The National Programme of the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society in St Petersburg

Од Wikibooks

Скокни на: навигација, барај

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Programme was presented in 11 explicit items:

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

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

  1. ↑ Upr avda [D. Čupovski ], ,,Kemь bì l a Bol gar íò dl ò Makedoníi , Makedonskíà gol osь (Make- donski gl as), I, 5, S .-P et er bur gь , 5.IH.1913, 77.
  2. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, I, S kopje, 1983, 469-602.
  3. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kr st e P. Mi si r kov (1874-1926). P r i l og kon proučuvawet o na r azvi t okot na makedonskat a naci onal na mi sl a, Skopje, 1966, 126-138; D-r Blaže Ri s- t ovski, Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, II, 9-23.
  4. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Krst e P . Mi si rkov (1874-1926) ¼, 200-223; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) i Makedonskot o naučno-l i t er at ur no drugar st vo vo Pet r ogr ad. P r i l ozi kon proučuvawet o na makedonsko-r uski t e vr ski i r azvi t okot na makedonskat a naci onal na mi sl a, I, S kopje, 1978, 110-130.
  5. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, I, 194-210.
  6. ↑ D-r Sl avko Di mevski , Makedonskat a bor ba za cr kovna i naci onal na samost ojnost vo HIH vek (Uni jat skot o dvi ž ewe), Skopje, 1988; Blaže Ristovski , ,,Uni jat skot o dvi ž ewe vo Makedoni ja (II). Kukuš kat a uni ja od 1859 godi na.“, Razgl edi , II/III, 10, S kopje, 1960, 1005- 1029.
  7. ↑ K.P . Mi si r kovь , Za makedoncki t e r abot i , S of i ò, 1903, oe I, etc.
  8. ↑ Spi r o Gul abčev, Edi n ogl õd po et nogr af íòt a na Makedoni ò, Gabr ovo, 1887, 32-311.
  9. ↑ Hr i st o Andonov-P ol janski , Odbrani del a, 3. Makedonskot o praš awe, Skopje, 1981, 190-207.
  10. ↑ Albano-Makedonia, I, 2, Bucure‡ti, 25/6.I.1894; L’Autonomie, I, 4, Londres, 1.VII.1902, 1-3; Gl a s ь Makedonski , I, 10, S of i ò, 30.I.1894, 4; Æ go-Zapadna Bь l gar i ò, I, 22, S of i ò, 7.II.1894, III-Ioe ; S ьglasie, I, 42, S of i ò, 16.III.1895, III.
  11. ↑ S voboda, I, 83, S of i ò, 12.IH.1887, 1-2; II, 116, 13.I.1888, 3; II, 118, 20.I.1888, 3-4.
  12. ↑ Cočo V. Bi l òr ski , ,,Dokument i i mat er i al i na Makedonski ò t aen r evol ž ci onen komi t et (,Ž enevska gr upa‘)“, I zvest i ò na dь r ž avni t e ar hi vi , 72, S of i ò, 1983, 185-253; Dančo Zogr af ski , Makedonski ot t aen r evol uci oner en komi t et i ,,Ot m’š t eni e“, S kopje, 1954.
  13. ↑ D. Vi hr ovь [Di mo Ni kol ov], Ot vor eno pi smo do makedonski t e r evol ž ci oner i , S t ar a Zagor a, 1899; Vt or o i zdani e, Gabr ovo, 1901.
  14. ↑ S i meon Radev, Ranni spomeni , S of i ò, 1967, 266-267.
  15. ↑ [P .R. S l aveàkovь ], ,,Makedonskì àt ь và pr osь “, Makedoníò, oe , C ar egr adь , 18.I.1871, 2..
  16. ↑ Cočo Bi l òr ski , I l i ò P askov, ,,P i sma na P et ko Račev Sl aveàkov po uni òt a v Makedoni ò pr ez 1874 g.“, Vekove, Hoe III, 1, S of i ò, 1989, 68-75.
  17. ↑ Ûor gje M. P uq evski , Rečni k ot t r i jezi ka s. makedonski , ar banski i t ur ski , kwi ga II, u Beogr adu, 1875, 40-42.
  18. ↑ GÅ.M.P ., S amovi l a Makedonska, Sof i ò, y.a.; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Gjorgi ja M. Pul evski i negovi t e kni š ki ,,S amovi l a Makedonska“ i ,,Makedonska pesnar ka“, I F , Skopje, 1973, 39-43.
  19. ↑ Makedonska pesnar ka ot ь Geor gÅa P ul Åevski , b.v.m., [I], Sof úa, 1879; Makedonska pesnar ka. Ot ь GÅor gÅa P ul Åevski , b.v.m.i .m., II, Sof úò, 1879.
  20. ↑ GÅ.M. P ul Åevski , S l avònsko-nasel Åeni ski -makedonska sl ogni ca r ečovska za i spravuvanÅe pravosl ovki -òzi česko-pi sani e. Osnovana na III.t o odel õnie uči l Åi š t ko, Pьrvi del ь, Sof i ò, 1880.
  21. ↑ Gjorgi ja M. Pul evski, Odbrani st r ani ci , I zbor , r edakci ja, pr edgovor i zabel eš ki D-r Blaže Ristovski , Skopje, 1974, 213-257.
  22. ↑ K. Š ahovь , ,,P azet e se makedonci ot ь i zmama i bà det e bl agor azumni !“, Gl asь Makedonski , II, 5, 23.HII.1894, 2; P . p.Ar sovь , ,,P r oi zhodь na r evol ž ci onnot o dvi ž eni e i pь r vi t õ st à pki na S ol unski ò ,Komi t et Å za pr i dobi vane pol i t i česki t õ pr ava na Makedoni ò, dadeni i otь Birl i nski ò dogovorь‘“, Bžl et i nь , º 8, S of i ò, 1919, 3; D-r ь Lž b. Mi l et i čь , ,,Dame Gr uevь . Kr at ki bi ogr af i česki bõl õž ki za ž i vot a i deòt el nost Åt a mu“, Makedono-Odr i n- ski Pregl edь, II, 30, S of i ò, 11.III.1907, 467-468; D. Mi r čevь , ,,Dame Gr uevь (Edi nь vel i čavь ž estь)“, I l ž st r aci ò I l i ndenÅ, I, 1, S of i ò, 1927, 7-8; S l avko Di mevski , ,,Dame Gr uev i makedonskot o naci onal no pr aš awe do sozdavawet o na TMORO“, in: Pri l ozi za Dame Gruev. Mat erijal i od t rkal eznat a masa za Dame Grue¼, Bi t ol a, 1983, 65-68.
  23. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) i Makedonskot o naučno-l i t er a- t ur no drugar st vo vo P et r ogr ad, I, 180-182.
  24. ↑ Ibid., 182.
  25. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 1, Beogr ad, 7.oe II.1902, 2.
  26. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 4, 28.oe II.1902, 2.
  27. ↑ Ibid.
  28. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 5, 4.oe III.1902, 2.
  29. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 3, 21.oe II.1902, 2.
  30. ↑ Ibid.
  31. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 7, 18.oe III.1902, 1.
  32. ↑ Ibid.
  33. ↑ Bal kanski glasnik, I, 8, 25.oe III.1902, 3.
  34. ↑ Ibid.
  35. ↑ Ljuben Lape, ,,Dokument i za f or mi r awet o na Sl avjano-makedonskot o naučno-l i t er at ur no dr ugar st vo i negovi ot ust av“, Makedonski jazi k, Hoe I, S kopje, 1965, 193-194.
  36. ↑ Vol ò nar oda, º 43, P et r ogr adь , 18.oe I.1917, 2; Novaò ž i znÅ, º 52, 18.oe I/1.oe II.1917, 2.
  37. ↑ K.P . Mi si r kovь , op. cit., 1, 45, 67 and 68, and also: ,,P et r ogr adckot o Makedoncko Sl ovencko Naučno-l i t er at ur no Dr ugar st vo ,Sv. Kl i ment ‘ (Ioe )“, in: Bal kanь (I, 1, S of i ò, 5.Ioe .1903, 1), and also in: S l avònskíà Võkь (III, 62, Võ na, 15/28.II.1903, 431) and Avt onomna Makedoni ò (I, 20, S of i ò, 16.HI.1903, 3). The Society is sometimes also mentioned with the additional adjectiveStudent.
  38. ↑ Ljuben Lape, op. cit., 198-202; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Dimit ri ja Čupovski (1878-1940¼, I, 241-246.
  39. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , op. cit., II, 6-23.
  40. ↑ Ibid., II, 143-156.
  41. ↑ This name appeared officially in public for the first time in the Memorandum on the Independence of Macedonia of March 1, 1913, and was used until the last number of the journal Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), dated November 20, 1914.
  42. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , op. cit., II, 267-268.
  43. ↑ Ibid., I, 99-100.
  44. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kr st e P . Mi si r kov (1874-1926) ¼, 159-186.
  45. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, I, 180-189. Another document describing the Macedonian national programme of the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society is certainly the Report P. No. 193 of November 22, 1902, by the envoy extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Kingdom of Serbia to the Russian capital, Academician Stojan Novaković, who had first-hand information on the concepts and actions of the Society. Among other things, he writes: “Macedonian separatism, according to their theory, would aim at a separate political and cultural organization of Macedonia, independent of the cultural and political centres of both Sofia and Belgrade. Were Macedonia to be granted certain autonomous rights, they believe that they should be extended to the secession of the church from the Bulgarian Exarchate in Constantinople, the organization of a separate church authority under the protection of the Constantinopolitan Church, such as was the case in Serbia and Romania prior to the Treaty of Berlin, and the raising of the Macedonian dialect to official and literary use, with phonetic orthography, in order to avoid the use of the Bulgarian language. The future autonomous organization of Macedonia, according to their idea, should be based on these three cornerstones: a separate church, a separate language and a separate autonomous organization, under the protection of the Sultan and Patriarch.” Novaković continues by giving information on the response these ideas met with in the Russian society, and also among young Macedonians (primarily university students) who were studying in St Petersburg and had links with Sofia or Belgrade: “The Russian Ministry has so far not interfered in this matter at all. The literary and political circles here, on the other hand, most often react with sympathy and natural curiosity to all this, considering the present situation in Macedonia. Yet as the majority in these circles have become used to consider the Macedonians as part of the Bulgarian people, these separatist Macedonian theories are regarded as a novelty and have aroused suspicion in some that they may be of Austrian origin, as Austria usually protects Slavic separatist ideas and the division of languages and dialects, and Russia is more inclined towards centralization. “The great majority of young Macedonian people studying here are with the Bulgarians. They have welcomed this movement with sympathy, because Macedonians willingly accept ideas of a separate organization for their fatherland, even though sometimes they oppose it in favour of Bulgarianism. Young Bulgarians, on the other hand, are totally opposed to this, fearing that they will thus lose Macedonia. Our young people are rather sympathetically inclined, because with the foundation of a separate Macedonian group among the young people here, the Bulgarians would lose the most, and it is all the same to us, as only two or three Macedonians who are now with our people would leave. “When the aforementioned Macedonians, Mr Jakimov and Mr Trpković, addressed the ‘Slav. Charitable Society’ with a request to allow the holding of sessions for young Macedonians as well, as they have allowed for the Bulgarians and Serbs, they had two meetings and decided to allow the holding of Slavic-Macedonian meetings. The Bulgarian Agency was against this, but was unable to prevent it and at present is trying to put obstacles in the way of Macedonian separatism by other means.” [Arhi v Sr bi je, Beogr ad (Archives of Serbia, Belgrade), MI D, P P , f . HII, 1903. Materials from different years]. In fact, the main decision on the recognition of the Macedonian Scholarly and Literary Society by SPSCS was passed on the meeting of its Council of November 1, 1902, where Protocol No. 13 stated that they had examined the request by the Society “to be allowed to assemble for lectures and addresses on the premises of” SPSCS and decided “to allow it on days which would be determined by the Schedule Commission” (D-r Blaže Ristovski , Por t r et i i procesi od makedonskat a l i t er at ur na i naci onal na i st or i ja. P r i l ozi za razvi t okot na makedonskat a kul t ur no-naci onal na mi s l a, II, S kopje, 1989, 208-209).
  46. ↑ Ibid., 202.
  47. ↑ ,,Makedonskoe obë est vo vь S .-P et er bur gõ“, S l avònskíà Võkь , III, 62, 15/28.II.1903, 431-432.
  48. ↑ Cent r al en dь r ž aven i st or i česki ar hi v, S of i ò, f . 246, op. 1, ar h. ed. 533, l . 283.
  49. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , op. cit., 226-229.
  50. ↑ Ibid., 241-246.
  51. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Kr st e P . Mi si r kov (1874-1926) ¼, 295-29; D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, I, 253 and 284-285.
  52. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, I, 273-277.
  53. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, II, 197-416; D-r Bl až e Ristovski , ,,Š kol uvawet o na Kr st e Mi si r kov vo Rusi ja (Novi podat oci i soznani ja za f or mi r awet o na Mi si r kovat a mi sl a)“, Gl a s n i k , HHIH, 1-2, S kopje, 1985, 105-144.
  54. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Makedonski ot narod i makedonskat a nacija, II, 271-273.
  55. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , ,,Var dar “. Naučno-l i t er at ur no i opš t est veno-pol i t i čko spi sani e na K.P. Misirkov, I MJ Skopje, 1966, 73-74; S.B. Ber nš t eàn, ,,I z i st or i i make- donskogo l i t er at ur not o òzì ka. ,Var dar ‘ K.P . Mi si r kova“, S l avònskaò f i l ol ogi ò, S bor ni k st at eà, vì p. t r et i à, Moskva, 1960, 71-72.
  56. ↑ Photographically reproduced edition in the book: D-r Blaže Ristovski , ,,V ar dar “ ¼, 85-116. 3.
  57. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, I. All subsequent quotations are from the same document.
  58. ↑ Gr až dani nь , º 37, S .-P et er bur gь , 16.IH.1912, 5.
  59. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 5-25.
  60. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), I, 1, 9.oe I.1913, 17-23.
  61. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as). Or gan na pri vr zani ci t e na nezavi sna Makedoni ja 1913-1914. F ot ot i pno i zdani e, I NI , Skopje, 1968.
  62. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 62-119.
  63. ↑ Ibid., 221-226.
  64. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), II, 11, 20.HI.1914, 199-201.
  65. ↑ Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), II, 10, 13.oe III.1914, 6-10 and 20-21; II, 11, 20.HI.1914, 201-203.
  66. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 20-22.
  67. ↑ Ibid., 143-156.
  68. ↑ In the extensive and well-substantiated Memorandum to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, of August 1914, the signatories Dimitrija Čupovski and Krste Misirkov (in the capacity of representatives of the St Petersburg Macedonian colony and the Odessa and South-Russian Macedonian colony), among other things, wrote that “the most equitable solution to the Macedonian question would undoubtedly be the establishment of an independent kingdom headed by a monarch of Slavic origin and of the Orthodox faith”. Assessing the historical moment after the start of the First World War in which Russia, too, was taking part, the signatories to the Memorandum declared the following: “We would like a Macedonian king from Great Russia. We must rectify our mistakes from the past and instead of looking for support among Balkan states, we should look for it and would certainly find it in the person of the great liberator, Slavic Russia. We believe that the best and most equitable solution to the Macedonian question would be if all Macedonian territories which constituted the three former Macedonian vilayets were seized from the Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians, and a new Slavic, fully independent Balkan Kingdom of Macedonia were established, headed by one of the great princes of the Russian imperial house, at the royal choice of His Imperial Majesty, the Great Emperor. In exchange for the Macedonian territories seized from Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria, the first can be rewarded at the expense of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the second at the expense of Epirus, and the third at the expense of Dobruja or Thrace.” The Memorandum also suggested enticing prospects for Russian Balkan policies: “The establishment in the heart of the Balkan Peninsula and on the borders of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Greece of an independent Macedonian kingdom headed by a king of the Russian imperial house will complete the liberation by Russia of all Balkan peoples and thus the unification could commence of all Balkan Orthodox lands into a single whole under the sceptre of the Balkan branch of the Romanov imperial dynasty.” (D-r Rasti sl av Terzi oski , ,,Ruski dokumenti za posebnost a na makedonski ot nar od“, Nova Makedoni ja, ª , 16972, 22.Ioe .1994, 12).
  69. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 227-239.
  70. ↑ K. P el Åskíà, ,,Bor Åba za avt onomíž “, Makedonskíà gol osь (Makedonski gl as), II, 11, 20.HI.1914, 205-207; K. P el Åskíà, S l avòne, º 5, P et r ogr adь , 1915, 60-62.
  71. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Di mi t r i ja Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 242.
  72. ↑ Ibid., I, 42-43.
  73. ↑ Ibid., II, 266-269.
  74. ↑ The three signatories appear below the text in the newspaper Vol ò nar oda, º 43, 18.oe I.1917, 2,, and we also find them in transcription (copy) by Čupovski himself, among the personal property he left (D-r Blaže Ristovski , op. cit., II, 263). This surviving original mentions only Makedonskíà Revol ž ci onnì à Komi t et ь , and the published version in the newspaper Novaò ž i znÅ, º 52, 18.oe I/1.oe II.1917, 2, indicates only S l eduž t podpi si (“Signatures follow”).
Преземено од "http://mk.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_National_Programme_of_the_Macedonian_Scholarly_and_Literary_Society_in_St_Petersburg"