The Affirmation of the National Identity of Macedonia and the Securing of its Territorial Integrity (1912-1913)

Од Wikibooks

A large number of programme documents were formulated and published in the historical development of the movement for the cultural and national emancipation and social and political affirmation of the Macedonians. Yet we still do not have a thorough scholarly analysis or a comprehensive survey of these events and processes in Macedonia in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is mainly the result of a situation in which perhaps the most important documentation about this period is still outside our country and remains inaccessible to us. According to the information we have gathered so far, however, the programme concept of the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society in St Petersburg was the first complete and detailed national programme of the Macedonians, formulated as early as its foundation in 1902 and developed and adapted in accordance with historical realities up to the First Session of the Anti-Fascist Assembly of the National Liberation of Macedonia in 1944.

1. The Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society in St Petersburg was established on the basis of the historical experience of the Macedonian people in the preceding period, but in origin and ideologically it was based on the heritage of Pulevski’s Slavonic-Macedonian Literary Society (1881), ^[1] the journal Loza in Sofia (1892)^[2] and the Vardar Macedonian Student Society in Belgrade (1893), ^[3] and directly on the publicly proclaimed concepts of the Macedonian Club in Belgrade and its periodical Balkanski Glasnik (1902). ^[4]

The programme principles of the Macedonian movement had been laid down mainly from the mid-19h century onwards, but they were somewhat incomplete and most often remained without public affirmation. In as early as the 1840s some teachers and priests in Macedonia started working on the concept of distinct Macedonian national and cultural interests depending on the stage of development of historical consciousness and the socio-political, economic, social, cultural, educational and ecclesiastical and spiritual situation of the people. ^[5]

But the first public demonstration of this consciousness was made in 1859 with the Kukuš Union, ^[6] although it involved compromises in terms of the formulation of the national aims and tasks. In this way, two national-political concepts in the Macedonian movement became established and developed side by side (with a certain intermingling) until the affirmation of the Macedonian nation-state (1944), although some atavisms have not fully disappeared even up to the present day. Some may be surprised to hear that the monistic platform, which started from the distinct cultural and historical entity of the Macedonians, preceded, as a concept, the dualistic one, which favoured mutual support together with other cultural and national entities in the struggle for affirmation. The Kukuš Union backed Partenija Zografski’s dualistic platform, based on the Macedonian-Bulgar- ian association in the anti-Hellenic struggle and on projected future developments, and not without regard to the already concluded Serbo-Croatian Vienna Agreement (1850) as a model. In so doing, the Macedonian side stressed its individuality in terms of cultural and historical development, preferring the ‘Macedonian dialect’ in the envisaged joint literary standard, but accepted the name Bulgarian as a national designation, even though it tried to make a distinction through the formula ‘Macedonian Bulgarians’. This dualistic concept was promulgated through the legalized Bulgarian Exarchate as the national church of all Orthodox Slavs in the Ottoman Empire (1870) and enabled Bulgarian national propaganda to use official institutional forms. The process involved lavish support coming from the powerful Bulgarian national centres in Turkey and abroad, which succeeded in disseminat- ing printed works in Bulgarian at an early date and in propagating their cause through a large number of newspapers and journals, collections and calendars, and also by printing complete textbooks. The foundation of the Bulgarian state following the Russo-Turkish War (1878) further strengthened and intensified this dualistic concept aimed at the effective and swift elimination of the Macedonian component in the initial dualism. Yet even the Ilinden Uprising was mainly carried out under the banner of that concept, with consequences which Krste P. Misirkov was able to predict even then. ^[7]

The dualistic concept was not a phenomenon involving only the Bulgarian element, as there were similar concepts connected with the Serbs and Greeks. The development of foreign nationalistic propaganda resulted in a split in the single Macedonian people, even with regard to the dualistic concept. It is important, however, that this concept nearly always envisaged the establishment of a distinct state entity for Macedonia as well — within a federal or confederal (South-Slav or Balkan) framework. In this respect, of special interest are the activities in the 1880s and 1890s of Spiro Gulapčev in Bulgaria, ^[8] of Paul (Panagiotis) Argyriades in France, ^[9] of the insufficiently studied Stefan Damčev Makedon in Athens, Bucharest, Paris and London (and in particular his National Committee for the Autonomy of Macedonia and Albania), ^[10] of Leonidas Voulgaris and his Commit- tee for a Balkan or Eastern Confederation in Athens, ^[11] etc. That is how the concept of Macedonian ‘political separatism’ was built and gained strength. This was expressed primarily in the various Macedonian societies and committees of the Macedonian émigré community in Bulgaria, in the Mace- donian Socialist Group in Sofia and especially in the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. Here we must emphasize that, while seeking a solution to the ‘Macedonian question’, even some Bulgarian activists and revolutionaries repeat- edly came out in favour of that concept of ‘political separatism’, but preferring the Bulgarian national designation for the Slavic population of Macedonia. For instance, all the members who founded the Macedonian Secret Committee in Geneva (1898) were ethnic Bulgarians; they advocated “a Macedonian people”, but composed “of various nationalities”, a Macedonian state using the Bulgarian language and church and with Bulgarian education. ^[12]

The same spirit and the same tendency is predominant in the programmatic ‘Open Letter’ by D. Vihrov, ^[13] who was also a Bulgarian from Kazanl’k. Even the incorporation of the Adrianople region (and not Kosovo) into the organizational territory of the Supreme Macedo- nian-Adrianople Committee and the Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Revolution- ary Organization^[14] was deliberate and obvious, and the participation of Bulgarian revolutionaries such as Mihail Gerdžikov, Peju Javorov and Hristo Černopeev only strengthened that tendency in the Macedonian movement.

2. The first programme platform based on the monistic concept in the Macedonian movement was described by the Bulgarian national activist, Petko Račev Slavej- kov in early 1871 in his newspaper Makedonija, first in general terms, ^[15] and later, in 1874, in greater detail in his letters to the Exarch from Salonika. ^[16] For the first time there was an account of a Macedonian ‘national separatism’ with a clear platform: Macedonians as a distinct nation; Macedonian as a distinct language in the Slavic world and a literary standard for the Macedonians; restoration of the Archbishopric of Ohrid as a Macedonian national church with its own clergy; Macedonian schools and teachers in their mother tongue, and finally, autonomous administration of Macedonia within the borders of Turkey. This was the pro- gramme platform upon which Macedonian ‘national separatism’ continued to develop without interruption, although sometimes with varying amplitudes in its development. We also find this concept in writing (although not in the form of programme documents) in the works of Gjorgija M. Pulevski (from 1875, ^[17] 1878, ^[18] 1879, ^[19] 1880^[20] and 1892), ^[21] in spite of the fact that, relying on the decisions of the Constantinople Conference, he also came out in favour of a dualistic monarchy of Macedonia and Bulgaria, but with Macedonia as a kingdom which would represent the embodiment of the one-time classical glory of Alexander. In a substantially clearer form this concept was also expressed in the unofficial programme of the Secret Macedonian Society in Sofia (1890), ^[22] and attempts were made at its affirmation within the Young Macedonian Literary Society in Sofia (1891-1892) and also within the Vardar Student Society in Belgrade (1893-1894), but it was only after early July 1902 that the newspaper Balkanski Glasnik published the true concepts of the monistic Macedonian national pro- gramme by the group known as ‘national separatists’, based around the Macedo- nian Club and the Macedonian Reading Room in the Serbian capital. The chief organizers of this activity, Stefan J. Dedov and Dijamandija T. Mišajkov, after their expulsion from Belgrade, wrote that the goal of Balkanski Glasnik was “to defend the interests of the Macedonian Christians not only from the subjugation of the Turks, but also from the various kinds of propaganda, and to stand up for an independent Macedonia in the political, national and spiritual respect”. ^[23] They also said that even before the appearance of the newspaper Balkanski Glasnik “we tried to found, in the form of a literary club, a circle whose aim would be to unite the Macedonian intelligentsia in Serbia into a single whole, regardless of convic- tions, and which would see to the establishment of unity of thought among the Macedonian population”. ^[24] 614 The first issue of Balkanski Glasnik, among other things, stated: “If there is a people which is in the most unfortunate situation on the globe, it is the Macedonian people. History does not recall another similar example where one and the same people in terms of tradition, language and faith has been divided into various opposing parties, each more estranged than the other; and if we add the lack of personal safety and safety of property, and the corrupt Turkish administration, which in its own turn encourages the partition and subjugation of the people, you can imagine what a dark picture is that of Macedonia, where different aspirants see their power and greatness.”

“Yes,” continues the editorial, “if there is a means for uniting or disuniting the Orthodox East and the Slavic Balkans, we are pointing to it — it is the future of our fatherland, Macedonia. If the Macedonian question is resolved so as not to leave any traces of the national aspirations in the Orthodox East and the Slavic Balkans, this will help them unite in a political, and perhaps religious way, and, vice versa, if such traces remain, they will be disunited. In a word, Macedonia is the spring which pushes the Orthodox East and the Slavic Balkans towards friendship or hostility.”

“All Macedonians,” concludes the newspaper, “will bless their present-day benefactors if they change the methods of their work, or will curse them, if they become the cause of the perpetuation of the present situation, curses which will sooner or later bring misfortune to them, just as the curses of our parents have brought misfortune to us, and we are now wandering undesired and unwelcome across foreign lands, seeking a remedy for our ailing soul, imperceptibly caught in their claws, returning to our fatherland not as the advocates of progress, brotherhood and freedom, but of corruption, hostility and slavery.” ^[25] The newspaper also gives a clear answer to the question of whether the Macedonians are “Serbs or Bulgarians, or are a distinct group among the Slavic peoples”. “Everyone who has had the opportunity of visiting this unfortunate brother land,” writes Balkanski Glasnik, “has, we believe, seen that the main body of the people is Slavic, which, according to its customs, tradition and past, represents a single ethnic whole, but which, regrettably, is now divided into several partIn these thirty years the Bulgarians have been unable to make the popula- tion in Macedonia Bulgarian, and we believe that the other nationalities cannot succeed in this either.” ^[26]616

The newspaper concludes: “In the interest of Slavdom in the Balkans, we hope that everybody will work on obtaining autonomy for Macedonia and acknowledging its Slavonic Macedonian dialect.” ^[27] The national programme presented in this way was supplemented by the Macedonian Club in Belgrade recommending combined efforts by Bulgaria and Serbia so that “Macedonia can be granted autonomy, with its local Slavonic language-dialect, and be neutral, a vassal to Turkey and commercially free to both Serbia and Bulgaria”. ^[28] The newspaper wrote that as far as the Balkan peoples were concerned, “their most sacred duty obliges them to stop sowing intrigues of discord, unrest, etc. and start conscientiously working on the neutralization of the controversial Macedonian question so that it can be resolved on the basis of equality and independence, considering the future decentralization of the Balkans, at least of those regions whose inhabitants are one and the same people, who have one and the same faith, the same customs, spirit, character, etc., and particularly those who speak one and the same language,” ^[29] because a stop should be put to the struggle “for domination over the people of Macedonia, who have their own individual dialect that can use the phonetic orthography”. ^[30]

Accordingly, the programme of Balkanski Glasnik envisaged the recognition of the Macedonians as a distinct Slavic nation, raising the Macedonian language to a literary standard (with phonetic orthography), in the future autonomy of Macedonia, “under the suzerainty of the Sultan, free in terms of commerce with Serbia and Bulgaria, and under the guarantee of the great powers”, within a Balkan association, where “each province would retain its autonomy (internal inde- pendence), and all of them together represent a single neutral federal state under the guarantee of the great powers”. ^[31]

The programme also involved the principle of gradual independence for Macedonia, which they called “the evolutionary path”, because the crucial element for them at that moment was not so much liberation from Turkey as protection from foreign propaganda. In this envisaged “autonomous Macedonia, bearing in mind the neutral Balkan federation, there would be no place for fear that the Macedonians would start revolutions and roam across the free brother states, but all provinces would dedicate themselves to their own peaceful, cultural, commer- cial, economic and financial interests.” ^[32]

Because of this programme, at the moment when the Regulations of the established Macedonian Club and Reading Room were submitted for approval to the responsible authorities, and when they announced the prepared “memorandum (complaint) which will soon be presented to the representatives of the Great Powers — signatories of the Treaty of Berlin”, ^[33] mentioning the possibility that a delegation might leave for Europe in order to “describe the intolerable situation of their compatriots”, ^[34] the newspaper was banned. The Club and the Reading Room were closed, and their chief activists were expelled from Serbia. Yet the Macedonian national programme found its way to the European public in printed form and won a large number of supporters both within the land and abroad. The programme was accepted as an authentic expression of the Macedonian people.

3.

Notwithstanding all these activities, we believe that the first comprehensive and decisive Macedonian national programme elaborated in written form was created with the foundation of the St Clement Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society (which later adopted the name Ss Cyril and Methodius). The first known founding act dates from October 28, 1902 (The Application to the Council of the St Petersburg Slavonic Charitable Society with the 19 signatures of its foun- ders), ^[35] and the last extant document is from June 18, 1917 (Programme for a Balkan Federal Democratic Republic, published in the main Russian newspapers in St Petersburg). ^[36] In these fifteen years of activity, the Society appeared under different names: the St Clement Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society in St Petersburg, ^[37] Ss Cyril and Methodius Slavonic-Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society, ^[38] Ss Cyril and Methodius Slavonic-Macedonian Na- tional-Educational Society, ^[39] Ss Cyril and Methodius Russian-Macedonian Charitable Society, ^[40] Macedonian Colony in Petrograd^[41] and the Macedonian Revolutionary Committee. ^[42]

The most active organizer and leader of this Society, Dimitrija Čupovski, writes the following, among other things, in his short Autobiography (1933):

From the very first year of my arrival in [the] f[ormer] St Petersburg it became imperative to organize, among the Macedonians who were here, a revolutionary-ori- ented association under the name ‘Slavonic-Macedonian S o c i e t y ’, a single national- political union in Russia based on the ideational foundations of the ‘Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization’, which proclaimed the slogan ‘Struggle for the independence of Macedonia’. In the course of 17 years (from 1900 to 1917), the Macedonian Society founded in Leningrad had the honour of carrying that banner, paying no attention to any intrigues or intimidation by its enemies. The mottoes ‘Macedonia to the Macedonians’ and ‘A Balkan Federal Republic’, ingrained in the foundations of the Macedonian programme, drove all pseudo-Slavophiles mad^[43]

The Society’s activities before October 28, 1902, remain still unknown, not taking into account the foundation and activity of the Secret Macedonian-Adri- anople Circle (TMOK) in St Petersburg, which was set up on November 12, 1900^[44] (where Čupovski’s membership is not confirmed), and whose dualistic platform was based on that of the Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (TMORO). The Circle was considered a TMORO Russian branch, even though in the foundation of the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society some of its first members were TMOK activists. But regardless of whether the Society was in fact active for 17 or only 15 years, its national programme remained the same and was adapted only in accordance with the new historical realities following Macedonia’s partition in the Balkan Wars. – The first concept of this Macedonian national programme was announced in the Society’s founding act of October 28, 1902, but it can be found in its integral form in the Memorandum to the Russian government and to the Council of the St Petersburg Slavonic Charitable Society of November 12, 1902, signed by the principal activists of the Macedonian Club in Belgrade, Stefan Jakimov Dedov and Dijamandija Trpkov Mišajkov. ^[45]

All the aspects of the ‘Macedonian question’ at that moment are described, and the aspirations of the Macedonian people in their long struggle for national liberation are presented in sixteen large hand-writ- ten pages. It is a concept which fully corresponded with that published in Balkanski Glasnik, but systematized in an official act whose fundamentals did not remain unknown to the wider European public.

– The third official act of the Society was the brief original minutes of its “regular session” of December 29, 1902, ^[46] taken by the Society’s secretary, Milan Stoilov, when its Administration was constituted. This document contains the following points: “the borders of Macedonia” on its ethnic territory were defined; it was decided “to thank the Sl[avonic] Ch[aritable] Society as it has allowed our society to hold meetings in their salon” (which was still another official acknow- ledgement of Macedonian national individuality at the Slavic level), and finally, with regard to the question of the individuality of Macedonian in comparison with other Slavonic languages, it was concluded that its members should write down characteristic Macedonian words in a book with pages divided into four sections: Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian, to show to the Russian public that Macedonian was no closer to Bulgarian or Serbian than to the Russian language. – The fourth document arising from the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society in St Petersburg was published (unsigned) in Vergun’s Slavjanskij Vek in Vienna on February 15 (28), 1903, ^[47] where the entire Macedonian national programme was presented in eight elaborated items. The Society’s aim, according to this document, was “the spiritual unification and unity of our fatherland, the study of Macedonia from historical and ethnographic points of view, acquainting the Russian public with the true situation of the Macedonians in the past and now”. Of particular importance was the fact that, for the first time, it included the following clause: “The members of the Society will speak among themselves only in the Macedonian dialects, and not in Bulgarian or Serbian, as has been the case so far, depending on the place of education.” The Society established links with the Belgrade Balkanski Glasnik, as its editors were also members of this society in St Petersburg and as it expressed “the view that the Christian population is divided into three hostile camps — Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek (rich people, Graecophile Slavs)”, as a result of which “it is necessary to raise one of the four main Macedonian dialectsto the level of a general Macedonian literary stand- ard”, where “the most suitable seems to be the south-western Mijak-Brsjak dialect”. Of considerable interest is also the classification of the four main dialects in Macedonia: “(1) Highland: Skopje, Kumanovo; (2) Mijak-Brsjak, in the Pelago- nija Plain: Bitola-Ohrid, Prilep; (3) Enidže-Vardar: Voden; (4) Nevrokop,” where “the vowel shift and the topographic basins” were taken as the criteria for classification. It was of special significance that the future Macedonian literary standard was to be taken from the west-Macedonian “Mijak-Brsjak” dialect with its centres at Bitola, Ohrid and Prilep, which is virtually identical with the determination of Misirkov’s “central dialect” and with the basis of our modern literary standard, except that Veles is not mentioned as one of the starting points of Misirkov’s concept. (We must point out that by that time Krste P. Misirkov was a grammar school teacher in Bitola, but maintained contacts with the members of the Society, regularly sending a part of his salary for its activities). ^[48]

The document continues: “The fact that Serbian propaganda is not restricted to Skopje and that there are also Serbian schools in Bitola, Voden, Salonika, Enidže-Vardar and Kukuš, and until recently there was a Serbian school even in Seres, and also the fact that Bulgarian propaganda has also spread throughout Macedonia, is the best proof of the unity of the Macedonian language, folk customs, character, traditions and everything which may be encompassed under the notion of nation- ality.” The Society believes that “the attainment of this idea, ‘Macedonia to the Macedonians’, could, with the establishment of a Macedonian standard”, even prove desirable for all the actors interested in the ‘Macedonian question’, enumer- ating them: “(1) For the Bulgarians, because they could hope that with the return of Macedonian émigrés brought up in the Bulgarian spirit the land would acquire a Bulgarian character; (2) for the Serbs, because this would put an end to Bulgarian propaganda and thwart the danger of having a strong Bulgarian state to the south; (3) for the Romanians, because they would not have to deal with a powerful Bulgaria to the south; (4) for Russia, because the establishment of the auto- cephalous Macedonian church could weaken the significance of the pan-Hellenic Patriarchate and impel it to consent to the elective principle for the oecumenical patriarchal throne, which would be an opportunity for the election of a Russian candidate to the Oecumenical Cathedra; (5) for Austria, because with the estab- lishment of the Macedonian standard it could win the sympathies of the population and prepare the ground for occupation; (6) for the Pan-Slavs, because this would put a stop to the antagonism between the Bulgarians and Serbs (Pan-Bulgarian and Pan-Serbian ideas) and the unification of Serbia and Montenegro would become possible, providing the Serbs with an outlet to the Adriatic Sea, and because the small states in the Pan-Slavic alliance would need the support of Russia; (7) for the Turks, because this would bring about the cessation of all types of current political and religious propaganda; (8) for Greece, because the hopes for the restoration of the former rights of the patriarch in church and school matters would be reinvigorated.” Finally (as Balkanski Glasnik had emphasized earlier, as stated in the Memorandum of November 12, 1902, and as Misirkov wrote in 1903 and 1905), this document, too, explicates: “During the formation of the Serbian and Bulgarian literary standards, the regions of eastern Serbia, western Bulgaria and the whole of Macedonia were ignored, and the present elevation of this language to a level of higher literacy, could represent a unifying link for the Slavs of the entire Balkan Peninsula.”

– The fifth official act of the Society we know of is the Request to the Council of the St Petersburg Slavonic Charitable Society of December 20, 1903, ^[49] in which a brief account of the work during the past year is given and the Constitution of the Society is submitted for approval. – The sixth document is the aforementioned “Constitution of the Slavonic- Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society in St Petersburg under the patronage of the St Petersburg Slavonic Charitable Society” of December 16, 1903, ^[50] where the objectives of the Society are defined: “(a) to develop national awareness among the Macedonian colony in St Petersburg; (b) to study the language, songs, customs and history of Macedonia from their ethnographic and geographical aspects; (c) to reconcile and unite all Macedonians, regardless of their education and convic- tion, in the name of their common descent and the unity of their fatherland; and (d) to spread all the aforesaid among Macedonians in Macedonia and outside its borders (abroad).”

The Society planned to attain these objectives by: “(a) organizing assemblies and lectures; (b) reading papers, short stories, poems, etc.; (c) collecting folk literature (folklore) and works of historical interest on Macedonia; (d) spiritual support for our compatriots, especially upon their first arrival in Russia, and (e) helping and developing mutual relations with the other Slavonic societies and circles, and also with individual Slavic activists.”

Of particular significance for Macedonian history and culture is Article 12 of this Constitution, which says: “Conversation in the Society will be carried out in the Macedonian (Slavonic-Macedonian) language; all papers and protocols will also be written in this language.” This, as far as we know, is the first introduction of the Macedonian language into official use, and was repeated in Article 31 of the Constitution of the Ss Cyril and Methodius Slavonic-Macedonian National- Educational Society of June 27, 1912.

– The seventh document is Krste Misirkov’s book Za makedonckite raboti (On Macedonian Matters), which was written under the auspices of the Society (on its recommendation) and printed towards the end of 1903 in Sofia, the centre of Macedonian émigrés in the post-Ilinden turmoil. This was in fact a practical application of the Constitution’s codification and the first standardization of the modern Macedonian literary language using a modern Macedonian alphabet. Misirkov, as a Slavic scholar and on the basis of the Macedonian national programme already defined during the previous year by the Society, analysed all ‘Macedonian matters’ at that historical moment, assessed all current events and worked out certain programme points in accordance with the new historical circumstances in Macedonia — with the experience gained after the Ilinden Uprising. This was the first book in a modern Macedonian literary language and orthography, which provided both a theoretical basis and a historical survey of Macedonian national development. Basic textbooks for the envisaged Macedonian schools were also prepared, ^[51] but the opening of such schools in Macedonia was not allowed, and the printing of the textbooks proved an impossible task. The aspirants acted in accordance with Misirkov’s predictions in his book.

– The eighth document in order of significance was the letter by the Society’s president, Dimitrija Čupovski, sent from St Petersburg on February 17, 1904, to Nikola Ničota, a Society member in Moscow, ^[52] which contains important infor- mation on the activities of the Society and its links and relations with the Balkan states, the great European powers and Turkey itself.

– In addition to the large number of Misirkov’s programmatic letters addressed to various persons and institutions, ^[53] we should mention, as the ninth document in terms of significance, the Programme for the publication of the “Vardar monthly scholarly and literary journal”, formulated by Misirkov in Berdyansk on October 11, 1904, ^[54] and approved by the responsible Russian authorities on March 1, 1905. ^[55]

This was a programme meticulously worked out in the spirit of the programme principles of the Society and in accordance with Articles 1, 2 and 12 of its 1903 Constitution.

– And finally, the tenth official programme document of significance was the first (and the only) printed issue of the pioneering scholarly, literary and socio-po- litical journal in the modern Macedonian literary language and orthography, Vardar, which appeared in Odessa on September 1, 1905. ^[56] It represented the full practical application of the provisions contained in the Society’s constitution concerning the publication of a periodical in the native tongue.

4. Of the Society’s documentation of programmatic character available to us con- cerning the first three years of its extensive activity, however, a special place and significance must be given to the aforementioned Memorandum of November 12, 1902, as an act with the most complete definition of the Macedonian national programme until Macedonia’s partition.

The essential demand in the document is the autonomy of Macedonia within the borders of the Ottoman Empire, as a provisional status, and federation with its neighbours (with Macedonia as the ‘Piedmont’) as the next step. The Society put forward the following programme demands for such an autonomy:

1. Recognition by Turkey of the Macedonian Slavs as a separate people. 2. Recognition of the distinct Macedonian language as literary and its status as official language, together with Turkish, in the three vilayets: Kosovo, Bitola and Salonika. 3. Recognition of the Archbishopric of Ohrid as an independent Macedonian church. 4. Appointment of a governor-general in the three vilayets from the majority nationality and a deputy from among the less numerous nationalities. 5. A regional elective popular assembly of Macedonia. 6. Granting of an Organic Statute to Macedonia by His Imperial Majesty the Sultan. 7. Guarantees by the great European powers for the implementation of the rights granted by the Sultan. Etc. ^[57]

This minimum programme, as a provisional status, was accompanied by detailed and substantiated explanations. What first strikes the reader is the fact that this whole large text mentions neither the Adrianople region nor ‘Old Serbia’ (Kosovo), but deals only with Macedonia within its contemporary ethnic borders. Another fact which must be pointed out is that the text gives special emphasis to and offers a scholarly interpretation of the language question in Macedonia. The philological analysis contained in the Memorandum was obviously not made without the direct participation of the best qualified Macedonian Slavic scholar at the time, a postgraduate student at St Petersburg University, Krste P. Misirkov. We can read virtually the same formulations a year later in his book Za makedonckite raboti.

The essential question in the Memorandum is the emphasis on the Macedonians as a separate people, leading to the plea “for a Macedonia free, nationally, politically and ecclesiastically”. The authors say that this “may seem like a utopia; it may seem that we are trying to create in an artificial way something which does not exist, that we want to create an ethnic concept from the geographical concept of Macedonia, or, in other words, that we are trying to create a Macedonian nationality artificially. But matters are indeed otherwise.”

Statistical data are given on the population in Macedonia within the borders defined by the Constantinople Conference, indicating that of the total of 2.5 million inhabitants, there was a Slav population of between 1.2 and 1.5 million, followed by the Turkish “with an imposing number of 600 to 800 thousand” inhabitants (which undoubtedly referred to all Mohammedans in Macedonia, including Albanians and Macedonians), whereas the rest of the inhabitants were Greeks, Vlachs, Jews, etc. Hence the conclusion that “in the future Macedonia, free politically, nationally and spiritually, the most important role in the socio-po- litical life of the land will belong to the Slavic element, which is now, regrettably, being divided firstly into three ethnic groups and then, in religious terms, into the following groups: Patriarchists, Exarchists, Catholics, Protestants and Mohammedans”. In this division of the Macedonian population “the Church serves as a tool to diverse propagandas” to recruit followers.

Schools in Macedonia are used in a similar way, as “instead of spreading knowledge and enlightening the people, they sway them in favour of this or that Balkan nationality, instil sympathies for one propaganda and nationality and hatred for others”, and have thus become “the enemy of their own fatherland”. Therefore the authors of the Memorandum believe that the unification of the Macedonians with their own forces is hindered and blocked by the propaganda machines, and also that unification cannot be carried out by any of the neighbour- ing states, as they are directly opposed to each other.

The Memorandum also takes a position with regard to the Revolutionary Organization in Macedonia, which is almost identical to that of Misirkov a year later. The authors write: “It is true, the Macedonian intelligentsia, brought up in the Bulgarian national spirit, is fighting to obtain autonomous rights for Macedo- nia, but this activity of theirs is constantly paralysed by the activity of other Balkan states, so that all attempts at effecting a general uprising in Macedonia have not achieved the desired results, attempts which have, however, cost the population dearly. Besides, the Serbs, the Greeks, and even the Romanians, by force of certain higher state interests, will never allow the achievement of Macedonian autonomy without a prior accord with the Bulgarians.” This view was certainly the result of the real situation in Macedonia and the Balkans, but it also paid attention to Russian state policy which was sensitive to any revolutionary action and distur- bance of the status quo maintained by Russia and Austria-Hungary together. If it is impossible to provide political freedom for Macedonia at this moment owing to all these powerful factors, the authors of the Memorandum believe that it is possible to provide “national freedom for the Macedonians”, and this means: “removal of national propagandas from Macedonia and the introduction, instead, of one of the Macedonian dialects at the level of a general Macedonian literary standard”. Here, too, the question of the language in Macedonia and its relations with the languages of the Bulgarians and Serbs are analysed in detail (from the philological and political aspects). The authors conclude that “there is ethnic and linguistic unity in Macedonia and that it is disputed only by the adherents of greater-Serbian and greater-Bulgarian ideas”. Therefore, they believe that “the interests of the Slavic population of Macedonia can be safeguarded in the future destiny of this land only through the development of a common Slavic national awareness among all Macedonian Slavs”, and hence, “it is in the interest of the latter to eliminate Serbian and Bulgarian propaganda in the spirit of their native tongue, their common past and common future”. And because “there is national unity in Macedonia in the sense that all Macedonian dialects constitute a single whole”, it is necessary “to raise one of the Maced. dialects to the level of a literary standard”, and hence “the necessity of eliminating Serbia’s and Bulgaria’s aspirations in Macedonia, of eliminating national propaganda which demoralizes the Macedonian population, and of unifying the Slavic element in Macedonia with the purpose of preserving its predominant significance for the future of Macedonia”.

The same emphasis on the linguistic question in Macedonia can be found in Misirkov’s book Za makedonckite raboti, as one of the most powerful means for Macedonian national unity and freedom from propaganda activities.

Yet the authors of the Memorandum ascribe no lesser significance to the question of “the position of the church in Macedonia”, and hence, among other things, they conclude and envisage: “In order to frustrate the religious partition of Macedonia and eliminate the various types of interference by the enemies of Slavdom and Orthodoxy, we deem the spiritual unification of the Slavs in Mace- donia into a single whole as necessary so that they can be ready in any given instance to offer resistance to external incursions. In saying this, we have no intention of creating a new church in addition to the existing ones, but we would like to act in a legal and diplomatic manner wherever this proves necessary for surmounting the schism and transferring the Bulgarian Exarch from Constanti- nople. In addition, we would like Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian clerics in Mace- donia to be replaced by clerics from among the local inhabitants who would be subordinated to the Patriarchate through their own archbishop, whose canonical relations with the Patriarchate would be approximately the same as are, for instance, the relations within the existing autocephalous Orthodox churches. In this way the Oecumenical Patriarchate will lose its pan-Hellenic significance and will only acquire its true oecumenical significance when all autocephalous churches are able to take part in the election of the patriarch. And this can be achieved only if the Macedonian church, too, is made autocephalous.”

In conclusion, the Memorandum states that “no revolutions are needed” for the national and spiritual unification of the Macedonians, and puts forward the naьve belief that “it would be enough if Russian public opinion, together with Russian diplomacy, urges the Balkan states in this respect so that the latter can renounce their policies of conquest and halt their propaganda in Macedonia; and if they wanted, from a humanitarian point of view, to help their brothers (as they have now become accustomed to call them), a thousand other ways could be found to express their brotherly feelings. By halting propaganda,” the authors hope, “the antagonism among the population will cease, the Slavic population will become united into a single compact mass and will always be able to withstand all anti-national currents.”

This programme, however, is planned to last only “until the Albanian question matures politically and nationally” and until “a decision is made on who will rule the Dardanelles”. In the meantime, “Macedonia nolens volens, by necessity, should remain a constituent part of the Ottoman Empire, because the result of any uprising will only be the extermination of the Slavic population, and this can be desired only by the enemies of Slavdom and Orthodoxy.”

At this point the Society offers its minimum programme of seven items as the “minimum rights and reforms which can be demanded and which can be achieved in the existing political circumstances, to preserve the integrity of Turkey, guar- anteed by the great powers, which is necessary for the preservation of European peace”. Only in this manner, gradually, can Macedonia emerge as the “Piedmont” and attract the neighbouring states in a federation for “the unification of Balkan Slavdom and Orthodoxy”.

The fundamentals of this Macedonian national programme remained un- changed until the overthrow of Ottoman rule in Macedonia and Macedonia’s partition. This is confirmed in the programme concept of “the separatist circle in Bitola” in its letter dated August 15, 1912, shortly before the proclamation of the First Balkan War, presented succinctly in the following demands:

1. Energetic intercession by brotherly Russia in favour of the Macedonians. 2. Destruction of Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek propaganda in Macedonia. 3. Opening schools in the Slavonic-Macedonian language. 4. Restoration of church independence (autocephalous Slavonic-Macedonian Church in the t[own] of Ohrid). 5. Free development of national awareness, i.e. of the awareness that Slavonic Macedonians are a single and inseparable people. In the interest of the preservation of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish government should aid with all cultural measures the spread of this propaganda which already has thousands of followers both in Macedonia and outside it. 6. In the name of humanity, human dignity and love for their fatherland, the Macedonian intelligentsia should once and for all put an end to the shameful sale of their conscience and honour in the Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek markets. 7. Broad internal self-government for Macedonia. ^[58]

5. The same concepts are expressed in the programme acts of the Ss Cyril and Methodius Slavonic-Macedonian National and Educational Society in St Peters- burg (1912-1913), ^[59] in the memoranda of the Macedonian Colony in the Russian capital of March 1 and June 7, 1913, ^[60] in the journal Makedonskij Golos (Makedonski Glas), which was actually the mouthpiece of that Society, ^[61] in the numer- ous articles in the Russian press^[62] and memoranda to the Russian government, ^[63] 653 to the governments and public opinion of the Balkan states, ^[64] 654 in the appeals to the Macedonians within the land and in emigration, ^[65] 655 etc. The national programme was constantly adapted in accordance with the new historical realities, and following the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest, in accordance with the international sanctioning of Macedonia’s partition and the new paths of struggle for liberation and unification of the land and the people.

As Russian politics was directly involved in the events in the Balkans, it did not allow the legal activity of the renamed Ss Cyril and Methodius Slavonic- Macedonian National and Educational Society, not even after the amendments which were subsequently made to its Constitution. ^[66] Hence, immediately following the Peace Treaty of Bucharest, the members of this Macedonian association in St Petersburg tried to obtain a permit for the foundation of a Ss Cyril and Methodius Russian-Macedonian Charitable Society. ^[67]

Despite the signatures of two distinguished Russian activists and only that of Dimitrija Čupovski on the part of the Macedonians, this society, too, was not accepted by those responsible in the City Administration. Macedonian national subjectivity was not allowed to appear before the Russian public with the approval of the Russian authorities, even though its aims and tasks were nearly the same as those we find in the 1903 Constitution of the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society. Following the start of the First World War, the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society once again presented its programme through the official acts of the Macedonian Colony, published in its printed mouthpiece and also in the special Memorandum to the Russian government. ^[68]

Yet under pressure from Serbia and Greece, and owing to the bartering negotiations with Bulgaria, Russian policy suppressed Makedonskij Golos (Makedonski Glas) as well.

6. Unable to appear openly before the world with an official association, the Mace- donians made attempts to use the existing Russian and Slavic societies in order to make their views known and influence the final settlement of the question of Macedonia following the War. As a result, Dimitrija Čupovski became vice-presi- dent of the Society for Assistance to Beginner Writers, Actors, Artists and Scientists in Petrograd, ^[69] and it was not surprising that its mouthpiece Slavjane (Slavs, 1915) re-printed Krste Misirkov’s article ‘The Struggle for Autonomy’. ^[70] When this society, too, was banned by the authorities, the representatives of Macedonia became members of the Society for Slavonic Mutuality (1915), and a special commission was formed within the Council of the Society for Slavonic Mutuality, composed of Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians and Macedonians. On June 8, 1915, it elaborated a very important Resolution on the Macedonian Question, which was separately published by the Editorial Board of Makedonskij Golos. The first item of this document said: “The most equitable solution to the question would be the establishment of an integral independent Macedonia by taking those parts of Macedonia from Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria which were captured by them in 1913. In this way, a single integral state will finally be established from this long-suffering partitioned land, which will be able to develop freely and exist independently.” ^[71]

7. The First World War, however, affected the whole of the Balkans and the destiny of Macedonia became even more uncertain. As a result, in August 1915, Dimitrija Čupovski sent a cable, on behalf of the Macedonians, to the president of the Serbian National Assembly which was then in session:

At this moment when Serbia is deciding the question which determines the future destiny of long-suffering Macedonia, we, the Macedonians, express our ardent conviction that the brotherly Serbian people will resolve the Macedonian question in full conformity with the rightful national aspirations of the Slavonic Macedonians, a huge part of whom are now fighting together with the Serbs in the name of Slavic freedom and Slavic happiness. An equitable decision by the Serbian Assembly will not mean a new partition of Macedonia but the restoration of its unity, recognized by item two of the Serbo-Bulgarian Accord of February 29, 1912, which envisages the establishment of an autonomous Macedonia. ^[72]

8. When Dimitrija Čupovski’s attempt (1916) to come to Macedonia and coordinate the actions deciding the postwar fate of Macedonia failed, a Macedonian Revo- lutionary Committee was founded in Petrograd, headed by Čupovski himself. As part of its activity, on June 18, 1917, immediately after the February Revolution and long before the October Revolution in Russia, this committee published, among other things, a Programme for a Balkan Federal Democratic Republic^[73] printed in the central Russian newspapers under the slogan “The Balkans to the Balkan peoples. Full self-determination for each nation”. This was a programme in full agreement with that proclaimed 15 years earlier. The published document had three signatories: The Macedonian Revolutionary Committee, The Cyril and Methodius Macedonian Society and The Editorial Board of Makedonskij Golos. ^[74]

This was at the same time the last known official document signed by the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society in Petrograd (St Petersburg) that presented the programmatic base of the liberation concept of the Macedonians.

Emphasizing that the raging war “is bringing freedom and self-determination to many peoples”, the Programme pointed out:

Macedonia has fought for centuries and shed streams of blood for this freedom and independence, but it was treacherously, unfairly dismembered by the nefarious chauvinism and by the greed of the bloodthirsty dynasties of surrounding states. The results of this unprecedented plunder in history have been the cause not only of mutual extermination of the Balkan peoples, but also of a hitherto unseen world war. Now, when a huge part of the Balkan Peninsula is in ruins and the rest of its peoples remain under heavy Austro-German slavery, we, the Macedonians, who have suffered more than anyone else, are calling upon all of you, Balkan peoples, to forget the disputes of the past and unite and join our pan-Balkan revolutionary programme in a joint and persistent struggle for the establishment of a Balkan Federal Demo- cratic Republic.

The Programme was presented in 11 explicit items:

1. All the Balkan peoples are bound to overthrow the existing dynasties and introduce a republican form of government. 2. Every Balkan republic should be fully independent in its internal life. 3. All the Balkan republics will constitute a general Balkan Federal Democratic Republic. 4. The Balkan Federal Democratic Republic will consist of the following repub- lics: Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Bosnia-Her- zegovina, Slovenia and Thrace. 5. Not only ethnically homogeneous states are recognized as independent repub- lics in the Balkans, but also those regions with mixed populations, whose vital interests are closely connected with the geographical, historical, political, cultural and economic conditions. 6. Autonomous districts and municipalities can be established in the republics with mixed populations, where every nationality will enjoy full freedom of its native tongue, faith and customs. 7. The official language of each republic will be the language of the majority. 8. Each individual republic will send its own authorized representatives to the general Federal Parliament of the Balkan Federal Democratic Republic. 9. A Federal Government and a Council which stands in the stead of the President of the Federal Republic will be formed from among the authorized representatives. 10. The Federal Government and the Council will be composed of an equal number of persons from each federate republic. 11. The Federal Government and the Council will control all general federal internal and foreign international affairs of the Balkan Republic.

This Programme was a genuine expression of the legitimate aspirations of the Macedonian people and of their traditional concept of the liberation struggle, best represented, at that period, by the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society in Petrograd. The progressive movement among the Macedonians between the two world wars grew as a natural continuation of this concept that was to reach its peak in the Second Ilinden, in 1944.

The Affirmation of the National Identity of Macedonia and the Securing of its Territorial Integrity (1912-1913) The Macedonian liberation movement started as cultural and national (from the 1840s onwards), continued as national and revolutionary (1876-1892), evolved into political and revolutionary (1893-1903) and affirmed itself as a national and political movement in the period between the two Ilinden landmarks (1903-1944). During these extremely important years, however, the continuity of development and affirmation of the Macedonian national idea and action was never interrupted, even though this was a crucial and dramatic period for the Balkans and a time full of arduous and convulsive processes. Indeed, mutually opposing ideas and actions by foreign actors in Macedonian developments frequently came to the surface, in particular after the violent clashes between the organized neighbouring propa- ganda machines with clearly defined platforms of aggressive aspirations towards the European territories of feudal Turkey, but this was also the result of the unique evolution of the Macedonian people in the mediaeval period and the geopolitical position of Macedonia in the years when most of the Balkan nations and nation- states were established. The study of the historical truth about Macedonia and the Macedonians as a distinct entity has begun only in recent times, in circumstances of still vigorous throwbacks to the former greater-state mythologies, adapted to the new historical conditions and modern methods in the Balkan environment.

1. Despite its being understood in different ways in different periods of the Macedo- nian liberation movement, autonomy was not accepted as mere tactic, ^[75] but as a permanent programmatic principle to preserve the independence and integrity of Macedonia, and later also to unite the already divided Macedonian people. Hence it was not surprising that the Macedonians so tenaciously insisted (starting from the 1880s) on obtaining autonomy within a wider community of peoples, ^[76] as a federation^[77] or confederation, ^[78] within the boundaries of Turkey or of an Eastern community, or within a Balkan, ^[79] South-Slav^[80] or Yugoslav framework. This was the imperative for the Macedonians dictated by the history, geography, ethnography and politics of this part of the Balkans. Until the Balkan Wars it was a means of neutralizing the danger of partition by its neighbours, and later was the only possibility for the liberation and unification of the dismembered people. It was these same circumstances and external factors that contributed to the Mace- donians joining the Yugoslav federation following their struggle for liberation in the Second World War. ^[81] In seeking a solution, especially in the period between the two world wars, there were even concepts for the autonomy and independence of Macedonia as a buffer state with the purpose of neutralizing revanchism and maintaining peace in the Balkans, ^[82] but it soon became clear that the Macedonians were not the Swiss and that the internal federation of its “nationalities” ^[83] guaranteed no good prospects for either Macedonia or the Balkans. As a result, following Macedonia’s partition, the Macedonian liberation movement swiftly oriented itself towards the progressive forces in the world and looked for the solution to the historical reality in concepts proposing a federation of Balkan states and peoples — with Macedonia as an equal member. ^[84] The Macedonian revolution in the Ilinden period was characterized by two essential components, inseparable and compatible in their parallelism, but some- times confronted from outside. There is no doubt that the unmistakable mass character of the armed revolutionary component with politically clear aspira- tions towards securing a state-constitutional affirmation for Macedonia bore the legitimacy of a struggle for freedom. ^[85] Yet the absence of a publicly defined national, and not only political, platform, ^[86] the incorporation of the Adrianople region within the Organization’s territory, ^[87] and the acceptance of occasional and conditional support mainly from one of the interested parties, ^[88] resulted in the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization making certain compromises and creat- ing an impression before the largely uninformed world as if it wanted to build its own state — with an alien people! The genuine endeavours of the organization to present its independence and ‘internal nature’ were more or less successfully exploited and used by the interested external actors. Precisely because of the vague national programme of the revolutionary movement, the Ilinden Uprising was used by those actors, even though the uprising was a historic popular achievement, as

Misirkov lucidly assessed it only shortly afterwards. ^[89] Hence, the Young Turk Revolution, carried out basically as an anti-Macedonian act, ^[90] was fully used by the propaganda of the surrounding countries for legalizing their activities and for the final partition of Macedonia, first into spheres of influence, and then of its territory and people, which greatly encouraged the aggressive policy of the Balkan monarchies in the ensuing wars. ^[91] The other component of the Macedonian revolution was the authentic Mace- donian national movement which had deep roots^[92] in the ethno-cultural traditions and endeavours of the past. Adapting itself to the contemporary circumstances and possibilities, it defined the programme principles which were finally to bring national freedom. The foundation of the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society in St Petersburg, ^[93] as the principal core guiding this movement, ^[94] was not the work of a single man or of a group of Macedonian intellectuals, but the expression of an ideology which already had its own historical heritage, deeply rooted in Macedonia itself, and also supporters and followers within the Revolu- tionary Organization itself. According to its goals and tasks, and also its composi- tion and activity, the Society was neither a simple student organization nor an isolated circle, but a general Macedonian popular, national, political, scholarly and cultural association. It developed along a road starting from Macedonia and going via Sofia and Belgrade to St Petersburg, and maintained regular contacts and coordinated its activities with the organized centres within Macedonia and abroad. At that time it indeed played the role of a central Macedonian association (Matica Makedonska) and it was no chance that it produced the first complete and detailed Macedonian national liberation programme (1902), the first book in the modern Macedonian literary language and orthography (Za makedonckite raboti, 1903), the first public introduction of this language and orthography into official use (Article 12 of the 1903 Constitution), the first textbooks for the envisaged Macedonian schools (1903-1905), the first journal in the modern Macedonian literary language and orthography (Va r d a r , 1905), the first map of Macedonia (within its ethnic borders) using the Macedonian language (1913), the first journal (in Russian) with a clearly defined Macedonian national programme [Makedonskij Golos (Makedon- ski Glas), 1913-1914], the first special publications defending the Macedonian cause in the most critical historical moment, at the time of the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), and the first complete federal programme with modern concepts concerning the prospects of the Balkans (1917). All these achievements have secured this Society a special place in the history of the liberation cause of the Macedonian people, as an integral part of the Macedonian revolution.

2. Bearing in mind all the manifestations of Macedonian national consciousness and the concepts of the Macedonian liberation idea in the period up to the Balkan Wars, we can conclude that the Slavic population of Macedonia was neither “ethnically heterogeneous” nor an “amorphous mass” which could be moulded according to the wishes of the conquerors, but a people with an already defined individuality, aware of its history and culture, and also determined to fight for its future. Accordingly, it was not and could not be a mere object, but aimed to act as a subject in the historical moments of Balkan history.

Thus, when rumours started spreading in the European public of new accords signed between the Balkan monarchies for war against Turkey, when the Kingdom of Serbia once again took the initiative in acquiring and dividing the Sultan’s ‘legacy’, and Bulgaria concluded that it had no chances of wresting the whole of Macedonia, the Macedonians saw the danger of partition and took steps to thwart these serious threats. It was not by chance that the “Russian Party” ^[95] appeared in the Bitola region as early as 1910, and at the same period demands could be heard for the return of Metropolitan Teodosija Gologanov to Skopje, where he planned, together with Krste Misirkov and Petar Poparsov, to found the first Higher Teachers’ Training College in Macedonia. ^[96] At the same time, the experienced activist Marko A. Muševič arrived in St Petersburg with a memorandum to the Russian government and the Holy Synod of the Russian Church demanding the establishment of a vocational school in the Macedonian language with a boarding house in the Žitoše Monastery, to produce trained staff for the future schools of Macedonia. ^[97] It was quite natural that the memorandum was accompanied by Nace Dimov’s signature and a conceptual programme which was in total contrast to the actions “of the political hacks in Sofia and Belgrade”. ^[98]

We still do not know the details of Dimitrija Čupovski’s mission to Macedonia in 1911, ^[99] when he had important contacts with people sharing the same ideas and fighting for the same cause in connection with the dangers posed by the haggling policies of the neighbouring monarchies.

When it became obvious that war in the Balkans was imminent, an important letter arrived in St Petersburg (written in Bitola on August 15, 1912, long before the declaration of the First Balkan War), in which this national centre, continuously active from the 1890s onwards, defined, in seven points, the ways and means for the preservation of the integrity and the affirmation of the legitimate aims of the Macedonian people. ^[100] This letter, published in Graždanin of November 16, 1912, fully corresponded with the endeavours of the founders of the Ss Cyril and Methodius Slavonic-Mace- donian National and Educational Society in St Petersburg, whose Constitution of June 27, 1912, codified the national programme of the Society in the new circumstances. ^[101]

The founders aimed to secure the necessary legitimacy for themselves before the Russian authorities so that they could competently and responsibly represent Macedonian interests in the expected turmoil in the Balkans. The Society aimed “to help the spiritual rebirth and unification of the Macedonian Slavs and their free national-popular self-determination,” acting “in the territories of the Russian Empire and Macedonia”. The following activities were planned for the attainment of these goals:

(a) to organize meetings, speeches, readings, addresses, public lectures, perform- ances, concerts and literary evenings; (b) to collect and study the historical monuments and indigenous characteristics of the Macedonian Slavs; (c) to organize publishing houses and open libraries and reading rooms, in accordance with Article 175 of the Stat. on Cens. and Print., item XIV of the Code of Laws, to publish a periodical printed mouthpiece of its own, to organize competitions for the best scholarly and specialist works on the Macedonian question and to give awards and prizes to their authors; (d) to assist the training and education of its compatriots in a genuine national spirit, offering them material and moral support; (e) to open schools and reconstruct the destroyed Orthodox churches and monasteries in Macedonia; (f) to support and develop mutual relations with all Slavonic societies and also with individual Slavonic scholars and social activists; (g) to institute scholarships for children and orphans in various schooling institutions. ^[102]

Stressing that “regular members can be exclusively Slavonic-Macedonian men, Slavonic-Macedonian women and also the wives of Macedonians who agree with the specified basic provisions of this Constitution and who are prepared to help their implementation”, it expressly forbids: “Macedonian men and Macedonian women of Slavonic descent who do not profess the distinct national unity of the Macedonian Slavs, but call themselves Serbs, Bulgarians or Greeks, cannot be regular members of the Society.” ^[103] In addition, Article 31 is specific: “The Slavonic-Macedonian language is considered the spoken and written language among the members of the Society. For the purposes of spreading the idea of solidarity and spiritual unification of all Slavs, regardless of faith and nationality (Russians, Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Croats, Slovenes, etc.), the Slavonic- Macedonian Society will use, in its relations with other organizations and individ- ual persons from Slavic countries, the pan-Slavonic Russian language; the docu- mentation of the Society’s Administration will be kept in the Russian language and in Slavonic-Macedonian.” ^[104]

At the moment when Russia was the catalyst of the Balkan Alliance against Turkey, the responsible authorities refused to register this society, because its aims and tasks ran contrary to the aims and tasks of the Alliance. The legitimate goals of the Macedonians were not permitted to reach the Russian and international public.

3. Prominent representatives of the Society, even as members of the Macedonian Colony in the Russian capital, used the various ‘Slavic lunches’ on Mondays and Thursdays as opportunities to promulgate their views, inform the public on the situation in Macedonia and the Balkans, and to prevent the partition of their homeland. ^[105]

Thus, in early September 1912, the Macedonians declared:

Yes, the situation is critical: there is a smell of death in MacedoniaThe victory of the Slavic alliance, if achieved, is absolutely undesirable from a Slavic point of view, as this will be a requiem for the descendants of Cyril and Methodius: Macedonia will be divided into three parts, there will be a temporary triumph over its body, but no one will be satisfied: a fight will unavoidably break out among those who dismembered it and there will be no bright day for the Slavs. If Russia gives support to the Slavic alliance, which is hardly likely, then the outcome will inevitably be a European war and the partition of Macedonia. ^[106]

This prediction was not taken seriously as a warning by the rapturous Slavo- phile circles in Russia, not even by the responsible Russian political circles. Dimitrija Čupovski, Nace Dimov, Dr Gavril Konstantinovič and other Macedonian activists were extremely worried and visited various Russian editorial offices and societies; they spoke and wrote about it, but the war in the Balkans broke out and the partition of Macedonia seemed inevitable. What was important at that moment was to act in the field, inside Macedonia, to organize internal resistance against the aggressors and provide popular representation prior to the anticipated peace conference. Therefore, Dr Konstantinovič enlisted as a volunteer in the Balkans, but he was sent to Montenegro as a physician. ^[107]

Krste Misirkov left for southern Macedonia in the capacity of a Russian military correspondent from Odessa. ^[108] Nace Dimov went to Sofia to animate the Macedonian émigré circles, ^[109] and his brother, Dimitrija Čupovski, travelled through Sofia and Skopje to Veles, where he arrived on November 21 (December 4), 1912. On the same day, in Angele Korobar’s home, a general Macedonian conference was held with the participation of prominent Macedonian activists from all over the land to reach agreement on the necessary actions to be taken after the occupation by the various armies, and also on the sending of a Macedonian delegation to the London Peace Conference. In spite of the insistence of Petar Poparsov, Rizo Rizov, Alekso Martulkov, Angele Korobar and others, they were unable to adopt a joint resolution. It was decided, however, that Rizov should go to Salonika and then to Bitola, to meet their adherents and act in favour of Macedonia’s autonomy at the Peace Conference in London. Yet in Salonika he was strongly threatened by the Bulgarian emissaries that tongues would be cut and heads would roll for uttering the word autonomy. ^[110]

Jane Sandanski heard the same language at the banquet of General Todorov in Salonika, when he drank a toast to the future autonomous Macedonia. ^[111]

The old teacher and revolutionary Anton Keckarov from Ohrid had the same experience when he wrote in a letter to Sofia that autonomy should be granted to Macedonia, “and they answered him saying that he should never mention such a thing again, because he would be expelled and incarcerated in Kurt-Bunar. And therefore everyone kept a low profile, as it was war and everything was being done by force.” ^[112]

At about the same time, the distinguished Russian politician, statesman and professor, Pavel N. Milyukov, who was already familiar with Macedonian matters, arrived in Salonika. In a comparatively long article in his newspaper RÆč, he writes that in December 1912 prominent Macedonian activists in Salonika handed “the first written protests” to the Bulgarian tsar and the heir to the throne, in which they demanded “a single autonomous Macedonia”. Milyukov points out that they still did not know the agreement on Macedonia’s partition — “or they officially ignore it”. “For the people who have fought all their life for the Macedonian idea, it was obviously psychologically impossible in an instant to bow down before the accomplished fact and admit that their ideas were finally made null and void and consigned to the archives.” ^[113]

All these reactions by the Macedonians confirm that there was resistance inside Macedonia as well against the aggressive appetites of its neighbours, but that the real power was on the side of the occupiers.

4. All that Dimitrija Čupovski could bring from the conference in Veles was an authorization to represent Macedonia’s interests before Europe through the activity of the Macedonian Colony in St Petersburg. As early as January 27, 1913, Čupovski published an article in the newspaper Graždanin in the form of a letter from Macedonia, where, after describing the history of Macedonia, its struggle for freedom and the situation following the incursion of the Balkan armies, he wrote:

Now, when the action for Macedonia’s liberation has been completed, i.e. the Turkish authorities have been driven away, and the allies have instituted their own occupation authorities instead, now the prospects for Macedonia’s future seem even gloomier and sadder than before. From the attitude of the occupation authorities towards the Macedonian population it is clear that Macedonia’s former slavery has been replaced by an even worse one, not only political, but also spiritual, and furthermore, a triple one. In the territories of Macedonia seized by the allies the situation has become unbearably difficult. Even before peace with Turkey is con- cluded, the occupation authorities are using draconian measures to deny the population their nationality, their name and their vows, in the name of which this people has fought for freedom.

To prevent information reaching the independent European press about the violence currently aimed against the Macedonian people, which may give rise to public protests against the purported liberators, the occupation authorities, have resorted to measures hitherto unknown in history: the entire population is con- demned to internment and has no rights to travel not only outside the borders of Macedonia but also from town to town. Macedonian detachment heads — the commanders — and the fighters themselves, who until yesterday fought shoulder to shoulder with the allies against the common enemy, have now become the object of persecution by these same occupation authorities. For a single word uttered to anyone in favour of Macedonia’s indivisibility and its political freedom, they are subjected to horrible persecution, torture and murder. All this is supported by hundreds of facts, many of which have been reported by correspondents of Russian and especially foreign newspapers. ^[114]

The eyewitness Čupovski also wrote about the relations between the conquer- ors themselves and forecast the likeliness of a mutual war: Matters between the allied occupation armies do not stand any better either. There have already been open clashes between the Bulgarians and Greeks concerning the cities of Salonika, Drama, Kavalla and other populated centres in Macedonia. The same has been happening between the Bulgarians and Serbs concerning Bitola, Ohrid, Prilep, Veles and other towns. All that makes the allies hold back from mutual war is the conclusion of peace with Turkey. Therefore, in order to avoid these sad consequences which may discredit the best motives of the participants in the war, the Balkan allies should give Macedonia the right to self-determination; frustrating, in this way, any further mutual rivalry, they should be able to create solid and sound foundations for the continuous existence of the alliance. Internal Slavic discord is more dangerous for the Balkan states than the schemes of their numerous external enemies. Slavery under a kindred brother will for Macedonia be as difficult as slavery under an alien or people of another faith. ^[115]

5. The Macedonian activist Georgij A. Georgov (Stremjage) also used the pages of the Slavophile mouthpiece Slavjanskija IzvÆstija and in two articles (of February 3 and March 3, 1913) expounded the Macedonian position on Macedonia and the Macedonians, their aspirations and aims, and the situation following the Balkan War. In his article ‘A Dangerous Experiment’, its author warns that European and Balkan diplomacy have been preoccupied solely with the question of providing independence for Albania, but have forgotten the burning and “incomparably more important ethnographic, geographical, historical and political factor on the Balkan Peninsula — Macedonia and the Macedonians”. Even “the allies, intoxicated by success beyond their expectations, as can be seen from their entire activity, have rejected any thought of Macedonia’s autonomy and intend not only to amputate it as a living organism, but also to fully divide it among themselves, completely forgetting that, by carrying out such operations on geographical Macedonia, on its territory, this would in no way imply the killing and dividing of its soul — ethnographic Macedonia”^[116] As the Bulgarophile editors and associates of Slavjanskija IzvÆstija reacted sharply against these views, ^[117] Georgov published another article, ‘On Macedonia and the Macedonians’, in which he declared that “the Macedonians do not want and cannot be reconciled with any division”. He examined the history of the various propagandas in Macedonia and underlined that “t h e a u t o n o my o f Ma c e d o n i a — this is the best and most equitable way of settling the Macedo- nian question, t h i s i s t h e c o mmo n g r o u n d wo r k u n d e r t h e s t a t e buildings of Serbia and Bulgaria, the undermining of which will be equally dangerous for the independent p o l i t i c a l l i f e of both Serbia and Bulgaria, and for all the Balkan peoples in ge ne r a l . We can sincerely welcome the ‘n i n t h g r e a t s t a t e ’ only in the form of a ‘Balkan federation of the states of Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece and Albania’, or at least of the first four, with joint, federal representative bodies, customs and railway tariffs and perhaps a monetary system and armed forces.” ^[118]

On March 4, 1913, in the St Petersburg Slavonic Charitable Society, Nace D. Dimov held his lecture entitled ‘Macedonia in the Past, the Present and the Future’, later printed as a special publication, where the author demanded: “(1) The allies should put a stop to their intense ambitions towards the Macedonian people; (2) Macedonia should remain a whole and indivisible Slavic unit; (3) Macedonia should participate in the Balkan Alliance as an independent Balkan state.” ^[119]

6. On March 1, 1913, the authorized representatives of the Macedonian Colony in St Petersburg, Dr Gavril Konstantinovič, Dimitrija Čupovski, Nace Dimov and Aleksandar Vezenkov, signed (in French and Russian) the Memorandum on the Independence of Macedonia, submitted by the Macedonian Colony in St Peters- burg to the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, and to the ambassadors of the great powers to the Court in London, which was separately printed in Russian and French and published in whole or in part in a large number of Russian and other European newspapers. This was the first official action of the “authorized Macedonians” before the international public. After describing the struggle of the Macedonians for freedom and a state of their own, putting emphasis on the participation of the Macedonians in the First Balkan War as an equal side in the military actions, the document said:

The partition of Macedonia by its brothers is the most unjust act in the history of peoples, a violation of the rights of Man, a disgrace for the entire Slavdom. Turkish slavery is replaced by a Christian one, but that crucial hour is not far (it is approaching — Macedonian fighters have already confronted the enemies of their fatherland) when the Macedonians will openly say to the whole world: “We shall rather die for our freedom than live under slavery again.” Therefore the following is demanded strongly: (1) Macedonia within its geographical, ethnographic, economic and cultural borders to remain a single, indivisible, independent Balkan state; (2) In the shortest possible time, on the basis of a general vote, to convene a Macedonian National Assembly in Salonika for the purposes of detailed elaboration of the state’s internal organization and definition of relations with neighbouring countries. ^[120]

At the same time Dimitrija Čupovski prepared and published (in colour) a ‘Map of Macedonia according to the Programme of the Macedonian Populists’^[121] which was printed in the Macedonian language towards the end of March, and was immediately sent, together with the Memorandum, to London — to the repre- sentatives of the great powers and Balkan states, as well as to the Russian press. They also announced in the press that the mouthpiece of the Macedonian Colony, Makedonskij Glas, would soon start publication. ^[122] In April 1913, the journal Ve s Mir, under a photograph displaying Dr Konstantinovič, Dimov and Čupovski, announced that Čupovski would “personally go to Paris and London to propagate the independence of Macedonia”. ^[123]

Yet this important task approved at the Veles conference was not accomplished, as Petar Poparsov was expelled by the Serbian military authorities and could not reach St Petersburg, whence both of them were to set off for the European centres as agreed. ^[124]

7. As the permit for the printing of their mouthpiece had still not been issued, the Macedonian Colony made efforts to use the pages of the Russian press to present Macedonian views. For instance, Dimitrija Čupovski, among others, published his article, ‘The Macedonian State’, in which he pointed out that the thinking in the Memorandum of the Macedonians “is the thinking of the entire Macedonian people”, that “Macedonia, however, from both historical and ethnographic points of view, represents a single entity and cannot willingly end its existence of many centuries, agreeing to dismemberment”, and that “the Balkan Peninsula is too small for several greater-state ideas to coexist peacefully. Onl y a f e de r a l state, consisting of all the Balkan peoples, which must include a Macedonia indivisible and independent as to its internal af- f a i r s , e nj oyi ng e qua l r i ght s — only such a federation can secure peaceful coexistence and progress for the Balkan peoples. We believe,” concluded Ču- povski, “that this will take place, buit will be painful if they come to this conviction only by shedding new blood¼”^[125] In his article ‘Mother and Stepmothe¼’, Čupovski used the anecdote of the judgement of Solomon and stressed that in Macedonia “the living body of a wh o l e p e o p l e is being cut into three or perhaps four parts”, and strongly condemned the Bulgarian government “which, obscuring and destroying for 35 years the national autochthonous spirit of the Macedonian people, and imposing an alien culture upon it, has now betrayed it and subjected it to dismemberment”.

Responding to the Belgrade Professor Aleksandar Belić (who was in the Russian capital on a special mission for the Serbian government), in his article ‘Macedonia and Serbia’, Čupovski pointed out that “an independent Macedonia should be established, which would not be an artificially created state, because there are no Serbs, Bulgarians or Greeks in Macedonia, but a fully distinct people”, and because “[n]o agreements among the allies on the partition of Macedonia in this or that part can be binding upon the Macedonians, as Macedonia represents a single living body which cannot be amputated without resistance by the body itsel¼” The solution Čupovski proposed once again was the following: “If the allies do not wish a new and stronger conflagration to break out in the Balkans, if they do not wish a mutual fratricidal and bloody war, which is — unfortunately — very close indeed, if they do not wish to become, one by one, Austria’s booty — there is only one solution: an indivisible, independent Macedonia should join, with rights equal to those of the other states, the powerful Balkan federation.” ^[126]

There were numerous appeals like this in the press and at the various public meetings in St Petersburg. The Macedonians and Russians also announced a joint “illustrated collection of articles” entitled In Protection of Macedonia in order “to demonstrate the necessity of establishing an indivisible and independent Macedo- nia, from both Macedonian and Russian points of view”. ^[127]

In the meantime the permit for the publication of the journal Makedonskij Golos (Makedonski Glas) was issued. Over a period of a year and a half, it became the most prominent and at that moment the only voice of the Macedonian people before Europe. Today it is regarded as a highly important collection of documents testifying to the true aspirations of the Macedonians at the crucial historical moment of the partition of their homeland.

The members of the Colony (Society) were not only the loudest and most prominent defenders of the integrity and advocates of the legitimate demands of the Macedonian people, but they also delivered their own lectures at meetings of distinguished societies in the Russian capital which aroused great interest. In May 1913, for instance, Dimitrija Čupovski delivered a notable lecture in the Lawyers’ Society with the unambiguous title ‘The indivisible and independent Macedo- nia’. ^[128]

What makes a particular impression is the fact that the Macedonians at that moment had Russian public opinion on their side, resulting in the adoption of numerous resolutions in favour of Macedonian rights and freedoms and on the future of Macedonia. Russian Social-Democrats were particularly active in this respect at the time, putting a strong emphasis on the aggressive character of the Balkan War and demanding a plebiscite in Macedonia. ^[129]

8. On June 7, 1913, the “authorized persons” of the Macedonian Colony in St Peters- burg, Dimitrija D. Čupovski, Georgij A. Georgov, Nace D. Dimov, Dr Gavril K. Konstantinovič and Chem[ical] Eng[ineer] I. Georgov, signed the Memorandum of the Macedonians to the Governments and Public Opinion of the Allied Balkan States, explaining once again the Macedonian national programme at that historical moment, shortly before the outbreak of the Second Balkan War between the “allies” (for the partition of Macedonia), with an appeal “for the immediate establishment of an independent Macedonian state”, as “the partition of Macedo- nia will create a new dependence for us, and the slavery of our blood brothers is no substitute for freedom”. The Memorandum strongly demanded:

In the name of natural law, in the name of history and in the name of practical appropriateness, we beg you, brothers, to bear the following in mind: (1) Macedonia is populated by a homogeneous Slavic tribe which has its own history, its own tradition, its own former statehood, its own ideals, and hence has the right to self-determination. (2) Macedonia within its ethnic, geographical, cultural and historical borders must be an independent state with a government responsible to a National Assembly. (3) The Macedonian state should be a separate and equal unit within the Balkan Alliance with common customs boundaries. (4) With regard to its church, in Macedonia it is necessary to restore the ancient autocephalous Ohrid Church, which would be in canonical relations with the other Orthodox churches: the Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian and Syrian- Arabic. (5) For the purposes of detailed elaboration of the internal organization of the Macedonian state, it is necessary, as soon as possible, under the sponsorship of the great powers, to convene in the city of Salonika a national representative body (National Founding Assembly) elected by a general vote. ^[130]

Two days later the first issue of the most significant Macedonian national liberation periodical, Makedonskij Golos (Makedonski Glas), appeared. It contin- ued to be published (with interruptions) until the start of the First World War. Its 11 numbers, on 220 pages, have left a fundamental archive of the Macedonian national consciousness and action in the struggle for the integrity and freedom of Macedonia. In its programmatic editorial, in a visionary way, the editorial board pointed to the following:

At this moment the Macedonian question is being decided and many facts indicate that its solution will be final. Whatever destiny befalls this long-suffering land: will it fall, after a slavery of five centuries, only under the authority of a kindred state, will it be torn to pieces and divided among the Balkan allies, or will it at last gain its long-awaited autonomy or independence — the aim of its perennial aspira- tions — in both the first and the second as well as the third case, the question will be settled and will be forgotten, if not forever, then for a long period to come, in the course of which many things will be completely changed. ^[131]

Owing to all these and other circumstances, the editors believed, “the Macedo- nians themselves [should] invest all their efforts in the attainment of all their expectations and hopes during the long years of slavery and oppression, which helped them preserve their national features, their Slavic individuality and integ- rity”, and hence they tried to acquaint the Russian public “with our land, its need, interests and aspirations”. ^[132]

9. This was the programme of Macedonia at the crucial moment and therefore its representatives used every opportunity to present their aspirations and rights. What is particularly significant is that they were always attentively listened to and most often unreservedly supported by the Russian scholarly and social circles, but not by official Russian policies involved in the Balkan events. Let us quote as an example the marathon-long discussion in the Lawyers’ Society in St Petersburg, where on June 24 and 27 and July 2, 1913, the representatives of the Macedonians took part in a violent debate, supported by the majority of distinguished Russian figures, and even by some Russian parties. As a reaction and in response to the Bulgarian representatives at the assembly (Ljubomir Miletič, I. Georgov, etc.) and also to the Serbian ones (Ûorgje A. Genčić, Dušan I. Semiz, Jeronim P. Taburno, etc.), the Russian press quoted the words of the Macedonians: “The next speaker,” writes the newspaper Den, “was the Macedonian D. Čupovski, proponent of the theory: Macedonia to the Macedonians. He spoke with bitterness about the agreement which had been a secret from the Macedonians. The Macedonians considered the war a liberating one and had never suspected that Serbia and

Bulgaria would aspire to divide their fatherland between themselves. The speaker was convinced that every Macedonian would defend its indivisibility and per- suaded the assembly that peace in the Balkans was possible only through the autonomy of Macedonia, peace which is so necessary now for all the south-Slavic states.” ^[133]

Čupovski underlined that “Macedonia should be, above all, autonomous and that in the given case the strengthening of the Serbs in this territory is out of the question”. ^[134]

Furthermore, “D.D. Čupovski strongly reproached the present Bulgarian emissaries at the assembly, Professors Miletič and Georgov, because on their tours across Europe and during their addresses they convinced the public that the Macedonians wanted to join Bulgaria, while there was nothing such there.” ^[135]

The participation of Nace D. Dimov at this assembly followed the same line. The Bulgarophile mouthpiece RÆč admitted: “The fervent speech of Mr Dimov met with strong approval; he tried to prove that the only means for putting an end to the present war and for establishing a healthy peace in the Balkans — was the recognition of the autonomy of the whole, single and indivisible Macedonia. Protesting against the attempts at Macedonia’s partition, devised treacherously by the former allies, without the knowledge of the Macedonian people, Mr Dimov, Čupovski and other Macedonians strongly insisted on hearing, through a plebi- scite, the Macedonian population concerning its expectations and hopes.” ^[136]

At the same time, “N. Dimov refuted Semiz and Bryanchaninov, who maintained that Macedonia needed no autonomy, and on the basis of scholarly facts proved its right to independent existence; he then said that if Europe wanted peace in the Balkans it was obliged to grant Macedonia autonomy; otherwise this land would be the apple of discord between the Balkan states. The speaker said that, as a convinced pacifist, he was against the war, and as a Macedonian, against the partition of Macedonia.” ^[137]

The discussions were so passionate that the Serbian representative Jeronim Taburno died at the assembly. He was taken out of the room, and the assembly continued its work and voted on the three proposed resolutions: one by the Council of the Lawyers’ Assembly, another by the Russian Social-Democratic Party, and the third by the Party of the Populists. After the vote, they adopted the third resolution with added elements from the first two. The six items of this resolution, among other things, pointed out that the representatives of Russian social and political thought in the St Petersburg Lawyers’ Assembly found “the reason for the raging war between yesterday’s alliein the cruel acquisitive aspirations of the dynasties and ruling circles of the corresponding Balkan states and in their mutual blind struggle for hegemony”; “that both the economic and political development of the Balkan peoples can be achieved only within the framework of a democratic federation of free Balkan states, not excluding Turkey”; that they considered “as the most equitable solution to the present conflict as regards Macedonia by the granting of autonomy to the latter, with the mandatory provision of the right to cultural and national self-determination of all the nationalities populating it”, where “the plebiscite on this issue, in order to be authoritative, demands, in any case, guarantees for its being freely carried out by the entire Macedonian people”, and that “the armed involvement of the neighbouring staterepresents international outlawry”. And finally, “the policy of Russian diplomacy is condemned; for certain reasons, it failed to take appropriate measures for frustrating the fratricidal war in the Balkans”. ^[138]

10. The Macedonian national programme was also presented in the Russian Parlia- ment. On June 6 (19), 1913, in his speech, the Cadet Party leader, Pavel N. Milyukov, among other things, said:

Whatever nationality lives in Macedonia, it is a single and one nationality in the territory of the whole land, and to allow the possibility of dividing this living organism into parts, spans and ells, would mean to go back to the diplomacy identified with the measures of the Congress of Vienna 100 years ago. The most natural solution would be to give Macedonia full-scale autonomy. Unfortunately such a solution is now virtually impossible. An act of violence has been carried out in accordance with the agreement of February 29, an act carried out secretly from public knowledge on both sides. We should consider this violent partition as a fact, but at least do not go any further in this direction; cutting off Macedonia’s north-western corner, do not cut it into two or three parts. It is not appropriate here to dispute what the Macedonians are and who controlled Macedonia earlier or longer. Let us leave this dispute to the ethnographers, historians and philologists. For the politician this is a question which can be decided by simple consultation: what, at this moment, do the Macedonians consider themselves to be? ^[139]

The representative of the Social-Democratic Party of Russia, the Georgian Arkady I. Chkhenkeli, replied to this speech in the Duma, extensively quoting the Memorandum of the Macedonians of March 1. At the time when the Second Balkan War was raging in the Balkans, Chkhenkeli pointed to the agreements by which Macedonia “was already torn to pieces and divided part by part among the individual states on the Balkan Peninsula”, which “carried out aggression, and are now fighting over the booty”. He sees “only one reasonable means, which is a plebiscite of the Macedonian people, leaving to it the right to decide its destiny alone”. Speaking in favour of the demands of the Macedonians for the inde- pendence of their fatherland, as the events indicated that it was no longer “a liberation of Macedonia, but a new subjugation of these Macedonians”, Chkhenkeli stated the position of his party on this question:

Gentlemen, we have always welcomed and are now welcoming the aspirations of Macedonia towards national freedom, but we decisively reject that this freedom should be imposed upon it through the partition of its territory among the acquisitive Balkan states. We have condemned and are condemning the Balkan war which has swallowed hundreds of thousands of young lives, which has brought ruin to the broad masses of the warring states, which has given over those masses to political and economic slavery of triumphant militarism and plutocracy. We support the autonomy of Albania and Macedonia and the establishment of a single democratic federal republic, created from the association of all nations and territories on the Balkan Peninsula. This view is shared not only by the Russian socialists, but also by the socialists of the Balkan states, including those of Macedonia and Turkey. This view, as you know, has become imperative for all socialists after the magnificent assembly of the International in Basel^[140]

But the Russian Balkan policy refused to listen to the wishes and aspirations of Macedonia. The Balkan aggressors were also intoxicated by their victories and elated by their defeat of the enemy. The Peace Treaty of Bucharest, August 10, 1913, put an end to the integrity and unity of Macedonia and of the Macedonian people, but not to the struggle of the Macedonians for unification and freedom. Macedonia was to become the fate of the Balkans and of Europe as well. Even this brief journey through the testimony of history shows us that at the time of the Balkan War the Macedonian people was already a single entity with a formed historical and national consciousness. During the Ilinden period the Macedonians were able to define the main points of programme action, but they did not have the power necessary to protect their territorial integrity in the face of the allied aspirants and their military actions. The Balkan War was even at the time assessed as aggressive in character and destructive for Macedonia and the Mace- donians. This was the fateful initial step in breaking the unity of this land and its people. Not only did it bring national disaster for Macedonia, but it also turned into a dangerous detonator threatening the peace and prosperity of the Balkans and the whole of Europe.

1. ↑ Upr avda [D. Čupovski ], ,,Kemь bì l a Bol gar íò dl ò Makedoníi , Makedonskíà gol osь (Make- donski gl as), I, 5, S .-P et er bur gь , 5.IH.1913, 77.
2. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, I, S kopje, 1983, 469-602.
3. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kr st e P. Mi si r kov (1874-1926). P r i l og kon proučuvawet o na r azvi t okot na makedonskat a naci onal na mi sl a, Skopje, 1966, 126-138; D-r Blaže Ri s- t ovski, Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, II, 9-23.
4. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Krst e P . Mi si rkov (1874-1926) ¼, 200-223; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) i Makedonskot o naučno-l i t er at ur no drugar st vo vo Pet r ogr ad. P r i l ozi kon proučuvawet o na makedonsko-r uski t e vr ski i r azvi t okot na makedonskat a naci onal na mi sl a, I, S kopje, 1978, 110-130.
5. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, I, 194-210.
6. ↑ D-r Sl avko Di mevski , Makedonskat a bor ba za cr kovna i naci onal na samost ojnost vo HIH vek (Uni jat skot o dvi ž ewe), Skopje, 1988; Blaže Ristovski , ,,Uni jat skot o dvi ž ewe vo Makedoni ja (II). Kukuš kat a uni ja od 1859 godi na.“, Razgl edi , II/III, 10, S kopje, 1960, 1005- 1029.
7. ↑ K.P . Mi si r kovь , Za makedoncki t e r abot i , S of i ò, 1903, oe I, etc.
8. ↑ Spi r o Gul abčev, Edi n ogl õd po et nogr af íòt a na Makedoni ò, Gabr ovo, 1887, 32-311.
9. ↑ Hr i st o Andonov-P ol janski , Odbrani del a, 3. Makedonskot o praš awe, Skopje, 1981, 190-207.
10. ↑ Albano-Makedonia, I, 2, Bucure‡ti, 25/6.I.1894; L’Autonomie, I, 4, Londres, 1.VII.1902, 1-3; Gl a s ь Makedonski , I, 10, S of i ò, 30.I.1894, 4; Æ go-Zapadna Bь l gar i ò, I, 22, S of i ò, 7.II.1894, III-Ioe ; S ьglasie, I, 42, S of i ò, 16.III.1895, III.
11. ↑ S voboda, I, 83, S of i ò, 12.IH.1887, 1-2; II, 116, 13.I.1888, 3; II, 118, 20.I.1888, 3-4.
12. ↑ Cočo V. Bi l òr ski , ,,Dokument i i mat er i al i na Makedonski ò t aen r evol ž ci onen komi t et (,Ž enevska gr upa‘)“, I zvest i ò na dь r ž avni t e ar hi vi , 72, S of i ò, 1983, 185-253; Dančo Zogr af ski , Makedonski ot t aen r evol uci oner en komi t et i ,,Ot m’š t eni e“, S kopje, 1954.
13. ↑ D. Vi hr ovь [Di mo Ni kol ov], Ot vor eno pi smo do makedonski t e r evol ž ci oner i , S t ar a Zagor a, 1899; Vt or o i zdani e, Gabr ovo, 1901.
14. ↑ S i meon Radev, Ranni spomeni , S of i ò, 1967, 266-267.
15. ↑ [P .R. S l aveàkovь ], ,,Makedonskì àt ь và pr osь “, Makedoníò, oe , C ar egr adь , 18.I.1871, 2..
16. ↑ Cočo Bi l òr ski , I l i ò P askov, ,,P i sma na P et ko Račev Sl aveàkov po uni òt a v Makedoni ò pr ez 1874 g.“, Vekove, Hoe III, 1, S of i ò, 1989, 68-75.
17. ↑ Ûor gje M. P uq evski , Rečni k ot t r i jezi ka s. makedonski , ar banski i t ur ski , kwi ga II, u Beogr adu, 1875, 40-42.
18. ↑ GÅ.M.P ., S amovi l a Makedonska, Sof i ò, y.a.; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Gjorgi ja M. Pul evski i negovi t e kni š ki ,,S amovi l a Makedonska“ i ,,Makedonska pesnar ka“, I F , Skopje, 1973, 39-43.
19. ↑ Makedonska pesnar ka ot ь Geor gÅa P ul Åevski , b.v.m., [I], Sof úa, 1879; Makedonska pesnar ka. Ot ь GÅor gÅa P ul Åevski , b.v.m.i .m., II, Sof úò, 1879.
20. ↑ GÅ.M. P ul Åevski , S l avònsko-nasel Åeni ski -makedonska sl ogni ca r ečovska za i spravuvanÅe pravosl ovki -òzi česko-pi sani e. Osnovana na III.t o odel õnie uči l Åi š t ko, Pьrvi del ь, Sof i ò, 1880.
21. ↑ Gjorgi ja M. Pul evski, Odbrani st r ani ci , I zbor , r edakci ja, pr edgovor i zabel eš ki D-r Blaže Ristovski , Skopje, 1974, 213-257.
22. ↑ K. Š ahovь , ,,P azet e se makedonci ot ь i zmama i bà det e bl agor azumni !“, Gl asь Makedonski , II, 5, 23.HII.1894, 2; P . p.Ar sovь , ,,P r oi zhodь na r evol ž ci onnot o dvi ž eni e i pь r vi t õ st à pki na S ol unski ò ,Komi t et Å za pr i dobi vane pol i t i česki t õ pr ava na Makedoni ò, dadeni i otь Birl i nski ò dogovorь‘“, Bžl et i nь , º 8, S of i ò, 1919, 3; D-r ь Lž b. Mi l et i čь , ,,Dame Gr uevь . Kr at ki bi ogr af i česki bõl õž ki za ž i vot a i deòt el nost Åt a mu“, Makedono-Odr i n- ski Pregl edь, II, 30, S of i ò, 11.III.1907, 467-468; D. Mi r čevь , ,,Dame Gr uevь (Edi nь vel i čavь ž estь)“, I l ž st r aci ò I l i ndenÅ, I, 1, S of i ò, 1927, 7-8; S l avko Di mevski , ,,Dame Gr uev i makedonskot o naci onal no pr aš awe do sozdavawet o na TMORO“, in: Pri l ozi za Dame Gruev. Mat erijal i od t rkal eznat a masa za Dame Grue¼, Bi t ol a, 1983, 65-68.
23. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) i Makedonskot o naučno-l i t er a- t ur no drugar st vo vo P et r ogr ad, I, 180-182.
24. ↑ Ibid., 182.
25. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 1, Beogr ad, 7.oe II.1902, 2.
26. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 4, 28.oe II.1902, 2.
27. ↑ Ibid.
28. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 5, 4.oe III.1902, 2.
29. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 3, 21.oe II.1902, 2.
30. ↑ Ibid.
31. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 7, 18.oe III.1902, 1.
32. ↑ Ibid.
33. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 8, 25.oe III.1902, 3.
34. ↑ Ibid.
35. ↑ Ljuben Lape, ,,Dokument i za f or mi r awet o na Sl avjano-makedonskot o naučno-l i t er at ur no dr ugar st vo i negovi ot ust av“, Makedonski jazi k, Hoe I, S kopje, 1965, 193-194.
36. ↑ Vol ò nar oda, º 43, P et r ogr adь , 18.oe I.1917, 2; Novaò ž i znÅ, º 52, 18.oe I/1.oe II.1917, 2.
37. ↑ K.P . Mi si r kovь , op. cit., 1, 45, 67 and 68, and also: ,,P et r ogr adckot o Makedoncko Sl ovencko Naučno-l i t er at ur no Dr ugar st vo ,Sv. Kl i ment ‘ (Ioe )“, in: Bal kanь (I, 1, S of i ò, 5.Ioe .1903, 1), and also in: S l avònskíà Võkь (III, 62, Võ na, 15/28.II.1903, 431) and Avt onomna Makedoni ò (I, 20, S of i ò, 16.HI.1903, 3). The Society is sometimes also mentioned with the additional adjectiveStudent.
38. ↑ Ljuben Lape, op. cit., 198-202; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Dimit ri ja Čupovski (1878-1940¼, I, 241-246.
39. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , op. cit., II, 6-23.
40. ↑ Ibid., II, 143-156.
41. ↑ This name appeared officially in public for the first time in the Memorandum on the Independence of Macedonia of March 1, 1913, and was used until the last number of the journal Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), dated November 20, 1914.
42. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , op. cit., II, 267-268.
43. ↑ Ibid., I, 99-100.
44. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kr st e P . Mi si r kov (1874-1926) ¼, 159-186.
45. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, I, 180-189. Another document describing the Macedonian national programme of the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society is certainly the Report P. No. 193 of November 22, 1902, by the envoy extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Kingdom of Serbia to the Russian capital, Academician Stojan Novaković, who had first-hand information on the concepts and actions of the Society. Among other things, he writes: “Macedonian separatism, according to their theory, would aim at a separate political and cultural organization of Macedonia, independent of the cultural and political centres of both Sofia and Belgrade. Were Macedonia to be granted certain autonomous rights, they believe that they should be extended to the secession of the church from the Bulgarian Exarchate in Constantinople, the organization of a separate church authority under the protection of the Constantinopolitan Church, such as was the case in Serbia and Romania prior to the Treaty of Berlin, and the raising of the Macedonian dialect to official and literary use, with phonetic orthography, in order to avoid the use of the Bulgarian language. The future autonomous organization of Macedonia, according to their idea, should be based on these three cornerstones: a separate church, a separate language and a separate autonomous organization, under the protection of the Sultan and Patriarch.” Novaković continues by giving information on the response these ideas met with in the Russian society, and also among young Macedonians (primarily university students) who were studying in St Petersburg and had links with Sofia or Belgrade: “The Russian Ministry has so far not interfered in this matter at all. The literary and political circles here, on the other hand, most often react with sympathy and natural curiosity to all this, considering the present situation in Macedonia. Yet as the majority in these circles have become used to consider the Macedonians as part of the Bulgarian people, these separatist Macedonian theories are regarded as a novelty and have aroused suspicion in some that they may be of Austrian origin, as Austria usually protects Slavic separatist ideas and the division of languages and dialects, and Russia is more inclined towards centralization. “The great majority of young Macedonian people studying here are with the Bulgarians. They have welcomed this movement with sympathy, because Macedonians willingly accept ideas of a separate organization for their fatherland, even though sometimes they oppose it in favour of Bulgarianism. Young Bulgarians, on the other hand, are totally opposed to this, fearing that they will thus lose Macedonia. Our young people are rather sympathetically inclined, because with the foundation of a separate Macedonian group among the young people here, the Bulgarians would lose the most, and it is all the same to us, as only two or three Macedonians who are now with our people would leave. “When the aforementioned Macedonians, Mr Jakimov and Mr Trpković, addressed the ‘Slav. Charitable Society’ with a request to allow the holding of sessions for young Macedonians as well, as they have allowed for the Bulgarians and Serbs, they had two meetings and decided to allow the holding of Slavic-Macedonian meetings. The Bulgarian Agency was against this, but was unable to prevent it and at present is trying to put obstacles in the way of Macedonian separatism by other means.” [Arhi v Sr bi je, Beogr ad (Archives of Serbia, Belgrade), MI D, P P , f . HII, 1903. Materials from different years]. In fact, the main decision on the recognition of the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society by SPSCS was passed on the meeting of its Council of November 1, 1902, where Protocol No. 13 stated that they had examined the request by the Society “to be allowed to assemble for lectures and addresses on the premises of” SPSCS and decided “to allow it on days which would be determined by the Schedule Commission” (D-r Blaže Ristovski , Por t r et i i procesi od makedonskat a l i t er at ur na i naci onal na i st or i ja. P r i l ozi za razvi t okot na makedonskat a kul t ur no-naci onal na mi s l a, II, S kopje, 1989, 208-209).
46. ↑ Ibid., 202.
47. ↑ ,,Makedonskoe obë est vo vь S .-P et er bur gõ“, S l avònskíà Võkь , III, 62, 15/28.II.1903, 431-432.
48. ↑ Cent r al en dь r ž aven i st or i česki ar hi v, S of i ò, f . 246, op. 1, ar h. ed. 533, l . 283.
49. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , op. cit., 226-229.
50. ↑ Ibid., 241-246.
51. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kr st e P . Mi si r kov (1874-1926) ¼, 295-29; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, I, 253 and 284-285.
52. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, I, 273-277.
53. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, II, 197-416; D-r Bl až e Ristovski , ,,Š kol uvawet o na Kr st e Mi si r kov vo Rusi ja (Novi podat oci i soznani ja za f or mi r awet o na Mi si r kovat a mi sl a)“, Gl a s n i k , HHIH, 1-2, S kopje, 1985, 105-144.
54. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, II, 271-273.
55. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , ,,Var dar “. Naučno-l i t er at ur no i opš t est veno-pol i t i čko spi sani e na K.P. Misirkov, I MJ Skopje, 1966, 73-74; S.B. Ber nš t eàn, ,,I z i st or i i make- donskogo l i t er at ur not o òzì ka. ,Var dar ‘ K.P . Mi si r kova“, S l avònskaò f i l ol ogi ò, S bor ni k st at eà, vì p. t r et i à, Moskva, 1960, 71-72.
56. ↑ Photographically reproduced edition in the book: D-r Blaže Ristovski , ,,V ar dar “ ¼, 85-116. 3.
57. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, I. All subsequent quotations are from the same document.
58. ↑ Gr až dani nь , º 37, S .-P et er bur gь , 16.IH.1912, 5.
59. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 5-25.
60. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), I, 1, 9.oe I.1913, 17-23.
61. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as). Or gan na pri vr zani ci t e na nezavi sna Makedoni ja 1913-1914. F ot ot i pno i zdani e, I NI , Skopje, 1968.
62. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 62-119.
63. ↑ Ibid., 221-226.
64. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), II, 11, 20.HI.1914, 199-201.
65. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), II, 10, 13.oe III.1914, 6-10 and 20-21; II, 11, 20.HI.1914, 201-203.
66. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 20-22.
67. ↑ Ibid., 143-156.
68. ↑ In the extensive and well-substantiated Memorandum to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, of August 1914, the signatories Dimitrija Čupovski and Krste Misirkov (in the capacity of representatives of the St Petersburg Macedonian colony and the Odessa and South-Russian Macedonian colony), among other things, wrote that “the most equitable solution to the Macedonian question would undoubtedly be the establishment of an independent kingdom headed by a monarch of Slavic origin and of the Orthodox faith”. Assessing the historical moment after the start of the First World War in which Russia, too, was taking part, the signatories to the Memorandum declared the following: “We would like a Macedonian king from Great Russia. We must rectify our mistakes from the past and instead of looking for support among Balkan states, we should look for it and would certainly find it in the person of the great liberator, Slavic Russia. We believe that the best and most equitable solution to the Macedonian question would be if all Macedonian territories which constituted the three former Macedonian vilayets were seized from the Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians, and a new Slavic, fully independent Balkan Kingdom of Macedonia were established, headed by one of the great princes of the Russian imperial house, at the royal choice of His Imperial Majesty, the Great Emperor. In exchange for the Macedonian territories seized from Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria, the first can be rewarded at the expense of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the second at the expense of Epirus, and the third at the expense of Dobruja or Thrace.” The Memorandum also suggested enticing prospects for Russian Balkan policies: “The establishment in the heart of the Balkan Peninsula and on the borders of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Greece of an independent Macedonian kingdom headed by a king of the Russian imperial house will complete the liberation by Russia of all Balkan peoples and thus the unification could commence of all Balkan Orthodox lands into a single whole under the sceptre of the Balkan branch of the Romanov imperial dynasty.” (D-r Rasti sl av Terzi oski , ,,Ruski dokumenti za posebnost a na makedonski ot nar od“, Nova Makedoni ja, ª , 16972, 22.Ioe .1994, 12).
69. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 227-239.
70. ↑ K. P el Åskíà, ,,Bor Åba za avt onomíž “, Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), II, 11, 20.HI.1914, 205-207; K. P el Åskíà, S l avòne, º 5, P et r ogr adь , 1915, 60-62.
71. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 242.
72. ↑ Ibid., I, 42-43.
73. ↑ Ibid., II, 266-269.
74. ↑ The three signatories appear below the text in the newspaper Vol ò nar oda, º 43, 18.oe I.1917, 2,, and we also find them in transcription (copy) by Čupovski himself, among the personal property he left (D-r Blaže Ristovski , op. cit., II, 263). This surviving original mentions only Makedonskíà Revol ž ci onnì à Komi t et ь , and the published version in the newspaper Novaò ž i znÅ, º 52, 18.oe I/1.oe II.1917, 2, indicates only S l eduž t podpi si (“Signatures follow”).
75. ↑ The attempts at presenting it in this way reflect a recognizable tendency: Di mi t ь r G. Go c e v , I deòta za avt onomi ò kat o t akt i ka v pr ogr ami t e na naci onal no-osvobodi t el not o dvi ž eni e v Makedoni ò i Odr i nsko (1893-1941), S of i ò, 1983.
76. ↑ Spi r o Gul abčev, Edi n ogl õd po et nogr af íòt a na Makedoníò, Gabr ovo, 1887, 32-111.
77. ↑ D-r Dančo Zogr af ski , Odbrani del a, 6. Makedonskot o pr aš awe i i st or i ski t e r aspaća, Skopje, 1986, 105-127; D-r Or de I vanoski , Bal kanski t e soci jal i st i i makedonskot o praš awe od 90-t i t e godi ni na HIH vek do sozdavawet o na Tr et at a i nt er naci onal a, Skopje, 1970, 126-147; D-r Manol P andevski , Pol i t i čkit e part i i i organizaci i vo Makedoni ja (1908-1912), Skopje, 1965, 135-152; Al eksandar Hr i st ov, S ozdavawe na makedon- skat a dr ž ava 1878-1978. Naci onal noosl obodi t el not o dvi ž ewe i bar awe obl i ci za kon- st i t ui r awe na Makedoni ja kako naci onal na dr ž ava, I, S kopje, 1985, 252-270 and 340-354; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) i Makedonskot o naučno-l i t er a- t ur no drugar st vo vo P et r ogr ad. P r i l ozi kon proučuvawet o na makedonsko-r uski t e vrski i r azvi t okot na makedonskat a naci onal na mi sl a, II, Skopje, 1978, 252-270.
78. ↑ Hr i st o Andonov-P ol janski , Odbrani del a, 3. Makedonskot o praš awe, Skopje, 1981, 190- 207; S voboda, I, 83, S of i ò, 12.IH.1887, 1-2; II, 116, 13.I.1888, 3; II, 118, 20.I.1888, 3-4; D-r Bl až e Ri s t ovs ki , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, II, Skopje, 1983, 73-144.
79. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, II, 101-138; D-r Bl až e Ri s t ovs ki , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 252-270 and 319-330; D-r Mi hajl o Mi - noski , Feder at i vnat a i deja vo makedonskat a pol i t i čka mi sl a (1887-1919), Skopje, 1985,21-277.
80. ↑ D-r Mi hajl o Mi noski , op. cit., 279-295; Al eksandar Hr i st ov, op. cit., II, 81-92.
81. ↑ D-r Mi hajl o Mi noski , op. cit., 301-305; I van Kat ar xi ev, Po vr vi ci t e na makedonskat a i st orija, Skopje, 1986, 242; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, II, 537-541; Al eksandar Hr i st ov, op. cit., II, 93-104.
82. ↑ This concept was advocated by the revolutionary organizations not only prior to the First World War, but also between the two world wars and was supported even by Krste Misirkov in some of his articles [D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kr st e P . Mi si r kov (1874-1926). P r i l og kon proučuvawet o na r azvi t okot na makedonskat a naci onal na mi sl a, S kopje, 1966, 610].
83. ↑ Even Sandanski’s federalist concept following the Young Turk Revolution and that of the “federalists” of the 1920s did not envisage a distinct Macedonian people, a distinct Macedonian nation, but manipulated with representatives of the neighbouring nations in Macedonia and sought a solution by means of a kind of cantonal constitutional system after the example of Switzerland.
84. ↑ This option was embraced even by the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO, VMRO) of Aleksandrov, Protogerov and Čaulev, resulting in the May Manifesto [I van Kat ar xi ev, op. cit., 229-257; I van Kat ar xi ev, Bor ba do pobeda, 2. Vr eme na zr eewe. Makedonskot o naci onal no praš awe megju dvet e svet ski vojni (1919-1930), II, S kopje, 1983, 240-307].
85. ↑ Hr i st o Andonov-P ol janski , I l i ndenskot o vost ani e i megjunar odnat a javnost , Skopje, 1985, 46-49; Dop. čl en d-r Manol D. P andevski , I l i ndenskot o vost ani e 1903, Skopje, 1978; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot f ol kl or i naci onal nat a svest , I, Skopje, 1987, 171-348.
86. ↑ K.P . Mi si r kovь , Za makedoncki t e r abot i , S of i ò, 1903, 1-44 etc.
87. ↑ S i meon Radev, Ranni spomeni , S of i ò, 1967, 266-267. The Adrianople region was included because the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Exarchate encompassed the territories of Macedonia and the Adri- anople region, and the Exarchate’s entire activity was concentrated in these two regions of Turkey. Most of the more prominent activists of the Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (TMORO) were officials of the Exarchate and worked in these two regions. This already had a tradition of three decades. Present-day Kosovo was not under the jurisdiction of the Exarchate.
88. ↑ In this respect, it was not without significance that the ‘Exarchists’ formed the core of the Revolution, that the seat of the Organization’s representative office was in Sofia and that all the information going out to the world passed through the Bulgarian capital, transmitted chiefly via the Bulgarian news agency and the Bulgarian press, while in Macedonia very often it was the Bulgarian church authorities and ‘trade agencies’ that carried the Organization’s mail and communications. The ‘support’ of some Bulgarian governments and parties was also no secret.
89. ↑ K.P . Mi si r kovь , op. cit., 76.
90. ↑ Regardless of whether the expectations from the agreement between the sovereigns of Russia and Great Britain in Reval on the autonomy of Macedonia were realistic (and if so, to what degree), the Young Turk Revolution started earlier than envisaged, and in Macedonia at that, because the integrity of the whole Empire was endangered by the possible action of the great powers which might have involved, even temporarily, some kind of autonomy for this Turkish province.
91. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kr st e P . Mi si r kov (1874-1926) ¼, 467-489.
92. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, I, 119-602.
93. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, I, 130-179.
94. ↑ A Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society was also founded in Sofia, in December 1903 [D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kr st e P . Mi si r kov (1874-1926) ¼, 298]. The following year Nikola Ničota made a similar attempt in Moscow [D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, I, 272-277], and in 1905, Krste Misirkov prepared the ground for the foundation of a similar society in Odessa as well (D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, I, 383).
95. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kr st e P . Mi si r kov (1874-1926) ¼, 465-466.
96. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, I, 596-602; D-r S l avko Di mevski , ,,P r i sust vot o na Teodosi j Gol oganov vo r azvojot na makedonskat a naci onal na mi sl a vo epohat a na naci onal no-r evol uci oner not o dvi ž ewe“, Gl a s n i k , I NI , HH, 2, S kopje, 1976, 101-103.
97. ↑ Cent r al Ånì à Gosudar st vennì à I st or i česki à Ar hi v, S.-P et er bur g (henceforth CGI A), f . 796, op. 191, ed. hr . 157, ot d. oe I, st . 1, l . 4; f . 797, op. 96, d. 250, l l . 1-5.
98. ↑ CGI A, f . 797, op. 96, d. 250, l l . 1-5.
99. ↑ S er bo-bol gar skíà sporь za obl adaníe Makedoníeà, P et r ogr adь , 1915, 112.
100. ↑ Gr až dani nь , º 37, S .-P et er bur gь , 16.IH.1912, 5.
101. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 8-16.
102. ↑ Ibid., 8-10.
103. ↑ Ibid., 10.
104. ↑ Ibid., 15.
105. ↑ Ibid., 26-142.
106. ↑ Graždaninь , º 37, 16.IH.1912, 3-4.
107. ↑ Dančo Zogr af ski , ,,Razvojni ot pat na Makedonecot d-r Gavr i l o Konst ant i novi ć vo Okt omvr i skat a r evol uci ja (P r i l og kon pr oučuvawet o dejnost a na makedonski t e pr ogr esi vni emi gr ant i vo mi nat ot o)“, Gl asni k na I NI , I, 2, 1957, 21; Cent r al Ånì à Gosudar st vennì à Voenno-i st or i česki à Ar hi v, Moskva, f . 316, op. 66, d. 1239.
108. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kr st e P . Mi si r kov (1874-1926) ¼, 495-497.
109. ↑ According to the testimony of Marija Konstantinova, daughter of Nikola D. Čuparov, from Sofia.
110. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 40-67.
111. ↑ Dobrovol ec, I, 11, S of i ò, 15.oe II.1945.
112. ↑ Makedonsko sь znani e, I, 8, Vi ena, 16.Ioe .1924.
113. ↑ RõčÅ, º 26, S .-P et er bur gь . 27.I/9.II.1913, 2.
114. ↑ Gr až dani nь , º 4, 27.I.1913, 14
115. ↑ Ibid.
116. ↑ S l avònskíò I zvõst íò, º 12(5), S .-P et er bur gь , 3.II.1913, 175-177.
117. ↑ N.E. Mat võevь , ,,Avt onomnaò Makedoníò“, S l avònskíò I zvõst íò, º 13(6), 10.II.1913, 200- 201; N.I . S ur i nь , ,,Avt onomíi na Bal kanahь “, S l avònskíò I zvõst íò, º 16(9), 3.III.1913, 261.
118. ↑ S l avònskíò I zvõst íò, º 16(9), 3.III.1913, 257-260.
119. ↑ Blaže Ristovski , Nac e D. Di mov (1876-1916), S kopje, 1973, 78.
120. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), I, 1, S .-P et er bur gь , 9.oe I.1913, 23; RõčÅ, º 66, 12/25.III.1913, 3.
121. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 271-283.
122. ↑ S l avòni nь , I, 13, S .-P et er bur gь , 28.III.1913, 6; I, 24, 12.oe .1913, 6.
123. ↑ VesÅ Mírь , º 16, S .-P et er bur gь , Apr õ l Å 1913, 5.
124. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski l et opi s ¼, I, 299.
125. ↑ S l avòni nь , I, 18, 21.Ioe .1913, 3.
126. ↑ S l avòni nь , I, 20, 28.Ioe .1913, 3.
127. ↑ S l avòni nь , I, 26, 19.oe .1913, 7.
128. ↑ S l avòni nь , I, 22, 5.oe .1913, 7.
129. ↑ Lučь , º 150 (236), S .-P et er bur gь , 3.oe II.1913, 2.
130. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), I, 1, 9.oe I.1913, 19.
131. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), I, 1, 9.oe I.1913, 2.
132. ↑ Ibid.
133. ↑ DenÅ, º 171, S .-P et er bur gь , 29.oe I.1913, 3.
134. ↑ Novoe V r emò, º 13.396, S .-P et er bur gь , 29.oe I/12.oe II.1913, 13.
135. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), I, 3, 14.oe II.1913, 56.
136. ↑ RõčÅ, º 179, 4/17.oe II.1913, 2.
137. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), I, 3, 14.oe II.1913, 56.
138. ↑ S l avòni nь , I, 35, 7.oe II.1913, 6.
139. ↑ Russkoe S l ovo, º 130, S .-P et er bur gь , 7/20.oe I.1913, 3.
140. ↑ Lučь , º 132 (218), 11.oe I.1913, 1-2.