Balkan Historians as State-Builders

BY DRITAN EGRO

Abstract
Historiography is a discourse deeply intertwined with politics. Therefore, it is erroneous to think that politicians live in a world free of politics and that the readers of their writings are likewise a byproduct of this politically pure world. Historiography continues even today to serve as the root source of nationalist ideologies and claims in all the countries of the Balkan region. Hence, the Balkan political elites have considered historiography of their nations as one of the ways of building a national state, something that even the present-day reality has not yet refuted. What usually distinguishes the historian from the politician is that the historian has a good mastery of his knowledge, while the politician has confidence in the accomplishment of his political mission. When both of them merge, the conviction emerges that shapes the intellectual strength of a people.

When a Greek colleague asked me to write a paper wereby to analyze the narrative of Ottoman historiography in the 15th century, says Turkish historian Halil Berktay, I replied that I would approach this issue in a critical fashion. The Greek colleague shook my hand for my intended critical approach to my country's historiography. But when I then told him that the focus of my critical analysis would be both Turkish and Greek historiography, that did it as far as that project wentthe Turkish scholar concludes (Berktay 1993: 249). In a region like the Balkans, such a thing should not take anyone by surprise, because in this region, history-writing, in some areas more and some areas less, continues to be an enterprise of high political stakes (Clogg 1988: 29). Indeed, it will remain so for as long as several issues remain unresolved and the legitimacy for the solution of which is sought in the historical past. In this context, the pen of the history and the scholar of national culture in this part of the world should be sharp and intelligent, so to distinguish the blood from red ink (Seton-Watson 1988: 14). Historiography is a discourse deeply intertwined with politics. So is the conscious effort to leave out the political dimension of historiography, or a given political stand. Therefore, it is erroneous to think that politicians live in a world free of politics and that the readers of their writings are likewise a byproduct of this politically "pure" world (Berktay and others 1993: 12).
DRITAN EGRO is currently Associate Professor of History at the Center for Albanian Studies and the European University of Tirana. He has published numerous articles on Albanian history and historiography, including a book, History and Ideology, in Albanian (2007).

In fact, as early as the second half of the 19th century, national historiography was the discipline that contributed the most to the formation of the national consciousness of the Balkan peoples; hence, it should be perceived as the most essential part of political and cultural productions. Imbued with this quality, historiography continues to this day to serve as the root source of nationalist ideologies and claims in all the countries of the Balkan region. As early as a century and a half ago, Greek historian Constantinos Paparrigopoulos said, History is not only a science. It is at once the Gospel of the present and the future of the Motherland (Clogg 1988: 15). The purpose of the study of national history can be described in very simple terms: to get to know your own self, the surrounding environment and your neighbors as well as to manage to prevail over that environment in whichlike it or notyou happen to live and have managed to survive over the centuries. History is the memory of a people (zbaran 1997: 12), but also the moral foundation of every national political formation. Hence, the Balkan political elites have considered historiography of their nations as one of the ways of building a national state, something that even the present-day reality has not yet refuted. Albanian historiography and the historiographies of the other Balkan states have developed mainly as historiographies with strong nationalist conotations, but at the same time, they were deliberately left out of the scope of interest of the history of the neighboring states and peoples. Nationalism became a primary unifying and normative factor in the formation of collective identity of a people, accounting for national historiographies being pure and original. The deliberate ignoring of the study of the history of the neighboring countries was more than a preferential negligence. It was in fact a precondition dictated by the situation and international developments at the end of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th century. Hence, any national historiography is distinct from other national historiographies (zel 1998: 149). This was the case especially with the historiographies of neighboring countries. However, the problem gets more complicated when the issue of national identity involves individuals of the same national identity and, as a result, boils down to a debate over the question of existentialism. Referring to the glorious past, the Balkan historiographers undertake the task of galvanizing the national mission and ideas, and even providing their peoples with the historical model of a coalescent national identity. Hence, beginning from the second half of the 19th century, Balkan historiographers should be appreciated as powerful promoters of Balkan nationalism. The creation of nation states should never be perceived as a spontaneous qualitative development that was materialized by a strong and farsighted leader. Without wanting to question the role of the individual in history, I maintain that the process of the Balkan states breaking away from the Ottoman Empire is a process that took a couple of decades to be intellectually conceptualized before taking place in reality.

Due to the nation state-formation process, the study of history in the Balkans was a striking intellectual feature in the 19th century (Soulis 1974: 421; Berktay 1992: 242).1 The founding of the institutes of history, universities and academies of sciences after the Western European models paved the way for conducting systematic historic and philological studies. It was at this time that fundamental works of Serb, Croatian, Bulgarian, and Rumanian national histories appeared; in fact, they did not comprise merely selections of early documents, but whole corps of complete documents about those periods of history that respective peoples have considered their Golden Ages.2 The institutes of history should be regarded as cultural institutions where historical science clearly met with politics, so much so that in the case of the Balkan countries, the institutes of history were placed in the service of politics. The most typical case was that of the director of the Turkish Institute of History, Jusuf Akura (1932-35), one of the promoters of Kemalist nationalism in Turkey. Although he did not formally engage in politics, he subjected the politically inspired historiography to the political orders (Berktay 1991: 24). Even today, he embodies a typical case of a professional historian relegating historiography to second place, taking the position of an overt politician. Such a political commitment makes it difficult for historical science to be regarded a science. However, there is another side to the medal: the advantage of the other Balkan countries over Albania is that beginning from the middle of the 19th century, the respective academies of sciences of the neighboring states were the institutions that elaborated the nationalist political thought, going so far as to draft long-term national platforms. The academy of science is the institution that elaborates on an intellectual plane the intellectual thought, with the view to precede the political action. In the 19th century, the Balkan academies of sciences did not create national states; in fact, they built national states; whereas in the 20th century, they rendered their contribution to the projection of national ambitions. From their foundation, the Balkan academies and state archives are the fundamental institutions that have literally supplied proof to the continuity of state life (Inalcik 2001: 258). The model of a historian academician, who is equally involved in political activities, is that of Stojan Novakovi, the founder of Serb modern historiography. In his quality as director of the National Library (1869-1874), chairman of the Serb Academy of Sciences (1906-1915); ambassador of Serbia to Istanbul (1886-1891, 1897-1899), Paris (1900) and Saint Petersburg (1900-1905); three times minister of education (1873, 1875, 1880-83) and twice prime minister (1895, 1909); but also signatory to the final agreement at the end of the Balkan Wars (1914), and as chairman of Serb delegation to the negotiations with the Ottoman state (Djordevic 1988: 51-

This atmosphere and this overt national organization would also need professional historical reviews. In Germany there was the journal Historische Zeitschrift (1859), in France, Revue historique (1876), in England, English Historical Review (1886), while in the USA, American Historical Review (1895), which pledged to highlight both the political and the diplomatic history and promote national values through a historiography focused on the project of establishment of nation states.
1

For more detailed explanation about the phases and forms of academic organization in the Balkan states beginning from the second half of the 19th century, see: G. Soulis, Historical Studies in the Balkans in Modern Times, pp. 423-431.
2

69), he has been credited with not only for publishing numerous historical publications,3 but also for contributing to the scientific publication of Serbian medieval documentation (Novakovic 1898; Novakovic 1912). Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria are Balkan states that have already celebrated the 150th anniversary of the foundation of their academies. Sponsored by their respective governments, they have taken up projects for the long-term solution of their national questions. In fact, their intellectual independence in the treatment of such issues has gone over and above the limit of the most advanced political thought of the time. In order to illustrate this with a concrete example, we might say that the ideas expressed by the founder of Greek modern historiography Constantinos Paparrigopoulos in his work History of the Greek People (6 vol., 1860-1872) were not only taken into consideration by Greek contemporary politicians (Xydis 1969: 239), but even today his idea of partitioning the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on an ethnic basis constitutes part of Greek policy towards this issue (Jovanovski 2007: 195). In order to get a deeper insight into this issue, I must present another significant fact related to the extreme role played by a historian and his work in the building of a national state. Constantin Jirecek, a Balkan historian of Czech origin, renown for having written a history of Bulgaria, the first of its kind, in 1881 was appointed Minister of National Education of the Bulgarian state. Albeit not a Bulgarian, Jirecek undertook the mission of consolidating national identity, while during the second decade of the 20th century, he held the post of the director of the Institute of Balkan Studies at Vienna University. Different historic conditions and circumstances actually give rise to various concerns and intensities in the way history is lived and national conscience is formed, but they also affect historiography, including that of the Balkan Peninsula. Albanians, both Muslims and Christians, embarked on the path of creating their independent state without the official endorsement of any of the Great Powers. Hence, Albanian national identity was moulded and developed side by side the danger of their elimination from the scene of history. In this context, nationalism in historiography and the use of history, more than a momentary intellectual trend, were a response of Albanian historiography to the political circumstances of that time, within and outside the country. While the other Balkan countries had the opportunity to form their professional caste of historians much earlier, thanks to their earlier independence from the Ottoman state, in Albania the responsibility for national historiography fell exclusively on the shoulders of political actors. In order to make up for lost time, the best and shortest path to ensure the legitimacy of the new state was for its protagonists to write its history. The politicians, the bureaucrats, and the economists of Albania were also those personalities that had the necessary historical education to fill in the gap created by the lack of professional historians up to 1946, the year when this profession was actually institutionalized. The example of Mehdi Frashri is the best case in point to illustrate this phenomenon. In his books, he stressed his analyses of Albanian problems, explaining them through his optics of
For his scientific activity in the field of history, historical geography, and history of literature, again see: D. Djordjevi, Stojan Novakovi: Historian, Politician, and Diplomat, pp. 51-69; see, in particular, the bibliographic notes at the end of the article, p. 66-69.
3

history and national values underlining the national aspirations of Albania (Frashri 1944; Frashri 1943). With the distinct vision of a statesman, he conducted some original studies on the most crucial moments in the history of Albania, such as that of the Prizren League (Frashri 1927), although part of his intellectual and patriotic interests were also economic topics such as the agricultural perspective of Albania (Frashri 1934). Mehdi Frashri attempted to also write a broad history of Albania, of which he managed to publish only the first volume (Frashri 1928). In the meantime, he was the political personality who in 1934, translated into Albanian and prepared the very precious notes to the first document of Albanian nationalism: The truth about Albania and the Albanians (Istanbul, 1789) by Pashko Vasa. Following 1945, the organized meeting of history with politics was embodied in the figure of historian Aleks Buda. He was the chairman of the Academy of Sciences from its very foundation and the historian who represented the ideological line of its development. Here we should point out that Prof. Buda lived and acted at a time when the Albanian Communist State, instead of working for the benefit of its national interests, tried to channel Albanological studies along ideological lines. The objective of national history was not to legitimize national interests, but to work in the function of the consolidation of that form of government established through the force of arms at the end of the World War II. At a time like that, a scholar of national history could not afford to challenge the ideological aspect of the regime. Aleks Buda never became a politician, but he had to grapple with the state political pressure and his historian's conscience, which knew of more than just the past of his country. In Buda's writings, we note a duality of thoughts, but he managed to do that with great elegance in order to remain within the hard line of the communist regime. On the other hand, he was the only one that could express with the authority of the head of Albanological science, albeit very elegantly, opinions that for other historians were forbidden. His solid historical formation and very good use of Albanian language enabled him in some instances to write in an ambiguous style. Nevertheless, this form of ambiguous writing, which never expressed what he thought personally, explan why Buda never assumed the role of a political dissident, but at the same time, why he was not classified as an out and out political conformist. In real fact, what usually distinguishes the historian from the politician is that the historian has a good mastery of knowledge, while the politician has confidence in the accomplishment of his political mission. When both of them merge, the conviction emerges that shapes the intellectual strength of a people. However, some national histories are less mythical than others, but it would be crazy to think that there are national histories that are free of any myths. Historians define the historical rights, the arguments for which revolve round the imperative need to redefine the borders and the world of a populist idea referred to as Golden Age (Pearton 1988: 160). In this context, the question what is history, in terms of its usage and meaning, when transforming into the question of who orders the making of history, becomes a problematic instrument. This constitutes a demarcation line that, if trespassed, makes history a "dangerous" science (Jenkins 1997: 38). The dangerousness of history or its being a problematic propaganda tool carries in itself the misuse of history for genuine political objectives, as the case was with former Serbian Prime Minister Vladan Djordjevi (1897-1900), who in a study on Albanians, describes them as people with tails (Djordjevic 1928). This book, written to delegitimize the existence of

Albanians in the Balkans, came out in 1913 with the view to provide moral motivation to the Serb people during the Balkan Wars. Unlike many other social disciplines, history is a science that easily appeals to the individual. In fact, reaching out to the society is the fundamental objective of historiography. History will continue to arouse interest for as long as it continues to shed light on the past of the world and, especially, on events that linked with the process of identity formation of the individual or certain groupings of people. With this specific feature, to this day, history continues to be the laboratory of human sciences (Kongar 2006: 11). The thing that makes a people really a people is the reciprocal relationship that exists between the historical conscience and the process of teaching national history in schools (Bozkurt 1993: 28-30). A society that does not turn out from its learned people, who generate real ideas, cannot develop and become a nation (Bozkurt 1993: 45-46). Books written by historians have been and continue to be essential elements for the creation of an elite political culture in society, because they write about true events that have taken place in the past, making prognoses for the future. In this context, a mature state would appreciate the opinions of such a class of intellectuals. I think that it is high time for Albanians too to read well Viktor Hugos words, Instead of the rulers, we should cast our eyes towards the thinkers, and the country should shake when one of them departs from this world (quoted in Zweig 2001: 449).

References
Berktay, Halil. 1991. Drt Tarihinin Sosyal Portresi, Toplum ve Bilim, no. 54/55 (yaz/gz). _____. 1993. Kltr ve Tarih Mirasmza Bakta Milliyetilii Ama Zorunluluu, Osman Hamdi Bey ve Dnemi, Sempozyum 17-18 aralk 1992, stanbul: Tarih Vakf Yaynlar. Berktay, Halil, Huricihan slamolu-nan, alar Keyder and skender Savar. 1993. Tarih ve Kapitalizm, Defter, (Bahar / Yaz). Clogg, Richard. 1988. The Greeks and Their Past, Historians as Nation-Builders: Central and South-East Europe, eds. D. Deletant & H. Hanak, London: MacMillan Press & School of Slavonic and East European Studies of London University. Djordjevi, Dimitrije. 1988. Stojan Novakovi: Historian, Politician, Diplomat, Historians as NationBuilders: Central and South-East Europe, eds. D. Deletant & H. Hanak, London: MacMillan Press & School of Slavonic and East European Studies of London University. Djordjevi, Vladan. 1913. Arnauti i velike sile, Belgrade: pub. Tfg. J.M. Pavlovic & Co.; Albanian version: Shqiptart e Fuqit e Mdha, prkth. Mustafa Kruja, Zara: Printing house S. Artale (1928). Frashri, Mehdi. 1927. Liga e Prizrenit edhe efektet diplomatike t saj, Tirana: Shtpia Botuese Mbrothsija Kristo Luarasi. _____. 1928. Histori e Shqipris dhe e shqiptarvet, vol. I. Vlor: Shtpia Botuese Vlora Cav. G. Direttore e C. _____. (ed.). 1934. Koka e Ali Pash Tepelens dhe rrethanat e vrasjes, Tiran: Shtpia Botuese Tirana. _____. 1943. Nacionalizma shqiptare dhe faktort ngatrrestar t mbrendshm dhe t jashtm, Tiran. _____. 1944. Problemet shqiptare, Tiran: Botuesi Ismail Malosmani. Gven, Bozkurt. 1993. Trk Kimlii Kltr Tarihinin Kaynaklar, Ankara: Kltr Bakanl Yaynlar. Inalcik, Halil. 2001. Bilimler Akademisi: Tarihte dhe Trkiyede, Dou-Bat, yl 4, say 16 (gz).

Jenkins, Keith. 1997. Tarihi Yeniden Dnmek, Ankara: Dost Kitapevi Yaynlar. Jovanovski, Dalibor. 2007. Constantinos Paparrigopoulos and Macedonia, Istorija, istoriografija i nastava po istorija, Skopje: Cojy . Kongar, Emre. 2006. Tarihimizle Yzlemek, stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi. Novakovi, Stojan. 1898. Zakonik Stefana Duana, cara srpskog 1349 i 1354, Beograd. _____. 1912. Zakonski spomenici srpskih drava srednjeg veka, Beograd. zbaran, Salih. 1997. Tarih, Tarihi ve Toplum, stanbul: Tarih Vakf Yurt Yaynlar. zel, Oktay.1998. Bir Tarih Okuma ve Yazma Pratii olarak Trkiyede Osmanl Tarihilii, Sosyal Bilimleri Yeniden Dnmek, Simpozyum Bildirileri, stanbul: Metis Yaynlar. Pearton, Maurice. 1988. Nicolae Iorga as Historian and Politician, Historians as Nation-Builders: Central and South-East Europe, eds. D. Deletant & H. Hanak, London: MacMillan Press & School of Slavonic and East European Studies of London University. Seton-Watson, Hugh. 1988. On Trying to be a Historian of Eastern Europe, Historians as Nation-Builders: Central and South-East Europe, eds. D. Deletant & H. Hanak, London: MacMillan Press & School of Slavonic and East European Studies of London University. Soulis, Georges. 1974. Historical Studies in the Balkans in Modern Times, The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics since the 18th Century, edited by Ch. & B. Jelavich, Archon Books. Xydis, Stephen G .1969. Modern Greek Nationalism, Nationalism in Eastern Europe, eds. P. F. Sugar I. J. Lederer, Univ. of Washington 1969. Zweig, Stephen. 2001. Bota e djeshme: kujtimet e nj europiani, Tiran: Shtpia Botuese Elena Gjika.