The Emergence of Macedonian National Thought and the Formation of a National Programme (up to 1878)
Од Wikibooks
The study of Macedonian national development began as late as the end of the 19th century, when the ‘Macedonian question’ emerged in all its sensitive sharpness — on both the internal and international scenes. Krste Misirkov,[1] Dimitrija Čupovski[2] and Nace Dimov[3] accepted the work of Gjorgija Pulevski[4] and his followers and generation with scholarly ambitions. Angel Dinev, [5] Vasil Ivanovski, [6] Kočo Racin, [7] Kosta Veselinov[8] and Anton Popov[9] developed it as part of the concept of the progressive movement, whereas Macedonian scholarly thought was only able to function normally after the liberation of the Vardar part of Macedonia and its constitution in 1944 as a nation-state within the federal community of the Yugoslav peoples. Even today, however, we cannot say that Macedonian scholars have fully succeeded in studying this very long and convulsive process. They have been handicapped, above all, by the inaccessibility of basic sources and the incomprehensible obstacles placed in the way mostly by neighbouring states, which control not only significant portions of the Macedonian ethnic territory but also of the existing archive materials. Occupying the territory between the Slavic Serbs and Bulgarians, and the non-Slavic Greeks and Albanians, representing the southernmost fjord of the Slavic sea, on their road to national affirmation, the Macedonians have written a history which is also interesting for scholarship and its theories on nations in general. The processes of national integration of the Macedonians developed in the unique circumstances of the Europe of the time, where the Balkans played a central part. Internal and, more importantly, external, factors were relevant for the routes of their development. The geopolitical and geostrategic position of Macedonia, its social and economic development, cultural and educational conditions, confessional and political situation and the character of historical and state-constitutional traditions completed the mosaic of factors in the emergence and development of Macedonian national thought. As a result of all this, national revival[10] in Macedonia took place over a period of a century and a half, from its first buds in the late 18th and early 19th century, [11] up to the foundation of the modern Macedonian nation-state in 1944. The most significant and most interest- ing period in the development of this process was undoubtedly the time of cultural, educational, spiritual and political activity of the Macedonian people (1814-1870) and the years when the first national programme was drawn up (1870-1878). 1. Independently of the degree of social and economic development of the Macedo- nian people and of the penetration of ‘capitalistic elements’ into this part of the Ottoman Empire, [12] and independently of the growth and ethnic structure of Macedonian towns, the process of the constitution of the Macedonian nation started with certain objective historical difficulties which later encumbered its entire development. Hence the completion of the constitution of the socio-histori- cal category people in Macedonia seems to have coincided with the process of the establishment of the nation. The protracted and intermittent character of the first process brought about the complicated and lengthy development of the second. Whereas, for instance, the process of Greek national development started along a more or less straight line — inheriting the name and the past of the mediaeval state and swiftly advancing the idea of political liberation and state independence (and the same also refers largely to the development of the Serbs and even that of the Bulgarians) — in the case of the Macedonians this idea was advanced with a certain delay, in altered historical circumstances, without state-constitutional traditions under their own name in the Slavic period, without a single widely affirmed ethnic name and with the use of different ethnic, confessional and social appellations inherited from the mediaeval period and during the specific circum- stances of Turkish domination. Similarly to other ‘non-historical’ Slavic peoples, in the first half of the 19th century the Macedonians were faced with the following questions: who are we, what are we and where are we? Their first objectives were to outline their ethnic and geographical borders with regard to their neighbours and, using a distinct designation for themselves as a nation (which already had a long tradition) to define the programme tasks concerning their spiritual differentiation, linguistic unification, national affirmation and political liberation. 2. Macedonia’s geopolitical position within the Ottoman Empire made any direct contact with the already liberated and state-constituted social and national com- munities impossible, and greatly limited the transfer of ideas and organized communication with Macedonian expatriates, and hence prevented the organiza- tion of their own colonies which would take free and state-supported actions along the borders. As a result, in contrast to Bulgaria, for example, there was never (with the exception of the brief Austrian penetration led by Piccolomini) an infiltration of foreign armies on Macedonian soil and Turkish domination was not even temporarily replaced by any Christian rule. Macedonia was thus not in a position to have nationally-awakened and politically active émigré circles such as, for instance, the Bulgarians had, capable of setting up their own well-developed centres in neighbouring, territorially disinterested states, cherishing national re- vival ideas and organizing liberation actions. The spiritual life of the Macedonians from the first half of the 19th century onwards was entirely in the hands of the Hellenized Oecumenical Patriarchate. Despite its considerable degree of Hellenization, until its abolition in 1767, the Archbishopric of Ohrid was the only institution in Macedonia uniting the Ortho- dox Macedonian Slavs and providing a better or worse continuity of the people’s development within its diocese. After its abolition, the monasteries and churches remained shattered, constantly aiming to maintain contacts with Mount Athos and with their eyes turned, full of hope, towards Orthodox and Slavic Russia. The spectacular opposition to the Greek clergy and the resistance of the Macedonian citizens against Greek influence, particularly in the church-school communities, reinforced the ambitions for the restoration of the Archbishopric of Ohrid as the church of the already awakened Macedonian ethnicity. This initial period was characterized by an incessant struggle for their own church, their own clergy, schools and teachers, their own language and textbooks, and self-govern- ment at community level. In a situation like this it was not too difficult to organize various ‘religious’ missions which, propagating Protestantism, Catholicism and in particular Uniatism, [13] 352 began slowly to divide the single people into different ‘faiths’, which, in accordance with Shariah law in Turkey, were automatically designated as ‘nationalities’. With the involvement of the national propaganda machines of its neighbours, the unity of the people in Macedonia was finally crushed, which led to a long and fierce struggle for a language and a church. Thus, in spite of the relative development and growth of towns, trade and the crafts, the still young Macedonian middle class was divided and any normal national devel- opment was significantly slowed down. 3. In the first decades of the 19th century the main ethnic characteristic of the people in Macedonia was their Slavic roots (‘Slavism’). This distinguished them from the Greeks and connected them to the ‘Slavic tribe’ which was often (and not only here) understood as a single people. [14] Earlier, the Macedonians emphasized their official ‘Greek’ affiliation before foreign representatives, and now demanded their own name which had been alive in the churches and monasteries, but with the obligatory Slavic marking. Therefore even the titles of the publications by Joakim Krčovski and Kiril Pejčinović (in the second decade of the 19th century) and their immediate followers said that the books were written in a “simple”, “Slav-Bulgar- ian” language. [15] Firstly, this meant abandoning the official Old Church Slavonic language, which in Macedonia had a full continuity of use, and introducing the vernacular in writing, and secondly, this was an act of declaring the general aspirations of the time to emphasize their Slavic affiliation. Yet when, in the 1840s, the Macedonians came into direct contact with Bulgarian books and the Bulgarian language, when they saw the differences between themselves and those who also called themselves Bulgarians, the Mace- donians had no alternative but to start a struggle for the affirmation of their own name, using all their forces. Rejecting the Bulgarian designation and faced with the impossibility of using only the name ‘Slavic’ (as ethnically insufficiently differentiated), they accepted the territorial Macedonian name which had always been widespread among the people, and particularly in Europe. [16] When Greek propaganda put forward the theory of the ‘Greek’ origin of the ancient Macedo- nians, the Macedonians proclaimed these, too, as Slavs, and placed Philip and Alexander on their banner as symbols designating their national consciousness. The Russian Slavic scholar Viktor Grigorovich, who stayed in Macedonia for a considerable period in 1844/1845, was able to witness this personally, describing it authoritatively and vividly in his writings. [17] The strict differentiation between Macedonians and Greeks and the emphasis on the Slavic origin of the former, and also on the glory of Alexander of Macedon, King Mark and Cyril and Methodius, were sufficient to establish clearly the idea of the homeland of the Macedonian people in the Balkans. This is expressed in a highly vivid way in the 1846 ‘records’ by the Kriva Palanka teacher Gjorgija Makedonski[18] and those of the priest Dimitrija from the same region about the events in 1848. [19] All this is a clear illustration of the attitude of the emerging middle class towards national interests and of the degree of development of historical con- sciousness among the awakened circles of the people. It is important, as testified to by Grigorovich and confirmed by the documents quoted, that this ideology was developed by teachers and priests who inspired their students and disciples, but it is also important that their parents and the congregation accepted their teaching. It is not by accident that Grigorovich stresses the words “everybody knows”, and it is also not by chance that the surname Makedonski was often adopted at that time (and later) as a visible sign of distinction. It is also very important that this ideology was spread by priests, which explains the widespread demands for the restoration of the Archbishopric of Ohrid as a Macedonian national church which would automatically give the people rights to their own churches, schools, com- munities and a separate nüfus (‘population’). These were the basic contours of the Macedonian national programme, expressed through the concept of the 1840s, which was to be ultimately defined three decades later. 4. In the first half of the 19th century the not so numerous intelligentsia, clergy and craftsmen were mainly united in a joint front that reflected the common interests of the Macedonian middle class. The inhabitants of Veles, for example, were delighted with the opening of Jordan Hadžikonstantinov-Džinot’s school in 1837, [20] and the teacher Jovan Nešković testifies that from 1846 onwards Veles began “to wake up from the deep sleep”, that “the divine feeling for enlightenment and study which had been absent in Macedonia for so many centuries, hindered by the Greek clergy” had already been sown. The wealthier citizens sent their children to study in Europe, and also helped less well-off children, which, according to Nešković, “awakened the feeling of their own ethnicity”. The inhabi- tants of Veles ignored the demand of the Greek bishop for the “instruction in the Veles school to be carried out in Greek and not in Macedonian”. [21] This attitude spread in other towns in Macedonia. It was best expressed by Tode Kusev from Prilep in the Constantinople journal Makedonija in 1867. He writes that the Greeks “have always fought for the Graecization of the Macedonians, destroying the Archbishopric of Ohrid — ‘the Spark of our future’. Yet, however much they have struggled to prevent our advancement, they have not been able to uproot the feeling and prevent the Macedonians from being Macedonians.” Kusev states plainly: Not only in Ohrid, but throughout Macedonia, now everyone has woken up and is demanding their rights. Everyone is striving to open their own schools, to introduce church services in the Old Church Slavonic language, not to leave the schools and people’s matters in the hands of one or two people who have come from other places, who in every possible way try to prevent everything that is popular. Tradesmen’s ledgers are now everywhere beginning to be kept not in Greek, but in our mother tongue. Both young and old are now rejoicing under the great shadow of our enlightener, Sultan Abdul-Aziz, happy to have become aware of their own nationality. [22] All this put forward the acute question of textbooks in these popular schools. The learned Mijak, Anatolija Zografski, tried to satisfy this need as early as 1838 with his textbook Načalnoe učenie (Primer), printed in the first Macedonian printing shop in Salonika. [23] Jordan Hadžikonstantinov-Džinot joined him with his handbook Tablica pervaja (First Table). [24] But the people increasingly de- manded the use of pure vernacular in the Macedonian schools. The first more serious achievements in this area were made in 1857-1858 by Partenija Zografski (from Galičnik), who was also educated in Russia. He not only re-printed the earlier textbook of his compatriot Anatolija — entitled Načalnoe učenie za decata (Children’s Primer), with improvements and additions, using a purer vernacular — but also published the first philological analysis of the Macedonian language (made by a Macedonian), outlining the basic problems and pointing to the main directions in the development of the literary standard. No doubt influenced by the Vienna Accord (1850) on the common literary language of the Serbs and Croats, [25] Partenija Zografski spoke in favour of a common literary standard for the Macedonians and Bulgarians, [26] although he clearly emphasized: “Our language, as is known, can be divided into two main dialects, one of which is spoken in Bulgaria and Thrace, and the other in Macedonia.” [27] He wrote a grammar of this literary standard and was the first in Macedonia to point out that the “dialect” of “the south-western parts of Macedonia” should be taken as its basis, which was later accepted by Krste P. Misirkov (1903) [28] and codified with our modern literary standard after the liberation (1945). [29] Only a decade later Partenija Zografski had several followers who wrote textbooks, including Dimitar V. Makedonski, [30] Dimitar H. Uzunov, [31] Kuzman A. Šapkarev, [32] Venijamin Mačukovski[33] and particularly the notable figure of the self-taught Mijak, Gjorgija M. Pulevski, [34] even though all of them (with the exception of the last) still used the compromise Bulgarian designation for this language. The Bulgarian teacher Najden Jovanovič saw the differences between the Macedonian and Bulgarian languages and corroborated them in practice in 1846, making and publishing the first translation from Macedonian into Bulgarian. It is significant that he called the Macedonian language slovenskij (Slavonic), and the Bulgarian slovenobolgarskij (Slavo-Bulgarian), [35] although the book itself, Čudesa presvjatija Bogorodici (The Miracles of the Holy Mother of God) by Joakim Krčovski, says that it is written “in the Bulgarian language” (na bolgarskij jazik). Vuk Karadžić noticed these differences as early as 1822, [36] but this became apparent to the public only after the boycott of Bulgarian books in Macedonia in the 1860s, [37] when it was publicly declared that “the Bulgarians and the Bulgarian language were one thing, and the Macedonians and the Macedonian language another,” [38] when warnings of the following type could be heard: “We are Macedonians, we are not Bulgarians” and “We have barely freed ourselves from the Greeks, should we now become Šopi?!” [39] Even the leader of the Bulgarian national revival in Constantinople, Petko Račev Slavejkov, in early January 1871 publicly admitted that he had heard this ideology “as early as some ten years ago from some people in Macedonia”, which had now grown into “a thought that many would like to put into effect”. He confirmed that he had “many times” heard from “the Macedonists that they were not Bulgarians but Macedonians, descendants of ancient MacedoniaThey are complete Macedoniansthey are pure Slavs, and the Bulgarians are Tartars and who knows what”. These “Macedonists” boldly declared before him: “We broke off from the Greeks, should we now fall under others?” [40] This means that at this point “scholarly propaganda of national development” in Macedonia had already been completed. It was followed by a “period of national agitation,” [41] which permeated the broad mass of the people and penetrated deeply into their minds. This was a stage of Macedonian national integration, when the historical consciousness of the Macedonians[42] was strongly engaged in the articulation of ideas for liberation. 5. It is noteworthy that all this developed in Macedonia itself, within the boundaries of Turkey, without significant response from the European public. As far as Europe was concerned, Macedonia was still an insufficiently known land inhabited by an even less studied people, which was first automatically linked to the Greeks, and later almost unanimously to the Bulgarians. This is how Macedonia was seen by foreign travellers, and the same views were accepted by the first Slavic scholars, even though none of them (with the exception of Grigorovich) had ever set foot on Macedonian soil. [43] Moreover, Macedonia was treated in the same way by the great powers, which had special interests in the Balkans. This only complicated and greatly encumbered the affirmation of the Macedonian people as a subject in international relations. This in turn contributed to the hampering and complicating of Macedonia’s internal development and facilitated the actions of neighbouring national propaganda machines, which were becoming an increasingly real danger not only for the liberation of the land but also for its integrity and the survival of the people as a whole.
But the public participation of the Macedonians in the press and the clear propagation of their ideas among the people, which even Slavejkov had to admit ultimately in his newspaper (although for ten whole years he had tried to prevent the public dissemination of Macedonian national ideology at all costs), fixed the basic contours of the Macedonian national programme which already had a history of its own and was threatening with its plans for the future. Despite the strong national romanticism of its proponents, it was actually the first public statement of the ‘Macedonian question’. This took place exactly at the time of the foundation of the first Slavic Orthodox church in Turkey, which was given the name Bulgarian Exarchate. This was to draw the boundaries of the ‘Bulgarian nationality’ for the first time in an official manner; this was later accepted by the cartographer Heinrich Kiepert and taken for granted in the text of the preliminary San Stefano peace treaty (1878).
The Macedonians, however, immediately saw the possible consequences and the historical risk to their future development. The resistance was strong: as early as 1873 six large Macedonian eparchies abandoned not only the Oecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople, but also the newly-founded Bulgarian Exarchate, and made a serious attempt to find a permanent solution to the Macedonian national question with the help of Protestantism and the Uniate Church. The seriousness of the situation was apparent to Russian politicians and also to the Bulgarian Exarch, who immediately sent Slavejkov personally on a secret mission to Macedonia, to try to undermine the Macedonian movement with his great authority. His reports from Salonika, dated January, February and March 1874, offer a most complete and accurate picture of the character and proportions of what was a genuine national liberation movement, outlining the basic elements of the Macedonian national programme.
Slavejkov’s mission was important for a number of reasons. He arrived in Salonika on the evening of January 14, 1874, and immediately met with the main actors in the union in order to assess the situation and learn their plans. In his letter sent to Exarch Anthimus (Antim) sometime in January, Slavejkov first describes “in brief the history of everything preceding all this and its consequences today, which are the existing turmoil and movement.” [44] This means that the movement was not born unexpectedly and without inner foundations, but that it already had a history of its own. In order to understand all the circumstances mentioned by the Exarch’s envoy, we shall quote a part of this letter. [45] It can be seen that even before the question’s solution, after the initial awakening of the population from these lands, owing to the unreasonable preaching of the local narrow and short-sighted patriots, a certain discontentment among the local Bulgarians has been created towards the Bulgarians from the Danube and Ohrid[46] vilayets and a certain envy because of their earlier awakening and the visible predominance of their language in literature. The one-sided, at first glance, solution to the question in favour of the Danube and Thracian Bulgarians alone further encouraged their discontentment, and by ignoring the circumstances which led to this not entirely satisfactory solution to the question, the said discontentment has easily turned into mistrust towards those working on the question and has given birth among local patriots to the disastrous idea of working independently on the advancement of their own local dialect and what’s more, of their own, individual Macedonian hierarchy — Bulgarian — idea, [47] unfortunately reinforced, as far as I could hear, by the excessive zeal of one of our own bishops, [48] who in his desire to be useful and make use of this, imperceptibly, and perhaps deliberately, encouraged it even more and allowed the emergence and spread of these disastrous ideas side by side with the awakening of the people in these lands. It is Article 10 of the firman that has somewhat hampered the outbreak of a public disruption and has so far suppressed any disturbances.
It is clear that it was in a small and secret circle in Constantinople that this broken and now stinking addle egg was initially laid and its nest can be found among that small number of persons who were anxious to promote Father Hariton as a bishop. [49]
Desperate to see their candidate a bishop through the mediation of the Exarchate, Father Hariton’s adherents, with his knowledge or perhaps permission — I cannot confirm the latter — started making deals with the discontented in these lands to take another kind of action and demand his appointment by means of a union with the Catholic church; this took place in Constantinople and here, but rather secretly, before Mr[50] Nil was sent here. [51] The sending of Mr Nil to these lands has put an end to the secret and underground actions of the said partisans, but his senseless denunciation and tactless encouragement have seriously shattered the confidence of the population in the Exarchate and have estranged them from it. In the beginning, too, when he still acted on behalf of the Exarchate, he imprudently greatly undermined its influence, which strengthened even more the rumour spread by Hariton’s adherents concerning the agreement[52] and, as he wanted to become the favourite and beloved of the locals, he presented the Exarchate as indifferent and useless for the deliverance of the Macedonian population from the oppression of Graecism; and later he contributed a great deal more to their alienation from it, when he started claiming that the Macedonian Bulgarians have been betrayed by the Exarch and by the other bishops installed for the recovery of their eparchies; and, of course, the mistrustful will easily believe such rumours. It is probably difficult to follow and know whether Mr Nil, before his departure, had any arrangements with some of our people there and whether he had special instructions concerning the movement to which he had given rise; but it is no secret that his refusal to obey the Exarchate’s command to return was the result of the instructions of some of our Orthodox bishops there,[53] and unfortunately even now you can feel similar relations; they speak openly about Father Hariton’s agreement with Mr Nil, and that efforts are being made, they say, in favour of his ordination [and appointment], through the union, to the regions of Seres and Melnik, and for that of Mr Nil to the regions of Salonika, Kukuš-Strumica and Voden. This is how things stood and have been standing in general up to the present day. The particular course of events concerning particular local matters stands like this for the time being. Even though you can say that there is no union in Salonika, or that it has been put on the back-burner in case of necessity, I can also state that if such a demand arises because of the enthusiasm of others after Mr Nil’s return, it can be suppressed if one acts wisely, as matters are in the hands of people on whom we can successfully exert our influence, although you will now see almost everyone inclining towards that spirit, even the Paunčev brothers,[54] who were at first against the movement, but are now thought to be among the proselytes. [55] Only Mr Bubotinov[56] is allegedly Orthodox, and I can assure you of this, for no other reason but sheer interest, and because he is excluded and cast out by the other activists and also by the said community. Kukuš comes at the head of the movement, supported quite strongly by the as yet sleeping Dojran, and Strumica with Maleševo and Voden participate there openly. Following them there limp the Salonika villages and those around Seres, Melnik and Drama. For the time being, anyone looking around might think that he sees nothing but smoke; but this smoke shows the presence of a fire which is starting to burn, because everyone expects the return of Monsignor Nil with fervent impatience, and there is no doubt that the fire will blaze up. The letters of M[onsignor] Nil are full of hope and they are delivered everywhere through the agents of the union who maintain contacts with the surrounding places. In his first letter, written after his arrival in Constantinople, he promised to return in 15 days’ time with the Sultan’s decree. In his second letter he said that, as soon as the new Greek Bishop of Salonika, Joachim, departed for Salonika, he, the Monsi- gnor, would be on the same steamship and arrive here. The last letter which has come with today’s mail is even more encouraging. Everything is ready and prepared, he says, and the letters are written and waiting only to be signed; and, they write, they are also asking for money from here for their return; therefore Dimitri Maleševski[57]has gone this morning to Kukuš to collect the money and send it to them. The leaders of the movement are thrilled. [58] Obviously, Slavejkov was well acquainted with the real situation in Macedonia; he also had original materials from the union’s activists in his hands, and could objectively see both the reasons and the actions, and also assess the consequences for the ‘Bulgarian cause’ in Macedonia. The large scale and the clear platform of the movement left no place for doubt as to the seriousness of the threat to the Exarchate’s position, as a result of which Slavejkov continued his letter to Exarch Anthimus as follows:
Your Beatitude, After everything that I have seen and learnt, without taking into account unfounded rumours, I can frankly say to you that if M[onsignor] Nil returns here with a firman and remains anywhere in these lands, not only will the Poljanin eparchy accept him, but it will be joined by the Strumica and Voden eparchies and by many of the villages around Salonika, Drama, Seres, etc., and moreover, all other Macedo- nian eparchies will be shaken. You must bear in mind that the first to break up will be the Veles eparchy, from which certain person even now are taking not a small part in the tumult. That eparchy, dissatisfied with its bishop, on the one hand, and, on the other, the inhabitants of Veles driven by their characteristic craving for power and aspirations to control southern Macedonia in religious affairs, are supporting that movement, which will later have clearly very different consequences from those by which they are now enticed, but the important thing is that they, too, now add fuel to the flames. The agitation to expand the eparchy through the union is an open Chimera; yet the imaginative inhabitants of Veles, as good speculators, which is obvious, do not let that speculative undertaking slip out of their hands, and while working on it, they seem to spread even more the disastrous idea of salvation through the union among the oppressed population.
The renewed persecution on the part of Greek prelates has greatly helped the spread of the Uniate infection. As they have no Greek population on which they can rely following the splitting off of the Bulgarians, and as they fear more their being joined to the Exarchate, seeing that in this way they will be left without a flock whatsoever, they may be wrong or right in thinking that they will profit more from the Bulgarians joining the union, because they hope that the majority of the population, held back by fear of an alien faith, will not throw themselves into the arms of the union, and that thus, on the one hand, they will have more adherents and followers and, on the other, all restless minds and more active men and patriots, as it were, will go along with the Uniates and, preoccupied with the debates concerning the organization of the new community, will not disturb the rest of their believers that much; and thirdly, and most importantly, they think that in this way the influence of the Exarchate among the population will be paralysed, this being their prime aim, as all their fears are there. Guided by these considerations, they work on the swifter development of this comedy and therefore, while earlier they were indifferent and even rather lenient, and in the case of H[is] Exc[ellency] Midhat Pasha[59] more cautious in their actions, they are now pressing the population more, using the influence of their agent among the local authorities, K. Logadi, politike meemuru [political agent].
It seems to me that the advocates of the agreement have been guided by similar considerations to a certain extent; they wrongly believe that the union will not take large proportions and that only a small number of people will become separated under the union, and that the rest will remain with the Greeks, considering this advantageous to their plan to paralyse the influence of the Exarchate in these places, to discourage them and compel them to accept agreement to their measure. The truth, however, is that they are not working in this way to anything but the sheer detriment of Orthodoxy, as there is no doubt that if there is still any hope in the preservation of Orthodoxy, this hope is in the joining of the Exarchate; if this hope is frustrated, may everyone working in this spirit know that the incorporation of the Macedonian Bulgarians within the Roman Church will be an accomplished fact, not only partially but entirely, and that they will aim to resurrect the Archbishopric of Ohrid, with which they now entice the inhabitants of Ohrid, saying that they, too, like the inhabitants of Skopje, have apparently accepted the idea and will wait patiently until their hopes in the Exarchate are resurrected; if an amendment is not made to Article 10 — farewell, Macedonia! [60]
Slavejkov gives a reasonable assessment of the position of the Greek Patriar- chate towards the union and towards the Exarchate, but what is extremely impor- tant is his testimony that both Ohrid and Skopje were inclined towards the Uniate idea, hoping that the Archbishopric of Ohrid would only be restored in this way, because it had absolutely no chances of being established as an Orthodox church within Turkey side by side with the existence of the Slavic Orthodox Bulgarian Exarchate. This is still another confirmation of the large proportions the Uniate movement took and the threat it posed in late 1873 and early 1874. By Article 10 of the Sultan’s Firman, only the Veles eparchy was given to the Bulgarian Exarchate, while the rest were supposed to vote in a referendum as to whether they wanted to remain under the Greeks or join the Exarchate. In such circumstances, all propaganda machines were employed to the utmost in their mutual struggle in Macedonia. Hence this is what Slavejkov wrote to the Exarch:
The monsignors here are working actively and say that if Mr Nil, owing to some obstacles, fails to return shortly to Salonika, on Easter Day they will invite M[onsignor] Rafail, [61] and intend, in the case of any other setback, to come out personally (the Catholic priests here). The inhabitants of Poljanin and Maleševo have expressed their wish to receive them even now, but those living at Kukuš have agreed to wait until Easter, so that their presence may not upset the general movement. [62]
The struggle between the different propaganda machines was closely followed by the Turkish authorities, and they, too, added their share to the spectrum of repression against the Macedonian population. But in spite of all, the movement flared up. Petko Slavejkov frequently visited the first men of the Macedonian towns and convinced them not to yield to Uniate propaganda. On February 19, 1874, he wrote a second letter to the Exarch from Salonika (with a note added on the next day that he had left for Veles), in which he informed Anthimus in detail concerning the situation in Macedonia, giving very important information on individual activists in the movement. Among other things, Slavejkov wrote:
Your Beatitude,
The Hydra does not control a single place only so that we can defeat it and keep it away from that place, which would be rather easy, but it is active in many places. Therefore I have limited myself to investigating matters and, compelled by the shortage of money, I was about to return yesterday; but I decided to wait and receive at least one letter from Your Beatitude, and see what your opinion concerning the future is; if you would write, please address your letter to Father Averkij [Abercius] Zografski. [63] Here in Salonika there is no work in this regard, or if there was , I hope I have completed it. Following your orders, I did not deem it wise to remove the priest Petar, [64] as we can do more harm than good with such a move. I acted in a quite different way and I think I have achieved better results, as things may subsequently show. The priest Petar remains under our banner, but secretly, until the appropriate moment, and the same applies to Father Averkij, who, duped by Nil, started pressing things indirectly; but when I explained to them how disastrous the movement was for the people’s general interest, they repented. I have reasons to believe Father Averkij’s repentance. Even if I have some doubts about the priest Petar, I am still calm, because his soul is in the hands of Father Averkij, and I can say that there should be no fears if the two of them remain loyal, as Averkij is influential among respected people and the priest Petar among all the ordinary people. Since my arrival the name of Your Beatitude has been mentioned in the chapel. If you deem it necessary to act, as far as Salonika is concerned, there is no other person than Father Averkij; you can write to him. Please bear in mind that, in addition to Nil, it was reverend Natanail[65] who instructed, to a certain extent, Father Averkij to help the Uniates indirectly, with the intention that everything would turn out well; at least this is what I could understand from his words; but I hope that I was able to make this otherwise good old man understand how misled he had been. As for the priest Petar, he maintains contact with the Skopje prelate, and before my arrival he was notified from Constantinople that they had decided to remove him from the church and put Avramij [Abramius] in his place. But I concluded that the priest Petar should not be removed but should be won over, and therefore I acted and am still acting in this spirit, and I recommend the same to Your Beatitude, as this is no time for multiplying our enemies, and even less giving away people who can be helpful to them instead of being helpful to us.
The greatest busybody in the movement in Constantinople is Sarafov. [66] He confounds the hesitant, he reveals the secrets which he steals from the scatter-brained prelates, he has contacts with the main leaders here, i.e. Dimitri Maleševski and the Dojran representative, Nikola G. Ahazarov. Dimitri went to Kukuš and the one who remained here was Nikola, with whom I made close contact. He is a young man, rather disorganized.
The contents of my second letter are fully accurate and the movement is indeed serious and dangerous, but this does not discourage me as I know and feel that the power of conviction with which we can act is much greater than that of our opponents; they will have to go upstream, and we ourselves downstream; only money and work is needed. The eparchies of Strumica, Voden, Poljanin, Drama, Seres and Melnik have to be visited once or twice. It is also necessary to go to Veles, Skopje and Ohrid to remove some prickles there and demand from those communities that they do not lend wings to the unreasonable desires of the aforesaid eparchies, but stand upon their feet and oppose the spread of the union by themselves. Our man in Veles[67] has set up his still to prepare himself delicious mastic brandy in his metropolitanate and has no idea whatsoever of the fire which is burning amidst his neighbours and which will first scorch him.
If you intend to send other clerical personnel, which must be done by every means when M[onsignor] Nil sets out this way, be careful not to send persons who might be attracted to the idea of becoming bishops more easily through the union, because they are dangerous, they could be infected rather easily. Even if you send bishops, do not send such as have not proven themselves in their eparchies, as you cannot have full confidence in them and they can rather easily take the opposite road and cause greater evil.
The best means to prevent the spread of the union now, if you cannot send bishops, is to give hope to the local population that they could appoint repre- sentatives before the local authorities, as the greatest evil in the troubled eparchies is that the representatives are elected by the Greek bishops, which alienates them from us; if we can offer them hope in the blissful future of their aspirations and turn their attention to such actions, we shall take the strongest weapon out of the hands of the Uniate advocates. For they have turned to the union for no other reason than their belief that they could put their own men in the councils more easily through the alien faith.
My last point is that if you cannot send bishops , be careful no to work with any other means on the destruction of the union, as thus you would only upset and weaken your influence in case of a suitable opportunity. Do not listen to many people, and especially not Bubotinov, who has greatly discredited the influence of the Exarchate with his ambition for power. [68] In the period from February 20 to March 4, 1874, Slavejkov was in Veles and Strumica. In his autobiography he later writes that “the discord” was “the greatest and most dangerous” in Veles, adding: “I had the utmost pleasure in reconciling the citizens of Veles, after which I visited some of the surrounding villages.” [69] But he does not mention the resistance he met with in Veles, when, for example, D.P. Karanfilovič rose and roared at him at the general meeting that “nobody invited him, nor had anyone asked him for advice, so he could keep the advice for his own Šopi, as the citizens of Veles knew better than him how they should organize their own general matters”. [70] That the citizens of Veles were among the most awakened people in Macedonia is also confirmed by the Austrian consul Lippich in his letter to Minister Andrássy, in which, among other things, he writes: We should at least bear in mind the situation that Skopje Bulgarians have started considering themselves a section apart from the whole of the nation, distinct from the true Bulgarians, a tendency which is strongly prevalent in the intelligent Veles, from where it is spreading vigorously. [71] The question of “Bulgarianism and Macedonism” in Veles at the time was the object of bitter polemics on the pages of Bulgarian periodicals in Constantinople, and the dispute about the language in Macedonian schools was renewed. [72]
Accordingly, the Uniate movement was only a form which could secure the road towards the objectives of the Macedonian national movement.
Another confirmation of all this is Slavejkov’s letter to the protosyngel of the Exarchate, Archimandrite Josif (Joseph, the subsequent Bulgarian Exarch), writ- ten in Salonika (a day after Slavejkov’s visit to the Veles and Strumica regions), on March 5, 1874.
Petko Slavejkov obviously showed great diplomatic tact towards the movement and patiently strove to undermine the foundations of the people’s aspirations. His letters are a summary of the most essential elements which characterized the movement of the ‘Uniates’ in Macedonia at that moment and connected it directly with the Razlovci Uprising which was prepared and later started as a popular and liberation (not peasant) movement. It was no chance that one of the main proponents of this movement was Dimitar Popgeorgiev Berovski (Maleševski), the ideologist and leader of the Razlovci and Kresna uprisings. When all data are combined, it turns out that the movement was not instigated from outside, but that it was indigenous; it was not chaotic but organized and had a revolution- ary-liberation character. The name of Dimitar Robev from Bitola must also be included among the adherents of the Uniate movement, as he was undoubtedly one of the most respectable and influential Macedonian citizens and tradesmen of the time, a member of the well-known Robev Brothers firm, which also had links and representative offices outside Turkey, in Europe. Hence Slavejkov tried to find the reasons for the movement’s emergence in the influence of foreigners who started to travel throughout Macedonia, especially after the construction of the railway line to Salonika. He writes:
A great contributing factor was and still is that following the proclamation of the schism and the attitude of the Greeks towards the Bulgarians as schismatics, people have started scorning the scarecrow of the alien faith and are becoming insensitive to all nicknames and reproaches for apostasy and utterly indifferent to being called Uniates or Papists.
Another contributing factor has been the scattering of Austrians, Germans and Catholic Slavs along the railway line, who have also propagated it to a certain degree by means of direct communication with the people in the villages and towns; hence the mitigation of religious disturbances among the local population will be rather difficult without certain appeasement. Is it not surprising that even our (brother) Robev, a man from Monastir [Bitola], whom I have met here in Salonika, has become convinced that there is no other salvation than the union?
Slavejkov also discovers one of the reasons in Nil and his role in the Uniate movement in Macedonia, but of particular significance is his acknowledgement of the existence of a Macedonian national ideology and historical consciousness, no matter how small was the number of Macedonian activists who manifested a distinct Macedonian patriotism and respect for their own tongue. He once again confirms, as he did in early 1871 in his journal Makedonija, that the Macedonians do not consider themselves to be Bulgarians but Macedonians who stand much higher than Bulgarians, as they draw their roots from the ancient Macedonians and consider themselves to be direct “descendants of Alexander”. Here it is not important that Slavejkov regards all that as the result of the activity and influence of Serbian and Greek propaganda in Macedonia, as something brought from outside. It is more important for us that he acknowledges the fact of the existence of a Macedonian consciousness, which was expressed through a widespread and organized popular movement at a given historical moment. Slavejkov’s direct testimony deserves to be quoted. He says:
The shrewd and unscrupulous preaching of M[onsignor] Nil, the stupid perse- verance of the Orthodox people here, the schism, the said uninvited (preachers) are the pillars of the movement; but the worst enemy is this: In addition to those few petty ambitious Bulgarians from Macedonia, whose narrow love of their homeland and unreasonable preference for their native tongue have made them work on its predominance, there has recently come the propaganda of the Serbs and Greeks, who, concealing their ulterior motives from the population, imbue them with disastrous ideas: for instance, that they are not Bulgarians but Macedonians, i.e. something higher than the rest of Bulgarians (Alexander’s descendants!), that they can and should be the leaders and champions of the Bulgarian people, because even the Bulgarian hierarchy was and is theirs; with such preaching by foreigners, supported by some of our own foolish men, which has excited the population, they have now managed to spread enough of such ideas to lead them to the disastrous path of separation, and the first fruits of this preaching are: mistrust in the Exarchate and secret counteractions to its striving to unite them in ecclesiastical terms.
Slavejkov is right in pointing out Veles as the centre of these Macedonian actions. He came to know personally the people there and their aspirations. He connected all this with the presence of a Serbian teacher in one section of the town and the incompetence of the Exarchate’s Bishop, but he had to admit that the main culprit was the “ideas” which had taken root among the citizens of Veles, even though the town may have been divided into two parties. It is not accidental that among the Macedonian activists he mentions “The Drandar Sons”; this was a trading firm which had excellent connections not only within Turkey, but also with many European centres, and one of the sons had already issued his own publica- tions (in French), in which he described Macedonia, its situation and future. [73]
Explaining the “disastrous path” of the citizens of Veles, Slavejkov writes:
The nest of this revolting and disastrous idea is at present Veles, which I have left with rather disturbing and sad impressions. The citizens of Veles resemble the type and character of the place where the town is built. Proud, rigid and haughty as the towering stairs which surround them, but likewise fruitless and inaccessible, narrow- minded and short-sighted, like the horizons stretching from their place, and swift-flowing like the waters of the Vardar, when they froth, trying to push forward and force their own ideas, like its waters in the gorges, always divided like the town and always hostile one against another; they have done and will still do great harm as proponents of these ideas. After my arrival in Veles I helped in the removal of the Serbian teacher and the reconciliation between Popov[74] and Kovačev, [75] but the letters I have found here tell me that all the schools in Veles have been closed and that the Serbian teacher has returned from Skopje and wanted to go to Salonika, where the proponents of Serbian propaganda, Drandar’s sons, have arranged for him to be accepted! As ill luck would have it, not only is he not where he should be, butI do not know what to say any more. [76]
Slavejkov’s last letter to Josif from Salonika is not dated but was written shortly after March 5, and by March 9, 1874 at the latest, when he had already returned to Constantinople. Here, too, this missionary and diplomat makes significant conclusions about the movement in Macedonia and the means for its eradication and also about the headstrong inhabitants of Maleševo and Kukuš, who persist- ently defended the Macedonian idea and who were to bear such figures as Dimitar Berovski and Goce Delčev. He admits the efforts he had to go through in order to isolate the people of Kukuš, making personal contacts with the leaders of the movement, even with Dimitar Maleševski and the Dojran teacher, Nikola G. Ahazarov. Slavejkov writes:
For reasons which I had to consider during my actions in that situation, I established very close relations with the Uniate leaders, D. Maleševski and N. Poljanski, which had a purpose of its own; guided by the same reasons, my first task was to destroy the redoubts from outside and leave the Kukuš people alone, who are the main proponents of all this; I can assure you that I have succeeded in this, and Kukuš has remained intact for reasons which I can explain to you only in a conversation because of the great length this may take; hence I cannot describe them in a letter, but I believe that after I present my reasoning, you and the Exarchate in general will approve them.
Here, somewhat as the result, let me say, of my suggestions, but more due to the complications around Monsignor’s arrival, the wings of the Uniates have been weakened considerably, and patience and determination is the predominant idea among the earlier enthusiasts. The leaders of the union last night even started negotiating, but this morning they are again encouraged by the arrival of Hadži Georgi Dramski, a teacher in Prosočen, who has brought some better hopes with him not only from the monsignors but also, as I can feel, from some of our own pious men, who, acting in this spirit, apparently with the purpose of using the course of events to their advantage, and being not very well acquainted with the situation and their position here and to what point they can stretch their arms, have actually stimulated the movement and undermined their own position, helping more their opponents than themselves. This must be taken into account and, if possible, you must make them understand this without considering it a disclosure, because I believe that any intelligent person will know how to asses the situation and will aim to use it to his own advantage, whereas exaggerated zeal produces opposite results; and you know that foolishness in action is not too far from crime. Please make them understand this if you can, so that they can stop acting in this manner; it is not important just to show interest; everyone shows interest in these matters, everyone who has the prosperity of the people on his mind must above all pay attention to not saying anything before men like Kusev, Sarafov and others; the proverb says: “Tell the fool to fart and he will shit”; a similar thing is taking place here. They tell them there is nothing wrong with it and who knows what, and these, in order to help them, as it were, and to show them that they are doing them a favour, would go to much greater lengths than that; once you lose hold of the horse’s mane, you will never stop him by holding his tail. I do not know whether Hadži Georgi has brought any letters, but he has openly said that our bishops have supported and sponsored the union. I really do not know how good and sound this is, but I know it can be devastating for anything that common sense can achieve.
Obviously, the situation with the rumours concerning the agreement between the Exarchate and Patriarchate was significant for the movement as well, as was also the official acceptance of Nil as a Uniate Bishop. The Macedonians actually wanted to make use of the situation and obtain a hierarchy for themselves as well as independent life and development, even under the formal leadership of a Bulgarian. Hence it is not surprising that the Austrian Consul General in Salonika, von Knappitsch, writes on March 23, 1874, to Count Andrássy about the existence of a certain special “committee” in Salonika, something like the true leadership of the movement, while “the Reverend Bishop [Nil] plays not so much the main role of a leader, but rather that of one led, and as far as his so-called adherents are concerned, it is a fairly unconscious and hesitant mass, which is in the hands of a small number of leaders, but which,” the consul assesses, “as matters are standing at this moment, will follow the suggestions of the latter”. [77]
That is why Slavejkov quotes the peasants’ demand that the Uniate Bishop Rafail Dobrev Popov be sent in case Nil is not allowed to come. Popov was the leader of Bulgarian Uniates based in Adrianople, and it did not matter which of the two Bulgarians would come at the head as long as the aim was accomplished. In this connection, Slavejkov writes:
As I hear, Reverend Nil’s hopes for his arrival have been frustrated, as today they are sending mahzars[78] demanding Rafail’s arrival; the mahzars have been signed only by the Kukuš eparchy. The Poljanin representative, who is here, has refused to put the stamps of the villages that have joined him; at least this is what he says to me, but he does not know for sure.
For the time being, only Kukuš is sincerely in favour of the union, as is also Maleševo, which listens to Dimitri, to whom they have entrusted their stamps. I have him nearby and I believe that the last blow can be dealt at the appropriate moment, provided that my absence and information from your city [Constantinople] do not complicate matters later. [79]
Even though Slavejkov had to return to Constantinople, his intensive activity in Macedonia was not without benefits for the Bulgarian Exarchate. It must be noted that these activities were greatly aided by official Russian policies through the Russian Consulate in Salonika, which maintained constant links with the Bulgarian teacher in this city, Mihail G. Bubotinov, [80] against whom the Salonika Community fought so persistently, opposing the activity which he carried out in line with the recommendations of the Bulgarian centre in Constantinople, aimed against any tendencies towards Macedonian independence. [81]
Even Slavejkov’s secret mission to Salonika did not take place without the suggestions of the Russian diplomatic representative in Constantinople, Ignatiev, who in late December 1873 paid a visit to Exarch Anthimus “to be informed on the situation and also to acquaint the Exarch with the information he had received from the Salonika Russian Consulate”. [82] There is no doubt that the rumour concerning an agreement between the Patriarchate and Exarchate at the expense of the Macedonian eparchies was the immediate cause of the eruption of this third union in Macedonia. Of considerable significance were also the actions of Natanail and Hariton in settling their personal problems within the Exarchate hierarchy. But it is no less true that all this was only a precondition for the flaring up of the fire which had its own internal reasons, with a clear Macedonian national perspective and concept, regardless of the modest number of such ideologists and adherents. Bishop Nil was used only as a means to accomplish the basic objective, as he was a Uniate representative of Rome in Turkey, in spite of the fact that the Exarchate itself tried to use precisely his presence there as a Bulgarian. That this movement seriously threatened “the Bulgarian cause in Macedonia” is confirmed by the Consul von Knappitsch, who quotes the opinion expressed by Slavejkov himself before his departure from Salonika that “if the movement in the mixed eparchies is not halted, the Bulgarian population in these eparchies will probably be lost for the Exarchate”. [83]
Likewise, regardless of the use of traditional nomenclature, after Slavejkov’s departure from Salonika, the Gumendže Exarchal Community wrote to the Bulgarian Exarchate on March 10, 1874:
If you think that our eparchy, like the other Macedonian eparchies, is inhabited solely by a few yoghurt and boza[84] makers, whose unification with the Exarchate does not deserve the efforts which it had to make for the accomplishment of that aim, a view expressed by some of the Exarchate’s counsellors, and, moreover, that their rights were in your handsyou are wrongwe are not your acquired property you can sell and bargain with, but a people who demands justice. [85]
The Bulgarian Patriarch Cyril, analysing two of Slavejkov’s letters (sent from Salonika to Exarch Anthimus, one between February 15 and 19, and the other on February 19, 1874) which were by then in private ownership, [86] makes a brief paraphrase of their contents and concludes:
In their letter to the Salonika eparchy representatives, the agents and adherents of the union mentioned settling the “Macedonian question” through the union. In order to take the utmost advantage of the disappointment in the Macedonian eparchies, they reinforced their accusations against the Exarchate which had ap- peared in some Bulgarian newspapers in Constantinople. They indeed spoke about the Macedonian question on a church basis, but this nourished the old separatist tendencies, perhaps not fully in the spirit of Midhat’s plans for the differentiation of a new ethnic territory. As the agents of the union prepared, in 1860, by means of the newspaper B’lgarija, a cultural-national programme for the liberation of the Bulgarian people from the Patriarchate through the establishment of the union, so too they now proposed a clear programme for spiritual and national liberation of Macedonian eparchies through the union. The current political language of the Macedonian activists of the time already spoke of ‘a Macedonian movement’, which implied independent church liberation. Here there is a moment, however, of significant political character: separatism was expanded from a church to a broader national basis. [87]
6. Of special significance in all these documents is the leading role of Dimitar Popgeorgiev Berovski (Makedonski, Maleševski). A student in Odessa and Belgrade, a participant in the 1862 action in Belgrade against the Turks, receiving military training in a military academy, but also politically mature in his permanent contacts with Macedonian expatriates in Russia and Serbia, Berovski also emerged as the main inspirer and organizer of this third union in Macedonia, a movement which most strongly emphasized the independent Macedonian component. True, he also maintained links with representatives of Serbian propaganda dating from the time of his stay in Belgrade, but there is also no doubt that Berovski did all this in a calculated spirit, and he did the same in his contacts with Russian and Bulgarian representatives, trying to look for and find paths for his ideas. His correspondence with Stefan Verković, a Serbian secret agent in Macedonia, is an opportunity for us to get a clearer idea of this.
Following his return to his native Berovo, Dimitar took part in a large number of activities. Stefan Verković informs the Serbian government:
In B[erovo] I saw D. M[akedonski], [88] for whom I sent a special man to B. to bring him to me. He comports himself honourably and well, and it is much better and more useful for our cause that he is here rather than staying there. He has been so successful in using his abilities that he has succeeded in founding a party, with which after a lot of pain and effort, he ousted the Graecophiles not only from the Council, but also from the administration in community matters, who together with the Strumica Bishop oppressed and pillaged the poor in that district, whom the people from the popular party immediately took in their own hands, whose head he himself is. He is also a member of the Council, and the popular party does not take any action without his knowledge and consent. His influence begins to spread slowly in neighbouring districts, i.e. those of Pijanec, Radoviš and Strumica. [89]
Much earlier we learn that Verković persuaded Dimitar Popgeorgiev Makedon- ski to cooperate with him. In one of his letters (September 3, 1872), [90] he notifies the responsible people in Belgrade of his tour of Macedonia, writing:
From Štip, through Radoviš, in one day I came to Novo Selo, which lies halfway between the towns of Strumica and Petrič. It was on the eve of the feast of the Virgin Mary. Several years ago a Bulgarian popular school was instituted in the said village, and the church service is held in Slavonic. A teacher in the said village is a native of Maleševo, born at the village of Berovo, a very diligent and honest man; I met him and established communication with him. He will represent our interests in the Strumica, Petrič and Maleševo areas. [91]
Verković points out that in these three districts (nahiyes), unlike those of Štip, Prilep and Bitola, “courage and pride has not been quenched”, adding:
There is not a single house in the said three nahiyes without weapons. Despite their great impoverishment due to the excessive taxes — so that there is not even enough bread in the house — in spite of all that, there is not a single house which does not keep at least a few cartridge belts in its bags. Reliable people have told me that they are eagerly waiting for Serbia to start a war against Turkey and cross the border with its army. As soon as this happens, they say that the aforesaid three nahiyes will rise en masse against the Turks. The same applies to that of Nevrokop. [92]
This hope for assistance from Serbia was both natural and understandable in view of the fact that it was the only Slavic and Orthodox state in the neighbour- hood, in whose liberation Macedonians had also played part. Therefore Verković writes:
Everyone thinks that the sun will shine from A. [Serbia], and as far as the B[ulgarian] secret committees in Romania are concerned, the ordinary people in these regions do not even know that they exist at all. [93] Verković surely acted with this in mind and tried to convince Dimitar of the same:
I persuaded him to be cautious against the harmful aspirations of the Secret B[ulgarian] C[ommittee] in Romania, with many ill consequences for the B[ulgarian] people. He accepted my observations and remarks as very appropriate, convincing me that he would pay great attention and make efforts to protect the people of the surrounding areas from the harmful influence of the agents and apostles of Romanian committees who roam on Bul[garian] territory aiming to beguile the Bul[garian] people, putting them on the wrong track. He believes that the best and safest means for the protection of these regions from the influence of those committees would be if several young people from these regions were sent to A. [Serbia] for education, as, he says, no one could better persuade the people from these Mac[edonian] regions of the sincerity, righteousness and fidelity of Ser[bian] intentions than their own children. [94]
7. The circumstances described above were the cause for the Herzegovina Upris- ing and the Serbo-Turkish War, which stirred up many of the hidden hopes of the Macedonian people. The Maleševo region had already shown revolutionary ten- dencies. The clash between Dimitar Berovski and the Greek Metropolitan Hiero- theus (Jerotej) in Strumica, and the expulsion of the latter from Berovo in 1874, led to many Turkish brutalities in the Maleševo region, which forced Berovski to flee first to Constantinople and from there to Salonika, where he lived illegally and made preparations for a popular liberation insurrection. Here is what he wrote somewhat later:
Here [in Salonika] I had the opportunity of receiving detailed information on the actions of the Herzegovina Uprising. The circumstances, too, helped me in following all the movements of Turkish troops on land and sea when they arrived and left by railway via Mitrovica to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The strongest movement of troops for Bosnia and Herzegovina could be seen towards the end of 1875 and beginning of 1876. [95]
The Razlovci Uprising is often described as a peasant social uprising or rebellion. Yet, regardless of whether it had direct links, and to what degree, with the rebels in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and regardless of whether Serbia had any influence in its outbreak, it is a fact that it was an organized Macedonian national liberation uprising, which was not a reflection of the April Uprising in Bulgaria, but a link in the chain of popular resistance by the subjugated peoples in this part of Turkey. Can we talk of any coordination between these actions at all? Here is the testimony of the then still young Teodosija Gologanov, who, after completing the course of education at the Greek grammar school, was sent as a protosyngel to Herzegovina, where he learnt the language and became acquainted with the situation:
Two years later an uprising started in Herzegovina; Montenegrin and Serbian newspapers described the heroic acts of the Bulgarian rebels around Kazanl’k in an exaggerated manner. The Herzegovina voivodes, most of them priests, confided to me some of their plans, suggesting that I set off for Macedonia and Bulgaria, meet the rebels and let them know of the plans. Young as I was, 23-24 years of age, excited with passionate fire and with yet undeveloped spiritual forces, I set off for Macedonia via the Adriatic and the Aegean and went to Salonika, and from there to Seres. The Turkish authorities caught me immediately and threw me into jail[96]
Even Dimitar Berovski himself tells us that the assessment of the general political situation in European Turkey and the mood among the Macedonian population encouraged him to start the uprising:
The news of the Herzegovina actions, the movement of the Turkish troops, and my own position became equally unbearable for me. Impatience grew in me with each day passing, and in the month of December 1875 I decided to organize an uprising in Macedonia, which would help the Herzegovina Uprising by holding a part of the Turkish troops her[97]
Among other things, he “gave a picture of an uncrowned lion to Slavka Karaivanova and her mother Nedela to embroider a flag on a golden silk ground, with the lion in red silk and the inscription Macedonia” which was to be “a secret to everyone”. [98]
He assured his confidants that “the time has come to free ourselves from the Turkish yoke and [that] our uprising will be successful and aided from where it should be”[99]
Hence it is not surprising that a witness of these events writes that “the priest Stojan and D. Berovski jumped on their horses, unfurled their flag and set off for the Maleševo region”, [100] and Dimitar’s brother, Kostandija Popgeorgiev, cried to the Turks:
We have come to gather the peasants and read them a letter which was sent to us from Russia, and after we have read it we shall return the weapons to you and we shall go on to read it in the Pehčevo müdürlÕk [council] as we have in Razlovci. [101] Russian archives should offer a clearer picture of Berovski’s links with Russia (probably via the Russian Consulate General in Salonika), but even the available facts that in August and September 1876 statements were made through the Russian Consul General in Salonika[102] show that such links may have existed, especially bearing in mind that he was also educated in Odessa and such channels were not unknown to him.
It is very important that fifteen Maleševo rebels — “leaders” — later, on November 24, 1878, also gave a written statement (on behalf of the Maleševo population) to the British Consul General in Salonika (when he visited Gorna Džumaja) which clearly expressed the historical and national consciousness of the rebels and the character of the uprising. They wrote of “good hopes for us, Macedonians, the inhabitants of the Maleševo district”, and mentioning their cables sent in 1874 to the British representative in Constantinople, continued:
The endless murders, imprisonment, unjustified punishment, the oppression of our religious conscience, the molestation of our wives, daughters and sisters, was something like a habit for the satisfaction of the Turk! We could not confide this secret and pain on our consciousness except to the British consul in Salonika; his altruistic advice was our last hope giving us courage to fill the hükümets with countless applications and protests, but our gratification has always been retaliation as ungrateful kaurins; therefore in 1876, on May 8, we were impelled to protest before the whole world with arms in our hands to attract the attention of the Turkish government, hoping that they would ask themselves what evil had made us so desperate and offer our last drop of blood as a sacrifice before the European altar!!!
This protest of ours did not attract the attention of the Turkish government with the intention of satisfying us, but instead it sent twelve thousand men of the regular army and many bashibazouks who committed what the human conscience cannot express in words, even when it refers to the male sex, too! Massacres were a commonplace.
The signatories, relying on the Macedonian ideology prevalent at the time of their direct descent from the ancient Macedonians, stated:
Will our Macedonian blood, the blood we have resolved in our distress to shed, this blood of that Macedonia which was mercilessly condemned and despised two thousand years ago, put an end, under the present European ruling nations, to the revenge for the great and former glory!!! Asiatic peoples, in keeping with their old traditions, may perhaps wish the eradication of the name Macedonia in the world! But does enlightened Europe have any reasons for this and has it not yet borne a saviour to deliver us from the sin of our forefathers? [103]
From what has been said above, it is clear that the Razlovci Uprising had both a Macedonian and a national liberation character. Moreover, it was not of minor proportions, even though neighbouring historiographers have so far paid little attention to it.
On the other hand, it is important that there were contacts with the European great powers of the time, and also with neighbouring Serbia, although these have still not been sufficiently studied. The statement that “the rebel Mićo Ljubibratić has made a deal in Belgrade that an uprising be started in Macedonia as soon as the same happens in Herzegovina” [104] corresponds with Teodosija Gologanov’s testimony, and we must also bear in mind Dimitar Berovski’s remark that the uprising was to be “aided from where it should be”.
We still do not know much about that “popular party” in Salonika mentioned by Verković or about the “secret revolutionary committee which maintained links with the leaders of the Maleševo revolutionary movement”, [105] or about that “circle” which, among others, included “Kostandija, the priest Ivan and the priest Aleksija Popgeorgiev, Stojan Cocov, Goge Širtov, the priest Petar Solunski, grandmother Nedela and her daughter Stanislava Karaivanova and the Evrov brothers”. [106]
Stefan Verković is likely to have been informed of these organizations, and here is what Dimitar Popgeorgiev Berovski wrote to him on February 19, 1876, from Salonika:
As it seems, we shall have to leave our lawsuits before the court pending, and we believe they are more likely to be finally resolved in Maleševo. [107]
8. It is clear that the Uniate idea among the Macedonians, and even that of Dimitar Popgeorgiev Berovski, was not of a religious, but primarily of a national char- acter. Hence the clash between the citizens of Veles concerning their teachers and the joining of the Uniate movement should be seen in this context. Petko Račev Slavejkov himself admitted:
On my recommendation, in Veles they hired N. Popovič against whom later part of the population rose, favouring Josif Kovačev. [108] Slavejkov himself felt the bitterness of this clash during his visit to Veles, and the Veles-Strumica Bishop, Damaskin, wrote on July 6, 1875, to Dr Stojan Čomakov: “May someone from the Exarchate come here to learn the truth, but if he is like Slavejkov or can be bribed, he will bring poison instead of balm.” [109]
And indeed, by that time the commotion in Macedonia was clearly visible. The Constantinopolitan newspaper Den (Day) once again wrote that the question of “Bulgarianism and Macedonism” [110] had appeared afresh “in reality”, and that “some ideas preached in those areas by some of our Bulgarian compatriots” such as Kuzman Šapkarev, were spreading there, and also wrote that “rare are the people who oppose him, who scold him”. [111] After the reply of a citizen of Ohrid that “Mr Šapkarev wants nothing else except that the basic school books which are sent into our lands be written in the local dialect, because the children will thus understand them more easily and will not waste as much time as they are doing now with Baštin Jazik (Father Tongue) and other similar books”, the editors of Den reacted sharply and uncompromisingly:
Is there any other worse thought that Mr Šapkarev could have? He knows where he is poking. Today a primer, tomorrow other textbooks and next you’ll see him producing and devising a history of the Macedonian people, etc. etc. [112]
Such was the degree of development of Macedonian national consciousness at the time of the Razlovci Uprising. It was reflected in this achievement of the people at Razlovci and the surrounding area. It is also important that Dimitar Popgeorgiev Berovski’s detachment continued to move through the villages and mountains until the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878), when it received messages from Iljo Maleševski and took active part in protecting the Pijanec region. There it estab- lished and maintained popular authority for two whole months, a kind of a free republic which was crushed only after the decisions of San Stefano and Berlin. It was Berovski once again who made all the necessary preparations and probes and started the Kresna Uprising, which had a clearly defined Macedonian national liberation character, although the young Bulgarian state (not without the help of the Russian occupation authorities) managed to smash this popular effort. Mace- donia remained under the authority of the sultans, striving, within the framework offered by the international acts of Constantinople and Berlin, to win its autonomy and gain cultural and national affirmation. The Macedonian national pro- gramme was already fully defined and now included the concept of Macedonian statehood and political freedom.
- ↑ Krste P. Misirkov, as far as it is known so far, gave his first public address on December 18, 1897, before the Ethnographic Department of the Imperial Russian Geographic Society in St Petersburg. His paper was immediately printed in the mouthpiece of the Society, Ó i vaò st ar i na, VII, 3 and 4, SPb., 482-485. But it was only in his book Za makedoncki t e r abot i (Sofia, 1903) that he largely succeeded in presenting the complex problem of Macedonian national development. Later, in the pages of his journal Vardar (Odessa, 1905), in Makedonskíà gol osï (Makedonski gl as) (Petrograd, 1913-1914) and later in the Sofia newspapers I l i ndenÅ, 20 ž l i à, P i r i nï and Mi rï (1922-1925), he developed and elaborated his views on the historical evolution and prospects of the Macedonian people. For more details see: D-r Blaže Ristovski , Krst e P . Mi si rkov (1874-1926). P ri l og kon proučuvawet o na r azvi t okot na makedonskat a naci onal na mi sl a, Skopje, 1966, 137- 835; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija. P r i l ozi za r azvi - t okot na makedonskat a kul t ur no-naci onal na mi sl a, áá, Skopje, 1983, 197-438; D-r Bl až e Ri s t ovs ki , Kr st e Mi si r kov (1874-1926), Bi t ol a, 1986; Kr st e P . Mi si r kov, Odbrani st r a- ni ci . Pri redi l Blaže Ristovski , Misla, 1991.
- ↑ Dimitrija D. Čupovski gave his earliest public address on this subject at the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society in St Petersburg in 1902, but he published his first articles in the pages of the Russian press (Gr až dani nï , S l avòni nï ) and especially in the mouthpiece of the Macedonian colony in Petrograd, Makedonskíà gol osï (Makedonski gl as) in 1912-1914, and also later in the newspapers Novaò Ó i znÅ and Vol ò nar oda (1917). For more details see: 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 P et r ogr ad. Pr 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, á-áá, S kopje, 1979.
- ↑ Blaže Ristovski , Nace D. Di mov (1876-1916), MANU, Skopje, 1973. Nace Dimov’s paper to the St Petersburg Slavonic Charitable Society was read on March 4, 1913, and was published the same year as a separate booklet: N.D. Di movï , á. I st or i českíà očer kï Makedoníi i makedonski hï sl avònï . áá. P r i či nì vozni knoveníò čet ni českago dvi ž eníò vï Makedoníi . ááá. P ol i - t i českíà obzorï Makedoníi i makedoncevï , S P b, 1913.
- ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Gjor gi ja M. P ul evski i negovi t e kni š ki ,,S amovi l a Makedonska“ i ,,Makedonska pesnar ka“, I F , Skopje, 1973; Gjor gi ja M. P ul evski , Odbrani st r ani ci . Re da k- ci ja, pr edgovor i zabel eš ki d-r Blaže Ristovski , Skopje, 1974; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Projavi i prof i l i od makedonskat a l i t er at ur na i st or i ja, áá, Skopje, 1982, 9-29; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, á, 302-393; D-r Bl až e Ri s t ovs ki , Makedonski ot f ol kl or i naci onal nat a svest , á, Skopje, 1987, 43-59.
- ↑ Angel ï Di nevï , Makedonski t õ sl avòni , S of i ò, 1938; Angel ï Di nevï , Et nogr af skat a i deò na makedonski t õ sl avòni , S of i ò, 1944; Angel ï Di nevï , I l i ndenskat a epopeò (r azvoò na maked. osvobodi t el no dvi ž eni e), á, S of i ò, 1945. Dinev’s periodical Makedonski vest i (1935-1936) is of special significance. See also: D-r Vl adi mi r Kar t ov, Angel Di nev — ž i vot i del o, Skopje, 1983.
- ↑ [Vasi l I vanovski ], I dei t õ i zadači t õ na makedonskot o pr ogr esi vno dvi ž eni e vï Bï l - gar i ò, Bi bl i ot eka ,,Makedonsko zname“, º 1, Sof i ò, 1933; Bi st r i š ki [Vasil Ivanovski’s pseudonym], ,,Zaë o ni e makedonci t e sme ot del na naci ò?“, Tr udova Makedoni ò, á, 6, Det r oi t , Dekemvr i 1934, 4-5; Bi st r i š ki , op. cit., in: Čet vï r t i ò kongr es na Makedonski ò Nar oden Sïžz v Ameri ka. Rezol žci i , I zl oženiò, Det r oi t , Mi č., 1934, 42-55; Bi st r i š ki , op. cit., in: Makedonski gl as, br . 8-9, Buenos Aàr es, 1936; [V. I vanovski ], Makedonski ò vï pros v mi nal ot o i sega. Makedonskat a naci ò i makedonskot o naci onal no sï znani e, r akopi s od Cent r al ni ot zat vor vo S kopje (manuscript from the Skopje Central Prison, 1942-1943), Ar hi v na Makedoni ja, S kopje, i nv. br . 8773.
- ↑ N.P., ,,Za pravilnije shvatanje naše prošlosti“, Kultura, II, 7, Zagreb, 15.XI.1937, 1; K. Ri st ovi ć, ,,Seq ački pokr et Bogomi l a u sr edwem veku“, Nar odna či t anka i z nauke i kwi ž evnost i , br . 7, Beogr ad, 1939, 20-24; K. Racin, ,,Razvitak i značaj jedne nove naše književnosti, Radnički tjednik, I, 23, Zagreb, 25.X.1940, 5-6. See also: Kočo Raci n, St i hovi i proza. Vt or o i zdani e. Ur edi l D-r Al eksandar Spasov, S kopje, 1961, 131-255; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kočo Raci n. I st or i sko-l i t er at ur ni i st r až uvawa. P r i l ozi za r azvi t okot na makedonskat a kul - t ur no-naci onal na mi sl a, Skopje, 1983.
- ↑ Kost a Vesel i novï , Naci onal no-porobeni nar odi i naci onal ni mal ci nst va (Naučno-soci - ol ogi čenï et ž dï ), Naci onal na-naučna bi bl i ot eka ,,Kï l bo“ º 1, S of i ò, 1938; Kost a Ve- sel i novï , Vï zr až danet o na Makedoni ò i I l i ndenskot o vï zst ani e, Naci onal na-naučna bi bl i ot eka ,,Kï l bo“ º 2, S of i ò, 1939; Kost a Vesel i novï , Bor ci za nar odna svoboda Hr . Bot evï , Goce Del čevï , Lž benï Kar avel ovï i Dž uzepe Gar i bal di , Naci onal na-naučna bi bl i ot eka ,,Kï l bo“ º 3, Sof i ò, 1940. His numerous articles in various Macedonian and Bulgar- ian newspapers and journals during the decade preceding the War (1931-1941) are of particular importance.
- ↑ Ant on P opov, I zbrani pr oi zvedeni ò. P odbor i pr edgovor Mi hai l Smat r akal ev, Sof i ò, 1960; Ant on P opov, ,,P ost oi l i makedonska nacija“, P irinski glas, áá, 20, Skopje, 20.oe áá.1950, 4; Ant on P opov, ,,Od ,Bur a nad r odi nat a‘ do ,Čudna e Makedoni ja‘“, S ovre- menost , HHHáoe , 1-2, Skopje, 1984, 11-36; Ant on P opov, Odbrani t vorbi . Pri redi l Gane Todor ovski , Skopje, 1985; Ant on P opov, Odbrani t vorbi . Pri redi l Vasi l Tocinovski , Mi sl a, 1994.
- ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, á, 119-280.
- ↑ The appearance of the first printed books in modern Macedonian in 1814 is taken only as the formal date of its commencement, as this process became apparent earlier, in the 18th century (D-r Bl až e Ri s t ovs ki , op. cit., á, 155-162 and 188-189).
- ↑ D-r Dančo Zogr af ski , Razvi t okot na kapi t al i st i čki t e el ement i vo Makedoni ja za vr eme na t ur skot o vl adeewe, S kopje, 1967.
- ↑ Blaže Ristovski , ,,Uni jat st vot o vo Makedoni ja“, Razgl edi , áá/ááá, 9, Skopje, 1960, 908-936; áá/ááá, 10, 1960, 1005-1029; ááá/ááá, 1, 1960, 72-90; ááá/ááá, 2, 1960, 158-189.
- ↑ V.A. DÅakov, D.F . Mar kov, A.S. Mì l Åni kov, ,,Nekot or ì e uzl ovì e met odol ogi česki e vo- pr osì i st or i i mi r ovoà sl avi st i ki “, in: I st or i ò, kul Åt ur a, æt nogr af i ò i f ol Åkl or sl avònski h nar odov. oe ááá mež dunar odnì à sï ezd sl avi st ov, Zagr eb-Lž bl òna, S ent òbr Å 1978 g. Dokl adì sovet skoà del egaci i , Moskva, 1978, 473.
- ↑ Blaže Koneski , ,,Ki r i l P ejči novi ć“, introduction to: Kiri l Pejči novi ć, Sobrani t ekst ovi. P r i r edi l Blaže Koneski , Skopje, 1974, 12.
- ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, á, 57-74; D-r Al eksandar Mat kovski , Gr bovi t e na Makedoni ja (Pr i l og kon makedonskat a her al di ka), S kopje, 1970, 46-195; Božidar Finka, ,,Makedonsko ime u starijoj hrvatskoj kajkavskoj književnosti“, Makedonski jazi k, HHHáá-HHHááá, 1981-1982. P osvet eno na akademi k Blaže Koneski po povod 60- godi š ni nat a, Skopje, 1982, 765-767.
- ↑ Očer kï put eš est víò Evr opeàskoà Tur cíà (sï kar t ož okr est nost eà Ohr i dskago i Pr espanskago ozer ï ) Vi kt ora Gr i gorovi ča. I zdaníe vt or oe, Moskva, 1877, 139. 357 Dokument i za bor bat a na makedonski ot narod za samost ojnost i za naci onal na dr ž ava, á, Skopje, 1981, 182.
- ↑ Dokument i za bor bat a na makedonski ot narod za samost ojnost i za naci onal na dr ž ava, á, Skopje, 1981, 182.
- ↑ Ibid., 204
- ↑ D-r Ri st o Kant ar xi ev, Makedonskot o pr er odbensko uči l i š t e, Skopje, 1965, 50-55.
- ↑ J.N., ,,I z Vel esa (U Makedoni ji )“, S r bski dnevni k, br . 44, Novi S ad, 1858 — b.: Br ani sl av Vr aneš evi ć, ,,Vojvogjanska javnost o š kol st vu Vel esa i Š t i pa u doba pr epor oda makedon- skog nar oda“, in: Š kol st vot o, prosvet at a i kul t ur at a vo Makedoni ja vo vr emet o na prer odbat a. Mat er i jal i od si mpozi umot održ an vo Ti t ov Vel es i Š t i p od 22 do 24.Háá.1977, MANU, S kopje, 1979, 320.
- ↑ Makedoníò, á, 12, C ar egr adï , 18.áá.1867.
- ↑ Si mon Dr akul , ,,Za naš i ot pr v pr er odbenski učebni kar “, S ovr emenost , HHHá, 6, S kopje, 1982, 57-71.
- ↑ P r of . H. P ol enakovi ć, ,,Nekol ku i st or i sko-kni ž evni pr i l oga. 3) I zvor ot na Tabl i ca per vaja od Jor dana Haxi Konst ant i nov (Xi not )“, Nov den, áoe , 6, S kopje, 1948, 49-50; S i mo Ml adenovski , ,,Uči t el ot Kamče Nakov P op-Angel ov i negovat a pr osvet i t el ska dejnost vo s. Vat aš a, Ti kveš ko“, in: Š kol st vot o, pr osvet at a i kul t ur at a vo Makedoni ja ¼, 453-463.
- ↑ Blaže Koneski , Makedonski ot jazi k vo r azvojot na sl ovenski t e l i t er at ur ni jazi ci , Skopje, 1968, 17. For these tendencies see also: Nikša Stančić, Hrvatska nacionalna ideologija preporodnog pokreta u Dalmaciji (Mihovil Pavlinović i njegov krug do 1869), Zagreb, 1980, 91-119; Špiro Kulušić, O etnogenezi Crnogoraca, Titograd, 1980; Savo Brković, O postanku i razvoju crnogorske nacije, Titograd, 1974.
- ↑ Blaže Koneski , Kon makedonskat a pr er odba. Makedonski t e učebni ci od 19 vek. Vt or o i zdani e, S kopje, 1959, 26-43.
- ↑ Bïl garski kni ži ci, á, 1, C ar i gr adÅ–Gal at a, 1858, 35-40.
- ↑ K.P . Mi si r kov, Za makedoncki t e r abot i , S of i ò, 1903, 132-145.
- ↑ Makedonski pr avopi s i zr abot en od Komi si jat a za jazi k i pr avopi s pri Mi ni st er st vot o za nar odna prosvet a, Skopje, 1945; Blaže Koneski , Gr amat i ka na makedonski ot l i t er a- t uren j azik, á, S kopje, 1952, 32-71.
- ↑ Blaže Ristovski , ,,Di mi t ar Vasi l ev Makedonski (1847-1898)“, Razgl edi , á/ááá, 1, 1958, 69-83; Dr agi St ef ani ja, ,,Okol u akt i vnost a na Di mi t ar Vasi l ev Makedonski vo Makedoni ja (1868-70) i negovi ot jazi k“, Li t er at ur en zbor, Hoe áá, 6, S kopje, 1970, 10-20; Blaže Koneski , ,,Eden učebni k od Di mi t ar Makedonski “, Nova Makedoni ja, Hááá, 4083, 11.H.1957, 8.
- ↑ Makedoníò, á, 12, C ar i gr adï , 18.áá.1867, 4; á, 13, 25.áá.1867, 2; á, 50, 11.Há.1867, 3; áá, 8, 20.á.1868; Har al ampi e P ol enakovi ć, ,,K.A. Š apkar ev za svoi t e učebni ci “, Godi š en zbor ni k na F i l o- zof ski ot f akul t et na Uni ver zi t et ot vo S kopje, Hoe , Skopje, 1963, 320, zab. 4; Kuzman Š apkar ev, Za vï zr až danet o na bï l gar ë i nat a v Makedoni ò. Nei zdadeni zapi ski i pi sma. P r edgovor P et ï r Di nekov, sï st avi t el st vo i r edakci ò I l i ò Todor ov [i ] Ni kol aà Ó ečev, S of i ò, 1984, 213; Gr i gor P ï r l i čev, I zbrani pr oi zvedeni ò, S of i ò, 1980, 393.
- ↑ Blaže Koneski , Kon makedonskat a pr er odba, 44-86.
- ↑ Blaže Ristovski , ,,Veni jami n Mačukovski vo makedonski ot kul t ur no-naci onal en r azvi - t ok“, in: Š kol st vot o, pr osvet at a i kul t ur at a vo Makedoni ja ¼, 569-603.
- ↑ See note 343; Blaže Koneski , Kon makedonskat a pr er odba, 87-97.
- ↑ Ivan Dorovsky, ,,K nekterym otázkám balkanského literárního procesu na počétku 19. století“, Sbornik praci filozofickí fakulty Brnenskí university, D 23-24, Brno, 1977, 123-126.
- ↑ Vukova prepi ska, á, Beogr ad, 1909, 212. Little was known at the time not only about Macedonia, but also about Bulgaria, referred to solely as “a region lying between the Danube and the Balkan Mountains” (I .S. Dost òn, ,,Naci onal Åno-osvobodi t el Ånoe dvi ž eni e ž ž nì h sl avòn i r usskaò obë est vennaò mì sl Å per voà čet ver t i HáH v.“, in: I st or i ò, kul Åt ur a, æt nogr af i ò i f ol Åkl or sl avònski h nar odov. oe ááá Mež dunar odnì à sï ezd sl avi st ov, Zagr eb–Lž bl òna, S ent òbr Å 1978 g. Dokl adì sovet skoà del egaci i , Moskva, 1978, 174).
- ↑ Blaže Koneski , Kon makedonskat a prer odba, 49-50. This was actually the stage when “a centrifugal national synthesis of the national language, their history, folklore and ethnographic characteristics of national life, etc.” was carried out (S.V. Ni kol Åski à, ,,O nekot or ì h zadačah i ssl edovani ò l i t er at ur nar odov Cent r al Ånoà i Æ go-Vost očnoà Evr opì v æpohu f or mi - r ovani ò nac i à “, in: Kompl eksnì e probl emì nar odov Cent r al Ånoà i Æ go-Vost očnoà Evr opì . I t ogi i per spekt i vì i ssl edovani à, Moskva, 1979, 115).
- ↑ Blaže Koneski , Kon makedonskat a pr er odba, 71
- ↑ Ibid., 67. Of great significance here was the emergence of the strict ethno-cultural opposition we–you. See also: A.S. Mì l Åni kov, ,,K voprosu o f or mi r ovani i naci onal Ånogo samosoznani ò v per i od skl adì vani ò naci à v Cent r al Ånoà i Æ go-Vost očnoà Evr ope“, in: For mi r ovani e naci à v Cent r al Ånoà i Æ go-Vost očnoà Evr ope, Moskva, 1981, 240-441., and for more details concerning this problem see: A.S. Mì l Åni kov, V.I . F r eàdzon, ,,F or mi r ovani e naci à v Cen- t r al Ånoà i Æ go-Vost očnoà Evr ope v Hoe ááá-HáH vekah“, Voprosì i st or i i , º 8, Moskva, 1987, 60-78. On the understanding of the name ‘Bulgarian’ in the 1840s see: Revue des Deux Mondes, 2, Paris, 1842, 890-891; Marco Dogo, ,,Risveglio nazionale e questione della lingua nei Balcani: la generazione tormentata dei separatisti macedoni“, Quaderni Giuliani di Storia, 1, Trieste, 1984, 12.
- ↑ ,,Makedonskíàt ï và pr osï “, Makedoníò, oe , 3, 18.á.1871, 2.
- ↑ Miroslav Hroch, ,,Oblikovanje modernih nacija i nacionalni pokret 19. stoljeća“, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, XI, 1(29), Zagreb, 1979, 27.
- ↑ Miroslav Hroch, ,,ćvodem“, Acta Universitatis Carolinae — Philosophica et historica, 5, 1976. Studia Historica, XV: ćloha historického povedomí v 19. století, Praha, 1976, 7-14.
- ↑ Blaže Ristovski , ,,Makedonskat a opš t est vena mi sl a vo pr vi ot per i od na naci onal nat a pr er odba (vo kor el aci ja so r azvi t okot na sl avi st i kat a i na opš t est venat a mi sl a kaj sosedni t e sl ovenski nar odi )“, in: Ref er at i na makedonski t e sl avi st i za áH megjunar oden sl avi st i čki kongres vo Ki ev, Skopje, 1983, 155-159; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, á, 204-210.
- ↑ 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 ááá, 1, S of i ò, 1989, 68.
- ↑ Dr Slavko Dimevski’s ‘Dve pi sma na P et ko Račev Sl avejkov za makedoni zmot ’ (Two Letters by Petko Račev Slavejkov on Macedonism) (Razgl edi , XIV, 5, Skopje, 1972, 557-566) are rendered incorrectly and cannot be used for scholarly purposes.
- ↑ There was no Ohrid vilayet; this is an error and the reference is clearly to the Adrianople (Odrin) vilayet.
- ↑ Judging from the way it is written, it is clear that the word Bulgarian was added later, making this part of the manuscript rather obscure.
- ↑ This is a reference to Natanail (Nathaniel) Kučeviški, Metropolitan of Ohrid.
- ↑ The priest Hariton (Chariton) Angelov Karpuzov (from the village of Libjahovo, Nevrokop region; Boris Sarafov’s grandfather) emerged as one of the chief leaders of the population from the whole of eastern Macedonia. As the president of the Nevrokop Exarchal Community (1871-1873), he was proposed by the people as Metropolitan of Nevrokop, but the Bulgarian Exarchate refused to accept him and he lost even his presidential post. Hariton appeared as one of the most decisive advocates of the union as a means for resolving the ‘Macedonian question’.
- ↑ The title Mister and its prefix Mr ( Gospodin and G.) are often used with the names of church dignitaries in Slavonic ecclesiastical forms of address (translator’s note).
- ↑ The Uniate Bishop Nil (Nilus) Izvorov was a Bulgarian, a former Exarchate prelate, who was used by the Macedonian Uniates as a means for the institution of a Macedonian spiritual-national hierarchy.
- ↑ This is a reference to the agreement between the Bulgarian Exarchate and Constantinopolitan Patriarchate concerning the eparchies in Macedonia.
- ↑ This is a reference to Natanail (Nathaniel) of Ohrid and Dorotej (Dorotheus) of Skopje.
- ↑ Dimitar and Nikola Paunčev from Ohrid were prominent activists in Salonika, and the former was also the president of the Salonika Exarchal Community and belonged to the ‘circle’ of ‘Macedonists’.
- ↑ The newly converted.
- ↑ Mihail G. Bubotinov (a Bulgarian from Sofia) was the Exarchate representative in Salonika as a teacher; he was also an associate of the Russian Consul General in this city and an outspoken opponent of the Macedonian national movement, and accordingly, of the union.
- ↑ Slavejkov’s letters are a confirmation that Dimitar Popgeorgiev Berovski was one of the main leaders of the ‘third’ Uniate movement in Macedonia. At the time he was in Salonika clandestinely, making the preparations for the Razlovci Uprising. On March 24, 1875, he wrote the following to Stefan Verković from Salonika: “I am here, but as our imprisoned men are still not set free, I am compelled to enjoy the general justice in a hidden shelter, i.e. not free. We are not losing hope that things will one day be better for us as well, but now the greatest evil is in Maleševo, which is by no means a result of the Exarchate’s heedlessness and is yet to spread elsewhere.” Due to this situation, he asks Verković “to send the letter under a French inscription ‘To his Grace, Mr Bonetti, Apostolic Missionary of the French Church to Salonika’” (Dokument i za bï l gar skot o vï zr až dane ot Ar hi vat a na S t e- f an I . Ver kovi č 1860-1893. Sïstavi l i i podgotvi l i za pečat Darina Vel eva i n.s. Tri f on Vï l ov pod r edakci òt a i s pr edgovor ot čl . kor . Hr i st o A. Hr i st ov, Sof i ò, 1969, 558, dok. º 463).
- ↑ Cočo Bi l òrski – I l i ò Paskov, op. cit., 68-70.
- ↑ The Young-Turk leader Midhat Pasha was appointed as the Vali of Salonika on November 3, 1873, but he remained in Salonika only until February 11, 1874. During this brief period, he made it clear, with a number of actions, that he was in favour of the equality of the nationalities living in the vilayet, and even supported the restoration of the Archbishopric of Ohrid as the Macedonian church. P.P. Karapetrov, a Bulgarian, offers rather curious testimonies in this regard: “Midhat Pasha tried to persuade some of the more eminent Macedonian Bulgarians that they were not Bulgarians but Macedonians; that they were a people distinct from the Bulgarians, as proven by their language (dialect), which was different from Bulgarian, that it would be good if they dissociated from the Bulgarians in the Danube and Adrianople regions (Moesia and Thrace) and that thus they would also have an independent church with the restoration of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, and other similar things” (P.P. Kar apetr ovï , Sbi rka ot ï st at i i, S r õ decï , 1898, 91).
- ↑ Cočo Bi l òrski – I l i ò Paskov, op. cit., 70-71.
- ↑ Rafail (Raphael) Dobrev Popov was a Bulgarian, Uniate bishop from 1864 and the leader of Bulgarian Uniates based in Adrianople.
- ↑ Cočo Bi l òrski – I l i ò Paskov, op. cit., 71.
- ↑ The Mount Athos Archimandrite Averkij Zografski was the head of the Zograph monastery estates (metoch) in Salonika and one of the most agile activists of the Uniate movement, but after Slavejkov’s threats, he drew back and started cooperating with the Exarchate.
- ↑ The priest Petar (Peter) Dimitrov (Volovarov), from the Salonika village of Zarovo, was at first the Patriarchate’s priest in Seres, but after 1872 he went over to the Bulgarian Exarchate and became the president of the Exarchate community and even the Exarchate representative in the Salonika vilayet. He was one of the most agile activists of the movement, but he too, influenced by Slavejkov, gave up the idea of the union, even though we later find him in the secret circle in Salonika around Dimitar Popgeorgiev Berovski, who prepared the Razlovci Uprising
- ↑ Natanail Kučeviški (Zografski) had only recently been appointed as the Metropolitan of Ohrid, and was one of the main representatives of the Bulgarian Exarchate, but also one of the instigators of the union in Macedonia.
- ↑ The representative of the Drama eparchy in Constantinople (1869-1872), Kosta V. Sarafov, went to the Turkish capital to act in support of the priest Hariton’s election as Exarchal Bishop, but as the proposal was not accepted, Hariton joined the Uniates.
- ↑ This is a reference to the Exarchate metropolitan in Veles, Damaskin, who originated from Macedonia.
- ↑ Cočo Bi l òrski – I l i ò Paskov, op. cit., 71-73.
- ↑ P .R. S l aveàkov, S ï či neni ò, áá. Pr ozai čni t vorbi , S of i ò, 1969, 91.
- ↑ N.G. Eni čer evï , Vïzpomi nani ò i bõl õžki, S of i ò, 1906, 177.
- ↑ D-r ï P . Ni kovï , ,,Avst r i àski t õ konsul i vï Tur ci ò za bï l gar i t õ vï Makedoni ò“, Make- donski pr egl edï , á, 5-6, S of i ò, 1925, 114.
- ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija. P r i l ozi za r azvi - t okot na makedonskat a kul t ur no-naci onal na mi sl a, áá, S kopje, 1983, 37-38.
- ↑ The Veles merchant Hadži Georgi Drandar, privileged by the Sultan, had two sons: Konstantin Drandar, fighter in the voluntary Macedonian detachments, and Anton Drandar, the author of a large number of historical, journalistic and other articles, a significant figure in Macedonian development from the second half of the 19th century (Hr i st o Andonov-P ol janski , Odbrani del a, ááá, Makedonskot o praš awe, Skopje, 1981, 269-284).
- ↑ N. Popov(ič), the Bulgarian teacher in Veles.
- ↑ Josif A. Kovačev from Štip was a prominent Macedonian pedagogue and educator, writer of textbooks and reformer of the schools in Macedonia. Educated in Russia and Serbia, in 1869 he organized a pedagogical and theological school in his native town. After Slavejkov’s intervention, Kovačev was unable to stay in Veles as teacher. Invited by the Prilep church-school community, he was the chief teacher in the four-form school there from 1874 to 1877, when he published his well-known primer in “the Šopski dialect”, as unifying for Macedonians and Bulgarians.
- ↑ Cočo Bi l òrski – I l i ò Paskov, op. cit., 73-74.
- ↑ †Kiri l Patri arh Bïl garski , Pr i nos kï m bï l gar ski ò cï r koven vï pros. Dokument i ot Avst r i àskot o konsul st vo v S ol un, S of i ò, 1961, 92.
- ↑ Mahzars, written requests by the population to the supreme Turkish authorities.
- ↑ Cočo Bi l òrski – I l i ò Paskov, op. cit., 74-75.
- ↑ †Kiri l Patri arh Bïl garski , Ekzar h A nt i m (1816-1888), 541.
- ↑ Due to his “improper” behaviour towards the Uniates, through its Macedonian Society in Constanti- nople, and looking for “a suitable teacher in Salonika” who would also be its “secretary in the places there”, the Exarchate indeed dismissed Bubotinov and appointed Stefan Zahariev from Tatar-Pazardžik in his place (P r of . I v. S nõ gar ovï , S ol unï vï bï l gar skat a duhovna kul t ur a. I st or i českioč er ek ï i dok ument i , S of i ò, 1937, 133).
- ↑ †Kiri l Patri arh Bïl garski , Ekzar h A nt i m (1816-1888), 541.
- ↑ †Kiri l Patri arh Bïl garski , Pr i nos ¼, 93.
- ↑ An acidulated fermented drink made from millet, maize or wheat flour (translator’s note).
- ↑ †Kiri l Patri arh Bïl garski , Ekzar h A nt i m (1816-1888), 549.
- ↑ Ibid., 542.
- ↑ Ibid., 549-550.
- ↑ In his correspondence with Verković up to 1865 (while he was in Belgrade) he used the signature D. Makedonski. Later he was also known in Belgrade under that name.
- ↑ Mi hai l Ar naudov, Ver kovi č i Veda S l ovena. Pr i nos kï m i st or i òt a na bï l gar ski ò f ol k- l or i na bï l gar skot o vï zr až dane v Makedoni ò, s nei zvest ni pi sma, dokl adi i drugi dokument i ot 1855 do 1893 g., S bNU, ááá, S of i ò, 1968, 311, dok. º 25.
- ↑ The letter bears the date “Sept. 3, 1862”, but most of the documents in the section on Stefan Verković in the Archives of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Sofia have had their years altered, and hence we believe that here the correct year is 1872.
- ↑ Mi hai l Ar naudov, op. cit., 299.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Ibid., 311, dok. º 25.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Mi hajl o Mi noski , ,,Novoot kr i eni dokument i za r evol uci oner nat a dejnost na Di mi t ar P op Geor gi ev–Ber ovski “, Gl a s n i k , I NI , Hoe á, 3, Skopje, 1972, 145, dok. br . 1.
- ↑ Arhi v na BAN, Sof i ò (Archives of BAN, Sofia), f . i nv. ed. 1071. Biobibliography on the election of Teodosija Gologanov as a member of the Bulgarian Literary Society of July 9, 1912.
- ↑ Mi hajl o Mi noski , op. cit., 145, dok. br . 1.
- ↑ Ibid., 146, dok. br . 1
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ According to Q uben Lape, Razl ovečkot o vost ani e od 1876 godi na i l i čnost a na negovi ot organi zat or Di mi t ar P op Georgi ev Ber ovski , Skopje, 1976, 71.
- ↑ Ibid., 72.
- ↑ Ibid., 43.
- ↑ Osvobož deni e Bol gar i i ot t ur eckogo i ga. Dokument i v t r eh t omah, ááá, Moskva, 1967, 325, dok. º 205.
- ↑ Vasa Čubri l ović, Bosanski ust anak, Beogr ad, 1931, 38.
- ↑ Al bum Makedoni ò, S of i ò, 1931, text below the photo of the teacher Stanislava Karaivanova, 5.
- ↑ Q uben Lape, op. cit., 68 – extracts from K.P. Stojanov’s recollections concerning the preparations and course of the Razlovci Uprising.
- ↑ Dokument i za bï l gar skot o vï zr až dane ot Ar hi vat a na S t ef an I . Ver kovi č, 574, dok. º 480.
- ↑ P .R. S l aveàkov, S ï či neni ò, áá. Pr ozai čni t vorbi , 91.
- ↑ A. Š opovï , ,,D-r ï St oònï Čomakovï . Ó i vot ï , dõànost ï i ar hi va“, S borni kï na BAN, Háá, 8, S of i ò, 1919, 179, dok. º 114.
- ↑ DenÅ, á, 18, C ar i gr adï , 9.oe á.1875, 7.
- ↑ DenÅ, á, 19, 16.oe á.1875, 7.
- ↑ DenÅ, á, 21, 30.oe á.1875, 7.
