The Miladinov Brothers & Macedonian Literature - 19th Century

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Karposh
    replied
    Originally posted by Liberator of Makedonija View Post
    References from this period to Bulgarians of Medieval times would likely be referring to the subjects of the Bulgarian empires.
    No LoM. Trust me, Makedonski was either completely confused or had no idea what he was talking about. I personally don't think he was an idiot.

    For the record, there was no Bulgarian empire in the time of the Apostle Paul.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karposh
    replied
    Quote:
    "The Bulgarians of Macedonia were baptized by the Apostle Paul"

    It just occurred to me, this quote by Dimitar Makedonski can also be used to throw some weight to the argument of the non-ethnic definition of the term "Bulgarian." If we presume that Makedonski was smart enough to know that Bulgarians are never mentioned in the bible then this can also imply that he regarded the term "Bulgarian" as describing a Slavic-speaking Orthodox Christian. Let's not forget, many notable Macedonians of the time claimed direct descent from the Ancient Macedonians whom they regarded as their Slavic-speaking ancestors. It is just as likely that Makedonski was referring to Slavic-speaking Christians of Macedonia when speaks of "The Bulgarians of Macedonia" being baptized by the Apostle Paul. Worthy of a comment or two I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Liberator of Makedonija
    replied
    Originally posted by Karposh View Post
    That quote right there Carlin tells me just how messed up some of people's minds were with respect to their own identity. And you can hardly blame them. The example of Dimitar Makedonski illustrates this point perfectly. On the one hand he calls himself "Makedonski", a seemingly instinctive and natural portrayal of his native patriotism and yet, on the other hand, he is desperately attempting to somehow tie Bulgaria to Macedonia, through the Apostle Paul of all people and his association with the Ancient Macedonians - an exercise in futility.

    Why would Makedonski say "The Bulgarians of Macedonia were baptized by the Apostle Paul?" The guy was clearly intelligent enough to know the bible makes no such mention of Bulgarians. The only thing you could possibly put this confused mindset down to is the extremely aggressive Bulgarian propaganda of the time. Almost all of them (Macedonian intellectuals) were being molded into the perfect little Bulgarians by the Bulgarian state through the Bulgarian education system and institutions such as the famous Salonica Bulgarian Boys High School. There would have been an almost envious need by these Macedonian young men to achieve similar freedom for Macedonia as the Bulgarians had just recently achieved. I have no doubt that if you were to take the recently independent Bulgaria with all of her aggressive Bulgarian propaganda out of the equation, these people would have definitely been playing a different tune. After all, I doubt very much Vasil Kanchov was making shit up when he made that observation that the Bulgarians of Macedonia called themselves Macedonians and that the surrounding people knew them as such.

    References from this period to Bulgarians of Medieval times would likely be referring to the subjects of the Bulgarian empires.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karposh
    replied
    Originally posted by Carlin15 View Post
    Во него Димитар Македонски тврди дека "Бугарите во Македонија" (како што ги нарекува Македонците) биле покрстени уште од Апостол Павле.
    That quote right there Carlin tells me just how messed up some of people's minds were with respect to their own identity. And you can hardly blame them. The example of Dimitar Makedonski illustrates this point perfectly. On the one hand he calls himself "Makedonski", a seemingly instinctive and natural portrayal of his native patriotism and yet, on the other hand, he is desperately attempting to somehow tie Bulgaria to Macedonia, through the Apostle Paul of all people and his association with the Ancient Macedonians - an exercise in futility.

    Why would Makedonski say "The Bulgarians of Macedonia were baptized by the Apostle Paul?" The guy was clearly intelligent enough to know the bible makes no such mention of Bulgarians. The only thing you could possibly put this confused mindset down to is the extremely aggressive Bulgarian propaganda of the time. Almost all of them (Macedonian intellectuals) were being molded into the perfect little Bulgarians by the Bulgarian state through the Bulgarian education system and institutions such as the famous Salonica Bulgarian Boys High School. There would have been an almost envious need by these Macedonian young men to achieve similar freedom for Macedonia as the Bulgarians had just recently achieved. I have no doubt that if you were to take the recently independent Bulgaria with all of her aggressive Bulgarian propaganda out of the equation, these people would have definitely been playing a different tune. After all, I doubt very much Vasil Kanchov was making shit up when he made that observation that the Bulgarians of Macedonia called themselves Macedonians and that the surrounding people knew them as such.

    Leave a comment:


  • Liberator of Makedonija
    replied
    Again, the meaning of that term in the period it was claimed needs to be taken into consideration.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carlin
    replied
    Originally posted by Karposh View Post
    The Miladinov brothers were the exception to this assumption of ours I think. I read somewhere, it might have been Wikipedia, that one of them even went on a pilgrimage to the river Volga in Russia to pay homage to his Bulgarian ancestors. That's why I'm more critical of the Miladinov brothers. There is no escaping the fact they considered themselves "Bulgarians" in the ethnic sense.
    Agreed - the Miladinov brothers did in fact consider themselves (and their fellow Macedonians) as ethnic Bulgarians. And they were not the only ones though.

    As an another example (and I apologize to change the main Topic of this thread), there is Dimitar Makedonski - Димитар Македонски.

    Од Википедија


    Dim. Makedonski wrote as follows in 1871:

    "И jа понаучете си малце историjата ... и ќе се уверите дека Македонците не се цинцари, ниту друг некоj народ, туку се чисти Бугари како вас; од таму ќе се научите уште дека Македонците не се изгубиле од лицето на земјата како што некои си дозволуваат да докажуваат оти колку што ние знаеме тие не се согрешиле некогаш толку та да зине земјата па да ги голтне."

    Additional Citations from the wikipedia page:

    - І македонски конгрес започнал со својата работа на 18.03.1895 година и првите три дена се расправало за целата на македонските друштва, притоа на дневен ред имало две точки: Автономија на Македонија или нејзино присоединување кон Бугарија. Димитар Македонски заедно со двајца делегати гласал за присоединување на Македонија кон Бугарија.

    - Автор е на 3 учебници, пишувани на македонски народен говор на неговиот роден дијалект со многу црковнословенизми, што ги објавува во печатницата на весникот „Македонија“ во Цариград. Неговите учебници се: Кратка свјаштена историја, за училиштата по Македонија (1867), Буквар за употребление в македонските училишта (1867) и Скратен православен катихизис (превод од грчки, 1868). Првиот учебник е пишуван во вид на прашања и одговори, слично како учебниците на Кузман Шапкарев и другите македонски учебникари. Во него Димитар Македонски тврди дека "Бугарите во Македонија" (како што ги нарекува Македонците) биле покрстени уште од Апостол Павле.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karposh
    replied
    Originally posted by Liberator of Makedonija View Post
    Spot on, I also ready the same thing about the Russian Tsar. I think a lot of us Macedonains get freaked-out whenever we see the Bulgarian label attached to something from our past and it has become a bit of a taboo. We should be trying to understand that words change meanings over time and what a Bulgarian was then is very different to what a Bulgarian is now.
    The Miladinov brothers were the exception to this assumption of ours I think. I read somewhere, it might have been Wikipedia, that one of them even went on a pilgrimage to the river Volga in Russia to pay homage to his Bulgarian ancestors. That's why I'm more critical of the Miladinov brothers. There is no escaping the fact they considered themselves "Bulgarians" in the ethnic sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Liberator of Makedonija
    replied
    Originally posted by Karposh View Post
    Good point LoM. I'm pretty sure that's what Krste Misirkov had in mind when he made that famous observation about the Macedonians (which Greeks and Bulgarians love to point out). This is a very valid argument and I think people shouldn't dismiss it off-hand as clutching onto straws. It does seem as though the term "Bulgarian" during that time was used in the sense to describe a Christian Orthodox Slav and not in an ethnic sense. Proof for this is that even the Tsar of Russia was apparently described by the people of the Balkans as a Bulgarian Tsar because he was a Christian Orthodox Slav and, obviously, not because he was an ethnic Bulgarian.
    Spot on, I also ready the same thing about the Russian Tsar. I think a lot of us Macedonains get freaked-out whenever we see the Bulgarian label attached to something from our past and it has become a bit of a taboo. We should be trying to understand that words change meanings over time and what a Bulgarian was then is very different to what a Bulgarian is now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karposh
    replied
    Originally posted by Liberator of Makedonija View Post
    I wouldn't categorise them into the same vein as Bulgarophiles. We need to understand the Bulgarian label had a very different meaning during this period and this particular period (the 1860s) was arguably the peak of the church movement in the Balkans that sought the creation of a Slavophone church. The Bulgarian label was applied to what this new church would be but it was decades later that this label began to take on a more ethnic definition. Krste Misirkov notes that many Macedonians during this period referred to themselves as Bulgarians but by the time he wrote 'On Macedonian Matters' (1903) it had become clear to much of the Macedonian intelligentsia that that label was now being used as a propoganda tool by the new principality and was being fiercely resisted by the Macedonian people.
    Good point LoM. I'm pretty sure that's what Krste Misirkov had in mind when he made that famous observation about the Macedonians (which Greeks and Bulgarians love to point out). This is a very valid argument and I think people shouldn't dismiss it off-hand as clutching onto straws. It does seem as though the term "Bulgarian" during that time was used in the sense to describe a Christian Orthodox Slav and not in an ethnic sense. Proof for this is that even the Tsar of Russia was apparently described by the people of the Balkans as a Bulgarian Tsar because he was a Christian Orthodox Slav and, obviously, not because he was an ethnic Bulgarian.

    Leave a comment:


  • Liberator of Makedonija
    replied
    Originally posted by Karposh View Post
    Clearly, the Miladinov brothers were Bulgarophiles. In 1860-Macedonia, any school that was conducted in a language people could understand would have been welcome. My guess would be that the enthusiasm which the brainwashed Bulgarian sympathiser Dimitar Miladinov was describing was more to do with this fact alone and not because the school would be "Bulgarian". They would no longer need to send their kids to Greek schools which were conducted in a completely alien language to them but to a school that was conducted in a "nashki" language. A well documented debate raged at the time whether the "Bulgarian" language should include the Macedonian dialects in its eventual standardisation since the Macedonians could barely understand standard Bulgarian, that was based on the eastern Macedonian dialects. I purposely use the terms "eastern Macedonian" dialects because that is what they are. Strictly speaking old Bulgarian as spoken by Khan Asparuh was simply Turkish and not the language they speak today, which is heavily influenced by the Russian language. And, since people spoke the same language well before the proto-Bulgars arrived in the area, the rightful name, in my opinion, for all those dialects would be Macedonian.

    The Miladinov brothers were among many other similar intellectuals of the time who thought they knew better and bought into the foreign propaganda of the time. Their allegiances changed back and forth from pan-Slavic Russian to Bulgarian. Unfortunately, I have yet to come across a time where they considered themselves simply Macedonian.

    I wouldn't categorise them into the same vein as Bulgarophiles. We need to understand the Bulgarian label had a very different meaning during this period and this particular period (the 1860s) was arguably the peak of the church movement in the Balkans that sought the creation of a Slavophone church. The Bulgarian label was applied to what this new church would be but it was decades later that this label began to take on a more ethnic definition. Krste Misirkov notes that many Macedonians during this period referred to themselves as Bulgarians but by the time he wrote 'On Macedonian Matters' (1903) it had become clear to much of the Macedonian intelligentsia that that label was now being used as a propoganda tool by the new principality and was being fiercely resisted by the Macedonian people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karposh
    replied
    Originally posted by Carlin15 View Post
    Dimitar Miladinov - "Во Охрида 1860 Марта 6" (In Ohrid 1860 March 6), published by the newspaper "Цареградский вестник" (Цариградски вестник), year X, number 476 - Цариград, 26 март 1860 година.

    Dimitar Miladinov's report on the enthusiasm of the residents of Ohrid who are building and opening a new Bulgarian school in Ohrid, in 1860.



    Clearly, the Miladinov brothers were Bulgarophiles. In 1860-Macedonia, any school that was conducted in a language people could understand would have been welcome. My guess would be that the enthusiasm which the brainwashed Bulgarian sympathiser Dimitar Miladinov was describing was more to do with this fact alone and not because the school would be "Bulgarian". They would no longer need to send their kids to Greek schools which were conducted in a completely alien language to them but to a school that was conducted in a "nashki" language. A well documented debate raged at the time whether the "Bulgarian" language should include the Macedonian dialects in its eventual standardisation since the Macedonians could barely understand standard Bulgarian, that was based on the eastern Macedonian dialects. I purposely use the terms "eastern Macedonian" dialects because that is what they are. Strictly speaking old Bulgarian as spoken by Khan Asparuh was simply Turkish and not the language they speak today, which is heavily influenced by the Russian language. And, since people spoke the same language well before the proto-Bulgars arrived in the area, the rightful name, in my opinion, for all those dialects would be Macedonian.

    The Miladinov brothers were among many other similar intellectuals of the time who thought they knew better and bought into the foreign propaganda of the time. Their allegiances changed back and forth from pan-Slavic Russian to Bulgarian. Unfortunately, I have yet to come across a time where they considered themselves simply Macedonian.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carlin
    replied
    Dimitar Miladinov - "Во Охрида 1860 Марта 6" (In Ohrid 1860 March 6), published by the newspaper "Цареградский вестник" (Цариградски вестник), year X, number 476 - Цариград, 26 март 1860 година.

    Dimitar Miladinov's report on the enthusiasm of the residents of Ohrid who are building and opening a new Bulgarian school in Ohrid, in 1860.



    Leave a comment:


  • Liberator of Makedonija
    replied
    Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post

    If you hover over the little icon that looks like a mountain, it says "insert image". Paste your link there and this will happen.
    Thank you, that defiantly will help.

    Leave a comment:


  • Liberator of Makedonija
    replied
    Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post
    I didn't see your other posts on my phone at the time.
    This is the one I was referring to.

    A cursory moment of research reveals Neofit Rilski wrote the first grammar book of the modern Bulgarian language.

    If you have no knowledge of differences, share your knowledge about what you were looking at in your post. What makes it Macedonian? Anything specific or unique about it?
    I know wikipedia says this but in my personal opinion I believe all South Slavic literature from the early-mid 19th century is relevant to us. The Miladinov brothers called their work 'Bulgarian Folk Songs' but we all know how important that work was for Macedonian literature.

    Neofit Rilski was from Bansko and the dialect he wrote his bible translation into was supposedly based off the one spoken in Gorna Džumaja. The man was from Macedonia and wrote in a Macedonian dialect, irregardless of the label slapped onto his work I think he and his publications are very relevant when discussing 19th century Macedonian literature.

    Leave a comment:


  • Risto the Great
    replied

    If you hover over the little icon that looks like a mountain, it says "insert image". Paste your link there and this will happen.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X