There is no data available whether representatives from Macedonia attended the First Ecumenical Synod of Nicea in 325. However, the Second Synod at Serdica in 343 was attended by Parigorius, the first Metropolitan of Skopje, and his suffragan the Bishop of Ulpiana (present-day Liplyan); both supported Orthodoxy. The presence of Parigorius proves that there were organized bishoprics in Macedonia headed by metropolitans and bishops since the first decades of the 4th century. In the 5th century the church in Macedonia was well-organized. Of the two metropolitan's dioceses in Thessaloniki and Skopje, the diocese in Thessaloniki was more influential due to its foundation by the Apostle Paul.
The settlement of Slavs in the Balkans, their Christianization and the development of Slavic liturgy and literacy gave a completely new quality to the development of the church in Macedonia. Prince Boris, after the establishment of the Bulgarian state incorporating a part of Macedonia, ordained Clement as Bishop of Dremvica and Velika (893) with a residence in Ohrid, wherein Clement became the first Macedonian-Slavic bishop. The religious service in his bishopric was, of course, held in the language of the Macedonian Slavs, and Ohrid became an educational, literary and a church center. Branko Panov is of the opinion that, nevertheless, the center of Clement's bishopric was located at some distance from Ohrid, because in his Extensive Hagiography Theophylact of Ohrid writes "Clement used to return from Velika to Ohrid to see for himself whether the inhabitants on earth are strong in spirit and whether they resist the fear of God... being at peace in his communication with God in the monastery, the beauty of which he loved and longed for when he was away from it." With the establishment of Samuil's state, the necessity for an independent Macedonian church became imperative. Until the time of Samuil, the church in Macedonia had been under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Patriarchate founded by Tsar Symeon without the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. At that time eparchies are recorded as existing in the Macedonian towns of Voden, Meglen, Serres, Ohrid and Skopje. The success of the komitopulis' uprising and the wresting of Macedonia away from Byzantine rule (the Bulgarian Empire had fallen in the meantime) demanded that ecclesiastical authority be independent of Byzantine authority and lie close to the secular authority of Samuil, both geographically and ideologically. The center of the church moved to Prespa on the island of Achilles, where Samuil built a magnificent church to house it. The relics of St. Achilles were brought from Larissa, which Samuil conquered in 985.
There is no concrete data as to when Samuil created an autonomous Macedonian archbishopric. Logically, it is most likely that he would begin such immediately after proclaiming himself tsar, which suggests the late 10th century. When he transferred his capital from Prespa to Ohrid, he likewise moved the residence of the archbishopric, known hereafter as the Archbishopric of Ohrid.
Durnovo, in his study Do the Bulgarians have Historical Rights over Macedonian Thrace and Old Serbia? writes that it should be recognized that Ohrid was the capital of Samuil's Slavic-Macedonian empire, and although the empire was labeled as Bulgarian it had nothing in common with the former Bulgarian Empire on the other side of the Danube River. The Macedonian Empire was established "... after the Bulgarians were expelled from Macedonia and it possessed its own separate dynasty and bishops". As Samuil's empire expanded, the jurisdiction of his church was extended as well. The first archbishop of the Archbishopric of Ohrid was Philip, who retained this position from its foundation until the murder of Gavril Radomir in 1015. When Ivan Vladislav took the throne, Philip was dismissed from his post.
Samuil's church did not differ from other eastern churches-it enjoyed all the typical feudal privileges, with estates at its disposal, pareikos (serfs) to cultivate its land and exemption from various dues and taxes. Samuil favored the high clergy to a greater and more pronounced degree than other secular feudal lords. "The independent Macedonian Orthodox Church in Samuil's Macedonian state had the final say in the whole of spiritual and educational life, it regulated legal and family relations and united the people under the symbol of its name, in the spirit of the widely-accepted medieval principle of unity between church and state, in accordance with the apostolic theory that there is no power other than that of God", emphasizes Lidija Slaveska. Secular rights, courts and legislation were the three basic functions of the state, but these were effected by the church as well, as it was organized as an independent social community.
In the history of the Macedonian people, Samuil's state and the Archbishopric of Ohrid played another crucial role. Samuil introduced the language of the Macedonian Slavs to state administration, while the church acknowledged Macedonian as well-not surprising, considering it was the language of Cyril and Methodius and their disciples Clement and Naum. The raising of Macedonian to the level of an administrative and ecclesiastic language encouraged the standardization of dialectal forms.
As Samuil's state shrank in later years, the eparchies in areas now outside its borders broke their ties to Ohrid. Consequently, towards the end of Samuil's empire the Archbishopric of Ohrid exercised its power only in Macedonia, where both the clergy and the people belonged to the same ethnos-the Macedonian. The formation of the Macedonian Slavs as a nation was accelerated by the fact that Macedonia was the basic core of Samuil's state and the Macedonian Slavs its core population. Therefore, Archbishop of Ohrid and Skopje and Metropolitan of Macedonia, his Holiness Dositey, was correct in stating that "There is no need to put a particular emphasis on the fact that the Archbishopric of Ohrid, and later the memory of it, was the only source of Macedonian national awareness."
It is significant that Basil II, after the destruction of Samuil's state, allowed Samuil's church to remain autocephalous-separating the archbishopric from the authority of the Bulgarians. In 1142, on the subject of the five eastern patriarchal thrones Nil Doxopatria wrote that the Bulgarian church, like the one in Cyprus, was autocephalous and had never been subordinated to any of the patriarchies. It was an independent church administered by its own archbishops. He also added: "In the distant past this church was not Bulgarian, but it became so later on, when it was taken over by the Bulgarians and when it was named Bulgarian." But Basil II did not subjugate the archbishopric to the Constantinople Patriarchate. Byzantine sources prove that an instrument was thereby created for cultural and ideological influence on the Slavic population in the conquered areas while at the same time the emperor avoided increasing the power of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Branko Panov holds a similar view. Panov, in studying the life of Archbishop Theophylact, the most passionate of the preachers of Graecism on Macedonian territory, arrives at the conclusion that the role of the Archbishopric of Ohrid under Byzantine rule-from the 12th century to the 15th-states that "The essence of the autocephaly of the Archbishopric of Ohrid lay in the fact that the Archbishop of Ohrid was entitled to govern the subordinated eparchies himself [at the time of Samuil there were 32, later 25, with a continual reduction in the number], where he implemented Byzantine ecclesiastic and state policy. All this proves that the Archbishop of Ohrid was independent in respect the governance of subordinated churches of the Ohrid archbishopric; but this did not imply in respect to Byzantine state and church authorities."
Panov's thesis is part of a more comprehensive and accepted scholarly school arguing that, in addition to Theophylact, many of his Greek predecessors and successors linked the independence of the Archbishopric of Ohrid to the independence of the Archbishopric of Justiniana Prima, established in 535. Emperor Justinian I (527-565) was born in the village of Taurision near Scupi. At his birthplace he built the town of Justiniana Prima, and by a law enacted April 14, 535, divided the region of Eastern Illyricum into two ecclesiastic regions: he left the southern part to the Archbishop of Thessaloniki, while establishing the northern region as an independent archbishopric and raising the Metropolitan of Scupi to the level of an autocephalous archbishop. The Archbishopric of Justiniana Prima included the provinces of Dacia Prima (present-day Serbia) including the town of Vidin; Mediterranean Dacia including the town of Serdica (Sofia); Dardania and Praevalitana including the town of Skadar (Skutari); the northern part of Macedonia Secundus including the town of Vilazar (Titov Veles) and part of Pannonia Prima including Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica) and Taurunum (Zemun). In 545, Justinian I subjugated Justiniana Prima to the Pope of Rome and from that time forward its archbishops were subordinate to Rome, as noted by Slavko Dimevski. The Greeks archbishops defended the autocephaly of the Archbishopric of Ohrid not because they wished to preserve it as a Slavic church, but to have a free hand in their broadly conceived program of Hellenizing its Slavic congregation.
In the beginning, the relationship between the Ohrid archbishopric and Patriarchate of Constantinople were cordial enough Archbishop of Ohrid Paisius even conducted the Synod in Constantinople in 1565, when Patriarch Joasaph was accused of immonia. One sign of mutual respect was the act passed at the Edirne Council of May 1697, whereby the leading officials of the Archbishopric of Orhid, the Patriarchate of Pech and the Bishopric of Cyprus were proclaimed "the respected three", equal by law to "God's proclaimed four patriarchates." However, the weaker the Archbishopric of Ohrid grew, the more intense the ambition of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to subjugate it and the territory of its diocese. The intrigues of the patriarchate in time became part of its relations towards its sister church, and during periods of cool Austro-Ottoman or Russo-Ottoman relations this was manifested by constant suggestions to the sultan that the archbishopric was a tool of Rome, Vienna or Moscow. Disagreements within the archbishopric itself were to the advantage of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The break between the two came with the appointment of Ananias, protosingel of Patriarch Ioannikios III the Karatzas, as Archbishop of Ohrid. This was an organized and unprecedented move made with the sultan's blessing: the patriarchate, despite the independence of the Ohrid archbishopric, granted the right of appointment of the Archbishop of Ohrid to a group of six to seven archpriests who, at the time, were in the Archbishopric of Constantinople and inclined towards Greek domination of the church. The action of appointing a new archbishop to the vacant position was, in fact, initiated by Graecophile colonists from the Ohrid diocese in the Turkish capital. While formal appointment was effected, Ananias was not accepted by the people of Ohrid and the archbishopric did not recognize the new appointment. Expelling Ananias from Ohrid was the last success achieved by church autonomists in Ohird-by bribing Turkish officials and supporters of the Greek cause among the high clergy of the archbishopric, the patriarchate detached diocese after diocese from it. Finally, on January 16, 1767, Archbishop Arsenius resigned "voluntarily," saying that "...owing to an inability to put in order and satisfy the needs of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, which arose before us one after the other..." he would resign. Dismissed from his post as archbishop, Arsenius was appointed as Metropolitan of the Eparchy of Pelagonia, but on June 24, 1767, he was driven from there as well, "voluntarily"resigning again.
Immediately after deposing Arsenius as archbishop, Patriarch Samoil Chanjeri obtained from Sultan Mustafa III an irade (decree) whereby the Archbishopric of Ohrid was abolished and the eparchies included within the patriarchate. The irade furthermore left the inhabitants of these eparchies with no right of complaint against such a decision. In order to obliterate the archbishopric totally, Constantinople abolished the Eparchy of Ohrid itself, transferring the regional seat of ecclesiastical power to Durres and renaming the eparchy the Eparchy of Durres. The name of Ohrid itself was changed to Lychnidos, with the aim of wiping out anything reminiscent of the Archbishopric of Ohrid. After 800 years Ohrid was abolished both as center of an autocephalous church and as residence of an archbishop, despite the fact that it had occupied that position since the first decades after Christianity had come to the Balkans. Expressing its gratitude to the sultan, on May 15, 1767, the Patriarchal Synod passed an act where it "explained" the reasons for abolishing the Archbishopric. As with the Patriarchate of Pech, abolished a year earlier, it was alleged that the Archbishopric of Ohrid had been illegally established and non-canonically separated from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Hence, the sultan's edict, whereby the archbishopric was eliminated, was both canonical and "just." Slavko Dimevski notes that even the edict to abolish the archbishopric by the Ottoman Sultan, a sworn enemy of Christianity, was not as cruel as the decision made by the patriarchate to obliterate the existence of the Archbishopric of Ohrid.
After achieving its main objective in the abolishment of the Ohrid archbishopric, the Patriarchate of Constantinople took steps to destroy Slavic spiritual and ecclesiastic life in Macedonia and to impose the laws and customs of the Greek church. The first target of course was the Slavonic religious service; clergy were generally replaced by Greeks and graecomans despite the resistance of congregations soon emerged in Bitola, Ohrid, Skopje, Kukush, Lerin and Tetovo. Although the clergy was dominated by Greeks, the lowest orders remained Slavic-the Greeks eschewed these posts as they brought negligible incomes. During the time of the darkest spiritual slavery under the Pharaniots these Slavic clergy, semiliterate and half-educated, succeeded in preserving the traditions of Clement's church and the Archbishopric of Ohrid.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Macedonia and Byzantium
It is indisputable that the incorporation of Macedonia within the borders of the Byzantine Empire of Basil II and his successors enabled and even strengthened the development of feudal relations in Macedonia. The free rural communities, which had always represented the danger of organized resistance to the authorities, began to dissolve. Although it was a gradual process, their dissolution was accelerated by the increased differentiation among the members of the communities themselves, and by the reduction of the male population by the frequent mass recruitment of soldiers for the Byzantine army. In such a situation, the estates which had been left without family heads were especially attractive to the new feudal lords.
Along with the introduction of feudal lords of Greek and Armenian descent to Macedonia, the number of local, Slavic feudal lords was also increasing. This Macedonian vanguard did not always side with Byzantium, however, and were often inclined towards their own people, finding there support for their own intentions and plans.
The financial policies of Byzantium led to the gradual impoverishment of the Macedonian population. The burden of rent in labor, or angaria (forced labor), was imposed by the state on the entire population, but further imposed by the feudal lords on the peasantry. The castrochityssia, unpaid labor to repair or raise fortresses, was the hardest angaria: people used draft animals to carry construction material to the site where the fortress was being erected or repaired. The population was also engaged in repairing roads and bridges and in building boats without remuneration. Beside the angaria, payments in kind were also imposed: tithes of harvest, fish, livestock, etc.
All this was supplemented by rent in money: after the monetary reform of 1040, payment in currency was generally substituted for payments in kind. In general, taxation of the Macedonian population was considerably increased in the 11th century, the motive for continuous organized and spontaneous resistance in Macedonia against Byzantine rule. Michael Psellus wrote that not "a long time" had passed since Emperor Basil II destroyed Samuil's state and "in such a defeated condition incorporated it under Romaean authority", when the subjugated people began to demonstrate their "former impertinence" again. The Byzantine historian Skylitzes wrote that the people "who had just bent their heads in slavery ... strongly sought freedom. ... The people of Ohrid were ready to arm themselves and to rise against Byzantium immediately after the fall of the town to Byzantine authority." Likewise, in his letters Theophylact of Ohrid often emphasized such desires in his congregation, stressing that the province of Macedonia was always faced with "the ghost of war", as "the barbarians [Macedonians] never stopped thinking about their glorious times."
The substitution of payment in kind by payment in currency, imposed by John the Orphanographer in 1040, was the last straw, and the peasantry rose up in outrage. "The local population could not endure it easily and, therefore, when a favorable moment presented itself with the coming of Delyan, renounced Romaean rule and returned to their former laws," writes Skylites.
Petar Delyan was the son of Gavril Radomir and is thought to have been Samuil's grandson. When Radomir occupied Larissa, he fell in love with a beautiful slave named Irene, and because of her turned out his pregnant wife, the daughter of the Hungarian king. She returned back to her father in Hungary and hence, Delyan was born there. Such was recorded by Michail of Devol in the Vienna supplement to the Chronicle of Skylitzes. The Hungarian historian G. Fecher suggests that when Samuil was still alive Gavril Radomir did in fact turn out his wife (the Hungarian princess), not because of Irene-a legend-but because of cool relations between Samuil and her young brother, King Stephen of Hungary. Samuil had entered into alliance with Prince Ayton of the Banat, Hungary's enemy, an indication that he had turned against the politics of his daughter-in-law's brother. Petar Delyan was born in the female monastery of Wespremvoldi, where the pregnant Hungarian princess stayed after her return from Macedonia. Petar remained there until his coming to the Hungarian court, where he received the title of ban (governor).
The historian Michael Psellus writes: "That tribe of Bulgarians, formerly a cause of numerous dangers and battles... and now weakened in every respect... made efforts to restore its former haughtiness: for some time it did not initiate a public uprising, but when one of those who were ready to incite its impertinence arrived, already strong determination for an uprising had emerged. They were induced to such insanity by a monster, whom they considered to be of their own kin... He, after finding out that the entire people intended to renounce the Romaeans ... at first presented himself as the most worthy and sincere in his counseling, and then as the most experienced in military skill." The words "of Bulgarians" were inserted in one of the later versions of his Chronography by Michael Psellus, the source of the quotation. After the Byzantine-Bulgarian peace treaty of 927, Balkan territories (including Macedonian territories) conquered by the Bulgarian kings Pressin, Boris and Symeon were officially considered to be Bulgarian provinces, and all subjects of the Bulgarian state as Bulgarians. This reference to Bulgarian subjects by official Byzantium sources continued even after the fall of the First Bulgarian Empire in 971 and the establishment of Samuil's empire.
In Belgrade Petar Delyan was appointed tsar "after he had been lifted on a shield by the army." He was met there by representatives of the insurgents who had come from distant Macedonia. His uncle, King Stephen, was probably also involved in obtaining the title of tsar for Delyan. From Belgrade, Delyan set off to occupy Nish and Skopje and, when victorious, advanced to Thessaloniki where Emperor Michail IV was receiving a medical treatment. Frightened the course of events, the emperor escaped to Constantinople, leaving power and his treasury in the hands of Michail Ivec in Thessaloniki, most likely a son of Ivec, one of Samuil's generals. It is therefore understandable why Ivec the Younger joined Samuil's grandson immediately, taking with him much of the emperor's wealth. The turning of coats took place in the vicinity of Thessaloniki rather than inside the town itself, as Delyan's insurgents were not able to occupy the town. But the remainder of Macedonia was taken, as well as the regions around Vitosha, Osogovo and Thessaly, and Epirus and Albania revolted against Byzantine rule. Lacking the necessary strength to resist Delyan, Byzantium undertook a cunning and typical Byzantine stratagem in order to eliminate the new danger. Michael Psellus writes that "The war was still going on when something amazing happened: one of Aron's sons, called Aleutian [a personal acquaintance of Psellus], a man of gentle disposition and brilliant mind, successful and of great importance, became most deserving of the tsar's throne ...When he heard about his people's problem, and found that they, having no imperial descendant, had chosen an illegitimate son to rule over them, he left his children, rejected his wife's love and had the impertinence to set out from the far east to the west ..."
In fact, Aleutian was the grandson of Aron (the brother of Samuil) and as a great-nephew of Samuil was chosen by Michail IV was sent to reap discord among the insurgents. He was welcomed by Petar Delyan as a close relative and, according to Skylitzes, even given 40,000 soldiers to besiege Thessaloniki. The siege was raised by the Byzantines and the army defeated, while Aleutian himself had a narrow escape. Defeated, he returned to Ostrovo, a town between Kostur and Prespa. One day, at a dinner, he "suddenly caught him [Delyan]. cut off his nose, poked his eyes out, doing it all with a kitchen knife", Psellus writes.
Being of Samuil's blood, Aleutian was proclaimed tsar by the army. The new leader secretly advised the Byzantine emperor of this, and at a convenient moment deserted the army for the Byzantine capital: the insurgents, left without a leader, were easily defeated.
In Constantinople the traitor was granted great honors and wealth, while the blinded Delyan was captured and sent to Thessaloniki without giving any resistance. After he conquered and subjugated the Macedonians to his authority, wrote Psellus, and after he appointed strategists in each of the themes, the emperor returned to the capital taking many prisoners with him, among them their illegitimate leader with his nose cut off and his eyes gouged out. The consequences of the uprising were severe, and Macedonia was completely devastated. A considerable number of its inhabitants were enslaved by the emperor, and many lost their estates. In order to break up the ethnic unity of the Macedonians, Constantinople settled foreign colonists in the region.
An additional, small uprising in Larissa, Thessaly, was begun in 1066 by the Vlach population. In a familiar, cycle, the Larissa uprising was also betrayed by its leader, Nikulitsa Delphin, a feudal lord, who took the first opportunity to surrender to Emperor Constantine X Ducas. Although unsuccessful, this revolt sought to spread and include the Macedonian population as well, and did succeed in assisting the beginnings of a latter uprising in Skopje under the leadership of Georgi Voyteh. In 1072, only six years after the uprising in Thessaly, Macedonia was shaken anew by a rebellion triggered by new financial policies of Byzantium following its defeats in Italy and Asia Minor. At the battle of Manzikert, Byzantium was defeated by the Seljuq Turks and thus lost the rich lands of Asia Minor; the occupation of Bari by the Normans cost Byzantium its last possessions in southern Italy. To respond to these emergencies heavy taxation was levied throughout the empire, cutting deeply into the Macedonian population. The uprising of 1072 centered in Skopje and was led by Georgi Voyteh. The insurgents gathered in Prizren and sought the aid of Michail, King of Zeta, who was related to Samuil: Michail was the son of Prince Stephan Voislav, the son of Samuil's daughter Kossara (who had married Prince Jovan Vladimir). King Michail was thus the great-grandson of Samuil and the rebels, respecting his bloodline, applied to him for aid. He had promised in the past that he would support their desire to restore Samuil's empire; he now gathered 300 soldiers and sent them to Prizren, accompanied by his son Constantine Bodin. There Bodin was proclaimed as tsar, changing his name from Constantine to Petar in honor of Petar Delyan.
Nicephorus Bryennius witnessed these events in Macedonia, and wrote in his History: "The emperor Michail [Michail VII Ducas] had many difficulties at that time, because the Scythians [the Pechenegs] made sudden attacks on Thrace and Macedonia, and the Slavs rejected Romaean slavery and devastated and plundered the Bulgarian country. Skopje and Nish were conquered..." As noted in Bryennius's chronicle, the uprising was very successful in its beginning: beside Skopje and Nish, part of the rebels, led by Petrilo, occupied Ohrid and advanced to Kostur, where they were defeated. This encouraged the Byzantines to undertake a counteroffensive, and a huge army, led by Michael Saronit, set out for Skopje. Georgi Voyteh, frightened by the advance, surrendered the town without resistance. Tsar Bodin, who had in the meantime occupied Nish, set back for Skopje. The insurgents and Saronit's soldiers met in a decisive battle near present-day Paun on the plains of Kosovo, where Bodin was defeated. He and Georgi Voyteh were captured and sent to Constantinople. Voyteh died on the journey, but Bodin-after many months of imprisonment-was released after payment of a ransom and returned back to Zeta. On two occasions Byzantium sent armies to Macedonia to put an end to the uprising, and warfare devastated the region. Many towns were damaged, and the imperial palaces built in Prespa during the time of Tsar Samuil were destroyed. Nicephorus Bryennius was a general during the counteroffensive, and by the end of 1073 he "mastered the people of the Slavs" and subjugated it again to Byzantine authority. However, Constantine Bodin could not remain at peace. Theophylact of Ohrid wrote in a letter: "In Ohrid matters are terrifying. The region of Mokra [a part of the Ohrid theme] is seized by the captive [Bodin] and surrendered, while Bagora [a Macedonian mountain] has been occupied by the rebel. In a word, everything is bad."
Devastation, suffering, hunger and death stalked the Macedonian countryside as wave after wave of warfare and rebellion swept through it. Jovan Zvonara in his Chronicle writes that in 1064 "the Gagauz Turks passed the Danube River and halved the entire country along the river. There were 60,000 people, they say, who could carry arms. From there they invaded Macedonia, plundered it and reached as far as Hellas." Rudolf Cadonensi in his Jerusalem Expedition (1083-1085) states that "...the messenger... upset Emperor Alexius: Bohomund Giuscard [son of the Duke of Normandy] crossed the Adriatic and occupied Macedonia." The Byzantine writer Ephraim laments: "Alas! Alas! The town of Thessaloniki has been occupied, I say, the metropolis of the Macedonians."
In 1096, Crusaders of the First Crusade passed through Macedonia on their way to Jerusalem. Robert the Monk, a direct participant in the First Crusader and author of the History of Jerusalem writes that "the Crusaders finally entered a region [Durres] very rich with all kinds of treasures, and going from village to village, from one fortress to another, from town to town, arrived at Kastoria [Kostur] where they celebrated Christ's birth and then rested for a few days. However, when they asked the inhabitants for a market, they could not get it because everyone ran out of their sight, thinking that our people had come to rob and devastate the country. For that reason our people, lacking food, were forced to plunder: to steal sheep, pigs and everything that could be used for food... They left Kastoria and came to Pelagonia, where there was a heretics' fortress, and they attacked it from all sides... While the trumpets blared and the spears and arrows flew, they robbed it and burned down all its riches together with the inhabitants themselves..."
The History of Jerusalem contains a great deal of information about the campaign through Macedonia; for example, the last reference seems to indicate a renewed upsurge of Bogomilism in Macedonia during the time of the Comnenus dynasty (1081-1085). The destroyed fortress in Pelagonia was probably Bogomilean, and the victimized inhabitants were Bogomils.
Only ten years after this, Theophylact of Ohrid wrote to John Comnenus, son of the emperor's elder brother: "One of the monks and clergymen [the Bogomil leader, the priest Vasiliy], to my misfortune, scorned God and became a prey to shamelessness, rejecting the human feeling of shame, and assumed the figure of a harlot, rejected his own image and ate meat rather than fasting, [became] libertine rather than forbearing... That is why I ordered that this contagious and common disease be expelled from these territories. If by chance I capture him, he will die in the tower as a social and state evil."
The Bogomilean and Paulician movements were particularly strengthened after the death of Alexis I Comnenus (1118). Paulicianism emerged as a sect in Western Armenia in the 7th century; its essence is represented by the dualism of God: a god of good and a god of evil. The good god of Heaven, and the bad god of Hell-creator of darkness, the visible world and our bodies. The Paulicians claimed that human beings were created by the Devil and that Jesus was sinless in the imagination only and was not, in fact, real. They also claimed that Mary gave birth to other children as well, in a relationship with a mortal man. The Paulicians denied the official church as Satanic. They held their prayers day and night: in light they prayed with their faces turned towards the sun, at night turned towards the moon. They supported freedom in marital and sexual relations, opposing marriage as an institution of the Devil. Unlike the Bulgarian Paulician church, the Macedonian Paulician church held to a strict dualistic orientation. Before the Turkish conquest of the Balkans, a number of the worshippers of this church grew closer to official Orthodox doctrine, while others, upon the arrival of the Turks, accepted Islam.
Apparently, the execution of Vasiliy and his fellow heretics in Constantinople in 1111 did not affect the spread of Bogomilism. The Hagiography of Bishop Hilarion of Meglen states that Emperor Manuil I Comnenus (1143-1180) himself "almost" submitted to the influence of this heresy, and Hilarion and Theophylact of Ohrid were given exceptional powers by Constantinople to liquidate Bogomilism. The extent to which Bogomil movement had spread in Macedonia is indicated by the fact that in 1140, 1143 and 1156/57 church meetings were held at the Byzantine capital with the sole purpose of determining how to destroy Bogomilism.
In the late 12th century Bogomilism had spread throughout Macedonia; not difficult to achieve, since Bogomilism was anti-feudal in nature, preaching equality and democracy in poverty, living a modest and simple life and disobedience to authorities. All these elements were very close to the thoughts of the Macedonian peasant masses, and they widely accepted the heresy.
In the late 12th and early 13th century, Byzantium was faced with economic, social and political crisis. Under pressure by the Normans, Byzantine rule had collapsed in much of Macedonia, and Byzantine control over acquisitions in the northwest was also shattered. Newly-emerging feudal forces in Serbia and Bulgaria gained strength as serious political factors, and feudal lords of Slavic descent started to enlarge their estates and political power. Among those who broke their ties with the Byzantine court was Dobromir Hrs, the administrator of Strumica with 500 soldiers at his command. He rose against Constantinople and from Strumica occupied the town of Prosek in 1185, located where the Vardar River passes through the Demir Kapija Gorge. Hrs moved his capital to Prosek, extending his holdings in 1186 to Prilep, part of Pelagonia and some parts of Thessaly. In 1201, the Byzantine army recovered Strumica, Prilep and Pelagonia and advanced towards Prosek; Bulgarian military forces were activated at the same time. In 1203 the Byzantines entered Prosek, occupied it and put an end to the independence of Hrs. In 1204 Constantinople itself was attacked by the Crusaders. Its armed forces were not strong enough to resist either armies of the Crusaders or the fleets of Venice, let alone combined attack. Byzantium collapsed, and a part of Macedonia was incorporated by the Crusaders into the new Empire of Thessaloniki. Some Macedonian towns were garrisoned by detachments of Crusading knights; other Macedonian towns like Skopje, Ohrid and Veria fell under Bulgarian authority.
After the death of the Bulgarian Tsar Kaloyan, Tsar Strez strengthened his authority in Macedonia. Although of Bulgarian imperial descent he was aided by the Serbs in extending his rule over territories along the Vardar River to Thessaloniki and to Ohrid in the west. After his death in 1214, parts of Macedonia including Skopje and Ohrid fell under Epirote authority; ten years later, the Epirotes occupied Thessaloniki. Following their defeat by the Bulgarians at Klokotnitsa in 1230, Macedonia, Thrace and a part of Albania were incorporated within the borders of the restored Bulgarian Empire. In the eparchies as well as in secular administration Greeks were replaced by Bulgarians. The significance of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, Greek by hierarchical composition and function, decreased. In 1241 Macedonia fell under Nicaean authority, and five years later the Nicaeans conquered Thessaloniki as well. After fifty years of turmoil and fluid changes in political authority in Macedonia, in 1261 the Byzantine Empire was restored; but Byzantium ruled Macedonia for only 20 years. In 1282 King Milutin invaded Macedonia, and in 1345 Macedonia was conquered by Stephan Dushan following his occupation of Serres. Only Thessaloniki remained as a Byzantine enclave.
Along with the introduction of feudal lords of Greek and Armenian descent to Macedonia, the number of local, Slavic feudal lords was also increasing. This Macedonian vanguard did not always side with Byzantium, however, and were often inclined towards their own people, finding there support for their own intentions and plans.
The financial policies of Byzantium led to the gradual impoverishment of the Macedonian population. The burden of rent in labor, or angaria (forced labor), was imposed by the state on the entire population, but further imposed by the feudal lords on the peasantry. The castrochityssia, unpaid labor to repair or raise fortresses, was the hardest angaria: people used draft animals to carry construction material to the site where the fortress was being erected or repaired. The population was also engaged in repairing roads and bridges and in building boats without remuneration. Beside the angaria, payments in kind were also imposed: tithes of harvest, fish, livestock, etc.
All this was supplemented by rent in money: after the monetary reform of 1040, payment in currency was generally substituted for payments in kind. In general, taxation of the Macedonian population was considerably increased in the 11th century, the motive for continuous organized and spontaneous resistance in Macedonia against Byzantine rule. Michael Psellus wrote that not "a long time" had passed since Emperor Basil II destroyed Samuil's state and "in such a defeated condition incorporated it under Romaean authority", when the subjugated people began to demonstrate their "former impertinence" again. The Byzantine historian Skylitzes wrote that the people "who had just bent their heads in slavery ... strongly sought freedom. ... The people of Ohrid were ready to arm themselves and to rise against Byzantium immediately after the fall of the town to Byzantine authority." Likewise, in his letters Theophylact of Ohrid often emphasized such desires in his congregation, stressing that the province of Macedonia was always faced with "the ghost of war", as "the barbarians [Macedonians] never stopped thinking about their glorious times."
The substitution of payment in kind by payment in currency, imposed by John the Orphanographer in 1040, was the last straw, and the peasantry rose up in outrage. "The local population could not endure it easily and, therefore, when a favorable moment presented itself with the coming of Delyan, renounced Romaean rule and returned to their former laws," writes Skylites.
Petar Delyan was the son of Gavril Radomir and is thought to have been Samuil's grandson. When Radomir occupied Larissa, he fell in love with a beautiful slave named Irene, and because of her turned out his pregnant wife, the daughter of the Hungarian king. She returned back to her father in Hungary and hence, Delyan was born there. Such was recorded by Michail of Devol in the Vienna supplement to the Chronicle of Skylitzes. The Hungarian historian G. Fecher suggests that when Samuil was still alive Gavril Radomir did in fact turn out his wife (the Hungarian princess), not because of Irene-a legend-but because of cool relations between Samuil and her young brother, King Stephen of Hungary. Samuil had entered into alliance with Prince Ayton of the Banat, Hungary's enemy, an indication that he had turned against the politics of his daughter-in-law's brother. Petar Delyan was born in the female monastery of Wespremvoldi, where the pregnant Hungarian princess stayed after her return from Macedonia. Petar remained there until his coming to the Hungarian court, where he received the title of ban (governor).
The historian Michael Psellus writes: "That tribe of Bulgarians, formerly a cause of numerous dangers and battles... and now weakened in every respect... made efforts to restore its former haughtiness: for some time it did not initiate a public uprising, but when one of those who were ready to incite its impertinence arrived, already strong determination for an uprising had emerged. They were induced to such insanity by a monster, whom they considered to be of their own kin... He, after finding out that the entire people intended to renounce the Romaeans ... at first presented himself as the most worthy and sincere in his counseling, and then as the most experienced in military skill." The words "of Bulgarians" were inserted in one of the later versions of his Chronography by Michael Psellus, the source of the quotation. After the Byzantine-Bulgarian peace treaty of 927, Balkan territories (including Macedonian territories) conquered by the Bulgarian kings Pressin, Boris and Symeon were officially considered to be Bulgarian provinces, and all subjects of the Bulgarian state as Bulgarians. This reference to Bulgarian subjects by official Byzantium sources continued even after the fall of the First Bulgarian Empire in 971 and the establishment of Samuil's empire.
In Belgrade Petar Delyan was appointed tsar "after he had been lifted on a shield by the army." He was met there by representatives of the insurgents who had come from distant Macedonia. His uncle, King Stephen, was probably also involved in obtaining the title of tsar for Delyan. From Belgrade, Delyan set off to occupy Nish and Skopje and, when victorious, advanced to Thessaloniki where Emperor Michail IV was receiving a medical treatment. Frightened the course of events, the emperor escaped to Constantinople, leaving power and his treasury in the hands of Michail Ivec in Thessaloniki, most likely a son of Ivec, one of Samuil's generals. It is therefore understandable why Ivec the Younger joined Samuil's grandson immediately, taking with him much of the emperor's wealth. The turning of coats took place in the vicinity of Thessaloniki rather than inside the town itself, as Delyan's insurgents were not able to occupy the town. But the remainder of Macedonia was taken, as well as the regions around Vitosha, Osogovo and Thessaly, and Epirus and Albania revolted against Byzantine rule. Lacking the necessary strength to resist Delyan, Byzantium undertook a cunning and typical Byzantine stratagem in order to eliminate the new danger. Michael Psellus writes that "The war was still going on when something amazing happened: one of Aron's sons, called Aleutian [a personal acquaintance of Psellus], a man of gentle disposition and brilliant mind, successful and of great importance, became most deserving of the tsar's throne ...When he heard about his people's problem, and found that they, having no imperial descendant, had chosen an illegitimate son to rule over them, he left his children, rejected his wife's love and had the impertinence to set out from the far east to the west ..."
In fact, Aleutian was the grandson of Aron (the brother of Samuil) and as a great-nephew of Samuil was chosen by Michail IV was sent to reap discord among the insurgents. He was welcomed by Petar Delyan as a close relative and, according to Skylitzes, even given 40,000 soldiers to besiege Thessaloniki. The siege was raised by the Byzantines and the army defeated, while Aleutian himself had a narrow escape. Defeated, he returned to Ostrovo, a town between Kostur and Prespa. One day, at a dinner, he "suddenly caught him [Delyan]. cut off his nose, poked his eyes out, doing it all with a kitchen knife", Psellus writes.
Being of Samuil's blood, Aleutian was proclaimed tsar by the army. The new leader secretly advised the Byzantine emperor of this, and at a convenient moment deserted the army for the Byzantine capital: the insurgents, left without a leader, were easily defeated.
In Constantinople the traitor was granted great honors and wealth, while the blinded Delyan was captured and sent to Thessaloniki without giving any resistance. After he conquered and subjugated the Macedonians to his authority, wrote Psellus, and after he appointed strategists in each of the themes, the emperor returned to the capital taking many prisoners with him, among them their illegitimate leader with his nose cut off and his eyes gouged out. The consequences of the uprising were severe, and Macedonia was completely devastated. A considerable number of its inhabitants were enslaved by the emperor, and many lost their estates. In order to break up the ethnic unity of the Macedonians, Constantinople settled foreign colonists in the region.
An additional, small uprising in Larissa, Thessaly, was begun in 1066 by the Vlach population. In a familiar, cycle, the Larissa uprising was also betrayed by its leader, Nikulitsa Delphin, a feudal lord, who took the first opportunity to surrender to Emperor Constantine X Ducas. Although unsuccessful, this revolt sought to spread and include the Macedonian population as well, and did succeed in assisting the beginnings of a latter uprising in Skopje under the leadership of Georgi Voyteh. In 1072, only six years after the uprising in Thessaly, Macedonia was shaken anew by a rebellion triggered by new financial policies of Byzantium following its defeats in Italy and Asia Minor. At the battle of Manzikert, Byzantium was defeated by the Seljuq Turks and thus lost the rich lands of Asia Minor; the occupation of Bari by the Normans cost Byzantium its last possessions in southern Italy. To respond to these emergencies heavy taxation was levied throughout the empire, cutting deeply into the Macedonian population. The uprising of 1072 centered in Skopje and was led by Georgi Voyteh. The insurgents gathered in Prizren and sought the aid of Michail, King of Zeta, who was related to Samuil: Michail was the son of Prince Stephan Voislav, the son of Samuil's daughter Kossara (who had married Prince Jovan Vladimir). King Michail was thus the great-grandson of Samuil and the rebels, respecting his bloodline, applied to him for aid. He had promised in the past that he would support their desire to restore Samuil's empire; he now gathered 300 soldiers and sent them to Prizren, accompanied by his son Constantine Bodin. There Bodin was proclaimed as tsar, changing his name from Constantine to Petar in honor of Petar Delyan.
Nicephorus Bryennius witnessed these events in Macedonia, and wrote in his History: "The emperor Michail [Michail VII Ducas] had many difficulties at that time, because the Scythians [the Pechenegs] made sudden attacks on Thrace and Macedonia, and the Slavs rejected Romaean slavery and devastated and plundered the Bulgarian country. Skopje and Nish were conquered..." As noted in Bryennius's chronicle, the uprising was very successful in its beginning: beside Skopje and Nish, part of the rebels, led by Petrilo, occupied Ohrid and advanced to Kostur, where they were defeated. This encouraged the Byzantines to undertake a counteroffensive, and a huge army, led by Michael Saronit, set out for Skopje. Georgi Voyteh, frightened by the advance, surrendered the town without resistance. Tsar Bodin, who had in the meantime occupied Nish, set back for Skopje. The insurgents and Saronit's soldiers met in a decisive battle near present-day Paun on the plains of Kosovo, where Bodin was defeated. He and Georgi Voyteh were captured and sent to Constantinople. Voyteh died on the journey, but Bodin-after many months of imprisonment-was released after payment of a ransom and returned back to Zeta. On two occasions Byzantium sent armies to Macedonia to put an end to the uprising, and warfare devastated the region. Many towns were damaged, and the imperial palaces built in Prespa during the time of Tsar Samuil were destroyed. Nicephorus Bryennius was a general during the counteroffensive, and by the end of 1073 he "mastered the people of the Slavs" and subjugated it again to Byzantine authority. However, Constantine Bodin could not remain at peace. Theophylact of Ohrid wrote in a letter: "In Ohrid matters are terrifying. The region of Mokra [a part of the Ohrid theme] is seized by the captive [Bodin] and surrendered, while Bagora [a Macedonian mountain] has been occupied by the rebel. In a word, everything is bad."
Devastation, suffering, hunger and death stalked the Macedonian countryside as wave after wave of warfare and rebellion swept through it. Jovan Zvonara in his Chronicle writes that in 1064 "the Gagauz Turks passed the Danube River and halved the entire country along the river. There were 60,000 people, they say, who could carry arms. From there they invaded Macedonia, plundered it and reached as far as Hellas." Rudolf Cadonensi in his Jerusalem Expedition (1083-1085) states that "...the messenger... upset Emperor Alexius: Bohomund Giuscard [son of the Duke of Normandy] crossed the Adriatic and occupied Macedonia." The Byzantine writer Ephraim laments: "Alas! Alas! The town of Thessaloniki has been occupied, I say, the metropolis of the Macedonians."
In 1096, Crusaders of the First Crusade passed through Macedonia on their way to Jerusalem. Robert the Monk, a direct participant in the First Crusader and author of the History of Jerusalem writes that "the Crusaders finally entered a region [Durres] very rich with all kinds of treasures, and going from village to village, from one fortress to another, from town to town, arrived at Kastoria [Kostur] where they celebrated Christ's birth and then rested for a few days. However, when they asked the inhabitants for a market, they could not get it because everyone ran out of their sight, thinking that our people had come to rob and devastate the country. For that reason our people, lacking food, were forced to plunder: to steal sheep, pigs and everything that could be used for food... They left Kastoria and came to Pelagonia, where there was a heretics' fortress, and they attacked it from all sides... While the trumpets blared and the spears and arrows flew, they robbed it and burned down all its riches together with the inhabitants themselves..."
The History of Jerusalem contains a great deal of information about the campaign through Macedonia; for example, the last reference seems to indicate a renewed upsurge of Bogomilism in Macedonia during the time of the Comnenus dynasty (1081-1085). The destroyed fortress in Pelagonia was probably Bogomilean, and the victimized inhabitants were Bogomils.
Only ten years after this, Theophylact of Ohrid wrote to John Comnenus, son of the emperor's elder brother: "One of the monks and clergymen [the Bogomil leader, the priest Vasiliy], to my misfortune, scorned God and became a prey to shamelessness, rejecting the human feeling of shame, and assumed the figure of a harlot, rejected his own image and ate meat rather than fasting, [became] libertine rather than forbearing... That is why I ordered that this contagious and common disease be expelled from these territories. If by chance I capture him, he will die in the tower as a social and state evil."
The Bogomilean and Paulician movements were particularly strengthened after the death of Alexis I Comnenus (1118). Paulicianism emerged as a sect in Western Armenia in the 7th century; its essence is represented by the dualism of God: a god of good and a god of evil. The good god of Heaven, and the bad god of Hell-creator of darkness, the visible world and our bodies. The Paulicians claimed that human beings were created by the Devil and that Jesus was sinless in the imagination only and was not, in fact, real. They also claimed that Mary gave birth to other children as well, in a relationship with a mortal man. The Paulicians denied the official church as Satanic. They held their prayers day and night: in light they prayed with their faces turned towards the sun, at night turned towards the moon. They supported freedom in marital and sexual relations, opposing marriage as an institution of the Devil. Unlike the Bulgarian Paulician church, the Macedonian Paulician church held to a strict dualistic orientation. Before the Turkish conquest of the Balkans, a number of the worshippers of this church grew closer to official Orthodox doctrine, while others, upon the arrival of the Turks, accepted Islam.
Apparently, the execution of Vasiliy and his fellow heretics in Constantinople in 1111 did not affect the spread of Bogomilism. The Hagiography of Bishop Hilarion of Meglen states that Emperor Manuil I Comnenus (1143-1180) himself "almost" submitted to the influence of this heresy, and Hilarion and Theophylact of Ohrid were given exceptional powers by Constantinople to liquidate Bogomilism. The extent to which Bogomil movement had spread in Macedonia is indicated by the fact that in 1140, 1143 and 1156/57 church meetings were held at the Byzantine capital with the sole purpose of determining how to destroy Bogomilism.
In the late 12th century Bogomilism had spread throughout Macedonia; not difficult to achieve, since Bogomilism was anti-feudal in nature, preaching equality and democracy in poverty, living a modest and simple life and disobedience to authorities. All these elements were very close to the thoughts of the Macedonian peasant masses, and they widely accepted the heresy.
In the late 12th and early 13th century, Byzantium was faced with economic, social and political crisis. Under pressure by the Normans, Byzantine rule had collapsed in much of Macedonia, and Byzantine control over acquisitions in the northwest was also shattered. Newly-emerging feudal forces in Serbia and Bulgaria gained strength as serious political factors, and feudal lords of Slavic descent started to enlarge their estates and political power. Among those who broke their ties with the Byzantine court was Dobromir Hrs, the administrator of Strumica with 500 soldiers at his command. He rose against Constantinople and from Strumica occupied the town of Prosek in 1185, located where the Vardar River passes through the Demir Kapija Gorge. Hrs moved his capital to Prosek, extending his holdings in 1186 to Prilep, part of Pelagonia and some parts of Thessaly. In 1201, the Byzantine army recovered Strumica, Prilep and Pelagonia and advanced towards Prosek; Bulgarian military forces were activated at the same time. In 1203 the Byzantines entered Prosek, occupied it and put an end to the independence of Hrs. In 1204 Constantinople itself was attacked by the Crusaders. Its armed forces were not strong enough to resist either armies of the Crusaders or the fleets of Venice, let alone combined attack. Byzantium collapsed, and a part of Macedonia was incorporated by the Crusaders into the new Empire of Thessaloniki. Some Macedonian towns were garrisoned by detachments of Crusading knights; other Macedonian towns like Skopje, Ohrid and Veria fell under Bulgarian authority.
After the death of the Bulgarian Tsar Kaloyan, Tsar Strez strengthened his authority in Macedonia. Although of Bulgarian imperial descent he was aided by the Serbs in extending his rule over territories along the Vardar River to Thessaloniki and to Ohrid in the west. After his death in 1214, parts of Macedonia including Skopje and Ohrid fell under Epirote authority; ten years later, the Epirotes occupied Thessaloniki. Following their defeat by the Bulgarians at Klokotnitsa in 1230, Macedonia, Thrace and a part of Albania were incorporated within the borders of the restored Bulgarian Empire. In the eparchies as well as in secular administration Greeks were replaced by Bulgarians. The significance of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, Greek by hierarchical composition and function, decreased. In 1241 Macedonia fell under Nicaean authority, and five years later the Nicaeans conquered Thessaloniki as well. After fifty years of turmoil and fluid changes in political authority in Macedonia, in 1261 the Byzantine Empire was restored; but Byzantium ruled Macedonia for only 20 years. In 1282 King Milutin invaded Macedonia, and in 1345 Macedonia was conquered by Stephan Dushan following his occupation of Serres. Only Thessaloniki remained as a Byzantine enclave.
The Terms Macedonia and the Macedonians From the Middle Ages and Beyond
Macedonia and the Macedonians appear through the history of the Middle Ages in the Balkans-yet the history of these terms remains a point of controversy today. This phenomenon is not limited to Macedonia, of course: the question of terminology for entire territories and peoples in history sometimes takes an irrational turn, particularly here in the Balkans. Highly-pronounced hegemonistic and nationalist feelings have at times turned medieval-let alone modern-history into a battleground, accompaniment to contemporary chauvinistic euphoria and internecine struggles.
Thus, the Serbs have been named or named themselves as Croats, Rasces, Rascians, Scythians, Serves, Serbes, Illyrians and even Triballis, although "Serbs" was established as the definitive term. Likewise, the Bulgarians have been Slavs, Volgars, Bolgars, Serbs, Goths, Scythians, Huns, Romaeans, Tartars, Mysians, Mysanians and Illyrians. Aleksandar Matkovski recorded in the 19th century that some Bulgarian merchants and Bulgarian revivalists called themselves Greeks, provoking Paisius of Chilandar to exclaim "You, Bulgarian, why are you ashamed to call yourself a Bulgarian?" The Greeks were Byzantines at one time but became Romaeans (or Roumellites) at another, ashamed of the pagan connotations of the term Hellene. It should also be pointed out that by the mid-nineteenth century the majority of Croat revivalists considered themselves to be Illyrians, and the language in which they wrote and spoke to be Illyrian.
Attributing a variety of names and terms to the same region of territory or to the same ethnic population was not limited to the Balkans, of course. The Holy Roman Empire and its hundreds of component parts was primarily composed of Germans, but the territory was not called Germany; the Turks called themselves Ottomans, Ishmaelites and Haggarians. The term "Italy" has applied to a state which has only existed for roughly 130 years; previously, the Italian peninsula had been divided into Piedmont, Venice, Genoa, the Papal States, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and a variety of other small political entities.
A number of Byzantine historians considered Macedonia to be part of Bulgaria, an error later adopted by Western European travelers in their memoirs and writings. Yet, some of them reversed this, calling Bulgaria part of Macedonia. It all depended on which territories were encompassed within the theme (administrative unit) of Macedonia. When Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and a major part of Wallachia were placed under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, they were parts of Macedonia!
When nations and nationalism formed as concepts in the modern period, the history of these "nations" was not limited to only the modern period-their history does not begin at that point, even if modern theories of nationalism did. Rather, the history of these peoples can be traced farther back, despite the inaccuracies of labeling. When Turkish nationalism was constituted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it did not mean that the history of the Ottoman Empire was not a part of the history of the Turks. Part of the history of modern nations is the geographic history of the regions of modern nations and states. There were non-Turks in the Ottoman Empire, but the entire history of the Ottoman Empire is to some degree "Turkish."
The case of Macedonia is similar, if perhaps more complex: the modern Macedonian nation is heir to a rich history. No matter what the Macedonians may have called themselves or been called by others, it is the history of social development that is important. The modern frames of "nations" and "nationalism" are only the latest stages of a continuous historical process, which includes the entire past of the people concerned.
In the course of Byzantine rule over Macedonia and later over the course of Ottoman rule, the terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" were continually used in written documents. Aleksandar Matkovski has made a comprehensive and detailed examination of relevant surviving documents in which these terms appear. Byzantine writers and historians like Skylitzes, Anna Comnena, Nicephorus Bryennius and Niceta Choniat wrote about "Macedonian legions" in their acts and chronicles, while the poet Ephraem calls Thessaloniki "capital of the Macedonians." Jovan Zvonara, referring to the ancient history of Byzantium, writes "Constantine [the Great] inherited Italy and Rome, then Illyricum and Macedonia, along with Hellas and Peloponnesus." His 12th century contemporary Albert of Aachen wrote a history of the First Crusade (1095-1121) in which, referring to the campaigns of Wilhelm II, he writes "...when he went ashore he arrived as far as the town of Thessaloniki, located in the region of Macedonia..." One of the greatest scholars of the 12th century Arab world was Al-Idrisi, whose Geography is chiefly the result of his many travels. Therein, he identifies Macedonia as encompassing even regions along the Danube River from Belgrade in the west to Shumen in the east. "As far as the country of Macedonia is concerned, it includes the towns Naissus (Nish), Atrubi (Pirot), Kukastru (Kladovo), Biduni (Vidin), Aphranisura (Branichevo), Agrisinus (Razgrad) and Masiunus (Shumen)." Al-Idrisi also mentions several rivers in Macedonia: the Voyussa, Devol, Drin, Vardar, Morava and Nishava, while the Strymon Rivor is referred to as the Marmara.
The satirical Tymarion was written by an unknown author in the world of Albert of Aachen, Zvonara and Al-Idrizi-the middle of the 12th century. It provides valuable data on the trade connections of Thessaloniki and Macedonia with the world: "The Day of St. Demetrius [in Thessaloniki] is a very great feast, like Panathenaea in Athens or Pannonias in Miletus. It is a great Macedonian feast and on that occasion, beside the local Macedonian inhabitants, people gather from everywhere: Greeks from the various regions of Hellas, Mysian tribes inhabiting territory as far as the Ister [Danube] and the areas of Scythia: Campanians, Italians, Iberians, Lusitani, Celts from behind the Alps... Goods are brought there from Boeotia and from Peloponnesus, everything that the trade ships import from Italy for the Hellenes. The quantities of goods imported from Franconia, Egypt and Italy are not less... All these merchants bring imported goods directly to ancient Macedonia and Thessaloniki."
Concerning the movement of the Crusading army of Bohomund of Tarentum, William Tirski of France states that "Finally, when they set out on their way and passed through Thessaloniki and through all of Macedonia, after continuous efforts over many days they arrived in the immediate vicinity of Constantinople." A hundred years later, Eustathius of Thessaloniki, a chronicler of the Norman invasion in the capacity of Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, writes in his History of the Takeover of Thessaloniki (1185) that "The reason for fear was the fact that from there [Durres] and as far as the Macedonian town [Thessaloniki] not a single obstacle appeared before them in our country..." Also in 1493, a man named Dancho Macedonian, a rich nobleman of Macedonian origin, was registered in Voivodina.
After the expansion of the Turks into the Balkans, Europe reacted to the Ottoman threat. One plan by Paulus Maurocenus, a representative from Venice to Rome (1461-1462), provided for the inclusion of the Macedonians in actions against the Turks along with the Bulgarians, Serbs, Bosnians and Greeks. It is an interesting fact that the great miniaturist Julius Clovio (1498-1578) called himself "Macedon", because (as confirmed by his biographer) he was of Macedonian origin.
In 1617, Sultan Yahya sought to lead an uprising against the Turks. For that purpose, he arranged a meeting with the Macedonian outlaw Vergo "somewhere in the Macedonian mountains". Vergo promised to help him and even asked Yahya to take the title "Alexander II, King of Macedonia". The latter agreed and in his years of wandering through the Balkans he referred to himself as Constantine the Macedonian. In 1625, during talks with the Cossacks of Zaporozhe concerning an alliance in Macedonia, he introduced himself as "Alexander, King of Macedonia". From such claims his constant companion Marko Pilate received the nickname "Macedonian". There is also a written record which states that in 1361, a man called Tarnoski was appointed commissioner of the peoples of Bosnia, Macedonia and Serbia. In some transcriptions of Dushan's Law Code, Tsar Stephan Dushan was titled as "the honorable and reverent Macedonian Tsar Stephan, ruler of Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Dalmatia, Albania, Hungaro-Wallachia and many other regions and countries..."
In order to strengthen his power throughout the Byzantine Empire, Emperor John VI Cantacuzenus wanted to affirm his power in Thessaloniki where the radical party of zealots who supported Emperor John V Paleologist had decisive influence. Cantacuzenus reasoned that "...it would not be easy for the emperor to attack them, as the whole Macedonia, except Thessaloniki, is already under the authority of the king [of the Serbs]..." Also in 1349, Cantacuzenus writes "And then, when spring came, he [Emperor John Cantacuzenus] decided to return with great military forces and to occupy not only Thessaloniki, but also Macedonia, Thessaly and Acarnania, which were conquered during the war by the Triballi [Serbs]." In late 1350, John Cantacuzenus and Stephan Dushan met near Thessaloniki. where Cantacuzenus said to Dushan: "... despite all, you hold a considerable number of other towns in Macedonia, which were under the state of Romaeans." About this disputable matter Cantacuzenus continues: "If he is not willing [to give up the territories], he [the Emperor of Byzantium] can wage war again against he [Stephan Dushan] who holds all the towns... The inhabited towns and villages around Strymion up to the border of Serres and the mountain of Tanthessan are to be taken over by the Romaeans, while Zihnen, Serres, Melnik, Strumica and Kostur as well as the remaining towns and villages of Macedonia, other than the mentioned towns, are to be possessed by the king [Stephan Dushan]."
On April 26, and again on May 31, 1690, during the Karposh uprising, the Austrian Emperor Leopold issued statements whereby he summoned the Macedonian people to fight against the Turks and promised freedom to them. In the period between 1760 and 1770, the priest Danail from Moscopolis wrote ^etirijazi~nik (the Four Language Dictionary) in Greek, Albanian, Vlach and Macedonian (in the Bitola dialect). Later on, Danail collected lexical material in the Ohrid region for his preparations of the second edition of his ^etirijazi~nik.
Conceiving the idea of forming Russian regiments composed of soldiers from the South Slavic peoples, State Chancellor Count Alexei Bestyushev on December 25, 1750, informed Tsarina Elisaveta Petrovna that such regiments could be formed of Serbs, Macedonians and Bulgarians because "the Serbs, Macedonians and Bulgarians are of the same kin as ourselves". Nine years later, he advised the tsarina that such regiments had been formed, from the "Serbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian nations".
In general, the research of Aleksandar Matkovski on the northward emigration of Macedonians to Voivodina, Hungary and Ukraine gives a clear picture of the individuality of the Macedonians, as well as differentiating them from the Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and other Balkan peoples. Of the comprehensive data about the Macedonians and the Vlachs of Macedonia, worth mention is the decree dated December 24, 1751, by Tsarina Elisaveta Petrovna whereby Macedonians, Bulgarians, Vlachs and other Balkan Christians were allowed to settle in Russia and to serve in special regiments. By the imperial chrysobull dated January 11, 1752, Ivan Horvat (by origin a Macedonian Vlach from the village of Horvat (present-day Arvati in Lower Prespa) was allowed to form cavalry and infantry regiments composed from "the Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Vlach peoples." The decree issued by the Russian Duma on October 19, 1752, allowed refugees from Moldavia, Wallachia, Macedonia and Serbia-but not from other regions-to settle in New Serbia and Ukraine. In New Serbia alone, 124 Macedonians were registered.
The regimental rolls of General Shevich's command contain individual records of 74 soldiers identified as members of the Macedonian nation. The payrolls of General Horvat's regiment are interesting both for the economic data they provide about life in the Russian army-a hussar was paid 18 rubles but an infantrymen received but 16, while a general earned 1,800-but also for its records of the salaries of Major Nikola Chorbe (397 rubles), Captain Todor Chorbe (268 rubles) and Praporshtchik Mihail Chorbe (134 rubles). The Chorbe family originated in Ohrid, suggesting that a number of Macedonians served in the officer corps of General Horvat's regiment.
On May 10, 1759, the Macedonian polevoy hussar regiment was founded, composed primarily of Macedonians, preceded by similar Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian regiments. The regiment had its own flag and its own coat of arms.
Thus, the Serbs have been named or named themselves as Croats, Rasces, Rascians, Scythians, Serves, Serbes, Illyrians and even Triballis, although "Serbs" was established as the definitive term. Likewise, the Bulgarians have been Slavs, Volgars, Bolgars, Serbs, Goths, Scythians, Huns, Romaeans, Tartars, Mysians, Mysanians and Illyrians. Aleksandar Matkovski recorded in the 19th century that some Bulgarian merchants and Bulgarian revivalists called themselves Greeks, provoking Paisius of Chilandar to exclaim "You, Bulgarian, why are you ashamed to call yourself a Bulgarian?" The Greeks were Byzantines at one time but became Romaeans (or Roumellites) at another, ashamed of the pagan connotations of the term Hellene. It should also be pointed out that by the mid-nineteenth century the majority of Croat revivalists considered themselves to be Illyrians, and the language in which they wrote and spoke to be Illyrian.
Attributing a variety of names and terms to the same region of territory or to the same ethnic population was not limited to the Balkans, of course. The Holy Roman Empire and its hundreds of component parts was primarily composed of Germans, but the territory was not called Germany; the Turks called themselves Ottomans, Ishmaelites and Haggarians. The term "Italy" has applied to a state which has only existed for roughly 130 years; previously, the Italian peninsula had been divided into Piedmont, Venice, Genoa, the Papal States, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and a variety of other small political entities.
A number of Byzantine historians considered Macedonia to be part of Bulgaria, an error later adopted by Western European travelers in their memoirs and writings. Yet, some of them reversed this, calling Bulgaria part of Macedonia. It all depended on which territories were encompassed within the theme (administrative unit) of Macedonia. When Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and a major part of Wallachia were placed under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, they were parts of Macedonia!
When nations and nationalism formed as concepts in the modern period, the history of these "nations" was not limited to only the modern period-their history does not begin at that point, even if modern theories of nationalism did. Rather, the history of these peoples can be traced farther back, despite the inaccuracies of labeling. When Turkish nationalism was constituted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it did not mean that the history of the Ottoman Empire was not a part of the history of the Turks. Part of the history of modern nations is the geographic history of the regions of modern nations and states. There were non-Turks in the Ottoman Empire, but the entire history of the Ottoman Empire is to some degree "Turkish."
The case of Macedonia is similar, if perhaps more complex: the modern Macedonian nation is heir to a rich history. No matter what the Macedonians may have called themselves or been called by others, it is the history of social development that is important. The modern frames of "nations" and "nationalism" are only the latest stages of a continuous historical process, which includes the entire past of the people concerned.
In the course of Byzantine rule over Macedonia and later over the course of Ottoman rule, the terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" were continually used in written documents. Aleksandar Matkovski has made a comprehensive and detailed examination of relevant surviving documents in which these terms appear. Byzantine writers and historians like Skylitzes, Anna Comnena, Nicephorus Bryennius and Niceta Choniat wrote about "Macedonian legions" in their acts and chronicles, while the poet Ephraem calls Thessaloniki "capital of the Macedonians." Jovan Zvonara, referring to the ancient history of Byzantium, writes "Constantine [the Great] inherited Italy and Rome, then Illyricum and Macedonia, along with Hellas and Peloponnesus." His 12th century contemporary Albert of Aachen wrote a history of the First Crusade (1095-1121) in which, referring to the campaigns of Wilhelm II, he writes "...when he went ashore he arrived as far as the town of Thessaloniki, located in the region of Macedonia..." One of the greatest scholars of the 12th century Arab world was Al-Idrisi, whose Geography is chiefly the result of his many travels. Therein, he identifies Macedonia as encompassing even regions along the Danube River from Belgrade in the west to Shumen in the east. "As far as the country of Macedonia is concerned, it includes the towns Naissus (Nish), Atrubi (Pirot), Kukastru (Kladovo), Biduni (Vidin), Aphranisura (Branichevo), Agrisinus (Razgrad) and Masiunus (Shumen)." Al-Idrisi also mentions several rivers in Macedonia: the Voyussa, Devol, Drin, Vardar, Morava and Nishava, while the Strymon Rivor is referred to as the Marmara.
The satirical Tymarion was written by an unknown author in the world of Albert of Aachen, Zvonara and Al-Idrizi-the middle of the 12th century. It provides valuable data on the trade connections of Thessaloniki and Macedonia with the world: "The Day of St. Demetrius [in Thessaloniki] is a very great feast, like Panathenaea in Athens or Pannonias in Miletus. It is a great Macedonian feast and on that occasion, beside the local Macedonian inhabitants, people gather from everywhere: Greeks from the various regions of Hellas, Mysian tribes inhabiting territory as far as the Ister [Danube] and the areas of Scythia: Campanians, Italians, Iberians, Lusitani, Celts from behind the Alps... Goods are brought there from Boeotia and from Peloponnesus, everything that the trade ships import from Italy for the Hellenes. The quantities of goods imported from Franconia, Egypt and Italy are not less... All these merchants bring imported goods directly to ancient Macedonia and Thessaloniki."
Concerning the movement of the Crusading army of Bohomund of Tarentum, William Tirski of France states that "Finally, when they set out on their way and passed through Thessaloniki and through all of Macedonia, after continuous efforts over many days they arrived in the immediate vicinity of Constantinople." A hundred years later, Eustathius of Thessaloniki, a chronicler of the Norman invasion in the capacity of Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, writes in his History of the Takeover of Thessaloniki (1185) that "The reason for fear was the fact that from there [Durres] and as far as the Macedonian town [Thessaloniki] not a single obstacle appeared before them in our country..." Also in 1493, a man named Dancho Macedonian, a rich nobleman of Macedonian origin, was registered in Voivodina.
After the expansion of the Turks into the Balkans, Europe reacted to the Ottoman threat. One plan by Paulus Maurocenus, a representative from Venice to Rome (1461-1462), provided for the inclusion of the Macedonians in actions against the Turks along with the Bulgarians, Serbs, Bosnians and Greeks. It is an interesting fact that the great miniaturist Julius Clovio (1498-1578) called himself "Macedon", because (as confirmed by his biographer) he was of Macedonian origin.
In 1617, Sultan Yahya sought to lead an uprising against the Turks. For that purpose, he arranged a meeting with the Macedonian outlaw Vergo "somewhere in the Macedonian mountains". Vergo promised to help him and even asked Yahya to take the title "Alexander II, King of Macedonia". The latter agreed and in his years of wandering through the Balkans he referred to himself as Constantine the Macedonian. In 1625, during talks with the Cossacks of Zaporozhe concerning an alliance in Macedonia, he introduced himself as "Alexander, King of Macedonia". From such claims his constant companion Marko Pilate received the nickname "Macedonian". There is also a written record which states that in 1361, a man called Tarnoski was appointed commissioner of the peoples of Bosnia, Macedonia and Serbia. In some transcriptions of Dushan's Law Code, Tsar Stephan Dushan was titled as "the honorable and reverent Macedonian Tsar Stephan, ruler of Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Dalmatia, Albania, Hungaro-Wallachia and many other regions and countries..."
In order to strengthen his power throughout the Byzantine Empire, Emperor John VI Cantacuzenus wanted to affirm his power in Thessaloniki where the radical party of zealots who supported Emperor John V Paleologist had decisive influence. Cantacuzenus reasoned that "...it would not be easy for the emperor to attack them, as the whole Macedonia, except Thessaloniki, is already under the authority of the king [of the Serbs]..." Also in 1349, Cantacuzenus writes "And then, when spring came, he [Emperor John Cantacuzenus] decided to return with great military forces and to occupy not only Thessaloniki, but also Macedonia, Thessaly and Acarnania, which were conquered during the war by the Triballi [Serbs]." In late 1350, John Cantacuzenus and Stephan Dushan met near Thessaloniki. where Cantacuzenus said to Dushan: "... despite all, you hold a considerable number of other towns in Macedonia, which were under the state of Romaeans." About this disputable matter Cantacuzenus continues: "If he is not willing [to give up the territories], he [the Emperor of Byzantium] can wage war again against he [Stephan Dushan] who holds all the towns... The inhabited towns and villages around Strymion up to the border of Serres and the mountain of Tanthessan are to be taken over by the Romaeans, while Zihnen, Serres, Melnik, Strumica and Kostur as well as the remaining towns and villages of Macedonia, other than the mentioned towns, are to be possessed by the king [Stephan Dushan]."
On April 26, and again on May 31, 1690, during the Karposh uprising, the Austrian Emperor Leopold issued statements whereby he summoned the Macedonian people to fight against the Turks and promised freedom to them. In the period between 1760 and 1770, the priest Danail from Moscopolis wrote ^etirijazi~nik (the Four Language Dictionary) in Greek, Albanian, Vlach and Macedonian (in the Bitola dialect). Later on, Danail collected lexical material in the Ohrid region for his preparations of the second edition of his ^etirijazi~nik.
Conceiving the idea of forming Russian regiments composed of soldiers from the South Slavic peoples, State Chancellor Count Alexei Bestyushev on December 25, 1750, informed Tsarina Elisaveta Petrovna that such regiments could be formed of Serbs, Macedonians and Bulgarians because "the Serbs, Macedonians and Bulgarians are of the same kin as ourselves". Nine years later, he advised the tsarina that such regiments had been formed, from the "Serbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian nations".
In general, the research of Aleksandar Matkovski on the northward emigration of Macedonians to Voivodina, Hungary and Ukraine gives a clear picture of the individuality of the Macedonians, as well as differentiating them from the Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and other Balkan peoples. Of the comprehensive data about the Macedonians and the Vlachs of Macedonia, worth mention is the decree dated December 24, 1751, by Tsarina Elisaveta Petrovna whereby Macedonians, Bulgarians, Vlachs and other Balkan Christians were allowed to settle in Russia and to serve in special regiments. By the imperial chrysobull dated January 11, 1752, Ivan Horvat (by origin a Macedonian Vlach from the village of Horvat (present-day Arvati in Lower Prespa) was allowed to form cavalry and infantry regiments composed from "the Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Vlach peoples." The decree issued by the Russian Duma on October 19, 1752, allowed refugees from Moldavia, Wallachia, Macedonia and Serbia-but not from other regions-to settle in New Serbia and Ukraine. In New Serbia alone, 124 Macedonians were registered.
The regimental rolls of General Shevich's command contain individual records of 74 soldiers identified as members of the Macedonian nation. The payrolls of General Horvat's regiment are interesting both for the economic data they provide about life in the Russian army-a hussar was paid 18 rubles but an infantrymen received but 16, while a general earned 1,800-but also for its records of the salaries of Major Nikola Chorbe (397 rubles), Captain Todor Chorbe (268 rubles) and Praporshtchik Mihail Chorbe (134 rubles). The Chorbe family originated in Ohrid, suggesting that a number of Macedonians served in the officer corps of General Horvat's regiment.
On May 10, 1759, the Macedonian polevoy hussar regiment was founded, composed primarily of Macedonians, preceded by similar Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian regiments. The regiment had its own flag and its own coat of arms.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Another evidence, that the Macedonians are not-related with greeks:
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks
Tissue Antigens 2001 Feb; 57(2):118-127
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
Arnaiz-Villena A, Dimitroski K, Pacho A, Moscoso J, Gomez-Casado E, Silvera-Redondo C, Varela P, Blagoevska M, Zdravkovska V, Martinez-Laso J.
HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached:
1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians,
2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum,
3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.
Tissue Antigens 2001 Feb; 57(2):118-127
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
Arnaiz-Villena A, Dimitroski K, Pacho A, Moscoso J, Gomez-Casado E, Silvera-Redondo C, Varela P, Blagoevska M, Zdravkovska V, Martinez-Laso J.
HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached:
1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians,
2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum,
3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.
Ancient and Modern Evidence about the Distinct Macedonian Nation
The long list of modern scholars (among which are Eugene Borza, Waldemer Heckel, A.B. Bosworth, Peter Green, Ernst Badian, Carol Thomas, S.M. Burstain, P.A. Brunt, John Yardley), agree that the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, but a distinct nation. Their views align with the Spanish genetic research above. Eugene Borza, Historian, Professor, and Archeologist, whom the American Philological Association refers to as "Macedonian specialist" has written:
"It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility."
Waldemar Heckel, one of the foremost Alexander scholars in the world, in his Alexander the Great (2004), writes on page 7:
“It is clear from the extant historians that the lost sources made a clear distinction between Macedonians and Greeks - ethnically, culturally and linguistically – and this must be an accurate reflection of contemporary attitudes...�?
In alignment with the genetic results cited above, the ancient Greek and Roman historians also clearly excluded Macedonia from Greece as a distinct country, and the Macedonians from the Greeks as distinct nation. Not one ancient historian wrote that Macedonia is “Northern Province of Greece�? or that the Macedonians are “northern Greeks�?.
The Greek orator Demosthenes, spoke of Alexander the Great’s father Philip II as "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" (Demosthenes, Third Philippic, 31).
Justin, the Roman historian from the 3rd century AD wrote: "Antipater was appointed governor of Macedonia and Greece" (Justin 13.4.5)
Arrian, the ancient Greek historian from the 2nd century AD wrote: "Darius' Greek mercenaries attacked the Macedonian phalanx… the Macedonian centre did not set to with equal impetus… and the Greeks attacked where they saw that the phalanx had been particularly torn apart. There the action was severe, the Greeks tried to push off the Macedonians into the river and to reserve victory to their own side… There was also some emulation between antagonists of the Greek and Macedonian races" (Arrian 2.10.4-7).
Pausanias, the ancient Greek historian from the 2nd century AD wrote: "the united Greeks defeated the Macedonians in Boeotia and again outside Thermopylae forced them into Lamia" (Pausanias 1.1.3)
Plutarch, the ancient Greek historian from 1st century AD quoted Alexander’s words where the king himself separates the Macedonians from the Greeks as distinct nation: “When you see the Greeks walking about among the Macedonians, do they not look to you like demi-gods among so many wild beasts?�? (Alex.51.2)
Conclusion
Please consider the Macedonian position when approaching Stone’s Alexander. Alexander and his Macedonians would have been appalled by Stone who had tried to make them fighting for Greece, when the ancient evidence says they did for Macedonia, because as the ancient authors testify they were not Greeks.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
EVIDENCE OF MACEDONIA IN THE OTTOMAN PERIOD
The establishment of Ottoman Turkish rule, which took place at the end of the 14th century, had two main consequences of a lasting nature for Macedonia and its population. The first consequence was that in the following five hundred years, up to the end of Ottoman Turkish rule in 1912, there occurred as never hitherto nor thereafter an interruption in economic, cultural and general communications over the entire territory. The name of that particular territory, Macedonia, was never questioned in the course of the numerous administrative or territorial changes which took place in the course of Ottoman Turkish rule. One of the strong proofs and indications of this was the "Sketch of the Territory of Macedonia" (resm-i memleket- Makedonya) published on page 277 of the well-known work of the equally well-known Turkish historian, geographer and travel-writer of the mid-17th century, Hadzi Kalfa Mustafa or Katib Celebija. The Venetian captain Gio Mario Delj Angiolelo, a captive of the Turks, traveling overland from the south towards Salonica, wrote in his diary: "8th August 1470. The Sultan halted and put up for the night on the other side of the gorge in a small plain forming the Macedonian border... On 10th August, setting out from Platamon, the Sultan halted and put up for the night in a place called Kitros, in the gulf of the same name. Here there were many saltpans and not far away a large river called the Vardar which flows through Macedonia and into the Gulf of Thessaloniki...". In a telegram of 7th April 1903 from the Grand Viziers's Office is written: "Information concerning the Sultan's command that in all addresses to and announcements in connection with the Rumeli vilayets (the Vilayets of Skopje, Bitola and Thessaloniki): from henceforth the local names are to be used and under no circumstances the name Macedonia". This was a reaction to the persistent emphasis on the name of Macedonia on the part of the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and also by the European press and diplomatic representatives at the time when the decision about an uprising was taken. The second consequence was that the entire population which had been taken was put in the subjugated position of captives, with a serious threat that in the course of time it would lose its identity. Up to the close of the 18th century religious persuasion was the basic yardstick by which the Ottoman Turkish authorities classified the population (the rayah) in the state. Thus all the official censuses carried out in the course of the 15th and 16th centuries, and to a certain extent in the 18th century, described the population of Macedonia exclusively as the "non-believing population" (i.e. the Christian population), the Moslem population and the Jewish population. Such treatment contributed to a great extent to the process of leveling or at least reducing ethnic differences, particularly between the related Slav peoples - which does not, however, mean that those differences disappeared altogether. In this period too there were instances of the presence of a Macedonian national sentiment. In his accounts of his travels the 15th century travel-writer Bertradon de la Broquier writes: "And there are .... many Christians who perforce serve the Turk, such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Esclavoni, Razici, Serbians... and Vlachs... And Angiolelo, whom we have already mentioned, says of Mt. Athos that: "...it is very high, and here are to be found many monasteries of Christian monks, of whom some are Greeks, others Macedonians, Vlachs and even Italians, as well other nations, who live the lives of saints". Despite all the pressures on the part of the alien-faithed and foreign-born authorities, Macedonia in this period too, when it was a deep province of Ottoman Turkey was the scene of efforts to shake off its bondage. Here particular mention should be made of the spiritual leaders of the Archbishopric of Ohrid who approached the courts of Europe with requests for assistance in taking action against their captors. Athanasius, the Archbishop of Ohrid at the close of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries, was outstanding in this respect. The height of the freedom-seeking action of the Macedonian people in this pre-revolutionary period was the Karposh Uprising of 1689. The situation in Macedonia throughout the period of Ottoman Turkish feudal rule is well portrayed in the words of the French Consul in Salonica at the close of the 18th century, Felix de Beaujour: "If one regards Macedonia from the point of view of its natural advantages, one comes to the conclusion that there exists no land in Europe where the people have more prospects of prosperity. But if it is viewed from the aspect of its political forms, one comes to the conclusion that all the misfortunes of the barbarian administration have been assembled here in order to paralyze one of the most beautiful regions of the world in all its richness and variety of products.
AEGEAN PART OF MACEDONIA AFTER THE BALKAN WARS
1. Partitions and Colonization
After the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), the First World War (1914-1918) and especially after the Peace Treaties of Lausanne (1923), which gave the Macedonian issue a central place, there began a great ethnic cleansing of Macedonians, who in 1912 had numbered 374,000, from the Aegean part of Macedonia. Disregarding the principle of respect for minority rights within existing states, the negotiations in Lausanne accepted the principle of an obligatory resettlement of Christians from Turkey (Greeks, Turkophones, etc.) and of Moslems from Greece (Turks, Macedonian Moslems, etc.). Under the convention for obligatory emigration, 350,000 Moslems were expelled from the Aegean part of Macedonia. 40,000 of these were Macedonian Moslems. In place of the Macedonians expelled to Bulgaria and Turkey (a total of 126,000) the Greek state resettled 618,000 persons of Greek and non-Greek origin in the Aegean part of Macedonia. This heterogeneous population, colonized in the Aegean part of Macedonia in the period between the two world wars, came from other parts of Greece, as well as from Asia Minor, the Black Sea region, the Caucasus, western Thrace, Bulgaria and other places. The large majority of the refugee Christian population was settled in villages throughout the Aegean part of Macedonia, thus creating what has become known as the village, or agricultural, colonization; and a smaller number were colonized in towns, creating the so-called urban colonization. 134 This large colonization effected by Greece resulted in a major change in the historical status of the Macedonian language. Once the language used by most, it was now afforded only the status of the language of a minority, or the status of a family language, which was spoken by 240,000 Macedonians. The large ethnic changes were the cause of changes in the status of the Greek language as well. From being the language of a minority, it now became the most used language, being imposed even on the Armenians, the "Turkophones", the in-comers from among the various Caucasian peoples, etc. With the imposition of the Greek language and with the help of mixed marriages, a new Greek nation was being created in the Aegean part of Macedonia. The colonization by this population, whom the Macedonians called madziri (in-comers, foreigners), resulted in the Aegean part of Macedonia losing its Macedonian ethnic character. The Macedonians (240,000) became a minority; they were present as a majority only in the western part of the Aegean part of Macedonia (Kostur, Lerin and Voden regions). The large colonization brought about by the Greeks was followed by a law passed by the Greek government in 1926 on the change of the toponymy of the Aegean part of Macedonia. All villages, towns, rivers and mountains were renamed and given Greek names. The Greek state achieved this through a policy of state terror. As early as the period of the Balkan War of 1913 Greece had begun the ethnic genocide of the Macedonian people. The cruelty displayed by the Greek soldiers in their dealings towards the Macedonian people was merciless. Following the political partition of Macedonia in 1913, Greece launched upon an active policy of the denial of the nationality and the assimilation of the Macedonians. The name Macedonian and the Macedonian language were prohibited and the Macedonians were referred to as Bulgarians, Slavophone Greeks or simply "endopes" (natives). At the same time, all the Macedonians were forced to change their names and surnames, the latter having to end in -is, -os or -poulos. With the denial of the Macedonian nation went the non-recognition of the Macedonian language. It was prohibited, its standing was minimized and it was considered a barbarian language, unworthy of a cultured and civilized citizen. Its use in personal communication, between parents and children, among villagers, at weddings and funerals, was strictly forbidden. Defiance of this ban produced Draconian measures, ranging from moral and mental maltreatment to a "language tax" on each Macedonian word that was uttered. The written use of Macedonian was also strictly prohibited, and Macedonian literacy was being eliminated from the churches, monuments and tombstones. All the churches were given Greek names. The attacks on the Macedonian language culminated at the time of Ioannis Metaxas (1936). General Metaxas banned the use of Macedonian not only in everyday life in the villages, in the market-place, in ordinary and natural human communications and at funerals, but also within the family circle. Adult Macedonians, regardless of their age, were forced to attend what were known as evening schools and to learn "the melodious Greek language". The violation of the ban on the use of the Macedonian language in the villages, market-places or the closed circle of the family caused great numbers of Macedonians to be convicted and deported to desolate Greek islands.
2. The Athens ABECEDAR Case
By signing the Treaty of Sevres on 10th August, 1920, the Greek government undertook certain obligations regarding "the protection of the non-Greek national minorities in Greece". Articles 7, 8 and 9 of this treaty stipulated precisely the free use of the minorities' language, education, religious practice, etc. Bulgaria and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes interested themselves in the implementation of this treaty, and when Greece realized it was in its interest to sign the "Lesser Protocols" (League of Nations, Geneva, 29th September 1924) on the protection of the Greek minority in Bulgaria and the reciprocal protection of the Bulgarian minority in Greece, Sofia launched a campaign in support of the activities initiated by the Joint Greek-Bulgarian Commission for the ,'voluntary" exchange of minorities. Large numbers of Macedonians were forcibly moved to Bulgaria, and Orthodox Christians from Turkey, Bulgaria and other places were brought to the Aegean part of Macedonia where, as Greeks, they took over the Macedonians' property. However, since this met with resolute opposition not only in Sofia but in Belgrade as well, the Greek parliament did not ratify certain relevant clauses of the "Lesser Protocols". In March 1925 the Council of the League of Nations concerned itself with the situation so created and addressed three questions to the Greek government, insisting particularly on a reply on the measures taken with regards to the needs, the education and the freedom of religious practice of the "Slav speaking minority" in Greece. These documents treated the Macedonians neither as a Serbian nor as a Bulgarian minority, but as a "Slav-speaking minority". In its reply the Greek government categorically denied the Bulgarian government the right to be interested in the "Slav-speaking minority", claiming that only the League of Nations could have and had the right to intervene with regard to the rights of this minority. Greece stated that no steps were taken for the protection of the "Slav-speaking minority in Greece" as it had been thought that the convention on reciprocal resettlement would result in "the moving of all Macedonians" beyond the borders of Greece. The Greek government also notified the League of Nations that "measures were being taken towards the opening of schools with instruction in the Slav language in the following school year of 1925/26" and towards granting freedom to practice religion in the Slav language. The primer intended for the Macedonian children in this part of Macedonia, entitled ABECEDAR, was offered as an argument in support of this statement. This primer, prepared by a special government commission and published by the Greek government in Athens in 1925, was written in the Lerin-Bitola vernacular (even though Bitola was not within the Greek borders!) but printed in a specially adapted Latin alphabet (instead of the traditional Cyrillic, which was the official alphabet of Bulgaria and Serbia). Many primers written mainly in Macedonian and intended for schools in Macedonia were published in the 19th century, but this was the first primer for Macedonians written and published by a legitimate government for its citizens and under the aegis of the League of Nations. This significant act on the part of the Greek government was condemned outright by both Belgrade and Sofia. The former proved that those for whom the primer was intended were in fact "Serbs", whereas the latter claimed that they were "Bulgarians". Bulgaria commissioned its outstanding philologists and Slavists to help its diplomats and Belgrade inspired petitions from two ailari villages (written in Serbian!) which were sent to the League of Nations. These petitions stated that the signatories were "Serbs by nationality" and that they demanded their rights "as a national minority" and also a "Serbian school" in order to "protect their language from enforced Graecization". At the same time, propaganda activities were undertaken among the population of these villages, promising free land and Serbian priests and teachers to those who declared themselves as Serbs. The Greek government's immediate response was another petition from the same village (Birinci), signed 16th October 1925, in which the signatories claimed that "in this region there are no Serbs, nor are there any Serbian institutions, and consequently the Serbian language is not used". The League of Nations used this statement to ask, in writing, the following question: the Greek government claims that this population does not speak Serbian, but does not say "what the language they speak in is". At the last moment before the deadline the Greek government replied by cable saying that "the population of these villages knows neither the Serbian nor the Bulgarian language and speaks nothing but a Slav-Macedonian idiom". Thus the Greek government officially recognized for the first time the separate national entity of the Macedonians within Greece's borders, which is also clearly confirmed by the pure language of the pnmer, ABECEDAR, published in Greece. Following the stormy and violent reaction in the press of the three monarchies the Greek government decided, with relief, not to introduce the primer, which was already published, into Macedonian schools.
3. Change of Toponyms
Immediately after the Bucharest Peace Treaty, when it became quite clear that Greece had usurped territory which did not belong to it either by the ethnic structure of the population or geographically, the Greek government conducted a census of the population in the new lands. According to this census the Aegean part of Macedonia numbered 1,160,477 inhabitants. In 1917'the law known under the number 1051 was passed, article 6 of which established the formation and functioning of the town and village municipalities of the New Lands. On 10th October 1919 the Commission on Toponym in Greece issued a circular letter which contained instructions for the choice of place-names. The circular letter from the Commission was immediately followed by a booklet by N. Politis entitled "Advice on the Change of the Names of Municipalities and Villages" (Athens, 1920), published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Greece. At the same time, special sub-commissions were formed in the newly-established districts in the Aegean part of Macedonia, whose task it was to study the problem on the spot and to suggest new names for the villages and towns in the respective districts. In the spirit of this letter, in 1922, the Commission on Toponyms of Greece issued a more detailed statement under the number 426. This Commission had intensified its activities and was now giving concrete suggestions. However, owing to the Graeco-Turkish War, the still undefined peace agreement with Turkey and also the great migrations of the population between Aegean Macedonia and Turkey and the forced movement of an estimated 33,000 Macedonians to Bulgaria (imposed by the Neuilly Convention, signed by Bulgaria and Greece, for "voluntary" resettlement) the process of renaming was slightly slowed down. Thus in the period from 1918 to 1925 inclusive, 76 centres of population in Aegean Macedonia were renamed: in 1918 - one; in 1919 - two; in 1920 - two; in 1921 - two; in 1922 - eighteen; in 1923 - eighteen; in t924 - six and in 1925 - twenty-six. But as soon as the processes of migration came to an end and the position of the state was strengthened, and, following the legislative orders of 17th September 1926, published in the "Government Gazette" N2 331, 21st September 1926, and the Decision of the Ministerial Council dated 10th November 1927, and published in the Government Gazette S2 287, 13th November 1927, the process of renaming the inhabited places was accelerated to an incredible degree. Consequently, in the course of 1926, 440 places in the Aegean part of Macedonia were renamed: 149 in 1927, 835 and-in 1928, 212, i.e. in only three years , 1926, 1927 and 1928, 1,497 places in the Aegean part of Macedonia were renamed. By the end of 1928 most of the centres of population in the Aegean part of Macedonia had been given new names, but the Greek state continued the process by a gradual perfection of the system of renaming, effected through new laws and new instructions. On t3th March 1929 the special law known under its number, 4,096, was passed and published in the "Government Gazette" S-- 99 of 13th March 1929. This law contained detailed instructions and directives as to the process of renaming places. By the force of this law and the earlier instructions, amended by Law Ng 6,429 of 18th June 1935, Law S2 1418 of 22 November 1938, Law N2 697 of 4th December 1945 and many other instructions, legislative orders and other enactments, the process of renaming the inhabited areas has been carried on to this day, taking care of each and every geographical name of suspicious origin throughout Macedonia, including entirely insignificant places, all aimed at erasing any possible Slav trace from the Aegean part of Macedonia and from the whole of Greece. With these laws, instructions and other enactments, the district commissions in charge of the change of place names and the Principal Commission at the Ministerial Council of Greece (established as early as 1909) enforced many more changes. In the period from 1929 to 1940 inclusive, another 39 places in the Aegean part of Macedonia were renamed, and after World War II (up to 1979 inclusive) yet another 135 places in this part of Macedonia were renamed. An estimated total of 1,666 cities, towns and villages were renamed in the Aegean part of Macedonia in the period from 1918 to 1970 inclusive. This number does not include those inhabited places the renaming of which has not been announced in the "Government Gazette", which has been taken as the exclusive source for the figures and the dynamics of renaming given here by years and districts. Neither does it include the numerous Macedonian settlements named after saints, the names of which official Greece simply translated from the Macedonian into the Greek language.
Renamed centres of population in the Aegean part of Macedonia by district
1. Ber - 49; 2. Negush - 16; 3. Greven - 82; 4. Voden - 34; 5. Enidzevardar - 56; 6. Meglen - 48; 7. Drama - 233; 8. Kavala - 24; 9. Pravishta - 36; 10. Sari shaban - 38; 11. Tasos - 3; 12. Katerini 42; 13. Kajlari - 32; 14. Kozzani - 88; 15. Naselichka - 72; 16. Gumendze 29; 17. Kukush - 179; 18. Kostur 104; 19. Lerin - 101; 20. Valovishta 84; 21. Zihneni - 20; 22. Nigride - 35; 23 Ser - 55; 24. Lagadin 76; 25. Salonica - 78; 26. Larigovo - 6; 27. Halkidiki - 40; or a total of 1,666.
Renamed places in the Aegean part of Macedonia by years
1918 - 1; 1919 - 2; 1920 - 2; 1922 - 19; 1923 - 18; 1924 - 6; 1925 - 26; 1926 - 440; 1927 - 835; 1928 - 212; 1929 - 9; 1930 - 7; 1932 - 6 1933 - 2; 1934 5; 1936 - 2; 1939 - 2; 1940 - 6; 1946 - 1; 1948 - 2; 1949 - 5; 1950 - 17; 1951 - 4; 1953 - 22; 1954 - 18; 1955 - 25; 1956 - 4; 1957 - 3; 1958 - 2; 1959 - 2; 1960 - 5; 1961 - 6; 1962 - 3; 1963 - 6; 1964 - 3; 1965 - 4; 1966 - 1; 1968 - 1; 1970 - 1; or a total of 1,646.
I shall give just a few examples of renamed places, rivers, mountains, rivers, lakes and mountains: The town of Voden was renamed Edessa; Rupista - Argos Orestikon; S'botska - Aridea; Postlo - Pella; Libanovo - Eginion; Larigovo - Arnea; ostrovo - Arnisa; Vrtikop - Skidra; Valovista - Sidirokastron, and the small settlements of Barbesh and Kutlesh into Vergina. The River Vardar was renamed Axios, the Bistrica - Alliakmon; the Galik - Erigon, etc. Lake ostrovsko became Limni Arnisis; Lake Gorchlivo became Pikrolimi, etc. Mt. Pijavica was renamed as Stratonikion; Grbovica on Mt. Athos Agion Oros; Karakamen - Vermion, Kusnica - Pangeon, etc. The Voden district became Nomos Pelis; Gumendze district - Eparhia Paeonis; Valovista district - Eparhia Sindikis; Zihnenska ditrict - Eparhia Philidos; Pravishka district - Eparhia Pangeu, etc.
4. Oppressive measures in the period following World War II
The Greek policy towards Macedonians in the course of the Second World War had a dual goal: to maintain the process of the assimilation and de-nationalization of Macedonians and the prevention of the creation and development of a Macedonian liberation movement with a Macedonian national programme in the Aegean part of Macedonia. With this aim in mind, the Greek right wing formed a variety of nationalist and chauvinist organizations in the Aegean part of Macedonia, such as the Protection of Northern Greece (I'VE), the Pan-Greek Liberation Organization (PAO) and others such, as well as a variety of military formations which persecuted the Macedonians, using terror, murder, Mass court proceedings, deportation, plundering, confiscation of property, clearances, resettlement, etc. In the given period 3,482 houses were burned down, 80 villages consisting of 1,605 families were plundered and 1,045 head of large live-stock and 23,382 head of small livestock were confiscated. In order to put the anti-Macedonian persecution on a legal basis the Greek authorities passed laws, decrees and other enactments by which Macedonians were subjected to large-scale persecution. We shall mention only a few such laws: Law N2 453 and Law TOD of July 1945 "on the securement of public safety"; Law 509/1945 "on public order and banditry"; Law 543/45 against organizations and individuals acting in favour of secession from the Greek territories", etc. The anti-Macedonian harshness of these laws surpassed the Compulsory Law S2 2366 of 7th September 1938, passed by Metaxas' regime and aimed at erasing every possible trace of the Macedonian national character of the Aegean part of Macedonia. Under these laws Macedonian men and women, members of the Macedonian national democratic organizations, the National Liberation Front (NOF), the National Liberation Youth Association (NOMS) and the Antifascist Women's Front (AFZ) were proclaimed bandits. As soon as a person was proclaimed a bandit his or her next of kin and any other people who could be suspected of helping him or her were interned, in accordance with the regulations of these laws. Law 543/45 "against autonomist activity" helped rig thousands of charges against Macedonians accused of co-operation with Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in activities aimed at the secession of the Aegean part of Macedonia and similar offences. Special commissions formed in every village or other populated place preferred mass charges against Macedonians to the District Attorney's office, with groundless accusations of collaboration with the occupier, autonomistic activities and the like. In the Kostur region alone 4,500 Macedonian men and women were accused of autonomistic activities, even though most of them were on active service with ELLAS. According to the information available, in the period from 1945 to the end of 1974 9,924 Macedonians were remanded in custody and 4,203 were convicted. 23,811 Macedonian men and women were interned on the basis of decisions of the special Security Commission. It was becoming clear that the Greek authorities were resolved to continue the oppression of the Macedonians, notwithstanding the cost, and thus to force them to flee across the border. The wave of refugees was growing daily. Under the pressure exerted by the Greek authorities entire villages fled across the borders. The most -typical examples of forced migration of Macedonians are to be found in eastern Macedonia, where Greek terrorist bands killed 29 and imprisoned 3,100 Macedonians and expelled 600 Macedonian families across the borders - and this in the period from February to the end of March 1945 alone. The situation was no different in the other areas of Aegean Macedonia. In 1948 the majority of the Macedonian population of western and central Aegean Macedonia fled to Yugoslavia and Albania in order to save their lives. More than 60,000 Macedonian men and women were forced to seek, refuge outside the country, fleeing across the border. As well as all these methods and measures, the Greek authorities attempted one of the greatest crimes against the Macedonians. In June 1946 a group of Greek Members of Parliament suggested that the Greek Parliament issue a decree for the forced deportation of all Macedonians from the Aegean part of Macedonia, a suggestion which was justified by their alleged activities, which were said to be a threat to the integrity and sovereignty of Greece and a danger to the peace. In the period before the announcement of the suggestion and during the debate in Parliament a campaign of slander against Macedonians was carried out by the entire state and propaganda machinery, this being aimed at preparing domestic and international public opinion to regard the eventual implementation of this suggested action as completely justified. Thus Macedonians were described, among other things, as the "Sudetens of the Balkans and it was said that for as long as they were present in Greece they would represent a cause of war and a focus of war among the Balkan lands: or in other words, there would be no peace. For certain reasons both internal and external the Greek Parliament did not pass a decree on the exile of the Macedonians, but the Greek right wing clung to its policy on the exodus of the Macedonians. One of the Crimes committed by the Greek monarcho-fascists was the forced resettlement of their villagers and the dumping of them in special camps in urban centres, which had begun as early as 1946. According to the statistics, 213,000 people were forcibly exited from the Aegean part of Macedonia. The terror, mass murder and other forms of repression proved ineffective when it came to breaking the spirit of Macedonians. Indeed, the Macedonian national liberation movement grew into an important and in certain periods even a decisive military and political factor in the country, one with clear and defined strategic goals. More than 20,000 Macedonians served in the ranks of the Democratic Army of Greece (DAG) and its auxiliary services. The liberated territory, covering mainly the territory of Aegean Macedonia, had popular rule, Macedonian people's schools, a Macedonian people's printing-house which published newspapers and other material in Macedonian, cultural and arts groups and other Macedonian institutions. Faced with the stand taken by the Macedonians the Greek authorities tried yet another cunning manoeuver. In order to shatter the unity of the Macedonian people and of the Macedonian Liberation Movement the Greek government passed, on 23rd May 1949, a strictly confidential decree by which the Macedonians, until then considered "Bulgarians", and other non-Greek elements which were to be uprooted, were renamed "Slavicised Greeks", and were to be treated as such by the Greek authorities: they were thus to be granted all civil rights, and included in all sectors of political and state life and the like. Their being called by the names Bulgarians or Slav Macedonians was strictly prohibited, and the name of "Slavophone Greek" was the only one permitted. The governmental agencies were instructed to adapt themselves and to help the Macedonians in every way possible to develop trust in the state and to seek its protection, so that they would begin to approach government representatives freely for the solution of their problems. This attempt on the part of the Greek right wing also proved to be a total failure. The decree had no effect on the Macedonians. They carried on with their struggle for national liberation and for the affirmation of their national identity with even greater intensity. As a result, the Greek authorities continued and even reinforced the violent repression of the Macedonians. On 20th January 1948 the Greek government passed the "M" Decree ordering the confiscation of the property of those individuals who had taken part in the Civil War on the side of the Communist Party of Greece (CPG) and NOF, and of those who had assisted these organizations and whose Greek citizenship had been revoked. In addition to this decree, the "N" Decree was passed on 2nd April 1948. This decree revoked the right of inheritance of all those who had taken part in or helped the Civil War. In view of the fact that large numbers of Macedonians had taken part in the Civil War, the consequences of this Decree and other regulations were borne mostly by them, but, after all, that was the main intention of the decrees. The implementation of these laws and decrees continued even after the Civil War had come to an end, for they were supported by enactments issued by the Ministerial Council of Greece: Nos. 944/1950; 253/1951; 826/ 1952. All these regulations were sanctioned by article 105, inserted into the Greek Constitution in 1952. The aim of this was to prevent Macedonia ns returning to their homes even after the end of the Civil War. Commissions for the confiscation and expropriation of refugees' property and for the allocation of this to new owners were formed in every district. The property confiscated and expropriated from the Macedonians was allotted to people loyal to the regime and to those who had distinguished themselves in the struggle against DAG and particularly against the Macedonians. Most of these people were brought in from the Greek hinterland. On 23rd February 1953 a meeting of the Greek military and administrative authorities in Macedonia was held in Thessaloniki at which it was decided to propose that the Greek government pass a law on the resettlement and re-inhabiting of the so-called sensitive border areas of the Aegean part of Macedonia. it was suggested that all Macedonians from within 60 kilometers of the border be resettled, as disloyal elements, and that in their place Greeks loyal to the regime should be brought in as "healthy elements" with "pure Greek national awareness . The Greek government accepted this proposal and submitted it to the Greek Parliament which, on 4th August 1953, passed Law NL- 2536 on the resettlement of the population from the border areas. In accordance with the regulations of this law special state commissions were formed which effected the resettlement, selected people of pure Greek origin and established them in the Macedonian border areas, handing over to them the Macedonians, property. Among these people there were Greek nationalists, chauvinists and anti-Macedonians who had distinguished themselves in the struggle against NOF and DAG. A case in point, and not an isolated one, is that of the group of Macedonian villages called Janovenski in the Kostur region, the inhabitants of which had all fought in the ranks of ELLAS. Some of the inhabitants of these villages did not emigrate but were resettled in other parts of Macedonia. When the Civil War ended they requested to be allowed to return to their villages, but their request was turned down and their properties were pillaged and their homes demolished. The court proceedings for the return of their estates have lasted for decades. After the end of the Civil War the question of the confiscated properties became very strained. There were many new laws and regulations on the issue. The aim was to avoid returning the Macedonians' property, to prevent them from returning to their homes and thus to prevent the creation of conditions for the formation of a compact Macedonian population. All this was in the interest of the Graecization of the Aegean part of Macedonia. The problem of the estates was taken care of in Regulations Nos. 3958 and 2951 of 1959, as well as in Law *- 4234, known as "Measures for Public Order", passed by K. Karamanlis's government in 1962, and by the 1972 decree No. 666. Under these regulations Macedonians were prevented from realizing their rights. An enormous number of applications for repatriation were turned down and those few who succeeded in returning could not have their estates back, which forced them to engage in marathon lawsuits which eventually ended to their disadvantage. In accordance with tradition, the Greek church took an active part in the anti-Macedonian campaign. Besides the daily sermons of anti-Slav and anti-Macedonian content preached by Greek priests, the Greek church took measures to force the Macedonians to give a collective and public oath that in future they would not use Macedonian but only the Greek language. In April 1980 the leadership of the Central Committee for Political Refugees (KEPPE) submitted a demand to the Greek government that political refugees be allowed freely and unconditionally to return to their homes. Minister Konstantinos Stephanopulos replied that the request could not be granted, because of national interests. In his explanation Stephanopulos stated that in certain parts of Greece there were areas in which there had lived and still lived people of a reduced national feeling, i.e. territories with a sensitive population composition, so that if a free repatriation of such people were to be allowed, Greece would have to face once again a national issue and danger in certain sensitive areas. Recent history had confirmed this, said Stephanopulos. He went on to offer a precise figure of 40,000 people residing in East European countries (Macedonians) and to say that this did not constitute an issue that concerned Greece. That this was out of the question so far as Greece was concerned. For these reasons, according to Stephanopulos, the Greek government could not accept or apply the principle of free repatriation. When the Pan-Greek Socialist Alliance (PASOK) assumed power, the government of Andreas Papandreou sharpened the measures towards assimilation and de-nationalization even further. On 30th December 1982 this government passed a law on the free repatriation of refugees from Greece, i.e. of those "Greek by birth", by which the Macedonians (as non-Greeks by birth) were deprived of the possibility of returning to their homes, to the country of their birth.
After the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), the First World War (1914-1918) and especially after the Peace Treaties of Lausanne (1923), which gave the Macedonian issue a central place, there began a great ethnic cleansing of Macedonians, who in 1912 had numbered 374,000, from the Aegean part of Macedonia. Disregarding the principle of respect for minority rights within existing states, the negotiations in Lausanne accepted the principle of an obligatory resettlement of Christians from Turkey (Greeks, Turkophones, etc.) and of Moslems from Greece (Turks, Macedonian Moslems, etc.). Under the convention for obligatory emigration, 350,000 Moslems were expelled from the Aegean part of Macedonia. 40,000 of these were Macedonian Moslems. In place of the Macedonians expelled to Bulgaria and Turkey (a total of 126,000) the Greek state resettled 618,000 persons of Greek and non-Greek origin in the Aegean part of Macedonia. This heterogeneous population, colonized in the Aegean part of Macedonia in the period between the two world wars, came from other parts of Greece, as well as from Asia Minor, the Black Sea region, the Caucasus, western Thrace, Bulgaria and other places. The large majority of the refugee Christian population was settled in villages throughout the Aegean part of Macedonia, thus creating what has become known as the village, or agricultural, colonization; and a smaller number were colonized in towns, creating the so-called urban colonization. 134 This large colonization effected by Greece resulted in a major change in the historical status of the Macedonian language. Once the language used by most, it was now afforded only the status of the language of a minority, or the status of a family language, which was spoken by 240,000 Macedonians. The large ethnic changes were the cause of changes in the status of the Greek language as well. From being the language of a minority, it now became the most used language, being imposed even on the Armenians, the "Turkophones", the in-comers from among the various Caucasian peoples, etc. With the imposition of the Greek language and with the help of mixed marriages, a new Greek nation was being created in the Aegean part of Macedonia. The colonization by this population, whom the Macedonians called madziri (in-comers, foreigners), resulted in the Aegean part of Macedonia losing its Macedonian ethnic character. The Macedonians (240,000) became a minority; they were present as a majority only in the western part of the Aegean part of Macedonia (Kostur, Lerin and Voden regions). The large colonization brought about by the Greeks was followed by a law passed by the Greek government in 1926 on the change of the toponymy of the Aegean part of Macedonia. All villages, towns, rivers and mountains were renamed and given Greek names. The Greek state achieved this through a policy of state terror. As early as the period of the Balkan War of 1913 Greece had begun the ethnic genocide of the Macedonian people. The cruelty displayed by the Greek soldiers in their dealings towards the Macedonian people was merciless. Following the political partition of Macedonia in 1913, Greece launched upon an active policy of the denial of the nationality and the assimilation of the Macedonians. The name Macedonian and the Macedonian language were prohibited and the Macedonians were referred to as Bulgarians, Slavophone Greeks or simply "endopes" (natives). At the same time, all the Macedonians were forced to change their names and surnames, the latter having to end in -is, -os or -poulos. With the denial of the Macedonian nation went the non-recognition of the Macedonian language. It was prohibited, its standing was minimized and it was considered a barbarian language, unworthy of a cultured and civilized citizen. Its use in personal communication, between parents and children, among villagers, at weddings and funerals, was strictly forbidden. Defiance of this ban produced Draconian measures, ranging from moral and mental maltreatment to a "language tax" on each Macedonian word that was uttered. The written use of Macedonian was also strictly prohibited, and Macedonian literacy was being eliminated from the churches, monuments and tombstones. All the churches were given Greek names. The attacks on the Macedonian language culminated at the time of Ioannis Metaxas (1936). General Metaxas banned the use of Macedonian not only in everyday life in the villages, in the market-place, in ordinary and natural human communications and at funerals, but also within the family circle. Adult Macedonians, regardless of their age, were forced to attend what were known as evening schools and to learn "the melodious Greek language". The violation of the ban on the use of the Macedonian language in the villages, market-places or the closed circle of the family caused great numbers of Macedonians to be convicted and deported to desolate Greek islands.
2. The Athens ABECEDAR Case
By signing the Treaty of Sevres on 10th August, 1920, the Greek government undertook certain obligations regarding "the protection of the non-Greek national minorities in Greece". Articles 7, 8 and 9 of this treaty stipulated precisely the free use of the minorities' language, education, religious practice, etc. Bulgaria and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes interested themselves in the implementation of this treaty, and when Greece realized it was in its interest to sign the "Lesser Protocols" (League of Nations, Geneva, 29th September 1924) on the protection of the Greek minority in Bulgaria and the reciprocal protection of the Bulgarian minority in Greece, Sofia launched a campaign in support of the activities initiated by the Joint Greek-Bulgarian Commission for the ,'voluntary" exchange of minorities. Large numbers of Macedonians were forcibly moved to Bulgaria, and Orthodox Christians from Turkey, Bulgaria and other places were brought to the Aegean part of Macedonia where, as Greeks, they took over the Macedonians' property. However, since this met with resolute opposition not only in Sofia but in Belgrade as well, the Greek parliament did not ratify certain relevant clauses of the "Lesser Protocols". In March 1925 the Council of the League of Nations concerned itself with the situation so created and addressed three questions to the Greek government, insisting particularly on a reply on the measures taken with regards to the needs, the education and the freedom of religious practice of the "Slav speaking minority" in Greece. These documents treated the Macedonians neither as a Serbian nor as a Bulgarian minority, but as a "Slav-speaking minority". In its reply the Greek government categorically denied the Bulgarian government the right to be interested in the "Slav-speaking minority", claiming that only the League of Nations could have and had the right to intervene with regard to the rights of this minority. Greece stated that no steps were taken for the protection of the "Slav-speaking minority in Greece" as it had been thought that the convention on reciprocal resettlement would result in "the moving of all Macedonians" beyond the borders of Greece. The Greek government also notified the League of Nations that "measures were being taken towards the opening of schools with instruction in the Slav language in the following school year of 1925/26" and towards granting freedom to practice religion in the Slav language. The primer intended for the Macedonian children in this part of Macedonia, entitled ABECEDAR, was offered as an argument in support of this statement. This primer, prepared by a special government commission and published by the Greek government in Athens in 1925, was written in the Lerin-Bitola vernacular (even though Bitola was not within the Greek borders!) but printed in a specially adapted Latin alphabet (instead of the traditional Cyrillic, which was the official alphabet of Bulgaria and Serbia). Many primers written mainly in Macedonian and intended for schools in Macedonia were published in the 19th century, but this was the first primer for Macedonians written and published by a legitimate government for its citizens and under the aegis of the League of Nations. This significant act on the part of the Greek government was condemned outright by both Belgrade and Sofia. The former proved that those for whom the primer was intended were in fact "Serbs", whereas the latter claimed that they were "Bulgarians". Bulgaria commissioned its outstanding philologists and Slavists to help its diplomats and Belgrade inspired petitions from two ailari villages (written in Serbian!) which were sent to the League of Nations. These petitions stated that the signatories were "Serbs by nationality" and that they demanded their rights "as a national minority" and also a "Serbian school" in order to "protect their language from enforced Graecization". At the same time, propaganda activities were undertaken among the population of these villages, promising free land and Serbian priests and teachers to those who declared themselves as Serbs. The Greek government's immediate response was another petition from the same village (Birinci), signed 16th October 1925, in which the signatories claimed that "in this region there are no Serbs, nor are there any Serbian institutions, and consequently the Serbian language is not used". The League of Nations used this statement to ask, in writing, the following question: the Greek government claims that this population does not speak Serbian, but does not say "what the language they speak in is". At the last moment before the deadline the Greek government replied by cable saying that "the population of these villages knows neither the Serbian nor the Bulgarian language and speaks nothing but a Slav-Macedonian idiom". Thus the Greek government officially recognized for the first time the separate national entity of the Macedonians within Greece's borders, which is also clearly confirmed by the pure language of the pnmer, ABECEDAR, published in Greece. Following the stormy and violent reaction in the press of the three monarchies the Greek government decided, with relief, not to introduce the primer, which was already published, into Macedonian schools.
3. Change of Toponyms
Immediately after the Bucharest Peace Treaty, when it became quite clear that Greece had usurped territory which did not belong to it either by the ethnic structure of the population or geographically, the Greek government conducted a census of the population in the new lands. According to this census the Aegean part of Macedonia numbered 1,160,477 inhabitants. In 1917'the law known under the number 1051 was passed, article 6 of which established the formation and functioning of the town and village municipalities of the New Lands. On 10th October 1919 the Commission on Toponym in Greece issued a circular letter which contained instructions for the choice of place-names. The circular letter from the Commission was immediately followed by a booklet by N. Politis entitled "Advice on the Change of the Names of Municipalities and Villages" (Athens, 1920), published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Greece. At the same time, special sub-commissions were formed in the newly-established districts in the Aegean part of Macedonia, whose task it was to study the problem on the spot and to suggest new names for the villages and towns in the respective districts. In the spirit of this letter, in 1922, the Commission on Toponyms of Greece issued a more detailed statement under the number 426. This Commission had intensified its activities and was now giving concrete suggestions. However, owing to the Graeco-Turkish War, the still undefined peace agreement with Turkey and also the great migrations of the population between Aegean Macedonia and Turkey and the forced movement of an estimated 33,000 Macedonians to Bulgaria (imposed by the Neuilly Convention, signed by Bulgaria and Greece, for "voluntary" resettlement) the process of renaming was slightly slowed down. Thus in the period from 1918 to 1925 inclusive, 76 centres of population in Aegean Macedonia were renamed: in 1918 - one; in 1919 - two; in 1920 - two; in 1921 - two; in 1922 - eighteen; in 1923 - eighteen; in t924 - six and in 1925 - twenty-six. But as soon as the processes of migration came to an end and the position of the state was strengthened, and, following the legislative orders of 17th September 1926, published in the "Government Gazette" N2 331, 21st September 1926, and the Decision of the Ministerial Council dated 10th November 1927, and published in the Government Gazette S2 287, 13th November 1927, the process of renaming the inhabited places was accelerated to an incredible degree. Consequently, in the course of 1926, 440 places in the Aegean part of Macedonia were renamed: 149 in 1927, 835 and-in 1928, 212, i.e. in only three years , 1926, 1927 and 1928, 1,497 places in the Aegean part of Macedonia were renamed. By the end of 1928 most of the centres of population in the Aegean part of Macedonia had been given new names, but the Greek state continued the process by a gradual perfection of the system of renaming, effected through new laws and new instructions. On t3th March 1929 the special law known under its number, 4,096, was passed and published in the "Government Gazette" S-- 99 of 13th March 1929. This law contained detailed instructions and directives as to the process of renaming places. By the force of this law and the earlier instructions, amended by Law Ng 6,429 of 18th June 1935, Law S2 1418 of 22 November 1938, Law N2 697 of 4th December 1945 and many other instructions, legislative orders and other enactments, the process of renaming the inhabited areas has been carried on to this day, taking care of each and every geographical name of suspicious origin throughout Macedonia, including entirely insignificant places, all aimed at erasing any possible Slav trace from the Aegean part of Macedonia and from the whole of Greece. With these laws, instructions and other enactments, the district commissions in charge of the change of place names and the Principal Commission at the Ministerial Council of Greece (established as early as 1909) enforced many more changes. In the period from 1929 to 1940 inclusive, another 39 places in the Aegean part of Macedonia were renamed, and after World War II (up to 1979 inclusive) yet another 135 places in this part of Macedonia were renamed. An estimated total of 1,666 cities, towns and villages were renamed in the Aegean part of Macedonia in the period from 1918 to 1970 inclusive. This number does not include those inhabited places the renaming of which has not been announced in the "Government Gazette", which has been taken as the exclusive source for the figures and the dynamics of renaming given here by years and districts. Neither does it include the numerous Macedonian settlements named after saints, the names of which official Greece simply translated from the Macedonian into the Greek language.
Renamed centres of population in the Aegean part of Macedonia by district
1. Ber - 49; 2. Negush - 16; 3. Greven - 82; 4. Voden - 34; 5. Enidzevardar - 56; 6. Meglen - 48; 7. Drama - 233; 8. Kavala - 24; 9. Pravishta - 36; 10. Sari shaban - 38; 11. Tasos - 3; 12. Katerini 42; 13. Kajlari - 32; 14. Kozzani - 88; 15. Naselichka - 72; 16. Gumendze 29; 17. Kukush - 179; 18. Kostur 104; 19. Lerin - 101; 20. Valovishta 84; 21. Zihneni - 20; 22. Nigride - 35; 23 Ser - 55; 24. Lagadin 76; 25. Salonica - 78; 26. Larigovo - 6; 27. Halkidiki - 40; or a total of 1,666.
Renamed places in the Aegean part of Macedonia by years
1918 - 1; 1919 - 2; 1920 - 2; 1922 - 19; 1923 - 18; 1924 - 6; 1925 - 26; 1926 - 440; 1927 - 835; 1928 - 212; 1929 - 9; 1930 - 7; 1932 - 6 1933 - 2; 1934 5; 1936 - 2; 1939 - 2; 1940 - 6; 1946 - 1; 1948 - 2; 1949 - 5; 1950 - 17; 1951 - 4; 1953 - 22; 1954 - 18; 1955 - 25; 1956 - 4; 1957 - 3; 1958 - 2; 1959 - 2; 1960 - 5; 1961 - 6; 1962 - 3; 1963 - 6; 1964 - 3; 1965 - 4; 1966 - 1; 1968 - 1; 1970 - 1; or a total of 1,646.
I shall give just a few examples of renamed places, rivers, mountains, rivers, lakes and mountains: The town of Voden was renamed Edessa; Rupista - Argos Orestikon; S'botska - Aridea; Postlo - Pella; Libanovo - Eginion; Larigovo - Arnea; ostrovo - Arnisa; Vrtikop - Skidra; Valovista - Sidirokastron, and the small settlements of Barbesh and Kutlesh into Vergina. The River Vardar was renamed Axios, the Bistrica - Alliakmon; the Galik - Erigon, etc. Lake ostrovsko became Limni Arnisis; Lake Gorchlivo became Pikrolimi, etc. Mt. Pijavica was renamed as Stratonikion; Grbovica on Mt. Athos Agion Oros; Karakamen - Vermion, Kusnica - Pangeon, etc. The Voden district became Nomos Pelis; Gumendze district - Eparhia Paeonis; Valovista district - Eparhia Sindikis; Zihnenska ditrict - Eparhia Philidos; Pravishka district - Eparhia Pangeu, etc.
4. Oppressive measures in the period following World War II
The Greek policy towards Macedonians in the course of the Second World War had a dual goal: to maintain the process of the assimilation and de-nationalization of Macedonians and the prevention of the creation and development of a Macedonian liberation movement with a Macedonian national programme in the Aegean part of Macedonia. With this aim in mind, the Greek right wing formed a variety of nationalist and chauvinist organizations in the Aegean part of Macedonia, such as the Protection of Northern Greece (I'VE), the Pan-Greek Liberation Organization (PAO) and others such, as well as a variety of military formations which persecuted the Macedonians, using terror, murder, Mass court proceedings, deportation, plundering, confiscation of property, clearances, resettlement, etc. In the given period 3,482 houses were burned down, 80 villages consisting of 1,605 families were plundered and 1,045 head of large live-stock and 23,382 head of small livestock were confiscated. In order to put the anti-Macedonian persecution on a legal basis the Greek authorities passed laws, decrees and other enactments by which Macedonians were subjected to large-scale persecution. We shall mention only a few such laws: Law N2 453 and Law TOD of July 1945 "on the securement of public safety"; Law 509/1945 "on public order and banditry"; Law 543/45 against organizations and individuals acting in favour of secession from the Greek territories", etc. The anti-Macedonian harshness of these laws surpassed the Compulsory Law S2 2366 of 7th September 1938, passed by Metaxas' regime and aimed at erasing every possible trace of the Macedonian national character of the Aegean part of Macedonia. Under these laws Macedonian men and women, members of the Macedonian national democratic organizations, the National Liberation Front (NOF), the National Liberation Youth Association (NOMS) and the Antifascist Women's Front (AFZ) were proclaimed bandits. As soon as a person was proclaimed a bandit his or her next of kin and any other people who could be suspected of helping him or her were interned, in accordance with the regulations of these laws. Law 543/45 "against autonomist activity" helped rig thousands of charges against Macedonians accused of co-operation with Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in activities aimed at the secession of the Aegean part of Macedonia and similar offences. Special commissions formed in every village or other populated place preferred mass charges against Macedonians to the District Attorney's office, with groundless accusations of collaboration with the occupier, autonomistic activities and the like. In the Kostur region alone 4,500 Macedonian men and women were accused of autonomistic activities, even though most of them were on active service with ELLAS. According to the information available, in the period from 1945 to the end of 1974 9,924 Macedonians were remanded in custody and 4,203 were convicted. 23,811 Macedonian men and women were interned on the basis of decisions of the special Security Commission. It was becoming clear that the Greek authorities were resolved to continue the oppression of the Macedonians, notwithstanding the cost, and thus to force them to flee across the border. The wave of refugees was growing daily. Under the pressure exerted by the Greek authorities entire villages fled across the borders. The most -typical examples of forced migration of Macedonians are to be found in eastern Macedonia, where Greek terrorist bands killed 29 and imprisoned 3,100 Macedonians and expelled 600 Macedonian families across the borders - and this in the period from February to the end of March 1945 alone. The situation was no different in the other areas of Aegean Macedonia. In 1948 the majority of the Macedonian population of western and central Aegean Macedonia fled to Yugoslavia and Albania in order to save their lives. More than 60,000 Macedonian men and women were forced to seek, refuge outside the country, fleeing across the border. As well as all these methods and measures, the Greek authorities attempted one of the greatest crimes against the Macedonians. In June 1946 a group of Greek Members of Parliament suggested that the Greek Parliament issue a decree for the forced deportation of all Macedonians from the Aegean part of Macedonia, a suggestion which was justified by their alleged activities, which were said to be a threat to the integrity and sovereignty of Greece and a danger to the peace. In the period before the announcement of the suggestion and during the debate in Parliament a campaign of slander against Macedonians was carried out by the entire state and propaganda machinery, this being aimed at preparing domestic and international public opinion to regard the eventual implementation of this suggested action as completely justified. Thus Macedonians were described, among other things, as the "Sudetens of the Balkans and it was said that for as long as they were present in Greece they would represent a cause of war and a focus of war among the Balkan lands: or in other words, there would be no peace. For certain reasons both internal and external the Greek Parliament did not pass a decree on the exile of the Macedonians, but the Greek right wing clung to its policy on the exodus of the Macedonians. One of the Crimes committed by the Greek monarcho-fascists was the forced resettlement of their villagers and the dumping of them in special camps in urban centres, which had begun as early as 1946. According to the statistics, 213,000 people were forcibly exited from the Aegean part of Macedonia. The terror, mass murder and other forms of repression proved ineffective when it came to breaking the spirit of Macedonians. Indeed, the Macedonian national liberation movement grew into an important and in certain periods even a decisive military and political factor in the country, one with clear and defined strategic goals. More than 20,000 Macedonians served in the ranks of the Democratic Army of Greece (DAG) and its auxiliary services. The liberated territory, covering mainly the territory of Aegean Macedonia, had popular rule, Macedonian people's schools, a Macedonian people's printing-house which published newspapers and other material in Macedonian, cultural and arts groups and other Macedonian institutions. Faced with the stand taken by the Macedonians the Greek authorities tried yet another cunning manoeuver. In order to shatter the unity of the Macedonian people and of the Macedonian Liberation Movement the Greek government passed, on 23rd May 1949, a strictly confidential decree by which the Macedonians, until then considered "Bulgarians", and other non-Greek elements which were to be uprooted, were renamed "Slavicised Greeks", and were to be treated as such by the Greek authorities: they were thus to be granted all civil rights, and included in all sectors of political and state life and the like. Their being called by the names Bulgarians or Slav Macedonians was strictly prohibited, and the name of "Slavophone Greek" was the only one permitted. The governmental agencies were instructed to adapt themselves and to help the Macedonians in every way possible to develop trust in the state and to seek its protection, so that they would begin to approach government representatives freely for the solution of their problems. This attempt on the part of the Greek right wing also proved to be a total failure. The decree had no effect on the Macedonians. They carried on with their struggle for national liberation and for the affirmation of their national identity with even greater intensity. As a result, the Greek authorities continued and even reinforced the violent repression of the Macedonians. On 20th January 1948 the Greek government passed the "M" Decree ordering the confiscation of the property of those individuals who had taken part in the Civil War on the side of the Communist Party of Greece (CPG) and NOF, and of those who had assisted these organizations and whose Greek citizenship had been revoked. In addition to this decree, the "N" Decree was passed on 2nd April 1948. This decree revoked the right of inheritance of all those who had taken part in or helped the Civil War. In view of the fact that large numbers of Macedonians had taken part in the Civil War, the consequences of this Decree and other regulations were borne mostly by them, but, after all, that was the main intention of the decrees. The implementation of these laws and decrees continued even after the Civil War had come to an end, for they were supported by enactments issued by the Ministerial Council of Greece: Nos. 944/1950; 253/1951; 826/ 1952. All these regulations were sanctioned by article 105, inserted into the Greek Constitution in 1952. The aim of this was to prevent Macedonia ns returning to their homes even after the end of the Civil War. Commissions for the confiscation and expropriation of refugees' property and for the allocation of this to new owners were formed in every district. The property confiscated and expropriated from the Macedonians was allotted to people loyal to the regime and to those who had distinguished themselves in the struggle against DAG and particularly against the Macedonians. Most of these people were brought in from the Greek hinterland. On 23rd February 1953 a meeting of the Greek military and administrative authorities in Macedonia was held in Thessaloniki at which it was decided to propose that the Greek government pass a law on the resettlement and re-inhabiting of the so-called sensitive border areas of the Aegean part of Macedonia. it was suggested that all Macedonians from within 60 kilometers of the border be resettled, as disloyal elements, and that in their place Greeks loyal to the regime should be brought in as "healthy elements" with "pure Greek national awareness . The Greek government accepted this proposal and submitted it to the Greek Parliament which, on 4th August 1953, passed Law NL- 2536 on the resettlement of the population from the border areas. In accordance with the regulations of this law special state commissions were formed which effected the resettlement, selected people of pure Greek origin and established them in the Macedonian border areas, handing over to them the Macedonians, property. Among these people there were Greek nationalists, chauvinists and anti-Macedonians who had distinguished themselves in the struggle against NOF and DAG. A case in point, and not an isolated one, is that of the group of Macedonian villages called Janovenski in the Kostur region, the inhabitants of which had all fought in the ranks of ELLAS. Some of the inhabitants of these villages did not emigrate but were resettled in other parts of Macedonia. When the Civil War ended they requested to be allowed to return to their villages, but their request was turned down and their properties were pillaged and their homes demolished. The court proceedings for the return of their estates have lasted for decades. After the end of the Civil War the question of the confiscated properties became very strained. There were many new laws and regulations on the issue. The aim was to avoid returning the Macedonians' property, to prevent them from returning to their homes and thus to prevent the creation of conditions for the formation of a compact Macedonian population. All this was in the interest of the Graecization of the Aegean part of Macedonia. The problem of the estates was taken care of in Regulations Nos. 3958 and 2951 of 1959, as well as in Law *- 4234, known as "Measures for Public Order", passed by K. Karamanlis's government in 1962, and by the 1972 decree No. 666. Under these regulations Macedonians were prevented from realizing their rights. An enormous number of applications for repatriation were turned down and those few who succeeded in returning could not have their estates back, which forced them to engage in marathon lawsuits which eventually ended to their disadvantage. In accordance with tradition, the Greek church took an active part in the anti-Macedonian campaign. Besides the daily sermons of anti-Slav and anti-Macedonian content preached by Greek priests, the Greek church took measures to force the Macedonians to give a collective and public oath that in future they would not use Macedonian but only the Greek language. In April 1980 the leadership of the Central Committee for Political Refugees (KEPPE) submitted a demand to the Greek government that political refugees be allowed freely and unconditionally to return to their homes. Minister Konstantinos Stephanopulos replied that the request could not be granted, because of national interests. In his explanation Stephanopulos stated that in certain parts of Greece there were areas in which there had lived and still lived people of a reduced national feeling, i.e. territories with a sensitive population composition, so that if a free repatriation of such people were to be allowed, Greece would have to face once again a national issue and danger in certain sensitive areas. Recent history had confirmed this, said Stephanopulos. He went on to offer a precise figure of 40,000 people residing in East European countries (Macedonians) and to say that this did not constitute an issue that concerned Greece. That this was out of the question so far as Greece was concerned. For these reasons, according to Stephanopulos, the Greek government could not accept or apply the principle of free repatriation. When the Pan-Greek Socialist Alliance (PASOK) assumed power, the government of Andreas Papandreou sharpened the measures towards assimilation and de-nationalization even further. On 30th December 1982 this government passed a law on the free repatriation of refugees from Greece, i.e. of those "Greek by birth", by which the Macedonians (as non-Greeks by birth) were deprived of the possibility of returning to their homes, to the country of their birth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)