The Bulgarian satirical press constantly laughed at the lack of women’s abilities in education and sciences and the uselessness of their creative activities. Female pupils were painted with love letters in their hands, with sad and dreamy faces engaged in conversations about toilets, meetings and walks.
A short report in the Baraban (Drum) Newspaper describes the atmosphere at the University as a place for love admissions, fights, dinners, political clashes, but not for lectures and serious classes:
Marsh the female students
What is the higher ideal
From this you can serve all your life
In the quiet altar of light science […]
Our Science – Love!
We do think with all our hearts!
In cartoons and articles, the male authors mainly refered to several groups of creative female intellectuals: women writers, actresses, women musicians and women artists. The first intrusive stereotype is their appearance. At the beginning of the 20th century, almost all of them were portrayed as Rousseau as a bluestocking, that is, humorous, unspeakable, ugly, plump, dirty women who, for their creativity, had turned their homes in a hangout of mices. Most important, however, were the prejudices about the ability of women to create – writers, actresses (Zlatina Nedeva) and musicians.
The main goal of the Section of Women Artists, founded in 1928 at the Bulgarian Association of University Women, was was to nourish the professional career development of Bulgarian women artists. A great part of women graduates rarely exhibited their works in independent and international exhibitions; they were seldom members of professional organisations, some of them turned into parlour artists, working at home and for themselves. After the First World War Bulgarian women artists specialised abroad, participated in exhibitions and in new societies of artists. Their creative work, however, had no recognition in Bulgarian society: they were not admitted to the boardsf the art societies or as lecturers in the Academy of Fine Arts, and they did not participate in commissions buying pictures at exhibitions.
The Section of Women Artists was not numerous, but it engaged almost all professionally active women artists in Bulgaria. Women of three generations, various genres and styles participated in annual BAUW exhibitions (1928-1943), which attracted a lot of visitors and provoked a debate about ‘women’s creative work’. Sexist critics described women’s work as picturesque, imitative of men’s art, and of low quality.
Although Ana Karima was one of the favorite targets of the Bulgarian satirists who constantly ridiculed her in cartoons – her outlook and her writing ambitions.
Male conservatives were outraged by her status as a divorced woman, the patriarchal thinkers – from her own independent travel abroad, the traditionalists – from her feminist beliefs. Writer Georgi Kirkov sharpened her in his feuilletons as suicidal, simple, and gems. Poet Yavorov attributed her the name Georges Sand and characterized her as “a Bulgarian woman who has the intention of celebrating. And yet with literature”. Playwright Stefan Kostov had chosen her as a prototype of Androfoba in his comedy “Muzemyzka (Wome hating men)”.
Reputational elites have been considered as a social class, differentiated on the basis of social recognition (prestige). As in other nation-states, the Bulgarian national project was led by educated elites and had created a new symbolic system by which they identify themselves in different ways. Typical was inclusion in biographical encyclopedias and reference books, in the “literary canon”, and in the award and decoration system (on state, local and branch level). Another way was naming in their honor of streets, squares, and public institutions.
The Danchov brothers’ Encyclopedia is first domestic source that concentrated biographical information for Bulgarian historical figures. It was issued in 1936 and contains 35,000 articles. Among them are the names of 45 women: 15 from royal origin, 10 actresses, 10 writers, 5 musicians, 2 saints, 1 artist, 1social activist, and 1 revolutionary. Generally the composition of women included in Danchov brothers’ Encyclopedia indicates (and approves) prevailing traditional stereotypes towards women perceived their patriarchal roles. It may also be noted the dominance of the artistic intelligentsia over other groups Bulgarian intellectuals.
In the text are not included traditional figures of teachers (Raina Popgeorgieva, Baba Nedelya Petkova, and Anastassia Dimitrova), who invariably present in all textbooks after Bulgarian liberation. Some professional guilds are underestimated, e.g. among women artists is “missing” the pioneer Elissaveta Konsoulova-Vazova.
Women included in the Encyclopedia are portrayed primarily through their public activities (education, career, works, membership in the guild organizations, and public recognition). Few are those (mostly Bulgarian queens from the Middle Ages), described only as mothers and wives.
Generally the Danchov brothers’ Encyclopedia makes an impression of marginalization of Bulgarian women. They are both underrepresented as number of Bulgarian men and as share of Bulgarian figures of both sexes.
Currently Encyclopedia Who’s Who in Central and East-Europe (1935) is considered as one of the most comprehensive of this genre. The publication contains 10 000 short biographies of famous people of this region and includes geographic index. In its paper edition are found the names of 194 famous Bulgarians, 170 of them men.
The Who’s Who includes totally 24 women (12.4%) , of which 7 actresses, 4 singers, 5 musicians , 2 artists, 2 writers, 2 teachers, 1 dancer, and 1 journalist. As a whole in women’s group are dominated: musicians (42%) and actresses (29% ), followed by women writers (8%), women artists ( 8%), and teachers (8%). These data are very indicative of the place of Bulgarian educated elites in the public space. It illustrates both their approved place in so-called female occupations (teachers, writers) and recognition of the “second sex” in the supposedly “male professions” (artists, artistes, and musicians). However “absence” of representatives from a number of professions (women scientists, engineers, and architects) displayed some characteristic the social processes: segregation of women scientists, engineers and architects, subjecting medical doctors of negative stereotyping or exclusion of women jurists.
If Who’s Who (1935) compare to the Danchov brothers’ Encyclopedia (1936), significant differences can be detect regarding the composition of selected Bulgarian women. Domestic edition selects individuals according to subjective criteria of editors, but indicates acknowledgment of the “others” in own country. International encyclopedia is a random sample of invited people, who have been presenting those who responded to the call and had the confidence of their own importance. The two “lists” match only in 8 female names: artists, musicians and writers prevail over among them.
