THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

LIBRARY
ELECTRONIC COURSE RESERVE

THE FOLLOWING FILE IS PROTECTED BY

SECTION 17 OF THE
UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT CODE.
 BALKANISTICA
OCCASIONAL PAPERS IN SOUTHEAST
EUROPEAN STUDIES
10

II
1975

Edito r

Kenneth E. Naylor
A ssistant Editor
Craig N. Packard
/

/
2
rplr’ir This match! may be protecud by i
Gp$gk bw (Tide 17 U.S. Cod@:

Published for -.

The American Association for Southeast

European Studies
by
Slavica Publishers, Inc.
P.O. Box 312
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
’ (2)
MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE AND NATIONALISM DURING THE
ent NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURIES

ed' Victor A. Friedman

zd'
zry ' (3) In contradistinction to the development of the
x-rect' other South Slavs, the national awakening of the Mac-
:a1 edonians in the nineteenth century was not accompan-
ied by the definitive formation of a literary lan-
1’ (1) guage. To the contrary, the rise of a Macedonian
IP’ (1) national consciousness along with attempts to form a
lurch prop- Macedonian literary language, or at least a literary
language based to a large extent on Macedonian dia-
!4) lects, was discouraged at this time. This paper will
f (4) investigate not only the phenomenon of language and
:' (3) national identity among the present-day Macedonians
:21 but will also demonstrate that a national identity
s’ (2) did in fact exist among those people in the nine-
-Is’ (2)
(5)
-n
, teenth century. Since the Macedonian literary lan-
guage did not come to be officially codified and
recognized until the time of the Second world War,
the "nineteenth century" of Macedonian can in a sense
acquire A be said to have lasted until that time.
1 ?F \ Since the existence of a Macedonian literary
sman'
' (5)
k
\ c’
language is a sensitive topic in some circles, it is
desirable to give some objective definitions. The
.an' territorial definition of Macedonia is not disputed
by any group: it includes southern Yugoslavia (Vardar
Macedonia), much of northern Greece (Aegean Macedon-
* ia), and the southwestern corner of Bulgaria (Pirin
5)
n' (3) 0" B Macedonia). Any attempts to define the limits of
pe' Macedonian on the basis of linguistic boundaries,
(/! i.e., isoglosses, however, can be met with accusa-
%
03 tions of arbitrariness or incompleteness, since there
5h.h is no definitive bundle of isoglosses- separating
one Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian; rather
the dialects shade very gradually from one into aA-
other. The definition of the modern Macedonian lit-
erary language presents no problems, as it is firmly
based on the west-central Macedonian dialects and has
an established grammar, dictionary, and orthography.
One has only to compare these works with their Bul-
garian and Serbo-Croatian counterparts to see the
differences. However, because the period discussed
in this paper was one during which there were no es-
tablished norms for Macedonian, and because of the
aforementioned problems arising from dependence on
isoglosses and from political sensitivity, the most
objective definition of Macedonian in the nineteenth-
century is a territorial one. 'Thus, for our purposes
"Macedonian" will be taken to mean the Slavic dialects
84 Friedman: Macedonian Language

spoken in the region called Macedonia. Since this

paper is concerned with the developments connectedwith
the formation of the modern Macedonian literary lan-
guage , those factors which did not directly contribute Gree
to these developments, i.e., Bulgarophile and Serbo- sl
phile activities, will not be considered. Those peo-
ple whose activity was significant for the development
of Me ?donian language and nationalism will be treated
regardless of the name by which they may have called
themselves or their language. Macedo-Bulc
There is not much to be said about pre-nine-
teenth-century Macedonian nationalism and language. basec
In Macedonia, as in other parts of the Ottoman Empire KrEovski
at that time, the major distinction was in terms of
religion rather than language or nationality. Thus
the important opposition was Turk/giaour rather than PejE.
national, e.g., Slav/Greek (Arnakis 1963:116). The
Slavic literary language of this period was basically (Lu
Church Slavonic with ever-increasing admixtures of langI
local dialects; texts from Macedonian speech areas Macedc
show Macedonian linguistic features. By the beginning
of the nineteenth century, texts were being written in 1967a:88).
Church Slavonicized dialects rather than in dialectal Macedo:
Church Slavonic (Koneski 1967b:22-26). (While a num-
ber of manuscripts exist in various dialects using
both the Cyrillic and Greek alphabets, the discussion
in this paper will be restricted to published texts.)
Blaze Koneski (1967b:27) has noted that the earli- (
est published Macedonian text was aimed at the elim- Utjegenie
ination of the language. This was the TetragZosson
(?etirijaziznik) of the Vlah HadHiDaniilof Moskopole
(Albanian VoskopojB), first published in Venice in
1794. This quadrilingual word list and didactic con-
versation manual had as its purpose the Hellenization
of Albanians, Aromanians, and Slavs. The Slavic sec-
tion, called Bulgarika, was written in the Ohrid dia-
lect as translated by the priest Stefan of Ohrid
(Kepeski 1972:27; Lunt 1953:366). The TetragZosson
raises the two major problems of Macedonian language
and nationalism during the first half of the nine-
teenth century: Hellenization and the distinction
Bulgarian/Macedonian. As will be seen, the main ian
problem of this period for the Christian South Slavs
living in Ottoman territory was the combatting of
Hellenization, so such concerns as differentiation
among themselves were of secondary importance. The Befor
term BuLgurian has a long history of being used in- chate
discriminately for the South Slavs living in Turkey,
e.g., in the seventeenth century Evlija Celebija Borba,
wrote of "Bulgarians" in Belgrade and Sarajevo (Kon-
eski 1968:24). During the early nineteenth century,
the Bulgarian literary language had not yet developed norther;!Ma
 Friedman: Macedonian Language 85
its definite eastern character; in fact, the question
of a literary language based on the vernacular was not
lan- yet considered settled. Church Slavonic (or, in the
South, Greek) was still regarded as the language of
Serbo- the high style of writing (Xoneski 1967a:88). Thus the
peo- question of whether to call the language of the books
of the earliest writers to use Macedonian dialects
Macedonian or BuZgarian is basically immaterial. Wh ,
is significant is that they tried to use some form of
Macedo-Bulgarian vernacular.
pre-nine- The first two writers to publish books in a lan-
guage based on Macedonian dialects were HadZi Joakim
KrEovski (d. 1820), who used a language based on the
Kratovo-Kriva Palanka dialects of northeastern Mace-
donia, and his somewhat younger contemporary HadZi
Kiril PejEinovik (c.. 1770-1845), who wrote in the
:116). Tetovo dialect, with fewer Church Slavonicisms than
Joakim (Lunt 1953:336)'Both these writers called
their language BuZgarian,but since their dialects
eech were Macedonian, they can be considered as the first
to publish books in some form of Macedonian (Koneski
1967a:88). Their importance to the development of
the Macedonian language lies in the fact that their
num- work gave the authority of the printed word to the
ects colloquial language (Koneski 1967b:31). That a jus-
tification of the use of the vernacular in publishing
ished was thought necessary can be seen in Hadz'i Teodosij
earli- Sinaitski of Dojran's preface to Kiril Pejzinovik's
elim- Utjesenie Grjesnim 'Consolation for Sinners' (Salon-
etragZosson ika, 1840), in which he likens Church Slavonic to a
iof golden key but defends the vernacular by saying that
it is like a key of iron and steel (ieZezo i ZiZik)
con- and that it is just such a key that is needed to open
the heart of the common man (prostiot c'eZovek)
sec- (Polenakovik 1973:244-245). That such a defense
Ohrid dia- should be written in 1840 shows that the concept of
Ohrid using the spoken language as the Ianguage ofliterarure
etragZosson had not yet been fully accepted among the Christian
ian South Slavs of the Ottoman Empire.. The Macedonians'
nine- desire for a single Macedo-Bulgarian literary lan-
guage based on a compromise between various Macedon-
ianand Bulgarian dialects can be said to find its
first expression in the works of Joakim and Kiril,
but these works were also important because they pro-
vided an alternative to Greek.
tance. Before the establishment of the Bulgarian Exar-
"9 in- chate in 1871-1872, the Macedonians and Bulgarians
g were more or less united in the so-called Crkvena
Borba, 'Ecclesiastical Struggle,' against the Phanar-
(Kon- iot Patriarchate of Constantinople (Apostolski 1969a:
lth 63). Although there was some Serbian influence in
Jet norther?Macedonia, it was not of a very extensive
nature (Clissold 1968:145). Thus Greek and the Greek
Patriarchate constituted the major threats to
 ,
I

86 Friedman: Macedonian Language

Macedonian language and nationalism during the middle

of the nineteenth century, i.e., once a Slavic nation-
al consciousness had become sufficiently developed.
According to Stavrianos (1963:97-98), the Mace- t?
donian Slavs escaped Hellenization by remaining il-
literate during the long period under the Constanti-
nople Patriarchate, thereby preserving their "Slavic
dialects" and customs, which provided them with the promis
prerequisites for a national awakening in the nine- Carigr
teenth century. Koneski (1967a:168), however, points
out that with the exception of Konstantinov-Dzinot,
all of the earliest Macedonian educators and writers literi
were from the Ohrid-Struga area, or at least from the
South, where Greek influence was stronger and the haT
schools were better. Be that as it may, the fact re-
mains that the Macedonian national consciousness and
the first attempts at a Macedonian literary language, velop1
in the form of a unified Macedo-Bulgarian language, se<
have their roots in the struggle against the Hellen- ic
izing policies of the Phanariot Patriarchate from the i
1840s through the 1860s (Lunt 1953:367). Serbi:
Examples of the opposition of the Greek Church
to any form of education in Slavic in Macedonia can srmls;
be seen in the treatment of Jordan HadZi Konstantinov- tl
DZinot (b. Veles 1820 - d. 1882) and the brothers
Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov (b. Struga 1810 and promi
1832, respectively - d. 1862). In a letter dated tl
Skopje, April 23, 1856, Jordan complains that he has
been persecuted by bishops and rich citizens for fif-
teen years. In Veles, where he had been teaching, he
writes that the Greek bishop summoned the local lead- consi
ing citizens (Zorba&ii) and demanded that he be ian
stopped, with the following words: "Da go ispudite awea
toj ZapkEn u6iteZ, toj Jordan kopiZ sefi puzt!" ('Kick
that skirt-chasing teacher out, that Jordan whoreson
pimp faggot!' Koneski and JaEar-Nasteva 1966:88-89).
Dimitar Miladinov was one of the first to identify
himself as a Macedonian. He advocated the creation
of a Macedo-Bulgarian literary language in which
Macedonian would play a significant role (Lunt 1953:
367-68). In 1861 Dimitar was jailed in Constantinople
at the behest of the Greek bishop of Ohrid. When his WestM
younger brother, Konstantin, rushed to Constantinople
to help him, he, too, was imprisoned, and they both
died in January 1862 (Mitrev 1962:25).
The last ten years of the anti-Phanariot strug-
gle saw the crystallization of Macedonian national
and linguistic identity in two forms: Unitarian and synth
separatist. The Unitarians continued the tradition guw
of Dimitar Miladinov, i.e., they advocated a single (b.
Macedo-Bulgarian literary language which would be bewee
based to a greater or lesser extent on Macedonian
dialects. The separatists, or Macedonists, felt that
the Bulgarian literary language was too different from cant;
rlavic nation- distinct Macedonian literary language;-
--.-,
Mace- was the earliest-leading figure of the Macedonian
;aining il- Unitarians. He wrote the first Macedonian (or Macedo-
i Constanti- Bulgarian) textbooks (Apostolski 1969a:67) and was the
leir first to espouse the cause of a Macedo-Bulgarian com-
:m promise literary language in print, in an article in
I nine- Carigradski Vestnik of February 9, 1857, No. 315.
Books had been printed in Macedonian before, but
lov-Dzinot, Partenij's were the first to attempt to establish a
literary norm. His two textbooks were printed in
zast Constantinople in 1857 and 1858. The second book was
r to have been printed in Salonika, but the Greelc
re- would not allow it (Roneski 1967a:177-78, 181-E .
The significance of Partenij's textbooks for the de-
ary velopment of Macedonian language and nationalism can
I be seen in the reaction of Bulgarians to his language
Hellen- and ideas. In various articles which appeared in
late 1857 and 1858, Partenij was said to be advocating
Serbism, his language was called 'a mishmash of Bul-
:eek garian and Serbian' (edna razmesa od BElgarski i
zedonia SrZ%ski), and he was referred to as an Arnaut attempt-
Konstantinov- ing to compose a Bulgarian grammar (Koneski 1967a:
188-90). Partenij envisioned a Macedo-Bulgarian com-
.lga promise based on West Macedonian, which he used in
ter his textbooks and which he described in some detail
in articles appearing in Carigradski Vestnik in 1857
zens fif- and Btflgarski KniZici in 1858.' The Bulgarians, how-
ever, envisioned a Macedo-Bulgarian compromise as
lead- consisting of the adoption of Thraco-Moesian Bulgar-
at ian by the Macedonians (Koneski 1967a:lgO). The very .
3 appearance of Macedonian textbooks at that time in-
puzt!"
dan national consciousness and the objections of the Bul-
1966:88-89). garian press show that they were aware of the possi-
o ble separatist nationalist implications of such mani-
festations.
Between 1867 and 1868 Dimitar V. Makedonski (b.
Embore, Kajlarsko [Greek Ptolemat's] - d. 1898) pub-
lished three textbooks. His language was close to the
WestMacedonian of Partenij, but he also included fea-
onstantinople tures from his own Aegean dialect, e.g., the reduc-
d tilon of unstressed vowels (/e/>/i/, /o/>/u/) (Koneski
1967a:202-203). Thus his name must be included among
ariot strug- the list of those who contributed to Macedonian na-
n tionalism by publishing textbooks which attempted to
synthesize Macedonian dialects into a literary: lan-
e guage. Partenij's most active pupil, Kuzman Sapkarev
ed (b. Ohrid 1834 - d. 1908), published eight textbooks
beween 1868 and 1874; he also wrote three other text-
books which were not published. Although he began as
ts, a Unitarian and the language of his earliest textbooks
 ;-
88 Friedman: Micedonian Language

with each book his language became more West Macedon-

ian, and he eventually became a "flaming Macedonist"
in practice if not in print (Koneski 1967a:199-200,
209-10).3
The years 1870-1872 witnessed the end of the
anti-Phanariot struggle and the Bulgarian rejection 186Os, pet
of a Macedo-Bulgarian linguistic compromise. In an- Bulg;
swer to an article written by gapkarev, published in donian."
the periodical Makedonija on June 15 and July 3, 1870; 2
Marin Drinov, in the name of the Brsila Literary So- P
ciety, stated in an article appearing in the July 31, hoc
1870 issue of the same periodical that the new Bul-
garian literary language could not accept any Mace- 1967a:204-
donian compromise, i.e., it would zemain Thraco-
Moesian. Later in the same year, Sapkarev convinced
the citizens of Resen to return the Bulgarian text- Znik
books ordered for their school and use his Macedonian thl
ones instead. This can be said to have made him a ante
Macedonist, although he still advocated compromise in
his journal articles (Koneski 1967a:223-25, 228-31).
One result of this act was an anonymous letter to the incorpora.
November 30, 1870 issue of the Constantinople period-
ical Pravo, in which the language of gapkarev's text-
book is called a pure Ohrid dialect which stinks of
Arnautisms and Hellenisms. gapkarev was also accused 1
of saying Edvam se osZobodixme od G&cite, sega pak 1953:368;
Sopie Zi da staneme? 'We've barely freed ourselves P,
from the Greeks-- are we to become Bulgars now?' tuted SI
(Sazdov 1975a:22). It soon became clear that the ian
writer of the anonymous letter was the owner of the
bookstore in Veles which had to take back the Bulgar-
ian textbooks returned by the citizens of Resen.
In the following year, 1871, the newly formed
Bulgarian Exarchate excluded the Macedonian repre-
sentatives from its first council, calling them Cin-
cari. In 1872, after the establishment of the Exar- gramm
chate, the Bulgarians publicly adopted the attitude
that Macedonian was a degenerate dialect and that
Macedonians should learn Bulgarian (Lunt 1953:369-
70; Koneski 1967a:251). The nature of the policy Makedo
developed by the Exarchate toward Macedonia can be referen
seen in the fact that in 1872 the eparchate of Veles,
in Macedonia, was expected to pay the Exarchate
45,000 groga for 6,500 weddings, while the eparchates
of Samokov and Kjustendil, in Bulgaria, were each
taxed the same amount as Veles, i.e., 45,000 groga,
although they had 30,000 weddings apiece (Koneski
1967a:197-98). In that same year, Venijamin MaEukov-
ski solicited subscriptions for the printing of his
Macedonian grammar, but the reaction of the Constan-
tinople Bulgarian press prevented its publication
(Koneski 196713334: Lunt 1953:369).
The earliest known document of a separatist
character is a letter written by the teacher Nikola
 Friedman: Macedonian Language 89
Filipov of Bansko in southeastern Macedonia to the
Bulgarian philologist Najden Gerov in 1848. In the
a:199-200, letter, Filipov expresses his dissatisfaction with
the use of the eastern dialect of Bulgarian in liter-
ature and textbooks (Apostolski 1969a:67). In the
186Os, people in Salonika were saying they were nei-
an- ther Bulgarian, Greek, nor Aromanian, but "pure Mace-
,ublished donian." sapkarev's textbooks were enthusiastically
received and replaced Greek ones in central and
,iterary So- southern Macedonia. Parents preferred them-to Bul-
garian books because they could understand Sapkarev's
:e Bul- textbooks when their children read aloud (Koneski
_ Mace- 1967a:204-206). But it was not until 1875 that a
Thraco- Macedonist expressed his ideas openly in print. This
?v was the self-educated mason 6orGi Pulevski (b. Gali-
rian &ik 1838 - d. 1894). Between 1873 and 1880 he pub-
lished three textbooks. Proof of Pulevski's acquaint-
lade ance with earlier works is seen in the fact that in
:ompromise the first ninety pages of his ReEnik od tri jezika
!5, ('Dictionary of three languages,' Belgrade, 1875) he
-etter incorporates the content of Sapkarev's porvonaEjaZny
lople period- poznanija .za maLeEk; dBtca ('Elementary knowledge for
;arev's text- small children,' Constantinople, 1868) (Koneski 1967a:
I 255). Unlike sapkarev, however, Pulevski made no at-
tempt to write in a Macedo-Bulgarian compromise (Lunt
?, 1953:368; Koneski 1967a:257).' In his ReZnik od tri
jezika, Pulevski stated that the Macedonians consti-
; tuted a separate nationality and advocated a Macedon-
ian literary language and a free Macedonia (Lunt 1953:
lner 368; Koneski 1974:58). Pulevski himself attempted to
; BUlgar- write a Macedonian grammar, and it was published in
Z Sofia in 1880 under the title SZavjano-nasezjenski
sly makedonska sZognica reFovska ('Grammar of the lan-
ian repre- guage of the Macedonian Slavic population'). Since
lg Cin- Pulevski was not sufficiently educated for the task,
Exar- his grammar remains only an expression of the striv-
le ing for a Macedonian literary language (Koneski 1967a:
257, 260).
1953:369- In 1953, Blaze Koneski published a brief article
le in Makedonskf jazik announcing that he had discovered
lia a reference to Pulevski's SZognica. reFovska in an old
3te Veles, periodical. He went on to say that this would make
zzchate Pulevski the author of the first Macedonian grammar
le and to express the hope that a copy of it might still
Jere be found in Macedonia (Koneski 1953:45). In a later
groga, number of the journal that same year, Haralampie
Polenakovik announced that he had just found a copy
runin MaEukov- of Pulevski's grammar in Ohrid, and he published the
zing title page with the announcement (Polenakovik 1953:
=he Constan- 188). This indicates the extent to which evidence of
Ilication Macedonian nationalism was lost in later years, a
point which will be returned to later.
Iaratist One other textbook which should be mentioned was
:her published in 1889 in Constantinople by Stojan
90 Friedman: Macedonian Language

Novakovie, who had 7,000 copies printed. Two-thirds Macet

of it was written in Macedonian and one-third in 1
Serbo-Croatian. His intention was to combat Bulgar- clarj
ian propaganda and to promote Serbian interests, but guw
he soon abandoned the whole idea for fear of arousing
Macedonian nationalism (Koneski 1959:15).
If Novakovie's textbook is excluded, it is pos- (StaT
sible to speak of sixteen textbooks pubLished between
1857 and 1880 by Partenij, Makedonski, Sapkarev, and
Pulevski. These textbooks were important in the de- upri:
velopment of Macedonian national unity. They were Post<
directly connected with Macedonian separatism by turnc
teaching children that they were not Bulgarian. They ipat<
show that Macedonians did not all think of themselves
as Bulgarians, and they demonstrate that the "Mace- (
donian Question" was not only an issue at the Berlin lite:
Congress of 1878 but a problem which had developed at takil
least twenty years before the Congress (Apostolski SOfii
1969a:67-69). The next period in the development of :
Macedonian language and nationalism was one of peri- matte
odicals, organizations, inflammatory literature, and
insurrections, rather than textbooks and compromises. !
When Bulgaria gained its independence in 1878, (Lun,
after the Russo-Turkish War, a large number of Mace- Bulg'
donians emigrated there from the Ottoman Empire,
where they attempted to found literary societies. 1
For example, in Sofia in 1888 6orGi Pulevski founded
the Slavo-Macedonian Literary Society, but it was culm
dispersed by the authorities and some of its members Mace'
were imprisoned. Of the many societies formed by
Macedonian immigrants at this time, one of the most
important was the Young Macedonian Literary Society
(MZadata Makedonska Knizevna DruZina), which published
the journal Loza 'The Vine' in Sofia from 1892 to
1894. Although the group tried to give the impression
of being Unitarians of Partenij's type, i.e., desir-
ous of the participation of Macedonian in a common
Macedo-Bulgarian language, they were in fact separ-
atists, as can be seen from the fact that they had a
public constitution published in Sofia, and a secret
one printed in Romania. The Society, despite its
shortexistence, was not without effect. The year
1893 saw the founding of the student society Vardar
in Belgrade and the Vnatregna Makedonska Revolucion-
erna Organizacija 'Internal Macedonian Revolutionary
Organization' (VMRO) in Salonika. Vardar was a di-
rect response to Loza and incLuded as members Krste
P. Misirkov and Dimitrija D. Cupovski, who first be-
gan to develop their Macedonian nationalist ideas at
that time, while the VMRO was founded by members of
Loza and similar groups, e.g., Petar Pop Arsov (Ri- :-
stovski 1973:143-48). j'
On St. Elijah's Day (IZinder.), August 2, (N.S.), g r
1903, the VMRO attempted an insurrection to free :?!'xi B
 .

3uage Friedman: Macedonian Language 91

Macedonia, but the rebellion was repressed. One of
the problems which the VMRO failed to solve was the
Bulgar- clarification of its policy on nationalism and lan-
n guage. The members of the VMRO wanted political
freedom from Turkey and the Exarchate and thought
:15). that cultural policies could be worked out later
pos- (Stavrianos 1958:519-20). However, owing to its lack
pubLished of a specific national policy, the VMRO came under
1, considerable Bulgarian influence during the IZinden
de- uprising (Koneski 1967b:41). Krste Misirkov (b.
f=Y. Post01 [Greek PZZZa] 1874 - d. 19261, who had re-
turned to Macedonia from St. Petersburg to partic-
ipate in the insurrection, went back to Russia imme-
diately after the failure of the Ilinden rebellion
"Mace- and delivered a series of lectures to the various
literary societies there to inform them of the events
taking place in Macedonia. That November he went to
Sofia to arrange for the printing of a book based on
his lectures, Za makedonckite raboti 'On Macedonian
peri- matters.' The book appeared in Sofia in December
1903 but was confiscated by the Bulgarian police in
the printing shop before it could be distributed
(Lunt 1953:370). Misirkov himself was expelled from
Mace- Bulgaria, and returned to Russia (Misirkov 1974:19-
Oman 20; Lunt 1953:370). Za makedonckite raboti was writ-
ry ten by Misirkov in response to the failure of Ilinden
(Koneski 1967b:41) and constitutes the ideological
culmination of the development of nineteenth-century
e Macedonian nationalism, particularly from the lin-
guistic point of view. As an illustration of this,
the final paragraph of the book will be cited here:
1, 1, Prilepcko-Bitolckoto narezije za literaturen
jazik, kao jednakvo daleko i ot srbckijot i
bugarckijot jazici, i centralno vo Makedonija.
pe, desir- 2, fonetiznijot praopis . . . so mali otstapki
na etimologijata i 3, re&i&ijot materijal da
separ- jet sobrajn'e ot site makedoncki narezija.
(Misirkov1903:145)
ia,
'[The following should be adopted:] 1. The Prilep-
kt. Bitola dialect as the basis of-.the literary lan-
Vardar guage , since it is equally distant from Serbian
qska RevoZucion- and Bulgarian, and central in Macedonia, 2. A
phonetic orthography . . . with minor conces-
zrdar di- sions to etymology and 3. The collecting of dic-
tionary material from all Macedonian dialects.'
I, be- Misirkov concluded his book by calling for the estab-
onalist lishment of a Macedonian literary language using vir-
3 tually the same principles which were ultimately ar-
Pop (Ri- rived at in 1944 in ignorance of his worke6 Because
all but a few copies were destroyed, Za makedoncki-
lugust (N.S.), te raboti was prevented from having much influence
lion in Macedonia between the two world wars: the second
92; Friedman: bfacedonian Language

edition did not come out until 1946. No copies of

the first edition survived in Macedonia: the writer
Kole Nedelkovski found a copy of it in the Sofia public
library (Koneski 1967b:44).
During the years between.IZinden and the Balkan
Wars, living conditions in Macedonia were difficult.
Most intellectual activity was carried on outside the
country, largely in St. P$tersburg, where Misirkov
and DimitrijaDimov Pavle-Cupovski (b. Papradigte
1878 - d. 1940) were active in forming literary so-
cieties and publishing periodicals, e.g., the polit-
ical journal Vardar (Ristovski 1966) and Makedonski belt
Go-loss 'Macedonian Voice' (Sazdov 1975b). As has been 1918:31
indicated by the fate of Pulevski's and Misirkov's Cvijie, 1:
books, knowledge of nineteenth-century Macedonian
nationalistic and linguistic activity was lost, at 1917:109)
least in part, as a result of the policies of various
opposing parties. Ristovski (1973:142) complains
that many of the details of nineteenth-century Mace- Bulgarize
donian intellectual development remain carefully 1918:108-
guarded in the state archives in Sofia. Neverthe-
less, those periodicals and memoirs which have sur-
vived indicate that the Macedonian intelligentsia neit1
were active in the search for their identity. dete
Outside of Macedonia, scholars began to concern the
themselves with the "Macedonian Question." In 1890, Mace
Komarov's ethnographic map, published in St. Peters- south
burg, became the first to recognize the Macedonians a:
by giving them a separate color (Ristovski 1973:140). *,
Lamouche (1899:23-24) wrote that the Macedonians were
neither Serbs nor Bulgarians, but he concluded, on Oblak's !
the assumption that language was the only indisput- resu:
able indicator of nationality, that Macedonians were
Serbs if they spoke Serbian and Bulgarians if they
spoke Bulgarian. Even in Serbia, there was some
recognition of the independence of Macedonian. In
an article in Brankovo KoZo in 1904, Andra GavriloviE: dec
wrote a review of Vojdan Eernodrinski's troupe's I
visit to Belgrade, in which he said that the language
of the troupe's plays marked the de-but of a fourth
South Slavic literary language, not just a jargon
(Koneski 1959:16). Sla,
The partition of Macedonia in 1913, after the
Second Balkan War, had the ruinous effect on Macedon- jetted
ian nationalism that Misirkov predicted (Koneski nu
1967333441, e.g., in Greece, under Metaxas, the Mace- donian
donian language became illegal (Apostolski, 196933:
271-72). The greater part of Macedonia went to Ser-
bia, where Macedonian was treated as a South Serbian
dialect, in contrast to the situation in Bulgaria,
where it was treated as West Bulgarian, or Greece,
where it was treated as nonexistent.
Throughout the interwar period, scholars in the donian
Balkans and elsewhere carried on a polemic over the .;
 c

Friedman: Macedonian Language 93

-0 nationality and language of the Macedonians. In

; America, Dominian's (1916:440-43) ethnographic map
colored Macedonia "Bulgarian," except for the north-
west, which was colored "Albanian." Dominian also
nd wrote that Macedonian was closer to Bulgarian, but
:re transitional to Serbian.
In a book called 0 Makedoniji i Makedoncima
'About Macedonia and the Macedonians' (1918), the
lapradigte scholars Wendl, Rizov and Tomi argue over the nature
of Macedonia, its people, and their language. Rizov
I polit- claims that the people are Bulgarian and that the
,d land belongs to Bulgaria (Wendl, Rizov, and Tomi
1918:31 and passim). Wendl, along with Fischer and
i Cviji%, holds that the Macedonians could become ei-
ther Serbs or Bulgarians (Wendl, Rizov, and Tomi
Tas 1917:109), while Tomi says that the Macedonians are
:ies really Serbs who have been subjected to more Turkish
influence than other Serbs and have recentlv been
Mace- Bulgarized by the Exarchate (Wendl, Rizov, and Tomi
1918:108-109).
Neverthe- The Serbian linguist Aleksandar Belie (1919:250)
-ch sur- quotes Meillet in saying that the Macedonian dialects
zlligentsia are neither Serbian nor Bulgarian and that politics
entity. will determine the linguistic fate of Macedonia.
Jan Belie then goes on to claim that the north and cen-
>n." tral Macedonian dialects are basically Serbian while
n Peters- the south is basically Bulgarian. He bases this ar-
1 gument almost entirely on the reflexes of Common
1973:140). Slavic */tj/, */dj/ in Macedonia, i.e., north and
central /R/, /g/, south /ZZ/,/ZJ/. He rejects
ncluded, Oblak's suggestion that the reflexes /fi/, /g/ are
11y indisput- the result of Serbian-influenced substitution. He
ledonians also ridicules Bulgarian scholars by suggesting that
.ans his opinion coincides with that of impartial European
f scholarship, viz., his interpretation of Meillet, be-
donian. cause Serbia had contact with the West while Bulgaria
.dra GavriloviE: slept deeply under the Turkish yoke, and that the re-
; sulting difference in intellectual development could
.t not easily be overcome (Belie 1919:253-56, 264).
Vaillant (1938:119) writes that Belie's argument
;t is based essentially on one phonetic trait and that
most Slavists agree that Macedonian is actually a
part of a Macedo-Bulgarian group which has been sub-
-ct jected to the prolonged influence of Serbian. He
lists numerous phonological traits which link Mace-
.as, Mace- donian with Bulgarian rather than Serbian, e.g., the
llski, fate of the jers and juses,/va/, and /;/, and goes
Ser- on to note that vestiges of /Zt/ in the /k/ area show
that the latter reflex is the result of substitution,
e.g., in GaliEnik gaki f 'underpants' but ga3'nik (cf.
Bulgarian gas'tnik) 'a belt for holding up gaki'.
Vaillant concludes his remarks by saying that Mace-
donian is not a dialect of Bulgarian and deserves a
mic separate place in a Macedo-Bulgarian group (1938:204-
08).
94 Friedman: Macedonian Language

In Vardar Macedonia, as opposed to Aegean or

Pirin Macedonia, Macedonian nationalism was kept cert
alive long enough to find its ultimate expression in
a literary language and separate republic in Yugo-
slavia after World War Two. While Metaxas was im - 175
prisoning Macedonians in Greece for speaking their
native language, the Serbs were permitting the pub-
lication of folkloristic literature in Macedonian,
e.g., Vasil Iljoski's play LenFe KumanovFe 'LenEe
from Kumanovo,'7 first performed in Skopje in 1928,
and the collection of poems Oginot 'The Fire' (1938)
by Venko Markovski (Koneski 1967b:47). In addition
to this permissiveness, attempts at Serbianization,
e.g., forcing Macedonians to attend Serbian schools,
only served to increase Macedonian self-awareness by 18,
bringing together Macedonians from different parts
of the country and attempting to force them to learn
a language which was not their native one (Koneski
1967a:96; Lunt 1959:21).
In 1934, the Comintern ruled that the Macedon-
ians had a right to exist as a separate people with
a separate language, and illegal Communist Party
newspapers and leaflets began to be published and III.
circulated (Apostolski 1969b:85,101,116; Hristov
1970:395-400; Koneski 1967b:46-48). During world
War Two, the Yugoslav partisans won jurisdiction
over Macedonia and followed Tito's policy of cultural
autonomy by issuing leaflets and news bulletins in
Macedonian (Lunt 1959:23). The development of liter-
ature and propaganda in Macedonian before the War
were crucial factors in the rapid crystallization of
the literary language after 1944 (Lunt 1953:373;
Koneski 1967b:48). While doing research in Skopje
during 1973-1974, I had occasion to compare the orig- 15
inal manuscripts of plays written by Risto Krle and
Dimitar Kozov in the late 1930s with the versions
published in the 196Os, well after the establishment
of the literary language. The only.major difference
was that these writers tended to use the third person
singular present desinence -t in their manuscripts,
while this feature was not adopted as part of the
literary language (cf. footnote 6). Thus, as Lunt like
(1959:23) suggests, the formal proclamation of Mace-
donian as a literary language on August 2, 1944 was
merely official recognition of the status quo. dL
The development of Macedonian language and na-
tionalism in the nineteenth and early twentieth cen-
turies can be roughly divided into four periods. (It precf
has not been possible to mention all those who played
a part in this development: attention has been io- Vniversi?
cused on the people of greatest significance for Mac- H:
edonian linguistic history, and this in turn reflects
the history of Macedonian nationalism.) The periods
themselves are not inviolable sections of time, but
 4e Friedman: Macedonian Language 95

merely indications of the approximate time during

which certain tendencies were stronger or more impor-
tant than others. The following table summarizes the
lit Yugo- periodization suggested by this paper:
axas im-
I. 1794-1840: The period of the first published texts
employing Macedonian dialects. Main
:ting pub- figures: Ha&i Daniil of Moskopole,
1 Ha&i Joakim Krzovski, and Ha&i Kiril
0vFe 'LenEe PejZn0vi.C. Main event: the awakening
:opje of a Slavic national consciousness.
ie The opposition Turk/giaour is super-
ceded by Greek/Slav, and Slavs struggle
?rbianization, for a literary language of their own.
?rbian
-f-awareness II. 1840-1870: The period of the first textbooks. Main
figures: Dimitar and Konstantin Milad-
‘: inov, Jo_rdan Ha&i Konstantinov-Dkinot,
Kuzman Sapkarev. Main event: the anti-
Phanariot struggle. Most intellectuals
1. Macedon- favor a common Macedo-Bulgarian liter-
:e ’ ary language based to a large extent on
lnist Macedonian.
iblished III. 1870-1913: The period of the first grammars and
-6; nationalist publications. Main figures:
Juring CorGi Pulevski, Krste P. Misirkov, Di-
Irisdiction mitrija Dimov Pavle-&povski, Petar Pop
.icy Arsov, and other members of the VMRO.
Main events: the establishment of the
>pment liter- Bulgarian Exarchate, the I~inden rebel-
Zore lion, and the partition of Macedonia.
<tallization Macedonian nationalism is opposed to
1 1953:373; Bulgarian and Serbian interests.
:ch
Impare orig- IV. 1913-1944: The development of Macedonian litera-
Xisto ture in Serbia and Yugoslavia leading
:he to the crystallization and ultimate es-
2 tablishment of the Macedonian literary
3jor language. -_
:he In conclusion I would like to emphasize the fact
- that in the nineteenth century, Macedonian was already
-part in the process,of developing into a literary language
Thus, much like the contemporary one. The process was cut
?ation Mace- short by the partition of 1913, and yet it began anew
:t and resumed the same direction of development in Yugo-
3tus slavia during the interwar period, so that the lan-
lguage na- guage officially proclaimed in 1944 was essentially
cen- the same one which had developed during the course of
lr (It the preceding century.
:hose
fo- University of North CaroZina,
iicance Chapel Hi22
)
;
96 Friedman: Macedonian Language

FOOTNOTES 5Pule
'in example of the more colloquial character of Kiril
PezinoviG's language is his consistent use of parataxis to aor. -(j)e,
"translate" Church Slavonic hypotaxis (Koneski 1967a:126). -eki, -,
2Partenij listed twelve Macedonian characteristics which Macedonian%
he felt were basic to the literary language he was advocating: i
1) Macedonian stress tends toward the beginning of the word,
like Serbian, rather than toward the end like Bulgarian. 2) :
*/tj/ */dj/ give /k/ /gT rather than /zt/ /ka/as in the word 1967a:258-1
me& vs. meZdu 'between.' 3) Unstressed a, e, and 0 are not 'In
reduced in Macedonian. (Koneski points out that they are re-
duced in the Southeast.) 4) Macedonian and Bulgarian have ian litera
different reflexes of vocalic */r/ and */;/. 5) In Macedonian,
/z/>/e/ vs. Bulgarian /ja/. 6) In Macedonian, x becomes fl, f,
or V. 7) Macedonian has definite articles of the type -0V and osnoac'
-on, in addition to - ot. 8) Macedonian, according to Partenij,
has more remnants of the nominal declension. 9) Macedonian -B.
neuter nouns in -e have a plural in -inja. 10) The third sin-
gular present tense ending is -t. (The third plural varies.)
11) Macedonian has a verbal adverb. (12) */Q/ gives /a/ or 1966:s
/o/, e.g., pat or pot vs. Bulgarian pa't. (Koneski 1967a:182-
184) Partenij is against the use of bl, and a feminine accus- mboti.)
ative -&in the orthography, because they have no basis in the 'The
living language. In his first book, Partenij used such Gali- (15
Enicisms as o for the reflex of */g/, 3rd pl. aor. -e, 1st pl.
pronoun mie, and 3rd sg. neut. pronoun tea. In his second
book, he tried using more forms from other Macedonian dialects
and avoiding Gali&icisms (Koneski 1967a:179-180,185). Par-
tenij's twelve points, which he published in an article which Apostolskl
appeared in the Constantinople Bulgarian periodical GZgarski mm
knGici of January 1, 1858, substantiate Lunt's statement, that . .
while Slavic linguistic frontiers are relative in the Balkans, Sk01
natives pick on certain linguistic traits, e.g., reflexes of 1
jers and juses, stress, and vowel reduction, as distinguishing
their speech from that of their neighbors (Lunt 1953:364,371).
3Some characteristics of Eapkarev's.language are the fol-
lowing: 1) Use of the Ohrid reflex of */Q/ (=a), because it is Beli'c, All
like Bulgarian. 2) Use of 1st sg. pres. :m only with the a-
group (begam 'I run' vs. ka%a 'I say'). 3) Use of Ohrid verb Cdlll
groups, i.e., absence of an i-group. 4) Ohrid verbal adverbs Dominian,
(in -.Ftem). 5) Bulgarian orthography and relative pronouns.
6) Misuse of e' but correct use of x. 7) Many Russisms and of
Church Slavonicisms,like Partenij, but with interesting 191
"glosses," e.g., poZza 'fajda' ('use'), dZX%ost IborE'
('debt'), Gzduh 'hava' ('air'), narodi 'mileti' ('peoples').
(Koneski 1967a:210-12)
'On the other hand, some Macedonists claimed that they sit
were pure Slavs and that the Bulgarians were 'Tatars' (Koneski
1967a:237). This notion is also.commonly found among Turks, jaz
e.g.. BuZgarZar TiZrkti.lr,bunZam IsZiiv yapan dildir 'The ~ul-
garians are Turkish, it is their language which makes them din
Slav' (Lewis 1953:81).
;age Friedman: Macedonian Language 97

5Pulevski attempted to use a supradialectal language, but

as he was not well educated his language suffered from incon-
:racter Kiril sistencies. He used such Galiznicisms as /o/ from */Q/ 3rd pl.
,f aor. -(j)e, and the future particle ka. He had verbal adverbs
;ki 1967a:126). in -eki, -jeZti, and -jes'Zi. In his grammar (1880), he opposed
Macedonian, which he called na3inski or slavjano-makedonski, to
Bulgarian and Serbian on phonological and lexical bases. By
ling this time he was also able to differentiate between the Galiznik
reflex of */Q/ and the more common Macedonian reflex a (Koneski
:a/as 1967a:258-60).
61n fact, Misirkov's language has fewer traits in common
re- with literary Serbian or Bulgarian than does the modern Macedon-
ian literary language, as can be seen in the following list of,
_ traits of Misirkov's language: 1) */tj/ gives zz vs. literary k.
An, fl, f, 2) Intervocalic V is lost everywhere, even in neologisms, e.g.,
If -0v osnoac' vs. literary 0snovaZ 'founder'. 3) jnj vs. literary nj,
:cording e.g., in verbal nouns in -nje. 4) 3rd sg. pres. -t vs. literary
-B. 5) Numerous neologisms (Koneski 1967b:43). Misirkov's
sin- orthography was essentially the same as the modern one, except
that he had an additional letter? for etymological */Q/ (Ristov-
/Q/ ski 1966:56). (This was the concession to etymology referred to
Ineski 1967a:182- in point two of the closing paragraph of Za makedoncskite
3. accus- raboti.)
3ve 7The play was published in Iljoski's f&or 'Selected
Gali- works' (1966, Skopje) under the name Begalka 'The run-away
aor. -e, pl. bride'.
lacedonian REFERENCES
3-180,185). Par-
.I Apostolski, Mihailo et al. 1969a. Istorija na makedonskiot
Bzlgarski narod, vol. 2. Skopje: Institut za Narodna Istorija.
nt's . 196933. Istorija na makedonskiot narod, vol. 3.
Skopje: Institut za Narodna Istorija.
z. Arnakis, G. 1963. "The role of religion in the development of
Balkan nationalism." The BaZkans in Transition, ea. by
Lunt 1953:364,371). Charles and Barbara Jelavich. Berkeley: University of
3nguage fol- California Press, 115-144. .
Beli'c, Aleksandar. 1919. La Ma&doine. Paris: Bloud & Gay.
a- clissold, Stephen et al. 1968. A short history of YugosZavia.
Ohrid Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Dominian, Leon. 1916. "Linguistic areas in Europe: Their
Zlative boundaries and political significance." Annual report
1y of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution
2915, 409-443. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
host 'borz' I Office.
leti' Hristov, Aleksandar. 1970. Zbomik na dbkwnenti za sozduvanje
na makedonskata drZavnost (1893-19441. Skopje: Univer-
claimed zitet "Kiril i Metodij."
2 'Tatars' Kepeski, Krume. 1972. Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen
xund jazik za uFilis'ta od II stepen. Skopje: Prosvetno Delo.
diZdir I ~ul- Koneski, Blaze. 1953. "Gramatikata na 2. Pulevski." Make-
:ich donski jazik 4.45-47.
. 1959. "La question de la langue littgraire au XIX
et au &but au XX siscle." Langue Zittbraire ma&-
donienne, 10-17. Belgrade: Jugoslavija.
98 1, Friedman: Macedonian Language
[ *
Koneski, Blake and Olivera JaFar-Nasteva. 1966. Makedonski
tekstovi 20-20 vek. Skopje: Sojuzot na dru?Ztvata za
makedonski jazik i literatura.
Koneski, Blaze. 1967a. Za makedonskiot Ziteraturen jazik. “Yom
Skopje: Kultura.
. 1967b. Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik.
Skopje: Kultura.
. 1968. Makedonskiot jazik vo razvojot na slovenskite
literaturni jazici. Skopje: Kultura.
. 1974. "The ima g e of Gjorgji Pulevski," translated by
Victor A. Friedman. Macedonian Review 4.57-59. 196C
Korubin, Blagoja. 197.2. "Jazi&oto praganje vo makedonija VO
vtorata polovina na 19 vek." Predavanja na V Seminar a
za Makedonski jazik, Ziteratura i kuZtu.ra, 29-37. Skopje: IIsc
Univerzitet "Kiril i Metodij" Seminar za Makedonski delvet
Jazik, Literature i Kultura.
Lamouche, LGon. 1899. La p$ninsute balkanique. Paris: Paul
Ollendorf. preach, 1
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1953. Teach yourseLf Turkish. London: Burschenl
English Universities Press, Ltd.
Lunt, Horace. 1953. "A survey of Macedonian literature." j
Harvard Slavic Studies 1.363-396.
. 1959. "The creation of standard Macedonian: Some 1
facts and attitudes." AnthropoZogicaZ Linguistics 1,5. c
19-26.
Misirkov, Krste P. 1903. Za makedonckite raboti. [Reprinted there
19741. Skopje: Institut za Makedonski jazik. inter
. 1974. On Macedonian matters, translated by Alan
McConnell. Skopje: Macedonian Review. 1
Mitrev, Dimitar. 1962. "PO tragite od podvigot na Miladinovci." sI
Mizadinovci--Zbomik--1861-1961. Skopje: KoEo Racin. Yc
Polenakovik, Haralampie. 1953. "Za gramatikata na Pulevski." Comr
Makedonski jazik 4.188-189.
. 1973. Nikulcite na novata makedonska kniZevnost.
Skopje: Misla. differeni
Ristovski, Blake. 1966. "Vardar": Na&ao-literatumza i ant
opztestveno-politizko spisanie na K. P. M-isirkov. vf
Skopje: Institut za Makedonski jazik.
. 1973. "The Macedonian literary society LOza." Mace- thi
donian Revia, 2.139-148.
Sazdov, Tome. 1975a. Zivotot i deZoto na.K. A. zapkarev. critici
Skopje: Sovremenost.
. 197533. "The role of the periodic@ Macedonian Voice
(1913/14)." Macedonian Review 5.44-51. necessar.
Stavrianos, L. S. 1958. The BaZkans since 2493. New York: sugc
Rinehart & Co. app:
. 1963. The BaZkans: 1815-1914. New York: Holt, Rine- dialectil
hart and Winston,
Vaillant, A. 1938. "Le probl?me du slave mac%onien." Bulle- 1
tin de Za Socidt6 Linquistique de Paris 39 fast. 2 no.
;16.194-210.
Wendl, Herman, D. Rizov and Svet. Tomi'c. 1918. 0 Makedoniji i Feul
Makedoncima. Belgrade(?): Drzavna stamparija Kraljevine
Srbije.