T H E A M E R IC A N

IN S T IT U T E F O R B A L K A N

A F F A IR S

This b o ok is d ed ica ted to the m e m o ry o i a ll those w ho d ied that K o s o v o m ig h t be a ven ged and the Serbian lands tree and united. W r itte r

TH E A M E R IC A N

IN S T IT U T E F O R B A L K A N

A F F A IR S

THE MACEDONIAN QUESTION

The Straggle for Southern Serbia

by D r. D joko S LIJEP C EV IC

Translated b y James

Larkin

T he American Institute for Balkan Affairs

Published by T h e A m erican Institute fo r Balkan A ffa irs 1525 W . D iv e rs e y P arkw ay, C h i c a g o 14, Illin o is P rinted in G erm an y b y Buchdruckerei Dr. P eter B elej, M undien 13, Schleissheim er Str. 71

PREFACE Many books, brochures and articles have already been written on the Macedonian question. Most of them are of the nature of propaganda, and make no serious attempt to sub stantiate their views. Consequently, one more exposition o f this problem, provided that it be based on historical facts, is hardly supererogatory particularly as the Macedonian ques tion has fo r decades been the cause o f numerous political disturbances in the Balkans. W hile little that is new can be said of the entire period up to 1918, no fu ll and properly documented account as yet exists of the development o f this question since that date. The present book incorporates an attempt to throw further light on this latest period and to examine the factors that have been at work. Originating in the efforts of the Bulgars to impose their own national character upon the population of Southern Serbia and those parts of the geographical area known as Macedonia which passed to Greece after the wars of 1912 13, the Macedonian question began to assume a new aspect after the creation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slo venes: it became the instrument of the Comintern in the latters efforts to disintegrate this kingdom, which from 1918 to 1941 was the chief obstacle in the w ay of a Communist revolution in the Balkans. The brunt of the Cominterns attack was directed against the Serbs as the backbone of Yugoslavia, which had come into being as a result of their m ilitary exer tions between 1914 and 1918. In the years follow ing W orld W ar I, the Macedonian question became the critical factor uniting all those separatists, whether of left- or right-wing orientation, whose activity was fo r years directed at integrat ing, both within and without Yugoslavia, all anti-Serbian elements. It is in the propaganda of this movement that the myth of Greater Serbian imperialism found its most com plete and aggressive expression. The ultimate aim o f this movement, the dismemberment of the Serbian national lands, has been fu lly realized in the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. By examining the various phases through which the Mace donian question has passed, the author has attempted to trace
5

Its historical development. The fa irly detailed account which he has given of the efforts o f the Bulgars to impose their national physiognomy upon the Serbian population of Southern Serbia is by no means the reflection of any hostility on his part toward the Bulgarian people. The w riter of these lines considers himself a friend of the Bulgars and is fu lly aware of their value and importance fo r the Balkan Peninsula. He believes that the dispute between the Serbs and Bulgars over Southern Serbia was fin ally settled by the outcome o f W orld War I. This is also probably realized by the most responsiblyminded Bulgars, who have succeeded in freeing themselves from the shackles o f a myth that has brought the Bulgarian people so much misery. Originally a dispute between the Serbs and Bulgars over the question of the national orientation of the population of Southern Serbia, the Macedonian problem subsequently became a weapon in the revolutionary activity of the Comintern, and later, during W orld W ar II, took the form of a quarrel between the Bulgarian and Yugoslav Com munist parties as to which party was entitled to control the operations of Communist organizations in this area. In every phase of its development, the Macedonian ques tion has affected the vital interests of the Serbs. These interests are now threatened in a new form by the thesis of the existence of a distinct Macedonian nationality in a region which was the scene of the most brilliant events in their medieval history and for the liberation of which they made many sacrifices in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This thesis was first propounded under the influence of so cialist ideas as they took root in a prim itive environment. Long maintained and cherished by the Comintern, it was ac cepted by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, which today is its sole champion. W ith the creation of the Peoples Republic of Macedonia, the Yugoslav Communist Party has applied this thesis in practice over that part of the territory which is under its control. On its own territory, the Macedonian question is virtually non-existent fo r the Bulgarian Communist Party. It has even less significance in Greece, where the Communists w ere never generous toward the demands of the Slavs of Aegean Macedonia fo r national recognition. Thus, from being a problem of significance for the Balkans as a whole, the Macedonian question has become a matter of Yugoslav internal policy, or, to be more precise, an important
II

part of the Serbian question in Yugoslavia. As such, it has entered a new phase, marked by a diminution in the im portance which it enjoyed fo r decades, not m erely on the Balkans but also on the international plane. The frontiers of the states now almost exclusively concerned with this question have been confirmed by international treaties, which cannot be altered without another war. The fact that no one today would venture upon a w ar in the Balkans in order to change these frontiers enhances their immutability and limits the international significance of the Macedonian question. The present work is the result of prolonged research and a serious effort to set forth this question in its organic deve lopment. Am id the uncertainties of migr6 life, it has been a strenuous task. The procurement of the necessary literature, especially that published in Yugoslavia, has been linked with great difficulties. Many relevant works published in Yugo slavia have proved to be unavailable in libraries abroad, with the exception of those at Vienna and Rome, where they have been indirectly accessible; w hile from Yugoslavia itself some works have been obtained with difficulty and others not at all. Moreover, the material problems involved have frequently proved insuperable fo r an 6migr thrown upon his own re sources. Mr. Stanislav Krakov, the w riter and journalist, has been kind enough to place his library at the disposal of the author, who takes this opportunity of expressing his sincere gratitude fo r his assistance. Special acknowledgment is due to Professor John C. Adams, Professor of History at Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, fo r reading the work in manuscript and making suggestions fo r its improvement. Professor Adams is not responsible for any of the views expressed in this book. Finally, the author wishes to express his indebtedness to the American Institute for Balkan A ffairs, and particularly to Dr. U. L. Seffer, for undertaking the publication of this work and thus rendering it accessible to the English-speaking public. Ascension Day 1958 Munich (Germany) Djoko M. SlijepCevifi.

M A C ED O N IA A S A G E O G R A P H IC A L CONCEPT It has never been precisely stated what one is to under stand by the expressions Macedonia and the Macedonian people. A ll w e know is that ancient Macedonia was not a state with an ethnically and culturally homogeneous popul ation. According to Strabo, the Thracians and Illyrians made up the Macedonian people,* w hile Leopold von Ranke states, the mutual influence o f the Macedonian and Greek ways of life constitutes the main theme of Macedonian history. 2 Dr. Otto Hoffmann is of the opinion that the ancient Mace donians w ere ethnically Greeks, but, he adds, the Mace donian empire, which they founded, was in existence before the time of K in g Archelaus as a union of various peoples under the leadership and rule of the Greek Macedonians and their tribe. 3 The same view is put forw ard by the w riter of the article on Macedonia in the Paulys-Wissowa RealEncyclopadie: the Macedonians w ere of Greek provenance and inhabited Northern Thessaly.4 Dr. K arl Oestreich asserts that the ancient Macedonians w ere nearer to the Greeks than to the Thraco-Illyrian people. They [the Macedonians] should be regarded as a nation closely related to the Hellenes which, later on in the ancient period, became completely Hellenized. From Roman times on, there are no more Macedonians. 5 Referring to this problem, Joachim H. Schultze asks in some perplexity, .. the Macedonians. They gave the land their name, but who w ere they? What do they signify nowadays? Do they exist at all? And what about the Macedonian Slavs? 8 He goes on to say that the meaning of the term Macedonian as a territorial concept was frequently modified,
1 L eop old von Ranke, W eltgesch ich te, V o l. I, 1928, p. 326. * Ibid. * O tto Hoffm ann, D ie M a k ed on ien , ih re Sprache und ih r V o lk s turn, G ottingen, 1906, pp. 260 61. 4 P a u ly s-W issow a R eal-E ncyclopadie, V o l. X X V II, p. 690. K arl O estreich, D ie B evolkeru n g v on M a k ed o n ien ", G e o g ia phische Z e itsch rilt, 1905, V o l. I, pp. 273 74. Joachim H. Schultze, N eu g riechen ia n d , Gotha, 1927, p. 128.

and points out that the Arabian geographer Idrisi spoke of Rhodope and the Balkans as Macedonian mountains (gebel al-M aqedoni).1 James Barker remarks that with the fa ll of Perseus Macedonia lost its national character. The land was divided into four regions, the people enslaved and trade hampered.8 The British Universities Encyclopaedia states: The ancient kingdom of Macedonia extended in a north westerly direction from the Aegean Sea. Originally occupying a small area, it stretched, at the time of its greatest extent, from Haemus [i. e., the Balkans] in the north to Thessaly, and to the Aegean in the south, and from Epirus and Illyria in the west to Thrace in the east. 9 In 168 B. C., the Romans turned it into a province which included Thessaly and Illyria. A t the division of the Empire in 395 A. D., this province fell to the Eastern part. The fame of Macedonia was created by Philip and Alexander. Indeed, it is their achievements that impressed the name of Macedonia so deeply in the consciousness of its later inhabitants. According to Alexander Randa, Macedonian patronage of arts and letters lies at the foundation of the pro gressive activity of Hellenism.1 0 Dr. Gustav Weigand is of the opinion that in ancient times Macedonia was understood as signifying a somewhat smaller region than we associate today with the term: O riginally it was only the district on the low er reaches of the Haliakmon [Bistrica] and the Aksios [Vardar] under the rule of local kings who came from Orestis, i. e., the land around the Kastoria Lake. 1 1 The ancient Macedonians, says Theodor Capidan, who originally extended from the valley o f the Aksios to the Haliakmon, were gradually denationalized by the Thracians, Illyrians and Greeks. 1 8 According to JireCek, medieval Macedonia consisted of two regions with somewhat differing histories: one, which embraced the Byzantine coast in the neighborhood of Salonica and Serrai, and another,
7 Ibid., p. 126. 8 James Barker, T u rk ey , N e w Y ork , 1877, p. 248. * B ritish U n iv e rs itie s E n cy clop a ed ia , V o l. V I, p. 804. 1 0 A le x a n d e r Randa, D e r B alkan: S d iliisselra u m der W e ligeschichte, G raz-Salzburg-Vienna, 1949, p. 116. 1 1 G ustav W e ig a n d , E th n o gra p h ie v on M a k e d o n ie n , L eip zig, 1924, p. 2. 1 1 Th. Capidan, D ie M a zedorum Snen, Bukarest, 1941, p. 52.

10

without access to the sea, which, from the seventh century on, was occupied by Slavs and which, from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries, was fo r the most part under the in fluence and domination of the Greeks. 1 3 Mentioning Basil the Macedonian, who was born in a village near Jedren and as a boy was taken prisoner by the Bulgarians, JireCek says that the name Macedonian should not cause surprise, fo r in the Middle Ages the whole of present-day Rumelia was often called Macedonia. 1 4 Theodor von Sosnosky pointed out that after the fa ll of the Byzantine Empire, the name [of Macedonia] disappeared completely from the map, and when it was mentioned at all it always referred to the empire o f Philip and Alexander. With the collapse of Alexanders w orld empire it ceased to play an independent role in history. Then, however, it sudden ly appeared on the lips of the whole world. . . . Only the name, admittedly, for it signifies only the same land, not the same people. 1 5 The name Macedonia, says Horand Horsa Schacht, disappeared with the collapse of the Byzantine Empire. Otherwise applied only as an historical designation, it reappeared in the national struggles of the Balkan people. . . . Under the Turks, there was no Macedonia. For this reason, the Turkish government spoke only o f the Rumelian question. 1 6 For Dr. Oestreich, too, Macedonia is no more than an historical designation which originally covered an area further to the south, including the plain o f Salonica, . . . and, as a term whose meaning had not been clearly de fined and could be stretched at w ill, was arbitrarily applied to the hinterland. 1 7

1 3 Constantin Jos. Jirefiek, Das diristlich e Elem ent in der topographischen N om ertklatur der Balkanlander, S ltzu n gsberich te der K aiseriichen A k a d e m ie d er W issenschaften in W ie n : P h ilo lo g is ch h istorisch e Classe, V o l. C X X X V I, p. 42. u Constantin Jos. J ir e ie k , G eschichte der B ulgaren, Prague, 1876, p. 157. 1 5 Th. v o n Sosnosky, D ie B a lk a n p o litik O sterreich -U n g a rn s seit 1886, V o l. II, pp. 118 19. H orand H orsa Schacht, D ie E n tw icklu n g d er m azedonischen F ra g e um die Jahrhundertw ende zum M u rz s te g e r P rogra m m , H alle, 1929, p. 14. 1 7 K arl O estreid i, R eiseein d riicke aus dem V ila je t K o s o v o , V ienn a, 1899, p. 331.

11

Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, the extent of Macedonia has been variously defined. Von Gruber states that it lies between the Balkans and Athos, on both sides of the Vardar and the Struma, and that it covers an area of 1,720 square miles inhabited by a population of 500,000. Geographically, he says, it is normally divided into two sanjaks those of Salonica and Custendil. In accordance, however, with recent information, w e shall abandon this practice and mention the best-known places: Salonica, the chief meeting-place of commercial routes connecting European Turkey with the rest of Europe (from here Vienna and Smyrna trade in money exchange); then Seres [Serrai], Karaferija fVerija], Vodiin [Edessa], Jenisa, St. Orfano, Emboli, Filibi [Philippopolis, P lovdiv] and Custendil. 1 8 O f Bulgaria, he says that it lies on the Black Sea between the Balkans and the Danube, and that it embraces an area of 1,740 square miles with a population of 1,800,000. According to him, Bul garia was at that time divided into four sanjaks those of Sofia, Nicopolis, Silistria and Vidin. To Serbia, von Gruber assigns the sanjaks of Kratovo, Skoplje and N ovi Pazar.1 * R. Walsh, who traveled round Bulgaria in the late 1820s, states: Modern Bulgaria stretches from the mouth o f the Danube, along this river, to the point above Vidin where it is joined by the Timok. The Danube constitutes its entire northern boundary, as the Balkan chain does its southern. The whole of the area within these limits is over a hundred hours distance long and about sixteen hours across. The Bul garians have, however, spread far beyond these artificial limits. 2 0 A. F. Heksch also considered that Bulgaria pro p er extended from the low er Danube to the main ridges of the Balkans and the Black Sea, and that, ethnically, it still embraces the district of Sofia also. 2 1 Hugo Grothe was extrem ely cautious in defining the geographical concept Macedonia : considering the question what was considered as constituting Macedonia under the Turks, he says, From

1 8 C arl A n ton v o n Gruber, Das osm anisdie Reich, p. 24. ' Ibid., pp. 16 17 and 18 19. 2 0 R. W alsh , R eise von K on s ta n tin op e l dureh R u m e lie n ,. . . Dresd en-Leipzig, 1828, pp. 203 04. !1 A le x a n d e r F. Heksch, D onau, v o n ihrem Ursprung bis an d ie M iindung, L eip zig, 1884, p. 51.

12

the point of view of state law, only three vilayets those of Salonica, Bitolj and Skoplje [Kosovo] may today be regard ed as constituting Turkish Macedonia. . . . It is doubtful whe ther so-called Old Serbia the sanjaks of Prizren, PriStina and Srem [?] belongs to Macedonia. 2 2 Gerhard Schacher gives the follow ing boundaries of Macedonia: In the south west of the Balkan Peninsula is situated a territory with an area of 65,000 square kilometers therefore not quite twice the size of Holland which is enclosed in the south by the Aegean Sea, in the west by the Pindus Mountains, Gramus, Mokra und Stogovo, and in the north and east by the SarPlanina and Crna Gora and the spurs of the Osogovo, Rila and Rhodope Mountains respectively. 2 3 W ladim ir Sis, who was definitely biased in favor of Bulgaria, defines the frontiers of Macedonia thus: It [Macedonia] borders in the north on Old Serbia and the pre-1913 Serbian kingdom, in the northeast and east on Old Bulgaria, to which in 1878 was added its northern part i. e., the districts of Custendil and Dupnica in the southeast on Thrace, in the south on the Aegean Sea, Thessaly and Epirus, and in the west on A l bania. 2 4 In the Turkish empire, says Schultze, the name Macedonia disappeared. According to the political division carried out in the twentieth century, our country belongs to the vilayet of Salonica, and, within the limits of the latter, to the sanjaks of Serrai and Drama. The eastern frontier was the lower Nestos; the northern frontier included Nevrokop, and the western frontier Melnik and Diumaja. 2 5 Jovan Cviji6 traced the frontiers of Macedonia in the south across a turn in the Bistrica River, in the north along the northern boundary of the sanjak of N ovi Pazar, in the west along the Crni Drin, and in the east along the Mesta. According to this frontier, both countries lie between 395650 and 433825 North, and between 541431 and 60726 East of Greenwich. The average meridian is 5521, w hile the average degree of latitude is approximately 4150. The total area of Macedonia and Old Serbia is 74,709 square kilometers,
1 1 H u go G rothe, A u l tiirk isch er Erde, Berlin, 1903, p. 358. G erhard Sdiacher, D e r Balkan und seine w irtschaftlichen K rd lte, Stuttgart, 1930, p. 240. W la d im ir Sis, M a zedon ien , Zurich, 1918, p. 7. Sdiultze, o p .c it., p. 126.

13

which is 26,000 square kilometers greater than that of Serbia and 24,000 square kilometers less than that of Bulgaria.2 A n expert in Balkan cartography, Cvijid established, after extensive researches what one should understand by the term ancient Macedonia. According to a map drawn by the Italian general Giac. Gastaldia in 1566, Serbia, in addition to Kosovo, included the area around Skoplje. According to maps by V. Coronellia, official geographer of Venice, dating from 1692, Skoplje is described as metropoli della Servia. On seventeenth-century French maps, Serbia includes, apart from N ovi Pazar and Prizren, the area around Skoplje. In the atlas of 1696 by von Saunson, Serbia includes Skoplje and OvCe Polje. According to the maps of Joh. Bapt. Homann, which date from the first half of the eighteenth century, Serbia in cludes the districts of Skoplje, Kratovo and Custendil, while the map o f 1805 by Sava Tekelija shows Serbia as including Prizren, Pristina, VuCitm, Skoplje, Kratovo, Custendil and Pirot.2 7 The districts south of the border of liberated Serbia were fo r long known as Turkish Serbia. The appellation Mace donia was confined to the area of Salonica. On von Stielers map and in his pocket atlas of 1832, the frontiers of liberated Serbia are indicated, w hile a large area south of them, in cluding even Sofia and Ihtiman, is designated as Turkish Serbia. On H. K ieperts map, dated 1853, the name o f Mace donia is given to the district around Salonica. The same applies to the Map o f European Turkey revised by H. Berghaus and F. Stiilpnagel in 1856. Cviji6 says, In all the edi tions of von Stielers atlas from 1850 on, the name Mace donia is given to the region approximately corresponding to the modern vilayet of Salonica. The name Turkish Serbia disappeared from the later editions of von Stielers atlas, and the region between Macedonia proper and the borders of Serbia [i. e., of Serbia before the Battle of Kumanovo in 1912] remains even today without a definite name. Occasionally this region appeared under the old Turkish administrative de-

J ovan C v ijii, G ru n d lin ie n d er G e o g ra p h ie und G e o lo g ie von M a zed on ien und A lts e rb ie n , Gotha, 1908, p. 38. 2 7 Ibid., pp. 39 40.

14

signation Rumeli before this fell out of use and the entire area was left without a name. 2 8 As a result of his researches, Cviji6 came to the follow ing conclusion: On the m ajority of older maps [i. e., from the sixteenth century], and on a few of later date in which the classical nomenclature was used or which w ere influenced by this nomenclature, the name Macedonia was confined to the coastal region around Salonica and the surrounding plain that is, to Campania and the district west and northwest of it near to what is now the Meglen basin. The chief towns of this region of Macedonia proper are Vodena [Edessa] and Pella [now the village of Podol]. A t the end of the fifteenth and during the sixteenth centuries, many lands of the Balkan Peninsula, because of erroneous recollections of the classical world, were, mostly by local writers, called Macedonia even Old Serbia, Zeta, Albania, Bosnia and Hercegovina. 2 9 The geographically ill-inform ed author of the folk poem about Prince Kaica places the Danubian town of Smederevo in Macedonia. T w o versions o f DuSans legal code, those of Ravanica and Sofia both from the seventeenth century call DuSan emperor of Macedonia. The Sofia version reads: The pious and Christian Stefan, Emperor of Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Dalmatia,' w hile that of Ravanica says simply: The pious, faithful and Christian Emperor of Mace donia, Stefan. *0 In a record of 1564, w ritten at the monastery of Zavala, in Hercegovina, it is stated that this monastery lies in the shelter of Mount Vele2, which is in the Macedonian lands. *1 BoSidar Vukovic-PodgoriCanin says of himself that he comes from the Diocletian lands, in Macedonia, from the town o f Podgorica. *2 Certain pilgrims to the H oly Sepulcher, Vukovoj, Gavrilo, Sava, Jovan and Sekule, state on two oc casions that they are from the Macedonian lands, from the land of Zahumlje, known as Hercegovina. 3 3 In 1569, a certain Jakov says that he is from the Macedonian lands, from the
* Ibid. " Ibid. 3 0 Spiridon G o p f e v ii, M a k e d o n ie n und A lts e rb ie n , V ien n a, 1889,. p. 299. S 1 L jubom ir S tojan ovid, S ta ri srpski zapisi i natpisi (O ld Serbian R ecords and Inscriptions), V o l. IV , p. 65, N o. 6328. 3t Ibid., V o l. I, p. 160, N o. 494. 5 3 Ibid., p. 195, N o . 621, and p. 389, N o . 1573.

15

place called Sofia. 3 4 In 1615, it was stated that the monastery o f M oraia is situated in the region of Hercegovina, in the western lands, in the Macedonian lands. 3 5 It was on account of such statements that Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic observed that all our peoples lands are called Macedonia. 3 Heinrich M ullers Turkish Chronicle, published at Frankfurt-on-Main in 1577, contains an interesting passage on Mace donia which reads: How ever valiantly the Serbian people fought in Macedonia, the Sultan nevertheless occupied the Serbian towns of Serrai, Strumica, Philippopolis and Veles. . . . Bajazit also collected a great army against the powerful ruler Marko of Macedonia, which land is the most fertile of all Serbia. 8 7 The unknown w riter who continued the work of Archbishop Danilo, in the section entitled On the En thronement of the Second Patriarch, the Serbian K ir Sava, has the follow ing to say: Of his [U rols] empire, Prince Lazar took one part, and the other VukaSin, who, in claiming the kingdom, cared nothing fo r the curse of Saint Sava. And UgljeSa took the Greek lands and towns. A fte r this, having gathered together, they went out into Macedonia, w ere killed by the Turks and thus met their end. 3 8 As may be seen, the term Macedonia signifies merely a geographical concept which has been insufficiently defined and which has no ethnographical significance.

3 4 Ibid., p. 211, N o . 683, and p. 212, N o. 685. 3 8 Ibid., p. 286, N o . 1030. M V u k S tefa n ovic Karadzid, B eisp ie le d er serbisch-slavisdien S prad ie, V ienn a, 1857. 3 7 A s quoted in G opdevid, op. cit., p. 305. 3 8 Lazar M ir k o v ii (tr.), Z iv o t i k ra lje v a i a rh ije p isk o p a srpskih od a rh ije p isk o p a D an ila (T h e L iv e s o f the Serbian K in gs and A rch bishops from Archbishop D an ilo), B elgrade, 1935, p. 290.

16

TH E A R R IV A L OF THE S L A V S IN THE B A L K A N S On their arrival in the Balkans the Slavic tribes began to settle, among other places, in the area o f what is now Mace donia. Opinions are divided on the questions when and in what numerical relationship these tribes first began to cross the Danube and where and how they originally settled. In many cases, these views are completely irreconcilable. The Polish historian Surowiecky asserted that the Slavic tribes did not cross the Danube until after the collapse of the Hunnic state that is, not before the last two or three decades of the fifth century.1 Paul Joseph Schafarik, fo r long an authority on this question, shared the same view : There is no doubt, he wrote, that the Slavs penetrated beyond the Danube into Moesia and Pannonia before the middle of the sixth century, although w e have no direct evidence of this. Byzantine sources speak of Slavic inroads into Moesia and Thrace in the years 527, 533 and 546; similarly, there is frequent mention of mercenary troops (in the years 537, 540, 547, 555 and 556) in the service o f Byzantium. On the other hand, history makes no mention of the peaceful occupation of the lands south of the Danube, although this must in any case have begun in the late fifth or early sixth century. * Later, Marin Drinov maintained that the settlement of the Slavs in the Balkans took place over a prolonged period at least three centuries and that it began before the transmigration o f peoples, being completed in the seventh century.8 JireCek regarded this view o f Drinovs as the more accurate one, and emphasized that "in the fifth century the Slavs w ere far from being unknown in the [Balkan] Peninsula: they w ere a fa irly numerous and influential people, although their colonies appear to have been
1 C onstantin Jos. J ire ie k , Geschichte der B ulgaren, Prague, 1876, p. 72. * Paul Joseph Schafarik, S lavische A lt e r thum er, V o l. II, L eip zig, 1884, pp. 13 14. s M arin D rin ov, ZaselenJe B alkanskago p o lu o s tro v a S lov e n a m i (T h e Settlem ent o f the Slavs in the Balkan Peninsula), M oscow , 1873,' as quoted in J ir e ie k , o p .c it., p. 73.

17

pretty w idely scattered. 4 He goes on to say that Slavic colonization began in the third century and was carried out gradually: A t the end of the fifth century, he says, armed migration began on a massive scale. 8 This would be the second and final phase in this movement, which likewise took place over a prolonged period. W e also know that the Emperor Justin I (518 27) and his nephew Justinian I (527 65) w ere o f Slavic origin. A t a later date, there were even Slavs among the patriarchs of B y zantium. Their numbers w ere considerable in Justinians army. Among Justinians commanders, w e find mention of Dobrogost, Svegrd and Svarun, who in 555 distinguished themselves in the w ar against the Persians. Similar cases could be quoted in plenty, all of which show that the first Slavs to arrive in the Peninsula had begun to merge on a large scale with the indigenous population and had become civilized and converted to Christianity before fresh waves of Slavic tribes crossed the Danube.* On their arrival in the Balkans, these Slavs preserved their tribal organization and old w ay of life as far as circum stances permitted fo r it was inevitable that they should mix to some extent with the indigenous population. A s regards the distribution o f the various tribes in the Peninsula, there is much that is still obscure: w e only know for certain the names o f some of them and the areas that they occupied. The Severjani, or Severci, settled in what is now Dobruja, the Timoiani in the region of the Timok, and the M oravljani on the Morava River; the Brsjaci, a people which still exists under the same name, occupied the area around Prilep, Veles, Bitolj and TikveS;7 nothing more than their names is known about the Smoljani and the Rinhini: JireCek remarks that their habitation and the origin of their names are obscure; the Sagudati inhabited the plain of Salonica; one part of the very important tribe known as the D ragoviti or Dragovici settled in the western valley of the Vardar River, and the other in the western Rhodope Mountains; the VelesiCi, or VelegostiCi, occupied Thessaly, the VojniCi Epirus and the Milinci the
4 7 J ire fe k , Ib id ., p. Ibid., p. Ibid., p. op. cit., p. 80. 94. 79. 120.

18

Taygetus plateau, w hile the Jezerani descended as far as the Gulf of Laconia.8 The name of the seven Slavic tribes that Asparuch was the first to subdue are still unknown. History, says Dr. Ischirkov, speaks o f the Severci and o f seven other Slavic tribes in what is now eastern Bulgaria whose names are unknown to us. * Schafarik was o f the opinion that the members of these tribes w ere peaceful tillers of the soil: on the arrival of the Bulgars, some of these tribes, or at least part of them, migrated to regions which remained under B y zantine rule.1 0 It is generally recognized that these Slavic migrations, on account of thier scale, completely changed the ethnic character of this region. From Cape Matapan to the Dal matian ports and the Danube estuary, there was not a single district without its Slavic colonies. 1 1 Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer made an especial study of the question how far south these colonies penetrated, and discovered that they stretched as far as the southern Pelopennese. These prim itive Slavs of the sixth century, he says, are the authentic ancestors and kinsmen of the modern Greek peasants in Macedonia, Thes saly, Hellas and the Pelopennese. For over nine hundred years, the population of these districts spoke both Greek and Slav. . . . It is only during the last four centuries that the Slav language died out as a spoken language on the territory of ancient Greece, with the exception of the northern tip of Acam ania. ** Even Carl Hopf, who on many points strongly disagreed with Fallmerayer, did not dispute this view in essence; while accepting the irrefutable fact that the Peloponncse was for long inhabited by Slavs, he queried the iiHHcrtion that Athens was sacked, that the ancient Greeks completely disappeared and that the modem Greeks w ere connected with the Hellenes by nothing more than the lanKiniKe which they had inherited. 1 8

Ibid. * A . Ischirkov, .D ie B evolk eru n g in B ulgarien und ih re Siedlungsv e rh a itn ls s e ', Peterm ann'a M itte ilu n g e n , 1911, Halbband II, p. 117. 1 0 S d iofarlk , op. clt., p. 14. u J lr e ie k , op. clt., p. 126. "* Jakob Ph ilip p F allm erayer, F ra gm en te aus dem O rie n t, 2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1877, p. 344. 1 8 See J ir e ie k , op. clt., pp. 122 23.

19

This widespread diffusion of the Slavs in the Balkans, particularly in the region o f ancient Macedonia, explains w hy this region was called Slovinia in Byzantine sources. Before the arrival of the Bulgars, Moesia was known by the same name. Referring to this name, Schafarik says: It was used in tw o senses: in the one sense, it was applied to all the Slav lands under Bulgarian domination, i. e., to ancient Upper and Low er Moesia, together with Dardania, and in the other it referred to a smaller area which, in my opinion, should be sought in Macedonia and on the forntiers of Albania and Thessaly. 1 4 The Emperor Justinian II Rhinotmetus (686 87) conduct ed a m ilitary campaign against the Bulgars and the land of the Slavs. In 758, the Emperor Constantine Copronymus attacked the Slavic land that was situated in Macedonia and carried o ff many slaves. When Niciphorus (802 10) dis banded his army, he indicated the land of the Slavs to his soldiers as their future abode. It was reported of the Bul garian khan Krum that in 813 he strengthened his army with recruits from all the Slavic lands. Thus it is with justifica tion that JireCek states that the local name of Slovjenin, in the plural Slovjene, was known from the sixth century on in neighboring areas to the west and south___ This name is to be found, not only in the area of Salonica and in Dal matia, but also in the eastern Alps and western Carpathians, among the Polabian Slavs and in the area of Novgorod. 1 6 Vatroslav Jagic also pointed out that foreigners gave the name Slavs to all those tribes which, after crossing the Danube, pressed toward the south and west. He added that this common name did not designate a single tribe or homo geneous people, but a whole mass, which, from the sixth century on, moved across the Danube from what is now the plain of Bessarabia and Rumania. 1 6 Although, in opposition to Kopitar and MikloSi6, he maintained that the Macedonian Slavs w ere neither of the same tribe as the Pannonian nor spoke the same dialect, he took due account of the fact that
1 4 Schafarik, op. cit., p. 197. 1 5 K. Jirefiek and J. Radoni<5, Is to rija Srba (H is tory o f the Serbs), V o l. I (to 1537), B elgrade, 1952, p. 37. 1 6 V . Jagi<5, Ein K ap itel aus der Geschichte der siidslawischen Sprache", A rc h lv fu r Slawische P h ilo lo g ie , V o l. X V II, 1895, p. 54.

20

the language of the Dalmatian Croats, like that of the N eretvljani, was fo r long called Slav, and that, after the Serbs and Croats had fin ally settled down, there w ere areas between them which w ere termed Slavic lands, as, fo r example, Slavonia.1 7 According to Corovic, many Western writers applied the name Slavonia or Sclavinia to the entire area from Istria to the Bojana and from the Dalmatian coast to the Danube. Even in Dubrovnik and Kotor, during the thir teenth and fourteenth centuries, Slavonia was often identified with Serbia. In the fourteenth-century chronicle of Koporin, it is stated that K in g M ilutins good name had spread over all the Greek and Slav land. The chronicle of Pec later cor rected S lav to Serbian. 1 8 The Slavs inhabiting the Balkan Peninsula referred to themselves as Sloveni (Slavs). Corovic states that it is un likely that at that time there w ere any definite frontiers dividing them. Their individual tribal names tended more and more to give w ay to this common appellation, which was applied to them, as to a single entity, by outsiders. It was thought at one time that the Balkan Slavs received this name from a tribe which came to the Peninsula and settled near Salonica. In these lands, called Slovinia, says Schafarik, there settled that well-known Slavic tribe which by its deeds became known in history before all others, and whose lan guage was adopted by Constantine and Methodius, who had learnt it in their childhood in Salonica, fo r their translation of the Bible, by means of which a noble culture was made uecessible to one half of the Slavic nation. It was after these Slavs IS loveni] that Constantine named his alphabet, and the language which he used, Slav [slovenski]. 1 9 Whether this be so or not, it is known that Constantine (I. < ., Cyril) and Methodius adopted the language o f the Mace donian Slavs as their written language. In the L ife of Metho(1 1u n , 1 1 Is stated that the Emperor Michael III, having sum moned St. Cyril to entrust him with the task of working among the Slavs, commanded him to take Methodius and go with him to Moravia. You are from Salonica, he said, and
1 7 Ibid., pp. 58 59 and 63. 1 8 V la d im ir C orovi6 , la to rija Jugosl-avije (H is tory o f Y u g o s la v ia ), B elgrade, 1933, p. 5. 1 9 Schafarik, op. clt., p. 199.

21

all the people of Salonica speak pure Slav. 2 0 In the Lives of C yril and Methodius the first original South Slav literary compositions it is stated that the form er was the first teacher of the Slavic nation and that he taught Slavic pupils, w hile Methodius is described as having had a Slavic principality under his direction. This refers to the time when Methodius, whose secular name has not come down to us, was a highly placed official in the Im perial service and was in charge of a theme (i. e., province) in the Balkans. It was perfectly reasonable that the Slavs first literary language should be called Slav. A fte r much research, Matija Murko came to the conclusion that it is incorrect to call this language Bulgarian. It is unhistorical and even more dan gerous, he says, to use the term Old Bulgarian, since this latter was the Turkish language. 2 1 P. A. Lavrow drew atten tion to the fact that in the Pannonian legends as the Lives o f Cyril and Methodius w ere called the expressions Bulgarin and bulgarsk are not to be found a circumstance which distinguishes the Legends significantly from the Greek Vita Clementi. From this one might infer that Clement was of Macedonian origin, since at that time these expressions w ere not used in Macedonia. In the early redactions of his writings, therefore, Clement is more accurately described as being slovensk, i. e., Slav. It cannot, moreover, have been fortuitous that the Emperor Simeon, in 893, appointed him as the first Slav bishop.2 8 Ferdo SiSi6 states that, at the beginning of the tenth century, Slav figured as a literary language side by side with Greek and Latin. It is known, he says, that this language flourished in the tenth century in Macedonia and Bulgaria and that from there it began to spread toward the West, where a separate literary center came into being in Croatia and maintained its existence despite all difficulties. 2 4

20 Fran G rive c , 2 itja K on sta n tln a in M e to d ija (T h e L ife o f C on stantine and M ethodiu s), Ljubljana, 1951, p. 117. 1 1 M . M urko, G eschichte d er a lteren siidslawischen Lite ra tu r, L e ip zig, 1908, p. 58. 2 8 P. A . L a vrow , D ie neuesten Forschungen iib er den slaw isd ien Clem ens,* A r c h iv fu r Siawische P h ilo lo g ie , V o l. X X V II, 1905, p. 365. ** M urko, op. cil., p. 58. 1 4 F erd o SiSii, J ie to p is popa D u k lja n in a (T h e C hron icle o f the Priest D ukljanin), B elgrade-Z agreb, 1928, p. 3.

22

During the follow ing centuries, w e find a livin g Slavic tradition among writers in this region, even though they lived and worked within the Bulgarian state. In the manus cript by the Exarch Jovan, which dates from the late eleventh or early tw elfth century, there occur the expressions slovensk (Slav) and slovensk ja zik (Slavic language), while the priest G rigorije has slovenski ja zik ; Russkaya pravda (1020) contains the word Slovenin (Slav), while in the w rittings of the monk Hrabar (of the tenth or eleventh century) we find the expressions slovenska red (Slavic speech), rod slovensk (Slavic people) and pismena slovenska (Slavic characters). In the Prologue to some Lives of the Saints dating from the thirteenth century, there occur the forms slovensku jeziku, slovenskih knjig, slovenski uSeniki, etc.*5 It is also o f interest that in an inscription of 1295 in the KrmCija it is stated that the rules emerged into the light of the Slavic language. 2 6 The translator of Dionysius the A reopagite, in a manuscript of Bulgarian recension, calls the Slav language our language, and, comparing it with Greeks, says that it was also created by God and found good, but that it lacks the wealth of expression and nuances that Greek has.*7 With reference to a collection of sermons dealing with the Gospels, it is stated that they w ere translated from Greek into Slav.*8 In view of all these facts, Dr. Leonard Schultze-Jena was mistaken in his assertion that we have no information on the nationality of those Slavs who had inhabited Macedonia for three centuries before it was conquered by the Bulgars and later by the Serbs. *9 A part from everything that ocurri'd subsequently, w e know that these Slavs constituted ii lnrK<' ethnic mass which, in spite o f attested tribal differi m i c c m , hi'cnme more and more compact: blood relationship and i-xrtimi'oim circumstances accelerated this tendency. Although, iin .Iiik^ hits pointed out, there w ere certain dialectal diffcrrnct'M, th<> written Slav language became a unifying force.
'* Srtiafnrik, o p .c lt., pp. 27 28 and 29. * LJub. S to jn n o v li, Stari srpski zapisi i n a tpisi (O ld Serbian R e cords and Inscriptions), B elgrade, 1905, V o l. I l l ,p. 139, N o . 5543. * Ibid., pp. 41 42, N o. 4944. " Ibid., p. 46, N o. 4948. * Leonard Schultze-Jena, M a k e d o n ie n : Landschafts- und K u ltu rb ild e r, Jena, 1927, p. 153.

23

The acceptance of Christianity also made its contribution: through the Church tribal differences w ere attenuated, and a keener sense of the community was developed than had hitherto existed. In general, Christianity made the Slavs more domesticated, bound them more closely to the land they had occupied and reduced their aggressiveness toward Byzantium. Matej Sokolov pointed out that Christianity had had a curb ing influence upon other barbarians in the Roman Empire. St. Jerome, a fourth-century writer, observed that as soon as the barbarians became Christianized, they ceased waging w ar against the Romans. The tenth-century w riter Kamenijat expressly states the same thing of the Slavs: since they had accepted Christianity, they had ceased threatening Salonica.8 0 The Christianization of the Balkan Slavs took place gra dually. When Cyril and Methodius first began their work, they had been, in the form al sense, more or less converted. It has been established that they w ere Christianized long before the Bulgars, whose official conversion dates from 861 or 862.3 1 It may be said that the Balkan Slavs did not begin to play a part in history until they had acquired a literary language and a clergy of their own. Tired of a life of constant raids and warfare, they w ere inspired by Christianity in the form in which it was brought to them by C yril and Methodius and their disciples, by their pastoral and cultural work and by the powerful religious and literary stimulus that this work supplied. Through the Christian religion, which only now they began to comprehend more deeply, they began to grasp the essence of power and to menace the non-Christian w ay of life of the agents of this power. Now here did the concept of the Church, inculcated into the minds of the people by the disciples of C yril and Methodius and their successors, come into more direct conflict with that of the State, which (in this case) was nationally alien to them and predatory in its practices. In general, they seem to have displayed a definite antipathy toward the state: their frequent revolts against the Bulgarian state spring, as w e shall see, from this cause. Unit ed, says Corovi6, in a powerful ethnic community, they exerted a certain opposition toward Bulgaria, where ethnic

9 0 SiSid, o p .c it., pp. 112 13. 3 1 Schafarik, op. cit., p. 181.

24

heterogeneity was evident and where the Bulgars held the most important positions. 8 2 The Slavic tribes settled in the territory of Macedonia were united by the Orthodox religion. In it they, so to speak, discovered their true selves. People of humble origins became priests, preachers and anchorites. It was not fortuitous that during these troubled times there w ere increasing numbers of hermits, who became the spiritual torchbearers of the districts in which they lived. Through the Church, by the efforts and achievements of the clergy, a newly-form ed people was entering the world of literature and working out a cul tural and spiritual individuality o f its own; through the Church it began to catch up with Byzantium, with which the ideal of the Church bound it ever more closely. The very appearance of a Slavic liturgy, says Corovi6, was every where received with jo y and immediately felt as a mark of ethnic individuality. This was the first exchange of influences among the Slavs in the cultural sphere. Slavs from Mace donia, together with their teachers, went to work among the Pannonians and Moravians, and the Moravians, in their turn, after they had been driven out, came southward to continue their work. There w ere no frontiers between them: they passed from Macedonia to Moravia and from Moravia to Pnnnonia as though that sort of thing could be taken fo r granted. They w ere united and fe lt themselves to be united, both in the north against the Germans when they pursued them, and in the south vis-a-vis the Greeks, from whom they separated their fellow Slavs. Each made his contribution to this process of consciously creating an independent Slavic culture. ss In npite of all that w e know of the origins and first f l o w e r i n g of South Slav culture in the region of ancient Macedonia, decades of laborious and united effort on the part o f ( I n f i r s t inhabitants remain fo r us a closed book. Who first, b e f o r e Hie arrival o f the disciples o f C yril and Methodius, aroused lln* Slavs cultural and political consciousness; who first preached the Gospel in the language of the people; where, and under what conditions, the Slavic liturgy was first performed in the south; who w ere the first Slav hermits: all
** C orovid , op. clt., p. 63.

3 3 Ibid., p. 49.
25.

these questions, and many more beside, remain unanswered, or, at least, without a satisfactory answer. Our curiosity is particularly understandable in view of the fact that many of these things must undoubtedly have taken place before the appearance of C yril and Methodius and their disciples: when they began their work of translating, the Slav language had already attained a degree of richness and development which, despite all the errors to be found in the earliest translations, fills us with astonishment. To translate from the Greek used by the early Church is a difficult and laborious task even today: at that time the performance o f this feat must indeed have demanded a great knowledge of languages and spiritual aptitude for such a task. The wealth of ideas and expressions employed in these Slav translations is considerable. They must have been taken from somewhere and where but from the people, from the accumulated fruits of its mature spiritual experience? The labors of the disciples of Cyril and Methodius not only those we know, after the death of Methodius in 855, to have turned their attention to the lands then belonging to Bulgaria (i. e., Clement, Naum and Andjelar), but also those whose names have not come down to us lent a new impetus to the work that had been begun. Ascetics and workres of no ordinary caliber, Clement and Naum w ere missionaries in the best tradition of Byzantine Orthodoxy. Presecution in Mo ravia, conflicts with anti-Slav and anti-Orthodox circles in the lands where they had worked and the numerous humilia tions to which they had been exposed had raised them above the common run of men. A fte r all that they had gone through, the country to which their work now brought them was at the same time fruitful and rewarding and also undermined by considerable heresy and underground movements. V. N. Zlatarski truly says that fo r many centuries Macedonia was the chief center and spring board fo r all the heresies in the Balkan Peninsula.8 4 More over, according to the results of modern research, the Mace donian land and people had become the cradle of the Bogomil movement. Macedonia, says Dm itri Obolensky, in the
*4 V . N . Zlatarski, Is to rija na B ulgarskata durzava p re z sred n ite v e k o v e (H is to ry o f th e Bulgarian State in the M id d le A g e s ), V o l. I, Part II, Sofia, 1927, p. 65.

26

tenth century was the centre of opposition to the Bulgarian state and the refuge of all who w ere malcontents against the government, and thus a particularly fertile ground fo r antiecclesiastical movements. 3 5 In this atmosphere, both the religious w ork o f Clement and Constantine and their ecclesiastico-administrative orien tation (Zlatarski assumes that Constantine was the first Slav bishop for northeastern Bulgaria) showed a steady and pro nounced bias in favor of Byzantium. For both of them the patriarchate of Byzantium was nearer than Simeons empire: with their entire being they w ere bound up with Byzantium, which they regarded as the source of pure Orthodoxy. Their connection with the Bulgarian state was a far more tenuous one. Clement considered himself as an apostle of the Slavs, not as a champion of the Bulgarian state. Undoubtedly, he had much in common with the Emperor Simeon as a member of the Orthodox Church, as a devoted supporter of the faith and of the cause of promoting a Slav literature; but Simeons desire to become Emperor and to establish a partriarchate failed to arouse his sympathies. W e know that Clement op posed this desire right up to his death in 916, and that it was his determined opposition in 915 which prevented Simeon temporarily from proclaiming the Bulgarian Church an in dependent patriarchate. Tw o years after Clements death, Simeon nevertheless issued a proclamation to this effect, and Obolensky rightly declares that by this deed Simeon be trayed the work o f St. Clement. 9 8 The assertion, persistently made by Bulgarian historians, I hid Cyril and Methodius and their disciples w ere Bulgars is devoid of historical foundation. Jagi6 stated firm ly that not only they, but even the Slavic population of Macedonia among whom Clement and Naum worked was not Bulgarian. A t the beginning of the tenth century, not to mention earlier times, ho anyN, "the ethnic composition of the Bulgarian state was heterogeneous even within the frontiers of Bulgaria proper, let alone Mncedonia, where Clements activities were mostly concentrated. Here there lived a Slavic people free from nonSlav Bulgarian elements, whose speech corresponded in the
D m itri O b o le n ik y , T h e B o g om ils : A Study M anlchaelsm , Cam bridge, England, 1949, p. 147. * Ibid., p. 91. in Balkan N eo-

27

main to the Church Slavonic o f C yril and Methodius, which, in my opinion, Clement also regarded from childhood on as his native tongue. The language which he employed in his writings was therefore pure Old Slavonic, which neither he nor his contemporaries called Bulgarian. 3 7 The cause to which Clement devoted his energies was that of Orthodoxy among the South Slavs. Even before this, the Bulgarian state had made great efforts to identify this cause with its own interests. Drawn toward the Church, the Slavic population within its frontiers tended more and more to shun the state. The ascetic zeal which at that time was especially lively in the West had also permeated the Slavic population in the Balkans, which regarded the secularization of the Church with indignation. What inspired both Church and people was not the brilliance and splendor, the power and wealth, or the cruelty and despotism, which the state had to offer, but the urge toward perfection, toward that which shines in the Christian religion like an inextinguishable torch. If, among leading circles in the Church, Byzantinized elements, in the pejorative sense of the word, could occasionally be found, both the hermits, whose numbers continued to in crease, and the people in general displayed a zealous spirit reminiscent of that of the earliest generations of monks. This orientation toward the Church, together with the consiousness that the Bulgarian state was an alien force, led to an evident antipathy toward the state and complete indifference to its fate. This state of affairs was advantageous fo r the Bogomil movement. In it, says Zlatarski, the people expressed their protest, not only against Church and state, which, by virtue of their structure, w ere alien to popular conceptions, but in general against moral decay and the adherence to everything non-Bulgarian provoked by the alien and, fo r the state, dis astrous influence of Byzantium.*8 Tired as they w ere of war, the masses of the population were nevertheless restless. Beneath the cloak of resignation
37 V a tr o s la v Jagic, ,Izg n a n ic i iz M o ra v s k e p osle smrti M e to d ije v e : S iren je sloven sk e c rk v e i k n jig e m edju juznim S lo ven im a " (Ex pulsions from M o ra v ia A fte r the D eath o f M ethodius: T h e Spread o f the S la vic Church and Literature A m o n g th e South Slavs), Izabrani kradi spisi, Z agreb , 1948, p. 420. 3 8 Zlatarski, o p .c il., p. 561.

28

there lurked the specter of revolt: throughout the length and breadth of the Slav lands, which w ere just awakening to consciousness, fanatical sects and heretics w ere at work, sum moning the people to rebel against the state and against the Church, which was becoming a tool of the state. The peoples religious fervor and their longing for an ideal world enabled the Bogomils to make great progress among the Slavic po pulation of Macedonia. Exacting in their demands upon them selves and strict observers of the hermitic w ay of life, they were severe in their judgment of those who ruled in Church and state and complaisant in their attitude toward the little man, who was, as ever, thirsting fo r justice. Thus the preachers of Bogomilism vigorously prepared the people for rebellion; they succeeded in creating a serious threat to the Bulgarian state from within and in accelerating its fall. In the Nemanja state, just the opposite occurred: here Bogomil ism was uprooted and rendered incapable of further threaten ing the development of the state. Referring to the Bogomils in Bulgaria, the priest Kozma says: They preach disobedience to authority, anathematize the rich, pour scorn on the military, abuse the boyars, declare the servants of the Emperor and his officials to be scorned before God and forbid slaves to work for their masters. 3 9 Murko interpreted all this as a protest against the feudal state of Bulgaria, which was becoming increasingly Byzantinized. It is an inescapable fact that this protest was much more pronounced in the regions between Ohrid and the Vardar, whore the Bogomil faction of the Dragovi6i was particularly lining, than in the eastern regions, where the authority of I tu' Mtilgnrian state was more firm ly established.4 0 Ivan Salui/.ov pointed out that social persecution was rife in Bulgaria light up to the end o f the Emperor Peters reign (927 69). In coniii'fllon with the Bogomils, it is noteworthy that, ac cording lo Obolensky, Reinerius Sacchoni, at one time himself ii Hupportrr of this heresy, in the chapter on the Cathar churclicn contained in his work Summa de Catharis et Leonintis (written in 1250), gives a list of sixteen heretical 'churches or communities of the Cathars, at least fiv e of which werc> situated in the Balkans. The last two churches Quoted tn Murko, op. cit., p. 85. 4 0 Ibid.
29

in Reineriuss list, the Ecclesia Bulgariae and the Ecclesia Dugunthiae, w ere considered in his time to be the original source of all others. Reinerius mentions a Slavic church near the church of the Drugovi6i : Franjo RaCki was o f the opinion that this Slavic church was in Bosnia.4 1 Thus the Balkan Slavs w ere passing through an extrem ely complex stage in their political, spiritual and cultural deve lopment. They were not to be easily fused with the Greeks although this did occasionally occur nor did they w illin gly reconcile themselves to Bulgarian rule. From the ethnographic point of view, their Bulgarian conquerors did, indeed, become engulfed in the Slav masses of the population, since they formed but a small percentage of the whole, but they never theless remained fo r a long time the ruling caste and did not easily lend themselves to Slavonicization. Within the Bul garian state, the conflict between Slav and Bulgarian elements was to last fo r many centuries.

4 1 O b olen sk y, o p .c it., p. 157.

30

THE M A C E D O N IAN S LA V S UNDER B U L G A R IA N RULE The history of the Bulgarian state in the Balkans begins with the arrival of a group of Bulgars, under the leadership of Khan Asparuch, in the region around Varna. According to Mikov, they numbered approximately fifty thousand.1 A t Pliska, or Pliskova, says Corovifi, near the modern village of Abobe, their first capital came into being, covering a large fortified area of twenty-three square kilometers. 2 Here there was a w all stretching from the Danube to the sea, as one ancient source tells us.3 From here, Asparuch began to subdue the Slavic tribes which had long been settled in this area nnd which, ethnically speaking, had nothing in common with their conquerors. Advancing the official Bulgarian view, Dr. A. Ischirkov says: The Bulgars imposed their rule upon the Slavs, who, since they possessed a more advanced culture [than the Bulgars], gave the Bulgars their language, which became the official language of both Church and state. The new Bulgaro-Slav empire became the rallying point of the ethnically related tribes on the other side of the Balkans and in Macedonia: through frequent political and religious unions, the common tribal consciousness has been strengthened right up to the present time. 4 Schafarik asserts that these tribes w ere peaceful tillers of the soil who w ere incapable of offer ing resistance to a m ilitarily powerful and well-organized group.5 In 817, Theophanes noted that the Bulgars had crossed the Danube and reached Varna, where they subdued seven Slavic tribes, whose names, as has already been pointed out, have not come down to us.6 W e have seen that the Slavic tribe
1 D. M ik o v , Les ila p e s d 'une unit6 n a tion a le, Sofia, 1915 ,p. 7. 1 V la d im ir C orovid , Is to rija J u g o s la v ije (H is to ry o f Y u g o s la v ia ), B elgrade, 1933, p. 33. 3 See S p om en ik S rpske K ra lje v s k e A k a d e m ije N auka, V o l. Ill, B elgrade, 1890, p. 191. 4 A . Ischirkov, D ie B evd lk eru n g in Bulgarien und ihre Siedlungsverh altnisse,* P eterm a n n's M itte ilu n g e n , 1911, Halbband II, p. 117. * Paul Joseph Schafarik, S la vis d ie A lte rlh u m e r, V o l. II, L eip zig, 1844, p. 14. Ibid .

31

known as the Severjani had settled in what is now Dobruja: they too w ere subjugated by the Bulgars. Constituting, as they did, a very small minority, the Bul gars, in the nature of things, soon began to merge with the Slavic population. Under the new regim e, says Jireiek, the Slavic regions became gradually welded into a single nation and took over the name of their masters, the Bulgars, under whom they are still living today___ A fte r the passage of a fe w centuries, there w ere no longer two nations Slavs and Bulgars speaking different languages, but only Bulgars who spoke Slav. 7 Zlatarski says that the relationship between Bulgars and Slavs was not that of victors and vanquished, but o f two peoples with equal rights. When w e bear in mind, he writes, the central position that the Bulgars now occupy among the Slavic peoples, and the leading role which they played in the events of that period, we are obliged to admit that the Slavs entered upon a federative relationship with the Bulgars whose prim ary objective was to preserve their in dependence. It may be assumed that the internal administra tions of these two peoples w ere from the outset completely independent and that they lived separately one from the other. 8 Nevertheless, the Bulgars, as w e shall see later from nume rous examples, fo r long remained a self-sufficient community and adopted toward the subjugated Slavs the attitude of a leading caste, which looked down upon the Slavic population and maintained a jealous watch to ensure that the Slavs should not attain to high places in the state administration. Their ethnic dissimilarity persisted fo r a long time and, especially at first, was intensified by their differing religions: when the Bulgars first came to the region around Varna, the Slavs w ere already, fo r the most part, Christian, w hile the Bulgars were pagans. The official conversion of the Bulgars took place in 865: on September 14, 865 (according to Zlatarskis conjecture), a certain Greek bishop, at the head of a group of missionaries sent to convert the Bulgars, baptized

7 Constantin Jos. J ir e fe k , Gesc hichte d er B ulgaren, p. 130. 8 V . N. Zlatarski, Is to rija na B iilgarskata d u ria v a prez sred n ite v e k o v e (H is tory o f the B ulgarian State in the M id d le A g e s ), V o l. I, P art I, Sofia, 1918, p. 143.

32

Moris, who received the name of Mihailo. O f the manner in which the people w ere converted, says Zlatarski, we know nothing. By all appearances, it would seem that the new faith spread gradually, for in some places heathenism persisted fo r a long time afterward. 1 0 He goes on to point out that at that time Christianity was the faith of the Slavic population.1 1 It is noteworthy that Zlatarski emphasizes that the intro duction of Christianity into Bulgaria dealt a serious blow at the countrys ethnic dualism in favor of the Slavic element: "through Christianity, Boris became master of the Bulgarian Slavs, who during his reign w ere the ruling nation and conKcquently constituted the power and might o f the Bulgarian Htivte. From khan of the Huns and Bulgars, he became emperor of the Slavs and Bulgars. 1 2 Zlatarski would have been much nearer the truth if he had not mistaken the true nature of the relationship between the Bulgarian ruling element and the Slavs: Boris supported the Slavs, but could not give them the role of state leader which Zlatarski assigns to them. From the arrival of the Bulgars in the Balkans to the con version o f Boris there had passed an interval of 186 years. What had occured in the meantime in the relations between Slavs and Bulgars? The process of ethnic unification, especial ly in view o f the small number of Bulgars, took place ex tremely slowly. During the whole of this period, the stubborn impatience displayed by the Bulgarian ruling caste toward the Slavs, whom they w ere reluctant to recognize as their own equals, is particularly noticeable. The Arabic w riter Masudi, who died in 956, has recorded how the Bulgars, con cluding a peace treaty with Byzantium, sold young Slavs of both sexes as slaves.1 3 Schafarik says that Slavic tribes sub jugated by the Bulgars paid them tribute particularly in Upper Macedonia and that their princes gave sole recognition to the supreme authority o f the Bulgars.1 4 The relationship was much the same as that with Byzantium at the time when
Ibid., Part II, p. 30. 1 0 Ibid., p. 29. 1 1 Ibid., p. 35. 1 8 Ibid., pp. 41 and 42. ,s See JireCek, op. cit., p. 133. 1 4 Schafarik, op. cit., p. 181.

33

the Slavs had first settled in the Balkans. Pointing out that, long after it had been conquered by the Bulgars, Moesia was also called Slovinia, Schafarik says: The name Bulgaria was, indeed, the more usual from the eighth century on; but the old name recurred from time to time. 1 5 Evidently, the state was Bulgarian, but the people subject to that state did not as yet consider themselves as Bulgarians. This is borne out by the fact that in 761, eighty-two years after the arrival o f the Bulgars, a revolution occurred in Bulgaria which was directed against the Slavs, and 208,000 Slavs left Bulgaria. They left the country, says Zlatarski, and voluntarily gave themselves up to the [Byzantine] Emperor, whom they asked to assign them a place of habitation. 1 8 They w ere settled in Asia Minor on the Arton River, in the region of Bithynia. Zlatarski goes on to say that this struggle had to decide which of the two constituent ethnic elements in the state the Bulgarian or the Slav should have the ascendancy in determining the Bulgarian national character. 1 7 Especial efforts w ere made in this sense by the khan Krum (802 14), who succeeded by means of a trick in taking Sofia from the Byzantines. He sacked both Macedonia and Thrace with the intention o f annexing them to his state. W e have evidence which shows that Krum favored the Slavic element: a dele gation which he sent in 812 to Byzantium to negotiate with the Emperor Michael Rhangabes (811 13) was headed by a high-placed official named Dragomir, who was obviously a Slav. As to the character of the ruling caste o f Krum s ad ministration, however, this is of no significance, fo r both at an earlier and at a later date there w ere Slavs in high posi tions in Byzantium. Summing up Krum s policy as a whole, Zlatarski emphasizes his efforts to strengthen the Slavic influence in the state. His reasons fo r doing so were, of course, political, dynastic and personal. In his desire to create an extensive and powerful Bulgaria, Krum was aware o f the need to renounce the national fanaticism and ethnic separatism of his fellow-countrymen if he was to follow the natural and cor rect course of developing and strengthening the state, which
1 5 Ibid., p. 198. u Zlatarski, op. tit., p. 209. 1 7 Ibid., p. 212.

34

was obliged to fa ll back on the numerical strength of the Slavs, without, however, realizing that by doing so he was accelerating the unification of the two ethnic elements and preparing a solid foundation fo r the absorption of the Bul g a r ia n element in the Slav. 1 9 Krum s policy, fo r all its prudence and political farsighted ness, was frustrated by his son and successor Omortag (814 31), whose internal policy was marked by bloody and ruthless persecution of the Christian religion and of the Slavs. The ruling Bulgarian stratum strove to protect itself and to destroy whatever might reduce its prospects of remaining in power. The revolt of the Slavic tribes against this must have been vigorous and on a large scale, since Omortag was under the powerful influence of the anti-Slav policy of the Bul garian aristocracy. ,9 In this connection, Omortag devoted much greater attention to the areas north of the Danube than to the territory of the Macedonian Slavs, which he does not appear particularly to have coveted. Other Slavic tribes, too, gave signs of their hostility toward Omortags government: the TimoCani and Braniievci rebelled and seceded from Bul garia. In their search for support, they appealed fo r help to Louis the Pious. Referring to this incident, Zlatarski ludicrous ly remarks that the TimoCani seceded from Bulgaria fo r un known reasons probably because of the death of Krum ;2 0 while Corovi6 says: In their flight from the Bulgars, they could certainly count on better protection from the Frankish Btute than from an alliance w ith Lju devit [Posavski]. Their first decision was to o ffer themselves to the Franks; even so, they Joined Ljudevit, obviously under the influence of their tribal links with him. In all our history, this is the first attempt on the part of [Slavic] tribes at conscious collabora tion over a wide area, although, as on previous occasions in the NtruKglo with the Obri, it was of a purely defensive character." *' The reign o f Omortags successor, M allom ir (831 36), pro duced no changes in the policy toward the Slavs. M allom irs successor, Presijam (836 52), took advantage of the war 1 9 Ibid., p. 291. > Ibid., p. 318. * Ibid., p. 312. !1 Corovii, op. clt., p. 38.
35

between Byzantium and the Arabs to annex numerous areas belonging to the Macedonian Slavs. His success, says Corovid, appears to have been considerable: the Bulgars quickly emerged as the masters of Ohrid and the entire region around Devol, thus uniting under their rule the greater part of the Macedonian Slavs. 2 2 Zlatarski states that Presijam annexed central and western Macedonia, the lands between the upper and low er Vardar and the C m i Drin, together with Kosovo Polje, and as far south as Ohrid and Prilep.2 3 JireCek shares the same view : From the area of Serdica [Sofia], they [the Bulgars] subdued the Slavic tribes of Macedonia as far as the Byzantine littoral near Salonica, and, since they had occupied Ohrid and the region of the Devol River, they became neigh bors of the province of Durazzo. 2 4 Presijam s son Boris (852 88) and Boriss younger son and second successor Simeon (893 927) supplemented Presijam s conquests and continued the w ar against the Serbian state, which was just coming into being. Presijam was the first to wage w ar against the Serbs: he was defeated and compelled to withdraw. Boris was later also defeated and his son Vladi mir taken prisoner. A relaxation of effort on both sides led to the conclusion of peace terms, as a result of which Vladim ir and tw elve Bulgarian boyars were returned, accompanied by a guard o f honor as fa r as Ras, at that time the frontier between Bulgaria and Serbia. The Serbs, says Corovi6, were probably diffident of the issue of a continued struggle, and therefore agreed to favorable terms. 2 5 Simeon, the greatest leader that Bulgaria has ever had, a man determined and brave in w ar, as L a v the Deacon describes him, decided to bring the remaining Slavic tribes under his rule. According to the treaty concluded with B y zantium in 864, the southwestern frontier of Bulgaria ran from the central Rhodope westward to the Rupelo defile, along the Bjelasnica mountains, across the Vardar near Demir Kapija and then toward the southwest, embracing the lakes

!! 1 8 M V o l. I f*

Ibid., p. 40. Zlatarski, op. cit., V o l. I, Part I, p. 342. C. J. J ir e ie k and J. Radonid, Is to rija Srba (H is tory o f the Serbs), (to 1537), B elgrade, 1952, p. 111. C orovid , op. cit., p. 41.

36

of Ohrid and Prespa. 2 8 The tribes which w ere still outside the Bulgarian borders included the Smoljani (on the low er reaches of the Mesta River), the Rinhini (between the low er Struma and the Vardar), the Sagudati and the Dragovi6i (northwest and west of Salonica). Pow erful as he was, and obsessed by the ambition to surplant Byzantium in name as w ell as in fact, Simeon was urged on by an insatiable desire to proclaim a Bulgarian empire and patriarchate: the patriarchate he did, in fact, proclaim in 918, without the permission or approval of Byzantium and sub sequently he proclaimed himself emperor. Soon after this, he devoted the greater part of his energies to the w ar against the Serbs, on whom he wanted to take his revenge for their defeats of his father and grandfather. Although it was only just coming into being, the Serbian state showed considerable powers of resistance and its leaders considerable skill in maneuvring between Bulgaria and Byzantium, in which they divined the lesser threat to their future development. Re ferring to the period when Simeon was attempting to destroy Serbia, JireCek states that the territory of Serbia stretched from the Adriatic to the Ibar, from the mouth of the Boj ana along the coast to Cetina, and in the north as far as the Sava River. The center of gravity of the ancient Serbian state was on the Lake of Skadar (Scutari). Not until the time o f the Nemanjidi did its frontiers begin to move eastward and south ward.*7 Simeon succeeded in destroying the Serbian state. Si meon, says Schafarik, exacted a dreadful revenge upon the Serbs, who had entered upon an alliance with the Greeks against the Bulgars. Serbia was terribly devastated. 2 8 Large numbers of slaves w ere taken off. Porphyrogenitus recorded that only a fe w groups of hunters w ere left in Serbia, without w ives or children. A fte r the death of Simeon, which occurred in 927, the might of Bulgaria waned rapidly. His son and successor, Peter (927 68), an unusually close prototype of the Serbian UroS the W avever, was a devout but weak person entirely under Byzantine influence and unequal to the times in which he
* Zlatarski, op. cit., V o l. II, p. 328. 1 7 C. J. Jiredek, Geschichte d er B ulgaren, p. 162. 1 8 Schafarik, op. cit., p. 187.

37

lived. Under his rule, the state began to totter to its founda tions: in 930, his brother Mihailo rose in revolt, but was soon killed and his revolt crushed. Caslav Klonim irovic fled from Bulgaria and set up a powerful state of his own. F ive times the Magyars attacked Bulgaria, mostly in collaboration with the Cumani. In 963, there broke out the rebellion led by the nobleman 3iman and his sons: meeting with failure in the east, he withdrew to the western regions, where he founded a new administrative center. The First Bulgarian Empire came to an end with the death of Peter in 968. (Bulgarian historians, and with them many others, include the reigns of Samuil and his successors, and consider the First Empire as lasting until 1018). There is no doubt that the Slavs of Macedonia were also for a long period subjects of this empire. Zlatarski emphasized that throughout this extensive empire there was no inner unity. One may confidently assert, he says, that in the earliest period of the First Bulgarian Empire there existed a Bulgarian state, but there was as yet no Bulgarian people with strongly defined cultural principles, with its own w ay o f life, which would set it apart as an entity, as a separate nation. 2 9 Zlatarski claims, however, that this situation changed in the middle of the ninth century, but no evidence can be found fo r this assertion. The western part of the empire, chiefly the territory of the Macedonian Slavs, displayed a persistent tendency toward separatism and a lack of interest in the idea of a Bulgarian state. Hugo Grothe states that as late as the ninth century Bulgarian inroads into unconquered Slav territories were undoubtedly raids carried out by marauders, which could hardly have left any ethnic traces on these territories. 3 0 R eferring to the replies given by Pope Nicholas I to the questions put to him by the Emperor Boris, JireCek says that they o ffer valuable and irrefutable evidence that the Bul garian ruling stratum had not yet become fused with the subjugated Slavs.3 1 Murko also remarks that in the tenth century the Bulgars were still a separate people,3 2 while Dr.
2 8 Zlatarski, op. cit., V o l. I, Part I, pp. 351 52. 3 0 H u go Grothe, A u t tiirkisch er Erde, Berlin, 1903, p. 361. 8 1 C. J .J ir e ie k , Geschichfe d er B u lga ren, p. 156. 3 2 M. M urko, Geschichte der a lteren siidslawischen Lite ra tu r, L eip zig, 1908, p. 25.

38

Ku rt Floericke, despite the assertion that the Bulgars, as an ethnic group, rapidly disappeared in the Slavic masses, emphasizes that the administration of the Bulgarian state of that time was definitely aristocratic in character: thus, he says, in customs and ideas, there was everywhere the greatest possible opposition to the democratic Slav nation. 8 8 There can be no question of a single people in the enormous Bulgarian state of the Middle Ages. Some blending of races did occur, since this was inevitable; but the idea of a Bulgarian state, represented as it was by a non-Slav ruling stratum, left hardly any permanent traces in the minds of the Macedonian Slavs. Even when it was resurrected in the form o f the Second Bulgarian Empire (1186 1393), it was not defended with such determination and self-sacrifice as was the Serbian state. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the Second Bulgarian Empire took its origins from Tum ovo, which, after the battle on the Klokotnitsa in 1230, regained its form er power. From the time of Samuil, says JireSek, the Bul garian Slavs w ere once more united under a single scepter. In addition to Danubian Bulgaria, it embraced BraniCevo and Belgrade, Nig and Velbuzd, Thrace together with Didimotika and Adrianople, the whole of Macedonia that is, the regions around Ser, Skoplje, Prilep, the Devol, and Ohrid and A l bania together with Elbasan as far as the approaches to Durazzo. 3 4 The history of the Second Bulgarian Empire is also fu ll of drama. There w ere constant quarrels, rebellions and con spiracies between various local rulers and pretenders to the throne, of whom there w ere many. Except during the reign uf Ivan Asen II (1218 41), the Second Bulgarian Empire was ili'void of any central idea. In contrast to the First, it was at l Iw hi'lKht of its power amicably disposed toward the Serbs. Tin' Serbian state, which had come into being as a result of the work of Stevan Nemanja and St. Sava, had overcome its initial obstacles and was evincing an increasingly definite li'iulm ry lo spread southward. The Emperor Ivan Asen II, fathrr-lii-law of King Vladislav, was himself a great admirer of St. Sava, and, when St. Sava died at Tum ovo, he made an nttempl to keep his remains in Bulgaria. In his L ife of
*' K u rl Flonrlcko, Geschichte d er B u lga ien , Stuttgart, 1913, p. 12. M C. J. J lretek , Geschichte der B ulgaren, p. 251.

39

St. Sava, Teodosije says that, on receiving Vladislavs first re quest that he be allowed to remove St. Savas remains to Ser bia, Asen summoned the patriarch and his counsellors and asked them whether he should surrender the Saint, and they replied that he should under no circumstances do this, since the state leaders and the entire city w ere indignant on ac count of this. 8 5 In the spirit, work and achievement of St. Sava may be seen a revival of the period o f St. Clement and o f that movement toward the unification of the Slavic tribes to which w e have already drawn attention. Moreover, there is ample evidence to show that he did much to secure recognition o f the independence of the Bulgarian Church, thus putting both the Bulgarian Church and the Bulgarian state in his debt. During the period when the Second Bulgarian Empire was still in its infancy, the Macedonian Slavs w ere once more under Greek rule. When the Latins captured Byzantium in 1204, they fe ll into the hands of the despots of Epirus. A kinsman of Kaloyan (1197 1207), Dobromir Strez, who is also prominent in Serbian history, remained loyal to the Greeks and under their patronage formed an independent principality. Later he accepted the protection of Stevan PrvovenCani, then betrayed him, and fin ally paid fo r this with his life. In his account of this period, the monk Teodosije says that the Goths [so he calls the Bulgars] became very power ful and, finding many Greek cities deserted and helpless, they seized and held them; they also occupied the cities around Salonica and controlled Ohrid. 8 5 From the death of Ivan Asen II to the battle on the VelbuSd in 1330, the Bulgarian throne was occupied by a series of rulers who are of little interest. As a result of the battle on the Velbuzd, the Bulgars w ere driven out of Slavic Macedonia, and fo r several centuries after this, until the emergence of the Exarchate, they w ere to play no further role in this region. On that day, says Floericke in reference to this battle, the leader ship of the South Slavs passed from the Bulgars to the Serbs. *7 The collapse of the Bulgarian Empire with the fall
Stare 3 3 7 T e o d o s ije , Z iv o t s ve to g a Save (T h e L ife o f St. Sava), in B asii, srpske b io g r a lije (O ld Serbian B iograph ies), p. 240. Ibid., pp. 162 163. F loericke, op. cit., p. 33.

40

to Turnovo in 1393, took place without noise and without heroic feats: it was the Serbs who defended Macedonia against the Turks. Conscientious and well-inform ed historian as he was, Zlatnrski committed a serious error in supposing that he Slavic tribes which settled in Macedonia and the whole of the Bal kans bore no resemblance to the Serbs and Croats who, at the time of Heraclius (610 41), settled in those areas with which their later history was to be associated. R eferring to the Slavs of the so-called Slavo-Antic group, Zlatarski says: Neither In their origin, nor in their language, nor in their political interests did they have anything in common with the SerboCroats. 8 8 Consequently, he goes on to say, during the first period o f their history, the Serbs w ere unable to unite and form a single state, and, from the time when they first !x}gan to settle in the Peninsula, failed to take an independent part in the political affairs of southeastern Europe. On the contrary, they kept aloof from the other Slavs in the Pen insula, since they belonged to another Slavic group and con sequently differed from them in their origin, language and political interests. 3 9 Evidently, Zlatarski overlooked a number of important facts. Until the time of Samuil, the other Balkan Slavs also failed to create a state of their own; the efforts of Prince Samo and later of Lju devit Posavski to form a Slavic state proved unsuccessful; as soon as the Serbs began to form a state of their own, the Bulgars intervened with the object of preventing them from doing so and w ere repeatedly defeated by the Serbs; like the BraniSevci and TimoCani, the Mace donian Slavs felt no enthusiasm for the Bulgarian regime, and lit* Malkan Slavs in general w ere fo r long incapable o f reKanlliiK I he* Bulgarian state as their own since it was, indeed, (i IIm i to them. By misinterpreting the concept of the state, at a time when states were formed by individuals or their dynasties, Zlatarski erroneously regards as Bulgars all those Slavs who at any time had found themselves under Bulgarian domination. If Bulgaria had indeed been their national state, it would have been impossible, in spite of everything that
* Zlatarski, op. c It., V o l. I, Part I, p. 16. M Ibid., p. 345.

41

subsequently occurred, for all trace of it to disappear. In 1814, Dobrovsky considered Bulgarian to be a dialect of Serbian, w hile until 1826 Schafarik had not seen a single book w ritten in Bulgarian.4 0 Identifying the Bulgarian state, from the national point of view, with its subjects, Schafarik de signated all those Slavs who had at any time been incorporat ed in the Bulgarian state as Bulgarian Slavs. In its widest sense, he says, w e understand the term Bulgarian Slavs as including all those Slavs who w ere at one time to be found in Moldavia, Wallachia, Sibiu and southern Hungary from the Prut R iver in the north to the confluence of the Drava and Danube rivers, in ancient Moesia and modern Eastern Serbia from the mouth o f the Danube to the Morava, in Thrace, Macedonia and Albania, in Thessaly and other parts of Greece and even in the Pelopennese and on the neighboring is lands. 4 1 Follow ing Schafariks example, other writers have em ployed an equally uncritical approach in defining the ethnic boundaries of Bulgaria. Paul Dehn states that they encompass a wide area. With the exception of some isolated com munities in Epirus, west of the Vardar and in Upper Moravia, the Bulgars inhabit a wide area which is bounded by the right bank of the Danube from the Serbian frontier to the Black Sea, from where the frontier follows the shores of the Black Sea, Sea of Marmor and Aegean Sea as far as the mouth of the Vardar, then follows the course of the Vardar up to Kosovo Polje, from where it passes through Giljane, Vranje, Leskovac, NiS and Pirot to Vidin on the Danube. Only in the large ports such as Byzantium and Salonica do w e find a re duced number of Bulgars. 4 2 A similar definition of the Bul garian frontiers is to be found in Stefan Mladenovs Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache, published in 1929. Such definitions are, of course, to be regarded as arbitrary and unrealistic.

4 0 C. J. Jirefcek, Geschichte d er B ulgaren, p. 506. 4 1 Schafarik, op. cit., p. 152. 4 2 Paul Dehn, D ie V o lk e r Siidosteuropas und ih re politisch en P ro blem e, H a lle, 1909, pp. 20 21. 41 Stefan M la d e n o v , Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache, BerlinL eip zig, 1929, p. 1.

42

THE EMPEROR S A M U IL In the history of the Macedonian Slavs, the attempt of Samuil to create and maintain a Slavic state in the Balkans furnishes a chapter apart. The son of comes Nikola, Samuil (976 1014) is an extrem ely interesting figure, but, like the times in which he lived, there is much about him that is obscure. Bulgarian historians, together with many others, re gard him as a Bulgar and his state as a continuation of the Bulgarian state. The most recent research, however, suggests that he was of Armenian origin: Nicolas Adontz has put fo r ward the view that his fam ily was Armenian. That his mother Ripsimija was Armenian is no longer open to doubt.4 4 His state, which came into being as the result of a rising against Byzantium, did not include all, if any, of the eastern regions of the Bulgarian Empire, but did embrace all the Serbian lands. Between Samuil and the Serbian princes there appears to have been mutual confidence and dependence: Samuil made Jovan Vladimir, Prince of Zeta, his son-in-law. On the other hand, he regarded his domain, not as a con tinuation or revival of the old Bulgarian state, but as his own, new and original creation. He had his own conception and his own aims. From Ohrid, where he had his capital, Samuil began to extend his territory in all directions. From here, says Bo2idar Prokic, he gradually extended his authority over all the Serbian tribes as far as the Croatian frontier, over all the Slavic tribes in Macedonia and Thessaly and all the Bulgars except those south of the Balkan Mountains in Thrace. Thus, Samuil was the first among the Slavic rulers to attempt the liberation of all the Slavic tribes in the Balkan Peninsula Macedonians, Serbs and Bulgars from an alien regime. This he soon suceeded in doing, uniting them in a single Slavic state and giving it that name which the hitherto strongest Slavic state in the Balkans had borne. 4 5 Summing up this period, Corovi6 says: "Samuil, therefore, did not recognize the authority of the form er Bulgarian
4 4 N ico la s A d on tz, Samuel l'A rm en ien , ro i des Bulgares, M i m o i res de I'A ca d 6 m ie ro y a le de B elgiq u e, 1938, pp. 41 42. 4 * B o iid a r A . Prokid, V o jv o d a Iv a c (Duke Iv a c ), B ra tstvo d ru itv a s ve to g a Save, V o l. I X and X , 1902, p. 5.

43

dynasty over his lands: he created a new state administration and a new dynasty. Even though he later conquered Bulgaria and its imperial capital, Preslav, he did not transfer his own capital thither, but remained true to his Macedonian environ ment, to Prespa and Ohrid___ Thus the land of the Mace donian Slavs, fo r the first and the last time in our history, became the center of a great liberation campaign and of a great state___ Samuils state of Macedonian Slavs was a new creation, which exploited the imperial inheritance of Bul garia. For this reason, his state is regarded in certain foreign circles as a continuation of the old state of Simeon, i. e., of Bulgaria. 4 8 The only feature that Samuils state and that of Bulgaria had in common was that they both came into being in the course of the struggle with Byzantium, in which Byzantium was in the end victorious. A new feature in Samuils policy, particularly in comparison with Bulgaria, was that he gave the Slavic element a w ider and freer scope. There is one more striking difference between the two: while Bulgaria, despite her power and greatness, left no profound traces in the con sciousness o f the Macedonian Slavs, the same cannot be said of Samuils state. The subsequent desire of the people that it should be revided found expression in a series of rebellions, o f which not one was oriented toward the old Bulgaria: of these uprisings, the most interesting are those led by Petar Deljan, the soldier Tihom ir (in the region of Durazzo), Manuel Ivac (near Prilep) and D jordje Vojteh. V ojtehs uprising was pro-Serbian in orientation. Since 1035, a new Serbian state had begun to form at Zeta, and a rebel delegation requested Mihailo, K in g of Zeta, to help them and give them his son Bodin to lead the revolt. A w are o f the links, says Corovic, between the Zeta dynasty and Samuil, and probably also prompted by the fact that Zeta, w ith which RaSka, the Trebinje district and Hum w ere at that time in alliance, was the only Slavic state in their vicinity, the rebels appealed fo r assistance to K in g Mihailo o f Zeta. Perhaps they hoped that considerations of tribal solidarity would prompt the K in g to join them. This Mihailo did. 4 7
4* C o r o v ii, op. tit., p. 64. 4 7 Ibid ., p. 73.

44

Samuils religious policy also showed that he was follow ing a different course from the Bulgarian rulers: there was no enmity on either side between him and the Bogomils. W hile the names of Boris, Simeon and Peter are prominent in Bul garian ecclesiastical literature, Samuils name is almost com pletely absent. . . and always wrapped in a veil of restraint. 4 8 Jireiek also remarks that Samuil gave neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic Church any support in their struggle against the Bogomils.4 9 As the example of Ivac shows fo r he was certainly not the only one there w ere members o f the Orthodox faith among Samuils m ilitary commanders. (On the Feast o f the Assumption, August 28, 1018, Ivic was captured by Evstatije Dafnomil, administrator of Ohrid, by trickery and blinded.) The celebration in Macedonia of the slava, which is attested by the Byzantine chronicler Skilica, is one more proof that the Macedonian Slavs in Samuils state differed from the Bul gars. In the east, in Bulgaria, this custom was never ob served nor is it today and when, in the eleventh century, the Bulgars began to subdue the Christianized Slavic tribes in Macedonia and the Serbian lands, they found the slava already established there. When the Bulgars w ere converted in the second half of the eleventh century, they neither then nor at any later date took over this custom from the Mace donian Slavs. 5 0 A ll this indicates the individual character of Samuils state, which was neither Bulgarian nor Serbian. In 1884, Alexander Heksch, on inadequate grounds, called this state "Serbian, chiefly in order to emphasize that it was not Bulgrnian. " A t the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century, he says, a kingdom under Samuil emerged in Macedonia is erroneously called Bulgarian, fo r the Bulgars hnd no part in it. On the contrary, the chief cities of Bul garia Sllistria and P lo vd iv remained outside the frontiers of Samuils state and under Byzantine rule. Samuils state was Slavic, with its center in Macedonia. 5 1 Somewhat more
4 8 Dm itri O b olen sk y, T h e B o g om ils : A Study in Balkan N e o M anichaelsm , C am bridge, England, 1949, p. 151. 4 * C. J. J ire fe k , Geschichte d er B ulgaren, p. 191. M Prokid, op. cit., p. 12. A le x a n d e r F. Heksch, Donau, L eip zig, 1884, p. 635 (footn ote).

45

circumspectly, Hugo Grothe w rote in 1905: Whether this state was Bulgarian or Serbian usually it is referred to as the Western Bulgarian Kingdom is still an open question. In any case, as soon as the SiSmani attempted to conquer this land from the north, a movement of immigration began from Old Serbia. 5 2 Samuils state was the first and last state of the Mace donian Slavs. It was called into being by the circumstances of the period, which likewise soon removed it from the historical arena. Its disappearance in 1018 creates for us a new problem: that of the old archiepiscopacy of Ohrid, which, like Samuils state, has been erroneously called Bulgarian, for, while it controlled the Slavic areas in its immediate vicinity, it did not extend, after the collapse of the Second Bulgarian Empire, to the central areas of the Bulgarian Patriarchate. While, with the gradual decline of the Serbian state and, concurrently, of the Patriarchate of Ped, the authority of the archiepiscopacy of Ohrid spread to the dioceses of the Patriarchate of Pec, the Patriarch of Byzantium, after the fa ll of Turnovo, placed the Bulgarian Church under the control of the Metropolitan of Moldavia. In 1402, nine years after the collapse of Bulgaria, w e find at Turnovo a Greek bishop, who was subordinate to the Patriarch o f Byzantium.5

5 1 G rothe, op. cit., pp. 361 62. 5a C. J. Jirecek, Geschichte d er B ulgaren, p. 350.

46

TH E M A C E D O N IA N S LA V S UNDER SE R B IAN RU LE

I. The Macedonian Slavs came gradually under the sway o f the medieval Serbian state as a consequence of the struggle of the Serbs against Byzantium, not Bulgaria. There must have been contact even earlier between the tribes of central Serbia and those of Macedonia. During the first stage of their life in the Balkans, they had been, at least form ally, under the aegis of Byzantium, from which they w ere gradually taken over by the Bulgars. Right up to the time o f Presijam, mutual relations between all the Slavic tribes w ere good. In the middle of the tenth century, Constantine Porphyrogenitus recorded that until the time of Prince Vlastim ir Serbs and Bulgars w ere on peaceful terms, since they w ere under B y zantine rule. Then Presijam, anxious to prevent the formation of a Serbian state, opened w ar against the Serbs. The most natural explanation of these good relations is that, despite all their tribal differences, they w ere bound together by ties o f kinship and by the fact that they had much in common. In contradiction o f the view of Jem ej K opitar a ml Franc Miklogic (both of them Slovenes), which was taken o v e r nnd developed by Zlatarski, more recent research has nIi o w i i thut the Serbs and Croats, whose migration to the UnlkmiH on a large scale is assigned to the reign of the Em peror lienicllus (610 41), neither linguistically nor ethnically d i f f e r e d bo much from the other Slavic tribes which settled in the Hulkuns before them as to justify their being con sidered as an entirely separate Slavic group.1
1 See Ernst DOmmler, .U b e r d ie alteste Geschichte der Slaw en in D alm atien (549 928),* S U zu n gsb erid ite d er K a iserlichen A k a d e m ie d er W issenscha/lcn In W ie n : P h ilo lo g is ch -h istoris ch e Classe, V o l. X X , 1856j and Lu d w ig G um plow icz, .D ie politische G esch idite der Serben und K roaten,* P o lllls ch -a n th rop o lo g is ch e R evu e, 1902/03, p. 783.

4?

Moreover, Schafarik asserts that the Slavic tribes in the region of the confluence of the Southern and Western Morava w ere mingled with Serbs.* The same thing must have oc curred to the southeast and south of the central Serbian tribes, where the population was more or less sim ilarly con stituted. Linguistic archeology, says Corovid, gives fairly positive results in respect of the dialectal unity of the old South Slav tribes, and excludes the possibility that the Serbs and Croats came to the Balkans as an element dialectically distinct from the other Slav masses. Our linguists have found that Serbo-Croat and Slovenian are the product of a common language and that they were spoken even before the grouping [of the Slavic tribes] in the regions they occupy today took place. 3 R eferring to the speakers of proto-Slavic, Max Vasmer says that before the more important dialectal d if ferences began to emerge, they inhabited a region whose in dividual areas w ere subject to mutual linguistic modifica tion. 4 W here w e find Slavs, says J. J. Mikkola, who call themselves Slavs, we must derive them from a single proto tribe. 5 It is interesting to note that, despite all the vicissitudes of fortune to which the Slavic tribes were, during the centuries, exposed, linguistic oases have survived in the south which testify to the kinship of the southern tribes with those which inhabit present-day Slovenia and KoruSka. During World W ar I, Ljubom ir Pavlovid discovered, in the Slav villages around Ostrovo, a language group which resembles Slovenian. The language of these Slavs, he reports, is nearest to that of the Slovenes. I have seen many Slovenes from our front who have no difficulty in conversing with these Slavs. Mos lems from Meglen stated repeatedly that linguistically they are nearest to the Slovenian volunteers in the Serbian army. An acquaintance of mine, a respected householder from Voden, told me, after a conversation with a lieutenant colonel in our
2 Paul Joseph Schafarik, Slavische A lte rlh u m e r. V o l. II, Leipziq, 1844, p. 259. 3 V la d im ir C o r o v ii, Is to rija J u g o s la v ije (H is tory o f Y u g o s la v ia ), B elgrade, 1933, p. 22. 4 M a x V asm er, U ntersuchungen iib e r d ie altesten W o h n s itz e der Slavert. P a rt I: D ie Ira n ie r in Siidrussiand, L eip zig, 1923, p. 1. 8 J. J. M ik k o la , Sam o und sein Reich,* A rc h iv fu r S ia v is d ie P h iio lo g ie , V o l. X L II, 1929, p. 86.

48

army who came from Slovenia, that he understands the Slo venes better than he does Serbs and Bulgarians, Slavic cus toms associated with weddings, "slava, funerals, domestic and agricultural life are almost identical with those in the mountain villages of Old Serbia and Montenegro. Much that would be of interest for us today in the prehistorical life of these Slavic tribes remains obscure. Schafarik himself felt this, and was right when he said that the pre history of the Serbs of Illyria is covered in impenetrable dark ness. 7 This is especially true of the period preceding the formation o f a Serbian state under Vlastimir: apart from the evidence of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, which is accepted by many historians and rejected, at least partially, by many others, we are unable to learn anything further of the arrival of the Serbs in the Balkans and of the manner of their settling there. W e only know that there w ere Slavs who called themselves Serbs outside the Balkans: in 631, Prince Samo was joined by Drvan, a prince of the Serbian tribe, which was of the Slavic nation. 8 This appears to be the earliest mention of the name Serb. The second occurs in the year 822: the chronicle o f Einhard mentions that in this year Lju devit Posavski fled to the Serbs in Bosnia, which people holds a large part of Dalmatia. It is not open to question that there w ere also Serbs in other parts of the Balkans than those in which the first Serbian state came into being. O f primary importance are those who, before the mass migration began, settled in the area of Salonica. Vatroslav Jagi6, follow ing Porphyrogenitus, states that Serbs, without meeting any opposition, came to Salonica and settled near Salonica in a district which was called ta Serblia. 9 Jagic is of the opinion that the name Oi Serbloi was confined to a very small area.1 0 J. Mikotcy affirm ed that in 640 the Serbs spread first over Macedonia,

Ljub. P a v lo v ii, O stan ovnistvu i selim a O strovsk e o k o lin e (T h e Population and V illa g e s o f the O s tro v o D istrict), G lasnik G eog ra is k o g d ru itv a , V o l. V , 1921, p. 239. 7 Schafarik, op. cit., p. 249. 8 See D iim m ler, op. cit., p. 389. * V . J a g if, Ein K ap itel aus der Geschichte der siidslawischen Sprachen," A rc h iv filr alavische P h ilo lo g ie , V o l. X V II, 1895, p. 60. 1 0 Ibid.

49

then Illyria .1 1 Schafarik supposed that one part of the Serbs, unwilling to return with the m ajority to the north, remained in Macedonia.1 2 Kaspar Zeuss rejected this view: [The argu ment] that a people which stretched from the Tim ok to the Adriatic originally inhabited a small theme [i. v., province] near Salonica, that it took it into its head to return to its form er home and then decided to stay where it was, needs no further proof of its absurdity. 1 3 H ow ever that may be, there is evidence that among the Slavs who were transferred to Asia Minor there w ere some who called themselves Serbs. In 649 (i. e., at a time when, even according to Porphyrogenitus, the resettlement of Serbs in areas outside Macedonia had been completed), the Emperor Constantine I I I transferred a part of the Slavs from the V ar dar to Asia Minor. There these migrants founded the city of Gordoservon, the name o f which gives grounds fo r supposing that among its founders there w ere Serbs. From the seventh to the tenth century, there w ere fiv e such transfers of popu lation.1 4 Between 1118 and 1143, the Emperor John Comnenus resettled some of the Serbs in the region of Nicomedia.1 5 C orovii points out that place names of Serbian origin are to be found over the entire southern part of the Balkan Pen insula, far from the regions where the principal groups of Serbian tribes had settled.1 8 JireCek conjectures that the an cestors of the Serbs and Croats may have been those Slavs who, near Syrmium on the Sava River, built boats fo r the Avars, and who, together with the ancestors of the Slovenes, fought, side by side with the A va r hordes, in the eastern Alps against the Bavarians, and, as auxiliaries, went over to the Longobards in Italy. 1 7
1 1 J. M ik o tc y , O tio ru m C h roa tia e, V o l. I, Budapest, 1806, pp. 89 to 112. 1 2 Schafarik, op. cit., p. 239, footnote. 1 S K aspar Zeuss, D ie Deutschen und die Nachbarstam m e, Munich, 1837, pp. 612 13, footnote. 1 4 J. E rdeljan ovid, O n a seljavan ju S lo ven a u M a lo j A z i j i i Sir iji od V I I d o X v e k a (T h e Settlem ent o f Slavs in A s ia M in o r and S y ria from the S eventh to the Tenth C en tu ry), G lasn ik G e ogra tsk og d ru itv a , V o l. V I, 1921, p. 189.

>' Ibid.
1 4 C o ro v ic , op. cit., p. 6; cf. K. Jire^ek and J. R a d on ii, Is to rija Srba (H is to ry o f the Serbs), V o l. I (to 1537), B elgrade, 1952, p. 59. 1 7 J ir e ie k and Radonifi, op. cit., V o l. I, p. 59.

50

Further evidence of strengthened mutual contacts and, particularly, of the intermingling o f Slavic tribes is the rapid spread among all these tribes of the Slav (Cyrillic) alphabet. Among Serbian scholars it is generally assumed that these mixed tribes brought the Slav alphabet from Slavic Mace donia into the hilly regions of Serbia. This would be all the more likely if, as Corovic says, there can scarcely have ever bi>en any definite frontiers between them [the Slavic tribes In the Balkans]; here as in the areas through which they had passed, they w ere distributed among fraternities and tribes and mingled and maintained contact [with one another]. 1 8 Aleksa I vie remarked that the Balkan Slavs w ere regarded by foreign writers as one great ethnic entity, possessing chiefly one language and one general culture. * Although w e know that the Slav alphabet and liturgy spread among the Serbs in Bosnia and MaCva from Pannonia, it is true that the Serbs in Zeta and RaSka acquired the Slavic alphabet, the Christian faith and the first foundations o f Slav writing from the south. Certain Serbian documents of the tw elfth and early thirteenth centuries, such as the Miroslav Gospel and the Hilandar typic, bear pronounced traces o f the influence of Slavic Macedonia. 2 0 Schafarik made an attempt at defining the eastern and southern frontiers o f the Serbian lands as they w ere at the time of Porphyrogentus. Quite arbitrarily, he traced them along the valley of the Ibar R iver and the Serbian Morava, even though, as he himself admits, Porphyrogenitus says nothing on this point.8 1 It is open to doubt, says Schafarik, "whether the eastern bank of the Ibar and the confluence of the Toplica and TempeSka, i. e., the whole of form er Dardania, was originally inhabited by Serbs. It is more probable that this strip of land was first settled by Bulgarian Slavs and that it was only later annexed to the Serbian state by Stevan Nemanja and his successors, with the result that the Serbian speech subsequently predominated. 2 2 He further states that
1 8 C orovid , op. cit., p. 15. 1 9 In N a rod n a e n c ik lo p e d ija SH S (N a tion a l E n cyclop ed ia o f the Serbs, C roats and S loven es), V o l. IV , p. 306. 2 0 Ibid., p. 307. 2 1 Schafarik, op. cit., pp. 258 59. 2 2 Ibid.

51

the western banks of these rivers were permanently settled by Serbian tribes. According to them, the eastern banks of both rivers w ere inhabited by Slavs o f the other tribe. 2 8 In the east, the Morava and Ibar up to ZveCan separated the Serbs from the Bulgarian Slavs. 2 4 Kaspar Zeuss, whom Robert Roesler described as a researcher of whom it may be said that the more we read him, the more he fills us with wonder, 2 5 accepts the in formation given by Porphyrogenitus on the settlement of the Serbs in his De administrando im perio as correct, but points out that Porphyrogenitus fails to define all the frontiers of the Serbian tribes. Only those tribes are mentioned which settled in the immediate hinterland of the Adriatic Sea, but not the main masses in the east. To these, from among the most important tribes, he assigns the TimoCani and BraniCevci.i6 Ernst Dummler, also a serious critic of Porphyrogenitus, says that the Serbian tribes settled on both sides of the Danube, beginning from the confluence of the Drava with the Danube and reaching as far as the Timok.2 7 He surmises that the Serbian tribes, together with the state of Prince Mutimir, came under the ecclesiastical authority of Methodius diocese of Moravia and Pannonia, which was founded in 870 by Pope Adrian II. He confirms this with a passage from a letter from Pope John V III to Prince Mutimir, which runs: Follow the practice of your predecessors and try, insofar as it is pos sible, to return to the Pannonian diocese. Since, thank God, a bishop has been appointed there by the See of St. Peter, entrust yourself to his paternal care. 2 8 Schafariks mistake was that the ethnic boundaries, which w ere obscure to him, he confused with political boundaries. Byzantine writers did the same thing: all those tribes which the Bulgars gradually brought under their domination they began to call Bulgarian, being perhaps under the impression
Ibid. 2 4 Ibid. 8 5 Robert Roesler, U b er den Zeitpu nkt der slavischen An sied lu n g an der unteren Donau, S itzu n gsberich te der K aiserlichen A ka d e m ie d er W issenschalten in W ie n : P h iio lo gis ch -h istoris ch e Classe, V o l. L X X III, 1873, p. 96. * Zeuss, op. cit., pp. 614 15. 1 7 Dummler, op. cit., p. 396. 2 8 Ibid., p. 407.

52

that membership of a state and ethnic character are one and the same. Thus, Zlatarski called the Macedonian Slavs Bul garian Slavs even before some of them had come under Bul garian rule.* A t this time, and fo r long afterward, the Balkan states w ere the creations of rulers and dynasties rather than national states in the modem sense of the word. Even the state of the Nemanjici, in which the national element was prominent, was regarded by Stojan Novakovid as the creation of a dynasty rather than of a people. Everything here, he says, was personal and bound up with personalities___ The very idea of a great empire and a great state did not exist in the minds of the people or even among the aristocracy of that period: it sprang from DuSan himself and the dynasty of the Nem anjici. 3 0 I f these remarks are true of the medieval Serbian state, they are, mutatis mutandis, even more applicable to the Bul garian state under both empires, whose dynasties were alien to the masses of the Slavic population: in proportion as the state became more powerful, the concept of the state grew more cosmopolitan in character. Recently, Mihailo Dinid point ed out that the idea o f a universal empire still haunted the Bulgars in the time of Jovan Aleksandar: The autocrat of the Bulgars and Greeks was presented as the rival of Constan tine the Great. 3 1 II. The land of the Macedonian Slavs was conquered by the Serbs, not from the Bulgars, but from the Greeks. When the Second Bulgarian Empire was still in its ascendancy, and Asen I was struggling with Isaac Comnenus, Stevan Nemanja had already extended his territory beyond the frontiers of the old state of Raka. Referring to this period, JireCek says:
V . N . Z la tarsk i, Istorija na Bulgarskata du ria va prez srednite v e k o v e (H is to ry o f the B u lg a ria n State in the M id d le A g e s ), V o l. I, Part I, Sofia, 1918, p. 343. so S tojan N o v a k o v id , Les probl&m es serb es, A rch iv liir slavische Ph ilologie, V o l. X X X I V , 1912, p. 232. 3 1 M ih a ilo Dinid, D u S an ova carsk a titula u odim a sa v re m e n ik a (D u san 's Im perial T itle in the Eyes o f C o n tem p oraries), Zborrtik u (a st i e s l e s to g o d iin jic e Zakonika cata DuSana, V o l. I, B elg ra d e, 1951, p. 106.

53

 W hile the Serbs w ere laying waste the towns of Macedonia and Albania, the Bulgars w ere fighting, side by side with the Wallachians and the Cumani, along the whole of the line from P lo vd iv to the Black Sea. 3 2 When the Serbian state began to emerge in the ninth century, during the period when Bul garia was at the height of its power, the Serbs were assisted by the Byzantines, who saw in them their natural allies against Bulgaria. As a result of their successful halting of the Bulgarian advance during the ninth and tenth centuries, the Serbs became the most powerful of all these mountain peoples, and the Byzantines wished to have them as allies, since every enhancement of Serbias power at that time was extrem ely welcome to them. 3 3 Furthermore, the growth of the Serbian state constituted a threat to Bulgaria on account of the fact that, by virtue of its origins, its line of development and its entire internal structure, the Serbian state was Slavic and therefore attracted the other Slavic tribes to itself more pow erfully than did either Bulgaria or the Greek state. W e have already seen how, immediately after the collapse of Samuils state, these peoples began to orient themselves toward Serbia. Another characteristic feature of this period is the absence, despite their common desire for expansion toward Macedonia, of the hatred which, as w e have seen, existed from the time o f Presijam to the death of Simeon. Nemanja was cooperating with the Bulgars when he offered Frederick Barbarossa his alliance against Byzantium: it was in conjunction with them that he began his attacks on the Byzantine lands. Stevan PrvovenCani assisted Dobromir Strez. During the reign of Asen II, one of the most likable and powerful of the Bul garian rulers during the Second Empire, K in g Vladislav married the Emperors daughter. W e have already mentioned the Emperors regard fo r St. Sava and the deep respect which the saint enjoyed in Bulgaria. Milutin himself, one of the most outstanding Serbian rulers, married Ann, daughter of the Bul garian Emperor D jordje Tarterije. M ilutins son Stevan, who later became king, married the daughter of the Bulgarian Emperor Smilats: Emperor DuSan was the issue o f this mar** C o nstantin Jos. JireCek, Geschichte d er Bulgaren, P ragu e , 1876, p. 227. 3 3 J ir e ie k and Radonid, op. cit., V o l. I, p. 68.

54

riuge. Milutins daughter Ann was married to Mihailo SiSman, while DuSan married the sister of the Bulgarian Emperor .fovan Aleksandar, who called himself Emperor of the Bul g u r s and Greeks. A fte r the battle on the Velbuzd (1330), the Bulgarian nobles, completely broken and, through the death of Mihailo SiSman, deprived of a leader, came before Stevan Dcdanski and said to him: Behold, the Bulgarian Empire and the entire Bulgarian state its cities, its lands, its glory and its wealth today are in your hands and you shall give them to whom you wish, for it is given you by the L ord s own hand___ For, from henceforth, the Serbian kingdom and the Bulgarian Empire shall be constituted as one and there shall be peace. W e who sign this are at the disposal of your king dom. 3 4 Stevan refused to annex the Bulgarian state, and gave the Bulgarian throne to his sister Ann and her son. "A rise, he said to his sister, and go in glory with your son to the Im perial throne, to the Imperial city of glorious Turnovo, where you were before. 3 5 Nowhere do Serbian sources mention that the Neman] ici conquered the lands in the south from the Bulgars: they al ways state explicitly that they took them from the Greeks. In the cities of the south, which were captured in stages, the population was Greek: nothing is said about its being Bul garian or showing any leaning toward the Bulgarian state. St. Sava, who certainly was acquainted with the true state of affairs and who was not ill disposed toward the Bulgarian state, says that Nemanja annexed Zeta and DraSkovina, both Pilots and the region between Prizren and Skadar, and goes on: . . . and, of the Greek lands, Patkovo [the district around the modern Djakovica], Hvosno and Podrim lje, Kostrac, Sitnica, Lab, Lipljan, DuboCica, Reke [the district around Aleksinac], U5ka [east of the DuboCica near Niava and Vlasina], Zagrlata [the district around Djunis], LevCe and Belica [on the left bank of the Velika M orava]. 3 8 That St. Sava re
3 4 L a za r M irk o v id (tr.), 2 ivo/i k ra ljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih od arhiepiskopa Danila (A rch b ish op D a n ilo 's L iv e s of the S erbian K ings an d A rch bish o p s), B elg ra d e, p. 147.

M Ibid.
3 4 St. S av a , Z iv o t S tevan a N e m a n je (Life o f S tev an N e m a n ja ), in M . Basid, Stare srpske bio g ra fije (O ld S erb ian B io gra p h ies), pp. 3 4.

55

garded all these regions as ethnically Serbian may be seen from his remark that Nemanja, by his wisdom and labors, acquired everything that had been wrested by force from his patrimony, and that had belonged to him from the Serbian lands. 3 7 Stevan Prvovenfcani, Nemanjas son and successor, says that Nemanja gathered together the lost lands of his mother land. 3 8 In the Hilandar charter of 1198 99, it is stated that of the Greek lands he conquered the regions mentioned by St. Sava.3 6 In another Hilandar charter, written in 1200 02, Stevan PrvovenCani states that Nemanja recovered his lost patrimony, and took, from the coastal lands, Zeta with its cities; from the Albanians, Pilot; from the Greek lands, Lab together with Lipljan, DuboSica, Reke, Zagrlata, LevCe, Lepenica and Belica. W ith Gods help and by his own labors did he acquire all this. 4 0 Stevan Nemanja, who, even before he rose above his brothel's, ruled the areas on the Toplica, Ibar and Resava rivers and the district of Duboiica, had to know who in habited the regions bordering on his own territories. A ll these regions w ere under Byzantium: this is why they are described as the Greek lands. A ll Nemanjas efforts were directed toward the object of annexing as much as possible of these lands. A t one time, the Emperor Manuel Comnenus favorite, later his prisoner and enemy, Nemanja, a gifted and prudent ruler, always saw in Byzantium his chief enemy and the main obstacle in the w ay of extending the frontiers of his state. In order to frustrate Byzantine policy to the m axi mum extent, he concluded as many alliances as he was able. A fte r the death of Manuel Comnenus, Nemanja, in alliance with the Magyars, penetrated as far as Sofia. When the Magyars abandoned the war, Nemanja continued his ag grandizement alone. When, says Stevan PrvovenCani, the Hungarian king returned to his own state, the Saint, leaving him, departed with his forces to the fortress of Pem ik and
4 7 Ibid., p. 4. 3 8 Stevan P rvoven dan i, Z iv o t S tevan a N e m a n je (L ife o f Stevan N e m a n ja ), in Baic, op. cit., p. 31. * Lazar M ir k o v it , Spisi sve to g a S a ve i Stevana P r v o v e n ia n o g a (W r it in g s o f St. S a v a an d Stevan P rv o v e n c a n i), p. 25. 4 0 Ibid., pp. 161 62.

56

destroyed and sacked it with his forces; also the fortress of Stob, the fortress of Zemun and the fortress of Velbuzd [all of which are now districts in western Bulgaria], the city o f Skoplje, the fortress of Leki, the fortress of Gradac, the town of Prizren, the glorious town of NiS, the fortress o f Svrljig, the fortress of Ravni and the fortress of Kozli. These fortresses w ere destroyed and razed to their foundations, for not one stone was left on another that was not destroyed. And even today they have still not been rebuilt. Their land, their wealth and their glory he added to the wealth and glory of his motherland and the glory of the nobles and his peop le... . To the territory of his motherland, he added the entire region of Ni, Lipljan, the Morava, so-called Vranje, the region of Prizren and both Pilots in their entirety, together with their boundaries. 4 1 These conquests w ere completed by Nemanja in the period from 1183 to 1189: on July 27, 1189, together with his brother Stracimir, he gave Frederick Barbarossa a ceremonious w el come in Nis and entertained him lavishly. Together with Bar barossa and the Bulgars, he pressed with his troops as far as Trajans Gate (Trajanova Kapija). Fredericks refusal to con clude an alliance with Nemanja and the Bulgars against By zantium did not prevent Nemanja from continuing his con quests alone. When Barbarossa decided, a little later, to agree to such an alliance, his envoy, Duke Berthold, failed to find Nemanja at Trajans Gate, and their negotiations w ere con ducted through the agency of messengers. A t that moment, says Jirecek, Nemanja was very busy with large-scale m ilitary operations on the territory of the old Bulgarian state. 4 2 The defeat on the Morava in 1190 put an end to Nemanjas conquests. By the ensuing peace terms, he lost the greater part of the lands he had taken. He even failed to retain Prizren, and was obliged to surrender the Serbian conquests south of the Toplica and Morava, while in the Morava va lley the Serbs abandoned the important town of NiS; however, they consolidated their positions at certain other points, as,
4 1 In B asit, op. cit., p. 41; cf. JireCek and Radonid, op. cit., V o l. I p. 157, and C o r o v ii, op. cit., p. 99. 4* Jiredek an d R a d o n ii, op. cit., V o l. I, pp. 156 57. 4 * C o ro v it, op. cit., p. 102.

57

fo r example, in the immediate vicinity of Ravni, w hile the Serbian frontier was advanced in the northeast and in Zagrlata near Djunis. 4 8 The Serbs, says JireCek, retained a considerable part of Byzantine territory. In the east, there remained in Serbian hands the region between the Rudnik Mountains and the junction of the Morava with the valleys of the Lepenica [the district around Kragujevac], Belica and LevaC; the region of Zagrlata between the two Moravas where they join; finally, the region of DuboCica south of Nis. In the south, there fe ll to the Serbs the whole of Kosovo Polje, together with the confluence of the Sitnica and Lab and the village o f Lipljan. In the basin of the Beli Drin, they retained the district of Hvosno around Pec and Djakovica, which be longed to the diocese of Prizren, and, in northern Albania, the districts o f Upper and Low er Pilot, on the road from Prizren to Skadar. One permanent acquisition was the littoral of Duklja, that is, Zeta together with the towns o f Skadar, Bar and Kotor. A fte r these concessions, Belgrade, Ravno, NiS, Skoplje, Prizren, K roja and LjeS became the frontier towns of the Byzantine state. 4 4 Neither Stevan PrvovenCani (1196 1227/28), nor kings Radoslav (1228 34) and Vladislav (1234 43) extended the frontiers of Nemanjas state. Only around Ni, the great im portance of which was w ell understood by Nemanja, did con flicts take place with the Bulgars and the Magyars. Nem anjas ambition to drive the Greeks out of the northern part o f the Balkan Pennisula as he had driven them out of the southern littoral of Dalmatia and Zeta 4 5 did not prove entirely practicable, but his achievement, such as it was, proved to be well-founded: from the areas which he annexed, further con quests could easily be carried out. A part from the natural routes, says Jovan Cvijic, which lead from the crossroads at Raska, it was vita lly necessary fo r Raka and Zeta, which were united in the tw elfth century, to occupy the Morava valley in the neighborhood of Nig, Kosovo and Metohija. Another territorial ambition of the strengthened Serbian state was to descend from the mountainous regions of the Peninsula and occupy the valley of the Vardar, above all Skoplje and
4 4 JireCek an d Radonid, op. cit., V o l. I, p. 157; N a rodna encik lop ed ija SHS, V o l. Ill, p. 42. 4 4 C o ro v id , Istorija J u g o sla vije , p. 100. cf. V . C o ro v id in

58

both Pologs [Tetovo]. This she succeeded in doing during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Then she conquered A l bania south o f the Ma6a. A t the time of her greatest ex pansion, in the fourteenth century, she even took Epirus, Thessaly and the western part of Thrace. 4 # As the result of all these successes, the name of the Serbs as a people spread over an ever increasing area. W ith Nemanja and the state of the Nem anjici, says Corovic, the Serbian name crossed the Morava and the Vardar. 4 7 The name Serb, says JireCek, gradually became the general appellation fo r the neighboring tribes, in the same way as, in the northern Slavic lands, the name of the Czechs proper spread to the Czech tribes enumerated in the charter of the Prague bishopric, or the name of the Poljani near Gdansk to all the Polish tribes. 4 8 During the reign of Stevan PrvovenCani, the Bulgars once more entered Macedonia and took it from the Byzantines. The Emperor Kaloyan, who was killed at the siege of Salonica, "took possession o f the Byzantine west from the mountains near Sofia to the frontiers of Thessaly, together with the towns of Prizren, Skoplje, Ohrid and Ber. 4 8 Here too, the Bulgars became the neighbors of the Serbs: as a result o f the ensuing situation, the Serbs were obliged to abandon N il in 1203, only to recover it in the reign of the Emperor Borilo. In 1204, when the Latins took Byzantium, parts of Macedonia fe ll into the hands of Latin principalities. For Serbia, these w ere grievous times. R eferring to this period, Prvovenfani writes: And they [the enemies of PrvovenCani] conceived the high ambition of destroying the Saints [Nemanjas] patrimony and making me extrem ely angry, and, i f possible, o f driving me out of my state. 5 0 It was during this period that Dobromir Strez, with the assistance, first of the Greeks of Epirus, later of Stevan Prvoveniani, formed his principality around the town of Prosek. Although he was related by ties of kinship, the Bulgarian
46 Jo van C v ijid , Balkansko p o lu o strvo I ju in o s lo v e n s k e ze m lje (T he B alk an Pen in su la an d the South S la v Lands), p. 134. 47 C o rov id , lstorija J u g o sla vije , p. 102. 48 Jiredek and Radonid, op. cit., V o l. I, p. 68. 4 ,1 Ibid., p. 164. * In BaSid, op. cit., p. 162.

59

court considered him as an apostate, and requested Prvovendani to extradite him. Teodosije remarks that this request was complied with since they feared that he would make him self Emperor and kill them. 5 1 Teodor Andjel, despot of Epirus, drove the Bulgars out of Macedonia. In 1232, the frontier between Epirus and Serbia ran, in the north, from Arban, Debar and Skoplje.5 2 Seven years later, in a battle near the Klokotnica, the Bulgarian Emperor Asen II defeated Teodor A ndjel and became master of Macedonia. The in fluence of Epirus in Serbia, to which K in g Radoslav had been particularly exposed, was replaced by that of Bulgaria, where the crown now passed to Asen I I s son-in-law, who, as we have seen, was amicably disposed toward the Serbs. In the second part of his reign, K in g Uro (1243 76), after he had checked the attacks of the Bulgars, who in 1253 reached B ijelo Polje and in 1254 occupied the Rhodope Moun tains and eastern Macedonia up to the Vardar, advanced, together with the Epirans and Latins, penetrated as far as Skoplje, Prilep and KiCevo: in the follow ing year, however, he was obliged to abandon all these towns, and the Niceans once more occupied Skoplje. During the reign of K in g Dragutin (1276 82 fo r this part of the state), the Serbo-Byzantine frontier ran along the Sar-planina above Prizren and Lipljan.5 * W ith the accession of K in g Milutin (1282 1321), there began an irresistible advance of the Serbs toward the south. In those days, says the well-inform ed Archbishop Danilo, the Serbian land found itself greatly hemmed in and re duced, for the Greek empire reached to the place known as Lipljan, and its power was growing, so that it wanted to take the entireregion of this Christian state, and even to have it as an obedient servant. 5 4 Milutins entire energies w ere directed toward rectifying this situation. His conquests w ere mainly achieved at the expense o f Byzantium, which had captured the whole of Macedonia from the successors of Asen II and thus once more become the master of this region. Summing up M ilutins suc
5 1 T eo d o sije , 2 iv o t sv e to g a S a v e (L ife o f Saint S a v a ), in Basit, op. cit., p. 62. M Jire&ek and R ado n it, op. cit., V o l . ] , p. 171. Ibid., p. 188. 5 4 M i r k o v i i (tr.), op. cit., p. 81.

60

cesses, Danilo, who enjoyed the kings confidence, describes how, rising with his forces, Milutin entered the neighbor ing territories of the Greek empire; namely, first he took both Pologs, together with their cities and lands, the glorious city of Skoplje, then O vie Polje, Zletovo and Pijanac. A ll these lands he took soon after his accession, and added them to the territory of his motherland. 5 5 This was in 1282, and the following year, immediately after Christmas, he penetrated into eastern Macedonia and captured the whole of the terri tory as far as Ser and Kavala. Danilo states that Milutin went with his forces into the interior of the Greek lands, to Mount Athos, and, having conquered all these lands of that empire, the regions of Struma and Ser, Krstopolj and other neighboring districts, and having seized their property and wealth, returned by Gods w ill to his motherland, fu ll of every good intention. 6 6 Milutin escaped the fate o f his predecessors, fo r he suc ceeded in retaining his conquests. Without peace terms being concluded, says JireCek, the frontier line ran north of the Byzantine fortresses of Strumica, Prosek, Prilep, Ohrid and K roja. 5 7 Corovid also states that Milutin retained hold of all his newly-won territories, and says: By means of these conquests, he oriented Serbia, for many years to come, to the south, down the valley of the Vardar, toward the Aegean. Until his reign, Serbia had gravitated mainly toward the Adriatic; it was in this direction that all the main commercial routes and all other communications had led to Dubrovnik, Kotor, Bar and Skadar. Serbian interests were now con siderably extended. 5 8 Milutin made Skoplje his capital. A fte r the capture o f Durazzo, peace terms were concluded in 1299 between Milutin and Byzantium: Milutin retained all his conquests, and, in order to enhance his personal prestige, married the young Simonida. With the Bulgars, who did not appear on the scene while he was conquering Macedonia, Milutin was on good terms. During the reign of his successor, Stevan DeSanski (1321 31), the Bulgars, this time in alliance with Byzantium, attempted
5 5 * Ibid., p. 82. Ibid., p. 85. Jiredek and Radonic, op. cit., V o l. I, p. 191. C o rov id , Istorija J u g o sia vije , p. 128.

61

once more to put themselves on the map of Macedonia. In 1329, DeCanski besieged Ohrid, but a Greek attack obliged him to withdraw. From Danilo we learn that, even before the battle on the VelbuSd, Dedanski was pestered by the Bul gars: He was, says Danilo, given some cause fo r anxiety by the Bulgarian Emperor Mihailo. 5 9 W e also learn that DeCanski attempted to avoid war with the Bulgars. When these attempts met with failure although he sincerely desired peace he began seriously to prepare for war: on July 28, 1330, one hundred years after the battle on the Klokotnica, there took place the battle on the Velbuid, where the Bul gars met with a great collapse, and so the Serbian forces were victorious. 9 0 There was no need to fight the Greeks: when the Emperor Andronicus learned of the defeat of the Bulgars, he attacked Bulgaria himself in order to gain something from a rival in the throes of chaos. Hearing of this fa ll [i. e., defeat] of their sovereign, says Danilo, they [i. e., the Bulgarian nobles], since in that land there was disturbance and great discontent, rose up in civil strige and seized one anothers wealth; more over, they not only did this to one another, but also seized the wealth and lands of their Emperor. 6 1 From Byzantium, DeCanski took the cities of Veles, Prosek, Stip and Dobrun. Danilo, who was closely connected with the ruling dynasty, exaggerates somewhat when he says that even in the first years of his reign DeCanski captured from the Greek lands many cities, together with their entire territories, whose many names it is impossible for us to set out in detail in this ac count. ,2 The victory of the Serbs on the Velbuzd was complete. Its consequences were of the greatest historical importance fo r both Serbs and Bulgars: the question who should control the valley of the Vardar and Macedonia was finally decided in favor of Serbia. Repercussions on the orientation of the Slavic population of Macedonia w ere inevitable. Stanoje Stanojevic rightly pointed out that when, after the death of DuSan, discord broke out in his state and the state was con5 * M irk o v id (tr.), op. cit., p. 131. Ibid., p. 139. Ibid., p. 146. Ibid., p. 149j cf. C o rov id , Istorija J u g o sia vije, p. 146.

62

sequently weakened and disintegrated, Macedonia was re garded as a part of the Serbian state. This victory, says Corovic, secured Macedonia for Serbia, gave her the leading position in the Balkans and strengthened Serbian influence in Bulgaria. *4 Dusan, who reigned as king from 1331 to 1346 and then as emperor to his death on December 20, 1355, extended ear lier Serbian conquests in the south. When he ascended the throne, the frontier between Serbia and Byzantium passed through the cities of Ser, Melnik, Strumica, Prilep, Ohrid, Kroja, Berat and Valona. During his reign, these frontiers were suddenly advanced: by 1334, he had taken Ohrid, Struga and several more towns in the south. In the summer of this year, he was in the vicinity of Salonica, an it was here that, on August 26, he concluded peace terms with Byzantium. According to these terms, he retained Strumica, Prilep (where he built himself a palace), Ohrid, Kostur, Hlerin, Zeljezanac, Voden and Cermen. A ll this, says Danilo, he took in three years of his reign, fo r God had made him so glorious. 6 5 In 1342, Dusan besieged Voden, but was thrown back. Finally, however, he took both Voden and Melnik, which was sur rendered to him by Duke Hrelja. In the follow ing year, DuSan laid siege to Ser. On H reljas death, DuSan also took posses sion of his territories. In the fall of 1345, the Serbs occupied Kostur, Drama and Orfano, together with its marine salt mines. In 1348, DuSan conquered Epirus, Acarnania, Etolia and Thessaly. Consequently, says Jovan Radonic, DuSans territories stretched from the Danube to the Gulf of Corinth and from the Adriatic to the Aegean. Apart from Thrace, Byzantium retained only the city of Byzantium and Salonica, which served as a gateway to the Aegean. 6 The attempt made by Byzantium in 1350, when DuSan was in Bosnia, to recover these lost territories met with failure despite the initial successes scored by Kantakuzen: on his
3 A s quoted in C o rovid, lstorija J u g o sla vije, p. 145. M V . C o rovid, S tevan D e ca n sk i, N a rodna en cik lop ed ija SHS, V o l. I, p. 585. M irk o v id (tr.), op. cit., p. 170. M J o v a n Radonid, M e d ju n a ro d n i p o lo za j S rb ije u X I V v e k u (S e rb ia s Intern ation al P osition in the Fourteenth C en tu ry ), Z bornik u dost Seste sto g o d iin jic e Zakonika cara DuSana, V o l. I, B elg ra d e, 1951, p. 20.

63

return in the follow ing year, Dugan won back all the areas he had temporarily lost, and retained hold of them up to his death. III. Both Bulgars and Serbs, in their desire for control of the Morava-Vardar valley, gradually wrested from Byzantium the area of the Macedonian Slavs. It is not known today whether this desire was the principal m otive of Presijam s attack upon Vlastimir: from this time on until the battle on the Bregalnica 1885 it was always the Bulgars who began these attacks, only to be defeated. In 1885, however, it was the Serbs who opened the war and w ere subsequently defeat ed. In all the other wars with the Bulgars, with the exception of the attack made by the Emperor Simeon, the Serbs emerg ed victorious. Under the Nemanjici, the Serbs, consistently pursuing the goal set them by Stevan Nemanja, regarded B y zantium, not Bulgaria, as their main enemy. In the foreign policy of the Nem anjici, says Georgije Ostrogorski, there is no more important problem than the relations with, and the struggle against, Byzantium. The struggle for independ ence which was concluded under Nemanja, the struggle for Macedonia, the heart of the Balkans under Milutin, and the struggle for hegemony in the Balkans under DuSan these are the chief stages in the conflict between Serbia and Byzantium and also in the growth of the Serbian state. 6 7 In the Serbian efforts to obtain control of Macedonia, the Bulgars were a factor of secondary importance: Serbian sources without exception show that the Serbs regarded the Bulgarian domination of Macedonia as something that could not last or have any particular importance for them. W e have already mentioned, as a circumstance of great significance, that Asen II was not ill disposed toward the Serbs, even though he must have known o f Nemanjas pledge that he entrusted to his successors. It is possible that the Serbs con sidered the Bulgarian efforts of obtain mastery over Mace donia as being simply attacks upon an alien territory, rather
7 G e o r g ije O stro go rsk i, DuSan i n je g o v a v la ste la u b o rb i sa V iz a n tijo ra (D u san an d his N o b le s in the S tru g gle w ith Byzantium ), ibid., p. 79.

64

than as attempt to complete their national state. Teodosije says that the Bulgarian Emperor Kaloyan arose and destroy ed many Greek cities over the whole of Thrace and Mace donia, fo r at that time the city of Byzantium was held by the Fruzi [the Latins], who did not scruple to destroy the other cities since they w ere not their own, w hile he, finding them empty and helpless, destroyed them, and everything was from God. 6 8 One important question is: how did the Slavic population look upon all these numerous changes among their political masters, and, in particular, what was their attitude toward the Bulgarian and Serbian states? W e have no sources at our disposal on which to base a clear answer to this question, but one thing is certain: during the entire period in which the Serbian state exercised control over this region, there were no rebellions or expressions of discontant against the Serbian regime on the part of the Slavic population. Instead, the ties between the local population on the one hand and the new regimes and its successors on the other began to be stregthened: a new life and pride was awakening in the conscious ness of the Macedonian Slavs, who felt that they were enter ing upon a prolonged period of peaceful and ordered exist ence. W hile scarcely anything has persisted in the consciousness of the Slavic masses of Macedonia of the conquests of the Bulgars and their state, which fo r centuries enjoyed great power, their memories of the Serbian regime have remained permanently alive: in the minds of the people, the idea of the Serbian state was a living thing, and the people, becom ing inseparably bound up with Serbian history, accepted and retained this idea as its own despite all the sufferings to which it was exposed. As in the central regions of Serbia, so here, the establishment of a national w ay of life and of a settled state was associated with the Nemanjici. The Slav Orthodox tradition, which had grown out of the efforts and achievements of SS. Clement and Naum, and the devotion to the work o f the first generations of South Slav anchorites, came once more to life in the labors of SS. Simeon and Sava. The victories of Nemanja and of the idea of the Serbian state * In BaSil, op. cit., p. 161.
65

which he created acquired a peculiar character and warmth which was missing from the Bulgarian regime so far as the Macedonian Slavs w ere concerned. Compared with the dynasty of the Nemanji6i, the Bulgarian rulers w ere rather knights and warriors than the representatives of a state which, from the very beginning, the elements of Church and state were interwoven in a harmonious and mutually fruitful relation ship: throughout the whole of this period, the Church in Bul garia failed to acquire the moral and spiritual authority over the secular rulers which she acquired in Serbia. Similarly, in Bulgaria the Church failed to imbue the conception of the state with that livin g consciousness of the historical mission of Christianity which she inculcated in Serbia. From the very beginning, the movement inspired by St. Sava accepted the spiritual heritage of SS. Clement and Naum and supplemented it with the achievements of numer ous Serbian saints, who, side by side with kings, princes and bishops, included gardeners and goldsmiths. A t this stage in its development, Bulgarian Orthodoxy lacked this broadly popular character and this spiritual elan and purity. Despite all its strength and tenacity, Bulgarian Orthodoxy never suc ceeded in becoming a national faith in the same w ay as Serbian Orthodoxy. Our Orthodoxy, the Serbian faith, says Corovid, became the embodiment of our state tradition, while our national psyche endowed the mythologized Christian faith with certain elements of genuine belief. 6 9 It was this that bound the Macedonian Slavs to the fate of the Serbian state. N either the First Bulgarian Empire nor Samuils state nor the Second Bulgarian Empire resembled the medieval Serbian state on this plane, fo r they all failed to reconcile the ideologically Christian element with the secular in their state organization. The very fact that the founder of the medieval Serbian state became a monk and a saint and that his son was, not only the creator of an independent Serbian Church, but also, in the fullest sense of the word, the founder of the Serbian conception of the state and a teacher and educator of the Serbian lands, obliged Nemanjas successors to display a degree of self-sacrifice and devotion to their task that was exceptional fo r their time: the cult of saintliness that so com-

"

C o r o v ii, Istorija J u g o sla vije, p. 313.

66

pletely permeated the life and career of the physical and spiritual father of the medieval Serbian state attracted the later Nemanjidi also. In the second Hilandar charter, Stevan Prvovencani states that Nemanja commanded him to care for the churches and monasteries: He commanded me, he says, to care for the churches and the monks serving in them, and not to incur the wrath of the Lord in any good work. 7 0 O f the ten rulers of this dynasty, fiv e took monastic orders toward the end of their lives. Danilo II attests that King Dragutin led a monastic life before he took a monks orders. And when, after his death, they wanted to wash him, they found him girded with a narrow belt of straw about his naked body and clad in a frock of hard flax; the belt of straw had penetrated deep into his body, and when they tried to remove it, they w ere unable to do so. 7 1 In addition to Queen Jelena, seven members of this dynasty w ere proclaimed saints. On the evidence of Patriarch Pajsije, it is known that the bones of the Emperor DuSan, who was not canonized by the Church, w ere removed by the people from his grave as a relic. The Bulgars had nothing like this: they satisfied their thirst for saintly relics by gathering in Turnovo the remains of various saints of whom the greater number had never lived in Bul garia. In this connection, their attempt to retain the relics of Saint Sava at Turnovo is typical. Another interesting circumstance is the fact that the remains of K ing Milutin, who brought Macedonia under the sway of Serbia, are even today to be found in Sofia. It is this aspect of the matter, difficult to express in a few words, that displays the live ly feeling and vivid consciousness o f that high calling, that orientation toward the eternal values, which was so prominent in the rulers of the Nemanjid dynasty: in the minds of the ordinary people of the time, for whom religious considerations were of greater importance than national, the spiritual and secular leaders of Serbia, for all their human weaknesses, left an ineradicable impression of themselves and their work. In the churches and monas teries which they and their nobles either built or restored, was set forth, as in a modern film, the whole of biblical and ecclesiastical history in a luxurious wealth of frescoes. The
7 0 M irk o v id , Splsi sve to g a S a v e i Stevana Prvoven C an oga , p. 165. 7 1 M irk o v id (tr.), op. cit., p. 41.

67

people learned from them, and by studying them, w ere trans ported to the realm of the spiritual. When, alongside frescoes of the saints, others made their appearance depicting the Serbian rulers, their status in the eyes of the people grew even higher: to be the subjects of such rulers and the state created by them inspired a pride which today it is difficult to conceive in its entirety. Even at that early date, a national pride was growing, a feeling of warm contentment at being a Serb, a child of St. Sava. When later the wheel of fortune was reversed and the Serbs fe ll victims to the fickleness of fate, noble and serf (sebar) defended, side by side, not only their countrys frontiers, but also its spiritual and moral values. It was these very ties that inspired the heroic and self-sacrificing defense of the last remnants of the Serbian state: generation after generation of Serbs was mown down in the battle fo r its possession, soaking every inch of Serbian soil with its blood. It was the national or popular character of the work of St. Sava and the rapid rise of the state of the Nemanji6i that drew the Macedonian Slavs close to the Serbian state and Church: they became Serbian, since this was their best path into the future. The significance of the Church of St. Sava, says Cviji6, and its influence upon the people can hardly be described as Byzantine. 7 2 It was, indeed, specifically Serbian: stimulated by a powerful creative impulse, Serbian Orthodoxy bound the Serbian tribes together and assimilated them to the Slavic tribes of Macedonia. The Slavic lands in the Balkans were once again permeated with a new creative spirit and a consciousness of mutual kinship. Not that there had, even previously, been any rivalry or spirit of litigation between the various Churches and tribes: what wars there w ere had been waged by dynasties, and even w hile they were in pro gress the people do not appear to have been hostile among themselves. It was as though the Slavs of this region were more concerned about being under the Greeks than whether they w ere under Serbs or Bulgars. W ithin the limits of the Serbian state, the mingling o f Slavic tribes proceeded more easily and more rapidly: more easily, as a result of the spiri tual and moral atmosphere that reigned there, and more5 8 C viji6 , op. cit., p. 160.

68

rapidly, because of the conviction of the masses that the Serbian state would prove more durable. Of importance for the orientation of the Slavic masses was also the fact that the Serbian rulers w ere their kinsmen, that they had sprung from the people: the state conception that they represented was not an alien one, as was the case with the Bulgars. The brilliant career achieved by the Serbian state and the awe-inspiring power and rapid rise of its rulers also played their part. To bring Byzantium to her knees, as Milutin had done, or to toy with her, as DuSan did, must have impressed all the Slavic tribes in the Balkans, fo r they had been the victims of that very power which was disappearing once and fo r all before their eyes. This is all the more true in view of the fact that the Serbian conquests were quite different in character from the Bulgarian: the Nemanji6i took pains to establish their conquests on a basis of national cultures and thus to make them lasting, so to speak, from within, to leave their own impress on everything they did and to crown their reigns with great deeds. The conquests of the Bulgars, which w ere numerous, powerful and, for Byzantium, extrem ely dan gerous, w ere more like the invasions of the Goths, Huns and Avars: after the armed blow had descended, the administra tion settled itself in and ruled the conquered territories without taking a thought fo r the future. This is partly to be explained by the fact that the Bulgarian dynasties w ere alien and that the ruling stratum and the masses of the population had not yet been completely assimilated. With the Bulgars, there was not that universal inner compactness and fateful link between state and people as there was with the Serbs. As a result o f a combination of circumstances and also of its faith in its Christian mission, the Serbian state, before it began to disintegrate, felt itself called to resist the onslaught of Islam. As early as M ilutins reign, the Serbs w ere engaged in tho struggle with the Turks, and the Emperor DuSan realized, with great clarity and foresight, that his chief his torical task was to drive the Turks out of Europe: hence his efforts to organize a crusade under his leadership. It is also noteworthy that it was the Serbs, and not the Bulgars, who went out to the Maritsa to w ait fo r the Turks and prevent them from penetrating farther west. A fte r the heavy defeat suffered by the Serbs on the Maritsa, it is recorded that the people w ere seized by a feeling as heavy as lead of helpless
69

ness and isolation: The land was left empty and bereft of all goods people, cattle and other fruits. And there was no prince, nor leader, nor teacher to save and rescue the poeple: all were filled with dread [of the Islamites], and the brave hearts of the knights were transformed into hearts weaker than womens. A t that time, I think, the seventh generation of the Serbian rulers was completed. 7 3 The chief re sistance, says Cvijid, offered the Turks as they follow ed the routes into the interior was that given by the Serbian people and state, which held the greater part o f these routes. They opposed the Turks advance in three battles on sites whose natural and strategic positions are even today of great im portance in the valley of the Maritsa, west of Jedren (the battle o f the Maritsa Cernomen), in the valley of the Toplica (the battle od the Plofinik, west of Ni), and on Kosovo Polje in order to defend the Morava valley and the Dinaric is lands. 7 4 The Bulgarian state, which JireCek describes as the shadow of a state, 7 5 fell without any heroic resistance. It did not even feel called upon to join the Serbs in the struggle against the Turks, by whom it too was threatened. In 1393, it passed out of existence almost unnoticed, leaving behind scar cely any historical traces in the mind of the people.

IV. Under the Nemanjici, the Serbianization of the Slavs in Macedonia was carried out, both on the spiritual and cultural and on the national and ethnic plane. The most characteristic feature of this process is that it was desired by both sides by the local Slavic population, and by the new Serbian re gime. Circumstances that w e have already examined drew them toward one another: for this reason this movement may be described as a natural, organic process which sprang out of the very situation that had arisen at that time in that
7 3 cords 7 4 7 5 Lju b. S to ja n o v ic, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi (O ld S erbian R e and Inscriptions), V o l. Ill, p. 43, N o . 4944. Cviji<5, op. cit., p. 137. JireCek and R a d o n ii, op. cit., V o l. I, p. 314.

70

region. The population of Macedonia took over the Serbian spirit, the Serbian conception o f the state, a considerable part of the Serbian ecclesiastical organization, and the whole of Serbian history. Apart from this, indeed, it has no other history: the cult of St. Sava and Kosovo and all the historical characters o f the Serbian epos became, and remained, the common property of all the Serbian tribes. Although, says Dr. Alois Schmaus, the Serbian national epic found its fullest realization in the regions of the northwest, nevertheless a considerable part of its material was taken from Southern Serbia. And vice versa: many poems which originated elsewhere found their w ay to Southern Serbia, w ere sung here and orally inherited. 7 8 Throughout Slavic Macedonia, widespread Serbian cultural and religious monuments bear witness that the country was a part of the Serbian lands: right up to the appearance of Bulgarian propaganda and the confusion brought by foreign travelers who journeyed round parts of the country, it was indeed called the Serbian land. A wealth of material from Southern Serbia has been collected and published by V. Djeric, in which, over the centuries, in varying circumstances and for various reasons, the Serbian name is mentioned or in which prominent individuals born in these parts are called Serbs: from 1350 to the beginning of the seventeenth century, there are data to the effect that Ohrid, Bitolj and Kratovo not to mention Skoplje w ere on Serbian terri tory.7 7 Hadji Kalfa, the Turkish geographer, records that Kostur was also in the Serbian lands and that Serbs, as w ell as Wallachians, lived there. In 1704, Jerotej RaCanin, on his w ay to Jerusalem, noted that the Serbian tradition was very lively among the peasants of OvCe Polje. Dr. Joseph Muller, who for a long time was a medical officer in the Turkish army, found, in the middle of the nineteenth century, Serbs around Bitolj, in Debar and Struga, on the eastern shore of Lake Ohrid, and in the valleys of the Resan and Prespa.7 8

7 6 A lo is Sdim aus, Dichtung," M a z e d o n ie n : Leben und Gestalt ein er Landschalt, B erlin, 1940, p. 106. 7 7 V . D jerid, Ethnographie des Slaves de M a ced o in e, Paris, 1918, pp. 18 21. 7 8 Joseph M u lle r, A lba n ien , Rum elien und die osterreichischm ontenegrinische G re n z e . . . , P ragu e , 1844, p. 21.

71

Dr. Karl Oestreich found fifteen Serbian families in Ohrid.7 Although he had accepted the then w idely held thesis that the Slavic population of Macedonian was Bulgarian, Franz BradaSka nevertheless stated: Serbs are living in isolated colonies among Bulgars and Shiptars around Prespa and Ohrid, in Albania west of the city of Berat, then in N ovo Selo, Roskovica and Drenovica, fin ally in Naji6evo on the R ian river and on the mouth o f this river. 8 0 Anton Tuma von W aldkampf, an Austro-Hungarian field marshal, found Serbian Hottlemens in the region of Bitolj. In Macedonia, he says, "Serbs are living, partly in the great plain of Bitolj, partly in the Vardar plain and are particularly compact in the valley of Tetovo. 8 1 They sporadically appear in the district o f Salo nica, where they live side by side with other nationalities.8 2 In opposition to all this evidence, Jordan Ivanov, the chief Bulgarian authority on the Bulgarian character of Macedonia, was able to quote only a few cases in which the name Bul garian was mentioned in Southern Serbia before the ex arch is ts began their work. The earliest of these dates from 1474: the Consilium Rogatorum of Dubrovnik decided to grant alms to the extent of twenty perpers to the Bulgarian monastery of St. Joachim Osogovski, whose abbot, Gervasije, Hinted at an audience in Moscow in 1586 that he came from the Bulgarian lands. In 1686, the Patriarch Arsenije III Crnojevifi visited this monastery: at the end of a Gospel at Pc6, he w rote a note stating that he had been at the monastery of Osogovo, where there was some disorganization in Church matters. On two occasions in the year 1704, V eljk o Popovic of Kratovo says that he was bom in the Bulgarian lands, in the place known as Kratovo, w hile in 1753 the nun Ana says that she was born in Kratovo, in Bulgaria. In 1818, a certain NeSo Markovic, a merchant from Kratovo, printed in Buda pest a calendar fo r the convenience of the Bulgarian people. In 1619, w e find mention, in an inscription in a church at Vodensk, o f Angelaki, grand secretary o f Justiniana I and all
* K a rl Oestreicfa, .M a k e d o n ie n ," Geographische Zeilschri/f, 1904, V o l. I, p. 252. * Franz B radaSka, .D ie S la v e n in der Tiirk ei,* M itteilu n g en aus Junius P e te rs' geographischer Anstalt, V o l. X V , 1869, p. 458. *' A n to n T um a v o n W a ld k a m p f, Griechenland, M a k ed on ien und Sildn/banlen, Leipzig, 1897, pp. 214 15. " Ibid., pp. 214 15.

72

Bulgaria. In the legend entitled Slovo K irila Filosofa kako uvjeri Bugare (The Tale of how C yril the Philosopher Con verted the Bulgars), it is stated that the city of Ravanj is in Bregalnica and that C yril was brought there by Bulgars. In a manuscript at the monastery of Zograf, it is stated that Pirot is situated in the Bulgarian lands. The same is said of the whole of Pelagonia.8 3 Kratovo, as we shall see, was a Serbian center; as fo r the other cases quoted, no refutation o f them is called fo r in view of their paucity in comparison with those quoted on the other side. Of the Serbian character of cultural monuments, there can be no question. Even now, wrote Tomaschek, in Macedonia, memories o f Dugans and Markos time are fresher than those of the old Bulgarian period. 8 4 Dr. Leonard Schultze-Jena made another mistake in asserting that in Macedonia the Bulgars left behind them monuments in stone and the spirit. 8 3 They left no such monuments: if they had, it would be difficult to explain their efforts, which were not inconsiderable, to Bulgarize K ing VukaSin, his son Marko and the brothers Dejanovic.8 6 N. P. Kondakov, who in the main accepted the Bulgarian thesis on the national character of the Macedonian population, did not fail to notice the importance of Serbian historical monuments in Macedonia: he points out that most of the churches and monasteries in Southern Serbia date from the time of Dugan.8 7 He notes that the fresco of K in g Marko in Markov Monastery, near Skoplje, showing him as the founder of this monastery, was destroyed by Bul garian patriotism . . . as a monument of Serbian rule in these places. 8 8 Not only in this masser was the local population assimilat ed to the newcomers from RaSka: under the Nemanji6i, there
88 J ordan Iv a n o v , BCilgarski starini iz M a k e d o n ija (B u lg arian A n tiq u itie s from M a c e d o n ia ), 2nd ed., Sofia, 1932, pp. 147 79, 283, 488 and 502. 8 4 A s quoted in H. W e n d e l, M a k ed o n ien und der Frieden, M u n id i, 1919, p . 101. 8 5 Leon ard Schultze-Jena, M a k ed o n ien : Landschaits- und K u llu rbilder, Jena, 1927, p. 37. 8 8 D. Rizoff, D ie Bulgaren in ihren historischen, ethnographischen und poiitischen G renzen, B erlin, 1917, p. 21. 8 7 N . P. K o n d a k o v , M a k e d o n iy a : A rk h eo lo g ich esk o e p utesh estvie, (M a c e d o n ia : A n A rc h e o lo gic al J o u rn ey ), St. P etersbu rg, 1909, p. 62. 8 8 Ibid., p. 184.

73

w ere transfers of population from the northern regions to the south. Unfortunately, w e know little of the scale of this move ment, but it is certain that it took place. In the fourteenth century, the Serbian army was followed by a part of the Serbian population, not only into southern Macedonia, but even into Epirus and Thessaly, just as later, during the w ith drawal northward, there took place a considerable movement toward the Danube and across it. 8 9 C vijic discovered that under the Nemanjici colonization was carried out by Serbs at the confluence of the P6inja and K riva Reka. For this reason he asserts that all the historical monuments of the population of this region date exclusively from the time of the Nemanjici.9 0 Elsewhere, C vijic states that there were Serbian settlemens in Ber, around Salonica and in the region of Skoplje, and perhaps there were others in other parts of Macedonia. 9 1 As a result of the conquest of these lands by the Turks, the upper strata of the population withdrew northward, doubtless accompanied by some of the ordinary people. Thus began the first thinning out of the Serbian population of Macedonia: thereafter, the process went on for some centuries. Those who stayed behind tended to go over to Islam. A cha racteristic feature of these migrations, which occurred at frequent intervals, is that they took place northward, rather than eastward. There is no evidence of any movement toward Bulgaria: on the contrary, ecclesiastics and writers came from Bulgaria into Serbia. According to Cvijic, people came from Ohrid, Bitolj, Prilep and Debar. In Low er Sumadija, there w ere stettlers from Veles, Bitolj and from Katranica and Gramatik near Olympus.9 2 On the other hand, Serbian tribes from Albania, retreating before the Albanians, increased the proportion of Serbs in Macedonia. Those from Skadar, says Cvijic, spread throughout Macedonia, Old Serbia and Sredska, in the basin of Tetovo, Pored and Bitolj, on the upper reaches of the Pinja, etc. Serbs from Albania, from the valley
H i C o r o v ii, Istorija J u g o sla vije, p. 304. 9 0 J o v a n C v ijic , G rundlinien der G eogra ph ie und G e o lo g ie vo n M a zed on ien und A ltse rb ien nebst Beobachtungen in Thrazien, T h essaiien, Epirus und N ord alba nien , Part I, G otha, 1908, p. 133. 9 1 J o van C v ijic , Rem arques sur Vethnographie de la M a ced oin e, P aris, 1907, p. 18. 9 2 C v i ji i , Balkansko p o lu o strvo i ju in o s lo v e n s k e z em lje, p. 218.

74

of the Maca and the districts of Mokra, Cermenika, etc., settled mainly in western Macedonia (in the neighborhood of Debar, the MijaC region, Mavrovo, etc.). There are also some of them in Upper PSinja who come from Elbasan. 8 3 During the migration under Patriarch Arsenije III Crnojevic, many Serbs left Kratovo. This movement of people from Kratovo to Budapest and Vienna, says Petar Djordjevid, explains the links that they maintained in the first half of the nine teenth century with these two towns. 8 4 The pressure exerted by the Albanians, especially after the Serbs began to rise against the Turks, was very great. Apart from those Orthodox Serbs who withdrew eastward, many went over to Islam as a result. During this period, the Serbian name began to be used as a synonym fo r rebellion and sedition. Referring to the region of Gornja Reka, R. T. N ikolic says that a part of its population was converted to Mohammedanism. Previously, he says, the Orthodox reli gion and the Serbian element had determined the ethnic character of this region. Ethnographically speaking, the situation was doubtless similar to that at present obtaining in the M avrovo basin, which falls within the district of Gornja Reka and, together with the Serbian population of this latter, constitutes in every respect a single ethnic entity, except that in Gornja Reka Albanian is spoken and in the M avrovo basin Serbian; there are Mohammedans, but they are negligible in comparison with the Serbian element, and they speak Serbian. That this was so may be seen from the migrations, which also occurred from purely Serbian districts. In Gornja Reka, there are settlers from Gora [Brodec], Kumanovo and BilaC, in the Vranje district, and most probably also from other Serbian districts. Even today, these settlers are still Orthodox, but they have taken over the Albanian language and use it both at home and outside (they know no Serbian, except for a few words). 9 3

M Ibid., p. 169. M T o d o r D jo rd je v id , K ra to v o , Prilozi za p o zn a va n je gia d ova u na&oj zem lji (M a te ria ls on the C ities o f O u r C o u n try), B elg ra d e, 1931, p. 29. 9 5 R. T. N ik o lid , S ire n je A rn a u ta u srp sk e z e m lje (A lb a n ia n E x p ansion O v e r the S erbian Lands), Glasnik srpskog geograisk og druStva, 3rd y ear, V o ls . I l l IV , p. 115.

75

W ith reference to the district of KaCanik, Nikoli6 says that it form erly possessed many village churches which were deserted. On Kosovo Polje, Kuripegic in 1530 found a church in every village. In these districts, says Nikolid, where the Albanians began to settle, the Serbian element instantly left its home and removed, either to neighboring Serbian v il lages or farther eastward, although there w ere cases of their going over to Islam. It is characteristic, however, that there w ere relatively few Mohammedan Serbs in these districts. In this respect, these districts differ from Gornja Reka and the districts west of Sara and Korab, where the Serbian element seems to have immediately become converted to Mohammedanism and turned Albanian or Turkish. 9 6 This occurred particularly after the migrations under patriarchs Arsenije I I I and Arsenije IV to the lands north of the Sava and the Danube. In connection with the features marking the religious and national unity of the Slavs inhabiting Southern Serbia, mention should also be made of the celebration of the slava, a custom peculiar to the Serbs and unknown to the Bulgars. There is abundant evidence that this custom was observed by the entire Orthodox population of these regions; we also know that it was regarded by the Bulgars as something completely alien to them. Both Ivan Jastrebov and Jovan CvijiC, two of the closest students of these regions, asserted that the Ortho dox Slavs celebrated the slava. Furthermore, those Slavs in Macedonia who had turned Mohammedan and adopted the Albanian tongue long preserved their form er religious cus toms. When the Bulgars began to spread their propaganda over Southern Serbia, apart from destroying frescoes and books of Serbian recension, they forbade the celebration of the slava. (In passing, it should be noted that the Bulgars treated Greek inscriptions on frescoes in the same way as Serbian: Heinrich Gelzer has recorded that the Bulgarian exarchist bishop of Ohrid ordered the Greek inscriptions on the frescoes in the church of St. Clement to be erased, w hile the bishop of Bitolj destroyed a trapazarion and erected a school on its site.)9 7 Until a few decades ago, the Bulgars, in that
Ibid., p. 120. 7 H einrich G e lzer, Leip zig, 1904, p. 159.

Vom

heiligen

B e ig e

und

aus

M a k ed on ien ,

76

part of Southern Serbia which they conquered, regarded all those who celebrated the slava as Serbs. Gilbert in der Maur quotes the follow ing case: during W orld W ar I, the Bulgarian troops under the command of first lieutenant Protogerov w ere ordered to inflict reprisals upon the population east of Kumanovo fo r an attack made on some Bulgarian troops. Before the reprisal measures were begun, the entire population declared that it was Bulgarian, purely in order to avoid being punish ed. Protogerov was greatly perplexed. Then Protogerovs aides had an idea: they asked who celebrated the slava. Those who did so w ere shot, since the celebration of the slava is a sign that one is a Serb: it is a custom which the Bulgars do not have. 9 8 In any examination of the question whether the Slavic population o f Macedonia was Serbian or Bulgarian, certain factors connected with ecclesiastical history must be taken into account. These may be summarized as follows. With the southward advance of the Serbian state under Milutin, various districts began to enter the Serbian Church. This pro cess continued for some time afterward, although we do not know the precise frontier separating the Patriarchate of Pec from the archiepiscopacy of Ohrid, which the Emperor Duan left in peace. As the southern areas of the medieval Serbian state fell under Turkish domination, the authority o f the Ohrid archiepiscopacy spread northward. In contrast to events in Bulgaria after the fall of Turnovo, the new ecclesiastical regime was not hostile toward the Serbs: in 1466, Archbishop Dorotej of Ohrid ordered a Nomocanon to be translated from Greek into Serbian fo r use in the church at Ohrid.9 9 Further, at the end of the 1520s, Pavle, Bishop of Smederevo, an energetic and w arlike personality, rebelled against Prohor, Archbishop of Ohrid, and quickly succeeded in overthrowing him, but was himself soon afterward overthrown and de prived of his rank. Nevertheless, the bishops of Kratovo and Lesnovo remained loyal to him. When the Patriarchate of Pe6 was restored in 1557, it included, in the south, the dioceses

9 8 G ilb e rt in der V ie n n a , 1936, p. 330.

M a u r,

J ugosla w ien

einst

und

jetzt,

L eip zig-

9 9 T o d o r D jo rd je v id , op. cit., p. 11.

77

of Skoplje, Kratovo, Custendil, Stip, Samokov and Tetovo.1 0 0 On this occasion, says Dr. Radoslav Grujic, all the dioceses north of Strumica, Veles, KiCevo and Debar w ere taken from the Ohrid archiepiscopacy and returned to the restored Patriarchate of Pec. 1 0 1 Further, according to Grujic, the Ohrid archiepiscopacy was left with only the regions south of Tetovo, Skoplje, Veles and Stip (i. e., Ohrid, Bitolj, Kavadar and Strumica). 1 0 2 This, as we shall see, is the region where Cviji6 discovered a nationally reconstituted Slavic population. The territory of the Custendil (also known as the V elbuzd) diocese embraced the area from Velbuzd and Radomir southward. This area now belongs to Bulgaria. Samokov, now a county seat in Bulgaria, had at that time a numerous Serbian population: near the town w ere situated Srpsko Selo (literally, Serbian V illa ge) and Srpski Samokov. It was the dense Serbian population in this area that caused it to be assigned to the resuscitated Patriarchate of Pe6. Sofija, mean while, remained within the Patriarchate of Byzantium. It is also noteworthy that it was only within the borders of the Patriarchate o f Pec that the spirit of rebellion and the readiness to fight the Turks w ere constantly alive. Here, on one of its extreme frontiers, Bishop Simeon of Samokov took part in one revolt, while the bishops of Skoplje and Stip were parties to an agreement with Patriarch Arsenije IV to raise a rebellion. When Simeon was caught, he was taken to Sofia and hanged there in 1737. The w riter who records his death says that this was follow ed by a great persecution of the Christians, and adds: Ah, how the Christians suffered in those times: it seems to me that there had been nothing like it since the time of Diocletian. 1 0 3

1 0 0 A le k s a Ivic, G r a d ja za istorisku g e o g ra fiju srp sk e c r k v e (M a te ria ls fo r an H istorica l G e o g ra p h y o f the S erbian Church), G la snik geog ra isk o g dru&tva, V o ls . V I I V II I , 1922, p. 209. 1 0 1 Rad. G ru jic, O h rid s k a a rh ie p isk o p ija (T h e A rc h iep sico p a cy o f O h rid ), N a rodna en cik iop ed ija SHS, V o l. Ill, p. 251. ,oi G r u jii, P eck a p a trija rS ija (The P atriarchate o f P ec), ibid., p. 376. 1 0 3 S tojan o vic, op. cit.. V o l. II, p. I l l , N o . 2709.

78

THE B U L G A R IA N N A T IO N A L R E V IV A L A N D THE M A C E D O N IAN QUESTION The Macedonian question arose in the second half of the nineteenth century. During the long enslavement of the Bal kan Christians by the Turks, there is no evidence that such a question existed. The Turkish rule, which was strong and w ell organized, especially at first, leveled out all national and tribal differences among its Christian subjects: whoever was not one o f the faithful was a giaour, an infidel, a subject of a low er order without guaranteed rights. The giaours, moreover, were divided into urum-mileti, which fo r long signified the Orthodox in the Turkish empire, or Latinm ileti, i. e., members of the Roman Catholic faith, who, on account of the Western attitude toward Turkey, were fo r many years in a worse situation than the Orthodox. Territorially nearer Constantinople, and, since the fa ll of Turnovo in 1393, deprived of a national state and a national Church, the Bulgars, unlike the Serbs, lapsed more and more into a state of lethargy and lost themselves in the masses of the Balkan Orthodox population. For these, the Greeks acted as spokesmen, fo r they had succeeded in making Phanar their ecclesiastical and national center and in render ing themselves, with he passage of time, indispensable to the Porte. Vested as they w ere with ecclesiastical authority which they received in return for payment of a special tax to the Sultan, the Greek bishops, apart from their firm loyalty to the Orthodox religion and their great efforts toward its pre servation, w ere frequently a burden to their flock as w illin g tax-gatherers and men with a taste for money. The very fact that they derived their office from the Sultan accounts fo r their decisive influence on the Porte, which they exercised in order to seize as much money as possible, and their frequent overthrowals of Orthodox bishops in the Patriarchate of Con stantinople and also of the Patriarch himself. Their practice of extorting money from their flock was necessitated by the fact that they had to bribe the Turkish authorities in order to acquire their sees and to retain them once they had got
79

them: once having ascended the episcopal throne, they were obliged to repay the debts incurred in rising to that position. In Bulgaria and those districts of Southern Serbia that had remained within the province of the Archbishop of Ohrid, village priests w ere also frequently Greeks. Thus, in the course of time, the Greek Church became one of the elements in the spiritual enslavement of the Bulgars, which exerted a profound influence on the minds of the people and eventual ly produced a feeling of unbridled hatred toward the Greeks. Nevertheless, the Bulgars held on to their own Orthodox faith, which during the Turkish occupation brought them yet closer to the Serbs. The old Balkan culture, says Cvijid, often in conjunction with the [Orthodox] faith, influenced the po pulation, especially the Christian element, bringing it together and consolidating it and producing many common psycho logical traits almost a single Balkan soul; this process was enhanced by the Turkish oppression, which forced the people into a single community and provoked them to exert a com mon resistance___ This formation of a single Balkan soul was brought to a halt partly by the national and religious conflicts of the last few decades. 1 During this period, relations between Serbs and Bulgars were peaceful: over the wide area known as Sopluk, all dif ferences between them seemed to disappear. Both peoples were Slav and Orthodox; both lived under more or less the same conditions; both of them felt the longing to recover their lost freedom. The Serbian uprisings, which occurred repeated ly over a period of several centuries exerted a rousing effect upon the Bulgars, who took over the Serbian epos of Kosovo. Vladim ir Kachanovsky noted down from Nikola Minchev, a Bulgar from Dupnitsa, four folk poems about the Battle of Kosovo that were sung by the Bulgars.2 When the Serbs suc ceeded in form ing their little state, their reputation among the Bulgars rose even higher. When Prince MiloS was on his w ay to pay homage to the Sultan, he arranged his route to pass through Bulgaria, where the people greeted him with enthusiasm. It is a well-known fact that he assisted the build
1 J o v an C v ijid , G e o g ra fs k i i kulturni p o lo za j S r b ije (S e rb ia 's G e o g ra p h ic a l and C u ltu ral P osition), Glasnik Srpskog geogralskog d ru ilva , V o l. Ill, N o s . 3 4, p. 21. * S ee A r d ii v liir slavische Ph ilologie, V o l. V I I , 1884, pp. 112 13.

80

ing of schools in Bulgaria and authorized the printing of Bul garian textbooks at his own press. For the enslaved Bulgarian people, Serbia was a stimilus encouraging them to exert an effort on their own behalf, and a hope of assistance if and when they began to do so. A fte r long hesitation, the Bulgars fin ally began to rouse themselves. Their national and cultural awakening has its peculiar features. In order to understand the tremendous sacrifices and efforts that w ere made to create a great and powerful state and, at all costs, to outstrip all their neighbors in the Balkans, one must study the Bulgars dark and troubled history during the long period in which they w ere under the Turkish yoke. As soon as a suitable opportunity arose, a mighty force that had been stifled fo r centuries was released from the national wellsprings. A deep need was felt fo r com plete historical self-affirmation, and a desire to make good, as soon as possible, all that they had lacked for centuries past. In an age o f romanticism, the Bulgarian intelligentsia, carried away by a nebulous vision of its countrys past, succumbed to the temptation to abandon all moderation and lost all sense of historical reality. Moreover, it was exposed to flattery pro voked by its countrys geopolitical importance in the rivalry of the great powers in the Balkans. In its passion and longing to resurrect its countrys greatness, to transform its romantic visions into political reality, the Bulgarian intelligentsia leapt from one extreme to the other: it was prepared to hire itself out to the Porte, the Vatican and the Russians, provided only that it could realize its dream. When Russia helped it in large measure to do this, it turned its back on her and appealed to Austro-Hungary and later, through the latter, to Germany, which under Bismarck would have nothing to do with it. To what extent the Bulgarian intelligentsia was inimically dis posed toward Serbia and Russia may be seen from a memordanum printed on October 9, 1915, in the Frankfurter Zeitung: A powerful Serbia would be very advantageous for Russia, but very harmful for Austro-Hungary and Germany. A powerful Bulgaria would thwart the interests and ambitions of Russia, but might be of great advantage fo r Germany and Austro-Hungary. *
s W aru m Buigaiien m il uns geht? E ine b u lga iisd ie Denksdiritt. Reprint from the Franklurter Zeitun g fo r O ct. 8 an d 9, 1915, p. 15.

81

It was Bulgarian ambitions to realize the dream of a powerful Bulgaria, which, as the memorandum just mentioned says, should embrace the whole of present-day Serbian Mace donia, part of Old Serbia and all the Turkish territory on the right bank of the Maritsa, 4 that gave birth to the Mace donian question. Its emergence was preceded by the national and cultural revival of the Bulgars, the establishment of the Exarchate and the formation of San Stefano Buglaria. When the Congress of Berlin forced Russia to renounce the peace terms of San Stefano, the Bulgarian Exarchate once more assumed the function of pioneer of Bulgarism in Macedonia. Later, the idea of an autonomous Macedonia was used to mask the annexationist ambitions of K in g Ferdinand. W hile Bul garia was in the embrace of Russia, this idea attracted many people in the West: it was accepted, as w e shall see, with especial fervor by European socialists, who did much to po pularize it in the West. In the follow ing sections, the development of the Mace donian question w ill be set forth in all its component parts, which are extrem ely complex and frequently mutually inter twined.

THE S P IR IT U A L A N D N A T IO N A L F A T E OF THE B U LG A R S UNDER THE TU R K S The fate of the Bulgars under the Turkish regime was harder than that of the Serbs. In a state of constant rebellion and oriented, as they were, toward the West, which supported them and encouraged them to resist, the Serbs, even after they had lost the last traces of political independence, con tinued to rebel against the Turks and force them to recognize their national identity: in these insurrections and the de struction by which they w ere accompanied, the Serbs acquired new strength and steeled their resistance. With the restoration of the Patriarchate of Pe6 (1557), they achieved a complete national renaissance and entered upon a period of powerful national unification and spiritual renewal. This the Bulgars never had: they became hopelessly over whelmed in a twofold slavery to the Turkish state and to

4 Ibid.
82

the Greek Church. A ll that was left to them w ere the vojnik kuraleri, or m ilitary settlements, which existed for over three hundred years. Right up to 1840 and even now to some ex tent, says Jirefcek, every year in the spring soldiers would go off, under the leadership of their daribaSije to Istanbul to graze the Sultans horses and mow the hay. One of them, who wore a fo x s tail in his cap, would carry before them a red kerchief bearing a crescent as a banner. 8 As we have seen, there was no intimate bond between the Bulgarian masses and their medieval state. They did not think of it as being a part of their destiny, nor did it represent fo r them a system of values dearer than life itself. Bulgarian tradition and folk song, says P. A. Sirku, attribute the countrys collapse before the Turks to the populations very low morale. According to tradition, the Bulgars had become very wicked, so that they neither submitted to God nor respected him. I f they came to church at all, they stood at a distance and took the w afer on the tips of their spears. No one recognized any one else as senior or more important, and no one submitted to anyone else. 8 The Bulgarian mentality had become permeated with the spirit of rayah to an extent which has astonished every student of this period of Bulgarian history. Referring to this period, Marin Drinov wrote: Our people were dead; the Bulgars w ere no longer a nation, but a mob, subjugated, oppressed and ruined. Even the word narod [ people, nation] had been replaced by the Greek term hora, which means peasants burdened with various duties and taxes. I f anyone suceeded in rising to a respectable position as a citizen, he ceased to be a Bulgar and became a Greek, for it was not fitting for the form er to lead the life of a citizen: such a thing was per missible only fo r a Greek. A Bulgar must remain a peasant born for heavy labor. 7 A t that time, says Georg Eugen Kunze, it was as though the name of Bulgar was an insult and a stigma, as one lament puts it. In time, the Bulgars
5 C onstantin Jos. J ire ie k , Geschichte der Bulgaien, P ragu e , 1876, pp. 452 53. P. A . Sirku, V r e m y a i zhizn patriarkha Jeftim iya T e rn o vs k o g o (T h e L ife an d T im es o f Patriarch Jeftim ije o f T u rn o v o ), pp. 598 99. 7 A s q uo ted in Kurt F loerick e, G esch idite der Bulgaien, Stuttgart, 1913, p. 39.

83

ceased to feel that they w ere a national entity, a nation. The national consciousness had been extinguished___ The body of the Bulgarian people was not only broken into fragments, but bleeding from a thousand wounds; the peoples soul had left its body, the Bulgarian nation was dead; the only thing that lived on was the anger of poverty-stricken slaves. 8 Soon after the loss of its independence, says Hugo Grothe, the political aims of the Bulgarian people, which was left without a nobility to lead it, w ere extinguished. 9 Ivan Minchev states that the Bulgars lost their national conscious ness and attended only Greek schools.1 0 Bogdan F ilov adds that the period of the Turkish yoke interrupted the free development of the Bulgarian nation and fettered its spiritual forces; at one time, it even threatened its existence as a national entity. 1 1 Jirefcek remarks that the Bulgarian nation at that time was nothing but a horde of persecuted Chris tians, whose spiritual decay was not to be compensated for by any number of souls___ Only among the uneducated peasants did the Slavic tongue and the old national con sciousness persist. ls A t the end of the third decade of the nineteenth century, at a time when a new Serbian state was being founded at the cost of very great effort, R. Walsh traveled through Bulgaria. In spite of all that was going on in Greece and Serbia, he could see no sign of a national awakening or of revolution among the masses of the Bulgarian people. The people, he says, have completely lost that w arlike sense which distin guished their ancestors. The m ajority of Bulgars lead a pas toral life and live in little villages made up of groups of houses which neither possess the orderliness of towns nor deserve the name of town___ Even in those few schools that are to be found in the towns, books are exclusively Greek, although the Greek language has made no progress with the people. The result of this is that the Bulgars are completely
8 G e o r g E ugen K unze, Bulgarien, G otha, 1919, pp. 30 31. * H u g o G rothe, Bulgarien, Natur, Volk stum , Staat, G eistesleben , Wirtschatt, W ie n , 1921, p. 60. 1 0 Iv a n M intschev, S erbien und die bulgarische nationale B e w e gung, p. 8. 1 1 B o g d an F ilo v, Geschichte der bulgarischen Kunst unter der ttirkischen Herrschait und in der neu eren Zeit, B erlin -Leip zig, 1933, p. 2. 1 1 J ire fe k , op. cit., pp. 506 07.

84

illiterate. Their language is only a spoken one without gram matical rules. Recently, however, an effort has been made to print a few textbooks in this language fo r elementary educa tion, but I have not seen them. Those that I have seen were Greek for the schools and Slav fo r the churches. Usually, there is one priest fo r every two or three villages who visits them from time to time and performs religious rites. One seldom finds a village with a church, a school or any books; except the teachers, who are usually Greeks, probably no one in the villages through which m y route lay knew how to read or w rite. '* A t the beginning of the second half of the nineteenth cen tury, the situation in Bulgaria was, in this respect, much the same. Panayot Khitrov, the well-known Bulgarian brigand leader and champion o f Bulgarian liberation from the Turkish yoke, describes the life of the Bulgarian peasants as follows: W hoever wishes to have an idea of what a slave is needs only to see how a Bulgarian peasant lives in the villages. He is not a man whose heart does not cry out in anguish at the sight and who does not call down the punishment of Heaven upon those who so humiliate human nature that they reduce Gods image to the level of the animals and murder all human thought and feeling in h im .. . . The Bulgarian people has been so humiliated by the Phanariots and the Turks that it has lost all semblance of humanity; it is like a machine that plows and reaps in order that others may sate them selves. 1 4 Summing up such evidence on the dormant state of the Bulgars national awareness during their long enslavement to the Turks, Cvijid wrote: Under the Turkish rule, the Bulgars completely lost their morale and their self-respect, and w ere reduced to the level of the meanest of Turkish sub jects. Apart from other reasons fo r this degree of subjugation, much was due to their proxim ity to Istanbul and to the geo graphical character of their country, which, with its lack of forest, was particularly suitable for the inculcation of a ditluk regime. Here this regime was at its severest; almost all the
1 3 R. W a lsc h , R eise v o n K onstantinopel durch Rum elien, das B alkangebirge, Bulgarien, die W alachei, S iebenbiirgen und Ungarn, D resd en -L eip zig, 1828, pp. 210 11. 1 4 G e o r g Rosen, D ie Balkan-Haiduken, Leip zig, 1888, p. 89.

85

Bulgars w ere no more than hired laborers, raya. Under these conditions, the Bulgarian name lost its national significance, and over a wide area was used as a class or economic de signation signifying raya, tiller of the soil, or peasant. It is a well-known fact that until the middle of the nineteenth century educated Bulgars and almost all city-dwellers were ashamed of the name Bulgar. Only after the establishment of the Exarchate (in 1870) and the liberation of Bulgaria (in 1878) did this name begin to acquire the national significance that it now possesses in Bulgaria and to take root in Mace donia. Thus, under the Turks, the name Bulgar lost its form er ethnographical meaning and in a large part of the Peninsula signified a rural population living under an extrem ely severe iitluk regime. Owing to the widespread use of the name in this sense, certain foreign researchers and travelers, ignorant of the special circumstances of the po pulation, fell into the error of regarding the Bulgarian name as a national one. Ethnographical maps of this period, pre pared in accordance with these erroneous views, did much to complicate the chief question between Serbs and Bulgars the Macedonian question. 1 6 SIG N IF IC A N C E OF THE TERM B U L G A R It is in the light of these historical facts that one should examine the significance o f the term Bulgar, which, both by the Greeks and, later, by numerous travelers through Mace donia during the nineteenth century, was used to designate the Orthodox Slav population, which did not know Greek and therefore could not be called Greek. For the most part, it was not called Serbian on account of the then fa irly firm ly estab lished error that the Serbian state o f the time embraced all Serbs except those in Bosnia. When a part of the Serbian people, says Jovan DragaSevic, albeit very small, acquired its political freedom and gathered itself into a little state separate from Turkey, under the name of Serbian state, the Turks identified the name of Serb, which was hateful to them, with the subjects of Serbia; thus, they did not tolerate that anyone in their state should call himself a S erb ,. . . and the
1 5 J o v an C v ijit , Balkansko p o lu o strvo i J u in o slo v en sk e z e m lje (T he B alk an Pen in su la and the South S la v Lands), pp. 263 64 and 265.

86

unliberated population did not dare to call itself by a name enjoying such an evil reputation in Turkey. 1 6 M ilojko Veselinovic states: That the people in Macedonia and Old Serbia now call themselves Bulgars is entirely due to the enforced desire of the Turks, who more readily hear the name of the peaceful and submissive Bulgar than that of the ever rebel lious Serb. 1 7 The Macedonian population, constantly in a state of un certainty and fear for its very life, was reluctant to give any definite answer to foreigners questions on their national feelings. I asked, says James Baker, some Bulgarian pea sants in Macedonia about their nationality, and they im mediately replied rum, which, indeed, is the name peculiar to the Greek population of Asia Minor. They insisted that they w ere Greeks. I f that is so, I told them, w hy do you speak Bulgarian at home? Because our forefathers did so, was their reply. W e have had to suffer a great deal for being called Bulgars, although we are Greeks. 1 8 A t about the same period, K arl Braun-Wiesbaden was passing through these districts. He also noticed this submissive outlook among the Slavic population of southern Macedonia and southern Bosnia. Here in Macedonia and southern Bosnia, he says, the Bulgar makes no claim to speak his mother tongue, let alone understand any other. When he meets some effendi (whether a Turk or an unknown foreigner, for the Frank is always an effendi here), he greets him in Greek with kal hora or kal himera. 1 9 Fifteen years ago, wrote M ilojko Veselinovi6, I was in Turkey [i. e., in the southern areas of Serbia, then under Turkish rule] and had the opportunity to converse at some length with many people, especially with peasants from the districts o f Vranje, Leskovac, Ni8, Turnovo, K riva Palanka, Kumanovo, Skoplje and elsewhere, and I noticed that they mostly refer to themselves as risjani, kavu ri or raya. When a Turk asks them, Say, what are you,
J o v an Dragafievid, M a k ed o n sk i S lo ven i (T he M a ced o n ia n S lavs), B elg ra d e , 1890, p. 26. 1 7 M ilo jk o V . V e s e lin o v id , Srbi u M a d ed o n iji i u J u in o j S ta ioj Srbiji, ili o d g o v o r g. S. S. B o p C evu (T h e S erbs in M a c e d o n ia and S o u thern O ld S erb ia: A R e p ly to M r. S. S. B opCev), B elg ra d e, 1888, p. 15. 1 8 Jam es B aker, D ie TQrken in Europa, Stuttgart, 1878, pp. 19 20. K arl B ra u n -W ie s b a d e n , R eiseein d ru ck e aus dem Sudosten, V o l. Ill, Stuttgart, 1888, p. 247.

87

rayaV they reply, I am a kavurin, aga. But when a Christian asks them, they say, I am a risjanin. 2 0

M ilojko Veselinovic (in 1888), Jovan Dragaevi6 (in 1890) and Stojan ProtiC attempted to fix more or less precisely the meaning of the term Bulgar (in Serbian bugarin and in Bulgarian bulgarin ). Under no circumstances, w rote Vese linovic, w ill an inhabitant of Macedonia or southern Old Serbia call himself a bolgarin or bulgarin, but only (and then out of necessity) bugarin, which is a sign that a Serb is speaking, since lu becomes u in the pronunciation of a Serb alone and of no one else. 2 1 As distinct from Protid, who, w riting on Macedonia and the Macedonians in Odjek, as serted that the Macedonian Slavs took the name Bulgar from the Latin vulgaris, 2 2 Veselinovic claimed that it was derived from the Greek vulgaros. 2 3 Dragaevi6, who, as an ethnographer, was a member of the Serbian delegation to the Berlin Congress, held more or less the same view on the origin of the term Bulgar as Veselinovi6. His derivation is 4 from the Greek Boulgaroi, which means the common people.1 He goes on to say that the word Bolgaroi, which was applied to the Bulgars proper, signifies a definite nation, 2 5 w hile Boulgaroi indicates only the cultural level o f the people. Later, the Greeks confused the two expressions, particularly as the Byzantines could not regard even those in the east as being civilized, and also both these peoples [in the eastern and western halves of the empire], although differing from one another, w ere related. Subsequently, the uninitiated took these expressions as meaning the same thing, i. e., as being the name of a nation. 2 6 Bolgar and B o u l g a r he continues, are two quite different expressions: the former, in Latin Bulgar and in Slav bolgar and bugar, is the name of a nation that never crossed the Rhodope Mountains and Despotova Gora, which separated it quite naturally and inevitably from the peoples to the west o f these mountains___ Boulgar de signates the people, or plebs; it is the equivalent of the Latin
2 0 1 1 8 8 2 3 u 2 5 V eselin o v i6 , op. cit., p. 15. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 11. Ibid., pp. 3 4. D ra g a se v ic , op. cit., p. 19. Ibid., pp. 22 23. Ibid.

88

Vulgar, and means the low er class of the people in a coun

try. 1 7 DragaSevic also agrees that fear of the Turks was the reason w hy the Serbs in Macedonia called themselves Bul gars: they follow ed the whim of their masters, while many used this alien name instead of their own in their dealings with citizens on whom they w ere economically dependent. 1 9 During the Turkish regim e, says Cvijid, the name Bulgar as applied to the raya spread beyond Bulgarian districts [and came to be applied] to serfs and peasants farm ing land on a tenant basis. The area controlled by this extrem ely oppres sive regime extended to Skoplje and beyond---- Applied, as it was, in this sense in the Vardar districts, the name Bulgar began to penetrate as far as Kosovo and Metohija, w hile one Russian traveler in the seventeenth century applies the name even to Serbian peasant farmers in the area of Sarajevo, in Bosnia. In the extreme west of the Balkan Peninsula, in Dalmatia and Croatia, the name Bulgar signified ill breeding, and probably fo r this reason the inhabitants of these areas called their simple folk poems bugarStice. 4 9 Vatroslav Oblak confirms the view of Veselinovi6 that in the Mace donian and west Bulgarian dialects vocalic I is replaced by u, particularly in those areas where Bulgarian comes into con tact with Serbian, w hile the same phenomenon cannot be found in the east and south of the areas over which Bul garian is spoken. Both by its greographic extent and by its sporadic appearances, this u shows that we are here concern ed with Serbianisms. Indeed, in almost all dialects characteriz ed by u instead of I, w e find other traces of Serbian influence, as, for example, u fo r a. Particular mention should be made of the name bulgarin with all its variations, which one finds throughout almost the whole of Macedonia (except, perhaps, some southern and southeastern districts) in the form bu garin. 8 0 Veselinovic, against whom loud protests were raised at one time, was right when he pointed out that the name Bulgar began especially to be used by the local population when the
1 7 Ibid., pp. 30 31. Ibid., p. 24. 2 9 C v i ji i , Balkansko p o lu o strvo i J u zn osloven sk e zem lje , p. 269. ,0 V . O b la k , E in ige C a p ite l aus der b u lg a ris d ie n G ram m atik, A r c h iv Stir slavische Ph ilologie, V o l. X V I I , 1895, p. 442.

89

agitation for a Bulgarian exarchate first assumed a large ucale. Since, he says, the people had lost its Serbian bishops in the previous century, it did not care for any alien ones, but mechanically supported the Bulgarian bishops, thinking that they would at least read the church services in Slav, which would be better, in its opinion, than Greek. This was taken advantage of by the Bulgarophiles, who collected signatures from the people by virtue of which the people renounced the Patriarchate and joined the Bulgarian Ex archate. As soon as anyone signed, he had from that moment on to call himself a Bulgar, since otherwise that m ajority would not be obtained that was essential if they w ere to have a Bulgarian bishop and Slavic services in church. Finally, the people agreed, but, being unable to say bulgarin, used the Serbian pronunciation bugarin. 8 1 Quite apart from the proverbial ignorance of the state of affairs in the Balkans which frequently obtained, this helps to explain w hy foreign travelers in the nineteenth century called all Orthodox Slavs in Macedonia Bulgars, frequently without having the least idea of where to draw the borderline between Serbs and Bulgars. Referring to the district between Salonica and Voden, August Griesebach w rote in 1839: The Bulgarian language covers the southern and eastern, and Serbian the northern and western parts of the area, although the borderline between these two daughters of the Slavic tribe has proved impossible to define precisely; it is said that this line, by a gradual confusion of words, merges, so to speak, into a transitional zone. 3 2 Despite this assertion, Griesebach calls the districts around Skoplje, Tetovo and Sarplanina Bulgarian since, he says, they are inhabited by Bul gars, and says that the inscriptions on the walls o f the monastery of St. Atanasije are written in Bulgarian (i. e., in Old Slavonic) and Greek.3 3 There are, he says, several Bul garian monasteries in Upper Albania that is, one large monastery is apparently, according to the map, situated near Debar. 3 4 As we have seen, Braun-Wiesbaden found Bulgars
*' " Jahre >4 V e se lin o v id , op. cit., pp. 16 17. A u g u s t G rie s e b a d i, R eise durdi Ru m eiien und nach Brussa im 1839, G ottingen, 1841, V o l. II, p. 66. Ibid., pp. 233, 252 and 278 79. Ibid., pp. 278 79.

90

(he himself puts this word in quotation marks) in 1878 in Macedonia and Bosnia.3 5 His skepticism with regard to this term is evident: referring to the Slavophile propaganda of the time which made all Orthodox Slavs on Turkish territory out to be Bulgars, he says: Anyone who has been on the spot and lived there can only find rediculous current Russian asser tions that these people are all Bulgars and that the land from the Vardar to the Aegean including Ser, where a w ellknown Greek teachers college in flourishing must be given to Bulgaria. One would have to be as ignorant as a diplomat to believe such a lie. 3 8 A t the beginning o f the twentieth century, Southern and Old Serbia w ere studied, among others, by Dr. K arl Oestreich. His observations are of particular interest since by that time relations in Southern Serbia had become crystallized. A l though he commits a number of errors in respect of the ethnic character of this region, nevertheless his judgment is more sober and objective than that of other writers. Referring to the population around Skoplje, which Griesebach out of sheer ignorance described as Bulgarian, he says: The citys po pulation consists of all possible elements. The great m ajority are Serbs some of whom have come out in favor of the Bul garian Exarchate and call themselves Bulgars and A l banians, or Mohammedanized Serbs. Although it is situated south of Sar-planina, Skoplje is the chief city of Old Ser bia. . . . The rural population, although it is Serbian in origin, has for the most part given its support to the Exarchate, since a Bulgarian bishop is for them more acceptable than a Greek bishop of the Ecumenical Church to which they form erly be longed. This is how the rural population around Skoplje has today come to be mostly Bulgarian; the same is true of the purely Serbian Tetovo. 3 7 How the Serbian population of Southern Serbia came to decide in favor of the Exarchate and what precisely this de cision meant, Dr. Oestreich sets forth in his extensive study entitled Die Bevolkerung von Makedonien. Here he points out that the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate
5 5 M K N o . 1, B ra u n -W ie s b a d e n , op. cit.. V o l. Ill, p. 233. Ibid., pp. 241 42. K a rl Oestreich, M a k e d o n ie n , Geographische Zeitschrilt, V o l. X, 1904, pp. 198 99.

91

provoked a serious schism among the Slavic masses in the Balkans, who were appealed to by both the Patriarchate and the Exarchate, since the rest o f the population was al ready oriented by virtue of its very national identity and, moreover, in comparison with the Slavs, constituted a negli gible minority. On the question who these Bulgars w ere in Southern Serbia, Oestreich says: "The Bulgars w ere Slavs, and the so-called Greeks w ere also Slavs. The Bulgars were simply Macedonian Slavs who had joined the Bulgarian Church, which had been brought to them by the inhabitants of the [Bulgarian] Principality and which had been anathema tized by the Patriarchate. They might be Bulgars or Serbs. The Greeks were also Slavs who, on account of opposition toward the Bulgars and their Turkophile policy, had remained in the Greek Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchal Church, which, as far as its membership is concerned, was also Slav. A considerable part of the rural population, although it then felt itself to be Serbian, seized the first opportunity of ob taining Slavic priests and so declared itself to be Bul garian. . . . W hoever joined the Bulgarian Exarchate was re gistered in the Turkish population records as bulgari-m ilet and to the world at large was a Bulgar.3 9 To what extent the inhabitants of Southern Serbia w ere disturbed by the conflict between Patriarchate and Exarchate may be seen from an episode described by Veselinovid. The older peasants from a village near PCinja said: Heaven alone knows what w ill become of our people. W e w ere all brothers and on friendly terms, but since the quarrel over the bishop began, some have been crying, W e are Bulgars, fo r w e are on the Bulgarian side, w hile others on the Patriarchs side said, W e know who w e are, even if they do call us Graecophiles. Cursed be he who started this quarrel! 4 0 Although, fo r the most part, agreeing with what V. Gregorovic wrote on the ethnic affinities o f the Slavic population of Macedonia (Gregorovi6 assigned them to the Bulgars), N. P. Kondakov was nevertheless unable to exclude entirely the possibility that there were Serbs in this region. Generally
8 8 K a rl O estreid i, D ie B e v d lk e ru n g v o n M a k e d o n ie n , G e o g ra phische Zeitschrift, V o l. X I, N o . 1, 1905, p. 273. 3 9 Ibid., p. 291. 4 0 V e s e lin o v id , op. cit., pp. 15 16, footnote 1.

92

speaking, he saw in the Macedonian Slavs an indefinite national group which clearly approximates to the population of Bulgaria proper. 4 1 However, he adds that in Ohrid, Serbophiles or Patriarchists, as the Bulgars call them, are livin g in very small numbers, and in the city at that. 4 2 Further, Kondakov states that in the vicinity of Skoplje there were a number of Serbian settlements and large villages, while in the city itself there w ere fifty Serbian houses without a church. In general, he is of the opinion that there w ere never any Serbs in Skoplje, but that they w ere nevertheless at that time the leading cultural element. But, he goes on, if there were no [Serbian] cities, villages of tremendous size had survived by whose means extrem ely beautiful churches had been erected, and, although this district is purely Bul garian with a few Serbian villages thrown in, it may never theless be described, from the cultural standpoint, as a corner of Old Serbia. 4 3 In Mladi NagoriCani, Kondakov found Serbian villages in which the Bulgars had begun to found settlements of their own.4 4 In his Memoirs, DjorCe Petrov recalls that there w ere Serbophile villages in the area of Bitolj, near Smilevo, and that, when they began to organize the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, they were undecided whether to include the Serbophiles in their organization or not. W e decided, he says, to accept them with freat caution and reserve, fo r fear they might betray the cause to the Greek bishop. 4 5 Not without interest, in this connection, are the observa tions made on the spot by Professor Franz Doflein, who was engaged in geological research. Like many others before him, he was biased in favor of the Bulgars, but nevertheless ob served that the people he came across did not speak Bul garian. So far, he says, the linguistic frontiers between Serbian and Bulgarian have been constantly shifting in the Balkans, especially in Macedonia. The result is that it is difficult to say whether, in the north, on the Danube frontier,
4 1 N . P. K o n d a k o v , M a k e d o n iy a : A rk h eo lo g id ise k o e p u tesh estvie (M a c e d o n ia : A n A rc h e o lo g ic a l J o u rn ey ), St. P etersbu rg, 1909, p. 249. 4 1 Ibid., p. 223. 4S Ibid., p. 173. 4 4 Ibid., p. 194. 4 5 S pom eni na G 'o r i e P e tr o v ( G o r ie P etrov 's M e m o irs), S k o p lje, 1950, pp. 20 an d 26.

93

the dialect spoken in a village, let us say, near Pirot, is Serbian tinged with Bulgarian or Bulgarian tinged with Serbian. The borderline is sim ilarly indistinct and confused in northern Macedonia. 4 8 D oflein noticed that the urban population of Skoplje spoke a dialect which seemed to him to be nearest to Bulgarian. When, he says, one is farther away, in the villages north of Skoplje, it becomes increasingly difficult to make oneself understood with those few words of Bulgarian that Germans normally have at their disposal. The probability of meeting Serbs becomes progressively greater. In Skoplje also, many inhabitants are Serbs, which is not sur prising in a communications center that is so near Serbia. 4 7 One of the more prominent foreigners who traveled through the Serbian lands was J. G. von Hahn. In 1868, he found Bulgarian Christians in many places, and Serbian Christians only in Prokuplje and KursSumlija. A ll the rest of the Slavic population south of the Serbo-Turkish frontier, which at that time was two hours walk from Aleksinac, he described as Bulgarian peasants. 4 8 In Leskovac he found two thousand four hundred, in Vranje one thousand and in Kumanovo three hundred and fifty houses belonging to Bul garian Christians, in the vicinity of Kumanovo ninety Bul garian villages and in Giljane one thousand fiv e hundred homes of Bulgarian Christians. 4 9 Long before Hahn, Am i Bou6, in 1847, designated the C m i Dr in as the western fron tier of Bulgaria.5 0 According to him, Bulgars are to be found in Bulgaria, Upper and Low er Moesia and Macedonia. O f the Bulgars of Upper Moesia and Macedonia, he says that they have many folk poems in common with the Serbs. As far as he could ascertain, the Bulgars at that time did not sing any poems about Marko Kraljevic. He further noted folk poems w ere not sung in Bulgaria in the same manner as in Serbia,

4 1 Franz D o flein , M a z e d o n ie n : E rlebnisse und Beobachtungen eines Naturforschers im G e io lg e des deutschen H e e res , Jena, 1921, p. 274. 4 7 Ibid., p. 246. 4 9 J. G. v o n H ahn, R eise v o n Belgrad nach Saloniki nebst vie r A bhan dlu ngen zur alten Geschichte des M o ra w a g e b ie te s, V ie n n a, 186(1, pp. 31 32. Ibid., pp. 48, 58, 71, 82, 111, 127, 139 an d 172. ,0 A m i Bou6, La T u iq u ie d'Eu rope, V o l. I, P aris, 1840, pp. 6 9.

94

especially in Bosnia and Hercegovina, and observed that the Bulgars did not have the gusle.5 1 Four years later, Cyprian Robert offered almost identical information on the population of Macedonia. According to him, the Bulgars made up the essence of the Macedonian population. Speaking in greater detail of the country, he says that the chief town of Bulgarian Macedonia is Serez.5 2 He adds that this part of the country should be distinguished from the northwestern districts inhabited by Serbs. For the rest, the Serbian pastoral tribes are separated from the Bulgarian agrarian population of Macedonia by the Greeks, who inhabit the central and coastal regions of this great land. 5 8 From the foregoing, the true meaning of the expression Bulgar should be clear, both as applied by the people to itself and as comprehended by foreign travelers. It designated, not an ethnic group, but the common people, the working masses ,who spoke Slav. The most menial tasks, which neither Greeks nor Turks w ere w illin g to undertake, w ere known as Bulgarian work. 5 4 The fact that foreign travelers referred to the Slavic population as Bulgars was due to ignorance and to wrong information obtained from the Greeks and from other sources. O f all such travelers, with very few exceptions, Tihom ir Georgevitch is merely stating the truth when he says that they knew neither the history, nor the language, nor the customs, nor the mutual relationships of the peoples they were describing. Only a small number of books on Mace donia, he says, has been written with a real knowledge of the subject, truthfully, independently and without bias. es How foreigners gathered their information on the in habitants o f the areas through which they passed may be seen from two examples. The French consul Pouqueville, who journeyed through Greece and parts of Turkey and Mace donia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, was accom panied by a young Greek who simply called all Slavs Bul Ibid., V o l. II, p. 107. 6 2 C y p ria n Robert, Les Slaves d e Turquie, Paris, 1844, V o l. II, p. 234. Ibid., p. 279. 8 4 J o v an C v i ji i , Rem arques sur V eth nogia p h ie de la M a c e d o in e , Paris, 1807, p. 21. K T ihom ir R. G eorgevitch , M aced on ia , London, 1918, pp. 7 an d 11.

95

gars. Franz BradaSka says of Hahn that he was insufficiently acquainted with the ethnic relationships of the areas through which he traveled, and did not even know Serbian. I am not at all surprised, says BradaSka, that he was unable to obtain detailed information about everything: in the first place, his journey was too hasty; in the second place, his servants and escorts w ere Albanians; and in the third place, he knew no Slav language. In particular, this ignorance of Slav explains his inability to distinguish between Bulgars and Serbs and the fact hat, relying on his Albanian guides, he copied down inaccurately several Slav names which had been written quite correctly on the attached sketch of the terrain by Major Zah. *

THE N A T IO N A L A W A K E N IN G OF TH E B U LG ARS IN THE N IN E TE E N TH C EN TU RY Despite their condition during the early decades of the nineteenth century, it was impossible for the Bulgars not to be affected by the new ideas of national awakening that were stirring the other Balkan nations at that time. The inspirer and initiator of the Bulgarian national revival was Pajsije, n monk from the diocese of Samokov and at one time vice abbot of the monastery of Hilandar, where in 1758 he met Jovan Raji6 w hile the latter was collecting material fo r his history. Raji6 encouraged Pajsije to attempt a similar work on the Bulgars, with the result that in 1762 there appeared Pajsijes Slaveno-bugarska istorija (History of the Slavs and Bulgars), the chief source of which was M avro Orbinis Regno degli Slavi, published in 1601. O f Bulgarian sources, says JireCek, he knew only a fe w legal documents and lives of the saints. 5 7 According to F. Kanitz, P a jsijes work is com pletely uncritical, but marks the turning point in the Bul garian national revival, since it aroused the Bulgars love for and interest in their own past.5 8
Franz BradaSka, D ie S la v e n in d er T iirk e i, M Itteilungen aus Justus P e te rs' geographischer A nstalt, V o l. X V , 1869, p. 445. * J ire fe k , op. cit., p. 519. M F. Kanitz, D ona u Bulgarien und Balkan, V o l. I ll (1860 80), Leipzig, 1880, pp. 87 88.

06

Another leader of this movement was George Ivanovi6 Venelin, a Ukrainian from the Carpathians who was born in 1802 and whose real name was Georg Huca. The son of a priest, he was also intended for the Church, but later became a doctor, and finally, on the encouragement of the Russian historian Pogodin, took up history. In 1829, he published the first volume of his work Stari i novi bugari u njihovom politiikom, etnografskom, istoriskom i verskom odnosu prema Rusima (The Ancient and Modern Bulgars and Their Political,

Ethnic, Historical and Religious Relation to the Russians). This work, too, is a collection of fantastic tales without any connection with historical facts. Before these two men began to publish their work, very little had been known about the Bulgars among the historians of Europe. In 1771 Schlozer pointed out the need for a Bul garian grammar and dictionary. In the dictionary prepared in 1787 on the command of Catharine the Great, among a total of tw elve Slav languages Bulgarian is not even mentioned and Serbian occupies fifth place. As late as 1814, Dobrovski re garded Bulgarian as a dialect of Serbian. T w elv e years ear lier, the Englishman Leake published his Tetraglosson, in which the Bulgarian text is written in Greek characters. This work was reprinted in 1804 in Researches in Greece.5 9 Not until 1822 was the existence of a Bulgarian language made generally known by Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic in his book Prilog Petrogradskom uporednom re6niku svih jezika so naroCitom osvrtom na bugarski jezik (A n Appendix to the St. Petersburg Comparative Dictionary of A ll Language, With Particular Reference to Bulgarian). With this book, wrote the well-known Bulgarophile Derzhavin, the Serb Vuk Karadiid brought into the light of day the Bulgarian language, which everyone had forgotten. A s his linguistic criterion, he took the dialects of Macedonia, i. e., the dialect of Razlog, and illustrated the Bulgarian laguage with some poems com municated to him by Bulgars from Razlog. 6 0 Until 1826, Schafarik had not seen a single book in Bulgarian; he thought that the Bulgars were only to be found between the

M Jirecek, op. cit., p. 506. 6 0 N . S. D erschaw in, U b e r M a k ed on ien , krilische Untersuchung, Leipzig, 1918, p. 67.

wissenchaftliche

und

97

Danube and the Balkan Mountains, and estimated their num ber at no more thin six hundred thousand. 6 1 In 1824, there appeared the first Bulgarian spelling primer, compiled by Petar Hadji Berovi6; in the follow ing year, a col lection of Biblical stories in Bulgarian came out in Budapest, and the year after that, another spelling primer. In 1828, a Bulgarian version of the N ew Testament, translated by Sapunov and the monk Serafim, was published, and in 1844 Hristaki Pavlovi6, from Dupnica, printed Pajsijes SlavenoMdgarska istorija in a much abridged form. The appearance on the scene of N eofit Rilski, a gifted, industrious and ex trem ely patriotic scholar, accelerated and further strengthen ed the Bulgars national and spiritual awakening. Connected on his mothers side with Mihailo German and Marko Georgijevic, who w ere important figures in Serbia, N eofit was on friendly terms with Prince MiloS and received much help from him. He was himself aware of his calling as a teacher and educational worker, and made great efforts to give of his best. In 1835, the Printing Press of the Serbian Princes printed his Bulgarian grammar and Katihiziz (Catechism), and in 1836 his Sluzba i Zitije svetoga Jovana Rilskog (Service and L ife of Saint John of Rilo). In 1840, he published his translation of the N ew Testament.8 2 For the rest, Bulgarian books w ere printed in Istanbul, which was becoming more and more the spiritual and cultural center of the Bulgars, in Vienna, Belgrade, Bucharest and RuschCuk (now Ruse). In Salonica, a Bulgarian printing press was opened in 1839: here was printed the paper Solun, which contained only an nouncements and advertisements. 8 3 Early 1859 saw the ap pearance in Salonica of the paper Bulgariya, organ of the movement advocating union of Bulgaria with Rome. The papal legate, Brunonio, was also working toward the same end, and on December 18, 1860, an agreement was signed for a union: As first archbishop of the Bulgarian united Church, the Pope appointed Josif Sobelski, who was consecrated in Rome on A p ril 8, 1861. On June 18, however, Sobelski dis

6 1 Jirecek, op. cit., p. 506. 9 2 N e o fit Rilski, Izabiani suchineniya (Selected W r it in g s ), Sofia, 1937, pp. 4 and 13 14. *3 K arl B ra u n -W ie s b a d e n , Eine tiirkische Reise, V o l. II, Stuttgart, 1876, p. 179.

98

appeared in Istanbul;6 4 it is believed that he was bound by the Russians and taken o ff by ship to Russia. A t this time, Istanbul was the Bulgars spiritual, cultural and ecclesiastical center: in 1849, N eofit Rilski opened here the first Bulgarian church, which, according to R. Grujid, soon became the rallying point of the movement of all Slavs under Turkish rule for the liberation of their Church from the Greeks. 8 5 From here, support was given for the opening o f Bulgarian schools. Until 1845, these w ere few in Bulgaria itself, w hile in Macedonia they numbered no more than four.# a Serbian schools, on the other hand, w ere opened in Macedonia from the beginning of the nineteenth century on (in 1813, for example, at Prilep and KiCevo); in the middle of the century their number was about forty, which increased by the Serbo-Turkish w ar of 1878 to a hundred. Until 1845, the total number of schools in Bulgaria was thirtyone, and in Thrace eighteen. The number that had been newly opened increased with the passage of time. The rebel lious population felt a need for education, says M. Grigorov. That offered it by the monastic schools was no longer ade quate. . . . Workers in the revival movement were engaged in this direction also. 9 7 The consequences of this campaign w ere inevitable. From these schools, says K arl Braun-Wiesbaden, and also with the aid of leaflets and books, a Slavic consciousness was spread abroad. Whereas before, people did not know them selves whether they w ere Serbs or Illyrians [Albanians], Rumanians or Greeks, now they began to consider themselves Slavs and prot6g6s of Orthodox H oly Russia, whose duty it was to free them from the rule of the Phanariot Greek hier archy. ,8 It was in the schools, especially those attended by Bul garian youths abroad, that the first generations of the Bul garian intelligentsia w ere fired by the spirit of national revo lution. Their chief desire was to win their national freedom,

** Ibid., p. 184. 5 Rad. G r u jii, E gzarhisk a c rk v a u J u in o j S r b iji (T he Exarchist Church in Southern S e rb ia ), N a rodna en cik lop ed ija SHS, V o l. I, p. 704. H erm an n W e n d e l, Siidslawische Frage, Berlin, 1918, pp. 216 17. 7 N e o fit Rilski, op. cit., p. 3. M B ra u n -W ie s b a d e n , Fin e tiirkische Reise, V o l. II, pp. 181 82.

99

but they w ere undecided as to the lines along which their efforts should be directed. As a result of Venelins influence, many of them conceived the ambition of resurrecting the great Bulgarian empire that had existed under Simeon. Re presenting somewhat later the ideas of this generation, Ivan Vazov dreamed of a Bulgaria that should embrace the entire area from the Black Sea to Lake Ohrid and from the Danube to the mouths o f the Struma and Marica.6 9 In practice, how ever, the Bulgars failed to raise a single rebellion in any way resembling those of the Greeks or the Serbs: under the in fluence of the revolutionary ideas current at the time, they did plan an insurrection in early 1849, but the total result was a rising confined to the area around Vidin. On A p ril 10, 1849, Ilija GaraSanin wrote to Stevan Knicanin: Some expression of discontent has broken out in Bulgaria, but in my opinion it wont come to anything in the end. 7 0 A sober observer w ell acquainted with the true state of affairs, GaraSanin even recommended the Bulgars not to rebel. In a circular addressed to district commanders and dated March 19, 1849, he instructed them, i f they were in contact with people from Bulgaria, to persuade them that it was inexpedient to raise a rebellion, since Serbia would welcome their liberation as much as they would themselves, but she sees that the time is not yet opportune, and for this reason wishes to save them from this ill-advised under taking. 7 1 In his Nadertanije (Memoirs), published a few years before this circular, GaraSanin showed that he understood the Bul gars situation and did not resent their unwarlike attitude. O f all the Slavic lands, he wrote, Bulgaria is nearest to the imperial capital [Istanbul], and the greater part of her territory is easily accessible; the Turks most important m ilitary positions and more than half of their army are to be found there. In no other European country does the Turk feel so secure, so much the master, as in Bulgaria. Moreover, al most all the Bulgars are without arms and have learnt to work and obey: industry and submissiveness have become
6 8 Cf. G rothe, op. cit., p. 71. 7 0 Prepiska Il ije GaraSanina, 1839 49 (C o rresp o n d a n c e G araan in, 1839 49), V o l. I, B elg ra d e, 1950, p. 383. 7 1 Ibid., p. 374.

of Ilija

100

for them the rule. These observations, however, should not lead us into the error o f failing to acknowledge the Bulgars true worth, or, what is worse, holding them in contempt. 7 2 From the time of Prince M ilo i on, Serbia took a very favorable attitude toward the spiritual and national awaken ing o f the Bulgars, and gave whatever help she could. From furnishing material assistance and offering facilities fo r the printing of textbooks and other literature fo r Bulgarian schools, this ever-increasing cooperation ranged, through the acceptance and maintenance of Bulgarian students, to the con clusion, under Prince Mihailo, of an alliance with the Bul garian revolutionary committee formed at the beginning of 1867. When Panayot K h itrov appealed to them fo r help in raising a rebellion in Bulgaria, a group of prominent Bulgars in Bucharest refused, justifying their action by the pretext that they intended to work together with Serbia fo r the formation, with the latter, o f a South Slav state, i. e., to unite the Serbian and Bulgarian popular forces in order to create a strong Balkan confederation. 7 3 With this in view, the Serbian government enabled S. Rakovski in 1860 to publish his w eekly paper Dunavski lebed in Belgrade and in 1865 permited the publication of the paper Vostok. Moreover, a Bul garian Legion was founded in Belgrade to enable Bulgarian revolutionaries, at the expense of the Serbian state, to receive m ilitary training and prepare themselves for participation in the liberation of their country. A t first, their number was a mere fifteen, but later it rose to two hundred, and by 1868 there were at least three hundred. The Bulgars w ere joined by Serbs from Bosnia and Hercegovina, from Montenegro, Dalmatia and Hungary; there w ere also a few Croats.7 4 In spite of all the enthusiasm and longing to create a single South Slav empire, the Legion disintegrated. The Bul gars rose in protest because Professor DragaSevic insisted in his lecturos that Salonica was in Old Serbia; other grievances w ere that they had begun to be issued with the same rations

7 A s quoted In F erdo 5ii6, T h o u gh t), B elg ra d e, 1937, p. 94. 7 8 Rosen, op. cit., p. 66. 7 4 Ibid., p. 189.

J u g osloven sk a

misao

(Y u g o s la v

101

as members of the Serbian forces and that their pay had been reduced from one ducat to one ruble per month.7 5 Before the emergence of the Exarchate, Serbia assisted the Bulgarian cause in other ways. In 1860, the Serbian Academic Society financed the publication o f the first volume of Stevan V erkovics collection of folk poems of the Macedonian Bul gars, although it refused to back the publication of materials on Southern Serbia assembled by MiloS M ilojevic.7 8 Verkovi6, who, from being a Catholic theologian, became a supporter of Lju devit Gaj and later a close collaborator of GaraSanin in promoting the Serbian cause in Macedonia, is an extrem ely problematical figure. There is no evidence whatsoever that he refused GaraSanins proposal to w ork on Serbias behalf or that he only in 1862 became head and leader of a secret Serbian mission in Macedonia, a position which he held until 1875. 7 7 On August 8, 1848, Garaianin w rote to Timotej Knezevic, head of the Princes chancellery: The bearer of this letter is named Verkovic, and comes from Bosnia [he was born in the village of Uljar, in Posavina, in 1827], For the most part, especially recently, he has lived in Croatia. He has been in Serbia once before, and was employed to give in formation about Turkish A lb a n ia.. . . It is best that you send him away immediately. He needs money to cover his traveling expenses, and from the little that I have with me I have been unable to give him anything. Would you therefore give him fifty ducats from the police fund and make a note that they have been given him. 7 8 Verkovi6s mystification over the epos Veda Slovenska for long engaged the interest of aca demic circles.7 9 In 1868, Verkovid published in Moscow his work Opis naina zivota makedonskih bugara (Description of the Mace donian Bulgars W ay of Life), which was dedicated to Princess Julija, w ife of Prince Mihail.8 0 An adriot and versatile schemer, Verkovic succeeded at one time in creating a name fo r himself. In fact, he belonged to the type that knows how to serve several masters simultaneously: while working for
7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 8 8 0 Ibid. Derschaw in , op. cit., p. 66. A rc h iv fur slavische Ph iloiogie, V o l. X X V , 1903, p. 581. Prepiska Ilije GaraSanina, 1839 49, V o l. I, p. 257. Cf. A r d ii v liir slavische Ph iloiogie, V o l. X X V , 1903, p. 581. D e rsd ia w in , op. cit., p. 76.

102

Garaanin, he was collecting material for Count Ignatiev, using the Russian consul at Salonica as an intermediary. It was on the basis of this incidentally inaccurate ethno graphical and statistical material that the frontiers of San Stefano Bulgaria w ere subsequently carved out.8 1 In 1861, Josif Juraj Strosmajer enabled the publication in Zagreb of an anthology of Bulgarian folk poems collected by the M iladinov brothers, from Struga. On Novem ber 15, 1926, KreSimir Iva6i6 wrote: Strosmajer sent the brothers Dimitrije and Kosta Miladinov to do educational work in Mace donia. With his material assistance, they published in 1861 the first collection of Macedonian folk poems. 8 2 The notion that the whole of Macedonia was inhabited only by Bulgars that is, that all the Slavs in Turkey w ere Bulgars, with the exception of those in Bosnia and Hercego vina, which had not been incorporated in the Serbian state was reinforced by the mistake made in 1817 by Schafarik, who, in his Slovensky zemljovid (Geography of the Slavs), published in Prague in that year, designated all the Serbian lands south of the frontiers o f the Serbian state o f that time as Bulgarian. Schafariks example was followed by D im itrije Davidovi6, who published, as an appendix to his lstorija srpskog naroda (History of the Serbian People), a map entitled The Lands Inhabited by the Serbs. The first edition of this w ork came out in Vienna in 1821, and the second was issued at the expense o f the Serbian government. Justifying Bul garian territorial ambitions on the basis of Serbian sources, D. Rizov quoted Davidovic: On the map and in the book to which it is appended, not only Macedonia, but also the towns of NiS, Leskovac, Vranje, Pirot and even Prigtina and N ovi Pnzar, lie outside the frontiers of the Serbian tribe. 8 8 THE B U L G A R IA N E X A R C H A T E A N D THE M A C E D O N IAN QUESTION In the development of the Macedonian question, the Bul garian Kxarchntc played an extrem ely important part, fo r it was the first propagator of Bulgarian territorial ambitions
"* Ibid. ** Balkannka M r r a c l f a (B alk an Federation ), N o v . 15, 1926, p. 1016. "* D, Rlzolt, Ola Hulgnren In Ihren historisdhen, eth nographisdien und polltlsclien Q ren ten , Berlin, 1917, p. 27.

103

among the Slavic population of Macedonia. Despite the policy of national repression to which the people was exposed, Bul garian discontent was directed much more against the Greek bishops than against the Turks. It is characteristic, says Kurt Floericke, that the first steps were directed, not against the political oppression exercised by the Turks, but against the religious and linguistic persecution conducted by the Greeks. Thus, they did not leave the path of the law fo r an instant, but rather appealed to the pashas and the Sultan for their impartial and well-disposed mediation. 8 4 Bogdan Filov remarks that P a jsijes Slaveno-bulgarska istorija was the original stimulus of the Bulgarian national movement , which took place simultaneously in Macedonia and Bulgaria and which was prim arily directed against the use of Greek in the church service. 8 5 The Greek schools in Bulgaria, wrote Ivan MinCev, w ere a greater danger than the tyrannical regime o f the Turks, fo r they were on the w ay to denationaliz ing the Bulgars. 8 8 In order to avert this danger that was threatening them from the Patriarchate at Constantinople, the Bulgars threw themselves into the arms of the Turks. The efforts made by Bulgarian leaders before the proclamation of the Exarchate did not, however, bear fruit. Rich Bulgarian merchants who had awakened to the call of nationalism organized in 1840 45 an opposition to ecclesiastical oppression. In 1867, the Bulgars appealed to the Porte fo r permission to set up a special body fo r public instruction in Bulgaria.8 7 In a memorandum which the Bulgarian revolutionary committee handed to the Sultan in 1870, it was stated that the Bulgars w ere fu lly prepared to remain under the Sultans authority. I f our independence, says the memorandum, could find recognition and con firm ation under the glorious scepter of the sultans, and if the sultans w ere at the same time w illin g to be also emperors of the Bulgars, then w hy should w e not offer our help and our strength to the Ottoman monarchy, as the Magyars did to Austria and the Algerians to France?... Diplomacy would then stand in astonishment when it saw a miracle where it
8 4 8 5 8 4 8 7 F loericke, op. cit., pp. 41 42. F ilo v , op. cit., p. 5. M intschev, op. cit., pp. 18 19. B aker, op. cit., pp. 31 and 44.

104

had been accustomed to seeing a weak body. In this way, all pretext for intervention and threats from whatever power would be precluded for all time. Not one foreign country would look askance at Istanbul under the pretext of liberat ing the Christians, since the latter would be free and would want to remain so. 8 8 The idea behind this memorandum, with its obvious digs at Russia, is attributed by Braun-Wiesbaden to the Porte. It was, he says, neither a French, nor a Roman, nor a Greek, but a Turkish idea, although, indeed, completely beyond the grasp of a man like Abdul A ziz. 8 8 Joseph Maria von Radowitz, whose position at that time would enable him to be w ell informed on such matters, ascribed the idea of proclaiming an exarchate and the execution of this idea to Russia: This movement [the Bulgarian movement fo r ecclesiastical separa tion from the Patriarchate of Constantinople] was secretly fostered by Russia, i. e., by Ignatiew, whose personal idea it was, without, however, its suddenly coming out into the open. It represented a complete turnabout in Russian oriental po licy: while, until the Crimean War, the Russian slogan had been the defense of Orthodoxy as a whole, now the Slavic national idea emerged for the first time as a leading principle to which the ancient Patriarchate of Constantinople sacrificed, together with the sympathies of the disappointed Greeks. From now on, Russia was no longer merely the chief power behind H oly Russian Orthodoxy, but a mighty champion of the Slav national m ovem ent.. . . Only in the summer of 1872 did this gradually become clear. Foreign diplomats on the Bosphorus did not, apparently, appreciate this as they should have done least o f all the British representative, Elliot, who spoke of it to me disparagingly. In the meanwhile, I reported it to Berlin as the biggest change fo r centuries in Russian oriental policy, and expressed the conviction that it marked the beginning of a future conflict between Russian and Turkey.
9 8 Cf. M intschev, op. cit., p. 29, an d Baker, op. cit., pp. 44 46 and 363 66, w h e r e the text o f the firm an pro claim in g the Exarchate m ay be found. 8 * B ra u n -W ie s b a d e n , Eine tiirkische Reise, V o l. II, p. 187. * H a jo H a lb o rn , Aufzeichnungen und E rinnerungen aus dem L e b e n des Botschalters Joseph M a ria vo n Radow itz, V o l. I, B erlin Leipzig, 1925, p. 242.

105

This was the setting in which the Bulgarian Exarchate was born. Without doubt, the Russians exerted great efforts toward its creation, since they believed that in this way they would secure a powerful means of realizing their policy in the Balkans. The Porte, on the other hand, which understood better than the Russians what was going on, thereby acquired a new weapon with which to smash the unity of the Balkan Christians. Serbia, who was ill informed and prompted, as ever, by sentiment for the Slavic cause, interpreted the pro clamation of the Exarchate as a gain for the Slavic world and for Orthodoxy. The Serbian government, through its envoy in Istanbul, and Metropolitan Mihailo personally who was very favorably disposed toward the Bulgars welcomed the creation of the Exarchate in the belief that its influence would be confined to ecclesiastical matters and that a much happier time was thus ahead fo r the Slavic population in the south of the Peninsula. A true pan-Slav, completely devoted to the Russians and to Orthodoxy, and one of the main leaders of Slavophilism in the Balkans, Metropolitan Mihailo made great efforts to secure recognition of the Exarchate, fo r he was anxious to preserve the unity of the Orthodox Church in the Balkans, which was being subjected to heavy attack, both by propaganda of various kinds and by materialistic ideas. The Bulgars, on the other hand, understood the matter quite differently. Still without a state, they tried to exploit the Exarchate for the realization of all their national ambi tions, which sprang from the influence of Venelin and that nebulous romanticism which had seized their leaders o f the time. Some of these leaders were, in any case, little concerned about the Church; what did concern them above all was the realization of their national ambitions and the formation of a Bulgarian state at the first opportunity. Richard von Mach was not far from the truth when he wrote that the firman of March 11, 1870, by which the Exarchate was esatblished, marked the beginning of a new national development of the Bulgarian people. 9 1 Mintschev commented that this firman belongs to the greatest moral victories attained by the Bul garian people during the nineteenth century. 9 2 Dr. Vasil
8 1 Richard v o n Mach, D e r M achtbereich des bulgarischen Exarchats in der Tiirkei, Leip zig-N eu ch atel, 1906, p. 11. 8 2 M intschev, op. cit., p. 26.

106

Radoslavoff wrote: The Constitution of the Bulgarian Prin cipality contains a special provision whereby the new Bul garian state constitutes an essential part of the Church and is subordinate to the Holy Synod, regardless of where the latter shall have its seat. 9 3 In the light of all these circumstances, it is not surprising that the first five Bulgarian bishops, in a letter to the Bulgarian nation, urged the people, not only to remain loyal to the Sultan, but to redouble their loyalty and submission. 0 4 For the Bulgars, the most valuable gain was the official recognition, throughout the territory of the Exarchate, of bugar-mileti as well as urum-mileti. The former term was intended as designating all those members of the Ortho dox Church who remained loyal to the Patriarchate but who did not feel themselves to be Greeks. From the practical or political point of view, this was the first official recognition of Bulgarian nationality. On the other hand, the Serbs in Old and Southern Serbia suffered a twofold setback: since they had no national Church of their own, it was impossible for them to be entered in the population register as a separate nation,9 5 and, divided as they were between Exarchate and Patriarchate, they were thrown into conflict among them selves. With the creation of the Exarchate, says Carl Ritter von Sax, the Bulgarian name once more acquired official significance. 9 6 The edict establishing the Exarchate opened up consider able opportunities for spreading Bulgarian influence in all the Serbian lands under Turkish rule. The opportunities were amply exploited. Under the pretext of introducing Church services read in Slav and liberating the people from the authority of the Greek bishops, there began a bitter struggle for the Bulgarization of areas that had never been Bulgarian. Those who declared themselves for the Exarchate were Bul gars, those who acknowledged the Patriarchate were Serbs. It was scarcely possible at that time to trace any linguistic
* Vasil Radoslawoff, Bulgar ten und die Weitkrise, Berlin, 1923, p. 1. 9 4 Baker, op. cit., pp. 44 46. 0 5 C vijii, Remarques sur l'ethnographie de la Macedoine, p. 50. Carl Ritter von Sax, Geschichte des Maditverlalles der Tiirkel

bis Ende des XIX. Jahrhunderts und die Phasen der norientalischen Frage bis aut die Gegenwart, Wien, 1913, p. 19. 107

borderline. 9 7 Bulgarian agents, many of whom were from Macedonia and had been converted to the Bulgarian cause, inundated the whole of Macedonia and, under the aegis of the Exarchate, engaged in the work of bringing the people over to their side. On January 14, 1899i. e., at a time when relations had become well defined, Freiherr von Marschall reported to German Chancellor von Hohenlohe that all the Bulgarian commercial representatives in Macedonia were merely revolutionary agents: This is especially true, he said, of the agent Rizov in Skoplje, where he has organized a central depot for the Macedonian-Bulgarian movement. The same is essentially true of Bulgarian diplomatic re presentatives, who consider their chief task to be the con ducting of propaganda for a Greater Bulgaria. 8 8 Article 10 of the above-mentioned firman required that at least two thirds of the total Orthodox population in any area should decided in favor of the Exarchate, that it be included in the area of the Exarchate and that it be given the right to ask for Exarchate bishops and priests. Taken all in all, this edict subordinated to the Exarchate the dioceses of Pirot, Nil, Custendil and Samokov, all of which had previously come under the Patriarchate of Pec. The omission of all reference to Skoplje, Veles and Stip in the edict is conspicuous.9 9 In Macedonia and eastern Thrace, says Richard von Mach, i. e., in those areas that are today under direct Turkish administra tion, not one diocese was originally subordinated to the Bul garian Exarchate. 1 0 0 Later, however, they too were included in the Exarchate and received bishops appointed by the Exarch. In their efforts to obtain this two-thirds majority, Bul garian propagandists did not scruple in their choice of me thods. Referring to their work in Southern Serbia, Theodor von Sosnosky wrote: What these methods were the Greeks, Serbs and Turks of this unhappy land felt on their own backs. By plunder and arson, rape and murder, armed bands tried
9 7 Gilbert in der Maur, Die Jugoslawen einst und jetzt, LeipzigVienna, 1936, p. 237. Die grosse Poiitik der europaischen Kabinette, 1871 1914, Vol. XII, Part II, Berlin, 1923, p. 525. 9 9 Von Madi, op. cit., pp. 14 15. 1 0 0 Ibid., p. 16.

108

to make them come over to the Bulgarian side. The obvious consequence of this terrorism was that other nations re taliated according to their strength. In this manner, one band raged against another. 1 0 1 Their terrorism, says Hugo Grothe of the Bulgars, brought them more enemies than friends. If power were to come into their hands today, there would be a danger that everything non-Bulgarian would be persecuted ten times as bitterly as it was when Bulgaria was in Turkish hands. 1 0 2 The fear in Macedonia, wrote H. N. Brailsford, is more than an emotion. It is a physical diseace, the malady of the country, the ailment that comes of tyran
ny 102a

For a long time, the Turks tolerated this conduct on the part of the Bulgarian missionaries, for their old hatred of the Serbs had been exacerbated by the Serbo-Turkish war of 1878. It is understandable, says Heksch, that the Turks preferred the patient and submissive Bulgar to the rebellious Serb or Greek. Since the Serbian principality had gained its freedom, the Turks regarded every Serb who declared himself to be such as a rebellious conspirator against the Turkish regime. This circumstance was exploited by the Bulgars in order to spread their propaganda among the Serbs outside the principality. Whoever was reluctant to become a Bulgar and persisted in calling himself a Serb was denounced to the Turks as conspiring with Serbia, and could only expect severe punishment. Serbian priests were maltreated; permission was refusde to open Serbian schools, and those that were already in existence were closed; Serbian monasteries were destroyed. In order to avoid persecution, the population renounced its nntinnnlity and called itself Bulgarian___ During the last thirty or forty years, propaganda has been rife in which the Hu Ikum have encouraged the Turks to act against Serbs and Greeks. Ilonce, throughout Macedonia, Thrace and Dardania, Slavs are considered to be Bulgars, which is quite incorrect. On the contrary, the Slavs in Macedonia are incapable of understanding a Bulgar from Jantra. If it is desired to de
1 0 1 Th. von Sosnosky, Die Balkanpoiitik Osterreich-Ungarns seit 1886, Stuttgart-Berlin, 1914, Vol. II, p. 129. 1 0 1 Hugo Grothe, Aul liirkischer Erde, Berlin, 1903, p. 366. ioxa h . N. Brailsford, Macedonia: Its Races and Their Future, Lon don, 1906, p. 36.

109

signate these Slavs correctly, then they must be considered as Serbs, for the Serbian name is so popular with them that, for example, male children are sometimes christened Srbin [Serb]. The Serbian hero of the folk poems, Marko Kraljevic, is obviously the Serbian ruler in Macedonia. 1 0 3 Scarcely any serious scholars have considered that a vote for the Slavic church service was a declaration that one was a Bulgar. If, says Hugo Grothe, during the church plebis cite of 1872, two thirds of the Christian Slavs voted for the Exarchate, this was by no means a confession of their Bul garian descent. 1 0 4 Brailsford remarks that the inhabitants of Southern Serbia of that time were Bulgars, because free and progressive Bulgaria has known how to attract them. 1 0 5 The Fxarchate was a laboratory in which they were national ly transformed: on these grounds, Brailsford says that the Fxarchate clergy were missionaries of the Bulgarian idea. 1 0 6 It is not, therefore, too much to say that the Bulgarian Exarchate was the precursor of San Stefano Bulgaria, which, as D. Rizov says, remained the national and political ideal of the entire Bulgarian people. 1 0 7 Present-day Bulgaria, wrote Paul Dehn, is considered by Bulgarian politicians as a torso, and they will not rest until they resurrect their country within the frontiers, more or less, of the San Stefano treaty, including, in partilucar, the Aegean ports, since Varna, on account of the expensive and time-wasting passage through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, is insufficient. 1 0 8 In order to consolidate the territory for this dreamed-of state, the Bulgars, as Hermann Wendel pointed out, set about the Mace donian Slavs with deliberate and well-organized propaganda and a program for spreading Bulgarian education. Teachers, says Wendel, not only taught the children to read and write, but instilled into them the Bulgarian national outlook. Thus, the Bulgars emerged, not as the initiators, but as the ex ploiters, of a movement which, in the form of the awakening
1 0 3 Alexander von Heksch, Die Donau von ihrem Ursprung bis an die Miindung, Leipzig, 1885, p. 636. 1 0 4 Grothe, Aut tiirkischer Erde, p. 364. 1 0 5 H. N. Brailsford, op. cit., sf. 103. 1 0 Ibid., p. 105. 1 0 7 Dimitar Rizoff, Bulgarien udn Russland, Berlin, p. 8. 1 0 8 Paul Dehn, Die Volker Siidosteuropas und ihre politischen Probleme, Halle,, 1909, p. 22.

110

of the unhistorical nationas, was bound inevitably to appear one day. 1 0 9 The new state, says JireCek in reference to the Bulgaria it was hoped to create, was supposed to embrace the area from the BaSiSko Lake and the port of Kavalla, and in the west to include Pirot, Vranje, Debar and Kastoria. These frontiers were never realized, but for the Bulgars they remained as a formulated political ideal. 1 1 0 Thus the Exarchate, as it was envisaged by Bulgarian ecclesiastical and popular leaders, was the precursor of San Stefano Bulgariaa hastily formed conception that was to become the tragedy of the Bulgarian people. Bulgaria, in the form in which it was carved out by the Russians at San Stefano, was intended to serve the Russians as a fulcrum in the Balkans, as a springboard toward domination of the Mediterranean. Such a Bulgaria, says Dr. Alexander Redlich, was conceived, not as an independent country, but as a Rus sian province, which would, formally speaking, remain under the sovereign power of Turkey. It was intended to become a Russian Egypt and to keep the route open for Russia to Istan bul. In this way, Russia became the territorial neighbor of Turkey, which her next blow would destroy. 1 1 1 In the view of H. W. V. Temperley, San Stefano Bulgaria fulfilled all Bul garian ambitions: it was presented as an ideal for succeeding generations, and maps of it were in every school. The realiza tion of these frontiers," he says, was the aim of the whole of subsequent Bulgarian policy. 1 1 2 Wolfgang Windelband states that it was an attempt to achieve undisputed Russian control in the Balkans, and St. Petersburg reckoned on Ku rope's bowing before a fait accompli, the force of which Iiiim always been attested in the history of diplomacy. 1 1 8 In Iho calculations of those who hankered after a Greater lUilKuriu, Macedonia played an essential role. Bulgaria,
I li'nnaim Wendel, Makedonien und der Friede, Munich, 1919, pp. 2 1 1 2!). 1 1 0 (!. .llroNik, Dan FOrstentum Bulgarien, Prag-Wien-Leipzig, 1891, p. 316. 1,1 Alexander Rndlich, Der Gegensatz zwischen Osterreich-Ungarn und Russland, Stuttgnrt-Berlin, 1915, pp. 13 14. 1,1 H. W. V. Tomporley, History oi Serbia, London 1917, p. 268. lla Wolfgang Windelband, Bismarck und die europaischen Grossm&chte, 187985, aul Grand unveroifentiichter Akten, Essen, 1940, p. 53.

Ill

wrote D. KrapCev on March 24, 1915, will never renounce her claim to Macedonia. Sooner or later, in one way or another, it will become an inseparable part of our state. Enormous sacrifices have been paid for it, and, if necessary, yet more will be made when a suitable opportunity offers itself. The proper moment and the means. . . will be determined by the Bulgarian government. ,u The Congress of Berlin made it impossible for San Stefano Bulgaria to remain as it had been carved out: instead of bowing to Russia, Europe threw her plans into confusion. The regions of Pirot, Vranje, Leskovac, Prokuplje and NiS were annexed to Serbia, but Southern Serbia continued to be subjucted to Bulgarian propaganda, which, after this setback, merely redoubled its efforts. That the Congress of Berlin left Macedonia under Turkish rule, says Gilbert in der Maur, was the result of complete ignorance and indifference to human dignity, a disgrace for the century in which the Italian and German nations, on the basis of the national principle, emerged as states. 1 ,5 Von Radowitz did not believe that the Russian negotiators were convinced of the permanency of their achievement. If they had been, then they would have been under an illusion as regards the world situation. 1 ,6 Bismarck appears to have foreseen the possibility of such a development in Balkan relations. In his Memoirs, he wrote. It is not impossible that in the distant future all these tribes [the Orthodox peoples in the Balkdns] will be forcibly annex ed to the Russian system; that their mere liberation will not make them supporters of Russian authority has been proved primarily by the Greek people___ The liberation movement continued, and the same thing happened with the Rumanians, Serbs and Bulgars as with the Greeks: all these peoples readily accepted Russian assistance in their liberation from the Turks, but, when they had won their freedom, they did not show the slightest disposition to accept the tsar as the sultans successor. 1 1 7

1 1 4 D. V. Krapchev, Izminal put, Sofia, p. 72. 1 1 5 Gilbert in der Maur, op. cit., p. 327. Holborn, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 3. 1 1 7 Bismarck, Gesammeite Werke, Vol. XV: Gedanken und Erinnerungen, Berlin, 1932, p. 423.

112

From fear of the Russian dangera fear that at that time was justifiedthe great powers continued to enslave a section of the Balkan Christians, on whom Bulgarian propaganda descended with renewed fervor, persisting in its attitude that what had now proved impossible of attainment would never theless one day be achieved.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE MACEDONIAN QUESTION Opinions are divided on the date of the emergence of the Macedonian question. According to Ivan Mintschev, this ques tion was posed by the very division of the population into sup porters of the Exarchate and the Patriarchate of Constan tinople. Examining the point in greater detail, he associates it directely with the appointment by the Turks of Exarchist bishops in Ohrid and Skoplje. Ohrid and Skoplje, he says, are the heart of Macedonia___ On that day, the Macedonian question was born. 1 1 8 According to Richard von Mach, how ever, these appointments were not issued until December 1884: After endless efforts, official permission was given for the nomination of Exarchist bishops for two approved dio ceses, Ohrid and Skoplje. 1 1 9 These bishops, Sinesije of Ohrid and Teodosije of Skoplje, did not assume their duties until 1890. In 1894, the Bulgars obtained Exarchist appointments to the dioceses of Veles and Nevrokop, and in 1897 for Bitolj, Debar and Strumica.1 2 0 Carl Ritter von Sax links the emerg ence of the Macedonian question with the attempt by a group of Macedonians, gathered in Sofia, to persuade the great powers to intervene with the Porte in support of the Bul garian cause in Macedonia. It was this that brought the al ready fourteen- or fifteen-year-old Macedonian question out into the open, after which, for the next eight or nine years, it aroused the greatest interest by its distortion. 1 2 1 Others again assign the origin of the Macedonian question to the decision of the Berlin Congress to leave the entire area under Turkish rule, with the obligation that reforms be intro
1 1 8 Mintschev, op. cit., p. 37. 1 1 9 Von Mach, op. cit., p. 26. 1 2 0 Ibid., pp. 28 30. Von Sax, op. cit., p. 510.

113

duced. Thus, Noel Buxton, a great friend of the Bulgars, says that the decisions of the Berlin Congress created the Balkan question, which for him is the same as the Macedonian ques tion.1 2 * Ivan-VanCa Mihailov says that until 1878, the Mace donian question did not exist: there was only the question of Bulgaria as a whole. 1 2 5 Gilbert in der Maur regards the Ber lin Congress as the birthday of the Macedonian move ment. 1 2 4 In his article Three Theses, N. Terzijev makes a similar assertion.1 2 5 However this may be, from this time on, the discord between the views of the Exarchists on the one hand and of those who desired complete freedom on the other became more and more marked. The former might be called Bul garian centralists, and the latter autonomists, although among the latter there were many differet nuances: the two factions differed in their formulation of the question and in the man ner in which they considered it should be solved. For the Bulgars and those numerous Macedonians who had become Bulgarized, it was simply a question of continuing the struggle for the liberation of their fellow-countrymen: when circum stances became more propitious, the authority of the Bul garian principality would simply be extended over the whole of Macedoniai. e., over those areas that after the Berlin Congress had remained under Turkish rule. For those who held this view, the Macedonian Slavs were Macedonian Bul gars. For the Bulgars, as Lazar Mojsov says, before the liberation of Bulgaria, there had been no Macedonian ques - Only after the tion, no Macedonian national movementliberation of Bulgaria, when the Macedonian Bulgars re mained under Turkey, did the Macedonian question appear on the agenda, and then not as the Macedonian national ques tion, but as the problem of liberating the Macedonian Bul gars and reuniting them with their motherland. 1 2 8
1 8 1 Noel Buxton und C. Leonard Leese, Balkan Problems and European Peace, London, 1919, p. 27. 1 2 8 Ivan Mihailoff, Macedonia: A Switzerland oi the Balkans, St. Louis, 1950, p. 64. m Gilbert in der Maur, op. cit., p. 327. 1 1 5 Lazar Mojsov, Bugarska radniika partija (komunista) i Makedonsko pitanje (The Bulgarian Workers' [Communist] Party and the Macedonian Question), Belgrade, 1948, p. 10. Ibid., pp. 3435.

114

Slum Ihnt time, the official Bulgarian thesis on Macedonia lutw remained virtually the same. It is remarkable that the llulKiiriim socialists, unlike their Serbian counterparts, accepril Oil* thesis. In its eighth number for 1899, Novo Vreme, llu'oiftlcul organ of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Hoclal Democrat Party, in a leading article entitled The Macedonian Question, stated that for the socialists this was mil it national, but merely a political, question. In its fortyflflh, forty-sixth and forty-seventh issues for 1901, Rabotuwhasky vestnik, organ of the Bulgarian socialists, published mi article entitled The Macedonian Movement and the Wor ldth Party. Our attitude toward the Macedonian move ment," says the article, should be the same as our attitude toward any other movement with reactionary and anticultural li-ndoncies. Our main task is to draw the working people awuy from it and to turn their attention in the direction of I heir true needs. 1 2 8 Dimitar Blagoyev-Deda, founder of the Bulgarian Social Democrat Workers Party, himself accepted and defended the (5renter Bulgarian thesis on Macedonia. In his book Prilog na intorijata na sotsijalizm v Bulgarija (Contribution to the History of Socialism in Bulgaria), published in 1907, Blagoyev writes: From 1880 to 1885, the patriotic and revolutionaryminded intelligentsia, which represented existing classes inHofar as they had developed in both free part of Bulgaria [the Bulgarian principality and Eastern Rumelia, which, from being an autonomous province within the Turksih Empire, became Southern Bulgaria in 1885], organized a number of patriotic Macedonian societies. The object of these societies was to arm bands and send them into Macedonia in order to raise a rebellion and thus secure the countrys liberation, which constituted the most urgent national task at that time. The question of uniting both free parts of the country re mained in the background, or, to be more precise, merged with the liberation of Macedonia___ Revolution in Macedonia had to bring with it the unification of Macedonia and Sou thern Bulgaria with Northern Bulgaria, so that the liberation of this region represented a continuation of the great work of the glorious revolutionaries Khristo Botev, Levsky, Kableshkov, Volov and others. 1 2 7 > * Ibid. 1 ,7 Ibid., pp. 1 2 1 3 .
115

Resistance to the pressure of Bulgarian propaganda and the campaign for national assimilation seems to have begun to crystallize even before the proclamation of the Exarchate, as soon as it became clear where the Bulgarian movement was heading. In the light of existing knowledge, it might be reasonable to say that the first group of Macedonians began to form in Instanbul, where, being at the very source of events, it could follow their development. This group had its own paper in Istanbul, entitled Makedonija, organ of the National Party, which first came out before the proclamation of the Exarchate and ceased publication in 1872. Its editor was Petko Slavejkov, who, in the issue for January 18, 1871, published an article entitled The Macedonian Question. This asserted that those Makedonistias people from this region were then calledwho had refused to declare themselves in favor of Bulgaria were indeed not Bulgars but Macedonians, and that their language differed from Bulagrian. We have scarcely won our freedom from the Greeks, they said. Surely we are not going to submit to others now? In its issue of November 30, 1870, the paper Pravo, which also came out in Istanbul, attacked Kuzman Sapkarov for distributing in Ohrid textbooks written in Macedonian. He was reported as saying: We have freed ourselves from the Greeks: are we now to become Sopovi [inhabitants of the region known as Sopluk]? In the last decade of the nineteenth century, Petar Pop-Arsov published in Vienna his StambolovStina u Makedoniji (The Stambolov Regime in Macedonia), in which he sharply criticized the work of the Exarchate in Southern Ser bia and demanded Macedonias secession from the Exarchate and the provision of her own teachers. In general, as we shall see later in greater detail, resistance to the Greater Bulgarian aspect of the Exarchates work was becoming increasingly powerful. This attitude provoked a sharp response from the official Bulgarian side: those who asserted the nationally distinctive character of the population of these areas were dubbed se paratists. In his article Claimants to Macedonia, published in 1899 in the Russian periodical Zhizn, D. Grigorijev points out that this movement was young, but, judging by all apf'

116

Iii nranees, it would appear to have the future on its side. It is Im llN pu table that it exists only in Macedonia.... Above all, I In- wparatists deny the justice of Bulgarian claims to Mace donia." At the Congress of Rilo, the Macedonian revolutionary in Kiinization defined its attitude as follows: Everything in Ilie deeds and actions of the Exarchate and its organs tending toward Bulgarian [the organization] regards as harmful to its demands and takes a stand against it. Later, when the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Or ganization (also known as IMRO) had developed the scale of U,n activities, the Exarchate was its first and bitterest enemy. The younger generation, for the most part educated in Exarchist schools, began to turn against the tyranny exercised by Exarchist clergy and officials. In 1890, wrote GorCe Petrov in his Memoirs, there appeared almost imperceptibly, among young people in all the Bulgarian centers, a movement against the bishops, local authorities, Exarchist priests and officials; there was also opposition to the claims of the Ex archate to exercise unlimited control over the Church and schools throughout the land. In this struggle, the esnafi, who constituted a powerful class in the towns of Macedonia, took the side of the young people.. . . There was not a bishop or prominent Exarchist teacher but was subjected to insults and persecutions on the part of the population. This movement developed concurrently with that of Macedonian separatism, as it was termed in the periodical Loza, which came out in Sofia under the editorship of Arsov, BalasCev, Hadji Nikolov and others. Even today, Loza claims that this movement appeared in Macedonia as a result of their propaganda. This same separatist movement also made headway among teachers in the gymnasium in Salonica. In my opinion, this movement, which went on for several years, may be explain ed as a reaction to the old desire of the Exarchate to con centrate in its hands the control of public life, and moreover, may be described as the countrys first attempt at independent action. 1 8 8 When IMRO had completed its organization, the Exarchate began to look upon its work with even greater disfavor, al though their mutual relations were not publicly broken off.
*** Spomenl na G'orie Petrov, p. 19.

117

Each continued its activities, hindering the work of the other wherever possible. The Exarchate was at an advantage, since it was legally recognized, while teachers who supported IMRO were obliged to pass themselves off as Exarchists. Petrov, who was well informed on these matters, says that the Exarchate furnished the Bulgarian government with an opportunity for setting up commercial agencies throughout Macedonia, for it regarded IMRO as a dangerous adversary which might ruin the entire Exarchist cause. On the other hand, the Exarchate and its supporters constantly appealed to the government and excepted it to save them. m IMRO, for its part, stub bornly persisted in its efforts to remove all possible rivals from Macedonian territory and to establish itself as sole leader. It was anxious, particularly with regard to the coun trys teachers, among whom it counted its best people, to force the Exarchate to submit to its will and to appoint as primary and high school teachers only those persons whom it recom mended. In 1898, Petrov went illegally to Istanbul on behalf of the organization in order to secure an arrangement, and took with him a list of such persons drawn up by the or ganizations Central Committee.< s o When the Exarch received me, says Petrov, we talked at length about many things. I had the imperssion that he seriously considered the Ex archate to be the sole leader of spiritual and social life in Macedonia. Consequently, he showed no inclination to make any concessions whatsoever. 1 3 1 On this occasion, the substance of the quarrel was a dis agreement on the best way of achieving the countrys libera tionby revolution, advocated by IMRO, or by evolution, defended by the Exarch. Concluding his account of this meet ing, Petrov says: I was carried away and spoke with some asperity. Deeply convinced of the justice of our cause, I beg ged the Exarch above all to be reasonable and not to perse cute our movement. I repeated that we were ready a power in the country, and appealed to his discretion, that a conflict might be avoided. He lowered his voice, and fell silent. I took my leave of him, convinced that I should suceed in my misIbid., p. 54. 4 S 0 Ibid., pp. 7379. 1 5 1 Ibid., p. 75. 118

ulim," '* Petrov was mistaken: the Exarchs policy toward IMHO remained as before. W < > find a similar demand for separation from the Bulgars mill for self-affirmation as an independent nation in Krsta I'. Misirkov, who wrote: However, if during the national itwakening of the Makedonians, we had taken a different view of the political map of the Balkan Peninsula, the Macedonians would have acted quite differently. If Bulgaria and Thrace had been free and if Serbia had lived in the same conditions ax Macedonia for fifty years, the Macedonians would have m-led in accord with the Serbs and not with the Bulgars. .Similarly, the Macedonians could have collaborated with the (! reeks, if the latter could have acted more sensibly and if only Greece and Macedonia had been for fifty years under the Turks and all the other Balkan lands had been free. 1 5 5 In his book Makedonija i Stara Srbija (Macedonia and Old Serbia), Spiridon Gopievic quotes a report of 1888 on Bul garian propaganda in Southern Serbia, which contains the observation that in this region there were increasing numbers of people who supported neither side in the quarrel but simp ly wanted their own independence. I must further point out, the report says, that there are people here who feel no enthusiasm for Serbia, Bulgaria or Greece, and who dream of an independent state. Being Slavs, they will have nothing to do with the Greeks, nor with the Serbs since the latter show no interest in them, nor with the Bulgars since the language of the latter is alien to them and the constant im position of the idea of a Greater Bulgaria is unacceptable to them. The number of these independents, however, is still very small. 1 3 4 Misirkov also championed the fight against propaganda, since the consequences for the population were extremely severe. Moreover, the view that the population of these areas had a distinctive character was gaining more and more supporters. The fight against various kinds of propa ganda in Macedonia, he says,, is not a retrogressive but a progressive step, since we are fighting for our freedom against the forces of darkness, which will not allow our country to
> Ibid., p. 76. ,M As quoted in Mojsov, op. cit., p. 20. ,M Spiridon Gopfevid, Makedonien und Altserbien, Vienna, 1889, p. 311.

119

see its interests with its own eyes, but instead.. . obscure the truth by giving it a Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek bias. It is time we cast off the meshes in which national and religious propaganda in Macedonia has entangled us. 1 3 5 With the passage of time, this trend became more and more pronounced. Dimo Kazasov points out that in 1894 or ganizations such as the Young Macedonian Society, the Fraternal Union and the Macedonian Committee had al ready begun to appear. In 1894, Glavinov, in his paper Makedonski glasnik, stated: In the Macedonian national revo lutionary movement, there are three trends: the nationalistic, i.e., Bulgarophile, the socialist and the purely Macedonian. 1 3 8 It will have been noticed that all this was taking place during the period when the Internal Macedonian Revolu tionary Organization was coming into being. Organized in 1893 in Salonica, it counted among its founders Goce DelCev, Damjan Grujev, Pere Toev, Gorfce Petrov, Dr. Hriste Tatarfiev, Petar Pop-Arsov, Ivan Hadji-Nikolov and Hriste Batand2ijev. According to Article 1 of the constitution, the aim of the Organization was to gather into one entity all discontent ed elements in Macedonia and the area of the Aegean, regard less of nationality, in order to achieve, by means of revo lution, complete political autonomy for these areas. The emergence of such an organization was favored by the ideological and political atmosphere of the time: disillusion ment in the Bulgarian state, reaction against the Exarchate and the longing for independence were becoming more and more pronounced. Delfiev, who, according to some, was prompted by socialist ideas while others maintained that he was simply a national revolutionary (Slavejko Arsov, com mander of a guerrilla detachment at Resan during the rising of August 2, 1903, remarked that DelCev did not entertain any extremistsocialist or anarchistideas: he did not serve such ideas),1 3 7 oriented the entire movement toward the masses, and from them sought support for the execution of
1 3 5 As quoted in Mojsov, op. cit., p. 29. < M As quoted in Mojsov, op. cit., p. 18. 1 3 7 Vostaniiko dvixenije vo Jugozapadna Makedonija po spomeni na Slavejko Arsov (The Rising in Southwest Macedonia: Memoirs of Slavejko Arsov), Skoplje, p. 7.

120

the Organizations avowed aimliberation of Macedonia from Turkish rule. The key to the liberation of Macedonia, he wrote on October 17, 1895, to Jefrem Karanov, is to be found In an internal rising. Whoever thinks of liberating Macedonia In uny other way is lying, both to himself and to others. 1 3 8 The entire efforts of this revolutionary group were confuntrated on organizing and stirring up the masses, in order to prepare them as quickly and as thoroughly as possible for n rising. Dimitar Vlahov states that they dreamed of an auto nomous Macedonia under the protection of the great European powers.1 3 9 In Macedonia, wrote DelCev in the letter men tioned above, a systematic campaign is being waged for a general internal rising, which shall assume large pro portions, and there is not a single comer of the country that is not covered by this campaign. 1 4 0 In comparison with what Petrov has to say about the early work of the Organization, DelCev was exaggerating considerably: like every inspired revolutionary, he was more of a visionary than a realist. As far as I recall, says Petrov, our first plan was extremely modest: every member had to give half a lira annually, and on his christening [initiation into the Organization] to give according to his inclination and means. I remember the desire expressed by Pereto [ToSev]: that a man should be sent to Europe at his expense to learn how to make bombs, so that we might use them to overthrow Turkey. Altogether, we had some childish ideas. Our first main desire was to appoint in the cities and villages the maximum number of circles, con spiratorial in character and selected from close friends who trusted one another, and to start something against the Turks with the aid of bombs. 1 4 1 In order to attain the maximum effect for their propa ganda, they began publishing their own papers: in Bitolj, Petrov issued his Na oruzje, which came out altogether in no more than nine numbers, each number benig printed in thirty to forty copies on a hectograph; in Salonica, Damjan Grujev
m Ljuben Lape, Pismata na Goce Deliev (The Letters of Goce Delie v), Skoplje, 1951, p. 11. ,n Dimitar Vlahov, !z istorije makedonskog naroda (From the History of the Macedonian People), Belgrade, 1950, p. 33. 1 4 0 Ljuben Lape, op. cit., p. 13. 1 4 1 Spoment na G'orie Petrov, p. 21. 121

published his Vostanifc. Their chief object, however, was to collect arms. First of all, they acquired bombs and revolvers, then rifles of various calibers, for which they frequently had no ammunition. At every opportunity, it was emphasized that their chief aim was to raise an armed reblelion. At first, says D. Vlahov, the Organization operated only among the Slavic population in the area controlled by the Bulgarian Ex archate, since it had no confidence in those other Macedonian Slavs who acknowledged the spiritual authority of the Greek Patriarch or the Pope of Rome. Similarly, the founders of the Organization did not attempt to stir v evolution among the other nationalities of MacedoniaT Albanians, Greeks and Wallachians. They feared that by \ King among various nationalities who were suspicious of one anotheran attitude that was encouraged by the Turkish authoritiesthe Or ganization might soon disintegrate, thus compromising the idea of a revolutionary struggle at the outset. Later, when it became clear that the idea of liberation was receiving the support of the remaining Slavic population and the other nationalities in Macedonia, the Organization, under the in fluence of its more progressive members, altered its statute so that any inhabitant of Macedonia might join, irrespective of his nationality, religion or political convictions, provided only that he accepted the Organizations principles and was prepared to fight for the liberation of Macedonia. m Only for a short period, as M. Vardarski points out, did IMRO organize the revolutionary movement in peace. 1 4 5 Soon after its foundation, it acquired powerful and determin ed enemies. As we have seen, the first of these was the Ex archate, whose leaders looked to the Bulgars to liberate Mace donia and hence were unwilling to assist any other move ment. In order to hinder the work of IMRO in Macedonia, the Exarchate began to set up, through the agency of people devoted to its cause, fraternities, the first of which was founded in 1898. These fraternities expected Macedonia to be liberated by Bulgaria, and concentrated their revolutionary ardor on moral preparation for this event. Petrov describes
1 4 8 Dimitar Vlahov, Iz istorije makedonskog naioda (From th History of the Macedonian People), Belgrade, 1950, p. 34. 1 4 8 M. Vardarsky, Lorganisation r6volutionnaire int6rieure, Vindependence macidonlenne, Nov. 15, 1919, p. 60.

122

how the Exarchists had decided to destroy all IMROs or ganizations. Kuniev, as inspector, he says, systematically persecuted teachers who supported us and replaced then by others who were neutral. Naumov, as former director of the Pedagogical School in Salonica, energetically pursued this ob jective among the teachers. The entire Exarchist machine was switched onto this counter-propaganda. At the same time, intrigues were initiated with the Supreme Committee in the Principality and with the government for the creation of a group to oppose the Organization. In the end, this trend re sulted in another fraternitythe revolutionary frater nity.' " 1 4 4 This Supreme Committee, founded in Sofia in 1894, was an instrument of the Bulgarian government and court, which looked askance at anything that was done without its parti cipation: it wanted to have the entire control of Macedonian affairs in its own hands. Between this body and the Central Committee of IMRO, a struggle was to develop that was to drag on almost without respite and degenerate into a bloody conflict. There were, it is true, attempts at collaboration between them, but, apart from brief intervals of success, the situation would return to its former footing. The Centralists, as the supporters of the Central Committee of IMRO were called, were joined by a group of officers in Bulgaria, who, in order to render assistance, founded auxiliary officers fraternities, which collected money for the Centralists. The fraternities, says Petrov, were organized on a basis of se crecy in the majority of garrisons in Bulgaria. At first, they could not do much, but they nevertheless gave a certain amount of help in money and materials. 1 4 5 When the Supreme Committee was joined by Simeon Iladev and StaniSev, relations between the two rival organiza tions were somewhat improved. Both sides sought a rap prochement, but there was difficulty in reaching agreement on the point which should have the principal voice in pre paring and carrying out a rebellion in Macedonia. DelCev and Petrov, at that time official representatives of the Central Committee in Sofia, demanded that the Supreme Committee
1 4 4 Spomenl na G'orte Petrov, pp. 3839. ' Ibid., p. 65.

123

Mlioulrl be no more than ist auxiliary organ.1 4 9 Not until Boris M ur/il'ov became head of the Supreme Committee did relations appreciably improve, but even then it was not for long, since fr tNh disagreements arose between the Centralists and Sarafnvs group. Furthermore, a group of officers headed by ( ioneral ConCev decided to take over the Supreme Committee. 'IllIs group had a plan already worked out for raising a rebel lion in Macedonia: the entire region had been divided into fourteen districts which were to be controlled by officers mibordinate to General ConCev. Finally, in opposition to the wishes of the Centralists official representatives of the time, Confiev succeeded in at taining the leadership of the Supreme Committee, although Sarafov refused to recognize him and surrender his position. Harafov was eventually arrested, but realeased again soon afterward.

From the political standpoint, the problem posed by this region appeared to be most easily soluble by the creation of an autonomous government which, instead of constituting an apple of discord among the Balkan states, would be a bridge for bringing them together and smoothing the path into the future. Ever since Cyprian Robert had suggested a Balkan federation, this idea had appealed to the most enthusiastic Idealists, not only among circles close to IMRO, but also among the ranks of Bulgarian revolutionaries. As early as 1870, Ljuben Karavelov had written, in Sloboda, No. 16, that not only Serbs and Bulgars, but also Rumanians and Greeks Khared the same objective and the same destiny, and that all Mhould create a free Danube federation and defend their national and personal freedom. Vasil Levski dreamed of the emergence of free Balkan republics, while Hristo Botev wrote: "The right of Serbia, Rumania and Greece to existence and future development depends (1) on the collapse of Turkey, ( 2) on the liberation of the Slavic peoples enslaved by her, and (3) on [the establishment of] a sacred and loyal South Slav union which could unite them in a single political entity, capable of resisting all violence and attack" (Zname,
Ibid., p. 69.

124

J874, No. 6). Makedonski glas, headed by the carpenter Vasil Glavinov, also championed this idea.1 4 7 As far as is known, the idea of setting up an autonomous Macedonian was first expressed on July 8, 1876, in conversa tions between Tsar Alexander II and Franz Josef held at Reichstadt, in northern Bohemia. It came from Franz Josef, who proposed setting up an independent province of Mace donia.1 4 8 Somewhat later, in a conversation with Bismarck which took place in early October 1887, Francesco Crispi pro posed autonomy for Macedonia, Old Serbia and Albania, and emphasized that Vienna had already accepted the idea.1 4 9 Eight years later, after the slogan Macedonia for the Mace donians had been launched in 1894, the idea of establishing an autonomous Macedonia appeared once more. It was one of the chief points in the first program of IMRO, and the sub ject of discussion at its first congress, held in Salonica in the summer of 1896. The principle of autonomy, says Petrov, had already been put forward by Sofia, and we discussed the question along general lines. 1 5 0 Count Henckel von Donnersmarck, German charge daffaires in Istanbul, informed Prince Hohenlohe on May 25, 1895, that the Porte was opposed to Macedonias desire for autonomy, and went on: As is wellknown, the Macedonians based their demands vis-a-vis the Porte on Article 23 of the Treaty of Berlin, according to which the Porte was obliged to introduce autonomous administra tions in its European province with the assistance of a com - This mission composed of members of the local populationMacedonian agitation is supported in Bulgaria, and even Prince Ferdinands word of warning could not change any thing. Hundreds of thousands of Bulgars are in Macedonia, while about six hundred thousand Macedonians are living in Bulgaria. Still closer unity between Bulgars and Macedonians, who are linked by a common faith, is being promoted by committees, which are supplied with considerable material
1 4 7 Dimo Kazasov, Burni godini (The Stormy Years), Sofia, 1949, pp. 249 50. 1 4 8 Von Sosnosky, op. cit.. Vol. I, p. 169. 1 4 9 Bismarck, Gesammelte Werke, Vol. VIII: Erinnerungen und Gedanken, Berlin, 1932, p. 573. 1M Spomeni na G'orie Petrov, p. 48.

125

resources. These are well organized, and their center is in Bulgaria. 1 5 1 The idea of an autonomous M vedcnia was supported by the Bulgarian government: it hau already, as we have seen, been accepted by IMRO. Ivan-ManCa Mihailov says: The leaders of the Macedonian liberation movement have taken autonomy, and no more, as their final objective. 1 5 2 Under February 16, 1895, von Holstein noted that Ferdinand wanted to become king of Macedonia. As far as Macedonia is con cerned, he says, it is in the highest degree probable that Russia will energetically oppose Bulgarian expansion in this direction, since this would seriously threaten the interests of the Greek royal family, which is closely linked by ties of kinship and friendship with St. Petersburg. To any Bulgarian move in the direction of Macedonia, Hellenism would reply with recourse to arms. 1 5 3 The Russians were already bitter ly disappointed in Bulgaria, and Ferdinands conduct in creased their distrust. Fearing the establishment of a Slavic bloc in the Balkans, Freiherr von Marschall, German ambas sador in Istanbul, on May 2, 1890, recommended that Greece and Bulgaria unite in order to frustrate such a possibility. Events turned out quite differently: not only did the Russians prevent this eventuality, but they stopped helping Bulgaria in Macedonia. On August 25, 1896, von Voigts-Rhetz, German consul general in Sofia, informed Hohenlohe that the Russian envoy in Istanbul had refused to support the Bulgarian de mand addressed to the Porte that the establishment of two more episcopal sees in Macedonia be approved by the Bul gars.1 5 4 Two years later, Austro-Hungary and Russia reached an agreement on the Balkans: the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin were, in principle, adhered to, but it was emphasized that if the territory of European Turkey were divided up, this could, with the exception of the sanjak of Novi Pazar, which Austro-Hungary reserved for herself, be the subject of
1 5 1 Die grosse Politik der europdischen Kabinette, 1871 1914, Vol. XII, Part I, Berlin, p. 121. 1 5 2 Mihailoff, op. cit., p. 65. 1 5 4 Die grosse Politik der europaischen Kabinette, 1871 1914, Vol. XII, Part I, p. 108, Cf. p. 134. 1 5 4 Ibid., pp. 137 38.

126

ii friendly agreement between these two powers. Even then It was made clear that none of the Balkan states should be ii Ilowed, by such a division of Turkish territory, to expand to such an extent that the balance of power in the Balkans was upset, and that, if new frontiers were defined, this would have to be borne in mind.1 5 5

Neither the Bulgarian court nor its supporters were in the least attracted by the idea of a Balkan federation, which was gaining more and more sympathizers among the left wing of IMRO. Jane Sandanski formed a federalist movement in the vicinity of Ser, but he was killed in 1914 on the orders of King Ferdinand. The seed sown by Sandanski bore fruit in the work of the National Federative Party, the kernel of which, according to Dimitar Vlahov, was the revolutionary district of Ser.1 5 6 This party represented the working strata of the Macedonian population___ [It] sought points of con tact with other nationalities in Macedonia and in Turkey, strove to form a federation of free natioal units on an extreme democratic basis, and opposed interference by foreign states in the internal life of Turkey. One of its great tasks was the struggle against Greater Bulgarian, Greater Serbian and Greater Greek chauvinism, against their ambition to win the masses of the Macedonian population over to their side and expllit them for their imperialistic aims. This party included in its ranks workers, peasants, esnafi, the peoples intel ligentsia and in general all elements of the people. It emerged as a champion of the interests of these strata; it sought a solution of the national question in the interests of the nationalities concerned and of the agrarian question in the interests of the peasant masses, and demanded that each people be given complete cultural and educational rights and freedom. It fought for the complete equality of rights of all nationalities, for a democratic union of all nations [in Mace donian] and for the formation of an eastern federation. 1 5 7 1 8 5 Ibid., pp. 29697. 1M Dimitar Vlahov, Makedonija i Mladoturska (Macedonia and the Young Turks), Istoriski glasnik, Belgrade, 1949, No. 3, p. 36. 1 5 7 Ibid., p. 37.
127

After its congress of August 1909 and the election of its central leadership under Vlahov, the National Federative Party championed the idea of an independent Macedonia. It took quite a different attitude on the national question from that of the right wing of IMRO: for the former, the socialdemocrat element took precedence, while for the latter the nationalistic element was to the fore. For the National Federative Party, says Vlahov, the national question con sists, not in a modification of inequality, b u t. . . in the guaran teeing of maximum opportunities for free development and expression to even the smallest national minorities. While parties struggling for the supremacy of one particular nation adopt the banner of national separatism and strive to group all elements of their nation against other nations, the National Federative Party has put its organization on an international basis. Its extreme demands on the national question are none other than the ultimate demands of all democracy: a guarantee of complete freedom for every nation in the local community, sanjak, vilayet and region. 1 5 8 During the regime of the Young Turks, the right wing of IMRO organized itself as a Union of Bulgarian Constitutional Clubs in Turkey, which was established at the congress of September 7, 1908. In 1910, this group renewed its illegal activities, one of the leaders of which was Todor Aleksandrov. The organ of the Union was Otad&bina, which came out twice weekly with a circulation of 2,700 copies, one third of which was distributed in Bulgaria. In 1910, the Union was disbanded in compliance with a law on the disbanding of political parties in Turkey. ### With the passage of time, the split in the ranks of IMRO became wider: the Central Committees following continued to attach greater importance to Macedonian autonomy than to dependence on Bulgaria, while those that had infiltrated from the Supreme Committee sought annexation of Mace donia by Bulgaria. For the rest, there was some confusion in the ideas of certain leaders of IMRO. Simon Jeftimov, for many years editor of Makedonija, asserted that right from the first the general view had been that an independent Mace1 5 8 Ibid., p. 42.

128

(Ionia should be set up. It [IMRO] was committed to the liberation of Macedonia and the establishment of a buffer f.lnte to prevent a quarrel in the Balkans and to serve as n link between the Balkan states. 1 5 9 The very fact that .leftimov was assassinated by a group of his adversaries shows Unit this view of his can scarcely be taken as the view of the i itfht wing of IMRO. Dimo Kazasov points out that from 1895 Id 1903 a vigorous guerrilla campaign was carried on in Southern Serbia. It is known that most of these guerrilla Imnds were organized in Bulgaria and sent from there into Macedonia, although there were other bands formed in the urea itself and commanded, not by regular officers, but by local leaders. In most cases, however, they were led by Bul garian officers backed by General ConCev, Colonel Jankov, Captains Nikolov, Stojanov and Protogerov, Lieutenants Boris Sarnfov, Sugarov and others. These officers, under the direct leadership of the court, had seized power in the Sofia or ganization and succeeded in placing at its head their friend Boris Sarafov, behind whom were the officers fraternities led by General ConCev. 1 6 0 In 1902, as we have seen, this group disintegrated, and one wing, led by ConCev, began direct participation in affairs in Macedonia.1 ,1 The commencement of armed operations in Southern Ser bia was preceded by a purge in the leadership of the Sofia organization and, in connection with this, by dissension in the field. On April 5, 1901, Sarafov, Davidov, who was chairman nf the Macedonian committee, KovaCev, who was secretary of I his committee, and several of its members were arrested.1 6 2 Professor Stefan Mihailovski became chairman of this com mittee, while General ConCev acted as vice-chairman. By this means, the group that stood for union with Bulgaria gained the ascendancy in this committee, and impatiently began preparations for an armed campaign. On August 6, 1901, the eommittee issued a declaration asserting that Macedonia could only be saved by a revolution. Elliot, at that time the British
IM Simon Jeftimoff, Die mazedonische Frage (Sonderdruck aus der "Zi'itsdirift fiir Politik, 20. Jahrgang, Heft 5), pp. 67. 1 .0 Kazasov, op. cit., p. 245. 1 .1 Correspondence Respecting the Allairs ol South-Eastern Eu rope< : Turkey, Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty, London, 1903. "* Ibid., p. 39.

129

representative in Bulgaria, stated that this idea came from General Condev, who, as we have seen, was supported by the court. During the summer of 1902, arms were poured into Mace donia from Bulgaria in increasing quantities, especially into those areas where it was planned to launch the rebellion. In order outwardly to dissociate itself from these preparations for a rising, the Bulgarian government, under the pressure of circumstances abroad, on September 1, 1902, arrested General Confcev, who soon suceeded in escaping from Drenovo, where he had been interned.1 8 3 Nevertheless, the rising broke out at the beginning of November. On November 5, Elloit report ed that the insurgents planned to occupy the Struma valley and the vicinity of Nevrokop.1 9 4 An essential requirement for the realization of this plan was the cooperation of the population of Razlog. Bound as it was by ties of loyalty to Sarafov, and at the same time un favorably disposed toward Bulgarian annexationist ambitions, the population of Razlog, despite the fact that it was well armed, refused to join the rebellion. This, says Elliot, was a serious blow to the rising, particularly since Razlog was known to possess plentiful stores of arms. They refused to have anything to do with Conievs group, declaring that they would not rebel until a suitable moment had come, and that they could not agree that the moment was already ripe. 1 9 8 From another report of Elliots, it is clear that the people were unenthusiastic about the whole enterprise. After the suppression of the rising, Colonel Jankov, taking leave of the inhabitants of the village of Zagoridani, where he was born, promised them that further efforts would be made and the struggle continued. The villagers were quite unimpressed.1 9 * From the evidence of Slavejko Arsov, we learn that Jankov had been operating quite independently of members of IMRO: the latter did not even know that it had been decided to raise a rebellion. I did not meet Jankov at all, says Arsov. I was unaware of the situation, and did not know why Jankov had come. I thought it would be good if we got him on our side,
> Ibid., p. 196. 1 6 4 Ibid., p. 244. 1 8 5 Ibid. 1,4 Ibid., p. 249.

130

iiiiiHidering that, as a soldier, a colonel, he might be use ful." 1 9 7 He wrote to him and asked for a meeting, but Jankov did not reply. The total number of insurgents was no more than five hundred, of whom three hundred had come from Bulgaria. Hence, Hugo Grothe is entirely correct in describing the cam paign as an artificial revolution aimed at provocation. 1 ,8 According to official British reports from the scene, Lieute nant Colonel Nikolov, together with D. Rizov, commanded a Kroup of 250270 men in the area of DSumaja; DonCo, to gether with Captain Stojanov, operated with 170 men in Mel nik and Petrid, and Aleksije, a local commander, with 70 100 men in the region of Poroj. Coniev acted as a kind of chief inspector.1 8 9 A curious point is that, in the proclamation addressed to the people, they described Alexander of Mace donia as the ancestor of the present population of the country, who were called upon to regard him and his military virtues as an example. The cause of the failure of the rebellion was that it was alien to the people. The idea of a rising did not spring from them, but was introduced from outside. Supporters of the rebellion were those who had little to lose, the intellectual proletariat of the big towns such as Salonica and Bitolj,.. . and those who saw in the unconstrained life of a guerrilla lighter a good opportunity for personal gain. Not even the extravagant promises of Coniev or Sarafov could inspire the masses, dulled as they were by decades of underground activity. 1 7 0 Much later, on January 25, 1928, Makedonsko delo stated that Conievs aim had been to use the rising to destroy IMRO, and to incite the people to revolt by means of provocation. The inhabitants of Upper Diumaja and Petrifi, says this article, had begun to realize that these men were committing a blunder and that they would withdraw and flee to Bulgaria, leaving them to stew in their own juice. Accordingly, those
Vostanliko dviienije vo Jugozapadna Makedonija po spomeni na Slavejko Arsov, p. 33. ,M Grothe, Auf tQrkisdier Erde, p. 347. ,m Correspondence Respecting the Ailairs ol South-Eastern Eu rope: Turkey, p. 280. 1 7 0 Grothe, Aul tiirkischer Erde, pp. 346 47. 131

villages that had come under the control of the Supreme Committee sent, one after the other, couriers to Sandanski, Cernopejev, Arsenov and other commanders in neighboring districts, seeking their help in their efforts to free themselves the Supreme Committees troops___ What form did the rising actually take? The peasants had ceased to trust the Supreme Committees followers, and were unwilling to rebel, notwith standing all propaganda, assurances and terrorization. In order to compel them to rebeli. e., to abandon the villages and, whether with or without arms, to flee into the mountains and so create the impression that a revolt had broken out the Supreme Committees bands used provocateur methods: in several villages, they attacked Turkish landowners, thus pro voking reprisals by Turkish troops and compelling the po pulation to rebel.. .. This was a great blow for the Organiza tion, occurring as it did at a moment when the latter was carrying out its armament plans.. . . It was a dreadful and irreparable blow to the honor and prestige of the Mace donian liberation movement, which was represented to the outside world as being dependent on, and led by, the Bul garian government and court, which were exploiting it as the instrument of their aggressive policy (pages 13 14). In general, it may be said that the population was torment ed by the arbitrary conduct of the guerrillas: the entire life and work of the peasants was controlled by IMRO. This merely aggravated their already difficult situation, and brought no solution to the problem. There were signs that this was beginning to be realized in Bulgaria. During a private audience, King Ferdinand asked Baron Wladimir Giesl for his opinion why the influence of Bulgarian propaganda in Southern Serbia was waning, while that of Serbia was growing. Baron Giesl, who was well acquainted with the mood of the inhabitants of Southern Serbia, gave as the main reason for the decline of Bulgarian influence the terror in flicted on the people by the revolutionary committees. Yes, replied Ferdinand, that is the real reason. The com mittees have done much harm to the Bulgarian cause, and it will be worse if Russia succeeds in getting Joachim III ap pointed ecumenical patriarch. 1 7 1 During another audience,
1,1 W ladimir Giesl, ZweJ Jahrzehnte im Nahen Orient, Berlin, 1927, p. 161.

132

when the subject of discussion was the possibility of establlwhing an autonomous Macedonia dependent on Bulgaria, the lmron said to Ferdinand: I have already demonstrated that Ihe plan for an autonomous Macedonia under Bulgarian leadership, which the Bulgars are advocating, is a Utopia. Rusnla, Turkey, Serbia and Greece would resist it with all their force. 1 7 2 ### In the revolutionary campaign conducted, not only by Bul garian propaganda but also by IMRO, the rising of August 2, 1 1 1 0 3 , occupies a central place. Both sides, although their aims were becoming increasingly divergent, claimed it for themHclves, seeing in it the most forceful expression of the revo lutionary 61an and of the devotion of the masses to their cause. In the various references to it, it is extolled as the highlight of the campaign for the liberation of Macedonia and as an event marking the beginning of a new epoch. Ac cording to one of the leaders of IMRO, it was a revolutionary watershed in Macedonian history dividing two currentsthat of IMRO and that of the Supreme Committee.1 7 * In his brochure on the rising, Dimo Hadji Dimov wrote: This epochmaking event was decided on by the congress of the Revo lutionary Organization in early January 1903, and on July 20 (Old Style) it was launched. It was begun with an enthusiasm and degree of self-sacrifice that can only be manifested by a people that has been taught to die for its freedom. This | the Macedonian] people had been educated in this spirit by its Revolutionary Organization, which could not be otherwise than worthy of its people. 1 7 4 Elsewhere, the rising is deHcribed as the most important revolutionary act in the his tory of the Macedonian revolutionary movement,. . . an epochmaking event of tremendous importance, a turning point which determined, not only the immediate future of the Mace donian liberation movement, but also Bulgarian, and to a certain extent, international, policy toward Macedonia and Turkey in general. The rising exposed all the complexity
" /bid., p. 163.

Makedonsko delo, Aug. 10, 1928, p. 12. 1,4 Ibid., Sept. 25, 1925, p. 55. 133

of the Macedonian problem on the Balkan, and, if you will, on the international plane. 1 7 5 What, in effect, was this rising? There are researchers who consider that it was a purely Bulgarian affair. Edith Durham, a great enemy of the Serbs, comments that the Macedonian rising of 1903 was a purely Bulgarian movement. 1 7 8 D. Krapdev described it as the most powerful manifestation of the unity of the Bulgarian population within the frontiers of the Turkish empire of that time. In it participated all those who were devoted to the Bulgarian nation and who felt themselves to be BulgarsExarchists, Patriarchists,Catholics and Protestanst. 1 7 7 Brailsford, who gathered his data on the actual scene of the rising, visited all the villages that had suffered in it and spoke to the peasants who had taken part, emphasizes that the cause of the rising lay as much in the economic grievances of the peasantry as in the political aspirations of the educated class. 1 7 8 A resolution in favor of a rebellion was adopted by the Salonica section of the Central Committee of IMRO in early January 1903. GorCe Petrov states that among leading per sonalities of the Central Committee who were in Sofia at the time opinions were sharply divided on whether the rebellion should be undertaken or not. On receipt of a letter in January 1903 from the Salonica section of the Central Committee, the Sofia group met several times to discuss what attitude it should take: whether to accept or reject the proposal of the group in Salonica. SlavCo KovaCev declared that the proposal should be adopted since the Supreme Committee had already raised a rebellion, and we should not fall behind, lest the people say that we are incapable of raising a rebellion and that we are not revolutionaries. 1 7 9 DelSev and Petrov were definitely opposed to the proposal. One cannot help notic ing, says Petrov, that the proposal for a rebellion was most strongly supported by those who did not intend to take any part in it. At the Smilevo congress, too, rebellion was most
7 * Ibid., Feb. 10, 1928, p. 5. 1 7 8 Edith Durham, Die slawische Gelahr: Zwanzig Jahre BalkanErinnerungen, Stuttgart, p. 114. 1 7 7 Krapchev, op. cit., p. 77. 1,8 Brailsford, op. cit., p. 42. I7 Spomeni na G'orie Petrov, p. 125.

134

kt^nly advocated by those districts that took no part in it, as, for example, the Salonica district, even though Salonica play ed a most important role in raising a rebellion. 1 8 0 Wellknown revolutionaries, says Vlahov, DelSev, Petrov, Jane Sundanski, Hadji Dimov and others, energetically opposed the raising of a rebellion, since they foresaw its defeat. When, however, it was lounched, they did their duty, assisting the struggle of the Bitolj insurgents. 1 8 1 DelSev was killed in an ambush, while Petrov took part in the fighting, albeit without success. At the congress held on April 2028, 1903, in the village of Smilevo, the decision was finally taken to raise a rebellion. The Central Committee of IMRO was represented by Damjan Grujev, while delegates from local committees included LozanCev, Pop Hristov and PeSkov. Boris Saratov, from the Sofia group, attended as an inspector of troops. Others pre sent included various commanders and district leaders. Al together, there were thirty-two delegates: Grujev presided, while Pop Hristov and Cvetkov acted as secretaries. The meeting was guarded by a hundred guerrillas, assisted by armed peasants from Smilevo. Slavejko Arsov, who represented the Resan district, says that the decision to raise a rebellion met with some opposi tion. Those against it included the delegates from Prilep, KruSevac and Mariovo. Many delegates, says Arsov, re garded the idea of a rebellion with distrust: it was impossible to foresee what would come of it, and so they hesitated to make such a decision. 1 8 2 In the end, a rebellion was decided on, but not until the end of June, in order to allow the harvest to be gathered and food supplies to be assured. A head quarters staff was appointed, consisting of Damjan Grujev, a teacher from Salonica, Anastas Lozaniev and Boris Saratov. The staff, says Arsov, consisted of three persons who had equal status and whose decisions were final. The congress also drew up a disciplinary code based on a draft prepared by DelCev and Saratov. It was further decided that the staff should include Pere Tosev, GorSe Petrov and Matovif they
> Ibid., p. 127. 1 8 1 Vlahov, op. cit., p. 40. 1 8 1 Vostanitko dviienije vo Jugozapadna Makedonija, p. 57.

135

put in an appearance. Deputies were appointed for the three members of the headquarters staff: Petar Acev for Sarafov, Lazar Trajkov for LozanSev and Georgi Pop Hristov for Grujev. 1 8 5 It is noteworthy that the leaders of the rebellion in cluded no one from the Mihailovski-ConCev group, from which Sarafov had separated. In his article August 2the National Holiday of Macedonia, marking the anniversary of the rising, Dimitar Mitrev wrote: The blame for proclaiming this premature rising lies with the agents of the Bulgarian courtIvan Garvanov, Boris Sarafov, Atanas LozanSev and others, who had succeeded in entering the leadership of the Revolutionary Organization. 1 8 4 Recently, it has been increasingly emphasized that the primary motive of the rising was the social question. It is pointed out that the proclamation of the insurgents stated that they were fighting for the liberty of all the inhabitants of Macedonia, for a free Macedonia, with broad rights for all poor people, of whatever nation, religion or language, in habiting its territory. 1 8 5 We also know that an extremely important part in preparations for the rising was played by the teacher Nikola Karov, one of the chief pioneers in the pro pagation of socialist ideas in Southern Serbia. This is stated by his biographer, Klisurov. As a mountain commander, Karov was the moving force behind the KruSevo republic. It has been said of him that in the most fateful moments of the struggle he carried a rifle in one hand and a copy of the Communist Manifesto in the other.1 8 8 If all this is true, then it may be assumed that the KruSevo republic, which lasted in all only thirteen days, and which was presided over by Karov, was a socialist republic. Accord ing to the evidence of one of the survivors of this rising, there floated over the town the red flag of revolution bear ing the words Freedom or Death. This was the flag of the republic, the flag of a people that had elected its leaders: Nikola Karov had been chosen as president of the republic, Dimo Vangel had been assigned the administration of justice,
1 8 S ibid., pp. 5758. 1 8 4 Politika, Belgrade, Aug. 2, 1946. 1 8 5 Borba, Belgrade-Zagreb, Aug. 2, 1950. 1 8 * Mojsov, op. cit., p. 45.

136

Dimitar Sekulov that of food and production and Teodor NeSkov that of finance. 1 8 7 However this may be, the rebellion was a complete failure. It left behind nothing but destruction and grief. According to Kazasov, the results of the rising were 66 villages destroy ed, 2,610 houses burnt to the ground, 2,565 persons killed and 12,880 peasants deprived of their land.1 8 8 Borba states that 135 villages were destroyed, about 10,000 houses burnt, 2,000 persons killed and about 2,500 women and girls raped and abducted.1 8 9 Similar information is given by Dimitar Vlahov, who says that most damage was inflicted in the district of Bitolj. Here, he says, the distress was so great that inter national charitable organizations had to send help and in stitute special campaigns to collect assistance. Survivors who were fit for work were obliged to leave the country and seek a livelihood abroad. Large numbers emigrated to the USA. From that time on, Macedonian peasants, workers and crafts men emigrated on a massed scale to America. 1 9 0 This how the rising of August 2, 103, appears when con sidered in the light of the facts. Circumstances suggest that it was largely inspired by Sofia, through a group belonging to the Central Commitee of IMRO, which had allowed itself to be prevailed upon. Sofia was unable to exploit ConCevs unsuccessful rising for its own ends, and it was necessary to undertake something more ambitious. To a considerable degree, however, the rising may be regarded as the inevitable eruption of that movement that IMRO had for years been preparing among the masses in anticipation of the day when complete freedom would dawn. It was impossible for IMRO to postpone a rising indefinitely, especially after ConCev had launched his attempt: the struggle for positions in the field and the race to see who could capture the masses most suc cessfully were growing progressively more acute. The masses, meanwhile, were emotionally in favor of a rising that would bring them freedom, but rationally opposed to a rising that it was not difficult to foresee would end in failure. After the first sharp conflicts and the reprisals inflicted by the Turks,
1,7 Borba, Aug. 2, 1950. 1 8 8 Kazasov, op. cit., p. 247. 1 8 9 Borba, Aug. 2, 1950. 1,9 Vlahov, op. cit., p. 41.

137

that little enthusiasm that the people had felt vanished: the instinct of self-preservation stifled their patriotic feelings and killed the desire to continue a resistance that was completely hopeless. Slavejko Arsov, who commanded a company of in surgents, describes the mood of his men after the first defeats thus: Their courage had left them, and they grew thoughtful: their wives and children were far away, they no longer had either house, or furniture, or cattle: they had nothing. These unfortunates had lost their last hope: it was impossible to encourage them any longer. 1 9 1 The Macedonian rising of 1903 was a failure for which the people paid dearly. The myth that later grew up round it is woven out of fantasy, and has no connection with reality. It was neither a historical turning point nor an epoch-making achievement. It failed to free Macedonia from Turkish rule, and merely further weakened the strength and powers of re sistance of the masses, which had been persecuted and tor mented for centuries. Its only too obvious failure could not but destroy the peoples faith in revolution and shake its conviction that the material sacrifices that it had had to bear were worth while: in addition to the tribute exacted by the Turks, it had had to pay tribute to the Organization, which had imposed its rule on them. In the eyes of the people, the Turkish regime had demonstrated its strength, while the European powers had shown an astonishing lack of interest. DelCevs thesis that the Macedonian people could free itself by its own resources had been drastically refuted by practical experience. The peoples strength had proved far from suf ficient to effect their liberation without outside help and de feat their still powerful adversary. There was no assistance from outsidenot even from Bulgaria: even those who had championed the cause of rebellion had almost all escaped to Bulgaria. Left to themselves, the people remained alone in their wrecked homes, to which their destiny bound them. When Brailsford asked the inhabitants of a village that had been burnt and pillaged why they did not remove to Serbia or Bulgaria, they replied: Who would care for the monastery, if we abandoned it? The Turks would seize it. 1 9 2
1.1 Vostaniiko dvizenije vo Jugozapadna Makedonija, p. 90. 1.1 Brailsford, op. cit., p. 59.

138

This remarkable people, so deeply rooted in its native soil, was, unlike its leaders, incapable of deserting its sanctuaries. For it, the future had lost all brightness: disillusioned and crushed, it was once more left to itself and its wretched fate. ## # The failure of the rebellion widened the already existing Hap in the ranks of IMRO, and quarrels became more acute. Local elements now began to make themselves felt. According to Petrov, old campaigners, trained by rough guerrilla com manders, . . . became masters of the situation, while the legal organizations in the towns became dormant. 1 8 5 Centraliza tion, which had prevailed in the Organization, gave way to wide-scale decentralization. By 1906, many organizations had broken up. Later they revived, only to find themselves faced by the same question as before: was Macedonia to be Bul garian or independent? The latter choice was now officially supported by the Mihailovski-Coniev group: in 1899, D. Rizov had written to Ferdinand that external difficulties made it necessary to regard a free Macedonia as their chief aim.1 9 4 On the arrest of Sarafov and his closest collaborators, Mihailovski also declared himself in favor of autonomy for this region, since it seemed to him that this was the only way of winning over European public opinion. Elliot reported from Sofia that on June 22, 1901, Mihailovski delivered a lecture there, in which he said: There is no intention of uniting Macedonia with Bulgaria: we want complete equality of rights for the countrys inhabitants and political autonomy, coupled with the possibility of eventually forming a federation of all the Balkan states. 1 9 5 In diplomatic circles, it had begun to be realized that, in respect of Macedonia, European public opinion was based on nothing but a tissue of falsehoods systematically and per sistently supported and multiplied by Bulgarian propaganda. On April 20, 1904, German Ambassador in Istanbul von Mar1 8 1 Spomenl na G'orCe Petrov, p. 164. 1 8 4 Correspondence Respecting the Allairs ol South-Eastern Eu rope: Turkey, p. 189. 1 8 5 Ibid., p. 51.

139

schall reported to Prince Billow on the state of affairs in Macedonia, and said: It is important to realize that the greater part of what is written in the European press about Macedonia is false, since there are no Macedonians there, but only Turks, Albanians, Serbs, Greeks, Pomaci, Wallachians and Exarchist and Patriarchist Bulgars. Moreover, the hatred dividing Christians of various nationalities there is a much greater cause of disorder than the opposition between Chris tianity and Islam. 1 9 9 At the end of January 1905, von Marschall expressed the opinion that all reforms envisaged for Macedonia were doomed to fail since the people, so far from being united, was made up of various nationalities which hated one another and each of which wanted to substitute its own rule for that of the Turks.1 8 7 Clear evidence of the discord and chaos reigning among the leaders of the Macedonian uprising is provided by the inconsistent attitude of Boris Sarafov. Disillusioned in official circles in Sofia, he turned up one day in Belgrade, where he attempted to found a Macedonian committee. According to an official report submitted by G. Bonham, British representative in Belgrade, he pleaded the cause of Macedonian autonomy. His slogan was Macedonia for the Macedonians. Bonham says: Macedonia, he [Sarafov] unequivocally emphasized, needs neither Bulgarian nor Serbian teachers and priests, but only arms and troops. He pointed out with regret that the Bulgars were displaying greater energy in Macedonia than the Serbs, and advised the latter to make their influence more prominent. He would like a Macedonian committee to be formed in Belgrade which would cooperate with the Bul garian committee in the liberation of Macedonia. 1 9 8 At the Rilo Congress, Sandanski made several accusations against Sarafovamong others, that he had taken money from the Serbian government. Sarafovs reply was: You accuse me, but I did this without incurring any obligations, thinking that the Serbs would emerge on the correct path and permit the movement of our men; now, however, they are sending their
,9* Die grosse Politik der europtiischen Kabinelte, 1871 1914, Vol. XXII, p. 140. 1 9 7 Ibid., p. 213. 1 9 8 Ibid., p. 203.

140

own men. Consequently, I am now opposed to them and have declared war on them. 1 ,9 Soon after, Saratov was assassinated in Sofia on the night of December 11, 1907, by Todor Panica, who was subsequent ly shot on the orders of Minister of War Petrov.2 0 0 The same fate later befell Sandanski, around whom had gathered sodnlist-anarchist elements in favor of Macedonian indepen dence.*0 1 Jacob Rutchi states that Panica was killed by MenCa Karniiiju in a Vienna theater during a performance of Peer Gynt, at the very moment when Death utters the words: One does not die in the middle of the fifth act. 2 0 2 This would indicate that the information quoted above from an official report by the British consul in Sofia is incorrect. It is nevertheless true that many grievances between various groups among the leaders of IMRO on the one hand und the Supreme Committee on the other were settled by violence. The pro-Macedonian trend, which was assuming increasinlgy definite form, and the Greater Bulgarian move ment were unable either to amalgamate finally or to separate from one another. This situation was unchanged even after World War I: one group continued to advocate autonomy and the other federation. At this stage, the movement for auto nomy provided an even more convenient facade for screening Greater Bulgarian pretensions. The autonomists, headed by Todor Aleksandrov, General Protogerov and Ivan-VanCa Mi hailov, carried on their work chiefly in the area of PetriC, Nevrokop, Razlog, Upper Dzumaja, Dupnitsa and Custendil. "Here, says Dimo Kazasov, they exacted tribute, ruled, punished and murdered in utter defiance of law and order. They used the idea of autonomy to conceal the annexationist ambitions of Greater Bulgarian chauvinism.2 0 3 The federalists included Dr. Filip Atanasov, N. Jurkov, Pavle Hristov, Panica and others.
,,, Spomeni na G'or6e Petrov, p. 128. Cf. Makedonsko delo, Nov. 25, 1929, p. 7. *** Correspondence Respecting the Allairs ol South-Eastern Eu rope: Turkey, p. 155. *0 1 Kazasov, op. cit., p. 249, ,0* Jakov Rutchi, Die Reformation Osterreich-Ungarns und RussJands in Macedonien 1903 1908, Bern 1918, p. 38. *# s Kazasov, op. cit., p. 18.

141

Gilbert in der Maur is right in pointing out that these groups were pursuing different aims. The aims of IMRO, he says, and those of the official Bulgarian party [Staatsbulgaren] are by no means identical, as a superficial examina tion would appear to show. For the latter, Macedonia is part of Greater Bulgaria. The Macedonians must, therefore, adjust themselves to Bulgarian interests and defer to them. IMRO, on the other hand, demands that Bulgarian policy [Staatsleben] accommodate itself to the wishes and aims of the Mace donians, that it put itself at their disposal and defer to them. In this way did the various shades of opinion on Macedonia emerge: but as Macedonian state-builders, as MacedonianBulgarian patriots, and particularly as Macedonians oriented toward a federation with Greater Bulgaria, they are waging a single fraternal war. 2 0 4 In time, there emerged from this confusion a group under Dimitar Vlahov, which called itself IMRO and was, as we shall see, completely Communist in its orientation. There was also a Serbian group, in reference to which Gilbert in der Maur says: If Macedonia had become Bulgarian, we should probably have heard nothing of a Bul garian, but rather of a Serbian Macedonia, just as now we hear talk of the work of IMRO. 2 9 5

1 0 4 Gilbert in der Maur, op. cit., pp. 26263. 1 0 5 Ibid., p. 332.

142

SE R B IA N A N D THE M A C E D O N IA N QUESTION

Throughout the nineteenth century, the attitude of Serbia toward the situation in what was coming more and more fre quently to be called Macedonia differed from that taken by Bulgaria. From the very first, the interest taken by the re suscitated Serbian state in the Slavic population of this region was that of a country concerned in the liberation and union with itself of a kindred people. From the moment it came into existence, the Serbian state was not content until it had united under its wing all the Serbs inhabiting the occupied Serbian lands. The first Serbian uprising of 1804 was a signal for the entire nation to rebel, and furnished one more proof that the Serbian people had not abandoned its ambition to revive its vanished state. It acted as a powerful and heartening stimulus upon the Serbian population still enslaved by the Turks at a time when they did not know which way to turn. The second Serbian uprising of 1815 and the gradual emergence of the Serbian principality under Miloss wisdom and skill constitut ed a further step toward the realization of this sacred goal, at the same time, however, showing clearly that the road to its complete attainment was a long and difficult one. For the whole of the Christian Balkans, these uprisings marked the beginning of a new era in which the dawn of freedom could be discerned. The enslaved Christian peoples, were encouraged by the very fact that in a part of the Serbian lands a free state had been created in which the difficult pro blem of the tenant farmers had been solved and freedom of person and property achieved. This state was coming to be regarded as a torch of freedom and as a meeting point for all those who were anxious to fight the Turk. In time, it was to become a refuge for all those obliged to flee from their native soil for taking part in the campaign for liberation. These uprisings also had a powerful effect upon the Bul garsparticularly in the western districts of Bulgaria, where the Bulgarian and Serbian elements were so closely inter mingled that it was sometimes impossible to say which was
143.

predominant. The Serbs felt sincere sympathy for the Bul gars, oppressed as the latter were by the Turks and the Greek Orthodox Church. By a strange trick of fate, it was a Serbian monk from Dalmatia, Gerasim Zelid by name, who first gave the Bulgars the idea of demanding from the Patriarchate of Constantinople a hierarchy of their own. A man of a restless temperament and a curious turn of mind, Zeli6 arrived at the end of 1784 in Mount Athos: here he met some Bulgarian pil grims, whom he judiciously advised to choose from their number a deputation which should present the Patriarch in Constantinople with the request that he consecrate for them bishops from among their own people. If, Zeli6 told them, the Patriarch will not do this, let them say that they will go to the Grand Vizir and tell the Sultan himself that they are his faithful subjects and pay him tribute honestly, but that they have no spiritual pastors of their own tongue and race who can be understood, but instead the Patriarch sends them Greek bishops and monks who speak a foreign tongue. The Patriarch will not, I think, dare to let them take their complaint to the Sultan, but will hear their request. 1 When Zelid gave this advice, no one could have foreseen that a few decades later the Bulgars would take it almost literally in their efforts to secure their own ecclesiastical hierarchy. It is a little-known fact that the first Slavic bishop to be consecrated by the Patriarch for the Bulgars (on Au gust 15, 1851) was a SerbStevan Kova6evi6.8 When these events were taking place, it was even more impossible to foresee that Serbo-Bulgarian relations, after their auspicious start, would be seriously upset by the Bulgars struggle for their own national Church and that this struggle would be a factor in the emergence of the Macedonian question.

The first and second Serbian uprisings were regarded by the Serbs of Southern and Old Serbia as events in which they were intimately concerned. One of them, Petar Cardaklija,
1 Zitije Gerasima Zelida (Life of Gerasim Zeli), Belgrade, 1897, Vol. I, pp. 12324. 1 Stevan M. Dimitrijevic, Bogoslovsko-uiiteljska skola u Prizrenu (The Theological and Teachers' Training College at Prizren), Bratstvo DruStva svetoga Save, Belgrade, Vol. XVII, p. 202.

144

from Ohrid, was a member of the first Serbian delegation to go to St. Petersburg. Deligrad was founded by Vu6a 2iki6, from Mavrovo. Petar, brother of Sima Andrejevic Igumanov, remained loyal to Karadjordje even after the collapse of the first uprising. Petar Icko was a well-known and respected figure under both Karadjordje and Milos. Mihailo German and Marko Georgijevi6 were also persons of consequence who had important roles to play under Prince MiloS. In the Serbian risings led by Karadjordje and Milos, many people from Old Serbia and Macedonia also took part, occupying important posts in Serbias army and government. When Serbo-Turkish relations began to return to a more peaceful footing, Serbia, through the agency of merchants, teachers and special envoys, maintained contact with Old Serbia and Mace donia over the entire area of what had been Dugans empire. * Feeling themselves to be ethnically united with the po pulation of these districts, where risings did not break out, the Serbian leaders declared that they would not lay down their arms until the Serbian state, including Sokol, Skoplje and other cities, was liberated. 4 In the plans for the areas liberation drawn up by Tsar Alexander I in 1808, the Serbs were assigned a leading role. This Tsar was anxious that the Serbs, as a warlike people, be given a frontier running, in the west, along the Drina, in the south, along Sar-planina (including Skoplje), and from there to the southeast to Sofia, finally following the Timok River. 5 As soon as the Serbian principality had an opportunity of drawing up its own state policy, it included Macedonia in its plans. In the revived Serbian state as conceived by Ilija GaraSanin, Macedonia and Old Serbia occupied a central place. Garasanin regarded the existing Serbian principality as no more than the kernel of the Serbian state that was to be. In his Nadertanije, he wrote: Serbia must not confine herself within her present frontiers, but aim at annexing all the Serbian peoples that surround her. If she does not pursue this policy with determination, or, what would be worse, if
* Jovan M. Jovanovid, Juzna Srbija od kraja XVIII veka do osiobodjenja (Southern Serbia from the End of the Eighteenth Cen tury to the Liberation), Belgrade, p. 72. 4 Ibid., p. 53. 5 Ibid.

145

she rejects it and fails to draw up a well-thought-out plan for achieving this goal, she will be tossed hither and thither like a little boat in the storms brewing abroad until she finally fouls against such a tremendous rock that everything will be smashed. 6 An adherent of the principle of legitimacy then current in Europe, Garaanin wanted to achieve this revival of the Serbian state in such a maner that it could not be said that the Serbs wanted to attain something they had never had: for him, the medieval Serbian state was the foundation on which its modern counterpart was to be built. This founda tion for the erection of a new Serbian empire, he said, must now be completely cleared of ruins and raised above ground; then, on this firm and stable historical basis, we must begin upon and extend the new building. In this way, in the eyes of all nations and of the very cabinets of Europe, this enter prise will acquire indescribable importance and great value, for we Serbs shall then appear before the world as the true heirs of our great forefathers, who are engaged, not in some new task, but in the resurrection of our motherland. Thus, our present actions will not be without a link with the past, but will constitute a complete and harmonious whole. For this reason,.. . the political life of the Serbs is protected by sacred historical right. No one will be able to condemn our ambition as being something new and unfounded, or even as being [based on] revolution; everyone will be compelled to acknowledge that it is politically inevitable, that it is founded on ancient hitory, that it has its roots in the former state and national life of the Serbs, and that these roots are now merely putting forth new shoots and beginning once more to blossom. . . for there is probably not a single country in Europe where the peoples memories of the historical past are so lively as among the Turkish Slavs, who still recall, vividly and accurately, almost all the glorious figures and events of their history. 7 Jovan Cvijic, who was a scholar, not a politician, emphasiz ed this bond linking the Serbs with their ancient political tradition, which persists even in the most remote areas where
9 Ferdo Sisic, Jugoslovenska misao (Yuqoslav Thouqht), Belqrade, 1937, pp. 8990. 7 Ibid., pp. 9192.

146

the population can neither read nor write. Every place of any importance from Kosovo to Skadar, from Skoplje to Salonica, is known to the peasants from their folk poems,. . . is regarded by them as their old acquaintance and as their own property. In the popular consciousness, there is a clear continuity of events and aspirations from the time of the Nemanjici to the most recent wars... . The people are filled with enthusiasm for their traditions and for the land that in the historical past was theirs, and they are scarcely concerned about the population living there. These regions they regard os their patrimony, which, through their misfortune, has been settled by some foreign people. This does not trouble them at all: they consider themselves entitled to occupy these lands. When it is a question of territory that, in the nations history, has had great significance, significance of the first order, then the historical principle takes precedence in the popular consciousness over the ethnographical. 8 In Macedonia, not even the ethnographical principle, as we shall see, is pre judicial to the Serbian cause. Slobodan Jovanovic points out that Serbian propaganda in Macedonia began in 1868 under the Regency.9 In this year, the Regency established a special educational committee for the purpose of seeing to the setting up of schools in Southern Serbia and the supply of teachers and school books. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, there were more schools in this area than in the territory subsequently covered by the Principality, since there were more famous monasteries and populous towns with a well-developed trade. 1 0 Engaged in constant competition with the Greeks, the Serbian merchants felt that their prosperity depended on the quality of the education that was being given to their children. For this reason, they took steps to improve their educational system and brought teachers from Serbia, Austria, Dalmatia and
8 Jovan Cvijid, Geografski i kulturni polozaj Srbije (Serbia's Geographical and Cultural Situation), Glasnik srpskog geograiskog druStva, Belgrade, Vol. Ill, Nos. 3 4, pp. 12 and 13. * Slobodan Jovanovic, Vlada Aleksandra Obrenovica, 188997 (The Reign of Alexander Obrenovid, 188997), Belgrade, Vol. I, p. 89. 1 0 Al. Jovanovii, Srpske Skole i ietnliki pokrel u Juinoj Srbiji pod Turcima (Serbian Schools and the Chetnik's Movement in Sou thern Serbia Under the Turks), Skoplje, 1937, pp. 243 44.

147

Croatia. u Jovan M. Jovanovic also states that teachers for Serbian schools in Southern Serbia were brought from other Serbian districts. Serbian teachers, he says, came to these parts from Serbia, Vienna and Budapest. As the seat of the old Orthodox bishops, Ohird, together with its environs, was poorly supplied with Slavic schools, but the language and the textbooks there were Serbian, for in Serbia more attention was devoted to whether the population was Slavic and Christian than to whether it was Serbian or Bulgarian. At that time, the district of Debar was one of the most pro gressive. . . . Throughout the nineteenth century, the inhabi tants of KiCevo continued to use the Serbian language, which had been preserved there for centuries. All attempts to sup press the Serbian written word here had met with failure. The district of Prilep, with its traditions about Kraljevid Marko, possessed a center of Serbian culture in the monastery of Treskavac. What the Sveta PreCista Monastery was for Porefc, Treskavac was for the people of Prilep the main center of instruction for the Slavic population. Until the eighteen sixties, Serbian was the language of instruction there for those who were able and willing to attend school. 1 4 These teachers were to be found, not only in all the larger centers of population, but also in the villages: it was they who began to modernize the old monastic and semi-monastic schools in Southern Serbia. The Serbian principality did what it could to promote the establishment and improvement of these schools, but her policy was aimed at effecting a rap prochement and an alliance of the Balkan nations for the purpose of freeing all the Christians from the Turks. The struggle between Serbian and Bulgarian influence for hege mony in the countryside seemed a trifle, a matter of local importance more than anything else. 1 8 Dealing with this period, Stanoje Stanojevic points out that Prince Mihailo launched a campaign for the conclusion of an alliance in which Serbia was to be the center and chief factor. In 1866, he had concluded an alliance with Montenegro; in January 1867, he agreed with the Bulgarian emigre committee in Bucharest to launch a campaign for the resuscitation of Bul1 1 Ibid. 1 1 Jovan M. Jovanovic, op. cit., p. 123. 1 8 Ibid., p. 122.

148

Karia and her union with Serbia; after the cities [i. e., those Serbian cities, including Belgrade, that had been captured by the Turks] had been handed over, he concluded an alliance with Greece (in September 1867), and entered upon an agree ment with Rumania, while his agents were constantly engag ed in active work in Bosnia, Hercegovina, Albania and Mace donia. 1 4 While laying a broad foundation for the campaign to liberate the Balkan Christians, Serbia did much to promote the education of the younger generation of Bulgars, in order that they might later educate their people and prepare them for the struggle for liberation. Immediately before the SerboTurkish wars (187678), a movement had emerged in Bul garia which had as its original object the acquisition of a Bul garian ecclesiastical hierarchy but which degenerated into a struggle against Serbian schools in Southern Serbia and against the Serbs generally. That the Exarchists launched their campaign for the Bulgarization of the Serbs at the very moment when the Turks were venting their wrath upon the Serbs had tragic consequences for the Serbian cause in Southern Serbia. Out of spite, and also for political reasons, the Turks killed, arrested and exiled our teachers and priests. The Serbian nationality and the Serbian name were banned under pain of the severest persecution. They could not be mentioned in a single official document or spoken in public. 1 5 From 1867 on, the name Serb came in the Turkish empire to mean rebel. The Turkish authorities expelled Ser bian teachers. Serbian schools survived only in the area north of Sar-planina: to the south, they disappeared completely. At that time, the land north of Sar-planina was named Old Serbia and that to the south Macedonia: it could accordingly be said that after the Turkish wars our schools disappeared in Macedonia. 1 8 Until the emergence of Exarchist propaganda, which was assisted in every way by the Turks, the entire Slavic popu lation of this region was described as Serbian. This was the situation found by a group of French staff officers who, with
1 4 Stanoje Stanojevid, Istorija srpskog naroda (History of the Serbian People), Belgrade, 1926, p. 371. 1 5 Al. Jovanovid, op. clt., p. 257. 1 4 Slobodan Jovanovid, op. cit., p. 89.

149

the permission of the Turks, traveled round Macedonia in 1807 compiling a statistical survey of the population. Apart from Greeks, Turks, Albanians and Wallachians, they found only Serbs. The only spoken Slavic language to be mentioned is Serbian [ servienne], and that not only in the region of Skoplje, but also in those of Bitolj and Salonica. As for Bul garian, no mention of it is made in the survey. Consequently, the language of the Macedonian Slavs over a century ago was called Serbian, and that is a very important point. 1 7 The Bulgarian language and Bulgarian influence were, in fact, not mentioned until Exarchist propaganda began on a large scale. According to Vasilj Popovic, until the nineteenth century, no instances occur of the Macedonians calling them selves Bulgars or their language Bulgarian. In the Middle Ages, documents in Macedonia were written in Serbian. All records and inscriptions originating in Macedonia are in Serbian. 1 8 Under these circumstances, it is not in the least surprising that throughout this region schools for the Slavic population were Serbian until the appearance of the Exarchists. This applies particularly to the rural population, which remained true to the faith and the traditions of its ancestors. Even during the nineteenth century, the ethnic character of this area could not be altered. Bulgarian propaganda suc ceeded in creating its oases in the towns, but not in converting the villages, which subsequently, as soon as Bulgarian pres sure ceased and the Serbian campaign got under way, began to secede from the Exarchate. There is abundant evidence that the greater part of the Slavic population of Macedonia, even in the second half of the nineteenth century, felt itself to be Serbian. During his journey through Debar and the sur rounding district, Mihailo Velji6 noted that this entire area, including Debar itself, celebrated the slava. Of all their customs, he says, the slava is the most popular. Despite powerful influences from outside,. . . all without exception
1 7 Grgur Jaksic, StanovniStvo Madedonije u pofetku X IX veka (The Population of Macedonia at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century), Bratstvo druitva svetoga Save, Belgrade, Vol. XV II, p. 199. 1 8 Vasilj Popovii, "Makedonsko pitanje (The Macedonian Ques tion), in Narodna enclklopedlja SHS (National Encyclopedia of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), Belgrade, 1928, Vol. II, p. 648.

150

continue to look forward with pleasure to this holiday and faithfully observe the customs associated with it. 1 9 Milojko Veselinovi6 recorded that the population of western Macedonia spoke Serbian and observed Serbian cus toms. They speak Serbian, observe the slava, celebrate Serbian heroes, kings and emperors and are proud of them; they dance the oro like the Serbs, and their entire life resembles that of the other Serbs. 2 0 Jovan Hadji Vasiljevi6 says that a Slav school was opened in Ohrid in 1848. The way for Serbian literature and education, he says, was opened by those people of Ohrid who had been in Serbia during the wars, to receive their schooling or for other reasons, and by the Slavic monks of Mount Athos. 2 1 Jordan Hadji Konstantinov, after he had left Serbia and gone over to the Exarchists, was the first to attempt (in 1859) to open a Bulgarian school in Bitolj, but as a result he was obliged to leave this school and resign his position. Aleksa Jovanovi says that in all its villages [i. e., in the villages of Drimkol], all the schools secretly remained Serbian until the revival of our [i. e., the Serbian] cultural movement. The names of all their teachers have been preserved from ob livion. 2 2 Ilija LiguS, who was a teacher at Prilep at the be ginning of the nineteenth century, formed contacts with Serbia, from where he brought school textbooks. The school at Tetovo celebrated St. Savas day (the traditional slava of Serbian schools) for the first time in 1862. The Mijaci and the Brsjaci, like the whole of PoreC, remained consistently Serbian. To what extent the population of Southern Serbia felt itself to be Serbian may be seen from the following two instances. Every year, inhabitants of the village of Lukovo, in the district of Kratovo, went away for the summer to earn their living. In the year in which the Exarchate was founded, Djordje
1 9 Mihailo Veljid, Srpske narodne umotvorine, obidaji i vetovanja iz Debra i okoline (Serbian Folk Poems, Customs and Beliefs from Debar and its Environs), Bratstvo druStva svetoga Save, Bel grade, Vol. IX X, pp. 431 32. * Milojko M. Veselinovid, Geografsko-etnografski pregled Madedonije i Stare Srbije (Geographical and Ethnographical Survey of Macedonia and Old Serbia), ibid.. Vol. I, p. 189. *' Jovan H adii Vasiljevid, Ohrid, ibid., Vol. XVII, p. 101. !* Al. Jovanovid, op. clt., p. 254.

151

Krstic, headman of the village, went to the kaimakam (the Turkish official in charge of the district) and asked him to issue passports for this purpose to five hundred people from the village. When the kaimakam ordered that it be stated in the passports that the persons concerned were Bulgars and not Serbs, Krstic refused to agree before he had consulted his own people. Returning to Lukovo, he summoned a village meeting at which the inhabitants decided that they were Serbs and that they would not present themselves to the world as Bulgars. Since the kaimakam refused to issue them passports as Serbs, they did not go to work, and that year remained in the peoples memory as the black year. The second instance is as follows. One day, the kaimakam came himself to Zletovo to persuade the people to declare for the Exarchate. Having addressed a general assembly of the population, the kaimakam turned to Jovan SamardSiski, the most respected man in Zletovo, who declared that he was a Serb and could not be anything else. His example was fol lowed by all the rest. One of his sons, who had gone to Bul garia in search of work and was employed as a messenger in the Bulgarian National Assembly, got up and told the as sembled people that he could not be a Bulgar since all the Bulgars called him a Srpcheto (i. e., a little Serb) and not a Bugarcheto (young Bulgar). This displeased the kaima kam, who called him a young greenhorn. The lads brother reacted violently to this, and was killed by a Turkish soldier, who went unpunished. An illustration is given by the vojvoda Mina Stankovi6, now resident in Chicago, of the way in which Serbian children were subjected to anti-Serbian pressure. When he was a child, he attended the school at the monastery of Saint Gavrilo Lesnovski, which had been restored by the despot Jovan Oliver. The teacher there was an Exarchist priest who, every day, both before and after school, made the children recite a poem stating that neither Serbs nor Greeks were Christiansonly Bulgars. How Serbs, nevertheless, came to be Bulgarized may be seen from the following instance. On one occasion when he was a boy, Jakov Ljoti6, whose father was Serbian consul in Salonica, asked Hadji Mi2ev, a prominent merchant who was a good friend and a frequent guest of his fathers, to tell him frankly whether he was a Serb or a Bulgar. MiSev, whose
152

son was a highly placed official in the Blugarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, turned to Ljotics mother and said: What shall I say to this youngster? Its ridiculous and absurd that I was once a Serb and am now a Bulgar, but that is the truth. In 1879, together with two other people from Veles, I went to Belgrade to ask Jovan Risti6 on behalf of the town of Veles to send us a Serbian teacher, whom we would pay, and to give us Serbian books, for which we also offered to pay. Risti6 replied: We have waged two exhausting wars against the Turks, and we can give you nothing. Go to Sofia, for Russia is pouring supplies into Bulgaria and giving her everything. They will let you have all that you want. We too went to Sofia and got what we needed, and all at their expense. 2 3 Somtehing similar happened to Spiridon Gopevi6 and Dimitrije Petrov, who toured Macedonia with the object of acquainting themselves on the spot with the true ethnic situation. When they asked a peasant from Crna Reka whether he was a Serb or Bulgar, he replied: It is true that the Serbs share with us the same language and the slava, but it is also true that the Bulgars have accepted us, opened schools for us, publicly supported our grievances against the Turkish govern ment and assisted us with money. The Serbs are our blood brothers and the Bulgars our half brothers, but the latter treat us like real brothers and the former like half bro thers. 2 4 The peasant from Crna Reka was unaware of the great difficulties besetting the Serbain principality, and saw only that which was taking place before his own eyes. He could, moreover, scarcely be acquainted with Serbias attitude toward the Bulgarian revival. Even people like Jovan Ristid did not immediately appreciate the significance of the Bul garian campaign in Southern Serbia. In his Politifika istorija Srbije u drugoj polovini X IX veka (Political History of Serbia in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century), Zivan Zivanovi6, an intimate friend of Ristics, states that during the first few years of Exarchist propaganda in Southern Serbia, Ristic adopted a mild and conciliatory attitude toward the
2 5 From a private communication from Mr. Jakov Ljotid. 2 4 Spiridon Gopievid, Makedonien und Ailserbien, Vienna, 1889, p. 107.

153:

Bulgars. When his attenion was drawn to this, he replied on December 16, 1878, in the National Assembly: If among the Bulgars there are to be found people who are harmful to us, too much importance should not be attached to this. Young states are like young people. Our state is older than Bulgaria: we have more experience, and should therefore set them an example of moderation and work for mutual confidence. There is no nation that is closer or more akin to us than the Bulgars. 1 5 Ristic was not the only Serbian leader of the time that was anxious to help strengthen the new Bulgarian state. The fact that the Bulgars were backed by Russia influenced the attitude of Metropolitan Mihailo, who nurtured a particular affection for them. Our politicians, says Aleksa Jovanovi6, were inaccurately informed on events concerning the Bul garian Church, which by then had made great headway in Istanbul; nor were they properly acquainted with the morale of the Bulgarian people. Their assessment of the latter was derived from the districts bordering on Serbia, and they sup posed that a similar situation was to be found within the country. 2 6 Later, it transpired that the propaganda for a national Church was being exploited by the Bulgars as a means of propagating the idea of a Greater Bulgaria.
###

Although Russia had been on her side, Serbias interests in Southern Serbia suffered greatly as a result of the SerboTurkish wars. On the one hand, the Turks were now even more embittered against the Serbs; on the other, the aims pursued by Russia constituted a grave threat to Serbias vital interests. Russian victories over the Turks, which were wel comed by the Serbs, gave rise to the peace of San Stefano, which created a Bulgaria that went beyond the hopes of even the most ardent of Bulgarian chauvinists. At San Stefano, says Aleksa Jovanovid, Russia extended the Bulgarian fron
1 5 Zivan 2ivanovi6, PoIitiCka lstorija Srbije u drugoj polovini XIX veka (A Political History of Serbia in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century), Belgrade, 1924, Vol. II, p. 98. * Al. Jovanovii, Postanak Egzarhije i Turska, Rusija i Srbija (The Establishment of the Exarchate and Turkey, Russia and Serbia), Skoplje, 1937,p. 55.

154

tiers westward across the southern borders of Serbia, assign ing Ni, Kosovo, Prizren, Kursumlija and KolaSin to the Bulgars. This was the result, not of ignorance of ethnography and the historical past of our people, but of the own political interests and the interests of the Slavic world; for, according to Russian views of the time (and her views, like her actions, were imperialistic), the Slavs in Austria had been absorbed by the masses of the Germanic population. S 7 The Serbian government was powerless to alter the Rus sian decision. No arguments it advanced could change the course that had already been decided upon: Bulgaria now occupied first place in Russias Balkan policy, and neither reasons based on common sense nor the Serbs historical rights could have any effect upon the Russian attitude. Filled with despair, Milisav Protic, Serbian envoy to the Russian court, reported to his government: In Russia, the aim is being deliberately followed of promoting Bulgarian supremacy and holding Serbia down as far as possible. During conversations with Giers I learnt that everything we have taken is regarded as being Bulgarian, and that, in their opinion, it would be unjust to hand over a Bulgarian people to Serbia. I also learn that Russian and Bulgarian interests are the same and occupy first place in any negotiations, and that, if concessions are necessary, they will be made, in the first place, at the expense of Serbian interests, and if need be of Russian interests also, but under no circumstances of Bulgarian interests.__I have come to the conclusion that Russia, to our misfortune, is aim ing, not at protecting Bulgaria from Turkey, but simply at security from Serbia and the Serbian people, and that Serbian interests are in danger___ The Slavophiles maintain that there is no Old Serbia [as such], but that it is all Bulgarian.*8 The reaction of the Serbian population of Southern and Old Serbia was quite different. When it became known that a congress was to be held in Berlin to alter the decisions of San Stefano, the Serbian population of these areas conceived the hope that it would not have to accept Bulgarian domina tion after all. Prominent people and parish committees began to collect signatures and make representations to the great powers, to Prince Milan Obrenovic and to the Serbian Ibid., p. 53. Ibid., p. 58.
155

government. Working just before the war on a monograph on Mihailo, Metropolitan of Belgrade, the present writer dis covered, in Mihailos private archives, some of these missives that had been sent to him. In some of them, he too was asked to urge the Russians not to permit these areas to pass to the Bulgars. Mihailo, who enjoyed the high esteem of the Slavophiles, was himself astonished at this turnabout in Rus sias policy toward Serbia. Some of these appeals were published by Spiridon Gopfievic in his Makedonija i Stara Srbija (Macedonia and Old Serbia). One of them, written on May 10, 1878, bearing 170 signatures of parish representatives, priests and archi mandrites from the districts of KiSevo, Prilep and Veles, states: Some time ago, we were told by our city corbadzije, who, together with the Turks, have been exploiting us ever since Kosovo, that we were to come under the rule of the Bulgarian Empire, as though we were Bulgars and not true Serbs. All of us in the administrative districts of Skoplje, Tetovo, Debar, Kiievo, Veles, Prilep, Bitolj, Kostur, Gorica, Salonica, Tikve, Stip, RadoviSte, Nevrokop, Melnik, Koiani, Kumanovo, Banjska, Radomir, Sofia, Palanka, Samokov and Dupnica are true, authentic Serbs. This is attested by the numberless monuments of a purely Serbian character that are to be found in the districts mentioned. 2 9 The document goes on to name all the Serbian endowments, and states that the poeple are reluctant to give up their present state of enslave ment to the Turks merely in order to become slaves of the Bulgars. This, the document says, would be more.. . intoler able than our present enslavement to the Turks, and would force us, either to kill off all our livestock as revenge for this injustice, or to abandon our sacred soil, our churches, our graves and everything that is dear to us, and this would profit neither Europe nor our people. ,0 An appeal of June 12, 1878, addressed to Milan Obrenovid, signed by 520 parish representatives and bearing 220 seals, states: In the districts of Kumanovo, Skoplje, Banjska, Kratovo, Radomir, Melnik, Nevrokop, Stip, Kodan, Strumica, Veles and elsewhere, we are pure Serbs and the best repre sentatives of Old Serbia. Our country is purely Serbian and
2 9 Gopcevic:, op. cit., p. 372. 3 0 Ibid., p. 328.

156

the true heart of Serbia: from it there sprang, not only our sacred Nemanji6i, but our state, our literature, our glory, our greatness and everything that was and still is Serbian. 3 1 Since we are not and never have been Bulgars, and since not a single Bulgar is living among us, says another appeal to Prince Milan dated June 15, 1878, and presented to him in the name of the population of the districts of Kidevo, Ohrid, Debar and Elbasan, we come as Serbs to you, our only lord and ruler, and beg you to save us from this and unite us, as being the purest and best Serbs, with your principality of Serbia, our only mother and consolation. 3 2 On June 20, 1878, the Serbs of Skoplje addressed a similar appeal to Prince Milan, and on October 10 of the same year those of Prizren, PriStina, Vucitrn, Pec and Djakovica, this latter document bearing 126 seals. In every case, the fear was expressed that they might fall under Austro-Hungarian or Bulgarian rule. A few months ago, they say, we heard the dreadful news that we are to be transferred to either Austria-Hungary or to Bulgaria. At the same time, Russian agents came with much money and asked us to append our signatures and seals to a statement that we are Macedonians and wish to be united with Russia by way of Bulgaria. 3 3 One such appeal, written on July 1, 1878, and bearing eight hundred signatures and seals, was submitted by Archi mandrite Sava Defcanac to the Congress of Berlin on behalf of Southern and Old Serbia. This document emphasized the desire of its authors to be united with Serbia, since, they say, our fathers did not live together with the Bulgars, and we do not wish to do so now. The Bulgars and ourselves can never constitute a single people, since we are pure Serbs and nothing else. 3 4 On this occasion, the desire of the Serbs in Southern and Old Serbia to be united with the Serbian Principality was not realized. The Berlin Congress ignored their wishes, even though it frustrated Russias schemes in the Balkans. Serbias gain was that she won complete independence and acquired an independent Church. Serbia, says Zivanovic, left the
Ibid. Ibid., p. 332. M Ibid., p. 336. M Ibid., p. 334.

157

Ottoman Empire, and by virtue of a great international agree ment, entered the ranks of independent states. Side by side with the Serbian state, the Serbian Church also recovered her independence. 3 5 Serbia achieved her territorial expansion southward against the wishes of Russia. She paid for the support she received from Austria-Hungary by abandoning her claim to Bosnia and Hercegovina, which Austria-Hungary occupied by virtue of a mandate from the great powers. By persisting in her support of Bulgaria, Russia threw King Milan into the arms of Vienna. Giers told the Serbian envoy in St. Petersburg that as far as his government was concerned Russias interests came first, then those of Bulgaria and then only those of Serbia, although there were cases where Bulgarias interests enjoyed equal priority with those of Russia.3 0 At that time, the Russian Slavophiles also wholeheartedly championed the cause of a Greater Bulgaria. Aksakov demanded that the Morava River be made the frontier between Serbia and Bul garia, and in a rage tore up the map prepared by Kisyakov, who was alleged to have assigned much disputed territory of Serbia.3 7 Though territorially insignificant, Serbias southward ex pansion was of great advantage to her. While, before the Berlin Congress, the total area of her territory was no more than 37,740 square kilometers, it now amounted to 48,300 square kilometers. This increase was described by Jovan Cvijid as a turning point in the expansion of Serbia, for her territory was thereby considerably extended to the south, and, having acquired almost the entire basin of the Southern Morava, together with Vranje, Nig and Pirot, she assumed a wedge-like form.. . . She became a Morava state, with the addition of the Drina and Valjevo districts and the Timok basin. 8 8 Carried away by his enthusiasm for a Greater Bul garia, D. Rizov wrote that Serbia acquired the Bulgarian district of Nis as a reward for her part in the Russo-Turkish
ss 2ivanovi<5, op. cit., p. 40. M Wladan Georgewitsch, Die serbische Frage, Stuttgart-Leipzig, 1909, p. 56. 8 7 Gopfevic, op. cit., p. 247. 3 8 Cvijic, op. cit., p. 6.

158

w ar of 187678, and th at this provoked a strong desire on her p a rt to continue h er expansion in B ulgarian M acedonia. 39 Rizov was, natu rally, w riting nonsense. By a secret con vention signed on Ju n e 28, 1881, betw een A ustria-H ungary and Serbia, the form er channeled the la te rs expansion in a direction th a t for the m om ent presented no danger for her, w ith th e possibility in view of checking this m ovem ent too at a later date. By this convention, A ustria-H ungary bound h er self to assist the expansion of Serbia, if she [Serbia] honestly fulfilled th e provisions of the convention, tow ard th e valley of the V ardar, w herever circum stances m ade this possible. 40

D uring the interval betw een the B erlin Congress and the F irst B alkan W ar, Serbia tried in various ways to oppose B ulgarian influence in S outhern S erbiaan influence which she had at first sought to prom ote. The annexation by B ul g aria of E astern Rum elia on S eptem ber 6, 1885, which destroyed th e balance of pow er in the B alkans established by the B erlin Congress, was regarded by K ing M ilan as a suitable m om ent for settling accounts w ith the B ulgars. Only fo u r days later, the jo u rn al Nova U stavnost p rin ted an article by Jovan Ristic which set forth the whole problem in a reasonable and m oderate light. The article declared: As soon as B ulgaria annexes a large and rich province w ith a popu lation of eight hundred thousand, the balance of pow er in the B alkans is im m ediately destroyed. If the B alkan states will n o t rise in protest again B ulgarian aggrandizem ent, they m ust think of m eans of restoring equilibrium in th eir favor. Serbia w ill seek com pensation in Odl Serbia and n o rth ern Mace donia. . . . We need not do anything rash, bu t we m ust keep this danger [of increased B ulgarian activity in Macedonia] before our eyes and be prepared to rem ove it. We m ust not allow anything th at westill more, anything th at our fore fath ershave acquired to be lost. 41 Feeling th at he had been affronted and confident of re ceiving support from Vienna, King M ilan was disposed to take
D. Rizoff, Die Bulgaren, p. 8. 49 Jo v an M. Jovanovid, op. cit., p. 93. 41 As quoted in 2 iv an o v ii, op. cit., p. 277.

159

decisive m easures. In a speech from the throne, delivered bebore the N ational Assembly sum m oned for Septem ber 20, 1885, th e king declared him self ready to do everything ne cessary to preserve the status obtaining before these events took place, or to establish an equilibrium th a t would genuine ly guaran tee th at the interests of the various B alkan nations [were] in harm ony w ith each oth er. 48 E verything indicated th at K ing M ilan had decided upon w ar, which, it should be emphasized, he conceived as a w ar fo r M acedonia. Of this, the B ulgars ap p ear to have had no doubts: the prince of B ul g aria sent his m inister Grekov, accom panied by a special mission, to Nil, w here K ing M ilan was at th at moment, for the purpose of negotiating w ith him ; but M ilan refused to receive him. By this act, says Z ivan 2ivanovi6, the last th read was broken on which the fate of m any questions hung. These w ere soon, w ith catastrophic speed, to m eet th eir fate ful solution. 43 In th e proclam ation in which, on Novem ber 2, 1885, he declared w ar on B ulgaria, K ing M ilan pointed out th at B ul garia had violated the provisions of the B erlin T reaty and th a t Serbia cannot be indifferent tow ard an alteration in the balance of pow er in the B alkan Peninsula, particu larly w hen it exclusively favors a state th a t has used every m om ent of its freedom to dem onstrate to Serbia th at it is a bad neighbor and will not recognize h er rig h ts. 4 4 B adly organized and unskilfully led, the w ar, which was supposed to be a w a r for the V ard ar valley, lasted only th ir teen days and ended in a S erbian defeat on the Slivnica. On March 6, 1886, th e king, in a special proclam ation, announced to the nation th at peace w ith B ulgaria had been signed. The arm istice concluded on Decem ber 21 of the preceding year had been prolonged on March 1. S erbias common frontiers w ith B ulgaria and S outher Serbia, the la tte r of which con tinued to rem ain u n d er T urkish rule, w ere unchanged. The whole w ar was no m ore than an episodethe resu lt of a fit of tem per on the p a rt of a sovereign who could not contain him self at a m om ent which m ight have been exploited quite differently.
41 Ibid., p. 278. 43 Ibid., p. 281. 44 Ibid., p. 283.

160

There is no doubt th at K ing M ilan clearly saw the danger th reaten in g the interests of th e S erbian nation as a resu lt of increasing B ulgarian influence in a region th at had been the backbone of the m edieval S erbian state. Even today, says S tanoje Stanojevid, w hen any S erb thinks of the history of his country, he first and forem ost thinks of that state, whose h istory m akes up the m ajor p a rt of the history of the Serbian people in the M iddle Ages. It is the state of Dugans em pire and of the B attle of Kosovo, the source of alm ost all the n atio n s traditions, and the scene of activity of all the per sonalities m entioned in S erbias m edieval traditions and his tory. E verything th a t is a source of pride in the p ast of the S erbian people is connected w ith it, and its restoration has been the object of th e ir desires and am bitions throughout the cen turies. 45 The realization of these am bitions was threatened by B ul g arian propaganda in S outhern Serbia: Serbia could not p er m it B ulgaria to become h er neighbor on the southern side as well. Stojan Novakovid, a historian and statesm an who at one tim e was w orking in close cooperation w ith K ing Milan, con sidered th a t in the M acedonian question Serbia could not go along w ith B ulgaria, since we dare not perm it the B ulgars to occupy our southern frontier. Closed in on th e w est by A ustria, who retains Bosnia, we should suffocate if the B ul gars, by taking Macedonia, cut off our egress to the south. 48 A fter th e failu re of the w ar of 1885, it w as clear th at S erbia would not succeed w ithin th e foreseeable fu tu re in taking this disputed region by force. The only alternative was to resum e the cu ltu ral cam paign in terru p ted by the outbreak of the Serbo-T urkish w ars of 1876. As a resu lt of th eir u n pleasant experience w ith B ulgaria, both T urkey and Russia w ere now m ore favorably disposed tow ard S erbia than before. B u lg arias grow ing independence w arned Russia to exercise g re ater re strain t in h er efforts to help her. Thus, Russia began once m ore to lend m ore and m ore sup p o rt to the S erbian cause in M acedonia. Zinovev, the Russian
4 S tanoje Stanojevid, O srpskoj kulturi u srednjem v ek u (Ser bian Culture in the M iddle Ages), in lz naSe proilosti (From O ur Past), Belgrade, 1934, Vol. I, p. 23. 4* Slobodan Jovanovid, op. cit., p. 330. Cf. Stojan Novakovid, Baikansko pitanje (The Balkan Q uestion), p. 121.

161

envoy in Istanbul, told the S erbian envoy on one occasion th at M acedonia w ould never become B ulgarian.47 As the im m ediate neighbor of B ulgaria, says Slobodan Jovanovid, Serbia was a good observation point and springboard for attack. U nder K ing Milan, the radicals fled to B ulgaria, w here they w ere im m ediately received by the R ussian consul: now, the enemies of Coburg and Stam bolov fled to Serbia, w here they could count on protection from the R ussian em bassy___ Finally, R ussian diplom acy took under its w ing S erbian pro paganda in Macedonia: Macedonia was the Achilles heel of B ulgarian policy, and for this reason Russia attem pted to ex e rt pressure on B ulgaria from th a t side. 48 In F eb ruary 1885, the A ustro-H ungarian governm ent, through the S erbian envoy in Vienna, recom m ended King M ilan to intensify activity in Macedonia, since this is also in her [A ustria-H ungarys] interest. As for B ulgaria, A ustriaH ungary w ill on no account allow h e r to expand in th at direction. 49 All this showed th a t the loss of the w a r was not to be regarded too tragically: it had opened up new p er spectives and indicated fresh possibilities for rem oving Bul g arian influence from S outhern Serbia. It exerted a sobering effect upon both the governm ent and the masses of the popu lation in Serbia. The need became evident to combine official efforts w ith priv ate initiative in th e struggle for this region. In 1886, th ere was founded th e Society of St. Sava, whose m ain purpose was to spread education and foster the national consciousness and good qualities of the S erbian people___ As the chief organ of S erbian propaganda, it was to a certain extent controlled by the M inistry of E ducation (in 1887) and la te r by the M inistry of Foreign A ffairs (in 188991). In 1891, its links w ith th e governm ent w ere broken, and its cultural and educational w ork am ong the Serbs in T urkey began to w eaken u n til finally it confined itself to the publication of books and rendering of assistance w ithin the lim its of its own resources. 60

47 H erm ann W endel, Der Kam pl der Siidsiawen um Freiheit und Einheil, Frankfurt on Main, 1925, p. 511. 48 Slobodan Jovanovid, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 85. 49 Jov an M. Jovanovid, op. cit., p. 127. 40 Ibid., p. 139.

162

In addition to the Society of St. Sava, there w ere num erous o th er cultural-political societies engaged in assisting churches and schools in S outhern and Old Serbia. Of these, the m ost im portant w ere the Society for M utual Aid to the Inhabitants of Old Serbia and Macedonia and the Serbian Brotherhood, the la tte r being an association of refugees from these two regions. N um erous new spapers, both w ithin Serbia and out side, pursued sim ilar aims. In 1871, the paper Prizren began publication in the town of th at nam e; in 1885, Kosovo, and in 1895, C arigradski glasnik, first came out in PriStina and Istanbul respectively. Sim ilarly, Vardar issued its first num ber in Skoplje on S eptem ber 1, 1908. A ll these papers, in their various ways, supported the S erbian cause in Southern and Old Serbia. It is impossible w ithin the scope of this chapter to set forth all th at was done by the Serbian governm ent afte r the unsuccessful w ar of 1885 to spread education in these areas. A t the end of the Serbo-Turkish w ar, S erbian schools here w ere alm ost non-existent. In 1891, th ere w ere 110 of them, w ith about 130 teachers; by 1904, th eir num ber had risen to 300, w ith 400 teachres. In additions to a theological sem inary in Prizren, gym nasia w ere opened in Skoplje and Salonica in 1893, and fo u r years la te r also in Bitolj. Som ew hat later, tw oy ea r secular schools w ere opened in Skoplje, Salonica and B itolj; w hile a teachers train in g establishm ent for m en and wom en w as opened in Skoplje.41 The increasing num ber of Serbian schools in these areas was unable to solve the chief problem : the P o rte continued to ban the use of the S erbian nam e in S outhern and Old Serbia. W hen th e requests, subm itted to a commission of the P o rte in 1896, th a t the S erbian nationality be recognized in Turkey, w ent unheeded, says Jovan Jovanovic, th e Serbs began to dem and the restoration of the P atriarch ate of Pe6. 52 In a m em oir subm itted to K ing A lexander in 1897, Jovan Risti6 proposed th at a Serbian ecclesiastical district be set up u n d er the T urks w ith the nam e of Serbian exarchate. The establishm ent of an exarchate already has a precedent in the
** J. T. M ark o v ii and Svetozar Tom ii, O M akedortiji i M akedoncima (M acedonia and the M acedonians), Corfu, 1918, p. 89. " Jovan M. Jovanovid, op. cit., p. 108. 83 Zivanovid, op. cit., Vol. Ill, p. 379.

163

B ulgarian Exarchate, w hile the restoration of the P atriarchate of Pec should be left for the fu tu re . 53 Slobodan Jovanovid rig h tly com m ents th a t the idea of restoring the P atriarchate of Ped on the territo ry of the vilayets of Salonica, Bitolj and Kosovo was unrealistic. Of the area th a t w as once u n d er its [the P atriarch ates] spiritual authority, the g re ater p a rt has been w rested in the course of tim e from the O ttom an Em pire and tran sferred, politically speaking, eith er to B ulgaria or to Serbia, or else to A ustria as the pow er occupying Bosnia and Hercegovina. T hat p a rt of the P atriarch ate of Pec which has rem ained w ithin the O ttom an Em pire coincides in the m ain w ith the v ilay et of Kosovo. If the P atriarch ate w ere restored, it would exclude those very p a rts of M acedoniathe vilayets of Bitolj and Salonicafor which the m ain struggle has been waged betw een us, the G reeks and the B ulgars. 54 The idea of restoring th e P atriarch ate was soon abandoned. Much m ore realistic was the proposal to seek S erbian bishops for those dioceses of the P atriarch ate of C onstantinople in w hidi Serbs constituted the m ajority. A fter prolonged and laborious efforts and p atien t diplom atic negotiations, the P atriarch ate of C onstantinople appointed Dionisije Popovid, a S erb from Bosnia, in 1895 as M etropolitan of RaSka and Prizren. On October 19, 1899, A rchim andrite F irm ilijan was elected S erbian m etropolitan of Skoplje, but, on account of double dealing by th e P atriarch ate and o th er difficulties, he was not consecrated un til Ju n e 28, 1902. D uring K ing P eter Is stay in Istanbul in 1910, V am ava Rosid w as elected bishop of Veles and Debar. By giving him the title of episkop glavinski, th e P atriarch ate acknowledged the rig h t to the episcopal throne of Ohrid, [since] the episkopija glavinska form ed p a rt of the m edieval bishopric of Ohrid. The Serbs lacked only this bishopric to restore both in nam e and in fact th eir ancient autonom ous Church, which, w ith the aid of the P atriarch ate of C onstantinople, had been dism em bered in the seventeenth cen tury . ss These successes, m odest though they were, had a positive effect in the increased num ber of S erbian schools and the heightened disposition of the Serbian population to offer re sistance to the B ulgars. U nder the influence of this activity,
M Slobodan Jovanovid, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 370. Jo v an M. Jovanovid, op. cit., p. 119.

164

says Radoslav Gruji6, w hole districts began to secede from the B ulgarian Exarchate and join the S erbian bishops. 68 H aving acquired th eir own bishops and services read in the Slavic tongue, the S erbian population had no fu rth e r need to rem ain w ithin the Exarchate, which had become an in stitu tion for th e B ulgarization of the Serbs.

Of p artic u la r im portance in the struggle against B ulgarian influence and Turkish oppression in S outhern and Old Serbia w as the chetnics m ovem ent. In the districts of Kum anovo and K riva P alan k a, says Jovan Jovanovid, a genuine rebel lion was raised, w hile Slavic chetas w ere active in the districts of KiCevo, Prilep, Veles and elsew here. 67 In 1878, th e priest D im itar raised a rebellion in the region of K um a novo. W ithout any provocation, bu t sim ply in agreem ent w ith his friendsm ostly priestshe persuaded the en tire region to tak e up arms. The rising em braced the entire area from Kum anovo to the present B ulgarian frontier, to K ratovo and OvCe Polje, w hile its m ain centers w ere the m onasteries of Zabel and K arp in a. s8 Five years before the S erbo-B ulgarian w a r of 1885, th ere broke out the rising of th e B rsjaci. Four strong men, Ilija Delija, R ista Kostadinovid, Micko K rstid and A ndjelko Tanasovid, raised the district [Dem ir-Hisar, PoreC and Kifievo] in revolt in the m iddle of O ctober 1880, and the people supported the rising, which lasted fo r a year. * The renew al of Serbian chetnics activity was provoked by the increased pressure of B ulgarian bands, which w ere m ulti plying in S outhern Serbia and attem pting to prev ent th e re tu rn of those Serbs who had joined the Exarchate. Seeing th a t they w ere losing control of the situation in the cultural, edu cational and ecclesiastical spheres, the B ulgars in 1897 found ed in Salonica th e Association for K illing the Serbs w ith the
M Radoslav Grujid, Egzarhiska uprav a u Ju in o j S rbiji (The Ex archist A dm inistration in Soutern Serbia), in Narodna enciklopedija SHS, Belgrade, 1928, Vol. I, p. 705. M Jov an M. Jovanovid, op. cit., p. 142. u Jovan H adzi-Vasiljevid, Po kum anovskoj i skopskoj okolini (Round the Districts of Kumanovo and Skoplje), B ratstvo dru&tva svetoga Save, Belgrade, Vol. VII, p. 179. M Jo v an M. Jovanovid, op. cit., p. 142.

165

object of destroying the leading Serbian stratu m in th at area. According to Jovanovi6, these B ulgarian bands began to attack villages, impose taxes on villages and on individuals, and commit arson and m urder, taking two o r th ree victim s at a time. T errorization was also carried out on a large scale, but this began to m eet resistance in the villages___ B etween 1904 and 1906, terrorization of the Serbs by arm ed bands reached unprecedented proportions. D uring these th ree years, th ere w ere 93 m urders and 82 robberies in the Skoplje district, 48 m urders and 61 robberies in th e Bitolj district and 2 m u r ders and 8 robberies in the vicinity of Salonica. 84 The em ergence of S erbian chetas m ay be said to have been spontaneous. Two of the earliest leaders of these chetas w ere Micko K rstic in Porefi and A ndjelko Aleksi6 in PCinja. When the form er succeeded in capturing D am jan G rujev, the re p utation of the chetas was fu rth e r enhanced, both locally and in Serbia. The treatm en t of the wounded G rujev was typical: he was spared his life, and a fte r he had been success fully treated, he was given his freedom. The chetnics move m ent which came into being in these unhappy S erbian dis tricts u n d er the T u rks, says Aleksa Jovanovi6, aimed p rim arily at defending the Serbs from B ulgarian propaganda, then a t protecting them from T urkish oppression, and finally at prep arin g them for th eir liberation and reunion w ith Serbia. The Serbian kingdom, w ith its freedom , law and order and dem ocratic regim e, was for all the ideal. 8 1 The failure of the M acedonian rising of A ugust 2, 1903, and the progressive disintegration of IMRO finally prom pted those Serbs th at had gone over to the Exarchate to re tu rn to th e P atriarchate. The B ulgars, says M. Milenovic, lost village afte r village, often w ithout a fight. 88 The failu re of the revolution and T urkish acts of violence provoked among th e Exarchists a m ovem ent for th eir re tu rn to the P atriarchate and to Serbian ways of life, as occurred in the diocese of Veles and Debar. The largest Exarchist village in the Ki6evo district, K arbunica, set an exam ple th at was followed by
Ibid., p. 147. AI. Jovanovid, Srpske Skoie i ie tn iik i pokret u Juznoj Srbiji pod Turcima, p. 292. * M. M ilenovii, C etnifka ak cija (Chetnic's W arfare), in Narodna enciklopedija SHS, Vol. IV, p. 947.

166

others. This unexpected m ovem ent spread to O hrid and De b ar. w As the coun terp art of the B uglarian Association for K illing the Serbs, a secret society know n as the S erbian D efense was founded in 1905. A rticle 1 of the societys constitution states th at it was founded by Serbs from Old S erbia and Mace donia, especially by those from the sanjaks of Skoplje and D ebar and the districts of Kifievo, P rilep and O hrid as well as from o ther p arts of the vilayets of Bitolj and Salonica. 4 This society was a successful attem p t to arouse and unite Serbian national forces on the actual scene of the struggle. Its chetnics-groups w ere of two kinds: in addition to those th a t m oved freely about the countryside, th ere w ere others, organized in secret, th a t w ere tied to th e ir own localities. These provided a reserve for filling gaps in the form er. The aim was th at each individual take an interest in the national conflict and m ake his own contribution. No distinction was m ade betw een Exarchist and P atriarchist Serbs: the intention was th a t they be brought together and united. The ethical character of this m ovem ent m ay best be seen from the societys constitution, A rticle 17 of which states: B oth perm anent and secret chetas m ay kill, from among the Muslims, only those A lbanians or M oham m edanized Serbs who have deserted from the T urks in o rd er to harm our cause. Soldiers, gendarm es and Turkish officials m ay no t be attacked, bu t if o ur chetnics are attacked by them , they m ust not sur render, for this is not perm itted by the honor of the Serbian nam e and S erbian arm s. 65 Now here in the constitution is it stated th a t the aim of S erbian chetnics is to kill the Bulgars. A rticle 18 m erely states: Those B ulgarian guerrilla bands w ill be pursued which plunder the people or force them to renounce th e ir nam e and C hurch. Organized, as they were, on the very scene of the struggle, and springing from the very bosom of the people, these S erbian chetas soon began to m ade headw ay against the B ul gars. T heir successes not only encouraged the local population, b u t also excited public opinion in Serbia. Soon, volunteers
* Jo van M. Jovan o v ii, op. cit., p. 151. 44 Ibid., p. 160. 45 Cf. ibid., p. 162. 44 ibid.

167

w ere arriv in g from all p arts of Serbia, including S erbian Catholics and M oham m edans. Checked and fru strated by th eir failu rse, says A leksa Jovanovid, the ard o r of our people b u rst forth like a volcano. The guerrilla campaign spread like an uncontrollable fire. Young pupils from the gym nasia w ere sent back by the police across the frontier. People in the prim e of life abandoned th eir re g u la r occupa tions and all the conveniences of a peaceful life in order to toil in the w orst w eath er through the gorges of Old Serbia and M acedonia___ It was literally a struggle for life or death. W hen there was no hope of escape, the chetnics killed eith er them selves or one another so as not to fall into the enem ys hands. 67 In time, the Serbian governm ent began to give assistance to this chetnics m ovem ent, p artly in the form of m aterial aid and p artly by tu rn in g a blind eye to the d eparture of com m issioned and non-comm issioned officers for the scene of the struggle, w here they took over com mand of chetnics and led them w ith g re at heroism and self-sacrifice. In Bel grade, a central com m ittee for M acedonian affairs was set up u n d er L jubom ir Davidovic. Its m em bership was m ade up of prom inent personalities from the political, academ ic and cu ltural life of th e city. The revolution of the Young T urks in 1908 imposed a tem p orary check upon the guerrilla campaign, but enabled the S erbian population of the T urkish lands to organize them selves politically. R epresentatives of the O ttom an S erbs entered upon negotiations w ith the Young Turks, and a t a conference of Serbian leaders held in Skoplje on August 2326, 1908, the Provisional C entral Com m ittee of the S er bian People was set up. The organization was called the Serbian Dem ocratic League, and prom ised the Young T urks th at it would abandon revolutionary m ethods and tran sfer the struggle for its righ ts to the constitutional plane. The first national assem bly of the O ttom an Serbs, held in F ebruary 1909, dem anded com plete national freedom and acknowledg m ent of the Serbian nationality. The disbandm ent of the chetas, carried out a fte r the accession to pow er of the Young Turks, soon proved to be a 7 AI. Jovanovid, Srpske Skole i ietnidki pokiet u Juinoj Srbiji pod Turcima, p. 292.
168

m istake. The Young T urks behaved quite differently from w hat they had prom ised: th eir aim was not only to save th eir em pire from disaster, but to prom ote the conversion of all the non-T urkish nationalities on th eir territo ry , which inevitably also affected th e Serbs. In the fall of 1910, the B ulgars began once m ore to send guerrillas into S outhern Serbia, b u t w ithout achieving any g reat success. In the following spring, Serbian chetas also began to reappear, and the Young T urks m ade an attem pt to disarm th e people, who w ere tired of constant w arfare and insecurity. On the eve of the B alkan W ar of 1912, a rapprochem ent betw een B elgrade and Sofia was in the offing: w ar w ith T u r key could easily be foreseen, and thus the guerrillas w ere beginning to acquire especial significance. According to Jovan Jovanovic, S erbian chetnics, before the w ar broke out, crossed the fro n tier before the regular troops, cleared the w ay for them , repaired the roads, prepared positions for the S erbian artillery and fortified the m ost im portant points. 68 A leksa Jovanovi6 says that, by th eir audacious attacks or n ig h t raids, they threatened the enem ys flanks and frequently his rear, thus causing confusion and disorder in his ra n k s. 99 The Serbian chetnics contributed much to the speedy and com plete victory of Serbia in the F irst B alkan W ar, thus achieving one of the conditions necessary for the Serbian governm ent to dem and a revision of the agreem ent concluded w ith B ulgaria on the p artitio n of Southern Serbia. It should also be m entioned th at im m ediately a fte r the w ar of 1885 certain circles in B ulgaria had begun to realize the inevita bility of one day negotiating w ith Serbia for a p artitio n of M acedonia. Responsible circles in Serbia had also, on several occasions, attem pted to reach an agreem ent w ith the B ulgars on activity in the unliberated areas. In 1889, Nikola PaSi6 tried to negotiate w ith Stam bolov on this question, bu t the la tte r passed the Serbian message on to the Turks. Of m ore serious im port was the agreem ent signed on March 1, 1897, which bound both countries to take no action in the B alkans w ithout previous consultation; to negotiate jointly on ques tions concerning th eir respective co-nationals in Turkey; to
* Jovan M. Jovanovid, op. cit., p. 183. Al. Jovanovid, Srpske ik o le i ( e tn iik i p o k ie t u Ju in o j Srbiji pod Turcima, p. 306.

169

re n d er m utual assistance in m atters concerning the Church and education in Turkey; to invite the P rince of M ontenegro to join the agreem ent; and to inform no other country but Russia of the term s of the agreem ent.70 In Slobodan Jovanovifis assessment, th e im portance of this docum ent was th at we [the Serbs] h ave secured B ulgarian recognition of a sphere of in terestadm ittedly not as yet definedin Mace donia, and have m ade any m ilitary action by the B ulgars in th e B alkans conditional upon our previous consent. 71 In 1901, D im itrije Vujids governm ent attem pted to reach an agreem ent w ith the B ulgars based on a principle th at was la te r adopted in the trea ty of 1912. The B ulgars refused the proposal on the grounds th at it was impossible for them to m ake w ritten agreem ents on the p artitio n of territo ry be longing to th eir sovereign S ultan. The Serbs then proposed th at the riv alry betw een Serbian and B ulgarian propaganda in Macedonia be stopped. T he B ulgars replied th a t this did not depend on them, since the struggle was being w aged on th e ir own initiative by the B ulgarian population of Mace donia.72 A fu rth e r attem p t at negotiations on the draw ing up of spheres of influence in Macedonia was m ade in F ebruary 1904. The in itiative once m ore came from Pai6, who was w illing to negotiate on condition th a t B ulgaria agree th at Old Serbia, i. e., the vilayet of Kosovo, be recognized, as a purely auto nomous S erbian region. As fa r the o ther two vilayets, those of Salonica and Bitolj, he was w illing th a t they be organized as an autonom ous district, provided th at P atriarchists and Exarchists among the Slavic population enjoy equal rights. 73 The idea of an autonom ous Macedonia had been accepted by Boris Sarafov as long ago as 1900, but was firm ly rejected by King A lexander Obrenovic, who sum m ed up the situation thus: An autonom ous Macedonia is a Macedonia ruled by the B ulgarian Exarchate and therefore lost as far as we are concerned." 74 W hen the p aper A utonom na M akedonija, dealing w ith this
70 Jo v an M. Jovanovid, Borba za narodno u jedinjenje (The Struggle for N ational Unification), p. 43. 71 Slodoban Jovanovid, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 367. 72 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 249. 73 Jovan M. Jovanovid, Borba za narodno ujedinjenje, p. 43. 7 4 Slobodan Jovanovid, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 253.

170

question, was first issued in Belgrade, the B ulgarian auto nom ists came into the open: they m ade it clear th a t they re garded autonom y as a stage in the areas union w ith B ul g aria. 75 A rapprochem ent betw een Serbia and B ulgaria was effect ed in 1911. According to V ladim ir Corovic, this occurred as p a rt of B ulgarian efforts to secure a rapprochem ent betw een the rest of the Slavic w orld and Russia. A part from this, he says, B ulgaria was guided by the following purely prac tical considerations: everything th a t she could possibly ac q uire for the aggrandizem ent of h er national territo ry was situated in T urkeyin Thrace and Macedonia. If S erbia e n ter ed an alliance w ith T urkey or rem ained neu tral in a conflict betw een B ulgaria and Turkey, then the entire success of B ul g a ria s plans would be jeopardized. B ulgaria could scarcely have w ithstood a T urkish onslaught alone. 74 The S erbo-B ulgarian alliance, signed on F ebruary 29, 1912, was the result of a realistic grasp by both sides of th eir own interests. On Ju n e 19 of the sam e year, a m ilitary convention was also signed. The agreem ent on a territo ria l p artitio n pro vided for a disputed zone betw een the two countries on the final p artitio n of which they w ere to agree a fte r the w ar (i. e., the B alkan W ar of 1912). In the event of th eir being unable to reach agreem ent, it was laid down th a t a final decision be brought by th e R ussian tsar. This disputed zone extended from S ara to the Rhodope M ountains, and from the Archipelago to Lake Ohrid. Accord ing to Stojan Protid, who w rote under the pseudonym B alkanicus, the region east of the S trum a R iver and the Rho dope M ountains was recognized by Serbia as indisputably B ulgarian, w hile the regions north and w est of S ar-planina was acknowledged by B ulgaria as indisputably Serbian. E verything th a t lay betw een these two lines was then still a subject of dispute betw een the two countries. The entire disputed area was divided in the agreem ent by a transverse line from Egri P alanka to Struga, on Lake Ohrid, so th at Struga, Skoplje and Kum anovo w ere allotted to the S erbs. 77
78 Jov an M. Jovanovid, Borba za narodno ujedinjenje, p. 57. 7* Vladim ir Corovid, Istorija Jugoslavije (History of Yugoslavia), Belgrade, p. 552. 77 Balkanicus, Serbien und Bulgarien, Leipzig, 1913, p. 76.

171

As the result of a com bination of circum stances, Serbia, afte r h er victory over Turkey, sought a revision of this agreem ent. The S erbian contribution to T urkeys defeat had been much g re ater than the B ulgarian. Serbia had been obliged to send pow erful m ilitary aid to B ulgaria, who was unable to cope w ith the T urks in Thrace. In the siege and capture of Edrena, it was Serbian troops th a t played the decisive role. W hen she em erged on the A driatic, S erbia was driven back by a concerted action of the g reat powres. Losing patience and desirous of confronting Serbia and Greece w ith a fait accompli, B ulgaria attacked them w ithout declaring w ar. The B ulgarian defeat on the B regalnitza, described by Corovi6 as a second V elbuid, decided the fate of Macedonia during th e tw entieth century. All B ulgarias efforts of the last few decades had proved vain. The population of S outhern Serbia greeted the Serbian victories w ith enthusiasm . The tu rn ab o u t in the attitu d e of th e people was such as to cause grave an x iety to the B ulgarian propagandists. On Jau n a ry 11, 1913, P e ta r Kocov w rote to his friends: Try and come as soon as possible, since otherw ise everything will have been S erbianized. W hoever before was an out-and-out B ulgar has now be come a S erb . 78 World W ar I once m ore put the question of the ow nership of this te rrito ry onto the agenda. It was p u t there, not by the people, bu t by the diplomacy of the g reat pow ers on both sides. Both blocs w ere anxious to have B ulgaria on th eir side. The B ulgarian governm ent grasped the significance of the m om ent and for a w hile m aneuvered betw een the two blocs. As a rew ard for joining one or the o th er side, she dem anded the im m ediate cession of the whole of Macedonia. The proB ulgarian B alkan Com mittee in E ngland insisted th at B ul garia be m et half-w ay. Vasil Radoslavov, who received first-hand inform ation on th e developm ent of this situation, says th a t the B ritish envoy in Sofia, H. O. Ironside, delivered a Note to the B ulgarian foreign m inistry on Novem ber 3, 1914, which stated, in ter alia: If B ulgaria agrees to join the T riple E ntente [Italy had not yet determ ined h er position] against Turkey, she w ill be g u aranteed the EnosM idija line, th a t p a rt of M acedonia
78 Ibid., p. 106.

172

east of the V ardar and south of the line defined in the SerboB ulgarian agreem ent, and, fu rth er, financial assistance. 7* The B ulgarian governm ent em phasized th at it w ished to re m ain neutral, bu t w ith certain concessions. She claim ed, says Radoslavov, M acedonia, including both the disputed and the undisputed zones of the 1912 trea ty and the cities of Ser, D ram a and K avala, and the restoration of D obruja and Thrace up to the EnosM idija line. 80 The m em bers of the Q uadruple E ntente w ere largely dis posed to m eet the B ulgarian dem ands: on May 29, 1915, th eir representatives handed over to the B ulgarian governm ent identical statem ents indicating th eir willingness to satisfy these dem ands provided th a t B ulgaria decide to attack T urkey im m ediately. The second point of this statem ent declared: On the conclusion of hostilities, the allied powers g uarantee Bul garia possession of B ulgarian M acedonia: (a) north and w est of the line E gri P alankaVelesO hridB itolj; (b) south and east of the present Serbo-G reek and S erbo-B ulgarian fron tiers___ The fulfilm ent of this prom ise is contingent upon the securing to S erbia of suitable com pensation in Bosnia and Hercegovina and on the A driatic, and upon the undertaking th at until the conclusion of peace B ulgaria shall not u n d er take m easures to occupy any p art w hatsoever of the abovem entioned territo rie s. 81 W hile she was negotiating w ith the representatives of the Q uadruple E ntente, B ulgaria was already in possession of the Note from G erm any and A ustria-H ungary, delivered on May 23, 1915, stating that, if she rem ained neutral, she would re ceive Macedonia, which was held by the Serbs, and areas held by the G reeks and the R um anians.82 In o rd er to clarify the situation finally w ith the m em bers of the Entente, the Bul g arian governm ent inform ed them on Ju n e 14, 1915, th a t she wished to know w hether the p a rt of M acedonia referred to en tirely corresponded to the territo ry constituting the dis puted zone according to the m ap appended to the Serbo-B ul* V asil p. 144. # ibid., 81 Ibid., 81 Ibid., Radoslavoff, Bulgarien und die W eitkrise, Berlin, 1923, p. 153. p. 154. pp. 15657.

173

g arian agreem ent of 1912. 83 In th eir reply of A ugust 3, 1915, the Allies guaranteed h er once m ore th at p a rt of Mace donia th a t fell w ithin the frontiers indicated on th e geo graphical m ap appended to the S erbo-B ulgarian agreem ent of 1912, and they undertake to do th eir best to ensure th at any aggrandizem ent of Serbia as a result of the present w ar shall be entirely dependent on the B ulgarian disputed zone. 84 This did not satisfy the B ulgarian governm ent. F orty days later, the representatives of the four g reat powers delivered to the B ulgarian governm ent a fresh Note in which they de clared the readiness of th eir governm ents to guarantee B ul g aria th e desired p art of Macedonia provided th a t B ulgaria conclude a m ilitary alliance w ith them and im m ediately de clare w ar on T urkey.85 The Bulgars, for th eir part, stipulated th a t they occupy the desired area of M acedonia im m ediately a fte r they entered th e war. T here is not the slightest doubt, says Radoslavov, th a t the B ulgarian governm ent was p re p ared to negotiate w ith the Q uadruple Entente, provided th at the la tte r perm it B ulgarian troops to occupy the M acedonian territo ry [in question]. 86 W hile Serbia was offering heroic resistance to the A ustroH ungarian and G erm an troops and shedding blood over every inch of h er territo ry , B ulgaria was bargaining w ith both sides. It could be taken as certain th a t she w ould decide in favor of the C enrtal Pow ers: h e r foreign policy had long been antiR ussian and anti-Serbian. Vienna feared the creation of a G reater Serbian state em bracing all the Serbs outside the te r rito ry of the Dual Monarchy, which was nearing its end. H er encouragem ent of B ulgaria was aim ed at strengthening the la tte rs dem ands upon Serbia, who was still effectively resist ing th e attacks m ade upon her. Tschirschky, G erm an am bas sador in Vienna, reported to P rince von Biilow a conversation he had had w ith von A ehrenthal on Decem ber 3,1908, in which von A ehrenthal had told him th at the riv alry betw een Serbia and B ulgaria should at all costs be m aintained, and th a t in this sense he regarded the cession to B ulgaria of a p a rt of Serbia
83 Ibid., 84 Ibid., 85 Ibid., 88 Ibid., p. 159. pp. 16263. p. 168. p. 169.

174

as a suitable m eans. 87 Von Biilow insisted th at A ustriaH ungary establish the firm est links possible w ith the B ulgars, not only on account of h er own Slav, b u t in order to im pede any action by Russia against A ustria-H ungary. 88 S erbias inability to defend herself, arising from the fact th at all h er forces had been throw n into the battlefield, gave B ulgaria a suitable opportunity to attack her. M oreover, the governm ents of th e Q uadruple E ntente w ere exerting strong pressure upon the Serbian governm ent to agree to th e ir pro posals on M acedonia. N either this pressure, how ever, nor the difficulties of h e r position at the tim e could shake the attitu d e of the Serbian governm ent, which firm ly refused to accept the proposals of its allies. Albin Kutschbach, who at th a t tim e was in Ni, has described the bearing of Nikola PaSsid a t th a t ju n ctu re. PaSic, who had previously tried so h ard to achieve an agreem ent w ith the Bulgars, was now inexorable. Anxious and preoccupied m ore than was his wont, he avoided contact w ith the outside world. In the spring of 1915, as, indeed, in the preceding fall, says Kutschbach, Russia, F rance and B ri tain intervened w ith the Serbian governm ent to persuade it to cede to B ulgaria the indisputably B ulgarian areas of Mace donia, in o rder th at B ulgaria m ight join the Entente. The Allies th reatened to stop all aid to Serbia in the form of money and supplies if she ignored these dem ands. The Serbian governm ent, supported by the N ational Assembly, neverthe less rejected all these dem ands. 88 R eferring to the attitu d e of the S erbian governm ent a t this ju n ctu re, W inston Churchill points out th a t the A llies dem ands upon S erbia w ere in them selves just, and necessary for the general cause, bu t of vital significance for the security of Serbia. In face of all these protestations, the Serbian governm ent and parliam ent rem ained adam ant. A llied di plomacy, which was difficult to b u d g e ,. . . had even reached th e point of stopping all fu rth e r assistance to Serbia in w a r m aterials and m oney if the la tte r did not subm it to th e ir insistent dem ands. In face of everything, Serbia, conscious as
87 Die grosse Politik, Vol. XXVI, Part II, p. 515. 88 Ibid., pp. 51718. M A lbin Kutschbach, Der Brandherd Europas: 50 Jahre Balkan Erinnerungen, Leipzig, 1929, p. 192.

175-

she was of all the dangers involved, rem ained obstinate in h er rejection of all appeals to m ake effective prom ises. 84 Both S erbias allies and h er opponents offered h er the unacceptable, and the S erbian governm ent stuck to its guns. W ith rem arkable foresight, it perm itted the S erbian N ational Assem bly on A ugust 10, 1915, to proclaim at NiS th a t Serbia would continue the w ar until the liberation of all the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. W ith the break-through on the Salonica front, the Serbian arm y once m ore decided the question of the possession of Macedonia, which was now included in the state of the Serbs, C roats and Slovenes.

M W inston Churchill, Die W eilkrise, 1911 18, Zurich, Vol. II, pp. 15152.

176

THE MACEDONIAN QUESTION BETWEEN THE TWO WORLD WARS D uring the period separating the two w orld w ars, i. e., from the end of 1918 to A pril 1941, the M acedonian question rem ained v ery much alive, continuing to be a subject of dis p u te betw een B ulgaria on the one hand and Yugoslavia and Greece on the other. The num erous attem pts at a solution came to grief chiefly as a resu lt of the obstinacy of B ulgaria, whose attitu d e on this question was greatly influenced by IMRO. From th e assassination of A lexander Stam bolisky, who w as a determ ined opponent of IMRO, to the accession to pow er of the Velchev-Georgiev group, the rig h t w ing of IMRO w ar v irtu ally a determ ining factor in the attitu d e of B ulgaria to w ard Yugoslavia and Greece, which w ere re lu ctan t to abandon th e ir positions. W ith the rise to pow er of ZVENO, IMROs in fluence ceased: Vancha M ihailov fled to Turkey, and several prom inent leaders of his group w ere arrested. Elisabeth B ark er was only p a rtly justified w hen she claim ed th at the M acedonian question had disappeared from in ter n ational politics during the last four y ears:1 even before the em ergence of ZVENO, the C om intern had m ade the Mace donian question an in strum ent of its destructive activity in th e B alkans. The left w ing of the U nited IMRO had already consolidated its positions, and gathered round itself all the leftist elem ents in the Balkans. In th eir attitu d e tow ard Yugo slavia, which was the chief object of attack from both sides, and, at the sam e time, the chief factor in deciding the Mace donian question, both the rig h t and th e left w ing of this organization w ere equally hostile. This organization was also inim ically disposed tow ard Greece and B ulgaria, and was em erging ever m ore clearly as the advocate of a Com m unist revolution in the Balkans, the object of which was to produce an independent and free M acedonia. Since, as Hugh SetonW atson correctly points out, the real M acedonian problem
1 Elisabeth Barker, Macedonia: Its Place in Balkan Power Politics, London, 1950, p. 29.

177

was the problem of a Yugoslav M acedonia, the attitu d e of the Com m unist P a rty of Yugoslavia tow ard the M acedonian question was of g reat im portance.2 It was in the interplay of these three factors, ra th e r than in the official relations of the three B alkan states concerned, th a t the M acedonian question developed betw een the two w orld wars. It was Dimo Kazasov who pointed out th a t h atred of the Serbs was the principal m otive of all shades of opinion among those championing the M acedonian cause who, afte r the Se cond B alkan W ar and W orld W ar I, refused to reconcile them selves w ith a fait accompli. These groups persisted in spread ing distru st of the Serbian regim e among the population of S outhern Serbia. Tow ard the end of 1912, the non-Slav national m inorities in S outhern Serbia began to unite in re sisting the new situation. A delegation of M acedonian Turks subm itted to the peace conference in Lausanne a m em orandum , signed by H alim -bey Sami, who acted as th eir chairm an, Nesim Ruso and M ehmed Galib, containing dem ands which T urkey had consistently opposed w hile she had been in con tro l of these regionsi. e., (1) the form ation of an autonom ous region w ith Salonica as its capital; (2) a guarantee from the g reat powers th at this autonom y would be respected; and (3) E uropean control over this territo ry .3 A sim ilar request, sup ported by Italy, was subm itted by the M acedonian R um anians in the area of the Pindus M ountains.4 An appeal had also been addressed to the peace conference by a group of Slavs, who, on instructions from the B ulgarian governm ent, dem anded the form ation of an autonom ous Mace donia. In his article Macedonia and the Peace C onference, C onstantin Stefanove w rote: A utonom y and independence for Macedonia is no new dem and on th e p a rt of the Mace donians. It is as old as th eir struggle for freedom . An in dependent Macedonia, guaranteed by one of the least interest ed pow ersAm erica, B ritain or the League of Nationscould
1 Hugh Seton-W atson, Osteuropa zwischen den Kriegen, Paderborn, 1948, p. 366. ' M im oires p r e s e n ts a la Conference de la Paix d Lausanne par le d16gu6 de 1 A ssociation m acidonienne m usulmane, p. 17. 4 Th. Capidan, Die M azedorumanen, Bukarest, 1941, p. 142.

178

certainly both save the country and satisfy the wolves. 6 Tow ard the end of 1919, m em bers of IMRO active in the Seres d istrict issued a declartion in which, in ter alia, they dem anded the restoration of Macedonia w ithin h er n atu ra l geographical frontiers, based chiefly on Salonica, the V ardar valley, Skoplje and Bitolj, w ith its n atu ra l geographical and economic h in terlan d . * The M acedonian em igre m ovem ent had considerably in tensified its activity against Yugoslavia. Its center at the time w as in Sw itzerland; its leader was C onstantin Stefanove and its secretary Blagoje Bojadzijev, then a student of law. This group had enlisted the support of all the national m inorities from the area, who, on Ju ly 31, 1919, subm itted a memo randum to the peace conference signed by N. Talit, on behalf of the R um unians of M acedonia, Ipedi Zade-bey, a m erchant from Salonica, Sam Levy, form er editor of the Journal de Salonique and L Epoque, PanCo Dorev, a publicist and B ul garian deputy for Bitolj in the Turkish parliam ent, and Aziz K lany-bey, a retired colonel from B itolj.7 Som ew hat earlier, in Ju n e of the sam e year, the C entral Council of th e M acedonian Society had addressed an appeal "to the civilized w o rld which contained four points dem and ing the form ation of an independent M acedonian state. The new state was to be divided into cantons on the Swiss model, and it was em phasized th a t the rights of all national m inorities would be guaranteed. In the m iddle of O ctober of the sam e year, representations w ere m ade to the B ritish P a r liam ent pointing out th a t M acedonian Bulgars, Turks, Jews, W allachians and A lbanians m ade up approxim ately ninety percent of the total population. It goes w ithout saying th at the authors of this docum ent aslo dem anded an independent Macedonia. All our churches, they declared, schools and national institutions have been eith er closed down or taken over by the S erbian and G reek authorities. All our priests, teachers and leading countrym en have been obliged to em i grate, or else have been arrested and liquidated. Use of our
* Constantine Stephanove, M acedonia and th e Peace ference, V indipendance macidortienne, Nov. 1, 1919, p. 27. Ibid., Oct. 16, 1919.
7

Con

179

language has been forbidden u n d er pain of severe punishm ent, and our books either banned o r destroyed. 8 Justifying th eir dem and fo r an independent state, they declared th a t this was th e only reasonable solution to the M acedonian problem . U nder these circum stances, they said, Macedonia would cease to be an apple of discord betw een the B alkan states. On the contrary, it would provide a link betw een them for the establishm ent of a genuine, lasting and progressive B alkan federation. Behind all these moves th ere stood the In tern al Mace donian R evolutionary O rganization. Leading circles in this organization had been discouraged by the failures besetting them on all sides, p articu larly as th ere was no hope of assist ance from outside and the governm ent of A lexander Stam bolisky was th eir sw orn enemy. In Novem ber 1922, during his visit to Belgrade, Stam bolisky told press representatives th at the M acedonians w ere a rebellious race and a thorn in the side of both B ulgaria and S erbia. He fu rth e r declared th at he was ready to pack them all into railroad cars and send them off to Yugoslavia. 1 0 It was at this very ju n ctu re th at Todor A leksandrov attem pted to establish contact w ith S tjep an Radi6 and persuade him to cooperate in the struggle against Yugoslavia. In his article Todor A leksandrov and the C roatian P easant M ovem ent, Radi6 him self explained the n atu re of these contacs. According to him, A leksandrov suc ceeded from tim e to tim e in sending his tru sted supporters to Z agreb to enqire w h ether the HRSS [Croatian Republican P easant P arty] w ould be w illing to join his, A leksandrovs, revolutionary cam paign. 1 1 Radi6 replied th a t the HRSS pursues its objective by w ay of firm political organization and such political activity as goes by the nam e of peasant demo cracy. The HRSS earnestly recom m ends this policy of peasant dem ocracy to the M acedonian R evolutionary O rganization, since it is supported by ninety-nine precent of the peasants, who are by n ature pacifists, but who, given proper organiza tion, are capable of becoming the unrem itting and indom itable
8 L'indSpendance m ac^donienne, N ov .15, 1919, p. 71. Ibid. 10 Dimo Kazasov, Buini godini (The Storm y Years), Sofia, 1949, p. 114. 1 1 Balkanska lederacija, Aug. 15, 1924, p. 37.

180

champions of political pow er for the entire w orking people, including peasants and industrial w orkers. 1 2 The rig h t w ing of IMRO did not take Radi6s advice. W ith no prospect, eith er of help from outside or of obtaining a revision of the peace term s, it continued to concentrate its energies upon terrorism in S outhern Serbia, thus inevitably provoking counterm easures and reprisals on the p a rt of the state. The state refused to be alarm ed by the sallies of the terro rists, even m ore to perm it them to set up an irresponsible em pire of th e ir own w ithin Yugoslavia. Ivan M ihailov, whom Elisabeth B ark er describes as a k iller and a gangster on a large scale, not a revolutionary, 18 was torn betw een his loyalty to B ulgaria and the propaganda of his organization advocating an independent M acedonia. By his conduct, he caused casualties th a t w ere la te r exploited for propaganda purposes. The w hole w orld resounded w ith reports of Serbian atrocities against B ulgars and M acedonians in Yugoslavia. With th e consolidation of reactionary and expressly an tiSerbian circles in positions of authority in B ulgaria, IMRO was able to intensify its activity, both in Macedonia and abroad. In the m iddle of Ju n e 1927, w hen the left wing of IMRO had already greatly extended the scale of its activities, the p aper La Macedoine began to come out in Geneva. In its first issue, dated Ju n e 13, its editor, Simeon Jeftim ov, printed a leading article u n d er the heading O ur P rogram . The paper w as officially th e organ of IMRO, bu t w as backed by the B ul g arian governm ent, which used it as a m eans of propagating its views on th e B ulgarian character of Macedonia. By din t of system atic and persistent effort, the leadres of IMRO succeeded in u niting and m ultiplying th eir organiza tions abroad, which w ere p articu larly num erous in Am erica and Canada. In S eptem ber 1927, the C entral Com m ittee of the Union of M acedonian P olitical O rganizations sent an open le tte r to Dr. N ikolaj Velimirovid, a t th a t tim e Bishop of Ohrid, dem anding th a t he vacate his see.1 4 On N ovem ber 17 of the sam e year, the trial opened in Skoplje of a group of students belonging to a secret revolutionary organization of Mace donian y o u th . Counsel for the defense w ere Dr. A nte Pavelid,
11 Ibid. Elisabeth Barker, op. cit., p. 38. 14 La M acedoine, Sept. 1, 1927.

181

la te r a leader of the Ustase, Dr. A nte Trum bic and Dr. Sekula Drljevic, a leader of the M ontenegran federalists. The fu tu re m ilitan t alliance betw een the UstaSe and the champions of the M acedonian cause could already be discern ed. A year later, on Novem ber 16, 1928, Ivan M ihailov de clared in a statem ent on the w arlike aims of IMRO: IMRO is following events in Yugoslavia closely. It is convinced th at the C roats regard the M acedonians claims for autonom y fa v o ra b ly .. . . If Yugoslavia becomes involved in a w ar w ith a foreign power, IMRO will know th a t its m om ent has come. 1 S S tephen G raham states th at the connection betw een P aveli and IMRO was established in Vienna a fte r the form er had left Yugoslavia, and th a t this was done at the request of Italy, who was then actively helping the Organization. F o r this p u r pose, IMRO dispatched to Vienna Naum Tom alevski, who was subsequently, when disputes arose w ithin the ranks of IMRO, m urdered by King A lexanders assassin.18 At first, the United IMRO also had its eye upon Pavelic, for it had been dis illusioned by his visit to Sofia. In respect of this visit, R. Radev, in his article C hange Y our Allies, Pavelid! w rote: If the entire C roatian people w ere to accept the orientation of Dr. Pavelic, it would have to en ter the struggle side by side w ith the Italian Fascists, who are keeping the whole of Istria and p a rt of D alm atia under th eir yoke and who at any m om ent th reaten to occupy the whole of C roatian Dal m atia___ It is no longer open to doubt who is the potencial ally of th e Croats in th eir struggle for liberation from the ty ran n y of Belgrade. T heir allies can only be the nationalrevolutionary organizations of the B alkan peoples, who for decades have been fighting for M acedonias freedom from her B alkan oppressors and resisting the g reat im perialist powers, who are aim ing at the com plete subjugation of the B a lk a n s.. . . We are convinced th a t the HSS [C roatian P easant P arty], the M ontenegran federalists and all the other oppressed peoples of Yugoslavia will join in a single fro n t w ith the tru e Mace donian revolutionaries of the U nited IMRO, which is vigorous ly championing the freedom of all the B alkan peoples and a federation of B alkan republics against the w orld im perial
15 Ibid., Nov. 16, 1928. 19 Stephen Graham, A lexander ot Yugoslavia, London, pp. 13233.

1938,

182

is ts .. . . The m ovem ent led by Dr. Pavelid, w hether conscious ly or not, can only prove prejudicial to the freedom of the Croats and th e o th er B alkan peoples. L et us, we emphasize, en ter the struggle against the dictatorship of B elgrade w ith all the m eans in our pow erside by side, not w ith the m ur derers of B ulgarian w orkers and peasants, but w ith the tru e representatives of the liberation struggle of the B ulgarian and M acedonian peoples. 1 7 It was at this stage th at the w ork of IMRO was ham pered by th e outbreak of violent discord am ong the leaders of its rig h t wing. The p arties concerned w ere A leksandar P roto gerov on the one hand and Ivan M ihailov and Georgi PopH ristov on the other, who, according to G ilbert in der M aur, advocated the inclusion of M acedonia in B ulgaria.18 P roto gerov was accused of m urdering Todor A leksandrov, b u t was him self assassinated on Ju ly 28, 1928. This w as followed by the violent rule of M ihailov, who declared in a statem ent th a t P rotogerov owed his popularity, not to his m em bership of IMRO, but to his w ork as an officer in the B ulgarian arm y. He alw ays felt him self to be such prim arily, and in this respect w ent to such lengths, th a t he encouraged the claims, in the M acedonian areas of B ulgaria, of B ulgarian nationalist organizations th a t dem anded the re tu rn to B ulgaria of the regions th a t had been taken from her, thus placing him self in direct opposition to the M acedonian autonom ists, w ho w ant a single state independent of B ulgaria. 18 The visit of Pavelid and P erfec to Sofia m erely served to confirm the cooperation already agreed upon betw een these two m ovem ents advocating separation from Yugoslavia. Filled w ith enthusiasm by this visit, the editor of La Macedoine w rote: The politicians of B elgrade them selves sp u rred the various peoples of Yugoslavia to help one another in the struggle against th e ir common enem yBelgrade. The C roatian-M acedonian fro n t has been openly established and publicly announced. It has been joined by the M ontenegrans and eight hundred thousand Yugoslav A lbanians. 20 D uring
1 7 Balkanska iedeiacija, M ay 1, 1929, p. 2562. 1 8 G ilbert in der Maur, Die Jugoslawen einst und jetzt, LeipzigVienna, 1936. 1 9 La M acedoine, Nov. 16, 1928. * Simeon Jeftimoff, Die mazedonische Frage, p. 25.

183

th eir visit, Pavelic and PerCec signed a declaration affirm ing th eir intention to collaborate w ith the official M acedonian Com mittee, which at th a t tim e was headed by Dr. StaniSev. On Ja n u a ry 10, 1930, Dr. StaniSev w rote: We M acedonians claim to be b etter B ulgars than those in the [Bulgarian] K ing dom p ro p e r.. . . A greem ent already exists betw een the Croats and Bulgars, and soon they w ill be joined by others in the common cause of liberation. 21 The declaration stated th at both sides had come to the conclusion th at the C roats and M acedonians w ere obliged to w in th eir own political freedom, th eir rights as hum an beings and as citizens and the com plete independence of C roatia and M acedonia.22 J u st before the de claration was signed, La Macedoine published an appeal from Croats, M acedonians and M ontenegrans in A m erica and C anada dem anding com plete independence for all three groups.2 This policy of collaboration was pursued obstinately and system atically: allies w ere sought on all sides in the struggle against Yugoslavia. Congresses and m eetings, an organized press cam paign and frequent direct appeals to representatives of the g re at pow ers and to international forum severything w as directed tow ard a definite goal th a t of showing the w orld at large th a t th e Serbs, as a nation, w ere persecuting the national m inorities. Typical of these m easures was the jo in t conference of M acedonian and C roatian representatives held in New York on A ugust 17 19, 1929, a t which it w as announced th a t a common C roatian-M acedonian fro n t in E urope and Am erica had been established to fight for th e freedom of the C roatian and M acedonian peoples. 24 A little later, in Novem ber 1929, an appeal, signed by C. C riscuola d A n tivari as chairm an of the M ontenegrans in em igration, was sent to Ram say MacDonald, Prim e M inister of G reat B ritain.28 According to Pavelid, the total num ber of victim s of the alleged S erbian te rro r in Yugoslavia during the period from
21 La M acedoine, Jan . 10, 1930. 22 A nte Pavelid, A u s dem Kam ple urn den selbstandigen Staat Kroatien, V ienna, 1931, p. 93. 83 La M acedoine, March 22, 1929. 24 Ibid., Sept. 27, 1929. Ibid., Nov. 29, 1929.

184

Jan u a ry 6, 1929, to Ju n e 1930 am ounted to 76 killed in political prisons, 3 condemned to death, 1 condemned to hard labor fo r life, and 319 sentenced to various term s of im prisonment.*' According to B runo Mlinarid, 230 persons w ere hanged or otherw ise killed in Yugoslavia betw een Decem ber 1, 1918, and A pril 10, 1941, w hen the Independent C roatian S tate was proclaim ed u n d er Pavelid.27 On Decem ber 15 17, 1929, the F ifth Congress of Mace donian Youth was held in Sofia. In the m essage of greeting sent by this congress to the youth of C roatia, it was stated: The youth of Macedonia today enthusiastically welcomes the creation of a common C roatian-M acedonian front. It is happy a t the thought th a t the other non-Serbian peoples, who are suffering no less th an we u n d er the present blood-thirsty re gime of Belgrade, w ill soon join this front. In the belief and hope th a t the struggle of the C roats and M acedonians will grow daily stronger, the Congress w arm ly greets the youth of m ilitan t C roatia and sends them its wishes for success in the struggle. 28 On Jan u a ry 9, 1929, K onstantin Stefanove, in an article entitled The M acedonian P arliam en t, declared th at a C roatian-M acedonian w ar fro n t had been set up.29 The E ighth Congress of IMRO, held in B ulgaria tow ard the beginning of A pril 1932, sent a message of greeting to 6migr6 Croats which stated: The Congress sends a fratern a l greeting to the revolutionary C roatian organization, to the C roatian people and to all the oppressed m inorities in the B alkan P en insula, who have united in order to rem ove the injustices sanctioned by trea ty and to win for them selves political free dom and independence. s# The clim ax of the concerted action by UstaSe and Mace donian independents was the conspiracy against King A lexander, who, especially since Ja n u a ry 6, 1929, had been the chief protagonist of the state they w ere fighting. F or all of them, th e rem oval of A lexander from the historical arena m eant the destruction of the central p illar of th at state which
* Pavelid, op. cit., p. 122. 17 Bruno Mlinarid, Tito, der rote Rebell, und seine vollkom m ene D em okratie," Zurich, 1948, p. 10. La M acedoine, Jan. 10, 1930. * Ibid. 50 Ibid., M ay 17, 1932.

185.

they regarded as an essential obstacle to the realization of th e ir plans. They did not even conceal th eir m urderous in tentions: on May 6, 1934, La Macedoine printed the full tex t of the death sentence pronounced upon A lexander by the C entral C roatian U nion at Seraing, in Belgium. This sentence had originally been published in N ezavisna hrvatska drzava on A pril 16, 1934. The tex t reads: The C entral C roatian Union, in the presence of all its m em bers on Belgian territory, adopted the following resolution on A pril 1, 1934: 1. The black date of Decem ber 1918 is the cause of the betray al and deception of the C roatian people, which, on th e orders of A lexander K aradjordjevid, is subordinated to Serbia. 2. This betrayal and deception consists in th e fact th at no one can deprive any nation of its sovereignty w ithout a previous vote and w ithout a free act of selfdeterm ination. 3. The responsibility for everything lies w ith A lexander K aradjordjevid, who has occupied C roatia by force and is torm enting and crucifying her. 4. A lexander is answ erable w ith his life for the death of S tjepan Radic, P avle Radi6, D jura B asariiek, M ilan Suflaj, Rosie, Hranilovid, Soldins and m any other C roatian m artyrs. 5. A lexander is reponsible for all the lies being spread abroad, according to which everything is in the best possible o rd er in Croatia, w hereas in fact rivers of C roatian blood have been and are still being shed. 6. A lexander is responsible for the death of Oreb, Begovi6, and others insofar as he perm itted them to be condemned to death. 7. A lexander is also responsible for allow ing the A v ala agency to continue spreading lies to the effect th at the C roatian people is content w ith the sentence imposed on Oreb and his followers and th a t Croats in Zagreb have protested against the C roatian UstaSe and th eir leaders.
186

On the basis of all these facts, we condemn A lexander K a rad jo rd jev ii and the entire Belgrade governm ent to death. The C roatian UstaSe m ust execute this sentence at the first possible opportunity. W ith this end in view, we address the following appeal to Dr. A nte Paveli6, chief of the UstaSe: We urgently beg you, our leader, to order that, over and above o th er commands, this sentence be exe cuted by a detachm ent of the Ustase. We w ant revenge, we w ant a struggle to the death, we w ant revolution. If it does not succeed at the first attem pt, then w e shall renew it a hundred times, but C roatia and the entire C roatian people are determ ined to set up a free and independent state. R evolution will come, even though the w ohle of Europe be shaken to h er very foundations. We are p re pared to die to the last man, bu t we will not w ait any longer. 31 In the organization and execution of A lexanders m urder, the ties linking the two m ain separatist m ovem ents in Yugo slavia and th eir centers abroad w ere once m ore dem onstrated. Nevile Henderson rightly em phasizes the fatal n atu re of this union w hen he says: The m u rd erer was a B ulgar, who had become practiced in shooting and bom b-throw ing at the notorious Jan k a Pusta, an estate in H ungary. The plot had been staged by Pavelid (the present C roatian Quisling) and his group in Italy, which provided the m oney. 32 Hugh SetonW atson comments: No one doubts th a t the m u rd er had been prepared long beforehand and th a t the H ungarian and Italian governm ents had had a hand in the whole affair. 33 One of the chief obstacles in the way of a rig h t- or leftwing revolution in Yugoslavia had become rem oved: for eigners who assessed the significance of the m u rd er from the European view point unequivocally em phasized its European and w orld im portance. Hugh Seton-W atson says: U ndoubted ly, the m u rd er of King A lexander was a catastrophe of in te r 3 1 Ibid., M ay 6, 1934. u N evile H enderson, W erner unter den Briicken, Zurich, 1949, p. 288. 33 Seton-W atson, op. cit., p. 433.
187

national im oprtance. 34 Henderson, who was a m an of broad vision and had a good grasp of the significance of events, says: I was certain, and events bore me out, th a t the kings death w as a m isfortune not only for Yugoslavia, but for the whole of th e B alkans and for Europe. 85

***
The rig h t w ing of IMRO, together w ith all the elem ents supporting it, was opposed by the left w ing of this same organization, which, from the m om ent of its form ation, had been grow ing m ore and m ore definitely Com m unist inclined. Its establishm ent had been proceded by secret conversations betw een Moscow and the leaders of IMRO, who w ere seeking a way out of the im passe in which the organization then found itself. The federalist w ing was m ost in favor of following this path, w hile others w ere re lu ctan t to reject it straig h t aw ay and p referred to w ait and see w hat course events w ould take. E lisabeth B ark er states th a t in 1923 Todor A leksandrov sent D im itar Vlahov to Moscow together w ith A tanasov, from whom Vlahov later separated. The form ation of the U nited IMRO as such was preceded by several years of lively activity on the p a rt of the B alkan Com m unist parties, united since Ja n u a ry 1920 in th e B alkan Com m unist Federation under the direct leadership of the Com intern. W hat took place was briefly as follows. From the foundation of this federation, the C om intern insisted on the p rep aratio n and execution of a Com m unist revolution in the Balkans. In a message addressed to the B alkan Com munist parties, Zinovev pointed out th at they w ere then in the phase of prep arin g a social revolution in the Balkans, and that, in o rd er to be sure of success, each of them ought to take active m easures fo r a Com m unist revolution in its own country.*' F o r Zinovev, the p rim ary aspect of the M acedonian problem was the possibility of revolution, though even he agreed th at th ere was also the question of th e M acedonian B ulgars u n d er Yugoslavia. He m ade no m ention, however, of those u n d er Greece. The F ourth Congress of the Com intern, held in
Ibid., p. 434. 3S H enderson, op. cit., p. 290. 3* Elisabeth Barker, op. cit., pp. 4849.

188

1922, came out against the settling of G reek refugees from Asia M inor in Aegean M acedonia, and dem anded th a t the G reek Com m unist P a rty follow the sam e line. This was later also the attitu d e taken by the B alkan Com m unist Federation. A t a conference of this federation held in 1922, Vasil Kolarov, on orders from the Com intern, raised the question of an autonom ous M acedonia. A fter the overthrow of A leksandar Stam bolisky and the considerable assistance offered by rig h twing elem ents of IMRO to A leksandar Tsankov, the C om intern once m ore tu rn ed its attention to the M acedonian question. In a special proclam ation, it w arned the M acedonians of the danger th reatenin g them from th e new regim e in B ulgaria, which they had helped on its w ay to power. This proclam ation is described by Elisabeth B ark er as the first, still some w hat im precise, form ulation of its [the C om interns] views on the M acedonian problem . 37 In March 1924, the B alkan C om m unist Federation, at its S ixth Congress, announced its detailed program for Macedonia: it dem anded the creation of a M acedonian republic which should en ter a union of in dependent B alkan republics. T hree statem ents in this resolution are im protant: (a) th a t none of the neighboring states had a m ajority of its co nationals in M acedonia and th at therefore none of them was entitled to ru le Macedonia; (b) th a t the slogan of unification and autonom y for Macedonia had penetrated to every corner of the country; and (c) th a t the Com munist parties of the various B alkan countries w ere not applying pressure to national M acedonian and T hracian organizations, b u t desired the closest cooperation w ith them . The aim was to create a united revolutionary front. The F ifth Congress of the Com intern, held betw een March and Ju n e 1924, also passed a resolution on the M acedonian and T hracian question which in fact am ounted to a repetition of the resolution adopted by the Sixth Congress of the B alkan Com m unist Federation on the creation of a united Macedonia and a united Thrace. The Congress com pletely rejected the idea of autonom y for separate p arts of Macedonia u n d er any of the existing B alkan states, and instructed the B alkan Com m unist parties and the B alkan Com munist Federation to assist the national-revolutionary m ovem ents am ong the oppressed
7 Ibid., p. 51.

189

peoples of M acedonia and Thrace. Control of the w ork of all the Com m unist parties was entrusted to the B alkan Com m unist F ederation in respect of the nationality questions and, especially, of the question of Macedonia and T hrace. 88 The establishm ent of the U nited IMRO was preceded by the appearance of the journal B alkanska federacija, which first came out on Ju ly 15, 1924, under the editorship of Dimi ta r Vlahov and continued publication until 1932, at first in Vienna and la te r in F ra n k fu rt on Main. In its statem ent of policy, published in its first issue, the paper declared th at its m ain task was to w ork for the liberation and self-determ ina tion of the B alkan peoples and th eir federation. We shall fight for the grouping of all national-liberation movem ents in the B alkans in a single B alkan front, against all Balkan reaction and against any European political moves to prom ote reaction in the B alkans. 39 This first issue also contained a proclam tion signed by Todor Aleksandrov, A leksandar Protogerov and P e ta r Caulev and entitled A New O rientation of the M acedonian Revoloutionary M ovem ent. According to Vlahov, this proclam ation was prep ared d uring the course of conversations between A pril 1 and May 6, 1924. It was w ritten by Vlahov and signed personally by Caulev and Protogerov, w hile Aleksandrov, who left im m ediately before, authorized the other two to sign in his nam e.40 Vlahov la te r w rote th a t Caulev and Protogerov, under pressure from th e masses, w ere obliged to accept new principles governing the organization. 41 This is the famous proclam aiton of May 6, 1924, expressing IMROs com plete ideological reorientation. On exam ining this fundam ental historical experience, th e proclam ation states, IMRO has come to the final and firm conclusion that, in its revolutionary struggle for the freedom of Macedonia, it can only rely on the m ost progressive revolutionary m ovem ents in Europe, which are fighting against the im perialist policies of th eir governm ent and against the existing peace treaties for genuine self-determ ination for th eir own and other
88 Ibid., p. 58. 89 Balkanska lederacija, July 15, 1924, p. 2. 40 Ibid., Aug. 15, 1924, p. 38. 41 D. V lahov, Iz istorije m akedonskog naroda (From the H istory of the M acedonian People), Belgrade, 1950, p. 47.

190

peoples. 42 A t its T hird Congress, held in Ju n e 1926, the Com munist P arty of Yugoslavia, in a resolution on the political situation and the tasks of the P arty, greeted the foundation of a united IMRO. In view of the fact, the re solution declares, th a t the leadership of IMRO is serving the annexationist policy of the B ulgarian bourgeoisie, although it has recently been attem pting to effect a rapprochem ent w ith th e Serbian bourgeoisie, the Com m unist P a rty of Yugoslavia is obliged to take active m easures to prom ote the renew al of national-revolutionary organizations in M acedonia on the basis of the May m anifesto. 43 In this context, the m ost progressive revolutionary move m ents in E urope should be taken to m ean prim arily the Soviet Union, which was already active in the B alkans. A part from the Communists, the influence of the C om intern had extended to certain socialist groups: on Jan u a ry 15, 1925, a conference of th e B alkan Socialist F ederation was held which was attended by all those B alkan socialists who had declared them selves in favor of joining the T hird International. A t the congress held at V ukovar on Ju n e 2025, 1920, the Com m unist P a rty of Yugoslavia advocated the form ation of a single front m ade up by the revolutionary p ro letariat of the B alkan and D anube lands. 4 4 Here, too, the way had been prepared for the w ork of the United IMRO. In S eptem ber 1924, the B alkan Com munist Federation addressed a m anifesto to the population of Mace donia and all B alkan w orkers in which, in ter alia, it was stated: The B alkan Com m unist Federation, together w ith the Com m unist p arties of B ulgaria, Yugoslavia and Greece and the w orking population of the Balkans, will spare no assist ance to th e M acedonian people, nor w ill it ever harm the tru e solidarity of its [the M acedonian peoples] organizations. 45 Soon after this, Rakovsky, the Soviet envoy in London, in an interview w ith Dr. Stefan Steiner, defined the official Soviet attitu d e tow ard the M acedonian m ovem ent: The attitu d e of
41 Ibid., pp. 4849. 48 Istoriski arhiv KPJ. Tom II: Kongresi i zem aljske ko n leien cije KPJ od 1919 1937 (Historical Archives of the Communist P arty of Y ugoslavia. Vol. II: Congresses and N ational Conferences of the Party, 1919 1937), Belgrade, 1950, p. 109. 44 Ibid., p. 41. 48 B alkanska lederaci/a, Dec. 15, 1924, pp. 13031.

191

the Soviet governm ent tow ard the M acedonian m ovem ent has already been defined several tim es by the representatives of th a t governm ent. A short w hile ago, a t the London conference, I suggested to the B ritish governm ent, in the nam e of the Soviet governm ent, th a t the nationality problem in Yugo slavia and M acedonia be solved by prom oting the idea of a Yugoslav federation. We have no reasons for concealing the fact th at M acedonian leaders have several times requested our assistance in the struggle for the independence of th eir coun try . 46 S tating th a t Todor A leksandrov had him self appealed to him, Rakovsky said: W ith the greatest willingness we are, by diplom atic means, assisting the Macedonians, whose cause we reg ard as ju st. 47 In all its subsequent m anifestoes, appeals and articles, the group centered on the journals B alkanska federacija and M akedonsko delo placed its chief hopes on help from Moscow. M oreover, they saw in the USSR an ideal state which, as the resolution adopted by the C entral Com m ittee of the U nited IMRO in October 1926 says, had raised the principle of the self-determ ination of peoples and realized it on its own te rri tory, since it had guaranteed to all its peoples the right to m ake th eir own decisions freely and to decide th e ir destinies for them selves. 4 8 We oppressed B alkan peoples, w rote N. M atijevic, see, and m ust see, in the Soviet Union the only tru e friend of national freedom , for the Soviet Union has given complete national freedom to all the peoples of the form er tsarist em pire, both g reat and sm all. The collapse of the Soviet Union would m ean the victory of the im perialist powers, and for our B alkan nations, etern al slavery. 49 Sum m ing up these hopes in the USSR, Sider w rote, in his article B alkan Federation and the B alkan Peoples: The Soviet Union is interested in constructing a B alkan federation, not only because it is the center of w orld revolution, bu t above all because the B alkan region, w ith its existing regimes, constitutes an im portant sector on the anti-Soviet front. A federation of free B alkan peoples republics, having secured its im m unity from the attacks of international im perialism ,
47 48 48 Ibid., Oct. 15, 1924, p. 70. Ibid. M akedonsko delo, Oct. 25, 1926, p. 9. Balkanska federacija, Ju ly 15, 1929, p. 2677.

192

will become the n atu ra l ally of the Soviet U nion___ W hen .speaking of revolution in the Balkans, we m ust not assum e th at it w ill break out sim ultaneously in all the states con cerned. The liberation of the enslaved and oppressed B alkan peoples w ill be the result of a series of revolutions. 50 The en tire w ork of the U nited IMRO was conducted under the wing of Moscow. Its im m ediate goal was to provoke, w ith full-scale assistance from the USSR, a Com m unist revolution in the B alkans which should lead to the em ergence of a free Macedonia. The appeal addressed by the C entral Com mittee of this organization of the M acedonian people at the beginning of October 1927 declared: T here is today only one sure w ay of securing freedom for the M acedonian people, and th a t is revolution on a massive, national scale. 51 In the leading article of its first issue, M akedonsko delo declared its program to be the liberation and unification of the M acedonian people and its entry into a federation w ith the oth er B alkan nations. Its slogan is an independent Macedonia and B alkan federation. 52 M akedonsko delo energetically set about settling accounts w ith the Suprem e Com m ittee in B ulgaria and w ith the federalists in em igration: conspicuous are the efforts of the roup centered on this paper to rid itself of all possible rivals and secure recognition for itself alone as the tru e champion of M acedonian revolution. Pointing out th a t six papers w ere published by th e M acedonians in Sofia, tw o of them in French, and th a t M akedonsko saznanije, ap a rt from others in America, had come out in Vienna since Decem ber 1923, the paper states: All these papers, like those of the so-called M acedonian Political O rganization in America, are w ritten in one and the sam e sp iritth a t of B ulgarian nationalism , of the B ulgarian Suprem e Committee. They do not express the discontent and suffering of the M acedonian people. The a r ticle Which W ay? criticizes M acedonian em igres in B ulgaria: "These people w ere agents of the policy of the B ulgarian state with regard to Macedonia, and th at policy was the annexation of Macedonia by B ulgaria. These M acedonian w orkers have appeared in the M acedonian liberation m ovem ent as in"* M akedonsko delo, Ju ly 10, 1930, pp. 34. ' Ibid., Nov. 10, 1927, p. 4. ** Ibid., Sept. 10, 1925, p. 1.

193

strum ents of the aggressive policy of the B ulgarian govern m ent. 68 The U nited IMRO, which came into existence as a result of the m anifesto of M ay 6, 1924, consisted of the left wing of IMRO and m em bers of the form er Seres group, the emigr6 Com m unist Union, the Union of M acedonian Em igres and the Ilindan Em igre O rganization.54 We representatives of all the M acedonian groups, this m anifesto declares, hereby an nounce to the M acedonian people th at the unification of the scattered forces of th e M acedonian m ovem ent in a single M acedonian revolutionary fro n t is an accom plished fact. The conference for setting up a united revolutionary m ovement, which w as held in October, was attended by representatives of all th e organizations and groups in M acedonia th a t accept the principles set forth in the M anifesto. 55 In th e constitution th at was draw n up fo r the new orga nization, A rticle 1 stated th a t the organizations aim w as to fig h t fo r the establishm ent of a free and independent Mace donia w ithin the lim its of h er geographical and economic frontiers and to equip h er as an independent political entity fit to become a fully-flegded m em ber of a fu tu re B alkan fed eratio n . 56 A rticle 3 stated th at the organization should establish close contact w ith all national-revolutionary and social-revolutionary organizations and parties in the B alkans which su p port th e principle of the self-determ ination of peoples and which are prepared to collaborate in the task of tu rn in g M acedonia into an independent political en tity . Ac cording to A rticle 4, the new M acedonian state was to be founded upon com plete national, political and cultural equal ity for all nationalities living in M acedonia. 57 In his book Izdajnici m akedonske stvari (B etrayers of the M acedonian Cause), published by the organizations C entral Committee, D. Vlahov states th a t the organization counted on the assistance of all revolutionary bodies in the B alkans, and especially on the m oral, m aterial and political support of the
83 Ibid., pp. 23. M Ibid., April 10, 1926, p. 3. Cf. B alkanska federacija, Dec. 1, 1926, p. 1046. ** Balkanska federacija, Dec. 1, 1926, p. 1046. * Ibid. 11 Ibid.

194

IIS.SU."5 1 1 The struggle of the oppressed B alkan peoples, ilri larrd the m anifesto issued by the C entral Com mittee of Hit' organization at the tim e of its foundation, is common to nil o f them. These peoples are prepared to aid w ith all the i i m ' j u i h in th eir pow er the struggle of the M acedonian people f o r f r o o national self-determ ination, ju st as the M acedonian p e o p le , for its part, is prepared to lend its w hole-hearted m i p p o r t to th eir struggle fo r national liberation. 59 It was this idea of collaboration betw een all the revo lutionary groups in the B alkans th a t gave b irth to the B alkan Com m ittee of N ational-R evolutionary Organizations, em brac ing the Com m ittee for the L iberation of Kosovo, the Com m ittee of the A lbanian O rganization for N ational L iberation and the C entral Com m ittee of the D obruja R evolutionary Organization.*0 These w ere la te r joined by the R evolutionary C om mittee of W estern Thrace.8 1 The leading article of Bal kanska federacija for A ugust 20, 1930, entitled The P ath of th r Kosovo R evolutionary C om m ittee, stated th a t this com m ittee had established close contact w ith certain B alkan national-revolutionary organizations which w ere fighting the sam e oppressors. In A pril 1927, the Kosovo and A lbanian com m ittees issued a jo in t declaration in which the form er defined its attitu d e tow ard the opponents of freedom for the A lbanians of A lbania and Kosovo. This declaration was sign ed, on behalf of the A lbanian com m ittee, by F an S. Noli, Lano Borshi, Dr. O m er Nishani, K onstantin B oshnjak, Dr. Nush N ushati and C aptain Azis Cami, and, on behalf of the Kosovo committee, by B edri Pejani, K iam il Balia and M ajor Ibrahim Jakova. B edri P ejani subsequently joined K ing Zogu.82 Later, the Kosovo com m ittee associated itself w ith the other B alkan revolutionary organizations to form th e B alkan C om m ittee.8 S M em oranda w ere subm itted by the B alkan Com mittee to various in ternational bodies, seeking the liberation of Mace donia and of the oth er national groups represented on it. One such m em orandum was subm itted to the T hird Congress of
* * M akedonsko delo, Sept. 10, 1927, p. 1. Balkanska federacija, Dec. 1, 1926, p. 1046. Ibid., Nov. 1, 1929, p. 2721. Ibid. Ibid., Aug. 20, 1930, pp. 299394. Ibid., Ju n e 1, 1927, and Aug. 20, 1930, p. 2994.

195

N ational M inorities held at Geneva in 1927. Like the rest, this docum ent sought the creation of a federation of B alkan re publics, em phasizing th at this offered the only possible solu tion of national disputes in the Peninsula: This federation, the m em orandum stated, will contribute to peace, progress and the advancem ent of the peoples of the Peninsula, and will represent a pow erful force capable of resisting the aspirations of the W estern European im perialist powers, which, by th eir B alkan policy, are now preparing for a fu tu re w a r. 84 In O ctober 1928, afte r the unfortunate incident in the B elgrade N ational Assembly, the B alkan Com m ittee appealed to the C roatian people and the population n o rth of the Danube and Sava rivers to cut off all relations w ith Belgrade. The B elgrade p arliam en t, said the appeal, should no longer legislate for you. Your and our representatives can only en ter a central body th at shall represent a union of nationally free states. ** On O ctober 3, 1929, the B alkan Com m ittee signed an appeal addressed to the chairm an of the International Peace Con gress th at was being held in Athens. In te r alia, this appeal declared: The oppressed B alkan peoples and national m inorities are taking th e ir cause of liberation into th eir own hands, and, side by side w ith the oppressed masses of w orkers of th e ruling nations, are waging a common struggle by re volutionary m eansthe only m eans in the B alkans of fighting for their com plete liberation from fascist dictatorship and national oppression. ' In th e sam e year, the n ational-revolutionary organizations of the B alkans issued an appeal against w h at they described as terro rism in Yugoslavia: the people w ere openly called upon to revolt against the authority of the state. F o r this purpose, the appeal stated, w e call upon the oppressed masses to elect from among th eir own ranks com m ittees for carrying on the struggle. In every tow n and village, how ever sm all, such com m ittees m ust be set up, consisting of peasants and w orkers bent on revolution and of honest and progressive m em ber of the intelligentsia. 67
64 45 " M akedonsko delo, Sept. 10, 1927, p. 14. Ibid., Nov. 10, 1928, p. 2. Balkanska iederacija, Nov. 1, 1929, p. 2721. Ibid., Dec. 1, 1929, p. 2740.

196

To m ark the second anniversary of the regim e set up by A lexander on Jan u a ry 6, 1929, the B alkan Com m ittee issued IIn "M anifesto to the Enslaved Peoples of Yugoslavia. The dictatorship, says this m anifesto, has deprived all the nonSirbian peoples of th eir national nam e and character. It has illNNolved all political organizations, all national associations mid nil cultural, economic and sports societies.. . . If the (renter Serbian im perialists involve you in a w ar w ith the Soviet Union, the one state th a t has given complete freedom 10 all peoples, resist this w ar and tu rn your arm s against the (ire n te r Serbian im perialists. 68 At the end of 1931, the B alkan Committee issued a protest n^iilnst terrorism and persecution of M acedonian revolution1 1ry groups in B ulgaria. This protest w as directed exclusively against Ivan-V anca M ihailov and his group, w ith reference to whom it was stated: This gang has nothing in common w ith (he m ovem ent to liberate the M acedonian population. On the cotnrary, as hirelings of the B ulgars who are bent on revenge, It is terrorizing and killing all progressive and m ilitant rlom ants in the M acedonian liberation m ovem ent, whose ideal In an independent Macedonia and a B alkan federation. 69 In May 1932, the B alkan Com mittee once m ore issued a declara tion attacking M ihailov, alleging th a t he had gathered about him self a gang of m urderers and violators of th eir own people, and th at he was the hireling of reactionary and fascist elem ents in B ulgaria and an agent of im perialism and counterrevolution. 70 W hen the great Sokol rally was due to be held in P rague In 1932, th e M acedonian yo u th of Yugoslavia issued an appeal for a boycott of the rally. This appeal, which a t the Name tim e w as a call for revolution and the destruction of Yugoslavia, stated: "Only by fighting B alkan and international Im perialism , in concert w ith the revolutionary w orkers and peasants of the w orld and w ith the support of the Soviet Unionth e only country in which th ere is n eith er national nor social persecutioncan we achieve the liberation of Mace-

Ibid., Jan. 5, 1931, p. 3086. M akedonsko delo, Dec. 10, 1931, p. 3. Ibid., M ay 10, 1932, p. 5.

197

donia and the creation of a federation of free B alkan peoples. 71 A m anifesto addressed by the C entral Com mittee of the United IMRO to the M acedonians under G reek rule declared: The Com m unist P arty has been fighting, and con tinues to fight, fo r th e defense of the enslaved M acedonian population. I t has inscribed on its banner the m otto The rig h t of the M acedonian people to self-determ ination, and a single and independent M acedonia. 72 In May of the sam e year, D. Vlahov, in his article Revo lu tion ary F erm entation in M acedonia, conjured up a picture of im m inent revolution in Yugoslavia, in which the oppressed m asses of Yugoslavia, in alliance w ith the o ther B alkan coun tries and w ith the pow erful support of all revolutionary ele m ents outside the B alkans, would cast off the bonds of slavery and set up th eir own regim ethe regim e of th e w ork ing masses of the B alkan P eninsula. 73

From the m om ent of its foundation, the Com m unist P a rty of Yugoslavia had w orked for a Com m unist revolution in Yugoslavia, in which the M acedonian question was to play a significant part. H am pered by internal disorganization and the fact th a t its standing in Moscow w as not particularly high, it failed, during the first years of its existence, to w ork out a definite policy of its own, p articu larly w ith regard to the M acedonian question, its attitu d e tow ard which was dictated by the C om intern and the B alkan Com munist F ederation. Its Serbian section, however, which had sprung from the Serbian Social-Dem ocratic P arty, had adopted a de finite attitu d e on this question which coincided, in fact, w ith th a t of E uropean socialism, which was less concerned w ith reality than w ith its own fixed theories: for the socialists of Europe, as for those of Serbia, the liberation of the B alkan peoples was of in tere st only insofar as it im proved the position of the p ro letariat and the prospects of the class war. N ational independence, w rote R a d n iike novine in 1912, is an essential principle of the class struggle. A nation m ust be
71 Ibid., Ju ly 25, 1932, p. 2. 7i Ibid., Sept. 25, 1932, pp. 12. 75 Ibid., M ay 10, 1932, pp. 12.

198

fire In every respect if the p ro leta riat intends to offer deli'i mlmsl resistance to its social or class enem y. 74 The Serbian socialists w ere opposed to the idea th at Mace1 1<inlii Nhould be assigned eith er to Serbia or to B ulgariastill m o r e , th at it should pass to Greece: they w ere equally detirm ln ed th at it should no t be divided am ong these three A tH l<>N .,s As fo r us prim itive B alkan socialists, they said, "mine of us, w ith the exception of the broadm inded Bulgars, U In favor eith er of so-called balance of pow er or of any kind o f hegemony in th e B alkans: all we w an t is B alkan unity, Ilie economic, cu ltu ral and political unification of all parts of the B alkans in a w onderful federation of dem ocratic re publics, w ith Macedonia as an equal and autonom ous m em ber, f o r this alone can g uarantee its m em bers free developm ent of t h e i r national characteristics and com plete political and eco nomic independence for the w hole. 78 In a discussion w ith G. K. Rakovsky, Popovic visualized thin autonom ous M acedonia, not as an entirely independent Mato, but m erely as a m em ber enjoying equal rights in a B al kan federation. For him, it was absurd th a t Macedonia should become a new and independent state. T he B alkan people Itavo suffered and still are suffering from th eir lack of unity. The creation of a M acedonian state w ould m erely m ean one .itep fu rth e r into m edieval particularism , which is in com plete opposition to the aspirations and needs of the new e ra. 77 Sim a Markovi6, one of the best M arxist theoreticians among the firs t generation of S erbian Communists, also failed to arriv e at a solution of the problem . A t the end of his book Nacionalno pitanje u svetlosti m arksizm a (The N ational Ques tion in the L ight of M arxism), he pointed out th at the peace treaty signed in B ucharest in 1913 had divided the region into
74 As quoted in Istoriski arhiv KPJ. Tom I: S ocija listiiki pokret ii Srbljl, 1900 1919 (Historical Archives of th e Communist P arty of Yugoslavia. Vol. I: The Socialist M ovem ent in Serbia, 1900 1919), Belgrade, 1950, p. 238. Ibid., p. 240. DuSan Popovid, O ko M akedonije (Around M acedonia), Izabranl splsi (Selected W ritings), Belgrade, 1951, p. 454. 77 DuSan Popovid, M akedonsko p itan je (The M acedonian Q ues tion), Izabrani splsl, p. 458.

199

three p artsSerbian, B ulgarian and Greek. M arkovic also saw a solution of the question in the form ation of a union of B alkan peoples, of which an autonom ous M acedonia would be a full m em ber w ihtin the frontiers determ ined by a ple biscite. 78 It is significant th a t M arkovic now here speaks of a sep arate M acedonian people. Instead, he emphasizes th at the ethnic hotch-potch of Macedonia greatly com plicates the M acedonian question. This question will never be solved if we approach it solely w ith the interests of one or another B alkan people in mind. It can only be solved when we consider the in terests of all the B alkan peoples, united in a single economic and political union founded upon the absolute equality of rig h ts of all the nations and national groups living in the B alkans. 7 A t the elections for the C onstituent Assem bly of the K ing dom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenesthe first elections to be held a fte r the co untrys unificationth irty -th ree percent of the votes cast in Yugoslav Macedonia w ere for the Com m unist P a rty of Yugoslavia. It is em phasized by researchers th at these votes w ere cast, not by people who w ere genuinely Com m unistically inclined, b u t by people who had been m isled.80 M oreover, the traces of form er socialist activity still survived, p articu larly am ong the urb an population, which was now understandably oriented tow ard the Yugoslav Com m unists. The latter, how ever, so fa r as m ay be judged from m aterials already published, seem for some tim e to have been unable to m ake up th eir m inds on the M acedonian question. Right up to 1923, there is no evidence w hatever concerning th eir attitu d e: then, at its third national conference, held in D ecem ber of th at y ear in Belgrade, the Com munist P a rty of Yugoslavia, und er the influence of the C om intern ra th e r than of its own accord, advanced a m ore o r less definite policy. In P arag rap h 8 of its resolution on the nationality question, it em phasizes th at none of the neighboring states has a m ajor ity in Macedonia and th a t the struggle for its independence
79 Sima M arkovic, Nacionafno pitanje u svetlo sti m arksizm a (The N ational Q uestion in the Light of M arxism), Belgrade, 1923, p. 123. 7 Ibid., p. 124. e* A dam B. Ulam, Titoism and the Cominiorm, H arvard U niversi ty Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1952, p. 8.

200

rilinulri be waged, in the first place, by the M acedonian lii'iiNiints, who m ust unite w ith the w orkers to form a govern ment of w orkers and peasants for an independent M acedonia, which would voluntarily en ter a federation of independent Mnlknn republics.8 The im portance of this conference lies in its adoption of n special resolution on the M acedonian and T hracian question, liy which the p arty acknowledged for the first tim e the existence of a M acedonian national question. 82 This reHiilution advocated the form ation of a single and autonom ous M acedonia, 83 which should unite w ith the o th er B alkan lands to form a federative republic, since only this could "secure peace, independence and freedom of developm ent for all the B alkan lands." Such a federation was to be a vo luntary union of independent B alkan republics, num bering among its m em bers the republics of Macedonia and T hrace. 84 The Independent W orkers P a rty of Yugoslavia, a legally recognized w ing of the banned Yugoslav Com munist P arty, nhowed som ew hat g reater reserve in its resolutions adopted on A pril 1314, 1924, in defining its attitu d e tow ard the Macedonian question. The gist of these resolutions w as th a t the p arty w ould develop the greatest activity am ong the w orking m asses of Macedonia, entering into the closest pos sible contact w ith them by m eans of propaganda and the press, and assist th eir struggle for liberation. 85 In its re solution on the nationality question in Yugoslavia, the national conference of this p arty was much fran k er in defining its uttitude. In view of the preceding, this resolution states, "it is the duty of the P arty to organize the w orking masses of the oppressed peoples and openly lead a common struggle for th eir rig h t of secession, i. e., to assist the m ovem ent of the oppressed peoples w ith the object of form ing independent states of C roatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and M ontenegro, and of lib erating th e A lbanians. 86 In P oint 5 of the P latform of the W orkers and P easants Bloc, the p arty dem anded
Istoriski arhiv KPJ. Tom II: Kongresi i zem aljske konlerencije od 1919 1937, p. 77. ** Ibid., p. 474, footnote 13. M Ibid., p. 74. Ibid., pp. 75 and 77. Ibid., p. 294. M Ibid., p. 339.

201

com plete recognition of the right of all the oppressed peoples of Yugoslavia to political independence and freedom , and nam ed as its objective independent republics of C roatia, Slo venia, Macedonia and M ontenegro and freedom for the Al banian people. 87 D uring the sam e year, K osta Novakovic, a prom inent S erbian Communist, published his brochure Mace donia for the M acedonians, and Land for the P easan ts, which w as confiscated, he him self being sentenced to six m onths im prisonm ent.88 In Ju n e 1924, the Com intern, in P o in t 7 of its resolution on the nationality question in Yugoslavia, unequivocally dem and ed th e destruction of Yugoslavia as a state. According to the Com intern, which was apparently dissatisfied w ith the attitu d e h itherto of th e Com munist P a rty of Yugoslavia on the M acedonian question, the general slogan of the rig h t of peoples to self-determ ination, advanced by the Com munist P arty of Yugoslavia, m u st be presented as the secession of Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia from Yugoslavia and th eir establishm ent as independent republics. 88 The T hird Congress of the Com m unist P arty of Yugo slavia, held in Ju n e 1926 in Vienna, sharply criticized the w ork of the p arty on the nationality and ag rarian questions in M acedonia, and dem anded th at m ore energetic m easures be taken. In a resolution on the political situation, it was stated th a t the p arty m ust lend active assistance to all nationalrevolutionary m ovem ents w ith the object of hastening the collapse of capitalism and the victory of proletarian revo lution. . . . The P arty m ust actively prom ote the revival of national-revolutionary organizations in Macedonia on the basis of th e May M anifesto [of 1924]. 90 This congress m ade no new contribution to the p a rty s policy on the M acedonian question. One gets the im pression th at the p arty was obliged to subordinate its policy on this question to the w ill and aims of the C om intern: m ore and m ore, it was becoming the instrum ent of the C om intern and
87 Balkanska federacija, Dec. 15, 1924, p. 134. 88 M akedonsko delo, Jan. 25, 1927. 89 Istoriski arhiv PKJ. Tom 11: Kongresi i zem aljske konterencije PKJ od 1919 1937, p. 421. 90 Ibid., p. 109.

202

 fusing to be an independent factor capable of influencing llu* course of events. In a resolution adopted by the congress (in the nationality question, the p arty dem anded a federation til w orkers and peasnts republics in the Balkans, since only th f voluntary union of organized peoples as w orkers and |)i'n,simts states could bring about a genuine solution of the nationality question. The P arty w ill m eanw hile constantly emphasize th at the road to a solution of the nationality ques tion lies in a revolutionary struggle of the masses of w orkers mid peasants directed at destroying capitalism and establish ing w orkers and peasants republics. 9 1 The y ea r 1927 saw no new developm ents in the policy of l In* Yugoslav Com m unists on the subject of M acedonia. In Miiy of th a t year, K osta Novakovic published an article on Macedonia and the B alkans in which he p u t the problem as follows: This is how we Com munists look a t the B alkan proliU m: the M acedonian question is the m ost im portant elem ent In the B alkan problem , so th a t the solution of the form er is n prerequisite fo r the solution of the la tte r___ We Yugoslav Communists extend a brotherly hand to all B alkan revo lutionaries who aspire to the liberation of th eir peoples and iiro fighting to this end. 92 W hen the attem pt w as m ade on the life of G eneral KovaSevic, regional com m ittees of the Communist P a rty of Yugoslavia and the Union of Com munist Youth of Yugoslavia issued a m anifesto stating: The Com m unist P a rty of Yugoslavia would welcome and assist any struggle for the liberation of the enslaved peoples of Yugo slavia, p articu larly the liberation of the M acedonian people, which is living in the greatest h ardship___ A rm ed rebellion und civil w arthese are the m eans by which M acedonia w ill acquire h er national freedom . U ntil th a t m om ent comes, she m ust work on organizing the masses and preparing them for ii bloody conflict. In this way, she w ill become united, instead of being divided among Yugoslavia, B ulgaria and Greece. Only the creation of a B alkan federation em bracing Mace donia as a free state enjoying full m em bership w ill solve the Macedonian national question. 93
' Ibid., p. 112. * M akedonsko delo, May 10, 1927, p. 10. Ibid., N ov. 25, 1927, p. 4.

203

In A ugust 1928, S erbian Com m unist students issued an appeal against terro rism in Macedonia. Bloody experience has tau g h t the peoples of M acedonia, they said, th a t they cannot achieve full national freedom so long as the present B alkan states ru le over them . Hence the form ation among the masses of a Macedonian ideology tending tow ard the establish m ent of a single and entirely independent M acedonia in which all nationalities will enjoy com plete equality of rig h ts. 84 Such was the atm osphere w hen the F ourth Congress of the Yugoslav Com m unist P arty was held at Dresden in October 1928. A t this congress, a g reat deal w as said about the socalled S erbianization of Macedonia, which was to serve as a strategic base for the hegem ony of the G reater Serbian bourgeoisie and to extend the national springboard of this bourgeoisie for the im plem entation of its hegem onistic policy against the oth er nations of Y ugoslavia. 9 5 A t this congress, the Yugoslav Com m unist P a rty defined its attitu d e tow ard the question of M acedonias secession from Yugoslavia much m ore clearly than it had done hitherto. A resolution on the economic and political situation in Yugo slavia and the tasks of the p arty stated: The P a rty affirm s the solidarity of the revolutionary w orkers and peasants of the o ther nations of Yugoslavia, particu larly of Serbia, w ith the M acedonian national-revolutionary m ovem ent which has been revived in the form of the United IMRO, and calls upon the w orking class to lend w holehearted assistance to the struggle for an independent and united M acedonia. 88 This m ay be said to have rem ained the p a rty s attitu d e tow ard the M acedonian question. The events of Ja n u a ry 6, 1929, in Yugoslavia th rew the p arty out of its rut, and its leaders w ere th ere after too preoccupied to think of Mace donia. Even eight years later, at the F ourth N ational Con ference, held a t L ju bljana in Decem ber 1936, nothing new w as said. In connection w ith the M acedonian question, it was m erely stated th at the revolutionary struggle should be con94 Balkanska lederacija, Aug. 1, 1928, p. 2090. 5 Istoriski arhiv PKJ. Tom 11: Kongresi i zem aljske konterencije PKJ od 1919 1937, p. 153. 98 Ibid., p. 163.

204

limn'd, since it should be a struggle for the form ation of a w orkers and peasants Soviet regim e, 97 According to Elisabeth B arker, this silence of the Yugofilnv Com munist P a rty on the subject of Macedonia m ay have I...... duo to a tacit abandonm ent of the anti-V ersailles stand mi Macedonia in p a rtic u la r or Yugoslavia in general. N ational M < ti 11st G erm any had become the chief spokesm an of the movement for revising the Versailles Treaty, and since she vvie. lit th at tim e expressly hostile tow ard the Soviets, the ( iim lnlcrn no longer considered it expedient to force a te rriI< 11 in I dism em berm ent of Y ugoslavia.98 Talk of the need for u Com munist revolution in the B alkans also ceased. At a m eeting held in Moscow in the sum m er of 1936, the C entral Com m ittee of the Yugoslav Com m unist P a rty adopted a re solution explaining its change of tactics in the nationality i|iieMtion by the increased aggressiveness of the fascist and Im perialist powers, which w ere anxious to exploit the national m ovem ents in the interests of w ar and th eir own lilan.s for aggrandizem ent. 99 It was fu rth e r stated th at these (<m oderations prom pted the Com m unist P a rty of Yugoslavia ht change its tactics in the nationality question w ithout abandoning th e principle of the rig h t of all peoples to selfilrlerm ination, including secession. The P arty opposes the breaking up of the territo ry at present occupied by the state ill Yugoslavia, since it aims at achieving a reorganization of Hint state by peaceful means, on a basis of national equality o f rights. In the present circum stances, any m ovem ent aim ed a I the secession of th e oppressed peoples would only assist the Niscist im perialists and th eir w arlike aim s. 100 T hat this was indeed m erely a change of tactics and not an abandonm ent of u ltim ate aims w ith regard to M acedonia was dem onstrated by the course of events during and afte r World W ar II. The Com m unist P arty of Yugoslavia consistent ly m aintained its an ti-S erbian positions in the M acedonian question. On O ctober 12, 1945, M ilovan Djilas stated at Skoplje: O ur p a rty and its C entral Committee, not only
Ibid., p. 262. " Elisabeth Barker, op. cit., p. 74. M laloriski arhiv PKJ. Tom 11; Kongresi i zem aljske konierencije PKJ od 1910 1037, p. 399. " Ibid.

205

during the early days of th e struggle, bu t also in the arduous fig h t against G reater Serbian reactionary hegem onistic re gimes, em blazoned on its banners the freedom and rights of the M acedonian people: it has rem ained, and w ill rem ain, tru e to this slogan___ In the struggle fo r the rights of the Mace donian people, the P a rty has given num berless victim s.

206

THE MACEDONIAN QUESTION DURING AND AFTER WORLD WAR II The collapse of Yugoslavia in A pril 1941 enabled B ulgaria In realize h e r old am bitionth at of once m ore annexing Macedonia. W hat she had failed to attain in 1915 had now Iwon achieved: she had united all three p arts of the region under h er control. We do not know w hether ruling circles in Bulgaria believed th at this annexation would prove p er m anent: w e only know th a t the C entral Com m ittee of the Bul garian W orkers (Communist) P arty , tru e to its traditional attitu d e on the M acedonian question, accepted the occupation of Yugoslav and G reek M acedonia as signifying th eir libera tion. People spoke of the unification of the B ulgarian lands. In conform ity w ith the mood of the masses, the B ulgarian W orkers P a rty launched the slogan one te rrito ry one p arty , signifying th a t the Com m unist P a rty of Macedonia, which at th e tim e w as w eak in respect of both organization and personnel, w as to subm it to the B ulgarian W orkers P a rty ( ' M i t r a l Committee. M etodi (C harles) Satorov, then secretary of the C entral Com m ittee of the M acedonian Communist Iarty, had been pro-B ulgarian inclined even before the war. In un agreem ent w ith the C entral Com mittee of the B ulgarian W orkers P arty , he expressed the view th at the region had been liberated and th a t the M acedonian Com m unist P a rty nhould be incorporated in th e B ulgarian.1 A part from his own personal inclinations, Satorov m ay liavo been prom pted to take this standpoint by a letter, pub lished in the spring of 1941, from Todor Pavlov, in which the latter argued th a t the M acedonians had no separate ethnic Identity and had felt them selves to be B ulgars throughout Ihelr history. In spite of th ree summonses issued by th e C entral Com m ittee of the Yugoslav Com m unist P a rty during
1 Pregled narodno-oslobodila6kog rata u M akedoniji, 1941 44' (Hnvlow of the W ar of N ational Liberation in M acedonia, 194144), |iiil)(l. by th e H istorical Institute of th e Yugoslav Army, Belgrade,.

ID M ), p. 8.
207

the course of May 1941, Satorov refused to go to B elgrade for conversations, and placed him self a t the orders of P e ta r Bog danov, who had been sent to Skoplje as a delegate of the B ulgarian p a rty s C entral Com m ittee to the C entral Com m ittee of the M acedonian Com m unist P arty. The q u arrel over Macedonia had begun to assum e the aspect of a q uarrel betw een the C entral Com mittees of the Yugoslav and B ulgarian C om m unist P arties over the question w hether th e annexation of M acedonia by B ulgaria could be regarded as a solution of the M acedonian question. The ques tion to whom the M acedonian Com m unist P a rty owed al legiance had receded into the background. The Yugoslavs w ere relu ctan t to recognize the claims of the B ulgars and resisted them. W hen Satorov ignored the sum m ons to go to Belgrade, the Yugoslav p arty sent L azar KoliSevski and D ragan Pavlovic to Macedonia to restore order in the p arty organization. It is significant th a t m ost of the M acedonian Com munist P a rty s leaders rem ained faithful to the Yugoslavs, and w ere reluctan t to join Satorov. Kolievski did not find it easy to get rid of Satorov, who was backed by the B ulgarian p a rty s C entral Com mittee and, to a certain extent, by the occupying forces, to whom a t any m om ent he m ight be betrayed. A t the beginning of Novem ber 1941, this is, in fact, w hat happened: he was arrested and deported to B ulgaria, bu t not before he had gathered round him self the pro-Y ugoslav elem ents in the M acedonian p arty and form ed a new leadership from am ong th eir ranks. On Ju n e 25, 1941, the Yugoslav p arty expelled Satorov and at the sam e tim e sent a le tte r containing instructions to m em bers of the M acedonian Com m unist P arty . The B ulgarian p a rty s C entral Com m ittee was obliged to w ithdraw Satorov from M acedonia and appoint him secretary of the Sofia district com m ittee.2 W ith this, the first phase in the q u arrel over the allegiance of the M acedonian Com m unist P a rty came to an end, to be im m ediately followed by the second phase. A fter the a rrest of Kolisevski, the post of secretary to the C entral Com mittee of the M acedonian p arty was given, w ith the consent of D ra* Ibid., p. 12.

208

Mill) Pnvlovi6, to Bane A ndrejev, who was even a t th a t stage liHlcved to be in sym pathy w ith the B ulgarian cause. He was In touch w ith B ojan B ulgarjanov, successor to P e ta r Bogilunov. However th at m ay be, it is a fact th a t the M acedonian party was still in a state of chaos. M entioning this, Boris ("C rni) V ukm irovit, in a report dated May 23, 1932, stated: " Macedonia was disunited, and they sought to establish con tact through Sdipnija [Albania]. We got in touch w ith the Skoplje organization, which had become disrupted b u t is now restored to o rd er. 3 In his report of A ugust 21, 1942, to the Yugoslav p a rty s C entral Committee, Vukm irovi6 stated w ith tegard to Macedonia: The situation th ere is unbelievably difficult. T here have been constant and u n in terru p ted dis turbances. People have behaved in cow ardly fashion, and the officer in command of headquarters (Vasilije Lekovii) has confessed everything. Ceda Milanovi6, who is one of the head q u arters staff, blew the gaff w ithout any pressure being applied at a l l .. . . The Regional Com mittee [i. e., the Mace donian C entral Committee], form ed a fte r the d ep artu re of the IYugoslav] C entral Com m ittee delegate, has proved to be weak and unequal to events. It didnt know how to organize people. F our or five have been sim ply rem oved from th eir Jobs. The slogan A Soviet M acedonia rem ained the order of the day. All the P arty m en w ere throw n into partisan units, and so, w ith the destruction of these units, the P arty organiza tions (especially those of Bitolj and Prilep) w ere also broken up. The best men have perished. A bout th irty have been killed or wounded, including two m em bers of the Regional Com m ittee, which has been superseded by a tem porary one. P a rty organizations are now being stabilized: people in them are young and have some esprit de corps. They have sent one m an to Serbia. They are also trying to get in touch w ith you through th e B ulgarian C entral Committee, and through this ehnnnel have dispatched a detailed report. Five p artisan units have been form ed at Veles, P rilep, Bitolj, PreSevo and Resan. You can get in touch w ith them through PreSevo and also through us. 4

* From the secret archives of the C entral Com mittee of the Com munist Party of Yugoslavia.

4 Ibid.
209

In ord er to settle as soon as possible the q u arrel as to who should control the M acedonian C entral Committee, Tito ap pealed directly to the Com intern. In August, the C om intern approved the views and proposals of com rade Tito and the C entral Com m ittee of the Com m unist P arty of Yugoslavia, and, on this basis, adopted a resolution condem ning the ir responsible attem pt of the C entral Com mittee of the B ul g arian W orkers P a rty to annex the M acedonian P a rty or ganization and retu rn in g this organization to the Com munist P a rty of Y ugoslavia. 6 The B ulgarian W orkers P a rty subm itted to this decision of th e Com intern. W hether it did so unreservedly and w ithout some arrire-pens6e, it is difficult to say: it is certainly significant th at no m ention is m ade of Macedonia in the p lat form of the B ulgarian P atriotic F ront issued on Ju ly 17, 1942. In th e program approved in Decem ber 1943, w e find m erely: The only satisfactory solution is a united and independent M acedonia.. . . T here should be no question of annexation by any B alkan state w h atev er. 6 This program was preceded by an agreem ent betw een the Com m unist parties of B ulgaria and Greece, signed on Ju ly 12, 1943, at P e tri5, by which both bound them selves to w ork for the establishm ent of a union of B alkan soviet republics. This agreem ent was signed by J. Joanides for the G reek p arty and by D ushan D raganoff fo r the B ulgarian.7 F. A. Voigt correctly states th a t the purpose of this agreem ent w as to set up a B alkan federal soviet state stretching to the B osphorus and D ardanelles and directly subordinate to the Soviet Union. The separation of M acedonia from Greece and establishm ent of a M acedonian republic em bracing p arts of B ulgaria and Yugo slavia would have m eant the realization in large p a rt of the Com m unist plans of the tim e and was, indeed, th e chief aim of R ussian policy in southeastern Europe.8

***
5 Pregled narodno-oslobodilaikog rata u M akedonijl, 194144, p. 11. * Polllika, Belgrade, Ju ly 24, 1948. 1 F. A. Voigt, Pax Brilannlca, London, 1949, p. 395. 8 F. A. Voigt, The Battle of Konits, The N ineteenth C entury and A lter, Feb. 1948.

210

A . far as is at present known, the C entral Com m ittee of lln* Utilitarian W orkers P arty , afte r the intervention of the i 'iiiitlntcrn, raised no m ore obstacles in the path of the YugoImv party C entral Com m ittee in Macedonia. T he very fact Hull (ieorgi D im itrov then occupied a high position in the ninlritern may have exerted a sobering influence on the B ui lt" i Inn Commuinsts. How the la tte r w ere affected by the ( iiininterns decision is revealed in a letter, unfortunately undated, from the B ulgarian to the Yugoslav C entral ComuilI(< < , w ritten in reply to a le tte r of O ctober 6, 1942. G eneral ly 'ipcnking, this letter is an attem pt to justify the treatm en t nt Ihi' Macedonian Com munist P arty . A fter pointing out th at I In- B ulgarian party, im m ediately afte r the w ar, established 1 'niilnct w ith certain m em bers of the M acedonian party, the letter goes on: A t th a t time, a representative of the Maceilmilmi C entral Com m ittee came to us w ith a report th a t the Y u k i i s I u v C entral Com m ittee had decided to allow the Mace donian organization to establish organizational and political u-liillons w ith the B ulgarian p a rty and to p u t itself under the hitler's leadership___ U ntil the question w as definitely m Itlod, we decided to give the M acedonian com m ittee a conm drnible degree of autonom y and to collaborate w ith it on tin' broadest possible basis, retaining only a certain degree of political control. It was agreed th a t the M acedonian organizalum propose the publication of its ow n organ as the auto nomous W orkers P a rty of M acedonia. We w ere greatly sur prised when we le a rn t subsequently th a t the Yugoslav C entral Com m ittee had not decided to allow the union of the Mace donian organization and our party, th a t the Com mittee was opposed to such a union, th at this had led to a strained and com pletely abnorm al situation w ithin the M acedonian orKimlzution, th at a conflict had arisen betw een the M acedonian com m ittee and y our representative and th a t this had led to a schism in the organization, to m utual expulsions and the em ergence of parallel com m ittees. 9 Proceeding to the situation in Macedonia, the le tte r says: "The early illusions entertained in large m easure by the Mace donian population are disappearing, the revolt against the Bulgarian adm inistration is grow ing daily, and favorable con

From the secret archives of the Central Committee of the Commuiiiit Party of Yugoslavia.
211

ditions are being created for a rebellion against the B ulgarian au th o rities___ N aturally, there are places in Macedonia (Kumanovo, and in p a rt also Skoplje) w here the population is ready to wage an active struggle against all aggressors, in cluding B ulgarian. Elsewhere, it is not prepared for such a decisive struggle, fo r which it m ust be prepared by large-scale political propaganda and by a cam paign for the protection of its im m ediate political and economic interests from the B ulgarian authorities: only by gradually involving the Mace donian people in a decisive struggle by w ay of sabotage and diversionary acts against the occupying forces can favorable conditions for a large-scale arm ed conflict be created. 10 The le tte r devotes no m ore th an a few words to the funda m ental problem the subject of the q uarrel betw een the two C entral Committees: the B ulgarian com m ittee considers the q u arrel to be already solved and approves the Yugoslav p a rty s policy of arm ed rebellion, since it has the support of th e C om intern.1 1 From the secret archives of the Yugoslav Com m unist P a r ty s C entral Committee, we learn th at relations in 1942 betw een it and the B ulgarian Communists w ere good, al though it w as im possible for them to become cordial. The B ulgarian Com m unists request th at a representative be sent by the Yugoslav C entral Com m ittee proved to be still im practicable. A letter from the Yugoslav to the B ulgarian C entral Com m ittee dated March 10, 1942, sets fo rth the situa tion as it was in the early p a rt of this year. A m eeting betw een your and our representative w ill be possible through th e M acedonian and Serbian regional committees, which have received detailed instructions on this subject. In view of its urgency and im portance, we think th at this m eeting will soon take place. 1 2 It is not clear who was the Yugoslav p arty C entral Com m ittees rep resen tativ e before the M acedonian Regional Com m ittee. When D ragan Pavlovic was w ithdraw n from Mace donia, his place was taken by D obrivoje (Bobi) Radosavljevi6. According to L azar Mojsov, Radosavljevi6 did not arrive
1 0 Ibid. 1 1 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 21 2

lii Muccdonia until August 1942.1 8 We have here a delegate lnun Albania, wrote Tito to Dr. Blagoje (Mihajlo) Nekovi6 im October 23, 1942. Through him we have sent plenty of iimlii'ial, not only to the Albanian Communist Party, but also hi M/icedonia. It is good that Bobi has been sent there. As *ii>iiii as you receive a report from him, sent it on to us. 1 4 We do not know precisely when Dragan Pavlovid left Miicidonia. In any case, it must have been about the end of Din-mber 1941, since on January 21, 1942, he met his death in Mo.snia. In October 1941, Tito sent Orce Nikolov, a tailor l Kim Macedonia and a candidate member of the Yugoslav pm ly Central Committee, from Uzice with the task of organiz ing an armed rising in Macedonia. Nikolov never reached his ili :itination: meeting a Bulgarian patrol, he was discovered mid killed in the ensuing struggle.1 * During this period, despite everything subsequently writf( ii on the subject, Tito enjoyed the complete confidence of Moscow. Moa Pijade testifies that he was in daily contact with the Comintern by radio from 1941 on throughout the ntlre course of the war.1 9 Through Tito, the Comintern nought contact with the Bulgarian Central Committee. On .Inly 27, 1942, the Yugoslav Central Committee sent the fol lowing message to its Bulgarian counterpart: Deda [the Comintern] urges us to get in touch with you as soon as pos sible and to let him know whether this has been done, since hr has certain things to send you through us. Let us have your n ply immediately in order that we may report to Deda that w< have established contact with you. 1 7 On August 17, the Serbian Regional Committee wrote to a certain Ljuba, whose identity we have been unable to discover: Enclosed is n letter for the Bulgarian Caca [the Central Committee of the Unitarian Workers Party]. Immediately after your arrival,
" Lazar M o js o v , Bugarska radniika partija (k om u n ista ) i M a k e ihtnnko nacionalno p ita nje (T h e B u lg a ria n W o r k e r s ' [Com m unist] fu r ly an d the M acedonian. N a tio n a l Q u estio n ), B elg ra d e, 1948, p. 150. 1 4 From the secret archives o f the C en tral C om m ittee o f the C o m munist P arty of Y u g o sla v ia . ,s PaSko Rom ac, B e g s tv o aa r o b ije (Flight from B o n d ag e), B el(I i iido, 1951, p. 59. " Polltlka, B elg ra d e, D ec. 28, 1949. 1 7 Prom the secret archives of the Central Com m ittee o f the C o m munist P arty of Y u g o sla v ia .

213

among other things, get in touch straight away with their representative and give him this letter so that he may for ward it---- As you see, it is very important that you main tain constant contact with us through the comrades from N. [Ni] and that we receive as soon as possible Ca<5as reply, as also your own reports. 1 8 Two days later, FiSer (Ivo-Lola Ribar) wrote to Dr. Blagoje NeSkovi6: Deda has urged us to establish contact with the Bulgarian Communist Party, not only in our own, but also in his, interests. Are you in a position to do something about this straight away and establish a channel of communication? If so, tell Mihajlo to approach them as our representative and inform them that contact is being sought at Dedas orders. Tell me what happens. 1 8 From a letter sent by Dr. Blagoje NeSkovic to the Bul garian Central Committee on October 27, 1942, on behalf of the Yugoslav Central Committee, we learn that this task was not without its difficulties. So far, it has been impossible to let you have a reply from our Central Committee, wrote NeSkovic, or to send a representative from our Central Com mittee for the purpose of composing a joint manifesto. This is why we suggested that method of negotiating on the draw ing up of a joint manifesto. However, in spite of all the dif ficulties involved, we shall do everything in our power to ensure that your receive a reply at the earliest possible moment---- In our opinion, direct communication between us would be best served by giving you an address in Serbia, since, as far as we know, you are in a position to send your people there legally. If you have some other proposal, we shall accept it. We shall send you the address as soon as we find a reliable one: in the meantime, we shall have to communicate with you through our instructor attached to the Macedonian Regional Committee.. .. We have already informed you that Deda is enquiring about you. We have told him that we are in touch with you through some partisan units, and he has sent us the following message: You report to us that you have established contact with the partisans in Bulgaria. If your means of communication are constant and reliable, we ask you to help our Bulgarian comrades to establish radio com
1 8 Ibid. 1 8 Ibid.

214

munication with us___ We ask you, comrades, to assist our Instructor in arranging his stay and work in Macedonia, as in everything else. 2 0 During October, NeSkovii finally succeeded in establishing communications with Bulgaria. On November 6, 1942, he re ported to a certain Valdes : On Dedas orders, I have done I ln > following: I have sent Dedas entire message to the Bul garian Cada and asked him what he needs in order to estabI Ish radio communication.. .. For the rest, our contact with I lie Bulgarian Cada is good. Many of their people have been arrested and shot, including Stari. The comrades in Bulgaria linve set up a Patriotic Front. Latterly, they have been pressing on with the formation of partisan units, and asking us for advice. The comrades in Macedonia are in touch with the comrades in Greece and Albania. 8 1

***
In subsequent conversations between the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and the Bulgarian Workers Party, the Mace donian question occupied a central place. The Bulgarian party look great care not to make its attitude definitely negative or positive. True, it occasionally appeared to contemplate a Yugoslav federation, but never clearly expressed any desire for a unification of all three parts of the region. Similarly, it iii'ver definitely rejected this possibility. This may explain why the Bulgarian Farmers Party declared themselves in favor of a unification of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.2 2 Ostensibly, the Bulgarian Workers Party advocated the closest collaboration with the Yugoslav Communist Party in this matter. In its letter of greeting to the second session of the AFCNLY (Anti-Fascist Council for the National Libera tion of Yugoslavia), dispatched toward the end of November 1943, the Bulgarian partys Central Committee declared its readiness to do everything in its power to ensure the com plete removal of all obstacles in the way of a union of all the Slavic peoples in the Balkans in a free federation, in which
1 1 ** jevo, Ibid. Ibid. B ranko C u b rilo v id , Zapisi i z tudjine (N o te s from A b ro a d ), S a ra 1946, pp. 54 56.

215

there shall be neither oppressors nor oppressed. 2 3 Only a few weeks later, however, in December of the same year, the Bulgarian Patriotic Front, headed by the Communists, took up a stand on the solution of the Macedonian question that was in complete opposition to the decision of the AFCNLY. Elisabeth Barker is not exaggerating when she says, of this attitude taken by the Bulgarian party: It was, in fact, a return to the old line of Vlahov Comintern line of the midnineteen-twenties. 2 4 Even in 1926, it seemed to the people around Vlahov that behind Yugoslav federation there was lurking the threat of Serbian imperialism. In the lead ing article Yugoslav Federation, or Greater Serbian Im perialism, published on February 10, 1926, in M akedonsko delo, it was stated: Naturally, no one is so naive as not to realize that the mask of Yugoslav federation conceals a crude annexationist desire on the part of the Greater Serbian im perialists to enslave other nations and seize their lands. 2 5 The situation acquired additional picquancy with the elec tion of Dimitar Vlahov, at that time still in Moscow, as vicechairman of the AFCNLY. This council and already been join ed by Vladimir Pop-Tomov, also from Macedonia, and Metodije Antonov-Cinto, who belonged to the Serbian Farmers Party and was later, in November 1946, sentenced to eleven years hard labor.2 6 Pov-Tomov, who, after the conflict between Tito and the Cominform, became Bulgarian Foreign Minister, was one of the most determined opponents of the present solution of the Macedonian question. Discussions on this question were continued in 1944. In the latter half of this year, they were to have reached the con clusion desired by Moscow and the Yugoslav Communist Party, but, once more, they came to nothing. A t the First Congress of the Macedonian Communist Party, held at the end of December 1948, Svetozar Vukmanovi6-Tempo revealed that during the summer of 1944 he and Lazar KoliSevski were in vited by the Bulgarian Workers Party Central Committee to
4 3 D ru g o zasedanje A V N O J -a (T h e S econ d Session of the A F C N L Y ), 1943, p. 44. 2 4 E lisabeth B arker, M a ced o n ia : Its Place in Balkan P o w e r P o litics, London, 1950, p. 97. 2 5 M a k ed o n sk o delo, Feb. 10, 1926. 2 8 E lisabeth B ark er, op. cit., p. 101.

216

come to Sofia and attend a session of the Central Committee in order to help smooth out remaining causes of dissension. This session was attended, on the Bulgarian side, by Traicho Kustov, Anton Yugov, Dobri Terpeshev and Georgi Tsankov. "We advanced and substantiated all our accusations, said Tempo, and demanded that the leadership of the Bulgarian Workers Party rectify its policy on the Macedonian national (luostion. It was then mutually decided (1) that the leadership of the Bulgarian Workers Party issue publicly and in written form a statement of self-criticism on all points raised by us hi connection with the Bulgarian partys attitude toward the Macedonian national question; (2) that the leadership of the Unitarian Workers Party undertake to give the Pirin area of Macedonia, not merely cultural, but also administrative, milonomy within the Bulgarian state, to encourage the deve lopment of a national consciousness among the Macedonian people, and in this way to prepare for a final unification of the Pirin and Vardar areas of Macedonia when conditions were favorable, that is, when the question of a Yugoslav federation came up for decision. 2 7 The Bulgars did nothing to apply this resolution in practice. Nevertheless, superficial relations between the two parties gave no sign of deteriorating. The question of estab lishing a Yugoslav federation was once more raised by leading Yugoslav Communists. Mosa Pijade was right when, in 1944, lie wrote: Apart from the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, there was not one party or political group that was prepared Io raise its voice against the denationalization of the Mace donian people or that had the courage and determination to recognize the Macedonians as a separate Yugoslav people and fight for the principle Macedonia for the Macedonians. 2 8 It is noteworthy that, apart from this, certain prominent Yugoslav Communists were campaigning about this time for a union of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. In a speech delivered at
* Polltlka, B elg ra d e, D ec. 22, 1948. *" M o$a P ijade, S lo b o d n a M a k e d o n ija u bratsk o j d em ok ratskoj /.n |t(liilcl ju in o slo v e n s k ih n a ro d a ( A F ree M a c e d o n ia in a F raternal Dnntocratic C om m u nity o f South S la v P eo p le s), Put n o v e J u g o sla vije : /.hlrka tlanaka o na rodno-oslobodiladkom p okretu (T h e R o ad o f the N o w Y u g o s la v ia : S ym posium of A rtic le s on the N a tio n a l Liberatio n M ovem en t), 1944, p. 95.

217

the beginning of November 1943 to mark the twenty-sixth anniversary of the October Revolution, Milovan Djilas decalred: The peoples of Yugoslavia have always striven for a union with their brothers the Bulgars. Thanks to her rulers, Bulgaria has become Hitlers vassal, a German war camp. The peoples of our country regard it as their sacred duty to assist the liberation of another Slavic nation, while the latter, for its part, must make every effort to free itself from its German conquerors. Only in this way can the Bulgarian people avoid being dismembered, humiliated and enslaved; only in this way can a broatherhood of South Slavs be formed which, relying on the worlds democratic forces in particular, on the Soviet Unionwill resist all attempts at subjugation or the playing off of one nation against another for the benefit of the imperialists. The history of these peoples shows that this is the only means of securing for them a happier future, the only way of ensuring that their sacrifices shall not be in vain. Such a brotherhood would also attract other Balkan peoples who are the victims of imperialism the A l banians and the Greeks.. .. History has assigned to our com mon homeland of Yugoslavia and the national liberation movement the imposing task of acting as pioneers of a future federation of South Slavs, of laying a foundation for the broterhood, unity and equality of the Balkan peoples. 2 8 Just over a year later, Djilas linked the solution of the Macedonian question with the formation of a South Slav federation. A solution of the Macedonian question which not only is not prejudicial to either Serbs or Bulgars but in fact strengthens the brotherly ties between these two peoples and the Macedonians constitutes one of the greatest historical events in the Balkans and one of the vital requisites for a general consolidation of the Balkan situation and for the ensuring of peace and independence for the Balkan peoples. *# On November 10,1944, Aleksandar Rankovi6 also expressed his views on this important question. As for Macedonia, he said, the Macedonian people has also decided that its country be brought into a Yugoslav federation. This removes from the
*8 V la d im ir D e d ije r, D n e v n ik (D ia ry ), B elg ra d e, Part II, pp. 584 585. 8 0 M ilo v a n D jilas, Clanci, 1941 46 (A rticle s, 1941 46), B elgrade, 1947, pp. 34 35.

218

agenda one of the biggest questions of our internal policy und one of the extremely important problems of our foreign policy___ Today, no one in Bulgaria or Greece can advance tiny claims to Macedonia, since Macedonia is no longer liable lo be plundered and partitioned by sundry Balkan hegemon ies and imperialists. It is a free federal unit in the free federation of Yugoslavia. The Macedonian people is a separate people in the Yugoslav federation.

* 0*
What was the reason for the anxiety shown by the leaders of the Yugoslav Communist Party to retain their hold on key positions in the Balkans? Albert Mousset attempts to explain this by the fact that they were under the inlfuence of Moscow. "If, he says Bulgaria and Yugoslavia are side with each other, this is obviously the result of similar submission to Russian domination, and we have seen above that their agreement on the Macedonian question was less genuine than was believ ed. 5 2 During these twenty-five years, said Dr. Blagoje Nekovit at the First Congress of the Macedonian Communist Par ty, held in 1948, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has been fighting for a consistent policy, for a strict application of the teaching of Marx, Lenin and Stalin on the national ques tion." ** That this subordination to the aims of Moscow was de liberate and systematic is borne out by Svetozar VukmanovicTompo, who must have been well acquainted with Soviet policy in the Balkans during the last war. He says: What was behind the demand for a united Macedonian people within the framework of a Balkan federation? It was, in fact, an attempt by the Soviet government and other members of the Informburo to separate the Peoples Republic of Macedonia from the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia with the object of destroying socialist Yugoslavia and subordinating her to the control of the Soviet government. 3 4
*' A le k s a n d a r Rankovid, Izabrani govori 1 ilanci (Selected Speeches an d A rtic le s ), B elg ra d e, 1951, pp. 34 35. ** A lb e r t M o u ss e t The W o r ld o l the Slavs, London , 1950, p. 172. ** Polltlka, B elg ra d e, D ec. 20, 1948. 14 S veto za r V u k m a n o v ii-T e m p o , O narodnoj revoluciji u Grikoj (T h e N a tio n a l R evolu tio n in G re e c e ), B elg ra d e, p. 77.

219

When Tito sent Tempo armed with special powers to Mace donia, none of his colleagues took this view: their relations with Moscow were of the friendliest, and Tito was ready to do anything Moscow demanded of him. He had not yet master ed his aversion, typical of the Bolsheviks, toward the Ameri cans and the British, and was prepared to throw them into the sea if they attempted to land in Yugoslavia. A confidential letter sent on April 8, 1942, to leading members of the Party makes clear his attitude toward the British military missions. For your information, the letter says, but not for general publication, we must communicate to you some very interest ing things that we have established beyond all doubt. We know for certain that Britain, through her agents in Yugo slavia, so far from supporting us, is stirring up trouble between us and certain other groups, such as the Chetniks. Like the Germans, she is supporting various Chetnik bands in order that they may attack us. We have evidence showing that it has become a part of Britains policy to create as much confusion in Yugoslavia as possible, to compromise the struggle for national liberation, and, when the moment is ripe i. e., when Italy plays into her hands by leaving Hitler, to disembark her troops in Dalmatia and elsewhere. She thus hopes to appear here as a deliverer come to rescue the country from chaos. With this object in view, ten of her so-called military missions have already arrived in this country, and are carrying on their dirty work in various places. One of them has joined our headquarters; another has disembarked in Dalmatia, and yet others are at the moment situated else where, so that we have no information concerning them. From what has happened in certain areas such as KolaSin, where powerful Chetnik bands, well armed and mainly led by men appointed in London, have suddenly appeared, it is clear, however, that they have a hand in this affair, together with the Italian occupying forces, who in their own interests are lending their assistance.. . . A t all costs, see that you isolate them from the masses and keep a check on them. Each of these mission has a radio transmitter and is in immediate contact with its headquarters the [British] Intelligence Service___ We must continue to stress the alliance between the Soviet Union, Britain and America and to represent the latter as our allies, but within the country we must fight their agents and hangers-on as servants of the occupying forces and enemies
220

iif the people who are hindering the struggle for national liberation. 3 5 In December 1942, the Yugoslav Communists still believed In the possibility of a British landing on the Dalmatian coast. On December 13, Vladimir Dedijer noted in his diary: Our attitude toward an Allied operation is perfectly clear. If the object of such a landing is to weaken the occupying forces, wo shall support it with all our military strength. If, on the (ither hand, its object is to frustrate our efforts, or if the Mritish land after we have ejected both the Germans and l heir collaborators from Yugoslav territory, this will amount In intervention, an infringement of the principles of the A t lantic Charter and of our national rights, an attack upon our Independence, and we shall resist it. 3 6 Yugoslav partisans were urged by propaganda to resist any such landing. If the fat English come, our machine guns will mow them down, ran one of the Communist marching songs. It is significant that only three days after Dedijer made this entry in his diary, Milovan Djilas published an article In B o r b a for December 16, 1942, under the title The Import ance of Propaganda in the Postwar Organization of Europe. Pointing out that in Britain and America reactionary cliques Ntill existed which had not renounced their desire to sub jugate and enslave other nations, Djilas declared that in those countries a popular movement of an anti-imperialist character was gaining strength. The war of liberation waged by the USSR, said Djilas, has created the best possible con ditions for a strengthening of the workers democratic move ment in Britain and America and for the forging of strong tios of friendship between the people of these countries and the USSR and the enslaved nations. The steady growth of progressive forces and the ever stronger ties between the USSR and the freedom-loving nations constitute a feature particularly characteristic of this phase of the war a feature which will be more and more in evidence as time goes on. 3 7 In general, this article of Djilass was inspired by a vision of
From the secret archives o f the C en tra] Com m ittee o f the C o m munist P arty o f Y u g o sla v ia . ** D e d ije r, op. cit., Part II, p. 26. *7 D jilas, op. cit., pp. 39 and 40 41.

221

the moment when the Communist revolution would extend to Britain and America.

***
It is known that Stalin did not want a second front in the Balkans. In order to avoid being surprised himself, he was anxious to set up a Balkan headquarters controlling all the Communist forces in the area and so present his partners at Teheran with a fait accompli. Tito was entrusted with the execution of this task. We find a hint of this plan in the letter sent by Filip" (Nikola Grulovi6) on June 5, 1943, to Dr. Blagoje NeSkovic, in which he says: The Allies are counting on the opening of a second front in the Balkans, and for this reason have decided to get in touch with our Supreme Head quarters. General Alexander has sent three couriers to Su preme Headquarters, of whom two are members of the Com munist Party. One of them has already left for his destination, while the other two are with our brigades. 8 8 Leigh White points out that James Klugmann, at that time chief of the British Middle East Information Service, was an active Com munist. After the war, he was given charge of the training of cadres for the Communist Party of Great Britain.3 9 Later, he attested his faithfulness to Moscow with a book directed against Tito.4 0 Vasilije Buha, at that time a member of the Communist Regional Committee for Serbia and a man well informed on what was going on, emphasized the need for concentrating Communist forces in the area of Macedonia. Here [in Mace donia], he said, it was necessary to free a fairly large area, bring in a large number of partisan units and establish a firm military center for coordinating the Communist campaigns in the surrounding countries Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, A l bania, Montenegro, Kosovo and Metohija and Sandiak. Here, too, a firm base was required for the setting up of a head quarters for all units in the Balkans. Naturally, all the Balkan countries would be represented at this headquarters, but the
3 8 From the secret archives of the C en tral Com m ittee o f the C o m munist P arty o f Y u g o sla v ia . 3 9 L e ig h W h ite , Balkan C a esar: Tito V e rsu s Stalin, N e w Y o rk , 1951, p. 51. 4 0 T h e b o o k is From Trotsk y to Tito, London, 1951 (2nd ed., 1952).

222

leadership would go to the representatives of that country whose partisan movement was strongest. In this particular case, this would certainly be Tito. 4 1 A t a partisan conference of the Slovenian Communist Party, held on July 5 8, 1942, Eduard Kardelj declared that the Balkans must become the "starting point for a new Communist regime for the whole of Kurope. 4 2 Svetozar Vukmanovi6-Tempo was entrusted with the task of carrying out all the local preparations necessary for the ('stablishment of a Balkan headquarters. An energetic and Indomitable man, he succeeded in dealing with many local obstacles. On August 8, 1943, he reported to the Yugoslav party Central Committee that he had established contact with the Bulgarian party Central Committee and that he had pro posed to them a plan for joint action. I explained to them, he said, the plan for concerted action and for the establish ment of a Balkan headquarters. With the former end in view, I sugested that they make use of our territory covered by the Vranje unit, in order to form their own partisan units there und operate in the direction of Turn and Sofia---- They have agreed to be represented at the headquarters and have sent their delegate, who is still in Skoplje waiting for instruc tions. 4 8 In October of the same year, the headquarters of the Macedonian partisans issued a proclamation to the po pulation which declared: Everyone must gather round our national liberation movement, regardless of whether he once felt himself to be a Bulgarophile, Grecophile or Serbophile. To this end, we must create a common front of all the Balkan peoples against the fascist occupying forces and against all Imperialism in the Balkans. 4 4 In view of what has been said, Hugh Seton-Watsons as sertion that Tito at that time wanted an independent Mace donia cannot be regarded as correct. A ll that can be said is that he wanted to play the leading role in the Balkans without falling foul of Moscow. According to Seton-Watson, Titos decision was that in future Macedonia should not be a Serbian
4 1 From the secret archives o f the C en tral C om m ittee o f the C o m munist P arty o f Y u g o sla v ia .

Ibid.
4 1 P re g le d n a ro d n o -o slo b o d ila ik o g rata u M a k e d o n iji, p. 51. 4 4 Ibid., p. 58.

223

or a Bulgarian colony, but an autonomous republic, and that the Macedonians should be acknowledged as a nation distinct from both Serbs and Bulgars. 4 5 This was, in the main, the view, not only of Tito, but of the Balkan Communist parties. Since the Teheran conference had put a stop to the threat of a second front in the Balkans, maneuvers in connection with the setting up of a Yugoslav federation could be resum ed. The course taken by these moves becomes clear from what MoSa Pijade tells us about the conversations between the Yugoslav and Bulgarian Central Committees on the question of a union of Bulgaria with Yugoslavia. A t the end of 1944, these conversations were particularly lively. The process of a federative union with Bulgaria should be speeded up, said Stalin to Subasi6 and Stanoje Simic when they were in Moscow, since, if the people want it, there is no preventing it. 4 6 Toward the end of December 1944, Eduard Kardelj was sent to Sofia to negotiate an agreement on such a union, which it was expected would be signed on December 31 and publish ed on January 1. Negotiations, however, were broken off as a result of the Bulgars intransigence on the question of the unification of the three parts of Macedonia. After conversa tions with leading personalities in Sofia, Kardelj reported to Belgrade: I do not know whether we can on principle accept the formula contained in their proposal for Macedoniai. e., that the Bulgarian part be united with the Yugoslav only in the event of the entire regions unification with Bulgaria. I maintain that the Macedonians are entitled to this [their countrys unification] regardless of whether federation with Bulgaria is decided upon or not. 4 7 The Bulgars also wanted to impose another condition upon Kardelj: they demanded that, in the event of a union between the two countries, each of them should be regarded as a single unit. Somewhat chagrined, Kardelj advised Belgrade to appeal immediately for Stalins mediation. He told me, said Kar delj, that we should unite, and not conclude any pacts for

4 5 H u g h S eto n -W a tso n , D iffere n ce s Listener, London, J u ly 1948, p. 79. 4 0 Politika, B elg ra d e, D ec. 29, 1949. 4 7 Ibid.

in

the

South-East,

The

224

mutual aid. Now is the time: I doubt whether we shall ever have so good an opportunity again. 4 8 This time it was Britain who threw all plans into con fusion. On the day after Kardeljs departure from Sofia, the British government informed the Bulgarian that it could not accept a federation or confederation comprising only Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Only such a federation which included A l bania, Greece and Turkey would meet with its approval. The British government further stated that it had information that the Macedonians and Bulgars were working for a union with the Macedonians in Greece, to which it was most definitely opposed. It was also opposed to a unification of Macedonia within the frontiers of Yugoslavia.4 * In order, perhaps, to avoid possible complications with Britain, Moscow washed its hands of the matter and withdrew all support in the affair from both Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. The Yugoslav Communists, however, did not easily abandon hope that something might come of it. In the middle of July 1945, a Congress of Balkan Anti-Fascist Youth was held in Belgrade. A resolution adopted by this congress stated: The youth of all our countries undertakes to fight above all against chauvinism and national intolerance, on which antinational governments have always built their plans. 5 0 The attitude of Bulgaria under the Patriotic Front toward the Macedonian question was never clearly defined. Ostensib ly, both the Bulgarian Communist Party and the Patriotic Front advocated the formation of a single Macedonian unit: inwardly, they hesitated to apply this policy in practice. For its part, the Bulgarian government took no steps whatever to facilitate the unification of all three parts of the country. In his reply to the speech from the throne, Georgi Dimitrov de clared on December 26, 1945: The Patriotic Front considers that every effort should be made to ensure that Macedonia cease once and for all to be a cause of dissension in the Bal kans and become a bond between the Bulgars and Serbs, between the new Bulgaria and the new Yugoslavia. There should be no partitioning of Macedonia, no rivalry for the control of this territory, but rather respect for the will of its 4 8 Ibid.
Ibid. M Ibid., Ju ly 16, 1945.

225

inhabitants, the greater part of whom have already acquired their national freedom and equality of rights within the Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. Between Bulgaria under the Patriotic Front and the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugo slavia, between these two neighboring South Slav countries, relations are so fraternal that there is every possibility that they themselves, without any interference from outside, will decide all questions affecting their national interests. 5 1 However, when drawing up the constitution for the Peoples Republic of Bulgariaknown as Dimitrovs Consti tution Dimitrov himself and the Bulgarian Communist Party were much less generous with regard to the unification of Macedonia. Paragraph 5 of Article 12 merely says that the Bulgarian National Assembly decides questions relating to the cession, alteration or extension of the territory of the Peoples Republic of Bulgaria. 5 2 This indefinite attitude toward the Macedonian question came in for criticism from the Yugoslavs. In his article Some Features of the Patriotic Fronts Draft Constitution for the Peoples Republic of Bul garia, Dr. Leon GerSkovic pointed out that nothing whatever was said in the draft about national minorities, and, as far as Macedonia was concerned, the draft, supposing that the Macedonian people raises the question of its union with the Peoples Republic of Macedonia, refers to the matter in an indirect and disguised manner, as though it were something abstract and not a concrete problem, and as though it were a matter of ceding Bulgarian territory and not of realizing the national rights of the Macedonian people on Bulgarian terri tory and uniting them with their national homeland, the Peoples Republic of Macedonia. 5 8 In his book Pirinska M akedonija u borbi za nacionalno oslobod jenje (Pirin Macedonia in the Struggle for National Liberation), Dimitar Mitrev gives an account of the Bulgarian Communist Partys policy on the Macedonian ques tion during and after World War II. Mitrev shows the inde finiteness of this policy during the war and the complete
5 1 Borba, B e lg ra d e -Z a g re b , Dec. 27, 1945. 5 2 K onstitutsiya i o s n o v n y e zak onodatelnye akty N a rod n oi resp ubliki Bolgarii (T he Constitution and Fundam ental L e gislativ e A cts of the P e o p le s R ep u b lic of B u lg a ria ), M o sc o w , 1952, p. 28. 5 3 Borba, B e lg ra d e -Z a g re b , N o v . 4, 1946.

226

absence of any desire to unite Bulgarian with Yugoslav Mace donia. In its number for August 1946, Makedonsko zname, organ of the Pirin Macedonians, published an article entitled "We Must Escape From the Magic Circle. Here it was stated: "We stand for a Macedonian state, language and culture, but oven the greatest fanatics among us continue to speak and write Bulgarian, instead of following the new current and uniting ourselves with the culture, language and life of our people. 5 4 On January 27, 1947, the same journal, in an article entitled Pirin Macedonia, stressed the need for the unification of Macedonia under the banner of the Mace donian state as it is today. 8 5 This was a clear expression of the desire that Pirin Mace donia be united with the Peoples Republic of Macedonia, which Communist Bulgaria would not and could not permit. A year later, the First Congress of the National Macedonian Front, attended by representatives from Aegean and Pirin Macedonia, was held at Skoplje. This congress sent a re solution to the Preace Conference, which was then in session in Paris, demanding that Aegean Macedonia be annexed to Yugoslavia. Pirin Macedonia was not mentioned. The Mace donian people, stated the resolution, draws the attention of the Peace Conference to the fact that the denationalization of our people in Aegean Macedonia is neither a fortuitous nor a merely recent phenomenon. This attitude toward the Mace donians under Greek rule has been systematically observed since the moment when a part of the living body of the Mace donian people was forcibly included in the Greek state. 5 8 The proclamation addressed by this congress to the Mace donian people lay particular stress upon the fact that dele gates from all three parts of the country had taken part, and goes on: This made the congress a demnostration of the unshakeable desire of the Macedonian people in all parts of Macedonia for freedom and unity within our republic of Macedonia and the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugo slavia___ By way of a concerted struggle, waged side by side
8 4 D im itar M itre v , Pirinska M a k e d o n ija v o borba za nacionaJno ottloboduvanje (Pirin M a c e d o n ia in the S tru g g le fo r N a tio n a l L ib e ra tion), S k op lje, 1950, p. 300. M A s quoted in M itre v , op. cit., p. 324. ** Polilika, B elg ra d e, A u g . 7, 1946.

227

with the progressive forces of the Greek nation, our people in Aegean Macedonia will be able to realize their dream and win their national and democratic rights. 6 7 For a whole year, these ambitions were encouraged by the Yugoslav Communist Party, which finally demanded that PetriC, Upper Dzumaja and Nevrokop be transferred to the Peoples Republic of Macedonia. In other words, says Albert Mousset, in Yugoslavia the Macedonian population of Bul garia was still considered as non-Bulgarian in character. La tent, but still discernible, it was the old quarrel which had, for half a century, set the two peoples in opposition to each other. 5 8 Finally, Tito referred to this question while praising the solution of the national problem in Yugoslavia. In a speech delivered in Zagreb on October 31, 1946, he said: In the old Yugoslavia, the national question remained unsolved. Instead, there was national persecution and inequality. The various peoples were unable to develop and foster their national cul tures, since there was no equality of national rights. In our new Yugoslavia, each national group, including the Croats, the Slo venes, the Macedonians, the Montenegrans and the national minorities, has its rights and enjoys the conditions that are ne cessary for its national, cultural and economic development. *'

***
During the course of this year, numerous difficulties with regard to the Macedonian question cropped up in Bulgaria, partly as a result of the fact that certain members of the Communist Party could not bring themselves to accept that Macedonia should no longer be regarded as Bulgarian terri tory. There was also dissatisfaction among members of the Patriotic Front, who issued several memoranda on the subject between the end of 1945 and the end of 1946. One of these was issued in December 1945 by Krsto Pastukhov; during the course of 1946 others came from Lozanchev, K. Lulchev and N. Petkov. According to Pastukhov, it would be quite another matter if it were proposed to set up a completely independent state
8 7 Ibid. 5 8 M ou sset, op. cit., p. 131. Politika, B elg ra d e, N o r . 1, 1946.

228

outside the frontiers of both Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. In that case, people could live together on a friendlier footing, on a basis of mutual understanding and the defense of common interests. 8 0 Lozanchev had visions of a federative Mace donian state governed by a mandate of allied democratic powers. Lulchev adcovated a genuinely autonomous Mace donia, while Petkov declared that the problem would be cor rectly solved only when the Macedonian people is given autonomy [and the opportunity] to decide its own fate. 6 1 The attempt of the right wing of the Patriotic Front to bring the Macedonian question before the great powers was severely criticized by the Bulgarian Communist Party and by the Yugoslav Communists. An article entitled The Black mailers, published in Oteestvene front on December 6, 1945, criticized the memorandum submitted by Krsto Pastukhov, in which he asserted that the Macedonian question was not yet solved. The article demanded: Is Krsto Pastukhov represent ing the national interests of the Bulgarian people when he once more sows the seeds of hatred between the peoples of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia? From this it would appear that, in the opinion of the Bulgarian government of the time, the Macedonian question had been settled by the establishment of the Peoples Republic of Macedonia within the framework of Yugoslavia. The same impression is created by a statement made by Dimitrov to a correspondent of a Swedish paper on July 16, 1947. As for Macedonia, said Dimitrov, the pro blem has for the present been settled by the coupling of the Peoples Republic of Macedonia with the other Yugoslav re publics. But there is also a part of Macedonia in Bulgaria, and another in Greece. These three parts will one day be united, although some time w ill perhaps be necessary before this comes about. 6 2 For his part, Tito also expressed his displeasure with the Bulgarian opposition for composing memoranda and sub mitting them to representatives of the Western powers. There are people in Bulgaria, he remarked in a speedi delivered in Skoplje on October 11, 1945, who are composing memoranda and sending them to the Allies with the demand that the
1 0 M o js o v , op. cit., p. 233. ' Ibid., pp. 232 33. * Borba, B e lg ra d e -Z a g re b , J u ly 17, 1947.

229

Pirin, Aegean and Vardar regions of Macedonia be united. But under whose protection? Under that of foreign po wers. ... A ll these memoranda . .. are no more than a facade. It is a lie that they want that kind of Macedonia. 9 3 In view of the existing state of affairs, it is in no way remarkable that the Bulgarian Workers Party should have felt itself obliged to define its attitude on the whole question. This it did in the first half of August 1946 with a resolution passed at a plenary session of its Central Committee. In Para graph 1 of this resolution, it was stated: The Bulgarian Workers (Communist) Party considers that the greater part of the Macedonian people has been given a form of state and national organization within the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia as the Peoples Republic of Macedonia. The unification of the other parts of the Macedonian people has yet to be effected on the basis of the Macedonian Peoples Republic within the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugo slavia. Paragraph 2 declared: The Bulgarian Workers (Com munist) Party considers that the realization of the conditions prerequisite for this unification, i. e., the transfer of the Pirin region to the Peoples Republic of Macedonia, is above all a matter for the Macedonians themselves and the common task of Bulgaria under the Patriotic Front and the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. 6 4 Paragraph 5 of this resolution demands that there be no state frontiers between Bulgaria and a united Peoples Re public of Macedonia just as there are none between the Peoples Republic of Macedonia and the rest of Yugoslavia. The transfer of the Pirin region to the Peoples Republic of Macedonia. says this section of the resolution, so far from hampering economic and cultural exchanges between Bul garia and the transferred territory, should on the contrary, serve to strengthen the ties between Yugoslav Macedonia and Bulgaria. 6 5 Finally, Paragraph 6 states that all members of the Party are required to support these demands and that the "Macedonian emigration in Bulgaria is urged to give its full cooperation in consolidating the fraternal Macedonian republic and also in preparing for the transfer of the Mace
8 3 Ibid., Oct. 12, 1945. 9 1 M o js o v , op. cit., pp. 263 64. 6 8 Ibid., p. 265.

230

donian population of the Pirin region to the Peoples Republic of Macedonia on the basis of an alliance between Bulgaria under the Patriotic Front and the Federative Peoples Re public of Yugoslavia. 9 6 According to Lazar Mojsov, who is not always impartial toward his Bulgarian opponents, the importance of this re solution lies in the fact that in it the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Workers Party for the first time acknowledged, clearly and unambiguously, that the Peoples Republic of Macedonia is indeed an expression, on the national and political plane, of the aspirations of the entire Macedonian people and that the unification of the Macedonian people should be effected on the basis of the Peoples Republic of Macedonia within the framework of the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. 6 7 This resolution was never, incidentally, made public. Ob viously, the Bulgarian Workers Party itself did not adhere to it. It was in such an atmosphere that the Bled agreement was born. Notwithstanding all the difficulties involved, the pur pose of this agreement was to offer a definitive solution of the Macedonian question. From what has been published about this agreement, no conclusions appear to have been reached either on Macedonia or on the formation of a South Slav federation. The idea of a Balkan federation embodying a final solution of the Macedonian question was not crystallized even after World War II. While advancing this idea as a popular pro paganda slogan, responsible state leaders in both Bulgaria and Yugoslavia hesitated to make any real effort for its realization. In an interview on November 19, 1944, with H. D. Harrison, Reuters correspondent in Belgrade, Tito refused to reply to the question whether a South Slav federation would include Bulgaria, and confined himself to the remark: Our peoples desire the friendliest relations with the other Balkan lands, particularly with Bulgaria, Albania and Greece. This is also in the interests of the peoples of these countries. Thus those who had been advocating the speedy formation, if not of a Balkan, then at least of a South Slav federation,
Ibid., p. 267. " Ibid., p. 263.

231

were once more disappointed by the results of the Bled agree ment. In connection with the conversations at Bled, Georgi Dimitrov declared on several occasions that the establishment of a South Slav federation was not of topical importance. On August 2, 1947, he told a correspondent of Radio Prague: I must emphasize that neither the question of setting up a federation of South Slavs nor that of some Balkan or BalkanDanube federation or confederation is of immediate im portance."6 8 Elsewhere, Dimitrov declared that this question had in no wise been the subject of conversations during our conference. 9 8 A t the beginning of December of the same year, Tito was somewhat more frank. He told newspapermen in the train from Sofia to Dragoman: Hitherto, the Balkans have been an imperialist arena, and even now attempts are being made to form a base there for certain imperialist aims. For this reason, the securing of peace in the Balkans means the securing of peace in Europe. If the Balkans can be prevented from becomming a theater of war, this will to a certain extent forestall a violation of the peace in Europe.. . . The Slavic states are determined to go hand in hand, not only in matters concerning their internal affairs, but also in questions of foreign policy. 7 0 There is little doubt that Tito was here thinking, not of the Soviet Union, but of the West, which had frustrated the attempt to effect a union of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. During his visit to Hungary, which took place soon after this, Tito attempted to free himself of the suspicion that he was work ing for the formation of a Slavic bloc. We have been repeatedly accused, he said in reply to a toast proposed by Lajos Dynnies, of striving to form a Slavic bloc. People said that a Slavic era was imminent, and that we rejected co operation, at least sincere cooperation, with other nations.... When we finished the war, we had no thoughts of establish ing any Slavic blocs. That was one of the old ideas of panSlavism, invented under the Russian tsars. The Lenin-Stalin conception, meanwhile, is quite different: it makes no dif ference who it is Slavs, Hungarians, Frenchmen, Germans,
4 8 Borba, B e lg ra d e -Z a g r e b , A u g . 3, 1947. * Ibid., A u g . 4, 1947. 7 0 Politika, B elg ra d e, D ec. 1, 1947.

232

Englishmen or Americans. Whatever nation a man belongs to, if he isnt a democrat, if he aims at the persecution of other nations, he is no friend of ours. But everyone who takes the stand of peoples democracy, who adopts Stalins correct solu tion of the national question and the correct interpretation of international relations, he is our brother and friend, regard less of whether he is a Hungarian, a Pole or anyone else. 7 1

In the various attempts to solve the Macedonian question, particularly after the Balkan Wars, Aegean Macedonia played a distinctly subordinate role. Theoretically speaking, the at titude of the Greek Communist Party on this question coincid ed with that of the Comintern and the Balkan Communist Federation. On the plane of practical politics, however, it took care, for national reasons, not to ask for trouble: for the Greeks, any suggestion of solidarity among the Balkan Slavs was anathema. In Greece also, during World War II, there was a Communist partisan movement, in which the Slavic element had begun to make itself felt. When Svetozar Vukmanovid-Tempo appeared in Greece, he was given a friendly reception by the Greek Communists. Military and political collaboration between our army and units of the Greek libera tion army, says Tempo, was highly developed throughout the war for national liberation. Macedonian units were always met with great courtesy and hospitality when they were ob liged by the enemys offensives to withdraw into Greek terri tory. Mutual aid in weapons and military equipment, joint operations against the occupying forces, etc. all this was one form or another of mutual cooperation and military comrade ship between our own and the Greek national liberation armies. 7 8 According to Elisabeth Barker, Tempo had been given the task by Tito of persuading the Greek Communist Party to help found a Slavic front for national liberation in Aegean Macedonia.7 3 Indeed, in the middle of 1943 there emerged the Slavo-Macedonian National Liberation Front (known as SNOF), the establishment of which became generally known
7 1 Om ladina, B elg ra d e, D ec. 10, 1947. 7 2 Politika, B elg ra d e, Ju ly 24, 1948. 7 3 E lisabeth B ark er, op. cit., p. 110.

233

only after several months had passed. Theoretically, its military units were under the command of ELAS, but some time later those under Gotsi (Gochev) rebelled.7 4 The function of SNOF, says C. M. Woodhouse, was to justify the existence of an autonomous Macedonia in Southern Slav federation. 7 5 The question of establishing this federation was the cause of a deterioration in relations between the Communist parties of Yugoslavia and Greece. When the quarrel came out into the open and began to grow more acute, Tempo advanced the thesis that the Greek Communist Party had given its consent for the establishment of SNOF only under pressure from the masses. That is to say, said Tempo, the Macedonians could freely speak their mother tongue, they were permitted to organize their own mass organizations within the framework of the Greek National Liberation Front, the Macedonian national liberation front was permitted to print newspapers in Macedonian, etc.; but there was no suggestion that, by virtue of its part in the national liberation struggle, the Mace donian people might be entitledeven nominallyto selfdetermination after the countrys liberation. 8 7 When the con flict between Tito and the Cominform was followed by the quarrel between the Yugoslav and Greek Communist parties, Zakhariades, in an article dated August 1, 1949, wrote that the aspirations of the Slavs of Aegean Macedonia, who had re ceived assistance from the Yugoslav Communist Party, were merely the Greater Serbian chauvinism of Titos clique. 7 7 In fact, the Greek Communist Party itself had adopted a Greater Greek attitude, which found expression in the re solution passed at the second plenum of the partys Central Committee, held in 1946. The Communist Party of Greece, says the resolution, which played a leading part in the struggle for national independence and integrity, once more declares the present frontiers of Greece to be sacred and un touchable. The Greek Communist Party affirms that it will not abandon the fight for recognition of the rights and equal ity of the Slavs living in Greek Macedonia within the frontiers of the Greek state. 7 8
7 4 7 5 7 * 7 7 7 8 C. M . W o o d h o u s e , A p p le of D iscord, London, 1948, p. 64. Ibid., p. 93. V u k m a n o v ic-T em p o , op. cit., p. 73. Ibid. Ibid., p. 72.

234

This meant that the situation was the same as before the war. Through a combination of circumstances, the Yugoslav Communist Party, after a conflict with the USSR and the satellite bloc that had become progressively more acute, was obliged to recognize this stand taken by the Greek Com munists and to abandon all interest in the fate of the Aegean Slavs, even though the latter had proved themselves the most aggressive element in the Communist revolt in Greece, since they believed that under a Greek Communist regime they would achieve their national rights. The Communist revolt in Greece was broken, and the Slavs of Aegean Macedonia were still what they had been before the wara national minority condemned to lose all trace of their national character.

235

T H E M A C E D O N IA N Q U E S T IO N T O D A Y

From the account that has been given of all the phases through which the Macedonian question has passed, it is evident that this question still awaits a final solution. In its present phase, it presents quite a different picture from that of the past, even though there have been no territorial changes in the region since 1918. A characteristic feature of the situation as it stands today is that the question has become almost entirely a matter of Yugoslav internal policy. As far as Greece and Bulgaria are concerned, it appears to have been finally decided. True, in Bulgaria it is still raised from time to time, but in Greece it has lost all political significance. The defeat in the civil war of the Greek Communist Party, which had been backed by the Slav population of Aegean Macedonia, meant not only that a unification of all three parts of the country was now impossible, but that the whole question had been removed from the agenda. The Bulgarian Communist government has, in effect, oc cupied the same position as its non-Communist predecessors on the Macedonian question. Deprived of an opportunity of uniting the entire area under its own control, it has been unable to bring itself to recognize the Macedonians on its territory as constituting a separate nationality, as the Yugo slav Communists have done in Southern Serbia. During their occupation of Southern Serbia and Aegean Macedonia, from April 1941 to the late summer of 1944, the Bulgars were distinctly ill at ease in these two areas. Between them and the local population, there was a mutual lack of confidence. In Southern Serbia, they even appointed their fellow-countrymen as chairmen of village communes. On the other hand, although the occupying forces expelled Serbian bishopsJosif Cvijovi6, Metropolitan of Skoplje, and Vikentije Prodanov, Bishop of Zletovo and Strumicafrom Southern Serbia, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church did nothing about sending its own bishops to take their place. It seems to have been reluctant to identify itself with the Bulgarian administration in Macedonia, which
236

may be taken as a sign that it regarded the Yugoslav-Bulgarian border as permanent. By a combination of circumstances, the Yugoslav Com munists, part from Ivan-VanCa Mihailov, are the only ones to have maintained an interest in the Macedonian question and striven for the establishment of a separate Macedonian nationality, distinct from the Bulgarian and from the Serbian. They alone have remained true to the theses of the Comintern on ttie existence of this nationality. For the Comintern, how ever, the Macedonian question was only of interest as a weapon for securing a Communist revolution in the Balkans. When the greater part of the Balkans had been brought under Communist rule, Moscows attitude on this question changed. Under the influence of the great October Revolution, the Macedonian revolutionaries altered their way of thinking and consequently their methods of work. Previously, they had re garded the Macedonian question as a distinct problem on its own, isolated from the general struggle against imperialism; but after World War II and the October Socialist Revolution, they began to think of it as one of the links in the universal struggle of the proletariat and the oppressed nations of the Balkans and throughout the world against imperialism. 1 By the establishment of the Peoples Republic of Mace donia, the Yugoslav Communists consider that they have solved the Macedonian question, even though they have not succeeded in uniting all three parts of the country. Under the pressure of circumstances arising after the expulsion of Yugo slavia from the Cominform in June 1948, they abandoned one of the most important points in their program with regard to the Macedonian question. There are some of our brother Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia, said Tito at Skoplje on October 11, 1945, and we are not indifferent to their fate. Our thoughts are with them, we are taking care of them. We shall persist in our demand that all Macedonians be united in their own land. * The rapprochement between Yugoslavia and Greece, however, and the formation of the Balkan Pact were conditional upon the Yugoslav Communists abandon ment of their attitude toward the transfer of Aegean Mace
1 D im itar V la h o v , Iz is to rije m ak edon sk og naroda (From the H is tory o f the M a c e d o n ia n P e o p le ), B elg ra d e, 1950, p. 45. 1 Borba, B e lg ra d e -Z a g re b , O ct. 12, 1945.

237

donia to Yugoslavia. With little hesitation, Tito, prompted by the necessity of maintaining his own position, renounced all the promises that he had made to the Slavs of Greek Mace donia. The creation of the Peoples Republic of Macedonia (con ceived, perhaps, as a first step toward the union of all three parts of the country), so far from solving the Macedonian question, has presented it in a new and acute form: whether this republic does not represent an attempt to denationalize the Serbian inhabitants of Southern Serbia. Apart from Serbs, this region is inhabited by a number of Bulgars and consider able numbers of Albanians and Turks, while before World War II there was also a fair proportion of Jews. According to the StatistiCki godisnjak F N R J (Statistical Annual of the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia) for 1956, on March 31, 1953, the Peoples Republic of Macedonia possessed 1,304,514 inhabitants, including 399,000 non-Slavs, a mere 35,000 Serbs and 861,000 Macedonians. The remainder were described as various nationalities. 3 This clearly shows that the population of the Peoples Republic of Macedonia, like that of Aegean Macedonia but unlike that of the Pirin region, is not ethnically compact. This fact was well understood be fore World War II by the leaders of the United IMRO. In an article entitled The Macedonian Sphinx, Sumorov wrote: The truth is as follows: Macedonia is a geographical unit, with distinct economic and political interests. The Mace donian people is not an ethnic unit, but is also not a formless mass. There is no Macedonian race, just as there is no Swiss race. The population is not purely Bulgarian: there are Bul gars, Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Jews, Wallachians, and Serbsinsofar as the latter exist. A ll of them together make up the Macedonian people. 4 As the reader will notice, the sting of this latter remark is directed exclusively against the Serbs. The question whether the Macedonian people of Yugoslavia exists as a separate ethnic entity is of fundamental im portance. The Yugoslav Communists are more or less alone
s Stalistiiki godi&njak F N R J za 1956 (Statistical A n n u a l o f the F e d era tiv e P eo p le 's R epu blic o f Y u g o s la v ia fo r 1956), B elg ra d e, 1956, p. 54. 4 Balkanska lederacija, M a y 1, 1930.

238

in their claim it does exist as such. According to Jovan Cvijic, the Slavic population of the area between Skoplje and Salonica is of indefinite national composition. This, from the national point of view, fluctuating mass, he says, I have called simply Macedonian Slavs. It is quite certain that those of them who come under Serbian rule soon themselves be come Serbs, while those who come under Bulgarian rule equally rapidly become Bulgars. 5 H. N. Brailsford took a similar view: for him, the Macedonian Slavs are probably very much what they were before either a Bulgarian or a Serbian Empire existed a Slav people derived from rather various stocks, who invaded the peninsula at different periods. But they had originally no clear consciousness of race, and any strong Slavonic Power was ably to impose itself upon them. 8 According to H. W. V. Temperley, Macedonia, racially speaking, represented a medley of tongues, a kaleidoscope of nationalities. 7 Reinhard Trautmann saw the key to order in this region in the exclusion of the terroristic influence of both peoples [Serbs and Bulgars] and in the cul tivation of a distinct tribal Macedonian consciousness among the greatest possible number of Macedonians. 8 Walter Jakob pointed out that there were 350,000 Macedonian Slavs, as opposed to 90.000 Bulgars and 100.000 Serbs, and expressed the view that the kernel of the ethnographic problem was to which nationality these Macedonian Slavs should be as signed. The view put forward by Jovan Cvijid was decisively re jected by Joachim H. Schultze, who said: These Macedonian Slavs are probably no more than an idea thought up by the Serbs in order to conceal their own aggressive tendencies. 1 0 Richard von Mach, who was well acquainted with the local conditions, likewise refused to recognize the existence of these Macedonian Slavs. He points out that the Bulgars and Serbs
6 J o v a n C v ijic , D ie ethnographische A b g re n z u n g der V o lk e r au f der B alk an h a lb in sel, Dr. A . Peterm anns M itteilu n g en aus Justus P e te r's geographischer Anstalt, V o l. I, 1913, p. 186. * H . N . B railsford, M a c e d o n ia : Its Races and Their Future, London, 1906, p. 101. 7 H. W . V . T em p erley , H is to ry o i Serbia, London, 1947, p. 309. 8 Reinhard Trautm ann, D ie siavischen V o lk e r und Sprachen, p. 33.. W a lt e r Jakob, D ie m azedonische Frage, pp. 29 and 30. 1 0 Joachim H. Sdiultze, Neugriedxenland, Gotha, 1927, p. 129.

239

came into conflict over the question of the ownership of this territory, and remarks that if the Serbs, like the Bulgars, had broken off ecclesiastical relations with the Greeks, they could have achieved considerable success in those areas in which the Macedonian Slavs had not yet taken one side or the other. But their awakening came too late, and their efforts south of Skoplje serve scarcely any purpose other than to lull their national consciousness___ Everything changes, and noth ing can change the national character of a people so effectiv ely as prolonged and systematic treatment through the medium of the schools and the Church. One day the question will be what is now and not what was once upon a time. u When von Mach expressed this view in 1899, he had no idea that the people itself would, in the clearest possible way, give the lie to his assertion that it was possible for the Bul gars to impose their own national character upon the Serbian population of Southern Serbia. Like von Mach, Jovan Cvijifc also overlooked a number of facts demonstrating, not only that there were Serbs south of his line of demarcation, but that the Serbian population was indeed nationally conscious and constantly prepared to promote the Serbian cause. He did, however, observe that this national consciousness was keener among the population of that part of Southern Serbia which after 1557 came under the Patriarchate of Pec than in the area subject to the Archbishopric of Ohrid. This influence exerted by the Patriarchate is also noted by Krum ToSev, one of the modern pioneers of the Macedonian cause. The whole of northern Macedonia, he says, including the cities of Skoplje, Tetovo, Kumanovo, Stip and Kratovo, together with a part of western Bulgaria, belonged to this patriarchate. There was virtually nothing to prevent even churches and monasteries of the Archbishopric of Ohrid from using printed books, which, printed as they were in the language used at that time in the Serbian Church, spread to an ever increasing extent through Macedonia, thus doing much to spread the language of the Resava school of orthography. 1 8 Vasilije
1 1 Richard v o n Mach, B eitrage zu r E th nographic d er B alk an h a lb in sel, Dr. A . Pelerm anna M itteilu n g en aus Justus P e te rs' geogra p h isciier Anstalt, V o l. X L V , 1899, pp. 100 and 101 02. ,s K rum ToSev, D ie m azedonische Schriftsprache, S u d ost-F orschungen, V o l. X V , M u n id i, 1956, p. 494.

240

Markovic asserted that the influence of the Eesava school was of long duration in Macedonia and western Bulgaria. From the fifteenth to the seventeenth century, he says, its in fluence was widespread and predominant, not merely in the Serbian lands, but throughout the Slavic South. During this period, it has been established that the Serbian language, specifically that of the Resava school, was universal in Mace donia. 1 3 Attempting to bolster up their thesis on the existence of a distinct Macedonian nationality, enthusiasts of the Mace donian cause point out that seventeenth-century documents are extant which show that there was a distinct Macedonian literary language even at that date. In his Gram m ar of literary Macedonian, BlaSo Koneski quotes a private letter dating from 1637, which he describes as the earliest text so far known in New Macedonian. 1 4 This letter is written in a local dialect under the pronounced influence of Church Slavonic, which is to be observed in the written language used in all the Serbian lands at that time. When quoting this letter as proof of the distinctive national character of the Mace donian Slavic population, Koneski, whether deliberately or otherwise, overlooks the fact that it was the government of the Serbian kingdom that first decided that textbooks for Serbian schools in Southern Serbia, which at that time was under Turkish rule, should be printed at Constantinople in the local dialect. In the year 1890, eight such books were is sued in Constantinople, including a calendar entitled G olu b and a Macedonian reader. Dispatching these books to Bel grade, Stojan Novakovi6, on whose initiative they had been printed, wrote in reference to the calendar: This is the first little book produced here that is intended, not for the chil dren, but for the people themselves. It is enough for a start that people see that we have not forgotten them, that we are attending to their spiritual needs and that we are not ignoring their popular dialect as the Bulgars are doing in their pro** V a s ilije M a r k o v ii, P ra vo sla vn o m onaStvo i manastiri u sred n je v e k o v n o j S rb iji (O rth o d o x M o n a steries and M o n a stic L if^ in M e d ie v a l S erb ia), B elg ra d e, 1920, p. 139. 1 4 B la io K onesk i, Gramatika na m akedonsktot literaturen jazlk (G ram m ar of the M a c e d o n ia n Literary L a n g u a g e }, S k oplje, 1952, pp. 13 14.

241

paganda, suppressing both the dialect and fine popular tradi tions with their so-called literary language. 1 5 For want of historical data to prove the existence of a separate Yugoslav Macedonian nationality, Koneski has re course to a resolution adopted by the Comintern in April 1934: In this resolution, he says, it is established that a Macedonian nation exists, in spite of the fact that this is denied by the bourgeoisie of those countries that divide Mace donia among themselves. 1 8 Having come to power after World War II, the Yugoslav Cmmunists were in a position to attempt a realization of this decision of the Cominterns, even though the Comintern had by then ceased to exist. Orthodox Marxists as they were, they believed that, by issuing decrees and falsifying the will of the people, they could create new nations and literary languages for them. On August 2, 1944, the Anti-Fascist Association for the National Liberation of Macedonia decided that the Mace donian literary language be introduced throughout the terri tory of the future Peoples Republic of Macedonia. The dif ficulty was that this language had yet to be created. A special commission was given the task of finding some way in which this might be done, and in October 1944 a meeting was held on the subject in the village of Gorno Vranovci. From November 27 to December 3 of the same year, another com mission sat on the question but was unable to reach a decision, since on May 3, 1945, yet another was established for the same purpose. This last body prepared a draft orthography which was adopted on June 2 and approved by the government of the Macedonian Peoples Republic on June 7 of the same year. Except for a few modifications and additions, this orthography is still in force.1 7 As literary language of the republic was chosen the central Macedonian dialect, which is spoken in Skoplje, Veles, Bitolj and Prilep. This is the written language of today in federal Macedonia. 1 8 The alphabet adopted was
1 5 A s quoted in A l. Jo van ovid, Srpske sk oie i (e t n i ik i p okret u J u zn oj Srbiji p o d Turcima (S e rb ia n Schools an d the Chetnic's M o v e ment in S outhern S erb ia U n d e r the T u rk s), S k op lje, 1937, p. 262. J K oneski, op. cit., p. 38. 1 7 Ibid., pp. 45 49. 1 8 R a d o v an Lalic, N a c io n a ln i p rep oro d m ak edon sk o g n a ro d a (T he N a tio n a l A w a k e n in g of the M a ced o n ia n P eo p le ), Borba, B elg r a d e -Z a g re b , N o v . 23, 1944.

242

that of Vuk StefanoviS Karadzic, except that the symbols k and g and S (dz) as the thirty-first letter were introduced to represent certain characteristically Macedonian sounds.1 9 According to Krum Tosev, the central Macedonian dialect was chosen because this was the form used by the writer Krste Misirkov in his Za makedonskite raboti (On Macedonian Problems), published in 1903. In this work, says Toev, the question of a Macedonian literary language was first seriously dealt with in a scientific manner. 2 0 Dimitar Vlahov quotes the report of the Orthographical Commission, according to which the Macedonian language, like many others, has crystallized as a real need, as a result of objective factors and the laws of linguistic evolution. One of the dialects of the contemporary popular speech has been taken as the basis of the literary language: this is the central dialect. One im portant point is that between this dialect and the other, out lying, ones, there is no substantial difference either in vocabulary or in grammatical forms. Similarly, many elements from other dialects have been incorporated in the literary language, so that it is very close to the popular speech. 2 1 Alongside the efforts to create a separate Macedonian literary language, distinct from the Serbian, attempts were also made to form a separate Macedonian Orthodox Church, in order to separate the Serbian population of Southern Ser bia from Serbia proper, not merely on the political and ad ministrative level but on the spiritual plane as well. On orders from the government, a group of Orthodox priests in Mace donia asked for permission to secede from the Serbian Ortho dox Curch and set up a separate Macedonian Orthodox Church, which had never existed as such throughout the regions his tory. They backed up their request with the argument that since the Macedonians were recognized as a nation in their own right, they were entitled to their own Church. There were three main reasons which prompted the regime to initiate this movement. Firstly, the Party took the view that the Serbian Orthodox Church was the chief advocate of the Greater Serbian idea, and therefore considered that the
'* Dugan P o p o v ii, P ov o d o m m ak edon sk e d o n ian A lp h a b e t), ibid., M a y 6, 1947. 2 0 ToSev, op. cit., pp. 497 98. 2 1 V la h o v , op. cit., p. 71. azbuke" (T he M ace

243

removal of its influence over the Serbs of Southern Serbia would accelerate their national reorientation. Secondly, leaders of the Party were aware of the part played by the Bulgarian Exarchate in spreading Bulgarian influence in the region, and wanted to establish a similar institution for their own ends. By provoking dissension among the Serbian Ortho dox clergy in Southern Serbia on the question of establishing an independent Macedonian Orthodox Church, the regime would introduce disunity into the Church and so weaken its resistance to Communism. Thirdly, the Communists realized that the Serbs of Southern Serbia are an extremely devout community deeply attached to ecclesiastical and popular tradi tions. An open attack upon the Church was not in the interests of the regime: a more expedient policy was to promote dis order, as a result of which the sees of Southern Serbia re mained vacant after 1941. Disorganized and deprived of their leaders, these dioceses could not exert the influence that they might have done otherwise. In this way, the Communists aimed at dealing a severe blow to the Serbian Orthodox Church, the only surviving institution in which the Serbian people was united. Terri torially, the Serbs had been divided under the new regime into five federal republics and two autonomous regions; and to leave the dioceses of Southern Serbia (i.e., those of Skoplje, Ohrid and Bitolj, and Zletovo and Strumica) under the control of the Serbian Patriarchate, under whose authority they had been for the most part during the Turkish regime, would have meant that the Serbian religious influence, which was im placably opposed to the designs of the Communists, continued to flourish. The thesis that the Slavic population of Southern Serbia constitutes a distinct national group can only be vindicated if the Serbian element can be persuaded that it is not Serbian but Macedonian. In presenting their demand for a separate Church, the spokesmen of the regime among the Serbian Orthodox clergy of Southern Serbia showed a distinct lack of discretion. They appealed for a revival of the old Archbishopric of Ohrid in complete ignorance of the historical role it had played. That it had never been Macedonian in their sense of the term is clear. When they saw that an autocephalous Church was out of the question, they modified their demands and agreed to autonomy within the Serbian Patriarchate, on condition 244

that local bishops be appointed and that the Macedonian language be used in ecclesiastical administration. To what extent the demand for an independent Mace donian Church was prompted by the regime may be seen from the fact that the side of the regime was taken by the Association of Orthodox Clergy of the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. Openly anti-Serbian, the regime re fused to permit this organization to be called the Association of Serbian Orthodox Clergy, which in fact is what it is. The purpose of its actual title is to allow clergy from the Mace donian republic to join, despite the fact that Article 14 of the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church states that the dioceses of Southern Serbia are an essential part of the Serbian Church, which cannot be divided into any federal units. Taking his stand on the Constitution of the Serbian Church, Gavrilo DoSic, when he returned to Yugoslavia after the war, refused even to discuss the regimes demands for the establishment of a separate Macedonian Church. Educated as he was in Greek seminaries and having fought in the struggle for the Serbian national cause in Southern Serbia before the Balkan Wars (1912 13), Patriarch Dozi6 could not understand that some one should ask him to renounce that for which he had been ready to give his life. It was the Patriarchs de termined attitude that frustrated, albeit temporarily, the efforts of the regime and its supporters in the Church. With the election, in the summer of 1950, of Vikentije Prodanov as Patriarch, the hopes of the ecclesiastical separatists of Southern Serbia were increased. In the electoral college that appointed him, the majority, supported by the regime, accepted a representative of the separatists as one of their number without any legal basis whatever. From the moment of his election, Prodanov undertook before the regime to find a solution to the problem. Immediately after the election, he told the Tanjug agency that he hoped that the question of the Macedonian Church would solved in an acceptable manner. A year later, on November 27, 1951, he was reminded of his unfulfilled promise. In reply to a question, he declared: The Serbian Orthodox Church has always desired a solution of the ecclesiastical question in Macedonia. When the Church Con stitution was changed in 1947, the Holy Episcopal Synod pro
245

posed and introduced certain provisions into the Constitution in order to meet the wishes of the Macedonian clergy---- In view of the clergys acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church, I think a satisfactory solution to the ecclesiastical question in Macedonia will be found. 8 2 Patriarch Vikentije did not say what form this solution was to take. Under constant pressure from the government and from the pro-Communist clergy, he is in an extremely difficult position: if he does nothing to settle this question, he exposes himself to the danger of reprisals from the regime, and if he attempts to work out a solution he cannot be certain that it will not involve him in a conflict with the vital interests of the Church he heads. On the eve of the May 1951 session of the Holy Synod, Vesnik, organ of the Union of Associations of Orthodox clergy of the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia, in its issue for May 15, wrote that it was high time that the question of recognizing a Mace donian Orthodox Church was settled. The participation of the Macedonian clergy and laity in the election of the Patriarch, said the paper, is the best possible proof of their canonical unity and filial devotion to their Mother Church. Their right to their own language and their national in dependence is guaranteed by the state Constitution, and one cannot, and indeed must not, take it in bad part if, on that basis and by virtue of their specific social development, they demand exceptional privileges that are beneficial, inter alia, for the Church as a whole. In this particular case, fear of precedents is completely irrelevant. A refusal to take due account of these facts means continued deference to Greater Serbian chauvinism, which cannot and must not be permitted in the fraternal community of Yugoslav peoples. Ratko Jelic, secretary of the Association of Orthodox Clergy of Yugo slavia, summed up the situation as follows: The Constitution of the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia has acknow ledged the nationality, language and culture of the Peoples Republic of Mecdonia. Whoever denies this is violating the state Constitution, and cannot claim to be a true citizen of this land. 2 3

1 2 V esnik , B elg ra d e, D ec. 1, 1951. !S ibid., Jan. 1, 1952.

246

As a result of the uncompromising attitude of the Holy Episcopal Synod and, undoubtedly, of the mood of the local population, the separatist group in Southern Serbia has con siderably modified its demands. No longer insisting even upon autonomy within the Serbian Patriarchate, it is content with the appointment of local bishops and the right to use the Macedonian language in ecclesiastical administration. In November 1952, Djordje Andjelkovski, one of the leaders of this group, denied that they sought a secession from the Serbian Church. Just as there is not a single person," he said, who does not wish to live within the borders of Yugo slavia, so there is no one who would wish for an ecclesiastical schism.... We want no schism, we want ecclesiastical unity, but we continue to demand our own bishops, our own clergy and the use of our own language. 2 4 Commenting upon this passage from Andjelkovskis speech, Vesnik wrote: He emphasized that this does not mean that the Church in Mace donia is seeking secession from the Serbian Orthodox Church or autocephalous status, as certain persons are maliciously trying to make out. 2 5 In Paragraph 3 of the resolution adopted at their second ordinary conference, the clergy of Southern Serbia stressed that they wanted ecclesiastical unity, while in Paragraph 4 they expressed determined opposition toward any renewal or strengthening of Bulgarian propa ganda.2 8 The problem of a Macedonian Orthodox Church still awaits a definitive solution. The agreement of April 10, 1957, between Patriarch Vikentije and representatives of the committee for initiating the organization of a Macedonian Orthodox Church is an affair of the Patriarch personally rather than of the Serbian Church as a whole. Nothing has yet been published to the effect that this agreement has been approved by the Holy Episcopal Synod, without which the Patriarch cannot bind the Church to any decisions. It should therefore be regarded as a provisional measure still awaiting official confirmation. According to this agreement, the Serbian Patriarch be comes administrator of all three dioceses in Southern Serbia until the election of new bishops, and appoints episcopal sur!4 Ibid., N o v . 15, 1952. 2 5 Ibid., O ct. 15, 1951. 2 0 Ibid.

247

rogates, members of ecclesiastical courts and officials of other ecclesiastical bodies in these dioceses. Ecclesiastical institu tions are permitted to use the local dialect in the administra tion of affairs and in sermons, provided that the liturgy is performed, as hitherto, in Church Slavonic. Local Church authorities in the Macedonian republic may use a seal bearing the Churchs coat of arms and a motto in Macedonian. There is evidence that Patriarch Vikentije takes the view that this agreement provides the basis for a settlement of Church affairs in Southern Serbia. In a pastoral letter ad dressed, on the occasion of this agreement, to the clergy and laity of the dioceses concerned, he declared his conviction that a way [had] been found of establishing the long-awaited unity of our Church. Ecclesiastical administration has been reorganized in the dioceses situated in the Macedonian Peoples Republic, and so the unity of our Church has been established by legal means. 2 7 The Patriarch official visit to the dioceses of Southern Serbia, made at the end of March 1958, followed as a con sequence of the agreement of April 10, 1957. Its purpose was to readjust relations between the separatists and the official Church. Whether, however and when this difficult question, so important for the interests of the Serbian nation, will be finally settled it is hard to say. It is possible that the conciliatoriness in this matter displayed by the regime and its spokesmen within the Church is no more than a tactical maneuver designed to secure the rapid appointment of local bishops dependent for their position upon the consent of the Party leaders, who continue to regard the Serbs in Southern Serbia as nationally distinct from those in Serbia proper. When they succeed in appointing their own men to the sees of Southern Serbia, the Communists will change their tactics and attempt to establish a separate Macedonian Orthodox Church.2 8

In their attempts to create a distinct Macedonian national ity, the Yugoslav Communists, particularly those occupying
1 7 Politika, B elgrade, A p r il 19, 1957. Cf. Borba, B e lg ra d e -Z a g re b , A p r il 19, 1957. 8 8 Borba, B e lg ra d e -Z a g re b , M arch 28, 1958.

248

leading positions in the Macedonian Peoples Republic, do not hesitate to adopt any form of falsification. They claim to speak in the name of the people, even though the popula tion of Southern Serbia has never had an opportunity of stat ing freely whether it feels itself to be a separate nation or not. The views of the population on this point, however, are of decisive importance for the whole problem. The Communist regime, by virtue of the power it holds in its hands, is trying to force an alien concept upon the popula tion of this region. The arguments it advances in justification of this concept are neither new nor original, and are incapable of withstanding any serious criticism. To declare, as Lazar Mojsov does, that the Macedonian nation was unable to take its final form or to find forceful expression in any sphere of social life before the rise of capitalism and the complete liquidation of feudalism in Macedonia 8 9 is mere wordplay the forcible application of Marxist cliches to historical reality. The same is true of Dimitar Vlahovs assertion that formerly the majority of Macedonians were unaware of their Mace donian nationality, although individual Macedonian public workers did possess a national consciousness. 3 0 Vlahov con siders that a Macedonian nation is now being created together with the Macedonian literary language, since this will da much to ensure that the roots of Greater Bulgarian and Greater Serbian aspirations are torn up once and for all. 3 1 Ivan Karaivanov states that the Macedonians are a separate nation because they won their freedom side by side with the other peoples of Yugoslavia. It is known, however, that the partisan movement was relatively feeble in Southern Serbia much more so than the Chetnic national movement, which is not allowed to be mentioned in Communist Yugoslavia. The population of the Macedonian Peoples Republic, says Ka raivanov, is a powerful factor which w ill force, not only other nations, but history itself to acknowledge the Mace donian masses as a separate and free nation. 3 2
1 8 L a za r M o js o v , Bugarska radnidka partija (k om u n ista ) i m ake d on sk o nacionalno pJtanje (T h e B u lgarian W o r k e r s ' [C om m unist) P arty and the M a c e d o n ia n N a tio n a l Q u estio n ), B elg ra d e, 1498, p. 6. 3 0 V la h o v , op. cit., p. 58. 3 1 Ibid., p. 72. n Iv a n K a ra iv a n o v , N a rodna republika M a k e d o n ija (T h e People's. R e p u blic o f M a c e d o n ia ), S k op lje, 1949, p. 48.

249

It is a conspicuous fact that in Southern Serbia it is only the Serbs who are expected to declare themselves Mace donians: no such demand is made of the Greeks, the Jews, the Wallachians, the Albanians or the Turks. Mathias Murko points out that at one stage certain Russian circles attempted to create a separate nationality and a new literary language among the Macedonian Slavs," 3 3 but this attempt came to nothing. In his dispute with BopSev, Milojko Veselinovic stated that the Serbs of Southern Serbia are bound to their land and their homes, and have no idea of Macedonia, neither do they call themselves Macedonians. This ancient name only survives in literature as a historical term, and has begun to be heard in recent times only in the cities and from various propagandists, who hope by its means to fish in troubled waters. 3 4 The thesis of the Yugoslav Communists on the existence of a separate Macedonian nationality is the most complete expression of the anti-Serbian trend in their nationality po licy. Their efforts in this direction find a complement in their attempts to create a separate nationality for the Montenegrans, notwithstanding the fact that it is in Montenegro that Serbian national feeling is most jealously guarded. The present solution of the Macedonian question has been de liberately and systematically arrived at without consulting the Serbs and in opposition to their vital interests. This is a noteworthy feature of the situation as it stands today. The establishment of a peoples republic of Macedonia without consulting the nation most intimately concerned con stitutes one of the most farreaching moves in the process of disintegrating the Serbian lands: whereas the Slovenes in their entirety have been welded together in one federal unit, and almost all the Croats are embraced by the Peoples Re public of Croatia, the Serbs are divided between five peoples republics and two autonomous regions. The entire govern mental and parliamentary system of the Federative Peoples
3 3 M . M u rk o, Geschichte der dlterert sudslawischen Lileratur, L e ip zig, 1908, p. 18. 3 4 M ilo jk o V . V e s e lin o v ic , Srbi u M a c e d o n iji i u J u in o j Staroj Srbiji, Hi o d g o v o r g. S. S. B o p ie v u (T he S erb s in M a c e d o n ia and S ou thern O ld S erb ia: A R e p ly to M r. S. S. B o p fe v ), B elg ra d e, 1888, pp. 30 31.

250

Republic of Yugoslavia is so adjusted that, for example, in the Chamber of the Nations, the same number of delegates is assigned to the republics of Macedonia, which has about one and a half million inhabitants, Slovenia, which has even fewer, and Serbia, which, within its present frontiers, has over five million. When it is borne in mind that the Yugoslav parliament of today contains only well-tried Communists, it becomes clear that under the present regime the Serbian people, like the other peoples of Yugoslavia, has no means of self-expression. The regime proclaims its views and decisions as though they have the approval of the people. At the second session of the AFCNLY, the Party proclaimed a distinct Macedonian nationality, thus introducing the Macedonians into the family of South Slav and European nations. 3 5 When it decided to create a separate language out of a Serbian dialect and pro claim as a separate nation that section of the Serbian people that spoke that dialect, the Yugoslav Communist Party failed to notice the impossibility and absurdity of the position it was taking up. Logically speaking, having turned a south Serbian dialect into a separate language, the Party could just as easily divide the Croats into three distinct peoples accord ing as they use the 6ak, kaj and Sto dialects.
###

From the foregoing exposition, it is clear that the Mace donian question has been reduced to a matter of Yugoslav internal politics, where it represents one of the present Com munist regimes most powerful weapons in its campaign against the Serbs. In the future relations of Yugoslavia, Bul garia and Greece, it will play a progressively diminishing role. The frontiers dividing these three countries may be taken es being definitive: only another war can change them. In the political plans of Moscow, this question may once more acquire a certain importance as an instrument of pressure upon either Bulgaria or Yugoslavia. The Soviet Union has already changed its attitude several times on the Macedonian
M oS a P ijade, Izabrani g o v o r i i ilanci, 1941 47 Speeches and A rticles, 1941 47), B elg ra d e, 1948, p. 258. (Selected

251

question, and it is not improbable that its future policy in this regard will be determined by considerations of its in fluence in the Balkans. As it stands today, the Macedonian question has lost much of its former importance in Moscows plans for world revolution. If the Soviet Union nevertheless decides to revive this problem, it will have to present it in a purely nationalistic light. However that may be, Yugoslav Macedonia is now a permanent loss as far as the Bulgars are concerned. A ll the attempts of certain sections of the Bul garian emigration and the right wing of Macedonian emigra tion to secure the transfer of Southern Serbia to Bulgaria are no more than the last few spasms before the parties con cerned become completely reconciled with immutable reality. Bulgarian claims to Southern Serbia no longer constitute a threat to Serbian interests in this area. The danger lies in the attempts of the Yugoslav Communists to deprive these classically Serbian lands of their national physiognomy and present them as the home of a nation that has so far never existed a nation without a history and without those es sential characteristics that any true nation must have.

252

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Ischirkov: D ie B e v o lk e ru n g in B u lgarien und ih re S ied lu n gsverh altn isse (Peterm an n's M itteilu n g en 1911, H a lb b a n d II). A d a m B. U la n : T itoism and the Com inform . H a r v a r d U n iv e rsity Press, C a m b rid g e, M ass., 1952. A lb e r t M o u sset: T h e W o r ld o f the S lav es. London, 1950. A le k s a n d e r R ank ovid : Izab ran i g o v o ri i dlanci (S elected Speeches and A rtic le s ). B elg ra d e, 1951. A le x a n d e r Redlich: D e r G e ge n satz z w isd ie n O s te rre ich -U n ga rn und RuBland. Stuttgart-Berlin, 1915. A le k s a J o v an o v id : S rp sk e Skole i ietnidk i pok ret u J u in o j S rb iji pod T u rcim a (S e rb ia n Schools an d the C h etn ics M o v e m e n t in Southern S e rb ia under the T u rk s). S k op lje, 1937. A le k s a J o van o v id : Postan ak E g z a rh ije i Tu rsk a, R u sija i S rb ija (T he Establishm ent o f the Exarchate an d T u rk e y , R ussia an d S erb ia). S k o p lje, 1936. A lb in K utschbadi: D e r B ran dh erd E uro pas: 50 Jahre B alk an -E rin n erungen. Leipzig, 1929. A le k s a Ivid: G r a d ja za istorisku g e o g r a fiju srp sk e c rk v e (M aterials fo r an h istorical g e o g r a p h y o f the S erb ian Church). G la s n ik ge o g ra fs k o g druStva, v o l. V I I V II I . 1922. A le x a n d e r F. H eksch: D ie D onau , v o n ihrem U rs p ru n g bis a u f die M iin du n g. Leip zig, 1884. A le x a n d e r R anda: D e r B a lk a n Schliisselraum der W e ltg e s d iid ite . G ra z-S a lz b u rg -V ie n n a , 1949. A lo i s Schmaus: Dichtung. In M a ze d o n ien : Le b en und G eist ein er Landschaft. B erlin, 1940. A rc h bish o p D a n ilo : Z iv o ti k r a lje v a i arh ie p isk o p a srpsk ih (T h e L iv es o f the S erbian K ings an d A rch bish o ps). T rans, b y Dr. L a za r M ir k o vid. B elg ra d e, 1935. A m i Bou6: La T u rq u ie d'E u rope. Paris, 1840. A n t e P a v e lid : A u s dem K am p f um den selb stan d ig en Staat K roatien. V ie n n a , 1931. A n to n Tum a v o n W a ld k a m p f: G riechenland, M a k e d o n ie n und Siidalbanien. Leipzig, 1897. A u g u st G riesebach : R eise durch R um elien und nach B russa im Jahre 1839. G ottingen, 1841. B alk an sk a fe d e ra c ija (B a lk an -F o d e ratio n ). G la s ilo potladenih n a rod a i narodn ih m an jin a B alk an a). B alk an icu s. S erb ien und B u lgarien im B a lk a n k rie g e (1912 13). L e ip zig, 1913. B la io K o n esk i: G ra m atik a na m ak edon sk iot literatu ren ja z ik (G ra m m er of the M a c e d o n ia n Literatu ry L a n g u a g e ). S k o p lje, 1952. B ogdan F ilo v : Geschichte d er b u lgarisch en K unst unter der tiirkischen H errschaft und in der neueren Zeit. B erlin -Leip zig, 1933.

253

Bozidar A . P rok ic: V o jv o d a Iv ac (D u k e Iv a c ). B ratstvo dru stva sv. Save, vol. IX and X . 1902. British U n iv e rsities E ncy clopaed ia. A D ic tio n a ry o f U n iv e rsa l K n o w ledge. V o l. V I and X IV . B rank o C u b rilo v ic : Z a p isi is tu djine (N o te s from A b ro a d ). S a ra je v o , 1946. B runo M lin arid : Tito, d er ro te R e b ell und seine v o llk om m en e D em okratie. Zurich, 1948. C a rl A n ton von G ru b e r: D as osm anische Reich. G eograph isch -statistisch und geschichtlich dargestellt. V ie n n a , 1811. C a rl Ritter von S ax : Geschichte des M a ch tv e rfalles d er T u rk e i bis Ende d e s X IX . Jahrhunderts und die Phasen der orientalischen F r a g e bis au f die G e g e n w a rt. V ie n n a, 1913. Constantin Jos. J ir e ie k : Geschichte d e r B ulgaren. P ragu e, 1876. C onstantin Jos. Jirecek : D a s Fiirstentum B ulgarien . P ra g u e -V ie n n a Leipzig, 1891. Constantin Jos. Jirecek: D as christliche Elem ent in der top ograp h isd ie n N o m e n k la tu r der B alk an lan der. Sitzungsberichte der K aiserlichen A k a d e m ie der W issen sch aft in W ie n : Philologisch-historische C lasse, vol. C X X X X V I . Constantin Jos. J irecek -Jov an R adonic: ls to rija S rb a (H isto ry o f the S erbs). V o l. I, B elg ra d e, 1952. C o rre sp on d en ce respectin g the A ffa irs o f South-Eastern Europe. P re sented to both H au se s o f Parliam ent b y Com m an d o f H is M a je s ty . F e b ru a ry 1903. London. C o nstantine S ep h an o v e : M a c e d o n ia and the P ea ce C onferen ce. L 'ln depen dan ce m acedonienne, N o v e m b e r 1, 1919. C. M . W o o d h o u s e : A p p le of D iscord. London, 1948. C y p ria n R obert: D ie S law e n der T u rkei. Stuttgart, 1844. D a n a il V . K rapchev: Izm inat piit. Sofia. D. M ik o ff: Les etapes d 'u n e unit6 nationale. Sofia, 1915. D im itar M itre v : P irin sk a M a k e d o n ija v o b o rb a za nacio n aln o o slo b o d u v a n je (Pirin M a c e d o n ia in the S tru g g le for N a tio n a l L iberatio n ). S k op lje, 1950. Dim itri O b o le n sk i: T h e B ogom ils. A S tud y in B alk an N e o -M a n ic h a e sim. C a m b rid g e, England, 1949. D im itar Risoff: D ie B u lgare n in ihren historisdien, ethnographischen und politischen Grenzen. B erlin, 1917. D im itar R isoff: B u lgarien und RuBland. Berlin. D im itar V la h o v : Iz isto rije m ak e d on sk o g n a rod a (From the H isto ry o f the M a ced o n ia n P eo p le ). B elg ra d e, 1950. D im o K az a so v : Burni godini (The S trom y Y e a rs). Sofia, 1949. D ru g o zased a n je A V N O J - a (T he S econ d Session of the A F C N L Y ). 1943. D u san P op ovid: Izabran i spisi (Selected W r it in g s ). B elgrade, 1951. D u san P o p o v ic : P o v o d o m m ak edon sk e azb u k e (T he M a c e d o n ia n A l ph abet). In B o rb a , M a y 6, 1947. D ie groB e Politik d er europaischen part II. B erlin, 1923. K abin ette 1871 1914. V o l. X II,

254

Edith D urham : D ie slaw ische G e fa h r: 20 Jahre B alk an -E rinn eru ngen. Stuttgart. E lisabeth B ark er: M a c e d o n ia : Its P lace in B alk an P o w e r Politics. London, 1950. Ernst D um m ler: U b e r die alteste Geschichte der S la w e n in D alm atien 549 928. Sitzungsberichte der K aiserlichen A k a d e m ie der W is s e n schaften in W ie n , P h ilologisd i-h istorisch e C lasse, V o l. X X , 1856. F. A . V o ig t : P a x Britannica. London, 1949. F. A . V o ig t : T he Battle of Konitz. In T h e N in eteen th C en tu ry and A ft e r , F e b ru a ry 1948. F erdo Siic: J u g o slo v e n sk a m isao (Y u g o s la v T hou gh t). B elg ra d e, 1937. F erdo Si&ic: Letopis P op a D u k lja n in a (The C h ro n ic le of the Priest D u k lja n in ), B e lg ra d e -Z a g re b , 1928. F e lix K anitz: D onau, B u lgarien und B alkan. V o l. Ill (1860 80). Le ip zig, 1880. Fran G riv e c : Z itja K onstantina in M e to d ija (T he Life of Constantine and M e th o d iu s). L ju b lja n a , 1951. Franz B rad ask a: D ie S law e n in d er Tiirk ei (M itte ilu n ge n aus Justus Peters g e o g ro p h isd ie r A n sta lt). V o l. X V , 1869. Franz D o flein : M azedon ien . E rlebnisse und B eo b ad itu n g en eines N atu rfo rsch ers im G e fo lg e d es deutschen H eeres. Jena, 1921. G e rh a rd Schacher: D er B alkan und sein e w irtsdiaftlichen Krafte. Stutt gart, 1930. G e o r g ije O stro g o rsk i: DuSan i n je g o v a v la stela u b o rb i sa V iza n tijom (D u ia n and his N o b le s in the S tru g gle w ith Byzantium ). Z b o rn ik u fa st Sestogodisnjice Z a k o n ik a cara D u san a, V o l. I, B e l grade, 1951. G e o r g E ugen K unze: B ulgarien . Gotha, 1919. G e o r g R osen: D ie B alk an haidu ken. Leipzig, 1888. G ilb e rt in der M a u r: D ie J u g o sla w e n einst und jetzt. L e ip zig -V ien n a, 1936. G r g u r Jaksi6: S tan ovn istvo M a ie d o n ije u podetku X IX v ek a (The P op u lation of M a c e d o n ia at the B egin nnig of the N in eteen th C e n tury), B ratstvo druStva sv. S av e, v o l. X V I I. G u s ta w W e ig a n d : E thnographie von M a ced on ien . Leipzig, 1924. H . W . V . T em p erley : H isto ry o f S erbia. London, 1912. H. N . B railsford: M e c o d n ia : Its R aces and their Future. London, 1906. H a jo H a lb o rn : A u fz e id m u n g e n und E rin neru ngen aus dem Leben des Botschafters Joseph M a r ia von R adow itz. V o l. I. B erlin -Leip zig, 1925. H einrich G e lz er: V o m heiligen B erge und aus M ak ed o n ien . Leipzig, 1907. H erm an n W e n d e l: M a k e d o n ie n und der Friede. M unich, 1919. H erm an n W e n d e l: D e r K am p f der S u d sla w e n um Freih eit und Einheit. Frankfurt/M ., 1925. H erm an n W e n d e l: Siidslaw ische F rage. Berlin, 1918. H oran d H o rsa Sdiacht: D ie E ntw icklung der m azedonischen F ra g e um die Jah rh u n dertw en de zum M iirzsteg er Program m . H alle , 1929. H u g o G ro th e: A u f tiirkischer Erde. Berlin, 1903. H u g o G ro th e: B ulgarien . N atu r, V olk stu m , Staat, G eistesleben , W ir t sdiaft. V ie n n a, 1921.

255

H u g h S e to n -W a ts o n : O ste u ro p a zwischen den K riegen. P aderborn , 1948. H u g h S e to n -W a ts o n : D iffere n ce s in the South-East. In T h e Listener, London, J u ly 1948. Istoriski arh iv K PJ. T o m I: Socijalistid ki pok ret u S rb iji 1900 1919 (H isto rical A rc h iv e s of the Com m unist P arty o f Y u g o s la v ia . V o l. I: T h e Socialist M o v e m e n t in S erb ia 1900 1919). B elg ra d e, 1950. Istoriski a rh iv KPJ. Tom II.: K o n gre si i zem a ljsk e k o n fe re n c ije KPJ od 1919 1937). H isto rica l A rc h iv e s o f the Com m unist P arty of Y u g o s la v ia . V o l. II: C o n g re sses an d N a tio n a l C o n fe re n c e o f the P arty 1919 1937). B elg ra d e, 1950. Iv a n K a ra iv a n o v : N a ro d n a rep u b lik a M a k e d o n ija (The P e o p le 's R e pu blic of M a k e d o n ia ).S k o p lje , 1949. Iv a n M in ch ev: S erbien und die b u lgarisch e n atio n ale B e w e g u n g . Iv a n M ih a ilo ff: M a c e d o n ia : A S w itze rlan d o f the B alkans. St. Luis, 1950. Jako b P h illipp F a llm e ra y e r: Fragm en te aus dem O rient, 2nd. edition, Stuttgart, 1877. Jam es B ak er: T u rk e y . N e w Y o rk , 1877. Joachim H. Schultze: N e u g rie d ie n la n d . Gotha, 1927. J .J . M ik k o la : Sam o und sein Reich. A rc h iv fu r slaw ische P h ilo lo gie, V o l. X L II, 1929. J. M ik o tc y : O toriu m C h ro atiae. V o l. I, B udapest 1806. J o v a n C v i ji t : D ie eth nographische A b g re n z u n g d e r V o lk e r au f der B alk an h alb in sel. In Dr. A . Peterm ann's M itteilu n g en au s Justus P eters' geograph isch er A n s ta lt, V o l. I, 1913. J o van C v ijic : G e o g ra fs k i i k ulturni p o lo za j S rb ije (S e rb ia 's g e o gra p h ica l an d cu ltu ral Position). G la s n ik g e o g ra fs k o g drutva, V o l. I l l IV . J o van C v iji6 : Rem arques sur l'e th n o g ra p h ie d e la M a ced o in e . Paris, 1907. J o v an C v i ji i : G ru n d lin ien der G e o g ra p h ie und G e o lo g ie v o n M a z e donien und A lt-S e rb ie n nebst B eobachtungen in Thrazien, T h essalien, Epirus und N o rd a lb a n ie n . P art I. Gotha, 1908. J o v an C v iji6 : B alk an sk o p o lu o strv o i ju z n o slo v e n sk e zem lje (T he B alk an Pen in su la an d the South S la v s Lands). J o v an D ra g a se v i6 : M a k e d o n sk i S lo v en i (T he M a c e d o n ia n S la v s ). B el grade, 1890. J o v an E rd e lja n o v ic : O n a s e lja v a n ju S lo v e n a u M a lo j A z iji i S iriji od V I I do X v ek a (T he Settlem ent o f the S lav s in A s ia M in o r and S y ria from S eventh to the Tenth C en tu ry ). G lasn ik g e o g ra fs k o g drustva. V o l. V I, 1921. J o v an H a d z i-V a s ilje v i6 : P o k u m an o v sk oj i sk o psk oj okolini. (Round the D istricts of K u m an ov o an d S k o p lje ). Bratstvo druStva sv. S ave. V o l. V II. J o v an H a d z i-V a s ilje v ic : O h rid (O h rid ). Bratstvo druStva sv. S ave. V o l. X V I I . J o v a n M . Jo v an ov id : Juzna S rb ija od k r a ja X V I I I v e k a do o slo b o d je n ja (Southern S erb ia from the End o f the Eighteenth C entu ry to the Lib eratio n ). B elg ra d e.

256

Jo v an M . Jo v an ov id : B orba za narodn o u je d in je n je 1903 1908 (T he S tru g gle for N a tio n a l U n ificatio n ). B elgrade. J o van Radonic: M e d ju n a ro d n i p o lo za j S rb ije u X I V v e k u (S e rb ia 's International P osition in the Fourtheenth C en tu ry ). Z b o rn ik u Cast Sestogodisnjice Z a k o n ik a cara D usan a. V o l. I. B elgrade, 1951. Joseph M u lle r: A lb a n ie n , Rum elien und d ie osterreichisch-m ontenegrinische G renze. P ragu e , 1844. Jordan Iv a n o v : B ulgarsk i starini iz M a k e d o n ija (B u lg a ria n A n tiqu ities from M a c e d o n ia ). Sofia, 1932. 2nd ed. J. G. v o n H ah n : Reise v o n B e lg ra d nach S alon ik nebst v ie r A b h a n d lu n gen zur alten Geschichte des M o ra w a g e b ie te s. V ie n n a , 1868. Ja k o b Rutchi: D ie Reform ation D sterreich -U n g arn s und RuBlands in M a ced o n ie n 1903 08. Bern, 1918. J. T. M a rk o v ic and S veto zar Tom id: O M a k e d o n iji i M a k e d o n cim a (M a c e d o n ia and M a ced o n ia n s). C orfu , 1918. K arl B ra u n -W ie s b a d e n : E ine tiirkische Reise. V o l. II. Stuttgart, 1876, Karl B ra u n -W ie s b a d e n : Reiseeindriicke aus dem Siidosten. V o l. III. Stuttgart, 1888. K arl O estreich: D ie B e v o lk e ru n g v o n M a k e d o n ien . G eograph isch e Zeitschrift, 1905. V o l. I. K arl O estreich: Reiseeindriicke aus dem V ila je t K o so v o . V ie n n a, 1899. K arl Oestreich: M ak ed o n ien . G eograph isch e Zeitschrift, 1904, V o l. I. K nspar Z e u ss: D ie Deutschen und die Nachbarstam m e. Munich, 1837. K onstituclya I o sn o v n iy e z ak o n o d ate ln y e akty N a ro d n o j respu blik i Uolqnrii (T he Constitution and Fundam ental L e gislativ e A cts of th<> P eo p le 's R epu blic of B u lg a ria ). M o sc o w , 1952. Krum ToSev: D ie m azedonische Schriftsprache. In Siidost-Forschung e n , V o l. X V , Munich, 1956. Kurt F loericke: Geschichte d e r B ulgaren. Stuttgart, 1913. I.a M a c e d o in e . Journ al p o litiq u e hebdom adoine, G e n e v e, 1927 34. Lazar M o js o v : B u g arsk a radnidka p a rtija (kom unista) i M a k e d o n sk o nacio n aln o pitan je (T he B u lgarian W o r k e r s ' [Com m unist] Party and the M a ced o n ia n Q u estio n ). B elgrade, 1948. Leigh W h ite : B alk an C a esar: T ito versu s Stalin. N e w Y o rk , 1951. Leopold von R anke: W eltgeschichte. V o l. I, 1928. Lju ben Lape: Pism ata na G o c e D e ld e v (T h e Letter o f G o c e D elchev). S k op lje, 1951. Lju bo m ir S tojan o v id : Stari srpsk i zapisi i natpisi cords and Inscripts). V o l. I V I. B elgrade. (O ld S erbian R e

L ju bo m ir P a v lo v id : O stanovnistvu i selim a O s tro v sk e o k o lin e (The P op ulation and V illa g e s of the O s tro v District). G lasn ik g e o g ra fsk o g druStva. V o l. V , 1921. L u d w ig G u m p lo w icz : D ie politische Geschichte der Serben und K ro a ten. In P olitisch-anthropologische R e v u e, 1902/03. M. V a r d a r s k y . Lo rg an isatio n rev o lu tio n n aire interieure. ddpendan ce M acd d o n ie n n e, N o v e m b e r 15, 1919. M a k e d o n s k o delo, god. I V I I (1925 1932). In L'in-

M ath ias M u rk o : Geschichte der alteren siidslaw ischen Literatur. Le ip zig, 1908.

257

M a x V a s m e r: U n tersuchungen lib er die altesten W o h n sitz e der S la w en , p art I: D ie Iran ier in SiidruBland. Leipzig, 1923. M e m o ire s pr6sent6s k la C o n feren ce d e la P a ix a Lausan ne par le d6I6gu6 de I'A sso c ia tio n m acedonienn e m usulm ane. M ih a ilo D in ii: D u s a n o v a ca rsk a titula u o fim a s av rem e n ik a (D ugan's Im perial T itle in the E yes o f C o n tem p oraries). Z b o rn ik u fa st SestogodiSnjice Z a k o n ik a c a ra Dusana. V o l. I, B elg ra d e, 1951. M ilo jk o V e s e lin o v ic : Srbi u M a ie d o n iji i u Juznoj Staroj S rb iji ili o d g o v o r g. S. S. B o p ie v (T h e S erbs in M a c e d o n ia and Southern O ld S erb ia: A R e p ly to M r. S. S. B epdev. B elgrade, 1888. M ilo jk o V e s e lin o v it : G e o g ra fs k o -e tn o g ra fs k i p re g le d M a ie d o n ije i Stare S rb ije (G e o g ra p h ic a l an d E th n o grap h ical S u rv e y o f M a c e do n ia and O ld S erb ia). B ratstvo druistva sv. S av e. V o l. I. M ilo m ir M ile n o v it : C e tn iik a a k c ija (C h e tn ics W a r fa r e ). In N a ro d n a e n cik lo p ed ija Srba, H rv a ta i S lo v e n a c a (N a tio n a l E n cy clo p a ed ia o f Serbs, K roates and S lo v en s), V o l. IV . M ilo v a n D jila s : C la n c i 1941 1946 (A rtic le s 1941 1946). B elg ra d e. M ih a ilo V e ljid : S rpsk e n a rod n e u m otvorine, o b id aji i v e r o v a n ja iz D e b ra i o k o lin e (S e rb ia n Fo lk Poem s, Custom s and B eliefs from D e b a r and its E nviron s). B ratstvo dru stv a sv. S av e, V o l. IX X. M o s a P ija d e : Izabran i g o v o ri i ila n c i 1941 1947 (Selected Speeches an d A rtic le s 1941 1947). B elgrade, 1948. N . S. D e rsd ia w in . U b e r M a k e d o n ien , w issen sd iaftlich e und kritische U n te rsu d iu n g . Leipzig, 1918. N . P. K o n d a k o w : M a k e d o n iy a : A rk h e o lo g iie s k o e p u tesestvie (M a c e do n ia: A n A rc h e o lo gic al J o u rn ey ). St. P etersbu rg, 1909. N e o fit R ilski: Iz a b ra n a s id iin e n ia (Selected W rittin g s ). Sofia, 1937. N e v il e H en d erso n : W a s s e r unter den Briicken. Zurich, 1949. N ic o la s A d on tz: Sam uel l'A rm ^ n ien , roi des B u lgares. In M 6 m oires de l'A k a d e m ie ro y a le de B e lg iq u e , 1938. N o e l B uxton and C. L e on ard L eese: B alk an P roblem s and E uropean P eace. London, 1919. O tto H offm an n : D ie M a k e d o n ien , ihre Sprache und ihr V olk stum . Gottingen, 1906. O tto von Bism arck: G esam m elte W e r k e . V o l. X V : G e d an k en und Erinnerungen. Berlin, 1932. P. A . L a v ro v : D ie neuesten Forschungen iiber den slaw ischen mens, A rc h iv fur S lavisch e P h ilo lo gie, V o l. X X V II, 1905. P a u ly s -W is s o w a R e al-E n c yc lop ad ie, V o l. X X V II. Paul D eh n : D ie V o lk e r Siidosteuropas und ih re politischen Problem e. H a lle , 1909. Pau l Joseph Schafarik: Slavische A lterthiim er. Leipzig, 1844. V o l. II. P. A . S yrk u : V re m y a i zhizn p atriark h a Jeftim iya T e rn o v s k o g o (T he Life and T im es of aPtriarch Jeftim iya of T u rn o v o ). P re g le d n a ro d n o -o s lo b o d ila fk o g rata u M a k e d o n iji 1941 1944 (R e v ie w o f the W a r o f N a tio n a l Lib eratio n in M a c e d o n ia 1941 1944). Pu bl. b y the H istorical Institute o f the Y u g o s la v A rm y , B elgrade, 1950. P rep isk a Ilije G a ra sa n in a 1839 1849 (C o rresp o n d e n c e o f Iliy a G a ra sanin 1839 1849). V o l. I. B elg ra d e, 1950. C le

258

IdAko Rom ac: B egstvo sa r o b ije (F ligh t from B on d ag e). B elg ra d e, 1951. R n doslav G ru jid : E gzarh isk a u p ra v a u Juznoj S rb iji (T h e Exarchist A dm inistration in Southern S erb ia). In N a ro d n a e n cik lo p ed ija SI IS. V o l. I, B elg ra d e, 1928. H iidoslav G ru jid : O h rid s k a arh ie p isk o p ija (T he A rc h e p isc o p acy of O h rid ). In N a ro d n a en c ik lo p e d ija S H S . V o l. Ill, B elg ra d e, 1928. Itudoslav G ru jid : Pedska p a trija rs ija (T he Patriarchate of Ped). In "N a r o d n a e n cik lo p ed ija S H S . V o l. IV , B elg ra d e, 1928. Km iovan Lalid: N a c io n a ln i p rep oro d m ak edon sk o g n a ro d a (T he N a tional A w a k e n e n in g of the M a c e d o n ia n P eo p le ). In B o rb a, N o vem ber 23, 1944. Kolnhold Trautm ann, D ie slaw ischen V o lk e r und Sprachen. Eine EinI till rung in d ie Slavistik. G ottingen, 1947. It. T. N ik o lid : S iren je A rn a u ta u srpsk e zem lje (A lb a n ia n E xpan sion o v e r the S erb ian Lands). G la s n ik g e o g ra fs k o g druStva, v o l. I ll IV . Kobort R osier: U b e r den Zeitpu n kt der slavischen A n s ie d lu n g an d er unteren D onau. Sitzungsberichte d er K aiserlichen A k a d e m ie der W issen sch aften in W ie n : P hilologisch-historische C lasse, V o l. L X X II, 1873. It, W a ls h : R eise von K onstantinopel durch Rum elien, das B alk an g e b irg e , B u lgarien , die W a la c h e i, S ieb en b iirgen und U n garn . D resden -Leip zig, 1828. Richard v o n M ach: D e r M achtbereich des bulgarisch en Exarchats in der T iirkei. Leip zig-N eu ch atel, 1906. Richard vo n M ach: B eitra ge zur E th nographie der B alk an h albin sel. In "D r. A . Peterm anns M itteilu n g en aus Justus P e te rs geograph isch er A n sta lt, V o l . X L V , 1899. S im eon Jeftim off: D ie m azedonische F rage. Son derabdru ck aus Z e itschrift fiir P olitik . S im a M a rk o v id : N a c io n a ln o pitan je u svetlosti m arksizm a (T h e N a tional Q u estio n In the Light o f M a rx ism ). B elg ra d e, 1923. S la v e jk o A r s o v : V o s ta n ic k o d v iz e n ije v o J u go zap ad n a M a k e d o n ija po spom eni na S la v e jk o A r s o v (T he R ising in Sou thw est M a c e do n ia: M e m o irs o f S la v e jk o A r s o v ). S k oplje. S lo b o d a n J o v an o v id : V la d a A le k s a n d ra O b re n o v id a 1889 1897 (The R eign o f A le x a n d e r O b re n o v ic 1889 1897). V o l. I II, B elg ra d e. S pirodon G o p c ev id : M a k e d o n ie n u n d A ltse rb ie n . V ie n n a , 1889. Spom eni na G 'o rd e P etrov (G 'o rd e P etrov 's M e m o irs). S k op lje, 1950. Statistidki go diS n jak F N R J za 1956 (Statistical A n n u a l of the F P R Y for 1956). B elg ra d e, 1956. S tan o je S tan o je v ic : O srp sk o j kulturi u sredn jem v e k u (S e rbia n C u l ture in the M id d le A g e s ). In Iz nase p ro slo sti (From O u r Past), V o l. I. B elg ra d e, 1934. S la n o je S tan o jevid : ls to rija srp sk o g n a rod a (H isto ry o f the S erbian P eo p le ). B elg ra d e, 1926. Stevan M . D im itrijevid: B o g o s lo v s k o -u iit e ljs k a Skola u P rizren u (T he T h e o lo g ic a l and Teach ers' T rain in g C o lle g e of Prizren ). Bratstvo d r u itv a sv. S av e, V o l. X V I I . Stephen G ra h am : A le x a n d e r o f Y u g o s la v ia . London.

259

Stelan M la d e n o v : Geschichte der bulgarisch en Sprache. B erlin -Leip zig, 1929. S tojan N o v a k o v id : Les p ro b l^ m es serbes. A rc h iv fiir slavische P h ilo logie. V o l. X X I V , 1912. S v eto za r V u k m a n o v id -T em p o : O n a rod n oj re v o lu c iji u G rd k o j (T h e N a tio n a l R e v olu tio n in G re e c e ). B elgrade. T e o d o sije : Z iv o t sv. S av e (The Life of St. S a v a ). In M . Basid, S tare srpske b io g r a fije (O ld S erb ian B io grap h ies). B elgrade. T ihom ir R. G eorgevitch : M a c e d o n ia . London, 1918. Th. C a p id an : D ie M azedo ru m an en . Bukarest, 1941. T h e o d o r v o n Sosn o sky : D ie B alk an p o litik D sterreich -U n g arn s seit 1866. Stuttgart, 1913 1914. V o l. I II. T o d o r D jo r d je v ic : K rato v o. Prilozi p ro u c a v a n ju g r a d o v a u naSoj zem lji (K ratov o . M a te ria ls on the C ities of O u r C o u n try). B elgrade, 1931. V a s ilije M a rk o v id : P ra v o sla v n o m onastvo i m anastiri u sre d n je veicovnoj S rb iji (O rth o d o x M o n a steries and M o n a stic Life in M e d ie v a l S e rb ia ). B elg ra d e, 1920. V a s il R a d o sla w o ff: B u lgarien und d ie W e ltk ris e . B erlin, 1923. V a s il j P op ovid: M a k e d o n s k o pitan je (M a c e d o n ia n Q u estio n ). In N a rod na e n cik lo p ed ija S H S (N a tio n a l E n cy clopedia of the S erbes, C ro ats an d S lo v en s). V o l. II. B elgrade, 1928. V a s o D jerid: E thnographie des S erb es de M a ced o in e . Paris, 1918. V a t r o s la v J a gic: Ein K ap itel au s der Geschichte der siidslaw ischen Sprachen. A rc h iv fiir slavische P h ilo iogie, V o l. X V II, 1895. V a t r o s la v Jagid: Izgn anici iz M o r a v s k e posle smrti M e to d ije v e : S iren je S lo v en sk e c rk v e i k n jig e m edju juznim S lo ven im a (E xpu lsion s from M o r a v ia after the Death of M eth od iu s: T h e S p rea d o f the S la v ic Church an d Literatu re A m o n g the South S lav s). Izabran i kraci spisi. Z a g re b , 1948. V . O b la k : E in ige C a p ite l aus der bu lgarischen G ram m atik. A rc h iv fu r slavische P h ilo iog ie . V o l. X V I I , 1895. V la d im ir D e d ije r: D n ev n ik (D ia ry ). Part II. B elg ra d e. V la d im ir C o ro v id : Isto rija J u g o s la v ije (H isto ry o f Y u g o s la v ia ). B el grade, 1933. V . N . Z la ta rsk i: Istoria na b u lga rask a ta d u rzav a prez srednite v e k o v e (H isto ry o f the B u lgarian State in the M id d le A g e s ). V o l. I, part 1, Sofia, 1918. V u k Stefan ovid-K aradzid: B eisp iele aus der serb isd ie n Sprache. V ie n na, 1857. W la d im ir G ie sl: Z w e i Jahrzehnte im N a h e n Osten. Berlin, 1917. W la d im ir Sis: M a ze d o n ien . Zurich, 1918. W la d a n G eorgew itsch : D ie serbische F rage. S tuttgart-Leipzig, 1909. W in s to n Churchill: D ie W e lt k r is e 1911 1918. V o l. II. Zurich. W o lfg a n g W in d e lb a n d : Bismarck und d ie europaischen G roB m adite. 1879 1885. Essen, 1940. 2 itije G e rasim a Z e lid a (Life of G re asim Zelid). B elg ra d e, 1897. Z iv a n Z iv a n o v id : P olitidka Isto rija S rb ije u d ru g o j p o lo v in i X IX v e k a ( A P olitical H isto ry of S e rb a in the Second H a lf o f the N in eteen th C e n tu ry ). V o l. II. B elg ra d e, 1924.

260

INDEX
Ariontz, N ic o la s , 43 A d ria n II., Pope, 52 A le x a n d e r, M a ced on ia n , 11 A lo k s a n d ro v , Todor, 128, 141, 180, 183, 188, 190, 192 A n n , em press, 55 A n d je la r , 26 A n d je lk o v s k i, D jo rd je , 247 A n d r e je v , Bane, 209 A n d re je v id -Ig u m a n o v , Petar, 145 A n d re je v id -Ig u m a n o v , Sima, 145 A n dro n icu s, E m peror, 62 A n to n o v , M e to d ije -C in to , 210 Arctielaus, K ing, 9 A rs e n ije III., Patriarch, 72 A r s o v , S la v e jk o , 120, 131, 135, 138 A sparuch, Khan, 31 A ss e n II., Em peror, 54, 60, 64, 75 B aker, Jam es, 10, 87, 104, 107 B alia, K iam il, 195 B nrbarossa, Frederick , 54, 57 B arker, E lisabeth, 177, 181, 188, 189, 205, 216, 233 Bedri, P eja n i, 195 B ergh au s, H., 14 Bodin, K in g of Zeta, 44 Hoham, G., 140 Borilo, Em peror, 59 Boris (M ih a ilo ), Em peror, 33, 36, 38, 45 Borshi, Lano, 195 Boshn jak, K onstantin, 195 Bou6, A m i, 94 BradaSka, Franc, 72, 96 B raislford, H. N 110, 134, 239 B ra u n -W ie s b a d e n , K arl, 87, 90, 91, 98, 99, 105 Broz, Josip-Tito, 185, 210, 213, 220, 222-3, 228-9, 231, 232 Buha, V a s ilije , 222 B u lg a rja n o v , B ojan, 209 Buxton N o e l and Leese nard, 114

Leo

C a p id an , T h eod or, 10, 178 Churchill, W in sto n , 175, 176 Clem ent, Bishop, 22, 26, 27, 28, 40, 65 C om nenus, John, Em peror, 50 Com nenus, M a n u e l, Em peror, 56 C o n ie v , G e n a ra l, 124, 129-130, 131, 137, 139 Constantin (C y ril), 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 73 Constantin, Bishop, 27 Constantin III., Em peror, 50 C o pron ym u s, Constantin, Em peror, 20 C o ro n ellia , K., 14 Crispi, Francesco, 125 C v ijid , Jovan, 13-4, 15, 58-9, 68, 70, 74, 76, 80, 85, 86, 89, 95, 107, 146, 147, 239 C v ijo v id , Josip, Bishop, 236 C o rovid, V la d im ir, 21, 24-5, 31, 35-6, 43-4, 48, 50, 51, 57, 59, 61, 63, 66, 74, 171 C ard ak lija, Petar, 144 C au lov, Petar, 190 C u brilovid, B ranko, 215 D afn om il, E vstatije, 45 D a n ilo II., A rchbishop, 16, 61, 62, 67 D a v id o v id , D im itrije, 103 D a v id o v id , L ju bo m ir, 168 D e d ije r, V la d im ir, 218, 221 Dehn, P au l, 42, 110 D e lc e v , G o ce, 120, 123, 134, 135, 138 D e lija , Ilija , 165 D e lja n , Petar, 44

261

D erschaw in, N . S., 97, 102 D edan ac, S av a , Archim andrit, 157 D im itrijevid, Stevan, 144 Dinid, M ih a ilo , 53 D im itrov, G e o rg i, 211, 225, 229 D io n y siu s, A re o p a g ite , 23 D jeric, V a s o , 71 D jila s , M ilo v a n , 218, 221 D jo rd je v id , T o dor, 75, 77 D o b ro v sk i, 42 D oflein, Franz, 93-4 Dozid, G a v rilo , Patriarch, 245 D ra g o n o v , Dushan, 210 D ragu tin , K ing, 60, 67 D ragaS evid , Jovan , 86-7, 88-9,

G riv ec , Fran, 22 G ru b e r, v. A n ton , 12 G r ig o r ije , Priest, 23 G rothe, H u g o , 12-3, 38, 46, 84, 100, 109, 110, 131 G r u je v , D am jan , 120 G ru jic, R ado slav, 99, 165 G ru lo v ic , N ik o la , 222 H a d ji D im ov, Dim o, 133 H a d ji K alfa, ge o g ra p h e r, 71 H a d ji K onstantinov, Jordan, 157 H a d ji MiiSev, 152 H a d ji-V a s ilje v id , Jovan , 165 H ahn , J. G., 94, 96 H a lb o rn , H a jo , 105 H arriso n , H. D., 231 Heksch, F. A le x a n d e r, 12, 45,

101
D rin o v , M a rin , 17, 83 D rv a n , 49 Dum m ler, Ernst, 49, 52 D urham , Edith, 134 Dushan, Em peror, 15, 54, 62, 63, 64, 67, 73, 77 Einhard, 49 E rd eljan o vid, Jovan ,

110
H en d erso n , N e v ile , 187, 188 H erac liu s, Em peror, 47 H offm an n, Otto, 9 H om ann, Joh., Bapt., 14 H opf, C arl, 19 H la b a r, m onk, 23 H re lja , D uce, 63 Irondise, H. O., 172 Ischirkov, A l., 19, 31 Ivadid, KreSim ir, 103 Iv a n o v , Jordan, 73 Iv a n A s s e n II., Em peror, 39-40 Ivid, A le k s a , 51 Jagid, V a tro s la v , 20, 23, 27-8, 49 Ja k o v a, Ibrahim , 195 JakSic, G rg u r, 150 Jank ov, colonel, 130 Jastrebo v, Ivan , 76 Jelena, Q u ee n , 67 Jeftim ov, Sim eon, 128-9, 181, 183 Jelic, Ratko, 246 Jiredek, Jos. Constantin, 10-11, 17, 19, 20, 32-3, 36-7, 38-9, 42, 45, 46, 50, 57-8, 60, 70, 83, 84, 96-7, 98, 111 Joanides, J., 210 John V III., Pope, 52

50

F a llm e ra y e r, P h ilip p Jakob, 19 Fan, S. N o li, 195 Ferdinand, K ing, 82, 125, 132, 133 F ilo v, B ogdan , 84, 104 Firm ilijan , Archim andrit, 164 F loericke, Kurt, 39-40, 83, 104 GaraSanin, Ilija , 100, 145, 146 G astalidia, G iac., 14 G a v ra n o v , Ivan , 136 G e lzer, Heinrich, 76 G e o rg ije v id , M a rk o , 98, 145 G eorgevitch , T ihom ir, 95 G erm an, M ih a ilo , 98, 145 G e rv a s ije , A b b o t, 72 G ie sl, W la d im ir, 132, 134 G ilb e rt in der M a u r, 77, 108, 112, 114, 142, 183 G o p fe v id , Spiridon, 15, 119, 153, 156 G rah am , Stephen, 182 G re sk o vid , Leon, 226 G riesebach , A u g u st, 90

262

J o v an A le x a n d e r, Em peror, 53, 55 Jovan , Exarch, 23 J o van ovid, A le k s a , 147, 149, 151, 154, 166, 168, 169, 212 J o van ovid, Jovan , 145, 148, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 171 J o van ovid, S lo bodan , 147, 148, 149, 161, 162, 164, 170 Justin I., E m peror, 19 Justinian I., Em peror, 19 Justinian II., Rhinotm etus, Em peror, 20

Lalid, R adovan, 242 Lape, L ju b en , 121 L a v ro v , P. A ., 22 Lekovid, V a s ilije , 209 L e op o ld v o n Ranke, 9 Lulchev, K., 228-9 L ju d e v it (P o sav sk i), 35, 41, 49 Lozandev, A n astas, 135-6 Ljotid, Jak o v , 152-3 M a d i, v. Richard, 106, 108, 113, 240 M a llo m ir, K han, 35 M a rk o , K in g o f M a ced o n ia , 16, 73, 94, 148 M a rk o v id , Simo, 199-200 M a rk o v id , T. J., 163 M a rk o v id , N e so , 72 M a rk o v id , V a s ilije , 241 M a tije v id , N ., 192 M eth od iu s, A rch bish o p, 21-2, 24-5, 26-7, 28 M ih a ilo , M etro po litan , 106, 154, 155, 156 M ih a ilo v , Iv a n -V a n d a , 114, 126, 141, 177, 182, 183, 197 M ih a ilo v s k i, Stefan, 129, 139 M ich ael R h an gabes, Em peror, 34 M ih a ilo , K in g of Zeta, 44 MikloSich, Franz, 20, 47 M ik k o la , J. J., 48 M ik o v , D., 31 M ik o tc y , G., 49-50 M ila n o v id , C eda, 209 M ile n o v id , M ., 166 M ilo je v ic , M iloS, 102 M ilo s, Prin ce, 102 M ilu tin, K ing, 21, 54, 60, 61, 64, 67 M intschev, 84, 105, 106, 113 M irk o v id , Lazar, 16, 55, 56, 63, 67 M is irk o v , Krste, 119, 243 M itre v , Dim itar, 136, 226 M la d e n o v , Stevan, 42 M lin arid, Bruno, 185 M o js o v , Lazar, 114, 120, 136, 212-13, 229-30, 231, 249 M ou sset, A lb e rt, 219, 228 M u rk o , M ath ias, 22, 38, 250

K achanovsky, V la d im ir, 80 K aica, Prince, 15 K aloy an , Em peror, 40, 65 Kanitz, F elix, 96 K arnidiju, M enda, 141 K a ra d jo rd je v id , A le k s a n d a r, 182, 185-7 K a ra d jo rd je v id , Petar I., 164 K araivar.ov , Iv an , 249 K azaso v, Dim o, 120, 125, 129, 134, 137, 141, 178, 179, 180 K a ra v e lo v , L ju b en , 124 K ard e lj, E duard, 223-5 K a ro v , N ik o la , 136 K h itrov, P an ayot, 85, 101 K iepert, H., 14 K lonim irovid, Caslav, 38 K lugm ann, Jam es, 222 K n e ie v id , Stefan, Bishop, 144 K n e ie v id , T im otije, 102 Knidanin, Stefan, 100 K o cev, Petar, 172 K oliSevski, Lazar, 208, 209 K o n dak o v, N . P., 73, 92-3 K oneski, BlaJo, 241-2 K opitar, Jern ej, 20, 47 K ostadin ovid, Rista, 165 R ostov, Trajcho, 217 K o vado v, S lavdo, K rapdev, D aniel, 112 Krstid, D jo d je , 151-5 Krstid, M ick o , 165-6 Krum , Khan, 20, 34 Kunze, G e o r g Eugen, 83-84 Kutschbach, A lb in , 175

263

M utim ir, Prince, 52 M u lle r, Dr. Joseph, 71 M u lle r, Heinrich, 16 N a u m , m onk, 26-7, 65 N e sk o v ic , Dr. B la g o je -M ih a jlo , 213-14, 215 N ich olas, I., Pope, 38 N e m a n ja , Stevan, 29, 39, 51, 54, 56, 57, 59, 64-5, 67 N ik o lid , T. R 75 N ik o lo v , O rce, 213 N ish an i, Dr. O m er, 195 N o v a k o v id , K osta, 203 N o v a k o v id , Stojan, 53, 161, 241 O b la k , V ., O b o le n sk y , 45 O b re n o v ic , 163, O b re n o v ic , 189 Dim itri, 26-7, 29, A le k s a n d a r, K ing, 170 M ih a ilo , Prince,

P op ovic, Dusan, 199, 243 Popovid, V a s il j, 150 P op ovid, V e ljk o , 72 P op -T o m o v , V lad im ir, 216 P orph yro gen itu s, Constantin, 37, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52 P o u q u ev ille , consul, 95 P resijam , K han, 35-36 P rod a n o v , V ik e n tije , Patriarch, 236, 245, 247 Prokid, Bozidar, 43 Protid, M ilo sa v , 155 Protid, Stojan, 88, 171 P ro to gero v , A le k s a n d a r, 77, 141, 183, 190 R a d ev , R., 182 R ad ev , Sim eon, 123 Radic, Stjepan, 180 Radonid, Jovan , 50, 57, 58-9, 60, 63, 70 R a d o sa v ljev id , D o b riv o je , 212 R a d o sla v , K ing, 58 R a d o sla w o ff, V a s il, 107, 172, 173, 174 R adow itz, Joseph M a ria , 105 Racki, F ranjo, 30 Rajid, Jovan, 96 R ak ovsk i, G. K 199 R anda A le x a n d e r, 10 R ankovid, A le k s a n d a r, 218, 219 Redlich, A le k s a n d e r, 111 R einerius, Sacchoni, 29-30 R ibar, Iv o -L o la , 214 R ilski, Jovan , 98 R ilski, N e ofit, 98-99 Ristid, Jovan, 153, 154, 159, 163 Rizoff, D im itrije, 73, 103, 110, 131, 158, 159 Robert, C y p rian , 95 R oesler, Robert, 52 Rosen, G e o rg e , 85 Rosie, V a rn a v a , 164 Rutchi, Jakob, 141 Sam ard zijsk i, Jovan, 152 Sam o, 49 Sam uil, Em peror, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45 Sandanski, Jane, 127, 135, 140, 141

101-2
O bren o vid , M ila n , Prince, K ing, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 Oestreich, Dr. K arl, 11, 72, 91, 92 O m o rtag, Khan, 35 P a js ije , m onk, 96, 98 P a js ije , Patriarch, 67 Panica, T o dor, 141 P astuk h ov, Krsto, 228-9 Pasid, N ik o la , 169, 170, 175 P asko, Rom ac, 213 P avelid, Dr. A n te, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187 P avle, Bishop, 77 P avlo v id , H ristaki, 98 P avlo vid , D ragan , 208-9, 212 Pavlo vid, L ju bo m ir, 48 P a v lo v , Todor, 207 Peter, Em peror, 37, 38 P etk ov, N ik o la , 228-9 P etrov, Dim itrije, 153 P etrov, G 'o rce , 93, 117-18, 121, 123, 125, 134 P etrovid, K a ra d jo rd je , 145 Philiph, K ing, 11 Pi ja d e, M oa, 217, 224, 251 P opovid, D io n isije, Bishop, 164

264

S arafo v , Boris, 129, 131, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 170 S ax, C a rl Ritter, 107, 113 S eto n -W a tso n , H u g h , 178, 187, 223, 224 Sim eon, E m peror, 27, 36, 37, 45 Sim onida, Q u ee n , 61 Sirku, P. A ., 83 Sis, W la d im ir, 13 S la v e jk o v , Petko, 116 Sosn o sky , v. T h eod or, 11, 108, 109, 125 Stam boliski, A le k s a n d a r, 177, 180 S tam bo lov, 169 Stani&ev, 123, 184 Stankovid, M in a , 152 S tanojevid, Stanoje, 149, 161 S tefanovid-K aradzid, V u k , 16, 243 S tefanove, Constantin, 178, 179, 185 Steiner, Stefan, 191 Stevan Dedanski, K ing, 55, 61, 62 S tev an P rov o v en d an i, K ing, 40, 54, 56, 58, 59, 67 S tojan o vid, Lju bom ir, 15, 23, 70 Strez, D o brom ir, 40, 54, 59 Sttilpnagel, F., 14 St. S av a , A rchbishop, 39-40, 54, 55, 65, 66, 68, 151 S ato ro v, M e to d i-C h a rle s , 207-8 S d ia d ie r, G e rh ard , 13 Sdiacht, H o ran d H orsa, 11 Schafarik, Joseph P au l, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 31, 33, 34, 37, 42, 48, 50-51, 52 Sdim aus, A lo is , 71 S iim an, M ih a il, 38, 55, 62 Schulze, Joachim, 9, 13, 239 Schultze-Jena, Dr. Leonard, 23, 73 Sl*id, Ferdo, 22, 101, 146 Slrouninjer, Josef Ju raj, 103

T erpeJev, D o b ri, 217 T erterije , D jo rd je , E m peror, 54 T heophanes, 31 T ihom ir, soldier, 44 T o m ale v sk i, N a u m , 182 Tom id, S vetozar, 163 T o se v , K rum , 240, 243 Trautm ann, R einhard, 239 T san k o v , A le k s a n d e r, 189 T san k o v , G e o rg i, 217 Tum a, A n to n v o n W a ld k a m p f, 72

V a n g e l, Dim o, 136 V a rd a rs k i, M 122 V asm er, M a x , 118 V e ljid , M ih a ilo , 150-1 V e n e lin , G e o r g e Iv a n o v ic (H u ca G e o rg e ), 97 V e rk o v id , Stevan, 102 V elim iro v ic , Dr. N ik o la j, Bishop, 181 V e s e lin o v ic , M ilo jk o , 87-8, 89, 90, 91, 92, 151, 250 V la d is la v , K ing, 39, 54 V la h o v , Dim itar, 121, 122, 127, 128, 135, 137, 142, 188, 190, 194, 198, 216, 237, 243, 249 V lastim ir, Prince, 47, 49 V o ig t, F. A ., 210 V o jte h , D jo rd je , 44 V u jid , D im itrije, 170 V u k a sin , K ing, 16, 73 V u k m an o v id, Sveto zar-T em po , 216, 219, 223, 233, 234 V u k m iro v ic , B oris-C rn i, 209 V u k o v ic , B ozidar-P od go rid an in , 15

U g lje s a , D espot, 16 U lam , B. A d a m , 200 Uros, Em peror, 16, 37

Tnnnsovod, A n d je lk o , 165 TekelIJa, S av a, 14 T em p erley , H. W . V ., I l l , 239 T eo d o sije , m onk, 40, 60

W a ls h , R., 12, 84, 85 W a lt e r , Jakob, 239 W e ig a n d , Dr. G u stav, 10 W e n d e l, H erm an n, 73, 99, 110, 111, 162 W h ite , Leigh, 222

265

W in d e lb a n d , W o lfg a n g , W o o d h o u s e , S. M ., 234

111

Zelid, G erasim , Archim andrit, 144 Zeuss, K aspar, 50, 52

Z la tarsk i, V . N 26-7, 28, 32, 33, 34-35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 52, 53 Z iv a n o v ic , Z iv an , 153, 154, 157, 160, 163

Y u g o v , A nton, 217

266

CONTENTS I r r f u c e ....................................................................... Chapter I. Macedonia as A Geographical Concept . II. The Arrival of the Slavs in the Balkans . . . 5 9 17 31 47

III. The Macedonian Slavs under Bulgarian Rule IV. The Macedonian Slavs under Serbian Rule .

V. The Bulgarian National Revival and the Macedonian Q u e s t i o n ............................. 76 a) The Spiritual and National Fate of the Bulgars under the T u rk s ........................82 b) Significance of the Term Bulgar 86 c) The National Awaking of the Bulgars in the Nineteenth C e n t u r y ........................96 d) The Bulgarian Exarchate and the Mace donian Q u e s tio n ................................... 103 e) The Emergence of the Macedonian Ques ..................................................... 113 tion VI. Serbian and the Macedonian Question . . 143 VII. The Macedonian Question between the Two World W a r s ............................................... 177 VIII. The Macedonian Question during and after World War I I ......................................... 207 IX. The Macedonian Question Today . . . 236 M ibliography................................................................. 253 I n d e x ....................................................................... 261

267