In 1822 the Serbian folklorist and linguistic,
Vuk Stefanovich
Karadjich (1787-1864), published the first work containing
grammatical facts about the Bulgarian language. His primary aim
was to point out that the Bulgarian language existed, even though
it was absent in the dictionaries published in Russia during the
late 18th century and which were deemed to contain all languages
known at that time. Interestingly Karadjich's analysis of the
Bulgarian language was based on the Macedonian dialects.
Prior to formation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870, there was
a small, but influential group of Serbians, mainly politicians and
some academics, who supported the concept of a "Greater Serbia".
However, this was not the popular view and most Serbians saw
Bulgarians as their Slav brothers and foresaw a close future
relationship. For example in 1867 the Bulgarian emigrants in
Bucharest had negotiated an agreement with the Serbians which
included the following paramount clause
The Yugoslavian kingdom will be composed of Serbians and
Bulgarians,
the latter comprising the territories of Bulgaria,
Thrace and Macedonia
Ilija Garashanin (1812-1874) was a distinguished Serbian statesman
and the main architect of Serbian state policy between 1843-1868.
In 1844 he published a blueprint, known as "Nachertanije"
(Outline), describing future Serbian territorial ambitions. A
plan modelled directly on Dushan's medieval empire - that is
including both Macedonia and Old Serbia. But, at the same time
Garashanin also encouraged a diplomatic policy of strong support
for Bulgarian revolutionary activity against the Turks.
In fact it was 1848 Garashanin who arranged for the Bosnian Croat,
Stefan Verkovich (1821-1893), on the pretext of completing
Karadjich's linguistic research, to tour Macedonia and covertly
collect ethnographic data ultimately be used as support for long-
term Serbian hegemony. However in 1860, when the Serbian Academic
Society published Verkovich's first volume of "Folk Songs of the
Macedonian Bulgarian" awarding him the Serbian "Uceno Druzestvo"
(Scholar's Society), in his preface Verkovich said:
I call these songs Bulgarian and not Slavic, because if someone
today should ask the Macedonian Slav "what are you?" he would be
immediately be told: "I am Bulgarian" and would call his language
'Bulgarian'.
Another champion of "Greater Serbia" was
Professor Jovan
Dragashevich who identified all Macedonians as latent Serbs. For
example during the time of the
First Bulgarian Legion in Belgrade
(1862-4), acrimonious debate erupted between the Bulgarians and
their Serbian hosts, over Dragashevich's "teachings" that Salonika
was an integral part of "Old Serbia". It was also then that
Georgi Rakvosky became conscious of increasing Serbian fanaticism
and a desire by its politicians to annex Bulgaria both politically
and culturally. These issues, together with settlement of the
1862 dispute between Serbia and Turkey, contributed to the
expulsion of the
Bulgarian Legion from Serbia.
Inspite of the close relationship between Serbians and Bulgarians,
finance from the Serbian government for the "education" of the
Macedonian Slavs was initiated in 1866. This led to the "Institute
for Serbian Schools in Old Serbia and Macedonia" (1868), formed to
coordinate both the building of schools and educational policy.
The Serbian Church had lent support to the Bulgarians in their
struggle to establish the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870; Serbs in
general rejoiced at the success of their southern Slav brothers.
However when the limits of the Bulgarian Exarchate became defined
in 1872, more Serbs began to reflect the long-term political
implications. Moreover the Serbian Church had always considered
itself heir to the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid, because of
its past subordination to the Pech Patriarchate. Consequently the
Serbian Church had requested in 1869 that Turkey only allow
Serbian clergy to operate within Macedonia.
Milosh S Milojevich (1840-1897) was the first Serbian to publicly
challenge the prevailing consensus concerning the Exarchate's
boundaries and the ethnic composition of the Macedonian
territories. In 1873 he presented a paper to the Serbian
Scholar's Society which characterised the Slavic population of
Macedonia as Serbian - a basic repetition of Garashanin's beliefs.
Milojevich's thesis was severely criticised by two other Society
members, Stoyan Novakovich (1842-1915) and Milan Kujundjich. The
latter described Milojevich as
..a cheap, mischievous chauvinist, ignominiously condemned by
his fellow countrymen for having committed an unfriendly act against
a good neighbour.
Thus Milojevich's effort to publish a collection of 740 folk
songs, gathered in Old Serbia and Macedonia, as examples of the
Serbian language and culture, was rejected by the
Serbian
Scholars' Society as being flawed.
Nevertheless, Milojevich still found strong support and instituted
a society (called by Hristo Botev the 'gang of blackguards') which
sent money, books and teachers to Macedonia and parts of north-
west Bulgaria. Editorials also appeared in Belgrade newspapers
like "Istok", stating that the Exarchate was a chauvinistic
institution intent on 'bulgarizing' the Serbs of Macedonian. In
answer to such accusations many eminent Bulgarians, including
Hristo Botev (1875) and Liuben Karavelov (1874), wrote scathing
replies denouncing both the actions of Milojevich and his
supporters as well as the Serbian government's surreptitious
complicity.
The Russo-Turkish war of 1878 had a number of dire consequences
for Serbian nationalistic goals. Because of its support for
Russia, Turkey closed all Serbian schools within Macedonia. The
Treaty of San Stefano in 1878 demonstrated to Serbian politicians
that there existed a strong and general acceptance that Macedonia
was populated by Bulgarians. Later in 1881 Serbian hopes to annex
Bosnia and Herzegovina had to be abandoned, which meant
redirecting its quest for an outlet to the Aegean - via Macedonia.
These setbacks led Serbia to instigate the Serbo-Bulgarian war of
1885, which ended in its convincing defeat. Thus to accomplish,
what it had failed to do militarily, Serbia now pursued two
separate tactics to enhance its future claims to Macedonia. The
first was based on proving directly that Macedonia was actually
populated by Serbs not Bulgarians; the second involved fostering
nascent Macedonian separatism (Macedonism) as a counter to
Bulgarian influence.
In the late 1880s several Serbian academics, particularly
Dragashevich, Milojko Veselinovich and Stojan Protich rationalised
the seeming contradiction of the Macedonian population's non-
Serbian identity as follows. First, the term "bulgar" within
Macedonia was in fact a generic term meaning a "common person",
and as such had no ethnographic meaning. The term "bulgar" had
thus been misinterpreted by both the Greeks and European
travellers to signify national affiliation, thus leading to the
erroneous conclusion that the people had a Bulgarian self-
identity. Second, after formation of the Serbian state, the
Turkish authorities were anti-Serbian, therefore most Serbs
preferred to call themselves "bulgars" to escape persecution.
Third, in the post Exarchate era, propaganda forced people to
identify themselves as "bulgars" so that the necessary signatures
would be available to establish a Bulgarian Church - that is the
Exarchate had become an "institution for the Bulgarization of the
Serbs".
Spiridon Gopchevich, a Serbian diplomat and Milojevich adherent,
made a brief to Macedonia in 1889 and on his return published an
ethnographic map which characterising the Macedonian population
right up to Nevrokop, Salonica and the Grammos mountains, as
Serbian. The renown scholar, Vatroslav Yagich (1838-1923), editor
of "Archiv fur Slavische Philologie" (1875-1923) made the
following comment on Gopochevich's study -
to attack the tendentiously uncritical arguments of Gopochevich
is unnecessary; his work condemns itself. It is a pity about the good
paper and fine printing, the two most admirable aspects of the
book.
Nevertheless, Gopochevich's study was accepted, endorsed and
promoted by the Serbian government as further vindication of their
position on the Macedonian Question.
While previously Stoyan Novakovich had criticised the chauvinistic
policies of individuals like Milojevich, times had changed and now
as an eminent Serbian statesman he felt it his duty to support
Serbian claims to the Macedonian territories. Therefore initially
Novakovich attempted to show that Slavic dialects of Macedonia
were not part of the Bulgarian language but actually part of the
Serbian language. However because his study was dismissed by
noted academics of the period, including Yagich, Miletic, Oblak
and Derzhavin, he realised that this strategy could not succeed.
Subsequently Novakovich advanced a thesis that in the late 9th
century Macedonia had three ethnic Slavic groups - Bulgarian,
Serbian and "Slovene" - and that these divisions still persisted
and were identifiable in the present population. He outlined his
theory in "First Foundations of Slavic Literature Amongst the
Balkan Slavs", a 300 page monograph published in 1893 by the
Serbian Academy of Sciences. What Novakovich had produced was a
blueprint for "de-Bulgarization" of the Macedonian Slavs by their
"Macedonianization", if direct "Serbianization" could not be
readily effected. The intent is explicitly confirmed by
Novakovich's well known (and quoted) dispatch to the Serbian
Minister of Education in 1888
Since the Bulgarian idea, as it is well known to all, is deeply
rooted in Macedonia, I think it is almost impossible to shake it
completely by opposing it merely with the Serbian idea. This
idea, we fear, would be incapable, as opposition pure and simple,
of suppressing the Bulgarian idea. That is why the Serbian idea
will need an ally that could stand in direct opposition to the
Bulgarianism and would contain in itself the elements which could
attract the people and their feelings and thus sever them from
Bulgarianism. This ally I see in the Macedonism or to a
certain extent in our nursing the Macedonian dialect and
Macedonian separatism.
Novakovich's ideas were later amplified and extended, first by
Iovan Cvijich, and later by
Alexander Belitch. It is important to
state that the theory of the three Slavic groups, propounded by
Novakovich, Cvijich and Belitch was considered unsubstantiated by
the available evidence; a position held by most academics
including both Yagich and Niederle.
During the 1880s Novakovich effected several important plans to
expand the concept of "Macedonism" (Macedonian Separatism)
amongst the Macedonian population. Although the Novakovich's
strategy can only be described as a failure, its formulation and
intent leads to some important historic conclusions regarding the
national consciousness (within that era) of the Macedonian people.
The Society of St Sava (founded in 1886) was the chief organ for
dissemination of Serbian propaganda on the Macedonian Question and
Novakovich was intricately involved behind its agenda and
policies. During the same year four members of a secret
Macedonian committee in Sofia, went to Belgrade to secure support
for their proposed actions in Macedonia. Their plans included the
restoration of the Ohrida Diocese, publication of a newspaper
"Macedonian Voice" in Istanbul, opening schools where teachers
used the "Macedonian" language, and to have all educational
literature printed in the Macedonian dialect. Shortly thereafter
Novakovich took up his appointment as Serbian consul in Istanbul,
where he met with two members of the Macedonian committee to
initiate the plan. Although this was only partially successful,
Serbian schools were opened in Macedonia, and books were printed
in the Macedonian dialect. The latter were based on an increasing
Serbian language content as the educational standard increased.
However in 1898 when asked with respect to the reprinting of these
texts in the Macedonian dialect, Novakovich recommended only the
Serbian language should be used - the anticipated attraction of
the Macedonian dialect had not eventuated.
The Society of St Sava also offered well-paid scholarships to
Macedonians in the hope they could ultimately be turned against
the Bulgarian idea. Between 1888 and 1889 quite a number of
Macedonians accepted these scholarships and went to Belgrade.
They soon became aware of the obvious underlying reasons behind
the program however, especially when they were forbidden to
possess "Bulgarian" literature. Subsequently some 30 to 40
students left Belgrade to continue their education elsewhere,
mostly Sofia. Among that group were some later very well-known
figures - Dame Gruev, Petar Pop Arsov and Krste Misirkov. It must
be considered more than coincidental that two of the latter
individuals (PPA, and especially KM) shortly thereafter proffered
views on the Macedonian Question that in essence supported the
covert intent of Novakovich's theory. However it was during
Novakovich's appointment as consul at St Petersburg that the
staunchest and most dogmatic advocate of "Macedonism", Dimitur
Chupovski, arose. Again we note that Chupovski and his small
group of followers were directly supported by the St Sava Society
and had an almost identical agenda to that of the four Macedonians
that met with Novakovich in Belgrade during 1886. It did not
matter to Novakovich that "Macedonism" was also essentially
anti-Serbian, as long as it opposed or slowed the spread of
Bulgarian influence within Macedonia.
An important historic issue is the reaction to both Serbian
propaganda and Macedonism within Macedonia itself. First, it
is known that one of the main reasons for the establishment of
IMRO by Dame Gruev in 1893 was to block the spread of Serbian
influence into Macedonia, less it hinder the ultimate unification
of the Bulgarian people. Thus although IMRO's short-term goal was
autonomy, its long-term goal was unification, as had occurred with
East Rumelia. There can be no doubt IMRO was a Bulgarian
organization, protecting the Bulgarian national interest against
the Serbs. Several other organizations also formed within
Macedonia (1897) to oppose Serbian propaganda - the Revolutionary
Brotherhood and the Charitable Brotherhood - the latter to
specifically undermine Serbian schools, a strategy in which it was
quite successful. Even earlier (1891), Gyorche Petrov, later a
famous IMRO committee member, was so concerned by the obvious
Serbian schemes that he spent his time exclusively on ethnographic
research in Skopje to ensure the availability of indisputable
evidence to support the "Bulgarian" character of the Macedonian
population.
As for "Macedonism", the memoirs of Hristo Shaldev which
discuss Dimitur Chupovski, plainly
show how few adherents this concept had in 1903. We also have
to accept that Krste Misirkov
only promoted the concept of "Macedonism" when he felt the
Bulgarian position in Macedonia was irrevocably lost - as in 1903
after Ilinden (when he wrote "On Macedonian Matters") and after
WWI. At all other times he was a staunch advocate of the
Bulgarian character of Macedonia. Misirkov's pro-Macedonism
arguments were resurrected and re-packaged by the Comintern in
1934 as evidence for a "Macedonian Nation". Novakovich did not
live to see the success of the strategy he first devised in the
middle 1880s - a plan which undoubtedly has prevented the historic
reunion of the Bulgarian people. Dame Gruev and IMRO were correct
in their assessment of the danger of Serbian influence.
In his memoirs (finished 18 Aug 1947) Hristo Shaldev speaks for all
Macedonian patriots when he writes
I am saddened that I cannot spend the remaining years of my life in
Gumendje, and at the same time I am indignant that the youngest generation
of Vardar Macedonia has disavowed both the achievements and self-determination
of their fathers, grand-fathers and great-grand-fathers and has been misled by the
Serbian theories of Professors Novakovich, Cvijich and Belich.