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

Editor

Kenneth E. Naylor
Assistant Editor
Craig N. Packard
/

-I-
,
/
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)
of three MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE AND NATIONALISM DURING THE
ent building' NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURIES

ed' (3) Victor A. Friedman

zd' (1)
zry ' (3) In contradistinction to the development of the
x-rect' (5) other South Slavs, the national awakening of the Mac-
:a1 scholars' 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 love
, 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 A be said to have lasted until that time.
1 ?F \ Since the existence of a Macedonian literary
sman' (1)
' (5)
k
\ c’
language is a sensitive topic in some circles, it is
desirable to give some objective definitions. The
.an' (5) territorial definition of Macedonia is not disputed
by any group: it includes southern Yugoslavia (Vardar
5) 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' (1) 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 its definil

paper is concerned with the developments connectedwith of a liter;
the formation of the modern Macedonian literary lan- yet considc
guage , those factors which did not directly contribute South, Gree
to these developments, i.e., Bulgarophile and Serbo- the high sl
phile activities, will not be considered. Those peo- question 0:
ple whose activity was significant for the development of the ear:
of Me ?donian language and nationalism will be treated Macedonian
regardless of the name by which they may have called is signific
themselves or their language. Macedo-Bulc
There is not much to be said about pre-nine- The f:
teenth-century Macedonian nationalism and language. guage basec
In Macedonia, as in other parts of the Ottoman Empire KrEovski (I
at that time, the major distinction was in terms of Kratovo-Kr.
religion rather than language or nationality. Thus donia, and
the important opposition was Turk/giaour rather than Kiril PejE.
national, e.g., Slav/Greek (Arnakis 1963:116). The Tetovo dia.
Slavic literary language of this period was basically Joakim (Lu
Church Slavonic with ever-increasing admixtures of their langI
local dialects; texts from Macedonian speech areas were Macedc
show Macedonian linguistic features. By the beginning to publish
of the nineteenth century, texts were being written in 1967a:88).
Church Slavonicized dialects rather than in dialectal the Macedo:
Church Slavonic (Koneski 1967b:22-26). (While a num- work gave
ber of manuscripts exist in various dialects using colloquial
both the Cyrillic and Greek alphabets, the discussion tification
in this paper will be restricted to published texts.) was though
Blaze Koneski (1967b:27) has noted that the earli- Sinaitski (
est published Macedonian text was aimed at the elim- Utjegenie
ination of the language. This was the TetragZosson ika, 1840)
(?etirijaziznik) of the Vlah HadHiDaniilof Moskopole golden key
(Albanian VoskopojB), first published in Venice in it is like
1794. This quadrilingual word list and didactic con- and that i
versation manual had as its purpose the Hellenization the heart
of Albanians, Aromanians, and Slavs. The Slavic sec- (Polenakov
tion, called Bulgarika, was written in the Ohrid dia- should be
lect as translated by the priest Stefan of Ohrid using the
(Kepeski 1972:27; Lunt 1953:366). The TetragZosson had not ye
raises the two major problems of Macedonian language South Slav
and nationalism during the first half of the nine- desire for
teenth century: Hellenization and the distinction guage base
Bulgarian/Macedonian. As will be seen, the main ian and Bu
problem of this period for the Christian South Slavs first expr
living in Ottoman territory was the combatting of but these
Hellenization, so such concerns as differentiation vided an a
among themselves were of secondary importance. The Befor
term BuLgurian has a long history of being used in- chate in 1
discriminately for the South Slavs living in Turkey, were more
e.g., in the seventeenth century Evlija Celebija Borba, 'EC
wrote of "Bulgarians" in Belgrade and Sarajevo (Kon- iot Patria
eski 1968:24). During the early nineteenth century, 63). Altho
the Bulgarian literary language had not yet developed norther;!Ma
nature (Cl
Patriarcha
 Friedman: Macedonian Language 85
since this its definite eastern character; in fact, the question
connectedwith of a literary language based on the vernacular was not
literary lan- yet considered settled. Church Slavonic (or, in the
tly contribute South, Greek) was still regarded as the language of
e and Serbo- the high style of writing (Xoneski 1967a:88). Thus the
. Those peo- question of whether to call the language of the books
he development of the earliest writers to use Macedonian dialects
ill be treated Macedonian or BuZgarian is basically immaterial. Wh ,
have called 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-
d language. guage based on Macedonian dialects were HadZi Joakim
ttoman Empire KrEovski (d. 1820), who used a language based on the
in terms of Kratovo-Kriva Palanka dialects of northeastern Mace-
lity. Thus donia, and his somewhat younger contemporary HadZi
rather than Kiril PejEinovik (c.. 1770-1845), who wrote in the
:116). The Tetovo dialect, with fewer Church Slavonicisms than
was basically Joakim (Lunt 1953:336)'Both these writers called
ixtures of their language BuZgarian,but since their dialects
eech areas were Macedonian, they can be considered as the first
the beginning to publish books in some form of Macedonian (Koneski
ing written in 1967a:88). Their importance to the development of
in dialectal the Macedonian language lies in the fact that their
(While a num- work gave the authority of the printed word to the
ects using colloquial language (Koneski 1967b:31). That a jus-
he discussion tification of the use of the vernacular in publishing
ished texts.) was thought necessary can be seen in Hadz'i Teodosij
hat the earli- Sinaitski of Dojran's preface to Kiril Pejzinovik's
at the elim- Utjesenie Grjesnim 'Consolation for Sinners' (Salon-
etragZosson ika, 1840), in which he likens Church Slavonic to a
iof Moskopole golden key but defends the vernacular by saying that
Venice in it is like a key of iron and steel (ieZezo i ZiZik)
didactic con- and that it is just such a key that is needed to open
Hellenization the heart of the common man (prostiot c'eZovek)
Slavic sec- (Polenakovik 1973:244-245). That such a defense
he Ohrid dia- should be written in 1840 shows that the concept of
of Ohrid using the spoken language as the Ianguage ofliterarure
etragZosson had not yet been fully accepted among the Christian
ian language South Slavs of the Ottoman Empire.. The Macedonians'
the nine- desire for a single Macedo-Bulgarian literary lan-
stinction guage based on a compromise between various Macedon-
the main ianand Bulgarian dialects can be said to find its
South Slavs first expression in the works of Joakim and Kiril,
atting of but these works were also important because they pro-
rentiation vided an alternative to Greek.
tance. The Before the establishment of the Bulgarian Exar-
"9 used in- chate in 1871-1872, the Macedonians and Bulgarians
g in Turkey, were more or less united in the so-called Crkvena
Celebija Borba, 'Ecclesiastical Struggle,' against the Phanar-
rajevo (Kon- iot Patriarchate of Constantinople (Apostolski 1969a:
lth century, 63). Although there was some Serbian influence in
Jet developed 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 Macedc

of the nineteenth century, i.e., once a Slavic nation- distir
al consciousness had become sufficiently developed. E
According to Stavrianos (1963:97-98), the Mace- was t?
donian Slavs escaped Hellenization by remaining il- unitar
literate during the long period under the Constanti- Bulgar
nople Patriarchate, thereby preserving their "Slavic first
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 Books
out that with the exception of Konstantinov-Dzinot, Parter
all of the earliest Macedonian educators and writers literi
were from the Ohrid-Struga area, or at least from the Consti
South, where Greek influence was stronger and the to haT
schools were better. Be that as it may, the fact re- would
mains that the Macedonian national consciousness and The s:
the first attempts at a Macedonian literary language, velop1
in the form of a unified Macedo-Bulgarian language, be se<
have their roots in the struggle against the Hellen- and ic
izing policies of the Phanariot Patriarchate from the 1857 i
1840s through the 1860s (Lunt 1953:367). Serbi:
Examples of the opposition of the Greek Church gariai
to any form of education in Slavic in Macedonia can srmls;
be seen in the treatment of Jordan HadZi Konstantinov- ing tl
DZinot (b. Veles 1820 - d. 1882) and the brothers 188-9
Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov (b. Struga 1810 and promi
1832, respectively - d. 1862). In a letter dated his tl
Skopje, April 23, 1856, Jordan complains that he has in ar
been persecuted by bishops and rich citizens for fif- and B
teen years. In Veles, where he had been teaching, he ever,
writes that the Greek bishop summoned the local lead- consi
ing citizens (Zorba&ii) and demanded that he be ian b
stopped, with the following words: "Da go ispudite awea
toj ZapkEn u6iteZ, toj Jordan kopiZ sefi puzt!" ('Kick dicat
that skirt-chasing teacher out, that Jordan whoreson natio
pimp faggot!' Koneski and JaEar-Nasteva 1966:88-89). garia
Dimitar Miladinov was one of the first to identify ble s
himself as a Macedonian. He advocated the creation festa
of a Macedo-Bulgarian literary language in which
Macedonian would play a significant role (Lunt 1953: Embor
367-68). In 1861 Dimitar was jailed in Constantinople lishe
at the behest of the Greek bishop of Ohrid. When his WestM
younger brother, Konstantin, rushed to Constantinople tures
to help him, he, too, was imprisoned, and they both tion
died in January 1862 (Mitrev 1962:25). 1967a
The last ten years of the anti-Phanariot strug- the 1
gle saw the crystallization of Macedonian national tiona
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. C
Macedo-Bulgarian literary language which would be bewee
based to a greater or lesser extent on Macedonian book:
dialects. The separatists, or Macedonists, felt that . a uni
the Bulgarian literary language was too different from cant;
 g the middle
rlavic nation- distinct Macedonian literary language;-
developed. --.-,
the 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 "Slavic first to espouse the cause of a Macedo-Bulgarian com-
:m with the promise literary language in print, in an article in
I the nine- Carigradski Vestnik of February 9, 1857, No. 315.
lever, points Books had been printed in Macedonian before, but
lov-Dzinot, Partenij's were the first to attempt to establish a
and writers literary norm. His two textbooks were printed in
zast from the Constantinople in 1857 and 1858. The second book was
r and the to have been printed in Salonika, but the Greelc
the fact re- would not allow it (Roneski 1967a:177-78, 181-E .
iousness and The significance of Partenij's textbooks for the de-
ary language, velopment of Macedonian language and nationalism can
I language, be seen in the reaction of Bulgarians to his language
the Hellen- and ideas. In various articles which appeared in
late from the 1857 and 1858, Partenij was said to be advocating
Serbism, his language was called 'a mishmash of Bul-
:eek Church garian and Serbian' (edna razmesa od BElgarski i
zedonia can SrZ%ski), and he was referred to as an Arnaut attempt-
Konstantinov- ing to compose a Bulgarian grammar (Koneski 1967a:
brothers 188-90). Partenij envisioned a Macedo-Bulgarian com-
.lga 1810 and promise based on West Macedonian, which he used in
ter dated his textbooks and which he described in some detail
that he has in articles appearing in Carigradski Vestnik in 1857
zens for fif- and Btflgarski KniZici in 1858.' The Bulgarians, how-
teaching, he ever, envisioned a Macedo-Bulgarian compromise as
3 local lead- consisting of the adoption of Thraco-Moesian Bulgar-
at he be ian by the Macedonians (Koneski 1967a:lgO). The very .
3 ispudite appearance of Macedonian textbooks at that time in-
puzt!" ('Kick
dan whoreson national consciousness and the objections of the Bul-
1966:88-89). garian press show that they were aware of the possi-
o identify ble separatist nationalist implications of such mani-
he creation festations.
in which Between 1867 and 1868 Dimitar V. Makedonski (b.
(Lunt 1953: Embore, Kajlarsko [Greek Ptolemat's] - d. 1898) pub-
Constantinople lished three textbooks. His language was close to the
id. When his WestMacedonian of Partenij, but he also included fea-
onstantinople tures from his own Aegean dialect, e.g., the reduc-
d they both 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 national tionalism by publishing textbooks which attempted to
itarian and synthesize Macedonian dialects into a literary: lan-
e tradition guage. Partenij's most active pupil, Kuzman Sapkarev
ed a single (b. Ohrid 1834 - d. 1908), published eight textbooks
would be beween 1868 and 1874; he also wrote three other text-
acedonian books which were not published. Although he began as
ts, felt that a Unitarian and the language of his earliest textbooks
different from
 ;-
88 Friedman: Micedonian Language

with each book his language became more West Macedon- Filipov of
ian, and he eventually became a "flaming Macedonist" Bulgarian
in practice if not in print (Koneski 1967a:199-200, letter, Fi
209-10).3 the use of
The years 1870-1872 witnessed the end of the ature and
anti-Phanariot struggle and the Bulgarian rejection 186Os, pet
of a Macedo-Bulgarian linguistic compromise. In an- ther Bulg;
swer to an article written by gapkarev, published in donian."
the periodical Makedonija on June 15 and July 3, 1870; received 2
Marin Drinov, in the name of the Brsila Literary So- southern P
ciety, stated in an article appearing in the July 31, garian hoc
1870 issue of the same periodical that the new Bul- textbooks
garian literary language could not accept any Mace- 1967a:204-
donian compromise, i.e., it would zemain Thraco- Macedonisl
Moesian. Later in the same year, Sapkarev convinced was the SC
the citizens of Resen to return the Bulgarian text- Znik 1838
books ordered for their school and use his Macedonian lished thl
ones instead. This can be said to have made him a ante with
Macedonist, although he still advocated compromise in the first
his journal articles (Koneski 1967a:223-25, 228-31). ('Diction;
One result of this act was an anonymous letter to the incorpora.
November 30, 1870 issue of the Constantinople period- poznanija
ical Pravo, in which the language of gapkarev's text- small chi.
book is called a pure Ohrid dialect which stinks of 255). Un.
Arnautisms and Hellenisms. gapkarev was also accused tempt to 1
of saying Edvam se osZobodixme od G&cite, sega pak 1953:368;
Sopie Zi da staneme? 'We've barely freed ourselves jezika, P,
from the Greeks-- are we to become Bulgars now?' tuted a SI
(Sazdov 1975a:22). It soon became clear that the ian liter
writer of the anonymous letter was the owner of the 368; Kone
bookstore in Veles which had to take back the Bulgar- write a M
ian textbooks returned by the citizens of Resen. Sofia in
In the following year, 1871, the newly formed makedonsk
Bulgarian Exarchate excluded the Macedonian repre- guage of
sentatives from its first council, calling them Cin- Pulevski
cari. In 1872, after the establishment of the Exar- his gramm
chate, the Bulgarians publicly adopted the attitude ing for a
that Macedonian was a degenerate dialect and that 257, 260)
Macedonians should learn Bulgarian (Lunt 1953:369- In 1
70; Koneski 1967a:251). The nature of the policy in Makedo
developed by the Exarchate toward Macedonia can be a referen
seen in the fact that in 1872 the eparchate of Veles, periodica
in Macedonia, was expected to pay the Exarchate Pulevski
45,000 groga for 6,500 weddings, while the eparchates and to ex
of Samokov and Kjustendil, in Bulgaria, were each be found
taxed the same amount as Veles, i.e., 45,000 groga, number of
although they had 30,000 weddings apiece (Koneski Polenakov
1967a:197-98). In that same year, Venijamin MaEukov- of Pulevs
ski solicited subscriptions for the printing of his title pag
Macedonian grammar, but the reaction of the Constan- 188). Th
tinople Bulgarian press prevented its publication Macedonia
(Koneski 196713334: Lunt 1953:369). point whi
The earliest known document of a separatist One
character is a letter written by the teacher Nikola published
 Friedman: Macedonian Language 89
est Macedon- Filipov of Bansko in southeastern Macedonia to the
Macedonist" 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-
d of the ature and textbooks (Apostolski 1969a:67). In the
rejection 186Os, people in Salonika were saying they were nei-
se. In an- ther Bulgarian, Greek, nor Aromanian, but "pure Mace-
,ublished in donian." sapkarev's textbooks were enthusiastically
July 3, 1870; received and replaced Greek ones in central and
,iterary So- southern Macedonia. Parents preferred them-to Bul-
the July 31, garian books because they could understand Sapkarev's
:e new Bul- textbooks when their children read aloud (Koneski
_ any Mace- 1967a:204-206). But it was not until 1875 that a
Thraco- Macedonist expressed his ideas openly in print. This
?v convinced was the self-educated mason 6orGi Pulevski (b. Gali-
rian text- &ik 1838 - d. 1894). Between 1873 and 1880 he pub-
-s Macedonian lished three textbooks. Proof of Pulevski's acquaint-
lade him a ance with earlier works is seen in the fact that in
:ompromise in the first ninety pages of his ReEnik od tri jezika
!5, 228-31). ('Dictionary of three languages,' Belgrade, 1875) he
-etter to the 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 stinks of 255). Unlike sapkarev, however, Pulevski made no at-
also accused tempt to write in a Macedo-Bulgarian compromise (Lunt
?, sega pak 1953:368; Koneski 1967a:257).' In his ReZnik od tri
ourselves jezika, Pulevski stated that the Macedonians consti-
; now?' tuted a separate nationality and advocated a Macedon-
that the ian literary language and a free Macedonia (Lunt 1953:
lner of the 368; Koneski 1974:58). Pulevski himself attempted to
; the BUlgar- write a Macedonian grammar, and it was published in
Z Resen. Sofia in 1880 under the title SZavjano-nasezjenski
sly formed makedonska sZognica reFovska ('Grammar of the lan-
ian repre- guage of the Macedonian Slavic population'). Since
lg them Cin- Pulevski was not sufficiently educated for the task,
of the Exar- his grammar remains only an expression of the striv-
le attitude ing for a Macedonian literary language (Koneski 1967a:
and that 257, 260).
1953:369- In 1953, Blaze Koneski published a brief article
le policy in Makedonskf jazik announcing that he had discovered
lia can be a reference to Pulevski's SZognica. reFovska in an old
3te of Veles, periodical. He went on to say that this would make
zzchate Pulevski the author of the first Macedonian grammar
le eparchates and to express the hope that a copy of it might still
Jere each be found in Macedonia (Koneski 1953:45). In a later
,000 groga, number of the journal that same year, Haralampie
(Koneski Polenakovik announced that he had just found a copy
runin MaEukov- of Pulevski's grammar in Ohrid, and he published the
zing of his 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 Nikola 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 the 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 freet
Macedonian nationalism (Koneski 1959:15). that
If Novakovie's textbook is excluded, it is pos- (StaT
sible to speak of sixteen textbooks pubLished between of a
1857 and 1880 by Partenij, Makedonski, Sapkarev, and cons:
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 diatt
as Bulgarians, and they demonstrate that the "Mace- and (
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 his :
Macedonian language and nationalism was one of peri- matte
odicals, organizations, inflammatory literature, and 1903
insurrections, rather than textbooks and compromises. the !
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, 20;
where they attempted to found literary societies. ten 1
For example, in Sofia in 1888 6orGi Pulevski founded (Kon
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 guis
Macedonian immigrants at this time, one of the most the
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- Misi
gan to develop their Macedonian nationalist ideas at list
that time, while the VMRO was founded by members of tual
Loza and similar groups, e.g., Petar Pop Arsov (Ri- Iij':- rive
stovski 1973:143-48). all
On St. Elijah's Day (IZinder.), August 2, (N.S.), g te r
1903, the VMRO attempted an insurrection to free :?!'xi in B
 .

3uage Friedman: Macedonian Language 91

ted. Two-thirds Macedonia, but the rebellion was repressed. One of
one-third in the problems which the VMRO failed to solve was the
o combat Bulgar- clarification of its policy on nationalism and lan-
n interests, but guage. The members of the VMRO wanted political
fear of arousing freedom from Turkey and the Exarchate and thought
:15). that cultural policies could be worked out later
uded, it is pos- (Stavrianos 1958:519-20). However, owing to its lack
pubLished between of a specific national policy, the VMRO came under
1, Sapkarev, and considerable Bulgarian influence during the IZinden
rtant in the de- uprising (Koneski 1967b:41). Krste Misirkov (b.
f=Y. They were Post01 [Greek PZZZa] 1874 - d. 19261, who had re-
eparatism by turned to Macedonia from St. Petersburg to partic-
Bulgarian. They ipate in the insurrection, went back to Russia imme-
ink of themselves diately after the failure of the Ilinden rebellion
that the "Mace- and delivered a series of lectures to the various
ue at the Berlin literary societies there to inform them of the events
had developed at taking place in Macedonia. That November he went to
ss (Apostolski Sofia to arrange for the printing of a book based on
e development of his lectures, Za makedonckite raboti 'On Macedonian
was one of peri- matters.' The book appeared in Sofia in December
literature, and 1903 but was confiscated by the Bulgarian police in
and compromises. the printing shop before it could be distributed
ndence in 1878, (Lunt 1953:370). Misirkov himself was expelled from
number of Mace- Bulgaria, and returned to Russia (Misirkov 1974:19-
Oman Empire, 20; Lunt 1953:370). Za makedonckite raboti was writ-
ry societies. ten by Misirkov in response to the failure of Ilinden
Pulevski founded (Koneski 1967b:41) and constitutes the ideological
y, but it was culmination of the development of nineteenth-century
e of its members Macedonian nationalism, particularly from the lin-
ies formed by guistic point of view. As an illustration of this,
one of the most the final paragraph of the book will be cited here:
iterary Society
1, which published 1, Prilepcko-Bitolckoto narezije za literaturen
from 1892 to jazik, kao jednakvo daleko i ot srbckijot i
ive the impression bugarckijot jazici, i centralno vo Makedonija.
pe, i.e., desir- 2, fonetiznijot praopis . . . so mali otstapki
an in a common na etimologijata i 3, re&i&ijot materijal da
in fact separ- jet sobrajn'e ot site makedoncki narezija.
that they had a (Misirkov1903:145)
ia, and a secret
despite its '[The following should be adopted:] 1. The Prilep-
kt. The year Bitola dialect as the basis of-.the literary lan-
society Vardar guage , since it is equally distant from Serbian
qska RevoZucion- and Bulgarian, and central in Macedonia, 2. A
an Revolutionary phonetic orthography . . . with minor conces-
zrdar was a di- sions to etymology and 3. The collecting of dic-
s members Krste tionary material from all Macedonian dialects.'
I, who first be- Misirkov concluded his book by calling for the estab-
onalist ideas at lishment of a Macedonian literary language using vir-
3 by members of tually the same principles which were ultimately ar-
Pop Arsov (Ri- rived at in 1944 in ignorance of his worke6 Because
all but a few copies were destroyed, Za makedoncki-
lugust 2, (N.S.), te raboti was prevented from having much influence
lion to free in Macedonia between the two world wars: the second
92; Friedman: bfacedonian Language

edition did not come out until 1946. No copies of nationali

the first edition survived in Macedonia: the writer America,
Kole Nedelkovski found a copy of it in the Sofia public colored M
library (Koneski 1967b:44). west, whi
During the years between.IZinden and the Balkan wrote tha
Wars, living conditions in Macedonia were difficult. transitio
Most intellectual activity was carried on outside the In a
country, largely in St. P$tersburg, where Misirkov 'About Ma
and DimitrijaDimov Pavle-Cupovski (b. Papradigte scholars
1878 - d. 1940) were active in forming literary so- of Macedc
cieties and publishing periodicals, e.g., the polit- claims th
ical journal Vardar (Ristovski 1966) and Makedonski land belt
Go-loss 'Macedonian Voice' (Sazdov 1975b). As has been 1918:31 a
indicated by the fate of Pulevski's and Misirkov's Cvijie, 1:
books, knowledge of nineteenth-century Macedonian ther Serb
nationalistic and linguistic activity was lost, at 1917:109)
least in part, as a result of the policies of various really SE
opposing parties. Ristovski (1973:142) complains influence
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- The
less, those periodicals and memoirs which have sur- quotes ME
vived indicate that the Macedonian intelligentsia are neit1
were active in the search for their identity. will dete
Outside of Macedonia, scholars began to concern Belie the
themselves with the "Macedonian Question." In 1890, tral Mace
Komarov's ethnographic map, published in St. Peters- the south
burg, became the first to recognize the Macedonians gument a:
by giving them a separate color (Ristovski 1973:140). Slavic *,
Lamouche (1899:23-24) wrote that the Macedonians were central ,
neither Serbs nor Bulgarians, but he concluded, on Oblak's !
the assumption that language was the only indisput- the resu:
able indicator of nationality, that Macedonians were also rid:
Serbs if they spoke Serbian and Bulgarians if they his opin:
spoke Bulgarian. Even in Serbia, there was some scholars1
recognition of the independence of Macedonian. In cause Se:
an article in Brankovo KoZo in 1904, Andra GavriloviE: slept dec
wrote a review of Vojdan Eernodrinski's troupe's sulting I
visit to Belgrade, in which he said that the language not easi
of the troupe's plays marked the de-but of a fourth Vai
South Slavic literary language, not just a jargon is based
(Koneski 1959:16). most Sla,
The partition of Macedonia in 1913, after the part of
Second Balkan War, had the ruinous effect on Macedon- jetted t
ian nationalism that Misirkov predicted (Koneski lists nu
1967333441, e.g., in Greece, under Metaxas, the Mace- donian w
donian language became illegal (Apostolski, 196933: fate of
271-72). The greater part of Macedonia went to Ser- on to no
bia, where Macedonian was treated as a South Serbian that the
dialect, in contrast to the situation in Bulgaria, e.g., in
where it was treated as West Bulgarian, or Greece, Bulgaria
where it was treated as nonexistent. Vaillant
Throughout the interwar period, scholars in the donian i
Balkans and elsewhere carried on a polemic over the .; separate
08).
 c

e Friedman: Macedonian Language 93

-0 copies of nationality and language of the Macedonians. In

; the writer America, Dominian's (1916:440-43) ethnographic map
the Sofia public colored Macedonia "Bulgarian," except for the north-
west, which was colored "Albanian." Dominian also
nd the Balkan wrote that Macedonian was closer to Bulgarian, but
:re difficult. transitional to Serbian.
on outside the In a book called 0 Makedoniji i Makedoncima
re Misirkov 'About Macedonia and the Macedonians' (1918), the
lapradigte scholars Wendl, Rizov and Tomi argue over the nature
literary so- of Macedonia, its people, and their language. Rizov
'. I the polit- claims that the people are Bulgarian and that the
,d Makedonski land belongs to Bulgaria (Wendl, Rizov, and Tomi
. As has been 1918:31 and passim). Wendl, along with Fischer and
i Misirkov's Cviji%, holds that the Macedonians could become ei-
Macedonian ther Serbs or Bulgarians (Wendl, Rizov, and Tomi
Tas lost, at 1917:109), while Tomi says that the Macedonians are
:ies of various really Serbs who have been subjected to more Turkish
complains influence than other Serbs and have recentlv been
-century Mace- Bulgarized by the Exarchate (Wendl, Rizov, and Tomi
carefully 1918:108-109).
Neverthe- The Serbian linguist Aleksandar Belie (1919:250)
-ch have 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 to concern Belie then goes on to claim that the north and cen-
>n." In 1890, tral Macedonian dialects are basically Serbian while
n St. Peters- the south is basically Bulgarian. He bases this ar-
1 Macedonians gument almost entirely on the reflexes of Common
-ski 1973:140). Slavic */tj/, */dj/ in Macedonia, i.e., north and
.cedonians were central /R/, /g/, south /ZZ/,/ZJ/. He rejects
ncluded, on Oblak's suggestion that the reflexes /fi/, /g/ are
11y indisput- the result of Serbian-influenced substitution. He
ledonians were also ridicules Bulgarian scholars by suggesting that
.ans if they his opinion coincides with that of impartial European
f was some scholarship, viz., his interpretation of Meillet, be-
donian. In cause Serbia had contact with the West while Bulgaria
.dra GavriloviE: slept deeply under the Turkish yoke, and that the re-
; troupe's sulting difference in intellectual development could
.t the language not easily be overcome (Belie 1919:253-56, 264).
of a fourth Vaillant (1938:119) writes that Belie's argument
;t a jargon is based essentially on one phonetic trait and that
most Slavists agree that Macedonian is actually a
, after the part of a Macedo-Bulgarian group which has been sub-
-ct on Macedon- jected to the prolonged influence of Serbian. He
(Koneski lists numerous phonological traits which link Mace-
.as, the Mace- donian with Bulgarian rather than Serbian, e.g., the
llski, 1969b: fate of the jers and juses,/va/, and /;/, and goes
went to Ser- on to note that vestiges of /Zt/ in the /k/ area show
South Serbian that the latter reflex is the result of substitution,
in Bulgaria, e.g., in GaliEnik gaki f 'underpants' but ga3'nik (cf.
or Greece, Bulgarian gas'tnik) 'a belt for holding up gaki'.
Vaillant concludes his remarks by saying that Mace-
holars in the donian is not a dialect of Bulgarian and deserves a
mic over the separate place in a Macedo-Bulgarian group (1938:204-
08).
94 Friedman: Macedonian Language

In Vardar Macedonia, as opposed to Aegean or merely ind

Pirin Macedonia, Macedonian nationalism was kept which cert
alive long enough to find its ultimate expression in tant than
a literary language and separate republic in Yugo- periodizat
slavia after World War Two. While Metaxas was im- I. 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 II. 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. 18
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- IV. 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 In c
singular present desinence -t in their manuscripts, that in t
while this feature was not adopted as part of the in the pr
literary language (cf. footnote 6). Thus, as Lunt much like
(1959:23) suggests, the formal proclamation of Mace- short by
donian as a literary language on August 2, 1944 was and resun
merely official recognition of the status quo. slavia dL
The development of Macedonian language and na- guage off
tionalism in the nineteenth and early twentieth cen- the same
turies can be roughly divided into four periods. (It the 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- Chapel 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

o Aegean or merely indications of the approximate time during

m was kept which certain tendencies were stronger or more impor-
expression in tant than others. The following table summarizes the
lit in Yugo- periodization suggested by this paper:
axas was im-
leaking their I. 1794-1840: The period of the first published texts
employing Macedonian dialects. Main
:ting the pub- figures: Ha&i Daniil of Moskopole,
1 Macedonian, Ha&i Joakim Krzovski, and Ha&i Kiril
0vFe 'LenEe PejZn0vi.C. Main event: the awakening
:opje in 1928, of a Slavic national consciousness.
ie Fire' (1938) The opposition Turk/giaour is super-
In addition ceded by Greek/Slav, and Slavs struggle
?rbianization, for a literary language of their own.
?rbian schools,
-f-awareness by II. 1840-1870: The period of the first textbooks. Main
Iferent parts figures: Dimitar and Konstantin Milad-
‘: them to learn inov, Jo_rdan Ha&i Konstantinov-Dkinot,
one (Koneski Kuzman Sapkarev. Main event: the anti-
Phanariot struggle. Most intellectuals
1. the Macedon- favor a common Macedo-Bulgarian liter-
:e people with ’ ary language based to a large extent on
lnist Party Macedonian.
iblished and III. 1870-1913: The period of the first grammars and
-6; Hristov nationalist publications. Main figures:
Juring World CorGi Pulevski, Krste P. Misirkov, Di-
Irisdiction mitrija Dimov Pavle-&povski, Petar Pop
.icy of cultural Arsov, and other members of the VMRO.
bulletins in Main events: the establishment of the
>pment of liter- Bulgarian Exarchate, the I~inden rebel-
Zore the War lion, and the partition of Macedonia.
<tallization of Macedonian nationalism is opposed to
1 1953:373; Bulgarian and Serbian interests.
:ch in Skopje
Impare the orig- IV. 1913-1944: The development of Macedonian litera-
Xisto Krle and ture in Serbia and Yugoslavia leading
:he versions to the crystallization and ultimate es-
2 establishment tablishment of the Macedonian literary
3jor difference language. -_
:he third person In conclusion I would like to emphasize the fact
- manuscripts, that in the nineteenth century, Macedonian was already
-part of the in the process,of developing into a literary language
Thus, as Lunt much like the contemporary one. The process was cut
?ation of Mace- short by the partition of 1913, and yet it began anew
:t 2, 1944 was and resumed the same direction of development in Yugo-
3tus quo. slavia during the interwar period, so that the lan-
lguage and na- guage officially proclaimed in 1944 was essentially
twentieth cen- the same one which had developed during the course of
lr periods. (It the preceding century.
:hose who played
has been fo- University of North CaroZina,
iicance for Mac- Chapel Hi22
-n turn reflects
) The periods
; of time, but
96 Friedman: Macedonian Language

FOOTNOTES 5Pule
as he was I
'in example of the more colloquial character of Kiril sistencies.
PezinoviG's language is his consistent use of parataxis to aor. -(j)e,
"translate" Church Slavonic hypotaxis (Koneski 1967a:126). in -eki, -,
2Partenij listed twelve Macedonian characteristics which Macedonian%
he felt were basic to the literary language he was advocating: Bulgarian i
1) Macedonian stress tends toward the beginning of the word, this time 1
like Serbian, rather than toward the end like Bulgarian. 2) reflex of :
*/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- with liter,
duced in the Southeast.) 4) Macedonian and Bulgarian have ian litera
different reflexes of vocalic */r/ and */;/. 5) In Macedonian, traits of
/z/>/e/ vs. Bulgarian /ja/. 6) In Macedonian, x becomes fl, f, 2) Intervo
or V. 7) Macedonian has definite articles of the type -0V and osnoac' vs.
-on, in addition to - ot. 8) Macedonian, according to Partenij, e.g., in v
has more remnants of the nominal declension. 9) Macedonian -B. 5) Nu
neuter nouns in -e have a plural in -inja. 10) The third sin- orthograph
gular present tense ending is -t. (The third plural varies.) that he ha
11) Macedonian has a verbal adverb. (12) */Q/ gives /a/ or ski 1966:s
/o/, e.g., pat or pot vs. Bulgarian pa't. (Koneski 1967a:182- in point t
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- works' (15
Enicisms as o for the reflex of */g/, 3rd pl. aor. -e, 1st pl. bride'.
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 Arnakis, 1
jers and juses, stress, and vowel reduction, as distinguishing Ball
their speech from that of their neighbors (Lunt 1953:364,371). Cha:
3Some characteristics of Eapkarev's.language are the fol- Cal
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- clissold,
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. bou
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' Off
('debt'), Gzduh 'hava' ('air'), narodi 'mileti' ('peoples'). Hristov,
(Koneski 1967a:210-12) na
'On the other hand, some Macedonists claimed that they sit
were pure Slavs and that the Bulgarians were 'Tatars' (Koneski Kepeski,
1967a:237). This notion is also.commonly found among Turks, jaz
e.g.. BuZgarZar TiZrkti.lr,bunZam IsZiiv yapan dildir 'The ~ul- Koneski,
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 of Kiril sistencies. He used such Galiznicisms as /o/ from */Q/ 3rd pl.
,f parataxis to 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
iracteristics which Macedonian, which he called na3inski or slavjano-makedonski, to
he was advocating: Bulgarian and Serbian on phonological and lexical bases. By
ling of the word, this time he was also able to differentiate between the Galiznik
:e Bulgarian. 2) reflex of */Q/ and the more common Macedonian reflex a (Koneski
:a/as in the word 1967a:258-60).
e, and 0 are not 61n fact, Misirkov's language has fewer traits in common
that they are re- with literary Serbian or Bulgarian than does the modern Macedon-
Bulgarian have ian literary language, as can be seen in the following list of,
_ 5) In Macedonian, traits of Misirkov's language: 1) */tj/ gives zz vs. literary k.
An, x becomes fl, f, 2) Intervocalic V is lost everywhere, even in neologisms, e.g.,
If the type -0v and osnoac' vs. literary 0snovaZ 'founder'. 3) jnj vs. literary nj,
:cording to Partenij, e.g., in verbal nouns in -nje. 4) 3rd sg. pres. -t vs. literary
9) Macedonian -B. 5) Numerous neologisms (Koneski 1967b:43). Misirkov's
10) The third sin- orthography was essentially the same as the modern one, except
:a plural varies.) that he had an additional letter? for etymological */Q/ (Ristov-
/Q/ gives /a/ or 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. a feminine accus- raboti.)
3ve no basis in the 7The play was published in Iljoski's f&or 'Selected
ij used such Gali- works' (1966, Skopje) under the name Begalka 'The run-away
L. aor. -e, 1st pl. bride'.
In his second
lacedonian dialects REFERENCES
3-180,185). Par-
.I an article which Apostolski, Mihailo et al. 1969a. Istorija na makedonskiot
riodical Bzlgarski narod, vol. 2. Skopje: Institut za Narodna Istorija.
nt's statement, that . 196933. Istorija na makedonskiot narod, vol. 3.
ive in the Balkans, Skopje: Institut za Narodna Istorija.
z. g., reflexes of Arnakis, G. 1963. "The role of religion in the development of
as distinguishing Balkan nationalism." The BaZkans in Transition, ea. by
Lunt 1953:364,371). Charles and Barbara Jelavich. Berkeley: University of
3nguage are the fol- California Press, 115-144. .
(=a), because it is Beli'c, Aleksandar. 1919. La Ma&doine. Paris: Bloud & Gay.
only with the a- clissold, Stephen et al. 1968. A short history of YugosZavia.
Jse of Ohrid verb Cambridge: Cambridge University.
rid verbal adverbs Dominian, Leon. 1916. "Linguistic areas in Europe: Their
Zlative pronouns. boundaries and political significance." Annual report
1y Russisms and of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution
interesting 2915, 409-443. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
host 'borz' I Office.
leti' ('peoples'). Hristov, Aleksandar. 1970. Zbomik na dbkwnenti za sozduvanje
na makedonskata drZavnost (1893-19441. Skopje: Univer-
claimed that they zitet "Kiril i Metodij."
2 'Tatars' (Koneski Kepeski, Krume. 1972. Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen
xund among Turks, jazik za uFilis'ta od II stepen. Skopje: Prosvetno Delo.
diZdir I The ~ul- Koneski, Blaze. 1953. "Gramatikata na 2. Pulevski." Make-
:ich makes them 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. CONFI
. 1967b. Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik.
Skopje: Kultura.
. 1968. Makedonskiot jazik vo razvojot na slovenskite
literaturni jazici. Skopje: Kultura.
. 1974. "The image of Gjorgji Pulevski," translated by At t
Victor A. Friedman. Macedonian Review 4.57-59. late 196C
Korubin, Blagoja. 197.2. "Jazi&oto praganje vo makedonija VO interpret
vtorata polovina na 19 vek." Predavanja na V Seminar tulated a
za Makedonski jazik, Ziteratura i kuZtu.ra, 29-37. Skopje: was a IIsc
Univerzitet "Kiril i Metodij" Seminar za Makedonski he delvet
Jazik, Literature i Kultura. he said,
Lamouche, LGon. 1899. La p$ninsute balkanique. Paris: Paul degree FE
Ollendorf. preach, 1
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1953. Teach yourseLf Turkish. London: Burschenl
English Universities Press, Ltd. radicals
Lunt, Horace. 1953. "A survey of Macedonian literature." At j
Harvard Slavic Studies 1.363-396. much to I
. 1959. "The creation of standard Macedonian: Some torians 1
facts and attitudes." AnthropoZogicaZ Linguistics 1,5. aspects c
19-26. Serbia, 1
Misirkov, Krste P. 1903. Za makedonckite raboti. [Reprinted and there
19741. Skopje: Institut za Makedonski jazik. her inter
. 1974. On Macedonian matters, translated by Alan influence
McConnell. Skopje: Macedonian Review. periods 1
Mitrev, Dimitar. 1962. "PO tragite od podvigot na Miladinovci." Bosnia sI
Mizadinovci--Zbomik--1861-1961. Skopje: KoEo Racin. of the Yc
Polenakovik, Haralampie. 1953. "Za gramatikata na Pulevski." nian Comr
Makedonski jazik 4.188-189. youth of
. 1973. Nikulcite na novata makedonska kniZevnost. sympathy
Skopje: Misla. differeni
Ristovski, Blake. 1966. "Vardar": Na&ao-literatumza i ever, ant
opztestveno-politizko spisanie na K. P. M-isirkov. square vf
Skopje: Institut za Makedonski jazik. interpre:
. 1973. "The Macedonian literary society LOza." Mace- other thi
donian Revia, 2.139-148. The
Sazdov, Tome. 1975a. Zivotot i deZoto na.K. A. zapkarev. a critici
Skopje: Sovremenost. Young Bo!
. 197533. "The role of the periodic@ Macedonian Voice tions fo:
(1913/14)." Macedonian Review 5.44-51. necessar.
Stavrianos, L. S. 1958. The BaZkans since 2493. New York: sis, sugc
Rinehart & Co. tant app:
. 1963. The BaZkans: 1815-1914. New York: Holt, Rine- dialectil
hart and Winston, negative
Vaillant, A. 1938. "Le probl?me du slave mac%onien." Bulle- will be 1
tin de Za Socidt6 Linquistique de Paris 39 fast. 2 no. views as
;16.194-210. of Young
Wendl, Herman, D. Rizov and Svet. Tomi'c. 1918. 0 Makedoniji i Feul
Makedoncima. Belgrade(?): Drzavna stamparija Kraljevine from the
Srbije. of gener