The Miladinov Brothers & Macedonian Literature - 19th Century

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Interesting that Gregory Akindynos a native of Prilep, was referred to as being of Mysian race.

Whatever that means, unsure how an ancient term for a people in Anatolia was extrapolated to the medieval Balkans.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Whatever that means, unsure how an ancient term for a people in Anatolia was extrapolated to the medieval Balkans.

Moesia was where the horde of Bulgars led by Asparukh settled in the 7th century. Some authors from the Middle Ages (e.g. Leo the Deacon) had a tendency to classicise terminology and either replace or interchange Bulgaria with Mysia - owing to its similarity with the sound of Moesia in Greek. The spelling appears to have been adjusted for simplicity and the habit was picked up by later authors. The reference to Macedonia by this outdated relic is a legacy of her association with Bulgaria in the Middle Ages. Kiril Pejčinoviḱ was doing a bit of classicising himself, because it is doubtful the average commoner from Macedonia in the 19th century identified themselves or their territory as Lower Mysian. Also see below.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...4:id=mysia-geo

MYSIA (Μυσία: Eth. Μυσός, Eth. Mysus), the name [p. 2.389]of a province in the north-west of Asia Minor, which according to Strabo (xii. p.572) was derived from the many beech-trees which grew about Mount Olympus, and were called by the Lydians μυσοί. Others more plausibly connect the name with the Celtic moese, a marsh or swamp, according to which Mysia would signify a marshy country. This supposition is supported by the notion prevalent among the ancients that the Mysians had immigrated into Asia Minor from the marshy countries about the Lower Danube, called Moesia, whence Mysia and Moesia would be only dialectic varieties of the same name. Hence, also, the Mysians are sometimes mentioned with the distinctive attribute of the “Asiatic,” to distinguish them from the European Mysians, or Moesians. (Eustath. ad Dion. Per. 809; Schol. ad Apollon. Rhod. 1.1115.)

[Liberator of Makedonija]

That is most interesting, so the terms in this context are synonymous? Still though, Pejčinoviḱ may have been inaccurate in labelling the Macedonians "lower Mysians" as would that not relate to the people in the north of the Black Sea by geographic definition?

[Soldier of Macedon]

That is most interesting, so the terms in this context are synonymous?

In certain (later) contexts, Mysia was synonymous with Bulgaria (Moesia) and by extension with recently acquired territories such as Macedonia. An interesting observation made by Mitko Panov is that Leo the Deacon refers to Bulgars and Mysians interchangeably prior to Samuel, but during his reign, he only refers to the people (most of whom were from Macedonia) as Mysians.

Still though, Pejčinoviḱ may have been inaccurate in labelling the Macedonians "lower Mysians" as would that not relate to the people in the north of the Black Sea by geographic definition?

More like west/northwest of the Black Sea. As for Pejčinoviḱ, I doubt he was thinking about corresponding boundaries of Roman provinces when he wrote Lower Mysia. Given his profession, he probably copied what he read in some religious books. In the thread that Carlin mentioned (Inscriptions at St. Sophia Ohrid) there are anachronistic references to Mysia and Mysians cited from the 16th century Life of Saint Naum, suggesting influence from a Greek source.

Pejčinoviḱ was writing during a time when Greek-speakers were calling themselves Romans and Bulgarian city-dwellers were calling themselves Greeks. Given the various claims and mess of identities in the Balkans during that period, his contribution to the culture of the region can hardly be considered an unwavering commitment to promoting an "ethnic Bulgarian" identity. Instead, his main legacy was the spiritual and literary enlightenment of his people. And for that purpose he wrote in a clearly identifiable Macedonian dialect - a dialect which is akin to many other Macedonian dialects that were deplored by so-called intellectuals from Bulgaria only a few decades later.

[Chicho Makedonski]

Balan (1904) stated that 'Bulgarian' was used as a synonym for 'Christian', hence even the Russian Emperor was a 'Bulgarian' to many of the peasants.

Just interested in who Balan was and which peasants called the Russian Emperor by the term ‘Bulgarian’ to denote he was a ‘Christian’ and not an actual Bulgarian.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Just interested in who Balan was and which peasants called the Russian Emperor by the term ‘Bulgarian’ to denote he was a ‘Christian’ and not an actual Bulgarian.

He was a Bulgar scholar who was born in southern Ukraine and moved to Bulgaria shortly after Russia liberated the latter from the Ottomans. Later on, he also served the Exarchate. His works concerned history and language. Here is the actual quote:

Was it very long before the liberation of the Bulgarians that one could hear throughout Bulgaria Bulgarians answering to the question “What are you?” (by nationality) that they are “Christians” or “raya”? And it is not so unusual even today to hear a Bulgarian answering in court to the question of his nationality that he is a “Christian”. For him the concept of nationality has not yet become a new acquisition of his reason. During the Turkish period the Bulgarian peasant termed Bulgarians from cities “Greeks”, and city clothing was for him “Greek clothing”. And since the Greeks called this peasant a “fat-headed Bulgarian”, his brother from the city loved to be called by the term “Hellene” in order to avoid the derision associated with his true national name. Is not this exactly the same as what Mr. Misirkov tells us about the names for the Macedonian Slavs? The name “Bulgarian” had in Bulgaria fallen to a level which brought it only the derision of foreigners. In the speech of the Bulgarian himself, this name had lost its national content to such an extent that it became a synonym for “Christian”, which name came to signify the entire ethnic content of the Bulgarian individual and social consciousness. Our peasant, in saying “we are Bulgarians”, thought “we are Christians”, i.e., Orthodox. The Russian emperor was for him the “Bulgarian emperor” not by nationality but by Orthodox Christianity.

This is just one part of a broader analysis (from a biased Bulgar perspective) in response to Misirkov highlighting the fickleness of identities during the Middle Ages and Ottoman era. Generally, Balan is otherwise disparaging of Misirkov and in that regard, there is little difference between him and the other Bulgar “academics” from that period who couldn’t contain their insecurities in the face of Macedonian individualism and self-determination. In the quoted text above, he was forced to make this minor concession and acknowledge reality. However, he quickly followed up by remarking that whilst their national consciousness had faded, it was right for them to seek the “Bulgar” noun as a nationality because it is “more connected with the masses, with the simple peasantry, which is used in relation to it and by neighbouring nations.” He then goes on to connect that with the Macedonians. Basically, a rare moment of clarity followed by unqualified and simplistic drivel.