Russian-Bulgarian bilateral relations varied from the version that emphasized misunderstandings resulting from the behavior of incompetent Russian diplomatic agents in Bulgaria, to the version in which the reason for conflict was the very essence of Russian foreign policy and especially its policy toward the Bulgarian principality. In the spring of 1886, Russophobic discourse was more or less created,[20] and in the years following 9 August 1886, it became the governmental discourse legitimizing Bulgarian policy regarding St. Petersburg.

 

“Matushka Russia” or the Russophilian Map

 

In the Russophile press, Russia was designated as “Protector”, “Liberator”, “Savior”, “great Slavic Empire”, “powerful” and “loving” “Mother” or “Matushka”.[21] Emphasizing the fact that Russia was a Slavic and Orthodox empire, the authors of that political camp often represented Slavicdom and Orthodoxy as embodiments of different virtues, and in this way they mapped Russia in a morally and ethically superior position relative to the other Great Powers.[22] It was thought and suggested that the principles of “Slavic brotherhood”, “Slavic reciprocity”, “Slavic ideals” and “Slavic unity” were at the very base of Russian foreign policy.[23] As a result, Russian policy was depicted as completely different from that of the other Great Powers and as based on the principles of Humanism. In the international political scene, Russia was mapped not only as a morally superior Great Power, but as a strong and powerful Empire, which the whole of Europe took into consideration.[24] This representation of Russian force, might and power in international relations was strongly influenced by the pro-Russian, pro-Slavic, anti-German, anti-Austrian, anti-English and anti-Turkish discourse that characterized Russian Slavophile thought. Russia was mapped as standing morally higher than Europe, England, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy and, in the beginning, also France. The foreign policy of the latter countries was represented as driven by mercantilism and interests that were inconceivable for Russian policy, which was based, according to the Russophile authors, on the principles of Humanism, Christianity, and morality.

Even global Russian imperial claims in Europe and Asia were not hidden, but rather represented in such as way as to convince the Bulgarian public of Russian military power in international relations. In this regard, Russian imperial ambitions in Europe were justified on the basis of Christianity and Slavicdom,[25] while in Asia, they were depicted as the fulfillment of Russia’s civilizing mission.[26]

The goal of Russian Balkan policy to conquer Constantinople and the Straits was also represented[27] with great emphasis on the lack of contradiction between this policy and Bulgarian aspirations for a “Great Bulgarian State”.[28] This emphasis was often combined with references to the “San-Stefano Bulgaria” of 1878 as a creation of Russian diplomacy, Russian foreign policy and military arms.[29] Hence, it was stressed that Bulgarians had to listen to the Russian advice and make every effort for reconciliation with this powerful empire that was an embodiment of justice.

An extraordinary feature of the framework of the Russophile rhetoric was the emphasis on the role of Russia in Bulgaria before 1878. In this regard, Russia was depicted as a country that had made a great contribution to the Bulgarian National Revival.[30] Despite the overwhelming presence of Slavophile rhetoric, even Peter the Great was depicted in entirely positive terms[31] because he was associated with Russian military might and active foreign policy directed against the Ottoman Empire.[32] In this way, together with Orthodoxy and Slavicdom, history was also used to map the inseparability of the roads of the two Slavic countries.[33]

Extremely great emphasis was put on the mythology created about Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78. This was an emotionally charged rhetoric about “Russian soldiers”, “Russian blood”, “Russian bones”, “Russian graves”, “Russian money” and “Russian victims”[34] (estimated in different cases between 100,000 and 300,000)[35] that finally brought about Bulgarian “Liberation” and so fulfilled popular story and faith. The above theme was also definitely the cornerstone of the whole Russophile ideology and the process of mapping. It combined emotional language about Russian atrocities during the last war with rationality about Russian military might and real achievements. It was also part of the process of mapping Bulgarian national memory in spatial and temporal terms, sacralizing some places in the Bulgarian landscape. In this process, Russia and its depiction on the Bulgarian mental map played a very important role. The mapping of Russia included also the mapping of Bulgarian space and the competition between the legitimization of Russian interference in Bulgarian internal affairs and the independence of Bulgarian policy based on legitimization through the revolutionary activities of the Bulgarian national movement of the past. It was not by chance that even in the following years, language about “The War of Liberation” became an indirect way for the articulation of pro-Russian feelings when the authorities restricted the Russophile discourse. A very important element of this rhetorical strategy was the reference to “San-Stefano Bulgaria” presented as a Russian promise for Bulgaria’s future.[36]

There were several themes that did not play important roles in this discourse, and Russophile authors tried to avoid them as much as possible or to put these themes in more secondary places in Russophile discourse. We can say the same about the mapping of Russia inside its own borders and especially about themes concerning Russian government, the Russian way of life, and Russian living standards. Because of the avoidance of these themes, sometimes without denying the repressive character of Russian rule, this rhetoric tried to make a comparison between rule in Russia and the rule of the Russophile’s political adversaries who had taken power in Bulgaria. According to other Russophile authors, however, the laws in Russia were very severe, but it was a country with “order” and “legality”.[37] In this regard, sometimes it was also articulated that the government in St. Petersburg was better than the government in Bulgaria and its policies.[38]

Even when Russophile newspapers, journals, or political brochures admitted that there was more poverty in Russia than in Bulgaria, they insisted that it was not because of the autocracy or the lack of a constitution, but as a consequence of “race”, “way of life” and “customs”.[39] In other rhetorical strategies, the miserable life of the Russian peasantry was mapped as in the past, and some still- existing severe social and economic problems in the Russian Empire were completely ignored.

Sometimes Russia was even depicted as a country in which the economy and living standard were much higher than in the Western European countries. As Panteli Kisimov wrote in a debate with the author of the other camp: “In one word, [the] economic welfare of [the] Russian population is much higher than at least the one of the most freedom-loving countries, and incomparably higher than the one of the population in your constitutional England”.[40] Some journalists even asserted that until 1885, when there had still been Russian influence in Bulgaria, the economic situation had been much better than it was later, after conflicts with St. Petersburg started and Bulgarian-Russian diplomatic relations were broken.[41]

Nevertheless, it was quite evident that Russophile newspapers and printed materials tried to avoid a number of other uneasy themes, such as Russian rule, freedom of speech and censorship in Russia, and the living standards of ordinary Russians and especially of the Russian peasantry. Instead, they tried to present only positive features from the Russian reality, emphasizing, for example, famous Russian culture and literature from the 19th century. In fact, we can say that the mapping of “Russia inside Russia” was ignored. Only occasionally did Russophile newspapers really cover some themes of Russian internal life, and those were most often of a positive nature, concerning, for example, the ambitious railway-building program, positive developments in Russian finances and especially military maneuvers with the connection to the power and might of the Russian army.

The Russophile press also tried to avoid taking sides in Russian internal political and cultural discussions, but generally supported the more conservative and Slavophile groups. It also depicted the Russian church and Russian Orthodoxy[42] in positive terms and tried to present the latter as a better religion than the others. Moreover, its positive language about Russian Panslavism[43] was combined with an anti-German, anti-English and anti-Turkish rhetoric. Russophile discourse also tried to avoid the themes of Russian socialist and revolutionary movements, or it represented those movements, in the majority of cases, in completely negative terms.

But if we speak about an autocratic country like the Russian Empire in that period, the way of mapping the Russian monarch is especially important. In Russophile discourse, not only the last Russian Tsar, Alexander II,[44] but also his son, Alexander III, was depicted in entirely positive terms. The image of the Russian ruler was inseparable from those of a “great Russia” and a “great Russian people”. Alexander III was represented as a great, good, wise, calm, peaceful, powerful and strong ruler, a sincere man who had never lied in his entire life.[45]

The imaginary notion of the Russian people received special coverage in the Russophile press, being described as great, faithful, religious, brave, capable of self-sacrifice and loving their ruler.[46] By and large, stressing this language, the Russophile rhetoric tried to avoid talking about different social groups in Russian society and preferred the above-mentioned general mapping of the Russian people. Consequently, the image of the Russian peasant (at that time the majority of the Russian population) was almost absent from the discourse.

If we consider the very vulnerable stage in the development of the political relationship between the two countries, in which, according to many people, Russian occupation of Bulgaria was expected, the mapping of non-Russian people in the Russian Empire has special importance. It will not be surprising that as a consequence of the general logic of Russophile discourse, the theme of the possible Russian occupation did not receive much coverage in the Russophile press. When it was mentioned, Russian policy toward Central Asia, Caucasus, Ukraine and Poland was entirely justified. Russian policy toward the Polish nation was presented as self-defense,[47] Ukraine was seen as a real part of the Great Russian nation[48] and imperial policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia was considered to be a fulfillment of Russia’s civilizing mission.[49]

It is evident that family roles as a metaphor also came to the surface of political expression and the interpretation of Bulgarian-Russian relations: Russia was presented as “Mother”. As one Russophile author, Sv. Milarov, picturesquely wrote,

 

Like one’s mother bears her child with illness and danger for her own life, with pains and sacrifices for her own body, Russia, as well, bore Bulgaria with painful efforts, with danger for her own, and overwhelming sacrifices with blood and money. After the birth of her child Russia made all the gentle efforts to grow one baby.[50]

The rest of the article was a story about the sufferings of the mother because of the behavior of a child full of caprices and swearing against her.[51] Perhaps for ordinary Bulgarians the family was the most obvious material at hand for thinking politically because, as we can see in the following pages, family roles had other important embodiments in Russophobe as well as in Russophile rhetoric. In this regard, Russophile writers presented the Russian Tsar as “Father”, Russians as “brothers”,[52] Russia as a “sister”[53] and Bulgarians as “children”[54] or younger brothers.[55]

Several rhetorical strategies were used in mapping Russia in relation to Europe. According to the first, Russia was depicted as different from and morally superior to Europe or “The West”.[56] In the second strategy, Russia was represented as a part of “civilized” Europe in contradiction to “barbaric” Asia.[57] Continuing this strategy, the authors of that political camp depicted Russia in a global map as the “European”, “Christian” power that rescued Bulgarians from the “Asiatic yoke”, defending Bulgaria’s European identity against an Asian power, the Ottoman empire.[58] These different rhetorical strategies coexisted and overlapped and sometimes it was possible to find more than one in the same newspaper or even used by the same author.

To reiterate, we can make some general conclusions about the Russophile discourse. Central to this discourse were the themes of reconciliation with Russia, Russia’s positive role in the Bulgarian Principality and Eastern Rumelia after 1878, and its important and decisive place in international politics. The Russophile press very rarely covered and generally tried to avoid life in Russia and the Russian political and social realities that were favorite themes of the other camp.

In the process of the mapping of Russia the most important theme for Russophiles was the representation of her as a great “Slavic” and “Orthodox” Empire with strong military power and influence in international relations. Special emphasis was also put on the hopes that Bulgarians had held in the past for a Russian military campaign that would bring the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. In this context, future hopes for the accomplishment of a Great Bulgarian state with Russian help mapped in the San Stefano treaty were also present.

A detailed deconstruction of the Russophile discourse from the 1880s and 1890s definitely shows that it was a combination of pro-Russian rhetoric from the National Revival period, language about Russian help and sacrifices developed after the war of 1877-78, many Slavophile ideas and notions, as well as the language born in the framework of Bulgarian popular culture before and after the establishment of the modern Bulgarian state.

 

RUSSOPHOBIC DISCOURSE

 

The Russophobe discourse appeared as a field for prolonged desacralization of the Russian myth in the Bulgarian mind. The Russian drive to Constantinople and the Straits,[59] as a central argument in that discourse, was combined with the representation of the Russian goal to conquer Bulgaria[60] and Romania.[61] Sometimes, according to the so-called Peter the Great’s testament, the global ambitions of Russian policy in Europe and Central Asia were depicted by Russophobes with many details.[62] These details served to emphasize implicitly or explicitly the Russian tendency for invasion. When Russian attention turned in the Central-Asian direction,[63] however, Russophobes had to underline the shift of Russian foreign policy from the Balkans to Asia as a way of appeasing Bulgarian society.[64]

One facet of the negative depiction of Russian foreign policy was the representation of “Russian diplomacy” in opposition to the positive language about “Russian people”, former Tsar Alexander II and Slavicdom. That diplomacy was associated with “Russian money”, “Russian gold”, “Russian intrigue” and “bribery”, and it was depicted as seeking to achieve “bloodshed” and “anarchy” in Bulgaria.[65] Moreover, trying to attract the broader public, the Russophobic press compared Russian diplomacy in the Bulgarian cultural context with Byzantine policy[66] on the one hand, and with Russian “nihilism”[67] on the other.

Russian goals in Bulgaria were represented as “Russian occupation” and the transformation of the Bulgarian principality as a “Russian province”, “Zaddunaiskaia gubernia”,[68] “second Poland”[69] or “second Finland”.[70] Also, the very emotional and picturesque notion of a “conquered Bulgaria” overrun by Russian troops was carefully depicted.[71] In order to undermine the positive image of Russia among the majority of Bulgarian public, Russophobic journalists started to call it, ironically, “Protector”.[72] By the same token, Russians were addressed with irony and ridicule as “Protectors”, “Liberators” and “Brothers”.[73]

Russophobes also used the language of family roles to attack the image of Russia as “Mother” and the reception of Bulgarian-Russian relations as like the relations between a “mother” and her “children”. Leading journalists from the nationalist camp depicted Russia as a bad mother, a “step-mother” or an “old whore” who ferociously persecuted her own “child”, “baby” or “infant”.[74] This process came to an end with the construction of the image of the “She-Bear”.[75]

Four rhetorical strategies were used to reinterpret the already sacralized Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78. The first strategy recognized Bulgarian “Liberation” with gratitude to Alexander II and ordinary Russians.[76] The second admitted that the war had resulted in Bulgarian Liberation but claimed that liberation had not been its main goal.[77] The third asserted that Russia really had liberated Bulgaria, but later wanted to conquer it.[78] The fourth contained the idea that Russia had liberated Bulgaria but only in order to invade it later.[79]

In the period under consideration and as a part of the above-mentioned desacralization of the Russo-Turkish war, we also find a new role for the symbols and national holidays as a part of the Bulgarian movement for emancipation from Russian influence and patronage. The days of national commemoration became cultural and discursive practices that constituted new identities. These observances created a patriotic public tradition and fostered a form of patriotism specific to itself. In this regard, the language of ritual, which was not politically innocent, served the function of national integration under Stambolov’s foreign policy (1887-94). The very Russophilic version of national holidays was replaced by a Bulgarian one.[80]

In contrast to Russophile discourse, the Russian government and Russian internal life played a very important role in Russophobe printed materials. Mapping Russian rule,[81] the Russian way of life and living standards,[82] and the life of non-Russian people under imperial rule,[83] Russophobe authors tried to depict the future of Bulgaria in the event of the victory of the pro-Russian party or the fulfillment of St. Petersburg’s foreign political goals toward the Bulgarian principality.

The image of Russian Orthodoxy was also negative in Russophobic writing. Orthodoxy was associated with “autocracy” and the “police”.[84] Moreover, anti-Russian journalists emphasized the Russian government’s misuse of Orthodoxy in its foreign policy. They relied on different rhetorical strategies to present Orthodoxy as a veil for invasions, as well as “Byzantine”,[85] “Greek”,[86] “Tartaric” and “Mongolian”.[87]

Without denying the Slavic roots of Bulgarians, Russophobic rhetoric suggested to the readers that Panslavic ideas were not Slavic, that “genuine Slavs” in Russia supported the Bulgarian side,[88] that together with Orthodoxy, the Slavic idea in Russia was just a veil for conquest, etc.[89] It was the influence of the Slavic ideal among the Bulgarian public that made Russophobic writers use these rhetorical strategies to sway their readers.

Because of the popularity of Alexander II as a “Liberator” for the whole period, his image was totally positive as opposed to that of his son.[90] When the Russophobic writers tried to depict the enemy, they defined it as a group of “5-6 persons”, “the Russian government”, “Russian diplomacy” or “official Russia”.[91] Later the process of desacralization of the Russian tsar started, and he was depicted as responsible for Russian-Bulgarian conflict. He was presented to readers as “crazy”, a “tyrant”, “despot”, “autocrat”, “killer”, “idiot”, “bloodsucker”, “beast”, “animal”, “vampire” – even as an “anarchist” and a “rebel”, because he wanted to provoke upheaval and turmoil in Bulgaria.[92] Depicted as an opposite figure and betrayer of his father’s testament, Alexander III was distinguished as completely different from him. It seems that especially in the very beginning of this period, for most Bulgarians, relationships with Russia were so unnatural that they had to be deeds of a “crazy” man.

Different rhetorical forms and strategies, as well as a series of binary oppositions, were used by the Bulgarian writers from the anti-Russian camp to represent Russian reality and appropriate Russian images in the Bulgarian political, social, and cultural context for internal political goals and for justification of the foreign political course led by the Stambolov government. Into these frameworks were appropriated and interpreted notions about Russian rule, Russian police, press, the Orthodox church, the education system, symbolic geographical images with great emotional significance, such as “Siberia” and “Sakhalin”,[93] the Russian economy and living standards, as well as the life of non-Russian peoples within the Empire. For the same reasons, the constructed images of Russian autocracy, officialdom, clergy, army and intelligentsia were appropriated. The image of Russian intelligentsia, especially, was constructed as being entirely opposed to the Russian government and diplomacy.[94]

Mapping Russian life, Russophobic newspapers often painted the Russian economy and finances as being in a state of crisis, poverty, and starvation. In this way, the Bulgarian governmental press tried to suggest to the reading public that Russia was a country with ineffective economic rules and systems.

Having mapped Russia as a country of “Asiatic despotism”, “terror”, “autocracy” and political punishments, Russophobic authors continued to create a completely negative image of Russia in order to mobilize Bulgarian society for resistance against any attempts of Russia to interfere in Bulgarian internal affairs. After creating this image, anti-Russian discourse continued to legitimize governmental policy.[95] This rhetorical strategy was used to reject accusations against the government for its repressive policy towards sympathizers of St. Petersburg. By the same token, the great emphasis on Russian censorship served to justify and legitimize some restrictions against the Russophile press in Bulgaria.

In contrast to the other camp, the Russophobic press depicted the conservative and Slavophile circles of Russian society in negative terms[96] and showed the liberal circles and revolutionary and socialist movements together with their key figures in a positive light.[97] Moreover, with an interesting remapping, the “Slavic” and “Orthodox” Russia of the Russophiles was depicted as “Byzantine”, Tartar” and “Mongolian”, following some Russian revolutionary thinkers and Westernizers as well as some Russophobic thinkers in Europe throughout the 19th century.

As opposed to the Russophiles’ monolithic image of Russia and the Russian people, the Russophobic map of Russian society was rich and included a variety of different elements; it contained negative representations of Russian officials,[98] priests,[99] military officers,[100] etc. But it also included positive representations of “Russian youth” and “intelligentsia”,[101] who were even presented as friends of the Bulgarian government and Bulgarian foreign policy against Russia.

Some images were quite ambivalent, unstable, and variable, depending on the concrete political context. Despite the generally negative picture of Russian government circles and the Russian aristocracy,[102] sometimes it was explicitly mentioned that even among these groups there were people who criticized the tsar and the government for their internal policy as well as for their unfriendly behavior towards Sofia.[103] The portrait of the aristocracy varied from the image of a spoiled class famous for its moral debauchery[104] to figures who had made overwhelming contributions to humanistic thought and culture.[105] The Russian socialist and revolutionary movement was often described in positive language and with sympathy,[106] but also sometimes in the negative terms of “nihilism”.[107] In some cases the “Russian woman” was also depicted as an idealist with a sense of nobility, a morally superior fighter for justice,[108] but on other occasions as a person who fell into immorality and irresponsibility in marriage and family life.[109]

Russian people were presented as “oppressed”, “innocent”, “noble”, “generous”, “cordial”, “grateful” and “humble.”[110] According to these authors, the Russian people were against their own government and in support of Bulgarian policy.[111] It was an ideal imaginary notion about the Russians that took into consideration the pre-existing rule of the discourse about Russians in Bulgarian society and tradition. Because of that, during most of this period, the anti-Russian press always tried to make very clear and often quite explicit the boundaries between “the Russian people” and “the Russian government”. However, this separation was sometimes unstable and it was implicitly and explicitly terminated.

Although very rarely, even this positive image of the Russian people sometimes had its opposite. In these moments, Bulgarian journalists demonstrated a disparaging attitude toward Russian peasants (“mugiks”), used Russian words and expressions with irony and ridicule, and treated some characteristics of Russian aristocratic and popular culture and ways of life (especially the culture of eating and drinking) with irony. Russians were associated with vices such as lying, insidiousness, superstition and prejudice, stupidity, silly kindness, naiveté, simple-mindedness, drunkenness, cruelty and ferocity.[112] But that kind of language was very rare and it appeared only in certain political contexts. Notwithstanding, Russians began to be addressed more often with more pejorative terms, such as “Moskovs”[113] and “Kazaks”[114] and, already fully ironic, “Bratushki.”[115] The negative image of the Russians was created in order to increase resistance in case of a Russian occupation. Especially in the case of mapping life in Russian villages, the governmental press tried to convince the Bulgarian public of the superiority of Bulgarian living standards. This brings us to the problem of real Russophobia and the crossing of the boundary between social criticism and ethnic prejudice. Real Russophobia was connected with rare but existing descriptions of the Russian “muzhik” as superstitious, stupid (“durak”), drunken, ferocious, angry, a liar, naive, etc.,[116] combined with a sense of Bulgarian superiority in relationship to the Russian rural majority, which was perceived as the embodiment of “Russianness”. Included here were also several cases of games played with Russian words full of irony, ridicule and connotations of naivete and softness, implicitly contrasted with some kind of Bulgarian Balkan masculinity. Some estimations contained even the ways and words in which “Russians” were addressed. The words “rusi”, “rusnaci”, “moskovci”, “bratushki” and “kazaci” were charged implicitly and explicitly with positive and negative connotations.

Quite different from the Russophilic discourse was the mapping of all the regions and people that populated the Russian empire. Poland[117] and Finland[118] were presented as sometimes flourishing countries that declined as a result of Russian rule. Ukraine was presented as an oppressed country,[119] and the mappings of Georgia and Armenia were the same.[120] More controversial was the picture of the people of Central Asia. Although they were often presented as oppressed by Russian rule, sometimes they were also depicted as uncivilized people who accepted that rule with admiration. In this regard, the policy of resistance that Sofia led against the claims of St. Petersburg was presented as evidence that Bulgarians are “people in Europe” and not Asian.

The mapping of Russia between Europe and Asia also had an unstable place in Russophobic discourse, varying from the depiction of Russia as a European country,[121] to its depiction as a country culturally situated between Europe and Asia,[122] to its depiction as an entirely Asiatic country.[123] It was represented as “Byzantine”,[124] as more Asian than Turkey[125] or as “Asiatic”, “Semiasiatic” and “Tartaric”. In this regard, we can add that sometimes Russia was also mapped as “North” or “the Cold North”,[126] which suggests its otherness to Bulgarian sensitivity.

One of the main conclusions one can make is that Russophobic discourse had a long genesis, some of its elements already appearing long before 1885-86. But during the political crisis in 1886-87 and Stambolov’s rule (1887-94), this discourse was specifically re-formulated and put into the very center of the political debate. In its essence, this public discourse of Bulgarian Russophobia was a complex synthesis that borrowed and appropriated language and strategies from many sources: the nationalistic, revolutionary and radical language of Bulgarian emigrants to Romania during the period of National Revival; the language of the Bulgarian legal press in the capital of the Ottoman empire before 1878; the images and rhetoric from Russian literature and revolutionary, populist and socialist authors; the European Russophobia articulated in liberal, radical, democratic and socialist thought in the 19th Century; everyday Bulgarian ethnocentrism; and the reception of alien features from the Russian culture and way of life in the context of the Bulgarian traditional popular culture. We can say that such hybridism was hardly unique to the subject of the Russophobic discourse.

 

CONCLUSION

As we have seen, the story that started as a conflict between St. Petersburg and Sofia about the Bulgarian monarch (whom, after the Bulgarian Unification of 6 September 1885, Russia did not trust) and the position of Russian officers in the Bulgarian army turned into a real war of discourses produced by the two main political groups in Bulgarian society.

The Russophilic and Russophobic discourses in the Bulgarian press were also a field for dialogue between the authors and their public. This is most clear in the case of the Russophobic discourse. In the Bulgarian context, it was enormously difficult to convince the public that a totally negative image of Russia was accurate, which is why pro-Russian elements of the Russophobic discourse never completely disappeared. By the same token, these two competing and contradictory discourses sometimes overlapped when they depicted the “Russian people”, Russian soldiers during the Russo-Turkish war, Alexander II or great figures from 19th-century Russian literature.

On the other hand, the overwhelming number of themes and motives in the language about Russia in both discourses were the result of conscious and unconscious searching for identity in relationship to Russia and Russian symbols. In this regard, both discourses had intellectual tensions and instabilities in their own construction. In the case of Russophobic discourse, the depiction of Russia was subtly self-promoting to a certain extent, because the depictions and interpretations of that country were more or less inseparably dependent upon the reciprocical process of constructing and underpinning Bulgarian national identity during the same period.

In the Russophilic discourse, Bulgarian identity was inseparable from the principles of Orthodoxy and Slavicdom, while Russophobes emphasized protecting and underpinning “our own physiognomy”, “our own face” and “our history”; relations with Russia were presented as those with a “foreign country” and Russians as “foreign people”. In the hierarchy of identities, Russophobes put Bulgarian definitely higher than Slavic. The pursuit of describing national identity and the Bulgarian-Russian conflict in the language of the ordinary population brought to the rhetoric the opposition of the defense of your “family” and “home” from “strangers” and “foreigners”.

In fact, both mappings were partially based on reality, but each was intended to serve, differently, Bulgarian political life and to resolve the problems that concerned Bulgarian society and the Bulgarian state. Because of that, both discourses were biased, based on fact and imagination. Both mappings were extreme and unstable and vulnerable to deconstruction.

Having used methods of social and cultural historians, I came to the conclusion that Russia and Russians really meant different things to different people. I argue that Russophobic discourse presented in printed materials enabled a segment of Bulgarians to imagine an almost complete rupture with their past and to construct a different model of relations with St. Petersburg. This was a small but very active and politically decisive part of Bulgarian society – the intelligentsia, army officers, part of the urban public and the overwhelming majority of the younger generation, as well as of the non-Orthodox minorities. On the other hand, older generations, part of the urban public and the peasant majority supported pro-Russian notions. My main conclusion is that while Russophilic and Russophobic appeals were both eclectic, their respective pools of supporters were broad and more or less socially heterogeneous.

Consideration of the facts and artifacts discussed here gave me the opportunity to make an attempt to present and analyze the Bulgarian Russophile and Russophobe attitudes as a part of modern Bulgarian nationalism and the whole context of attitudes towards foreign countries and peoples in the Bulgarian mind. Bulgarian attitudes towards Russia and Russians developed in the context of ambivalent attitudes towards different Balkan peoples (Serbs, Greeks, Turks, Romanians, Montenegrins, Croats, Albanians), Slavic peoples (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians) and other European peoples (Germans, French, English, Hungarians, etc.). In that way, pro-Russian and anti-Russian discourses are seen in the context of the ambivalent attitudes towards foreign countries and peoples and as part of the whole Bulgarian mental map influenced to the great extent by the heritage of the Enlightenment.

In more recent history, the Russophile and Russophobe languages were articulated and appropriated for political purposes in the frameworks of liberal, conservative, socialist and communist discourses, especially during the First and Second World Wars, during the Cold War period, and even in the debates about the Bulgarian foreign policy in 1990s. Perhaps, to a certain extent, their last articulation was during the Kosovo crisis in 1999.

 

 

 

References

[1] About the union between Eastern Rumelia and Bulgarian principality see Jelavich, B. History of the Balkans. Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. vol. 1. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1983., pp. 370-371.; Jelavich, Ch. Tsarist Russia and Balkan Nationalism. Russian Influence in the Internal Affairs of Bulgaria and Serbia, 1879-1886. Connecticut, 1978., pp 214-236.; Crampton, R. Bulgaria 1878-1918. A History. New York, Columbia Univ. Press, 1983., pp. 97-103.; Perry, D. Stefan Stambolov and the Emergence of Modern Bulgaria 1870-1895. Duke University Press, Durham and London, 1993., pp. 74-81. By bylgarian authors see Statelova, El., Pantev, An. Saedinenieto na Knyazhestvo Balgariya i Iztochna Rumeliya. Sofia, 1985.; Dimitrov, Il. Predi 100 godini Saedinenieto. Sofia, 1985.

 

[2] For more see. Radev, S. Stroiteli na savremenna Balgariya. T. 1. Sofia, 1973, s. 739-803; T. 2 Sofia, 1973. Popov, R. Balgaria na krastopat. Regentstvoto 1886-1887. Sofia, 1991. In English language see Jelavich, Ch. Op. cit., Jelavich, B. Op. cit., pp. pp. 237-274, 371-372.;.Crampton, R. Op. cit, pp. 105-124.; Perry, D. Op. cit., pp. 84-123.

 

[3] About Stefan Stambolov’s government see Perry, D. Op. cit., pp. 124-211; Crampton, R. Op. cit, pp. 125-160.; Jelavich, B. Op. cit., pp. 372.

 

[4] For the Turnovo constitution in English language see Black, C. E. The Establishment of Constitutional Government in Bulgaria. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 1943., pp. 69-133; Jelavich, Ch. Op. cit., pp. 37-38, 102.; Crampton, R. Op. cit., pp. 27-35.

 

[5] Nedorazumeniyata mezhdu balgarskoto i ruskoto pravitelstvo., Viena, 1886. ?. 5, 16.; Saedinenie, 17 april. 1886., br. 3., s. 1.

 

[6] Nezavisimost, I, 18 jan. 1886.,?. 2.; 15 mart 1886, br. 4., s. 2.; 29 mart 1886, br. 7., s. 1., 4.; 7 maj 1886., br. 16. Z. Stoyanov. Edin falsh, s. 1-2.; Slavyanin, br. 75, 15 fevr.. 1886.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto., s. 5, 26, 42.

 

[7] Samozashtita, br. 1, 28 sept, 1885. D. Rizov. Gde sme i gde trjabva da sme?, s. 1. Z. Stoyanov. Syedinenieto na dvete Balgarii I Moskovskij svetec Katkov, Suvorin i knyaz Meshcherskij, ?. 2.; Nezavisimost, I, 2 april 1886, br. 8,.?. 2.; Plovdiv, 8 juni 1889, br. 23., s. 1.

 

[8] Svoboda, 9 dec. 1889., br. 324. Rusofili i avstrofili. Otvoreno pismo do redaktora na v. “Slavyanin”, s. 2.; 7 maj 1891, s. 3; Dobrudzha, I. 7 noem. 1888, br. 3. V kakvo se sastoi nashata nepriznatelnost., s. 1.

 

[9] Svoboda, 1 avg. 1891., br. 588. Ispadenite., s. 2.; 5 juli 1893., br. 1140., s. 2-3.; 5 april 1894., br. 1459., s. 2.

 

[10] Svoboda, 11 dek. 1893., br. 1270. D. Levov. Nyakolko belezhki., s. 3.

 

[11] This article was also inspired mainly by two monographs. Wolff, Larry. Inventing Eastern Europe. The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford Univ. Press, 1994.; Todorova, M. Imagining the Balkans. Oxford University Press, 1997.

 

[12] NBKM BIA f. 21, a.e. 10, l. 665.

 

[13] Svetlina, br. 172, 21 maj 1886.; br. 175, 31 maj 1886., s. 1-2. Prikazki na Knyazat.; br. 176, 4 juni 1886., s. 2., Setninite.; br. 176, 4 juni 1886., s. 2., Kakvo davat na Rossiya.

 

[14] Tarnovska konstitutsiya, 22 fev. 1888., br. 1., s. 2.; 26 fevr. 1888.; br. 2., s. 1.; 15 mart 1888., br. 7., Varkhu otnosheniyata na avstro-ungarskite slavyani kam balgarskiya vapros., s. 2.; 5 maj 1888., br. 21., s. 3.; 12 maj 1888., br. 23., s. 1.; Makedoniya, 5 noem. 1889., br. 1 Po Makedonskij vapros ot Sv. Milarov., s. 2-3.

 

[15] Darzhaven vestnik, 1 noem. 1886., br. 106.; Tankova. V. Svobodata na pechata v usloviyata na voenno polozhenie (septemvri 1885 – septemvri 1887). VISb., 1993, 6, s. 73.

 

[16] Slavyanin, br. 75, 15 fevr. 1886.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe., s. 34, 43-44, 45; Nezavisimost, I, 19 april 1886, br. 12. Z. Stoyanov. Pokayanie., s. 2.

 

[17] See many descriptions in Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe.; Slavyanin, br. 75, 15 fevr. 1886.; Nezavisimost, br. 3, 12 mart, 1886, s. 2.; 9 april 1886, br. 10. Z. Stoyanov. Koe ot dvete?, s. 2.; 12 juli 1886., br. 32. Z. Stoyanov. Ruskij manastir v Shipka., s. 1.; 5 avgust 1886., br. 38., s. 1.; Svoboda, br. 54, 9 maj 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Pokrovitelite na Sarbiya i Balgariya., s. 1.

 

[18] Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 8, 7 okt. 1886. D.P. Koj e protiv Balgariya?, s. 1.; br. 8, 7 okt. 1886. Katkov iska vojna s Balgariya., s. 1-2.; br. 11., 14 okt. 1886. D.P. “Svetlina” I ruskite parakhodi., s. 1-2.

 

[19] Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 10, 11 okt. 1886. D. P. Krizata e na svarshvanie., s. 1.; br. 28, 23 noemv. 1886. Vazmozhna li e ruska okuptsiya?, s. 1-2.

 

[20] Rakovski, G. S. Preselenie v Rusiya ili Ruskata ubijstvena politika za balagarite (s predisloviie ot Z. Stoyanov). S., 1886.; Slavyanin, 6 fevr. 1886, br. 71.; br. 75, 15 fevr. 1886.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto ., Nezavisimost, br. 1, 18 jan. 1886., s. 1.; br. 2, 8 mart 1886.; br. 3, 12 mart 1886., s. 2.

 

[21] Saedinenie, 17 april 1886., br. 3., s. 1.; 8 maj 1886., br. 6., s. 2.; br. 9, 26 juni 1886; br. 10, 3 juli 1886; br. 11, 11 juli 1886; br. 12, 17 juli 1886; br. 13, 24 juli 1886, br. 14, 31 juli 1886; br. 15, 7 avg. 1886.; Pravda, 1 april 1886, br. 1., s. 1.; 8 april, br. 3, s. 1.; 19 april 1886., br. 5. Gde sme., s. 1.; 10 maj 1886., br. 11 Balgariya i Saedinenieto., s. 1-2.; Novini, 20 juli 1886., br. 3., s. 1. Vatreshen otdel., s. 1.; Nedorazumeniyata mezhdu ., s. 8, 34.; Milarov, Sv. Knyaza pred Rusiya i Balgariya. Ot S.M. Knigopechatnitsa Janko S. Kovachev. S., 1886., s. 26.; Srabskata propaganda na Balkanskiya poluostrov. S., 1886, s. 25, 28, 30.; Nachov, T. Turkomaniyata ili politikata na Aleksandar I-ij v Balgariya. Pismo do knyazheskata tajfa ot v “Nezavisimost”. Knigopechatnitsa Janko S. Kovachev, N., 1886, s. 6, 16, 19, 37,38.; Nasheto polozhenie izd. BTRK, Braila, 1887., s. 6, 7, 36, 38.; Edin selyanin kam svoite bratya selyani. Knigopechatnitsa Janko S. Kovachev. S., 1886., s. 7.; Dojde mu vremeto. (Pismo do g-na Zakhariya Stoyanova – v Ruse). Ot P. K. C., Knigopechatnitsa Janko S. Kovachev. 1886., s. 12.

 

[22] Milarov, Sv. Knyaza pred Rusiya., s. 8.; Svetlina, br. 163, 19 april 1886.; It is the main suggestion also whithin the news in Saedinenie, 26 juni, br. 9, 3 juli, br. 10; 11 juli, br. 11; 17 juli, br. 12; 24 juli, br. 13; 31 juli, br. 14; 7 avgust, br. 15; 19 fevruarij, 20 sept. 1887., br. 23., s. 3.; Duma, I, avg. 1890., kn. IV. Politika I obshtestven zhivot. Vanshen pregled., s. 359.

 

[23] Edno prorochestvo za balgarskij narod. Ot F. M. Dostoevski. Prevel ot ruski Sv. Milarov. S., Knigopechatnitsa Janko S. Kovachev., 1886.; Knyaza pred Rusiya ., s. 6.; 19 fevruarij, br. 4, 5 juli 1887.; br. 18, 27 avg. 1887. Koburgovata politika I kharaktrer., s. 2.; Duma, I, noem.-dek. 1890., kn. VII-VIII. Trojniya sayuz, Angliya I Rusiya spryamo Balgariya. s. 538.; Zakhovskij, Kh. D. Beglui ocherki bolgarskoj koburgiadui. Odessa, 1893., s. 31.

 

[24] Sredets, 5 april 1886., br. 157-159. Saedinenieto, s. 1.; 9 april 1886., br. 160-161., s. 1.; Dojde mu vremeto., s. 22.; Pravda, I, 8 april 1886, br. 3. Zashto ne stana Saedinenieto i kakva politika tryabva da darzhim spryamo Rusiya?, s. 2.

 

 

[25] Edno prorochestvo ., s. 7.; Knyaza pred Rusiya., s. 6.; 19 fevruarij, br. 4, 5 juli 1887.; Kisimov, P. Spomeni ot segashnata epokha v Balgariya. Bukuresht. 1894., s. 19-20.; Duma, I, noem. – dek. 1890., kn. VII-VIII. Trojniya sayuz, Angliya I Rusiya spryamo Balgariya. , s. 538-540.

 

[26] Saedinenie, 10 april 1886., br. 2., s. 2.; 19 fevruarij, br. 4, 5 juli 1887.; Makedoniya, 3 dek. 1889., br. 7., s. 3. Rodolyubec, I, 24 okt. 1889., br. 28. Mikhail Strogov ili kurierinat na tsarya., podalzh. br. 29, 32.; Napred, 12 mart 1888., br. 9. Politika i obshtestven zhivot. Vatreshen pregled., s. 6.; Duma, noem. – dek. 1890., kn. VII-VIII. Vanshen pregled., s. 625.

 

[27] Knyaza pred Rusiya., s. 15.; 19 fevruarij, br. 23, 20 sept. 1887., s. 1.; Tarnovska konstitutsiya, 18 april 1888., br. 17., s. 1.; Napred, 31 juli 1888., br. 25., s. 8.; Makedoniya, 3 dek. 1889., br. 7. Ot kogo tryabva da se predpazvame?, s. 4.; Duma, noem. – dek. 1890., kn. VII-VIII. Trojniya sayuz, Angliya I Rusiya spryamo Balgariya. , s. 531-532.

 

 

[28] Knyaza pred Rusiya., s. 7-8.; 19 fevruarij, br. 23, 20 sept. 1887., s. 1.; Makedoniya, II, 3 dek. 1889., br. 7. Ot kogo tryabva da se predpazvame?, s. 4.

 

[29] Sredets, 5 april 1886., br. 157-159. Saedinenieto, s. 1.; Nedorazumeniyata., s. 20.; Pravda, 1 april 1886, br. 1., s. 2.; 8 april 1886, br. 3. Zashto ne stana Saedinenieto i kakva politika tryabva da darzhim spryamo Rusiya?, s. 2.; 23 april 1886, br. 4. Izbirajte samo istinno svobodolyubivi narodni predstaviteli!, s. 2.; !0 maj., br. 11 Balgariya I Saedinenieto., s. 1-2.; Novini, 20, juli 1886., br. 3., s.3.; Saedinenie, 10 april 1886., br. 2., s. 1.; 26 juni 1886., br. 9., s. 4.; Kisimov, P. Istoricheski raboti. Moite spomeni. III., S., 1901., s. 155.; Srabskata propaganda., s. 30, 31.; Edin selyanin., s. 4.; Nachov, T. Turkomaniya., s. 32-33.; Knyaza pred Rusiya., s. 7.; Kam izbiratelite ot dvete strani na Balkana. S., 1886., s. 11.

 

[30] Knyaza pred Rusiya., s. 10.; 19 fevruarij, br. 1, 21 juni 1887., s. 1.; Makedoniya, 19 noem. 1889., br. 4., s. 2-3.; Sredets, 9 april 1886., br. 160-161., s. 1.; Saedinenie, 10 april 1886., br. 2., s. 2.; Dojde mu vremeto., s. 15.

 

[31] 19 fevruarij, br. 7, 19 juli 1887. Slavyanski otdel.; Slavyanin, 30 avg. 1889., br. 11. Prochutite tamnitsi., s. 2.

 

[32] Knyaza pred Rusiya., s. 5, 9.; Nachov, T. Turkomaniya…, s. 7.

 

[33] Nedorazumeniyata., s. 5-6.; Kisimov, P. Moite pisma. S., 1886., s. 10.

 

[34] NBKM BIA f. 21., a.e. 10., l. 663, 665.; Nedorazumeniyata., s. 4, 6, 16.; Svetlina, br. 169, 10 maj 1886.; br. 192, 30 juli 1886.; br. 198, 27 sept. 1886. Edin opalchenec star. Da se vrazumim., s. 4.; Saedinenie, 10 april 1886., br. 2., s. 2.; Pravda, 12 april 1886, br. 4, Izbirajte samo istinno svobodolyubivi narodni predstaviteli!, s. 2.; br. 5, Gde sme?, s. 1.; 10 maj 1886., br. 11 Balgariya I Saedinenieto., s. 1-2.; Dojde mu vremeto., s. 13.; Ikonomov. T. Dve parvi I posledni dumi na g. Z. Stoyanov. Ruse, 1886., s. 12.

 

[35] Svetlina, br. 192, 30 juli 1886.; Nachov, T. Turkomaniyata., s. 32.; Duma, noem.-dekem. 1890., kn. VII-VIII. Trojniya sayuz, Angliya I Rusiya spryamo Balgariya., s. 536.

 

[36] Sredets, 5 april 1886., br. 157-159. Saedinenieto, s. 1.; Nedorazumeniyata., s. 20.; Pravda, 1 april 1886, br. 1., s. 2.; 8 april 1886., br. 3. Zashto ne stana Saedinenieto i kakva politika tryabva da darzhim spryamo Rusiya?, s. 2.; 23 april 1886, br. 4. Izbirajte samo istinno svobodolyubivi narodni predstaviteli!, s. 2.; 10 maj 1886., br. 11 Balgariya i Saedinenieto, s. 1-2.; Novini, 20 juli 1886., br. 3., s. 3.; Saedinenie, 10 april 1886., br. 2., s. 1.; 26 juni 1886., br. 9., s. 4.; Kisimiov, P. Istoricheski raboti., s. 155; Srabskata propaganda., s. 30, 31.; Edin selyanin., s. 4.; Nachov, T. Turkomaniya ., s. 32, 33.; Knyaza pred Rusiya ., s. 7.; Kam izbiratelite ., s. 11.

 

[37] Dojde mu vremeto., s. 15.

 

[38] Ibid.; Kisimov, P. Nyakoi ot moite priyatelski pisma ot taya 1892 g. Bukuresht, 1892., s. 10-11.

 

[39] Kisimov, P. Moite pisma ., s. 25.; Nasheto polozhenie., s. 28-29.

 

[40] Kisimov, P. Moite spomeni., s. 26.

 

[41] Nasheto polozhenie., s. 28-29.

 

[42] Selyanin, 30 maj 1889, br. 38, s. 1-2.; 11 juli 1887, br. 44, Minali raboti., s. 2-4.; 5 sept. 1889, br. 52, Lyuben Karavelov I protestantite., s. 4.; 7 noem. 1889, br. 59, s. 1. Balgarskite posledovateli na protestantizma I protestantstvoto vaobshte.; br. 65-66, 19 dek. 1889, s. 7-8.; 6 mart 1890., br. 75-76. Pregled po tsarkovnata deyatelnost v pravoslavniya svyat prez minalata 1889 godina., s. 3-4.

 

[43] Svetlina, br. 176, 4 juni 1886.; br. 177, 7 juni 1886.; br. 178, 11 juni 1886.; br. 184, 2 juli 1886.; br. 185, 5 juli 1886.; Kisimov, P. Istoricheski raboti., s. 155.; 19 fevruarij, br. 8, 23 juli 1887., s. 1.; Deveti Avgust, br. 8, 12 mart 1887. Okupatsiyata, s. 2.; Makedoniya, 21 dek. 1889., br. 12., s. 3.; 10 jan. 1890., br. 15. S. Peterburgskoto slavyansko blagotvoritelno obshtestvo., s. 1.; 19 april 1890., br. 27. Razni.; Selyanin, 10 jan. 1889, br. 18. Politicheski otdel.; 6 juli 1889, br. 39, s. 1-2. Gratsko-balgarskij tsarkoven vapros.; Duma, 1890., kn. 1. Novosti.; Dennitsa, fevr. 1890., kn. 2., s. 95-96.; mart 1890., kn. 3. Vesti iz knizhevnij svyat., sept. 1890., kn. 9., s. 431-432.

 

[44] Svetlina, br. 192, 30 juli 1886.

 

[45] Dojde mu vremeto., s. 6.; Edin selyanin. , s. 13.; Nachov, T. Turkomaniya., s. 62.; Sredets, 9 april 1886., br. 160-161.,s. 3.; Saedinenie, 24 april 1886., br. 4., s. 1.; Svetlina, br. 192, 30 juli 1886.; Knyaza pred Rusiya., s. 30.

 

[46] Sredets, 9 april 1886., br. 160-161., s. 3.; Dojde mu vremeto., s. 16.; Svetlina, br. 169, 10 maj 1886.; Deveti avgust, br. 5, 1 mart 1887., Devetnaesetij fevruarij, s. 2-3.; br. 8, 12 mart 1887, s. 1.; 19 fevruarij, br. 2, 28 juni 1884., s. 4.

 

[47] Knyaza pred Rusiya., s. 18.; Nasheto polozhenie., s. 24, 25.; 19 fevruarij, br. 4, 5 juli 1887.; Makedoniya, 3 dek. 1889., br. 7., s. 4.; Tarnovska konstitutsiya, 11 april 1888., br. 15., s. 1-2.

 

[48] Sredets, 9 april 1886., br. 160-161., s. 3.; Makedoniya, 3 dek. 1889., br. 7., s. 4.; Tarnovska konstitutsiya, 11 april 1888., br. 15., s. 1-2; Kisimov, P. Spomeni., s. 19-20.

 

[49] Saedinenie, 10 april 1886., br. 2., s. 2.; 19 fevruarij, br. 4, 5 juli 1887.; Makedoniya, 3 dek. 1889., br. 7., s. 3.; Duma, noem.-dek. 1890., kn. VII-VIII. Vanshen pregled., s. 625.

 

[50] Sredets, 9 april 1886, br. 160-161, s. 2-3.

 

[51] Ibid.

 

[52] Saedinenie, 10 april 1886., br. 2., s. 2.; Pravda, 1 april 1886, br. 1., s. 2.; Edin selyanin., s. 13.; Svetlina, br. 202, 11 okt. 1886.; Deveti avgust, 23 fevr. 1888., br. 10. Devetnadesetij fevruarij., s. 1.; Tarnovska konstitutsiya, 12 juli 1888., br. 40. Letopis., s. 3.; Milarov, Sv. Vasilij Evstatievich Aprilov. Moshtniyat podvizhnik na novoto obrazovanie v balgariya. Opis na zhivota i deyatelnostta mu. Odessa, 1888., s. 29.; Makedoniya, 16 dek. 1889., br. 11., s. 1.; Slavyanin, 16 avg. 1889., br. 7. Otprazdnuvaneto pamyatta na zaginalite balgarski opalchentsi., s. 1.; 2 dek. 1889., br. 38., Balgaskite rusofili, s. 1.

 

[53] Pravda, 1 april 1886, br. 1., s. 1-2.; Slavyanin, 18 noem. 1889., br. 34. Po sporazumenieto., s. 1.; Zakhovskij, Kh. D. Beglui ocherki., s. 5.

 

[54] Dojde mi vremeto., s. 16.; Knyaza pred Rusiya., s. 25-26.; Ikonomov, T. Koj shte bade naj-vinovnij. Skoropechatnitsa St. Iv. Roglev., Ruse, 1886., s. 15.; Sredets, 9 april 1886, br. 160-161, s. 2-3.; Svetlina, br. 199, 1 okt. 1886., Balgarskite rusofobi., s. 4.; 19 fevruarij, 19 noem. 1887., br. 34. Nyakolko dumi kam balgarskata emigratsiya., s. 2.

 

[55] Ikonomov, T. Koj shte bade ., s. 23.; 19 fevruarij, 20 sept. 1887., br. 23., s. 3.; Kisimov, P. Nyakoi ot moite ., s. 11.

 

[56] Pravda, 8 april 1886, br. 3. Zashto ne stana Saedinenieto ili kakva politika tryabva da darzhim spryamo Rusiya?, s. 2; Knyaza pred Rusiya., s. 7.; Slavyanin, 11 noem. 1889., br. 32. Loshavata Rusiya, khubavata Avstriya., s. 1.; 19 fevruarij, br. 4, 5 juli 1887.; br. 19, 30 avg. 1887., Tridesetij avgust., s. 1.; Duma, juni 1890., kn. 2., s. 163-170.

 

[57] Saedinenie, 10 april 1886., br. 2., s. 2.; 19 fevruarij, br. 4., 5 juni 1887.; Makedoniya, 3 dek. 1889., br. 7., s. 3.; Duma, noem.-dek. 1889, kn. VII-VIII. Vanshen pregled., s. 625.

 

[58] Dojde mu vremeto., s. 14-15.; Deveti Avgust, 23 fevr. 1888., br. 10. Devetenadesetij fevruarij., s. 1.; Jonkov-Vladikin, N. Istoriya na Belyuvskoto vastanie. (1876). S., 1887., s. 84.; Zakhovskij, Kh. D. Beglui ocherki., s. 23.

 

[59] Nezavisimost, br. 3, 12 mart 1886., s. 2.; Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 38., 18 dek. 1886. Ruskiya kozhukh I Turtsiya., s. 1.; br. 41, 30 dek. 1886. Na truskiya grab e vsichko., s. 1.; Svoboda, br. 11, 3 dek. 1886. Z. Stoyanov. I Italiya!, s. 2-3.

 

[60] Svoboda, br. 78, 26 avg. 1887. D. Petkov. Po polozhenieto., s. 1.; br. 83, 12 sept. 1887. Balkanskata konfederaciya., s. 1-2.; 18 okt. 1889., br. 310. Dnevniya vapros., s. 1.; Vardar, I, 22 sept. 1887., br. 1., s. 1.; Dobrudzha, br. 2, 31 okt. 1887., Kakvo iska Rusiya., s. 2.; Mnenie, 19 juli 1890., br. 9., s. 1. Plovdiv, 5 jan. 1889., br. 1. Bosforski otzivi., s. 2.

 

[61] Svoboda, br. 83, 12 sept. 1887. Balkanskata konfederaciya., s. 1-2.; br. 84, 16 sept. 1887. D. Petkov. Nashite sasedi., s. 2.; br. 86, 26 sept. 1887, Ruskiya otgovor na portata., s. 2.; Vardar, 22 sept. 1887., br. 1., s. 1.; Svoboda, 10 maj 1889., br. 265., s. 1.; 4 okt. 1889., br. 306. Stara pesen., s. 3.; 25 noem. 1889., br. 320., s. 1.; 25 noem. 1889., br. 320. Rusiya I Avstriya spyamo ?alagariya., s. 2.; 31 jan. 1890., br. 335. Strazhat na Balkanite., s. 2-3.; Plovdiv. 1 mart 1890., br. 16., s. 1.; 19 avg. 1890., br. 63. Ruskata poitika na Balakana., s. 1.

 

[62] Zaveshtanieto na Petra Velikij. Prevod ot frantsuzskij. Izdava Iv. G. Antipov. Lovech, Skoro-pechatnica na S. D. Pintev I S-ie, 1886., s. 6-12. About the testament see also Frangov, P. T. Tarzhestvoto pri Kravnata reka (Kanladere) na 9 julij 1886g= v pamet na Stefan Karadzha. V. Tarnovo, 1887.; s. 46.; Gudev, P. T. Vreme e da vidim Rossiya osvobodi li ni. Russe, 1887., s. 11-12.; Svoboda, br. 175. Rusiya I nejnite namereniya kam narodite na balkanskiya poluostrov I vaobshte kam vsichki slavyanski narodnosti., prodalzh. v br. 176, 12 juli 1888., s. 3.; br. 177, 14 juli 1888., s. 1.; Grazhdanin, Oryakhovo, 4 avg. 1890., br. 4. Rossiya., s. 1-2.; Dokumenti iy sekretnite arkhivi na ruskoto pravitelstvo. Politikata na Rusiya kam Balgariya ot Osvobozhdenieto do sega. S., v. “Svoboda”, 1893, s. I.

 

[63] Slavyanin, br. 71, 6 fevr. 1886.; Svoboda, br. 37-38, 14 mart 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Ruskite vestnitsi., s. 1-2.; br. 47, 15 april 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Slavyanofilite., s. 2.; Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 3, 25 sept. 1886., Narodat saznava polozhenieto si., s. 1.; Stoyanov, Z. Kakvo napravikhme., s. 6.; Plovdiv, 1 dek. 1888., br. 46, s. 1.

 

[64] Svoboda, & dek. 1893., br. 1266., s. 2.

 

[65] Nezavisimost, 14 maj 1886., br. 18., s. 1.; 21 maj 1886., br. 20. Novi svedeniya po Burgaskoto delo., s. 2.; 24 maj 1886., br. 21. Pop Angel Cholakov., s. 1.

 

[66] Plovdiv, 11 jan. 1890., br. 1., s. 1.; 14 jan. 1890., br. 2., s. 1.; 21 jan. 1890., br. 4., s. 1., 25 fevr. 1890., br. 14., s. 1.

 

[67] Nezavisimost, 28 maj 1886. Z. Syoyanov. Saglasni li sme?, s. 1-2.; 18 juni 1886., br. 27. Z. Stoyanov. Koi sa zladoejcite?, s. 2.; 2 juni 1886., br. 31. Z. Stoyanov. Zloto za balgariya ot Sofijskij palat li idva ili ot Gatchenskij?, s. 1-2.

 

[68] Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto., s. 39, 41, 47, 48.; Rakovski G. S. Preselenie., s. 5.; Nezavisimost, br. 1, 18 jan. 1886., s. 1. Nashata programa.; br. 7, 29 mart 1886., s. 1.; br. 10, 9 april 1886., Z. Stoyanov. Koe ot dvete?, s. 2-3.; br. 18, 14 maj 1886., s. 1.; br. 19, 17 maj 1886., s. 1, 2, 3.

[69] Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 10, 11 okt. 1886. D.P. Krizata e na svarshvanie.; br. 17, 28 okt. 1886. Po kompromisa., s. 1-2.

[70] Ibid., 22 sept. 1886, Golyam miting v Sofiya i Don-Kikhotskite porozhdeniya na Kaulbarsa., s. 1-2.; br. 2, 24 sept. 1886, s. 2.; br. 17, 29 okt. 1886.

[71] Nezavisimost, 16 juli 1886., br. 33. Z. Stoyanov. Do koga Karavelov shte stoi na vlast?, s. 1.; Slavyanin, br. 71, 6 fevr. 1886.; Nezavisimost, 9 april 1886, br. 10. Z. Stoyanov. Koe ot dvete?, s. 2.; 30 april 1886, br. 14., Z. Stoyanov. Priyatelski otgovori. S. 2-3.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto., s. 5, 51-52.; Nezavisima Balgariya., br. 1, 21 sept. 1886. D. P. Polozhenieto., s. 1-2.; Notata na Kaulbarsa., s. 2.; br. 2, 24 sept. 1886., Kam balgarite, s. 1.; br. 4, 27 sept. 1886., s. 1.; br. 17, 28 okt. 1886. Po kompromisa., s. 1-2.

[72] Nezavisimost, br. 14, 30 april 1886. Z= Stoyanov. Knyaz i princip.

[73] Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 73, 17 mart 1887. Chetete i slushajte pokrovitelstvoto., s. 1.; Svoboda, br. 37-38., 14 mart 1887., s. 1-2.; br. 54, 9 maj 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Pokrovitelite na Sarbiya i na Balgariya., s. 1.; 78, 26 avg. 1887. Z. Stoyanov. General Ernrot v Balgariya., s. 1-2.; br. 79, 29 avg. 1887. Khronika., s. 3-4.; Plovdiv, br. 70, 1 okt. 1887., s. 1.; Dobrudzha, br. 8, 12 dek. 1887. Mir ili vojna., s. 1.; Nova Balgariya, Vidin, 16 juni 1890., br. 3. Nashite zabludeni khora., s. 1.

[74] Nezavisimost, 30 april 1886, br. 14., Z. S. Majkata I detentseto., s. 3.

[75] Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto ., s. 27.; Kakvo napravikhme ., s. 8.; Svoboda, br. 42, 28 mart 1887., Knyaz Aleksandar I., s. 1.; br. 51, 29 april 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Novite proizvodstva., s. 2.

[76] Nezavisimost, br. 1, 18 jan. 1886., s. 1.; br. 5, 19 mart 1886., s. 3.; 19 apr. 1886., br. 12. Z. Stoyanov. Pokayanie., s. 1-2.; I, 14 maj 1886., br. 18., s. 1.; I, 28 juni 1886., br. 30. Z. Stoyanov. Po sukhoezhbinata., s. 3.; br. 32., 12 juli 1886. Stoyanov, Z. Russkij manastir v Shipka., s. 2; Slavyanin, br. 75, 15 fevr. 1886.; Rakovski, G. S. Preselenie., s. 6.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto ., s 27-28, 52.; Plovdiv, 13 maj 1886, br. 3. , s. 1.

[77] Nezavisimost, br. 2, 8 mart 1886., s. 3.

[78] Ibid., 28 juni 1886., br. 30. Z. Stoyanov. Po sukhoezhbinata., s. 3.; Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 14, 21 okt. 1886., D.P. Rusiya v sayuz sas Turtsiya protiv Balgariya., s. 3.; Svoboda, br. 26. 4 fevr. 1887., Z. Stoyanov. Politicheski gjozboyadzhilak.; br. 31, 21 fevr. 1887.

[79] Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 100., 3 maj 1887. Pak sashteto.; Svoboda, br. 55, 13 maj 1887., s. 1.; br. 60, 30 maj 1887. Tsarskite nikhilisti. ot ?, s. 1.; Gudev, P.T. Vreme e ., s. 5.

[80] Dechev, St. Rolyata na predtsite I predtechite v politicheskata mobilizacya po vreme na balgarskata kriza (1886 – 1887) – Predtsi I predtechi. Mitove i utopii na Balkanite. Blagoevgrad., 1997., s. 326-337.

[81] Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto ., s. 39-40, 51.

[82] Nezavisimost, 30 april 1886, br. 14., Z. Stoyanov. Priyatelski otgovori. S. 2-3.; Stoyanov, Z. Koronovanite nikhilisti v Balgariya. Ruse, 1886., s. 11.; Svoboda, br. 13, 13 dek. 1886. Z. Stoyanov. Ruskite slavyanofili., s. 1-2.; br. 28, 11 fevr. 1887., s. 1.; br. 62, 6 juni 1887., Monarkhicheski bankrutizam, ot ?, s. 1.; br. 63, 10 juni 1887., Sarbskata kriza, ot ?, s. 1-2.

[83] Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto ., s. 49-40, 51-52.; Plovdiv, 9 juni 1888, br. 21. Iz chuzhdite vestnitsi?i., s. 1.

[84] Nezavisimost, br. 14, 30 april 1886., Z, Stoyanov. Priyatelski otgovori., s. 3-4.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto ., s. 20.; Svoboda, br. 10, 29 noemv. 1886., Ruskoto dukhovenstvo. Izvlechenie ot Tikhomirov “La Russie politique et sociale.”, Paris., ?. 2-3.

[85] Nezavisimost, 21 juni 1886., br. 28., Varkhu programata na Voennoto uchilishte., s. 4,; Svoboda, br. 36, 11 mart 1887., Z. Stoyanov. Zashto gi mrazyat?, s. 1-2.; br. 79, 29 avg. 1887. Z. Stoyanov . Tabitsa na chernite., s. 2-3.; 10 maj 1889., br. 265. Nova pesen na vetkh glas., s. 1-2.; Plovdiv, 1 sept. 1888, br. 33., Svizhdaneto v Peterburg prazdnuvaneto v Kiev I ruskata inteligenciya., s. 1.

[86] Svoboda, 10 maj 1889., br. 265. Nova pesen ., s. 1-2.; 28 mart 1890., br. 351. Oshte nyakolko dumi., s. 3.; Plovdiv, 9 avg. 1890., br. 60. Balgariya i turskoto pravitelstvo., s. 1-2.

[87] Svoboda, 11 jan. 1889., br. 234. Pokatolichvaneto na Balgariya., s. 1.; 10 maj 1889., br. 265. Nova pesen ., s. 1-2.; 12 juli 1891., br. 572.; VI, 1 fevr. 1892., br. 731., s. 1.

[88] Dobrudzha, br. 7, 5 dek. 1887. Ev. Drebov. Vojnata ne e taj upstoshitelna kakto dalgovremenniya vaorazhen mir s neya., s. 1.; br. 10, 31 dek. 1887., Evg. Drebov. Tryabva li da vyarvame na vsichki gazetni novini?, s. 1.; br. 14, 30 jan. 1888., Kakvo misli Tsarya s Generalite i kak gleda na tova Evropa?, s. 1.; Svoboda, br. 107, 6 dek. 1887, Z. Stoyanov. Shpionstvoto., s. 1.; Stoyanov, Z. Khristo Botjov. Opit za biografiya. S., 1976., s. 130.

[89] Nezavisimost, 15 mart 1886, br. 4. Z. Stoyanov. Priyatelski otgovori., s. 3.; 7 juni 1886., br. 24. D. Rizov. Broshurata na g. P. R. Slavejkova., s. 2.; Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 16, 25 okt. 1886., A-a! Tak to bilo za slavyanskoto delo?!, s. 2-3.

[90] Samozashtita, br. 1, 28 sept. 1885, s. 2.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto ., s. 27-28.; Nezavisimost, 28 juni 1886., br. 30. Z. Stoyanov. Po sukhoezhbinata., s. 3.

[91] Rakovski, G. S. Preselenie ., s. 6.; Nezavisimost, br. 2, 8 mart 1886. Z. Stoyanov. Ruskata zhurnalistika i nejnite korespondenti v Balgariya., s. 2-3.; 29 mart 1886, br. 7., Z. Stoyanov. Do nashite trakijski priyateli., s. 1.; 9 april 1886, br. 10. Z. Stoyanov. Koe ot dvete?, s. 2.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto., s. 27, 28, 52.

[92] Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 36, 13 dek. 1886. Ruskiya tsar ubijtsa!, s. 2.; br. 37, 16 dek. 1886. Ruskoto pravitelstvo i anarkhiyata., s. 1-2.; Svoboda, br. 79, 29 avg. 1887. D. Petkov. Otets Kliment gesheftarin., s. 1.; br. 79, 29 avg. 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Tablitsa na chernite., s. 2-3.

[93] Svoboda, br. 85., 19 sept. 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Na slugite., s. 1-2.; Vardar, 22 sept. 1887., br. 1., s. 2.; Plovdiv, br. 69, 24 sept. 1887., s. 1.

[94] Samozashtita, br. 1, 28 sept. 1885. D. Rizov. Gde sme i gde tryabva da sme?, s. 1.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe ., s. 40., Nezavisimost, br. 12, 19 april 1886. Z. Stoyanov. Pokayanie., s. 1-2.; Slavyanin, br. 3, 23 sept. 1886. Z. Stoyanov. Pismo do negovo prevazkhoditelstvo general Kaulbarsa.; Svoboda, br. 13, 13 dek. 1886., Z. Stoyanov. Ruskite slavyanofili., s. 1-2.; br. 35, 7 mart 1887. Z. Stoyanov. ?algarski I ruski nikhilisti., s. 2.

[95] Svoboda, 31 juli 1891., br. 587., s. 1.; 12 fevr. 1893., br. 1029., s. 1.; 22 sept. 1893., br. 1203., s. 1.; 9 dek. 1893., br. 1268., s. 1-2.; 3 maj 1894., br. 1379., s. 1.

[96] Nezavisimost, br. 3, 12 mart 1886. Z. Stoyanov. G-nu Aksakovu, redaktor na v. “Rus”., s. 1-2.; Svoboda, 1 maj 1893., br. 1090., s. 3.; 15 maj 1893., br. 100., s. 1.; 25 avg. 1890., br. 389. Ruskite obskuranti. Ot M. Dzhumaliev., s. 1-2.; 3 okt. 1890., br. 400. Ruskite obskuranti., s. 3.; 20 I 21 maj 1891., br. 529 I 530. M. Dragomanov. Po sluchaj shkolskiya praznik 11-ij maj.; 5 jan. 1891., br. 426. Dnevniya vapros., s. 1.

[97] Nezavisimost, 15 mart 1886, br. 4., s. 2.; 19 april 1886, br. 12. Literaturna letopis, s. 4.; 15 mart 1886, br. 4., s. 2.; 3 maj 1886., br. 15. Z. Stoyanov. Koj buntuva?, s. 1-2.; Svoboda, br. 29, 14 fevr. 1887.; br. 35, 7 mart 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Balgarski I ruski nikhilisti., s. 2.; br. 39, 18 mart 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Velikodushie., s. 1.; br. 50, 25 april 1887., Z. Stoyanov. Ruskite vestnitsi., s. 1-2.; br. 58, 23 maj 1887. Nikhilistite v Balgatiya ot ?, s. 1.; Mnogo ima da plachete za zelenoto parcalche. Otgovor na iskatelite na ruska okupatsiya., napisal N. S. Tarnovo, 1886.

[98] Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 7, 4 okt. 1886. D.P. Obvineniyata, s. 1.; Svoboda, br. 11, 3 dek. 1886., D. Rizov. Da proglasim li republika?, s. 1-2.; br. 26, 4 fevr. 1886. Z. Stoyanov. Politicheski gjozboyadzhilak.; Stoyanov, Z. Kakvo napravikhme., s. 16; Plovdiv, 3 noem. 1888., br. 42, s. 1.

[99] Samozashtita, br. 1, 28 sept. 1885, s. 2.; Nezavisimost, br. 14, 30 spril 1886., Z. Stoyanov. Priyatelski otgovori., s. 3-4.; Svoboda, br. 10, 29 noem. 1886., Ruskoto dukhovenstvo. Izvlechenie ot Tikhomirov “La Russie politique et sociale.”, Paris., s. 2-3.; Plovdiv, 1 april 1890, br. 24. Novo pismo ot g-zha Chebrikova – pismoto do Brandes., s. 1-2.

[100] Samozashtita, br. 1, 28 sept. 1885. D. Rizov. Gde sme I gde tryabva da sme?, s. 1.; Rakovski, G. S. Preselenie., s. 3.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto ., s. 48.; Nezavisimost, br. 4, 15 mart 1886. Z. Stoyanov. “Demokrat” s kambana na glavata I smovar v racete”., s. 1.; Svoboda, br. 111, 20 dek. 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Sotsializmat v Balgariya., s. 2-3.; 7 okt. 1889., br. 307., s. 1-2.

[101] Svoboda, br. 107, 6 dek. 1887, Z. Stoyanov. Shpionstvoto., s. 1.; 4 maj 1893., br. 1092., s. 1.; 27 april 1894.; br. 1374., s. 2.

[102] Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe vremeto., s. 31, 32, 39-40, 52.; Gudev, P. T. Vreme e ., s. 25-26.

[103] Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 71, 12 mart 1887. Po atentata protiv tsarya., s. 2.; Plovdiv, 31 mart 1888., br. 12, s. 1.; 8 dek. 1888., br. 47., s. 2.

[104] Nezavisimost, br. 4, 15 mart 1886. Z. Stoyanov. “Demokrat” s kambana ., s. 1.; Svoboda, br. 43-44, 2 april 1886. Z. Stoyanov. Prikaz po vojskam., s. 1.; br. 51, 29 april 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Novite proizvodstva., s. 2.

[105] Nezavisimost, br. 12, 19 april 1886.; Svoboda, 8 sept. 1890., br. 393. Svidetelstvo na edin mlad Rusin za Rusiya., s. 2-3.; IV, 20 okt. 1890., br. 404., s. 3.; V, 16 mart 1891., br. 482., s. 3.; 23 dek. 1892., br. 991., s. 1.; 9 sept. 1893., br. 1193., s. 1.; 12 jan. 1894., br. 1292., s. 1.; 7 maj 1894., br. 1383., s. 1.; Narodna misal, I, 21 juni 1890., br. 12. Teroristka. Izvlecheno ot knigata “Sud I rasprava nad Rossiej “). Prev. ot. ruski A.P., s. 2-4.

[106] Svoboda, br. 112, 24 dek. 1887., Z. Stoyanov. Sotsializmat v Balgariya., s. 2.; br. 113, 31 dek. 1887., s. 2-3.; III, 22 april 1889., br. 261. Darzhavnij nikhilizam I negovite organi Slavyanski izvestiya I Grazhdanin., s.2.; Vardar, I, 3 noem. 1889., br. 1., s. 4.; Svobodno slovo, Nikopol, 1 april 1890., br. 18. Dobrite zhelaniya na Rusiya., s. 1-2; Mnenie, I, 13 sept. 1890., br. 18; Plovdiv, III, 3 noem. 1888., br. 42. S. 1.; Stoyanov, Z. Khristo Botjov. Opit za biografiya. S., 1976., s. 38-39, 44, 135.

[107] Svoboda, 15 juli 1889., br. 283. Posle izpitite., s. 1.; 29 april 1892., br. 799. Nashite sotsialisti., s. 3.; VI, 5 avg. 1892., br. 877., s. 2.

[108] Nezavisimost, br. 12, 19 april 1886.; Svoboda, 15 fevr. 1890., br. 339. Rusi I amerikantsi., s. 2.; 11 april 1890., br. 353. Za buntovete v ruskite universiteti., s. 3.; Balkanska zora, 7 mart 1890., br. 6., s. 1.; Plovdiv, 1 mart 1890., br. 18. Zaplashitelno pismo do russkij tsar ot Mariya Chebrikova., s. 1-2.; 1 april 1890, br. 24. Novo pismo ot g-zha Chebrikova – pismoto do Brandes., s. 1-2.; Svobodno slovo, Nikopol., 27 jan. 1890., br. 9., s. 3

[109] Svoboda, br. 99, 7 noem. 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Prokurorite I darzhavata., s. 2.; br. 111, 20 dek. 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Sotsializmat v Balgariya., s. 2-3.; 8 mart 1894., br. 1336. Edin epizod ot moskovskiya zhivot., s. 2.; Dobrudzha, br. 2, 31 okt. 1887., s. 1.

[110] Samozashtita, br. 1, 28 sept. 1885. D. Rizov. Gde sme I gde tryabva da sme?, s. 1.; Nezavisimost, br. 1, 18 jan. 1886.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe ., s. 40.; br. 12, 19 april 1886, s. 4.; I, 19 apr. 1886., br. 12. Z. Stoyanov. Pokayanie., s. 1-2.; I, 11 juni 1886., br. 25. Khronika, s. 3.; I, 12 juli 1886., br. 32. Z. Stoyanov. Ruskij manastir v Shipka., s. 1.; Rakovski, G. S. Preselenie., s. 6.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe ., s. 29.; Svoboda, br. 1, 4 okt. 1886., Simon. Dupnishkoto priklyuchenie., s. 2-3.; br. 62, 6 juni 1887., Monarkhicheski bankrutizam, ot ?, s. 1.; Marinov, D. Trite razdeleniya na Polsha (5 avg. 1772 g., 25 sept. 1793 i 24 jan. 1795 g.) .S., 1887., s. 31-32.

[111] Korespondentsii po sofijskiya prevrat. Izvarshen prez noshta na 8 sreshtu 9 avgust 1886 g. Izdava redaktsiyata na vestnik “Slavyanin”. Russe, 1886., s. 25-26.; Svoboda, br. 3., 11 okt. 1886., s. 2.; br. 27, 7 fevr. 1887., s. 3-4.; 21 okt. 1889., br. 311., s. 1-2.; 18 april 1890., br. 335. Rysiya., s. 2.; Stoyanov, Z. Kakvo napravikhme ., s. 18.; Svobodno slovo, Nikopol, 1 april 1890., br. 18. Dobrite zhelaniya na Rusiya, s. 1-2.; Narodna sila, 20 jan. 1890., br. 4., s.1.

[112] Svoboda, 18 mart 1889., br. 253. Balgarskiyat grazhdanin i ruskiyat muzhik., s. 3.; 28 apr. 1890., br. 358. Ruskata presa v profil., s. 2.; 14 noem. 1892., br. 959., s. 2; Nova Balgariya, Vidin, 16 juni 1890., br. 3. Nashite zabludeni khora., s. 1.; 18 avg. 1890., br. 10. Vidin v Lom-Palanka., s. 1-2.

[113] Stoyanov, Z. Dokumenti po preratat ., s. 30.; Svoboda, br. 78, 26 avg. 1887. Z. Stoyanov. General Ernrot v Balgariya., s. 1-2.; 11 jan. 1889., br. 234. Pokatolichvaneto na Balgariya., s. 1.; 18 juli 1890., br. 379. Ot kakvo se opasyavat balgarite?, s. 2.; br. 126, 17 fevr. 1888. Z. Stoyanov. Radi boga., s. 1-2.; br. 128., s. 4.; 18 juli 1890., br. 379. Ot kakvo se opasyavat balgarite?, s. 2.; Mnenie, 12 juli 1890., br. 8. Nyakolko dumi za predstoyashtite izbori., s. 1-2.

[114] Mnogo ima da plachete ., ; Stoyanov, Z. Kakvo napravikhme ., s. 9, 11.; Svoboda, br. 26, 4 fevr. 1887., Z. Stoyanov. Politicheski gjozboyadzhilak.; br. 27, 7 fevr. 1887., s. 3-4.; br. 37-38., 14 mart 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Ruskite vestnitsi., s. 1-2.; br. 43-44, 2 april 1887.; Z. Stoyanov Prikaz po vojskam., s. 1.; br. 48, 19 april 1887., s. 1.; br. 51, 29 april 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Novite proizvodstva., s. 2.; br. 54, 9 maj 1887., Z. Stoyanov. Pokrovitelite na Sarbiya i Balgariya., s. 1.; br. 70, 28 juni 1887., Z. Stoyanov. Katkov umryal!;

[115] Svoboda, 23 sept. 1887., br. 86. Chuzhdite vestnitsi po nashite raboti., s. 3.; 10 maj 1889., br. 265. Nova pesen na vetkh glas., s. 1-2.; 14 mart 1890., br. 347. Ruskata blagodetelnost i bezkoristie., s. 2.; 29 jan. 1893., br. 1018., s. 1-2.; 8 juni 1893., br. 1118. Razni., s. 3.; 22 mart 1894., br. 1348., s. 2.; 24 mart 1894., br. 1350., s. 2.; 7 maj 1894., br. 1383., s. 2.; Dokumenti iz sekretnite arkhivi …

[116] Svoboda, 18 mart 1889., br. 253. Balgarskiya grazhdanin I ruskiya muzhik., s. 3.; 13 jan. 1890., br. 331., s. 3.; 17 maj 1890; br. 363. Rusiya. Otpadvanieto na zemedelieto., s. 3.; 14 mart 1890., br. 347. Rusiya., s. 2.; VI, 21 jan. 1892., s. 1.; Svobodno slovo, 9 dek. 1889., br. 2., s. 3.; 6 jan. 1890., br. 6. Nashite partii I delata im., s. 1-2.; 24 juni 1890., br. 29. Otvoreno pismo g-nu T. Kh. Stanchevu., s. 1-4.

[117] Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe., s. 5, 40, 51.; Nezavisimost, br. 3, 12 mart 1886., s. 4; Mnogo ima da plachete .,; Stoyanov, Z. Koronovanite nikhilisti ., s. 19.; Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 10, 11 okt. 1886. D.P. Krizata e na svarshvanie., s. 1; br. 16, 25 okt. 1886., D.P. Radvajte se, bratya Slavyane!, s. 2.; Svoboda, br. 2, 8 okt 1886.; br. 3, 11 okt 1886.; br. 6, 15 noem. 1886., s. 1.; br. 14, 17 dek. 1886., s. 1-2.; Mdrinov, D. Trite razdeleniya na Polsha ., s. 31.; Balgarsko, 29 april 1888., br. 13., Ustapkite na Rusiya., s. 1.; Mnenie, 31 maj 1890, br. 2. Srabskite intrigi pred Turtsiya, s. 1-2.

[118] Nezavisimost, 12 mart 1886, br. 3., s. 3.; Plovdiv, 24 mart 1888, br. 11.; 20 april 1889., br. 16., s. 1.; Svoboda, 27 jan. 1890., br. 334., s. 4.; 7 mart 1890., br. 345. Rusiya., s. 2.; 13 juli 1891., br. 573., s. 1-2.; 18 sept. 1891., br. 525., s. 1.; 20 jan. 1892., br. 720., s. 1.; 12 sept. 1892., br. 907., s. 1.; 26 mart 1893., br. 1063., s. 1.; 28 juli 1893., br. 1159., s. 1.; 8 mart 1894., br. 1336., s. 1.

[119] Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe., s. 5, 20, 40, 51.; Nezavisimost, br. 3, 12 mart 1886., s. 4.; Stoyanov, Z. Koronovanite nikhilisti ., s. 19; Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 10, 11 okt. 1886., Otvoreno pismo do N. Visokoprevazkhoditelstvo General-major Kaulbars, ruski diplomaticheski agent., ot M., s. 2-3; br. 16, 25 okt. 1886., D. P. Radvajte se, bratya Slavyane, s. 2.; Svoboda, br. 6, 15 noem. 1886., s. 1.; br. 14, 17 dek. 1886.; Plovdiv, 21 april 1888, br. 15.

[120] Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe., s. 40.; Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 10, 11 okt. 1886., Otvoreno pismo.,; Svoboda, br. 19, 10 jan. 1887., Rusiya i Kavkaz., s. 3.; br. 29, 14 fevr. 1887., Zagranichna politika. Jarmencite v Rusiya., s. 3.; br. 52, 2 maj

1887., s. 2.; br. 90, 8 okt. 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Stiga veche, dovdolno e., s. 1-2.; 5 juli 1889., br. 281. Svobodata i pravata narodni v dve darzhavi., s. 1-2.; Plovdiv, 28 jan. 1890., br. 6. Armencite i ruskite obeshtaniya., s. 3.; Mnenie, 31 maj 1890, br. 2. Srabskite intrigi pred Turtsiya., s. 1-2.

[121] Svoboda, 18 april 1890., br. 355. Rusiya., s. 2.; 10 jan. 1891., br. 429., 5 juni 1892., br. 827., s. 2-3.; 1 juni 1892, br. 823. Iz ruskite vestnitsi., s. 3.; 15 juni 1893., br. 1124., s. 1.; 18 april 1890., br. 355. Rusiya., s. 2.

[122] Svoboda, 1 juni 1892, br. 823. Iz ruskite vestnitsi., s. 3.; 15 juni 1893., br. 1124., s. 1.; 2 juni 1893., br. 1113., s. 1.; 9 maj 1894., br. 1384., s. 2.

[123] Svoboda, br. 13, 13 dek. 1886., Z. Stoyanov. Ruskite slavyanofili ., s. 1-2.; br. 47, 15 april 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Mrakobesie, s. 2.; br. 47, 15 april. Ruskite parakhodi po Dunavat., s. 2-3.; br. 62, 6 juni 1887. Monarkhicheski bankrutizam. ot ?, s. 1.; Plovdiv, 15 dek. 1888., br. 48., Ministerskata kriza v Rusiya, s. 1.; Vardar, 29 noem. 1889., br. 4. Ruski predlozheniya, s. 1.; Narodna sila, 1 jan. 1890., br. 1., s. 1.; Svobodno slovo, 15 dek. 1889., br. 5. Todorovite prava vse edno moskovski prava., s. 2.

[124] Svoboda, br. 79, 29 avg. 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Tablitsa na chernite., s. 2-3.; br. 54, 9 maj 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Pokrovitelite na Sarbiya i na Balgariya., s. 1.; Plovdiv, 1 sept. 1888, br. 33., Svizhdaneto v Peterburg, prazdnuvaneto v Kiev i ruskata inteligenciya., s. 1.

[125] Rakovski, G. S. Preselenie .., s. 6, 8.; Stoyanov, Z. Ne mu beshe., s. 39-40.; Mnogo ima da plachete., Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 2, 24 sept. 1886. Kaulbars buntovnik, s. 1-2.; br. 8, 7 okt. 1886., s. 2-3.; Slavyanin, br. 7, 2 okt. 1886. Z. Stoyanov. Pismo do negovo prevazkhoditelstvo general Kaulbarsa; Svoboda, br. 36, 11 mart 1887., Z. Stoyanov. Zashto gi mrazyat ?, s. 1-2.; br. 47, 15 april 1887. Z. Stoyanov. Slavyanofilite., s. 2.

[126] Nezavisimost, br. 4, 15 mart 1886. Z. Stoyanov. Priyatelski otgovori, s. 3.; Nezavisima Balgariya, br. 64, 24 fevr. 1887., s. 1.; Dobrudzha, I, 14 noem. 1888., br. 4., s. 1.; Balgarsko, 29 april 1888., br. 13. Ustapkite na Rusiya., s. 1.; Svoboda, 10 mart 1890., br. 346. Pak primirenie., s. 2.; Plovdiv, 12 avg. 1890., br.61. Balgarskoto naselenie i Rusiya, s. 1.; Narodna sila, I, 24 fevr. 1890., br. 8., s. 1.; Nova Balgariya, Vidin, 16 juni 1890., br. 3. Po izborite., s. 2.