On Macedonian Matters (Cyrillic:За македонцките работи;Za makedonckite raboti) is a book written byKrste Misirkov and published in 1903 inSofia, Bulgaria. The book presents the author's views towards theMacedonian Question, and explores the sense of national belonging and nеed for affirmation of theMacedonians as a separate people. The book marked the first complete outline ofMacedonian as a separate language and proposed the need for itscodification. The book also covers the rules of the standard language,its orthography andalphabet.
Za makedonckite raboti marked the first attempt to formalize a separate Macedonian literary language.[5] With the book, Misirkov outlined an overview of theMacedonian grammar and expressed the ultimate goal of codifying the language and using it as the language of instruction in the education system. The author proposed to use the west-centralMacedonian dialects (Prilep-Bitola) as a dialectal basis for the formation of the Macedonian standard language. His ideas however were not adopted until the 1940s.[6][7] Misirkov appealed to the Ottoman authorities for eventual recognition of a separate Macedonian nation. However, he admitted there was not such one, as most of the Macedonian Slavs have been called and called themselves Bulgarians, but it should be created, when the necessary historical circumstances would arise.[8][9][10][11][12][13] He also claimed that theByzantine Greeks renamed the Bulgarian and Macedonian Slavs into "Bulgarians" because of their alliance with theBulgars, during the incessantByzantine–Bulgarian conflict, which in the eyes of the Byzantines eventually forged Slavs and Bulgars into one people with a Bulgarian name and a Slavonic language, then preserved by theArchbishopric of Ohrid and later the Macedonians adopted the term "Bulgarian" to differentiate from Greeks.[14][15] Misirkov described the emergence of the Macedonians as a separate Slavic people as a "perfectly normal historical process", comparable to the way the Bulgarian, Croatian, and Serbian peoples had developed out of the broaderSouth Slavic group.[16] He presentedTsar Samuel as the key historical figure supporting Macedonian distinctiveness. Misirkov described Samuel’s state as Macedonian, without Slavic attributes, and argued that the fall of Samuel's empire marked the beginning of continued Macedonian resistance to Byzantium, noting that "the Macedonians many times rebelled against Byzantium".[17][18] According to him, using the name "Bulgarian" in relation to Macedonian was "a historical misunderstanding".[19] He described the Bulgarian feeling in the Macedonians as "biggest disaster" and that Bulgaria was "the evil demon" of Macedonia,[20][21] which he regarded as biggest threat to the project.[22] Misirkov also stated in his brochure on theInternal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization that these “Bulgarian committees” were led by "Bulgarian clerks", who aimed the creation of “Bulgarian Macedonia",[20] and he attacked both theBulgarian Exarchate and the IMRO, viewing them as exponents of Bulgarian interests in Macedonia.[23] He also acknowledged the impact of Serbian propaganda, noting that the Serbs have not succeeded in turning the Macedonians into Serbs, but succeeded in convincing Europe that there are Serbs in Macedonia. Although he opposed the Serbian position, he nevertheless recognized its influence, writing that "the Macedonian national revival is basically the result of the competition between Bulgaria and Serbia over the Macedonian question".[22] Misirkov argued that one of the primary goals of the Macedonianintelligentsia should be to drive out the national and religiousSerbian, Bulgarian and Greek propaganda from Macedonia, otherwise they would eventually lead to its partition. He wrote that only an energetic fight against Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria could save Macedonia from annihilation, and only a separate Macedonian national self-awareness can give the moral right to fight against the partition.[24][25][26][27][28]
The pamphlet was published at the end of 1903 in Sofia. The book argued for a distinct Macedonian identity and language. Because of its content, the Bulgarian police confiscated the book, destroyed most of the copies, and expelled Misirkov.[29][30][31]Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (IMARO) activists destroyed a number of copies too.[23] Because of this at his own time, the book had little or no impact and did not become popular until the middle of the 1940s.[22] Misirkov arrived inBelgrade in December, where he met withStojan Novaković, at that time a Serbian foreign minister.[32] Novaković was the first politician to decide to useMacedonian nationalism as an ideology, in order to oppose the Bulgarian positions inMacedonia and as a transitional stage towards the completeSerbization of the Macedonian Slavs.[33] From this book, Novaković ordered the purchase of 50 pieces by the Serbian Diplomatic Agency in Sofia.[34] The purchased exemplars were shipped through Serbian diplomatic channels to Ottoman Macedonia.
In 1905, Misirkov returned to a pro-Bulgarian stance and renounced the positions he espoused inOn Macedonian Matters.[35][36] Also, he published a series of articles in the IMARO press written from a Bulgarian nationalist perspective,[23] claiming Bulgarian identity for himself and the Macedonian Slavs.[37][38] In 1907, in the introduction to his article "Notes on South Slavic Philology and History", Misirkov rejected categorically the ideas of his 1903 book. He would return to the Macedonian national ideas especially in the 1920s, when it was possible to receive a much more favorable reaction by the public.[35][23] However, at the very end of his life, Misirkov advocated again Bulgarian identity for the Macedonian Slavs as a choice preferable to Serbian.[39][40]
Although the language planners involved in the codification ofstandard Macedonian in 1944 were not familiar of Misirkov's book, since most of the copies of it were destroyed, they were familiar with Misirkov's historical legacy. Hence, the west-central Macedonian dialectal basis proposed by Misirkov is the same to that of standard Macedonian.[41][42]
The book was reprinted in 1946, from a copy found byKole Nedelkovski in the Sofia public library, and it has been cited by Macedonian historians as an indication of the existence of a separate Macedonian ethnicity at Misirkov's time.[43][22]
The book has been described as a "manifesto" of Macedonian nationalism by historian Tchavdar Marinov.[20][44] Misirkov's work is frequently cited in contemporary debates on Macedonian national identity. The book is regarded as the central text of Macedonian national identity, and his ideas continue to shape how the Macedonian nation is understood by Macedonians.[45]
^Записки за България и Руско-Българските отношения: бележки за събитията на деня (5 юли-30 август 1913 г.), Крсте Петков Мисирков, Редактор Цочо Билярски, Издателство „Анико“, 2011,ISBN9789548247160; стр. 14
^The term 'project' tackles likewise the specific temporal orientation of the initial stage of formation of Macedonian ethnic nationalism: the Macedonian self-determination is seen by Misirkov as a future ideal and his national manifesto on the Macedonian Matters (Sofia, 1903) recognizes the lack of actual correlation between the concept of Macedonian Slavic ethnicity and the real self-identifications of the majority of Macedonian Slavs. In a rather demiurgical way, Misirkov is the first who exposes the basic 'ethnographic' characteristics of what he regards as 'inexistent' but 'possible' and 'necessary' Macedonian Slavic ethnicity... Tchavdar Marinov, "Between Political Autonomism and Ethnic Nationalism: Competing Constructions of Modern Macedonian National Ideology (1878–1913)", p. 3.
^Misirkov lamented that "no local Macedonian patriotism" existed and would have to be created. He anticipated that Macedonians would respond to his proposal with a series of baffled questions: "What sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we, and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?...Macedonian as a nationality has never existed, and it does not exist now"... Misirkov answered by observing that national loyalties change with time: "What has not existed in the past may still be brought into existence later, provided that the appropriate historical circumstances arise... Misirkov in short wanted, the Ottoman state to promote Macedonian nation-building, calling for "official recognition". Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2008,ISBN3825813878,p. 138.
^The idea of a separate (Slavic) Macedonian nationhood most certainly had its antecedents before the 1930s – nor is that surprising, considering the political history of the area. Krste Misirkov, the "first creator of a clear and rounded representation, of argued and systematic conception about the national essence of Macedonian people," brought arguments in favor of Macedonian "national separatism" in his on Macedonian matters, but still considered the Macedonian question a part of a larger Bulgarian complex, if for no other reason than linguistic. Misirkov's pan-Bulgarian patriotism was based largely on the kinship of language, and his pan-Bulgarian positions, which he used, moreover frontally, against the Serbs and Greeks.The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics, Ivo Banac, Cornell University Press, 1988,ISBN0801494931, p. 327.
^Misirkov speaks, for instance, of the relations between "the Macedonian peoples" [makedonckite narodi], of the "convergence of interests of all Macedonian peoples." The term "nation" appears rarely and is contrasted to the term "nationality": e.g., Misirkov suggests that, in Macedonia, there are many "nationalities" [nacionalnosti], while "a distinct Macedonian Slavic nation [naciia]" does not yet exist (p. 46). This usage actually implies that the "nation" is seen as a political phenomenon of a "higher" degree, transcending a multiplicity of actual ethnic and/or confessional particularities. We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe, Diana Mishkova, European University Press, 2009,ISBN9639776289,p. 133.
^Misirkov accepted that his project for Macedonian particularist nationalism broke with considerable Bulgarian sentiment. He admitted both that there was "no local Macedonian patriotism", and that ordinary Macedonians would see Macedonian particularism as a novelty: "What sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?” Responding to these arguments, Misirkov showed a surprising acceptance that national communities evolve in response to events: "what has not existed in the past may still be brought into existence later, provided that the appropriate historical circumstances arise". Misirkov thus tried to create the appropriate historical circumstances. Sundry Macedonias, Alexander Mark Maxwell, University of Wisconsin—Madison, 1998, pp. 50–51.
^Many people will want to know what sort of national separatism we are concerned with; they will ask if we are not thinking of creating a new Macedonian nation. Such a thing would be artificial and short-lived. And, anyway? What sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we, and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?...One of the first questions which will be posed by the opponents of national unification and of the revival movement in Macedonia will be: what is the Macedonian Slav nation? Macedonian as a nationality has never existed, they will say, and it does not exist now.... The first objection – that a Macedonian Slav nationality has never existed – may be very simply answered as follows: what has not existed in the past may still be brought into existence later, provided that the appropriate historical circumstances arise...On Macedonian Matters. (1903) by Krste Misirkov.
^Rossos, Andrew (2008).Macedonia and Macedonians. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University. p. 84.
^Misirkov, Krste (1903).За македонцките работи [On Macedonian Matters](PDF). Sofia: Liberalii Club. p. 114-126.Бугарцката држаа беше поеке со словенцко жител'ство, но со името на неiните образуачи т. е. монголците бугари. Словените од Бугариiа и Македониiа наi напред беа само соiузници на бугарите во воiните со Византиiа. Но соiузните со бугарите словенцки полчишча беа во очите на неприiателите т.е. византиiците пак бугарцки. Значит византиiците зафатиiа да прекрстуват словените ушче од времето на Аспарухоата орда. Постоiанната борба рамо за рамо со бугарите ѝ направи ниф iеден народ со бугарцко име, но со словенцки iазик. Бугарцкото име мег'у словените беше попул'аризирано од грците, и оно, прво, означааше само бугарите — монголите, после нивните воени соiузници, после бугарцките поданици и наi после стана етнографцки термин за бугарцките словени. Но тоа име во очите и устата на грците имаше ушче специално значеiн'е: наi ненавистни за ниф варвари, л'уг'е не образоани, груби, коiи граничаат со звероите. За грците се словенцко беше грубо и бугарцко. Со името бугари не крстиiа грците и нас македонците. [The Bulgarian state had a larger Slavic population, but with the name of its founders, that is, the Mongol Bulgars. At first, the Slavs in Bulgaria and Macedonia were only allies of the Bulgars in the wars against Byzantium. Hоwever, due to the alliance with the Bulgars, the Slavic hordes appeared in the eyes of the adversary, i.e. the Byzantines, to be Bulgars too. So the Byzantines renamed the Slavs as early as the time of Asparuh's horde. Our constant fight side by side with the Bulgars made us into one people with a Bulgarian name but Slavonic language. The name Bulgarian among the Slavs was popularized by the Greeks, and it, at first, denoted only the Bulgars — the Mongols, then their military allies, then the Bulgarian subjects, and finally became an ethnographic term for the Bulgarian Slavs. But that name in the eyes and mouths of the Greeks had a special meaning: the most hateful to them barbarians, uneducated people, rude, bordering with beasts. For the Greeks, everything Slavic was rude and Bulgarian.]
^M. Danforth, Loring (2010). "Ancient Macedonia, Alexander the Great and the Star or Sun of Vergina: National Symbols and the Conflict between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia". In Roisman, Joseph; Worthington, Ian (eds.).A Companion to Ancient Macedonia.Wiley-Blackwell. p. 575.ISBN9781405179362.
^Panov, Mitko B. (2019). Curta, Florin; Zupka, Dušan (eds.).The Blinded State: Historiographic Debates about Samuel Cometopoulos and His State (10th–11th Century). East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450. Vol. 55. Brill. p. 297.ISBN978-90-04-39429-2.
^Misirkov, Krste (1903).За македонцките работи [On Macedonian Matters](PDF). Sofia: Liberalii Club. pp. 117–118, 130.
^Trencsényi, Balázs; Janowski, Maciej; Baár, Monika; Falina, Maria; Kopeček, Michal (2016).A History of Modern Political Thought in East Central Europe. Volume I: Negotiating Modernity in the 'Long Nineteenth Century'. Oxford University Press. p. 509.ISBN9780198737148.
^abcMarinov, Tchavdar (2013). "Famous Macedonia, the Land of Alexander: Macedonian Identity at the Crossroads of Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian Nationalism". In Daskalov, Roumen; Marinov, Tchavdar (eds.).Entangled Histories of the Balkans, Volume 1: National Ideologies and Language Policies. Brill. p. 319-320.ISBN9789004250765.
^Heraclides, Alexis (2021).The Macedonian Question and the Macedonians: A History. Routledge. p. 72.ISBN9780367218263.
^Misirkov, Krste (1903)."За македонцките работи" [On Macedonian Matters]. Sofia. Archived fromthe original on 29 August 2008.But our enemies from the free states would take advantage of the blood we had shed and the losses we had suffered to step up their religious and nationalist propaganda, thus splitting us into hostile opposition camps: Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians. After the fight in the field of battle comes the fight in the field of culture, but when this time comes, instead of reaping the rewards for the blood we have shed and at last being able to develop culturally, we will find ourselves then, just as we are now, serving the interests of the Serbs or the Greeks or the Bulgarians. As long as there exists this kind of national dividedness, together with utter economic powerlessness, nothing can be achieved by any conferences, reforms or attempts at intervention because everything will lead to the inevitable partition of Macedonia
^Misirkov, Krste (1903)."За македонцките работи" [On Macedonian Matters]. Sofia. Archived fromthe original on 29 August 2008.The first task of the Macedonian intelligentsia, then, will be to clear away the mistrust that exists between the intellectuals and the various national and religious groups and to unite the intelligentsia both within Macedonia and abroad, to assess the general interests of the Macedonians by getting down to grass roots, to dispel national and religious hatred, to educate the Macedonian Slavs in the pure Macedonian national spirit, to make determined efforts to see that the Macedonian language is widely taught and to maintain contact with schools in the towns with a Slav population as well as to teach the language in village schools attended by Slavs. In the Slav villages they should ensure that church services are held in Macedonian. If these efforts meet with resistance from any of the foreign propagandists they should call upon the Turkish government and the Great Powers to remove these demoralizing forces from Macedonia and to set up an Archbishopric in Ohrid which would be responsible for the church schooling of Christians of all nationalities in Macedonia
^Misirkov, Krste (1903)."За македонцките работи" [On Macedonian Matters]. Sofia. Archived fromthe original on 29 August 2008.The uprising prevented Macedonia from being partitioned, and this is one of its more worthwhile results. But partition was luckily avoided thanks really to the fact that our enemies happened to be inept and inexperienced. If Bulgaria wanted to threaten us even more seriously in the future, when our enemies were more experienced, she might enter into an agreement with Serbia concerning the partition of Macedonia between the spheres of influence. This agreement between the spheres of influence would unfailingly lead to the partition of Macedonia. This is why one of the prime duties of the Macedonian intelligentsia is once and for all to drive Serbian and Bulgarian propaganda out of Macedonia so that Macedonia can establish its own spiritual centre, and free the Macedonians from this give and take relation with the neighboring Balkan states and peoples. Hence the need to forestall the partition of Macedonia and retain it as a province of Turkey
^Misirkov, Krste (1903).За македонцките работи [On Macedonian Matters](PDF). Sofia: Liberalii Club. pp. 28–44.
^Misirkov, Krste Petkov.“On Macedonian Matters”.Modernism: Representations of National Culture, translated by Nikola Iordanovski, Central European University Press, 2010, pp. 355-356.
^Heraclides, Alexis (2021).The Macedonian Question and the Macedonians: A History. Routledge. p. 71.ISBN9780367218263.
^Misirkovs book will be widely cited in the 20th and the 21st centuries by all historians in the R. Macedonia as a clear indication of the existence of a separate Macedonian ethnicity. However, they ignored the fact that Misirkov abandoned his ideas and in 1910 in the Bulgarian Almanac, as well as in his memoirs, he clearly indicated his Bulgarian ethnic identity. Contested Ethnic Identity: The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900–1996, Chris Kostov, Peter Lang, 2010,ISBN3034301960, pp. 66–67.
^The eminent Macedonian literary historian Blazhe Ristovski’s History of the Macedonian Nation describes the "awakening" and formation of the Macedonian nation by various intellectuals in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Ristovski aims to prove the Macedonian nature of writers, poets, and other intellectuals who can be said to have been champions of the Macedonian cause. If these persons declared themselves, at one time or another, "Bulgarians", then Ristovski goes to great length to point out that they cannot have meant it quite like that. For example, in the case of Krste Misirkov – "the most eminent, most significant and most versatile Macedonian cultural and national worker before liberation" – Ristovski states that Misirkov’s support for the annexation of Macedonia by Bulgaria did not reflect "his genuine beliefs and sentiments" but was "dictated by the conditions of the time". Serving the Nation: Historiography in the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) After Socialism, Historein, vol. 4 (2003–4) Ulf Brunnbauer.
^Nihtinen, Atina (1995) Comments on Contradictions in the Life and Work of Kr. P. Misirkov. In: Studia Slavica Finlandensia issue 12, Helsinki, pp. 96–103.
^Roumen Dontchev Daskalov; Tchavdar Marinov (2013).Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume One: National Ideologies and Language Policies. BRILL. p. 454.ISBN9789004250765.
^Victor A. Friedman: Macedonian language and nationalism during the 19th and early 20th centuries.Balcanistica 2 (1975): 83–98."Archived copy"(PDF). Archived fromthe original(PDF) on 15 September 2006. Retrieved6 August 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
^Marinov, Tchavdar (2010).La question macédonienne de 1944 à nos jours : Communisme et nationalisme dans les Balkans (in French). Paris: L'Harmattan. p. 31.ISBN9782296433984.
^Koneska, Cvete (2023). "On Pan-Slavism(s) and Macedonian National Identity". In Suslov, Mikhail; Čejka, Marek; Đorđević, Vladimir (eds.).Pan-Slavism and Slavophilia in Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe: Origins, Manifestations and Functions. Springer. pp. 216–217.ISBN9783031178757.
Kramer, Christina; Mitkovska, Liljana (2003),Macedonian: A Course for Beginning and Intermediate Students. (2nd ed.), University of Wisconsin Press,ISBN978-0-299-18804-7
Usikova, Rina Pavlovna (2005),Языки мира. Славянские языки: Македонский язык [Languages of the world. Slavic languages: Macedonian language] (in Russian), Moscow:Academia, pp. 102–139,ISBN5-87444-216-2
За македонцките работи public domain audiobook atLibriVox