P.D. Draganov

[Slavko Mangovski]

Petar Danilovich Draganov[1], 1888:

A New Work on the
Ethnography of the
Macedonian Slavs

Even today the collection of the Miladinov brothers, which has
long since become a bibliographical rarity, serves as almost the only
source of information for the ethnographic and dialectologicad study of
the Slav section of Macedonia, a land of varied peoples, languages and
cultures. However, while there are valuable examples in the Miladinov'a
book -- printed in the original Greek transcription -- they are only
from the regions of Struga, Kostur (Kastoria), Debar, Ohrid, Veles
(Koprulu), Bitola (Monastir), Prilep and Kukush (Kilkis). This is a rela-
tively small number of pla3?es when we take into consideration the fact
that, according to the data of the Bulgarian, A. Ofeilkoff (a pseudonym),
there are 3,289 places in today's Macedonia. And for the insignificant
collection of S.I. Verkovich (Narodne pesme makedonskih Bugara --
Folk Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarians), we find in it new examples
for only (the village of) Krushevo (Mrvachko)[2], the Razlog region, and
primarily the Serres region. In 1885, there appeared the first part of an
anthology conceived as a comprehensive work by K. Shapkarev from
Ohrid; in it there are excellent examples of little-known Macedonian
prose, but again, they are not of significant interest for the study of
the Macedonian dialects, because they come from the aforementioned
regions of Ohrid, Prilep, Kukush, with the addition of the region of
Gevgelija. Information about the Debar subdialect has been substantially
enriched by I.S. Jastrebov with the publication of his collection of
songs and customs of the Serbs from the Kosovo vilayet. Prior to Mr
Jastrebov's work, two or three examples from that area were published
by M.S. Drinov (in Periodichesko spisanie --'Periodic Journal, Bra-
ila). This, however, is not adequate. To which branch should this
Debar) subdialect be linked -- to the Serbian or the Bulgarian -- or
is there no need to link it to either of them?
The poorly edited, often inaccurate examples in the biased collec-
tions of M. Milojevich (Pesme i Obichaji Ukupnog Naroda Sprskoh --
Songs and Customs of the Whole Serbian People) and S. Verkovich
(Slav Vedas), certainly cannot be taken as reliable
sources. A. Dozon's collection is no better, although this collector, being
a foreigner, can be forgiven his errors. This seems the place to say that
the late Bulgarian critic and writer, Liuben Karavelov, in his boolr
Znanie (Knowledge) (1876), was correct in his sharp judgement of these
Macedonian forgers -- both Bulgarophiles and Serbophiles (Verkovich,
Dozon, Vezenkovich, Milojevich and others). Finally, to this we should
perhaps add the numerous and useful ethnographic notes and examples
of the so-called Macedonian dialect, scattered throughout a multitude
of Bulgarian periodicals published at various times and in various cities
of South-Eastern Europe and even in the Middle East. Not a third this
number of journals is to be found in the Sofia or Plovdiv National
Libraries. And a Slavist could find even fewer of these editions in his
study room. He would have to dig through newspaper morgues in order
to find two or three details of interest to him. So we see that in sprite
of all our persistent studies, we managed to find very few, and then
not always satisfactorily edited, examples. And these are solely from
the following dialects: the Salonica dialect -- in the Constantinople
journal Sovqtnik (Advisor) of 1865 (reprinted by M. Gattalo in V.
Jagich's Knjizevnik (Writer); the Voden dialect -- primarily one song,
which was accidentally included in the Miladinov's collection, and one
other, poorly edited by M. Milojevich; Kratovo dialect -- of which
there is a very good monograph in Braila Periodichesko spisanie;
Dzhumaja dialect -- in the Western-Bulgarian (Shopic) Collection of
V. Kachanovski; Melnik dialect -- one song, from the same collection;
Shtip dialect -- two songs, poorly edited in Plovdiv Naukq (Science)
Tetovo dialect - one song honoring King Lazar, which we find with
I. S. Jastrebov (it is also given by M. Milojevich, but it is either
printed
with errors or incorrectly written down); Nevrokop, and Ahachelebisko
dialects[3] -- unphonetic songs, published in V. Cholakov's collection.
In addition there is the South Pomak dialect: in Bulgarian Iljustracija
(Illustration) of 1882, by H. Konstantinov; in N. Shishkov's collection
of 1886 (Plovdiv); by P. Slaveikov, Naukq 1882/83; by the Russian ethno-
graphist, A. A. Bashmakow, also published in Naukq and finally by the
Czech Bulgarist, K. Irechek, in book 8 of Periodichesko spisanie.
Considering all of these, we have at our disposal material pri-
marily from the part of Macedonia which borders on Albania. We have
a few accidentally and consequently not always well edited examples
of some dialects spoken on the left side of the River Vardar. We have
no examples whatsoever from South-Western, South-Eastern, and most
important, Northern Macedonia. The latter represents a bone of con-
tention between the Serbian and Bulgarian patriots, and even between
some philologists. That is, we have not a line of specially published
dialectological and ethnographical material from the following regions:
Salonica, Enidzhe-Vardar, Doiran (Polin), Voden (Edhessa), Meglen,
Kichevo, Resen, Lerin (Flrina), Petrich, Drama, and regrettably not:
from Skopje, Kulmanovo, Kriva Palanka, Kochani and Gostivar. Now
if one does not want to believe the honest word of the Bulgrarians or
the Serbs, who persistently claim that the whole Slav population of
modern Macedonia speaks the dearest, one and inseparable literary
Bulgarian, or respectively, literary Serbian language, one must state
that it is necessary to investigate and prove such claims.
In spite of the fact that the Macedonian Collection (Collection
Macedonienne) is being published by the Bulgarian Exarchate and
edited by Mr Ofeikoff with clear propagandist aims, i.e. to defend the
Greater-Bulgarian idea of Macedonia from the corresponding Serbian
idea, it will contribute a great deal to the treasury of Macedonistics.
According to the now available data, this collection will comprise 1,500
examples from all the regions of the Macedonian Slav province, record-
ed by Macedonians themselves; and sent to the Bulgarian Exarchate by
its activists and teachers in Macedonia. The title of the collection has
also been aptly chosen: they do not use the Bulgarian but the neutral
Macedonian Slav name (Macedoine Slave). This demonstrates the aim of
the collection to be objective in the future study of the philological is-
sue, thereby once and for all deciding whose examples these are -
Serbian or Bulgarian. Do they belong to the aspirants partially or en-
tirely? Are there some examples that should belong neither to the Serbs
nor Bulgarians, but entirely to the Macedonians? It is regrettable that
this eagerly awaited collection (and its texts) have not yet been seen
by the world, with the exception of the article mentioned above, by
the Bulgarian scholar, Mr Ofeikoff, representing profession de foi (a
confession, editor's note) of the Great Bulgarian idea, and Mr. A. P.
Sirku's article on Macedonian philology, which comprise the first part.
The historical articles of professor M. S. Drinov and Mr V. V. Kacha-
novski should appear later.
Articles of the well-known historian of Bulgaria, K. Irechek, and
two other Slavists should have been included in the collection, however
they refused to participate.
It has become imperative that these articles, written partly in
Bulgarian and partly in Russian, should be translated into French, since
their special purpose was to present them to the Western European
education experts. And above all, the translation is necessary to reach
the political and diplomatic circles who, the publishers hope, will iden-
tify themselves with the collection's central idea, in the practical resol-
vement of the Macedonian Question. Concerning this, we must note
here that the diplomats, accustomed as they are to the preciseness of the
French language, its exactness and clarity of expression, will be pro-
bably horrified by the French into which these articles have been tran-
slated. They may also be hororified by the printing and grammatical
errors in the French introduction and especially in Ofeikoff's article.
It is obvious that Mr Ofeikoff's lengthy introduction is an adap-
tation of his article which appeared last year in that mouthpiece of
the future "European Afghanistan" and that of the future close "con-
federation" of all the Peoples of the Balkan under the protection
of Austria, Revue de l'Orient. The latter is published in Budapest
by the Hebrew, W. Weltner, the Pole, De-Pulski, and the Hungarian,
Attila Semera. The Revue maintains a permanent staff of investigators
and correspondents at large -- Bulgarian, Serbian, Wallachian (Roma-
nian) Macedonian, Greek, even Turkish -- who are allowed to freely
indulge in the scholarly polemics of the Macedonian subject. Ofeikoff"s
article is nothing but an elaborate polemic with the prominent Serbian
writer, Matija Ban. Mr Ban has continued up to present day to dispute
his Bulgarian opponents on the subject of whether the Ohrid Exarchate
(i.e. Archbishopric, editor's note), the former Prima Justiniana, the
centres of which were Skopje and Kustendil, was Bulgarian or Ser-
bian church. Mr Ofeikoff quotes Ubicini, I.Miiller, Grisebach, Kolb.
Bart, Hilferding, N. N. Obruchev, Mackenzie, Irby and others, who have
allegedly long ago on an academic level resolved the Macedonian lan-
guage questiin in favor of the Bulgarian patriots, and draws the con-
clusion that "all those well-known authors, ethnographers and travelling
writers bear witness to the fact that Macedonia is populated by Bul-
arians only (Cf. Revue de I'Orient, 1887, No. 27). He also claims this in
his new work, the only difference being that the latter is even more
embellished with vain assumptions. For example, Mr Ofeikoff here
mentions the following authors: Y. Venelin, P. J. Safarik, I. Muller,
V. I. Grigorovich, Ami Boue, Cruz, Grisebach, Peterman, A. F. Hilferd-
ing, Lejean, Dumas, Dozon, Stein, Kolb, Reklyu, Bush, A. S. Budilovich,
N. S. Obruchev, and A. F. Ritih, V. S. Teplov, V. V. Kachanovski,
Mackenzie, Irby, Lavelle, plus such historians as Paisii Samokovski (the
author of Tsarstvenik (Lives of Kings)) 戢nd L. Dobrov (the author of
Turki I Slavjane (Turks and Slavs)), and derives this conclusion: "None
of these scholars has traveled through European Turkey aiming to re-
veal the Bulgarians. All of these writers and ethnographers declare
that Macedonia is populated with Bulgarian Slavs"(p. 7). But such a
dogmatic solution to the Macedonian Question does not correspond by
any means with the exceptionally complex scientific difficulties this
question represents.
As far as A. P. Sirku's article on Macedonian phonology is con-
cerned, albeit unsystematic and verbose, it represents a complete expo-
sition of all that has been shown up to now in the few published examp-
les of Macedonian dialectology. The new thing here is that the author
presents his own classification of the dialects in the Bulgarian language.
He mentions four dialects: Thraco-Mysian, Shopic, Rhodopic or Rupalan
(Rupis) and Macedonian. Another unique thing is that he writes in
detail about the Rhodopic dialect partly from the material published
by V. Cholakov, P. Slaveikov and N. Shishkov, as well as on the basis
of S. Verkovich's Vedas. Furthermore, Sirku writes about the Debar
dialect, disputing the well-known assertions of I. S. Jastrebov con-
cerning this dialect. And he exhausts the scientific literature available
on the nasalisms )|( and A in modern Macedonian Slav dialects, which
are related to the East Bulgarians nasalisms. Doubtlessly he did not
know that there is also nasalism or rineism in the Voden, Meglen, Re-
sen and Demir Hisar dialects, and that the triple postpositive article
in Macedonia is not only characteristic of the Rhodopic Pomaks, Tikvesh
and Debar areas, but also of all the Brzaks (Brsyaks) from Prilep,
Veles, Bitola and other regions.
Therefore, it is understandable that Mr Sirku, starting from the
known published literature on the Macedonian vernacular, has looked
more extensively into the Rhodopic than the Macedonian dialect. Howe-
ver, the Western Rhodpic dialects on the border between Thrace and
Macedonia are not so important to the academic solution of the Serbo-
Bulgarian language issue, as are the diale~ts in South-Western, and
especially, North-Western Macedonia. These apparently are completely
unknown to Mr Sirku, so that what was unknown before remains so.
To expect others to believe from him what the Bulgarian experts them-
selves do not know is, to put it kindly, difficult.
It is therefore with impatience that we await the publication of
the Bulgarian Exarchate Macedonian Collection with its 1,500 examples
of "folk songs, collected from peasants from all Slav Macedonia." Nor
would it be inappropriate for the Serbian Academy of Sciences (the
former Serbian Scientific Society), from its side, to edit and publish a
Macedonian collection. Certainly, though, it should not be like the col-
lections of M. Milojevich and Vuk Karadzhich, but compiled Sine studio
et sine ira. Perhaps this is the place, too, to mention that currently
the Serbs have their own consulates in Macedonia, lead by Mr S(tojan)
Novakovich, a Serbian (diplomatic) delegate to Constantinople, who is
also a respected philologist and has paid great service to Bulgarian
literary history.
In addition, if I succeed in publishing the Macedonian collection
I have compiled, comprising about thousand texts from 105 populated
areas in Macedonia, we can assume that with these combined mate-
rials the major problems of Macedonian dialectology can be solved.
Having all this at our disposal, the Slav philological science should
be able to solve, once and for all, the Macedonian language issue and
to decide impartially what in these three Macedonian Slav collections"
belongs to the Bulgarian vernacular and what to the Serbian, and what
then naturally, because it belongs neither to the Serbian nor Bulgarian,
is the property only of the separate and independent Macedonian ver-
nacular.'

(Journal of the National Education Ministry),
St Petersburg, Book CCLV, April 1888.

NOTES

[1] P. D. Draganov (1857---1928) was a versatile Russian Slavist of
Bulgarian
origin. He was graduated in 1884 from St Petersburg University, Faculty of
History and Philology. He was granted the title of Candidate of historical
and
philological sciences at the same university. He was a professor in the
Bulgarian
Exarchate grammar-school in Salonica for three years (1885--1887). He wrote
se-
veral works on Macedonistics. In this article he makes an analysis of A.
Ofeikoff's
work (a pseudonym for Atanas Shopov, secretary of the Bulgarian Exarch in
Constantnople) entitled "La Macedoine au point du vue ethnographique,
histori-
que et philologique". Philopopoli, 1887.
[2] Krushevo is a place in the Demir Hisar district, Serres region (now
in
Aegean Macedonia).
[3] Ahachelebisko is a place in Western Thrace.