The lev is the currency of Bulgaria. In archaic Bulgarian the word "lev" meant "lion", a word; the lev is pegged to the Euro at 1 € = 1.95583 leva. The lev is divided in 100 stotinki. Stotinka in Bulgarian means "a hundreth" and in fact is a translation of the French term "centime". Grammatically the word "stotinka" comes from the word "sto" - a hundred; the lev was introduced as Bulgaria's currency in 1881 with a value equal to the French franc. The gold standard was suspended between 1899 and 1906 and suspended again in 1912; until 1916, Bulgaria's silver and gold coins were issued to the same specifications as those of the Latin Monetary Union. Banknotes issued until 1928 were backed by silver. In 1928, a new gold standard of 1 lev = 10.86956 mg gold was established. During World War II, in 1940, the lev was pegged to the German Reichsmark at a rate of 32.75 leva = 1 Reichsmark. With the Soviet occupation in September 1944, the lev was pegged to the Soviet ruble at 15 leva = 1 ruble. A series of pegs to the U.

S. dollar followed: 120 leva = 1 dollar in October 1945, 286.50 leva in December 1945 and 143.25 leva in March 1947. No coins were issued after 1943. Between 1881 and 1884, bronze 2, 5 and 20 stotinki, silver 50 stotinki, 1, 2 and 5 leva were introduced, followed, in 1888, by cupro-nickel ​2 1⁄2, 5, 10 and 20 stotinki. Gold 10 and 20 leva were issued in 1894. Bronze 1 stotinka were introduced in 1901. Production of silver coins ceased in 1916, with zinc replacing cupro-nickel in the 5, 10 and 20 stotinki in 1917. In 1923, aluminum 1 and 2 leva coins were introduced, followed by cupro-nickel pieces in 1925. In 1930, cupro-nickel 5 and 10 leva and silver 20, 50 and 100 leva were introduced, with silver coins issued until 1937, in which year aluminium-bronze 50 stotinki were issued. In 1940, cupro-nickel 20 and 50 leva were followed, in 1941, by iron 1, 2, 5 and 10 leva. In 1943, nickel-clad-steel 5, 10 and 50 leva were struck; these were the last coins issued for this version of the lev. In 1885, the Bulgarian National Bank introduced notes for 20 and 50 gold leva, followed in 1887 by 100 gold leva and, in 1890, by 5 and 10 gold leva notes.

In 1899, 5, 10 and 50 silver leva notes were issued, followed by 100 and 500 silver leva in 1906 and 1907, respectively. 500 gold leva notes were introduced in 1907. In 1916, 1 and 2 silver leva and 1000 gold leva notes were introduced, followed by 2500 and 10,000 gold leva notes in 1919. In 1924, 5000 leva notes were issued, the first to lack a metal designation. In 1928, a new series of notes was introduced which gave the denominations in leva. Denominations introduced were 10, 20, 50, 100, 500, 1000 and 5000 leva; these were followed in 1929 by 250 leva. In 1930, coins up to 100 leva replaced notes, although 20-lev notes were issued between 1943 and 1950. Between 1943 and 1945, State Treasury Bills for 1000 and 5000 leva were issued. In 1952, following wartime inflation, a new lev replaced the original lev at a rate of 1 "new" lev = 100 "old" leva; however the rate for banking accounts was different, ranging from 100:3 to 200:1. Prices for goods were replaced at a rate of 25:1; the new lev was pegged to the U.

S. dollar at a rate of 6.8 leva = 1 dollar, falling to 9.52 leva on July 29, 1957. In 1952, coins were introduced in denominations of 1, 3, 5, 10 and 25 stotinki, with the lower three denominations in brass and the higher three in cupro-nickel. Shortly after, cupro-nickel 20 stotinki coins dated 1952 were issued, followed by 50 stotinki in 1959 and 1 lev in 1960 which replaced the 1 lev note. All stotinki coins feature a head of wheat around denomination on the reverse and state emblem on the obverse, while the lev coin depicts an olive branch wreath around the denomination. In 1952, state notes were issued in 1, 3 and 5 leva, together with notes of the National Bank for 10, 25, 50, 100 and 200 leva. 500-lev notes were printed but not issued. 1 lev notes were withdrawn after the introduction of a coin in 1960. 1, 3, 5 leva depict the state emblem, while all denominations 10 leva and up depict Georgi Dimitrov, who had a postmortem cult of personality built up around him by that time period. The reverse side of 1 lev, 3 and 5 leva notes depict hands holding up the hammer and sickle, while higher denominations each depict workers at various trades.

In 1962, another redenomination took place at the rate of 10 to 1, setting the exchange rate at 1.17 leva = 1 U. S. dollar, with the tourist rate falling to 2 leva on February 1, 1964. The ISO 4217 code was BGL. After this, the lev remained stable for three decades. However, like other Communist countries' currencies, it was not convertible for Western funds. Black market rates were five to ten times higher than the official rate. During the period, until 1989 the lev was backed by gold, the banknotes have the text stating: "The bank note is backed by gold and all assets of the bank". After the fall of communism, Bulgaria experienced several episodes of drastic inflation and currency devaluation. In order to change this, in 1997, the lev was pegged to the Deutsche Mark, with 1,000 lev equal to 1 DM. Since 1997, Bulgaria has been in a system of currency board, all Bulgarian currency in circulation has been backed by the foreign exchange reserves of the Bulgarian National

The phrase carceral feminism was coined by feminist sociologist Elizabeth Bernstein in her 2007 article, “The Sexual Politics of the ‘New Abolitionism.’” Examining the contemporary anti-trafficking movement in the United States, Bernstein introduced the term to describe a type of feminist activism which casts all forms of sexual labor as sex-trafficking. She sees this as a retrograde step, suggesting it erodes the rights of sex workers, takes the focus off other important feminist issues, expands the neoliberal agenda. Bernstein expanded on this analysis to demonstrate how feminism has more become a vehicle of punitive politics in the US and abroad. Bernstein argued that feminist support for anti-trafficking laws that equate prostitution with sex-trafficking have undercut the efforts of sex workers themselves in previous decades to organize for their rights, instead bolstering their criminalization. Evangelical Christians share this commitment to law-and-order in Bernstein’s account, Bernstein attributed their alliance to the broader political and economic shift in the US from a redistributive welfare state towards a “carceral” one that fosters criminalization and incarceration.

She argued that for both feminists and evangelical Christians, politics of gender and sexuality have shifted attention from the family outward to the public sphere and in this shift, have intertwined the anti-trafficking movement with neoliberal politics. In her 2012 article, “Carceral Politics as Gender Justice?” Bernstein expanded on this analysis, using the case of the anti-trafficking movement to demonstrate how feminism has more become a vehicle of punitive politics in the US and abroad. Feminist scholars have described the trajectory of feminist activism in other spheres similarly. In their studies of the feminist campaigns around the issues of domestic violence and sexual assault, for example, sociologist Beth Richie and political theorist Kristin Bumiller traced the development of the feminist anti-violence movement in the US from its original focus on social transformation to its nearly ubiquitous reliance on law and law-enforcement today. A similar trend has been described outside of the US context—for example, Miriam Ticktin argued that anti-immigrant sentiments in feminist campaigns against sexual violence in France have served border control and other forms of policing.

Activists have challenged this mode of feminism. Feminists involved in the prison abolition movement have been critical of feminist alliances with prisons and policing; the national activist organization Incite! Women of Color Against Violence, for example, formed in 2000 with the conviction that the criminal justice system does support but rather causes further harm for women, gender non-conforming, trans people of color experiencing interpersonal violence. Since its introduction in 2007, the term “carceral feminism” has been used by activists to make such critiques and has made its way into discussions and debates in media forums such as Twitter and Vox. Elizabeth Bernstein. 2007. “The Sexual Politics of the ‘New Abolitionism.’” Differences 18: 128-151. Elizabeth Bernstein. 2010. “Militarized Humanitarianism Meets Carceral Feminism: The Politics of Sex and Freedom in Contemporary Antitrafficking Campaigns.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 36: 45-71. Elizabeth Bernstein. 2012. “Carceral Politics as Gender Justice?

The ‘Traffic in Women and Neoliberal Circuits of Crime and Rights.” Theory and Society 41: 233-259. Beth Richie. 2012. Arrested Justice: Black Women and America’s Prison Nation. New York, NY: New York University Press. Kristin Bumiller. 2008. In An Abusive State: How Neoliberalism Appropriated the Feminist Movement Against Sexual Violence. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Miriam Ticktin. 2008. “Sexual Violence as the Language of Border Control: Where French Feminist and Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Meet. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 33: 363-889. Alex Press. 2018. “#MeToo Must Avoid ‘Carceral Feminism.’” Vox. February 1. Https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/2/1/16952744/me-too-larry-nassar-judge-aquilina-feminism

Charles de Tolnay, born Károly von Tolnai, was a Hungarian art historian and an expert on Michelangelo. According to Erwin Panofsky, he was "one of the most brilliant art historians" of his time. De Tolnay was born in Budapest, he was the son of an official of the Hungarian administration. In 1918, he began studying art history and archaeology as Karl Tolnai in Germany, first at the University of Berlin at the University of Frankfurt. During these early years he was a keen traveller. Between 1921 and 1922 he made his first trip to Belgium, visiting Brussels, Leuven, Ghent and Liege. In 1923 he went to Paris, Spain, Turin and Venice. In 1924 he made a hundred-day journey to Italy, visiting Florence and Rome, where he was struck by the art of Michelangelo, he continued studying art history at the University of Vienna, where he wrote a Ph. D. thesis on Hieronymus Bosch. In 1928 he became lecturer at a friend of the young Erwin Panofsky. There Tolnay wrote his Habilitationsschrift on Michelangelo's late architecture.

He moved to Rome, where he did much research at the Bibliotheca Hertziana. Between 1934 and 1939, he taught art history at the Sorbonne, where he changed his name to Charles de Tolnay. In 1939, he immigrated to the United States, where he became a citizen in 1945, working at the Institute for Advanced Study, New Jersey, for some years. According to Ernest H. Wilkins, "Of the many specialists resident at the Institute for Advanced Study none is a more tireless investigator than Charles de Tolnay, Hungarian-born authority on Renaissance art." In 1953, Tolnay was appointed professor of art history at Columbia University, where he retired in 1965. In the same year, he became Director of the Casa Buonarroti in Florence, which he helped to reorganize, he wrote fundamental studies on Flemish painting, in particular Bosch, Jan van Eyck and the Master of Flémalle, Hugo van der Goes and Peter Paul Rubens, but on the painting of Rembrandt and Jan Vermeer. From 1943 on, his attention focused on Michelangelo, which resulted in a 5-volume study on his work, called "the biggest, most learned study of Michelangelo in our generation".

Important are his writings on the court of Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary and Croatia, the works of Bicci di Lorenzo, Filippo Lippi, Domenico Ghirlandaio, Leonardo da Vinci, Pontormo, Diego Velázquez, Nicolas Poussin, Antoine Watteau, Eugène Delacroix, Paul Cezanne, others. Tolnay died on January 1981, in Florence. According to Erwin Panofsky, Tolnay "excels by a rare combination of constructive scientific imagination and thorough connoisseurship... Thanks to his extraordinary energy, Dr. v. Tolnay has promoted our knowledge of Bosch and most Michelangelo."According to Ernest Manheim, "everybody liked Tolnay because he had interesting opinions. He was looking for a connection between art history, art analysis, sociology". Die Zeichnungen Pieter Bruegels. Munich 1925. Die späten architektonischen Projekte Michelangelos. Hamburg, 1929. Pierre Bruegel l'ancien. 2 vols. Brussels, 1935. Hieronymus Bosch. Basel, 1937. Le Maître de Flémalle et les freres Van Eyck. Brussels, 1939. History and Technique of Old Master Drawings: A Handbook.

New York, 1943. Michelangelo. 5 vols. Princeton, 1943-1960. Hieronymus Bosch. London, 1966. Nuove osservazioni sulla Cappella medicea. Rome, 1968. Il riordinamento delle collezioni della casa Buonarroti a Firenze. Rome, 1969. L'omaggio a Michelangelo di Albrecht Dürer. Rome, 1970. L'"Ultimo" ritratto di Galileo Galilei. Rome, 1975. Corpus dei disegni di Michelangelo. Novara, 1975-1980. Charles de Tolnay, "Erinnerung an Gustav Pauli und an meine Hamburger Jahre." Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunstsammlungen, vol. 19, pp. 10-12. Roberto Salvini, "Il metodo critico di Charles de Tolnay." In Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 381, pp. 1-31. "Charles de Tolnay." Times, January 22, 1981, p. 16 Charles de Tolnay, “Michelangelo Studies”, The Art Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 127-137 Wiener Kunstgeschichte gesichtet: Charles de Tolnay. E. H. Gombrich, Review of Charles de Tolnay on Hieronymus Bosch