Novi Pazar
07-31-2012, 11:52 AM
You will see here readers, as Pajsije was initiator of the Bulgars national awakening:
Despite their condition during the early decades of the nineteenth century, it was impossible for the Bulgars not to be affected by the new ideas of national awakening that were stirring the other Balkan nations at that time. The inspirer and initiator of the Bulgarian national revival was Pajsije, a monk from the diocese of Samokov and at one time vice abbot of the monastery of Hilandar, where in 1758 he met JOVAN RAJICH while the latter was collecting material for his history. RAJICH encouraged Pajsije to attempt a similar work on the Bulgars, with the result that in 1762 there appeared Pajsije's Slaveno-bugarska istorija (History of the Slavs and Bulgars), the chief source of which was Mavro Orbini's Regno degli Slavi, published in 1601. "Of Bulgarian sources," says Jirechek, "he knew a few legal documents and lives of the saints." According to F.Kanitz, Pajsije's work is completely uncritical, but marks the turning point in the Bulgarian national revival, since it aroused the Bulgars' love and interest in their own past.
Another leader of this movement was George Ivanovich Venelin, a Ukrainian from the Carpathians who was born in 1802 and whose real name was Georg Huca. The son of a priest, he was also intended for the Church, but later became a doctor, and finally, on encouragement of the Russian historian Pogodin, took up history. In 1829, he published the first volume of his Stari i novi bugari u njihovom politichkom, etnografskom, istoriskom i verskom odnosu prema Rusima (The ancient and modern bulgars and their political, ethnic, historical and religious relation to the Russians). This work, too, is a collection of fantastic tales without any connection with historical facts.
Before these two men began to publish their work, very little had been known about the Bulgars among historians of Europe. In 1771 Schlozer pointed out the need for a Bulgarian grammar and dictionary. In the dictionary prepared in 1787 on the command of Catherine the Great, among a total of twelve Slav languages Bulgarian is not even mentioned and Serbian occupies 5th places. AS late as 1814, Dobrovski regarded Bulgarian as a DIALECT OF SERBIAN. Twelve years earlier, the Englishman Leake published his Tetraglosson, in which the Bulgarian text is written in Greek characters. This work was reprinted in 1804 in Researches in Greece. Not until 1822 was the existance of a Bulgarian language made generally known by Vuk Stefanovich Karadzhic in his book Prilog Petrogradskom uporednom rechiku svih jezika sa narochitom osvrtom na bugarski jezik (An Appendix to the St. Petersburg Comparative Dictionary of All Languages, With Particular Reference to Bulgarian). "With this book," wrote the well-known Bulgarophile Derzhavin, "the Serb Vuk Karadzhich brought into the light of day the Bulgarian language, which eveybody had forgotten. As his linguistic criterion, he took the dialects of Macedonia, i.e., the dialect of Razlog, and illustrated the Bulgarian language with some poems communicated to him by Bulgars from Razlog." Until 1826, Schafarik had not seen a single book in Bulgarian; he "thought that the Bulgars were only to be found between the Danube and the Balkan mountains, and estimated their number at no more than six hundred thousand."
In 1824, there appeared the first Bulgarian spelling primer, compilede by Petar Hadji Berovich; in the following year, a collection of Biblical stories in Bulgarian came out in Budapest, and the year after that, another spelling primer. In 1828, a Bulgarian version of the New Testament, translated by Sapunov and the monk Serafim, was published, and in 1844 Hristaki Pavlovich, from Dupnica, printed Pajsije's Slaveno b'lgarska istorija in a much abridged form. The appearance on the scence of Neofit Rilski, a gifted, industrious and extremely patriotic scholar, accelerated and further strengthened the Bulgars' national and spiritual awakening. Connected on his mother's side with Mihailo German and Marko Georgijevich, who were important figures in Serbia, Neofit was on friendly terms with Prince Milosh and received much help from him. He was himself aware of his calling as a teacher and educational worker, and made great efforts to give of his best. In 1835, the "Printing Press of the Serbian Princes" printed his Bulgarian grammar and Katihiziz (Catechism), and in 1836 his Sluzhba i Zhitije svetoga Jovana Rilskog (Service and Life of Saint John of Rilo). In 1840, he published his translation of the New Testament. For the rest, Bulgarian books were printed in Istanbul, which was becoming more and more spirtual and cultural center of the Bulgars, in Vienna, Belgrade, Bucharest and Ruschchuk (now Ruse). In Salonica, a Bulgarian printing press was opened in 1839: here was printed the paper Solun, which "contained only announcements and advertisements." Early 1859 saw the appearance in Salonica of the paper Bulgariya, organ of the movement advocating union of Bulgaria with Rome. The paper legate, Brunonio, was also working toward the same end, and on december 18, 1860, an agreement was signed for a union: As first archbishop of the Bulgarian united Church, the Pope appointed Josif Sobelski, who was consecrated in Rome on April 8, 1861. On June 18, however, Sobelski disappeared in istanbul; it is believed that he was bound by the Russians and taken off by ship to Russia.
At this time, Istanbul was the Bulgars' spirtual, cultural and ecclesiastical center: in 1849, Neofit Rilski opened here the first Bulgarian church, which, according to R. Grujich, "soon became the rallying point of the movement of all Slavs under Turkish rule for the liberation of their Church." From here, support was given for the opening of Bulgarian schools. Until 1845, these were few in Bulgaria itself, while in Macedonia they numbered no more than four. Serbian schools, on the other hand, were opened in Macedonia from the beginning of the nineteenth century on (in 1813, for example, at Prilep and Kichevo); in the middle of the century their number was about forty, which increased by the Serbo-Turkish war of 1878 to a hundred.
Until 1845, the total number of schools in Bulgaria was thirtyone, and in Thrace eighteen. The number that had been newly opened increased with the passage of time. "The rebellious population felt a need for education." says M.Grigorov. "that offered it by the monastic schools was no longer adeguate.....Workers in the revival movement were engaged in this direction also."
The consequences of this campaign were inevitabble. "from these schools," says Karl Braun-Wiesbaden, "and also with the aid of leaflets and books, a slavic consciousness was spread abroad. Whereas before, people did not know themselves whether they were Serbs or Illyrians, Rumanians or Greeks, now they began to consider themselves Slavs and proteges of Orthodox Holy Russia."
It was in the schools, especially those attended by Bulgarian youths abroad, that the first generations of the Bulgarian intelligentsia were fired by the spirit of national revolution. Their chief desire was to win their national freedom, bbut they were undecided as to the lines along which their efforts should be directed. As a result of Venelin's influence, many of them conceived the ambition of resurrecting the great Bulgarian empire that had existed under Simeon. Representing somewhat later the ideas of this generation, Ivan Vazov dreamed of a Bulgaria that should embrace the entire area from the Black Sea to Lake Ohrid and from the Danube to the mouths of the Struma and Marica." In practice , however, the Bulgars failed to raise a single rebellion in any way resembling those of the Greeks or the Serbs: under the influence of the revolutionary ideas current at the time, they did plan an insurrection in early 1849, but the total result was a rising confined to the area around Vidin. On April 10, 1849, Illija Garashanin wrote to Stevan Knichanin: "Some expression of discontent has broken out in Bulgaria, but in my opinion it won't come to anything in the end."
A sober observer well acquainted with the true state of affairs, Garashanin even recommended the Bulgars not to rebel. In a circular addressed to district commanders and dated March 19, 1849, he instructed them, if they were in contact with people from Bulgaria, to persuade them that it was inexpedient to raise a rebellion, since "Serbia would welcome their liberation as much as they would themselves, but she sees that the time is not yet opportune, and for this reason wishes to save them from this ill-advised undertaking."
In his Nachertanije (Memoirs), published a few years before this circular, Garashanin showed that he understood the Bulgars' situation and did not resent their unwarlike attitude. "Of all the Slavic lands," he wrote, "Bulgaria is nearest to the imperial capital [Istanbul], and the greater part of her territory is easily accessible; the Turks' most important military positions and more than half of their army are to be found there. In no other European country does the Turk feel so secure, so much the master, as in Bulgaria. moreover, almost all the Bulgars are without arms and have learnt to work and obey: INDUSTRY AND SUBMISSIVENESS have become for them the rule. These observations, however, should not lead us into error of failing to acknowledge the Bulgars' true worth, or, what is worse, holding them in comtempt."
From the time Prince Milosh on, Serbia took a very favorable attitude toward the spiritual and national awakening of the Bulgars, and GAVE WHATEVER HELP SHE COULD. From furishing material assitance and offering facilities for the printing of textbooks and other literature for Bulgarian schools, this ever-increasing cooperation ranged, through the acceptance and maintenance of Bulgarian students, to the conclusion under Prince Mihailo, of an alliance with the Bulgarian revolutionary committee formed at the beginning of 1867. When Panayot Khitrov appealed to them for help in raising a rebellion in Bulgaria, a group of prominent Bulgars in Bucharest refused, justifying their action by the pretext that "they intended to work together with Serbia for the formation, with the latter, of a South Slav state, i.e., to unite the Serbian and Bulgarian popular forces in order to create a strong Balkan confederation." With this in view, the Serbian government enabled S. Rakovski in 1860 to publish his weekly paper Dunavski lebed in Belgrade and in 1865 permitted the publication of the paper Vostok. Moreover, a "Bulgarian legion" was founded in Belgrade to enable Bulgarian revolutionaries, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SERBIAN STATE, to receive military training and prepare themselves for participation in the liberation of their country. At first, their number was a mere 15, but later it rose to 200, and by 1868 there were at least 300. The Bulgars were joined by Serbs from Bosnia and Hercegovina, from Montenegro, Dalmatia and Hungary; there were also a few Croats.
In spite of all the enthusiam and longing to create a single South Slav empire, the Legion disintegrated. The Bulgars rose in protest because Professor Dragashevich insisted in his lectures that Slaonica was in Old Serbia; other grievances were that they had begun to be issued with the same rations as members of the Serbian forces and that their pay had been reduced from one ducat to one ruble per month.
Before the emergence of the Exarchate, Serbia assisted the Bulgarian cause in other ways. In 1860, the Serbian Academic Society fiananced the publication of the first volume of Stevan Verkovich's collection of folk poems of the Macedonian Bulgars, although it refused to back the publication of materials on Southern Serbia assembled by Milosh Milojevich. Verkovich, who, from being a Catholic theologian, became a supporter of Ljudevit Gaj and later a close collaborator of Garashanin in promoting the Serbian cause in Macedonia, is an extremely problematical figure. There is not evidence whatsoever that he refused Garashanin's proposal to work on Serbia's behalf or that he only in 1862 became "head and leader of a secret Serbian mission in Macedonia, a position which he held until 1875." On August 8, 1848, Garashanin wrote to Timotej Knezhevich, head of the Prince's chancellery: "The bearer of this letter is named Verkovich, and comes from Bosnia [he was born in the village of Uljar, in Posavina, in 1827]. For the most part, especially recently, he has lived in Croatia. He has been in Serbia, once before, and was employed to give information about Turkish Albania....It is best that you send him away immediately. He needs money to cover his travelling expenses, and from the little l have with me l have been unable to give him anything. Would you therefore give him fifty ducats from the police fund and make a note that they have been given to him." Verkovich's mystification over the epos "Veda Slovenska" for long engaged the interest of academic circles.
In 1868, Verkovich published in Moscow his work Opis nachina Zhivota makedonskih bugara (Description of the Macedonian Bulgars' way of life), which was dedicated to Princess Julija, wife of Prince Mihail. An adriot and versatile schemer, Verkovich succeeded at one time in creating a name for himself. In fact, he belonged to the type that knows how to serve several masters simultaneously: while working for Garashanin, he was collecting material for count Ignatiev, using the Russian consul at Salonica as an intermediary. It was on the basis of this-incidentally inaccurate-ethnograhical and statistical material that the frontiers of San Stefano Bulgaria were subsequently carved out.
In 1861, Josif Juraj Strosmajer enabled the publication in Zagreb of an anthology of Bulgarian folk poems collected by the Miladinov brothers, from Struga. On November 15, 1926, Kresimir Ivachich wrote: "Strosmajer sent the brothers Dimitrije and Kosta Miladinov to do educational work in Macedonia. With his material assistance, they published in 1861 the first collection of Macedonian folk poems."
The notion that the whole of Macedonia was inhabited only by Bulgars-that is, that all Slavs in Turkey were Bulgars, with the exception of those in Bosnia and Hercegovina, which had not been incorporated in the Serbian state- was reinforced by the mistake in 1817 by Schafarik, who, in his Slovensky zemljovid (Geography of the Slavs), published in Prague in that year, designated all the Serbbian lands south of the frontiers of the Serbian state of that time as Bulgarian. Schafarik's example was followed by Dimitrije Davidovich, who published, as an appendix to his istorija srpskog naroda (History of the Serbian People), a map entitled "The Lands Inhabited by the Serbbs." The first edition of this work came out in Vienna in 1821, and the second was issued at the expense of the Serbian government. Justifying Bbulgarian territorial ambitions on the basis of Serbian sources, D. Rizov quoted Davidovich: "On the map and in the book to which it is appended, not only Macedonia, but also the towns of Nish, Leskovac, Vranje, Pirot, Pristina and even Novi Pazar, lie outside the frontiers of the Serbian tribe."
Despite their condition during the early decades of the nineteenth century, it was impossible for the Bulgars not to be affected by the new ideas of national awakening that were stirring the other Balkan nations at that time. The inspirer and initiator of the Bulgarian national revival was Pajsije, a monk from the diocese of Samokov and at one time vice abbot of the monastery of Hilandar, where in 1758 he met JOVAN RAJICH while the latter was collecting material for his history. RAJICH encouraged Pajsije to attempt a similar work on the Bulgars, with the result that in 1762 there appeared Pajsije's Slaveno-bugarska istorija (History of the Slavs and Bulgars), the chief source of which was Mavro Orbini's Regno degli Slavi, published in 1601. "Of Bulgarian sources," says Jirechek, "he knew a few legal documents and lives of the saints." According to F.Kanitz, Pajsije's work is completely uncritical, but marks the turning point in the Bulgarian national revival, since it aroused the Bulgars' love and interest in their own past.
Another leader of this movement was George Ivanovich Venelin, a Ukrainian from the Carpathians who was born in 1802 and whose real name was Georg Huca. The son of a priest, he was also intended for the Church, but later became a doctor, and finally, on encouragement of the Russian historian Pogodin, took up history. In 1829, he published the first volume of his Stari i novi bugari u njihovom politichkom, etnografskom, istoriskom i verskom odnosu prema Rusima (The ancient and modern bulgars and their political, ethnic, historical and religious relation to the Russians). This work, too, is a collection of fantastic tales without any connection with historical facts.
Before these two men began to publish their work, very little had been known about the Bulgars among historians of Europe. In 1771 Schlozer pointed out the need for a Bulgarian grammar and dictionary. In the dictionary prepared in 1787 on the command of Catherine the Great, among a total of twelve Slav languages Bulgarian is not even mentioned and Serbian occupies 5th places. AS late as 1814, Dobrovski regarded Bulgarian as a DIALECT OF SERBIAN. Twelve years earlier, the Englishman Leake published his Tetraglosson, in which the Bulgarian text is written in Greek characters. This work was reprinted in 1804 in Researches in Greece. Not until 1822 was the existance of a Bulgarian language made generally known by Vuk Stefanovich Karadzhic in his book Prilog Petrogradskom uporednom rechiku svih jezika sa narochitom osvrtom na bugarski jezik (An Appendix to the St. Petersburg Comparative Dictionary of All Languages, With Particular Reference to Bulgarian). "With this book," wrote the well-known Bulgarophile Derzhavin, "the Serb Vuk Karadzhich brought into the light of day the Bulgarian language, which eveybody had forgotten. As his linguistic criterion, he took the dialects of Macedonia, i.e., the dialect of Razlog, and illustrated the Bulgarian language with some poems communicated to him by Bulgars from Razlog." Until 1826, Schafarik had not seen a single book in Bulgarian; he "thought that the Bulgars were only to be found between the Danube and the Balkan mountains, and estimated their number at no more than six hundred thousand."
In 1824, there appeared the first Bulgarian spelling primer, compilede by Petar Hadji Berovich; in the following year, a collection of Biblical stories in Bulgarian came out in Budapest, and the year after that, another spelling primer. In 1828, a Bulgarian version of the New Testament, translated by Sapunov and the monk Serafim, was published, and in 1844 Hristaki Pavlovich, from Dupnica, printed Pajsije's Slaveno b'lgarska istorija in a much abridged form. The appearance on the scence of Neofit Rilski, a gifted, industrious and extremely patriotic scholar, accelerated and further strengthened the Bulgars' national and spiritual awakening. Connected on his mother's side with Mihailo German and Marko Georgijevich, who were important figures in Serbia, Neofit was on friendly terms with Prince Milosh and received much help from him. He was himself aware of his calling as a teacher and educational worker, and made great efforts to give of his best. In 1835, the "Printing Press of the Serbian Princes" printed his Bulgarian grammar and Katihiziz (Catechism), and in 1836 his Sluzhba i Zhitije svetoga Jovana Rilskog (Service and Life of Saint John of Rilo). In 1840, he published his translation of the New Testament. For the rest, Bulgarian books were printed in Istanbul, which was becoming more and more spirtual and cultural center of the Bulgars, in Vienna, Belgrade, Bucharest and Ruschchuk (now Ruse). In Salonica, a Bulgarian printing press was opened in 1839: here was printed the paper Solun, which "contained only announcements and advertisements." Early 1859 saw the appearance in Salonica of the paper Bulgariya, organ of the movement advocating union of Bulgaria with Rome. The paper legate, Brunonio, was also working toward the same end, and on december 18, 1860, an agreement was signed for a union: As first archbishop of the Bulgarian united Church, the Pope appointed Josif Sobelski, who was consecrated in Rome on April 8, 1861. On June 18, however, Sobelski disappeared in istanbul; it is believed that he was bound by the Russians and taken off by ship to Russia.
At this time, Istanbul was the Bulgars' spirtual, cultural and ecclesiastical center: in 1849, Neofit Rilski opened here the first Bulgarian church, which, according to R. Grujich, "soon became the rallying point of the movement of all Slavs under Turkish rule for the liberation of their Church." From here, support was given for the opening of Bulgarian schools. Until 1845, these were few in Bulgaria itself, while in Macedonia they numbered no more than four. Serbian schools, on the other hand, were opened in Macedonia from the beginning of the nineteenth century on (in 1813, for example, at Prilep and Kichevo); in the middle of the century their number was about forty, which increased by the Serbo-Turkish war of 1878 to a hundred.
Until 1845, the total number of schools in Bulgaria was thirtyone, and in Thrace eighteen. The number that had been newly opened increased with the passage of time. "The rebellious population felt a need for education." says M.Grigorov. "that offered it by the monastic schools was no longer adeguate.....Workers in the revival movement were engaged in this direction also."
The consequences of this campaign were inevitabble. "from these schools," says Karl Braun-Wiesbaden, "and also with the aid of leaflets and books, a slavic consciousness was spread abroad. Whereas before, people did not know themselves whether they were Serbs or Illyrians, Rumanians or Greeks, now they began to consider themselves Slavs and proteges of Orthodox Holy Russia."
It was in the schools, especially those attended by Bulgarian youths abroad, that the first generations of the Bulgarian intelligentsia were fired by the spirit of national revolution. Their chief desire was to win their national freedom, bbut they were undecided as to the lines along which their efforts should be directed. As a result of Venelin's influence, many of them conceived the ambition of resurrecting the great Bulgarian empire that had existed under Simeon. Representing somewhat later the ideas of this generation, Ivan Vazov dreamed of a Bulgaria that should embrace the entire area from the Black Sea to Lake Ohrid and from the Danube to the mouths of the Struma and Marica." In practice , however, the Bulgars failed to raise a single rebellion in any way resembling those of the Greeks or the Serbs: under the influence of the revolutionary ideas current at the time, they did plan an insurrection in early 1849, but the total result was a rising confined to the area around Vidin. On April 10, 1849, Illija Garashanin wrote to Stevan Knichanin: "Some expression of discontent has broken out in Bulgaria, but in my opinion it won't come to anything in the end."
A sober observer well acquainted with the true state of affairs, Garashanin even recommended the Bulgars not to rebel. In a circular addressed to district commanders and dated March 19, 1849, he instructed them, if they were in contact with people from Bulgaria, to persuade them that it was inexpedient to raise a rebellion, since "Serbia would welcome their liberation as much as they would themselves, but she sees that the time is not yet opportune, and for this reason wishes to save them from this ill-advised undertaking."
In his Nachertanije (Memoirs), published a few years before this circular, Garashanin showed that he understood the Bulgars' situation and did not resent their unwarlike attitude. "Of all the Slavic lands," he wrote, "Bulgaria is nearest to the imperial capital [Istanbul], and the greater part of her territory is easily accessible; the Turks' most important military positions and more than half of their army are to be found there. In no other European country does the Turk feel so secure, so much the master, as in Bulgaria. moreover, almost all the Bulgars are without arms and have learnt to work and obey: INDUSTRY AND SUBMISSIVENESS have become for them the rule. These observations, however, should not lead us into error of failing to acknowledge the Bulgars' true worth, or, what is worse, holding them in comtempt."
From the time Prince Milosh on, Serbia took a very favorable attitude toward the spiritual and national awakening of the Bulgars, and GAVE WHATEVER HELP SHE COULD. From furishing material assitance and offering facilities for the printing of textbooks and other literature for Bulgarian schools, this ever-increasing cooperation ranged, through the acceptance and maintenance of Bulgarian students, to the conclusion under Prince Mihailo, of an alliance with the Bulgarian revolutionary committee formed at the beginning of 1867. When Panayot Khitrov appealed to them for help in raising a rebellion in Bulgaria, a group of prominent Bulgars in Bucharest refused, justifying their action by the pretext that "they intended to work together with Serbia for the formation, with the latter, of a South Slav state, i.e., to unite the Serbian and Bulgarian popular forces in order to create a strong Balkan confederation." With this in view, the Serbian government enabled S. Rakovski in 1860 to publish his weekly paper Dunavski lebed in Belgrade and in 1865 permitted the publication of the paper Vostok. Moreover, a "Bulgarian legion" was founded in Belgrade to enable Bulgarian revolutionaries, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SERBIAN STATE, to receive military training and prepare themselves for participation in the liberation of their country. At first, their number was a mere 15, but later it rose to 200, and by 1868 there were at least 300. The Bulgars were joined by Serbs from Bosnia and Hercegovina, from Montenegro, Dalmatia and Hungary; there were also a few Croats.
In spite of all the enthusiam and longing to create a single South Slav empire, the Legion disintegrated. The Bulgars rose in protest because Professor Dragashevich insisted in his lectures that Slaonica was in Old Serbia; other grievances were that they had begun to be issued with the same rations as members of the Serbian forces and that their pay had been reduced from one ducat to one ruble per month.
Before the emergence of the Exarchate, Serbia assisted the Bulgarian cause in other ways. In 1860, the Serbian Academic Society fiananced the publication of the first volume of Stevan Verkovich's collection of folk poems of the Macedonian Bulgars, although it refused to back the publication of materials on Southern Serbia assembled by Milosh Milojevich. Verkovich, who, from being a Catholic theologian, became a supporter of Ljudevit Gaj and later a close collaborator of Garashanin in promoting the Serbian cause in Macedonia, is an extremely problematical figure. There is not evidence whatsoever that he refused Garashanin's proposal to work on Serbia's behalf or that he only in 1862 became "head and leader of a secret Serbian mission in Macedonia, a position which he held until 1875." On August 8, 1848, Garashanin wrote to Timotej Knezhevich, head of the Prince's chancellery: "The bearer of this letter is named Verkovich, and comes from Bosnia [he was born in the village of Uljar, in Posavina, in 1827]. For the most part, especially recently, he has lived in Croatia. He has been in Serbia, once before, and was employed to give information about Turkish Albania....It is best that you send him away immediately. He needs money to cover his travelling expenses, and from the little l have with me l have been unable to give him anything. Would you therefore give him fifty ducats from the police fund and make a note that they have been given to him." Verkovich's mystification over the epos "Veda Slovenska" for long engaged the interest of academic circles.
In 1868, Verkovich published in Moscow his work Opis nachina Zhivota makedonskih bugara (Description of the Macedonian Bulgars' way of life), which was dedicated to Princess Julija, wife of Prince Mihail. An adriot and versatile schemer, Verkovich succeeded at one time in creating a name for himself. In fact, he belonged to the type that knows how to serve several masters simultaneously: while working for Garashanin, he was collecting material for count Ignatiev, using the Russian consul at Salonica as an intermediary. It was on the basis of this-incidentally inaccurate-ethnograhical and statistical material that the frontiers of San Stefano Bulgaria were subsequently carved out.
In 1861, Josif Juraj Strosmajer enabled the publication in Zagreb of an anthology of Bulgarian folk poems collected by the Miladinov brothers, from Struga. On November 15, 1926, Kresimir Ivachich wrote: "Strosmajer sent the brothers Dimitrije and Kosta Miladinov to do educational work in Macedonia. With his material assistance, they published in 1861 the first collection of Macedonian folk poems."
The notion that the whole of Macedonia was inhabited only by Bulgars-that is, that all Slavs in Turkey were Bulgars, with the exception of those in Bosnia and Hercegovina, which had not been incorporated in the Serbian state- was reinforced by the mistake in 1817 by Schafarik, who, in his Slovensky zemljovid (Geography of the Slavs), published in Prague in that year, designated all the Serbbian lands south of the frontiers of the Serbian state of that time as Bulgarian. Schafarik's example was followed by Dimitrije Davidovich, who published, as an appendix to his istorija srpskog naroda (History of the Serbian People), a map entitled "The Lands Inhabited by the Serbbs." The first edition of this work came out in Vienna in 1821, and the second was issued at the expense of the Serbian government. Justifying Bbulgarian territorial ambitions on the basis of Serbian sources, D. Rizov quoted Davidovich: "On the map and in the book to which it is appended, not only Macedonia, but also the towns of Nish, Leskovac, Vranje, Pirot, Pristina and even Novi Pazar, lie outside the frontiers of the Serbian tribe."