In former as well as in recent times the
Macedonian Slavs have readily abandoned one name for the other, the
temporary predominance of either depending solely on the conquests,
political circumstances and various events, internal and external,
which give rise to certain sentiments and instincts among this people,
easily transforming them into Serb or Bulgar aspirations. It seems
clear that Serbia's existence as an independent State for a good many
decades before Bulgaria was freed would render the name of Serb more
disagreeable to the Turk; it is therefore not astonishing that in
Macedonia under the Turks one discarded the Serb name in favour of the
Bulgar. Without dwelling upon the more or less valuable remarks which
were made by priests and monks and Turkish geographers and French
explorers and German doctors from the sixteenth to the eighteenth
centuries and from which we can at least deduce that the Slav
inhabitants of southern Macedonia were not fanatically constant to the
Bulgar name, it would appear that in the nineteenth century the
earlier deliverance of Serbia and, above all, the foundation of the
Exarchate caused the Bulgar name to become the more popular. The Serbs
were looked upon by Turkey as a revolutionary element, while the
Bulgars aimed at an independent Slav Church within the limits of the
Turkish boundaries. It is unnecessary to add that after Bulgaria's
deliverance and her annexation of Eastern Roumelia, and especially
after the rebellious movements in Macedonia, which had the moral if
not the official encouragement of the Principality, there was less
eagerness on the part of the Slavs to let their Turkish masters think
that they were Bulgars. But in the period preceding the publication of
Kiepert's map the Bulgar name was the more fashionable with Macedonian
peasants. And by giving practical effect to this map in the Treaty of
San Stefano the Russians did a huge disservice to the Bulgars. In the
first place, they aroused in this young people such an exhilaration
that the subsequent annulling of the Treaty at the hands of the Great
Powers would naturally leave a rankling disappointment. Also the
relations between Serbs and Bulgars were not rendered easier by the
chief Slav nation coming down so heavily upon the Bulgar side in what
necessitated a most delicate and scientific handling. Three Russian
ethnographical maps on Macedonia were issued by the Petrograd
_Slavyansko Obštčestvo_, which worked for Pan-Slavism and
assisted Slav students. These maps--one of them is described by
Kntchev, the chauvinistic Bulgar, as "giving the Bulgars somewhat more
territory than they in reality occupy"--were lamentably superficial.
While remaining unnoticed in the rest of Europe they exercised an
unfortunate influence on the Balkan educated classes, who believed
that, according to tradition, the potent "elder brother" would be
anxious to decide righteously the disputes between the small Balkan
nations.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account