K Misirkov, in the preface to his review text "Notes on South Slav Philology and History" B'lgarska zbirka (1907) The readers of this statement will surely be surprised by the great contradictions which they will see in it compared to that which they read or will read in On Macedonian Matters (Za Makedontskite Raboti). To explain this contradiction it is sufficient to remember that there I erred as an improvised politician. This policy was needed to neutralise the Macedonian claims of the Balkan countries and to prove the ethnic and historic individuality of the Macedonians. And because within this policy a theme of the Bulgarian government could be discerned, I added extra and sharp criticism to obscure it. These extra arguments that suggested my opinion was not that of the Bulgarian government but of an improvised politician on the Macedonian Question, made the whole contents of the brochure so far removed from objective knowledge, that I found it quite inappropriate, during my 2 month stay in Sofia, to meet any of the philologists and historians. With this of course, I caused a major blow to my scientific standing and knowledge. K Misirkov - A Personal Letter 6 Aug 1908 [Odessa] Letter sent to Dr A Teodorov-Balan, secretary of Bulgarian Exarchate in Istanbul, seeking a teaching position at the Bulgarian school in Salonika The letter below was accompanied by an introductory letter (that is a reference) by the Bessarabian Bulgarian G Zanetov. In that letter Zanetov describes Misirkov as an "energetic" but somewhat "unrealistic" person. Zanetov also states Drawn by the desire to help his Fatherland Macedonia, he had pursued a false path, which he now completely refutes and apologises for publicly Misirkov's own letter follows Five years ago I was faced with events which forced me to stop teaching Greek and Bulgarian literature and language at the Bulgarian Classical Male Gymnasium in Bitolia, and to leave the general Turkish domain. The Ilinden Uprising of 1903 had a pronounced effect on me and caused me to make some mistakes which completely isolated me from the Bulgarian cause in Macedonia. With great respect I was forced to temporarily renounce completely working for the realization of the Bulgarian national ideals and devote myself to lecturing duties in Russia, first in Berdyansk and afterwards in Odessa. In both cities my work secured me a good life with which I could have been fully satisfied if it was not for the annoyance and difficultly I experienced, together with an inability to concentrate on the questions of my main interest, South Slav philology and history. What these questions are you are probably already aware, particularly description of the Morava dialect. You will be more familiar with my scientific pursuits, when reading my Notes on South Slav Philology and History. Hampered with lessons, not favourably welcomed by the Russian steeped in outdated patriotism, I had a difficult struggle to prepare and print my Notes while doing master's exams on Old- Bulgarian and the Slav languages and literature at the Kiev University. The problems experienced in my scientific pursuits are so great that at one time I suspended numerous studies of direct interest to me, and was only made aware of my actions by Mr G Zanetov; in recognition of whom I have dedicated my Notes. The same Mr Zanetov gave me the idea to appeal to you and ask for a lecturing position at the Bulgarian Male Gymnasium in Salonika. I agreed with satisfaction to Mr Zanetov's proposal, since in this way I would receive the opportunity, anew, and according to my ability to serve the Bulgarian national interest and ideals. In view of the latter, I plead with you, respected Sir, to inform me as soon as possible whether the Holy Exarchate might reinstate my teaching rights within the teaching establishments under its jurisdiction, and appoint me, even within this year, as a lecturer on Bulgarian and general history or Bulgarian literature, at the Bulgarian Male Gymnasium in Salonika, so that I can arrive in Salonika in time to commence my duties. On receiving your answer I will send the documents to the Holy Exarchate. Accept honoured Sir, my sincere respect towards you. Krste Misirkov in the newspaper "Mir" - Sofia, 30 Apr 1924 If the question of racial similarity and difference between Bulgarians and Macedonians comes to be resolved on the basis of the national name, language and history, there is no doubt that we should resolve it as a Greek priest did in 1804; author of a four-language dictionary Greek, Bulgarian, Rumanian and Albanian and who regarded as Bulgarian the Western Macedonian dialect. Therefore when in Macedonia and Bulgaria there was no mention of the Bulgarian Exarchate, the Greeks, obviously well acquainted with the Balkan nationalities, do not make any distinction between a Bulgarian, a Macedonian and a Macedonian Slav. We the Macedonians, cannot, and have no reason to ignore this and similar facts, which can be quoted by the hundreds. We cannot ignore them because to do so means to distort our history, to hide the truth and to deceive ourselves. The Archbishopric of Ohrid for the whole of Bulgaria is ours, it is our historic inheritance and ideal for the religious freedom from the hateful Serbian slavery of St Sava. Against the Bulgarian name, as our national name, by which we have been christened by the Greeks even before we entered the boundaries of the Bulgarian state for the fist time in the beginning of the 9th century; a name given to us by the Greeks for the racial union of the Slavs of Bulgaria, we, Macedonians have nothing and this national name of ours is no less respected by us than the Bulgarians of Bulgaria. The Nationality of the Macedonians published in the newspaper "20 July" Sofia, No. 5, May 11th, 1924 The article by Mr. Arseny Yovkov "Bulgarians in Macedonia" published in issue No. 1 of "20 July" raises again the problem of the nationality of the Macedonians and solves it with irrefutable proofs in favour of the Bulgarians. The author of the above mentioned article published in the latest issue of the newspaper "Pirin" says that there will be a Macedonian problem until there are Bulgarians and Bulgarian national consciousness in Macedonia and that it was in the interests of the other nationalities in Macedonia for Bulgarians to live in Macedonia. In his latest article Mr. Yovkov even said that we, the Macedonians, should be more Bulgarian than the Bulgarians themselves. These two interesting articles by Mr. Yovkov give us the opportunity to dwell on the problem of the nationality of the Macedonians and on the role of this problem in the past and future history of Macedonia. At the beginning of the XlXth century in Macedonia there were Greek priests and Bulgarian national consciousness among the more energetic Macedonians who hand in hand with the Bulgarians from Bulgaria and Thrace started the fight for national education and national church. This spiritual and national unity of Moesians, Macedonians and Thracians came before and after the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate and the liberation of Bulgaria. The Serbians envied the Bulgarians and due to some theoretical and practical considerations began to object to some European, Macedonian and Bulgarian contentions that the Macedonians were Bulgarians and in this way they were the first to set before the men of science the problem of the nationality of the Macedonians. It would not be wise to deny that the task set by the Serbians is not unimportant and that the successes they achieved due to their exceptional tenacity and strict systematics are great. The Serbians did not underestimate any possibility offered by contemporary science general linguistics, comparative grammar of the Slav languages, history and archeology, spoken and written popular language, geography and diplomacy were not under-estimated by the Serbians in their attempt to refute the assumption of the Bulgarian character of Macedonia. As a result they conquered the major part of Macedonia which they were given as a land populated by Serbians; they were given this land by those who up till the last moment unanimously acknowledged the Bulgarian national character of Macedonia. But the problem about the nationality of the Macedonians was not settled yet. The Serbians achieved only half of their task: they succeeded in misleading the west Europeans and to take possession of Macedonia. But the Macedonians themselves, occupied by them, are not spiritually conquered and they feel as a nation different from the Serbians and they want to preserve their individuality. This is the weak point for the Serbians, this is the force of the Macedonians, this is the historical role of the problem of the nationality of the Macedonians which it has to play in the future. The role of Bulgarians and Serbians in the solution of this problem now is completely different from before the Balkan and world wars: today theoretically this problem is non-existent for the Serbians just as there is no Macedonia within the boundaries of Yugoslavia; as far as Bulgaria is concerned there is a Macedonia just like there is the problem of the nationality of the Macedonians, a problem which the Bulgarian science could follow with more success than the Serbians in order to give it its proper meaning. But the Bulgarians do not favour philology and history, they do not like to be pointed at as being chauvinists and they are ready to live in peace with their neighbours at all cost even when the latter aim at taking half of their house, or their yard. As far as Macedonia goes, many "enlightened" people couldn't care less. They do not know it. To them it is a land of stones and wild apples. That is why the Bulgarian opposition is not dangerous for the Serbian domination in Macedonia. This the Serbians had half guaranteed by international treaties and by treaties with Bulgaria. But now cries from the Macedonians can be heard: we are Bulgarians, we are more Bulgarians than the Bulgarians themselves. ........ You could be victors over Bulgaria and impose on it all sorts of treaties but this cannot change our conviction, our consciousness that we are not Serbians, that up till now we have called ourselves Bulgarians and this is what we are today and this is what we want to be called in the future. Do you want any concessions from us? Do you want us to be less Bulgarians than the Bulgarians themselves? - Shall we concede ? We shall not be indifferent towards our national interests like some others. We cannot and should not follow the Moesians in everything because their logic, their ways to act lead to Bulgarian-Serbian treaties and agreements concerning Macedonia, they lead to treaties like the Serbo-Bulgarian in 1912, like the one at Neuilly. We shall be more Macedonians than Bulgarians, but Macedonians with a national consciousness different from your Serbian consciousness a national self-consciousness based on our history, on our literary language common with the Bulgarian, with our Macedonian-Bulgarian schools, with our own national church in which the national and religious feelings of the Macedonians will not be hurt by the presence and spirit of the Serbian saints like St. Sava. The Serbians know very well the significance of this problem now just as before, the problem of the nationality and the national feeling of the Macedonians and that is why through assimilation of the Macedonians they want to get rid of this consciousness as soon as possible. But all is in vain. No matter whether we call ourselves Bulgarians or Macedonians we shall always feel as a nationality with a Bulgarian national consciousness, separate from the Serbians and we shall know how to impose our will in the struggle for human rights of the Macedonian. Dimiter P Chupovski Slav-Macedonian Student Society (St Petersburg) The Memoirs of Hristo Shaldev - ISBN 0646149067 When in the autumn of 1902 the Vrhovists and in defiance of IMRO, launched the Gorna Dzhumaia Uprising which was restricted merely to the Gorna Dzhumaia and Petrich districts, the Russia press unanimously declared it an act of Bulgarian Macedonians against the Turkish rule and their miserable life. The newspapers also noted that the people were preparing for an even larger rebellion in the near future which would include the whole of Macedonia. Then after celebrations to commemorate the battle of the Shipka Pass the two Russian foreign ministers, Counts Lamsdorf and Ignatiev, met in Sofia representatives of the Macedonian immigrants, the Macedonian intelligentsia, social workers and representatives of IMRO who handed each of the two distinguished guests their exhibitions and maps of Macedonia and the Adrianople district. It was then that several students, sons of Serbomans from NW Macedonia, who had completed their primary and secondary education in Serbia and were pursuing their higher education in St Petersburg, inspired by hatred for everything Bulgarian decided to form a "Slav-Macedonian Student Society" (SMSS). The aim of this society was to promote through conversations with Russian public figures, journalists and Slavophiles that the Macedonian Slavs are not Bulgarian but represent a separate South Slavic people. I regard the originator of this thesis as being Professor Stoyan Novakovich, who as the Kingdom of Serbia's diplomatic representative to St Petersburg publicised this view among the members of the Slavonic Charitable Society. Perhaps that is why this latter society allowed its premises to be used by the small Slavomacedonian group of students to hold meetings along similar lines to those by Serb, Bulgarian and Czech students. This theory of Professor Novakovich was later scientifically presented by Professors Cvijich and Belich to advance Serbian propaganda in NW Macedonia, where it actually succeeded in influencing a certain part of the population within the sub-districts of Porochieto, Gorni and Dolni Polog, Azot and the regions about Kumanovo. Being aware of the position of prominent Russian and other Slavists and Historians on the question of the language and ethnicity of the Macedonian Slavs, and as secretary of the Macedonian group in St Petersburg, I did not attach any particular importance to the establishment of the SMSS. This lack of concern was influenced by the very small number of individuals involved and the limited scholastic abilities of the instigators with respect to an understanding of questions of a historic and linguistic nature. However, I subsequently pressured Milan Stoilov, a first year in the Military Medicine academy, to attend the second meeting of the SMSS and obtain information on both its aims and number of members. He went and was actually elected temporary secretary of the meeting. Stoilov reported his findings to a branch meeting of the Organization of Macedonian Societies and left a written report for the archives. His report stated that the second meeting of the SMSS was held on 29th December 1902 and included the following agenda items: 1.Election of a vice-president (G Konstantinovich) and librarian (Rusalenchich) to the Executive committee; both proposed and elected by the meeting. 2.Defining the borders of Macedonia as based on the ethnographic map issued several years previously by the Slavonic Charitable Society. 3.To send a letter of thanks to the Slavonic Charitable Society for allowing its premises to be used for the meeting. 4.To inform by letter the Bulgarian, Serbian and Czech student associations concerning the formation of the SMSS. 5.Each member was to select several characteristic Macedonian words to be forwarded to the secretary of the SMSS, who would enter them in a special note-book comprising four column headings - Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian. This report highlights several salient features. The SMSS was established in St Petersburg in December 1902 and had so few members present at its inaugural meeting that an election of an Executive committee was deferred to the second meeting. Furthermore at that second meeting it was decided to compile in a special note-book specific Macedonian words existing in every speech and ethnic community, which the promoters of the SMSS would use to influence Russian academics and public figures that the language of the Slav Macedonians is closer to Russian than Bulgarian or Serbian. Although small in number, the members and activities of the SMSS became subject to the private concerns of members of the Macedonian Liberation Society (MLS) because the SMSS represented a new group which directly opposed the national unity of the Macedonian Slavs. The same Slavs who a century before had re- awaken to reject the Phanariot spiritual and Turkish political bondage, relying only on their own efforts and paltry material means to build and support national schools, and to arm for a final struggle against the centuries old political and economic oppression. Furthermore on its inception the SMSS hastened to conspire with the Turkish government, in particular the policies of the chief inspector of Macedonia - Hilmi Pasha - who was quick to support any enterprise which had a divisive potential towards the activities of the Bulgarian Macedonian community represented by IMRO. And later I shall detail how the creators of the SMSS led by its president D Chupovski, colluded with the Turkish embassy in St Petersburg to be given the right to travel freely throughout Macedonia as provocateurs, and to also have contacts within Sofia in an attempt to recruit devotees to their idea amongst the Macedonian Brotherhoods. However at that time our group was completely preoccupied planning and preparing an important fund-raising Macedonian social - for example tickets, artists, musicians, conducting and drawing two lotteries before the end of May, collecting old items and selling them to pawnbrokers. We also constantly searched for old rifles to forward to IMRO, collected voluntary donations for the same as well as recruiting and training volunteers for the imminent uprising in Macedonia. Naturally under these circumstances the MLS has little time to dwell on the SMSS. However when the Ilinden Uprising commenced and had continued for several months the Russian newspapers, written by the editors and their special correspondents described the rebel activities as the dissatisfaction of Bulgarian Macedonians and Macedonians in general at Turkish rule. Thus these articles effectively countered any activity of the SMSS with respect to their verbal national-separatist preachings. It was one year later that the true underlying ideology of the SMSS and especially that of its president Dimiter P Chupovski and his 5-6 followers was uncovered. Near the end of February 1904 a student member of the Moscow MLS came to St Petersburg and showed us a letter that Chupovski had sent to Nikola Nichota, a Moscow University student and a Kutsovlach by ethnicity. I made a copy, returned it to the student with strict instructions that it be delivered to the addressee by whatever means were most appropriate. Chupovksi's letter is of interest not only for its contents but also because its style is comparatively correct Bulgarian literary language and not the author's Myak speech. The full text of the letter is reproduced below: St Petersburg, 17 February 1904 Dear Kolio, When I found a free minute after receiving your letter (from 15/02/1904) I decided to answer you straight away. Firstly I am glad for your success as regards the scholarship and secondly about your gratefulness to me and your commitment to our common idea. Be assured that on my part for everything that you wrote steps will be taken for your benefit. Your self-realization in the Slav Macedonian nationality (as far as it is sincere) can only bring gladness to me and every sincere patriot and nothing else. I will be very pleased if you successfully fulfil the assigned task concerning the Serbian propaganda in Macedonia and its destructive influence amongst the people. I cannot accept the contention that in Moscow there is no basis for the SMSS idea to develop. I think it is inertia, mainly because you as a student of only two months could not meet or become acquainted with all circles amongst whom our idea could evolve. Also because you had associated with Serbs, Bulgarians and Macedonians who are fanatical with their own ideas and Russians who have become accustom to viewing a Macedonian as a Serb or a Bulgar and not as a representative of a different tribe. However when you begin to move within the Russian Slavophile community and cultivate in them the notion that the Slavs of Macedonia are not the same as Serbs and Bulgars but a separate tribe representing something different from them both, then the people and many representatives of its intelligentsia will come to recognize themselves as sons of a Slav Macedonian tribe which has closer links to the Russians than to the Serbs and Bulgars. Then we may be assured that many Russian activists will change their first impressions to support a Slav Macedonian identity. The same strategy should be used to influence the Macedonian, but do not reveal this idea to everyone. Initially raise it as an obscure concept and then let develop under its own momentum. As regards myself, as you say they both (Bulgars and Serbs) have a bad opinion about me but it does not concern me as they detest the idea and its adherents. And tell me who likes me here from the mentioned idiots. You ask about my visit to the Turkish embassy. We had an audience with the first secretary, who is also an adviser to the Consul, and expressed our views regarding Macedonia - that we want to be delivered from the mercy of the Serbs, Greeks and Bulgars and to live in peace under the protection of the PadiShah. He thanked us for such consideration and recognition for the Turkish Empire ideas. He also advised us to describe in detail our aims regarding the Macedonian Slavs - in a written submission as a petition or memorandum to be presented before the Sultan. We decided to follow that course, but because of the unexpected news from the Far East we postponed in time so that the Bulgarians and Serbs did not find out and rebel against us. At the last meeting I read a composition on About the centuries-old identity of the Macedonians and on Sunday will read Filcho (now he is not Nikolich but Nikolovski), under the title What reasons have the Russians and travellers or ethnographers in general to confuse the Macedonian Slavs with the Serbs and Bulgars. He became friendly with me and now regularly attends our meetings. The same also applies for Mr Jolevski. Today I received a letter from Marko, his address is - 33 Liulin Planina, Sofia, c/- Mrs Donka Stanisheva. See that you become acquainted with Nikola N Durnovo, a Serbo-Grecophile and Bulgarophobe. I think he lives in Moscow and agrees with our idea. You only have to tell him that in Macedonia there are no Serbs or Bulgars. Give him the encouragement that the pure, real Slav Macedonians thank him for his impartiality. D Chupovski On the last page of the copy (p8) dated 10/06/1904 I scribbled the following To Filip Nikolich from the village of Bukovo (Bitolia district) the Turkish Embassy has issued a travel document for unrestricted travel throughout Macedonia. And later under this note the reply to my question to Chupovski on what he wanted at the Turkish Embassy and why he slandered me, he answered I do not want you to think that I spied on you for the Turkish ambassador. I like idealistic people, I respect them and I would not allow such a thing to occur. However he could not readily conceal his inner emotions, expressed by his paled face. Dimiter Chupovski is originator of the SMSS in St Petersburg, its president and the main exponent of the theory on Slavomacedonism by Professors Cvijich and Belich. Chupovski was born in the Kichevo district, son of a Serboman family of the Myak tribe. He had his primary education within his native village, and his secondary schooling in Serbia from where he left for advanced studies in St Petersburg. There he was awarded a scholarship in the St Petersburg Theological Academy about a year before I arrived. He lived with the academics and not in the dormitory (Schilseburg No. 4) specifically reserved for the South Slav students. Amongst the latter was Peter Rosich, the future Debar-Kichevo Bishop Varnava and later patriarch of the Serbian church, who in many arguments about Macedonia categorically insisted its people were Serbian. Chupovski was of medium build with a thin gaunt face which resembled that of a Tatar. He had a thin short moustache, a short thin dual beard and a characteristic sly smile. He kept his distance from both us and the Serbs and led a somewhat isolated existence. His academic prowess was only average but he was a hard and diabolic man. The Serbian propaganda had instilled in him hatred for everything Bulgarian. He maintained a totally biased knowledge of history and ethnography although he expressed himself in essentially correct literary Bulgarian. Concerning the nationality of the Macedonian Slavs he flatly declared that foreign propaganda had made them into Bulgars, Serbs and Greeks - whereas they are Slav Macedonians with their own identity and language. Chupovksi completed his studies one year before me and disappeared and I had no knowledge of his whereabouts. The society he established in St Petersburg represented only a small group of 5-6 individuals, former Serbian students divested of any ethnic sense. Faced with the fact that Russian journalists and academics highlighted the Bulgarian nature of the Macedonian Liberation Movement and above all the power of IMRO, this group proceeded to preach an opposing view that the Slavs of Macedonia have for centuries their own identity and language. And in their zeal to promote this cause this small group of intellectuals, led by their inspired leader, dedicated themselves to directly serve the Turkish Embassy in St Petersburg (see D Chupovski letter). Chupovski and his fellow members of the SMSS presented themselves to the first secretary of the Turkish Embassy, declared their allegiance to the PadiShah, and asked for deliverance from the Bulgars, Greeks and Serbs. Our colleagues in Kiev had warned us that two Macedonians with Turkish passports, who they considered as Turkish spies, regularly commuted between Odessa and St Petersburg, stopping in Kiev and Moscow and always asking for assistance from the local Slavonic Charitable Organizations. However we knew that those two individuals were non-student members of the SMSS in St Petersburg. One was called Trayko and the other was the brother of Chupovski who I had seen several times as a guest at meetings of the organizations of Bulgarian students. From Chupovski's letter we knew that he had had correspondence with a Marko living in Sofia as well as Donka Stanisheva. As a reward for the SMSS's service to the Turkish Embassy, we are aware that Filip Nikolich from Bukovo had received a passport to travel throughout Macedonia. All this information prompted the MLS to prepare a detailed report on the St Petersburg SMSS's activities for IMRO's Central Committee, and requested any necessary action, if required, to be taken. The report was sent to Salonika and a copy to the Exarchate for information. Unfortunately the carbon copy was not preserved in the MLS archives. As far as I may recall within it was detailed - the formation of the SMSS, its aims and composition, the connections with the Turkish Embassy, the sending of their followers into Macedonia to promulgate the notion of Slavomacedonism, their decision to print 1500 primers in the local dialect with which to teach the children of the 34 villages working for the establishment of an independent Macedonian Church and the willingness to work for the protection of the Turkish Empire. We received a reply from Salonika that we should collect information about the SMSS individuals travelling to Macedonia - names, places of birth and to intercept their letters and be wary they do not do the same to us. In their letter, our Salonika brothers amongst other things state the following It appears your Slavomacedonians are real Turkish spies The members of the SMSS, or more specifically its president D Chupovski, had described me to the secretary of the Turkish Embassy in such a manner that when in September 1905 I arrived in Istanbul to secure a teaching position in Macedonia I was arrested and after questioning by the head sergeant sent onto Salonika. There I was kept more than two weeks before being sent to my native village, Gumendje, without any rights to travel to any of the neighbouring villages or towns. These ordeals refute Chupovski's claim to me that he was not a spy. The situation was now such that my return to my Fatherland meant that contact with my colleagues in St Petersburg was no longer possible. Surveillance of the SMSS's activities however continued by my colleagues in St Petersburg and predominantly by the Central Bureau of the Federated MLSs in Russia. That bureau under its administrative powers not only could view the actions of the Slavomacedonians but also could influence Russian Slavists, historians and journalists to write about the ethnic picture of Macedonia and the national belonging of the Macedonian Slavs, to discuss the