The term “Macedonian(s)” in Ottoman Macedonia: on the map and in the mind

Abstract

In this article I analyze the term “Macedonian(s)” based on the discourse of the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (1893–1908) from the aspect of the internal understanding of the term as a supra-local and supra-church identity. Another matter for analysis in this article is that of the stereotypes in the interpretation of Macedonian historical processes inherited from the nineteenth century, still present in some contemporary historiographies. Hence, the article makes an attempt to bring down the stereotype about the existence of some unique Macedonian ethnic phenomenon known as the “Macedonian salad.” This article also deals with the significance of the geopolitical position of Ottoman Macedonia within the empire. More specifically, the emphasis is placed on the change of its position after the Great Eastern Crisis (1875–1881). Namely, for the first time since the Ottoman conquests in the Middle Ages, Macedonia's position within the empire changed from being a central to a peripheral Ottoman province, with all the advantages and disadvantages that this change brought about. This aspect of Macedonian historical reality is often neglected in the historiography.

Keywords:

• Ottoman Empire
• Ottoman Macedonia
• Macedonian(s)
• supra-local identity
• supra-church identity
• labeling
• ethnonym

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Robert Burns M.A. and Kostake Milkov Ph.D. for English-language editing and proofreading of the text, and Erina Bogoeva, English-language student and poet, for the poetry translations.

Notes

In the historiography, the questions about the original name and the first constitution of this underground organization are still not settled. Some documents point out that it was initially called the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (MRO) (see Minoski 62–71.). Its official name, TMORO (Secret Macedonian–Adrianopole Revolutionary Organization), dates from after the Thessaloniki Congress in 1896. On this issue there are still some historiographical debates due to the fact that the very document The Constitution of TMORO bears no date (See more in Pandevska, “Na Patot” 141–154). The official name of the organization at the Rila Congress in 1905 is not in question and at the time it was renamed to VMORO (Internal Macedonian–Adrianopole Revolutionary Organization). In the course of the entire period of its existence it was unofficially called the abbreviated name, the Internal Organization, as an antonym of “the other” organization, the “external” one – the Vrhovist (Supreme) Committee with its headquarters in Sofia. In this article I use the term “MRO” as a general term representing the organization during the entire period of its existence, 1893–1908.

“Macedonia is bounded on the East by the lower Mesta (Nestos) river and by the western slopes of the Rhodope (Rodopi) upland. North of the Pirin massif the boundary turns west, passing south of Kystendil (Bulgaria), by the Siroka Planina, Crna Gora and Sar Planina. Thence it turns southward by the Korab and Jablanica range and lakes Ohrid and Prespa to the massif Grammos; then eastward, embracing the whole basin of the Aliakmon (Bistritsa) river and reaching the Gulf of Salonika near Mt. Olympus. Including the Khalkidhiki (Chalcidice) Peninsula, Macedonia covers an area of about 25,700 sq. mil. (67.471 km²)” (“Macedonia”).

“The hopelessness of the Turkish government would make me witness with delight its being swept out of the countries which it tortures.… Next to the Ottoman Government nothing can be more deplorable and blameworthy, than jealousies between Greek and Slav, and plans by the States already existing for appropriating other territory. Why not Macedonia for Macedonians as well as Bulgaria for Bulgarians and Serbia for Serbians? …. Yours very faithful W. E. Gladstone.” The letter was addressed to the president of the “Byron Society” and bears the date of 19 January 1897, published in the newspaper Times, 6 February 1897, p.12. (Andonov-Poljanski, 406; 766).

The Macedonian Kresna Uprising took place in the period of the Great Eastern Crisis (1875–1881).

Contrary to Macedonian historiography (see e.g. Bitovski, Makedonija i Knezestvoto), in some publications there is a tendency to minimize the meaning and the importance of the possibilities for Macedonia's development that were envisaged in Article 23 of the Treaty of Berlin – if it had not turned into a dead letter (see Perry). More on the meaning of Article 23 can be found in the sources, e.g. the positions of the Western democratic public figures of the time presented in Berthelot (see more in Pandevski, Makedonofilskoto).

About this subject Gjorce Petrov writes in his memoirs: “We accepted Adrianopole (Edirne) as a district” (Spomeni na Gjorche Petrov 47). The acceptance of unity in the liberation struggle was immediately reflected in the program documents – namely, in the 1896 TMORO constitution, the struggle for liberation was extended also to the group of the so-called “Adrianopolian(s),” together with the mission to achieve the autonomies of those two territories: Macedonia and Adrianople (Edirne). The introduction of the term “Adrianopolian(s)” in the constitution of the organization is an interesting issue which is still insufficiently researched and analyzed. Bulgarian historiography, which takes as its starting point the biased and rigid thesis of the complete equation of the terms “Macedonians” = “Bulgarians” = “Adrianopolians,” so far has not tried to do a more detailed analysis of this issue. On the other hand, the use of the term “Adrianopolian(s)” in the TMORO constitution (from where the full name of the organization originated) parallel to the term “Macedonian(s)” could be confusing, to point simply to the geographic connotation of these two terms. Yet, the inconsistency of this position is evident from the rest of the MRO's documentation because in both areas, certain segments were the same, but in certain segments completely different revolutionary agitations were happening. The goals and the forms of the struggle were identical: illegal revolutionary and liberation struggle coupled with synchronized uprisings in order to achieve autonomy of both areas. However, at the same time, the linking of the population with the territory, which is the subject of the agitation, was completely different. On the territory of Ottoman Macedonia, agitation functioned based on the idea of liberation of the homeland: Macedonia. In that way, an observant analysis discloses the existence of parallelism: on the one hand, Adrianople exists in the constitution and in the name of the organization (and in some other official documents), and on the other, its idea for liberation is very poorly used in the agitation in Macedonia. This parallelism is confirmed in the original sources that point to the existence of some kind of supra-ethnic organizational system of MRO (TMORO/VMORO). It is an interesting fact that the MRO, in regard to Adrianopole (Edirne), allowed the Sofia Supreme Committee to also manage this region, something that in 1901–1902 was unthinkable for the territory of Macedonia. This particular topic requires much more detailed research, and is not the main topic of this article.

Such a phenomenon in educated circles was quite widespread. For example, the eminent Bukovinian-Romanian Porumbesku family (composers, musicians, writers) had its roots in a Polish family, the Golebiowskis; a leading Romanic poet, Mihai Eminesky, also came from Bukovina and had ancestors in the Eminowicz family, who were Polish-speaking Armenians. On the other hand, the eminent Bukovinian musician, student, friend, and publisher of Chopin's works, Karol Mikuli, a Romanian by origin, contributed greatly to making Polish culture accessible (Jordanovski 206).

The memoirs of the Macedonian revolutionaries represent a large collection of publications. Here, I would only refer the reader to one recent publication that represents a collection of some memoirs (Spomeni: S. Arsov, P. Kljašev [etc.]).

Goce Delcev (1872–1903) was one of the most prominent ideologists of the MRO. He was a teacher, a voivoda and the most important leader of the MRO, functioning as the main inspector of the agitation-organization companies of the MRO. He and Gjorce Petrov were the first representatives of the MRO abroad in Sofia (1896–1901) and the creators of the organization's 1986 constitution and 1900 Rulebook for the Companies.

Nikola Petrov–Cukarski (1875–1943), known as Rusinski according to his village of birth, Rusinovo (in the Malesevo region), was a renowned organizer and leader of the MRO. He was initially active in the territory of the Strumica Revolutionary District, where he was a close collaborator of Goce Delcev, and afterwards was active in the Bitola Revolutionary District, where he took part in the Ilinden Uprising in 1903.

The term Vrhovism is used for the political actions of the so-called Supreme (Macedonian) Committee, which was the ruling institution of the Macedonian emigrant organization. This organization functioned as a legal organization in the territory of the Principality of Bulgaria, holding public congresses and protests. From 1901 to 1902, the MRO and the Supreme Committee vigorously opposed each other over the right of sovereignty over the territory of Macedonia. The Supreme Committee, as a paramilitary organization, was preparing to execute an armed provocation against the Ottoman administration in the border regions of Macedonia. The MRO, being an autonomous guerrilla and internal Macedonian organization, was trying to prevent such provocation by all means possible. Finally, in 1902, a short-term armed provocation of the Supreme paramilitaries on the border region of the Macedonian territory occurred, the so-called “Gornodzumajsko Uprising.”

In order to achieve a more impressive effect, the appearance of the document was intended to best catch the eye within the possible conditions of the time. So, the circular was printed on four pages in a daily newspaper format with features of a poster. In the visual shaping of the circular there is modest but very symbolic iconography: a picture of a woman holding in her left hand a flag on which the words “Freedom or Death” are written, and in her right hand a wreath on which the name “Macedonia” is written. Under her feet the symbols of struggle and slavery are presented: a revolver, a dagger, and chains.

Lazar Pop Trajkov (1878–1903) was the regional voivoda of the MRO and a participant in the Ilinden Uprising in 1903 as a member of the Main Uprising Command of the Second Revolutionary District. With his company he participated in numerous clashes with the Ottoman army. Together with his company he also participated in battle at the regional locations known as Lokvata and Vinjari. In this battle the local voivoda Laki Popovski, among others, was killed.

Atanas Razdolov (1872–1931) was a poet, a publicist, and a revolutionary who was a close associate of Goce Delcev. He published 26 books, including Poems about the Macedonians (1896). Goce Delcev in his correspondence often recommended them as useful and educational literature for the MRO's revolutionary agitation.

It is interesting to highlight that in nineteenth-century Ottoman dictionaries the term “millet” can be found only with the following definitions: “1) faith, religion” (additionally clarified as “the faith and the millet are one and the same”) and “2) community that belongs to the same faith or religion” (Şemseddin 1400). However, in the Western world the term “nation” was only modestly finding its way toward the notion of “millet”. Namely, in the dictionary published in 1876 in Leipzig, next to the term “millet” one can find these definitions: “loi, religion, communion religious, sect, people, nation” (Zenker 876). The modest sixth position of the term “nation” as an understanding of “millet” was improved to second place soon afterwards (in 1890) in the Turkish and English Lexicon: “millet: 1) one's belief, faith, religion; 2) nationality; especially a people united by common faith; 3) sect” (Redhouse 1965). Finally, in a 1977 Turkish–Russian dictionary, under the term “millet,” no longer is the definition “faith/religion” found but only the interpretation: “1) nation, nationality, ethnic group; 2) people, nation, public; 3) family, descendants, tribe” (Baskalov et al. 775). These individual examples undoubtedly point at what the philosopher Quentin Skinner has called parahierarchicalism, which he understands as occurring when the value structure of one culture/tradition/understanding/social structure is taken as the basic measurement for marking the degree of quality of the value structure of another culture/tradition/understanding/social structure (see Tully). In this way, processes are very easily taken out of historical context, and in the case of Macedonia, outside the context of the historical space. It is clearly evident that the concept of “nation” for the territory of the Ottoman Empire does not exist in any connection with the term “millet.” At the end of the twentieth century, as well as in the new millennium, the term “nation” as an explanation of the term “millet” is more frequently used, to the disadvantage of the rarer use of its original meaning as “faith” and “religion”. Our study of the available dictionaries on Web portals detected that the terms “religion” and “faith” are lost as any kind of synonyms for the term “millet” (Pandevska and Mitrova).

The issue of the attitude of the MRO toward the domestic Muslim rural population in Ottoman Macedonia is a different topic for discussion which is not incorporated in this analysis.