On Macedonian Matters (; Za makedonckite raboti) is a book written by Krste Misirkov and published in 1903 in Sofia, Bulgaria. The book presents the author's views towards the Macedonian Question, and explores the sense of national belonging and nеed for affirmation of the Macedonians as a separate people. The book marked the first complete outline of Macedonian as a separate language and proposed the need for its codification. The book also covers the rules of the standard language, its orthography and alphabet.
History Background In the early 1900s, Misirkov was a student in Saint Petersburg where he joined a pro-Bulgarian Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Circle. The main objective of the circle was the political autonomy of the Macedonia and Thrace, declared by the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO).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, ; стр. 14 He graduated in 1902, and later left for Ottoman Macedonia. There Misirkov accepted the proposal of the Bulgarian Exarchate to be appointed as a teacher in the Bulgarian men's high school of Bitola. In Bitola he befriended the Russian consul Aleksandr Rostkovsky. The Ilinden Uprising and the assassination of Rostkovsky in the summer of 1903 forced Misirkov to move back to Russia. In the autumn of 1903, he arrived in St. Petersburg, where he became active in the Slavic-Macedonian Scientific Literary Society. At the same time, he wrote the pamphlet On Macedonian Matters. In November 1903, he came to Sofia with the aim to print the book.
Content Za makedonckite raboti marked the first attempt to formalize a separate Macedonian literary language. With the book, Misirkov outlined an overview of the Macedonian 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-central Macedonian dialects (Prilep-Bitola) as a dialectal basis for the formation of the Macedonian standard language. His ideas however were not adopted until the 1940s. Misirkov appealed to the Ottoman authorities for the eventual recognition of a separate Macedonian nation. However, he admitted there was not 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.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, , 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 Za makedonckite raboti (About Macedonian Affairs, published in Sofia in 1903), but still considered the Macedonian question a part of a larger Bulgar complex, if for no other reason than linguistic. They were Bulgars in struggles against Serbian and Greek hegemonism, but within the Bulgar world they were increasingly becoming exclusive Macedonians: "On the one hand, there was [Misirkov's] pan-Bulgar patriotism, which was based largely on the kinship of language, and his pan-Bulgar positions, which he used, moreover frontally, against the Serbs (and before them the Greeks)." The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics, Ivo Banac, Cornell University Press, 1988, , 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, , 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. Misirkov also wrote about "Macedonians of Slav origin and certain other Macedonian nationalities."
He claimed that the Byzantine Greeks renamed the Bulgarian and Macedonian Slavs into "Bulgarians" because of their alliance with the Bulgars, during the incessant Byzantine–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 the Archbishopric of Ohrid and later the Macedonians adopted the term "Bulgarian" to differentiate from Greeks. 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 broader South Slavic group. For him, education was crucial for national distinctiveness, while science and literature were the most important factors in national development. He argued for the renewal of the Archbishopric of Ohrid and opposed having three Orthodox religious-educational systems, which would result in different religious, linguistic, and national affiliations.
He presented Tsar 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, writing that "the Macedonians many times rebelled against Byzantium". According to him, using the name "Bulgarian" in relation to Macedonian was "a historical misunderstanding". He described the Bulgarian feeling in the Macedonians as the "biggest disaster" and that Bulgaria was "the evil demon" of Macedonia, which he regarded as the biggest threat to the project.
Misirkov also criticized IMRO, which he perceived as these "Bulgarian committees" led by "Bulgarian clerks", who aimed for the unification of Macedonia with Bulgaria and the creation of "Bulgarian Macedonia", and he attacked the Bulgarian Exarchate too, viewing it along with IMRO as an exponent of Bulgarian interests in Macedonia. 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". Misirkov argued that one of the primary goals of the Macedonian intelligentsia should be to drive out the national and religious Serbian, 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.Misirkov, Krste Petkov. “On Macedonian Matters”. Modernism: Representations of National Culture, translated by Nikola Iordanovski, Central European University Press, 2010, pp. 355-356. Misirkov recommended that Macedonia should remain part of the Ottoman Empire as he perceived the Macedonian nation as being not yet "solid enough" to emerge as a separate unit, and as such would be protected from the aggressive propaganda of its neighbors.
Aftermath and legacy